Koren #1 @7314
Thu Apr 19 12:29:30 1990


    By now, some of my more thoughtful readers may think they see some
inconsistency in my approach.  Why have I gone to so much trouble to point
up the flaws in traditional systems of numerology (even going so far as to
suggest an entirely new system), only to fall back on interpretations of the
numbers that are strictly traditional?  The reason is this:  all of my
objections thus far have been limited to METHODOLOGY.  When it comes to
interpreting the meaning of the numbers, I have no quarrel with the
traditional approach, since here we enter the field of universal symbolism.
All systems of numerology, be they Hebrew, modern, Oriental, or whatever,
tend to attach the same interpretive meaning to the numbers.  When Three Dog
Night sings, 'One is the loneliest number that you'll ever know...', it is
a statement which is immediately understood and agreed upon by people from
widely diverse cultures.  And the same holds true for all other numbers, for
we are here dealing with archetypal symbols.
    It is worth repeating that, although I believe this system to have a firm
theoretical basis, it is still in an embryonic state -- highly tentative,
highly speculative.  To the best of my knowledge, it is also an original
contribution to the field of numerology.  While some writers (notably Robert
Graves in 'The White Goddess') have dealt with the numerical values of Ogham
letters, I believe this article is the first instance of employing it
specifically as a system of numerology.  I have spent many long hours working
with Celtic numerology -- putting abstract theory to use in practical
application -- but much work remains to be done.  For this reason, I would
be happy to hear from readers who are interested in the subject and who would
like to share their own experiences and thoughts.