Rohrig Tarot and FAQ
LstPuritan
>>>>>>"Even decks like 'Rorhig'[SIC], for example, where much thought has been
applied to the design of many of the cards, suffer from the rather obvious fact
that the artist was not guided by a mastery of tarot, so that the deck is
symbolically insipid and incomplete in many respects.
The more you know about tarot the more this kind of obvious shortcoming will
serve to annoy you---especially in a an otherwise attractive or 'pretty'
deck."<<<<<<
For what reasons do you consider the Rohrig Tarot 'symbolically insipid'?
In what respects is the deck incomplete? My deck has 78 cards, so what changes
to these cards would you say are necessary to make this deck 'complete'?
Who is Francesca Marzano-Fritz (besides the obvious answer of 'the woman who
wrote the Rohrig Tarot Book') and why does her '30 years of experience with
Tarot' not lend any help to making this deck valid?
JK, you mispelled 'Rohrig' in the FAQ.
All responses and flames welcome,
--LstPuritan
J. Karlin
I've (or we've) dismissed from serious consideration as tarot
the deck done by Carl Röhrig. I usually go back and look at
the cards again, as I've done this morning, just to remind
myself about what it is I don't like, or to see if perhaps
I've misjudged the deck and it's somehow gotten "better".
Unfortunately, the effect of time and learning upon
Röhrig is not kind to the deck and the designer.
Looking at these cards once again I would probably
be inclined to rewrite my comments in the FAQ to downgrade
the generous suggestion that "much thought has been
applied to the design of many of the cards". I'm not
so sure that is the case anymore.
The "majors" are lacking in any obvious indication they
have a creative, much less an informed, hand or mind
guiding them, and the minors are just a batch of
vaguely conceived illustrations, which, if you were to
take off their titles and the accompanying notebook
scribbles (which act as the main motif of the deck),
would be no more recognizable as tarot cards than
would be panels from Batman or a Victoria's Secret
catalog (the latter having pretty much the same tone
as a lot of the cards).
---
LstPuritan wrote:
> JK wrote:
> >>>>>>"Even decks like 'Rorhig'[SIC], for example, where much thought has been
> applied to the design of many of the cards, suffer from the rather obvious fact
> that the artist was not guided by a mastery of tarot, so that the deck is
> symbolically insipid and incomplete in many respects.
> The more you know about tarot the more this kind of obvious shortcoming will
> serve to annoy you---especially in a an otherwise attractive or 'pretty'
> deck."<<<<<<
> For what reasons do you consider the Rohrig Tarot 'symbolically insipid'?
For example, the Röhrig "Chariot" card.
First, for some discussion of the symbolic tradition (that which
presumably "inspired" Röhrig) of this particular tarot card,
refer to:
http://lonestar.texas.net/~r3winter/chariotser.html
Now, what Röhrig has done is what most pomo deck designers
do, he has mistaken the surface for the meaning. Symbols are
intended to point to something else, to be metaphors, not
particularly meaningful or interesting in themselves. Tarot
designers, and book writers, who presume to tell us what
it all means without their bothering to first learn what
it all means, invariably beg the audience to succumb to
whatever emotional appeals the peddler has to offer. And
these are usually pretty vulgar (based on popular
and usually WRONG understandings of complex symbol
traditions) and pretty boring.
And in Röhrig they are certainly both those things.
Looking again through the major arcana of this deck I
noted just how much they are just a waste of time.
There is nothing there at all that would interest
someone looking for a tarot deck, instead of a tarot
"product".
> In what respects is the deck incomplete?
In respect to the symbolic traditions to which the designer
pays lip (or brush) service, or from which he mindlessly
steals.
> My deck has 78 cards,
Which could be blank as well as anything. That doesn't make
them tarot.
Tarot is actually about something.
> so what changes to these cards would you say are necessary
> to make this deck 'complete'?
It's not "changes to these cards" that would be helpful.
The designer simply needs to FIRST learn tarot. It is only in
tarot that this simple demand seems to be so challenging
to people's "self-esteem".
> Who is Francesca Marzano-Fritz---
Another person who knows nothing about tarot.
She writes:
"The true origin of Tarot is unknown."
That is incorrect.
"Some believe that it sprang from Egypt, others say India
or Babylon; sometimes even Atlantis is regarded to be
the source. No matter what the geographical source..."
NOTE: Atlantis is not a "geographical source".
"...it is clear that this system was created by Initiates
who were trying to pass on an understanding of The
Knowledge."
How this is "clear" is not stated.
This is very standard-issue newage drivel. It doesn't
address the facts about tarot, and certainly not the
symbolic basis of tarot. Again, if you need some
help understanding what that is, refer to my essay on
the Chariot card. And be sure and keep reading the
alt.tarot FAQ---assuming you have more than a trolling
interest in the topic.
> (besides the obvious answer of 'the woman who
> wrote the Rohrig Tarot Book') and why does her '30 years of experience with
> Tarot'---
That is a statement taken from promotional literature, and
not meaningful in any other way than as an advertising
claim.
"30 years of experience with Tarot" doesn't necessarily
mean 30 years of experience that anyone else should be
interested in hearing about.
(jk)
**********************************************
Read the alt.tarot FAQ:
http://lonestar.texas.net/~r3winter/tarotfaq.html
More tarot resources available at:
http://lonestar.texas.net/~r3winter/alttarotqa.html
**********************************************
J. Karlin
> JK,
> Thanks for the clarification; I agree with most everything you said about the
> tendency of modern deck art to take 'creative measures' in re-interpreting a
> symbolic tradition without the guidance of someone who knows tarot. However,
> does this not make a strong case for selecting an older tarot such as the
> Marseilles deck—--
Marseilles is the first occult design, but not because it was
designed to be this, rather it was simply the state of the
evolution of the symbolism when the occultists first encountered
tarot and began speculating about what its symbolism might mean.
It is at the point that the evolution becomes "directed",
imposed by a focused idea of not only what it all means,
but what it SHOULD mean, in light of the occult system
of interpretation which came to dominate the design of
most tarots.
So, selecting an older deck is not going to necessarily
give you any advantage over selecting a newer deck. It
depends on what each deck is attempting to do, and whether
it does it intelligently and well, and what each user is
looking for. If you wish to play card games you can do this
with a Thoth deck, but to ignore what else is there seems
a waste---but then the illustrations on gaming decks are
usually MEANT TO BE merely ornamental.
In the same way one can conjecture till the cows come home
about how deeply meaningful some pomo deck is, and that
won't make it so unless there's symbolic substance, and
some ideas backing it up, there to begin with.
Röhrig fails because it comes peddling certain pretensions,
using certain labels and occult buzzwords, but can not
deliver the payoff, because it's not really about tarot
ultimately, but, as with so many pomo decks, it's about
using tarot as a template to promote an artist's personal
vision.
That CAN sometimes be interesting, even if the artist or
designer is not an occultist, but usually it's pretty random
and pretty bad.
> for which there is no evidence of one single artist or group
> promoting anything at all—rather than the Waite or Thoth decks, or any deck
> designed by a single person?
"single person" is a good thing, if the single person knows
what the hell he is doing.
> Why risk playing around with artists' interpretations---
Again, if the artist knows what he's doing there should
be little risk to us (from his part). One always risks if
he's just interested in "playing around".
Tarot will take you about as seriously as you take it.
> of symbolic traditions rather than going right to the very
> source (or as close to an 'original' tarot---
The "original" tarot is one thing. Occult tarot is another
thing. Pomo tarot is another thing again. These things
are related, and can be seen as one development, but
to see at all you must learn tarot.
Best to start with the facts. Read the section in the
FAQ about the historical development (the "periods")
of tarot, and also the section dealing with how "meaning" is
derived in tarot.
LstPuritan
Thanks for the clarification; I agree with most everything you said about the
tendency of modern deck art to take 'creative measures' in re-interpreting a
symbolic tradition without the guidance of someone who knows tarot. However,
does this not make a strong case for selecting an older tarot such as the
Marseilles deck—for which there is no evidence of one single artist or group
promoting anything at all—rather than the Waite or Thoth decks, or any deck
designed by a single person? Why risk playing around with artists'
interpretations of symbolic traditions rather than going right to the very
source (or as close to an 'original' tarot as is available: perhaps the
Cary-Yale Visconti, 1JJSwiss, or—as I mentioned—Marseilles)?
--LstPuritan
2faced...@eudoramail.com
"J. Karlin" <r3wi...@texas.net> wrote:
> In the same way one can conjecture till the cows come home
> about how deeply meaningful some pomo deck is, and that
> won't make it so unless there's symbolic substance, and
> some ideas backing it up, there to begin with.
So then, are there any pomo decks that have (or approach) the symbolic
substance and ideological backing of Waite-Smith or Thoth?
--
2face
=============================
http://www.thehungersite.com
=============================
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
J. Karlin
> In article <388382BD...@texas.net>,
> "J. Karlin" <r3wi...@texas.net> wrote:
> > In the same way one can conjecture till the cows come home
> > about how deeply meaningful some pomo deck is, and that
> > won't make it so unless there's symbolic substance, and
> > some ideas backing it up, there to begin with.
> So then, are there any pomo decks that have (or approach) the symbolic
> substance and ideological backing of Waite-Smith or Thoth?
No.
The traditions that led to the creation of those decks no
longer are considered popularly "viable" (no were they ever
really considered that) and are understood by very few people.
Wheras before (in Waite's time for example), "popular" tarot
was pretty exclusively fortune-telling, now educated halfwits
expect their tarots to at least appear to be providing them
with something profound. So you get lots of "doctors" (degreed
from things like The International Society of Sheepskin
Suppliers) writing tarot books, validating for the "professional"
reader that it's OK to be reading about tarot. Witness,
for example, the attempt by Cynthia Giles in her first book
to claim some scientific basis for how tarot "works", or
the endless gibberish written by "jungians" in an effort
to provide a pseudo-scientific veneer to tarot (like
such concerns REALLY matter to the people who think
tarot cards might just be "the answer").
Yet, because the occult "brand" of tarot is so strongly
established, pomos feel they have to keep referring to it,
however ignorantly, and operating in and about it as the
matrix from which they are attempting to move or evolve
(and particularly to sell) tarot products.
Fundamentally, what's wrong with pomos is that at no point
did they want to be bothered with, or to bother others
with, the truth. Tarot is not easy. It's not for everyone.
But the "market" doesn't want its hobby to be too challenging.
As a society, this (last) century has made us expect to be
able to push a couple of buttons, and have the "product"
perform. So, occult tarot had to be intellectually downsized,
its most interesting ideas "keyworded" or "affirmatively
actioned" into oblivion.
The Greer-ites and Pollack-oids want their TTV, not tarot.
As I've said for a number of years, there's nothing necessarily
wrong with the idea of pomo decks---but if you're going to
attempt to change tarot, it might be good to first learn
what it is you're trying to change.
Basil Burgess
Jess, a quick question:
"J. Karlin" wrote:
>
> The Greer-ites and Pollack-oids want their TTV, not tarot.
>
What is the abreviation TTV? I'm not familiar with it.
Thanks
Basil
J. Karlin
Like all the "pop"ies want their MTV.
LstPuritan
for example, the attempt by Cynthia Giles in her first book
to claim some scientific basis for how tarot "works", or
the endless gibberish written by "jungians" in an effort
to provide a pseudo-scientific veneer to tarot (like
such concerns REALLY matter to the people who think
tarot cards might just be "the answer"). >>
I take it you may have dismissed, then, the work of Sallie Nichols as 'Jungian
Gibberish' without ever picking up actually reading Jung and Tarot: An
Archetypal Journey. I promise there are only one or two references to
'collective shadow' and 'synchronicity' and it won't ruin the *magic* of Tarot.
Instead, it provides a detailed framework for how one goes about studying and
researching the symbolism of _any_ deck (this book uses the Marseilles deck,
but the _methodology_ presented and the example set is commendable).
<< So, occult tarot had to be intellectually downsized,
its most interesting ideas "keyworded" or "affirmatively
actioned" into oblivion. >>
I was under the impression that the Golden Dawn were the first to "keyword" the
Tarot. Right at the bottom of every card. Before that, one had to actually
_know_ the meanings, without the aid of little pictures for the minor arcana.
<< The Greer-ites and Pollack-oids want their TTV, not tarot. >>
Those breasts in Röhrig are still bothering you, huh?
--LstPuritan
J. Karlin
> I take it you may have dismissed, then, the work of Sallie Nichols---
What "work" are you talking about?
It doesn't take much work to write a mindless piece of drivel, which
is what she wrote.
> as 'Jungian
> Gibberish' without ever picking up actually reading Jung and Tarot: An
> Archetypal Journey.
What? Are you trying to say you know I've not read the book,
or what exactly?
> I promise there are only one or two references to
> 'collective shadow' and 'synchronicity' and it won't ruin the *magic* of Tarot.
It won't tell you anything pertinent about tarot either.
> Instead, it provides a detailed framework for---
---not learning tarot.
If you think that kind of junk is helpful then you have
much to unlearn (assuming you have any interest in
learning tarot).
> << So, occult tarot had to be intellectually downsized,
> its most interesting ideas "keyworded" or "affirmatively
> actioned" into oblivion. >>
>
> I was under the impression that---
Ignore your "impressions".
Learn.
> the Golden Dawn were the first to "keyword" the
> Tarot.
You could say that the first person to put titles on the cards was
the first to keyword the tarot. But what I'm talking about is
not the use of keywords as mnemonics for a body of dogma,
but AS the dogma---again, the pomo mistake---seeing the
surface AS the meaning.
> Right at the bottom of every card.
Are you talking about a particular deck?
> Before that, one had to actually
> _know_ the meanings, without the aid of little pictures for the minor arcana.
What are you talking about? Waite's picture-cards? The "aid" those
were meant to provide was entirely exoteric. They do provide
mnemonic pointers, which I suppose you could say operate as
keywords (hinting at divinational meanings) but that would
only help those who already knew these Golden Dawn meanings.
Again, that's the point, pomos have read these surface
bits AS the meanings of the cards.
> << The Greer-ites and Pollack-oids want their TTV, not tarot. >>
>
> Those breasts in Röhrig are still bothering you, huh?
More the implants.
LstPuritan
is what she wrote. >>
Please, then, provide me with a more in-depth study of the symbolism presented
by the Marseilles' major arcana or else back up your argument that the book I
mentioned is "a mindless piece of drivel." If you won't (or can't) I think I
know already from whence the mindless drivel is originating. Not from me; I've
only presented ideas and received in response the rhetorical genius of JK that
everything except for his FAQ is a mindless piece of drivel.
<< What? Are you trying to say you know I've not read the book,
or what exactly? >>
It would be quite masochistic to force yourself to read a book about Jung and
Tarot when you've already made up your mind to loathe the Jungians'
interpretations of Tarot, and—necessarily—books about Jung and Tarot.
Then again, you could always amuse yourself by flaming the author in the
margins.
Whether or not you've read the book, Jung and Tarot: An Archetypal Journey is a
valuable tool for those interested in Tarot because it doesn't simplify Tarot
and compounds the complexity of the symbols with a plethera of supporting
myths, texts, paintings, passages from the Bible, and comparisons of the
Marseilles deck with other more modern decks to reveal universal
correspondences. Doesn't sound like drivel. Sounds useful.
<< If you think that kind of junk is helpful then you have
much to unlearn (assuming you have any interest in-----
-----thinking and being exactly like you. Which I don't.
<< > Right at the bottom of every card.
Are you talking about a particular deck? >>
Any Golden Dawn-influenced deck. With all the memory work required to get
anywhere in Qabala, you'd wonder why these same people were the first to print
the keywords on the card.
<< > Those breasts in Röhrig are still bothering you, huh?
More the implants. >>
Yeah, but the nice part is that it really pisses off the
Motherpeace/Goddess/Multicultural Haindl Feminazis.
--LstPuritan
James W. Revak
<snip>
>
>I was under the impression that the Golden Dawn were the first to "keyword" the
>Tarot. Right at the bottom of every card. Before that, one had to actually
>_know_ the meanings, without the aid of little pictures for the minor arcana.
>
<snip>
Nope, Etteilla placed keywords on all the cards in his deck--about a
hundred years before the GD was even born.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES W. REVAK - San Diego, CA, USA - jre...@cts.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
LstPuritan
>
> > I take it you may have dismissed, then, the work of Sallie Nichols---
> > Gibberish' without ever picking up actually reading Jung and Tarot: An
> > Archetypal Journey.
> > 'collective shadow' and 'synchronicity' and it won't ruin the *magic* of
Tarot.
What is the premise of this book?
Does it try to lay out the Tarot as an archetypal journey, as in the
cards in order? >>
The best way I can concisely describe the premise of the book is that it takes
the cliché "fool's journey" through the major arcana and redefines it as the
journey each must take on the road from unconsciousness to complete
individuation. It does, indeed, take the cards in order as an occult (in the
truest Latin sense of the word) pictorial language, a sort of cypher waiting to
be decoded. As do most books on Tarot. But rather than simply reveal the
occult meanings hidden under the surface of the trumps and expect you to take
those meanings at face value, the reason I recommend this book is because it
actually puts up where other books stop. Alchemy, numerology, and tarot
history are not only explained for each card but then supported with valuable
references to Greek mythology, Biblical passages, the ocular alphabet of the
simple Marseilles color scheme, or works of music and art demonstrating
non-verbal manifestations of particular ideas. Its meaningful free association
on the Major Arcana of the Marseilles deck starts with the surface meanings and
works deeper into what is hidden to the point where so many associations are
made between a card picture and its universal application that there is never
an attempt to 'sum up' the divinatory meanings of the cards with a few short
'keywords' because a heirarchy of deeper meaning is built up through a sort of
information overload whereby one finds himself examining _all_ decks with such
attention. JK refered me to the excellent research into the meaning of the
Chariot, and Sallie Nichols executes a similar action—with the Tarot of
Marseilles. If JK believes this book to be drivel, then perhaps he believes
his own work to be drivel too. I certainly don't. Or maybe he got on a roll
taking snippets of my posts out of context and supplying semi-witty responses
and never actually gave a passing thought once he heard the name Jung with
relation to Tarot. I'd rather provide (or be provided with) facts and let each
make up his own mind about what is drivel and what isn't. Granted (lest that
idea be taken out of context) some may make up their minds _wrongly_ and accept
or embrace drivel, and for those tarot will mean exactly what they make of it:
nothing.
Compare this approach with A.E. Waite's Pictorial Keys or Crowley's Book of
Thoth; reading with discretion and skepticism, the Pictorial Keys only scratch
the surface of the Golden Dawn's symbolism and touch upon the minors even less
than some LBs. The Book of Thoth almost demands blind faith on the part of the
reader to accept Thelema in order to make any sense of the deck. This brings
up some interesting questions:
Should tarot symbolism be universal and vague, eminating not from the hand of a
single artist (even if he "knows tarot" or "knows what the hell he's doing")
but consisting of images of unknown origin which spark a fountain of ideas when
ones looks past the surface and begins looking at what the historical events
and forces are which shaped humankind in such a way as to produce such
pictures? If one uses the Thoth deck, does one necessarily accept Crowley's
'Aeon' card, the meaning for which The Book of Thoth refers the reader to the
Book of the Law, which explains why we are now in the third Aeon of
Ra-hoor-khuit? Must one write the date with reference to the start of this new
Aeon and accept Thelemic doctrine in all aspects of life, or just while reading
with Thoth? Should one 'pretend' that there are documented Egyptian Tarot
origins to use this deck, or just accept the basis on the word of a single
self-proclaimed modern prophet? Of course, these are open-ended questions
without a single answer, but only presented because I feel Thoth is a complete
system that, in a self-referencing manner, makes sense—but for whom? The
Rider-Waite/Waite-Smith deck might have presented the same questions, but it
requires less faith in any religious system and does not put the sort of
"suspension of disbelief" demands upon anyone who chooses this deck; it's more
universal, and, thus, open to more reflection and study.
I felt the need to defend this book because of JK's poorly backed assertion
that it is 'mindless drivel,' supported by a pugnacious recoil when I suggested
that he actually read the book. Whether he has or not I do not know, but he
hasn't specifically addressed the topic of the book in any manner other than
stating that I should 'unlearn' what I have found beneficial *on the topic of
tarot* and "learn tarot" (which no doubt means re-reading his FAQ). It's a
good FAQ, with no-nonsense information and the _sound_ advice to read
everything, but do so skeptically.
I read it. There's no further need to refer me to it.
I originally started this thread by asking why the Röhrig deck was singled out
in the FAQ as a poor deck, when I think most will agree that there are far, far
worse decks out there. I had admired this deck for the art and wanted to
validate its symbolism in my mind, but JK gave some good reasons why this deck
is not the best choice, and for the most part, I agreed. Some cards, like the
Hermit, do seem to be guided by knowledge of tarot and convey a good deal of
traditional symbolism, while others, like the Chariot, are modernized to the
point where the novelty of the art is prioritized above the unification with
traditional underlying symbolism. I only wish that JK treated all subjects
with the same serious approach and had the attention span to address in a
meaningful manner topics he may not personally care for: like Jung and Tarot.
Or, he could simply let people who actually have something to contribute take
the spotlight for a moment if he doesn't feel up to discussion in a civilized
manner.
<< I
can go through my notes from last semester and put the correspondences
up if people have trouble finding Jung's books. Which you shouldn't,
unless you don't have access to a library. >>
I see you have an NYU address, which is where I went. May explain why you
actually seem to be interested in making sense. ; } I majored in classics and
music in CAS, but I may have taken the same western philosophy class if you're
referring to the one I'm thinking of.
JK: any opinions on the Mythic Tarot? Narrow-minded Post-Modern theme-deck
drivel? Just curious.
--LstPuritan
LstPuritan
hundred years before the GD was even born. >>
You're right. I stand corrected.
"...all those decks that bear a 'subtitle' on the Minor cards (one or two words
to express the card's basic theme) are following the Golden Dawn (though often
via Crowley, who made a few changes)."
I know which book is going make nice newage babble kindling for a fire tonight
(it was a gift, I swear!) ; >. I should have checked out my sources before
making a statement like that, with all the misinformation that's written and
actually published out there.
--LstPuritan
---------------------------------------
"I once cried because I had no shoes; Then I stumbled upon a man with no feet,
and I laughed."
"That is not dead which may eternal lie, and with strange Aeons even death may
die."
--LstP...@AOL.com
ro...@swlink.net
>Or, he could simply let people who actually have something to contribute take
>the spotlight for a moment if he doesn't feel up to discussion in a civilized
>manner.
Ok, you are center stage, the curtain is up, the spolight on you.
Your critic (jk) is in the wings, he may or may not show up. However,
you have an audience (us) and we have not read the book, do not know
exactly what it says. You have told your audience that it is about a
journey, ok, but what does that mean? We don't know if we have not
read the book. Pick a card, any card, what does she say about it
specifically? Let your audience know. Then maybe this discussion
could become a Discussion.
ps could you define terms like indiviuation and such, so we are all
starting out on the same note.
vvvICA...@hotmail.com
>... let people who actually have something to contribute take
>the spotlight for a moment if he doesn't feel up to discussion in a civilized
>manner.
Whilst thinking about Art in the Thoth deck (see post below) I
referred to the chapter on Temperance in Sallie Nichol's book. My big
reservation with her approach is the rambling and speculative nature
of much of her work:
"Whether we think of the red and blue opposites she [the angel]
mingles as symbolising spirit and flesh, masculine and feminine, yang
and yin, conscious and unconscious, or whether their interaction is
thought of as "the marriage of Christ and Sophia" or the "union of
fire and water", makes little difference, for all of these are
implied. (p250, Jung & Tarot)
The problem is that it is *extremely unlikely* that all these
"meanings" were implied in tradition embodied in the Marseilles style
of deck which can be traced from designs first appearing in
Renaissance Italy. So Sally's implication is that we can make of this
card what we like, whether we are making mistakes, missing the point
completely, even being really dumb - reading a profound significance
into something with a very practical explanation.
The corollary is that this card, along with all the others, means
WHATEVER WE WANT IT TO MEAN!
The Occultists took the enigmatic images of the tarot, 'found' an
'spiritual' significance, and subsequently developed the cards,
loading on attributions and associations, so that Tarot became an
encyclopedia of the Western Mystery Tradition.
Jungians (and Jung himself in a single passing note) saw the enigmatic
images of the tarot trumps to be "archetypes". Such 'thinkers'
variously go onto to speculate this way and that - typically
disregarding the Minor cards and the court cards.
The common ground for Jung and the Occultists was their interpretation
of alchemical philosophy as a metaphor for "individuation" (using
Jung's phrase) Even here there is only a similarity in approach, an
overlap, rather than uniformity.
The big problem with Jungians (not even necessarily with Jung himself,
who did some interesting work) is their desire to fit the Tarot into a
set of blanket-like 'concepts', disregarding that which doesn't fit.
The problem with such thinking is that it doesn't really stand up to
scrutiny. To say the trumps (forget about the rest of the deck)
illustrate an archetypal journey is not really saying that much.
A great deal of Sallie's 392 page book is little more than
self-absorbed free-association, page after page of what associations
well up in Sallie's mind as she ponders those 22 images. In her
introduction she readily admits that her approach leaves the meaning
of the cards "free and open-ended" - now, how informative can such a
book be?
vvvICA...@hotmail.com
>... let people who actually have something to contribute take
>the spotlight for a moment if he doesn't feel up to discussion in a civilized
>manner.
Whilst thinking about Art in the Thoth deck (see post below) I
J. Karlin
> The best way I can concisely describe the premise of the book is that it takes
> the cliché "fool's journey"---
Which, in postmodern times, means "how to sucker idiots into moving
from the pitch to the sale".
And the line of suckers is never-ending.
> It does, indeed, take the cards in order as an occult (in the
> truest Latin sense of the word)---
What is the truest Latin sense of the word?
How is that different from the sense in which it is
generally applied to tarot?
Be specific.
> pictorial language, a sort of cypher waiting to
> be decoded.
Again, give an example or two of this "decoding" in action.
> As do most books on Tarot.
"most books on Tarot" just blather ignorantly on.
Nichols' book is no exception.
> But rather than simply reveal the occult meanings---
Moron. If it were "simple" to do that, she would have
done it. If it were simple to do that, ALL these idiots
who sell junk-tarot books would do it.
Tarot isn't simple, it isn't easy. That's why idiots
like Nichols invent explanations when they don't
have any pertinent ones to provide.
> hidden under the surface of the trumps and expect you to take
> those meanings at face value---
What the fuck are you talking about?
You're making a stupid strawman. No one said anything about
someone having to take anything "at face value".
Again, you're angry cause you've been conned.
That's your problem.
> the reason I recommend this book is because---
---you're ignorant.
There is no other reason. There is no other defense.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Shut up and listen.
> it actually puts up where other books stop.
Well, in respect to the volume of bullshit offered as
pertinent information, you might have a point. It's
certainly densely packed with nothing.
> Alchemy, numerology, and tarot history are not only explained
> for each card---
What tarot book correctly explains these for each card?
Be specific.
Nichols' book certainly does not.
> but then supported with valuable
> references to Greek mythology,
What "valuable references"? Give some examples.
> Biblical passages, the ocular alphabet of the
> simple Marseilles color scheme, or works of music and art demonstrating
> non-verbal manifestations of particular ideas.
You can quote "passages" and speculate about "color schemes"
all you want. That doesn't make it correct, or pertinent.
> Its meaningful free association---
"meaningful" in what way? It can be meaningful and be wrong.
> on the Major Arcana of the Marseilles deck starts with the surface meanings---
Like what for example?
> and
> works deeper into what is hidden to the point where so many associations are
> made between a card picture and its universal application that there is never
> an attempt to 'sum up' the divinatory meanings of the cards with a few short
> 'keywords' because---
---she doesn't know anything about reading cards.
She instead determines it's necessary to "elevate" the discussion
from fortune-telling and from predictive analyses. In her
view "Death" never means "death", for example. It's all simply
an opportunity to get people to "free associate".
No "reading" is required.
> a heirarchy of deeper meaning is built up---
You mean a pile of bullshit. Sure, if you keep flinging out
enough claimed correspondences something might pertinently
stick, but is that really a good substitute for SIMPLY
telling people the truth (assuming the teller knows it)?
I don't think so, and I don't think so because that
method so seldom produces students (or victims) who can
tell you anything pertinent about tarot---but they
can and will unload reams of things about what they
FEEL.
> through a sort of
> information overload whereby one finds himself examining _all_ decks with such
> attention. JK refered me to the excellent research into the meaning of the
> Chariot, and Sallie Nichols executes a similar action—with the Tarot of
> Marseilles.
No, she does not. I was writing about what the Chariot card,
Waite's Chariot card, actually means. I conjectured as little
as possible.
On the other hand, Nichols writes (about the Chariot):
"The word 'chariot' brings many associations to mind. It might
be worthwhile to pause here a moment to explore some of your
own."
She invites ignorant conjectures right from the start.
But, why is it worthwhile to do that? As we've seen here
over the years, people NEVER produce anything worthwhile by
ignorantly conjecturing about what it all means. It's
a waste of time, and particularly a waste of time to
expect those conjectures, those personal associations,
to then be interesting to anyone else. This is a "method"
suggested by people who do not know what they are talking
about to other people who do not know what they are talking
about.
Then, not waiting for her idiot readers to do as she
has suggested, which is to explore the readers'
associations, Nichols starts "implanting" associations:
"Do you think of Ben Hur and victory? Or Alexander
and world domination? Or do you picture Apollo,
the sun god, whose chariot still commands the
heavens?"
She's programming, not associating, and she's certainly
not interested in the mindless conjectures of her
readers. After all, if THAT were the way to figuring
out everything, why the hell would they need Nichols
or anyone else, telling them what to associate.
The woman filled up 392 pages with conjectures. Why
the hell would she need to do that if "associating"
was such a hot ticket to learning tarot?
It's certainly of course reasonable to note the
cultural prevalence of chariot images. It is still
a familiar motif, if one that most people little
understand (historically or occultly). But at
some point it's also reasonable to talk about
this motif as it relates to tarot. Does Nichols
ever do that? No.
Here is one of her symbolic assessments:
"The wheels of the Tarot chariot are put on sideways
in a most peculiar manner. Ezekiel's chariot, too,
had unusual wheels, which symbolized its numinous
powers. Perhaps the Tarot means to show us that
this chariot also has magical qualities."
Real fucking deep.
Or perhaps the wheels are drawn that way simply
because it was a conventional design, and so
possess NO esoteric meaning whatsoever. But that
possibility never occurs to her.
You can "perhaps" the tarot into whatever you
want. But to promote that method of analysis
as beneficial to anyone actually interested in
learning tarot is just stupid.
Nichols says nothing pertinent about the
role of the chariot as an (a)rchetype, that
is, as a tarot paradigm that developed from the
15th century up to today. That's because she's
so busy trying to cram the symbolism into
(A)rchetypes, pre-fab notions of symbolic
meaning which exclude the particular in pursuit
of the universal, that she has no interest in
telling anyone anything FACTually true about
the card.
To make this relevant to her audience, she doesn't
waste her time talking about triumphal processions,
Petrarchan motifs, or Masonic mythologies---hell no,
she cuts right to the (A)rchetypal chase, and
displays an image of Superman, who she offers
as an example of the "Hero Archetype", the promotion
of which comic-book ideology is far more important to
her mission than explaining to anyone what tarot
cards mean.
And, in discussion of the "Hero", she misses the boat
even from a "Jungian" perspective. On page 145 she
introduces a discussion of a version of the Chariot
card, which displays a child, instead of a warrior,
on the chariot. The child is framed on either
side by labels with the words, "fama" and "vola",
which Nichols claims mean "fame" and "will power"
respectively.
In Italian, the phrase "fama vola" means, "fame flies" or
"rumors spread rapidly", the Latin predecessor being,
"fama volat". The notion is that reputation, for good or
ill, true or false, travels more quickly than the man,
as if borne upon a chariot, for example.
In addition to the fact Nichols invents convenient and
incorrect translations to support whatever silly ideas
she may have about tarot, she doesn't even recognize
opportunities to promote Jung's ideas when they are
obvious. For example, here in this image of a
child-charioteer one COULD employ the "invincible child"
(A)rchetype, or "child-as-hero".
Here is some of what Jung actually says about this idea:
"...the child is endowed with superior powers and despite
all dangers, will unexpectedly pull through. The 'child'
is born out of the womb of the unconscious, begotten
out of the depths of human nature, or rather out of
living Nature herself. It is a personification of
vital forces quite outside the limited range of
our conscious mind; of ways and possibilities of
which our one-sided conscious mind knows nothing;
a wholeness which embraces the very depths of
Nature. It represents the strongest, the most
ineluctable [unavoidable] urge in every being,
namely the urge to realize itself."
---"The Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious",
sec. 289, "The Invincibility of the Child"
Now, note what Aleister Crowley writes about his version
of the card:
"Cancer is the cardinal sign of the element of Water, and
represents the first keen onrush of that element.
Cancer also represents the path which leads from the
great Mother Binah to Geburah, and is thus the influence
of the Supernals descending through the Veil of
Water (which is blood) upon the energy of man,
and so inspires it...The central and most important
feature of the card is its centre---the Holy Grail...
In the centre is radiant blood; the spiritual life
is inferred; light in the darkness."
