Joseph; Ascension and Dali
Rosifer
Joseph, can you give some details of what you see as the relationship
between Dali's Ascension, the qabalistic significance of the painting,
and (The Last) Judgment.
Thanks
Rosifer
Humble T*r*t S**r
Ah! Clever move that.
I had laboured under the (mis)apprehension that Josfeph had decided
there was a (specific) relationship betwixt Dali's Ascension and
Waite's Card XX in the Major Trumps.
As for Qabalistic singificances - do you mean to indicate a similar
relationship as above between the Christian "event" and the painting,
or merely to enquire as to whether either has significance,
Qabalistically?
It wouldn't do to be rabbiting on about the wrong thing, after all.
Rosifer
Joseph said;
"... find a copy of Salvador Dali's "ascension" then get back to me if
you wish to discus the cabalistic implications of it and how it might
be considered an even better version of the judgment card than Waites
faux medievalism."
These two events (The Ascension, and The Last Judgment) would seem to
have very different meanings in Christian dogma, so how is it possible
that Dali's Ascension might make a worthwhile Judgment card?
I don't want to make Joseph's argument for him but I can see some
(tenuous) connections between the two.
Firstly, there is the triangular composition of the painting
corresponding to Fire, though I doubt that Dali intended the
correspondence; that particular composition has been used by Dali many
times.
The second conection is between The Ascension, Pentecost, and the
tongues of fire that descended upon the apostles. This ties in with
Shin, and the Ruach Elohim.
Apart from these scanty (to me, at least) connections, I would like to
see what sort of case Joseph can make.
And, Joseph, in another post, with regard to Dali's painting;
"...Also it [The Ascension of Christ] is dated 1958 and, IMO, is about
his most profound painting especially in a cabalistic sense."
I would like to know the extent of this supposed profundity.
Also, what image is used on the Judgment card in the Dali deck?
Rosifer
Sue
Rosifer <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
I'm glad you asked that question.
I had hoped that Joseph was going to give the details to all of us as a
kind of Christmas present and was somewhat disappointed when he didn't.
I even left cookies out for him.
--
"A gathering of angels appeared above my head..."
Humble T*r*t S**r
>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 23:26:47 +0000, Humble T*r*t S**r
><se****c...@tesco.dotnet> wrote:
>>It wouldn't do to be rabbiting on about the wrong thing, after all.
>
>Joseph said;
I know what Jofseph said, Rosifer - I was after clarification of what
you said and meant.
>These two events (The Ascension, and The Last Judgment) would seem to
>have very different meanings in Christian dogma, so how is it possible
>that Dali's Ascension might make a worthwhile Judgment card?
That is rather my view of the matter.
>I don't want to make Joseph's argument for him but I can see some
>(tenuous) connections between the two.
Between The Ascension and the Last Judgement, as Christian mythology,
or between Dali's Ascension painting and Waite's Judgement card?
>Firstly, there is the triangular composition of the painting
>corresponding to Fire, though I doubt that Dali intended the
>correspondence; that particular composition has been used by Dali many
>times.
Ah - yes. The triangle thing is one part of the thing he had going on
in the painting, but there are (tenuously) other things too. For
example, the centre of the "circle" has significance in its design -
as to its references, anyway. Obviously, if one follows that there
are (tenuous) links, then one can also claim that the circle has
significance, the act of rising "dead" has significance, as does the
placement of Gala looking down on Christ, her alone knowing His face
(at that point).
But it is, I suspect, tenuous rather than specific.
One can find similarities many of his works with other things.
Indeed, one can find cabalistic significance in all things. That's
certainly a big part of the point, though, isn't it?
>The second conection is between The Ascension, Pentecost, and the
>tongues of fire that descended upon the apostles. This ties in with
>Shin, and the Ruach Elohim.
Aye, it does. Where Waite utilises his risen dead as Shin, I didn't
find anything to specifically indicate Shin in the Dali work, other
than by allusion. I didn't look ever so closely though, and have only
a fairly small image to work with.
>Apart from these scanty (to me, at least) connections, I would like to
>see what sort of case Joseph can make.
I'll go with that.
I wonder if Josfeph will.
>And, Joseph, in another post, with regard to Dali's painting;
>
>"...Also it [The Ascension of Christ] is dated 1958 and, IMO, is about
>his most profound painting especially in a cabalistic sense."
Well, that's not the same thing at all as being directly relative (or
superior in some way) to Waite's Judgement card.
I'd like to know more directly why Josfeph think it would be a better
Judgement than the image used.
>I would like to know the extent of this supposed profundity.
Circum...spection, perhaps?
>Also, what image is used on the Judgment card in the Dali deck?
>
http://www.tarot.com/about-tarot/decks/browsedecks.php?newdeck=6
It is basically um, surreal, with some of the expected semiology in
place.
Overall, it isn't a deck I'd be able to see as anything other the
typically po-mo, to coin a phrase.
Rosifer
<se****c...@tesco.dotnet> wrote:
>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:21:08 -0800, Rosifer <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 23:26:47 +0000, Humble T*r*t S**r
>><se****c...@tesco.dotnet> wrote:
>>I don't want to make Joseph's argument for him but I can see some
>>(tenuous) connections between the two.
>
>Between The Ascension and the Last Judgement, as Christian mythology,
>or between Dali's Ascension painting and Waite's Judgement card?
Yes, on reading this post again, I can see I may not have made myself
clear.
The first connection was between Dali's painting and a Golden Dawn
attribution of the Judgment Trump later used by Waite.
The second is made of two connections with the Pentecost being the
bridge between The Ascension, as told in the Bible, and Shin being
attributed to Judgment.
>>Firstly, there is the triangular composition of the painting
>>corresponding to Fire, though I doubt that Dali intended the
>>correspondence; that particular composition has been used by Dali many
>>times.
>
>Ah - yes. The triangle thing is one part of the thing he had going on
>in the painting, but there are (tenuously) other things too. For
>example, the centre of the "circle" has significance in its design -
>as to its references, anyway. Obviously, if one follows that there
>are (tenuous) links, then one can also claim that the circle has
>significance, the act of rising "dead" has significance, as does the
>placement of Gala looking down on Christ, her alone knowing His face
>(at that point).
>
>But it is, I suspect, tenuous rather than specific.
>
>One can find similarities many of his works with other things.
>
>Indeed, one can find cabalistic significance in all things. That's
>certainly a big part of the point, though, isn't it?
Yes, which is why we really need Joseph to explain why we are not just
indulging in a free-association exercise.
In general, whether there was any intent by Dali to make some
qabalistic reference in this painting, and specifically, whether any
such reference was to the XXth Trump.
>>The second conection is between The Ascension, Pentecost, and the
>>tongues of fire that descended upon the apostles. This ties in with
>>Shin, and the Ruach Elohim.
>
>Aye, it does. Where Waite utilises his risen dead as Shin, I didn't
>find anything to specifically indicate Shin in the Dali work, other
>than by allusion. I didn't look ever so closely though, and have only
>a fairly small image to work with.
>
>>Apart from these scanty (to me, at least) connections, I would like to
>>see what sort of case Joseph can make.
>
>I'll go with that.
>
>I wonder if Josfeph will.
>
>>And, Joseph, in another post, with regard to Dali's painting;
>>
>>"...Also it [The Ascension of Christ] is dated 1958 and, IMO, is about
>>his most profound painting especially in a cabalistic sense."
>
>Well, that's not the same thing at all as being directly relative (or
>superior in some way) to Waite's Judgement card.
No, it was an almost unrelated question.
>I'd like to know more directly why Josfeph think it would be a better
>Judgement than the image used.
Yes, so would I.
>>I would like to know the extent of this supposed profundity.
>
>Circum...spection, perhaps?
As long as its not circumlocution.
>
>>Also, what image is used on the Judgment card in the Dali deck?
>>
>
>http://www.tarot.com/about-tarot/decks/browsedecks.php?newdeck=6
>
>It is basically um, surreal, with some of the expected semiology in
>place.
>
>Overall, it isn't a deck I'd be able to see as anything other the
>typically po-mo, to coin a phrase.
Do you know if Dali had much input as to what images were used in what
cards?
If he did, then Joseph has another question to consider.
Rosifer
Joseph Littleshoes
I'll make an attempt at expressing what i see in the picture, though it
must be understood that my interpretation, especially in regards any
meaning it might have respecting the "judgment" card is only mine and
certainly not the Catholic Dali's.
As a starting point we can quote watchies recent post on the subject
"he puts the man on the left, the woman on the right, and the child
centrally, back turned."
The most significant aspect of Dali' painting regarding the placement of
people is the female figure looking down on the central figure of the
male, seemingly rising to the female. Is she weeping tears of sorrow or
joy? in the Dali context she is the virgin observing her sons
crucifixion. From above rather than traditionally from below.
If we take the crucifixion and resurrection as symbolic of all life then
it is easy enough to conceive of the circular motifs in the painting
that the "christ" figure is rising through to be the emanations of the
TOL. In "fact" it is debatable whether the christ figure is rising or
falling. The idea of the descent into matter need not be gone into
here. But if it were a resurrection from this descent, it might take
place both individually and on a more grand or cosmic scale.
Though some what hard to see in the online version you posted a link to,
the dove just under the virgins chin could be symbolic of the 3rd
person, the holy spirit rising even faster and ahead of the corporeal
being it seems to be leaving, perhaps the tears from above are a
recognition of the inevitability of that corporeal existence that must
be lost in any resurrection, or reunification of that spirit with its
creator, which much of cabalistic literature likes to symbolize as
female for various reason.
watchie goes on to quote;
"he suggests that it is the card that registers the accomplishment of
the great work of transformation in answer to the supernal - and which
summons is heard and answered from within."
which could just as easily be applied to Dali' painting as Waites card.
and finally watchie comments "it will indicate something of the nature
of mastery of knowledge (about a thing)
Though some have debated it, many believe that Dali' intellect was
comprehensive, his understanding of physics, math and the natural world
was masterful, and his expression of his understanding of "ascension"
profound. even the "dark and stormy night" can be seen to represent
binah, and the clear light of day chokmah, with the female figure above
all as kether, some suggestion of the spirit (dove) as daath between
the male and female figure seems indicated to me.
And last but not least, the whole picture resolves itself in a very
personal way for me, having had a few transcendental visions that,
whether they be self delusion or not, are very reminiscent of Dali'
vision. Even given the christian context of the judgment card the Dali
painting can be seen as a more comprehensive, less specifically
christian example of a more universal aspect of the natural world and
any spiritual evolution there might be.
Personally i think the female above weeps with joy, weeps for the
exquisite beauty and ephemeral nature of what she perceives as a
product of her own awareness.
The above is just a few thoughts, im only half way through the
prescribed bottle of cyclobenzaprine and the other bottle of naproxin
and the old spinal column is still rather sore so i hope you will
pardon any, even more than usual, obscurities in my attempt at
expressing some of my feelings for this painting and its association, at
least in my mind, with the judgment card.
I would not mind some of our more erudite contributors taking up this
subject in a positive light and not dismissing it as mere Jungian
symbolism.
JL
Joseph Littleshoes
I can't say whether Dali had any cabalistic ideas in mind when he
painted the picture, or whether there was any "intent" to associate it
with the XXth trump. That there seems to me to be some such connection
between Dali' painting and the Christian myth of "the dead rising" and a
final judgment of humanity and Waites XXth trump should not be at all
surprising. Given the overtly Christian nature of the card there are
probably many paintings of the subject that could be used as the XXth
trump. A more pagan interpretation might be Botticelli' "birth of
venus" the divine woman rising from the waters of creation. An argument
could be made for interpreting Bellini' "holy allegory" in light of the
xxth trump. Similarly Michelangelo' "Doni Tondo" could be interpreted to
be a more humanistic less apocalyptic version of the XXth trump.
But getting back to Dali & Waite, both pictures can be interpreted to
represent a way towards a higher level of physical existence with an
angel or "god" showing the way, or in the case of Dali, the dove of the
spirit leading the way. this does not have to be interpreted in a
strictly christian, orthodox way, as one final assumption of humanity
in physical bodies to heaven. as i see it ,the principle behind this
card is the awakening to new and higher levels of life.
And, IMO, Dali makes a better picture of this, one that is more
instinctually understandable, at least to me, than the more traditional,
and overtly christian symbolism generally associated with the XXth
trump. More "organic" and less a necessarily christian symbolism, but
rather a more "natural" and non sectarian interpretation of a
transcendence or "ascension" of the individual or the race or life as a
whole.
Curiously enough, Crowley in his book of Thoth makes some comments about
his "Aeon" trump that can applied to Dali' painting
I paraphrase; at the top of the card is the body of the Goddess, who is
the category of unlimited possibility; her mate is the point of view of
her, he is rising towards her to show his power of motion, of becoming.
As a result of the marriage of these two, the child which is the Holy
Spirit of Mankind is born, shown in its symbolic form as the dove.
Towards the end of his life, the last 10 - 15 years or so, i have read
that many works were issued under his name that were at best, "gallery
art" production line paintings and lithographs and such that were turned
out by his studio more than himself, i have read, and i forget where,
that the deck with the exception of a few cards, were the work of
students of his doing a cut and paste job and getting him to sign off on
them, his mania for building a rather Daliesque castle suitable to his
late in life achievement of a title of Nobility, ( Marquise(sp?) was
said to be part of his need for generating as much cash as he could. A
quick glance at his deck will reveal to anyone familiar with the body of
his work that it is not (with a few exceptions, notably his XVIIIth
trump) anything like Dali in his prime. Whether it was basically a
forgery, not unlike the giger (though at least giger seems to have
consciously collaborated with the compiling of his images into a tarot)
or merely a final and rather senile work by a former master will probly
never be definitively proven.
>
>
> If he did, then Joseph has another question to consider.
I did not mean to imply that Dali deliberately painted what i see. As i
understand it he was rather orthodox, especially in his later life,
about his Catholicism.
JL
>
>
> Rosifer
Gea Jones
the cards based on the meanings they knew,
Dali, obviously couldn't resist throwing in little pieces of his own, but
Gala , as always , had the last word
Gea
"Rosifer" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:hau5vv8q32a6buchq...@4ax.com...
