Rohrig?
Tratichema Colbiras
Barring the fact that the deck has a lot of superfluous(sp?) sexual organs
(breasts, penii, vaginae, etc...), what's the general consensus on the
Rohrig tarot deck by Carl-W. Rohrig. I came across it recently and it jumped
out and grabbed me by the throat... So I bought it. I like the vivid
imagery, but I'm having a bit of trouble studying it. In fact, I've barely
even begun. The book that goes with the deck isn't insanely useful, though
I've tried.
So can I get a general opinion, and then a suggested course or method of
study? Thank y'all.
Pax, Amor, Lux,
Colbiras
J. Karlin
> Hi there y'all.
> Barring the fact that the deck has a lot of superfluous(sp?) sexual organs
> (breasts, penii, vaginae, etc...), what's the general consensus on the
> Rohrig tarot deck by Carl-W. Rohrig.
Some taste, less filling.
As with many pomo decks its artist finally wasn't up to the
task, but he did hit the right tone with some of the cards
(minors especially).
The Rohrig effect is interesting---one gets attracted to the
notion that here, finally, is an interesting-LOOKING new
deck, but the effect can't hold up for long. There's
just not enough substance there to sustain it.
(jk)
Tratichema Colbiras
J. Karlin wrote in message <3736C96D...@texas.net>...
>Tratichema Colbiras wrote:
>
>> Hi there y'all.
>> Barring the fact that the deck has a lot of superfluous(sp?) sexual
organs
>> (breasts, penii, vaginae, etc...), what's the general consensus on the
>> Rohrig tarot deck by Carl-W. Rohrig.
>
>Some taste, less filling.
>
>As with many pomo decks its artist finally wasn't up to the
>task, but he did hit the right tone with some of the cards
>(minors especially).
>
PoMo.
So...because it's post modernist, it's crap?
>The Rohrig effect is interesting---one gets attracted to the
>notion that here, finally, is an interesting-LOOKING new
>deck, but the effect can't hold up for long. There's
>just not enough substance there to sustain it.
>
Could you explain or elaborate on this further? I'd like to know what causes
this opinion.
Just curious.
Still wondering what other members think as well, if they've come across it.
Thanks for your opinion,
Colbiras
J. Karlin
> >As with many pomo decks its artist finally wasn't up to the
> >task, but he did hit the right tone with some of the cards
> >(minors especially).
> >
> PoMo.
> So...because it's post modernist, it's crap?
Is that what I said?
Or is that what you've heard people claim that I've said?
Have you read the FAQ:
http://lonestar.texas.net/~r3winter/tarotfaq.html
You might want to before you get deeper in.
> >The Rohrig effect is interesting---one gets attracted to the
> >notion that here, finally, is an interesting-LOOKING new
> >deck, but the effect can't hold up for long. There's
> >just not enough substance there to sustain it.
> >
> Could you explain or elaborate on this further?
More than you probably want to know.
However, let's try it this way.
Now, do you agree that Rohrig had some reason for doing this
tarot deck?
And do you agree that some clue to his reason might be gotten
by the choices he makes about what he includes as symbols
on the cards?
And do you further agree that if that's true, if we can get
some idea of what he was trying to do by looking at what
he's actually put ON THE CARDS, and if we then realize
that he's done that rather poorly, in light of what
we know about his 'inspirations', that this would
constitute a reasonable critique?
Now, these questions assume a number of things:
1. That you know enough about tarot to even try to see
these 'inspirational' roots---and by sight---not merely
by someone telling you they are there.
2. That you care enough about tarot that these roots
mean something to you as a guide to determining merit
in a deck---particularly one which pays lip service
to these symbols.
3. That even if you don't care about these things, you
at least have some aesthetic principle, which we hope
you can articulate, which guides you in determining merit,
or lack of same, in a deck.
4. Something more, than merely 'I like it' or 'I don't'.
Rohrig tries to be a particular something in a kind of
desultory and flippant fashion, at once serious (in other
words, about the symbolism), then pretty vacant.
What I mean when I say most pomo decks fail ultimately
is that tarot is about something, ideas, and when these
are poorly understood (even 'intuitively') in the first
place the results generally show it.
(jk)
Tratichema Colbiras
J. Karlin wrote in message <37378EF8...@texas.net>...
>Tratichema Colbiras wrote:
>
>> >As with many pomo decks its artist finally wasn't up to the
>> >task, but he did hit the right tone with some of the cards
>> >(minors especially).
>> >
>> PoMo.
>> So...because it's post modernist, it's crap?
>
>Is that what I said?
>
decks, the artist didn't quite Get It, but he almost made it with some of
the cards..."
>Or is that what you've heard people claim that I've said?
>
>Have you read the FAQ:
>
>http://lonestar.texas.net/~r3winter/tarotfaq.html
>
>You might want to before you get deeper in.
>
Actually, it's what I've observed, here and in the FAQ. I've observed that
opinions of post modern decks are not very high.
Why? I'm not entirely sure. It could be because it appears little thought
was put into the card designs before execution. It could be that age old
opinion, "Change is Bad."
Or it could be an honest observation that (at least in the case of the
Rohrig deck) the artist was a strongly fixated on women's breasts, and not
fixated enough on the meanings of the cards, the symbols behind them, the
history, and everything else surrounding tarot. Which I can understand; I've
had at least one aquaintance say that he's never seen several of the runes
attributed to the Trumps, and he's seen a lot of rune variations.
Yes I've read the FAQ. I found some of the humor in it amusing. :)
I also noticed a comment on the Rohrig too.
>> >The Rohrig effect is interesting---one gets attracted to the
>> >notion that here, finally, is an interesting-LOOKING new
>> >deck, but the effect can't hold up for long. There's
>> >just not enough substance there to sustain it.
>> >
>> Could you explain or elaborate on this further?
>
>More than you probably want to know.
>
>However, let's try it this way.
>
>Now, do you agree that Rohrig had some reason for doing this
>tarot deck?
>
Yes.
My guesses are as good as any, but here are some that jump to mind:
-He did it for the money.
-He did it because he was inspired.
-He did it because he thought he could do better than someone else.
-He did it because he wanted to leave a mark, somehow, somewhere.
-He wanted to see if he could present a different image to the traditional
meanings.
-"He did it HIS way!" (Singing)
I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons...
>And do you agree that some clue to his reason might be gotten
>by the choices he makes about what he includes as symbols
>on the cards?
>
Yes, possibly.
He uses Hebrew, Runes, Astrology, and sometimes non-traditional imagery. He
also uses keywords written on the cards that may or may not have anything to
do with the actual meaning, which leads one to suppose he was using his
intuition.
It appears (from the little I've looked through what books I have) that he
is following hermetic/ceremonial symbology. How close, I'm not sure.
>And do you further agree that if that's true, if we can get
>some idea of what he was trying to do by looking at what
>he's actually put ON THE CARDS, and if we then realize
>that he's done that rather poorly, in light of what
>we know about his 'inspirations', that this would
>constitute a reasonable critique?
>
Well.
I'm afraid I'm not understanding this last question.
What's he doing poorly? Why do you/we think he's done this poorly? What do
we think he's trying to do again? What DO we know of his inspirations?
To say it bluntly, you're asking too many questions in one question. I think
(and correct me if you wish) that the previous questions would have to be
answered first (by myself as seen above, or by you rhetorically), in order
to answer this last question.
I could be wrong. I can't seem to wrap my brain around this last question
anyway.
>Now, these questions assume a number of things:
>
>1. That you know enough about tarot to even try to see
>these 'inspirational' roots---and by sight---not merely
>by someone telling you they are there.
>
I know some about tarot. Unlike you, I'm not an authority. Nor do I claim to
be an authority.
If I was an authority on tarot, I wouldn't be asking people's opinions on
the Rohrig tarot, and I wouldn't be asking for a suggested method of study
of Rohrig or tarot in general.
It appears that some of Rohrig's inspirations are the Waite deck
(naturally), GD (where would he get the correspondances he's using?), and
possibly the Thoth deck, but I'd have to look to be sure.
>2. That you care enough about tarot that these roots
>mean something to you as a guide to determining merit
>in a deck---particularly one which pays lip service
>to these symbols.
>
Well, I base my choice in decks on imagery, feeling, and uhm, not much else.
I've gotten more than one deck that could use some improvement, or is
totally away from the traditional meanings (example? The Mage: The Ascension
Tarot Deck. Stop groaning, I know.) Not a great method I realize.
Which is not to say I don't care about said roots...
>3. That even if you don't care about these things, you
>at least have some aesthetic principle, which we hope
>you can articulate, which guides you in determining merit,
>or lack of same, in a deck.
>
My articulation has gone downhill, but I'll give it a go.
Pretty deck. Pretty boobs. Ugh. Ugh. Me want. Me buy. Me get book. Me read
Magican's Companion and Llewellyn Golden Dawn books. Me go, "uh oh."
^_^
Okay, I'll get serious now. Couldn't quite resist that one.
When I looked at the deck, I liked it a lot. I enjoyed the rich and vivid
colors, the lush imagery, and the mix of old and new symbolism. I thought
the collage-like method was a nice idea, and was smoothly done. The fact
that the artist used tradtional symbols that I was familiar with (Hebrew,
Astrology, Runes, the elements) caused me to hope that 1) the use of the
symbols was correct, 2) I'd be able to finally learn the tarot from this
deck in a proper manner. It appeared that the artist put a lot of energy and
passion into the cards, which appealed to my Scorpio nature. What also
appealed to my Scorpio nature was the use of sexual organs (though I think
it was a relatively subconscious appeal).
I will say that he does OVERuse the breast image a bit. I certainly think he
has a breast fixation. Woman's breasts hold no lasting appeal to me however,
except in an aesthetic or academic sense. So if you think I go the deck for
the boobs, let me shoot that idea down right now. Last I checked I was a
happy male homosexual, happily (and blatantly) out of the closet.
When I opened my Magician's Companion, and my Golden Dawn (Llewellyn
version), along with the LB, I found that it didn't *quite* hit that
accuracy mark. The LB emphasized self exploration over meaning more than I
liked, for one thing. I'm all for self exploration, but I'd like the
MEANINGS TOO, thankyouverymuch.
*snap* Damn.
>4. Something more, than merely 'I like it' or 'I don't'.
>
Did that satisfy you? *G*
>Rohrig tries to be a particular something in a kind of
>desultory and flippant fashion, at once serious (in other
>words, about the symbolism), then pretty vacant.
>
Serious about the images, but once you read the meanings given in the LB,
which are usually one sentence, you're kind of left hanging...? I kind of
noticed.
>What I mean when I say most pomo decks fail ultimately
>is that tarot is about something, ideas, and when these
>are poorly understood (even 'intuitively') in the first
>place the results generally show it.
>
So you're saying that the artist (AND the author of the accompanying LB and
big book) didn't know enough about what they were doing, but did it anyway,
and result was half-assed?
Disclaimer:
If you get offended by any of my replies, ask yourself this: Why would I
want to offend you? I'm certainly not trying.
Hell, I've followed a couple of threads in here, and DAMN y'all are VICIOUS!
I'm so paranoid of offending someone, I'm writing this disclaimer, and
hoping to every god I can think of that when I post this I don't
accidentally start a flame. I realize I flame, but that doesn't mean I'm
trying to set fire to the thread of discussion.
-T. Colbiras
J. Karlin
> J. Karlin wrote in message <37378EF8...@texas.net>...
> >Tratichema Colbiras wrote:
> >
> >> >As with many pomo decks its artist finally wasn't up to the
> >> >task, but he did hit the right tone with some of the cards
> >> >(minors especially).
> >> >
> >> PoMo.
> >> So...because it's post modernist, it's crap?
> >
> >Is that what I said?
> >
> Literally (in this post) you said essentially, "as with many post modernist
> decks, the artist didn't quite Get It, but he almost made it with some of
> the cards..."
Yes, that's actually a compliment. But it's also a sober reflection
on the general degradation of content that has occurred as
'popular' pomo tarot has become predominant.
As with popular anything, the quality tends to degrade as
the edges get rounded off, or replaced with little plastic
child-friendly bumpers.
> >Or is that what you've heard people claim that I've said?
> >
> >Have you read the FAQ:
> >
> >http://lonestar.texas.net/~r3winter/tarotfaq.html
> >
> >You might want to before you get deeper in.
> >
> Actually, it's what I've observed, here and in the FAQ. I've observed that
> opinions of post modern decks are not very high.
> Why? I'm not entirely sure.
If you read my definition of pomo tarot, as I see it, it's
not exclusive not entirely negative. I do make jokes about
Motherpeace because it's so obviously ridiculous (I began
saying it would make good coasters---surprisingly, many
people took offense at that---of course that 'type' are
now mostly on tarot-l).
> It could be because it appears little thought
> was put into the card designs before execution.
Could be, but what constitutes 'thought' in that respect,
or little or much of it?
> It could be that age old opinion, "Change is Bad."
That's how most pomos see it. That's easier for them than
thinking.
> Or it could be an honest observation that (at least in the case of the
> Rohrig deck) the artist was a strongly fixated on women's breasts,
You know, I've never complained about things like that on
tarot decks. The more nudity the better---of course that
tends to degrade the use of nudity as a symbol and instead
promote it as a prurient 'feature'.
THAT is actually one of my main concerns, that marketing concerns
too often govern people's design choices.
Right now, most designers just want to know what US Games wants
in a deck, so they can deliver that. But what US Games is in
business to do is popularize tarot---to do that it has to be
made 'accessible' and 'inoffensive' to as many people as
possible. Much gets lost in that process.
I'll give you an example. Not long ago the BBC (I believe) did
a documentary on tarot, and ended up interviewing a number of
people, including Michael Dummett, and Stuart Kaplan. Stuart
in describing the importance of the Waite deck virtually ignored
A. E. Waite, treating him almost as if he had just ordered
the deck up from the artist on a lark. He instead waxed long
about Smith's efforts and said nothing much at all about
how Waite guided her through the process of articulating
a specific system of symbolism.
Nobody wants to buy symbols and especially not ideas, they want
to buy pictures.
> fixated enough on the meanings of the cards, the symbols behind them, the
> history, and everything else surrounding tarot. Which I can understand; I've
> had at least one aquaintance say that he's never seen several of the runes
> attributed to the Trumps, and he's seen a lot of rune variations.
Runes are a whole 'nother problem.
They have no traditional relationship to tarot. As far as
I know, that was an innovation in the Haindl deck, and his
reasoning for it was weird, to say the least, involving his
hope of making amends for nazism by sticking runes next
to Hebrew letters. As I pointed out at the time I reviewed
this deck, I wonder how the Hebrew letters felt about it.
> Yes I've read the FAQ. I found some of the humor in it amusing. :)
What parts did you not find amusing?
> >And do you agree that some clue to his reason might be gotten
> >by the choices he makes about what he includes as symbols
> >on the cards?
> Yes, possibly.
> He uses Hebrew, Runes, Astrology, and sometimes non-traditional imagery.
Give me an example of what you mean by 'non-traditional' imagery.
And tell me how, or if, you think the tradition benefits by
the change.
> He also uses keywords written on the cards that may or may not have anything to
> do with the actual meaning,
How do you know that?
> which leads one to suppose he was using his
> intuition.
You'll find that supposition and presumption is dangerous,
especially around here.
If you don't know, it's best to admit it.
> It appears (from the little I've looked through what books I have) that he
> is following hermetic/ceremonial symbology. How close, I'm not sure.
Agreed that he patterning on a mixed bag, but the strongest
influences are Thoth and Haindl. The 'keywords' are mostly
Thoth-like and thus Golden-Dawnish, and the interpretations
show this---if you're acquainted with that part of tradition.
This is mainly what I mean about the minors being better
than the majors. As with many pomo artists, he used the
majors for a personal reflection and expression, and followed
some notion of a tradition in the minors. Unfortunately,
his ignorance of tarot, and perhaps his dearth of anything
very personally interesting, resulted in a breakdown
in the majors. The Chariot is I think most people's best
example of how his insouciance finally devastated the
effort. Plez...it's just stupid. And that would be fine
if he were not obviously trying so hard in so many other
cards. But, the problem that a flawed good effort is often
much more annoying than a lame effort, consistently
executed.
I've just taken another look at the deck---have not looked at
it in a while, and my main impression this time is that if you
take out the considerable cheese factor and put the artist
through an extensive tarot training program and let him
loose again he'll still end up making half the cards look
like commercials. He can't help himself, I suspect.
Still, I like a lot of the cards, as decent commercial
illustrations, but as tarot they're mostly fluff.
> >And do you further agree that if that's true, if we can get
> >some idea of what he was trying to do by looking at what
> >he's actually put ON THE CARDS, and if we then realize
> >that he's done that rather poorly, in light of what
> >we know about his 'inspirations', that this would
> >constitute a reasonable critique?
> >
> Well.
> I'm afraid I'm not understanding this last question.
> What's he doing poorly?
Knowing tarot.
> To say it bluntly, you're asking too many questions in one question.
No, I'm getting to the point in one question.
If we know what he should have done, and see how he did not
do it, that constitutes a reasonable critique.
There may be a reasonable answer to it, but I've not
seen it yet.
> >Now, these questions assume a number of things:
> >
> >1. That you know enough about tarot to even try to see
> >these 'inspirational' roots---and by sight---not merely
> >by someone telling you they are there.
> >
> I know some about tarot. Unlike you, I'm not an authority. Nor do I claim to
> be an authority.
> If I was an authority on tarot, I wouldn't be asking people's opinions on
> the Rohrig tarot,
Why not?
I've asked people's opinions about decks before.
I enjoy hearing about other people's opinions, if for no
other reason so I can kick the crap out of them, but
just as much for the possibility, if it ever presents
itself, to have an intelligent discussion.
I'm flexible in that respect.
> It appears that some of Rohrig's inspirations are the Waite deck
> (naturally), GD (where would he get the correspondances he's using?), and
> possibly the Thoth deck, but I'd have to look to be sure.
The problem with pomo inspirations is that very often they
are merely aesthetic, and then not much of that.
This is what I mean about learning tarot.