---"Book of Thoth", Chariot essay
The "Holy Grail", the "great Mother Binah", the "womb
of the unconscious", "the most ineluctable urge",
the "radiant blood"---these all describe the same
ideas, the descent into consciousness OUT of
a higher, but more primal, UNconscious, DARK
(but light-specked) state. Recall our discussion
of corn-lights---see, I wasn't just being sarcastic.
Now, THIS is what Nichols makes of her "find":
"In this quaint hand-made Tarot, the charioteer
is revealed to be a naked babe, naive, defenceless,
and vulnerable. He sits precariously atop his
chariot displaying twin banners, one of which
reads FAMA and the other VOLA. If fame and will
power are indeed his guiding principles, this
precocious hero is surely headed for disaster."
That's it, her notion of this figure is as
a youthful symbol of "ego inflation", not
as an ultimately all-conquering force of
the psyche. Her reference to him as a "hero"
is meant ironically, not (A)rchetypally.
As I've said many times, if you want to read
about Jung and tarot, read Jung. Don't waste
your time on halfwit "Jungians" like Sallie
Nichols.
> If JK believes this book to be drivel---
He doesn't.
He KNOWS it is drivel. That's because he knows something about
tarot, and knows when someone else doesn't.
> then perhaps he believes his own work to be drivel too.
My work concerns tarot. That is why it seems unfamiliar
to you.
> I certainly don't.
And you certainly won't (much of anything) until you certainly
learn how to learn.
Talk less. Listen more.
> Or maybe he got on a roll taking snippets of my posts out of context---
Or maybe you shouldn't leave so many (A)rchetypal openings.
Or maybe you should get rid of the eternal chip on your
shoulder and grow up.
But, again, you can "maybe" things to death.
What is certain is that you are ignorant about tarot and
that you have an emotional problem about that condition.
Hint: the cure is open to you, but no one cares whether
you take it or not---unless perhaps you care.
> and supplying semi-witty responses---
"semi-witty" meaning you are the target.
> and never actually gave a passing thought once he heard the name Jung with
> relation to Tarot.
But, that of course was merely an ignorant conjecture on your
part.
Now, you've already been shown, several times here, how
ignorant conjectures really don't substitute very well
for knowledge.
They don't work for you.
They don't work for Nichols.
There is a difference between ignorant conjecture and
informed speculation. Jung favored the latter, not the
former.
> I'd rather provide (or be provided with) facts---
You're a liar.
You'd rather not be bothered---with anything that disturbs
what you think you know.
You're not taking a Fool's Journey. You're taking a trashman's
tour. You wouldn't know a "gem", or even a pertinent idea,
from a discarded pull-tab.
> and let each make up his own mind about what is drivel and what isn't.
They'll do that anyway.
> Granted (lest that
> idea be taken out of context) some may make up their minds _wrongly_ and accept
> or embrace drivel, and for those tarot will mean exactly what they make of it:
> nothing.
It's the worm paradigm: if you eat shit, you shit shit---no
corn-lights in your shit, or in you---nothing much changes.
> Compare this approach with A.E. Waite's Pictorial Keys or Crowley's Book of
> Thoth; reading with discretion and skepticism,
That isn't what you've been doing.
You are in no position to intelligently comment about the
efficacy of methodology in learning tarot.
> the Pictorial Keys only scratch
> the surface of the Golden Dawn's symbolism---
Waite wasn't offering a guide to Golden Dawn symbolism,
and he more than scratches the surface about what he thinks,
if you bother to read him. That's one thing I've noticed
a lot of people don't do---actually read him. They blame
him a lot, for not writing in an "easy" manner, and then
they decide because he won't be "easy" they'll just
dismiss him. But that's not his problem.
> and touch upon the minors even less than some LBs.
"less" can be "more".
> The Book of Thoth almost demands blind faith on the part of the
> reader to accept Thelema---
No it doesn't you idiot. I don't "accept" Thelema, but I understand
it. And it's not necessary to understand Crowley's rather complex
system of ideas to read and understand his book on tarot (which
is only considered an introductory text to his tarot and to
his ideas).
> in order to make any sense of the deck. This brings
> up some interesting questions:
No, it brings us to the close of you.
You have been blocked in your attempt to understand
tarot so you decided to get pomo with it.
That's your choice. That's also your problem.
Khier Starchylde
Tarot Deck, but you don't explain the term. I gather it means chincy, glitzy,
unthought-out decks like the 3 types but what is the origin of the word. What
exactly does it refer to?
-Khier
J. Karlin
POstMOdern. I'm not sure when the term was first applied
to tarot, but the idea of it has been building for a while.
The pejorative use of it with respect to tarot is, I suppose,
something I pioneered.
I do discuss this in the FAQ, talking about the different kinds of
pomo decks you may encounter. In my view there is a common strain
that infects all these decks---they are opposed, either by
ideology or enthusiastic ignorance, to a structured, systematic
analysis of tarot. They pretty much want it to be whatever
anyone says, and so "meaning" is handled democratically,
or anarchistically---which generally means incoherently
(from the view of tarot as a representation of a system
of ideas).
If tarot is whatever anyone says it is then it's pretty
much nothing. That doesn't mean I think it has to be
what any one person or group says it is, but that if
you're going to try and learn tarot, you should expect to
ALSO learn the large body of dogmas and symbols that have gone
into making tarot (and that's a history of about 575 years
or so now).
The demands of "tradition" or "authority" (for example,
that Crowley's ideas are pertinent to understanding
HIS deck) really seem to rub pomos (people, decks,
book-writers) the wrong way. As is often the case, a
lot of people involved with tarot are just looking for
some kind of acceptance that they don't seem to find
in their "real lives."
To them, the suggestion that tarot is really about
something specific seems to make tarot nothing but an
elitist pursuit, which is designed to exclude them.
The power to enforce meaning seems to be in the hands
of the few, instead of the many, the power to influence
the nature of the discussion (for example on this
group) seems unduly regulated by "experts" at the expense
of a more "collective", "communal" consensus.
So, "pomo" is not necessarily viewed as a bad thing
by all people. Indeed, I do not necessarily view
it as a bad thing. It denotes a style, an approach
to tarot however which I personally consider unhelpful
for most people who pursue it. It's fine to say that
people should make tarot into whatever they want
but it's another thing entirely to expect others
to be interested in those myraid personal IGNORANT
visions.
If you think about it, if tarot SHOULD BE anything
each individual wants, what do we have to discuss?
There's nothing really to learn, after all, there's
no right answer to any question, any idea is as good
as the next.
If you DON'T accept that as the case, if you want to
impose at least some order on the interpretation of
the symbolism, then you have to ask how you shall do
that.
And the answer to that, how you shall impose an
order upon tarot and its symbols, is mostly what
the occult history of tarot has been about, and
continues to be about. Some people are interested
in learning the background and the current status
of that discussion, but many people are not (although
often they are not simply because they've invested
a lot of time and money in pomo books and decks
that have told them they don't have to be interested
in that discussion and they get pissed if someone
says they are ignorant because they've adopted
that attitude).
Bottom line, if tarot is going to be about something,
then we should accept it is also NOT going to be about
a lot of things. And pomos generally don't want to hear
that.
MLYoung
>
>> Jess, this post made me re-read your FAQ where you speak of Pomo and PoMo
>> Tarot Deck, but you don't explain the term. I gather it means chincy,
>glitzy,
>> unthought-out decks like the 3 types but what is the origin of the word.
>What
>> exactly does it refer to?
>
>POstMOdern. I'm not sure when the term was first applied
>to tarot, but the idea of it has been building for a while.
>The pejorative use of it with respect to tarot is, I suppose,
>something I pioneered.
>
>I do discuss this in the FAQ, talking about the different kinds of
>pomo decks you may encounter. In my view there is a common strain
>that infects all these decks---they are opposed, either by
>ideology or enthusiastic ignorance, to a structured, systematic
>analysis of tarot. They pretty much want it to be whatever
>anyone says, and so "meaning" is handled democratically,
>or anarchistically---which generally means incoherently
>(from the view of tarot as a representation of a system
>of ideas).
It's not just the historical laxness that
bugs me, it's a general unwillingness
to confront what is unpleasant or harsh.
It's not simply revisionism--tarot has
a long history of being revised--it's that
it's revisionism that is done to promulgate
falsehoods that we find convenient to
believe.
Which brings me to Rachel Pollack.
Pollack as most of you is very much
a feminist PoMo book writer and
actively hostile to what she considers
patriarchal elements in tarot--jk
discussed this in his review of Pollack's
book on the Haindl Tarot some years
ago. (I think it's on jk's site.)
Anyway, what I hadn't known until
recently was that Pollack was born
male and had undergone the combination of castration and hormonal treatments we
call a sex change to become "female."
As it turns out, Pollack has written
about hir operation, how it is a
spiritual path and how s/he has looked
for goddess-y archetypes and myths
for hir journey. Clearly, Pollack has
made a strong association between
hir beliefs and being a transgender
type.
I think, also, that Pollack's own quite
obvious conflicts adversely affect
hir writings on tarot. If s/he has that
much problem accepting hir own
maleness (and lopping off chunks of
one's self, does seem to denote a lack
of full acceptance), can s/he accept
the male/patriarchal aspects of tarot
enough to write truthfully or fairly about
it? Or will the need for it to be something
else (like Pollack needed, personally,
to be something else) overwhelm
objectivity and clarity?
--margaret
LstPuritan
How is that different from the sense in which it is
generally applied to tarot?
Be specific. >>
Hidden.
As opposed to "scary" or "evil."
You don't have a very good dictionary I take it.
<< What the fuck are you talking about?
You're making a stupid strawman. No one said anything about
someone having to take anything "at face value". >>
I did.
<< Again, you're angry cause you've been conned.
That's your problem. >>
I'm not angry in the least. If I've been conned out of twenty bucks, it's not
the end of the world. But I haven't been conned, so that's irrelevant.
<< > the reason I recommend this book is because---
---you're ignorant.
There is no other reason. There is no other defense.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Shut up and listen. >>
When you have nothing to say, you take the beginning of a sentence and then
complete it with derogatory comments. It's quite unbecoming to whatever
authority you think you may have.
<< Or maybe you should get rid of the eternal chip on your
shoulder and grow up. >>
Haha! In other words "Why are you so fucking rude to everyone, asshole?"
You're the one with the need to flame that borders on obsessive compulsive, not
I.
<< What is certain is that you are ignorant about tarot and
that you have an emotional problem about that condition. >>
How would anything be certain to you about my emotional condition?
<< "semi-witty" meaning you are the target. >>
"Semi-witty" as in accusing me by means of flame of having a chip on my
shoulder when I've not ragged on anyone.
<< You're a liar.
You'd rather not be bothered---with anything that disturbs
what you think you know. >>
By all means, *bother me with anything which might disturb what I think I
know.* I'm listeningå‚ut not if insults are present.
<< You have been blocked in your attempt to understand
tarot so you decided to get pomo with it >>
I was blocked in my attempt to justify the use of Thoth for those who don't
accept _all_ of what Crowley has to say, not just about Tarot, but about the
universe. I've not gotten pomo with it. I went Marseilles on it. Or
Universal Waite.
<< That's your choice. That's also your problem. >>
Everything is my choice, and in a sense, also my problem. Is that supposed to
actually mean something coming from you?
--LstPuritan
J. Karlin
> << What is the truest Latin sense of the word?
>
> How is that different from the sense in which it is
> generally applied to tarot?
>
> Be specific. >>
>
> Hidden.
>
> As opposed to "scary" or "evil."
Who says "occult", as it applies to tarot, generally
means "scary" or "evil"?
The word, "occult", has many meanings in English.
None of my dictionaries list "scary" or "evil" as meanings
for this word. I am not aware of any book on the tarot
which suggests those are meanings for that word.
As for the Latin word, "occultus", it also has several
meanings, "hidden" being only one.
So, once again, why is "hidden" the truest Latin sense
of the word?
And how is the truest Latin sense of the word any different
from the sense in which "occult" is generally applied to
tarot?
You can posture, but that's not going to work here. You
actually need to know what you're talking about.
> You don't have a very good dictionary I take it.
No, I have several very good dictionaries. That's partly
why I know you don't know what you're talking about.
I have a suggestion: go posture elsewhere. You're stupid,
you're ignorant, and you're boring.
None of those things is helpful to a discussion of tarot,
or much of anything---see this isn't your normal (and
preferred) audience of drug addicts. You actually need
to know what you're talking about here. And you don't.
> << What the fuck are you talking about?
>
> You're making a stupid strawman. No one said anything about
> someone having to take anything "at face value". >>
>
> I did.
That's my point---you're arguing with yourself---you're
creating the opposition viewpoint out of nothing but your
own hurt feelings, and then knocking it down. You are
not however addressing any actual arguments made by anyone
here. Nor could you.
> << Again, you're angry cause you've been conned.
>
> That's your problem. >>
>
> I'm not angry in the least.
Sure you are, you were bent out of shape that I rejected
your dumb pomo deck, and even more upset when I pointed
out your jungian book and your jungian agenda were
crap as well.
You don't like being wrong. That's your problem. I'm sure
you must have a drug to deaden the pain.
> If I've been conned out of twenty bucks, it's not
> the end of the world. But I haven't been conned, so that's irrelevant.
You were conned. You were stupid. You still are.
> << > the reason I recommend this book is because---
>
> ---you're ignorant.
>
> There is no other reason. There is no other defense.
>
> You don't know what you're talking about.
>
> Shut up and listen. >>
>
> When you have nothing to say---
But I had something to say, and I said it.
If you disagree, provide a pertinent argument.
You are ignorant. And that is why you've made the ignorant
posts you've made.
The thing is---that's not an unfair assessment. I cut
you off because you're wasting people's time here. We've
seen you in many avatars come and go. We don't need to
see you again.
> you take the beginning of a sentence---
Or the middle or the end---and do what?
Suggest a finish that is true and saves time.
Yes, I get to do that.
But, that suggestion was not in any way an inaccurate
representation. You don't know what the hell you're
talking about. That's why you're whining about my
fixing your sentences instead of replying to what I
said about your stupid ideas.
> and then complete it with derogatory comments.
Why should that bother you, fuckhead?
You want to fight, don't you?
That's what you're here to do, right?
But you can't fight, cause you have nothing to fight
with. You don't know anything about the topic, you're
sure as hell not going to "entertain" us to death.
Maybe you can make some nice speeches about "civility",
that always works very convincingly.
You're a YAMhead, get out of here.
> It's quite unbecoming to whatever authority you think you may have.
My authority is not in question here, your comments about
the topic are in question here, and you're too much
of a coward to deal with that.
> << Or maybe you should get rid of the eternal chip on your
> shoulder and grow up. >>
>
> Haha! In other words "Why are you so fucking rude to everyone, asshole?"
No, pissbrain, why are you so fucking stupid, and dumping it
here?
> You're the one with the need to flame---
I haven't flamed you, you idiot.
You just had your "ideas" deconstructed.
That's all.
If you can't take that, you sure as hell couldn't take
any flames.
> that borders on obsessive compulsive,
That's a projection. You're already displaying those very
traits---which I'm sure we all hope you'll not manifest in
any serious manner.
> << What is certain is that you are ignorant about tarot and
> that you have an emotional problem about that condition. >>
>
> How would anything be certain to you about my emotional condition?
You think you're something fucking special?
Shit, you're nothing but a stupid weed. A fucking template
of a stupid weed.
You're reactions to being told your dumb ideas are just that
are utterly predictable, your behaviors something we've
seen here over and over again.
You're so fucking angry that someone actually told you
you were wrong, you can't stand it, and what you really
can't stand is that you've got nothing, nothing at
all that you can say to dispute me.
I'm sure with any luck we can turn your quickly into
a gameball, and from that who knows...maybe you'll become
a kudzu or a corey (or maybe you are one of those already).
> << "semi-witty" meaning you are the target. >>
>
> "Semi-witty" as in accusing me---
---of being a tiresome bore.
Read what you've written here. The topic deserves better
than you.
So shut up.
> by means of flame of having a chip on my
> shoulder when I've not ragged on anyone.
Again, you're a liar.
You came in here with an agenda, to try and impress someone
with what you thought you knew about the topic. You
were so anxious to get into a heated discussion you
even wrote that you welcomed "flames." Yet, you seem
not to like any kind of heat at all, now.
What's wrong?
> << You're a liar.
>
> You'd rather not be bothered---with anything that disturbs
> what you think you know. >>
>
> By all means, *bother me with anything which might disturb what I think I
> know.* I'm listeningå‚ut not if insults are present.
You've insulted the topic AND yourself. If anyone else
has insulted you, fuckface, well---you asked for it
(literally).
> << You have been blocked in your attempt to understand
> tarot so you decided to get pomo with it >>
>
> I was blocked in my attempt to justify the use of Thoth for those who don't
> accept _all_ of what Crowley has to say---
You can't justify the use of Thoth, regardless of whether someone
accepts it or not, because it doesn't fit into your stupid
agenda, an agenda which you know is so weak you can't defend
it and would prefer to whine, like a little baby, about
"flames", even when you claimed you welcomed them.
Just get back to your druggie groups where you might have more
luck scamming the "natives".
ilan pillemer
> If tarot is whatever anyone says it is then it's pretty
> much nothing. That doesn't mean I think it has to be
> what any one person or group says it is, but that if
> you're going to try and learn tarot, you should expect to
> ALSO learn the large body of dogmas and symbols that have gone
> into making tarot (and that's a history of about 575 years
> or so now).
I don't think that any post-modernist or post-structuralist or
post-colonialist or post-feminist or deconstructionist would say that
tarot is whatever anyone says it is. Or that it is worth nothing. Or that
in order to try and learn it would not involve learning its body of
dogma.
An idiot would. As you point out over and over again about what these
'yams' think tarot is. But I would just like to point out that these same
'yams' are just as unlikely to know what post-modernism is.
I am not sure if these decks are even morth the title PoMo. Because that
is really insulting to the ideas of post modernity. Perhaps they should
just be called what they are - badly conceived conceptual systems
advertising themselves as something they are not.
>
> The demands of "tradition" or "authority" (for example,
> that Crowley's ideas are pertinent to understanding
> HIS deck) really seem to rub pomos (people, decks,
> book-writers) the wrong way.
Again. I don't think that Jacques Derrida would say that Crowley's ideas
are not pertinent - or that these people you are calling 'pomos' have any
idea at all about what post-modernism actually is. Again; I think you are
being unneccesarily unfair to thinkers such as Barbara Johnson or Spivak
or De Man (even if I hate his guts) by associating them with people that
are producing junk.
> As is often the case, a
> lot of people involved with tarot are just looking for
> some kind of acceptance that they don't seem to find
> in their "real lives."
But why are these people any different to stupid modernists or stupid
positivists or stupid gnostics or stupid Jews or stupid Christians or just
your common and garden stupid individual. Your real complaint I think is
about stupid fucking shmucks that are producing junk and calling it Tarot.
And you are deflecting your frustration onto postmodernism.
>
> To them, the suggestion that tarot is really about
> something specific seems to make tarot nothing but an
> elitist pursuit, which is designed to exclude them.
Well an intellectual pursuit. I mean, I could call basketball and elitist
sport because its physcial requirements are designed to exclude me.
> The power to enforce meaning seems to be in the hands
> of the few, instead of the many, the power to influence
> the nature of the discussion (for example on this
> group) seems unduly regulated by "experts" at the expense
> of a more "collective", "communal" consensus.
hmm.
No respect for learning on the subject.
>
> So, "pomo" is not necessarily viewed as a bad thing
> by all people. Indeed, I do not necessarily view
> it as a bad thing. It denotes a style, an approach
> to tarot however which I personally consider unhelpful
> for most people who pursue it.
Do you think that understanding post-modernism is any more difficult than
understanding tarot? If not, then if one could not understand
post-modernism then one could not understand tarot anyway.
> It's fine to say that
> people should make tarot into whatever they want
> but it's another thing entirely to expect others
> to be interested in those myraid personal IGNORANT
> visions.
Again. I don't believe that anyone who understands post-modernism would
say anything like that. Only an idiot who did not understand
post-modernism would.
>
> If you think about it, if tarot SHOULD BE anything
> each individual wants, what do we have to discuss?
Post-modernism does not say this. At least, I don't think it does.
> There's nothing really to learn, after all, there's
> no right answer to any question, any idea is as good
> as the next.
Its not that there is no 'right' answer. I think that post-modernism says
that the one cannot even ask such a question - thats its an irrelevant
question. Post-modernism is interested in the system of differences that
constitute that system - and its limits and points of self-contradiction
and repression. A post-modernism approaching Tarot would have to study it
in its complexity to locate its limits and its moments of self-collapse. A
post-modernist would then theoretically create a deck - using all its
symbols correctly - and emphasize in some way its already existing points
of self-doubt. It does not say an idea is as good as the next. As far as I
can understand post-modernism ideas of morality not in fact that
different to yours.
>
> If you DON'T accept that as the case, if you want to
> impose at least some order on the interpretation of
> the symbolism, then you have to ask how you shall do
> that.
post-modernism as I think it is, DOES NOT accept that as the case.
>
> And the answer to that, how you shall impose an
> order upon tarot and its symbols, is mostly what
> the occult history of tarot has been about, and
> continues to be about.
And post-modern critics are very very interested in the history of a
system.
> Some people are interested
> in learning the background and the current status
> of that discussion, but many people are not (although
> often they are not simply because they've invested
> a lot of time and money in pomo books and decks
> that have told them they don't have to be interested
> in that discussion and they get pissed if someone
> says they are ignorant because they've adopted
> that attitude).
Well I think that postmodernists are interested in all that. And not in
what you say they are interested in.
Again I think what you are doing to Postmodernism; is exactly what you are
angry about people doing with respect to Tarot.
A tad hypocritical perhaps?
>
> Bottom line, if tarot is going to be about something,
> then we should accept it is also NOT going to be about
> a lot of things. And pomos generally don't want to hear
> that.
Again. No post-modernist (or anyone who understands the ideas of
post-modernism) would disagree with you.
Maybe you should change the title PoMo to YaM.
Because these decks are as post-modern as they are tarot.
Little me.
LstPuritan
of the word? >>
Briefly:
--Latin--
Occulo=verb=to cover, to cover over, to make secret, to keep concealed.
OQVLTVS=adverbially for occulte=in secret, secretly.
Occultus=hidden, concealed, secret, imperceptible; reserved, close, kept close,
secret.
In Neuter=Occultum=hidden thing, hiding-place.
I chose to sum it up with the word 'hidden', which generally implies most of
the other Latin meanings.
--English--
Occult=Of or pertaining to supernatural phenomena or influence. Beyond the
range of human comprehension. Available only to the initiate or those who have
an ability to understand beyond the range of rational thought.
<< And how is the truest Latin sense of the word any different
from the sense in which "occult" is generally applied to
tarot? >>
When one speaks of 'occult' meanings of the Tarot, it's always unclear whether
what is really meant is the 'hidden, covered, concealed' meaning or the
'supernatural, beyond comprehension, initiate' meaning. I only added the
parens '(in the truest Latin sense of the word)' to emphasize that I was
talking about occult in the former sense, not the latter. And this minor point
was only a tiny clarification on my part which really does not even deserve
this much analysis.
<< You can posture, but that's not going to work here. You
actually need to know what you're talking about. >>
Define posture.
<< I have a suggestion: go posture elsewhere. You're stupid,
you're ignorant, and you're boring. >>
How about I lurk and learn; works well enough for me, unless I have a question
which happens to turn into threads like this. Unfortunately, I can't keep
quiet when someone makes such assertions as Pythagoras being the teacher of
Plato or that the Greeks built Alexandria or that the Jews invented the concept
of alphabetic correspondences.
<< None of those things is helpful to a discussion of tarot,
or much of anything---see this isn't your normal (and
preferred) audience of drug addicts. >>
I've inspired personal investigation; how touching.
<< You actually need
to know what you're talking about here. And you don't. >>
Here is my public declaration:
*JK KNOWS MORE ABOUT TAROT THAN I*
However, you can't and _won't_ one-up me when a discussion of tarot turns into
an argument about linguistics or antiquity, so don't bother trying.
<< > I'm not angry in the least.
Sure you are, you were bent out of shape that I rejected
your dumb pomo deck, and even more upset when I pointed
out your jungian book and your jungian agenda were
crap as well. >>
I assure you I have no affiliation with Carl Röhrig and no personal feelings
connected with it other than the fact that I liked the art. Your original
response to my inquiry about the FAQ was satisfactory and I haven't mentioned
it since. I have no Jungian agenda; this assumption was conjured up from your
severe paranoia and fear of conspiracy. Jung's alchemical studies have been of
great interest to me, and I still maintain that the Nichols' book is a good
introduction as to how one may approach the tarot pictures and begin to make
associations/correspondances before prematurely adopting or memorizing the
definitions in the LB or reading something like Wang or Waite or Crowley or
Case.
<< You don't like being wrong. That's your problem. I'm sure
you must have a drug to deaden the pain >>
I don't like being wrong. I consider that a virtue and not a vice. But when I
am, I admit it openly and without reserve; I only egage in these debates for
two reasons. The first is that I might learn something new about tarot and the
second is because I enjoy it. If I decide that I'm not learning anything
through discussion and it is no longer enjoyable, I do have a drug to end it
all: unsubscribe.
<< You were conned. You were stupid. You still are. >>
I bought the book; the responsibility rests only with me. As for the rest:
blah blah blah. Whether I was stupid in the past or present, and whether or
not I continue to be stupid in your opinion has little to do with tarot.
<< I had something to say, and I said it.
If you disagree, provide a pertinent argument. >>
You said "shut up and listen" and then ended your thought. Do you walk up to
someone in real life and say "hey, listen to this" and then lie down and fall
asleep?
<< The thing is---that's not an unfair assessment. I cut
you off because you're wasting people's time here. >>
There is opinion and there is fact. Opinions start open debate and facts end
them; unfortunately, there is little in the way of facts for you do deal with
anymore with me in this thread, so all you can do is speculate about me and try
to hurt my feelings. Won't work. I was happy to let the thread die after you
answered my question about the Pomo deck.
<< Why should that bother you, fuckhead?
You want to fight, don't you?
That's what you're here to do, right? >>
No. Let it go. Take a walk. Hit a pillow.
<< But you can't fight, cause you have nothing to fight
with. You don't know anything about the topic, you're
sure as hell not going to "entertain" us to death. >>
There is, at this point, no topic. Except for me, and as flattering as that
is, it's run its course. Let it go.
<< You're a YAMhead, get out of here. >>
What is a YAMhead? Or a YAM even, for that matter?
<< > Haha! In other words "Why are you so fucking rude to everyone, asshole?"
No, pissbrain, why are you so fucking stupid, and dumping it
here? >>
Do you have Torrette's Syndrome, by any chance?
<< > How would anything be certain to you about my emotional condition?
You think you're something fucking special? >>
No. I just want to know how you can pretend to assess my emotional state
without knowing me. Rather, you'd like to fit me into an archetype which
triggers hostile reactions from spending too much time in alt.tarot.
<< Again, you're a liar.
You came in here with an agenda, to try and impress someone
with what you thought you knew about the topic. You
were so anxious to get into a heated discussion you
even wrote that you welcomed "flames." Yet, you seem
not to like any kind of heat at all, now. >>
Let it go. I don't have an agenda.
<< > By all means, *bother me with anything which might disturb what I think I
> know.* I'm listening—but not if insults are present.
You've insulted the topic AND yourself. If anyone else
has insulted you, fuckface, well---you asked for it
(literally). >>
Actually, at least a few have found my response to the absurd "absolute truth"
thread beneficial by means of shedding some historical light on the babble that
was going on.
<< You can't justify the use of Thoth, regardless of whether someone
accepts it or not, because it doesn't fit into your stupid
agenda, an agenda which you know is so weak you can't defend
it and would prefer to whine, like a little baby, about
"flames", even when you claimed you welcomed them. >>
Would that I knew what my agenda was. Oh wait, the reason it was (and is) so
weak is because it exists only in your head. Please get over it.
<< Just get back to your druggie groups where you might have more
luck scamming the "natives". >>
Get over it. My posts to alt.drugs, rec.music.makers.piano,
rec.music.classical, alt.fractals, humanities.classics, and
rec.games.chess.misc (did I miss any?) have little to do with tarot.
Get over it. Or take it to E-mail, where it doesn't waste everyone's time.
You have my permission.
--LstPuritan
ro...@swlink.net
> and I still maintain that the Nichols' book is a good
>introduction as to how one may approach the tarot pictures and begin to make
>associations/correspondances before prematurely adopting or memorizing the
>definitions in the LB or reading something like Wang or Waite or Crowley or
>Case.
>
>I bought the book; the responsibility rests only with me. As for the rest:
>blah blah blah. Whether I was stupid in the past or present, and whether or
>not I continue to be stupid in your opinion has little to do with tarot.
It has everything to do with tarot because you are still maintaining
that the Nichols book is a good introduction in spite of the fact that
2 people in this newsgroup have cited passages and examples from that
book and have gone on to state using examples from her book the
reasons they think she is full of shit while you on the other hand
think a discussion about tarot begins and ends with your opinion and
to hell with honest learning. You can't put up, so you have been told
to shut up. And that is Tarot on alt.tarot.
edeejay
LstPuritan wrote: >
> (jk) wrote: > >
> > You think you're something fucking special?
> No. I just want to know how you can pretend to assess my emotional state
> without knowing me.
Umm, it's not your 'emotional state' that's getting read here, LstPrue,
it's your behavior.
edeejay
--
"...the first step towards wisdom is to understand what is false; the
second, to ascertain what is true."
---Lactantius, "The Divine Institutes"
MLYoung
>> affect hir writings on tarot. If s/he has that much problem
>> accepting hir own maleness (and lopping off chunks of one's self,
>> does seem to denote a lack of full acceptance), can s/he accept the
>> male/patriarchal aspects of tarot enough to write truthfully or
>> fairly about it? Or will the need for it to be something else (like
>> Pollack needed, personally, to be something else) overwhelm
>> objectivity and clarity?
>
>the correct and appropriate pronouns for her are "her" and "she."
Really, why? In what way is Pollack
female? Does she possess xx
chromosomes? A uterus? Ovaries?
A clitoris? Ability to bear children?
hormonal cycles, menstruation,
cells more receptive to estrogen than
androgen?
If I stitch on a penis, do I become male?
Why? Just because I want to be?
How very American.
What makes Pollack female? Why
are the correct and appropriate pronouns
"her" and "she"?
Why does my use of quotation marks
indicate that I fear transexuality?
>
>Her so-called conflicts are solely of your own imagination, and
Er, no. I spent some time reading
Pollack's work--the conflicts seem
quite apparent. Or are you saying
that there was no conflict between
Pollack's internal perception of being
feminine and external male manifestation?
None? None at all? Then why go
through the expense and difficulty
of surgery and hormonal treatments?
Indeed, I believe a certain conflict
is required in order to be approved
of for treatment.
>considering your own lack of objectivity, your perception of it in
>others is rather hypocritical.
In what way am I nonobjective? Or
hypocritical?
Be specific.
>Or should we just chalk this up to ignorance, instead of bigotry, on
>your part? It is obviously one or the other.
Why? How is it obvious? If my
definition of female is based on
certain biological criteria that Pollack
does not meet, why is this bigotry
on my part?
Or, to switch the question, why is
a castrated male on hormones
considered female? I mean, isn't that
a rather primitive Freudian definition
of woman? Basically, men without
shlongs? If you take away that which
is obviously male then one is, by
default, female? Why?
By the way, you can, at any time,
try to demonstrate I am wrong instead
of making personal attacks. Go ahead.
--margaret
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Subject: Re: POMOism
>Path:
>lobby!newstf02.news.aol.com!portc05.blue.aol.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!newsf
eed.berkeley.edu!cyclone.swbell.net!news.swbell.net.POSTED!michelle
>From: Michelle Steiner mich...@michelle.org
>Newsgroups: alt.tarot
>Organization: Society for the Preservation of Endangered Societies
>References: <3889C3CE...@texas.net>
MLYoung
>> chromosomes? A uterus? Ovaries? A clitoris? Ability to bear
>> children? hormonal cycles, menstruation, cells more receptive to
>> estrogen than androgen?
>
>age would a woman menstruate, have hormonal cycles, or are able to bear
>children.
Er, no, we produce the damn hormones
all our lives, the levels simply drop.
More to the point, not models have
fully functioning equipment at all times,
however, it's an intrinsic part of the
design--whether or not it always works.
>But these are all superficialities that are usually uttered by members
>of the religious reich and by radical lesbian separatists.
You consider basic biological functioning
superficial. Interesting, if sad.
>
>> If I stitch on a penis, do I become male? Why? Just because I want
>> to be? How very American.
>
>Her surgery didn't make her female; she had the surgery because she is
>female--to correct a birth defect.
Being male is a birth defect? What
a cruel notion. I pity your inability
to see the beauty of a functioning,
healthy body--of either sex.
But this does show some of the
bias that concerns me--if the sole
fact of being male is considered
"a birth defect" there's a basic bias
problem--all too familiar sounding,
I might add, only it's traditionally
been applied to the state of being
female. I don't consider this an
improvement.
>
>> What makes Pollack female? Why are the correct and appropriate
>> pronouns "her" and "she"?
