Can it be said that the value a system of correspondences is equal to its consistency?
For example, in most modern hermetic systems gods from different pantheons are grouped by their characteristics. According to Thelemic correspondences, Hermes, Thoth, and Odin may not be the same god but they all serve the same purpose in their pantheon and the same place on the tree of life. In essence, they share characteristics.
From a certain point of view that can be seen as true. All of those gods have aspects as magicians, messengers, and seers. But this breaks down with any close examination. While it can be said that any god can have greater and lesser traits, it’s not hard to argue that Odin’s greater traits are leadership and war, while neither Hermes nor Thoth share those traits in a greater or lesser form.
So when trying to group gods from disparate pantheons together, you’re bound to have inconsistencies. I would even put forth that the larger a system of correspondences the more likely and extreme the inconsistencies.
But at what point does the system break? Is it the number of inconsistencies or the proximity of the inconsistencies to the core of the system? And, is the fault of the system that it is unable to internalize and explain inconsistencies, or the fault of the magus? Is the only way to have a totally consistent system of correspondences to build one yourself? Would it be useful, because a faultless system would by its nature be limited? Or, would a self-created system at least have faults that the magus can internalize?
And if you have a totally self-created system of correspondences, how do you ever work with other magi?