Sword/Fire and Wand/Air debate
teth...@yahoo.com
you associate swords with fire? Does this mean that the standard
interpretations for the two suits should be switched, i.e. if I want
the 5 of swords interpretation I should look up the 5 of wands
interpretation? So far I can't see where anyone has gone so far as to
suggest this.
Thanks.
Joseph Littleshoes
If you are dependent on book meanings, and if you make fire = spirit or
primal instinct than yes. If on the other handyou make fire the element
of the intellect then no.
Ultimatly the attribution of any meaning to any symbol is arbitray and
for convience only, the important point is to have a coherant system
that works for you.
--
Joseph Littleshoes
May be consulted at
--
http://finblake.home.mindspring.com/tarotintro.htm
Gea Jones
<teth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104548742.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
What a funny question ??
If you associate swords with fire, contrary to ANY book, why would you look
up the meaning , which you have changed in a book,
if a baby had measles would you look up mumps?
Gea
>
Annemarie Lee
If you change a meening you should really try to remember it. i learnt how
to read from a book. the book meenings dont meen the same to me now. i have
changed a lot of cards and made my own deck. The Cards are what they meen to
you. as you gain expernce you will learn that its not a card its something
in you that the card trigers so that you can see the full picture. keep on
reading.
>
teth...@yahoo.com
then why are you bothering to use the cards in the first place, since
apparently the answer you are giving to the question isn't coming from
the cards but from you? I'm not sure how this works if you are reading
for other people, especially strangers. If a stranger were to ask me
whether or not she should leave her husband, and I am making up my own
interpretation of the tarot cards, aren't I just telling her what I
think she should do rather than asking the
cards/fate/God/whatever-you-want-to-call-it are what she should do? To
simplify, if the answer is coming from me and not from some outside
force speaking through the cards, do the cards really matter?
I guess my original question would be better phrased as: How much of
the assigned meanings to the cards has to do with the specific
object/element that the card is representing? Do all sword cards
represent intellect-based interpretations?
Karipidu
>> Without rehasing the debate can anyone give opinions on what to do if
>> you associate swords with fire? Does this mean that the standard
>> interpretations for the two suits should be switched, i.e. if I want
>> the 5 of swords interpretation I should look up the 5 of wands
>> interpretation? So far I can't see where anyone has gone so far as to
>> suggest this.
>> Thanks.
teth...@yahoo.com Jan 1, 12:17 pm show options
----------------------------
"tethy...@yahoo.com", the swords show that logic rules the
the instict and intuition. Someone who wants to read the tarot
cards he needs to have the ability to understand the meanings
of the cards. That and practice will help him/her to judge the
situation correctly. The taro cards show problems and solutions.
The cards show success and failure. Some cards show plans,
for example the 7 of pentacles show material plans and
ambitions, but the surrounding cards show if those plans
will end in success or failure. Can you see that in the cards?
Can you?
Marianna
Jack Wesdorp
with Crowley; both are freebie downloads.
Next, and concurrently, read a LOT of other stuff on iconography,
mythology, religion, magick, qabala, astrology, art, history, etc. so
you accumulate a personal database. Find out about Semiotics. Cirlot's
dictionary is good; so is Kaplan's encyclopedia; and Regardie if you're
following the Golden Dawn crowd.
Then spend substantial time with your chosen deck; look through the US
Games catalog for some examples of stylistic artwork; don't fall for the
pomo decks (yes, they can work, but you'll get better results with a
deck that has a solid occult basis behind it). Learn the basic
interpretations one card at a time; throw away dat liddle bookie that
came with the deck; investigate Etteilla, Marseilles, Waite, Wang, and
Thoth. Work on your physical technique--how to break the deck from the
previous spread, how to cut and shuffle accurately and repeatably, how
to set up built in safeguards to bogus readings. Start with single card
draws (the most perilous); move to combinations pretty soon; decide on
reversals; figure out the 8 / 11 thing; work with elemental dignities;
try different spreads and develop place conciousness. Once you find a
system that you're SURE works for you stay with it for a year; don't get
flighty; keep records and refer back to them. Don't read for other
people until you know what you're doing; don't fuck with other's heads.
As for the original Fire/wands Air/swords question: it depends on your
chosen path. Some of the wiccans attribute fire to swords; most
mainstream Golden Dawners go with Fire / wands. Interpretation of a
spread is not a simplistic regurgitation of boilerplate text; it's an
intuitive synthesis of what you know with what your hands have
manipulated with the pictures. The universe thinks in pictures (also
music, numbers, wavefronts, magnetic flux, and stuff we can't access).
The bottom line for tarot cards is like the holographic universe where
if you can access just a bit of it you can get the rest that matters.
Cheerz. : )
teth...@yahoo.com
there were "traditional" or pomo decks. I no longer have the book that
came with it, I use a print out I got online for card interpretations.
What does the Kabbalah have to do with Tarot? I can't see how 10
sephiroth (11 if you count da'at) correspond to 78 Tarot cards. This is
like people trying to associate the 7 chakras with the 10 sephiroth,
even though the two systems are radically different and serve two
completely different purposes.