>
>What makes you female? your cunt? your clit? your tits? your
>chromosomes? Do you know that you're XX; did you ever have them tested?
I am of the sex that produces eggs
instead of sperm--that's what a female
is. In our species, that comes with
other characteristics--some wiring suitable
for egg travel, a storage unit and
various forms of nourishment. Once
again, not all models work equally well,
but the basic idea remains the same.
There are women who can't ovulate
or bear children, but that doesn't mean
they suddenly produce sperm and
become men. Conversely, the inability
to produce sperm by a male does not
turn him into an egg producer.
As for me, I'm a standard, functioning
model. I have none of the traits of an
XY or XXY female and all the traits of
an XX. Chromosomes don't operate
in a vacuum.
>
>> Why does my use of quotation marks indicate that I fear
>> transexuality?
>
>Your entire discourse about Rachel displays your transphobia. Your use
Why? How does any of ths show
fear?
>of the quotation marks to deny her womanhood is merely a manifestation
>of said bigotry. Your puerile resort to
I can neither deny nor give Pollack
womanhood. Neither can anyone else--
what can be given is the eradication of
certain male characteristics and an
emulation of certain female ones--
but, once again, eradicating one's
ability to produce sperm does not
make one an egg-bearer. Nor does
desire.
pedantry reflects that of
>homophobes when they are called on her bigotry.
Interesting that you should mention
homophobia. The notion of there being
"female" psychological traits and behavior
is one that has been used to attack and
belittle women who did not conform to
them--first up, of course, are women
sexually attracted to women. They've
been told that *real* women are not
attracted sexually to women.
Thank you, but I'll stick to biology.
>> Er, no. I spent some time reading Pollack's work--the conflicts seem
>> quite apparent.
>
>To you. Not to any credible reviewers of her work.
"Credible" being those whose views
do not conflict with yours. Yes, that's
quite clear.
>
>> Or are you saying that there was no conflict between Pollack's
>> internal perception of being feminine and external male
>> manifestation? None? None at all?
>
>No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the "quite obvious" conflicts
>that you see exist only because you wish to see them. Your expoistory
No, they manifest themselves as
wishful thinking about tarot among other
things--much as your wishful thinking
makes you want to believe that I,
not a certain biological reality, denies
Pollack femaleness. You want
social construct, the idea of gender,
the *idea* of a woman's role, to
bury the basic reality of sex.
Yes, being a woman is a role, but
it's one rooted in biological fact. And,
as yet, no one's changed those facts--
at best, there's been a certain, crude
external imitation.
>clearly demonstrates that.
>
>> Indeed, I believe a certain conflict is required in order to be
>> approved of for treatment.
>
>And what exactly do you know about the subject? So far, you've
>displayed an abysmal ignorance of it.
The nature of being a woman? I'm
afraid I've all too much knowledge about
that. But, you don't want to hear that,
do you? After all, I didn't ask to be
a woman, I just am one. How could
I possibly know what it's like?
>> >considering your own lack of objectivity, your perception of it in
>> >others is rather hypocritical.
>>
>> In what way am I nonobjective? Or hypocritical?
>>
>> Be specific.
>
>Your blatant mischaracterization of her gender, and your use of derisive
No, I simply pay attention to the
fact of sex. As for characterization,
I did pay attention to Pollack's attempts
not to be a "he", so I chose gender-neutral
pronouns.
>adjectives and pronouns when writing about her.
Such as?
>
>> >Or should we just chalk this up to ignorance, instead of bigotry, on
>> >your part? It is obviously one or the other.
>>
>> Why? How is it obvious? If my definition of female is based on
>> certain biological criteria that Pollack does not meet, why is this
>> bigotry on my part?
>
>As I said, bigotry or ignorance. Your definition is incorrect and
>superficial.
No. It's simply one you find inconvenient.
>
>> Or, to switch the question, why is a castrated male on hormones
>> considered female?
>
>Wrong, and irrelevant, question. You are reversing cause and effect.
No. I don't automatically buy into the
notion that the self can be separated
from the body. And, once again, there
is a notion here that females have
a set of psychological characteristics
and males have another set and no
cross-wiring allowed.
As for cause-and-effect--there seems
to be way too little study of what causes
the sense of gender displacement.
For some reason, we consider the
scalpel the best treatment of a not
understood delicate psychological
dilemma.
>
>> I mean, isn't that a rather primitive Freudian definition of woman?
>> Basically, men without shlongs? If you take away that which is
>> obviously male then one is, by default, female? Why?
>
>I'm not Freudian, so your question is meaningless tome.
Freud believed that women wanted
penises--that they felt deprived and
inadequate as a result. Freud's
theories fall neatly in line with a fair
amount of phallocentric thought--
certain occultists, for example, thought
women were incomplete men--wounded,
stuck with vaginal holes where they
should have had those good old
proturbances.
In other words, women were nothing
more than incomplete men--the
glories of our own distinct equipment
unseen, misunderstood and disrespected
through most of history.
And, yes, I've a bit of a problem with
your trying to, once again, deny what
women are--we are not men without
penises.
>> By the way, you can, at any time, try to demonstrate I am wrong
>> instead of making personal attacks. Go ahead.
>
>You started with the personal attacks, dearie--against Rachel. Looks
No. I don't see Rachel around here,
do you? I have questioned hir
agenda, hardly a personal attack.
>like you're just another typical schoolyard bully; can dish it out, but
>whines when someone dares to hit back.
You don't see clearly, do you?
>
>I've wasted enough time on an insignificant creature like you. Good
>day, Sir.
Or you'll huff and puff and blow my
house down?
Whatever.
--margaret
>
>"Pfui" --Nero Wolfe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Subject: Re: POMOism
>Path:
>lobby!newstf02.news.aol.com!portc05.blue.aol.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!newsf
eed.berkeley.edu!cyclone.swbell.net!news.swbell.net.POSTED!michelle
>From: Michelle Steiner mich...@michelle.org
>Newsgroups: alt.tarot
>Organization: Society for the Preservation of Endangered Societies
>References: <michelle-7974D1...@news.swbell.net>
J. Karlin
> > If tarot is whatever anyone says it is then it's pretty
> > much nothing. That doesn't mean I think it has to be
> > what any one person or group says it is, but that if
> > you're going to try and learn tarot, you should expect to
> > ALSO learn the large body of dogmas and symbols that have gone
> > into making tarot (and that's a history of about 575 years
> > or so now).
>
> I don't think that any post-modernist or post-structuralist or
You're being ridiculous. You don't know ALL of those, now do
you? If you want to offer an analysis of what you think those
things are and what ideas they promote and how that would
limit "them" from agreeing with my simplification, then do
that. But don't pretend that you can cast "their" vote
for them when you can only really cast your own.
> An idiot would.
And they do.
But, understand, as I said, or as I'm saying here---I did not
label tarot, or the portion of it that got the label, "pomo"
or "postmodern". The pomos did that---they were proud of it.
Certainly it must have meant something to them, right?
Are you saying there can only be CERTAIN meanings for
postmodernism, that it can't mean certain other things
but can only mean what the "authorities" say, or
what exactly?
Now, a few years ago I asked a person who I guess you could
describe as a professional "postmodernist" to tell us what
postmodernism meant, so that we could compare what she
claimed it meant to the meanings I was using in my
description of pomo tarot. She told us she couldn't be
bothered because it would require her to introduce
us to at least a 50,000-word (yes, 50,000-word) essay in
order to even begin to properly summarize or define
the subject. That seemed to me to be just a little
bit absurd. What do you think?
Anyway, I'm more than happy to debate this with you, but
I'll have to wait till the end of the week since it will
likely be somewhat time-consuming. If you want to get
into it with others before then, that's fine. I think
a reasonable discussion about what exactly is or isn't
"postmodern" about tarot has the potential of being
quite interesting.
But, first off, it WOULD be a good thing if we tried
to limit the definition of the term, postmodernism,
and to see how it might be reasonably applied to
tarot.
So, maybe you could attempt such a definition---please
try to bring it in under 50,000 words---under 5,000
even. If you know of some links that are not too
obtusely presented and which you think might be
helpful to getting the discussion going, why don't
you provide them so people who are interested can
start to get up to speed a bit.
> As you point out over and over again about what these
> 'yams' think tarot is. But I would just like to point out that these same
> 'yams' are just as unlikely to know what post-modernism is.
The thing to keep in mind is that it doesn't matter what
they know---it matters what they are and what they think
and whether their behavior and their ideas can reasonably
be described as "postmodern". Not only "theorists" get
to play the game, you know. But only theorists want to
be able to authoritatively label, apparently.
> I am not sure if these decks are even morth the title PoMo.
Again, you need to realize that there may be a distinction in
meaning between what you understand postmodernism, as a
critical theory, to be, and what "pomo", as applied to
tarot, may be. That doesn't mean that postmodern and pomo
are not reflective of each other, but that YOU may have
a different understanding of these things, such that
you don't get the way I'm using it, or the way pomos
may use it.
> Because that is really insulting to the ideas of post modernity.
And these ideas can't handle insults? Or you can't?
Well, perhaps we shall see.
> > The demands of "tradition" or "authority" (for example,
> > that Crowley's ideas are pertinent to understanding
> > HIS deck) really seem to rub pomos (people, decks,
> > book-writers) the wrong way.
>
> Again. I don't think that Jacques Derrida would say that Crowley's ideas
> are not pertinent -
Actually, I had a funny experiment I did with Derrida, sort
of a divination to use in demonstrating what I was talking
about (to that "other" postmodernist).
I don't recall the details it but I'll look it up.
> or that these people you are calling 'pomos' have any
> idea at all about what post-modernism actually is.
Again, THAT doesn't matter.
> > As is often the case, a
> > lot of people involved with tarot are just looking for
> > some kind of acceptance that they don't seem to find
> > in their "real lives."
>
> But why are these people any different to stupid modernists---
I wasn't talking about a theory, just pointing out a motive
for a group of people and their interests. Still, isn't
there a view or tendency in pm to be more accepting of
emotionally-based meanings and values than whatever
pm claims to be reacting against?
> > To them, the suggestion that tarot is really about
> > something specific seems to make tarot nothing but an
> > elitist pursuit, which is designed to exclude them.
>
> Well an intellectual pursuit.
But it isn't JUST an intellectual pursuit, is it?
Nor does postmodernism value ONLY intellectual pursuits?
Or does it?
> I mean, I could call basketball and elitist
> sport because its physcial requirements are designed to exclude me.
No, they're not. Basketball was designed to be quite inclusive
in fact. You may be talking about a certain kind of basketball
that IS exclusive. People in wheelchairs can shoot baskets
and move about the court (which is really all you're physically
required to do within the constraints of the rules).
In the same way, pretty much ANYONE can buy a tarot deck,
and read an LB and tell some fortunes. People are not
excluded on the surface of things any more than people
are excluded from walking onto a basketball court
and playing a game with others. You may do it badly,
and you may feel like NOT doing it cause you do
it so badly, but the "theory" says you can do
it, that you are not excluded.
So, then, are people excluded when someone tells them
that the tarot THEY think "counts" isn't tarot?
Does postmodernism address this?
> > The power to enforce meaning seems to be in the hands
> > of the few, instead of the many, the power to influence
> > the nature of the discussion (for example on this
> > group) seems unduly regulated by "experts" at the expense
> > of a more "collective", "communal" consensus.
>
> hmm.
>
> No respect for learning on the subject.
I was just pointing out how it seems to a lot of people.
Our "thing" here seems narrow and mean to a lot of people,
because it doesn't seek to invite everybody to play---the
"communal" aspect is missing when it's often promoted as
the main feature in other tarot venues.
> > So, "pomo" is not necessarily viewed as a bad thing
> > by all people. Indeed, I do not necessarily view
> > it as a bad thing. It denotes a style, an approach
> > to tarot however which I personally consider unhelpful
> > for most people who pursue it.
>
> Do you think that understanding post-modernism is any more difficult than
> understanding tarot?
I think tarot is much harder than postmodernism. They both
however contain dense bodies of dogma intended to elevate
the esteem of their explicators who have little interest
usually in clarifying the details to non-initiates.
I'm more suspicious of the density in pm, simply because
it often is connected to what seems to me a quite artificial
attempt to create professional niches of academic employment.
The density in tarot is often just as artificially created,
and is often established just as much for the purpose of
advantaging an informed elite, but in occultism the motive
seldom resides in a concern over creating or protecting
"professional" space.
> > It's fine to say that
> > people should make tarot into whatever they want
> > but it's another thing entirely to expect others
> > to be interested in those myraid personal IGNORANT
> > visions.
>
> Again. I don't believe that anyone who understands post-modernism would
> say anything like that. Only an idiot who did not understand
> post-modernism would.
Well, we'll see. Perhaps pm is more "inclusive" than you or
other "professional" pm-ers would like.
> Its not that there is no 'right' answer. I think that post-modernism says
> that the one cannot even ask such a question - thats its an irrelevant
> question. Post-modernism is interested in the system of differences that
> constitute that system - and its limits and points of self-contradiction
> and repression.
Is that your "final" definition?
It's full of entry-points to pomotiers, you know.
> As far as I can understand post-modernism ideas of morality not in fact that
> different to yours.
I've been accused of being a postmodernist by a number of people
who are offended by my cavalier usage of the holy word.
> A tad hypocritical perhaps?
You're a hypocrisy junkie.
Again, it'll be later in the week before I can reply in
any detail but I'll try to keep up with whatever discussion
you can generate.
Anon
X-No-Archive: YES
Margaret wrote:
>>Really, why? In what way is Pollack female? Does she
>>possess xx chromosomes? A uterus? Ovaries? A clitoris?
>>Ability to bear children? hormonal cycles, menstruation,
>>cells more receptive to estrogen than androgen?
I'll respond to these below... btw both sexes seem to have
equivalent receptivity to estrogens and androgens.
{Commentary removed}
.
.
.
>>I can neither deny nor give Pollack womanhood. Neither
>>can anyone else--what can be given is the eradication of
>>certain male characteristics and an emulation of certain
>>female ones-- but, once again, eradicating one's
>>ability to produce sperm does not make one an egg-
>>bearer. Nor does desire.
The central tenet you offer here, is an erroneous extention
of what occurs in western culture which is that sex and
gender are one and the same. Your line of thinking con-
flates, or erroneously combines the two. You begin speaking
of womanhood and fe-maleness as if they are the same they
are not.
From your writing it's really difficult to tell whether you
are equating egg bearing with womanhood or femaleness. I am
a lesbian and my partner has had a hysterectomy. She is no
no longer and egg bearer but by your logic she ceases to be
female and a woman. However she is both.
While we are sticking to your biological essentialism,
which you cling to, to hurt, reject and feel superior to
another human being, it may or may not come as a surprise
to you to know that there are naturally born XX males and
XY females.
>>As for me, I'm a standard, functioning model. I have none
>>of the traits of an XY or XXY female and all the traits
>>of an XX.
Which kind? An XX born with or without a penis?
>>Chromosomes don't operate in a vacuum.
The "sex determining" chromosomes do not operate much at
all after the blastula stage of development. The presence
of the sex determining region… propagated on both Y and X
chromosomes sets up sertoli cells which are for androgen
production. After that there is very little expression on
the part of the Y chromosome. It becomes inert whether in a
vacuum or not.
The Olympic Committee adopted the requirement of chromosome
testing for women applicants. There have been many women,
who lived as women all their lives but who were rejected by
the committee. Many of these women went on to bear children
after failing their chromosome test. For this reason, the
olympic committee has stopped the practice of chromosome
testing because of it's inherent unreliability in
determining sex.
Political interests in Colorado interested in precluding
marriage between members of the same sex just initiated a
referendum to define men as chromosomally XY and women as
chromosomally XX. Because of inherent problems in the
proposition, the ini-tiative has been withdrawn.
Since you claim some expertise in biology, you are probably
aware that the basic hu-man substrate is capable of
expressing primary and secondary sexual characteristics of
either sex and is therefore dimorphic. In the absense of
active hormonal intervention, development of the fetus will
go in the direction of female morphology. Under the influ-
ence of androgens (testosterone) the human fetus will be
masculinized regardless of chromosomes. A second substance,
mullerian inhibiting substance accompanies tes-tosterone
and shuts down the tissues which are capable of developing
into uteri, ovaries and fallopian tubes. Testosterone also
causes differences in brain structure or mor-phology. There
is a "male" morphology and a "female" morphology in the
brain. The two sexes process information differently and
use different parts of the brain for solving the same
problem.
Male to female transexuals have at least in part a female
brain morphology as de-scribed by Swaab in the Journal
Nature (1995). Specifically "male to female" transsexu-als
exhibit female sized basal stria terminalis centralis
nuclei in the hypothalamus. In other species this is the
nucleus that effects. Brain masculinization occurs at a
different time in embrological development than does
gential develeopment. Not only that, but masculization
occurs through the metabololization of testosterone. There
are two differ-ent enzymes involved in central nervous
system masculinization and somatic masculili-zation.
Note that these timing sequences can explain what is seen
in Swaab's data: female brain development and a male
genital morphology.
>>No, I simply pay attention to the fact of sex.
The "fact" of sex is that there is no fact of sex. We walk
around thinking of both sex and gender as being bi-polar.
Gender occurs on a continuum. Sex does not occur in a
manner in which the general public is used to thinking
about it.
>> If I stitch on a penis, do I become male? Why? Just
>>because I want to be? How very American.
Certainly American have our vulgarities. But after reading
what you have to say I wonder if you like anyone?
The answer is…. Maybe…. Maybe not. The form of your
genitalia is one of about five contemporary determinants of
sex. By the way they do not have to be all either "male"
or "female". If I remember the correctly the determinants
are brain sex or morphology, chromosomes, hormones, primary
and secondary sex characteristics and gender iden-tity.
Even you may admit that's it's highly possibly to have a
hybrid of these.
>>Her surgery didn't make her female; she had the surgery
>>because she is female--to correct a birth defect.
Correct Michelle…
>>Being male is a birth defect? What a cruel notion.
<yawn> A deliberate misinterpretation of Michelle as a
rhetorical tactic is truly unflattering.
>>But this does show some of the bias that concerns me--if
>>the sole fact of being male is considered "a birth
>>defect" there's a basic bias
>>problem--all too familiar sounding, I might add, only
>>it's traditionally been applied to the state of being
>>female. I don't consider this an improvement.
Interesting, we both read what Michelle wrote and I have a
very different perception of what she said.
>> What makes Pollack female? Why are the correct and
>>appropriate pronouns "her" and "she"?
Since sex and gender really are not conflated…. "She"
and "her", gendered pronouns are determined by Pollack's
gender which she says is feminine. Do you know Pollack's
gender better than Pollack does? I doubt it.
>>I am of the sex that produces eggs instead of sperm--
>>that's what a female is. In our species, that comes with
>>other characteristics--some wiring suitable
>>for egg travel, a storage unit and various forms of
>>nourishment. Once again, not all models work equally
>>well, but the basic idea remains the same.
People don't come in "models" as far as I know and it's
true you have pointed this out before. There really is
no "basic idea" what you describe is what you believe
nature supplies us with. There are women and females who
are born without the anatomical features you describe. You
would deny their femaleness and womanhood also?
>>There are women who can't ovulate or bear children, but
>>that doesn't mean
>>they suddenly produce sperm and become men. Conversely,
>>the inability to produce sperm by a male does not turn
>>him into an egg producer.
There is so very much more to humans than the gametes we
produce.
>>I can neither deny nor give Pollack womanhood. Neither
>>can anyone else-- what can be given is the eradication of
>>certain male characteristics and an
>>emulation of certain female ones
by your definition….
>>but, once again, eradicating one's ability to produce
>>sperm does not make one an egg-bearer. Nor does desire.
Here is what you miss in your tidy world view….
Yes there are people who produce sperm and who are
psychologically masculine and whose observable psychomotor
processes fall into a pattern consistent with "male" and
who identitfy as male and as men.
There are human beings with ovaries, fallopian tubes and
uteri, and hormonal cycles
who bear children and who identify as female and as women.
There are also people who are in between and with
combinations of these features. You may wish there weren't
but that does not mean they don't exist.
It's very obvious that your rhetorical position is one that
is designed to define these peo-ple and to deny them their
own identity because you don't understand them or may find
them inconvenient.
>>Thank you, but I'll stick to biology.
And your very limited understanding of it… You may want to
change your statement to:
I'll stick to elementary school biology that suppports my
worldview.
>> Or are you saying that there was no conflict between
>>Pollack's internal perception of being feminine and
>>external male manifestation? None? None at all?
Only when sex and gender are conflated and misunderstood.
>>No, they manifest themselves as wishful thinking about
>>tarot among other things--much as your wishful thinking
>>makes you want to believe that I, not a certain
>>biological reality, denies Pollack femaleness. You want
>>social construct, the idea of gender, the *idea* of a
>>woman's role, to bury the basic reality of sex.
The basic reality of your choice? You choose to ignore what
is really been seen in the field.
>>Yes, being a woman is a role, but it's one rooted in
>>biological fact. And, as yet, no one's changed those
>>facts-- at best, there's been a certain, crude external
>>imitation.
Certainly this form of thinking has been used against women
since well before Aristotle. Such a statement doesn't play
well with your use of biology as a form of oppression
elsewhere in this post.
You may be interested in Natalie Angier's book "Woman An
intimate Geography (1999) where she says:
"The womb does not define a woman philosophically,
biologically or even etymologically. A woman does not need
to be born with a uterus to be a woman; nor does she have
to keep her uterus to remain a woman."
Ms. Angier also includes a description of AIS women who are
born with XY chromosomes.
>> Why? How is it obvious? If my definition of female is
>>based on certain biological criteria that Pollack does
>>not meet, why is this bigotry on my part?
It really isn't bigotry on your part. But it's important to
note that your definition is not con-sistent with newer
knowledge in the field. This is most interesting for
someone having so much pride in her objectivism.
The tactic is familiar however. Racists used to define what
human beings were picking attributes absent in African
Americans and native Americans for example and then
defining their humanity away as a part of an oppressive
process.
>> Or, to switch the question, why is a castrated male on
>>hormones considered female?
This isn't a question really. It's a statement with forgone
conclusions beginning with a why and ending with a question
mark. You've already classed the individual with your
elementary understanding of biology.
>>No. I don't automatically buy into the notion that the
>>self can be separated from the body.
The "self" is a psychological entity. It certainly can be
separated from the body. Find a decapitated individual and
find the self in the body. Please let me know what you come
up with...
>> And, once again, there is a notion here that females
>>have a set of psychological characteristics and males
>>have another set and no cross-wiring allowed.
This is a notion you've propagated everytime it has served
you.
>>As for cause-and-effect--there seems to be way too little
>>study of what causes the sense of gender displacement.
>>For some reason, we consider the scalpel the best
>>treatment of a not understood delicate psychological
>>dilemma.
ALL of the available data does indicate that the identity
is not the least bit delicate. In fact once formed does not
seem to be the least bit malleable.
>> I mean, isn't that a rather primitive Freudian
definition of woman?
>> Basically, men without shlongs? If you take away that
which is
>> obviously male then one is, by default, female? Why?
We all start out female. Without very specific hormonal,
not chromosomal intervention a human fetus will develop in
the female direction.
This by the way is not a freudian proposition.
>>Freud believed that women wanted penises--that they felt
>>deprived and inadequate as a result. Freud's theories
>>fall neatly in line with a fair amount
>>of phallocentric thought--
It's interesting that you should bring this up. I have many
lesbian friends who express a desire for a penis. When I've
asked them why, they've said "because I think it would be
fun" I have not detected any sense of feeling of inadequacy
from them.
Emma
J. Karlin
> I'm reading an essay at:
>
> http://capo.org/premise/95/sep/p950805.html
>
> that examines "the elements that gave rise to postmodernism",
Well, realize that is is designed, as is occult tarot, to be
unintelligible to uninitiates. The jargon alone is enough to
put most people off, yet the willingness to learn it, and
to newspeak it, is supposed to indicate a "seriousness"
that those who like things clearer are obviously not
supposed to possess.
Deconstructing "their" jargon will be one of the more
challenging things we do in any debate about pm-tarot.
So, you might look about for some "pro" and "con"
sites, looking to get a rounder picture of what
you're dealing with.
Of course, recall that if it's not at least 50,000
words long, it can't possibly be of any help to you.
J. Karlin
> 'Postmodernist'? Whatever we may think of the term, however much or little
> we may be satisfied with it, one thing is certain: the referent of
> 'postmodernism', the *thing* to which the term claims to refer, *does not
> exist*...
Now, doesn't that remind you of something. Ilan?
Something pomo?
Something we've heard for years, and continue to hear even today---no
one can provide any definitions, any meanings, any referents.
It's all subjective, it's all quite cloudy.
How helpful it is to cloud things up, right before you turn
nothing into an academic "discipline".
Yes, this should be fun.
J. Karlin
> > > 'Postmodernist'? Whatever we may think of the term, however much or little
> > > we may be satisfied with it, one thing is certain: the referent of
> > > 'postmodernism', the *thing* to which the term claims to refer, *does not
> > > exist*...
> >
> > Now, doesn't that remind you of something. Ilan?
>
> Yes. I quoted it. I have an entire book that I am reading---
"an entire book"?
Instead of photocopies?
Must be quite demanding.
> in which the implied author---
What is an "implied author"?
> constructs a descriptive poetics of postmodernism.
How is that different than a desriptive narrative or explanation
of postmodernism?
> You have very recently written a post on the Tower card -
Yes, and what do you think I said in that post?
> in which YOU said something that was not at all dissimilar to what
> was expressed in quote.
But, I'm not promoting what I said as a critical theory.
It is simply what the card is about.
It is not the only card.
> > Something pomo?
>
> That all languages, all buildings, all towers, all prejudices, all
> knowledge is constructed. Yes. But it also sounds damn close to the post
> you just wrote on the Tower card.
Maybe you did not read my post that carefully. Again, I
wasn't promoting a theory, I was explaining a meaning.
And that meaning referred to something---the symbolism
of a tarot card.
If postmodernism is about something, then it will also
have a meaning, and that meaning will refer to something.
It is stupid to claim otherwise.
> In what way exactly is the argument that is presented by postmodern
> theorists different to your interpretation of the Tower card.
For one thing, I didn't take 50,000 words to make my point.
For another thing, the Tower is only ONE way of looking at
things.
There are other ways.
> > Something we've heard for years, and continue to hear even today---no
> > one can provide any definitions, any meanings, any referents.
>
> Thats not exactly what's being said. What's being said is that the
> referents (if they are not real world objects) are constructed.
Even the "real world objects" are constructed, as are the meanings
we apply to them.
So what?
> And it never never said that all referents are constructed equally.
Why not? And what does "equal" mean? If you have a system or
a hierarchy, that is an attempt to apply valuations of
things. On what basis are those valuations made in
postmodernism?
And there's something implied in the observation that all
things are constructed. Isn't there a kind of moral suggestion
there---that if the constructions may not be equal, the
fact they are constructions, and human constructions
equalizes things---there is no objective truth, because
all truth is merely a construction.
What is meant in postmodernism when it is said
that something is a construction?
> Some constructions are better than others -
For what exactly?
> > It's all subjective, it's all quite cloudy.
>
> No more cloudy than studying Tarot.
Then pomo tarot makes sense to you?
That was quick.
> There is a lot of Yam crap masquerading as post-modernistic thought.
How would we identify it as being crap as opposed to a good
pomo "construction"?
> > How helpful it is to cloud things up, right before you turn
> > nothing into an academic "discipline".
>
> Again. I would like to know how the Tower card does not contain similar
> ideas.
The Tower is a tarot card, not an academic discipline or a
critical theory (not yet, anyway).
Again, it is only one card.
> > Yes, this should be fun.
>
> The Tower? Fun? Well I guess so.
Best to welcome the inevitable.
J. Karlin
> Section 3.0 attempts to answer the question "What is Postmodernism?"
Are you attracted to this discussion? I've been trying to have it,
although in a passive sort of way (waiting for others to start
it) for years now, but no one would ever bite.
So, maybe we can finally figure out what "pomotiers" are
all about. Although pomo really doesn't allow for finally
figuring anything out. Too exclusive.
MLYoung
>The central tenet you offer here, is an erroneous extention
>of what occurs in western culture which is that sex and
>gender are one and the same. Your line of thinking con-
>flates, or erroneously combines the two. You begin speaking
>of womanhood and fe-maleness
> as if they are the same they
>are not.
No. I've not said that. Indeed, I'm
quite aware of the difference. However,
there is a connection between the
two.
>From your writing it's really difficult to tell whether you
>are equating egg bearing with womanhood or femaleness.
>I am
>a lesbian and my partner has had a hysterectomy. She is no
>no longer and egg bearer but by your logic she ceases to be
>female and a woman.
No. Once again, I specifically did
not make that claim. However, if she
produced sperm, I would not classify
her as a woman.
I am simply pointing out the biological
basis for sexual differentiation. That
not all women bear eggs does not
change the basic intent of the design.
>While we are sticking to your biological essentialism,
>which you cling to, to hurt, reject and feel superior to
>another human being, it may or may not come as a surprise
>to you to know that there are naturally born XX males and
>XY females.
You're rather overemotional and prone
to ladling out labels--just thought I'd
mention it. As for XX males and XY
females--there is, indeed, some
question about sex and gender. I don't
know about you, but I think it's a little
gross how eager we are to trim the
genitalia of babies to fit one category
or another--that we insist that they
be one thing or another.
>>>As for me, I'm a standard, functioning model. I have none
>>>of the traits of an XY or XXY female and all the traits
>>>of an XX.
>
>Which kind? An XX born with or without a penis?
Sweetie, you're getting hysterical--standard
XXs don't come with penises and I,
if not you, am willing to acknowledge
the existence of hermaphrodies and
pseudohermaphrodites without trying
to lump them into one of two gender
categories.
>>>Chromosomes don't operate in a vacuum.
>
>The "sex determining" chromosomes do not operate much at
>all after the blastula stage of development.
Irrelevant, dear, point is an XY female
does not develop "normally" during
adolescence--which is often when the
chromosomal abnormality is detected.
<diatribe snipped>
And, this, by the way, is why I used
the egg v. sperm definition. If nothing
else, it takes birds into consideration.
>Since you claim some expertise in biology, you are probably
No, I've actually made no claims
one way or another. Do you ever
pay attention to what you're responding?
Or are you too busy trying to place
me in your enemy box?
Also you're dodging a key point here--
we're not talking about someone born
with chromosomal/hormonal abnormalities,
we're talking about a man who is
castrated and fed hormones who is
then said to be a woman or female,
On what grounds? Social constructs?
What does that mean? Desire? Why
is that so important? Lack of a penis?
>A second substance,
>mullerian inhibiting substance accompanies tes-tosterone
>and shuts down the tissues which are capable of developing
>into uteri, ovaries and fallopian tubes.
Yes, so what? This has nothing to do
with what passes for transgender
operations in adults.
>Testosterone also
>causes differences in brain structure or mor-phology. There
>is a "male" morphology and a "female" morphology in the
>brain. The two sexes process information differently and
>use different parts of the brain for solving the same
>problem.
Actually, there is no indication that these
"differences" are sexually innate and not
the result of environment and training.
Indeed, it would be stupid to be more
hard-wired. You're jumping to a
convenient conclusion.
> Male to female transexuals have at least in part a female
>brain morphology as de-scribed by Swaab in the Journal
>Nature (1995). Specifically "male to female" transsexu-als
>exhibit female sized basal stria terminalis centralis
>nuclei in the hypothalamus. I
Sigh, too bad, isn't it that you don't
know what you're talking about on
this one--it sounds so good. General
rule of thumb--try not to overinterpret
allometric differences.
>>>No, I simply pay attention to the fact of sex.
>
>The "fact" of sex is that there is no fact of sex. We walk
>around thinking of both sex and gender as being bi-polar.
>Gender occurs on a continuum.
That's one theory. However, there is
a fact of sex--egg-bearing v. sperm
bearing.
>Certainly American have our vulgarities. But after reading
>what you have to say I wonder if you like anyone?
>
Why do you assume I'm not American?
Indeed, you've made several assumptions
about me, none of which seem to
be accurate--not the least being that
you're not paying attention to what
I'm actually saying. You're creating
paper tigers.
>Even you may admit that's it's highly possibly to have a
>hybrid of these.
Sure, that's why I like "hir" and "s/he"
to describe them. See, you haven't
been paying attention.
>
>>>Being male is a birth defect? What a cruel notion.
>
><yawn> A deliberate misinterpretation of Michelle as a
>rhetorical tactic is truly unflattering.
>
>
Who cares about "unflattering"--there is
a truly ugly assumption here.
If you're so hip on there being a variety
of genders--why do you think it's
necessary to lop off organs to make
someone look like one or the other?
If you're so open-minded--why can't
there be womanly men and manly
women who aren't subjected to
dangerous amounts of chemicals and
surgery? Why is it so acceptable to
do this to healthy bodies?
What is this mental gender thing that
is so powerful that it requires this?
Why do you need to believe that there's
an inborn difference between the minds
of men and women that is this overwhelm-
ingly important?
You do not even see your own prejudices.