Karipidu
> between Dali's Ascension, the qabalistic significance of the painting,
> and (The Last) Judgment.
Oh children, receive the breeze of the Spirit that breathes fire
and is the catharsis...,for now a (new) law has come out of
Sion that is the grace of the Spirit.
Oh you people, whose faces shine with the light of divine
grace, receive the refreshment of the Holy Spirit, which is
not only a mere refreshment, but conveys also a burning
fire.
Rosifer
<jpst...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Rosifer wrote:
>
>I can't say whether Dali had any cabalistic ideas in mind when he
>painted the picture, or whether there was any "intent" to associate it
>with the XXth trump. That there seems to me to be some such connection
>between Dali' painting and the Christian myth of "the dead rising" and a
>final judgment of humanity and Waites XXth trump should not be at all
>surprising. Given the overtly Christian nature of the card there are
>probably many paintings of the subject that could be used as the XXth
>trump. A more pagan interpretation might be Botticelli' "birth of
>venus" the divine woman rising from the waters of creation.
I must say I can't see any (R)resurrection in the Botticelli painting,
but I guess we tend to get stuck with preconceived ideas. I can see
birth, but not rebirth.
I always think of how she was conceived, a distant forerunner of in
vitro fertilisation.
> An argumentcould be made for interpreting Bellini' "holy allegory" in light of the
>xxth trump.
I'm not sure which painting you mean.
> Similarly Michelangelo' "Doni Tondo" could be interpreted to
>be a more humanistic less apocalyptic version of the XXth trump.
I'm not sure about this one either, but to each their own. Personally
I prefer my Apocalypses to be Apocalyptic, and Michelangelo left a
pretty good one in the Sistine Chapel.
>But getting back to Dali & Waite, both pictures can be interpreted to
>represent a way towards a higher level of physical existence with an
>angel or "god" showing the way, or in the case of Dali, the dove of the
>spirit leading the way. this does not have to be interpreted in a
>strictly christian, orthodox way,
A dove in flight, (as opposed to a dove with an olive branch, for
example), is a symbol of The Ascension of Christ.
> as one final assumption of humanity
>in physical bodies to heaven. as i see it ,the principle behind this
>card is the awakening to new and higher levels of life.
>
>And, IMO, Dali makes a better picture of this, one that is more
>instinctually understandable, at least to me, than the more traditional,
>and overtly christian symbolism generally associated with the XXth
>trump. More "organic" and less a necessarily christian symbolism, but
>rather a more "natural" and non sectarian interpretation of a
>transcendence or "ascension" of the individual or the race or life as a
>whole.
>
>Curiously enough, Crowley in his book of Thoth makes some comments about
>his "Aeon" trump that can applied to Dali' painting
>
>I paraphrase; at the top of the card is the body of the Goddess, who is
>the category of unlimited possibility; her mate is the point of view of
>her, he is rising towards her to show his power of motion, of becoming.
>As a result of the marriage of these two, the child which is the Holy
>Spirit of Mankind is born, shown in its symbolic form as the dove.
But what sort of marriage could be taking place in Dali's painting;
who does Gala represent?
>> Do you know if Dali had much input as to what images were used in what
>>
>> cards?
>
>Towards the end of his life, the last 10 - 15 years or so, i have read
>that many works were issued under his name that were at best, "gallery
>art" production line paintings and lithographs and such that were turned
>out by his studio more than himself, i have read, and i forget where,
>that the deck with the exception of a few cards, were the work of
>students of his doing a cut and paste job and getting him to sign off on
>them, his mania for building a rather Daliesque castle suitable to his
>late in life achievement of a title of Nobility, ( Marquise(sp?) was
>said to be part of his need for generating as much cash as he could. A
>quick glance at his deck will reveal to anyone familiar with the body of
>his work that it is not (with a few exceptions, notably his XVIIIth
>trump) anything like Dali in his prime. Whether it was basically a
>forgery, not unlike the giger (though at least giger seems to have
>consciously collaborated with the compiling of his images into a tarot)
>or merely a final and rather senile work by a former master will probly
>never be definitively proven.
>> If he did, then Joseph has another question to consider.
>
>I did not mean to imply that Dali deliberately painted what i see. As i
>understand it he was rather orthodox, especially in his later life,
>about his Catholicism.
Thanks for taking the time.
Rosifer
Humble T*r*t S**r
>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 03:15:46 +0000, Humble T*r*t S**r
><se****c...@tesco.dotnet> wrote:
>>Between The Ascension and the Last Judgement, as Christian mythology,
>>or between Dali's Ascension painting and Waite's Judgement card?
>
>Yes, on reading this post again, I can see I may not have made myself
>clear.
I wanted a clear way for a discussion which appears not to be
happening.
Josfeph, sadly, seems to be hiding behind his meds - perhaps, however
he will answer thoroughly yet.
>The first connection was between Dali's painting and a Golden Dawn
>attribution of the Judgment Trump later used by Waite.
Yep.
>The second is made of two connections with the Pentecost being the
>bridge between The Ascension, as told in the Bible, and Shin being
>attributed to Judgment.
Yep.
>>Indeed, one can find cabalistic significance in all things. That's
>>certainly a big part of the point, though, isn't it?
>
>Yes, which is why we really need Joseph to explain why we are not just
>indulging in a free-association exercise.
It would be beneficial, at least to some extent.
Whilst, if for Josfeph's benefit alone, I don't think Dali was
especially influenced by Jungian notions, they do play a part in his
ideas.
For that, I'm not prepared to dismiss Dali as another Jungian
fraud....I haven't researched him nearly enough to do so.
>In general, whether there was any intent by Dali to make some
>qabalistic reference in this painting, and specifically, whether any
>such reference was to the XXth Trump.
I think there probably was intent to make a Qabalistic reference or
two - I don't see, so far, enough to convince myself that it is any
suitable substitute for a Judgement image.
>>Well, that's not the same thing at all as being directly relative (or
>>superior in some way) to Waite's Judgement card.
>
>No, it was an almost unrelated question.
Thank you. I had been puzzling why you might think it was, for a
time.
>>Circum...spection, perhaps?
>
>As long as its not circumlocution.
Or, indeed, circumbendibus.
I rather though it would follow something more circum-stantial.
>>
>>>Also, what image is used on the Judgment card in the Dali deck?
>>>
>>
>>http://www.tarot.com/about-tarot/decks/browsedecks.php?newdeck=6
>>
>>It is basically um, surreal, with some of the expected semiology in
>>place.
>>
>>Overall, it isn't a deck I'd be able to see as anything other the
>>typically po-mo, to coin a phrase.
>
>Do you know if Dali had much input as to what images were used in what
>cards?
I gather, though I have no immediate source to quote from, that he
"designed" only six of the cards, and basically added a touch of
watercolour here and there to others. I seem to recall that the deck
largely was created by, was it Luarch that worked on it "with" him?
>If he did, then Joseph has another question to consider.
I suspect it is more a case of abstract thinking, than direct
comparison.
However, I will be interested to read Jofseph's comments in detail.
Humble T*r*t S**r
<jpst...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>I can't say whether Dali had any cabalistic ideas in mind when he
>painted the picture, or whether there was any "intent" to associate it
>with the XXth trump.
>>Message-ID: <3FE67E75...@pacbell.net>
>>From: Joseph Littleshoes <jpst...@pacbell.net>
>>NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 00:13:06 EST
>>Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:13:06 GMT
>>Your ability to site chapter and verse has never been in question, you
>>show some slight ability to interpret the obvious, this time without
>>insult, was that so hard? I'll even excuse the "Jo-pop" on the grounds
>>of your incorrigibility. Expand your horizons a bit and find a copy of
>>Salvador Dali's "ascension" then get back to me if you wish to discus
>>the cabalistic implications of it and how it might be considered an even
>>better version of the judgment card than Waites faux medievalism.
Seems to be a bit of a contradiction going on here, Josfeph.
You see, today you're saying you can't say whether or not Dali had any
Qabalistic ideas, yet previously, on 22 Dec, you insinuated quite
clearly that there were such. Even to the point that you had definite
views on this painting being "an even better version of the Judgement
card"
So, I'm asking, as I believe is Rosifer - how might it be considered
an even better version of the Judgement card than Waite's faux
medievalism?
And at risk of your deciding I'm being all Karlin-esque, please be
specific.
>That there seems to me to be some such connection
>between Dali' painting and the Christian myth of "the dead rising" and a
>final judgment of humanity and Waites XXth trump should not be at all
>surprising.
Not surprising to you, perhaps.
It is based on what you've written, to me, however. It appears to be
a complete u-turn.
There may well be connection(s) between Dali's painting, and the
Christian idea of "the dead rising" as you put it - Christ's
ascension, however was not a "final" judgement of humanity.
But these things are not what Waite was discussing in his Judgement
card. He was talking about something other than is inferred in the
Christian Ascension theme, and other than the Christian concept of the
"last" Judgement. He makes that exceptionally clear in his text.
> Given the overtly Christian nature of the card there are
>probably many paintings of the subject that could be used as the XXth
>trump.
But it really isn't about the Christian nature, is it?
As regards what Waite was talking about, the iconography he chose was,
however, directly relative to what he was saying.
Recall, if you will, that the basis for this lies in Renaissance
Italy, after all.
> A more pagan interpretation might be Botticelli' "birth of
>venus" the divine woman rising from the waters of creation.
No, I don't think that's the case either.
But, please indicate why, you think this picutre represents the same
things as Waite was imparting in his card.
> An argument
>could be made for interpreting Bellini' "holy allegory" in light of the
>xxth trump.
And what arguement would that be?
>Similarly Michelangelo' "Doni Tondo" could be interpreted to
>be a more humanistic less apocalyptic version of the XXth trump.
The humanity of the card is irrelevant - the apocalyptic theme is not.
In what way do you think this painting is at all similar to what Waite
was telling us about trump XX?
>But getting back to Dali & Waite, both pictures can be interpreted to
>represent a way towards a higher level of physical existence with an
>angel or "god" showing the way, or in the case of Dali, the dove of the
>spirit leading the way.
No, they can't. The Ascension thing is not about physical existence
of any sort. Neither is Waite's Judgement.
> this does not have to be interpreted in a
>strictly christian, orthodox way, as one final assumption of humanity
>in physical bodies to heaven.
But you just claimed it was the way towards a higher level of physical
existence.
How can it therefore not be any sort of assumption as to physical
bodies in "heaven"?
You have also claimed Waite's card to depict a Christian symbology,
which you now seem to be saying is not the case.
> as i see it ,the principle behind this
>card is the awakening to new and higher levels of life.
Not life, no.
Something else.
>And, IMO, Dali makes a better picture of this, one that is more
>instinctually understandable, at least to me, than the more traditional,
>and overtly christian symbolism generally associated with the XXth
>trump.
Overtly Christian symbology was not associated by Crowley. He still
managed to convey the message intended by and for the XXth trump.
Dali is trying to indicate something different than the meaning of the
Judgement card - overtly, and, potentially, covertly.
> More "organic" and less a necessarily christian symbolism, but
>rather a more "natural" and non sectarian interpretation of a
>transcendence or "ascension" of the individual or the race or life as a
>whole.
I think you're a tad confused over what the Ascension represents to
Christianity. And, perhaps as to what Waite was communicating.
>Curiously enough, Crowley in his book of Thoth makes some comments about
>his "Aeon" trump that can applied to Dali' painting
>I paraphrase; at the top of the card is the body of the Goddess, who is
>the category of unlimited possibility; her mate is the point of view of
>her, he is rising towards her to show his power of motion, of becoming.
>As a result of the marriage of these two, the child which is the Holy
>Spirit of Mankind is born, shown in its symbolic form as the dove.
In that case, Dali would be rising - not Christ.
And why would Gala be crying, were Crowley's comments really
applicable to Dali's painting?
Besides, Ascension came somewhat after Thoth - that is, Dali would
have been interpreting Crowley, rather than the reverse.
>> Do you know if Dali had much input as to what images were used in what
>>
>> cards?
>
>Towards the end of his life, the last 10 - 15 years or so, i have read
>that many works were issued under his name that were at best, "gallery
>art" production line paintings and lithographs and such that were turned
>out by his studio more than himself, i have read, and i forget where,
>that the deck with the exception of a few cards, were the work of
>students of his doing a cut and paste job and getting him to sign off on
>them, his mania for building a rather Daliesque castle suitable to his
>late in life achievement of a title of Nobility, ( Marquise(sp?) was
>said to be part of his need for generating as much cash as he could. A
>quick glance at his deck will reveal to anyone familiar with the body of
>his work that it is not (with a few exceptions, notably his XVIIIth
>trump) anything like Dali in his prime. Whether it was basically a
>forgery, not unlike the giger (though at least giger seems to have
>consciously collaborated with the compiling of his images into a tarot)
>or merely a final and rather senile work by a former master will probly
>never be definitively proven.
I would think that such a claim would be evidencible, were it to be
the case.
Certainly, his estate claims it not to be forgery, and to be his own
work, in part, and full and un-senile supervision for the remainder.
>> If he did, then Joseph has another question to consider.
>
>I did not mean to imply that Dali deliberately painted what i see. As i
>understand it he was rather orthodox, especially in his later life,
>about his Catholicism.
He didn't paint what you see by accident though.
He painted it for others to interpret, at least to some extent, and
within the scope of his own interpretation - which was the painting.
I'm a touch disappointed, Jofseph - you originate dthis as though to
suggest you had something very definite in mind.
Joseph Littleshoes
Did i dangle a participle or are you as stupid as you seem to like to
accuse me of being? I never met Dali, I don't know what he was thinking
or if he meant anything, beyond an exercise in perspective, he stood the
model of the christ figure above himself to paint him, I don't know what
was in Dali's mind at the time of the composition and execution of the
painting in question.
But for me the painting is profound and seems to indicate to me
similarities to the little bit of cabalistic thought i have been
exposed to.
>
>
> So, I'm asking, as I believe is Rosifer - how might it be considered
> an even better version of the Judgement card than Waite's faux
> medievalism?