I know the origin of Tarot is obscure but I doubt that it was created
by Jews. People with such a rich and well-documented history would
certainly know if they created the world's first Tarot. And if the Jews
somehow did invent the Tarot, why study mythology? Why bother to study
the mythology of any civilization but the Jews since it's doubtful the
Jews would ever have based anything on someone else's system of
deities.
Second, aren't all decks the same, as far as interpretations go? Why
bother looking through different decks? Who cares about the art?
Doesn't the art only really reflect the thoughts and ideas of the
artist? If so, doesn't that mean that you're basing your
interpretations of the cards according to what you think the artist
intended them to represent? In which case, no deck has the same meaning
and the whole system of Tarot is virtually meaningless.
This all sounds suspiciously like people just making up whatever they
want for Tarot interpretations, in which the only chance anyone has of
being "right" in an interpretation is if they are Psychic. Is that it?
Do tarot cards only work if you're psychic.
Jack Wesdorp
strike one
> What does the Kabbalah have to do with Tarot?
read Robert Wang's Qabalistic Tarot
> I know the origin of Tarot is obscure
Italian Renaissance with roots to Mamluk and Ganjifa
occult tarot derives from Etteilla via Levi
take a look at the fact sheet on the TarotL site at Yahoo
> Second, aren't all decks the same, as far as interpretations go?
no
> Who cares about the art?
strike two
> no deck has the same meaning
> and the whole system of Tarot is virtually meaningless.
three
go read a shelf of books, read real cards diligently, come back in a
year
teth...@yahoo.com
meaning. If post modern decks aren't "real decks" then this implies
that the art on them does not depict the "proper" or "accurate" symbols
associated with each card. This further implies that these "accurate"
symbols can only be found on traditional decks. So, at the heart of it
all is the idea that there is in fact only ONE accurate interpretation
for each card. So an "accurate" reading can only come from an
"accurate" deck and therefore the answer is NOT coming from someone's
own personal interpretation but from a strict interpretation of the
"real" Tarot cards.
Of course the problem with this is whether or not anyone has had
consistent and accurate results with a post modern deck, in which case
the theory that ONLY traditional decks are "real" decks is false. If
this has happened, it means either the post modern deck is a 'real'
deck or the person using the deck is Psychic and can accurately divine
the meanings in spite of using a "fake" deck.
So which is it?
1. There is only one strict interpretation of each card and this
interpretation can only be made using Waite or Thoth deck.
-or-
2. There are various interpretations of each card, each interpretation
differing from deck to deck, and the various decks can't be categorized
as real/traditional and fake/postmodern decks as all decks are equal.
-or-
3. The only real decks are Waite and Thoth decks, all other decks are
fake post modern decks and the only reason anyone has ever had an
accurate reading using a fake pomo deck is because that person is
Psychic and wasn't really reading the cards.
Seven
<teth...@yahoo.com> echoed through the void, last heard on 31 Dec
2004 19:05:42 -0800 :
Swords relate to Air, also to Northern directions, and Dawn - as a
time of awakenings - if you are of a Wiccan persuasion, you might see
Air as relating to East - so swords may relate to the east in this
sense - symbolic of a beginning also since the day starts there
first... at least from where I sit.
To answer your question though, would you cast out the entire
meaning of a card merely for the nuance of a single aspect of
interpretation? If you drew the 5 of swords, the interpretation is
ofr the 5 of swords, and not for the 5 of wands - whether it means air
or fire to you also is merely a nuance of the overall and deeper
inplications of that card.
Al Smith
> sephiroth (11 if you count da'at) correspond to 78 Tarot cards. This is
> like people trying to associate the 7 chakras with the 10 sephiroth,
> even though the two systems are radically different and serve two
> completely different purposes.
>
There are quite a few correspondences between the Tarot and the
Kabbalah. Indeed, the Kabbalah is the basis for the esoteric
interpretation of the Tarot. I'll mention the more important
relationships.
Ten Sephiroth -- Ten number cards in each suit.
Four Worlds -- Four suits.
Four elements; 4 letters in IHVH -- four court cards in each suit.
Twenty-two Paths; 22 Hebrew letters -- Twenty-two trumps.
Each Hebrew letter has a set of esoteric associations that is
attached to a trump.
Each court card has a double elemental association. Fire of Water,
Earth of Air, and so on. These are related to the Kabbalah via the
letters in IHVH.
> I know the origin of Tarot is obscure but I doubt that it was created
> by Jews. People with such a rich and well-documented history would
> certainly know if they created the world's first Tarot. And if the Jews
> somehow did invent the Tarot, why study mythology? Why bother to study
> the mythology of any civilization but the Jews since it's doubtful the
> Jews would ever have based anything on someone else's system of
> deities.
The Tarot was created by Italian Christians of the 15th century,
based on existing playing card decks and emblematic symbolism.
Christians of the Renaissance were students of Kabbalistic
occultism. However, Jewish symbolism made its way into the Tarot
mainly via the Christian Bible, which includes in the Old
Testament the books attributed to Moses. It would be easy to argue
that it is filled with Jewish symbolism, but was not invented by
Jews or used by Jews.
> Second, aren't all decks the same, as far as interpretations go? Why
> bother looking through different decks? Who cares about the art?
> Doesn't the art only really reflect the thoughts and ideas of the
> artist? If so, doesn't that mean that you're basing your
> interpretations of the cards according to what you think the artist
> intended them to represent? In which case, no deck has the same meaning
> and the whole system of Tarot is virtually meaningless.