If you want to learn about tarot, learn what tarot is
first. And what it's not.
> >2. That you care enough about tarot that these roots
> >mean something to you as a guide to determining merit
> >in a deck---particularly one which pays lip service
> >to these symbols.
> >
> Well, I base my choice in decks on imagery, feeling, and uhm, not much else.
Tarot is about thoughts too. About ideas.
And these, when they are understood, open the door to
reading (whether for fortunes or not) a rich visual language
that has been around now for almost 500 years (although
systematically only for 200 or so).
> >3. That even if you don't care about these things, you
> >at least have some aesthetic principle, which we hope
> >you can articulate, which guides you in determining merit,
> >or lack of same, in a deck.
> >
> My articulation has gone downhill, but I'll give it a go.
> Pretty deck. Pretty boobs. Ugh. Ugh. Me want. Me buy. Me get book.
Perhaps the Tarzan tarot would be good for you.
> Okay, I'll get serious now. Couldn't quite resist that one.
> When I looked at the deck, I liked it a lot.
So did I.
I got over that and started thinking.
> 2) I'd be able to finally learn the tarot from this
> deck in a proper manner.
Well, if you get directed to the decks upon which Rohrig is
based you might do that.
> It appeared that the artist put a lot of energy and
> passion into the cards,
Hitler did that.
> which appealed to my Scorpio nature.
I have some knowledge of Scorpio natures. They are not
immune from nor averse to thinking.
> What also
> appealed to my Scorpio nature was the use of sexual organs
Some day jk will do a porn deck for all you perverts.
Of course it may be entirely abstract---which is even
more potentially corrupting.
> I will say that he does OVERuse the breast image a bit.
How does one do that, in your opinion?
> I certainly think he
> has a breast fixation.
I think maybe you do, too.
> Woman's breasts hold no lasting appeal to me however,
Liar.
> except in an aesthetic or academic sense. So if you think I go the deck for
> the boobs, let me shoot that idea down right now. Last I checked I was a
> happy male homosexual,
What species?
> happily (and blatantly) out of the closet.
Thanks for sharing.
> >What I mean when I say most pomo decks fail ultimately
> >is that tarot is about something, ideas, and when these
> >are poorly understood (even 'intuitively') in the first
> >place the results generally show it.
> >
> So you're saying that the artist (AND the author of the accompanying LB and
> big book) didn't know enough about what they were doing, but did it anyway,
> and result was half-assed?
That's it in a nutshell. But it's never that simple of course.
However, life is short. More and more decks continue to get
dumped onto the market. One goes either for quantity or quality.
(jk)
Tratichema Colbiras
>> >
>> Literally (in this post) you said essentially, "as with many post modernist
>> decks, the artist didn't quite Get It, but he almost made it with some of
>> the cards..."
>
>Yes, that's actually a compliment. But it's also a sober reflection
>on the general degradation of content that has occurred as
>'popular' pomo tarot has become predominant.
>
>As with popular anything, the quality tends to degrade as
>the edges get rounded off, or replaced with little plastic
>child-friendly bumpers.
>
So, why not find the orignal and mass produce that one again?
If you say it's the Thoth or the Waite I'm not going to be happy.
>> Actually, it's what I've observed, here and in the FAQ. I've observed that
>> opinions of post modern decks are not very high.
>> Why? I'm not entirely sure.
>
>If you read my definition of pomo tarot, as I see it, it's
>not exclusive not entirely negative. I do make jokes about
>Motherpeace because it's so obviously ridiculous (I began
>saying it would make good coasters---surprisingly, many
>people took offense at that---of course that 'type' are
>now mostly on tarot-l).
>
I have feminist friends who would positively scream at something like that. It's
rather amusing at times. Usually in retrospect. :)
>> It could be because it appears little thought
>> was put into the card designs before execution.
>
>Could be, but what constitutes 'thought' in that respect,
>or little or much of it?
>
Dunno, you tell me.
>> It could be that age old opinion, "Change is Bad."
>
>That's how most pomos see it. That's easier for them than
>thinking.
>
Oh yeah, "Thinking is Bad." Forgot about that one. *Turns of brain.*
Actually, I like change a lot. Everything changes, including tarot, so that's
why I like the pomo movement in tarot.
Although, from what you're saying, and from looking around lately, it could use
some tidying up or something. :)
>> Or it could be an honest observation that (at least in the case of the
>> Rohrig deck) the artist was a strongly fixated on women's breasts,
>
>You know, I've never complained about things like that on
>tarot decks. The more nudity the better---of course that
>tends to degrade the use of nudity as a symbol and instead
>promote it as a prurient 'feature'.
>
I'm not complaining about the use of nudity. I'm complaining about the overuse.
I think there's a point where it's enough. Besides, clothes on a body are just
as interesting as clothes off of one.
>THAT is actually one of my main concerns, that marketing concerns
>too often govern people's design choices.
>
Well, sometimes you have to consider what will sell in order to make money. It's
a bitch.
>Right now, most designers just want to know what US Games wants
>in a deck, so they can deliver that. But what US Games is in
>business to do is popularize tarot---to do that it has to be
>made 'accessible' and 'inoffensive' to as many people as
>possible. Much gets lost in that process.
>
>I'll give you an example. Not long ago the BBC (I believe) did
>a documentary on tarot, and ended up interviewing a number of
>people, including Michael Dummett, and Stuart Kaplan. Stuart
>in describing the importance of the Waite deck virtually ignored
>A. E. Waite, treating him almost as if he had just ordered
>the deck up from the artist on a lark. He instead waxed long
>about Smith's efforts and said nothing much at all about
>how Waite guided her through the process of articulating
>a specific system of symbolism.
>
>Nobody wants to buy symbols and especially not ideas, they want
>to buy pictures.
>
Hey hey hey! I ain't nobody! I've been looking for an appropriate deck to learn
from for a while, and really hoped I'd get it out of Rohrigh. I WANT symbols and
ideas. They're what make the pictures.
Nanner.
>Runes are a whole 'nother problem.
>
>They have no traditional relationship to tarot. As far as
>I know, that was an innovation in the Haindl deck, and his
>reasoning for it was weird, to say the least, involving his
>hope of making amends for nazism by sticking runes next
>to Hebrew letters. As I pointed out at the time I reviewed
>this deck, I wonder how the Hebrew letters felt about it.
>
Runes have no traditional relationship with tarot, yes that's true... but when
the Hebrew letters started to be associated with certain cards, they didn't have
a traditional relationship either. It was only when the GD and other groups
started associating Hebrew and other things (the Kabalah, for example) with the
cards that it became traditional.
So Runes just have to gain popularity of assication with the tarot, and they'll
become traditional too.
On the other hand, offhandedly thinking about some of the meanings of the runes,
they have little relationship in meaning to the tarot cards. Hebrew letters are
usually used as letters and associations alone (though they could be used like
the runes are), whereas runes have been a complete divinatory system of their
own for quite a while.
I know what I'm trying to say here, hopefully you're getting it. Most of this is
mental meandering though, just so you know.
>> Yes I've read the FAQ. I found some of the humor in it amusing. :)
>
>What parts did you not find amusing?
>
*Shrug* There weren't parts that I did NOT find amusing... Just parts that were
more amusing than others, I suppose.
>> >And do you agree that some clue to his reason might be gotten
>> >by the choices he makes about what he includes as symbols
>> >on the cards?
>
>> Yes, possibly.
>> He uses Hebrew, Runes, Astrology, and sometimes non-traditional imagery.
>
>Give me an example of what you mean by 'non-traditional' imagery.
>
Hi, the Chariot? Everyone who sees that card nearly has a fit for one reason or
another.
On the other hand, it's still a vehicle with a rider, so that's still
traditional, for the most part...
Okay, here's one. It's more being picky than anything, and I can see how it
would be knocked down, but I'll give it a go anyway. Usually the Strength card
shows a woman taming a beast, such as a lion. In this one, there's a lion and a
woman, but they might as well be on two different cards, and the woman looks
like she's in the throes of ecstasy.
Where are the four beasts on the Wheel of Fortune? There's just this little
Bobby or something.
The Moon is a good one. Where's the crayfish thing? the body of water? the
animals? It's a woman resting her head in thought or out of mental duress, and
not much else, except the very traditional Moon above her.
...Hrmm... I suppose a better thing to have said was "he sometimes uses some
very non-traditional images in traditional ways" or vice versa.
>And tell me how, or if, you think the tradition benefits by
>the change.
>
Well, because of recent developments in the media, I think the light-sabre
Justice has is really a very good non-traditional image in a traditional place.
I think it works well. So yes, the tradition benefits by some of the changes,
but not all of them.
>> He also uses keywords written on the cards that may or may not have anything
to
>> do with the actual meaning,
>
>How do you know that?
>
I don't, but there were a few cards (Minor Arcana I believe) where I looked at
the words used on the card, and the meaning in the book, and they were very
different. This led me to believe that he uses keywords that may not have
anything to do with the meaning.
And notice I said "may or may not." Which should indicate that I don't know, at
least not for sure. I can only wonder.
>> which leads one to suppose he was using his
>> intuition.
>
>You'll find that supposition and presumption is dangerous,
>especially around here.
>
>If you don't know, it's best to admit it.
>
On the contrary, I think supposition is a very good thing. I don't think using
your intuition is a good idea, don't you?
If I don't know, or I'm not sure, I make it known that I'm not sure.
>> It appears (from the little I've looked through what books I have) that he
>> is following hermetic/ceremonial symbology. How close, I'm not sure.
>
>Agreed that he patterning on a mixed bag, but the strongest
>influences are Thoth and Haindl. The 'keywords' are mostly
>Thoth-like and thus Golden-Dawnish, and the interpretations
>show this---if you're acquainted with that part of tradition.
>
Not strongly, but I'm aquainted with some of it.
>This is mainly what I mean about the minors being better
>than the majors. As with many pomo artists, he used the
>majors for a personal reflection and expression, and followed
>some notion of a tradition in the minors. Unfortunately,
>his ignorance of tarot, and perhaps his dearth of anything
>very personally interesting, resulted in a breakdown
>in the majors. The Chariot is I think most people's best
>example of how his insouciance finally devastated the
>effort. Plez...it's just stupid. And that would be fine
>if he were not obviously trying so hard in so many other
>cards. But, the problem that a flawed good effort is often
>much more annoying than a lame effort, consistently
>executed.
>
Actually, I kind of like the Chariot card. He still gets in the vehicle and
rider, the Cancer associations, and such. As I've learned it, the Chariot has an
association of a test or victory, usually victory over a test. The reflection of
the checkered flag leads one to intuit that perhaps the driver has won a race.
Do you agree or disagree, and how? I'm sure you can give a more in depth
understanding of both the older and more traditional version of the card, and
this one. I'm actually curious to see what I don't know and where I might be
wrong.
>> Well.
>> I'm afraid I'm not understanding this last question.
>> What's he doing poorly?
>
>Knowing tarot.
>
How are you sure?
>> To say it bluntly, you're asking too many questions in one question.
>
>No, I'm getting to the point in one question.
>
Okay fine.
>If we know what he should have done, and see how he did not
>do it, that constitutes a reasonable critique.
>
What should he have done, and how did he not do it?
>There may be a reasonable answer to it, but I've not
>seen it yet.
>
>> >Now, these questions assume a number of things:
>> >
>> >1. That you know enough about tarot to even try to see
>> >these 'inspirational' roots---and by sight---not merely
>> >by someone telling you they are there.
>> >
>> I know some about tarot. Unlike you, I'm not an authority. Nor do I claim to
>> be an authority.
>> If I was an authority on tarot, I wouldn't be asking people's opinions on
>> the Rohrig tarot,
>
>Why not?
>
Because I could judge for myself whether the Rohrig is a good deck or not. I may
still ask, just to see what other people think, but I'd have already made up my
mind, and only a convincing argument to the contrary of my judgement would make
me change my mind. (Opinionated, stubborn, me? NO!)
>I've asked people's opinions about decks before.
>
>I enjoy hearing about other people's opinions, if for no
>other reason so I can kick the crap out of them, but
>just as much for the possibility, if it ever presents
>itself, to have an intelligent discussion.
>
So I asked.
>I'm flexible in that respect.
>
>> It appears that some of Rohrig's inspirations are the Waite deck
>> (naturally), GD (where would he get the correspondances he's using?), and
>> possibly the Thoth deck, but I'd have to look to be sure.
>
>The problem with pomo inspirations is that very often they
>are merely aesthetic, and then not much of that.
>
>This is what I mean about learning tarot.
>
>If you want to learn about tarot, learn what tarot is
>first. And what it's not.
>
It seems to me that I'm not doing much learning in that respect. I'd LIKE to
learn. It's why I've started reading this ng, but all I've seen really is a lot
of petty name calling and quibbling over minor and pointless details. I don't
see why there shouldn't be a thread discussing the various meanings and
associations of each particular card. It could get into quibbling and name
calling once again, of course, but the thread could continue still. I thought
that was the idea of NGs... synthesis of information, and discussion or that
information. I've been tempted to start the thread myself, if only to see where
it goes, how well it lasts, and how long it lasts.
>> >2. That you care enough about tarot that these roots
>> >mean something to you as a guide to determining merit
>> >in a deck---particularly one which pays lip service
>> >to these symbols.
>> >
>> Well, I base my choice in decks on imagery, feeling, and uhm, not much else.
>
>Tarot is about thoughts too. About ideas.
>
Yeah I know.
>And these, when they are understood, open the door to
>reading (whether for fortunes or not) a rich visual language
>that has been around now for almost 500 years (although
>systematically only for 200 or so).
>
So when do y'all get to the understanding bits?
>> >3. That even if you don't care about these things, you
>> >at least have some aesthetic principle, which we hope
>> >you can articulate, which guides you in determining merit,
>> >or lack of same, in a deck.
>> >
>> My articulation has gone downhill, but I'll give it a go.
>> Pretty deck. Pretty boobs. Ugh. Ugh. Me want. Me buy. Me get book.
>
>Perhaps the Tarzan tarot would be good for you.
>
Wouldn't be surprised if there WAS a Tarzan deck. Weird thought tho.
Guess you didn't find it as amusing as I did. *Shrug*
>> Okay, I'll get serious now. Couldn't quite resist that one.
>> When I looked at the deck, I liked it a lot.
>
>So did I.
>
>I got over that and started thinking.
>
>> 2) I'd be able to finally learn the tarot from this
>> deck in a proper manner.
>
>Well, if you get directed to the decks upon which Rohrig is
>based you might do that.
>
Why not study some of the meanings in various books, such as the Golden Dawn? Or
talk about them here?
Why not work with the deck, instead of dropping it and going further back?
>> It appeared that the artist put a lot of energy and
>> passion into the cards,
>
>Hitler did that.
>
So?
>> which appealed to my Scorpio nature.
>
>I have some knowledge of Scorpio natures. They are not
>immune from nor averse to thinking.
>
Yeah, I think a lot. I'm thinking now, as a matter of fact. GO FIGURE!
>> What also
>> appealed to my Scorpio nature was the use of sexual organs
>
>Some day jk will do a porn deck for all you perverts.
>
*Waiting with baited breath*
>Of course it may be entirely abstract---which is even
>more potentially corrupting.
>
Gods forbid.
>> I will say that he does OVERuse the breast image a bit.
>
>How does one do that, in your opinion?
>
Well... There's the Prince of Cups, which has a layer of sexual organs. Kinda
gross at first glance.
Then there's things like the Prince of Wands or the Queen of Cups, both of which
have a displaced breast near the face. Just, every once in a while, you come
across a breast, or breast like image that is floating out in the middle of
nowhere.
>> I certainly think he
>> has a breast fixation.
>
>I think maybe you do, too.
>
*Smirk* I was waiting for that one.
>> Woman's breasts hold no lasting appeal to me however,
>
>Liar.
>
What interest would I have in them, seriously? I much prefer a good cock shot
over a tit anytime. All they are really, are extra bits of flesh meant for the
dispense of mother's milk. A cow's teat holds about as much interest for me. You
don't see me on a farm.
>> except in an aesthetic or academic sense. So if you think I go the deck for
>> the boobs, let me shoot that idea down right now. Last I checked I was a
>> happy male homosexual,
>
>What species?
>
I'll let you guess.
>> happily (and blatantly) out of the closet.
>
>Thanks for sharing.
>
No problem. I'm always willing to share fun bits of information like that. I did
say blatantly.
>> >What I mean when I say most pomo decks fail ultimately
>> >is that tarot is about something, ideas, and when these
>> >are poorly understood (even 'intuitively') in the first
>> >place the results generally show it.
>> >
>> So you're saying that the artist (AND the author of the accompanying LB and
>> big book) didn't know enough about what they were doing, but did it anyway,
>> and result was half-assed?
>
>That's it in a nutshell. But it's never that simple of course.
>
You could have said that instead, you know.
>However, life is short. More and more decks continue to get
>dumped onto the market. One goes either for quantity or quality.
>
I'm trying for quality.
I don't have the money for quantity.
-TC
MLYoung
>>As with popular anything, the quality tends to degrade as
>>the edges get rounded off, or replaced with little plastic
>>child-friendly bumpers.
>>
>So, why not find the orignal and mass produce that one again?
>If you say it's the Thoth or the Waite I'm not going to be happy.
>
Why? They're not the first tarot decks,
but they are the most influential and
most developed symbolically.
>Usually the Strength card
>shows a woman taming a beast, such as a lion. In this one, there's a lion and
>a
>woman, but they might as well be on two different cards, and the woman looks
>like she's in the throes of ecstasy.
Sounds like the Thoth version, called
Lust.
>Where are the four beasts on the Wheel of Fortune? There's just this little
>Bobby or something.
>The Moon is a good one. Where's the crayfish thing? the body of water? the
>animals? It's a woman resting her head in thought or out of mental duress,
>and
>not much else, except the very traditional Moon above her.
>...Hrmm... I suppose a better thing to have said was "he sometimes
>This led me to believe that he uses keywords that may not have
>anything to do with the meaning.
>And notice I said "may or may not." Which should indicate that I don't know,
>at
>least not for sure. I can only wonder.