>
> And at risk of your deciding I'm being all Karlin-esque, please be
> specific.
>
> >That there seems to me to be some such connection
> >between Dali' painting and the Christian myth of "the dead rising"
> and a
> >final judgment of humanity and Waites XXth trump should not be at
> all
> >surprising.
>
> Not surprising to you, perhaps.
>
> It is based on what you've written, to me, however. It appears to be
> a complete u-turn.
I dont understand why you would say this.
>
>
> There may well be connection(s) between Dali's painting, and the
> Christian idea of "the dead rising" as you put it - Christ's
> ascension, however was not a "final" judgement of humanity.
perhaps not in a strictly orthodox sense but if christ is taken as a
metaphor for all life and the later versions of "the last judgment" are
seen as a mere elaboration on the same theme, then i stand by what i
wrote.
>
>
> But these things are not what Waite was discussing in his Judgement
> card. He was talking about something other than is inferred in the
> Christian Ascension theme, and other than the Christian concept of the
>
> "last" Judgement. He makes that exceptionally clear in his text.
You did a half way decent job of pointing that out in your previous post
which is why i incorporated it into my first response to this thread.
>
>
> > Given the overtly Christian nature of the card there are
> >probably many paintings of the subject that could be used as the XXth
>
> >trump.
>
> But it really isn't about the Christian nature, is it?
>
> As regards what Waite was talking about, the iconography he chose was,
>
> however, directly relative to what he was saying.
>
> Recall, if you will, that the basis for this lies in Renaissance
> Italy, after all.
>
> > A more pagan interpretation might be Botticelli' "birth of
> >venus" the divine woman rising from the waters of creation.
>
> No, I don't think that's the case either.
Well, obviously, but i still do. Unless your attempting to imply some
sort of literallity to the XXth trump, its a metaphor which is not
limited to renaissance italy, the christian religion or wates tarot
card.
>
>
> But, please indicate why, you think this picutre represents the same
> things as Waite was imparting in his card.
>
> > An argument
> >could be made for interpreting Bellini' "holy allegory" in light of
> the
> >xxth trump.
>
> And what arguement would that be?
The one that you explained half way decently, and has already been
mentioned several times.
>
>
> >Similarly Michelangelo' "Doni Tondo" could be interpreted to
> >be a more humanistic less apocalyptic version of the XXth trump.
>
> The humanity of the card is irrelevant - the apocalyptic theme is not.
AH! "Apocalyptic" as opposed to apocryphal.
Apocalypse, the book of revelations, a latter elaboration and one known
as a particularly "Great devastation" or doom. but an argument can be
made that the time of the creation of the book and its author are
apocryphal. And don't go all literalist on me, from the stand point of
the torah the whole new testament is apocryphal.
And of course the point im trying to make is that what is symbolized by
waites XXth trump, or Dalis painting does not have to be seen as
"apocalyptic" but can be seen as an natural and organic inevitability,
something that happens to us whether we know about it and cultivate is
or not.
>
>
> In what way do you think this painting is at all similar to what Waite
>
> was telling us about trump XX?
>
> >But getting back to Dali & Waite, both pictures can be interpreted
> to
> >represent a way towards a higher level of physical existence with an
> >angel or "god" showing the way, or in the case of Dali, the dove of
> the
> >spirit leading the way.
>
> No, they can't. The Ascension thing is not about physical existence
> of any sort. Neither is Waite's Judgement.
Yes, its about transcending physical existence, either literally or
metaphorically.
>
>
> > this does not have to be interpreted in a
> >strictly christian, orthodox way, as one final assumption of
> humanity
> >in physical bodies to heaven.
>
> But you just claimed it was the way towards a higher level of physical
>
> existence.
Does one have to die to be enlightened? Can one achieve the
transcendence, or ascendancy depicted in both pictures without dying or
a "last judgment" of humanity taking place? Or even express the hope
that it might be so? In some of the older decks the people are rising
from the ground and not from tombs, which just goes back to a idea i
mentioned a long time ago, that the cards probably had non christian
precedents for their creation, goodness knows if you want to make the
tarot so christian that we can only take about it in such terms, then i
would remind you how much of the past christianity borrowed from, re
told and adopted as its own.
>
>
> How can it therefore not be any sort of assumption as to physical
> bodies in "heaven"?
>
> You have also claimed Waite's card to depict a Christian symbology,
> which you now seem to be saying is not the case.
>
> > as i see it ,the principle behind this
> >card is the awakening to new and higher levels of life.
>
> Not life, no.
>
> Something else.
Now your just being argumentative.
>
>
> >And, IMO, Dali makes a better picture of this, one that is more
> >instinctually understandable, at least to me, than the more
> traditional,
> >and overtly christian symbolism generally associated with the XXth
> >trump.
>
> Overtly Christian symbology was not associated by Crowley. He still
> managed to convey the message intended by and for the XXth trump.
And more closely akin to Dali' painting than waites he did.
>
>
> Dali is trying to indicate something different than the meaning of the
>
> Judgement card - overtly, and, potentially, covertly.
In your opinion.
>
>
> > More "organic" and less a necessarily christian symbolism, but
> >rather a more "natural" and non sectarian interpretation of a
> >transcendence or "ascension" of the individual or the race or life as
> a
> >whole.
>
> I think you're a tad confused over what the Ascension represents to
> Christianity. And, perhaps as to what Waite was communicating.
>
> >Curiously enough, Crowley in his book of Thoth makes some comments
> about
> >his "Aeon" trump that can applied to Dali' painting
>
> >I paraphrase; at the top of the card is the body of the Goddess, who
> is
> >the category of unlimited possibility; her mate is the point of view
> of
> >her, he is rising towards her to show his power of motion, of
> becoming.
> >As a result of the marriage of these two, the child which is the Holy
>
> >Spirit of Mankind is born, shown in its symbolic form as the dove.
>
> In that case, Dali would be rising - not Christ.
The creator and the creation are reunited in stages, dali was just one
stage, as are you , as am i, as is every other thing that exists,
>
>
> And why would Gala be crying, were Crowley's comments really
> applicable to Dali's painting?
Gala was only the model, for a symbol that according to dali was the
"mother of god"
>
>
> Besides, Ascension came somewhat after Thoth - that is, Dali would
> have been interpreting Crowley, rather than the reverse.
Now your just being perverse, your deliberately skewing what i wrote.
For reasons only you can answer for, though i can make a guess.
Go to a gallery and inquire about dali prints.
>
>
> Certainly, his estate claims it not to be forgery, and to be his own
> work, in part, and full and un-senile supervision for the remainder.
"It"? i did not mention any "It" i mentioned "many works" issued under
his name, there was a bit of a scandal in the art world about it the
first few years after his death.
>
>
> >> If he did, then Joseph has another question to consider.
> >
> >I did not mean to imply that Dali deliberately painted what i see. As
> i
> >understand it he was rather orthodox, especially in his later life,
> >about his Catholicism.
>
> He didn't paint what you see by accident though.
Unless life itself is an accident, but seriously, you seem to be
deliberately avoiding examining what i wrote and merely twisting it to
your own need to tell me i don't know what im talking about.
>
>
> He painted it for others to interpret, at least to some extent, and
> within the scope of his own interpretation - which was the painting.
As mentioned, i was not as indoctrinated in christianity as Dali was, my
philosophical explorations have caused me to see something wonderfully
reassuring in the painting, that i liken it to the XXth trump is only
incidental, but never the less important for me. I merely meant to
share what i had found to be very interesting, i don't claim a
perfection of understanding, of the tarot or anything else, but that
does not stop me from discussing it. Really, the only credible response
to my alleged ignorance is to ignore it, cause you certainly have not
taught me anything i don't already know, including a reaffermation of an
opinion i held of your posts originally.
>
>
> I'm a touch disappointed, Jofseph - you originate dthis as though to
> suggest you had something very definite in mind.
My sentiments are similar, you started out well and ended up with only
lame misinterpretation, deliberate or otherwise, of what i was trying to
communicate, and again demonstrated that your not interested in hearing
or discussing anything but your own version, your own understanding, of
things. Too bad, when you take the time to leave off the invective you
can be interesting.
Joseph.
Gea Jones
when I bought them they were £100, and have real gold leaf on the backs,
the inspiration seemed as if it was from the Waite tarot,which I thought
was directly from Galas influence,
[very clearly in 6 swords] but the card which always confused me was the
World,[though now I have my own obscure idea]
I would be very interested in your ideas about that particular card by Dali
?
Gea
"Joseph Littleshoes" <jpst...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3FF3E3F8...@pacbell.net...
Humble T*r*t S**r
<jpst...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Humble T*r*t S**r wrote:
>> You see, today you're saying you can't say whether or not Dali had any
>> Qabalistic ideas, yet previously, on 22 Dec, you insinuated quite
>> clearly that there were such. Even to the point that you had definite
>> views on this painting being "an even better version of the Judgement
>> card"
>Did i dangle a participle or are you as stupid as you seem to like to
>accuse me of being? I never met Dali, I don't know what he was thinking
>or if he meant anything, beyond an exercise in perspective, he stood the
>model of the christ figure above himself to paint him, I don't know what
>was in Dali's mind at the time of the composition and execution of the
>painting in question.
Josfeph, this is precisely why I accuse you of being stupid. This
whole post of yours, in fact, gives weight to my assertions.
I didn't suggest or imply that you'd met Dali - if you think you
suggested or implied that, then I cannot help.
What I did do, however, was to call you out on why you think Dali's
Ascension would be "an even better version of the Judgement card" -
you did say that, after all.
You know, I find it most curious, that after all your shouting and
feet stamping, demanding to be treated without insults (though why,
I'm not sure) and so on - that you get asked a host of serious
questions about an assertion you've made, and your opening salvo
is....an insult.
So what about that Jofseph?
Why should anyone believe a word you claim here?
>But for me the painting is profound and seems to indicate to me
>similarities to the little bit of cabalistic thought i have been
>exposed to.
By chance, you comprehend what was said in my post, above.
Yes, your views - you've told the newsgroup several times now WHAT
your views are - in particular, people are asking WHY.
There is a fundamental issue at heart here Josfeph - you kicked off
claiming stuff in such a way as to present it as a definite knowledge
you possessed, and now you're couching everyhting in terms of "seems"
and "similarities" more in line with having said something you have no
facts to evidence your claims with. Is that the case?
Look - lest you take this the wrong way too, Josfeph, understand that
I am not outing you for the mere sake of it (for now) - but rather
trying to understand what it is you are trying to say.
If you are trying to have an exploration of the possibility that
Dali's Ascension *might* have fitted to position of Waite's judgement
somehown, then just say so - or if you are trying to find out, rather
than asserting, that Dali may have had Qabalistic influence, then,
again, say so.
As always, Josfeph, I am happy to discuss it with you, providing only
that you make you position and purpose clear. You typically don't.
>> So, I'm asking, as I believe is Rosifer - how might it be considered
>> an even better version of the Judgement card than Waite's faux
>> medievalism?
>>
>> And at risk of your deciding I'm being all Karlin-esque, please be
>> specific.
>>
>> >That there seems to me to be some such connection
>> >between Dali' painting and the Christian myth of "the dead rising"
>> and a
>> >final judgment of humanity and Waites XXth trump should not be at
>> all
>> >surprising.
>>
>> Not surprising to you, perhaps.
>>
>> It is based on what you've written, to me, however. It appears to be
>> a complete u-turn.
>
>I dont understand why you would say this.
Well, like I said above, you've begun this whole Dali thing with some
comments which read like assertions, like you have facts, or at least
some fairly certain knowledge or understanding.
Now, you're making out like you've no real idea whether or not Dali
even had a Qabalistic clue - which is not the way you began.
It may be a limitation of your English, rather than an out and out
"u-turn" - but Josfeph, you need to make yourself eminently clear -
I'm not the only one who thought you were claiming a definite
understanding.
>> There may well be connection(s) between Dali's painting, and the
>> Christian idea of "the dead rising" as you put it - Christ's
>> ascension, however was not a "final" judgement of humanity.
>
>perhaps not in a strictly orthodox sense but if christ is taken as a
>metaphor for all life and the later versions of "the last judgment" are
>seen as a mere elaboration on the same theme, then i stand by what i
>wrote.
I wasn't suggesting you shouldn't stand by what you wrote - only
offering a reason why you might consider another position.
You see, Christianity generally does not take Christ to be a metaphor
for all life - only for humanity - and as you indicate below, it is a
stages thing - this was not the final stage.
>> But these things are not what Waite was discussing in his Judgement
>> card. He was talking about something other than is inferred in the
>> Christian Ascension theme, and other than the Christian concept of the
>>
>> "last" Judgement. He makes that exceptionally clear in his text.
>
>You did a half way decent job of pointing that out in your previous post
>which is why i incorporated it into my first response to this thread.
Praise indeed. Hold the Press!!!
Josfeph, it needed elaborating in light of what you've said here.
Again, you appeared, definitely, to be suggesting otherwise.
>> > A more pagan interpretation might be Botticelli' "birth of
>> >venus" the divine woman rising from the waters of creation.
>>
>> No, I don't think that's the case either.
>
>Well, obviously, but i still do. Unless your attempting to imply some
>sort of literallity to the XXth trump, its a metaphor which is not
>limited to renaissance italy, the christian religion or wates tarot
>card.
Rosifer made most of the points about this painting that I might
otherwise have, so read his post about "birth" versus "rebirth" -
- but the point rather is that this was a discussion to explore why
you felt Dali's Ascension would make a suitable replacement for
Waite's chosen image on his Judgement card.
You've so far failed to do that.
I'm not implying literality to Waite's trump in respect of other
images - only the insistence that it necessarily would have to complie
the same message through semiology, iconography, and meaning - literal
and allegorical.
The paintings you have chosen do not do that, either in entirety or,
really, in part.
>> But, please indicate why, you think this picutre represents the same
>> things as Waite was imparting in his card.
>>
>> > An argument
>> >could be made for interpreting Bellini' "holy allegory" in light of
>> the
>> >xxth trump.
>>
>> And what arguement would that be?