>
The Tarot is not some abstract and perfect paradigm that the
existing card decks express in an incomplete and imperfect manner.
It is the set of 78 images actually printed on the cards. Perhaps,
in some higher spiritual dimension of being, there exists an ideal
Tarot -- the spiritual soul of the Tarot, as it were -- that has
given rise to all the material expressions in the form of
different card decks, but if so, this ideal remains hidden.
Since, for our purposes, the Tarot *is* the images on the 78 cards
of the deck, each version of the Tarot is unique, because each
version has unique symbolism. All versions reflect the ideas of
the artists who created them, even the traditional decks, which
were drawn and colored by individual human beings.
This does not mean that all decks are equally important. The
traditional decks were heavily based on an evolved history of
symbolic elements. One man may have drawn each version, but he
worked from a pattern that evolved out of the zeitgeist of his
age. He added important elements, perhaps without even
understanding their significance, and if these elements resonated
with other human beings, they were carried on in later versions of
the Tarot. This is how a tradition evolves.
Modern decks created by individuals may also be important, if the
persons who designed them were knowledgeable in occult matters.
Crowley's deck is the most important Tarot ever created, but he
worked firmly in the Golden Dawn tradition. The Golden Dawn deck
is important. The Waite deck is somewhat important, as is the
related Paul Foster Case set of trumps. The majority of modern
decks, created by individuals with no deep understanding of occult
matters, are of little interest or value, apart from whatever
traditional Tarot symbolism they preserve.
> This all sounds suspiciously like people just making up whatever they
> want for Tarot interpretations, in which the only chance anyone has of
> being "right" in an interpretation is if they are Psychic. Is that it?
> Do tarot cards only work if you're psychic.
There is a recognized current of esoteric interpretation for the
Tarot that may be traced back to French occultists of the late
18th century. It is not arbitrary, and requires no psychic ability
to learn. Many who use the Tarot are incapable of understanding
its subtleties, and are apt to dismiss it for this reason, saying
that the Tarot may be interpreted intuitively, and that one
person's interpretation (i.e., their own interpretation) is as
valid as everyone else's interpretation. This is untrue. The
interpretation of a serious student of the Western esoteric
tradition, who has spend years considering the Tarot, is of much
greater value than the interpretation of a self-proclaimed psychic
who decides that the Tarot means whatever anybody wants it to mean.
Seven
12:17:52 -0800 :
>I guess my original question would be better phrased as: How much of
>the assigned meanings to the cards has to do with the specific
>object/element that the card is representing? Do all sword cards
>represent intellect-based interpretations?
... A King may, but in generaly they are action and movement, keeness,
boldness, quest, ambition, courage, strife, misfortune, and force.
Swords represent action, both constructive and destructive - like
Wands, they must be considered in relation to the other cards and the
questions being asked of Self to determine what it means to your
reading.
teth...@yahoo.com
simplified things to make it easier to discuss):
Traditonal:
Wand/Fire/Energy
Sword/Air/ Intellect
Ace of Wands: Energy
Ace of Swords: Clarity
In this system it appears that the interpretation of the Ace of Wands
is derived from the idea that Wands are associated with Fire and
Energy. And the interpretation of the Ace of Swords reflects the idea
that swords are associated with Air and Intellect.
But if someone normally associates Wand/Air/Intellect and
Sword/Fire/Energy, if the Ace of wands comes up in a reading to I
interpret it as Clarity or Energy?
teth...@yahoo.com
>
> There are quite a few correspondences between the Tarot and the
> Kabbalah. Indeed, the Kabbalah is the basis for the esoteric
> interpretation of the Tarot. I'll mention the more important
> relationships.
>
> Ten Sephiroth -- Ten number cards in each suit.
> Four Worlds -- Four suits.
> Four elements; 4 letters in IHVH -- four court cards in each suit.
> Twenty-two Paths; 22 Hebrew letters -- Twenty-two trumps.
>
> Each Hebrew letter has a set of esoteric associations that is
> attached to a trump.
>
> Each court card has a double elemental association. Fire of Water,
> Earth of Air, and so on. These are related to the Kabbalah via the
> letters in IHVH.
>
>
See this is where I have trouble. According to which Kabbalists you
talk to there are 11 sephiroth, not 10, (Da'at). There are no "worlds"
in the Kabbalah, they are distinct types of manifestation of Ein Sof.
There 24 paths (Da'at), not 22. The name YWVH came from YVH, a three
letter word representing the three aspects of God. He was, He is, He
will be.
I find it difficult to assume that the Tarot is connected to the
Kabbalah when even Jews who have studied the Kabbalah for centuries
still can't agree on how Kabbalah should be interpreted in the first
place. So you're saying the Tarot is connected to a small element of
Kabbalists who interpreted the Kabbalah in one of several different
ways?
What about the Kabbalistic interpretations that DON'T correspond to the
Tarot? Do you just ignore those because they don't fit your theory? I
think the best you could hope to say is that the Tarot is based on one
interpretation of the Kabbalah and even then is incomplete. But I
assume there's really not even any concrete proof of that, since no one
has presented it.
>
> The Tarot was created by Italian Christians of the 15th century,
> based on existing playing card decks and emblematic symbolism.