So, perhaps you should find out. The
traditional keywords can be found in
The Book of Thoth, The Golden Dawn
by Israel Regardie and the Qabalistic Tarot
by James Wang (the last is the easiest of
the three.)
>>Well, if you get directed to the decks upon which Rohrig is
>>based you might do that.
>>
>Why not study some of the meanings in various books, such as the Golden Dawn?
>Or
>talk about them here?
>Why not work with the deck, instead of dropping it and going further back?
Because the most useful books are
connected to particular decks. Even
if you disliked them as deck, both Rider-Waite
and Thoth are extremely useful if you're
studying tarot symbolism. It's interesting
to see how they worked out the puzzle.
--margaret
Tratichema Colbiras
MLYoung wrote in message <19990513151126...@ng-fp1.aol.com>...
>colbiras wrote:
>>So, why not find the orignal and mass produce that one again?
>>If you say it's the Thoth or the Waite I'm not going to be happy.
>>
>but they are the most influential and
>most developed symbolically.
>
imagery on it.
And with Thoth? *Opening CanOWorms* Well, I tend to think that Crowley was a bit
of a loon... (also quite prolific and possibly a genius, but not quite the good
kind of genius... like mad scientist/magician kind). And the Thoth deck...
*sigh*
You know, this is a good example of me holding onto some predjudices that I've
recently dealt with, and don't quite want to let go of.
On another note, I have been informed that "I shouldn't study/use the Thoth
deck" because I have no discapline. This is from a friend of mine who knows me
very well. I'll admit I don't have a lot of discapline, but then again, I'm
getting sick of her reminding me that I have no discapline, when I'm working on
improving that.
The only thing that'd satisfy her is for me to go into the armed forces, I'm
sure. Like I'm going to do that, since the men there are all so much my type,
I'd look funny at one and get tossed out on my ass. *G*
Now me? I don't care if I do or don't have any discapline, and I don't care if
my friend thinks I do or don't.. All I want is to find a deck that I like, and
can study extensively, get to know very well, and use very well. I want a deck
that has kabbalistic symbology, since I LIKE that stuff (ceremonial, hermetic,
high, GD, whatever).
I thought Rohrig just might satisfy those criteria. Am I wrong?
I'd like to study tarot... I'll even go so far as to say I'd study the Thoth,
given the chance and the resources. I'd prefer a deck as symbolically rich as
the Thoth instead though... but hey, whatever.
I'll stop bitching now. :)
*Pauses and thinks* ...Uhm, maybe I'm starting at the wrong end of the stick?
*Raises hand* Exactly where IS the best place to start studying the tarot?
>>Usually the Strength card
>>shows a woman taming a beast, such as a lion. In this one, there's a lion and
>>a
>>woman, but they might as well be on two different cards, and the woman looks
>>like she's in the throes of ecstasy.
>
>Sounds like the Thoth version, called
>Lust.
>
Well gee. *Blink*
>>This led me to believe that he uses keywords that may not have
>>anything to do with the meaning.
>>And notice I said "may or may not." Which should indicate that I don't know,
>>at
>>least not for sure. I can only wonder.
>
>So, perhaps you should find out. The
>traditional keywords can be found in
>The Book of Thoth, The Golden Dawn
>by Israel Regardie and the Qabalistic Tarot
>by James Wang (the last is the easiest of
>the three.)
>
Have the Golden Dawn (both versions), I can get the Thoth book, I'm quite sure,
but I'm not sure about the Wang book.
>>>Well, if you get directed to the decks upon which Rohrig is
>>>based you might do that.
>>>
>>Why not study some of the meanings in various books, such as the Golden Dawn?
>>Or
>>talk about them here?
>>Why not work with the deck, instead of dropping it and going further back?
>
>Because the most useful books are
>connected to particular decks. Even
>if you disliked them as deck, both Rider-Waite
>and Thoth are extremely useful if you're
>studying tarot symbolism. It's interesting
>to see how they worked out the puzzle.
>
I feel like my brain is trying to make its way through mud when doing this
thread of discussion. That and I'm on edge just waiting for someone to flame up.
Okay, so why doesn't someone write a useful book that isn't connected to a
particular deck? Is this infeasable?
I feel like a ninny.
Oh, and I have a question, because this came up in discussion with a friend of
mine. She thinks that tarot and qabalah have absolutely nothing to do with each
other, and shouldn't be put together at all, and adding the runes to the mix is
almost an unpardonable sin. On the other hand, I think that mixing qabbala with
tarot is a very useful and valid thing to do, and even though runes aren't
associated with the cards now, they may end up becoming associated later, and I
have no problem with this. She thinks that the tarot should and can be studied
without the caballa (yes I'm doing that on purpose), but I think that the
combination is quite valid and useful.
I'm not asking who's wrong or right in their statements and ideas. I realize a
whole thread of discussion (and flaming) came up about kabala and the tarot.
What it was about in specific though, I can't remember. I'm wondering a few
things though: 1)What's the history of cabbalah and tarot, 2) can the tarot be
studied w/o the QBLh at this point, 3) why?
That's it, I think.
>--margaret
>
Thanks margaret. :)
Tratichema Colbiras
>I feel like a ninny.
>
>Oh, and I have a question, because this came up in discussion with a friend of
>mine. She thinks that tarot and qabalah have absolutely nothing to do with each
>other, and shouldn't be put together at all, and adding the runes to the mix is
>almost an unpardonable sin. On the other hand, I think that mixing qabbala with
>tarot is a very useful and valid thing to do, and even though runes aren't
>associated with the cards now, they may end up becoming associated later, and I
>have no problem with this. She thinks that the tarot should and can be studied
>without the caballa (yes I'm doing that on purpose), but I think that the
>combination is quite valid and useful.
>I'm not asking who's wrong or right in their statements and ideas. I realize a
>whole thread of discussion (and flaming) came up about kabala and the tarot.
>What it was about in specific though, I can't remember. I'm wondering a few
>things though: 1)What's the history of cabbalah and tarot, 2) can the tarot be
>studied w/o the QBLh at this point, 3) why?
>That's it, I think.
>
Took me long enough to figure it out...
It's feeling out of my league on a subject! Ah ha!!! *Me places his lightbulb
atop his head appropriately.*
Great... Now what? *The lightbulb blinks.*
-TC
Tarotpoppa
>MLYoung wrote in message <19990513151126...@ng-fp1.aol.com>...
>>colbiras wrote:
>>>So, why not find the orignal and mass produce that one again?
>>>If you say it's the Thoth or the Waite I'm not going to be happy.
>>>
>>Why? They're not the first tarot decks,
>>but they are the most influential and
>>most developed symbolically.
>>
>Well... the Waite is typical, everywhere... and I really just don't like the
>imagery on it.
>And with Thoth? *Opening CanOWorms* Well, I tend to think that Crowley was a
>bit
>of a loon... (also quite prolific and possibly a genius, but not quite the
>good
>kind of genius... like mad scientist/magician kind). And the Thoth deck...
>*sigh*
Unfortunately, the deck that Albert Einstein and Mother Theresa created is
unavailable at this time. *sigh*
***Disclaimer***
Let me preface my remarks by saying that I have been studying tarot for about a
year, so these are the opinions of a newbie. That said:
Put kindly, Crowley was "eccentric." He was also a dedicated occultist,
hedonist, charlatan, saint, devil, pervert, poet, and a record setting mountain
climber, among other things. Say what you will, the deck that he and Lady
Harris created seems _to me_ to be the one with the most depth and honest
symbolism around.
<snip>
>I'll stop bitching now. :)
>*Pauses and thinks* ...Uhm, maybe I'm starting at the wrong end of the stick?
>*Raises hand* Exactly where IS the best place to start studying the tarot?
That is the right question. IMO, you start by deciding what you want to do
with tarot. There are many uses, from playing "78 Pick Up", to "Toss the Cards
into a Hat" to ... , maybe revelation, union with the Great Whatsis, spiritual
development, levitation ...
(Changing the order of your post)
>I want a deck
>that has kabbalistic symbology, since I LIKE that stuff (ceremonial,
>hermetic,
>high, GD, whatever).
Seems like that answers that question. This limits your selection, which is
nice when you consider how many packs are out there.
If I might digress for a moment, let's look at the discussion about "gay"
symbolism in the Tarot pack, in particular, as regards Key VI, The Lovers. The
complaint was that gays (or one particular gay) can't identify with hetero
symbolism on this card.
There are tarot "readers" who just look at the cards and make up a meaning from
the picture. In my mind, I call this the "GoJo school", named after our
village idiot. She proudly proclaimed that she never had to look in a book,
she just "connected" with the cards and THAT IS WHAT TAROT IS ALL ABOUT.
(lololol) In a way, I think that this is a valid way to use the cards. If
this is how you are using them, I don't think that you really need "Tarot"
cards at all. Howard (I think) suggested that he could take his junk mail and
give each piece a meaning and then he wouldn't have to buy a deck.
On the other hand, if you look at the Thoth deck, you see that the card shows a
union of opposites. The card is attributed to the zodiac sign of Gemini. This
is the marraige of the Empress (III-Venus) and the Emperor (IV-Aries). There
is also alchemical symbolism, which is completed on the Art (XIV-Sagittarius).
There is also the occult psychological implication of self consciousness
communicating with super-consciousness through the subconscious. There are
Qabalistic numeralogical associations, an association with a path on the Tree
of Life, and a correspondence to a letter of the Hebrew alphabet. And lots
more!
You could use this deck for fortune telling, and always read this card as "a
love affair" or "a choice must be made." But, when you say:
>I want a deck
>that has kabbalistic symbology, since I LIKE that stuff (ceremonial,
>hermetic,
>high, GD, whatever).
I have to believe that you want more. To me, saying that one needs a gay
Lovers card to use a Tarot deck, is like saying that one can't use a garden
hose because it has a male and a female end. The point here is that
male/female, masculine/feminine, Force/Form is just as necessary to get a full
understanding of the symbolism that you want in a deck, as it is necessary to
understand that the male end connects to the female end of the garden hose (
hose pipe, for the UK).
>>>Usually the Strength card
>>>shows a woman taming a beast, such as a lion. In this one, there's a lion
>and
>>>a
>>>woman, but they might as well be on two different cards, and the woman
>looks
>>>like she's in the throes of ecstasy.
>>
>>Sounds like the Thoth version, called
>>Lust.
Actually, in the Thoth version, they don't look like they belong in different
cards, they look like they might have to be surgically separated.
<snip>>
>I feel like my brain is trying to make its way through mud when doing this
>thread of discussion. That and I'm on edge just waiting for someone to flame
>up.
Generally, flames only come to those who beg for them, at least from most of
the regulars. Kudzu, Jonny/Jack, & GoJo will flame to sound cute, and of
course there is no censorship here, but if you consider the source and don't
come in thinking you know all the answers, you really don't have to worry about
asbestos BVD's.
>Okay, so why doesn't someone write a useful book that isn't connected to a
>particular deck? Is this infeasable?
It's been done a lot. This is about as useful to the serious student as a book
about philosophy that is not about any particular philosophy.
>I feel like a ninny.
Truly, the start of all wisdom. I get that feeling a lot, but I am taking
steps to correct it.
>Oh, and I have a question, because this came up in discussion with a friend
>of
>mine. She thinks that tarot and qabalah have absolutely nothing to do with
>each
>other, and shouldn't be put together at all, and adding the runes to the mix
>is
>almost an unpardonable sin.
Is she a Qabalist, a Runist(?), and an expert on Tarot?
>On the other hand, I think that mixing qabbala
>with
>tarot is a very useful and valid thing to do, and even though runes aren't
>associated with the cards now, they may end up becoming associated later, and
>I
>have no problem with this. She thinks that the tarot should and can be
>studied
>without the caballa (yes I'm doing that on purpose), but I think that the
>combination is quite valid and useful.
>I'm not asking who's wrong or right in their statements and ideas. I realize
>a
>whole thread of discussion (and flaming) came up about kabala and the tarot.
What it was about in specific though, I can't remember.
Oh, quit with the flaming bit. Of all the Mystical disciplines associated with
Tarot, the Qabalah comes closest to a "one to one" fit, IMHO. There is a HUGE
amount of literature on this, once again, some good, some ridiculous. As we
like to say, "Read Skeptically."
> I'm wondering a few things though:
> 1)What's the history of cabbalah and tarot
> 2) can the tarot be studied w/o the QBLh at this point
> 3) why?
I'll leave that to those more knowledgeable than myself. However, on the
subject of post Thoth/Waite-Smith/Case-Parke decks, I honestly do believe that
someone will come along and do a better deck someday. As to what this pack
should be like, let me just quote old Uncle Al the Loon (from the Book of
Thoth):
"It has consequently been the endeavour of the present Scribe to preserve those
essential features of the Tarot which are independent of the periodic changes
of the Aeon, while bringing up to date those dogmatic and artistic features of
the Tarot which have become unintelligible. The art of progress is to keep
intact the Eternal; yet to adopt an advance-guard, perhaps in some cases almost
revolutionary, position in respect of such accidents as are subject to the
empire of Time."
Please don't let the creator stand in the way of appreciating the creation. If
you did, you would probably never enjoy music, literature, or art.
Patrick
"I knew I had to ask him 'bout the mysteries of life
"He spit between his boots and he replied,
"He said son, 'It's faster horses, younger women
"'Older whiskey, more money.'" T. T. Hall
MLYoung
?
>>>If you say it's the Thoth or the Waite I'm not going to be happy.
>>>
>>Why? They're not the first tarot decks,
>>but they are the most influential and
>>most developed symbolically.
>>
>Well... the Waite is typical, everywhere... and I really just don't like the
>imagery on it.
>And with Thoth? *Opening CanOWorms* Well, I tend to think that Crowley was a
>bit
>of a loon... (also quite prolific and possibly a genius, but not quite the
>good
>kind of genius... like mad scientist/magician kind). And the Thoth deck...
>*sigh*
Look, I can't stand the guy's writing
style, but he offers a better discussion
of occult tarot than anyone. You're
not required to agree with him, but it's
useful to know what he says.
>You know, this is a good example of me holding onto some predjudices that
>I've
>recently dealt with, and don't quite want to let go of.
Yep. But trust me, things will get easier
when you do.
>On another note, I have been informed that "I shouldn't study/use the Thoth
>deck" because I have no discapline. This is
Hell, neither did Beastie boy.
from a friend of mine who knows
>me
>very well. I'll admit I don't have a lot of discapline, but then again, I'm
>getting sick of her reminding me that I have no discapline, when I'm working
>on
>improving that.
If you're interested, discipline won't
be a problem. That's usually how it
works.
>Now me? I don't care if I do or don't have any discapline, and I don't care
>if
>my friend thinks I do or don't.. All I want is to find a deck that I like,
>and
>can study extensively, get to know very well, and use very well. I want a
>deck
>that has kabbalistic symbology, since I LIKE that stuff (ceremonial,
>hermetic,
>high, GD, whatever).
>I thought Rohrig just might satisfy those criteria. Am I wrong?
>I'd like to study tarot... I'll even go so far as to say I'd study the Thoth,
>given the chance and the resources. I'd prefer a deck as symbolically rich as
>the Thoth instead though... but hey, whatever.
Well, there's the problem. Thoth and
Waite-Smith are the symbolically richest
decks and later decks are pretty much
derivative. It's a little like trying to
study art history while ignoring the
Renaissance.
The plus side is that if you get a grasp
of the Thoth and R-W symbolism, other
decks are pretty much a piece of cake.
>
>I'll stop bitching now. :)
>*Pauses and thinks* ...Uhm, maybe I'm starting at the wrong end of the stick?
>*Raises hand* Exactly where IS the best place to start studying the tarot?
Start with the FAQ, it has a reading list.
And you can ask here.
>>The Book of Thoth, The Golden Dawn
>>by Israel Regardie and the Qabalistic Tarot
>>by James Wang (the last is the easiest of
>>the three.)
>>
>Have the Golden Dawn (both versions), I can get the Thoth book, I'm quite
>sure,
>but I'm not sure about the Wang book.
It's the least important, it's just kind of
a nice intro. --particularly if you're
unfamiliar with the various occult
systems. Still, you have the Regardie
and that helps.
>
>>
>>Because the most useful books are
>>connected to particular decks. Even
>>if you disliked them as deck, both Rider-Waite
>>and Thoth are extremely useful if you're
>>studying tarot symbolism. It's interesting
>>to see how they worked out the puzzle.
>>
>I feel like my brain is trying to make its way through mud when doing this
>thread of discussion. That and I'm on edge just waiting for someone to flame
>up.
No, we make allowances for honest
effort. You answered jk's questions instead
of going off in a huff, that saved you
several flames right there.
>Okay, so why doesn't someone write a useful book that isn't connected to a
>particular deck? Is this infeasable?
Yes. In order to get into any depth
of discussion regarding the symbolism,
you need to discuss specifics and that
means a specific deck.
Once again, though, try the Wang--he
compares four decks with each card,
so that will help.
>
>I feel like a ninny.
It's not easy to get the right info,
unfortunately.
>
>Oh, and I have a question, because this came up in discussion with a friend
>of
>mine. She thinks that tarot and qabalah have absolutely nothing to do with
>each
>other, and shouldn't be put together at all,
Well, they probably didn't back when
tarocchi was a popular game. However,
occult tarot (the divinatory stuff) has been
linked to kabbalism since its inception.
and adding the runes to the mix
>is
>almost an unpardonable sin. On the other
Depends if it's done well. So far, no
dice.
hand, I think that mixing qabbala
>with
>tarot is a very useful and valid thing to do, and even though runes aren't
>associated with the cards now, they may end up becoming associated later, and
>I
>have no problem with this. She thinks that the tarot should and can be
>studied
>without the caballa (yes I'm doing that on purpose), but I think that the
>combination is quite valid and useful.
>I'm not asking who's wrong or right in their statements and ideas. I realize
>a
>whole thread of discussion (and flaming) came up about kabala and the tarot.
>What it was about in specific though, I can't remember. I'm wondering a few
>things though: 1)What's the history of cabbalah and tarot, 2) can the tarot
>be
>studied w/o the QBLh at this point, 3) why?