>>>But this does show some of the bias that concerns me--if
>>>the sole fact of being male is considered "a birth
>>>defect" there's a basic bias
>>>problem--all too familiar sounding, I might add, only
>>>it's traditionally been applied to the state of being
>>>female. I don't consider this an improvement.
>
>Interesting, we both read what Michelle wrote and I have a
>very different perception of what she said.
Not surprising--your agendas are clearly
similar.
>>> What makes Pollack female? Why are the correct and
>>>appropriate pronouns "her" and "she"?
>
>Since sex and gender really are not conflated…. "She"
Except, of course, they are. Indeed,
your long fetal riff shows that you think
there's a stronger link between sex
(biological function in reproduction) and
gender (social accepted constructs) than
I. You believe in a "masculine" mind
that is innate. I do not.
>and "her", gendered pronouns are determined by Pollack's
>gender which she says is feminine. Do you know Pollack's
>gender better than Pollack does? I doubt it.
If you think gender and sex are
unconnected, why, then, the need to
remove overtly male anatomy and
take hormones? If you think sex
has no bearing on gender--that woman
can be either egg producers or sperm
producers--that anyone can be anything
just for the wishing or because it feels
right, why do you bother with gender
distinctions at all?
Basically, unless you make some
linkage to sex, gender is meaningless.
It becomes a case of wishful thinking--
style without function--or as someone
said to me--a lifestyle instead of a life.
Which, by the way, is the weakness I
see in Pollack's work on tarot.
>People don't come in "models" as far as I know and it's
Actually, they do. It's just somewhat
uncomfortable for a lot of people to
consider themselves as physical
specimans that operate with varying
degrees of efficiency.
>true you have pointed this out before. There really is
>no "basic idea" what you describe is what you believe
>nature supplies us with. There are
Yes, actually, there is. Are you
actually pretending there are no
physical norms by which we judge
the health and functioning of people?
>women and females who
>are born without the anatomical features you describe. You
>would deny their femaleness and womanhood also?
No, I've not done so. However, I wouldn't
consider them to be fully functioning in
terms of reproduction and deviations from
the norm that serves as a biological
definition of female.
And, certainly, if they have/had testes,
I don't consider them female. I consider
those with ovotestes to be true
hermaphrodites and I consider it a shame
we don't allow for that variation in our
culture--we insist they take on a male
or female gender. Indeed, we operate
on their "birth defects."
>>>There are women who can't ovulate or bear children, but
>>>that doesn't mean
>>>they suddenly produce sperm and become men. Conversely,
>>>the inability to produce sperm by a male does not turn
>>>him into an egg producer.
>There is so very much more to humans than the gametes we
>produce.
Yes, but you'll find without the gametes
humans become nonexistent.
But, once again, if you want to transcend
biology, why stay hung up on gender,
which is, whether you like it or not,
rooted in sex and reproductive roles?
>>>I can neither deny nor give Pollack womanhood. Neither
>>>can anyone else-- what can be given is the eradication of
>>>certain male characteristics and an
>>>emulation of certain female ones
>
>by your definition….
Standard biology. And I'll take that over
some of the other nonsense I've heard,
but, then, I'm not personally vested in
restrictive gender roles. But then, I
don't see being a woman as an
attainment, it's simply a description
rooted in my supposed reproductive
function.
>>>but, once again, eradicating one's ability to produce
>>>sperm does not make one an egg-bearer. Nor does desire.
>
>
>Here is what you miss in your tidy world view….
>
>Yes there are people who produce sperm and who are
>psychologically masculine and whose observable psychomotor
>processes fall into a pattern consistent with "male" and
>who identitfy as male and as men.
>
>There are human beings with ovaries, fallopian tubes and
>uteri, and hormonal cycles
>who bear children and who identify as female and as women.
>
>There are also people who are in between and with
>combinations of these features. You may wish there weren't
>but that does not mean they don't exist.
Au contraire. I am simply less interested
than you in forcing them into one box
or the other and rather more interested
in the underlying assumptions about
what constitutes male or female.
>It's very obvious that your rhetorical position is one that
>is designed to define these peo-ple and to deny them their
>own identity because you don't understand them or may find
>them inconvenient.
Once again, you jump to all sorts of
conclusions. Perhaps it goes with your
need to pigeonhole people as one of
two genders and to avoid the hard truth
of sex--particularly when it interferes
with self-perception--after all, the notion
isn't particularly convenient.
>>> Or are you saying that there was no conflict between
>>>Pollack's internal perception of being feminine and
>>>external male manifestation? None? None at all?
>
>Only when sex and gender are conflated and misunderstood.
>
Hmmm, well, that's pretty much human
society. So, I guess there's a conflict.
>>biological reality, denies Pollack femaleness. You want
>>>social construct, the idea of gender, the *idea* of a
>>>woman's role, to bury the basic reality of sex.
>
>The basic reality of your choice? You choose to ignore what
>is really been seen in the field.
"The field"? What field is that?
Humanity? What has been really seen
in the field is a species that thinks of
itself in terms of two sexes and, indeed,
uses two sexes to reproduce.
Do I think there are people who feel
that their bodies don't mesh with
mental gender identity? Yes. Do I
think that crude surgery and hormones
is the answer? Maybe, but I have
some serious doubts about it.
I also see that you've wondered in
from somewhere with a spiel that you
launch regardless of what's being said.
>>>Yes, being a woman is a role, but it's one rooted in
>>>biological fact. And, as yet, no one's changed those
>>>facts-- at best, there's been a certain, crude external
>>>imitation.
>
>Certainly this form of thinking has been used against women
>since well before Aristotle. Such a statement doesn't play
>well with your use of biology as a form of oppression
>elsewhere in this post.
I don't see it as oppression--simply a
matter of clarity. I've no interest in
making sexual differentiation more or
less than what it is.
>
>You may be interested in Natalie Angier's book "Woman An
>intimate Geography (1999) where she says:
>
>"The womb does not define a woman philosophically,
>biologically or even etymologically. A woman does not need
>to be born with a uterus to be a woman; nor does she have
>to keep her uterus to remain a woman."
>Ms. Angier also includes a description of AIS women who are
>born with XY chromosomes.
Jamie Lee Curtis being the famous
example.
But, once again, unless you're willing
to root gender in something concrete,
why use it? You call my use of a
simple biological rule oppressive,
but I find it less oppressive than
behavioral standards.
>>> Why? How is it obvious? If my definition of female is
>>>based on certain biological criteria that Pollack does
>>>not meet, why is this bigotry on my part?
>
>It really isn't bigotry on your part.
>But it's important to
>note that your definition is not con-sistent with newer
>knowledge in the field. This is most interesting for
>someone having so much pride in her objectivism.
What newer information in the field--
your comments on fetal development
(and it's not new information to me)
don't have much bearing on the case
of transexuality. Even if you work
totally on gender as a social construct,
you have a basic problem with some
switching sexes midlife--is womanhood
really so simple an acquisition?
>The tactic is familiar however. Racists used to define what
>human beings were picking attributes
Your tactic is also familiar--and
unattractive.
absent in African
>Americans and native Americans for example and then
>defining their humanity away as a part of an oppressive
>process.
Gee, so if I dye my skin and declare
I'm black, am I African-American just
because I want to be? Are they
oppressors if they tell me I'm full of shit?
I don't know about you, but I consider
nonwomen fully human.
>>> Or, to switch the question, why is a castrated male on
>>>hormones considered female?
>
>This isn't a question really. It's a statement with forgone
>conclusions beginning with a why and ending with a question
>mark. You've already classed the
>individual with your
>elementary understanding of biology.
More than biology. This person was
raised and socially identified as male.
Biologically, of course, the male ID
was also made. As for your nattering
about brain processing--I haven't heard
of CAT scan results being used as a criteria.
But you're dodging the question--
as did your predecessor. If it's not
biology that makes a woman, what
is it and on what is it based? Why
do we consider a castrated male on hormones female? Self-identification?
Why is that so important?
>>>No. I don't automatically buy into the notion that the
>>>self can be separated from the body.
>
>The "self" is a psychological entity. It certainly can be
>separated from the body.
>Find a decapitated individual and
>find the self in the body. Please let me know what you come
>up with...
>
Flawed logic on your part unless you
can find me a self without a body.
The two appear quite linked.
>>> And, once again, there is a notion here that females
>>>have a set of psychological characteristics and males
>>>have another set and no cross-wiring allowed.
>
>This is a notion you've propagated everytime it has served
>you.
And you're not dealing with it. Yes,
I know. You're quite attached to
gender roles in your own way.
>>For some reason, we consider the scalpel the best
>>>treatment of a not understood delicate psychological
>>>dilemma.
>
>ALL of the available data does indicate that the identity
>is not the least bit delicate. In fac
In fact, ALL the available date indicates
that we don't know why this happens.
And I can think of at least one case
I know of personally where the male
in question began treatments and
then after a couple of years decided
he was really male after all and stopped.
Also, the criteria for sex change operations
are based on some rather outdated
conventions and assumptions.
>f you take away that
>which is
>>> obviously male then one is, by default, female? Why?
>
>We all start out female. Without very specific hormonal,
>not chromosomal intervention a human fetus will develop in
>the female direction.
You're trying to mix natal development with
social constructs. Fetal development has
nothing to do with Freudian theory.
>This by the way is not a freudian proposition.
>
Then don't use it to answer a question
about Freud. That the default setting
of the fetus is female is not equivalent
to seeing women as men without penises.
>>>Freud believed that women wanted penises--that they felt
>>>deprived and inadequate as a result. Freud's theories
>>>fall neatly in line with a fair amount
>>>of phallocentric thought--
>It's interesting that you should bring this up. I have many
>lesbian friends who express a desire for a penis. When I've
>asked them why, they've said "because I think it would be
>fun" I have not detected any sense of feeling of inadequacy
>from them.
Well, that's for you and Freud's ghost
to figure out. Personally, I wouldn't
want the performance anxiety that
seems to go with it.
--margaret
edeejay
"J. Karlin" wrote: >
> But, first off, it WOULD be a good thing if we tried
> to limit the definition of the term, postmodernism,
> and to see how it might be reasonably applied to
> tarot.
> So, maybe you could attempt such a definition---please
> try to bring it in under 50,000 words---under 5,000
> even. If you know of some links that are not too
> obtusely presented and which you think might be
> helpful to getting the discussion going, why don't
> you provide them so people who are interested can
> start to get up to speed a bit.
I'm reading an essay at:
http://capo.org/premise/95/sep/p950805.html
that examines "the elements that gave rise to postmodernism", looks at
"the essentials of postmodern thought", and also examines and critiques
"postmodern thought in light of the Christian worldview".
ilan pillemer
On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, edeejay wrote:
>
>
> "J. Karlin" wrote: >
>
> > But, first off, it WOULD be a good thing if we tried
> > to limit the definition of the term, postmodernism,
> > and to see how it might be reasonably applied to
> > tarot.
>
> > So, maybe you could attempt such a definition---please
> > try to bring it in under 50,000 words---under 5,000
> > even. If you know of some links that are not too
> > obtusely presented and which you think might be
> > helpful to getting the discussion going, why don't
> > you provide them so people who areinterested can
> > start to get up to speed a bit.
"It is not even clear who deserves the credit - or the blame - for coining
it in the first place: Arnold Toybee? Charles Olson? Randall Jarrel? There
are plenty of candidates...
'Postmodernist'? Whatever we may think of the term, however much or little
we may be satisfied with it, one thing is certain: the referent of
'postmodernism', the *thing* to which the term claims to refer, *does not
exist*... [P]ostmodernism, the thing, does not exist precisely in the same
way that the "the Renaissance" or "romanticism" do not exist. There is no
postmodernism out there "out there" in the world any more than there ever
was a Renaissance or a romanticism "out there." These are all
literary-historical fictions, discursive artifacts constructed either by
contemporary readers and writers or retrospectively by literary
historians. And since they are are discursive constructs rather than
real-world objects, it is possible to construct them in a variety of ways,
making it necessary to discriminate among, say, the various constructions
of postmodernism, none of them any less "true" or less fictional than the
others, since *all* of them are finally fictions. Thus, there is John
Barth's postmodernism, the literature of replenishment; Charles Newman's
Postmodernism, the literature of an inflationary economy; Jean-Francois
Lyotard's postmodernism, a general condition of knowledge in the
contemporary informational regime; Ihab Hassan's postmodernism, a stage on
the road to the spiritual unification of humankind; and so on. There is
even Kermode's construction of postmodernism, which in effect constructs
it right out of existence.
Just because there are many possible constructions of postmodernism,
however, this does not mean that all constructs are equally interesting or
valuable, or that we are unable to choose between them..."
--- McHale Brian, Postmodernist Fiction, Methuen, [1987: NY]
So I would recommend everyone to read this book I have quoted from. Why?
Because (1) I have to read it anyway - (the selfish reason) - (2) Its
regarded as a seminal text in the descriptive poetics of postmodernism.
Ilan
ilan pillemer
On Tue, 25 Jan 2000, J. Karlin wrote:
> ilan pillemer wrote:
>
> > 'Postmodernist'? Whatever we may think of the term, however much or little
> > we may be satisfied with it, one thing is certain: the referent of
> > 'postmodernism', the *thing* to which the term claims to refer, *does not
> > exist*...
>
> Now, doesn't that remind you of something. Ilan?
Yes. I quoted it. I have an entire book that I am reading in which the
implied author constructs a descriptive poetics of postmodernism.
You have very recently written a post on the Tower card - in which YOU
said something that was not at all dissimilar to what was expressed in
quote.
>
> Something pomo?
That all languages, all buildings, all towers, all prejudices, all
knowledge is constructed. Yes. But it also sounds damn close to the post
you just wrote on the Tower card.
In what way exactly is the argument that is presented by postmodern
theorists different to your interpretation of the Tower card.
>
> Something we've heard for years, and continue to hear even today---no
> one can provide any definitions, any meanings, any referents.
Thats not exactly what's being said. What's being said is that the
referents (if they are not real world objects) are constructed.
And it never never said that all referents are constructed equally.
Some constructions are better than others - in that they are more useful.
More beautiful. More interesting.
>
> It's all subjective, it's all quite cloudy.
No more cloudy than studying Tarot.
There is a lot of Yam crap masquerading as post-modernistic thought.
Just like there is a lot of Yam crap masquerading as tarot learning.
>
> How helpful it is to cloud things up, right before you turn
> nothing into an academic "discipline".
Again. I would like to know how the Tower card does not contain similar
ideas.
>
> Yes, this should be fun.
The Tower? Fun? Well I guess so.
Sweetie Pie.
Leon
> >>Yes, being a woman is a role, but it's one rooted in
> >>biological fact. And, as yet, no one's changed those
> >>facts-- at best, there's been a certain, crude external
> >>imitation.
>
> Certainly this form of thinking has been used against women
> since well before Aristotle. Such a statement doesn't play
> well with your use of biology as a form of oppression
> elsewhere in this post.
Acknowledging biological differences is oppression?
Oh, come on!
--Leon
hilander
>But, first off, it WOULD be a good thing if we tried
>to limit the definition of the term, postmodernism,
>and to see how it might be reasonably applied to
>tarot.
>obtusely presented and which you think might be
>helpful to getting the discussion going, why don't
>you provide them so people who are interested can
>start to get up to speed a bit.
Came across the alt.postmodernism FAQ at:
http://www.netmeg.net/faq/people/philosophy/postmodernism/
Section 3.0 attempts to answer the question "What is Postmodernism?" That
particular section appears to be under 50,000 words, not sure about the
entire FAQ though.
Tea
MLYoung
>> since well before Aristotle. Such a statement doesn't play
>> well with your use of biology as a form of oppression
>> elsewhere in this post.
>
>Acknowledging biological differences is oppression?
>
>Oh, come on!
>
>--Leon
>
in the way of wishful thinking.
Death, for example, is oppressive,
therefore it must be *new beginnings*.
--margaret
ilan pillemer
On Tue, 25 Jan 2000, J. Karlin wrote:
> hilander wrote:
>
> > Section 3.0 attempts to answer the question "What is Postmodernism?"
>
> Are you attracted to this discussion? I've been trying to have it,
> although in a passive sort of way (waiting for others to start
> it) for years now, but no onewould ever bite.
>
> So, maybe we can finally figure out what "pomotiers" are
> all about. Although pomo really doesn't allow for finally
> figuring anything out. Too exclusive.
Look. Those decks you have been calling PoMo are not tarot decks.
You KNOW that.
But associating post-modernism (instead of simply con-artists) to those
decks you are doing an injustice to the idea of post-modernity.
To produce a deck that recognises the claims of post-modernity would not
be to make up a deck - but to study tarot and emphasize its points of
contradiction, self-referentiality and ideological assumptions. Something
YOU seem to me to have been doing in this newsgroup. For example the study
of the history of a system is one post-modern approach. Post-colonialists
(especially under the influence of Foucault) are enamoured to this
approach.
And again...
Any post modern approach to Tarot would necessitate a
knowledge of the construction of Tarot. A complete and rigorous critical
understanding of its language and the history of that language.
Exactly
how Tarot was constructed. YOU yourself are found of saying that before
Eliphas Levi, Tarot as an occult system, is just a pretty fairy-tale. You
yourself have pointed out that occult tarot was developed by figures such
as Waite and Crowley. YOU YOURSELF, have argued coherently and seemingly
undeniably about this construction of Tarot and the manner in which it
took place. Again. This is just the way things are.
Now.
This is what Tarot is (what you have been arguing for for years).
... and any post-modern deck would have to contain all these ideas of
the Tarot's constructers (Crowley, Waite et al)
... plus a recognition of its history into the cards.
IN FACT, when I sit back and conjecture on what a real Post-Modern deck
would look like, I see Mary Greer shitting in her pants. I see Tarot-l
screaming in anger. The last thing they want is an exhaustively designed
Tarot deck (that fully incorporates the ideas of Crowley and/or Waite)
AS WELL AS recognising its HISTORY.
In fact what I imagine as a Post-Modern deck (something I know only YOU,
of the people who post to this newsgroup seem to have the ability to
produce - well probably Bunny Bob as well could do a good job too -)
IS THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE of what you called PoMo.
In fact what you call PoMo tends to be badly conceived junk.
And if it is well conceived it has no relation to Tarot in its ideas.
Again... a Post-modern deck would not be allowed to corrupt, ignore, or
otherwise invalidate the ideas of Tarot - rather it needs to have such a
comprehensive understanding of that system that it can reveal the system's
history (and ie its construction) in its presentation.
Right or Wrong?
Sweetie Pie.
>
> (jk)
>
> **********************************************
>
> Read the alt.tarotFAQ:
>
~tiny ibis~
> Sweaty Pi wrote:
>
> Right or Wrong?
That would depend upon your viewpoint, wouldn't it?
~tiny ibis~
"Walk this world with me"
Leon
> Oppression's anything that gets
> in the way of wishful thinking.
> Death, for example, is oppressive,
> therefore it must be *new beginnings*.
I guess Rhianna's attitude is a fairly typical example of that way of
(non-)thinking. But, how blind must you be to justify that? Looking at the
Thoth deck, there *is* this rather busy skeleton which is very prominent.
And while he does have a headdress that looks conspicuously like that of
Osiris, and a phoenix above his head, these don't strike me as the focus of
the card -- that has to be the skeleton, engaged in his dance with the
bubbles.
To me, suggesting it's *just* about new beginnings and brushing to the side
what's clearly the central motif of the card, isn't even wishful thinking.
It's either wilfull ignorance, or blatant deceit.
--Leon
Sue
<Pine.BSI.3.96-heb-2.07.1...@pob.huji.ac.il>, ilan
pillemer <sh...@pob.huji.ac.il> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2000, J. Karlin wrote:
>
> > hilander wrote:
> >
> > > Section 3.0 attempts to answer the question "What is Postmodernism?"
> >
> > Are you attracted to this discussion? I've been trying to have it,
> > although in a passive sort of way (waiting for others to start
> > it) for years now, but no onewould ever bite.
> >
> > So, maybe we can finally figure out what "pomotiers" are
> > all about. Although pomo really doesn't allow for finally
> > figuring anything out. Too exclusive.
>
> Look. Those decks you have been calling PoMo are not tarot decks.
>
> You KNOW that.
>
> But associating post-modernism (instead of simply con-artists) to those
> decks you are doing an injustice to the idea of post-modernity.
(Sue senses that ilan is wearing his Super Post-Modern Hero Yo-Yoing
outfit while typing this.)
Hey, Ilan! Your forgot your cape! Everyone knows you can't do the
Superhero thing without the cape. I mean, the yo-yo thing is way cool and
brings a uniquely "you" statement to this whole superhero thing, but you
are simply never going to make it to the top of the whole superhero food
chain if you don't remember to wear your cape.
hilander
J. Karlin wrote in message <388E1297...@texas.net>...
>Are you attracted to this discussion?
Yes, actually I am.
PoMo/Postmodern are terms that I have heard frequently but I hadn't given
any real thought to what they mean until you asked for a definition.
The one I had in my mind is not necessarily a very good definition, in fact,
the more I read on the subject the more I see that I had a very superficial
definition.
I had defined PoMo as defining a 'time frame' that also included other
philosophical/political movements (such as feminism). I pegged it as
starting sometime in the '60s. Kind of like an 'anarchistic' movement.
Andy Warhol pops into mind [so does early David Bowie and Marilyn Manson].
>So, maybe we can finally figure out what "pomotiers" are
>all about.
Would be nice, no sure how easy it will be. Some thoughts on the
definitions I've come across so far.
One theme that runs through many definitions is: rejecting tradition or
that which has been 'established'.
One notion is that the 'philosophy' of PoMo rejects any promotion or
acceptance of traditions if they are perceived to be absolutes (something
that promotes itself as The Truth or The ONLY Way)
and rejection can take the form of ignoring the percieved 'absolute' OR a
deliberate attack/ridicule of the perceived 'absolute'.
Another notion that overlaps the previous notion is that PoMo 'philosophy'
embraces total freedom and resists any attempts to confine or conform.
[aside: ironic that there should be a *rule*
of No Rules Allowed!! Captain Kirk & company could have used that one on
Adam 1 to get Mud's captor to be overloaded].
One PoMo rationalization of the rejection of 'absolute' [which I believe can
also include *tradition*] and embrace of 'freedom' is the belief that
everything can only be known by the perceiver so, I gather, in PoMo thought,
*every* perceiver is equally important to every other perceiver. A frequent
expression of PoMo is very 'self-reflective'.
PoMo is expressed when it completely ignores 'tradition' and does its own
thing because every perceiver [so also perceptions too, as I understand it]
is equally important and valid.
PoMo may also express itself by attacking or parodying the 'absolute'. In
this form of expression, at the very least, a basic understanding of the
tradition must be known. The more knowledge one has on the subject, as well
as a variety of others, the better to attack or pull apart the subject [thus
demonstrating it wasn't as much of an 'absolute' as tradition may have
implied].
So what I understand so far is that PoMo tarot, for example, would be one
that either ignores tradition and does its own thing OR it would
deliberately parody or attack the tradition [because tradition is perceived
to be an attempt to promote an 'absolute' (something that claims to be the
*One* or *Truth*)]
While Modern tarot would have *constructed* itself on traditions, PoMo tarot
would *deconstruct* those same traditions to create itself.
OK, I took a stab at it.
Tea
edeejay
Leon wrote: >
> I guess Rhianna's attitude is a fairly typical example of that way of
> (non-)thinking. But, how blind must you be to justify that? Looking at the
> Thoth deck, there *is* this rather busy skeleton which is very prominent.
> And while he does have a headdress that looks conspicuously like that of
> Osiris, and a phoenix above his head, these don't strike me as the focus of
> the card -- that has to be the skeleton, engaged in his dance with the
> bubbles.
"The "Dance of Death" was originally a species of spectacular play akin
to the English moralities. It has been traced back to the middle of the
fourteenth century. The epidemics so frequent and so destructive at that
time, such as the Black Death, brought before popular imagination the
subject of death and its universal sway. The dramatic movement then
developing led to its treatment in the dramatic form. In these plays
Death appeared not as the destroyer, but as the messenger of God
summoning men to the world beyond the grave, a conception familiar both
to the Holy Bible and to the ancient poets. The dancing movement of the
characters was a somewhat later development, as at first Death and his
victims moved at a slow and dignified gait. But Death, acting the part
of a messenger, naturally took the attitude and movement of the day,
namely the fiddlers and other musicians, and the dance of death was the
result.
The purpose of these plays was to teach the truth that all men must die
and should therefore prepare themselves to appear before their Judge."
[From essay on "Dance of Death", Catholic Encyclopedia,
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04617a.htm]
ilan pillemer
> starting sometime in the '60s. Kind of like an 'anarchistic' movement.
> Andy Warhol pops into mind [so does early David Bowie and Marilyn Manson].
Anarchism goes back to Europe many decades before the '60s. Anarchism long
predates postmodernism.
>
> Would be nice, no sure how easy it will be. Some thoughts on the
> definitions I've come across so far.
> One theme that runs through many definitions is: rejecting tradition or
> that which has been 'established'.
Every single movement or system of thought rejected the preceding one.
According to this incredibly stupid definition; modernism is post-modern
because it rejects pre-modernism. Science is post-modern etc. In fact
every single movement would be. Are you really this clueless?
> One notion is that the 'philosophy' of PoMo rejects any promotion or
> acceptance of traditions if they are perceived to be absolutes (something
> that promotes itself as The Truth or The ONLY Way)
Modernism did that as well.
Didn't you bother to read my post?
> and rejection can take the form of ignoring the percieved 'absolute' OR a
> deliberate attack/ridicule of the perceived 'absolute'.
Modernism did that as well. As does science.
> Another notion that overlaps the previous notion is that PoMo 'philosophy'
> embraces total freedom and resists any attempts to confine or conform.
It calls for rigorous thought and critical analysis of the assumptions of
any given ideology. In that way it is related to Foucault, Derrida, Freud,
Marx, Heidegger.
> One PoMo rationalization of the rejection of 'absolute' [which I believe can
> also include *tradition*] and embrace of 'freedom' is the belief that
> everything can only be known by the perceiver so, I gather, in PoMo thought,
> *every* perceiver is equally important to every other perceiver. A frequent
> expression of PoMo is very 'self-reflective'.
Absolutely untrue. That would be modernistic.
Postmodernism challenges the very existence of the atomic individual. Its
a clear questioning of liberalism and its notion of a hermetically sealed
individual. Postmodernism sees the human personality as constructed - as
non-atomic.
You are very mis-informed.
> PoMo is expressed when it completely ignores 'tradition' and does its own
> thing because every perceiver [so also perceptions too, as I understand it]
> is equally important and valid.
Did you not read my post?
Postmodernism does by no means see different constructs as equally
important and valid. Although it recognises that all structures are
constructed - it does not see all these constructions as equally valid,
important useful or interesting.
> PoMo may also express itself by attacking or parodying the 'absolute'. In
> this form of expression, at the very least, a basic understanding of the
> tradition must be known.
In fact. The value of the postmodern criticism is wholly dependent on the
level of understanding of the structure in question. When Derrida
deconstructs a text (or De Man or Barbara Johnson) they have much more
than a 'basic' understanding.
> The more knowledge one has on the subject, as well
> as a variety of others, the better to attack or pull apart the subject [thus
> demonstrating it wasn't as much of an 'absolute' as tradition may have
> implied].
The deconstructionist term is to 'explode' the text being deconstructed.
After Derrida 'exploded' Levi-Strauss - Levi-Strauss only referred to
Derrida as 'that man'.
> So what I understand so far is that PoMo tarot, for example, would be one
> that either ignores tradition and does its own thing OR it would
> deliberately parody or attack the tradition [because tradition is perceived
> to be an attempt to promote an 'absolute' (something that claims to be the
> *One* or *Truth*)]
Well. You don't know what postmodernism is or what its purposes goals or
causes are.
I doubt you know what Tarot is either.
> While Modern tarot would have *constructed* itself on traditions, PoMo tarot
> would *deconstruct* those same traditions to create itself.
You don't even know what the terms mean.
>
> OK, I took a stab at it.
Bullshit.
You didnt even read my post which would have prevented this needless
display about ignorance.
Sweetie Pie
>
> Tea
>
>
>
>
>
J. Karlin
> Look. Those decks you have been calling PoMo are not tarot decks.
Why not?
Be specific (you might have to quote the FAQ to be that of course).
> You KNOW that.
You don't know what the fuck I know, little moo-cow.
The question is whether you know what the fuck YOU know.
> But associating post-modernism (instead of simply con-artists)---
Why would "postmodernist" and "con-artist" be considered a
contradictory association?
Be specific.
> to those decks you are doing an injustice to the idea of post-modernity.
What "injustice" am I doing?
Be specific.
What is the "idea" of postmodernity?
Be specific.
> To produce a deck that recognises the claims of post-modernity---
What are the "claims" of postmodernity?
Be specific.
> would not be to make up a deck -
What do you mean "make up a deck"?
> but to study tarot and emphasize its points of
> contradiction,
Is that what postmodernism is about, emphasizing "points of
contradiction"?
What kinds of contradiction?
What are the "points of contradiction" of tarot?
Why are these important, or postmodernly important?
> self-referentiality---
What is that?
Why would a pomo-tarot deck need to do that or include that?
> and ideological assumptions.
What are the "ideological assumptions" of postmodernity?
Or postmodernism?
> Something YOU seem to me to have been doing in this newsgroup.
As I've often said, I'm not responsible for what people
here imagine me to be saying and doing.
I'm just writing about tarot.
> For example the study of the history of a system is one
> post-modern approach.
So, all people who study the history of a system are postmodernists?
Or, just postmodernists who study the history of a system are
postmodernists?
What about people who reject the notion one should have to
"study the history" because it then tends to elevate the
"historians" as a class of metanarrators? Are they not
also postmodernists?
Are you familiar with the term, "pagan", as it applies
to postmodernism? Can you tell us what it means?
> Post-colonialists (especially under the influence of Foucault)---
What are post-colonialists? What do they believe in?
Be specific---and concise.
> are enamoured to this
> approach.
So, now you're saying that "post-colonialists" study the history of
a system? So, again, are all people who study the history of a
system are "post-colonialists", or do post-colonialists like to
study the history of a system?
And whose history? By what parameters is this "study" conducted,
and for what objectives is it pursued?
Be specific.
> And again...
>
> Any post modern approach to Tarot would necessitate a
> knowledge of the construction of Tarot.
Wouldn't any approach (to what, though?) to Tarot necessitate a
knowledge of the construction of Tarot?
"structure" is also a "modernist" concern, right?
Or, an engineering concern? An architectural concern?
> A complete and rigorous critical understanding of its language and
> the history of that language.
Would be the concern of anyone wanting to learn tarot.
But why necessarily is THAT postmodern?
> Exactly how Tarot was constructed. YOU yourself are found of saying that before
> Eliphas Levi, Tarot as an occult system, is just a pretty fairy-tale.
If I ever said that, it was for aesthetic "effect", not as a statement
about history---but it is "true" in a way.
> You yourself have pointed out that occult tarot was developed by figures such
> as Waite and Crowley.
But a number of people have pointed that out.
What is "postmodernist" about pointing that out?
> YOU YOURSELF, have argued coherently and seemingly
> undeniably about this construction of Tarot and the manner in which it
> took place. Again. This is just the way things are.
But, why is that "postmodernist"?
> Now.
What?
> This is what Tarot is (what you have been arguing for for years).
What is what tarot is?
> ... and any post-modern deck would have to contain all these ideas---
All what ideas? All you seem to be saying is that any postmodern
deck would have to be traditional and historical (whatever those
terms are meant to imply). Then, postmodernism would imply a
respect for and coherence to what may reasonably be argued are
often erroneous and even authoritarian "historical" constructions.
It's got to be about something more than that.
What about DEconstruction? Or, more than this, DISruption?
What role do those things play in a postmodern "approach"
to things?
> IN FACT, when I sit back and conjecture on what a real Post-Modern deck
> would look like, I see Mary Greer shitting in her pants.
I would prefer not to see such a thing.
I think most here would prefer not to see such a thing.
Why are you afraid to accept Mary Greer into your club?
> I see Tarot-l screaming in anger.
Well, they are prone to that.
But, why can't Mary be a pomo?
Be specific.
> The last thing they want is an exhaustively designed
> Tarot deck (that fully incorporates the ideas of Crowley and/or Waite)
Ilan, it IS a piece of cardboard, you know.
It's not meant to be "exhaustively designed". It's meant
to be a collection of pertinent metaphors, or symbols.
About particular ideas.
How would a deck "fully incorporate" the ideas of Crowley and
Waite and everyone who ever said or did anything about tarot
and why should it have to do that?
And if this were the case, wouldn't then a pomo deck, as you
would define its needs, ALSO have to include the ideas of
people who, as you say, have not made tarot decks, but
HAVE at least respected certain structural facts of tarot?
Ilan, you don't know much about tarot---including structurally---
so how can you reasonably assess what needs to go into it?
You instead seem to be saying that if we are to create
a postmodern tarot, postmodernism will dictate what needs
to go into tarot.
But, this "rule" you've come up with, which seems to be
a kind of "kitchen sink" rule, is simply absurd. It has
no bearing upon the practical REAL construction of
a tarot deck, or much of anything really. If you
wanted, for example, to claim that a poem should
be postmodernly constructed using your rules, it
would be the biggest (literal) mess anyone has
ever seen. Maybe that's what you're trying to say.