> Christians of the Renaissance were students of Kabbalistic
> occultism. However, Jewish symbolism made its way into the Tarot
> mainly via the Christian Bible, which includes in the Old
> Testament the books attributed to Moses. It would be easy to argue
> that it is filled with Jewish symbolism, but was not invented by
> Jews or used by Jews.
>
>
I think it may be easy to say it's filled with Jewish symbolism as
Christians saw it, which is not really the same. Consider that in Greek
Mythology Ares is hated by all others, even his father. In Roman
Mythology, heavily borrowed from the Greeks, Mars is Ares's Roman
equivalent though reached a very high status of respect in Rome as
compared to Ares. It would appear that the original Ares and his Roman
counterpart had very little in common even though one was based on the
other.
>>
> Modern decks created by individuals may also be important, if the
> persons who designed them were knowledgeable in occult matters.
> Crowley's deck is the most important Tarot ever created, but he
> worked firmly in the Golden Dawn tradition. The Golden Dawn deck
> is important. The Waite deck is somewhat important, as is the
> related Paul Foster Case set of trumps. The majority of modern
> decks, created by individuals with no deep understanding of occult
> matters, are of little interest or value, apart from whatever
> traditional Tarot symbolism they preserve.
>
So what you're saying is that the Tarot was originally based on Occult
knowledge that only someone with years of study can accurately
re-create today? Does this mean then, that there are in fact "true"
symbols of the Tarot/Occult, as depicted on the cards originally, and
these "true" symbols represent things and ideas that are considered
important to the exclusion of other things and ideas?
So even though you said that zeitgeist plays a large role in the
symbolism and meaning of the cards, you're still saying that the
zeitgeist of one particular age is inherently more important than
another. I.e. even though post modern decks adhere to the evolution of
tradtion that you referred to, it's not the evolution you want to see,
ergo the traditional decks are better.
>>
> The interpretation of a serious student of the Western esoteric
> tradition, who has spend years considering the Tarot, is of much
> greater value than the interpretation of a self-proclaimed psychic
> who decides that the Tarot means whatever anybody wants it to mean.
The self proclaimed psychic would not be in business long if his/her
interpretations did not pan out. So are you saying that if a querant
asks a yes or no question and both the learned Occult Master and the
psychic (self proclaimed or otherwise) both come up with the same
answer, the Master's answer is of "greater" value? Why? I can see how
this could relate to questions that weren't simply yes or no, you'd get
a more detailed answer from the "Master", but does more detailed always
equate to a "better" reading"? If both readers ultimately come up with
the same response, isn't the "proof in the pudding" so-to-speak about
the idea that you have to use a traditional deck and study it for
several decades to get a "true" reading?
Al Smith
> talk to there are 11 sephiroth, not 10, (Da'at). There are no "worlds"
> in the Kabbalah, they are distinct types of manifestation of Ein Sof.
> There 24 paths (Da'at), not 22. The name YWVH came from YVH, a three
> letter word representing the three aspects of God. He was, He is, He
> will be.
See, that's your problem, you don't know anything. It is stated in
the Sepher Yetzirah that the number of the Sephiroth is ten. Not
nine and not eleven, ten. Da'ath is a fascinating concept, but it
isn't a Sephiroth.
We are talking about the Western esoteric tradition here, and the
Tarot is central to that tradition. In that tradition, the Tree of
the Sephiroth has 22 paths, not 24. Other arrangements of the
paths have been postulated at various times, but the Tree of 22
paths is the one we use now, and the one that Western occultists
have used for the past few centuries.
There are four Kabbalistic worlds. You may want to call them
planes, dimensions, realities, spheres, manifestations, but there
are four of them. Not three and not five, four.
As for the supreme divine name, IHVH is a name of four letters.
It's been around a long time -- much longer than the Tarot. What
it may or may not be based on, or derived from, doesn't change the
fact that it has four letters. This fact is extremely important in
the Kabbalah -- not only the Western Kabbalah, but the Jewish
Kabbalah as well. It also has importance in the Tarot.
You seem to be making little carping objections and quibbles as a
way of attempting to deny any significance to the Tarot, as an
esoteric system. Fine, keep your point of view. If you don't like
the Tarot, no one will ever force you to understand it. You can
continue content in the belief that it is a thing beneath your
intelligence.
> I find it difficult to assume that the Tarot is connected to the
> Kabbalah when even Jews who have studied the Kabbalah for centuries
> still can't agree on how Kabbalah should be interpreted in the first
> place. So you're saying the Tarot is connected to a small element of
> Kabbalists who interpreted the Kabbalah in one of several different
> ways?
There are different schools of the Kabbalah, different beliefs
from different periods in history and different geographical
locations. Are you saying that one school of the Kabbalah is the
"real" Kabbalah and all other schools are bogus? Similarly, there
are different Christian Churches. Is one the real, true, Christian
Church, and the others all false? Some narrow-minded individuals
hold such a view, but most of us believe that a portion of truth
is kept by different religions, and that no one faith has a
monopoly on truth to the exclusion of all other faiths.
The Tarot has correspondences with various aspects of the
teachings of the Kabbalah. What is difficult to grasp here? Does
it correspond with all aspects of Kabbalistic teaching? No, it
doesn't. Does this invalidate the correspondences that do exist?