>That's it, I think.
Definitely look for the Wang. Crowley
discusses the linking, though I find the
discussion arcane. Cynthia Giles'
Tarot: History, Mystery and Lore is a
nice history of tarot worth reading, though
jk has little patience with part 2. I think
it's still in the FAQ. And, no, it's not
deck specific.
--margaret
>
>>--margaret
>>
>Thanks margaret. :)
>
>
>
>
>
>
Tratichema Colbiras
>>good
>>kind of genius... like mad scientist/magician kind). And the Thoth deck...
>>*sigh*
>
>Unfortunately, the deck that Albert Einstein and Mother Theresa created is
>unavailable at this time. *sigh*
>
>***Disclaimer***
>Let me preface my remarks by saying that I have been studying tarot for about a
>year, so these are the opinions of a newbie. That said:
>
Well, you're better than me then, since I've just been gleaning and glancing (as
opposed to seriously studying) for a couple of years now.
>Put kindly, Crowley was "eccentric." He was also a dedicated occultist,
>hedonist, charlatan, saint, devil, pervert, poet, and a record setting mountain
>climber, among other things. Say what you will, the deck that he and Lady
>Harris created seems _to me_ to be the one with the most depth and honest
>symbolism around.
>
Which apparently everyone agrees on, so Uncle Al MUST have done SOMETHING right.
Or Ms. Harris did... Either way, apparently the Thoth IS all it's cracked up to
be.
So I'll prolly have to go do the Thoth thing.
><snip>
>
>>I'll stop bitching now. :)
>>*Pauses and thinks* ...Uhm, maybe I'm starting at the wrong end of the stick?
>>*Raises hand* Exactly where IS the best place to start studying the tarot?
>
>That is the right question. IMO, you start by deciding what you want to do
>with tarot. There are many uses, from playing "78 Pick Up", to "Toss the Cards
>into a Hat" to ... , maybe revelation, union with the Great Whatsis, spiritual
>development, levitation ...
>
*S*
Uhm... Having to think about it and put it into a concrete answer... Use in
ceremonies (although now that I think about it, Rohrig'll do that just fine)
serious study, use in divination for myself and others, and as a part of
furthering my self-education in kabalah/high magick.
>(Changing the order of your post)
>
Well fine then. Be that way. Hrmph.
>>I want a deck
>>that has kabbalistic symbology, since I LIKE that stuff (ceremonial,
>>hermetic,
>>high, GD, whatever).
>
>Seems like that answers that question. This limits your selection, which is
>nice when you consider how many packs are out there.
>
*smirk* Yeah... I do that.
>If I might digress for a moment, let's look at the discussion about "gay"
>symbolism in the Tarot pack, in particular, as regards Key VI, The Lovers. The
>complaint was that gays (or one particular gay) can't identify with hetero
>symbolism on this card.
>
You know, I never gave it a thought? So someone makes a deck with a man and a
woman getting it on... ask me if I care. Go ahead, ask me. I have the answer
written down here somewhere.
Besides which, I can identify with the "hetero symbolism" of the card. If I
didn't grasp all the stuff you mentioned below consciously, I suppose I did
subconsciously.
>You could use this deck for fortune telling, and always read this card as "a
>love affair" or "a choice must be made." But, when you say:
>
>>I want a deck
>>that has kabbalistic symbology, since I LIKE that stuff (ceremonial,
>>hermetic,
>>high, GD, whatever).
>
>I have to believe that you want more. To me, saying that one needs a gay
>Lovers card to use a Tarot deck, is like saying that one can't use a garden
>hose because it has a male and a female end. The point here is that
>male/female, masculine/feminine, Force/Form is just as necessary to get a full
>understanding of the symbolism that you want in a deck, as it is necessary to
>understand that the male end connects to the female end of the garden hose (
>hose pipe, for the UK).
>
So the way I'm understandng what you're saying is... *double checks and thinks
about it*
"You're gay, but unconsciously you really feel wrong and want to be hetero, deep
down. You want more, you want to realize your straightness." and "in order to
read the tarot you have to understand the interaction of male and female on all
levels, so you naturally have to be straight."
Now I could be wrong of course, but that's the way it looks to me.
I never said I needed a gay Lovers card, at any point, on any level. I made it
clear that all the superflous breasts floating (and I do mean literally
floating) around in the Rohrig was really weird to me, but it wasn't freaky. If
it was freaky I wouldn't have gotten the deck. *Smirk*
Someone else might have said they needed a gay Lovers card. I could care less if
the Lovers card is two aliens bumping their heads together for sexual pleasure.
*Rolling eyes*
NEXT!
>>>Sounds like the Thoth version, called
>>>Lust.
>
>Actually, in the Thoth version, they don't look like they belong in different
>cards, they look like they might have to be surgically separated.
>
Details details...*snicker*
><snip>>
>
>>I feel like my brain is trying to make its way through mud when doing this
>>thread of discussion. That and I'm on edge just waiting for someone to flame
>>up.
>
>Generally, flames only come to those who beg for them, at least from most of
>the regulars. Kudzu, Jonny/Jack, & GoJo will flame to sound cute, and of
>course there is no censorship here, but if you consider the source and don't
>come in thinking you know all the answers, you really don't have to worry about
>asbestos BVD's.
>
Ah. I see. (Said the blind man as he picked up the hammer and saw.)
> >I feel like a ninny.
>
>Truly, the start of all wisdom. I get that feeling a lot, but I am taking
>steps to correct it.
>
*Amused look*
>>mine. She thinks that tarot and qabalah have absolutely nothing to do with
>>each
>>other, and shouldn't be put together at all, and adding the runes to the mix
>>is
>>almost an unpardonable sin.
>
>Is she a Qabalist, a Runist(?), and an expert on Tarot?
>
She's a Wiccan and incredibly (I mean it's scary sometimes) good tarot reader.
She uses the Cat People tarot primarily, but also has the Spirit deck (Has the
Mystery card in it), and a round one I can never remember the name of, but I'm
sure is PoMo, based on the Mother peace, and has a lot of gods and goddesses in
it. Well, goddesses. It just has one god, Pan.
>>whole thread of discussion (and flaming) came up about kabala and the tarot.
>What it was about in specific though, I can't remember.
>
>Oh, quit with the flaming bit. Of all the Mystical disciplines associated with
>Tarot, the Qabalah comes closest to a "one to one" fit, IMHO. There is a HUGE
>amount of literature on this, once again, some good, some ridiculous. As we
>like to say, "Read Skeptically."
>
Well fine then! I'm just being hyper-vigilant!
Reading skeptically. There's an idea. *Smirk*
>> I'm wondering a few things though:
>> 1)What's the history of cabbalah and tarot
>> 2) can the tarot be studied w/o the QBLh at this point
>> 3) why?
>
>I'll leave that to those more knowledgeable than myself. However, on the
>subject of post Thoth/Waite-Smith/Case-Parke decks, I honestly do believe that
>someone will come along and do a better deck someday. As to what this pack
>should be like, let me just quote old Uncle Al the Loon (from the Book of
>Thoth):
>
>"It has consequently been the endeavour of the present Scribe to preserve those
>essential features of the Tarot which are independent of the periodic changes
>of the Aeon, while bringing up to date those dogmatic and artistic features of
>the Tarot which have become unintelligible. The art of progress is to keep
>intact the Eternal; yet to adopt an advance-guard, perhaps in some cases almost
>revolutionary, position in respect of such accidents as are subject to the
>empire of Time."
>
>Please don't let the creator stand in the way of appreciating the creation. If
>you did, you would probably never enjoy music, literature, or art.
>
Good point.
-tc
Tratichema Colbiras
MLYoung wrote in message <19990514023730...@ng40.aol.com>...
>Colbiras wrote:
>>Well... the Waite is typical, everywhere... and I really just don't like the
>>imagery on it.
>>And with Thoth? *Opening CanOWorms* Well, I tend to think that Crowley was a
>>bit
>>of a loon... (also quite prolific and possibly a genius, but not quite the
>>good
>>kind of genius... like mad scientist/magician kind). And the Thoth deck...
>>*sigh*
>
>Look, I can't stand the guy's writing
>style, but he offers a better discussion
>of occult tarot than anyone. You're
>not required to agree with him, but it's
>useful to know what he says.
>
been led to believe.
As long as you don't do what he did, which gods only know everything good and
bad he did. Eeek! :)
>>You know, this is a good example of me holding onto some predjudices that
>>I've
>>recently dealt with, and don't quite want to let go of.
>
>Yep. But trust me, things will get easier
>when you do.
>
Yeah, so I've noticed. *G*
>>On another note, I have been informed that "I shouldn't study/use the Thoth
>>deck" because I have no discapline. This is
>Hell, neither did Beastie boy.
>
ROFL! Thank you! You just gave me the perfect retort/answer to my friend! And
you're right too, which is the best part! *L*
>from a friend of mine who knows
>>me
>>very well. I'll admit I don't have a lot of discapline, but then again, I'm
>>getting sick of her reminding me that I have no discapline, when I'm working
>>on
>>improving that.
>
>If you're interested, discipline won't
>be a problem. That's usually how it
>works.
>
*nod* I've noticed that one too.
>>I thought Rohrig just might satisfy those criteria. Am I wrong?
>>I'd like to study tarot... I'll even go so far as to say I'd study the Thoth,
>>given the chance and the resources. I'd prefer a deck as symbolically rich as
>>the Thoth instead though... but hey, whatever.
>
>Well, there's the problem. Thoth and
>Waite-Smith are the symbolically richest
>decks and later decks are pretty much
>derivative. It's a little like trying to
>study art history while ignoring the
>Renaissance.
>
My dear friend is very knowledgable ---Wait, stop tha train of thought. I can
hear the replies now. "She's incredibly knowledable about specific decks. Does
she know the history? Does she know alternate meanings from other decks? Does
she understand the use of other symbols and symbol system?"
Once again, I have to remind myself that though I know she's not an authority on
anything, SHE'S NOT AN AUTHORITY! Duh. *Smaks forehead.*
>The plus side is that if you get a grasp
>of the Thoth and R-W symbolism, other
>decks are pretty much a piece of cake.
>
Ah hah... That could be useful!
>>
>>I'll stop bitching now. :)
>>*Pauses and thinks* ...Uhm, maybe I'm starting at the wrong end of the stick?
>>*Raises hand* Exactly where IS the best place to start studying the tarot?
>
>Start with the FAQ, it has a reading list.
>And you can ask here.
>
:) Thankyou. :)
>>Have the Golden Dawn (both versions), I can get the Thoth book, I'm quite
>>sure,
>>but I'm not sure about the Wang book.
>
>It's the least important, it's just kind of
>a nice intro. --particularly if you're
>unfamiliar with the various occult
>systems. Still, you have the Regardie
>and that helps.
>
Cool.
>>I feel like my brain is trying to make its way through mud when doing this
>>thread of discussion. That and I'm on edge just waiting for someone to flame
>>up.
>
>No, we make allowances for honest
>effort. You answered jk's questions instead
>of going off in a huff, that saved you
>several flames right there.
>
Well I figured that rising to the occasion or whatever would be a good idea. Not
that it was easy!
>>Okay, so why doesn't someone write a useful book that isn't connected to a
>>particular deck? Is this infeasable?
>
>Yes. In order to get into any depth
>of discussion regarding the symbolism,
>you need to discuss specifics and that
>means a specific deck.
>
Ah.
>Once again, though, try the Wang--he
>compares four decks with each card,
>so that will help.
>
I'll look him up at the bookstore today. :)
>>I feel like a ninny.
>
>It's not easy to get the right info,
>unfortunately.
>
I've noticed that too. *eG*
>>mine. She thinks that tarot and qabalah have absolutely nothing to do with
>>each
>>other, and shouldn't be put together at all,
>
>Well, they probably didn't back when
>tarocchi was a popular game. However,
>occult tarot (the divinatory stuff) has been
>linked to kabbalism since its inception.
>
Which I tried to tell her, but wasn't good at it. My memory on the subject was
foggy.
>and adding the runes to the mix
>>is
>>almost an unpardonable sin. On the other
>
>Depends if it's done well. So far, no
>dice.
>
Just call Odin. *G*
>>whole thread of discussion (and flaming) came up about kabala and the tarot.
>>What it was about in specific though, I can't remember. I'm wondering a few
>>things though: 1)What's the history of cabbalah and tarot, 2) can the tarot
>>be
>>studied w/o the QBLh at this point, 3) why?
>>That's it, I think.
>
>Definitely look for the Wang. Crowley
>discusses the linking, though I find the
>discussion arcane. Cynthia Giles'
>Tarot: History, Mystery and Lore is a
>nice history of tarot worth reading, though
>jk has little patience with part 2. I think
>it's still in the FAQ. And, no, it's not
>deck specific.
>
Well, like I said, I'll look up the Wang book at the bookstore today, since I'll
be near there. The others'll have to wait, since I don't have the money. I'm one
of those starving college students you hear about frequently.
Once again, thanks margaret. :)
-Colbi
Paul Hughes-Barlow
>a documentary on tarot, and ended up interviewing a number of
>people, including Michael Dummett, and Stuart Kaplan. Stuart
>in describing the importance of the Waite deck virtually ignored
>A. E. Waite, treating him almost as if he had just ordered
>the deck up from the artist on a lark. He instead waxed long
>about Smith's efforts and said nothing much at all about
>how Waite guided her through the process of articulating
>a specific system of symbolism.
same thing in an appendix, quoting Kaplan in several places.
Her is her spin:
"Pamela Colman Smith, as another of the magical women of the Golden
Dawn, left an important legacy to all magicians through her Tarot
deck, especially in her forty number-cards of the Minor Arcana -
whether assisted by Florence or not. Whereas the Major Arcana either
follow tradition of clearly break from it in places to immortalize
Waite's personal vision, the Minor number-cards are original works
that were only loosely imagined by Waite _if at all_."
I remember Greer minimalising the influence of Crowley to a footnote
in the Thoth deck.
Paul
Paul
Medusa8S8S
>So the way I'm understandng what you're saying is... *double checks and
>thinks
>about it*
>"You're gay, but unconsciously you really feel wrong and want to be hetero,
>deep
>down. You want more, you want to realize your straightness." and "in order to
>read the tarot you have to understand the interaction of male and female on
>all
>levels, so you naturally have to be straight."
>Now I could be wrong of course, but that's the way it looks to me.
Amazing, absolutely amazing...
If this is how you took what was (very sensibly) said to you, I think you need
more help, and of a different nature, than anyone in this group can provide for
you.
Celebrate!
KatyRose (truly stunned)
Tarotpoppa
>Patrick wrote
>>You could use this deck for fortune telling, and always read this card as "a
>>love affair" or "a choice must be made." But, when you say:
>>
>>>I want a deck
>>>that has kabbalistic symbology, since I LIKE that stuff (ceremonial,
>>>hermetic,
>>>high, GD, whatever).
>>
>>I have to believe that you want more.
I mean that I believe you want more of the Tarot than fortune telling.
>>I have to believe that you want more. To me, saying that one needs a gay
>>Lovers card to use a Tarot deck, is like saying that one can't use a garden
>>hose because it has a male and a female end. The point here is that
>>male/female, masculine/feminine, Force/Form is just as necessary to get a
>full
>>understanding of the symbolism that you want in a deck, as it is necessary
>to
>>understand that the male end connects to the female end of the garden hose (
>>hose pipe, for the UK).
>>
>So the way I'm understandng what you're saying is... *double checks and
>thinks
>about it*
>"You're gay, but unconsciously you really feel wrong and want to be hetero,
>deep
>down. You want more, you want to realize your straightness." and "in order to
>read the tarot you have to understand the interaction of male and female on
>all
>levels, so you naturally have to be straight."
>Now I could be wrong of course, but that's the way it looks to me.
>
No, I'm saying that your sexual preference has no more to do with the Tarot
than it has to do with your ability to correctly hook up a garden hose (male
end inserted _into_ female end). The symbol is used, both in Tarot and in
plumbing, because we already understand how it works.
I NEVER got the impression that you had any latent hetero tendencies. You've
been pretty clear on your feelings there. Your sexual preference is irrelevant
to this conversation, and to the occult.
>I never said I needed a gay Lovers card, at any point, on any level. I made
>it
>clear that all the superflous breasts floating (and I do mean literally
>floating) around in the Rohrig was really weird to me, but it wasn't freaky.
>If
>it was freaky I wouldn't have gotten the deck. *Smirk*
>Someone else might have said they needed a gay Lovers card. I could care less
>if
>the Lovers card is two aliens bumping their heads together for sexual
>pleasure.
>*Rolling eyes*
That was in reference to starbros and Fred on a couple of other threads. I
didn't mean to imply that you had said it. Sorry.
Patrick
"Communication breakdown. It's always the same." Page, Jones & Bonham
Jack Humphry
>So, perhaps you should find out. The
>traditional keywords can be found in
>by Israel Regardie and the Qabalistic Tarot
>by James Wang (the last is the easiest of
>the three.)
Actually, his name is "Robert" Wang.
MLYoung
>that were only loosely imagined by Waite _if at all_."
>
>I remember Greer minimalising the influence of Crowley to a footnote
>in the Thoth deck.
>
So, does anyone know what the source
is for the narratives in the Waite-Smith
minors cited in Kaplan's Encyclopedia?
I ask this question annually--so far,
no answers.
--margaret
MLYoung
First, don't sweat the Lovers stuff.
You came in right after a fracas with
a guy who was in a tizzy about having
the correct sort of Lovers. If you
read up on the cards, you'll find that
the man and the woman are representing
male and female principles as seen on
the tree of life, thus female = form, male
= force. Naturally, all of us, male or female,
are both, so the thing to keep in mind about
the lovers being a mixed set is that they're
representing a combining of the two
elements of creation. Other cards,
such as the World and Temperance are
hermaphrodites--very, very combined. <g>
It's also a major alchemical reference, which
I'll spare you right now.
So, guys, lay off colbie here, he's not
responsible for our Cosmic Tribe dude.
Neither is Fred or even starbros. Funny,
I've blanked out on the perp's name . . .