Any creation or construction is as much about what
is NOT said, and NOT added, as it is about what
is thought necessary to be there to comply with
some silly rules of "inclusion".
Sure, I insist that tarot be about something, and
about something particular, but that's not a desire
on my part---it is, as you say, just the facts
of seeing tarot clearly. In the accumulation of myriad
junk that piles up on tarot cards over the centuries,
I see patterns and paradigms. I find those interesting
and pertinent to a discussion of what tarot
is about. But, I don't think that this then
leads to a definition of tarot that demands that
patterns and paradigms naturally occur by piling
up lots of junk onto pieces of cardboard (despite
the fact a Jungian would certainly claim otherwise).
I don't, in other words, recommend that tarot be
done in the way it has been done.
Do you understand?
You are confusing what I say about the facts of the
subject (how it has been done) with what I might believe
about the best way in which to DO the subject, or to
intelligently develop the subject.
These are different things.
> IS THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE of what you called PoMo.
Again, this title is one created and absorbed by pomos themselves.
Explain why they are mistaken to apply it to themselves and to
their decks.
> In fact what you call PoMo tends to be badly conceived junk.
Not all of it. Some of it is simply not conceived with any
particularly ideological system in governance of its construction.
Some more of it resists "historical" authority and structure
in view of other, more pertinent (to the class of pomos
in question) ideological assumptions.
Personally, I prefer tarot with some ideas and some systematic
ideas---but most of all with some interesting ideas. But,
early tarot probably didn't have any one system, it was
mostly a mish-mash of ideas, perhaps loosely constructed around
triumphal or apocalyptic motifs, but it's still tarot and it's
still "good", in certain ways. I don't blame people for
not sticking to a plan or system of construction they
could not have known about because it was not in existence,
but I think you can blame people for not sticking to, or
not more convincingly rebelling against, a plan (occultist)
which so clearly guides their pomo attempts to fit into
a mysterious mold.
You see, what bothers me about pomo, some of it, is precisely
what you're claiming pomo would "need" to be, that there is
SOME (generally ignorant) reverence for old structures and
symbols, but only in so far as those can be made to perform
a postmodern role---to be "relevant" to some disadvantaged
group who wants to use tarot to assist in its attainment
of self-esteem.
Why do you think that would not be a proper application
or expression of postmodernism?
Be specific.
> And if it is well conceived it has no relation to Tarot in its ideas.
Again, not necessarily.
The pattern or the paradigm does seem to have some
(beneficially) constructive influence of its own---upon people
who are aesthetically open to it.
Why do they have to be "postmodernist" to be open to it?
> Again... a Post-modern deck would not be allowed to---
"be allowed to"?
By whom?
According to what rulebook?
You make postmodernism sound like a religion, or a secret
order.
> corrupt, ignore, or otherwise invalidate the ideas of Tarot -
What good is it then?
> rather it needs to have such a
> comprehensive understanding of that system that it can reveal the system's
> history (and ie its construction) in its presentation.
>
> Right or Wrong?
I don't know.
I don't know what you're talking about.
I don't think you know either.
hilander
ilan pillemer wrote in message ...
>Didn't you bother to read my post?
I tried but as far as I could tell it was simply quoting someone else's
words that were out of context of the whole body of thier work and I
couldn't decipher what you were tring to promote.
>>PoMo 'philosophy'
>> embraces total freedom and resists any attempts to confine or conform.
>It calls for rigorous thought and critical analysis of the assumptions of
>any given ideology.
How is your statement in conflict with the above statement? If PoMo
philosophy doesn't like to stuff things into neat little boxes [stereotype,
label, etc., etc.] because it runs the risk of becoming an 'absolute'
(something to be rejected), how does that negate your definition of pursuit
of rigorous thought and critical analysis?
What I am suggesting is that the PoMo philosophy is going to resist any
attempts at confining an ideology (especially one they have picked apart or
picked on) to ONE expression or definition.
In the context of PoMo thought, 'defining PoMo' seems to be as much an
oxymoron as 'Anarchist Organization'.
>> One PoMo rationalization of the rejection of 'absolute' [which I believe
can
>> also include *tradition*] and embrace of 'freedom' is the belief that
>> everything can only be known by the perceiver so, I gather, in PoMo
thought,
>> *every* perceiver is equally important to every other perceiver. A
frequent
>> expression of PoMo is very 'self-reflective'.
>
>Absolutely untrue. That would be modernistic.
So then you would disagree with the following:
"Lyotard, for example, speaks especially of the replacement of any *grand
narrative* [les
grands recits] by more local `accounts' of reality as distinctive of
postmodernism and postmodernity."
and
"Postmodernist analysis is often marked by forms of writing that are more
literary, certainly more self-reflexive, than is common in critical
writing - the critic as self-conscious creator of new meanings upon the
ground of the object of study, showing that object no special respect.
It prefers montage to perspective, intertextuality to referentiality,
`bits-as-bits' to unified totalities. It delights in excess, play,
carnival, asymmetry, even mess, and in the emancipation of meanings from
their bondage to mere lumpenreality."
>In fact. The value of the postmodern criticism is wholly dependent on the
>level of understanding of the structure in question. When Derrida
>deconstructs a text (or De Man or Barbara Johnson) they have much more
>than a 'basic' understanding.
I wrote that active PoMo 'criticism' AT THE VERY LEAST needs a *basic*
understanding. [I added the word 'active' because I believe it's possible
for something to be associated with PoMo 'philosophy'
that is more like an accident or co-incidence as opposed to conscious
effort].
Are you suggesting that ALL PoMo criticism always has more than that? That
ALL PoMo critics and philosophers are very well educated?
>Well. You don't know what postmodernism is or what its purposes goals or
causes are.
I am waiting to read what *your* definition is as you understand it and not
some photocopied words that you've reproduced in electronic form which gives
no indication of if you understand or have an opinion on what you've copied.
Tea
MLYoung
>It calls for rigorous thought and critical analysis of the assumptions of
>Marx, Heidegger.
Bzzzt! Wrong. Freud and Marx are
quintessential modernists and both
of them were ideological to boot--
particularly Marx.
It's not simply questioning any given
ideology, it's questioning the very
notion of ideology itself.
>>
>> OK, I took a stab at it.
>
>Bullshit.
>
>You didnt even read my post which would have prevented this needless
>display about ignorance.
Oh, get over yourself, Ilan. Your post
was a badly written assemblage of
quotes geared more toward displaying
your "superior" knowledge than giving
people a clear idea of what postmodernism
is.
--margaret
>
>Sweetie Pie
MLYoung
>Ilan wrote:
>> The last thing they want is an exhaustively designed
>> Tarot deck (that fully incorporates the ideas of Crowley and/or Waite)
>
>Ilan, it IS a piece of cardboard, you know.
And such a deck would also be
more modern than postmodern in
conception.
>> Again... a Post-modern deck would not be allowed to---
>
>"be allowed to"?
>
>By whom?
>
>According to what rulebook?
>
>You make postmodernism sound like a religion, or a secret
>order.
Despite his best efforts, Ilan just isn't
a postmodernist. He's attempting to
make absolutes out of a group of theories
that question the very notion.
--margaret
MLYoung
>>Didn't you bother to read my post?
>
>I tried but as far as I could tell it was simply quoting someone else's
>words that were out of context of the whole body of thier work and I
>couldn't decipher what you were tring to promote.
None of us could, including, I suspect,
Ilan.
>
>>>PoMo 'philosophy'
>>> embraces total freedom and resists any attempts to confine or conform.
>
>>It calls for rigorous thought and critical analysis of the assumptions of
>>any given ideology.
>
>How is your statement in conflict with the above statement? If PoMo
>philosophy doesn't like to stuff things into neat little boxes [stereotype,
>label, etc., etc.] because it runs the risk of becoming an 'absolute'
>(something to be rejected), how does that
No, not rejected. It's more that the truth/
reality cannot be fully perceived. Ever.
You then get a breakdown between those
who say it exists, but beyond our grasp
and those who say there is no reality.
negate your definition of pursuit
>of rigorous thought and critical analysis?
>What I am suggesting is that the PoMo philosophy is going to resist any
>attempts at confining an ideology (especially one they have picked apart or
>picked on) to ONE expression or definition.
This statement, alas, is then inherently
contradictory. If there can be single no
definition of an ideology, well, then, no
point in trying to define postmodernism . . .
<g>
Fortunately, I'm not a postmodernist.
>
>In the context of PoMo thought, 'defining PoMo' seems to be as much an
>oxymoron as 'Anarchist Organization'.
Which also exist.
--margaret
J. Karlin
> ilan pillemer wrote in message ...
> >Didn't you bother to read my post?
>
> I tried but as far as I could tell it was simply quoting someone else's
> words---
See, Ilan, that's what I'm talking about. You need to
be courteous and respectful and competent in your
quoting.
Stop snickering you two in the back---how does detention
sound? Oh, not so funny NOW, is it?
> that were out of context of the whole body of thier work and I
> couldn't decipher what you were tring to promote.
And a trend is established.
See how quickly these threads degenerate from topical to
personal. Or, to postmodernly extrapolate, DO they really
degenerate or are they always merely personal, merely local?
Anyway, it would be nice if people at least tried to fucking
talk to each other like they gave a fuck about being understood.
Which I think was Robin, and now Tea's, point.
On the other hand, this is complicated shit, but---and this
DOES bother the crap out of the people who professionally
peddle pm---it's not rocket science. It can be, somehow,
even interesting.
> >>PoMo 'philosophy'
> >> embraces total freedom and resists any attempts to confine or conform.
>
> >It calls for rigorous thought and critical analysis of the assumptions of
> >any given ideology.
>
> How is your statement in conflict with the above statement?
Well, "total freedom" might be considered to be contradictory
to "rigorous", which implies "strictness" and "severity".
Yet, there are "schools" of postmodernism which promote freedom
from the demands of a presumed authority, or "expert" class,
as an obvious and necessary political reaction by the
non-expert, disadvantaged class, who wish to affirm the
validity of their own voice and own vision by co-opting
the form, if not the function and content, of the oppressive
"elites".
This political aspect seems to me obviously pomo in
character, and one might even say that it is the result
of an analysis and a critique of the assumptions of a
given ideology (one can of course be incorrect in the
conclusions drawn from the analysis and critique).
That's a big part of how pomoism ideologically informs tarot
and tarotiers, as an enabling device for the LARGE populations
of people drawn to tarot as a measure of establishing
and expressing their essential "difference" from a presumed
authority (or authorities).
Ilan is really echoing the sentiments of a person, the
"professional" postmodernist, who I argued with a few
years ago---she considered my reductionism of what
she considered a hopelessly complex subject (what the
hell postmodernism is supposed to be) to be itself,
postmodern, meaning an attempt to ignore the
grand narrative of postmodernism (as she understood it)
and to instead use a site-specific local narrative
to enable my "agenda", the marginalizing of tarot
decks, and ideas, I considered "bad".
The difference here is that Ilan is agreeing that I should
not like these decks, cause they are "bad", but he also
wishes to rescue "real postmodernism" from my or "our"
clutches because he fears that I'm doing an "injustice"
to postmodernism by even thinking to utter the name
in respect to obviously deficient things.
In both cases, these professional postmodernists REALLY
don't like it when a non-initiate starts meddling with
the temple tools---but, you know, I'm used to people
whining about my doing that. Occultists also think you
should have to be initiated to get to talk about "their"
secrets.
> What I am suggesting is that the PoMo philosophy is going to resist any
> attempts at confining an ideology (especially one they have picked apart or
> picked on) to ONE expression or definition.
>
> In the context of PoMo thought, 'defining PoMo' seems to be as much an
> oxymoron as 'Anarchist Organization'.
But, to not do so tends to negate the possibility of having
much of a discussion. Tarot is either about SOMETHING, and maybe
a lot of difficult or nebulous things, or it's not about anything
(especially if people need it to be about everything).
Postmodernism is either definable as being about something (in
50,000 words or less) or it's really not about anything at
all (which is what many people think is the case).
> >Absolutely untrue. That would be modernistic.
>
> So then you would disagree with the following:
> "Lyotard, for example, speaks especially of the replacement of any *grand
> narrative* [les grands recits] by more local `accounts' of reality as distinctive of
> postmodernism and postmodernity."
Now, you see, Ilan, that's a nice concise illustrative quote.
It addresses your point, and shows a possible contradiction to
it, and it's not 50,000 words in length, either.
This idea, of the opposition of grand narratives to local narratives
seems to me to be precisely pertinent to a discussion of pomo
tarot as it has sought to co-opt and even disenfranchise
occult tarot and occultists in an effort to avoid or evade
a grand narrative which it found to be repressively elitist.
This is PRECISELY what Angeles Arrien argues when she decides
to ignore what Aleister Crowley wrote about his own tarot deck
and to instead create her own narrative of Thoth.
THAT is a postmodernist approach. She doesn't have to KNOW
Thoth, or Crowley's ideas about it, to reject those ideas
in favor of her own. Postmodernism ideologically enables and
empowers her to be able to do this (supposedly).
The critique of this is of course whether doing this is
intellectually honest (is her co-opting REALLY ideological
or just mercenary, for example---it's a lot easier to write
a book about something if you impose the meaning instead
of learning it), or in the particular case of Arrien's treatment
of Thoth, whether one can honestly say to have "learned" Thoth,
and its symbolism, by evading the supposed "elitist" narrative,
in favor of one supposedly in touch with the "stand-alone"
feelings one gets from the text-less images.
Here, I would tend to agree with Ilan that a lot of what
passes, on the surface, as pm ideology or critique, is
just a scam. But then, this makes one question whether or
not the scam is kind of inherent in the presumption that
pm has that the metanarratives or the authoritative
explanations can so easily be shunted aside in favor
of "local" or "minority" revisions.
Maybe it's really just smoke and mirrors, a way to veil
an otherwise shaky hold on tenure, or a way to sell
a tarot book about a topic the author otherwise wouldn't
be able to write about at all---IF she were "oppressed"
by the need to learn and echo the elitist grand narrative.
> "Postmodernist analysis is often marked by forms of writing that are more
> literary,
Well, more wordy anyway.
> certainly more self-reflexive, than is common in critical
> writing - the critic as self-conscious creator of new meanings---
The question then being whether these "new meanings" were
really necessary and how so. Again, framing the argument
so as to assume the "traditional" and "canonical" are
"bad" helps to empower the critique and the "creation",
often without any critique being made of the credibility
of the frame(up).
> upon the
> ground of the object of study, showing that object no special respect.
> It prefers montage to perspective, intertextuality to referentiality,
> `bits-as-bits' to unified totalities. It delights in excess, play,
> carnival, asymmetry, even mess---
See, Ilan, a big damned mess.
And of course, the preference for chaos does negate the potential
for specific critique. It's quite powerful, up to the point where
someone rudely notes the lack of clothes upon the fashionably
attired "theorist".
> I am waiting to read what *your* definition is---
Don't hold your breath, Tea.
J. Karlin
> >You make postmodernism sound like a religion, or a secret
> >order.
>
> Despite his best efforts, Ilan just isn't
> a postmodernist. He's attempting to
> make absolutes out of a group of theories
> that question the very notion.
I do know what he's getting at, though, a lot of people who
are pomos in this "game" are so because it enables them to
avoid doing any work---it's not because they have any real
understanding of postmodernist philosophy or ideology.
But, that doesn't mean you can't reasonably describe what
they're doing as "postmodernist".
It may be "bad" postmodernism, or stupid postmodernism,
but it still applies.
hilander
>It's not simply questioning any given
>ideology, it's questioning the very
>notion of ideology itself.
Help me here, if you're so inclined, would like to make sure I'm following
what you're saying.
If I use Art as an example would I be correct [in a limiting sort of way] in
thinking that Modernism would have had an implied understanding of 'What is
Art?' (an 'absolute' for lack of a better word on my part) and would have
'rebelled' and pushed the limits of expressing Art but still under the
confines of unwritten [sometimes written] agreement of 'What is Art?'. The
medium, the tools, the subjects and the application of technique would have
been pushed and experimented with but still within the 'boundaries' of 'What
is Art?'?
PostModernism philosophy would question and pick apart the very question of
'What is Art?' (not just how it can be expressed or what subjects are worthy
of Artistic pursuit)?
Was it Derrida who wrote as an answer to 'What is PostModernism?' that it is
"Everything, anything and nothing."? I may be misunderstanding the context
of his quote but I like the answer as I can use it for understanding PoMo.
I've taken that answer of 'everything, anything and nothing' to not only be
an answer to 'what is PostModernism?' but also as how PoMo philosophy might
answer any question of 'What is...?'.
The PoMo answer to 'What is Art?' is 'everything, anything and nothing'? So
any tool could be used? Any expression? Any medium? Any subject?
The PoMo answer to 'What is Tarot?' is 'everything, anything and nothing'?
And if the belief is 'everything, anything and nothing', then, doesn't
'everything, anything and nothing' go as far as 'rules' for expressing,
using and/or creating?
So far, I don't see a conflict with how I am currently understanding PoMo
and how it is used to describe decks in the alt.tarot FAQ.
Tea
hilander
MLYoung wrote in message <20000128161455...@ng-fv1.aol.com>...
>>What I am suggesting is that the PoMo philosophy is going to resist any
>>attempts at confining an ideology (especially one they have picked apart
or
>>picked on) to ONE expression or definition.
>
>contradictory. If there can be single no
>definition of an ideology, well, then, no
>point in trying to define postmodernism . . .
><g>
*laughs* Yup, as far as Postmodernism is concerned about itself, it is
fruitless and fustrating to attempt to define it. No wonder it's so hard to
find an answer to 'What is Postmodernism?'. There are quite a few other
contradictions in the PoMo philosophy. In reading up more on PoMo these
contradictions are not only apparent, but many writers on PoMo seem to
delight in their existance and it ends up making my head swim trying to make
heads or tails of what they are saying. It's very disorienting. *smile*
Some writers do seem a bit kinder to my mental faculties [going to look up
more by Lyotard]. One thing I have learned from this excercise is how much
I just took the term PoMo for granted and hadn't given it much attention or
thought in its usage or application.
edeejay
hilander wrote: >
> One thing I have learned from this excercise is how much
> I just took the term PoMo for granted and hadn't given it much attention or
> thought in its usage or application.
Likewise have I, Tea.
I've been seeing the term 'PoMo' around here a lot, and never once
thought to question what that meant. I'm glad that this discussion has
begun.
hilander
>This idea, of the opposition of grand narratives to local narratives
>seems to me to be precisely pertinent to a discussion of pomo
>tarot as it has sought to co-opt and even disenfranchise
>occult tarot and occultists in an effort to avoid or evade
>a grand narrative which it found to be repressively elitist.
I've seen Feminism and Political Correctness associated with PoMo and up
until very recently, couldn't understand the connection. What you wrote
above helps explain the connection. It puts into perspective why Feminist
and decks which attempt to 'correct' a perceived elitist exclusion (like
decks that would put the emphasis 'correcting' the representation of race,
sexual orientation, etc) could fall under the category of PoMo decks.
>Here, I would tend to agree with Ilan that a lot of what
>passes, on the surface, as pm ideology or critique, is
>just a scam.
How about sometimes something in between? Like laziness? Neither 'noble'
nor a 'scam'.
>And of course, the preference for chaos does negate the potential
>for specific critique. It's quite powerful, up to the point where
>someone rudely notes the lack of clothes upon the fashionably
>attired "theorist".
I've had that image in my mind the last couple of days. In the case of the
fairy tale, the 'fine clothes' were definitely a scam. Would it have made
any difference if the tailor had 'honestly' believed that they were weaving
an equisite cloth with threads of thought that could only be seen with the
'mind's eye' as opposed to the physical eye? Is the Emperor still naked?
*smile*
And those who claim to see the cloth, are they doing it to promote the scam?
Because they really believe they can see the threads? Or because they don't
want to expend the energy to care one way or another.
Tea
ilan pillemer
On Fri, 28 Jan 2000, J. Karlin wrote:
> ilan pillemer wrote:
>
> > Look. Those decks you have been calling PoMo are not tarot decks.
>
> Why not?
>
> Be specific (you might have to quote the FAQ to be that of course).
Ok.
"Basically there are three kinds of pomo decks..." [FAQ]
Ok so you believe that these postmodern decks can be split into three
kinds of postmodern decks.
But what did you mean by postmodern?
"An amalgamation of diverse and often overlapping movements and
ideologies".
Ahh. What a lucid definition. Lets see if you get any more specific.
And actually define this scape-goat of yours...
"when multi-cultural, gender-conscious, and anti-traditional... attitudes
were infiltrating culture..."
Well at least its something more focused than the empty dribble from
before - but really can this be said to define postmodernism. Modernism
includes all these features as well. And I don't remember Crowley being
the most traditional chap. And culturally he read the I-ching - thats kind
of multi-cultural - and he was certainly very conscious of gender and all
that goes along with it. So I guess Crowley could by this definition of
yours be postmodern. That would make the Crowley deck the PoMo deck of all
PoMo deck.
And thats about where your pathetic attempt to define this enemy ends and
you instead start laying all sorts of claims at its feet. Youve called
your scapegoat postmodernism - after NOT defining it - and then placed all
these crimes at its feet.
For example "one could promote any nonsense he or she wanted on the back
of poor defenseless tarot because few people knew what the older symbolism
meant." [FAQ]
Now your definition has changed from empty vague terms to 'nonsense' - how
eloquent and ironic.
So now we know what you mean when you say there are "three kinds of pomo
decks"; you mean, there are three kinds of 'nonsense' decks. Because thats
all your definition in your FAQ amounts to.
And then in your descriptions of these three kinds of 'nonsense' decks.
In your description of the 'Cartofeminist' you say that postmodernism
needs fulfill themselves in "the rejection of what are described as the
traditional icons of the evil patriarchy (including obviously any
traditional tarot symbology and interpretation.)"
So now according to you postmodernism is some kind of ultra-feminism.
Thats an interesting definition of postmodernism.
How well conceived. How well thought out. How fucking stupid.
Then. Ahh. Type number two....
wait for it....
This is the stupidest one of them all...
"TRUE postmodernism". Ha ha ha.
Up until now of course YOU, you silly billy, have only been talking about
UNTRUE postmodernism. What the fuck is that.
How goddam unlucid.
How pathetically embicilic.
But anyway. What is this TRUE postmodernism (as opposed to the UNTRUE
postmodernism that you defined as 'nonsense'.)
The defition of TRUE postmodernism is....
wait for it...
(its really ludicrous)
".... seek to maintain some link to traditional symbols..." [FAQ]
But anyone who has been paying attention has noted that you, (jk), had
already defined postmodernism as "anti-traditional". SO in "TRUE
postmodernism" [FAQ] your extremely vacuous definition does not even
APPLY.
What the FUCK is up with that?
But not only does this "TRUE postmodernism" seek to maintain links to
tradition also "nevertheless ignore traditional interpretations for the...
[reason] that occult symbolism is 'anti-egalitarian'" [FAQ]
Postmodernism believes in egalitarian symbols? With words like
"hyperreal"; "under erasure"... and constant reference to Nietsche and
Foucault et al. The last thing postmodernism believes in is easy to
understand symbology or 'egalitarian symbology'.
But lets go a step further in this rather fascinating definition of
postmodernism according to you.
"symbols should be thrown open to what are often called 'intuitive'
methods of interpretation... make up anything that suits your fancy..."
[FAQ].
Postmodernism is more about showing up the falseness of ideologies.
Its not about encouraging and inculcating vacuousness and false
consciosness.
And then you leave this rather strange definition of TRUE postmodernism to
move onto your next kind of postmodernism.
Igno-aesthetic postmodernism which is....
"complete ignorance of its [tarot's] meaning" [FAQ].
Ahh.
SO the FALSE postmodernisms are are a conglomeration of "nonsense" and
"ignorance" and the TRUE postmodernism is about 'making up whatever suits
your fancy" - ie illusions.
ok.
If thats your brilliant FAQ with its incisive thought and clarity - then
who am I to wonder about its utter failure to ever actually define
postmodernism.
You just set up a strawman - called it postmodernism - and blamed it for
the bad cards that have flooded the market.
But really, I don't care that much, and if you need a scapegoat so badly -
that you need to sacrifice your mental abilities - who am I to argue.
I think I will rather chew my cud, smoke my grass, and moo moo moo.
>
> > You KNOW that.
>
> You don't know what the fuck I know, little moo-cow.
I know that you masturbate.
I know that you go to the toilet.
I know that you have a problem called hubris.
>
> The question is whether you know what the fuck YOU know.
>
> > But associating post-modernism (instead of simply con-artists)---
>
> Why would "postmodernist" and "con-artist" be considered a
> contradictory association?
>
> Be specific.
Fuck-off.
>
> Ilan, you don't know much about tarot---including structurally---
> so how can you reasonably assess what needs to go into it?
I know.
I understand.
>
> These are different things.
>
> > IS THECOMPLETE OPPOSITE of what you called PoMo.
>
> Again, this title is one created and absorbed by pomos themselves.
Thats true.
>
> Explain why they are mistaken to apply it to themselves and to
> their decks.
Because I think you are right when you say they 'nonsense' 'ignorant' and
devoid of any connection to the traditional occult tarot.
And I think postmodernism is an interesting phenomenon that is not based
on 'nonsense' and 'ignorance'.
>
> > In fact what you call PoMo tends to be badly conceived junk.
>
> Not all of it. Some of it is simply not conceived with any
> particularly ideological system in governance of its construction.
> Some more of it resists "historical" authority and structure
> in view of other, more pertinent (to the class of pomos
> in question) ideological assumptions.
>
> Personally, I prefer tarot with some ideas and some systematic
> ideas---but most of all with some interesting ideas. But,
> early tarot probably didn't have any one system, it was
> mostly a mish-mash of ideas, perhaps loosely constructed around
> triumphal or apocalyptic motifs, but it's still tarot and it's
> still "good", in certain ways. I don't blame people for
> not sticking to a plan or system of construction they
> could not have known about because it was notin existence,
> but I think you can blame people for not sticking to, or
> not more convincingly rebelling against, a plan (occultist)
> which so clearly guides their pomo attempts to fit into
> a mysterious mold.
I understand this argument. Why don't you put this into the FAQ?
>
> You see, what bothers me about pomo, someof it, is precisely
> what you're claiming pomo would "need" to be, that there is
> SOME (generally ignorant) reverence for old structures and
> symbols, but only in so far as those can be made to perform
> a postmodern role---to be "relevant" to some disadvantaged
> group who wants to use tarot to assist in its attainment
> of self-esteem.
>
> Why do you think that would not be a proper application
> or expression of postmodernism?
I don't think it would.
>
> Be specific.
Because it would be putting the purposes of 'some disadvantaged group'
over the purposes of presenting the patterns and paradigms of tarot. This
would only result in unnecessary cluttering.
>
> > And if it is well conceived it has no relation to Tarot in its ideas.
>
> Again, not necessarily.
>
> The pattern or the paradigm does seem to have some
> (beneficially) constructive influence of its own---upon people
> who are aesthetically open to it.
>
> Why do they have to be "postmodernist" to be open to it?
Of course they do not.
>
> I don't know what you're talking about.
>
> I don't think you know either.
I actually do.
But fuck it.
You've convinced me its not really important or worthwhile.
And I guess since they called themselves 'PoMo'; they have absconded with
the term.
Ilan
ilan pillemer
On 28 Jan 2000, MLYoung wrote:
> >
> >It calls for rigorous thought and critical analysis of the assumptions of
> >any given ideology. In that way it is related to Foucault, Derrida, Freud,
> >Marx, Heidegger.
>
> Bzzzt! Wrong. Freud and Marx are
> quintessential modernists and both
> of them were ideological to boot--
> particularly Marx.
Yes. But Freud pointed out that rational though was suspect and false. Our
conscious reasons are never our REAL reasons.
And Marx spoke about 'false consciousness.'
I know that they were modernists. But these facets of their thoughts
definitely led to the questioning of ideology itself. It contained the
seeds.
>
> It's not simply questioning any given
> ideology, it's questioning the very
> notion of ideology itself.
That is true. But Marx and Freud both presented ideas that would encourage
this move.
> Oh, get over yourself, Ilan. Your post
> was a badly written assemblage of
> quotes geared more toward displaying
> your "superior" knowledge than giving
> people a clear idea of what postmodernism
> is.
Oh.
Lets see if I can sum it up in three lines.
Take all the common features of a body of texts. Find a way to explain the
reason for this clustering of features. In postmodern texts there are
clustering of a particular features that foreground ontological
problematics.
Five lines.
Ilan.
>
> --margaret
>
> >
> >Sweetie Pie
>
>
>
>
ilan pillemer
>
> Ilan is really echoing the sentiments of a person, the
> "professional" postmodernist, who I argued with a few
> years ago---she considered my reductionism of what
> she considered a hopelessly complex subject (what the
> hell postmodernism is supposed to be) to be itself,
> postmodern, meaning an attempt to ignore the
> grand narrative of postmodernism (as she understood it)
> and to instead use a site-specific local narrative
> to enable my "agenda", the marginalizing of tarot
> decks, and ideas, I considered "bad".
>
> The difference here is that Ilan is agreeing that I should
> wishes to rescue "real postmodernism" from my or "our"
> clutches because he fears that I'm doing an "injustice"
> to postmodernism by even thinking to utter the name
> in respect to obviously deficient things.
Yip.
Youve pegged me in my argument.
>
> Postmodernism is either definable as being about something (in
> 50,000 words or less) or it's really not about anything at
> all (which is what many people think is the case).
Hey. Maybe it does not even exist?
>
> > >Absolutely untrue. That would be modernistic.
> >
> > So then you would disagree with the following:
> > "Lyotard, for example, speaks especially of the replacement of any *grand
> > narrative* [les grands recits] by more local `accounts' of reality as distinctive of
> > postmodernism and postmodernity."
>
> Now, you see, Ilan, that's a nice concise illustrative quote.
Yeah. And he quoted it straight out of the postmodernism FAQ I just paged
through too. He's mirroring me. Mimicry. Vulgar postmodernism I think you
just called it. I feel I jut got pulled into some inside outside escher
picture with some cup of tea out of a Douglas Adams novel.
>
> It addresses your point, and shows a possible contradiction to
> it, and it's not 50,000 words in length, either.
I know. It annoyed me. Because I am nearly 100% certain that he has not
read Lyotard, has no idea what Lyotard thinks, and has just paged through
the FAQ looking for something that shows a possible contradiction.
I mean. What's the point in debating with someone who does that?
He's not trying to discuss anything. He's just contradicting me with words
he has just quoted from a list of quotes.
So either I try and be more clear or I stop bothering.
>
> Here, I would tend to agree with Ilan that a lot of what
> passes, on the surface, as pm ideology or critique, is
> just a scam. But then, this makes one question whether or
> not the scam is kind of inherent in the presumption that
> pm has that the metanarratives or the authoritative
> explanations can so easily be shunted aside in favor
> of "local" or "minority" revisions.
>
> Maybe it's really just smoke and mirrors, a way to veil
> an otherwise shaky hold on tenure, or a way to sell
> a tarot book about a topic the author otherwise wouldn't
> be able to write about at all---IF she were "oppressed"
> by the need to learn and echo the elitist grand narrative.
I think that in order to be intellectually honest and write a
post-modern interpretation or create a postmodern deck one would have to
have a complete grasp on the 'elitist grand narrative' or the 'Tradition'.
Otherwise all that is produced is garbage.
Otherwise...
its like a deaf man writing a review on the symphony concert.
> > ground of the object of study, showing that object no special respect.
> > It prefers montage to perspective, intertextuality to referentiality,
> > `bits-as-bits' to unified totalities. It delights in excess, play,
> > carnival, asymmetry, even mess---
>
> See, Ilan, a big damned mess.
I know.
One huge incredible hunky dory mess.
And to be honest.
I like that mess. I like the excess. I like the logic impossibilities. I
like incoherence. I like the asymmetry.
But... I can see why it may not provide anything useful for Tarot.
So what I was seeking was a way to define (ie construct) a postmodernism
that would be productive instead of just allowing ways of legitimising
ignorance. And I thought that this was possible.
>
> And of course, the preference for chaos does negate the potential
> for specific critique. It's quite powerful, up to the point where
> someone rudely notes the lack of clothes upon the fashionably
> attired "theorist".
"Vanity, vanity..."
>
> > I am waiting to read what *your* definition is---
>
> Don'thold your breath, Tea.
Ha ha.
Didn't he notice that I said right at the beginning that all definitions
are constructed like towers.
whatever.
Snow in Jerusalem today.
I went walking through whiteness and became a target for children with
violent snowballing tendencies.
Ilan
ilan pillemer
> > Despite his best efforts, Ilan just isn't
> > a postmodernist. He's attempting to
> > make absolutes out of a group of theories
> > that question the very notion.
>
> I do know what he's getting at, though, a lot of people who
> are pomos in this "game" are so because it enables them to
> understanding of postmodernist philosophy or ideology.
Which annoys the fuck out of me.
Not because I have a substantive understanding of postmodern thought. But
because I am trying to attain this understanding. And encountering the
kind of junk that people distribute under its aegis - really fucking
annoys me.
>
> But, that doesn't mean you can't reasonably describe what
> they're doing as "postmodernist".
