Leave a comment

no_opinion December 9 2005, 17:36:16 UTC
Oh dear.

I almost hate to say this, Professor, but the numbers don't lie-- it is a day that I feel I have something important to say. I've been doing some calculations and found I might've spoken too hastily before about the Arithmantic significance, but I feel I must be honest with what I've found.

It's quite possible that you fell to ruin because those numbers ultimately mean "completion" or "the end of things." And since it can indicate attraction to money, I think that offers us an explanation of why you said the lottery winnings have led to ruin. It was a bad set of numbers to play beyond the money itself.

Reply

terryclothrags December 10 2005, 00:19:15 UTC
What kind of analysis is that? That's nigh on divinational. Are you just summing the digits or something? There's a reason the numbers aren't just 4,5,6,6,7,8 ( ... )

Reply

no_opinion December 10 2005, 04:35:32 UTC
Really, Terry, you are overcomplicating the sequence and misunderstanding what I do. First of all, summing is not a terrible method of determining initial properties, even if it isn't the most precise or gets into the greatest grain of detail, although I will agree that it's quite too related to divination to give us the complete picture-- but please don't forget that it's still elementary arithmancy. Or do you forget that Numerology is including in our textbooks? For one, when you're addressing someone who may not understand more complex arithmancy, it's gentler to start from the basics. Also, just because we can perform more complicated analyses doesn't mean leaping to them first thing ( ... )

Reply

lookscomefirst December 10 2005, 05:42:55 UTC
Just ignore him dear twin, he's upset and frustrated because no girls fancy him.

Reply

no_opinion December 10 2005, 05:55:14 UTC
Darling, you would never understand what it's like to have someone accuse you of not being intellectually rigorous.

Which you aren't, but that doesn't bother you, and I accept our differences.

Reply

lookscomefirst December 10 2005, 09:06:21 UTC
Is it the same as some one accusing you of having poor fashion sense? because then I'd understand.

Reply

no_opinion December 10 2005, 15:13:05 UTC
In this case, more like saying that despite your excellent fashion sense, you chose to buy off the rack because it was quicker and easier than going to a boutique and getting personally tailored clothing.

Reply

lookscomefirst December 10 2005, 23:12:27 UTC
!!!!
What a bastard.

Reply

no_opinion December 11 2005, 05:10:38 UTC
Yes, he can be that.

Reply

terryclothrags December 11 2005, 07:05:44 UTC
No, I'm upset and frustrated because your sister is doing bad arithmancy. How would you feel if someone made something up, gave it a half-arsed justification and called it divination to impress those who don't understand the deeper truth underlying the enterprise or for a quick buck? Oh wait, it's divination, never mind; I guess that question doesn't really make sense.

Reply

lookscomefirst December 11 2005, 11:49:40 UTC
Terry this is just getting sad, come back to us when you've washed the sand out of your vagina.

Reply

no_opinion December 11 2005, 15:23:35 UTC
Terry, if I didn't perfectly understand the arithmantical operations you used, how could I say that there's a simpler way? Yes, I could just reject something I found too complex-- but I don't find it too complex. I am saying that there are other methods to attempt that still derive useful answers, even if they don't reach your preferred level of precision. Perhaps I failed to explain properly, but I did not make something up or give a "half-arsed justification" and you can take that to Professor Vector ( ... )

Reply

terryclothrags December 12 2005, 02:32:59 UTC
I've got a paper by Eodore K. Leedis, called 'The Magic of Arithmancy and the Arithmancy of Numerology' you should look at. Borrowing the terms from muggles, Leedis's thesis is that fundamentally, numerology is not mathematical, nor scientific, but it is, rather, hermeneutical. And, as a hermeneutic practise, its fundamental flaw is that, for any interpretation, there are other, equally valid interpretations that conflict with that interpretation. Ergo, the validity of an answer does not entail its soundness ( ... )

Reply

terryclothrags December 11 2005, 06:48:58 UTC
Numerology is in our textbooks because we start arithmancy as young children, and we don't know better. Numerology, without the proper rigorous context, is the albatross of the Arithmantical profession. You don't see Professor Flitwick teaching us Shamanic Rain Dances to the anamistic spirits, do you? No, because there's a better way of doing it, and one that depends less on the accidental casting of a magic spell. Numerology is a tool of charlatans and divinators, and dispensing its bromides to the uneducated (among whom I would be hesitant to include Professor Snape) makes you no better than an astrologer or divinator. Especially when you take a number, look up the vague and broad meaning of it, and then try to turn that into a predicitive tool ( ... )

Reply

no_opinion December 11 2005, 19:23:37 UTC
And you don't believe I'm exercising it in the proper rigorous context? I will admit that it's possible Parvati has been a negative influence and I'm more fond of Numerology than I ought to be, but I still think it's a valid tool when used correctly. It's unfortunately abused by charlatans and divinators, but that doesn't mean it is only used by them ( ... )

Reply

terryclothrags December 12 2005, 03:36:48 UTC
As far as Numerology goes, I refer you to my comment above ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up