>You're
>>not required to agree with him, but it's
>>useful to know what he says.
>>
>I'm getting the impression that he's a better source of information than I've
>been led to believe.
>As long as you don't do what he did, which gods only know everything good and
>bad he did. Eeek! :)
Well, given his propensity to talk about
everything, I suspect we do know what
he did. But, yeah, he's a good source,
though the egocentrism can get in the
way.
>>Well, there's the problem. Thoth and
>>Waite-Smith are the symbolically richest
>>decks and later decks are pretty much
>>derivative. It's a little like trying to
>>study art history while ignoring the
>>Renaissance.
>>
>My dear friend is very knowledgable ---Wait, stop tha train of thought. I can
>hear the replies now. "She's incredibly knowledable about specific decks.
>Does
>she know the history? Does she know alternate meanings from other decks? Does
>she understand the use of other symbols and symbol system?"
>Once again, I have to remind myself that though I know she's not an authority
>on
>anything, SHE'S NOT AN AUTHORITY! Duh. *Smaks forehead.*
Well, worse than that, if she's a Wiccan,
she's got an agenda. Most Goddess
worshipper types don't know or don't
want to acknowledge the patriarchal
roots of their faith and activities.
The decks your friend uses are *all*
based on the Golden Dawn school of
divination and GD (both Rider-Waite
and Thoth are rooted in the Golden Dawn)
tarot meanings are rooted in kabbalism.
I could pick up any of your friend's decks
and read with them. The goddess-y
changes tend to be very superficial.
>>>mine. She thinks that tarot and qabalah have absolutely nothing to do with
>>>each
>>>other, and shouldn't be put together at all,
>>
>>Well, they probably didn't back when
>>tarocchi was a popular game. However,
>>occult tarot (the divinatory stuff) has been
>>linked to kabbalism since its inception.
>>
>Which I tried to tell her, but wasn't good at it. My memory on the subject
>was
>foggy.
>
It will become easier when you actually
study the links.
>Once again, thanks margaret. :)
>-Colbi
You're welcome, good luck.
--margaret
MLYoung
>>by Israel Regardie and the Qabalistic Tarot
>>by James Wang (the last is the easiest of
>>the three.)
>
>Actually, his name is "Robert" Wang.
>
Whatever makes your day, dear.
--margaret
Jack Humphry
MLYoung wrote in message
<19990514174208...@ng-fv1.aol.com>...
Oh Margaret, do you really think that made my day?
Surely you can't really beleive that. I would much
prefer to make peace at very least, but you don't
seem interested. Fair enough, I guess.
MLYoung
>Surely you can't really beleive that. I would much
>prefer to make peace at very least, but you don't
>seem interested. Fair enough, I guess.
Kid, you're a liar, a brat and a forger, why on
earth would I have *any* interest in
making peace with a little shit like you?
You really don't get it.
--margaret
Jonathan
MLYoung wrote in message
<19990515045729...@ng-fb1.aol.com>...
Figures, oh well.
>You really don't get it.
Get what? What is there to get?
Fred Hageman
wrote:
>That was in reference to starbros and Fred on a couple of other threads. I
>didn't mean to imply that you had said it. Sorry.
Oh dear. Seeing myself and starbros linked like this is disturbing,
especially when I can't imagine what I said to make it possible and
can't find anything in the thread that gives me an understanding of
why you've done so. Can you clarify what you meant?
Fred
Fred Hageman
wrote:
>Put kindly, Crowley was "eccentric." He was also a dedicated occultist,
>hedonist, charlatan, saint, devil, pervert, poet, and a record setting mountain
>climber, among other things.
Please explain how you can say someone is a dedicated saint while also
being a dedicated hedonist, charlatan, devil and pervert. This seems
in outright contradiction to any mystical system which has fallen
within my investigation.
>Say what you will, the deck that he and Lady
>Harris created seems _to me_ to be the one with the most depth and honest
>symbolism around.
Please explain how you have come to decide that a dedicated charlatan,
devil, and pervert would arrive at creating the most honest symbolism
around. And if you can, maybe you can give an example of how the
symbolism contained in the Marseille deck and its many cousins is less
"honest" than what crowely grafted onto the deck. A definition of what
you mean by honest symbolism as opposed to dishonest symbolism and how
these terms apply might also be helpful.
>There is also the occult psychological implication of self consciousness
>communicating with super-consciousness through the subconscious.
Perhaps a definition of terms is needed here. I'm puzzling over how
self-consciousness communicates with the superconsciousness when it is
self-consciousness which inhibits one from experiencing
superconsciousness in the first place. Can you explain?
>I'll leave that to those more knowledgeable than myself. However, on the
>subject of post Thoth/Waite-Smith/Case-Parke decks, I honestly do believe that
>someone will come along and do a better deck someday.
This is my certainly my hope.
I've not seen Case's deck, (or if I have, did not know it by name) but
when I went to get my deck upon deciding to investigate tarot, I knew
nothing at all about any deck except that I had heard the name Waite
before, so I looked for it amongst the decks. The shop I went to had
about fifty decks on display and as I started poking around through
them, I found myself having a hard time with many of them from an
aesthetic pov.
I especially found the new-agey decks and their cheesy depictions
unnatractive. I wasn't attracted to Waite at all, and still am not,
but there were two decks that stand out as the worst of the bunch as
far as my wanting nothing to do with them.
The first was round and this struck me as silly, as did the
illustrations. The other deck struck me as having "something" which I
found repellent, call it a vibe or attitude or whatever. It just felt
it was "off" in the extreme. It seemed to me to be the epitome of
everything I disliked about what I have since learned is diesignated
as pomo.
After spending a few minutes deriding them, fugured I'd better quit
before I began expanding my derision to tarot in general. So, I went
to what did appeal to me and that was the older decks of the
Marseille/VS variety, finally choosing the Burdel deck.
The round deck I've since learned was Motherpeace and the garish
repellent one I've since learned was Thoth.
Fred
Fred Hageman
>So, guys, lay off colbie here, he's not
>responsible for our Cosmic Tribe dude.
>Neither is Fred or even starbros.
Thanks for clearing that up. I don't know how I've been associated
with any of that stuff in the first place.
>Well, worse than that, if she's a Wiccan,
>she's got an agenda. Most Goddess
>worshipper types don't know or don't
>want to acknowledge the patriarchal
>roots of their faith and activities.
Margaret, I agree with you that there are practioners of Wicca that
are guilty of what you say, but to be fair, I don't think your
characterization of "most" is accurate. Many Wiccans fully understand
and ackolwledge the patriarchal side of things, and there are many
"Goddess worshippers" who do not fall into the tradition of Wicca at
all, at least as it is regarded commonly as being traditionally
Celtic.
Fred
MLYoung
>>You really don't get it.
>
>Get what? What is there to get?
>
That people aren't going to change
their minds about you just because
you want them to.
And they're certainly not going to
forget.
--margaret
Medusa8S8S
>>You really don't get it.
>
>Get what? What is there to get?
>
The sad part is, the kid's serious...
Celebrate!
KatyRose
MLYoung
>>she's got an agenda. Most Goddess
>>worshipper types don't know or don't
>>want to acknowledge the patriarchal
>>roots of their faith and activities.
>
>Margaret, I agree with you that there are practioners of Wicca that
>are guilty of what you say, but to be fair, I don't think your
>characterization of "most" is accurate. Many Wiccans fully understand
>and ackolwledge the patriarchal side of things, and there are many
>"Goddess worshippers" who do not fall into the tradition of Wicca at
>all, at least as it is regarded commonly as being traditionally
>Celtic.
"Traditionally" ? That's part of the
problem. Modern-day Wicca is a
hodge-podge based on the fantasies
of folks like Gerald Gardiner, Robert
Graves (there's your Goddess worship
right there) and, yes, Aleister Crowley,
though most of 'em are loathe to admit
their indebtedness to one of the all-time
sexist pigs. It has almost nothing to
do with the religion of the Ancient Celts,
about which relatively little is known.
I'm sure somewhere there's a Wiccan
who actually knows history, but that's
a rara avis.
--margaret
>
>
>Fred
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Subject: Re: Rohrig?
>Path:
>lobby!newstf02.news.aol.com!portc02.blue.aol.com!bignews.mediaways.net!ne
ws-fra.pop.de!newsfeed.ecrc.net!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!cyclone.swbell.net!t
yphoon-sf.snfc21.pbi.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
>From: l...@pacbell.net (Fred Hageman)
>Newsgroups: alt.tarot
>Message-ID: <373f1a98....@news.pacbell
Tarotpoppa
>On 14 May 1999 06:36:12 GMT, tarot...@aol.comnospam (Tarotpoppa)
>wrote:
>
>>Put kindly, Crowley was "eccentric." He was also a dedicated occultist,
>>hedonist, charlatan, saint, devil, pervert, poet, and a record setting
>mountain
>>climber, among other things.
>
>Please explain how you can say someone is a dedicated saint while also
>being a dedicated hedonist, charlatan, devil and pervert. This seems
>in outright contradiction to any mystical system which has fallen
>within my investigation.
Exactly my point. From what I've read, the man was a walking contradiction,
and proudly promoted himself as all of the above. AS I UNDERSTAND what I've
read of his works, he didn't see any contradiction in being all of the above.
>>Say what you will, the deck that he and Lady
>>Harris created seems _to me_ to be the one with the most depth and honest
>>symbolism around.
>
>Please explain how you have come to decide that a dedicated charlatan,
>devil, and pervert would arrive at creating the most honest symbolism
>around.
If I could figure that one out, I wouldn't have to work for a living anymore,
would I.
> And if you can, maybe you can give an example of how the
>symbolism contained in the Marseille deck and its many cousins is less
>"honest" than what crowely grafted onto the deck. A definition of what
>you mean by honest symbolism as opposed to dishonest symbolism and how
>these terms apply might also be helpful.
Maybe you saw that I said "seems _to me_." This means that, with my limited
knowledge, that this is how it seems to me. I do not mean to imply that the
Marseille deck is dishonest, or that it is insignificant. Quite the opposite,
I think the Marseille deck is extremely important, and very useful.
In this comment, I was referring to the lengths to which Crowley and Harris had
gone to incorporate the various Golden Dawn attributions to the cards,
especially the colors associated with each. Since the question was about a
deck that included Qabalah, etc., IT SEEMS TO ME that the Crowley deck is
better suited for this purpose than the Marseille. YMMV
>>There is also the occult psychological implication of self consciousness
>>communicating with super-consciousness through the subconscious.
>
>Perhaps a definition of terms is needed here. I'm puzzling over how
>self-consciousness communicates with the superconsciousness when it is
>self-consciousness which inhibits one from experiencing
>superconsciousness in the first place. Can you explain?
Through the subconscious, silly!
Seriously, this is a doctrine of Paul Case, and it might be too lengthy and
boring to discuss here. I have only been studying BOTA doctrine for a few
months, and am by no means qualified to teach it. I add it here to show that
this card can have many more attributions than the fortune telling ones, and
that this is one of the reasons why it is important to have the figures
pictured to be male and female.
>>I'll leave that to those more knowledgeable than myself. However, on the
>>subject of post Thoth/Waite-Smith/Case-Parke decks, I honestly do believe
>that
>>someone will come along and do a better deck someday.
>
>This is my certainly my hope.
Mine too.
>I've not seen Case's deck, (or if I have, did not know it by name) but
>when I went to get my deck upon deciding to investigate tarot, I knew
>nothing at all about any deck except that I had heard the name Waite
>before, so I looked for it amongst the decks. The shop I went to had
>about fifty decks on display and as I started poking around through
>them, I found myself having a hard time with many of them from an
>aesthetic pov.
>
>I especially found the new-agey decks and their cheesy depictions
>unnatractive. I wasn't attracted to Waite at all, and still am not,
>but there were two decks that stand out as the worst of the bunch as
>far as my wanting nothing to do with them.
>
>The first was round and this struck me as silly, as did the
>illustrations. The other deck struck me as having "something" which I
>found repellent, call it a vibe or attitude or whatever. It just felt
>it was "off" in the extreme. It seemed to me to be the epitome of
>everything I disliked about what I have since learned is diesignated
>as pomo.
>
>After spending a few minutes deriding them, fugured I'd better quit
>before I began expanding my derision to tarot in general. So, I went
>to what did appeal to me and that was the older decks of the
>Marseille/VS variety, finally choosing the Burdel deck.
>
>The round deck I've since learned was Motherpeace and the garish
>repellent one I've since learned was Thoth.
>
>Fred
>
And if you are happy with the Marseille, I'm happy for you. I love my
Marseille pack (The one by Grimaud, that every card is defaced by the logo.).
My post was in response to someone who was looking for a different deck.
Patrick
"Ch ch ch ch ch changes." D. Bowie
Tarotpoppa
>(Tarotpoppa)
>wrote:
>
>
>>That was in reference to starbros and Fred on a couple of other threads. I
>>didn't mean to imply that you had said it. Sorry.
>
>
>Oh dear. Seeing myself and starbros linked like this is disturbing,
>especially when I can't imagine what I said to make it possible and
>can't find anything in the thread that gives me an understanding of
>why you've done so. Can you clarify what you meant?
>
>Fred
OOPS! Maybe I stepped on my dick again. Sorry to you.
Patrick
"I'm sorry" B.B. King
Medusa8S8S
>OOPS! Maybe I stepped on my dick again. Sorry to you.
Bragging?
I guess you must be the exception to these other guys who only wish they could
suck their own.
And here I thought you'd been named a Star because of something to do with
music or even Tarot. Silly me.
Celebrate!
KatyRose
Tratichema Colbiras
Medusa8S8S wrote in message <19990514134139...@ng-cs1.aol.com>...
>>From: "Tratichema Colbiras" <colb...@geocities.com>
>
>Amazing, absolutely amazing...
>
>If this is how you took what was (very sensibly) said to you, I think you need
>more help, and of a different nature, than anyone in this group can provide for
>you.
>
>Celebrate!
>KatyRose (truly stunned)
>
Well geez... I wasn't entirely sure okay? At first reading it seemed that that's
what he was saying. So I was wrong. I'll get to the apologizing in a second,
when I can read TP's reply again...
Tratichema Colbiras
Tarotpoppa wrote in message <19990514145817...@ng-da1.aol.com>...
>Tratichema Colbiras wrote:
>
>>>I have to believe that you want more.
>
>
something else. My mistake. *ducks head*
>No, I'm saying that your sexual preference has no more to do with the Tarot
>than it has to do with your ability to correctly hook up a garden hose (male
>end inserted _into_ female end). The symbol is used, both in Tarot and in
>plumbing, because we already understand how it works.
>
*sheepish grin* Uhm, yeah.
Gawds I feel silly...
>I NEVER got the impression that you had any latent hetero tendencies. You've
>been pretty clear on your feelings there. Your sexual preference is irrelevant
>to this conversation, and to the occult.
>
Well yes they are, and I should have thought about that one, but I didn't, and
was wrong.
Or wait... Rather, no they are not relevent to the conversation (but the occult
is another story, and that's relative).
Uhm, yeah. What you said.
>>I never said I needed a gay Lovers card, at any point, on any level. I made
>>it
>>clear that all the superflous breasts floating (and I do mean literally
>>floating) around in the Rohrig was really weird to me, but it wasn't freaky.
>>If
>>it was freaky I wouldn't have gotten the deck. *Smirk*
>>Someone else might have said they needed a gay Lovers card. I could care less
>>if
>>the Lovers card is two aliens bumping their heads together for sexual
>>pleasure.
>>*Rolling eyes*
>
>That was in reference to starbros and Fred on a couple of other threads. I
>didn't mean to imply that you had said it. Sorry.
>
I'd seen some remnants of that thread, I think, so I guess I was being somewhat
hyper-vigilant. My apologies to you, Pat.
>Patrick
>
>"Communication breakdown. It's always the same." Page, Jones & Bonham
>
*NOD!NOD!NOD!*
Pax, Amor, Lux,
Colbi
Tratichema Colbiras
MLYoung wrote in message <19990514173714...@ng-fv1.aol.com>...
>colbiras wrote:
>
>First, don't sweat the Lovers stuff.
>You came in right after a fracas with
>a guy who was in a tizzy about having
>the correct sort of Lovers. If you
>read up on the cards, you'll find that
>the man and the woman are representing
>male and female principles as seen on
>the tree of life, thus female = form, male
>= force. Naturally, all of us, male or female,
>are both, so the thing to keep in mind about
>the lovers being a mixed set is that they're
>representing a combining of the two
>elements of creation. Other cards,
>such as the World and Temperance are
>hermaphrodites--very, very combined. <g>
>
>It's also a major alchemical reference, which
>I'll spare you right now.
>
>responsible for our Cosmic Tribe dude.
>I've blanked out on the perp's name . . .
>
and I know I can be annoying. :)
I caught the tail end of whatever that fracas was, but wasn't clear on what
started it, who was participating in it, or why. Only that it concerned the
Lovers, and some sort of homosexual issues, which put a lot of people on sharp
edges. (Like I said,) I guess I've been a bit hyper-vigilant about stuff like
that, at least unconsciously.
>>You're
>>>not required to agree with him, but it's
>>>useful to know what he says.
>>>
>>I'm getting the impression that he's a better source of information than I've
>>been led to believe.
>>As long as you don't do what he did, which gods only know everything good and
>>bad he did. Eeek! :)
>
>Well, given his propensity to talk about
>everything, I suspect we do know what
>he did. But, yeah, he's a good source,
>though the egocentrism can get in the
>way.
>
Ego? What ego? Uncle Al was egocentric? NO!!! *Gasp*
>>>Well, there's the problem. Thoth and
>>>Waite-Smith are the symbolically richest
>>>decks and later decks are pretty much
>>>derivative. It's a little like trying to
>>>study art history while ignoring the
>>>Renaissance.
>>>
>>My dear friend is very knowledgable ---Wait, stop tha train of thought. I can
>>hear the replies now. "She's incredibly knowledable about specific decks.
>>Does
>>she know the history? Does she know alternate meanings from other decks? Does
>>she understand the use of other symbols and symbol system?"