>
>The one that you explained half way decently, and has already been
>mentioned several times.
So, you're saying that the Bellini painting would work as a Judgement
card, because I've argued that Waite was not discussing Ascension?
Clear it up for me, Josfeph.
>> The humanity of the card is irrelevant - the apocalyptic theme is not.
>
>AH! "Apocalyptic" as opposed to apocryphal.
No, not as opposed to - it is all apocryphal in one way or another.
The point is, the card as per Waite's intention, does not deal with
humanity, but with something affecting it.
>Apocalypse, the book of revelations, a latter elaboration and one known
>as a particularly "Great devastation" or doom. but an argument can be
>made that the time of the creation of the book and its author are
>apocryphal. And don't go all literalist on me, from the stand point of
>the torah the whole new testament is apocryphal.
Don't go all literalist? You'd rather I made it up, then?
Revelations - the end game, so to speak - is another thing altoghether
that enither of Dali's Ascension, or Waite's Judgement card.
Revelations discusses other issues entirely.
I've already said that it [the bible] is generally all aprocryphal.
>And of course the point im trying to make is that what is symbolized by
>waites XXth trump, or Dalis painting does not have to be seen as
>"apocalyptic" but can be seen as an natural and organic inevitability,
>something that happens to us whether we know about it and cultivate is
>or not.
Josfeph, it is a natural and organic inevitibility - but an
apocalyptic one - the apocalyptic theme is positively cenral to what
Waite is saying here.
And Waite also makes the point that for the ignorant arriving at the
point, it will be the case that it will pass anyway, in ignorance,
rather than as a cultivated, or at least evidenced and understood
experience.
>> No, they can't. The Ascension thing is not about physical existence
>> of any sort. Neither is Waite's Judgement.
>
>Yes, its about transcending physical existence, either literally or
>metaphorically.
No, it isn't about the physical at all - it is fire - literally and
metaphorically. That is something other than physical.
>> But you just claimed it was the way towards a higher level of physical
>> existence.
>
>Does one have to die to be enlightened? Can one achieve the
>transcendence, or ascendancy depicted in both pictures without dying or
>a "last judgment" of humanity taking place? Or even express the hope
>that it might be so? In some of the older decks the people are rising
>from the ground and not from tombs, which just goes back to a idea i
>mentioned a long time ago, that the cards probably had non christian
>precedents for their creation, goodness knows if you want to make the
>tarot so christian that we can only take about it in such terms, then i
>would remind you how much of the past christianity borrowed from, re
>told and adopted as its own.
That really depends on how you choose to define enlightened - for
example, I'm rathe rhoping that we might get this one cleared up, and
hence, enlightens, before one of us dies - but I do not anticipate
fulfilling the point of Waite's Judgement literally in this physical
lifetime - although I have no doubt I will do so several times
allegorically.
In older decks, the images used still only go back to the Renaissance
- to essentially Roman Catholic semiology. We don't know anything
much further back than that.
I take your point that much of Christianity has pagan beliefs at its
root, but Christianity also re-interpreted those beliefs to suit
another purpose. It is, by virtue of the subject, essentially the
Christian interpretation which is under discussion here.
You are still trying to make an argument for something that the
Judgment Card Waite created is not.
>> Not life, no.
>>
>> Something else.
>
>Now your just being argumentative.
I'm having a discussion, Josfeph - as you wanted.
I am taking a differing view than yours, which I suppose could be
considered argumentative.
However, it is based on much understanding of what Waite was doing
with his Judgement card, and on much understanding of the essentially
Christian semiology from which his system is derived.
It is a specific concept, and specifically, it doesn't deal with life,
but with something else, aside from life.
>> Overtly Christian symbology was not associated by Crowley. He still
>> managed to convey the message intended by and for the XXth trump.
>
>And more closely akin to Dali' painting than waites he did.
Well, no, not really. You see Crowley is expressing the same thing as
Waite, by use of different, but equally relevant notions. Crowley was
influenced by Christianity in many ways too - he had to be - not least
because he grew up in the midst of it, but also because of the
societal influences upon him.
Waite's Aeon card does introduce different "concepts" than Waite's
Judgement, but it arrives at a remarkably similar "occult" conclusion.
That argument cannot be made for Dali's Ascension.
However, an agrument can, and has, been made for Qabalistic symbology
contained within all three.
>>
>> Dali is trying to indicate something different than the meaning of the
>>
>> Judgement card - overtly, and, potentially, covertly.
>
>In your opinion.
In my opinion, as a result of having studied and researched both
Waite's and Crowley's cards, and having compared them semiotically
with Dali's Ascension, yes.
>> In that case, Dali would be rising - not Christ.
>
>The creator and the creation are reunited in stages, dali was just one
>stage, as are you , as am i, as is every other thing that exists,
Indeed - now, perhaps you can see something of what I was getting at
when I said above "No, not life - something else".
>> And why would Gala be crying, were Crowley's comments really
>> applicable to Dali's painting?
>
>Gala was only the model, for a symbol that according to dali was the
>"mother of god"
Her being only a model makes the "image" less relevant in what way?
Gala would still NOT have been crying in the way depicted if what you
claim were the case.
>> Besides, Ascension came somewhat after Thoth - that is, Dali would
>> have been interpreting Crowley, rather than the reverse.
>
>Now your just being perverse, your deliberately skewing what i wrote.
>For reasons only you can answer for, though i can make a guess.
Not perverse, Jofseph, factual.
Nor am I deliberately skewing what you wrote - I am attempting to hold
a vaguely intellectual conversation with you.
Why are you having a problem being asked questions or being
challenged, Josfeph?
>> I would think that such a claim would be evidencible, were it to be
>> the case.
>
>Go to a gallery and inquire about dali prints.
I have done.
As I said, such a claim as you made would be evidencible, other than
in the way of your claim as a result of looking at his prints - there
would be an asseriton or a factual statment somehwere to back up what
you say.
>> Certainly, his estate claims it not to be forgery, and to be his own
>> work, in part, and full and un-senile supervision for the remainder.
>
>"It"? i did not mention any "It" i mentioned "many works" issued under
>his name, there was a bit of a scandal in the art world about it the
>first few years after his death.
Yes, Josfeph - "it" - your claim that Dali didn't have anything much
to do with the deck bearing his name. "It" is a collective,
describing the claim you made, not a referecne to the many (78)
paintings done for the tarot deck.
What was the conlcusion of the scandal, in the art world?
>> He didn't paint what you see by accident though.
>
>Unless life itself is an accident, but seriously, you seem to be
>deliberately avoiding examining what i wrote and merely twisting it to
>your own need to tell me i don't know what im talking about.
I think really that you are avoiding exmaming what it is I have
written Josfeph - so far all you've written amounts to "It is because
it's my opinion" - that isn't the same as fact, nor does any of it
reference any real evidence to support your claims (or not - we
haven't yet established that you're making claims, after all).
Nor is it the case, as you seem to feel, that I am twisting anything
you've written - I'm responding to what you've written, and trying to
make some sense of it.
Why, again, are you having a problem with explaining what you've
written?
>> He painted it for others to interpret, at least to some extent, and
>> within the scope of his own interpretation - which was the painting.
>
>As mentioned, i was not as indoctrinated in christianity as Dali was, my
>philosophical explorations have caused me to see something wonderfully
>reassuring in the painting, that i liken it to the XXth trump is only
>incidental, but never the less important for me. I merely meant to
>share what i had found to be very interesting, i don't claim a
>perfection of understanding, of the tarot or anything else, but that
>does not stop me from discussing it. Really, the only credible response
>to my alleged ignorance is to ignore it, cause you certainly have not
>taught me anything i don't already know, including a reaffermation of an
>opinion i held of your posts originally.
Right. This is more what I've been getting at.
And sadly, despite effort to hold a rational conversation on a subject
you generated, and made claims for, you've reduced it, finally, to
your stand by that I am merely some moster come to devour you,
ridicule you, and spit out the remains.
And that is sad.
Because you've missed so much more than just the discussion.
>> I'm a touch disappointed, Jofseph - you originate dthis as though to
>> suggest you had something very definite in mind.
>
>My sentiments are similar, you started out well and ended up with only
>lame misinterpretation, deliberate or otherwise, of what i was trying to
>communicate, and again demonstrated that your not interested in hearing
>or discussing anything but your own version, your own understanding, of
>things. Too bad, when you take the time to leave off the invective you
>can be interesting.
Josfeph, you really have to look to yourself to answer this one - the
lame misinterpretation you claim, isn't there at all - you are,
without doubt, imagining that.
Read the whole thing again, and try to point out specifics, if you can
- I rather think you'll discover instead that what you are
misinterpreting as "perversion", as a put down on you is actually
comparison of what you say against what I hold to be true - the point
is, you haven't actually stated any evidence for why your claims
should be taken seriously - only that it is your view, therefore it
is. Why should anyone other than you adhere to that view?
But if you seriously believe, at this point, that I'm just having a
"pop" for the sake of it, that I have spent several hours crafting
responses to explore your belief stated here, simply to ridicule you
in some way, then fair enough.
I won't bother again.
Joseph Littleshoes
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 09:12:17 GMT, Joseph Littleshoes
> <jpst...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >Humble T*r*t S**r wrote:
>
> >> You see, today you're saying you can't say whether or not Dali had
> any
> >> Qabalistic ideas, yet previously, on 22 Dec, you insinuated quite
> >> clearly that there were such. Even to the point that you had
> definite
> >> views on this painting being "an even better version of the
> Judgement
> >> card"
>
> >Did i dangle a participle or are you as stupid as you seem to like to
>
> >accuse me of being? I never met Dali, I don't know what he was
> thinking
> >or if he meant anything, beyond an exercise in perspective, he stood
> the
> >model of the christ figure above himself to paint him, I don't know
> what
> >was in Dali's mind at the time of the composition and execution of
> the
> >painting in question.
>
> Josfeph, this is precisely why I accuse you of being stupid. This
> whole post of yours, in fact, gives weight to my assertions.
I have felt the same about you and your ilk for some time before this.
>
>
> I didn't suggest or imply that you'd met Dali - if you think you
> suggested or implied that, then I cannot help.
Your talking/writing about your interpretation of what i wrote, i am
doing the same for you. Rather than refer to an inability to comprehend
what you have written, you might try speaking to the subject.
>
>
> What I did do, however, was to call you out on why you think Dali's
> Ascension would be "an even better version of the Judgement card" -
> you did say that, after all.
And gave you several reasons, albeit, my own and not a product of
someone else's writings that i quoted as some sort of orthodoxy.
>
>
> You know, I find it most curious, that after all your shouting and
> feet stamping, demanding to be treated without insults (though why,
> I'm not sure) and so on - that you get asked a host of serious
> questions about an assertion you've made, and your opening salvo
> is....an insult.
Or an observation and not a habitual salvo of invective tossed at any
one and thing that comes to be posted to this group.
>
>
> So what about that Jofseph?
You want me to explain your intellectual dishonesty? It would do no good
unless and until you are ready to consider other peoples opinions, and
respond to them as such, with out the need to measure them against your
own prejudice.
>
>
> Why should anyone believe a word you claim here?
I am not trying convince anyone of anything, merely stating an opinion
i have and hopefully, having it responded to by an open mind and a
willingness to engage in a speculative discussion. I am not trapped in
an orthodoxy of my own making that's primary manifestation is a typical
"holier than thou" attitude, if you see this statement as an "insult" it
merely confirms the observation..
>
>
> >But for me the painting is profound and seems to indicate to me
> >similarities to the little bit of cabalistic thought i have been
> >exposed to.
>
> By chance, you comprehend what was said in my post, above.
>
> Yes, your views - you've told the newsgroup several times now WHAT
> your views are - in particular, people are asking WHY.
I think therefore i am? i gave several reason why i think the dali is
better than waites or a traditional form of the XXth trump. Why not
respond to those statements rather than try to pretend that i did not
make them?
>
>
> There is a fundamental issue at heart here Josfeph - you kicked off
> claiming stuff in such a way as to present it as a definite knowledge
> you possessed,
No i did not, i expressed an opinion of something that, imo, can only
be appreciated subjectively, not only the tarot as a whole but the
XXth trump in particular has no corresponding physical manifestation,
when was last time you observed the dead rising, resurrected from their
graves and an angel blowing a horn to summon them to some sort of
heavenly judgment? When was the last time you observed this as a
metaphor of personal transcendence?
> and now you're couching everyhting in terms of "seems"
> and "similarities" more in line with having said something you have no
>
> facts to evidence your claims with. Is that the case?
Do you have any "Facts" to "evidence" the claims you made about the card
but have not demonstrated, you quote waite and suggest there are other
meanings but don't state them .
>
>
> Look - lest you take this the wrong way too, Josfeph, understand that
> I am not outing you for the mere sake of it (for now) - but rather
> trying to understand what it is you are trying to say.
>
> If you are trying to have an exploration of the possibility that
> Dali's Ascension *might* have fitted to position of Waite's judgement
> somehown, then just say so - or if you are trying to find out, rather
> than asserting, that Dali may have had Qabalistic influence, then,
> again, say so.
You are repeating assertions that you have already made and that have
already been explained to you, twice.
>
>
> As always, Josfeph, I am happy to discuss it with you, providing only
> that you make you position and purpose clear. You typically don't.
>
> >> So, I'm asking, as I believe is Rosifer - how might it be
> considered
> >> an even better version of the Judgement card than Waite's faux
> >> medievalism?
> >>
> >> And at risk of your deciding I'm being all Karlin-esque, please be
> >> specific.
> >>
> >> >That there seems to me to be some such connection
> >> >between Dali' painting and the Christian myth of "the dead rising"
>
> >> and a
> >> >final judgment of humanity and Waites XXth trump should not be
> at
> >> all
> >> >surprising.
> >>
> >> Not surprising to you, perhaps.
> >>
> >> It is based on what you've written, to me, however. It appears to
> be
> >> a complete u-turn.
> >
> >I dont understand why you would say this.
>
> Well, like I said above, you've begun this whole Dali thing with some
> comments which read like assertions, like you have facts, or at least
> some fairly certain knowledge or understanding.