No. Those correspondences are most evident in the form of the
Kabbalah taught by Christians in the Renaissance. This is not
surprising, since the Tarot evolved in the context of European
Christian culture, not in the context of Jewish culture.
> So what you're saying is that the Tarot was originally based on Occult
> knowledge that only someone with years of study can accurately
> re-create today? Does this mean then, that there are in fact "true"
> symbols of the Tarot/Occult, as depicted on the cards originally, and
> these "true" symbols represent things and ideas that are considered
> important to the exclusion of other things and ideas?
>
> So even though you said that zeitgeist plays a large role in the
> symbolism and meaning of the cards, you're still saying that the
> zeitgeist of one particular age is inherently more important than
> another. I.e. even though post modern decks adhere to the evolution of
> tradtion that you referred to, it's not the evolution you want to see,
> ergo the traditional decks are better.
I can't decide if you really are this dense, or if you just like
to inflame and obfuscate.
The traditional Tarot evolved over a span of a couple of
centuries, and achieved a more or less uniform and stable form.
There are variations on this form, but the traditional Tarot can
be recognized, indicating that it possesses its own identity.
Individuals were responsible for drawing the images on each
edition of the cards that was published. These individuals were
not interested in being creative. They wished to present the Tarot
as members of the public, who would buy their product, recognized
it. Even so, the artists were not completely lacking in skill and
pride. They added their own little touches to the images. If a
change was embraced by the public, other Tarot deck artists might
reproduce it, and carry on the symbolism.
In this way, the symbolism of the Tarot evolved into what we
recognize today as the traditional Tarot. No single man created
it, or enforced it. The symbolism was an expression of the culture
in which it arose -- an expression largely or completely
unexamined. It was not until Court de Gebelin that the esoteric
analysis of Tarot symbolism came into vogue. Only then did
occultists begin to ask themselves why certain symbols were
evident on the cards.
Since no individual planned the Tarot symbolism, it cannot be said
to be based on any particular system of occult knowledge. No one
said, "I've got this system of occult wisdom, so now I will invent
the Tarot to express it in pictorial form." The wisdom expressed
by the Tarot was unarticulated at the time the Tarot came into
being. However, it has correspondences with many systems of
esoteric thought that existed during its evolution, such as the
Kabbalah, alchemy, astrology and Hermetic philosophy.
> The self proclaimed psychic would not be in business long if his/her
> interpretations did not pan out. So are you saying that if a querant
> asks a yes or no question and both the learned Occult Master and the
> psychic (self proclaimed or otherwise) both come up with the same
> answer, the Master's answer is of "greater" value? Why? I can see how
> this could relate to questions that weren't simply yes or no, you'd get
> a more detailed answer from the "Master", but does more detailed always
> equate to a "better" reading"? If both readers ultimately come up with
> the same response, isn't the "proof in the pudding" so-to-speak about
> the idea that you have to use a traditional deck and study it for
> several decades to get a "true" reading?
Why is one interpretation of the Tarot superior to another
interpretation? Well, I might just as well ask, Why is one oil
painting superior to another oil painting?
To a person incapable of appreciating the artistic merits of an
oil painting, a bad painting and a good painting would not be
distinguishable. It would be futile to attempt to argue points of
artistic merit with a person inherently unable to perceive the
difference.
Spiritual truths are not amenable to scientific proofs. That is
why spiritual masters do not attempt to answer those who question
them in materialistic terms. It would be a waste of effort. It is
not that they are selfish about dispensing their wisdom, it is
only that their wisdom cannot be conveyed to someone who
approaches them from that point of view. You cannot tell a person
colorblind from birth about the difference between green and red.
You can describe the wavelengths of light, but these are not the
colors. The colors are experienced. Similarly, the truth inherent
in the symbolism of the Tarot must be experienced. It lies below
the level of language. One who studies that truth cannot convey it
to others. Others must experience it for themselves.
I am talking here about the higher wisdom that can be triggered by
meditation on the Tarot symbolism. Fortune telling has always been
looked upon by occultists as a very low use for the Tarot, a
contemptible use. If you are thinking of the Tarot only in these
terms, you have not approached the Tarot at all. You know nothing
about the Tarot, and have not even begun to guess what the Tarot
might be.
Am I going to waste my time trying to convince you that you've got
a precious pearl lying in the mud beneath your foot? No. If you
can't feel the existence of the pearl under your big toe, you will
just have to go through life without the pearl in your possession.
It's too bad that ignorance cannot be dispelled by brute force,
but that is the harsh reality. Sneer, mock, carp, smirk, and preen
yourself that your power of logical thought has once again won the
day for you. It makes no difference to the Tarot. It is what it
is. Some will see it's value, others will not.
teth...@yahoo.com
Thank you for answering my question, you do indeed throw out any
interpretation that does not fit your theory as though it does not
exist.
> I can't decide if you really are this dense, or if you just like
> to inflame and obfuscate.
I can't decide if you make up this stuff or you just believe it because
someone else told you to.
> Why is one interpretation of the Tarot superior to another
> interpretation? Well, I might just as well ask, Why is one oil
> painting superior to another oil painting?