>>Once again, I have to remind myself that though I know she's not an authority
>>on
>>anything, SHE'S NOT AN AUTHORITY! Duh. *Smaks forehead.*
>
>Well, worse than that, if she's a Wiccan,
>
You could say, "devout." *Nod*
>she's got an agenda. Most Goddess
>worshipper types don't know or don't
>want to acknowledge the patriarchal
>roots of their faith and activities.
>
I don't think she has an agenda. *Shrug* Though I think she knows about and
acknowledges the patriarchal roots of Wicca, not that she cares. I haven't heard
much on these patriarchal roots though. You mean it had them? *s*
>The decks your friend uses are *all*
>based on the Golden Dawn school of
>divination and GD (both Rider-Waite
>and Thoth are rooted in the Golden Dawn)
>tarot meanings are rooted in kabbalism.
>
Oh please elaborate. PLEASE! *Stopping himself from getting down on his knees.*
>I could pick up any of your friend's decks
>and read with them. The goddess-y
>changes tend to be very superficial.
>
I'd love to point out some examples of this to her, which is why I'm practically
begging for some elaborations.
(And I think I'm going to have to re-read some posts to make sure I know and
remember the other points I want to make to her. I remember the discapline of
Uncle Al bit though, but I haven't had to use it. Yet. She'll hate that one, I'm
sure.)
>>Which I tried to tell her, but wasn't good at it. My memory on the subject
>>was
>>foggy.
>>
>
>It will become easier when you actually
>study the links.
>
*Nod* Gotta work on that.
Thanks,
Colbi
Tratichema Colbiras
MLYoung wrote in message <19990515215438...@ng-fk1.aol.com>...
>>>Well, worse than that, if she's a Wiccan,
>>>worshipper types don't know or don't
>>>want to acknowledge the patriarchal
>>>roots of their faith and activities.
>>
>>are guilty of what you say, but to be fair, I don't think your
>>characterization of "most" is accurate. Many Wiccans fully understand
>>and ackolwledge the patriarchal side of things, and there are many
>>"Goddess worshippers" who do not fall into the tradition of Wicca at
>>all, at least as it is regarded commonly as being traditionally
>>Celtic.
>
>"Traditionally" ? That's part of the
>problem. Modern-day Wicca is a
>hodge-podge based on the fantasies
>of folks like Gerald Gardiner, Robert
>Graves (there's your Goddess worship
>right there) and, yes, Aleister Crowley,
>though most of 'em are loathe to admit
>their indebtedness to one of the all-time
>sexist pigs. It has almost nothing to
>do with the religion of the Ancient Celts,
>about which relatively little is known.
>
not the "Old Religion" by any stretch of the imagination. Wicca and other Neo
Pagan traditions are well-researched, but the Old Ways have been lost for
centuries.
Not that it was a bad thing. The Old Ways weren't *truly* lost, it's just the
original teachings, rituals, and such that have been lost. The spirit is still
there, and it lives on in Wicca, Asatru, and everything else.
>I'm sure somewhere there's a Wiccan
>who actually knows history, but that's
>a rara avis.
>
Well, she knows a good dollup. She makes sure she knows her stuff and is well
read, but it only reaches a certain point. *Shrug*
Shaun Goodwin
>
> >From: tarot...@aol.comnospam (Tarotpoppa)
>
> >OOPS! Maybe I stepped on my dick again. Sorry to you.
>
> Bragging?
>
> I guess you must be the exception to these other guys who only wish they could
> suck their own.
Its the masochist version.
Shaun
> Celebrate!
> KatyRose
Jonathan
Medusa8S8S wrote in message
<19990515214127...@ng-cs1.aol.com>...
>Jonnie Clueless wrote:
>>>You really don't get it.
>>
>>Get what? What is there to get?
>>
>
>The sad part is, the kid's serious...
Now now, KatyRose, you think so?
Jonathan
MLYoung wrote in message
<19990515214114...@ng-fk1.aol.com>...
>Bratty Jack whined:
>
>
>>>You really don't get it.
>>
>>Get what? What is there to get?
>>
>
>their minds about you just because
>you want them to.
Fine.
>
>And they're certainly not going to
>forget.
Goddam elephants.
Tarotpoppa
>>From: tarot...@aol.comnospam (Tarotpoppa)
>
>>OOPS! Maybe I stepped on my dick again. Sorry to you.
>
>Bragging?
>
>I guess you must be the exception to these other guys who only wish they
>could
>suck their own.
>
>And here I thought you'd been named a Star because of something to do with
>music or even Tarot. Silly me.
>
>Celebrate!
>KatyRose
>
Actually, I was NOT bragging. I was bitching about my short legs! ; - P
Patrick
"Short people got no reason to live." R. Newman
Tarotpoppa
>
>Medusa8S8S wrote:
>>
>> >From: tarot...@aol.comnospam (Tarotpoppa)
>>
>> >OOPS! Maybe I stepped on my dick again. Sorry to you.
>>
>> Bragging?
>>
>> I guess you must be the exception to these other guys who only wish they
>could
>> suck their own.
>
>Its the masochist version.
>
And it feels so good when you stop.
Patrick
"It hurts so good." J. C. Mellancamp
MLYoung
>I don't blame you one bit. The idea that either Waite or Thoth is the
>be all/end all makes me want to laugh to keep from crying. Of course,
>given the two, I would have to go with Waite, since I dislike Thoth
>more than any deck I've seen, from an aesthetic standpoint.
Why?
>I will admit that I found it engrossing, even mesmerizing,
>but not for any reason that would make me want to continue with it in
>any way.
You found something mesmerizing and
engrossing, but you can't deal with it?
This isn't about your aesthetic judgment,
but your discomfort and your unwillingness
to deal with that. Very different--you're
not judging the cards on, say, their use
of color, draughtmanship, proportions,
or effectiveness as illustrations.
You're trying to dress up what is
clearly an emotional reaction with
big words to make it sound more
respectable.
<snip>
>Gee, you too? I hope you are not drawn into the pov (which is
>endlessly denied, yet endlessly obvious to anyone who doesn't suffer
>from it) that Thoth and Crowley are the end all/be all of tarot's
>development.
Perhaps you should read more, rant less.
You missed a recent thread where I
criticized several of the Thoth majors
from, yes, an aesthetic standpoint.
Note, also, you're not posting a
counterargument as why another deck
is better than Thoth. You haven't even
told us why Thoth is bad--just that you
find it mesmerizing, engrossing, but
ugly. Not that you say how you think
it's ugly.
You're not really say anything rational
here, you know.
[Hell, jk or anybody, tell me how the changes in thoth are somehow
>different or superior than any of the changes pomo decks incorporate.
>Be specific.]
Why don't you read his essay on Waite's
Chariot, that will give you some idea of
how jk looks at card symbolism. It's on
his Web site.
<snippety do-dah>
>and drive my chariot into the fray. I might as well cross myself with
>"Lust" for the added vigor it provides. ;)
>
>Fred
There's one basic problem with your
rant, Fred. It's all very old. Indeed,
it's simply a long version of something
we've seen numerous times before and
it's predicated on the notion that your
opinion matters. But it doesn't. If you'd
made a thoughtful informed argument,
it might have been interesting. But this
is really 16,000+ bits of you don't like
Thoth for reasons you, yourself, don't
know and how people who like the deck
better than you are BAD.
In some ways, you're even more of a
ditz than Hypernos. At least he had
a reason for liking Cosmic Tribe, silly
though it was, but you don't know why
you like or dislike something.
Willful ignorance of one's motivations
is hardly the path to wisdom.
--margaret
MLYoung
>>Well, given his propensity to talk about
>>everything, I suspect we do know what
>>he did. But, yeah, he's a good source,
>>though the egocentrism can get in the
>>way.
>>
>Ego? What ego? Uncle Al was egocentric? NO!!! *Gasp*
I just sort of grit my teeth. However,
it was Beastie boy's egocentrism that
probably made him willing to blab
what Waite concealed.
>>
>>Well, worse than that, if she's a Wiccan,
>>
>You could say, "devout." *Nod*
>
>>she's got an agenda. Most Goddess
>>worshipper types don't know or don't
>>want to acknowledge the patriarchal
>>roots of their faith and activities.
>>
>I don't think she has an agenda. *Shrug* Though I think she knows about and
>acknowledges the patriarchal roots of Wicca, not that she cares. I haven't
>heard
>much on these patriarchal roots though. You mean it had them? *s*
It was basically invented by men. Without
Robert Graves *The White Goddess* there
would be no Goddess worship. There's
a rather dry, but solid, history *The Pagan
Religions of the Ancient British Isles* by
Ronald Hutton that makes it clear just
how neo the neo is.
>
>>The decks your friend uses are *all*
>>based on the Golden Dawn school of
>>divination and GD (both Rider-Waite
>>and Thoth are rooted in the Golden Dawn)
>>tarot meanings are rooted in kabbalism.
>>
>Oh please elaborate. PLEASE! *Stopping himself from getting down on his
>knees.*
Well, the meanings of the majors and the
minors are all connected to paths and
points on the Qabalistic tree of life and
those meanings are reasonably consistent
across decks--the ten of swords is a card
of ruination, the two of cups a card of
love. The high priestess is always a
card of mystical wisdom, the hierophant
external religious structure. The variations
are reactions to the G.D. meanings. This,
of course, includes Beastie boy's revisions..
The meaning of the minors is dependent
upon the idea of degradation--each suit
begins with the seed of an idea--the aces--
the idea then evolves, manifests and degrades
to the point of where the cycle begins again.
Now, this is an idea that connects to
neoplatonism and kabbalism. You're
not going to find a tarot deck that doesn't
depend on this cycle when it comes to
determining the meaning of the minors.
>>I could pick up any of your friend's decks
>>and read with them. The goddess-y
>>changes tend to be very superficial.
>>
>I'd love to point out some examples of this to her, which is why I'm
>practically
>begging for some elaborations.
Will look for some, there are several
posts by jk on this sort of thing.
>(And I think I'm going to have to re-read some posts to make sure I know and
>remember the other points I want to make to her. I remember the discapline of
>Uncle Al bit though, but I haven't had to use it. Yet. She'll hate that one,
>I'm
>sure.)
<g>
Cheers,
--margaret
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
MLYoung
Beastie boy:
>Agreed completely.
>
>>and proudly promoted himself as all of the above.
>
>Which would point up his not being a saint as effectively as anything
>else, eh?
Why? There are several saints with
checkered backgrounds.
I see where your block is, however--
you need the messenger to be as
perfect as the message.
Humans don't work that way. When you're
made of dirt, you tend to have feet of
clay.
--margaret
MLYoung
>mly...@aol.com (MLYoung) wrote:
>
>>Modern-day Wicca is a
>>hodge-podge based on the fantasies
>>of folks like Gerald Gardiner, Robert
>>Graves (there's your Goddess worship
>>right there) and, yes, Aleister Crowley,
>>though most of 'em are loathe to admit
>>their indebtedness to one of the all-time
>>sexist pigs.
>
>Fair enough. I, too, have many reservations about the whole Wiccan
>thing. So much of what is out there comes off as superficial. As for
>it being a fantasy based hodge-podge, I have to admit that however
>right or wrong you are, this description unfortunately seems to work
>rather well for, er, tarot.
Well, the symbolism is substantially older.
Certainly, there's a fantasy element, the
question is if, like any symbolic system,
it gets at a deeper reality.
>
>>I'm sure somewhere there's a Wiccan
>>who actually knows history, but that's
>>a rara avis.
>
>Again, I admit that there is much that is superficial in a lot of what
>is supposed to pass for Wicca these days. But I am still not willing
>to dismiss it entirely just because there is a lot of nonsense
>connected to it. There are serious people doing serious work, but,
I've yet to see it. I've read some of the
"serious" work by Maria Gimbutas and
it's madly speculative--and she's as
close to a respected scholar as Goddess
worship gets.
--margaret
>alas, they have to share the same categorical real estate with all of
>the nitwits who abound.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
MLYoung
>>"Traditionally" ? That's part of the
>>hodge-podge based on the fantasies
>>of folks like Gerald Gardiner, Robert
>>Graves (there's your Goddess worship
>>right there) and, yes, Aleister Crowley,
>>though most of 'em are loathe to admit
>>their indebtedness to one of the all-time
>>do with the religion of the Ancient Celts,
>>about which relatively little is known.
>>
>As my friend likes to vehemently maintain, Wicca is NEOPAGAN, as in, NEW. It
>is
>not the "Old Religion" by any stretch of the imagination. Wicca and other Neo
>Pagan traditions are well-researched, but the Old Ways have been lost for
>centuries.
>Not that it was a bad thing. The Old Ways weren't *truly* lost, it's just the
Yes, they were. If there were any,
that is. The myth of an Ur great goddess
is just that, a myth, based on scant
archaeological evidence and no
written accounts. It's possible, but that's
all.
>original teachings, rituals, and such that have been lost. The spirit is
>still
>there, and it lives on in Wicca, Asatru, and everything else.
The spirit dates back to Robert Graves
and the 19th century Celtic revival.
There's a basic truth about religion--it
can't be separated from culture. Neo-
paganism is much more a reflection of
a dissatisfaction with Christianity than it
is any sort of remnant or spirit of
nonliterate Celts, midwives, and Vikings.
--margaret
>
>>I'm sure somewhere there's a Wiccan
>>who actually knows history, but that's
>>a rara avis.
>>
>Well, she knows a good dollup. She makes sure she knows her stuff and is well
>read, but it only reaches a certain point. *Shrug*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Subject: Re: Rohrig?
>Path:
>lobby!newstf02.news.aol.com!portc03.blue.aol.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!205.23
1.236.10!newspeer.monm
zenbabe
(clipping the post)
> I came to tarot out of curiosity, because I saw it pop up a lot in a
> spate of reading I was doing in other fields. (I've always felt it odd
> that it took me so long to get to it, since I've long felt the world
> within and without was like a poem, dripping with symbols as it always
> is. That I've long had a strong attraction to the time and place of
> its origins makes it odder still that I took as long as I did.)
(amused at clipping the rest of the post, skimming the content, in light
of what I want to add)
It was well over a year ago when I read a post in which jk also drew the
comparison between reading poetry and reading tarot cards.
Imo, it's the most tangible, concrete way in which to describe why reading
tarot cards can be a valuable, interesting, and enriching thing to do for
people who are not prone to whimsical, mystical, magical, tooth-fairyish
flights of thinking.
I have read many, many examples in here about what tarot is not, but very
little about what it is, or least not with a crystal clear voice shouting
"This is what it is!", as it does when flagging what tarot is not. If it's
like reading poetry, or like appreciating a painting, then all kinds of
doors open to what tarot can be, and it also becomes quite clear why an
understanding of the symbolism is necessary to read the cards well.
And I am in no way claiming that I can read them well, or at all. All I'm
doing here is figuring out why it's possible to do so.
Has anyone else ever watched Sister Wendy discuss famous painters and
their art on PBS? It's amazing. She's so clear, so lucid. She knows about
the artist, knows about what was going on in their lives at the time of
the painting (mentioning that he had just been released from his first
stay at an asylum, or she reveals the sordid relationship the artist had
with her model, perhaps), knows about the movement in art.. it's
symbolism, it's intent.. which was prevailing at the time, perhaps
discusses the mythological or Biblical themes which are being presented if
relevant, then she uses all of this knowledge to understand, or read, the
painting, and can articulate it. She shows where such things are expressed
in the work of art. She acknowledges both the nice, 'happy' aspects of the
piece (the color, say) as well as the darkness which is there (in
discussing the Rape of the Sabine Women, for example). Then to all that,
she brings her intuition, and synthesizes it together.
Knowing all these things as she does brings about an extraordinarily rich
and engaging event: viewing the painting is not something which is merely
an exercise of the eye, but becomes a deep mental and perhaps emotional
experience from which there are any number of life lessons to learn, big
ones and little ones.
You could cut my heart out of my body and show it to me before I die if
Sister Wendy Beckett learned all of these things from placing a VanGogh
under her pillow before going to sleep in order to wake the next morning
brimming with keen, accurate, primarily researchable insights. (I'm
referring here to a post from about four or six months ago, Fred, which
was apparently long before you started reading alt.tarot)
I took the comparison between tarot and poetry into a comparison between
tarot and art, but my more limited experience in learning about the life
of the poet and the symbolism which was prominent in her day has netted
the same kind of result in reading poetry: a deeper, more meaningful
understanding of the poem, which in turn led to some new insights into how
the lesson of the poem might be a valid lesson for me to learn today.
Far be it from me to put words into anyone's mouth. Is this the kind of
comparison you, Fred, or you, jk, were drawing?
-molli
--
Remember you are over the Edge of the Wild now,
and in for all sorts of fun wherever you go.
---Gandalf, in "The Hobbit"
Fred Hageman
>Modern-day Wicca is a
>hodge-podge based on the fantasies
>of folks like Gerald Gardiner, Robert
>Graves (there's your Goddess worship
>right there) and, yes, Aleister Crowley,
>though most of 'em are loathe to admit
>their indebtedness to one of the all-time
>sexist pigs.
Fair enough. I, too, have many reservations about the whole Wiccan
thing. So much of what is out there comes off as superficial. As for
it being a fantasy based hodge-podge, I have to admit that however
right or wrong you are, this description unfortunately seems to work
rather well for, er, tarot.
>I'm sure somewhere there's a Wiccan
>who actually knows history, but that's
>a rara avis.
Again, I admit that there is much that is superficial in a lot of what
is supposed to pass for Wicca these days. But I am still not willing
to dismiss it entirely just because there is a lot of nonsense
connected to it. There are serious people doing serious work, but,
Fred Hageman
<colb...@geocities.com> wrote:
>>As with popular anything, the quality tends to degrade as
>>the edges get rounded off, or replaced with little plastic
>>child-friendly bumpers.
>So, why not find the orignal and mass produce that one again?
>If you say it's the Thoth or the Waite I'm not going to be happy.