Remember my assertions regarding "Truth" how i question the concept
and do not claim to possess it? If i have to start over with you from
square one with every post, if you are incapable of remembering a
previously stated position, than i don't have the time or interest for
the sysiphian task of re-explaining it to you with every post, i don't
claim to have all the answers, i don't even claim it is possible to do
so, i leave that to you and karlin and your ilk.
>
>
> Now, you're making out like you've no real idea whether or not Dali
> even had a Qabalistic clue - which is not the way you began.
In your opinion, you interpret what i wrote to begin with which i tend
to think you deliberately twist for your own purpose of making yourself
look good to yourself, or at least to amuse your self, but i find it un
amusing to defend the obvious you claim not to see in my posts.
>
>
> It may be a limitation of your English, rather than an out and out
> "u-turn" - but Josfeph, you need to make yourself eminently clear -
> I'm not the only one who thought you were claiming a definite
> understanding.
Seems to me you were or are.
>
>
> >> There may well be connection(s) between Dali's painting, and the
> >> Christian idea of "the dead rising" as you put it - Christ's
> >> ascension, however was not a "final" judgement of humanity.
> >
> >perhaps not in a strictly orthodox sense but if christ is taken as a
>
> >metaphor for all life and the later versions of "the last judgment"
> are
> >seen as a mere elaboration on the same theme, then i stand by what i
> >wrote.
>
> I wasn't suggesting you shouldn't stand by what you wrote - only
> offering a reason why you might consider another position.
And that would be?
But what is this "meaning" you speak of, if you will only discuss it
in terms of your own understanding of christian orthodoxy or
philosophy, or the jargon of an art appreciation 101 class than there is
probably way to wide a gulf in our respective world views to accommodate
discussion, though there might be some utility in a further discussion
of liver dumplings and chocolate cake.
>
>
> The paintings you have chosen do not do that, either in entirety or,
> really, in part.
For last time, that is your opinion, i disagree, for reasons previously
stated.
>
>
> >> But, please indicate why, you think this picutre represents the
> same
> >> things as Waite was imparting in his card.
> >>
> >> > An argument
> >> >could be made for interpreting Bellini' "holy allegory" in light
> of
> >> the
> >> >xxth trump.
> >>
> >> And what arguement would that be?
> >
> >The one that you explained half way decently, and has already been
> >mentioned several times.
>
> So, you're saying that the Bellini painting would work as a Judgement
> card, because I've argued that Waite was not discussing Ascension?
>
> Clear it up for me, Josfeph.
Aside from water being a more prominent aspect of this painting than in
waites XXth trump, the aspect of it as a "sacra conversazione" has been
gone into at length by art historians as well as its being an allegory
of purgatory or even paradise or perhaps a pictorial interpretation of
a 14th century poem "le pelerinage de l' ame" (pilgrimage of the soul)
but until you demonstrate a better willingness to discuss what i have
said and not try to twist my words to suit your our own purpose, that
has less do with the tarot and more to do with your own sense of
your self importance i will refrain from further comment.
Nevertheless, i disagree with the need to interpret the card
apocalyptically.
>
>
> And Waite also makes the point that for the ignorant arriving at the
> point, it will be the case that it will pass anyway, in ignorance,
> rather than as a cultivated, or at least evidenced and understood
> experience.
>
> >> No, they can't. The Ascension thing is not about physical
> existence
> >> of any sort. Neither is Waite's Judgement.
> >
> >Yes, its about transcending physical existence, either literally or
> >metaphorically.
>
> No, it isn't about the physical at all - it is fire - literally and
> metaphorically. That is something other than physical.
Not a symbol for "primal" being? i tend to see fire as symbolically
representing the "primal" being, i can only wonder when your going to
bring teeth or at least a tooth in to your observations.
You keep saying this, but other than some brief quotes from waite that
you have already posted, which i more or less agreed with, i don't
see any evidence of your "understanding"
>
>
> It is a specific concept, and specifically, it doesn't deal with life,
>
> but with something else, aside from life.
>
> >> Overtly Christian symbology was not associated by Crowley. He
> still
> >> managed to convey the message intended by and for the XXth trump.
> >
> >And more closely akin to Dali' painting than waites he did.
>
> Well, no, not really. You see Crowley is expressing the same thing as
>
> Waite, by use of different, but equally relevant notions. Crowley was
>
> influenced by Christianity in many ways too - he had to be - not least
>
> because he grew up in the midst of it, but also because of the
> societal influences upon him.
>
> Waite's Aeon card does introduce different "concepts" than Waite's
> Judgement, but it arrives at a remarkably similar "occult" conclusion.
>
> That argument cannot be made for Dali's Ascension.
>
> However, an agrument can, and has, been made for Qabalistic symbology
> contained within all three.
> >>
> >> Dali is trying to indicate something different than the meaning of
> the
> >>
> >> Judgement card - overtly, and, potentially, covertly.
> >
> >In your opinion.
>
> In my opinion, as a result of having studied and researched both
> Waite's and Crowley's cards, and having compared them semiotically
> with Dali's Ascension, yes.
Well good for you, however, it has been my experience that the use
of the word "semiotic" is in proportion to a lack understanding of that
to which it is applied. A buzz word usually denoting a superficial, at
best, familiarity with the subject. If this were the first me you had
used the word in this thread i wouldn't comment on it, but its not, and
this response you are making to mine seems to be just an exercise in
telling me im wrong, as i mentioned previously, you have made this
opinion of yours abundantly clear about everything i write, here,
nothing new there. But there is no need to be so long winded about
saying the same thing you have been saying since we first crossed
posts.
>
>
> >> In that case, Dali would be rising - not Christ.
> >
> >The creator and the creation are reunited in stages, dali was just
> one
> >stage, as are you , as am i, as is every other thing that exists,
>
> Indeed - now, perhaps you can see something of what I was getting at
> when I said above "No, not life - something else".
>
> >> And why would Gala be crying, were Crowley's comments really
> >> applicable to Dali's painting?
> >
> >Gala was only the model, for a symbol that according to dali was the
> >"mother of god"
>
> Her being only a model makes the "image" less relevant in what way?
It does not.
>
>
> Gala would still NOT have been crying in the way depicted if what you
> claim were the case.
Gala may not have been weeping at the time of her posing for the picture
but that the "mother of god" is, is still relevant and whether she
weeps joy or sorrow is open to interpretation.
That is, if i understand what your trying to say above.
>
>
> >> Besides, Ascension came somewhat after Thoth - that is, Dali would
> >> have been interpreting Crowley, rather than the reverse.
> >
> >Now your just being perverse, your deliberately skewing what i wrote.
>
> >For reasons only you can answer for, though i can make a guess.
>
> Not perverse, Jofseph, factual.
>
> Nor am I deliberately skewing what you wrote - I am attempting to hold
>
> a vaguely intellectual conversation with you.
Well at least you admit your vagueness, that's a start. See what i
mean about twisting the meaning of plainly written words?
>
>
> Why are you having a problem being asked questions or being
> challenged, Josfeph?
>
> >> I would think that such a claim would be evidencible, were it to be
>
> >> the case.
> >
> >Go to a gallery and inquire about dali prints.
>
> I have done.
>
> As I said, such a claim as you made would be evidencible, other than
> in the way of your claim as a result of looking at his prints - there
> would be an asseriton or a factual statment somehwere to back up what
> you say.
Check out Connoisseur magazine from around the time of his death, there
were several editorials published by reputable experts in the field
about this.
I am not, you seem to be having a problem with any one having an
opinion, as i wrote, the deck is just that, officially a work of dali,
but for those familiar with his work and the production of the deck
there is sufficient reason to doubt its validity as such, and to
explain why it and a lot of his prints went from selling at such a
high cost to now being abel to be purchased relatively inexpensively.
>
>
> >> He painted it for others to interpret, at least to some extent, and
>
> >> within the scope of his own interpretation - which was the
> painting.
> >
> >As mentioned, i was not as indoctrinated in christianity as Dali was,
> my
> >philosophical explorations have caused me to see something
> wonderfully
> >reassuring in the painting, that i liken it to the XXth trump is only
>
> >incidental, but never the less important for me. I merely meant to
> >share what i had found to be very interesting, i don't claim a
> >perfection of understanding, of the tarot or anything else, but that
> >does not stop me from discussing it. Really, the only credible
> response
> >to my alleged ignorance is to ignore it, cause you certainly have not
>
> >taught me anything i don't already know, including a reaffermation of
> an
> >opinion i held of your posts originally.
>
> Right. This is more what I've been getting at.
>
> And sadly, despite effort to hold a rational conversation on a subject
>
> you generated, and made claims for, you've reduced it, finally, to
> your stand by that I am merely some moster come to devour you,
> ridicule you, and spit out the remains.
Oh hardly, im not even sure what a "moster" is, other than a typo. At
worst i consider you a pseudo-intellectual who cant see the forest for
the trees or some other equally appropriate metaphor. If you & your
ilk weren't so common you might be more offensive, as it is, the
approach you take to other peoples ideas is so common and oft repeated
as to render it ineffective, you have not convinced me of anything nor
forced me to reevaluate my own ideas due to the cogency of your own.
> And that is sad.
>
> Because you've missed so much more than just the discussion.
>
> >> I'm a touch disappointed, Jofseph - you originate dthis as though
> to
> >> suggest you had something very definite in mind.
> >
> >My sentiments are similar, you started out well and ended up with
> only
> >lame misinterpretation, deliberate or otherwise, of what i was trying
> to
> >communicate, and again demonstrated that your not interested in
> hearing
> >or discussing anything but your own version, your own understanding,
> of
> >things. Too bad, when you take the time to leave off the invective
> you
> >can be interesting.
>
> Josfeph, you really have to look to yourself to answer this one - the
> lame misinterpretation you claim, isn't there at all - you are,
> without doubt, imagining that.
>
> Read the whole thing again, and try to point out specifics, if you can
>
> - I rather think you'll discover instead that what you are
> misinterpreting as "perversion", as a put down on you is actually
> comparison of what you say against what I hold to be true -
Well there you go! Obviously we have different OPINIONS as to what
constitutes "Truth" to say nothing of what we, as individuals, accept as
such.
> the point
> is, you haven't actually stated any evidence for why your claims
> should be taken seriously - only that it is your view, therefore it
> is. Why should anyone other than you adhere to that view?
>
There is no reason they should merely because i express a view, but if
that view exposes them to a differing view or way of of looking at
something familiar than i have added to rather than subtracted from the
sum total of awareness
We are talking about philosophy and art, your insistence on "evidence"
rather than explanation of or for any particular point of view reminds
me of an elementary school arithmatic teacher insisting that we "show
our work" demonstrate with mathematical precision how we came to our
conclusions. Unfortunately for you this is not a math class and, at the
risk of repeating myself, the philosophy and art we are talking about
is understood subjectively, if at all.
> But if you seriously believe, at this point, that I'm just having a
> "pop" for the sake of it, that I have spent several hours crafting
> responses to explore your belief stated here, simply to ridicule you
> in some way, then fair enough.
>
> I won't bother again.
While i had hopes that the thread might result in something more
interesting than it has i agree that it''s probably not worth the
bother.
Joseph
Humble T*r*t S**r
You screamed and shouted, and jumped and postured, Josfeph, to be
treated other than as an idiot fuckwit.
I entreated that to several posts of responsive discussion, trusting
that you would actually bother to respond in kind.
Instead, you just go on spouting out the same crap about how people
twist your words, how they deliberately pervert what you are saying,
and so on.
Well, fuck you - and fuck your ilk - it only has three legs anyway.
You might, with a prevailing wind, decide to re-read the entirety of
the thread, this time taking in what actually has been said, rather
than what you think has been said. You may see key differences then,
between what you think, and what is.
On the other hand, you may simply carry on blindly as usual, working
your $20/hr scam.
Joseph Littleshoes
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 21:37:09 GMT, Joseph Littleshoes
> <jpst...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >While i had hopes that the thread might result in something more
> >interesting than it has i agree that it''s probably not worth the
> >bother.
>
> You screamed and shouted, and jumped and postured, Josfeph, to be
> treated other than as an idiot fuckwit.
The thin veneer of civility cracks, the raging chaos underneath rears
up, again.
>
>
> I entreated that to several posts of responsive discussion, trusting
> that you would actually bother to respond in kind.
And my responses were given no value, i was told to "re read" and this
time correctly, while you ignored every thing i said and responded in
your typical fashion.
>
>
> Instead, you just go on spouting out the same crap about how people
> twist your words, how they deliberately pervert what you are saying,
> and so on.
>
> Well, fuck you - and fuck your ilk - it only has three legs anyway.
Im not surprised by your responses, people rarely change.
>
>
> You might, with a prevailing wind, decide to re-read the entirety of
> the thread, this time taking in what actually has been said, rather
> than what you think has been said. You may see key differences then,
> between what you think, and what is.
If you ever get beyond your own prejudice you might try taking your own
advice.
>
>
> On the other hand, you may simply carry on blindly as usual, working
> your $20/hr scam.
So while in another post you agree to discuss divination, now that your
precious "holier than thou" and "know it all" attitude has been pointed
out as disguising boasts you never make good on, divination is a scam.
As is wrote, i am not surprised by your knee JerK reaction, it's typical
of you and your ilk.
Joseph Littleshoes
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 07:47:08 GMT, Joseph Littleshoes
> <jpst...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >Rosifer wrote:
> >
>
> >I can't say whether Dali had any cabalistic ideas in mind when he
> >painted the picture, or whether there was any "intent" to associate
> it
> >with the XXth trump. That there seems to me to be some such
> connection
> >between Dali' painting and the Christian myth of "the dead rising"
> and a
> >final judgment of humanity and Waites XXth trump should not be at
> all
> >surprising. Given the overtly Christian nature of the card there are
> >probably many paintings of the subject that could be used as the XXth
>
> >trump. A more pagan interpretation might be Botticelli' "birth of
> >venus" the divine woman rising from the waters of creation.
>
> I must say I can't see any (R)resurrection in the Botticelli painting,
>
> but I guess we tend to get stuck with preconceived ideas. I can see
> birth, but not rebirth.