What a ridiculous analogy. The answer to the question is either right
or wrong, it's objective not subjective. Either the interpretation of
the cards is correct, or it is incorrect, insofar as fortune telling is
concerned. But then, fortune telling is so "lowly" you probably
couldn't even bring yourself to discuss it.
>You know nothing about the Tarot, and have not even begun to guess
what the >Tarot might be.
Yet another fascinating historical creation that has been twisted and
used by
New Age "Prophets" to make money? Apparently it worked on you. Gee, you
think I should "meditate" on its meaning a lot? Can I become pedantic
and arrogant just like you? I can't wait, should I run out and buy
_The_Celestine_Prophecy_ right away?
>Am I going to waste my time trying to convince you that you've got
>a precious pearl lying in the mud beneath your foot?
I wouldn't consider it a waste of time at all. Actually, I find it
fascinating that one culture can ascribe meaning and value to any given
object while a different culture couldn't care less about said object.
> It is what it is.
I agree.
Rob
<teth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104699669.8...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I don't use Waite or Crowley. I use a pomo deck before I even realized
> there were "traditional" or pomo decks. I no longer have the book that
> came with it, I use a print out I got online for card interpretations.
>
> What does the Kabbalah have to do with Tarot? I can't see how 10
> sephiroth (11 if you count da'at) correspond to 78 Tarot cards. This is
> like people trying to associate the 7 chakras with the 10 sephiroth,
> even though the two systems are radically different and serve two
> completely different purposes.
If the Kabbalah is a correct interpetation of the make-up of the
universe, and if the tarot is a correct interpetation of the make-up of the
universe, then it goes to reason that the two systems would be compatable.
It's just two different ways of presenting the same information.
From the most base standpoint, the pip cards represent the four elements
as they are in the ten seperath, and the trumps represent the 22 paths. And
if you really want to see a neat trick, start with the fool in Ain, the
magician in Kether, and work your way down until you reach Malkuth with the
Wheel. Then put Justice in Malkuth and work you're way up until you get the
Universe in Ain.
> I know the origin of Tarot is obscure but I doubt that it was created
> by Jews.
A bit obscure. Most of the tarot's orgin is well known and documented.
People with such a rich and well-documented history would
> certainly know if they created the world's first Tarot. And if the Jews
> somehow did invent the Tarot, why study mythology? Why bother to study
> the mythology of any civilization but the Jews since it's doubtful the
> Jews would ever have based anything on someone else's system of
> deities.
If you think that is true, then you haven't studied much of the
Kabbalah, since the Kabbalah does allow for multiple dieties which are at
the same time part of a single diety, as is everything in the universe.
> Second, aren't all decks the same, as far as interpretations go? Why
> bother looking through different decks? Who cares about the art?
> Doesn't the art only really reflect the thoughts and ideas of the
> artist? If so, doesn't that mean that you're basing your
> interpretations of the cards according to what you think the artist
> intended them to represent? In which case, no deck has the same meaning
> and the whole system of Tarot is virtually meaningless.
Waite knew a hell of a lot about the Tarot. Crowley knew a hell of a lot
about the tarot. Regardie knew a hell of a lot about the tarot. By looking
through decks they designed, if you can understand the meanings, you can get
a better glimpse at what they knew than by just reading their works.
> This all sounds suspiciously like people just making up whatever they
> want for Tarot interpretations, in which the only chance anyone has of
> being "right" in an interpretation is if they are Psychic. Is that it?
> Do tarot cards only work if you're psychic.
This sounds an aweful lot like a troll post. If not, than you're
somewhat naive and haven't studied much of the tarot. The tarot is
complicated, about as complicated as anything could possibly be, and it
requires study into many varied areas. Even those who have devoted a
lifetime to nothing but studying the tarot (and some have) still didn't
manage to figure it all out, and most of them weren't telling what they did
figure out to the uninitiated. There isn't a book that's going to clarify
everything for you, and there isn't a concise key you'll find to interpeting
the tarot. You need to learn how the card meaning are derived in those keys,
and then you'll understand how to make them yourself and how those keys can
never be exact in every situation. If you want to learn the tarot, you're
going to read dozens of books to get one more piece of the puzzle, spend
hundreds of hours trying to figure out if Tzaddi is the star, get so fed up
with some occultists puzzle that you're damn near ready to toss the cards
and give up every so often, and after a lifetime of this die content knowing
that you still haven't figured it all out.
Or you could follow some people and seek out answers on the Astral plane
(because if they're in the physical plane, they haven't all been found yet),
but I don't think you'll find much their either. Given the choice between
seeking out info on the tarot and flying, the urge to fly is just too great.
Trust me on this one.
jk
> Without rehasing the debate---
You mean, let you beg the question.
Why should people be so generous? Holidays?
> can anyone give opinions on what to do if
> you associate swords with fire?
Why do you associate Swords with Fire?
> Does this mean that the standard interpretations for the two
> suits should be switched---
If an interpration is standard, what would be the
argument for switching it, or for changing attributions
at all?
> , i.e. if I want the 5 of swords interpretation---
Where do these interpretations come from?
> I should look up the 5 of wands interpretation?
Doesn't that sound a little silly, or even mechanistic to
you?
Things mean what they do for reasons. To arbitrarily switch
things about, which may make people feel good (to
demonstrate they have some power to ignore standards
which they usually don't understand, can confuse matters
for you.