Well. I guess if theyre creating their garbage in a postmodern era - then
it could be called postmodern. I would prefer to call something postmodern
if it was created by someone that understood what the fuck postmodernism
'ideology' at least was.
But then I guess you got bad romantic writing, bad Renaissance paintings,
bad rock'n'roll and bad postmodern tarot decks.
> > It may be "bad" postmodernism, or stupid postmodernism,
> but it still applies.
Ok. If thats your position - then I can agree.
I think that "bad" and "stupid" postmodernism is junk and rubbish.
But there is a level of what you call "professional" postmodernism - and I
find its ideas appealing and not at all encouraging to lazy thinking and
ignorant activities.
Ilan
Sue
<Pine.BSI.3.96-heb-2.07.10...@pob.huji.ac.il>, ilan
pillemer <sh...@pob.huji.ac.il> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Postmodernism is either definable as being about something (in
> > 50,000 words or less) or it's really not about anything at
> > all (which is what many people think is the case).
>
> Hey. Maybe it does not even exist?
It exists for those who choose to buy into it.
>
> >
> > > >Absolutely untrue. That would be modernistic.
> > >
> > > So then you would disagree with the following:
> > > "Lyotard, for example, speaks especially of the replacement of any *grand
> > > narrative* [les grands recits] by more local `accounts' of reality
as distinctive of
> > > postmodernism and postmodernity."
> >
> > Now, you see, Ilan, that's a nice concise illustrative quote.
>
> Yeah. And he quoted it straight out of the postmodernism FAQ I just paged
> through too. He's mirroring me. Mimicry. Vulgar postmodernism I think you
> just called it. I feel I jut got pulled into some inside outside escher
> picture with some cup of tea out of a Douglas Adams novel.
>
> >
> > It addresses your point, and shows a possible contradiction to
> > it, and it's not 50,000 words in length, either.
>
> I know. It annoyed me. Because I am nearly 100% certain that he has not
> read Lyotard, has no idea what Lyotard thinks, and has just paged through
> the FAQ looking for something that shows a possible contradiction.
>
> I mean. What's the point in debating with someone who does that?
> He's not trying to discuss anything. He's just contradicting me with words
> he has just quoted from a list of quotes.
It's a debating technique, Ilan. And it has some merit at times. And it
also works quite well sometimes against an opponent.
>
> So either I try and be more clear or I stop bothering.
That's the lesson there.
>
>
> >
> > Here, I would tend to agree with Ilan that a lot of what
> > passes, on the surface, as pm ideology or critique, is
> > just a scam. But then, this makes one question whether or
> > not the scam is kind of inherent in the presumption that
> > pm has that the metanarratives or the authoritative
> > explanations can so easily be shunted aside in favor
> > of "local" or "minority" revisions.
> >
> > Maybe it's really just smoke and mirrors, a way to veil
> > an otherwise shaky hold on tenure, or a way to sell
> > a tarot book about a topic the author otherwise wouldn't
> > be able to write about at all---IF she were "oppressed"
> > by the need to learn and echo the elitist grand narrative.
>
> I think that in order to be intellectually honest and write a
> post-modern interpretation or create a postmodern deck one would have to
> have a complete grasp on the 'elitist grand narrative' or the 'Tradition'.
I think if I created a tarot deck made of baked yam cards, it would be
considered postmodern.
>
> Otherwise all that is produced is garbage.
And the baked yam deck would possibly be considered garbage as well. In
the end, I think at times that there's not really much difference between
"postmodern" and "garbage".
Sue
> Snow in Jerusalem today.
>
> I went walking through whiteness and became a target for children with
> violent snowballing tendencies.
>
You must not have had your yo-yo with you (were you trying to keep your
hands warm?) - the kids would've never attacked you if you'd been yoing.
ilan pillemer
> > > > So then you would disagree with the following:
> > > > "Lyotard, for example, speaks especially of the replacement of any *grand
> > > > narrative* [les grands recits] by more local `accounts' of reality
> as distinctive of
> > > > postmodernism and postmodernity."
> > >
> > > Now, you see, Ilan, that's a nice concise illustrative quote.
> >
> > Yeah. And he quoted it straight out of the postmodernism FAQ I just paged
> > through too. He's mirroring me. Mimicry. Vulgar postmodernism I think you
> > picture with some cup of tea out of a Douglas Adams novel.
> >
> > >
> > > It addresses your point, and shows a possible contradiction to
> > > it, and it's not 50,000 words in length, either.
> >
> > I know. It annoyed me. Because I am nearly 100% certain that he has not
> > read Lyotard, has no idea what Lyotard thinks, and has just paged through
> > the FAQ looking for something that shows a possible contradiction.
> >
> > I mean. What's the point in debating with someone who does that?
> > He's not trying to discuss anything. He's just contradicting me with words
> > he has just quoted from a list of quotes.
>
> also works quite well sometimes against an opponent.
Yes. I know.
>
> >
> > So either I try and be more clear or I stop bothering.
>
> That's the lesson there.
Ok. here's a quote in response that shows a contradiction with his quote.
"Frederic Jameson, has recently reminded us that the easy equation often
made between a 'philosophical conception of totality' and a 'political
practice of totalatarianism ' is 'baleful'."
Of course this is just the beginning of a paragraph that moves into a more
detailed discourse on 'truth regimes' and 'knowledge procedures'. But this
kind of quote exchange is just stupid because it is missing the point.
Because the thrust of the article does seem to tend towards arguing that
the metanarrative (any metanarrative) is always based on coercive violent
(physcially and symbolically violent) structures...
So is my quote valid or not?
And by saying that postmodernism is a resistance to metanarrative - is in
the very act attempting to provide a metanarrative.
Any moment I expect the Cretan liar to make a guest appearance.
The second point is this:
All a definition of postmodernism has to be able to accomplish is to
systemise a body of features in a body of texts. And obviously
there an indeterminate amount of ways to do this.
Having read modern texts and postmodern texts I am dealing with the
'real-world' objects. I have encountered the features of texts that were
written chronologically later than books such as the 'The Heart of
Darkness'. These texts do not have the same features or use the same
techniques of the previous texts. I have experienced the change by
actually encountering the different kinds of texts.
And although each text is unique - certain common features do emerge.
Features listed in the McHale's book. Now the purpose of critical thinking
is to discuss these texts and by constructing a 'definition' that
facilitates the discussion of these texts. At whatever level you wish your
discussion to occur. To provide theory.
You could say - blech - who needs theory - we have the books themselves.
The theory is all pulled out of thin air.
And if this is your definition of theory then yes PoMo decks, as described
by (jk) are PoMo decks.
But it doesnt have to be.
Postmodernism can also be a device for showing that all theories are
'pulled out of thin air'.
That everything in the end is 'vanity' (In the Ecclesiastical sense.)
That it is all a bunch of hot air.
A tale being told by an idiot, signifying nothing.
That Tarot at the same time as being a system that attempt to provide a
universal metanarrative - was also constructed. It has a history that does
not go back to some time immemorial. Thus although its metanarrative
attempts to explain the universe - at one point it did not exist. The
Tarot that is - not the universe. Although I believe that at one point the
universe did not exist either - but that is just conjecture.
I would prefer to see a deck or a criticism that does this as particularly
postmodern. And much of (jk)'s writing fits into this mold. Including is
claim that he has no ideology. Which is also often a postmodern claim.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Here, I would tend to agree with Ilan that a lot of what
> > > passes, on the surface, as pm ideology or critique, is
> > > just a scam. But then, this makes one question whether or
> > > not the scam is kind of inherent in the presumption that
> > > pm has that the metanarratives or the authoritative
> > > explanations can so easily be shunted aside in favor
> > > of "local" or "minority" revisions.
> > >
> > > Maybe it's really just smoke and mirrors, a way to veil
> > > an otherwise shaky hold on tenure, or a way to sell
> > > a tarot book about a topic the author otherwise wouldn't
> > > be able to write about at all---IF she were "oppressed"
> > > by the need to learn and echo the elitist grand narrative.
> >
> > I think that in order to be intellectually honest and write a
> > post-modern interpretation or create a postmodern deck one would have to
> > have a complete grasp on the 'elitist grand narrative' or the 'Tradition'.
>
> I think if I created a tarot deck made of baked yam cards, it would be
> considered postmodern.
I would consider it an effect of postmodernity. (jk) has convincingly
argued that. But I don't see why a 'good' postmodern deck could not be
created. By someone (with expert knowledge on the occult and the tarot -
both its metanarrative and its history).
But (jk) in response to that has pointed out that perhaps that would only
be making the problem worse by adding further cluttering to the tarot
deck. And I think he is right.
What is needed is not a proliferation of decks - but rather a well written
book on Tarot - and using the theories of postmodernism would not
necessarily harm this book; although as (jk) as also pointed out; this
would simply result in changing the language from one kind of hermetical
language to another. And the majority of people, the stupid fucks, would
be just as in the dark as before.
So I can not see a way out of this.
>
> >
> > Otherwise all that is produced is garbage.
>
> And the baked yam deck would possibly be considered garbage as well. In
> the end, I think at times that there's not really much difference between
> "postmodern" and "garbage".
Actually there's not much difference between 'vulgar' and 'garbage'.
Little me
>
>
MLYoung
>> Otherwise all that is produced is garbage.
Ooh, boy, Ilan you really, really don't
get post-modernism. One man's
garbage is another man's art.
It must be a personality thing--I know
you've read some of this stuff, Ilan, but
you're such an authority worshipper than
you can't reason with out it.
--margaret
>
>And the baked yam deck would possibly be considered garbage as well. In
>the end, I think at times that there's not really much difference between
>"postmodern" and "garbage".
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Subject: Re: POMOism
>Path:
>lobby!newstf02.news.aol.com!portc05.blue.aol.com!cyclone-east.rr.com!news
.rr.com!news-east.rr.com!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsf
eed.atl!news1.mia.POSTED!jsdr
>From: js...@netscape.net (Sue)
MLYoung
>
>> Oppression's anything that gets
>> in the way of wishful thinking.
>> Death, for example, is oppressive,
>> therefore it must be *new beginnings*.
>
>(non-)thinking. But, how blind must you be to justify that? Looking at the
>Thoth deck, there *is* this rather busy skeleton which is very prominent.
>And while he does have a headdress that looks conspicuously like that of
>Osiris, and a phoenix above his head, these don't strike me as the focus of
>the card -- that has to be the skeleton, engaged in his dance with the
>bubbles.
>
>what's clearly the central motif of the card, isn't even wishful thinking.
>It's either wilfull ignorance, or blatant deceit.
New beginnings are possible, but
the card denotes the possibility, not
the inevitability of this. The Death part,
on the other hand, is what the card is
about.
Also, of course, everything dies--including
those very transitory bubbles.
--margaret
>
>--Leon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
MLYoung
>>ideology, it's questioning the very
>>notion of ideology itself.
>
>what you're saying.
>If I use Art as an example would I be correct [in a limiting sort of way] in
>thinking that Modernism would have had an implied understanding of 'What is
>Art?'
Yes, you would be able to create
objective, absolute standards on what
constitutes art.
(an 'absolute' for lack of a better word on my part) and would have
>'rebelled' and pushed the limits of expressing Art but still under the
>confines of unwritten [sometimes written] agreement of 'What is Art?'. The
Written and discussed. Yes.
>medium, the tools, the subjects and the application of technique would have
>been pushed and experimented with but still within the 'boundaries' of 'What
>is Art?'?
Right. Art has a definition. The definition
may be challenged, exchanged for other
definitions, but there is an attempt to
create a universal definition.
>PostModernism philosophy would question and pick apart the very question of
>'What is Art?' (not just how it can be expressed or what subjects are worthy
>of Artistic pursuit)?
Yep. And say it's not something that
can be universally determined. You can't
say something is not art--thus toilets
in museum installations.
>Was it Derrida who wrote as an answer to 'What is PostModernism?' that it is
>"Everything, anything and nothing."? I
No idea. Sounds like him.
may be misunderstanding the context
>of his quote but I like the answer as I can use it for understanding PoMo.
>I've taken that answer of 'everything, anything and nothing' to not only be
>an answer to 'what is PostModernism?' but also as how PoMo philosophy might
>answer any question of 'What is...?'.
Yep. Everything is a text.
>The PoMo answer to 'What is Art?' is 'everything, anything and nothing'? So
>any tool could be used? Any expression? Any medium? Any subject?
Right.
>The PoMo answer to 'What is Tarot?' is 'everything, anything and nothing'?
>And if the belief is 'everything, anything and nothing', then, doesn't
>'everything, anything and nothing' go as far as 'rules' for expressing,
>using and/or creating?
Right and there's no single valid
authority. Many, if not all, viewpoints
are valid. Me, I can pick a lot of holes
in this notion, but that's definitely a
PoMo idea, which is why I find Ilan's
insistence on authorities particularly
strange.
>So far, I don't see a conflict with how I am currently understanding PoMo
>and how it is used to describe decks in the alt.tarot FAQ.
I don't think there is one. But, then,
I'm not an authority. <g>
--margaret
>
>Tea
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Subject: Re: POMOism
>Path:
>lobby!newstf02.news.aol.com!portc05.blue.aol.com!cyclone-east.rr.com!news
.rr.com!news-east.rr.com!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!howland.erols
.net!news-out.transit.remarq.com.MISMATCH!remarQ70!rQdQ!supernews.com!rema
rQ.com!corp.supernews.com!n
>ot-for-mail
>From: "hilander" hila...@lightspeed.block.bc.ca
>Newsgroups: alt.tarot
>Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 14:08:39 -0800
>Organization: Posted via
Khier Starchylde
> Just look at the Crowley-Harris cards;
> I love that deck, but I must take those titles with a grain of sand or
> try and ignore them completely.
> Those keywords will always be the *author's* keywords, not those of
> any one of us who spends our own time with the images.
[snip]
This raise a question I've been wanting to ask about Crowley and the Thoth
deck. Crowley writes in BoT:
"If one assumes that the Tarot is of Egyptian origin, one may suppose that Mat
[Fool in French] ... really stands for Maut, the [Egyptian] vulture goddess"
[p. 53].
I haven't heard that historians say that the tarot is of "Egyptian origin."
The FAQ doesn't, if I got it right.
Therefore, doesn't that place Crowley's entire thesis and the foundation for
the BoT and Crowley's interpretations, + his keywords, in considerable shady
light? In other words, why would we give credibility to the BoT when it
appears to be a bias based on Crowley's apparently misguided premise?
His leap of Mat = Maut, or is derived therefrom, seems possibly silly in light
of the above considerations.
I'm anxious to learn how to look at this dilemma for me., Since this group
tends to lean towards BoT, I figure there will be several help explanations.
-Khier
TarotHrmt
>> Oppression's anything that gets
>> in the way of wishful thinking.
>> Death, for example, is oppressive,
>> therefore it must be *new beginnings*.
>I guess Rhianna's attitude is a fairly typical >example of that way of
>(non-)thinking. But, how blind must you be to >justify that? Looking at the
>Thoth deck, there *is* this rather busy skeleton >which is very prominent.
>And while he does have a headdress that looks >conspicuously like that of
>Osiris, and a phoenix above his head, these don't >strike me as the focus of
>the card -- that has to be the skeleton, engaged in >his dance with the
>bubbles.
>To me, suggesting it's *just* about new beginnings >and brushing to the side
>what's clearly the central motif of the card, isn't >even wishful thinking.
>It's either wilfull ignorance, or blatant deceit.
If you look carefully at the *bubbles* on this card it does appear that within
each is a sort of embryo, not as fully developed as those in the Devil but
there nonetheless. In my opinion embryos usually imply a future birth.
Tarot Hermit
MLYoung
>>>What I am suggesting is that the PoMo philosophy is going to resist any
>>>attempts at confining an ideology (especially one they have picked apart
>or
>>>picked on) to ONE expression or definition.
>>
>>This statement, alas, is then inherently
>>contradictory. If there can be single no
>>definition of an ideology, well, then, no
>>point in trying to define postmodernism . . .
>><g>
>
>*laughs* Yup, as far as Postmodernism is concerned about itself, it is
>fruitless and fustrating to attempt to define it. No wonder it's so hard to
>find an answer to 'What is Postmodernism?'. There are quite a few other
>contradictions in the PoMo philosophy. In reading up more on PoMo these
>contradictions are not only apparent, but many writers on PoMo seem to
>delight in their existance and it ends up making my head swim trying to make
>heads or tails of what they are saying.
some good cafes. It's a rather impractical
set of ideas. You can't live your life without
accepting some notion of reality--otherwise, deadly nightshade is
just another crunchy veggie. I'm told
feelings are real, however, since we have
direct access to them. (There must have
been a water sign wandering through)
It's very disorienting. *smile*
>Some writers do seem a bit kinder to my mental faculties [going to look up
>more by Lyotard]. One thing I have learned from this excercise is how much
>I just took the term PoMo for granted and hadn't given it much attention or
>thought in its usage or application.
Ah, I have it much easier, I studied
structuralism in school, which set me
up for post-structuralism and I'm friends
with a philosophy professor. I don't
have to go it alone.
--margaret
>
>Tea
>http://www.drink.to/Luke
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
TarotHrmt
postmodernism
t noun [MASS NOUN] a late 20th-century style and concept in the arts,
architecture, and criticism, which represents a departure from modernism and
has at its heart a general distrust of grand theories and ideologies as well as
a problematical relationship with any notion of ‘art’.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Typical features include a deliberate mixing of different artistic styles and
media, the self-conscious use of earlier styles and conventions, and often the
incorporation of images relating to the consumerism and mass communication of
late 20th-century post-industrial society. Postmodernist architecture was
pioneered by Robert Venturi; the AT&T skyscraper in New York (completed in
1984) is a prime example of the style. Influential literary critics include
Jean Baudrillard and Jean-François Lyotard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
—DERIVATIVES
postmodern adjective
postmodernist noun & adjective
postmodernity noun.
MLYoung
>>This idea, of the opposition of grand narratives to local narratives
>>seems to me to be precisely pertinent to a discussion of pomo
>>tarot as it has sought to co-opt and even disenfranchise
>>occult tarot and occultists in an effort to avoid or evade
>>a grand narrative which it found to be repressively elitist.
>
>I've seen Feminism and Political Correctness associated with PoMo and up
>until very recently, couldn't understand the connection. What you wrote
>above helps explain the connection. It puts into perspective why Feminist
>and decks which attempt to 'correct' a perceived elitist exclusion (like
>decks that would put the emphasis 'correcting' the representation of race,
>sexual orientation, etc) could fall under the category of PoMo decks.
Yep. The really useful philosopher for
this one is Foucault, who wrote about
sex from the perspective of power.
Particularly, the defining of what is and
isn't allowable sex. You can see how
this might be of interest in gender politics.
(As an added kick, Foucault was
quite fond of the gay, leather scene.)
>>Here, I would tend to agree with Ilan that a lot of what
>>passes, on the surface, as pm ideology or critique, is
>>just a scam.
>
>How about sometimes something in between? Like laziness? Neither 'noble'
>nor a 'scam'.
I don't think it's simply laziness (creating
a deck is a lot of work). It's about
agenda setting and I don't think that's
even meant to be hidden. I don't know
if you bothered to wade through the
gender-bender part of the thread, but I
was interested to see just how much
hostility I aroused for simply questioning
Rachel Pollack's gender/agenda. I
don't think laziness provoked that
response.
>
>>And of course, the preference for chaos does negate the potential
>>for specific critique. It's quite powerful, up to the point where
>>someone rudely notes the lack of clothes upon the fashionably
>>attired "theorist".
>
>I've had that image in my mind the last couple of days. In the case of the
>fairy tale, the 'fine clothes' were definitely a scam. Would it have made
>any difference if the tailor had 'honestly' believed that they were weaving
>an equisite cloth with threads of thought that could only be seen with the
>'mind's eye' as opposed to the physical eye? Is the Emperor still naked?
>*smile*
Well, will he be cold if the temperature
drops? Post-modernism just doesn't
deal well with practical matters. Hmmm,
maybe Ilan is a post-modernist.
>And those who claim to see the cloth, are they doing it to promote the scam?
>Because they really believe they can see the threads? Or because they don't
>want to expend the energy to care one way or another.
Hmmm, I'd say it's more a power dynamic.
It's dangerous to question authority or,
indeed, we don't even think of doing so. (The Foucault response).
--margaret
>
>Tea
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Subject: Re: POMOism
>Path:
>lobby!newstf02.news.aol.com!portc02.blue.aol.com!howland.erols.net!news-o
ut.transit.remarq.com.MISMATCH!remarQ70!rQdQ!supernews.com!remarQ.com!corp
.supernews.com!not-for-mail
>From: "hilander"
hilander
>the very act attempting to provide a metanarrative.
Which is exactly the type of contradictions that people have been talking
about within PoMo.
>All a definition of postmodernism has to be able to accomplish is to
>systemise a body of features in a body of texts. And obviously
>there an indeterminate amount of ways to do this.
A body of features doesn't necessarily facilitate a definition. If we take
what you quoted from McHale and applied it to trying to define German
Shepherds [PoMo] it would be a list of comments by various vets of what
criteria they would look for to distinguish it from Dobermans [Modernism].
The criteria would be something like: size and shape of eyes, ferocity,
length of hair, colour of coat, number of teeth, shape of ears, etc., etc.
[all as compared to Dobermans].
None of that *defines* the German Shepherd. It helps to clasify the beast
but the list of criteria, itself, is not a definition.
>Features listed in the McHale's book. Now the purpose of critical thinking
>is to discuss these texts and by constructing a 'definition' that
>facilitates the discussion of these texts.
Well, McHale, in the middle of all of that stuff you posted, does have a
very short definition of PostModernism (had to wade through it).
His one line definition is:
PostModernism places emphasis on the ontological.
He defines Modernism, also one line:
Modernism places emphasis on the epistemological.
So what do those sentences mean? Using those definitions, would this be
correct:
PoMo - "I?"
Modernism - "What am I ?"
Why, or why not?
>But I don't see why a 'good' postmodern deck could not be
>created. By someone (with expert knowledge on the occult and the tarot -
>both its metanarrative and its history).
There isn't a reason why one couldn't, however, it is NOT necessary for a
PoMo deck or book. Looking again at McHale's definition, all that is
necessary for a PoMo deck or book is for it to be primarily concerned with
it's ontology [philosophy of being].
If the deck were to focus so much on the knowledge and the expression of
that knowledge then it would be primarily concerned with the epistemological
and that would make it, according to McHale's definition, part of the
Modernism movement.
Tea
ilan pillemer
> the card denotes the possibility, not
> the inevitability of this. The Death part,
> on the other hand, is what the card is
> about.
>
> Also, of course, everything dies--including
> those very transitory bubbles.
Why you say everything dies - does that include the truth?
Can the truth die?
Can the explanations we give for our lives die?
Can Nietsche's claim that god is dead be related to this card in anyway?
Ilan.
>
> --margaret
> >
> >--Leon
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
ilan pillemer
On 29 Jan 2000, MLYoung wrote:
> >>
> >> Otherwise all that is produced is garbage.
>
> Ooh, boy, Ilan you really, really don't
> get post-modernism. One man's
> garbage is another man's art.
If you say so.
>
> It must be a personality thing--I know
> you've read some of this stuff, Ilan, but
> you're such an authority worshipper than
> you can't reason with out it.
It puts in doubt my ability to actually reason.
And doubt, once felt, is not that easily discarded.
What for example are you actually sure about?
What exactly is it in this life that you have no doubt about?
Death?
And do you have no-doubt about what happens when you die?
Do you have no doubt about the future?
You speak as if you are really sure about yourself.
Are you?
What don't you doubt?
What is immortal to your self?
Reason?
Is reason beyond doubt?
Is reason immortal?
Or can the belief in truth die?
So?
Is there anything that you don't doubt?
Ilan.
>
> --margaret
> >
> >And the baked yam deck would possibly be considered garbage as well. In
> >the end, I think at times that there's not really much difference between
> >"postmodern" and "garbage".
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Subject: Re: POMOism
> >Path:
> >lobby!newstf02.news.aol.com!portc05.blue.aol.com!cyclone-east.rr.com!news
Patrick Bonier
while casting about the search engines looking for an explanation in layman's
terms.
Most of what I found was, "Postmodernism cannot be defined." or "I don't know
exactly what postmodernism is, but here's a bunch of links."
I finally found this one:
http://www.colorado.edu/English/ENGL2012Klages/pomo.html
which helped me. It is general enough that I think it would be useful to someone
like me, who doesn't really want to study the finer points, but still would like
some understanding of what it is.
Patrick
"It isn't just a can of beans you know.
"It's a work of art!" T. Paxton
ilan pillemer
> Right and there's no single valid
> authority. Many, if not all, viewpoints
> are valid. Me, I can pick a lot of holes
> in this notion, but that's definitely a
> PoMo idea, which is why I find Ilan's
> insistence on authorities particularly
> strange.
Yeah. Things are all artifacts of discourse. And Derrida did not say that
everything is a text. He said that there is nothing outside the text. And
it does not say that all viewpoints are valid. On the contrary it regards
all viewpoints as equally invalid. And much of its energy is directed
towards showing how different viewpoints that call themselves in Martin
Glover's 'The Absolute Truth.'; are self-contradictory; have an actual
history, as opposed to dating back to time immemorial; and, use violence
in order to spread its truth regime. If this kind of criticism, if
directed towards Tarot - would necessiate showing where Tarot is
self-contradictory, where Tarot has its incoherence. This would require an
understanding of what Tarot is - before it can be criticised - and
thereafter exploded. This is what I would consider a postmodern deck.
The difference in thought seems to be this (and correct me if I am wrong)
:-
You think because a deck was created either by an idiot or as a
money-making venture - and that deck claims the right to advertise itself
as tarot - it is postmodern.
Why do you think its postmodern?
I tentatively suggest because they are claiming no-one has the right to
say what Tarot is - how unegalitarian of them? How undemocratic? Doesn't
everybody know that truth is relative...
Thats just scamming, Margaret.
It has nothing to do with the actual ideas and objectives of postmodern
thinkers.
I would call a deck postmodern if it was a postmodern criticism of the
Tarot. Which would necessitate a complete knowledge of the system under
criticism to be valid as a postmodern criticism - and not just vulgar
garbage.
You are misunderstanding the difference between vulgar culture and the
postmodern criticism of culture.
>
> >So far, I don't see a conflict with how I am currently understanding PoMo
> >and how it is used to describe decks in the alt.tarot FAQ.
>
> I don't think there is one. But, then,
> I'm not an authority. <g>
Be you are enough of an authority to tell me I have no idea what I am
talking about?
Get over this false humility.
You are very sure of yourself.
Ilan.
>
> --margaret
>
> >
> >Tea
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Subject: Re: POMOism
> >Path:
> >lobby!newstf02.news.aol.com!portc05.blue.aol.com!cyclone-east.rr.com!news
ilan pillemer
> just another crunchy veggie. I'm told
> feelings are real, however, since we have
> direct access to them. (There must have
> been a water sign wandering through)
Postmodernism though makes the claim that nothing is unmediated.
>
> It's very disorienting. *smile*
> >Some writers do seem a bit kinder to my mental faculties [going to look up
> >more by Lyotard]. One thing I have learned from this excercise is how much
> >I just took the term PoMo for granted and hadn't given it much attention or
> >thought in its usage or application.
>
> Ah, I have it much easier, I studied
> structuralism in school, which set me
> up for post-structuralism and I'm friends
> with a philosophy professor. I don't
> have to go it alone.
But when I asked you what you thought Of Derrida's deconstruction of
structuralism (a very long time ago - it was in relation to Levi_strauss)
- you made a fascinating statement. You said something like "Yes I see
Derrida's point about these bricoleurs and engineurs; but, it functions
fine anyway."
And your philosophy professor friend; also believes like you that it is
impossible to rationally decide to commit suicide. If I remember
correctly.
Ilan.
>
> --margaret
>
> >
> >Tea
> >http://www.drink.to/Luke
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
ilan pillemer
> None of that *defines* the German Shepherd. It helps to clasify the beast
> but the list of criteria, itself, is not a definition.
Exactly.
But whatever definition is decided upon it has to explain some way in
which these different features relate to each other.
As well as what relates the two different dogs together.
>
> >Features listed in the McHale's book. Now the purpose of critical thinking
> >is to discuss these texts and by constructing a 'definition' that
> >facilitates the discussion of these texts.
>
> Well, McHale, in the middle of all of that stuff you posted, does have a
> very short definition of PostModernism (had to wade through it).
> His one line definition is:
> PostModernism places emphasis on the ontological.
> He defines Modernism, also one line:
> Modernism places emphasis on the epistemological.
Yes.
>
> So what do those sentences mean? Using those definitions, would this be
> correct:
> PoMo - "I?"
> Modernism - "What am I ?"
Yes.
That's right.
Thank God.
> >But I don't see why a 'good' postmodern deck could not be
> >created. By someone (with expert knowledge on the occult and the tarot -
> >both its metanarrative and its history).
>
> There isn't a reason why one couldn't, however, it is NOT necessary for a
> PoMo deck or book. Looking again at McHale's definition, all that is
> necessary for a PoMo deck or book is for it to be primarily concerned with
> it's ontology [philosophy of being].
Ahh.
But for it to be a PoMo Tarot deck?
Yes. For it just to be a pack of cards or artwork fullstop.
But I am contending for it to be a PoMo Tarot deck...
It would have to be using the Tarot patterns and paradigms to say "I?".
> If the deck were to focus so much on the knowledge and the expression of
> that knowledge then it would be primarily concerned with the epistemological
> and that would make it, according to McHale's definition, part of the
> Modernism movement.
Yes.
Ilan.
>
> Tea
>
>
>
>
MLYoung
>> feelings are real, however, since we have
>> direct access to them. (There must have
>> been a water sign wandering through)
>
>Postmodernism though makes the claim that nothing is unmediated.
Wrong. You have direct access to your
feelings. You should be careful about
making sweeping statements here.
>
>>
>> It's very disorienting. *smile*
>> >Some writers do seem a bit kinder to my mental faculties [going to look up
>> >more by Lyotard]. One thing I have learned from this excercise is how
>much
>> >I just took the term PoMo for granted and hadn't given it much attention
>or
>> >thought in its usage or application.
>>
>> Ah, I have it much easier, I studied
>> structuralism in school, which set me
>> up for post-structuralism and I'm friends
>> with a philosophy professor. I don't
>> have to go it alone.
>
>But when I asked you what you thought Of Derrida's deconstruction of
>structuralism (a very long time ago - it was in relation to Levi_strauss)
>- you made a fascinating statement. You said something like "Yes I see
>Derrida's point about these bricoleurs and engineurs; but, it functions
>fine anyway."
No, Ilan. Some day you must quit
rewriting history to your own benefit.
Oh, and read Levi-Strauss. You're
making a royal ass out of yourself.
All you're showing here is that you
didn't and still do not have the background
to understand what I said.
>
>And your philosophy professor friend; also believes like you that it is
>impossible to rationally decide to commit suicide. If I remember
>correctly.
No, Ilan. You simply failed to make
an argument that was not tautological.
Once again, you are arguing in absolutes
and I might add distorting what I said.
You are not a reliable narrator.
--margaret
>
>Ilan.
>
> >
>> --margaret
>>
>> >
>> >Tea
>> >http://www.drink.to/Luke
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Subject: Re: POMOism
>Path:
>lobby!newstf02.news.aol.com!portc05.blue.aol.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!logbr
idge.uoregon.edu!news.biu.ac.il!news.huji.ac.il!pob.huji.ac.il!shyn
>From: ilan pillemer sh...@pob.huji.ac.il
>Newsgroups: alt.tarot
>Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 00:27:06 +0200
>Organization: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
>Lines: 56
>Message-ID:
><Pine.BSI.3.96-heb-2.07.10...@pob.huji.ac.il>
>References: <s945s5...@corp.supernews.com>
><20000129144545...@ng-fh1.aol.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: pob.huji.ac.il
>Mime-Version: 1.0
MLYoung
>> Right and there's no single valid
>> authority. Many, if not all, viewpoints
>> are valid. Me, I can pick a lot of holes
>> in this notion, but that's definitely a
>> PoMo idea, which is why I find Ilan's
>> insistence on authorities particularly
>> strange.
>
>Yeah. Things are all artifacts of discourse. And Derrida did not say that
>everything is a text. He said that there is nothing outside the text.
Okay, kiddo, explain the difference
between those two statements. Please.
And
>it does not say that all viewpoints are valid. On the contrary it regards
>all viewpoints as equally invalid. And
Ditto. Logic's not your strong point.
much of its energy is directed
>towards showing how different viewpoints that call themselves in Martin
>Glover's 'The Absolute Truth.'; are self-contradictory; have an actual
>history, as opposed to dating back to time immemorial; and, use violence
>in order to spread its truth regime. If this kind of criticism, if
>directed towards Tarot - would necessiate showing where Tarot is
>self-contradictory, where Tarot has its incoherence. This would require an
>understanding of what Tarot is - before it can be criticised - and
>thereafter exploded. This is what I would
No, dearie. Once again, you're working
with absolutes and with the notion of
authority. When *are* you going to
break yourself of that habit? It's like
an instinct.
>consider a postmodern deck.