Some will argue that any birth is a re-birth, i think this represents a
sticking point in what i was trying to say and people failed to
understand, a strict Catholic or christian interpretation of the XXth
trump or any of the pictures i mentioned would mean one thing, a non
sectarian interpretation of the idea of transcendence, ascension or
apotheosis, taken out of the specific christian context, could mean
another and taken out of the christian context one can interpret them in
non apocalyptic terms.
This relates to an idea that while there may be some "Truth" to
christian theology, it is the same "Truth" that can be found in
Buddhist, primitive "Shamanistic" or any other theology with the
differences being mere variations on a theme. And with most of the
patriarchal religions there is an apocalyptic element that some of us
reject, do not believe is either necessary or inevitable. This does
not invalidate the XXth trump, merely reinterprets it in non apocalyptic
terms.
>
>
> I always think of how she was conceived, a distant forerunner of in
> vitro fertilisation.
>
> > An argumentcould be made for interpreting Bellini' "holy allegory"
> in light of the
> >xxth trump.
>
> I'm not sure which painting you mean.
http://www.aquanet.co.il/flatto/409.htm
>
>
> > Similarly Michelangelo' "Doni Tondo" could be interpreted to
> >be a more humanistic less apocalyptic version of the XXth trump.
>
> I'm not sure about this one either, but to each their own. Personally
> I prefer my Apocalypses to be Apocalyptic, and Michelangelo left a
> pretty good one in the Sistine Chapel.
>
This seems to be where "watch way" and i parted company, i question the
need for an apocalyptic interpretation of what i think the "judgment"
card may mean. Especially when stripped of its christian propaganda.
This is not to say that other religions do not have an apocalyptic
element, but rather that one can have a theology or cosmology that is
not apocalyptic.
And of course we never even got around to talking about the divinatory
meaning of the card, which i see as "choice" or judgment, all the
trumps mean change, of one sort or another and a lot of them represent
change beyond or out of conscious control, whereas the title alone of
the XXth trump implies conscious choice, Crowley suggests "a finale
decision in respect of the past, new current in respect of the future:
always represents the taking of a definite step." Also "Be every Act an
Act of Love and Worship. Be every Act the Fiat of a God." Be every Act
a source of radiant Glory."
If we take the Latin meaning of Fiat it means one thing, if we take it
to mean "law" or "arbitrary order or decree" it means another. I take it
in the Latin and understand it to say, "take every act as becoming
god."
> >But getting back to Dali & Waite, both pictures can be interpreted
> to
> >represent a way towards a higher level of physical existence with an
> >angel or "god" showing the way, or in the case of Dali, the dove of
> the
> >spirit leading the way. this does not have to be interpreted in a
> >strictly christian, orthodox way,
>
> A dove in flight, (as opposed to a dove with an olive branch, for
> example), is a symbol of The Ascension of Christ.
>
> > as one final assumption of humanity
> >in physical bodies to heaven. as i see it ,the principle behind this
> >card is the awakening to new and higher levels of life.
> >
> >And, IMO, Dali makes a better picture of this, one that is more
> >instinctually understandable, at least to me, than the more
> traditional,
> >and overtly christian symbolism generally associated with the XXth
> >trump. More "organic" and less a necessarily christian symbolism, but
>
> >rather a more "natural" and non sectarian interpretation of a
> >transcendence or "ascension" of the individual or the race or life as
> a
> >whole.
> >
> >Curiously enough, Crowley in his book of Thoth makes some comments
> about
> >his "Aeon" trump that can be applied to Dali' painting
> >
> >I paraphrase; at the top of the card is the body of the Goddess, who
> is
> >the category of unlimited possibility; her mate is the point of view
> of
> >her, he is rising towards her to show his power of motion, of
> becoming.
> >As a result of the marriage of these two, the child which is the Holy
>
> >Spirit of Mankind is born, shown in its symbolic form as the dove.
>
> But what sort of marriage could be taking place in Dali's painting;
> who does Gala represent?
One aspect of the creator Deity. In my interpretation of this painting.
Which is probably not what Dali had in mind and which does not
correspond with Catholic or even Christian theology.
JL
Rosifer
<jpst...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Humble T*r*t S**r wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 07:47:08 GMT, Joseph Littleshoes
>> <jpst...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> There may well be connection(s) between Dali's painting, and the
>> Christian idea of "the dead rising" as you put it - Christ's
>> ascension, however was not a "final" judgement of humanity.
>
>perhaps not in a strictly orthodox sense but if christ is taken as a
>metaphor for all life and the later versions of "the last judgment" are
>seen as a mere elaboration on the same theme, then i stand by what i
>wrote.
Why would you take Christ as a metaphor for all life?
I'm not saying you cant do it, you could make a metaphor out of
anything, but why would it be useful to make this particular one?
>> And why would Gala be crying, were Crowley's comments really
>> applicable to Dali's painting?
>
>Gala was only the model, for a symbol that according to dali was the
>"mother of god"
I thought about this for a while, and came up with yet another
(tenuous) connection this time concerning Gala's tears.
(by the way, Joseph, where did this Dali reference to Gala being a
model for the Mother of God" come from?)
This passage is from Origen;
"As John stood near the Jordan among those who came to be baptized,
accepting those who confessed their vices and their sins and rejecting
the rest ... so will the Lord Jesus Christ stand in a river of fire
next to a flaming sword and Baptise all those who should go to
Paradise after they die, but who lack purgation.... But those who do
not bear the mark of the first baptism will not be baptised in the
bath of fire. One must first be baptised in water and Spirit so that,
when the river of fire is reached, the marks of the baths of water and
Spirit will remain as signs that one is worthy of receiving the
baptism of fire in Jesus Christ."
(Origen, Commentary on Luke, 24th Homily, before 253 A.D)
This is the baptism to which John The Baptist refers to when he says;
"He [Jesus] shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost and with Fire"
The flaming sword is a familiar enough symbol to Qabalists, but what
of the river?
This is from 3 = 8 Practicus Grade Ritual of the Golden Dawn which
uses the XXth Trump.
"...And a River Nahar went forth out of Eden, (namely the Supernal
Triad) to water the Garden (the rest of the Sephiroth)..."
(Also, if anyone is wondering why Cheyne and Humble were saying that
understanding of what the Golden Dawn were trying to achieve, is
essential to understanding this card, you may wish to study this
particular ritual)
So... perhaps this Dali reference to the "Mother of God" could be seen
as a reference to the Great Mother Binah and her tears could represent
the River of Flame, in the same way that the blasts from the trumpet
of Michael represent it in the Waite card.
>My sentiments are similar, you started out well and ended up with only
>lame misinterpretation, deliberate or otherwise, of what i was trying to
>communicate, and again demonstrated that your not interested in hearing
>or discussing anything but your own version, your own understanding, of
>things. Too bad, when you take the time to leave off the invective you
>can be interesting.
I think thats a little harsh.
I don't think Humble was saying there is no possible symbolic
connection between Dali's painting and Waite's card, he was merely
trying to find out what connections you made, and in particular, why
you made those connections.
I have to say that my own opinion is that you were trying to
de-Christianise symbols that are almost impossible to understand
without reference to the Bible.
I will also say that I won't look at Dali's Ascension of Christ in the
same way again, and for that, I thank you.
Rosifer
Humble T*r*t S**r
>On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 09:12:17 GMT, Joseph Littleshoes
><jpst...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>perhaps not in a strictly orthodox sense but if christ is taken as a
>>metaphor for all life and the later versions of "the last judgment" are
>>seen as a mere elaboration on the same theme, then i stand by what i
>>wrote.
>
>Why would you take Christ as a metaphor for all life?
One would imagine, perhaps, that Jofseph is attempting to rationalise
the whole of Christ with the whole of humanity. That, for example,
Christ's suffering was humanity's suffering, or that Christ's body was
in essence the body of all humanity.
Then again, I'm probably just twisting his words to be perverse or
something. Shit happens.
>>Gala was only the model, for a symbol that according to dali was the
>>"mother of god"
>
>I thought about this for a while, and came up with yet another
>(tenuous) connection this time concerning Gala's tears.
There are (tenuous) connections to this - she *is* crying for a reason
- I was curious as to whether Jofseph knew that reason, or not.
It seems he would rather fall back on his standard tactic in such
cases - accusation and avoidance.
>(by the way, Joseph, where did this Dali reference to Gala being a
>model for the Mother of God" come from?)
I suspect the intended reference may have been "mother of all
creation" - certainly, I was unaware that G-d had a mother.
>This is the baptism to which John The Baptist refers to when he says;
>
>"He [Jesus] shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost and with Fire"
>
>The flaming sword is a familiar enough symbol to Qabalists, but what
>of the river?
Well, that has to do with "eternity" - rather than being a pool of
fire, for exmaple, which might signify an end, or at least, would not
signify perpetuity. It isn't a river in the conventional sense, with
water flowing in it.
>This is from 3 = 8 Practicus Grade Ritual of the Golden Dawn which
>uses the XXth Trump.
>"...And a River Nahar went forth out of Eden, (namely the Supernal
>Triad) to water the Garden (the rest of the Sephiroth)..."
Narr is the transliteration of fire in Arabic. There are, doubtless,
other transliterations - but it seems that the River Nahar is one of
fire, rather than of water, again - and that would make sense
qabalistically.
>(Also, if anyone is wondering why Cheyne and Humble were saying that
>understanding of what the Golden Dawn were trying to achieve, is
>essential to understanding this card, you may wish to study this
>particular ritual)
Indeed.
>So... perhaps this Dali reference to the "Mother of God" could be seen
>as a reference to the Great Mother Binah and her tears could represent
>the River of Flame, in the same way that the blasts from the trumpet
>of Michael represent it in the Waite card.
I am having a problem with this whole "mother of God" reference - I
understand what you're saying here, but that rather seems to imply
more "God AS mother" or "God-mother".
Essentially, it is why Dali would have painted Gala with tears -
assuming he had any qabalistic intent.
>>My sentiments are similar, you started out well and ended up with only
>>lame misinterpretation, deliberate or otherwise, of what i was trying to
>>communicate, and again demonstrated that your not interested in hearing
>>or discussing anything but your own version, your own understanding, of
>>things. Too bad, when you take the time to leave off the invective you
>>can be interesting.
>
>I think thats a little harsh.
Just typical Jofseph.
He asks, begs, and tantrums his way to being treated as though he had
a valid discussionary point, and then vents his spleen when he gets
it.
>I don't think Humble was saying there is no possible symbolic
>connection between Dali's painting and Waite's card, he was merely
>trying to find out what connections you made, and in particular, why
>you made those connections.
That is really quite self evident on reading the posts I wrote, I
think. But thank you for pointing it out.
>I have to say that my own opinion is that you were trying to
>de-Christianise symbols that are almost impossible to understand
>without reference to the Bible.
Agreed.
Humble T*r*t S**r
<jpst...@pacbell.net> pleaded and whined:
>Humble T*r*t S**r wrote:
>> You screamed and shouted, and jumped and postured, Josfeph, to be
>> treated other than as an idiot fuckwit.
>
>The thin veneer of civility cracks, the raging chaos underneath rears
>up, again.
Idiot, the above post is no less civil than any previous post - nor is
it any less civil than you deserve.
Again, you show your utter lack of divinitory and/or reading talent.
>> I entreated that to several posts of responsive discussion, trusting
>> that you would actually bother to respond in kind.
>
>And my responses were given no value, i was told to "re read" and this
>time correctly, while you ignored every thing i said and responded in
>your typical fashion.
Idiot - your responses were given fair value. You were told to
re-read the posts because you failed to take in, or understand, what
was said to you. That much was evident from your inability to post a
rational response, but rather to whine in three seperate places about
how "badly" I treated you.
I am not responsible for your lack of insight, or, for your lack of
eyesight.
>> Instead, you just go on spouting out the same crap about how people
>> twist your words, how they deliberately pervert what you are saying,
>> and so on.
>>
>> Well, fuck you - and fuck your ilk - it only has three legs anyway.
>
>Im not surprised by your responses, people rarely change.
You certainly don't. You are still an idiot. You were given a
perfect opportunity to prove otherwise, but could not resist the
opportunity to let your utter idiocy shine through.
Well done, idiot.
>> You might, with a prevailing wind, decide to re-read the entirety of
>> the thread, this time taking in what actually has been said, rather
>> than what you think has been said. You may see key differences then,
>> between what you think, and what is.
>
>If you ever get beyond your own prejudice you might try taking your own
>advice.
Josfeph - prejudice does not come into objectivity.
The advice was for you, and good advice at that.
It didn't even cost you $20 to obtain it.
>> On the other hand, you may simply carry on blindly as usual, working
>> your $20/hr scam.
>
>So while in another post you agree to discuss divination, now that your
>precious "holier than thou" and "know it all" attitude has been pointed
>out as disguising boasts you never make good on, divination is a scam.
>As is wrote, i am not surprised by your knee JerK reaction, it's typical
>of you and your ilk.
I did agree to discuss divintation Josfeph, and I will, with people
capable of holding a rational conversation.
You have pointed out nothing, other than yourself. Again.
And nor did I say divination is a scam - more proof, as if needed,
that you cannot read correctly, or at all - I said that *you* might
simply carry on *your* $20/hr scam.
See the difference, idiot?
Joseph Littleshoes
> On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 10:35:34 -0800, Rosifer <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 09:12:17 GMT, Joseph Littleshoes
> ><jpst...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >>perhaps not in a strictly orthodox sense but if christ is taken as
> a
> >>metaphor for all life and the later versions of "the last judgment"
> are
> >>seen as a mere elaboration on the same theme, then i stand by what i
>
> >>wrote.
> >
> >Why would you take Christ as a metaphor for all life?
>
> One would imagine, perhaps, that Jofseph is attempting to rationalise
> the whole of Christ with the whole of humanity. That, for example,
> Christ's suffering was humanity's suffering, or that Christ's body was
>
> in essence the body of all humanity.
ALL LIFE
>
>
> Then again, I'm probably just twisting his words to be perverse or
> something. Shit happens.