I don't blame you one bit. The idea that either Waite or Thoth is the
be all/end all makes me want to laugh to keep from crying. Of course,
given the two, I would have to go with Waite, since I dislike Thoth
more than any deck I've seen, from an aesthetic standpoint. I spent a
good bit of time gawking at this uniquely ugly specimen back when I
bought my cards, not knowing anything about the Beastly connection
whatsoever. I will admit that I found it engrossing, even mesmerizing,
but not for any reason that would make me want to continue with it in
any way. The only other one to make me blanch so was the round one,
which turned out to be Motherpeace. I think they make quite a couple
in a weird way.)
I am so glad I got into tarot *before* I investigated the Book of
Thoth. Had I come here first and learned that it was seen as such a
highpoint of what tarot is, I'd have run the other way immediately and
missed out on so much of what I've gotten from my study of the cards.
I came to tarot out of curiosity, because I saw it pop up a lot in a
spate of reading I was doing in other fields. (I've always felt it odd
that it took me so long to get to it, since I've long felt the world
within and without was like a poem, dripping with symbols as it always
is. That I've long had a strong attraction to the time and place of
its origins makes it odder still that I took as long as I did.)
I had a full plate of work in other systems, so I had plenty to do
already. Had my initial investigated started with my knowing that so
many tarot adepts regarded Thoth as something of the epitome, I'd have
gone with what seemed the sensible course to someone new to cards and
followed the "experts." And then I would have figured tarot just
wasn't for me and gone happily back to the work I was doing
beforehand. And that would have sucked, since I've found so much
richness in the cards and all of it outside the realm of the
misbegotten Beast. "Whew!", says I. ;)
Come to think of it, thinking about this makes me want to go back and
dig a little deeper in some other fields I've turned away from. Maybe
I ran into a Crowley-type Cult there. Geez, could Garnder's folk be
Wicca's CtC? Maybe those folks over at Falwell, Swaggert & Pope are
the CtC at Christ.com. Hmmm.
[It appears I'm stuck in spew mode tonight. Other posts should be
looking mighty attractive right now, if you've actually made it this
far. I promise it ain't going to get any better ;]
>> Everything changes, including tarot, so that's
>why I like the pomo movement in tarot.
>Although, from what you're saying, and from looking around lately, it could use
>some tidying up or something. :)
I agree with you, especially regarding the grandfather of pomo, Thoth.
>>Nobody wants to buy symbols and especially not ideas, they want
>>to buy pictures.
>Hey hey hey! I ain't nobody!
Don't let jk's universalisms worry you, TC. I guess him being the
resident "authority" on tarot allows him the right to get away with
this sort of broad brush shit as a given, and is ignored by the same
people who zip into pirahna mode when anyone else does it, with jk
himself leading the charge. One of the quirks that make this House of
Cards the freak show it delightfully is.
>I've been looking for an appropriate deck to learn
>from for a while, and really hoped I'd get it out of Rohrigh. I WANT symbols and
>ideas. They're what make the pictures.
Gee, you too? I hope you are not drawn into the pov (which is
endlessly denied, yet endlessly obvious to anyone who doesn't suffer
from it) that Thoth and Crowley are the end all/be all of tarot's
development. That Hyperion guy certainly nailed this one dead to
rights. I've yet to see anyone amongst the regulars here put forth
anything but objections regarding this fact. No matter how often they
go on about not taking Crowley's ravings as the only way to view
tarot, they never deviate from such when they are making a specific
point about how to view the cards "correctly." It's frustrating if you
don't swing with the Beastie, but the sideshow *does* provide a
certain perverse enjoyment.
In this way it is similar (and equally fascinating) to the oft
repeated bullshit that intelligent discussion of tarot is the main
purpose here and that anyone coming in will be treated fairly and
evenly if they display thoughtfulness. Sure, the translation to this
is more "as long as you parrot what we believe," but, again, that is
part of this House of Cards.
Along with that is the eternal war between the bitchers and the
bitchees. I really don't know why so many people get bent out of shape
when they encounter this stuff. Does it really take more than a week
and three newsgroups before it becomes apparent that this sort of
dynamic is a sizable chunk of any room in usenet? Hang around for a
month and poke around ten groups and it's wallpaper. Why sweat it?
Can't we all just put the "fun" back in dysfunction and move on?
>>> Yes I've read the FAQ. I found some of the humor in it amusing. :)
I, too, found it vastly entertaining. It's the funniest and best
written faq I've seen. But . . . :)
>>What parts did you not find amusing?
I know jk wasn't speaking to me, but I will butt in and say that while
I found it well-written and useful as far as some of the history of
tarot, I found it lacking in useful information regarding the actual
practice of reading or the philosophy behind it. This was especially
frustrating coming from a guy who delights in lambasting anyone's
ideas about practice and philosophy, yet offers nothing of substance
regarding these, all the while being regarded by himself and others as
some sort of expert.
It is apparent that he does have expertise in the history and
development of tarot, but if he does in fact have any expertise in
philosophy and practice, I, for one, wish he would be a little more
*specific* about it and add something beyond those stupid questions
such as "what is philosophy?" and "what is practice?" [If you want to
be the resident "expert," jk, how about getting off your flaming ass
and contributing something that smacks of it?]
>>Give me an example of what you mean by 'non-traditional' imagery.
>>
>Hi, the Chariot? Everyone who sees that card nearly has a fit for one reason or
>another.
I've never seen the Rohrig Chariot, but I did have a fit of laughter
when I saw how Beastie pomo-ized it in Thoth. It looks like a
precursor of the cheesiest Power-ranger kids' toy with that full suit
of armor and the inflated scale of the figure wearing it. As for the
replacing of the horses with Sphinx's, ya just can't get more pomo
than that. A hint for those who don't agree. The cards are supposed to
be symbol systems right? You cannot turn a horse into a sphinx without
drastically altering the symobology. But, if you can produce a
convincing argument about how horses and sphinxes represent similar
things symbolically, I'd love to see ya have a go at it.
>Where are the four beasts on the Wheel of Fortune? There's just this little
>Bobby or something.
>The Moon is a good one. Where's the crayfish thing? the body of water? the
>animals? It's a woman resting her head in thought or out of mental duress, and
>not much else, except the very traditional Moon above her.
Good questions, all. But, please remember that Thoth is not pomo by
any means. Pomo makes wholesale changes, but that is bad because it is
pomo. Crowley makes the same sort of wholesale changes and that is ok
because he is Crowely and *he* is allowed to make them because, well,
he said it was ok, and that's the way it goes around here, the endless
protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
>>And tell me how, or if, you think the tradition benefits by
>>the change.
[Hell, jk or anybody, tell me how the changes in thoth are somehow
different or superior than any of the changes pomo decks incorporate.
Be specific.]
>Well, because of recent developments in the media, I think the light-sabre
>Justice has is really a very good non-traditional image in a traditional place.
>I think it works well. So yes, the tradition benefits by some of the changes,
>but not all of them.
Good point. A light sabre in place of a sword is a lot easier to
understand than a sphinx instead of a horse.
>>How do you know that?
>And notice I said "may or may not." Which should indicate that I don't know, at
>least not for sure. I can only wonder.
Like I said, he can't help it. Since the guy obviously knows a lot
about tarot, at least historically, and since he can write well when
he so chooses, I've come to the conclusion that this inane sort of
questioning is his way of going on autopilot while appearing to be
thought provoking. Sure, ya gotta coast sometimes, but it is a shame
to see such an otherwise high caliber gun fire these sort of blanks
with such frequency. Again, this is the House of Cards, and jk is the
court jester and king rolled into one, so he can get away with things
he or his court do not allow in others. All part of the charm of the
place. Any Fool can see that.
>>> which leads one to suppose he was using his
>>> intuition.
>>
>>You'll find that supposition and presumption is dangerous,
>>especially around here.
>>
>>If you don't know, it's best to admit it.
ROTFLMAO. Oh, how I do love the irony of this. It wins a prize, it
does, it does.
>On the contrary, I think supposition is a very good thing. I don't think using
>your intuition is a good idea, don't you?
Good question. Too bad it won't be seriously answered because of your
unfortunate typo. It's too easy to fall back on attacking the
grammatical errors inherent in this quick type arena of usenet,
especially when a good point can be dodged.
>If I don't know, or I'm not sure, I make it known that I'm not sure.
Oh, and so will everyone else, don't you worry. :)
>>If we know what he should have done, and see how he did not
>>do it, that constitutes a reasonable critique.
I love this. Sure, what he should have done is follow in the footsteps
of his predecessors, Waite and Crowley. Of course, they did anything
but follow in *their* predecessors footsteps when they made *their*
wholesale deviations from tradition. But Rohrig has a "reasonable"
critique coming while those who have done the very same only earlier
deserve no such thing. When deviation ossifies into tradition, further
deviation is apostasy because it breaks with tradition. (Maybe there's
something in The Wheel about this, TC. What does Crowely say? I wanna
get this one right.) Of course, it is the nature and cohesion of
deviation which will be judged, and here Rohrig must be called onto
the reasonable critique carpet. Afterall, how could it not be thus
when he went and changed the horses into sphinxes and . . . uh,
nevermind. ;)
>>I've asked people's opinions about decks before.
>>
>>I enjoy hearing about other people's opinions, if for no
>>other reason so I can kick the crap out of them,
It seems your most cherished arrow, jk. It wouldn't be so bad if you
didn't so obviously believe that your own opinions were somehow
inviolate. I've been reading your stuff for a couple of months, and
while I find your posts entertaining much of the time, I cannot
remember a single instance where any sincere variant of "I was wrong"
came out of your keyboard.
>but
>>just as much for the possibility, if it ever presents
>>itself, to have an intelligent discussion.
Your smug superiority is overwhelming. It makes one wonder why the
fuck you spend so many, many hours here rolling in the intellectual
gutter with all of us unintelligent poser posters. Why *do* you grace
us thus, jk? Be specific, if there's a reason beyond your just
enjoying be able to vent your rage. I gotta think you have better ways
to use your abundant juice, guy.
>>If you want to learn about tarot, learn what tarot is
>>first. And what it's not.
Translation: Tarot is Crowley and Crowley is tarot. Anything else is
not tarot and tarot is not anything else. Of course, anyone who would
respond to such a notion will protest loudly that I am wrong as can
be, but they always fail to include anything to support that it isn't
so beyond saying it isn't so. Why, I don't know, but I wait and wait
for something beyond the alt.tarot dogma, which I am assured doesn't
exist while witnessing it all the while. Oh, the House of Cards . . .
>It seems to me that I'm not doing much learning in that respect. I'd LIKE to
>learn. It's why I've started reading this ng, but all I've seen really is a lot
>of petty name calling and quibbling over minor and pointless details. I don't
>see why there shouldn't be a thread discussing the various meanings and
>associations of each particular card. It could get into quibbling and name
>calling once again, of course, but the thread could continue still. I thought
>that was the idea of NGs... synthesis of information, and discussion or that
>information. I've been tempted to start the thread myself, if only to see where
>it goes, how well it lasts, and how long it lasts.
I would love the same thing, and I still hold out hope that as more
people like you come along, it may in fact happen. Until then, rest
assured that a rain of denial regarding your observation could be
headed your way, complete with the pettiness and insults that aren't
really the norm here, ya know. (Or would if you weren't such an
obvious moron like myself . . . ;)
>>And these, when they are understood, open the door to
>>reading (whether for fortunes or not) a rich visual language
>>that has been around now for almost 500 years (although
>>systematically only for 200 or so).
>So when do y'all get to the understanding bits?
LOL. don't hold your breath, TC. Besides, why bother coming here
looking for meaning when you can get really useful information about
how, say, the Egyptian symbols which have been incorporated
willy-nilly into Thoth have been around for almost 500 years?
>Why not study some of the meanings in various books, such as the Golden Dawn? Or
>talk about them here?
You aren't going to let go of this insistence on discussing useful
information, are you, TC? Why can't you learn to be satisfied with
discussing tits and gay decks or watching some of the regulars beat
the virtual shit out a *teenager* for displaying the same type of
immaturity they do as adults, all the while insisting that he isn't
worth their time in post after post after post after post?
What is *wrong* with you, anyhow? ;)
Fred
And, to anyone who's made it all the way down here, yes, it *is*
obvious that the above ranting (along with my other posts) is a clear
indication that I am in hiding today, seeking to avoid something out
here. So, as symbolically depicted in the "deepest" tradition around
here, let me put on my armor, lower my visor, round up the sphinxes,
Fred Hageman
wrote:
>>Please explain how you can say someone is a dedicated saint while also
>>being a dedicated hedonist, charlatan, devil and pervert. This seems
>>in outright contradiction to any mystical system which has fallen
>>within my investigation.
>
>Exactly my point. From what I've read, the man was a walking contradiction,
Agreed completely.
>and proudly promoted himself as all of the above.
Which would point up his not being a saint as effectively as anything
else, eh?
>AS I UNDERSTAND what I've
>read of his works, he didn't see any contradiction in being all of the above.
Which is in line with him being a charlatan, not to mention utterly
deluded. I still fail to see how anyone takes this guy seriously.
>> And if you can, maybe you can give an example of how the
>>symbolism contained in the Marseille deck and its many cousins is less
>>"honest" than what crowely grafted onto the deck. A definition of what
>>you mean by honest symbolism as opposed to dishonest symbolism and how
>>these terms apply might also be helpful.
>
>Maybe you saw that I said "seems _to me_." This means that, with my limited
>knowledge, that this is how it seems to me.
I did see it, which is why I asked you to explain what you meant by
honest symbolism. I'm not attacking you, just looking for
clarification re what you are driving at.
>I do not mean to imply that the
>Marseille deck is dishonest,
Saying something is the most honest implies within it that other
things are less than so, doesn't it? At bottom, I still would like to
know how honesty enters into it at all.
>or that it is insignificant. Quite the opposite,
>I think the Marseille deck is extremely important, and very useful.
Me too.
>In this comment, I was referring to the lengths to which Crowley and Harris had
>gone to incorporate the various Golden Dawn attributions to the cards,
>especially the colors associated with each. Since the question was about a
>deck that included Qabalah, etc., IT SEEMS TO ME that the Crowley deck is
>better suited for this purpose than the Marseille. YMMV
I have no kick against the tarot/kabbala connection, although I don't
concern myself with it much personally. I believe it is there, but I
don't believe that it is the only connection there. As for Thoth being
better suited than the Marseille or other older decks, I would only
point out that the people who noticed the connection and advanced it
were working from decks made before Thoth. Since there is so much to
be desired in Crowley as an exemplar of anything much than a walking
contradiction and egomaniac, I don't understand why so many people put
so much energy into his "work," especially when his glaring
shortcomings seem to be common knowledge to many folks here, folks who
will happily point out his failings when he is being praised and
defend him endlessly when he is being attacked.
I am trying to think of an example of anyone else in whatever field
who gets so much attention and credit while at the same time so
obviously failing at attaining the higher levels of achievement of
their chosen field of study. Maybe I am crazy, but I have this daft
notion that the point of tarot is that it leads (hopefully) to
spiritual and psychological development. This being the case, I cannot
fathom why the teachings of a guy who so obvioulsy was lacking in said
development as eveidenced from his self-aggrandizement among other
things, (not the least being that he apparently was a junkie when he
died( gets so much attention, let alone respect. To me, he seems to be
the perfect example of "look carefully at what I am doing and DO
SOMETHING ELSE."
>>>There is also the occult psychological implication of self consciousness
>>>communicating with super-consciousness through the subconscious.
>>
>>Perhaps a definition of terms is needed here. I'm puzzling over how
>>self-consciousness communicates with the superconsciousness when it is
>>self-consciousness which inhibits one from experiencing
>>superconsciousness in the first place. Can you explain?
>
>Through the subconscious, silly!
Well, that is what you said the first time, which is why I asked you
to explain what you meant. It doesn't make any sense.
>Seriously, this is a doctrine of Paul Case, and it might be too lengthy and
>boring to discuss here.
Pity, as I would love to see how he arrives at such a notion, let
alone supports it. It has such a charlatan-like ring that it seems the
perfect example of what I've come to think of as a "Crowleyism." (Wow.
I finally found something useful from the Beastie. I knew perseverence
would pay off! :)
I hesitate to ask you to type such a lengthy passage, but if you have
the ability to scan it in, I would be very interested in seeing it,
and don't think it would be boring at all, let alone boring for here.
It has to be better than most of the side slop that winds up here,
unless you happen to be one of those who enjoy such stuff, which I
admit can have its perverse pleasures *if* consumed in tiny, tiny
portions.
> I have only been studying BOTA doctrine for a few
>months, and am by no means qualified to teach it.
I don't want to rip too hard on Case, having not seen what he wrote,
nor do I want to rip on you at all. But unless he is using the terms
in a specialized manner, his "doctrine," if you describe it accurately
in the bit you put forth, is baseless.
>I add it here to show that
>this card can have many more attributions than the fortune telling ones,
I believe at least to this end that you are to be commended, as I find
the whole fortune telling notion to be suspect at best. (And, as I've
stated elsewhere, if folks are using the term fortune telling in a way
that diverges from its usual application, I would love to learn the
difference.) Anything to widen the attributes of tarot beyond such
silly notions that it can tell the future is welcomed by me, even
Crowleyisms!
>and that this is one of the reasons why it is important to have the figures
>pictured to be male and female.
I'm still waiting for someone to actually comment on whether or not
they feel that it makes any difference to them whether there are three
people in the card or two. It seemed like a straightforward question,
but to this point no one has touched on it at all. Any chance you
might?
>>>I honestly do believe that
>>>someone will come along and do a better deck someday.
>>
>>This is my certainly my hope.
>
>Mine too.
Well, we can only hope then, eh?
>>After spending a few minutes deriding them, fugured I'd better quit
>>before I began expanding my derision to tarot in general. So, I went
>>to what did appeal to me and that was the older decks of the
>>Marseille/VS variety, finally choosing the Burdel deck.
>And if you are happy with the Marseille, I'm happy for you. I love my
>Marseille pack (The one by Grimaud, that every card is defaced by the logo.).