That's your viewpoint, which given
its dependence on absolutes and authority,
is not a postmodern one.
>
>The difference in thought seems to be this (and correct me if I am wrong)
> :-
>
>You think because a deck was created either by an idiot or as a
>money-making venture - and that deck claims the right to advertise itself
>as tarot - it is postmodern.
No. You should try to assume less.
>Why do you think its postmodern?
Poststructuralist, really, because it
uses tarot symbolism to create
agendas not based on the historical
authorities of tarot and, indeed, is
dismissive of those antecedents.
Also, several are extremely self-reflective.
>
>I tentatively suggest because they are claiming no-one has the right to
>say what Tarot is - how unegalitarian of them? How undemocratic? Doesn't
>everybody know that truth is relative...
You don't.
>
>Thats just scamming, Margaret.
No. You're doing your moral absolutism
shindig. PoMo ideals can be used towards
ends we admire and ends we do not.
>
>It has nothing to do with the actual ideas and objectives of postmodern
>thinkers.
Yes, actually, it does. Once again,
though, that's not actually necessary--
you're still doing your authority shtick--
relying on the notion that some people
are more true than others.
>
>I would call a deck postmodern if it was a postmodern criticism of the
>Tarot. Which would necessitate a
So what?
complete knowledge of the system under
>criticism to be valid as a postmodern criticism - and not just vulgar
>garbage.
That's simply because you have problems
accepting post-modernism--you act
and think on the assumption that there
is an ultimate reality.
>You are misunderstanding the difference between vulgar culture and the
>postmodern criticism of culture.
No, Ilan. If you knew post-modernism,
you'd know that the notion of vulgar
culture is very much a construct in
need of frequent explosion. There have
been several books on this.
>>
>> >So far, I don't see a conflict with how I am currently understanding PoMo
>> >and how it is used to describe decks in the alt.tarot FAQ.
>>
>> I don't think there is one. But, then,
>> I'm not an authority. <g>
>
>Be you are enough of an authority to tell me I have no idea what I am
>talking about?
Yeah, you idiot, you didn't even get
my joke. There are no *real* authorities,
according to post-modernism, Ilan.
Though, since I'm not a post-modernist,
I'm willing to say you don't know what
the fuck it's about.
>Get over this false humility.
>
>You are very sure of yourself.
Yes, I'm familiar with some of it and
even more familiar with the flaws in
your thinking processes--the
overdependence on authorities, the
tendency to use long quotes in place
of analysis and the need to hector and
abuse people who disagree with you--
whether or not you understand their
viewpoints.
You use your learning to pull rank on
others, to try to prove how much smarter
and more learned you are than they.
If you weren't such an immature and
insecure asshole, you'd try to explain
ideas to people and you'd be interested
when new, intelligent ideas came your
way instead of having a tantrum.
MLYoung
>
>> >
>> >It calls for rigorous thought and critical analysis of the assumptions of
>> >any given ideology. In that way it is related to Foucault, Derrida, Freud,
>> >Marx, Heidegger.
>>
>> Bzzzt! Wrong. Freud and Marx are
>> quintessential modernists and both
>> of them were ideological to boot--
>> particularly Marx.
>
>Yes. But Freud pointed out that rational though was suspect and false. Our
>conscious reasons are never our REAL reasons.
Yes, but to refer to him the context of
postmodernism is needlessly confusing.
As I say, you're confusing modernism
and postmodernism.
>
>And Marx spoke about 'false consciousness.'
>
>I know that they were modernists. But these facets of their thoughts
>definitely led to the questioning of ideology itself. It contained the
>seeds.
Not nearly as much as Nietzsche.
Indeed, much of postmodernism is
a rebellion against the absolutes of
Freudianism and Marxism.
>
> >
>> It's not simply questioning any given
>> ideology, it's questioning the very
>> notion of ideology itself.
>
>That is true. But Marx and Freud both presented ideas that would encourage
>this move.
No, no more than other moderns, such
as Darwin, Durkheim and Nietzsche.
>
>> Oh, get over yourself, Ilan. Your post
>> was a badly written assemblage of
>> quotes geared more toward displaying
>> your "superior" knowledge than giving
>> people a clear idea of what postmodernism
>> is.
>
>Oh.
>
>Lets see if I can sum it up in three lines.
>
>Take all the common features of a body of texts. Find a way to explain the
>reason for this clustering of features. In postmodern texts there are
>clustering of a particular features that foreground ontological
>problematics.
>
>Five lines.
Yes. And a very limited description
of one facet of postmodernism that
doesn't go very far. Also, what's
a post-modern text if there is only text?
What is it to "foreground onteological
problematics"?
--margaret
>
>Ilan.
>
> >
>> --margaret
>>
>> >
>> >Sweetie Pie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
hilander
>It would have to be using the Tarot patterns and paradigms to say "I?".
This is where we differ. If one is using patterns and paradigms, isn't one
defining the 'thing' and still working within the 'confines' of a specific
knowledge which would, according to PoMo theory, be accepting a metanarative
so, it would not be PoMo, it would be Modernism?
It's almost as if the 'experience' of the 'thing' was more important in PoMo
philosophy than 'knowledge' of the 'thing'.
A PoMo deck or book would encourage the individual to explore their own
experience and impression of Tarot [defining for themselves 'Tarot?'] where
as a Modern deck or book would encourage the individual to explore ALL
sources of knowledge.
It was pointed out that, in PoMo philosophy, *if* there is a 'Truth/Purity'
individuals could not know it because the simple act of perceiving 'it'
would corrupt it with the agendas and biases of the individual (sex, race,
environment, class, etc., etc). The 'Truth/Purity' [if it exists] would be
corrupted even further with any attempt to 'share' the knowledge because not
only would the 'thing' have been corrupted with the perception of the first
person it would then be corrupted by the next person whose own perception of
the corrupted communication is also swayed and biased (so we have: a corrupt
perception+corrupt communication+another corrupt perception=one person
telling another person something). [Ever play 'Broken Telephone' as a
child?].
In order to get to the purest form (being) of the 'thing', in this case
Tarot, PoMo would encourage firsthand experience and discourage learning
'the system' or the knowledge of others because it would taint the purity of
'Tarot'.
This isn't my philosophy but it is what I understand, at this point, to be
the philosophy of PoMo.
There are decks and books that fall into this definition and I would accept
the term PoMo applied to them.
My question is: How much 'knowledge of Tarot' and application of it in a
deck or book would be necessary before it was either included or excluded in
a PoMo deck category?
Would Reed's _Witches Tarot_, for example, be considered a PoMo deck?
Tea
ilan pillemer
On 30 Jan 2000, MLYoung wrote:
> >
> >Postmodernism though makes the claim that nothing is unmediated.
>
> Wrong. You have direct access to your
> feelings. You should be careful about
> making sweeping statements here.
Wrong. According to the ideas of postmodernity nothing is unmediated.
Ilan.
ilan pillemer
> >Yeah. Things are all artifacts of discourse. And Derrida did not say that
> >everything is a text. He said that there is nothing outside the text.
>
> Okay, kiddo, explain the difference
> between those two statements. Please.
Do you really want me to?
You seem to think that some schmuck on the street's opinion on what the
ideas that drive postmodernism are equal in value to Derrida's.
I think you're just pulling my chain.
But I tell you what. I will tell you exactly where the quote comes from.
I seriously doubt that you will accept anything I try and explain to you -
because you already have come the assumption that I do not know what I am
talking about. And you are stuck in that groove. You also seem to think
you know what you are talking about. Or at least seem to think you have
the reading skills to cope with Derrida. So here is where the quote comes
from :-
Derrida, J. "...That Dangerous Supplement..." in "Of Grammatology" transl
Spivak.
But thinking about it perhaps you will listen to what Derek Attridge says
Derrida is saying? Or do you really reject all the academic scholarly
critical rigorous thinkers?
You need to get over your lack respect for
learning.
" 'There is no outside-the-text' - This is my literal translation of 'Il
n'y pas de hors-texte,' one of Derrida's more notorious, and notoriously
misunderstood, formulations. It does not mean 'the things that we usually
consider to be outside texts do not exist' but 'there is nothing that
completely escapes the general properties of textuality, etc.' - that is,
as Derrida goes on to explain, no 'natural prescence' that can be known
'in itself'. [ie Margaret, there is nothing that is UNMEDIATED] But it is
also true that there is no inside-the-text, since this would again imply
an inside/outside boundary. "
-- Derrida J., "Acts of Literature", ed. Derek Attridge
Now if you actually read what I just quoted... you will see that part of
Derrida's claim that there is nothing outside the text - is wholly
connected to his idea that nothing is UNMEDIATED.
Yet, you will quote "incorrectly" what Derrida was saying - and yet in the
next line state unequivocable an idea that is in direct opposition to what
you were referring to. This is just lazy thinking, Margaret.
>
> That's your viewpoint, which given
> its dependence on absolutes and authority,
> is not a postmodern one.
And youre just playing with sophistry.
>
> >
> >The difference in thought seems to be this (and correct me if I am wrong)
> > :-
> >
> >You think because a deck was created either by an idiot or as a
> >money-making venture - and that deck claims theright to advertise itself
> >as tarot - it is postmodern.
>
> No. You should try to assume less.
Oh really....
>
> >Why do you think its postmodern?
>
> Poststructuralist, really, because it
> uses tarot symbolism to create
> agendas not based on the historical
> authorities of tarot and, indeed, is
> dismissive of those antecedents.
> Also, several are extremely self-reflective.
Ahh. Thats poststructuralism?
>
> >
> >I tentatively suggest because they are claiming no-one has the right to
> >say what Tarot is - how unegalitarian of them? How undemocratic? Doesn't
> >everybody know that truth is relative...
>
> You don't.
> >
> >Thats just scamming, Margaret.
>
> >
> >It has nothing to do with the actual ideas and objectives of postmodern
> >thinkers.
>
> Yes, actually, it does. Once again,
> though, that's not actually necessary--
> you're still doing your authority shtick--
> relying on the notion that some people
> are more true than others.
Yes I am.
I happen to have a respect for learning, for critical thought, and
rigorous deconstruction of truth regimes.
I happen to respect figures like De Man (despite his biography) and
Derrida and Foucault et al.
I happen to have respect for those that apply their minds to seeing where
ideology is masquerading as truth.
You do not.
But thats fine - its your loss.
If you want to hide in your little world. If you want to hide from what
these figures are saying and what they are challenging on the basis of the
very culture they are instrumental in...
that is your loss.
> >criticism to be valid as a postmodern criticism - and not just vulgar
> >garbage.
>
> That's simply because you have problems
> accepting post-modernism--you act
> and think on the assumption that there
> is an ultimate reality.
>
> >You are misunderstanding the difference between vulgar culture and the
> >postmodern criticism of culture.
>
> No, Ilan. If you knew post-modernism,
> you'd know that the notion of vulgar
> culture is very much a construct in
> need of frequent explosion. There have
> been several books on this.
> >>
> >> I don't think there is one. But, then,
> >> I'm not an authority. <g>
> >
> >Be you are enough of an authority to tell me I have no idea what I am
> >talking about?
>
> Yeah, you idiot, you didn't even get
> my joke. There are no *real* authorities,
> according to post-modernism, Ilan.
Ahh. Bullshit.
Youre just too lazy to apply your mind to them.
SO you pretend they don't exist.
Kind of like the bugblatter beast.
> Though, since I'm not a post-modernist,
> I'm willing to say you don't know what
> the fuck it's about.
You don't have the foggiest notions of what you are talking about.
You don't want to.
Its much easier just to label and discard.
>
> >Get over this false humility.
> >
> >You are very sure of yourself.
>
> Yes, I'm familiar with some of it and
> even more familiar with the flaws in
> your thinking processes--the
> overdependence on authorities, the
> tendency to use long quotes in place
> of analysis and the need to hector and
> abuse people who disagree with you--
> whether or not you understand their
> viewpoints.
See. You just want to pull my chain.
Well whatever turns you on.
>
> You use your learning to pull rank on
> others, to try to prove how much smarter
> and more learned you are than they.
Are you quite sure that this advice shouldn't be taken by you?
> If you weren't such an immature and
> insecure asshole, you'd try to explain
> ideas to people and you'd be interested
> when new, intelligent ideas came your
> way instead of having a tantrum.
But I thought you said I do not know what I am talking about.
If I really do not - then I shouldn't try and explain anything; because
then I would just be spreading disinformation.
And I would not want to do that.
Ilan.
MLYoung
>
>It may be "bad" postmodernism, or stupid postmodernism,
>but it still applies.
I once called it degraded postmodernism
during the Purkiss affair. It's intellectually
pretty lightweight.
--margaret
MLYoung
>> >Yeah. Things are all artifacts of discourse. And Derrida did not say that
>> >everything is a text. He said that there is nothing outside the text.
>>
>> Okay, kiddo, explain the difference
>> between those two statements. Please.
>
>Do you really want me to?
>
>You seem to think that some schmuck on the street's opinion on what the
>ideas that drive postmodernism are equal in value to Derrida's.
Whoops, there you go again, fixing
up hierarchies and anointing Derrida
as a god.
Yes, I want you to explain it because I
think you don't grasp the concepts very
well. If you can explain them clearly,
you'll understand them better.
>
>I think you're just pulling my chain.
Nope. I'm trying to get you to think--
really think.
>But I tell you what. I will tell you exactly where the quote comes from.
>I seriously doubt that you will accept anything I try and explain to you -
>because you already have come the assumption that I do not know what I am
>talking about. And you are stuck in that groove. You also seem to think
>you know what you are talking about. Or at least seem to think you have
>the reading skills to cope with Derrida. So here is where the quote comes
>from :-
Sorry, Ilan, it doesn't work that way.
When you are able to explain the ideas
without making basic mistakes and
in your own words, I'll start to think you
understand the concepts. All you're
showing here is that you know where to
look things up, not that you can take
the concepts and apply them.
I know you've read the stuff, but you
don't seem to analyze it very well.
>
>Derrida, J. "...That Dangerous Supplement..." in "Of Grammatology" transl
>Spivak.
>
>But thinking about it perhaps you will listen to what Derek Attridge says
>Derrida is saying? Or do you really reject all the academic scholarly
>critical rigorous thinkers?
See, once again you're namedropping
in an attempt to deflect criticism--to
shroud yourself, to use jk's metaphor,
in priestly veils.
>
>You need to get over your lack respect for
>learning.
Ilan, I have a better formal education than
you do, for what it's worth. One of the
pivotal skills for any would-be scholar
is analysis. No text is sacred and beyond
criticism. I don't know how matters go
at the University of Jerusalem, but when
I was in school, I was encouraged to
examine and critique ideas and think
for myself. I understand structuralism
because I wrote about it, applied it and
critiqued it. As for post-modernism,
I came by it rather naturally--many of
my criticisms of structuralism turned out
to have been made by Derrida some
time before. No great genius on my
part, I'm sure I was simply picking up
ideas without knowing their formal
titles.
>" 'There is no outside-the-text' - This is my literal translation of 'Il
>n'y pas de hors-texte,' one of Derrida's more notorious, and notoriously
>misunderstood, formulations. It does not mean 'the things that we usually
>consider to be outside texts do not exist' but 'there is nothing that
>completely escapes the general properties of textuality, etc.' - that is,
>as Derrida goes on to explain, no 'natural prescence' that can be known
>'in itself'. [ie Margaret, there is nothing that is UNMEDIATED] But it is
>also true that there is no inside-the-text, since this would again imply
>an inside/outside boundary. "
>
>-- Derrida J., "Acts of Literature", ed. Derek Attridge
>
>Now if you actually read what I just quoted... you will see that part of
>Derrida's claim that there is nothing outside the text - is wholly
>connected to his idea that nothing is UNMEDIATED.
No, that is Attridge's interpretation. And
you've yet to explain the difference
between the comments.
And, if nothing's unmediated, what is
the agent of mediation?
Oh, by the way, Derrida's not the final
word on postmodernism. It's an
ongoing dialogue--Derrida has, himself,
been subject to ample criticism.
>
>Yet, you will quote "incorrectly" what Derrida was saying - and yet in the
No, I've not quoted him at all. Why
do you keep lying about me? It's
annoying.
>next line state unequivocable an idea that is in direct opposition to what
>you were referring to. This is just lazy thinking, Margaret.
Where have I done that, Ilan? The same
place you imagine I quoted Derrida?
>
>>
>> That's your viewpoint, which given
>> its dependence on absolutes and authority,
>> is not a postmodern one.
>
>And youre just playing with sophistry.
No. I'm trying to get you to think.
>> >The difference in thought seems to be this (and correct me if I am wrong)
>> > :-
>> >
>> >You think because a deck was created either by an idiot or as a
>> >money-making venture - and that deck claims theright to advertise itself
>> >as tarot - it is postmodern.
>>
>> No. You should try to assume less.
>
>Oh really....
Yes.
>
>>
>> >Why do you think its postmodern?
>>
>> Poststructuralist, really, because it
>> uses tarot symbolism to create
>> agendas not based on the historical
>> authorities of tarot and, indeed, is
>> dismissive of those antecedents.
>> Also, several are extremely self-reflective.
>
>Ahh. Thats poststructuralism?
Don't you know?
>> Yes, actually, it does. Once again,
>> though, that's not actually necessary--
>> you're still doing your authority shtick--
>> relying on the notion that some people
>> are more true than others.
>
>Yes I am.
>
>I happen to have a respect for learning, for critical thought, and
>rigorous deconstruction of truth regimes.
Ah, then, perhaps you should learn
to deconstruct those beliefs.
>I happen to respect figures like De Man (despite his biography) and
>Derrida and Foucault et al.
>
>I happen to have respect for those that apply their minds to seeing where
>ideology is masquerading as truth.
Then look at yourself.
<grandstanding snipped>
If you really respect these men, Ilan,
you will begin to break down your
own truths, examine your own
unquestioned tenets. I believe this is
what jk is asking you to do and I think
it's a good idea.
>> >Be you are enough of an authority to tell me I have no idea what I am
>> >talking about?
>>
>> Yeah, you idiot, you didn't even get
>> my joke. There are no *real* authorities,
>> according to post-modernism, Ilan.
>
>Ahh. Bullshit.
>
>Youre just too lazy to apply your mind to them.
>SO you pretend they don't exist.
No, Ilan. I told you, I'm not a post-
modernist. However, I suggest you
wander over to your philosophy
department and ask about this. Or
read some Foucault.
<snip>
>
>You don't want to.
>
>Its much easier just to label and discard.
Certainly, for you--it's exactly how
you deal with ideas alien to you.
>> >Get over this false humility.
>> >
>> >You are very sure of yourself.
>>
>> Yes, I'm familiar with some of it and
>> even more familiar with the flaws in
>> your thinking processes--the
>> overdependence on authorities, the
>> tendency to use long quotes in place
>> of analysis and the need to hector and
>> abuse people who disagree with you--
>> whether or not you understand their
>> viewpoints.
>
>See. You just want to pull my chain.
No, I want you to think.
>>
>> You use your learning to pull rank on
>> others, to try to prove how much smarter
>> and more learned you are than they.
>
>Are you quite sure that this advice shouldn't be taken by you?
I almost never quote, Ilan, and I try
to make myself as clear as possible.
You know nothing about my educational
background or what I have and have not
read. So, no, I don't do what you do.
>
>> If you weren't such an immature and
>> insecure asshole, you'd try to explain
>> ideas to people and you'd be interested
>> when new, intelligent ideas came your
>> way instead of having a tantrum.
>
>But I thought you said I do not know what I am talking about.
Yes, but that's because you have been
rigid in your thinking. If you worked
harder at explaining what you read, you'd
understand it better. One would help
cure the other.
--margaret
Shaun Goodwin
J. Karlin wrote in message <388DB2ED...@texas.net>...
>
>How helpful it is to cloud things up, right before you turn
>nothing into an academic "discipline".
>
>Yes, this should be fun.
>
And he thinks I'm stupid.
Carry on.
Shaun
J. Karlin
cow-mooing and dopesmoking, attempted to deconstruct
the FAQ's take on pomo tarot]:
> "Basically there are three kinds of pomo decks..." [FAQ]
>
> Ok so you believe that these postmodern decks can be split into three
> kinds of postmodern decks.
No, I have split them into three kinds of postmodern decks to
make more convenient (to myself and readers) the brief
summary of a cloudy scenario (mostly scripted by others).
I get to do that, regardless of what I may believe, and
certainly regardless of what you may believe.
You consistently confuse here the nature of the discussion
(in the FAQ), it's about the cards, and the people who
make the cards, and what THEY believe.
Your emotional problems about what that signifies are of
no pertinence whatsoever.
> But what did you mean by postmodern?
Recall I'm partly journalizing, and partly metanarrativizing
(if ironically).
I think my chronology is modernist in that respect, don't
you? Postmodernists have no concern with historical narratives
---or do they?
You see, I think what people have come to realize, and what
seems to me to be the most likely explanation about postmodernism,
is that it never existed, not even as set of ideas or beliefs.
It was just a semantical game (thus the focus on "play")
or scam (thus the focus on three-card-monte dialectics)
created by people needing to justify their academic
existence by establishing "difference" (Derrida even coined
a new version of this word---différance---which means
to distance and distinguish a sign from the thing it
signifies and to defer the confrontation with some kind
of "presence" of the signified, but is really just part
of a jargon-set designed to distance and distinguish one
group of "theorists" from another while deferring their
confrontation with the fact they need to get a fucking
job).
In marketing they also have this concept, it is called
"differentiation", and it has much the same meaning
as it does in postmodernism, to establish a difference
between one product and the next, and to at the same
time defer the buying decision, until the tendency of
buyers to conflate all products into THE product has
been successfully countered. To avoid being lost in the
shuffle of products, marketers and advertisers will do
just about anything to make themselves look and
particularly FEEL different to consumers.
The same thing happens in the marketplace of ideas.
If you've got nothing particularly new to say, but
you're employed in a "newsaying" or "newspeak"
profession (e.g., advertising, politics, philosophy),
then you'd better come up with some way to distinguish
YOUR newspeak from the next fellow's. One of the great ways
to do that is to mask your mediocrity with jargon, with
"concepts", with "theories".
If you're a "philosopher" or a critical "theorist",
your very career may depend upon your being able to
differentiate yourself from the other products,
or theorists, in the marketplace. On the other
hand, if you're an artist or a writer, and can
manage to get your product branded with a fashionable
"theory", then that's great too (makes your "art"
much more commodifiable).
Beyond this, and this may serve to explain why Ilan seems
to have an emotional investment of some sort in this
"text" (since he's training for a certain priesthood),
if you can combine the productizing aspects of the
market with the irrational emotional appeal of religion,
then you're way ahead of the game. This is something we
all know about from the way in which tarot is sold as a
"spiritual" product under so many brands---"occultism",
"newageism", "psychism".
You've got your basic fortune-tellers, divinationists,
psychics, advisors, pseudo-shrinkists, "real" shrinkists,
"doctors" of all sorts (even some with actual shrinkist's
degrees from sort-of-real schools).
At the same time, over in the more respectable newspeak
professions, you've got all kinds of "theory" products
to choose from as well, and some of them are promoted
as cure-all, be-all, end-all "saving" sets of beliefs,
the peddlers and priests of which can go far (in a
constrained sort of way). If you can be ordained a
postmodernist, for example, with a sufficient clutch
upon the jargon and a sufficient contempt for language
(and people) to only be interested in using it as a set
of cups and balls, you can move up in academe, publish
dense packets of text no one will ever read, and feel
confident that you're on the conning instead of the
conned side of the postmodern equation.
> "An amalgamation of diverse and often overlapping movements and
> ideologies".
>
> Ahh. What a lucid definition. Lets see if you get any more specific.
Well, first let's provide the specific unedited quote so people
can see how you have no intellectual integrity (like that's news):
"5. Post-modern (1983-Apocalypse)---This date assignment is purely
arbitrary, since many of the motivations that have led to pomotarot
(itself, an amalgamation of diverse but often overlapping movements
and ideologies) started back in the 1960s, when multi-cultural,
gender-conscious, and anti-traditional (the assumption was that IF
it was traditional it HAD to be bad) attitudes were infiltrating all
modes of pop and academic culture."
Now, readers, what was jk talking about there? Was he "defining"
postmodernism? Or was he talking about something more particular,
but related (in some way that escapes professional "theorists"
such as Ilan)?
I was talking about pomotarot, and indeed this was mostly
a discussion of a justification for choosing an arbitrary
start-date for the period. The period is a subset of a
diachronic development of TAROT, which is merely factual,
not ideological. I am noting the development as an observer.
I am not particularly interested, in this description, in
the validity of the various ideological claims one may make
about the divisions. In other words, Ilan's differing opinion
about the usage of "postmodern" applied to a group of tarot
decks here is quite irrelevant, if his only complaint is
that I have not fairly or "correctly" used the term, as
he understands it. That complaint has more to do with his
understanding (or misunderstanding), and not my usage.
To be relevant to what I am talking about (in the FAQ)
his critique would need to be focused on the way in which
"postmodern" IS USED and IS APPLIED to these decks IN THE
FAQ---isn't that what your view of a postmodernist critique
implies, Ilan? After all, you claimed each "system" had to
be examined insularly, for what it truly was (and presumably
for what it truly "says").
Because, to argue otherwise, that you are "allowed" to use
postmodernism as YOU understand it to then negate the usage
of it by others, in other contexts, would be to commit the very
"sin" you seem to want to pin upon me. In other words, you wish
to unfairly valorize YOUR difference and to demonize mine.
But, the support of DIFFERING interpretations as equally valid
(indeed as necessarily valid because of their difference)
is at the heart of a postmodernist hermeneutics.
Isn't that so?
> And actually define this scape-goat of yours...
Why do you think it is a "scape-goat"?
Why are you so protective of "it"?
You act as if it's your pet. That it can be "insulted",
"abused", treated unfairly and made a "scapegoat".
One would almost be led to believe that you think postmodernism---
is Jewish.
Is that it?
> Modernism includes all these features as well.
Lots of things include "features", products of all sort.
But it's the presumed "benefits" that matter in the successful
sale, Ilan.
It is no great secret that postmodernism often grafts itself
onto modernist motifs, often attempts to steal modernist
thunders by way of claiming to resurrect them or to get back
to the "true religion" implied in archaic modernism.
You have avoided confronting the socio-political influences
the movements claim to represent and to have promoted. You are
paying no heed to the very real, if perhaps absurd, political
motives that attract people, like cartofeminists, or yourself,
to adopt pm and deconstructive approaches to tarot.
Why are your avoiding this?
> And I don't remember Crowley being the most traditional chap.
Depended upon his mood.
Now tell me whether you think the following is
Modernist, Postmodernist, or something else (it is
a portion of a call for some kind of revolution):
WE DECLARE:
1. That all forms of imitation must be despised, all forms
of originality glorified.
2. That it is essential to rebel against the tyranny of the
terms "harmony" and "good taste" as being too elastic
expressions, by the help of which it is easy to demolish
the works of Rembrandt, of Goya and of Rodin.
3. That the art critics are useless or harmful.
4. That all subjects previously used must be swept aside
in order to express our whirling life of STEEL, or pride,
of FEVER and of SPEED.
5. That the title of "MADMAN" with which it is attempted
to call all innovators should be looked upon as a title
of honor.
6. We intend to glorify the love of danger, the strength
of daring.
7. The essential elements of our poetry will be courage,
audacity, and revolt.
8. There is no more beauty except in struggle. No masterpiece
without the stamp of aggressiveness. Poetry should be a
violent assault against unknown forces to summon them to
lie down at the feet of man.
9. We are on the extreme promontory of ages! Why look
back since we must break down the mysterious doors of
Impossibility! Time and Space died yesterday. We already
live in the Absolute for we have already created the
omnipresent eternal speed.
10. We glorify war---the only true hygiene of the world---
militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of
anarchism, the beautiful Ideas which kill, and the
scorn of woman.
11. We will destroy museums, libraries, and fight against
moralism, feminism, and all utilitarian cowardice.
So, what do you think? What kind of "theorists" wrote
that?
Before you answer, look at this:
"What is weak is forgettable and will be forgotten. Only
strength is memorable; only the capacity to wound gives
a healing capacity that chance to endure, and so to be
heard. Freedom of meaning is wrested by combat, of meaning
against meaning. But this combat consists in a READING
ENCOUNTER, and in an interpretive moment within that
encounter. Poetic warfare is conducted by a kind of
strong reading that I have called misreading, and here
again I enter into an area where I seem to have provoked
anxieties,,,Paul Valéry observed that "one only reads
well when he reads with some quite personal goal
in mind. It may be to acquire some power. It can
be out of hatred for the author...Reading well
is therefore not necessarily a polite process,
and may not meet the academy's social standards
of civility...[and now to forge a link] Gnosis
and Kabbalah, though heterodox, are at once
traditional and yet also de-idealizing in their
accounts of reading and writing, and I continue
to go back to them to discover properly drastic
models for reading and critical writing."
---Harold Bloom. "The Breaking of Form"
See, Ilan, that's why you're such a lousy reader, you
have no quite personal goal in mind.
It seems to me many of the ideas claimed to be the
tenets of postmodernism have antecedents, and that has
led to a line of of theorizing that suggests postmodernism
is simply an end of a certain modernist line of logic,
which as anyone could have seen (and many did see)
would be ultimately self-consuming.
This has really always been the problem---the stupid boring
self. What is the self, what should the self do, or
be about, or be worth---what should be done about the
self?
That is ultimately what this is all about, and why people
spend the time to study tarot, in various levels
of rigor and "sense".
But, as the "self", or many millions of selves, have been
mechanized, mass-murdered, and finally digitized (extended
into a global mass), the concern of the self was seen
as mostly a PROBLEM, and really a social problem, to
be "solved". That's what modernism has been about---solving
this problem. All kinds of suggestions have been made,
"liberation", "repression", "isolation", "communization",
"materialization", "spiritualization", "extermination"
---until finally the will to keep blathering on about it
was utterly exhausted, or rather the ingenuity to say
anything new was exhausted (and one wonders if that didn't
happen long before the 20th century really).
But, in critical theorizing, the self is ALWAYS getting
in the way, has always gotten in the way, and the
easiest, the most elegant solution, was ignored.
Just get rid of the self. Assassinate it, uncreate
it, send it back into the Abyss where it belongs.
Do that, and the "society", the community of associations
and interpretations, the union of the textless texts,
the congress of the formless forms and imageless images,
will finally be unburdened to become the nothing they
were always meant to be.
It is, as someone has been talking about, a very modern,
postmodern, "Dance of Death".
Or, as some "theorists" apocalyptically envision:
"Ours is a "fin-de-millenium" consciousness, which,
existing at the end of history in the twilight
time of ultramodernism (of technology) and
hyperprimitivism (of public moods), uncovers
a great arc of disintegration and decay against
the background radiation of parody, kitsch,
and burnout."
That tone, or mood, certainly occupies the attention
of anyone observing the parodies and burnout of
tarot. It has been co-opted, commodified (turned
into a commodity to be marketed), and made utterly
absurd, as one can see from the news this week that
tarot-readers were being recruited from the ranks
of welfare recipients, with government approval
for the "psychic" training program.
The only question that confronts us, and it is
the question that always confronts us, is this
pyre to the ashes, or is it fuel for a kiln,
making a new formulation?
There is no reason these questions and conjectures
about the answers can not be directed at tarot as
well as at anything else, and there is no reason
to think these questions and conjectures have
not already been directed at tarot (despite the
general indifference to the quality of the
conjectures so far).
Now, many of you are probably wondering how exactly
this war of ideas has any relevance whatsoever to
you, and to what YOU think and for how YOU might
wish to use tarot.
And YOU are the ones that Ilan figures are non-entities,
and he's not alone in that opinion. It is, after all,
a perfectly traditional occultist opinion, that the
swine should not be engaged, should not be pearled,
but should only be turned into ham and bacon at
"our" convenience. But, oddly, postmodernism provides
an argument to advance in your interests as well, for
it argues, in spite of what Ilan might want, that
the hierarchical elitist dispensation of and
dissemination of interpretation and truth is wrong
and that ANYONE and EVERYONE must join in the game.
Postmodernism, recall, has slain the individual, and
has elevated the glob of swine. That's you, piggies.
You get to stomp upon the artifacts of cultures till
they are just one big manure-covered wholism.
So, get to it. Buy them "easy" tarot books, read
them "easy" tarot decks. Go to them "easy" congressional
cluster-fucks. And more than anything, stupidly
spend spend spend spend spend. The world economy needs
you to keep doing that.
Sorry, Ilan, but that IS postmodernism.
> So now we know what you mean when you say there are "three kinds of pomo
> decks"; you mean...
...that there are three kinds of pomotarot decks, just like
I said. I also say it is an arbitrary division, and the others
can and will make their own determinations about such things.
> In your description of the 'Cartofeminist' you say that postmodernism
> needs fulfill themselves in "the rejection of what are described as the
> traditional icons of the evil patriarchy (including obviously any
> traditional tarot symbology and interpretation.)"
> So now according to you postmodernism is some kind of ultra-feminism.
No, I would say, and have said, that postmodernist methods of
criticism are adopted by people like "cartofeminists", whose
interests are served by opposing traditional interpretations
and substituting their own. Of course, they were ALWAYS able
to do this, assuming they had any interest in doing so,
but the theoretical basis which legitimized this sort
of approach (of dishonesty and theft), opened the door
of newagism to a whole new "professional" class.