>
> >>Gala was only the model, for a symbol that according to dali was the
>
> >>"mother of god"
> >
> >I thought about this for a while, and came up with yet another
> >(tenuous) connection this time concerning Gala's tears.
>
> There are (tenuous) connections to this - she *is* crying for a reason
>
> - I was curious as to whether Jofseph knew that reason, or not.
>
> It seems he would rather fall back on his standard tactic in such
> cases - accusation and avoidance.
>
> >(by the way, Joseph, where did this Dali reference to Gala being a
> >model for the Mother of God" come from?)
>
> I suspect the intended reference may have been "mother of all
> creation" - certainly, I was unaware that G-d had a mother.
MOST "G-D's" HAD A MOTHER!
Or, God, All Mother.
In so far as we can seem to Deify it, as a giving goodly lord like
thing sufficient unto itself.
But never enough
The virgins are raped and the poor beaten down. This is the way it is,
this is the way it was, this is the way it has always been.
How stupid do i have to be to point this out?
JL
Gea Jones
It isn't the Tarot card by Salvador Dali, becuase it doesn't fit anything
you have been describing ,
Gea
ps G[a]ea was the first God/ess [a woman] in ancient Greek mythology
"Joseph Littleshoes" <jpst...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3FF724A1...@pacbell.net...
Humble T*r*t S**r
<Geaj...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Please tell me what you are talking about?
>It isn't the Tarot card by Salvador Dali, becuase it doesn't fit anything
>you have been describing ,
>Gea
>ps G[a]ea was the first God/ess [a woman] in ancient Greek mythology
Tut. Pay attention, girl.
The discussion was, allegedly, about Josfeph's conviction that
Salvidor Dali's painting from 1958, entitled Ascension, was a better
"image" for the twentieth trump, Judgement, than Waite's chosen
"image".
G[a]ea may have been as you desribe, but Dali's model was called Gala.
Humble T*r*t S**r
<jpst...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Humble T*r*t S**r wrote:
>> in essence the body of all humanity.
>
>ALL LIFE
No, Josfeph - not all LIFE - all humanity.
It is a specific difference.
>> I suspect the intended reference may have been "mother of all
>> creation" - certainly, I was unaware that G-d had a mother.
>
>MOST "G-D's" HAD A MOTHER!
How does that work then?
How the fuck could G-d be the creator if his mother first had to
create him?
G-d AS mother - G-d IS the mother of G-d. Simple. 0=0. No other
possible equation or explanation.
>> I am having a problem with this whole "mother of God" reference - I
>> understand what you're saying here, but that rather seems to imply
>> more "God AS mother" or "God-mother".
>
>Or, God, All Mother.
Indeed - but this elicits only that God AS mother. G-d and mother -
different adspects perhaps, but the SAME entity.
>In so far as we can seem to Deify it, as a giving goodly lord like
>thing sufficient unto itself.
So you're saying it is a terminology thing then?
Gee - didn't I make that point a while back only to be told that I was
twisting what you were saying, and perverting you?
>But never enough
Well, no.
G-d is all - and enough, for G-d. G-d, the idea - it is sufficient,
at least unto itself.
>The virgins are raped and the poor beaten down. This is the way it is,
>this is the way it was, this is the way it has always been.
Of and by humans, not G-d.
>How stupid do i have to be to point this out?
How stupid can you be?
Karipidu
Original Word Transliterated Word
a)pokalu/ptw apokalupto apokalypto
reveal, revealed, revelation is made
Original Word Transliterated Word
a)poka/luyiv apokalupsis apokalypsis
appearing, be revealed, coming, manifestation, revelation,
to lighten, revealed, revealing, revelations
Marianna
Gea Jones
"Humble T*r*t S**r" <se****c...@tesco.dotnet> wrote in message
news:nnsgvv0q6sh5e2ihv...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 11:30:06 +0000 (UTC), "Gea Jones"
> <Geaj...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >Please tell me what you are talking about?
> >It isn't the Tarot card by Salvador Dali, becuase it doesn't fit anything
> >you have been describing ,
> >Gea
> >ps G[a]ea was the first God/ess [a woman] in ancient Greek mythology
>
> Tut. Pay attention, girl.
>
> The discussion was, allegedly, about Josfeph's conviction that
> Salvidor Dali's painting from 1958, entitled Ascension, was a better
> "image" for the twentieth trump, Judgement, than Waite's chosen
> "image".
Well I'm bound to be confused as I have a pack of Salvador Dalis Tarot cards
,
which I love and use a lot,
so I thought the discussion was about the Judgement card in Dalis Tarot
pack,
which is remarkably like the Waite pack, apart from the odd Daliesque
foible,
now even more Artists[I bought those about ten years ago] are being used for
Tarot packs, I have the Blake, Leonardo, Dante and Brueghel !!
But Dalis cards are actually very , very accurate, and I use them if I get
stuck,;
as for paintings,
per se
really so many artists have painted so many paintings that
well you could probbaly write about 10 encyclopaedias on possible paintings
that would suit possible cards,
now i'M GOING BACK TO SLEEP
Yawn
Best Wishes
Gea
> G[a]ea may have been as you desribe, but Dali's model was called Gala.
yes, yes, yes, she was his wife , soulmate and well he tried to burn his
house down with him in it when she died. G
>
Sue
Humble T*r*t S**r <se****c...@tesco.dotnet> wrote:
I was surprised to find that the painting reminded me of the lyrics "Cry
sweet tears of joy, touch the sky."
--
"Everyone goes south, every now and then."
Humble T*r*t S**r
<Geaj...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>"Humble T*r*t S**r" <se****c...@tesco.dotnet> wrote in message
>> Tut. Pay attention, girl.
>>
>> The discussion was, allegedly, about Josfeph's conviction that
>> Salvidor Dali's painting from 1958, entitled Ascension, was a better
>> "image" for the twentieth trump, Judgement, than Waite's chosen
>> "image".
>
>Well I'm bound to be confused as I have a pack of Salvador Dalis Tarot cards
> which I love and use a lot,
I know - I recall you posting about it.
>so I thought the discussion was about the Judgement card in Dalis Tarot
>pack,
It did, briefly, come into it.
The Judgement card in the Dali deck is surreal, in a surreal sort of a
way. I did post a link to it.
>which is remarkably like the Waite pack, apart from the odd Daliesque
>foible,
Superficially, yes.
I don't know that one could claim it to be Waite-esque in detail,
however.
>now even more Artists[I bought those about ten years ago] are being used for
>Tarot packs, I have the Blake, Leonardo, Dante and Brueghel !!
Hmm. I'm sure they make pretty to look at decks.
To be fair, the biggest "problem" I have with pomo decks is in looking
at them and wondering how they managed to infer the sort of imagery
they did from an occult viewpoint.
That said too, I haven't looked in great detail at these decks -
though I have considered the art of Dante and Da-Vinci from a
Qabalistic perspective.
>But Dalis cards are actually very , very accurate, and I use them if I get
>stuck,;
Accurate in what way?
I mean, how can you, or do you, measure such a thing in tarot?
> as for paintings,
> per se
>really so many artists have painted so many paintings that
>well you could probbaly write about 10 encyclopaedias on possible paintings
>that would suit possible cards,
There are many such works, covering many such artists.
It is one thing people make books about when they need to earn a few
quid - lots of pictures saves a lot of writing, and worse, having to
make sense or stand up to scrutiny.
But they do make good coffee table decorations, of course.
>now i'M GOING BACK TO SLEEP
Well, bless you. Sleep well.
>Yawn
>Best Wishes
>Gea
>> G[a]ea may have been as you desribe, but Dali's model was called Gala.
>
>yes, yes, yes, she was his wife , soulmate and well he tried to burn his
>house down with him in it when she died. G
>
And all that jazz. Yep - that's just rock'n',um art, I guess.
Joseph Littleshoes
> On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 08:23:06 GMT, Joseph Littleshoes
> <jpst...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >Humble T*r*t S**r wrote:
>
> >> in essence the body of all humanity.
> >
> >ALL LIFE
>
> No, Josfeph - not all LIFE - all humanity.
>
> It is a specific difference.
>
Espicaly if you chose to see it that way.
> >> I suspect the intended reference may have been "mother of all
> >> creation" - certainly, I was unaware that G-d had a mother.
> >
> >MOST "G-D's" HAD A MOTHER!
>
> How does that work then?
>
> How the fuck could G-d be the creator if his mother first had to
> create him?
>
> G-d AS mother - G-d IS the mother of G-d. Simple. 0=0. No other
> possible equation or explanation.
In most mythologies that talk of gods, there is usually "elder gods"
that were overthrown and supplanted by the gods now worshiped, the greek
pantheon is one example, and often time the primal state of being before
men and their gods came into being is often desribed as a goddess, a
mother god that gives birth to the gods of creation that then set about
their work of creating and overseeing the univers.
>
>
> >> I am having a problem with this whole "mother of God" reference - I
>
> >> understand what you're saying here, but that rather seems to imply
> >> more "God AS mother" or "God-mother".
> >
> >Or, God, All Mother.
>
> Indeed - but this elicits only that God AS mother. G-d and mother -
> different adspects perhaps, but the SAME entity.
Yes the whole "mother" or female concept as applied to "God" is only a
symbol, the concept being delt with is said to be beyond the
dfferentiations of biology and sex.
Humble T*r*t S**r
<jpst...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >Humble T*r*t S**r wrote:
>>
>> >> in essence the body of all humanity.
>> >
>> >ALL LIFE
>>
>> No, Josfeph - not all LIFE - all humanity.
>>
>> It is a specific difference.
>Espicaly if you chose to see it that way.
Everyone must choose a way to see it.
I mean - what would be your definition of All Life?
What other than humanity does that concept represent?
Does it include, for example, amoebae?
>> G-d AS mother - G-d IS the mother of G-d. Simple. 0=0. No other
>> possible equation or explanation.
>
>In most mythologies that talk of gods, there is usually "elder gods"
>that were overthrown and supplanted by the gods now worshiped, the greek
>pantheon is one example, and often time the primal state of being before
>men and their gods came into being is often desribed as a goddess, a
>mother god that gives birth to the gods of creation that then set about
>their work of creating and overseeing the univers.
Those inevitably end up showing out as evolutionary facets of the
origianal G-d - or those having experienced rebirth in the Cheyne
model of temrinology.
It is a concept which works in a polytheic system - that I understand
from what you say here - indeed, (pause for shock), I agree with that.
However, it isn't one, other than by describing G-d AS mother, that
can be rationalised in a monotheic system, such as the symbology of
tarot is (usually) given reference to.
>> >> I am having a problem with this whole "mother of God" reference - I
>>
>> >> understand what you're saying here, but that rather seems to imply
>> >> more "God AS mother" or "God-mother".
>> >
>> >Or, God, All Mother.
>>
>> Indeed - but this elicits only that God AS mother. G-d and mother -
>> different adspects perhaps, but the SAME entity.
>
>Yes the whole "mother" or female concept as applied to "God" is only a
>symbol, the concept being delt with is said to be beyond the
>dfferentiations of biology and sex.
Or in simple terms, the difference between multiple deity systems and
single deity systems. I didn't consider as relevant the biological
aspects of such, beyond the notion of "giving birth" to, at any rate.
I mean, can you imagine a mummy g-d and a daddy g-d getting down to it
- and hanging around for baby g-d to appear and get on with the work
of being g-d?
Creation, at the g-d level, is generally considered to be "instant"
you would agree, no?
Understandably, in Greek mythology, there was a daddy g-d and a mummy
g-d, but I don't recall any transliteration of the process by which
all the other children g-ds were "made" - they just (also) were, in
the way that all things pertinent to the being of the g-ds was.
There is an understanding, is there not, that polytheic systems
generally seperate out facets of a g-d to better explain that facet,
whereas a montheic system rather rolls all aspects back into one g-d
and makes hir instead multi, rather than single facteted, no?
Joseph Littleshoes
> On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 01:04:50 GMT, Joseph Littleshoes
> <jpst...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> >Humble T*r*t S**r wrote:
> >>
> >> >> in essence the body of all humanity.
> >> >
> >> >ALL LIFE
> >>
> >> No, Josfeph - not all LIFE - all humanity.
> >>
> >> It is a specific difference.
>
> >Espicaly if you chose to see it that way.
>
> Everyone must choose a way to see it.
>
> I mean - what would be your definition of All Life?
>
> What other than humanity does that concept represent?
>
> Does it include, for example, amoebae?
Yes. Yes it does.
Blake said "all that lives is holly" i choose to think that atomic fire
is life. That so called "inanimate objects" & "dead" matter are wholly
alive on the atomic level, plants of course as well as lichen, coral,
and probably even empty space are "alive" in this sense.
>
>
> >> G-d AS mother - G-d IS the mother of G-d. Simple. 0=0. No other
> >> possible equation or explanation.
> >
> >In most mythologies that talk of gods, there is usually "elder gods"
> >that were overthrown and supplanted by the gods now worshiped, the
> greek
> >pantheon is one example, and often time the primal state of being
> before
> >men and their gods came into being is often desribed as a goddess, a
> >mother god that gives birth to the gods of creation that then set
> about
> >their work of creating and overseeing the univers.
>
> Those inevitably end up showing out as evolutionary facets of the
> origianal G-d - or those having experienced rebirth in the Cheyne
> model of temrinology.
>
> It is a concept which works in a polytheic system - that I understand
> from what you say here - indeed, (pause for shock), I agree with that.
>
> However, it isn't one, other than by describing G-d AS mother, that
> can be rationalised in a monotheic system, such as the symbology of
> tarot is (usually) given reference to.
And then the "mother of god" aspect would be a product of the original
"G-d" in this case Mary, the virgin mother of Jesus. Which is of course
what Dali is said to have meant. But taking the unconventional stance of
having her look down upon her son rather than up at him from a kneeling
position, this and the ":Lady chapel" of many catholic churches can be
seen as indicating a need to somehow bring the female into the
trinitarian concept..