Remember that Tarot is also about ideas, and illustrations
of these. So, if you project a different set of ideas onto the
images, you are already running a risk of confusing indicators
and their intended indications.
> So far I can't see where anyone has gone so far as to suggest
> this.
People have suggested just about everything you can possibly
imagine for Tarot, including reading (or projecting onto) blank
cards.
But, if you want to understand Tarot, you need to look into the
reasons why people have done or suggested the things they
have.
Again, why correspond Swords to Fire, or if you do that why
use a system which plainly and traditionally indicates a different
correspondence?
(jk)
********************************
Read jk's Tarot FAQ:
http://jktarot.com/faq.html
Tarot News:
http://jktarot.com/news.html
********************************
jk
> If you are dependent on book meanings,
Describe this dependency. Is it like drug addiction?
Or a fondness for ignorance?
> and if you make fire = spirit or primal instinct than yes.
But what was written was this:
"...can anyone give opinions on what to do if
you associate swords with fire?"
So, are you saying Swords indicate "spirit or primal instinct"?
> If on the other handyou make fire the element
> of the intellect then no.
Then no, it should not be switched? So Fire would
continue to be corresponded to Wands?
How would that work exactly?
> Ultimatly the attribution of any meaning to any symbol is arbitray---
Sort of like the correct spelling of words such as "arbitrary" is
arbitrary, but if you ignore those conventions, you risk confusion
in any communication you hope to have. If, on the other hand,
the meanings of symbols in Tarot are of no concern to you because
you are mainly interested in using the cards to affirm your
confusion then, among other evasions of the truth one might
employ, arbitrarily dismissing standards and traditions as
"arbitrary" will serve that end.
> and for convience only, the important point is to have a coherant
> system that works for you.
But in Tarot "coherence" and "works" are frequently held to
be inimical.
Someone who asks such a basic question about correspondences
is obviously concerned, at least a little bit, about learning and
doing things in the correct fashion. Otherwise, he would not seek
opinions. And, if your object is to aid his understanding, instead
of to confuse it, you should offer either a knowledgeable
opinion, or send him to a source of these if you know of
one, or be silent.
jk
> if a baby had measles would you look up mumps?
Good point.
jk
> If you change a meening you should really try to remember it.
Maybe even question it.
> i learnt how to read from a book. the book meenings dont meen
> the same to me now. i have changed a lot of cards and made my
> own deck. The Cards are what they meen to you.
Why is that?
> as you gain expernce you will learn that its not a card its something
> in you that the card trigers so that you can see the full picture.
In Tarot "the full picture" is necessarily about somebody's meanings
other than your own.
> keep on reading.
With respect to Tarot, what does reading mean? What is it that
you read?
jk
> If all you are doing is making up your own interpretation of each
card,
> then why are you bothering to use the cards in the first place, since
> apparently the answer you are giving to the question isn't coming
from
> the cards but from you?
The cards don't speak. The reader does. There may be some
indication to be read on the cards. But the reader is the one
who gives it a form and a voice.
The question is what is the language being used to do this.
If it is a personal one, it is going to have a limited application.
> I'm not sure how this works if you are reading
> for other people, especially strangers.
"works" for strangers is generally undemanding.
> If a stranger were to ask me whether or not she should
> leave her husband, and I am making up my own
> interpretation of the tarot cards---
Then you will produce an answer.
"should" in whose opinion anyway?
At some point, you make up something. The question is
what is the basis of the making, and is one any better than
another? And why?
> , aren't I just telling her what I think she should do---
That kind of question is necessarily going to cause you to
do that, IF you actually answer it as opposed to reading her
motives for asking it.
> rather than asking the cards/fate/God/whatever-you-want-to-call-it
Nonsense?
> are what she should do? To simplify, if the answer is coming from
> me
Again, that's the case anyway.
> and not from some outside
Yes. Not from outside.
> force speaking through the cards, do the cards really matter?
For most people, no.
They can't read them.
They can't read much of anything.
> I guess my original question would be better phrased as:
> How much of the assigned meanings to the cards has to do
> with the specific object/element that the card is representing?
Depends.
Maybe you should start at the beginning, and ask what is Tarot.
jk
> I don't use Waite or Crowley. I use a pomo deck before I even
> realized there were "traditional" or pomo decks. I no longer
> have the book that came with it, I use a print out I got online
> for card interpretations.
Suggestion---start again.
> What does the Kabbalah have to do with Tarot?
Nothing. Everything.
Example:
http://jktarot.com/naples.html
Kabbalistic (or Qabalistic) meaning is the main key to occult Tarot.
> I can't see how 10 sephiroth (11 if you count da'at) correspond to
> 78 Tarot cards.
Kabbalah isn't just about 10 ideas.
The main connection, the one that inspired occultists to "see"
Kabbalah in Tarot, was the alleged link between the 22 Hebrew
letters and the 22 Tarot trumps. Other connections followed.
> I know the origin of Tarot is obscure---
You do not know that.
You feel that.
Learn, don't assume.
> but I doubt that it was created by Jews.
OK. But so what?
> People with such a rich and well-documented history would
> certainly know if they created the world's first Tarot.
Some of them are now claiming they did.
> And if the Jews somehow did invent the Tarot, why study
> mythology?