Pomos make the same, questionable, appeal to authority (divorced
from reasonable skepticism) in the things they claim, that you
often do.
Of course, you are a pomo.
> How fucking stupid.
Yes, you are fucking stupid, but that comes with your
territory.
> "TRUE postmodernism". Ha ha ha.
>
> Up until now of course YOU, you silly billy, have only been talking about
> UNTRUE postmodernism. What the fuck is that.
Again, this is a discussion (in the FAQ) of postmodern tarot decks.
What is true or untrue about these would best be garnered by
reading and respecting the text (in the FAQ). So, what
is true about the decks listed under "true postmodern", is
that they, unlike the decks listed under the other pomo
categories, are not promoting a particular -ism, or an absence
of an -ism, but seem to me to be true to postmodernism in the
way they consciously divorce themselves from "true" adherence
to any particular or traditional sense of the "signified". "True",
in that view, as is the view the author took in discussion
of most of this postmodern section, is intended to be ironic.
> How goddam unlucid.
Yes, you are.
But, that is the signification you are stuck with.
Perhaps if you stopped anesthetizing yourself your
mind would clear.
> But anyone who has been paying attention has noted that you, (jk), had
> already defined postmodernism as "anti-traditional".
No, actually anyone paying attention to what I wrote would
see that I was talking about tarot decks, and how postmodernism
may be reasonably (and/or popularly) applied to groupings of
them. It is only superficially paradoxical to note that pomos
use traditional motifs to subvert them. Of course, you'd need
to be paying attention to more than this limited discussion to
note that.
> What the FUCK is up with that?
You're an incompetent reader.
Again, this is not news.
> Postmodernism believes in egalitarian symbols?
Postmodernism believes in nothing.
Postmodernists can and do proclaim beliefs in many
(seemingly paradoxical or simply incorrect) things.
For example:
"...the most significant trends within postmodernism have
challenged modernism's relentless hostility to mass culture."
---Andreas Huyssen
You are confused because you take a solipsistic approach
to learning. You are an elitist, therefore you imagine that
anything you like must support your elitism. That is
not necessarily the case.
The promotion of alternative, egalitarian, POPULAR
interpretations in opposition to a presumed repressive
and elite authority is certainly a postmodernist
view and method, and one we see in tarot.
> With words like "hyperreal"; "under erasure"...
What do those terms mean, Ilan?
Be specific.
> and constant reference to Nietsche---
But constant reference to what about Nietzsche? To
what ideas.
Be specific.
> and
> Foucault et al. The last thing postmodernism believes in is easy to
> understand symbology or 'egalitarian symbology'.
Then postmodernism has arrived at the last thing in its
beliefs.
> But lets go a step further in this rather fascinating definition of
> postmodernism according to you.
Or, one could just realize you don't know what the fuck
you're talking about, and move on.
> "symbols should be thrown open to what are often called 'intuitive'
> methods of interpretation... make up anything that suits your fancy..."
> [FAQ].
>
> Postmodernism is more about showing up the falseness of ideologies.
Including that ideology?
Pomos perceive the notion that occult tarot, or "hidden" tarot,
is truer than one invented by intuition (or simply one
imagined out of thin air), to be a false ideology.
> Its not about encouraging and inculcating vacuousness and false
> consciosness.
Then it has become more than what you know it to be about.
> If thats your brilliant FAQ with its incisive thought and clarity - then
> who am I to wonder about its utter failure to ever actually define
> postmodernism.
You would realize, again, that you can't read English.
Try a language more suited to your sensibilities.
Hebrew?
Pig-latin?
> You just set up a strawman - called it postmodernism - and blamed it for
> the bad cards that have flooded the market.
No, you set up a strawman---called it postmodernism---and
saved it from an attack it never suffered.
Perhaps it shall pay you a reward, of straw.
> But really, I don't care that much---
That's all you really needed to write.
So, why blather on as if this were not obviously the
case?
> I think I will rather chew my cud, smoke my grass, and moo moo moo.
What do you mean "rather"?
J. Karlin
>
> J. Karlin wrote in message <388DB2ED...@texas.net>...
>
> >
> >How helpful it is to cloud things up, right before you turn
> >nothing into an academic "discipline".
> >
> >Yes, this should be fun.
> >
>
> And he thinks I'm stupid.
I know you're stupid.
So do you.
J. Karlin
> I haven't heard that historians say that the tarot is of "Egyptian origin."
> The FAQ doesn't, if I got it right.
>
> Therefore, doesn't that place Crowley's entire thesis and the foundation for
> the BoT and Crowley's interpretations, + his keywords, in considerable shady
> light?
As opposed to what other kind of "light"?
Tarot is Egyptian. Crowley's tarot is Egyptian.
That is not in question.
What may be in question is how different people may understand
those statements.
More than this, what may be in question is how the origin of
a thing relates to its worth or merit, or more correctly,
how the correct reporting of the origin of a thing relates
to the worth or merit of the ideas of a thing.
If the worth or merit rests mainly or solely upon the legitimate
or valid reporting of an origin, then an incorrect report would
tend to suggest the value may be questioned, or invalidated.
If the worth or merit rests mainly or solely upon some
other parameters, perhaps the incorrect reporting of the
"facts" of the case will not be enough to sink the ship.
Sometimes it just comes down to whether or not, and how
well, you can take a joke.
> In other words, why would we give credibility to the BoT---
"credibility" as what exactly?
It has the credibility of being a book about the tarot
deck designed by Aleister Crowley. I am almost certain
that claim is true.
What other credibility are you questioning here?
> when it appears to be a bias based on Crowley's apparently misguided premise?
His premise is not misguided, it's simply wrong.
His "bias" is something else again, and again has little or
nothing to do with his skill or reliability as an historian.
> His leap of Mat = Maut, or is derived therefrom, seems possibly silly---
Which would be appropriate, wouldn't it?
> in light of---
By the way, lighten up.
The light may get through easier.
> the above considerations.
"the above considerations" are an obstacle you've constructed.
I'm sure you have good reasons for constructing this obstacle.
> I'm anxious to learn how to look at this dilemma for me.,
No dilemma for you.
Stop. Or go forward.
Easy.
Look to your own motives, and your own objectives. There's the
answer.
BTW, everyone else, this is what I really mean when I say
"go knit". Or at least that is what I really mean today
when I say it.
MLYoung
>
>> >
>> >Postmodernism though makes the claim that nothing is unmediated.
>>
>> Wrong. You have direct access to your
>> feelings. You should be careful about
>> making sweeping statements here.
>
>Wrong. According to the ideas of postmodernity nothing is unmediated.
>
>Ilan.
Sigh. Let's try it one more time--what
is the agent of mediation--your feelings--
as they are the only thing to which you
have direct access. You are what you
feel--otherwise, you're nonexistent.
Stop scraping and bowing to your gods,
Ilan, and think about this for a second.
What is the agent of mediation? When
Derrida and co. are talking about nothing
being unmediated, that means anything
external and the rules with which we learn
to construct a reality.
If you knew structuralism, you'd
understand the basis of this. Post-
modernism is not saying we do not
exist--your fallacious interpretation,
however, does lead to that conclusion.
So, quit the flaming and think this
through.
--margaret
MLYoung
>
>> this one is Foucault, who wrote about
>> sex from the perspective of power.
>> Particularly, the defining of what is and
>> isn't allowable sex. You can see how
>> this might be of interest in gender politics.
>> (As an added kick, Foucault was
>> quite fond of the gay, leather scene.)
>
>his idea. I saw a failed one like that in Philedelphia. It was very
>creepy. The only thing that comes close in creepiness (that I've
>seen) is the prison where the Czar kept political prisoners in
>St.Petersburg.
Okay, my turn. What's a panopticon
prison?
>
>So what would you reccomend I read to get this "sex from perspective of
>power" view of Foucault's?
The History of Sexuality, Robert Hurley
translation. I find the writing execrable,
but I'm told this translation's better
than most. I'm also not sure I agree
completely with Foucault to the degree
I understand him, so you might want
to find someone with whom Foucault
really clicks for more info. I basically
growled through much of the book, but
parts of it are very interesting.
--margaret
>
>}..{
>Agnieszka
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Shaun Goodwin
J. Karlin wrote in message <389599E4...@texas.net>...
>Shaun Goodwin wrote:
>>
>> J. Karlin wrote in message <388DB2ED...@texas.net>...
>>
>> >
>> >How helpful it is to cloud things up, right before you turn
>> >nothing into an academic "discipline".
>> >
>> >Yes, this should be fun.
>> >
>>
>> And he thinks I'm stupid.
>
>I know you're stupid.
>
>So do you.
>
If that were the case.
Is it stupid, to know that you are stupid?
A tad paradoxical.
Shaun
ilan pillemer
On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, J. Karlin wrote:
>
> > "Basically there are three kinds of pomo decks..." [FAQ]
> >
> > Ok so you believe that these postmodern decks can be split into three
> > kinds of postmodern decks.
>
> No, I have split them into three kinds of postmodern decks to
> make more convenient (to myself and readers) the brief
> summary of a cloudy scenario (mostly scripted by others).
>
> I get to do that,regardless of what I may believe, and
> certainly regardless of what you may believe.
Ok.
>
> You consistently confuse here the nature of the discussion
> (in the FAQ), it's about the cards, and the people who
> make the cards, and what THEY believe.
Ok. I am going to try and take two pieces of critical advice you've given
of my posting habits.
(1) I'm going to try and not be rash and jump to conclusions. Your
criticism of my 'reading comprehension'. You actually haven't made that
criticism in quite a while. Instead I am going to have no conclusions
whilst I am reading and try and see if I can understand your argument.
(2) I am not going to disagree for the pure sake of disagreeing. Which is
quite a nasty habit of mine. (Knowing that whatever argument a stupid
idiot is likely to make, I can probably (not always) but nevertheless
probably can be made a mockery of.) But this of course is
counter-productive in a situation where I may be able to learn something
interesting. So I guess I should always read that way. And only then
conclude whether I am dealing with an idiot or not. If an idiot then do
whatever my absurd mischevious side feels like doing. And if not - then
whichever way the coin lands I guess.
>
> > But what did you mean by postmodern?
>
> Recall I'm partly journalizing, and partly metanarrativizing
> (if ironically).
>
> I think my chronology is modernist in that respect, don't
> you? Postmodernists have no concern with historical narratives
> ---or do they?
They are very concerned with historical narratives. With the historicity
of something that claims to be true for all time.
The writing of the history of Reason undermines its logocentricity.
The think is; its not as if the postmodern critic does not realise that
there is always a metanarrative. The object is to find the metanarrative -
or the 'ideology' (meant in the Marxist derogatory sense.) Now Marx of
course believed that there was a true state of consciousness - that of the
workers. But postmodernism says that its all one big ideological soup.
Cloudy as you have been saying.
You see postmodernism claims 'no ideology'. As do you.
Now the idea of whether or not postmodernism does actually have an
ideology is an extremely pertinent question.
And this is where I will get off the 'postmodernist' band-wagon for a
second. And provide the dilemma.
De Man was in a way the Godfather of deconstructionism. He even as this
rather disconcerting essay in which he argues brilliantly and effectively
that 'proof' is just another form of rhetoric.
He hangs out with Derrida at Yale university (and others) and they form a
powerful little intellectual club that was referred to in the academic
(sacerdotal) world as 'The Yale deconstructionists'. And they exploded
stuff left right and center. They were terrifying the academic world.
There was even a comment made by some wit that the government was
providing funding to academics to explode the American Dream. But they
were really terrifying. Imagine how scary it was to know that there were a
bunch of aggressive intellectual geniuses that just wanted to explode
and theory you could provide. It is also quite embarassing to get
exploded. Austin and Levi-Strauss for example - though Levi Strauss to a
lesser extent - got publicly stripped bare. Michel Foucault called Derrida
a little terrorist.
Now De Man was friendly with Derrida (a Jew.) And he was friednly with a
number of Jewish intellectuals (such as Harold Bloom for example.) And he
used to say he enjoyed going to Shabat dinners.
De Man dies.
And what happens... a graduate student doing some kind of research project
on De Man unearths some writing he did during WWII, encouraging the idea
of carting the Jews off. He was a Nazi collaborator. He even wrote some
Nazi propaganda. World War II ends.... and he flees to the USA.
In the USA he gets awarded a top scholarship. But then he gets told that
he is too old to be eligible for the scholarship. So what does the little
fuck do? He writes back asking them to waive the restriction on the basis
that he was working in the French Underground during the War Years. Which
they agree to do. Then... someone denounces him. He is questioned on this
accusation. De Man denies it. And they take De Man's word on it. He gets
granted the scholarship and ends up becoming the 'Godfather' of
deconstuctionism in America.
So did he actually have an ideology?
Perhaps postmodernism is just a way of rationalising away personal
responsibility?
I don't know.
Anyway,.... back onto the bandwagon.
So postmodenism is concerned with showing that all historical narrative
has an ideology that underpins it.
And what it tries its best to do - is not to provide another narrative to
replace it. It tries not to construct anything. Whether this is actually
possible can definitely not be assumed.
For this reason I think that deck that is not focused on showing how a
system has made certain assumptions; and foregrounding the ideological
nature of those assumptions its is not strictly postmodern.
So... for example... a CartoFeminist deck is merely constructing
something else. It is producing a new ideology. Not Tarot's ideology. A
different ideology. And it is marketing that ideology. I would consider
this very much the enemy of the postmodern goal of putting an end to
ideology.
>
> You see, I think what people have come to realize, and what
> seems to me to be the most likely explanation about postmodernism,
> is that it never existed, not even as set of ideas or beliefs.
This is true. Rather it tries to make everything collapse.
It tries to destroy rather than create. It actively resists being built up
into a system.
> It was just a semantical game (thus the focus on "play")
> or scam (thus the focus on three-card-monte dialectics)
> created by people needing to justify their academic
> existence by establishing "difference" (Derrida even coined
> a new version of this word---diff×™rance---which means
> to distance and distinguish a sign from the thing it
> signifies and to defer the confrontation with some kind
> of "presence" of the signified, but is really just part
> of a jargon-set designed to distance and distinguish one
> group of "theorists" from another while deferring their
> confrontation with the fact they need to get a fucking
> job).
You are being a lot nicer to them then many of the world's theorists.
Derrida was attempting to completely undermine the entire Western way of
thinking. He was being very aggressive and very uncharitable in exploding
the Ivory Tower.
> YOUR newspeak from the next fellow's. One of the great ways
> to do that is to mask your mediocrity with jargon, with
> "concepts", with "theories".
But Derrida was attempting to show what bullshit all these "concepts" and
"theories" are.
>
> If you're a "philosopher" or a critical "theorist",
> your very career may depend upon your being able to
> differentiate yourself from the other products,
> or theorists, in the marketplace. On the other
> hand, if you're an artist or a writer, and can
> manage to get your product branded with a fashionable
> "theory", then that's great too (makes your "art"
> much more commodifiable).
There is also the theory that the amount of discourse on a subject or a
text results in opening the text up. Like commentary. Remember what you
were saying about reading "Finnegan's Wake" and how imporant it was to
have some kind of critical interpretation to read alongside it and "open"
it up for you.
I think this is a valid analogy to "theory" and "text". The theory in a
strange way becomes part of the fabric of the text.
>
> Beyond this, and this may serve to explain why Ilan seems
> to have an emotional investment of some sort in this
> "text" (since he's training for a certain priesthood),
> if you can combine the productizing aspects of the
> market with the irrational emotional appeal of religion,
> then you're way ahead of the game. This is something we
> all know about from the way in which tarot is sold as a
> "spiritual" product under so many brands---"occultism",
> "newageism", "psychism".
Well that is true.
>
>
> At the same time, over in the more respectable newspeak
> professions, you've got all kinds of "theory" products
> to choose from as well, and some of them are promoted
> as cure-all, be-all, end-all "saving" sets of beliefs,
> the peddlers and priests of which can go far (in a
> constrained sort of way). If you can be ordained a
> postmodernist, for example, with a sufficient clutch
> upon the jargon and a sufficient contempt for language
> (and people) to only be interested in using it as a set
> of cups and balls, you can move up in academe, publish
> dense packets of text no one will ever read, and feel
> confident that you're on the conning instead of the
> conned side of the postmodern equation.
That is true for a large number of academics. But is it true for all?
>
> > "An amalgamation of diverse and often overlapping movements and
> > ideologies".
> >
> > Ahh. What a lucid definition. Lets see if you get any more specific.
>
> Well, first let's provide the specific unedited quote so people
> can see how you have no intellectual integrity (like that's news):
>
> "5. Post-modern (1983-Apocalypse)---This date assignment is purely
> arbitrary, since many of the motivations thathave led to pomotarot
> (itself, an amalgamation of diverse but often overlapping movements
> and ideologies) started back in the 1960s, when multi-cultural,
> gender-conscious, and anti-traditional (the assumption was that IF
> it was traditional it HADto be bad) attitudes were infiltrating all
> modes of pop and academic culture."
>
> Now, readers, what was jk talking about there? Was he "defining"
> postmodernism? Or was he talking about something more particular,
> but related (in some way that escapesprofessional "theorists"
> such as Ilan)?
Well. I searched for some definition - and that was the closest I could
find.
>
> about the divisions. In other words, Ilan's differing opinion
> about the usage of "postmodern" applied to a group of tarot
> decks here is quite irrelevant, if his only complaint is
> that I have not fairly or "correctly" used the term, as
> he understands it.
That IS my only complaint.
> That complaint has more to do with his
> understanding (or misunderstanding), and not my usage.
> To be relevant to what I am talking about (in the FAQ)
> his critique would need to be focused on the way in which
> "postmodern" IS USED and IS APPLIED to these decks IN THE
> FAQ---isn't that what your view of a postmodernist critique
> implies, Ilan? After all, you claimed each "system" had to
> be examined insularly, for what it truly was (and presumably
> for what it truly "says").
Yes. That is my view of the what a postmodernist critique implies.
>
> Because, to argue otherwise, that you are "allowed" to use
> postmodernism as YOU understand it to then negate the usage
> of it by others, in other contexts, would be to commit the very
> "sin" you seem to want to pin upon me. In other words, you wish
> to unfairly valorize YOUR difference and to demonize mine.
Which I guess is why Derrida keeps on changing the words he uses. He keeps
coming up with a new different one all the time. He warns that continual
use of a particular word risks slipping back into the meta-narrative you
were trying to deconstruct.
It gives me a headache every time I see the word 'postmodern' used here in
a different way to the way it is used everyday on campus and in the
current theoretical texts that I am chained into.
I also think that ideas of postmodernity do not need to be demonised
unnecessarily. So YES I found myself in a situation where postmodernism
was being demonised - and I wanted to try and destabilise that position.
I did that by demonising your position. (Or at least trying to...)
To see if I could get a destabilisation and maybe (If I was able to get at
least a shadow of doubt) that you would be willing to use a different term
for those really pathetic decks of cards.
>
> But, the support of DIFFERING interpretations as equally valid
> (indeed as necessarily valid because of their difference)
> is at the heart of a postmodernist hermeneutics.
>
> Isn't that so?
Perhaps.
>
> > And actually define this scape-goat of yours...
>
> Why do you think it is a "scape-goat"?
>
> Why are you so protective of "it"?
>
> You act as if it's your pet. That it can be "insulted",
> "abused", treated unfairly and made a "scapegoat".
>
> One would almost be led to believe that you think postmodernism---
> is Jewish.
>
> Is that it?
I think I have replied to both these questions above.
Derrida is a Jew and De Man was a Nazi sympathiser.
>
> > Modernism includes all these features as well.
>
> Lots of things include "features", products of all sort.
>
> But it's the presumed "benefits" that matter in the successful
> sale, Ilan.
Yes.
>
> It is no great secret that postmodernism often grafts itself
> onto modernist motifs, often attempts to steal modernist
> thunders by way of claiming to resurrect them or to get back
> to the "true religion" implied in archaic modernism.
>
> You have avoided confronting the socio-political influences
> the movements claim to represent and to have promoted. You are
> paying no heed to the very real, if perhaps absurd, political
> motives that attract people, like cartofeminists, or yourself,
> to adopt pm and deconstructive approaches to tarot.
>
> Why are your avoiding this?
I'm not really avoiding this.
You barked at me when I confess things.
Maybe it revolves around me rationalising why I can eat bacon.
maybe I should just say fuck it, put on a skull-cap, wrap phylacteries
around my arm, and lock myself away in a Yeshiva.
Maybe it revolves around the fact that I had a very close relationship
with my Grandfather, Rowley Arenstein, who was 'banned' for 27 years by
the Apartheid regime. Who spent years in prison. Who went on
hunger-strikes. Who went into hiding. Who dedicated his life to furthering
the aims of Marxist communism.
Maybe its to rationalise why I am not, like my grandfather spent his life
doing, trying to help make the world a better place.
>
> > And I don't remember Crowley being the most traditional chap.
>
> Depended upon his mood.
>
> Now tell me whether you think the following is
> Modernist, Postmodernist, or something else (it is
> a portion of a call for some kind of revolution):
>
> WE DECLARE:
>
> 1. That all forms of imitation must be despised, all forms
> of originality glorified.
> 2. That it is essential to rebel against the tyranny of the
> terms "harmony" and "good taste" as being too elastic
> expressions, by the help of which it is easy to demolish
> the works of Rembrandt, of Goya and of Rodin.
> 3. That the art critics are useless or harmful.
> 4. That all subjects previously used must be swept aside
> in order to express our whirling life of STEEL, or pride,
> of FEVER and of SPEED.
> 5. That the title of "MADMAN" with which it is attempted
> to call all innovators should be looked upon as a title
> of honor.
> 6. We intend to glorify the love of danger, the strength
> of daring.
> 7. The essential elements ofour poetry will be courage,
> encounter. Poetic warfareis conducted by a kind of
> strong reading that I have called misreading, and here
> again I enter into an area where I seem to have provoked
> anxieties,,,Paul Val×™ry observed that "one only reads
> well when he reads with some quite personal goal
> in mind.It may be to acquire some power. It can
> be out of hatred for the author...Reading well
> is therefore not necessarily a polite process,
> and may not meet the academy's social standards
> of civility...[and now to forge a link] Gnosis
> and Kabbalah, though heterodox, are at once
> traditional and yet also de-idealizing in their
> accounts of reading and writing, and I continue
> to go back to them to discover properly drastic
> models for reading and critical writing."
> ---Harold Bloom. "The Breaking of Form"
>
> See, Ilan, that's why you're such a lousy reader, you
> have no quite personal goal in mind.
I like Harold Bloom.
>
> It seems to me many of the ideas claimed to be the
> tenets of postmodernism have antecedents, and that has
> led to a line of of theorizing that suggests postmodernism
> is simply an end of a certain modernist line of logic,
> which as anyone could have seen (and many did see)
> would be ultimately self-consuming.
>
> This has really always been the problem---the stupid boring
> self. What is the self, what should the self do, or
> be about, or be worth---what should be done about the
> self?
>
> That is ultimately what this is all about, and why people
> spend the time to study tarot, in various levels
> of rigor and "sense".
>
> But, as the "self", or many millions of selves, have been
> mechanized, mass-murdered, and finally digitized (extended
> into a global mass), the concern of the self was seen
> as mostly a PROBLEM, and really a social problem, to
> be "solved". That's what modernism has been about---solving
> this problem. All kinds of suggestions have been made,
> "liberation", "repression", "isolation", "communization",
> "materialization", "spiritualization", "extermination"
> ---until finally the will to keep blathering on about it
> was utterly exhausted, orrather the ingenuity to say
> anything new was exhausted (and one wonders if that didn't
> happen long before the 20th century really).
>
> But, in critical theorizing, the self is ALWAYS getting
> in the way, has always gotten in the way, and the
> easiest, the most elegant solution, was ignored.
>
> Just get rid of the self. Assassinate it, uncreate
> it, send it back into the Abyss where it belongs.
>
> Do that, and the "society", the community of associations
> and interpretations, the union of the textless texts,
> the congress of the formless forms and imageless images,
> will finally be unburdened to become the nothing they
> were always meant to be.
>
> It is, as someone has been talking about, a very modern,
> postmodern, "Dance of Death".
All the way back to the Pre-Socratics too I think. Good old Zeno.
>
> Or, as some"theorists" apocalyptically envision:
>
> "Ours is a "fin-de-millenium" consciousness, which,
> existing at the end of history in the twilight
> time of ultramodernism (of technology) and
> hyperprimitivism (of public moods), uncovers
> a great arc of disintegration and decay against
> the background radiation of parody, kitsch,
> and burnout."
>
> That tone, or mood, certainly occupies the attention
> of anyone observing the parodies and burnout of
> tarot. It has been co-opted, commodified (turned
> into a commodity to be marketed), and made utterly
> absurd, as one can see from the news this week that
> tarot-readers were being recruited from the ranks
> of welfare recipients, with government approval
> for the "psychic" training program.
It is ridiculous.
>
> The only question that confronts us, and it is
> the question that always confronts us, is this
> pyre to the ashes, or is it fuel for a kiln,
> making a new formulation?
>
> There is no reason these questions and conjectures
> about the answers can not be directed at tarot as
> wellas at anything else, and there is no reason
> to think these questions and conjectures have
> not already been directed at tarot (despite the
> general indifference to the quality of the
> conjectures so far).
>
> Now, many of you are probably wondering how exactly
> this war of ideas has any relevance whatsoever to
> you, and to what YOU think and for how YOU might
> wish to use tarot.
>
> And YOU are the ones that Ilan figures are non-entities,
> and he's not alone in that opinion. It is, after all,
> a perfectly traditional occultist opinion, that the
> swine should not be engaged, should not be pearled,
> but should only be turned into ham and bacon at
> "our" convenience. But, oddly, postmodernism provides
> an argument to advance in your interests as well, for
> it argues, in spite of what Ilan might want, that
> the hierarchical elitist dispensation of and
> dissemination of interpretation and truth is wrong
> and that ANYONE and EVERYONE must join in the game.
>
> Postmodernism, recall, has slain the individual, and
> has elevated the glob of swine. That's you, piggies.
> You get to stomp upon the artifacts of cultures till
> they are just one big manure-covered wholism.
Uggggggggggg...
>
> So, get to it. Buy them "easy" tarot books, read
> them "easy" tarot decks. Go to them "easy" congressional
> cluster-fucks. And more than anything, stupidly
> spend spend spend spend spend. The world economy needs
> you to keep doing that.
>
> Sorry, Ilan, but that IS postmodernism.
How depressing.
>
> > So now we know what you mean when you say there are "three kinds of pomo
> > decks"; you mean...
>
> ...that there are three kinds of pomotarot decks, just like
> I said. I also say it is an arbitrary division, and the others
> can and will make their own determinations about such things.
Like the university.
>
> > In your description of the'Cartofeminist' you say that postmodernism
> > needs fulfill themselves in "the rejection of what are described as the
> > traditional icons of the evil patriarchy (including obviously any
> > traditional tarot symbology and interpretation.)"
>
> > So now according to you postmodernism is some kind of ultra-feminism.
>
> No, I would say, and have said, that postmodernist methods of
> criticism are adopted by people like "cartofeminists", whose
> interests are served by opposing traditional interpretations
> and substituting their own. Of course, they were ALWAYS able
> to do this, assuming they had any interest in doing so,
> but the theoretical basis which legitimized this sort
> of approach (of dishonesty and theft), opened the door
> of newagism to a whole new "professional" class.
>
> Pomos make the same, questionable, appeal to authority (divorced
> from reasonable skepticism) in the things they claim, that you
> often do.
>
> Of course, you are a pomo.
Until January 2001 anyway.
>
> > How fucking stupid.
>
> Yes, you are fucking stupid, but that comes with your
> territory.
>
> > "TRUE postmodernism". Ha ha ha.
> >
> > Up until now of course YOU, you silly billy, have only been talking about
> > UNTRUE postmodernism. What the fuck is that.
>
> Again, this is a discussion (in the FAQ) of postmodern tarot decks.
>
> What is true or untrue about these would best be garnered by
> reading and respecting the text (in the FAQ).
lol.
>
> Perhaps if you stoppedanesthetizing yourself your
> mind would clear.
What a pleasant thought.
Like a pool of water in an idyllic landscape.
> No, actually anyone paying attention to what I wrote would
> see that Iwas talking about tarot decks, and how postmodernism
> may be reasonably (and/or popularly) applied to groupings of
> them. It is only superficially paradoxical to note that pomos
> use traditional motifs to subvert them. Of course, you'd need
> to be paying attention to more than this limited discussion to
> note that.
I am not sure that they were subverting them. They seem to just be
replacing them with some other ideology.
>
> > What the FUCK is up with that?
>
> You're an incompetent reader.
Well I am trying to improve.
>
> You are confused because you take a solipsistic approach
> to learning. You are an elitist, therefore you imagine that
> anything you like must support your elitism. That is
> not necessarily the case.
I guess it not necessarily the case.
>
> The promotion of alternative, egalitarian, POPULAR
> interpretations in opposition to a presumed repressive
> and elite authority is certainly a postmodernist
> view and method, and one we see in tarot.
>
> > With words like "hyperreal"; "under erasure"...
>
> What do those terms mean, Ilan?
>
> Be specific.
no.
>
> > and constant reference to Nietsche---
>
> But constant reference to what about Nietzsche? To
> what ideas.
>
> Be specific.
no.
>
> > and
> > Foucault et al. The last thing postmodernism believes in is easy to
> > understand symbology or 'egalitarian symbology'.
>
> Then postmodernism has arrived at the last thing in its
> beliefs.
>
> > But lets go a step further in this rather fascinating definition of
> > postmodernism according to you.
>
> Or, one could just realize you don't know what the fuck
> you're talking about, and move on.
I thought it was clear that I never know what I am talking about. I just
babble. I just cloud everything up. Me. The Pomo.
>
> > "symbols should be thrown open to what are often called 'intuitive'
> > methods of interpretation... make up anything that suits your fancy..."
> > [FAQ].
> >
> > Postmodernism is more about showing up the falseness of ideologies.
>
> Including that ideology?
It claims not to have an ideology.
>
> Pomos perceive the notion that occult tarot, or "hidden" tarot,
> is truer than one invented by intuition (or simply one
> imagined out of thin air), to be a false ideology.
>
> > Its not about encouraging and inculcating vacuousness and false
> > consciosness.
>
> Then it has become more than what you know it to be about.
Ahh.
>
> > If thats your brilliant FAQ with its incisive thought and clarity - then
> > who am I to wonder about its utter failure to ever actually define
> > postmodernism.
>
> You would realize, again, that you can't read English.
>
> Try a language more suited to your sensibilities.
>
> Hebrew?
>
> Pig-latin?
Oink-Oink.
>
> > You just set up a strawman - called it postmodernism - and blamed it for
> > the bad cards thathave flooded the market.
>
> No, you set up a strawman---called it postmodernism---and
> saved it from an attack it never suffered.
>
> Perhaps it shall pay you a reward, of straw.
I doubt it.
>
> > But really, I don't care that much---
>
> That's all you really needed to write.
>
> So, why blather on as if this were not obviously the
> case?
Because I am a blatherer.
>
> > I think I will rather chew my cud, smoke my grass, and moo moo moo.
>
> What do you mean "rather"?
I don't know. I can't remember what I meant. Meaning is indeterminate
anyway. Interpret it how you want.
I understood your argument.
I can see why you use the word postmodernism now for those decks.
Maybe one day a deck that meets up to my usage of the word 'postmodernism'
will one day exist. But then pigs might fly.
Ilan.
>
> (jk)
>
> **********************************************
>
> Read the alt.tarotFAQ:
ilan pillemer
>
> It has the credibility of being a book about the tarot
> deck designed by Aleister Crowley. I am almost certain
> that claim is true.
Yah?
Maybe it was really penned by Waite as an elaborate joke?
>
> Look to your own motives, and your own objectives. There's the
> answer.
There is perhaps no more difficult task than that.
>
> BTW, everyone else, this is what I really mean when I say
> "go knit". Or at least that is what I really mean today
> when I say it.
Do you knit?
Little me.
>
> (jk)
>
> **********************************************
>
> Read the alt.tarot FAQ:
>
Shaun Goodwin
Shaun Goodwin wrote in message <8752u0$rrb$1...@lure.pipex.net>...
>
>J. Karlin wrote in message <389599E4...@texas.net>...
>>Shaun Goodwin wrote:
>>>
>>> J. Karlin wrote in message <388DB2ED...@texas.net>...
>>>
>>> >
>>> >How helpful it is to cloud things up, right before you turn
>>> >nothing into an academic "discipline".
>>> >
>>> >Yes, this should be fun.
>>> >
>>>
>>> And he thinks I'm stupid.
>>
>>I know you're stupid.
>>
>>So do you.
>>
>
>If that were the case.
>
>Is it stupid, to know that you are stupid?
>
>A tad paradoxical.
>
Melanie has just pointed out, that you were saying that I am not stupid.
However, my response proves that I am stupid.
Interesting.
Looks like I need to go for a lie down for a few weeks and meditate on my
stupidity, or lack of it.
Actually, it's a far more interesting subject than this post modern stuff,
the relevance of which, to anything, beats me.
Shaun