I have saved this post to desk top and will respond to the above
paragraph after i pull out some few reference books, I know what i want
to say to respond to you here but i forget the specific names of the
primordial gods that were before zeus and hera, who had something to do
with the Titans and who were over thrown, at least as much as an "G-d"
can be, and whose children, and not counting their children, were born
from Zeus one way or another and were the olympic gods, i think, iirc,
some of them were Zeus's siblings, who also had children, they would
even occasionally mate with mortals and produce demi gods, like
Hercules..
>
>
> There is an understanding, is there not, that polytheic systems
> generally seperate out facets of a g-d to better explain that facet,
> whereas a montheic system rather rolls all aspects back into one g-d
> and makes hir instead multi, rather than single facteted, no?
I suppose i should give this more than ten minutes thought but
instinctually and upon a short consideration it seems to me your saying
the same thing in both assertions, 2 different ways of doing or
conceptualizing the same thing?
JL
Humble T*r*t S**r
<jpst...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Humble T*r*t S**r wrote:
>> What other than humanity does that concept represent?
>>
>> Does it include, for example, amoebae?
>
>Yes. Yes it does.
I see.
>Blake said "all that lives is holly" i choose to think that atomic fire
>is life. That so called "inanimate objects" & "dead" matter are wholly
>alive on the atomic level, plants of course as well as lichen, coral,
>and probably even empty space are "alive" in this sense.
Blake probably meant Holy - at least, that's the less spiky option.
He may have meant holly after all - please, for once, just once, see
the intended humour in that!
But I will risk, on a more serious note, an accusation of perversion
by asking in what way you believe Jesus to represent all these things?
Would this definition not be better summarised as "all things in
heaven and earth", rather than merely "all life"?
Personally - and it's just my opinion, you'll understand, I think
you're stretching the probable definition of alive, and hence life,
just a tad.
>> However, it isn't one, other than by describing G-d AS mother, that
>> can be rationalised in a monotheic system, such as the symbology of
>> tarot is (usually) given reference to.
>
>And then the "mother of god" aspect would be a product of the original
>"G-d" in this case Mary, the virgin mother of Jesus. Which is of course
>what Dali is said to have meant. But taking the unconventional stance of
>having her look down upon her son rather than up at him from a kneeling
>position, this and the ":Lady chapel" of many catholic churches can be
>seen as indicating a need to somehow bring the female into the
>trinitarian concept..
Look, I understand what you're saying, or at least what it is I think
you're trying to say, but I think the introduction of additonal
products, so to speak only complicates what is essentially a one
product matter. If it helps to call G-d as mother something else,
then that's fine - by me anyway - G-d may have different views, of
course.
I think, however that in some degree or another we are discussing at
least a similar concept from a similar vantage.
As regards the Catholic trinity - was the Holy Ghost ever definitely
sexed? And what about the female pope?
The trinity is, if anything asexual as a concept, rather than male, or
not female.
Could not Dali more simply have been playing on the axiom of as above
so below?
>> Creation, at the g-d level, is generally considered to be "instant"
>> you would agree, no?
>>
>> Understandably, in Greek mythology, there was a daddy g-d and a mummy
>> g-d, but I don't recall any transliteration of the process by which
>> all the other children g-ds were "made" - they just (also) were, in
>> the way that all things pertinent to the being of the g-ds was.
>
>I have saved this post to desk top and will respond to the above
>paragraph after i pull out some few reference books, I know what i want
>to say to respond to you here but i forget the specific names of the
>primordial gods that were before zeus and hera, who had something to do
>with the Titans and who were over thrown, at least as much as an "G-d"
>can be, and whose children, and not counting their children, were born
>from Zeus one way or another and were the olympic gods, i think, iirc,
>some of them were Zeus's siblings, who also had children, they would
>even occasionally mate with mortals and produce demi gods, like
>Hercules..
Sure - I recall that Zeus played away from home, so to speak with mere
mortals, from time to time - Hercules was definitely a product of
such, though specifically, I don't recall if he was born as a human,
or in g-d fashion - i.e. appeared in a puff of smoke, or whatever.
I think what you're saying here about the family tree, so to speak, is
about right though.
>> There is an understanding, is there not, that polytheic systems
>> generally seperate out facets of a g-d to better explain that facet,
>> whereas a montheic system rather rolls all aspects back into one g-d
>> and makes hir instead multi, rather than single facteted, no?
>
>I suppose i should give this more than ten minutes thought but
>instinctually and upon a short consideration it seems to me your saying
>the same thing in both assertions, 2 different ways of doing or
>conceptualizing the same thing?
Well, possibly.
Call it an exploration.
Gea Jones
actually designed and made a pack of Tarot cards,
the other ones I mentioned are just people fitting pictures to words,[ the
Leonardo deck etc.]
and Dalis actual card of Judgment is , to me absolutely right,
he has Jesus rising from the tomb, a woman on one side a man on the other,
a tiny angel behind Jesus ' head, and above them a triumphant Angel, with
big wings, blowing a big trumpet,
of course there are Dalis statutory Butterflies on the card, as on a lot of
his Tarot cards,
I take these to be linked to the spirit,
it all seems to be about Ascension, and the resurrection,
a rebirth,
it it quite a literal card and not very surreal, well not for Dali,
in my view, I suggest anyone who can, have a look at his cards,
they are remarkable, and each one is signed by Dali,
so even if his students pasted a few things on , the final claim is his,
Best Wishes
Gea
"Humble T*r*t S**r" <se****c...@tesco.dotnet> wrote in message
news:ok8hvvgih0gdi0l2r...@4ax.com...
Ray V
"Humble T*r*t S**r" <se****c...@tesco.dotnet> wrote in message
Hi, Joseph, thought I'd post some observations on this interesting
thread....
> Blake probably meant Holy - at least, that's the less spiky option.
> He may have meant holly after all - please, for once, just once, see
> the intended humour in that!
>
Humble might be trying to be friendly, but still condescends.
It's hard to break bad habits.
> But I will risk, on a more serious note, an accusation of perversion
> by asking in what way you believe Jesus to represent all these things?
>
An accusation of perversion?
Is this sarcasm?
I think Humble acually believes that Joseph perverts something.
And that he should stand acused of this "crime".
> Personally - and it's just my opinion, you'll understand, I think
> you're stretching the probable definition of alive, and hence life,
> just a tad.
I don't agree with Humble at all, do we humans truly know what life is?
Stretching definitions is a good idea.. its one of the ways humans get more
knowledge.
Narrowing definitions is a bad idea when it comes to learning.
> Look, I understand what you're saying, or at least what it is I think
> you're trying to say, but I think the introduction of additonal
> products, so to speak only complicates what is essentially a one
> product matter. If it helps to call G-d as mother something else,
> then that's fine - by me anyway - G-d may have different views, of
> course.
>
Again, condescention :
"or at least what it is I think
> you're trying to say, "
Joseph did not TRY to say.... implying failure to say....
Joseph said, Humble disagrees, but cannot miss an opportunity to knock
Joseph down a peg.
His attempt is passively agresssive, and is the product of a bully's mind.
As to the later concession to the nature of this D-d, it's to be noted.
Humble does not conceed much, I believe, because of a frail ego.
So this concession should be aplauded.
> As regards the Catholic trinity - was the Holy Ghost ever definitely
> sexed? And what about the female pope?
>
> The trinity is, if anything asexual as a concept, rather than male, or
> not female.
>
The trinity is a made up human fabrication to try to explain something that
is so far, unexplainable.
Women have been excluded from religions for as long as men have had power,
asexuality is another male ploy to disenfranchise the rightful place that
female attributes should take in concepts.
> Could not Dali more simply have been playing on the axiom of as above
> so below?
>
Got to ask Dali.
But this is an interesting interpration from Humble, and it is completely
devoid of sarcasm.
I'm impressed.
Sure, you can make Dali's art mean anything and everything...
What is important is that it does make you think, and perchance to dream.
What is not important is believing that one interpretation is more "correct"
than another.
> >> Creation, at the g-d level, is generally considered to be "instant"
> >> you would agree, no?
> >>
No.
How would anyone know anything about g-d?
So it's not reasonable to assume that if this G-d creates, it creates
instantly or not.
But for the sake of argument, we can agree.
Why not?
As long as it widens the scope of our understanding, we can try on any
ideas.
Just some observations and thoughts,
ray
Humble T*r*t S**r
wrote:
>Humble might be trying to be friendly, but still condescends.
>It's hard to break bad habits.
Don't assume you know about Humble, Ray - you're still way off base.
You start putting in something of value here, some real tarot stuff,
instead of your usual pointless, banal, insulting drivel, then we'll
see who's condescending, you jumped up little munchkin.
>> But I will risk, on a more serious note, an accusation of perversion
>> by asking in what way you believe Jesus to represent all these things?
>>
>
>An accusation of perversion?
>Is this sarcasm?
It is proof that you haven't bothered to read what's going on.
Seems to be a repeating trend for you, Ray.
>I think Humble acually believes that Joseph perverts something.
I think you're a complete fucking idiot.
You haven't got a clue WHAT you're talking about.
>And that he should stand acused of this "crime".
Please replace the receiver on the handset.........
>I don't agree with Humble at all, do we humans truly know what life is?
It is evident that you choose not to agree with me Ray - you go out of
your way to misread things to point that out.
As for life, "we" humans defined the term, so I would imagine that,
yes, we "truly" know what life is.
Or are you requesting a change to the dictionary?
>Stretching definitions is a good idea.. its one of the ways humans get more
>knowledge.
That would be "redefining". That action generally turns a definition,
by definition, into something else.
Once a thing is defined, it is what it is.
>Narrowing definitions is a bad idea when it comes to learning.
You do that all the time Ray. Read this post you sent if you want
proof.
>
>Again, condescention :
Rather, again Ray's misreading.
You ought to bother to go and learn something of the subject, Ray,
before shooting your mouth off - you obviously have no clue as to how
stupd you look.
>"or at least what it is I think
>> you're trying to say, "
>Joseph did not TRY to say.... implying failure to say....
You Fuckwit. Josfeph attempted to communicate an idea, a concept.
And by what I wrote, as any sane and rational person might impute, I
was endeavouring to enquire as to whether I had HIS understanding of
the matter correct. You dumb, fucking, moron.
>Joseph said, Humble disagrees, but cannot miss an opportunity to knock
>Joseph down a peg.
Ray - research some history here, for fuck's sake - you're
embarrassing...yourself mostly, but it is also tedious to have to
repeat oneself so many times.
>His attempt is passively agresssive, and is the product of a bully's mind.
And what were you? Class dork?
>As to the later concession to the nature of this D-d, it's to be noted.
>Humble does not conceed much, I believe, because of a frail ego.
>So this concession should be aplauded.
This D-d? Oh boy - are you lost.
Listen, pal, don't be applauding - your hands are missing one and
other.
Humble, for your reference, doesn't concede much because Humble
doesn't need to around dummies like you, Ray - Humble has bothered to
get off his arse and learn what Humble is talking about. Humble
researches before Humble talks - ergo, Humble isn't the one that looks
like an idiot when he posts, unlike Ray.
Ray, on the other hand, good ol' Ray, just wades on in and opens his
mouth according to whatever faint spark appears in that haze inside
his head that used to be a mind, capable of actual thought.
Ray, on the other hand, good ol' Ray, doesn't bother to research, or
even get the clue as to what he's talking about - because he doesn't
see the need to - he just makes it all up as he goes, after all.
Ray, on the other hand, good ol' Ray, doesn't mind judging others, and
telling them exactly what's wrong, because he's got the perfect
opportunity to pick from a list of faults...simply by looking in his
mirror.
You see, Ray, good ol' Ray - these are all things your D-d should have
taught you. Now you're here, spouting your insane jealousy,
worshipping away like the true fanatic you are, looking for those
feelings of love and affection from a father figure -
- Well, Ray - wake up call.
This is not a support group. Nobody gives a shit. Least of all me.
Find a new D-ddy.
>> As regards the Catholic trinity - was the Holy Ghost ever definitely
>> sexed? And what about the female pope?
>>
>> The trinity is, if anything asexual as a concept, rather than male, or
>> not female.
>The trinity is a made up human fabrication to try to explain something that
>is so far, unexplainable.
So, you know nothing about Catholic history either, then.
>Women have been excluded from religions for as long as men have had power,
>asexuality is another male ploy to disenfranchise the rightful place that
>female attributes should take in concepts.
Which religions?
Be specific.
>> Could not Dali more simply have been playing on the axiom of as above
>> so below?
>
>Got to ask Dali.
No, you don't. You don't got to do anything, except take your finger
out from up your ass.
>But this is an interesting interpration from Humble, and it is completely
>devoid of sarcasm.
And way above anything you might have on hand to qualify as
intelligence.
>I'm impressed.
Easily done - but that's because you're an idiot.
>Sure, you can make Dali's art mean anything and everything...
Sure - YOU probably could. After all, YOU'RE not bound by the fact of
the matter, are you, "Make it all up Ray"?
>What is important is that it does make you think, and perchance to dream.
Piss off clown. You don't know HOW to think.
>What is not important is believing that one interpretation is more "correct"
>than another.
To you, idiot.
>> >> Creation, at the g-d level, is generally considered to be "instant"
>> >> you would agree, no?
>> >>
>
>
>No.
More ignorance.
You keep on proving yourself Ray.
>How would anyone know anything about g-d?
Do you even know what g-d is, or what a g-d is?
>So it's not reasonable to assume that if this G-d creates, it creates
>instantly or not.
It is perfectly reasonable.
Give me an example as to why it might not be reasonable.
>But for the sake of argument, we can agree.
Well, duh!
And they said Americans didn't get irony!
>Why not?
Because, Ray, you're an idiot. I am not.
>As long as it widens the scope of our understanding, we can try on any
>ideas.
It won't be difficult to widen your understanding Ray, but only when
you're ready to bother.
That clearly isn't now.
You see, whether Ray likes it or not, there are ground rules for
"trying on ideas". Ray hasn't figured the rules yet, or he's trying,
as so many before him have, to make a point of some sort.
You've made it Ray - welcome to the Idiot's Kingdom - when you want
the key to get out, let me know.
>Just some observations and thoughts,
Rather, just some random bumbling about, in the dark.