Because Kabbalah (and especially Qabalah) isn't just Jewish.
Also, Tarot isn't just Kabbalistic.
> Why bother to study---
If study is a bother, you should probably do something else.
Tarot will be permanently veiled to you until you get over that
idea.
> Second, aren't all decks the same,
No.
> This all sounds suspiciously like people just making up whatever
> they want for Tarot interpretations,
What did you imagine, that these were supplied by elves?
People make things up.
That doesn't mean all things they make up have equal merit
and value and utility.
> Do tarot cards only work if you're psychic.
Why would a psychic need Tarot cards?
Again, just start over, or do something else.
teth...@yahoo.com
>
> Again, why correspond Swords to Fire, or if you do that why
> use a system which plainly and traditionally indicates a different
> correspondence?
>
Not all systems correspond Swords to Air, first of all. And I've heard
not all Tarot decks associate Swords with Air, either. So I guess a
better, less long winded, and ultimately more helpful question would
have been "Are there any decks out there that correspond Swords with
Fire?"
Joseph Littleshoes
> "Go read some more", I think I'll interpret that as "I have no idea so
>
> go read some books and stop asking."
Like anything else there are many ways of looking at the tarot, many
different opinions on origin, purpose, meaning. While it is possible to
produce a good "reading" with out ever having read a book on the tarot,
in the same way it is possible to make a good omelette with out ever
reading a cook book, for the purpose of discussion in a group like this
it probly helps to have some sense of what has been written over the
centuries on the subject. Not that any one person has written the be
all end all text on the tarot but that some peoples ideas are worth
knowing about, ultimately you must make up your own mind about what the
tarot is per se as well as the meaning of any card. You may find
yourself in disagreement with what might be termed a "general consensus"
and that would not be wrong if it works for you.
>
>
> Please tell me what are "real cards".
Something physical as opposed to only imagined?
>
>
> I especially like the part where you didn't even attempt to answer the
>
> important questions in my post. Such as: Why is art important as it
> really only reflects the ideas of the artist?
Ultimately it is not, as you suspect, the art reflects not only the
artist but the time the artist produced it. Some ages are more liberal
than others but even then, as in the case of the Crowley vs. Waite deck,
Crowley's deck was "modern" in its art and Waite's was a reactionary
throw back to a discredited form of faux medievalism popular 50 years or
so before the deck was published, see the "pre Raphaelites" or the
"Gothic" art of Victorian England.
> If all Tarot decks have different meanings, then does it matter if a
> deck is "traditional" as opposed to post-modern?
Only if you are interested in the "traditional" deck and any possible
"message" its images may contain. Too often people neglect the concept
of divination in an almost exclusive focus on the tarot, which is just
one expression of a universal human phenomena, every culture has some
form of divination and there similarities are more apparent than their
differances.
Are you familiar with chapter 18 of Crowley's "Magick in theory and
practice"?
http://www.luckymojo.com/crowley/mitapxviii.txt
Part 1 is about "Astral Projection" but the rest of the text is
interesting in its resentation of Crowley's ideas regarding the
mechanics of divination. "Astral Projection" is an important part of
this process but not the topic under discussion at this time.
> Since, as you seem to
> imply, art is important, then ergo the artist's ideas are important,
There is often a disconnect between the person issuing the deck i.e.
Crowley and the person actually producing the deck i.e. Frieda Harris.
Most often the person with the knowledge of the tarot is not a skilled
artist and the skilled artist has not spent a lifetime studying the
tarot. The worst case is where the artist with no knowledge of the
tarot produces a deck. Sometimes this is fun and enlightening in
itself, such as the zeitgeist trumps, sometimes it is little short of a
joke, sometimes the structure of the tarot is expanded out of all
recognition to a traditional form, such as Ram Dass' "Seed" but is,
nevertheless, a very good expression of the authors ideas about the
concept of divination.
> and therefore post-modern decks are inherently equally valid as
> "traditional" decks, right?
I would agree, a good modern deck is just as good as an old deck,
sometimes even better in that a modern person may be abel to relate to
the images better than the old medieval images. Some people find it
helpful to remove the Christian superstition and myth from the tarot
thus making it more universal and less dogmatically prostituted to
medieval christian myth. This is not that different than those editions
of the "bible" the neuter the "god" references, remove the sexist
language.
Seven
12:06:59 -0800 :
None that I've seen. Let us know if you find one, one that is rooted
in something meaningful. Think of it this way, swords are cast in
fire, but move through air - cryptically speaking, does not the
elemental relation spring forth a 3rd form, spririt, free will?
teth...@yahoo.com
> in something meaningful. Think of it this way, swords are cast in
> fire, but move through air
Wands move through the air too, what's your point? If the only factors
you use to categorize these objects are their origin and the way they
are used then which should be more associated with fire, the object
forged in fire or the object carved from wood, since both are used in
the same way, through the air?
Karipidu
use a system which plainly and traditionally indicates a different
correspondence?
In the deck of playing cards Greeks call the red hearts C O U P E S
(koupes). They call the black inverted hearts with a short stem at
the bottom B A S T O U N I A. They call the red diamonds CARO,
KARO, and they call the black trefoil SPATHIA(swords).
The black trefoil corresponds to Fire.
Karypidou Marianna