There are a few "seeming" incongruencies in the GD/RR et AC. Sometimes this takes the form of conundrums regarding things that are purposefully paradoxical. IMHO, a great deal of this stems from Mathers at times struggling with a more flexible paradigm that Westcott seems to quietly resolve and never fully disclose to Mathers.
I won't fully elaborate at this time... maybe a little though, but in Kabbalah, and also in the sections utilized in the GD, there are paradoxical and interesting shifts and transpositions that are quite important. However, I can quite assure you that such things are resolved within the paradigm, but quite overlooked.
Some of these paradoxical conundrums, Mathers tries to weakly resolve in Kabbalah Unveiled in several of the footnotes. In fact a good example to illustrate how Mathers cognitively copes with paradox can be found in Kabbalah Unveiled, Idra Zuta, Chapter XIX, pg. 330, Verse 692, and footnote 3.
"692. "And He is altogether the desirablenesses (or delights)" (of the powers of) fire and (the powers of)
water, because the fire and water are counterchanged with each other
mutually (otherwise, are conformed together), and are beautiful in his
conformation. 3"
I hope the footnote link works, but note how Mathers reverts to a Chokmah-Fire rant, missing the point of the Zohar, and then accusing Rosenroth of a mistake because he (Mathers) just "doesn't get it". Now, in various places in the Zohar the letter Shin is directly associated with
Aesch ie Fire. Mem or MIM is the literal word for Water. Mathers rightly reasons that MIM is extracted from
MChMDIM leaving the letters Cheth, Mem, and Dalet or Ch-M-D. But then he
is at a loss to recognize the (quite simple) exegesis. Note how the
text mentions "delights" ie "desires"... You see the actual text has the term "MChMDIM, Machemadim" in it, and is stating it (Mechemadim means "Desires") to be equivalent to Heaven, ie Schmayim, or the letter Shin (Sh) attached to MIM (ie water). This is the term used in the Zohar that Rosenroth translates as "delights" or "desires". Note in Hebrew one's "darling" is called M'ChMD ie "Desirous of". So one's darling is "the one you desire".
"§ .692. And He is all desires. [Which involves the term MChMDIM ] Fire and water: For Fire & water are transformed, [conformed or mitigated together] & they are on (conformed to) the side of Beauty."
Well, passion or ardor is attributed to Fire. In Hebrew ChMD, means "lustful passion" or "sexual ardor" (heat, feeling hot, as in "she is making me hot!"). Rosenroth just didn't elaborate on the Hebrew-Aramaic and Mathers just didn't "get it". He ignores the Hebrew and the fact that the term is not only in the body of the metrum but also in brackets in Rosenroth's "transcription"! So, we find that this "desire" balances between the two columns or sides and is mitigated through the central column associated with Beauty. So male and female are rectified through a type of desire rooted in "Compassion" or Rachamim, which is Beauty.
I believe the comparison of the updated translation (immediately below) will be helpful if compred to the Aramaic-Hebrew and Latin.
Well, passion or ardor is attributed to Fire. In Hebrew ChMD, means "lustful passion" or "sexual ardor" (heat, feeling hot, as in "she is making me hot!"). Rosenroth just didn't elaborate on the Hebrew-Aramaic and Mathers just didn't "get it". He ignores the Hebrew and the fact that the term is not only in the body of the metrum but also in brackets in Rosenroth's "transcription"! So, we find that this "desire" balances between the two columns or sides and is mitigated through the central column associated with Beauty. So male and female are rectified through a type of desire rooted in "Compassion" or Rachamim, which is Beauty.