I'm confused on this point. I've seen mention here and elsewhere of
there being more than one Marseille deck. Is this true? I don't have
one since I can't find one anywhere. Like I said up there, I have a
Burdel deck, which is similar enough to the Marseille, but different
enough that I wish I could get my hands on a Marseille. In fact,
although I've seen many pictures of the trumps in the Marseille, I've
yet to see a single picture of the Marseille minor arcana. Is it
similar to the Burdel, or Classic deck? I find the minor cards in the
Burdel deck to be quite beautiful.
I know I want to get another deck sometime in the future, but I also
know that I haven't found any appeal whatsoever in the decks that
follow in the line of Thoth/Waite and muck up the pip cards with
cheesy illustrations. I suppose these are meant to support the
particular meaning of the card according to the system or lack thereof
that the designer is working with, but only serve (for me) to get in
the way and limit or distort their usefulness.
>My post was in response to someone who was looking for a different deck.
Perhaps it was, but I found it interesting and have enjoyed butting
into the middle of it. I hope you don't mind. :)
Fred
Leon
>Yes, they were. If there were any,
>that is. The myth of an Ur great goddess
>is just that, a myth, based on scant
>archaeological evidence and no
>written accounts. It's possible, but that's
>all.
Are you talking about the single
pan-european-and-noth-african-and-middle-eastern godess (Godess)?
As oposed to the more local variety, that is.
I thought it was pretty much established that godesses came before gods.
What I know of greek and mesopotamian mythology confirms this. I'm really
curious as to what you're getting at.
>The spirit dates back to Robert Graves
>and the 19th century Celtic revival.
Haven't read 'The White Godess' yet -- guess I should.
>There's a basic truth about religion--it
>can't be separated from culture. Neo-
>paganism is much more a reflection of
>a dissatisfaction with Christianity than it
>is any sort of remnant or spirit of
>nonliterate Celts, midwives, and Vikings.
Indeed.
Leon
>--margaret
MLYoung
>
>>Yes, they were. If there were any,
>>that is. The myth of an Ur great goddess
>>is just that, a myth, based on scant
>>archaeological evidence and no
>>written accounts. It's possible, but that's
>>all.
>
>
>Are you talking about the single
>pan-european-and-noth-african-and-middle-eastern godess (Godess)?
Yes, but also the idea that early religions
were goddess-centered. Some might have
been, but we don't know. Paleolithic
statuettes do not a religion make.
>
>
>As oposed to the more local variety, that is.
>
>I thought it was pretty much established that godesses came before gods.
No.
>What I know of greek and mesopotamian mythology confirms this. I'm really
>curious as to what you're getting at.
What do you know of Greek mythology
or Mespotamian that tells you this?
Both sets tells me that there pantheons
with both gods and godesses.
Also, it's not a good idea to read myth
as history.
>
>>The spirit dates back to Robert Graves
>>and the 19th century Celtic revival.
>
>
>Haven't read 'The White Godess' yet -- guess I should.
>
>>There's a basic truth about religion--it
>>can't be separated from culture. Neo-
>>paganism is much more a reflection of
>>a dissatisfaction with Christianity than it
>>is any sort of remnant or spirit of
>>nonliterate Celts, midwives, and Vikings.
>
>
>Indeed.
>
That's what I'm getting at.
--margaret
richard sprigg
>
> Which would point up his not being a saint as effectively as anything
> else, eh?
Have you read much of St. Augustine?
You may yet be surprised.
Tratichema Colbiras
Fred Hageman wrote in message <37408d25....@news.pacbell.net>...
>On 16 May 1999 19:58:27 GMT, mly...@aol.com (MLYoung) wrote:
>
>>Fred raved:
>
>Oh, yes I did. Ranted, too.
>
Quite nicely too, if I do say so. :)
>I found its ugliness engrossing and mesmerizing, kind of like being a
>rubbernecker driving by a car wreck. Sure, I will look, but I am not
>going to pull over and obsess with it.
People's fascination with horror movies comes to mind as well.
>I'm uncomfortable dealing with my aesthetic judgement? What does this
>mean? Oh, you mean my inablity to deal with the fact that I found the
>deck ugly? I had no problem with that at all. There were fifty or so
>other decks to choose from and I found one I was quite comfortable
>with. What is the problem with that? You see, it is only the Cult of
>Crowley that feels that Thoth *must* be dealt with if any
>understanding of tarot's significance is to be had. Those of us not
>indoctrinated into the cult don't feel the need to follow its charter.
>Any reason why we should?
>
I'm just following through with an idea I had, so I'm asking...
Fred, if you dislike the Thoth deck, what other decks might you recommend to an
"experienced beginner?" Or do you think it's possible for me to study the tarot
adequately on the deck(s) I have (Rohrig, Dragon, Mage: The Ascension, but I'm
not serious about the Mage deck *G*)? I'm still debating the subject myself.
>I have no kick with the coloring, or necessarily with the
>
"...I get no kicks from champaign..."
>I also love the fact that he made the pentacles *square* on the 4 of
>coins. What the hell is *that* about?
>
In a leap of intuition, I think I see why he made them square. Squares have four
sides, so four pentacles with four sides kind of makes sense. (And all sorts of
fun could be had with 4s: elements, angels, grades...)
>Finally, how the hell does he go and remove the kings out of the court
>cards and get away with replacing them with the knights? The knights
>already had their spot in the deck, so why is it just fine to replace
>them with princes and toss out the kings entirely? Be specific.
>
The same is done in the Rohrig tarot deck, and I think I kind of like it.
Knights represent chivalry, honor, judiciousness, strength of character and body
on and off the field. Kings are supposed to represent all these things as well,
considering they usually win the throne by right of arms... at least in the
really OLD days they did, and in the SCA they do. :)
Of course, I could be mistaking the Society for Creative Anachronism's method of
king selection and their principles of knighthood with past reality... Or maybe
not. :)
>Well, if not, it would place me in the illustrious company of Beastly
>himself. I notice no one has any kick with his blatant irrationality,
>so I will take what you say as praise of the highest order. :)
>
Hey, ya got points with me. *G*
>Well, hell. You know, for some daft reason, I have the impression that
>there is a place for us newcomers to have some input into this House
>of Cards. Are we to be relegated to only being allowed to do deja
>searches in order to see what has been done before? Why can't we play,
>too, and why don't the regulars here who were mining the oft-repeated
>tarot and kabbala thread a few days ago not being taken to task
>similarly? What's the deal, Marg? Did I fail to fill out the
>appropriate papers or pay the proper fees or something?
>
You mean I'm supposed to search before I speak?
No thanks. Sounds kind of useless... Esp. if all the topics that can be covered
are all finally covered. Then we've run out of things to say, and this NG might
as well be closed.
Oh, and you noticed it too Fred? The way people beat dead horses, re-bury them,
then dig them back up and do it all over again? Isn't that interesting?
>Hey, why do I have to play by rules so many around here (and Beasty
>himself) get to skate past? And why is it you spend so much time
>
Rules? You mean there are rules in here? I thought everybody just did their own
thing and the rest be damned.
Still, that doesn't change things. Lord knows I have't been following any rules
and I'm not going to start now.
What's the wrestler say? "If you don't like it, then you can SUCK IT!" something
like that, I think. *sweet smile at the group*
>responding to thoughtless, uninformed, uninteresting arguments? Hell,
>at least I am discussing (however poorly in your eyes) tarot. What, I
>would be more interesting and thoughtful if I joined you and Katy in
>your neverending savaging of poor Johnnie/Jack? He's a fucking
>*teenager,* for crying out loud, yet you guys pound him as a matter of
>course each and every time he posts something. It's pathetic to watch,
>but if this is what you deem interesting or thoughtful, I'll just
>stick to my stupid and ignorant ranting, thanks.
>
At least you're saying something useful Fred. I found this post one of the most
interesting I've read in here, because it actually talks specifics about a deck,
and meanings. Thank you.
-Colbi
Hash B~`/
Fred Hageman <l...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:37408af9....@news.pacbell.net...
>On 16 May 1999 20:18:08 GMT, mly...@aol.com (MLYoung) wrote:
>
>>Without
>>Robert Graves *The White Goddess* there
>>would be no Goddess worship.
>
>statement that much of wicca is derived from such sources as Graves,
>but that doesn't mean you are accurate that there is no Goddess
>worship that isn't Wiccan or neo-pagan. What about India? The
>expression of God as the Divine Mother has gone on unbroken for
>milleniums, from pre-patriarchal times up to today. How can you
>discount this entire tradition?
>
>Fred
Not much joy there Fred - most of the god images are male
Hash
Hash B~`/
richard sprigg <kt...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:373F9F...@sympatico.ca...
>Fred Hageman wrote:
>
>>
>> Which would point up his not being a saint as effectively as anything
>> else, eh?
>
>You may yet be surprised.
I can't let you get away with just that ~~ come on, dish the dirt :)
Hash B~'/
@Kabir's House, where the ant can't keep its footing
........ ~~~ the man has become as one of us ~~~
--
Hash B~`/
zenbabe <mwm...@SPAMTRAP.lawrence.ixks.com> wrote in message
news:mwmcar-1605...@port132.ixks.com...
>> spate of reading I was doing in other fields. (I've always felt it odd
>> that it took me so long to get to it, since I've long felt the world
>> within and without was like a poem, dripping with symbols as it always
>> is. That I've long had a strong attraction to the time and place of
>> its origins makes it odder still that I took as long as I did.)
>
>of what I want to add)
>
>It was well over a year ago when I read a post in which jk also drew the
>comparison between reading poetry and reading tarot cards.
>
>Imo, it's the most tangible, concrete way in which to describe why reading
>tarot cards can be a valuable, interesting, and enriching thing to do for
>people who are not prone to whimsical, mystical, magical, tooth-fairyish
>flights of thinking.
>
>--
>Remember you are over the Edge of the Wild now,
>and in for all sorts of fun wherever you go.
>---Gandalf, in "The Hobbit"
Oddly enough I been finding that tarot images are being used more in my
poetry - or maybe my poetry is just trying to put words what has been said
by the cards
Hash B~`/
...
>>I see where your block is, however--
>>you need the messenger to be as
>>perfect as the message.
>
>Yeah, I'm *blocked* that way. Is it so much to ask that before
>accepting someone's words as gospel that a some proof that they can
>walk the walk instead of just talking the talk be evident. Besides, in
>this case, I do feel that the message and the messenger are perfect
>for each other.
....
>Fred
Fred, this is one I stand by ...
Take the pearl and throw away the oyster shell.
Meditate on the Mantra given to you by the Guru and leave out of
consideration the human frailties of the teacher.
Listen not to anyone censuring your Guru.
Sri Ramakrishna
Tarotpoppa
>
>>>>OOPS! Maybe I stepped on my dick again. Sorry to you.
>>>
>>>Bragging?
>>>
>>>I guess you must be the exception to these other guys who only wish they
>>>could
>>>suck their own.
>>>
>>>music or even Tarot. Silly me.
>>>
>>>Celebrate!
>>>KatyRose
>>>
>>
>>Actually, I was NOT bragging. I was bitching about my short legs! ; - P
>>
>>Patrick
>>
>>"Short people got no reason to live." R. Newman
>
>
>It would then be appropriate to dub you Dragon Dick? (To keep this on-topic,
>I
>can remind you that a special Tarot is available just for your species, and
>the
>illustrious GC might be persuaded to give you a complimentary reading
>therefrom.)
>
>Celebrate!
>KatyRose (who used to be of the mind to slay dragons, but now organizes
>crusades to save 'em)
"Dragon dick" sounds like a type of crotch rot that might have affected knight.
Symptoms would probably be "scaly and burning." Sounds unpleasant to say the
least.
But, as I am originally from Milwaukee, the worst medical problem I have "down
there" is usually just "Beer Nuts."
Patrick
"There once was a man from Nantuckett." A. Nonymus
MLYoung
>
>>Without
>>Robert Graves *The White Goddess* there
>>would be no Goddess worship.
>
>Whoa, Margaret. Slow down here. Again, you are correct in your
>statement that much of wicca is derived from such sources as Graves,
>but that doesn't mean you are accurate that there is no Goddess
>worship that isn't Wiccan or neo-pagan. What about India? The
>expression of God as the Divine Mother has gone on unbroken for
>milleniums, from pre-patriarchal times up to
Indeed, they and their husband are emanations of the same thing. I've never
said there aren't goddesses, but the idea of primary goddess
worship that was somehow replaced by
male gods is, so far, a modern invention.
but they are not what the
today. How can you
>discount this entire tradition?
Very easily. I don't graft Western
ideas onto Hinduism.
Also, of course, Vishnu.
--margaret
>
>Fred
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Subject: Re: Rohrig?
>Path:
>lobby!newstf02.news.aol.com!portc04.blue.aol.com!newsfeed.wli.net!newsfee
d.berkeley.edu!cyclone.swbell.net!typhoon-sf.snfc21.pbi.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
>From: l...@pacbell.net (Fred Hageman)
>Newsgroups: alt.tarot
>Message-ID: <37408af9....@news.pacbell.net>
>References: <7hlnb0$dih$1...@nw003t.infi.net>
><19990516161808...@ng-ci1.aol.com>
>X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/32.230
>Lines: 15
>Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 06:42:34 GMT
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.104.156.19
>X-Complaints-To: ab...@pacbell.net
Gypsy Cowboy
Mother...
I thought the Krishna was recognized around the 4th Century B.C. as
being the God of India.
But long before this was he not born in a cave and born of a virgin and
anointed with rare and expensive oils and perfumes? This story have a
familiar ring to it?
A comment about Gods and Goddesses. If one researches the Greek Gods
and Goddesses one finds they are equally distributed in the Greek
Culture. Whereas, he Romans who had a God and/or Goddess for everything
and borrowed most of their Gods and/or Goddesses from other religions.
The interesting thing about early world civilizations is long before the
written word the Goddesses were the dominant figures in religion. Any
time a society is artistic and creative it is usually dominated by the
Goddesses. It is only since the written word that man with his wrong
brain thinking has used God instead of Goddess. Is it possible that if
one chooses to believe in a diety the diety is both masculine and
feminine or nonsexual? These are my understandings and subject to human
err and misinformation on my part. jc
MLYoung
<oh, some more lies and poorly
reasoned thoughts>
Bored now.
--margaret
MLYoung
>
>Take the pearl and throw away the oyster shell.
>Meditate on the Mantra given to you by the Guru and leave out of
>consideration the human frailties of the teacher.
>Listen not to anyone censuring your Guru.
>
>Sri Ramakrishna
Ah, but Fred's too busy condemning
others to look at himself.
--margaret
>
>
>Hash B~'/
>
>@Kabir's House, where the ant can't keep its footing
>........ ~~~ the man has become as one of us ~~~
>
>--
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Subject: Re: Rohrig?
>Path:
>lobby!newstf02.news.aol.com!portc02.blue.aol.com!howland.erols.net!news-p
eer.gip.net!news-penn.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!iafrica.com!nnrp01.iafr
ica.com!nnrp01.iafrica.com!not-for-mail
MLYoung
>
>>Fred raved:
>
>Oh, yes I did. Ranted, too.
>
>>>be all/end all makes me want to laugh to keep from crying. Of course,
>>>given the two, I would have to go with Waite, since I dislike Thoth
>>>more than any deck I've seen, from an aesthetic standpoint.
>>
>
>Oh, I imagine that the answer might wind up throughout this post.
>
>
>> >I will admit that I found it engrossing, even mesmerizing,
>>>but not for any reason that would make me want to continue with it in
>>>any way.
>>
>>engrossing, but you can't deal with it?
>
>rubbernecker driving by a car wreck. Sure, I will look, but I am not
>going to pull over and obsess with it.
You're comparing a deck of cards to
a car wreck? Interesting. What I
dislike about car wrecks is the possibility
of human suffering. I don't see that in
Thoth.
>
>>This isn't about your aesthetic judgment,
>>but your discomfort and your unwillingness
>>to deal with that.
>
>I'm uncomfortable dealing with my aesthetic judgement? What does this
>mean? Oh, you mean my inablity to deal with
Read again.
the fact that I found the
>deck ugly? I had no problem with that at all.
No, try again: you're confusing an
emotional reaction with judgment. We
know *how* you feel, but *why* you
feel that way is up in the air.
There were fifty or so
>other decks to choose from and I found one I was quite comfortable
>with. What is the problem with that? You see, it is only the Cult of
>Crowley that feels that Thoth *must* be dealt with if any
>understanding of tarot's significance is to be had. Those of us not
>indoctrinated into the cult don't feel the need to follow its charter.
>Any reason why we should?
Once again, you're failing to say why
you dislike something. Indeed, your
opinion seems to be based on your
inventing an opposition, "a cult of
Crowley". There is, of course, a
cult, or at least the order of Thelemites--
the joke, of course, is that most of us
here aren't members--certainly, not
the people *you* consider cultists.
Your definition of cultist seems to be
anyone who bothers to be informed
about Thoth. The narrow-mindedness
is yours, not ours.
>of this when I first saw the deck because I didn't have any background
>at all about what the cards were or where they came from. At that
>point, it was merely a gut reaction to the way the deck "felt,"
Yes, exactly. My point. Amazing how
you need to go on before admitting
the obvious.
>A few examples of things I do not like about the proportion or
>effectiveness of the illustrations now that I have a better grasp of
>the cards follows. Feel free, by all means, to
Finally.
add something in their
>defense other than you think my points are ignorant or uninteresting.
>Evidence as to why these are valid changes is greatly appreciated by
>me and perhaps anyone reading this who hasn't been fully indoctrinated
>into the Cult of Crowley. You just might help
But, you see, you've already damaged
yourself by being unduly antagonistic--
anyone who disagrees with you is
a cultist. What a sour, little person
you are. Why should anyone *want*
to have a conversation, rather than an
argument, with you? You complain
about flaming, but it's exactly what you've
done here.
some people reach
>intelligent decisions as to why they might go one way or the other.
But you doubt it--for the simple reason
you consider people who like Thoth,
cultists--a term that implies that they
did not reach their decisions intelligently.
>
>The scale of the figure in the Chariot I find ridiculously inflated,
Why?
>and the effectiveness of the card is hampered by the fact that the
>figure is seated as he is and the silly placement of the crab on his
>head. (Yeah, I know its supposed to represent Cancer.) Then there is
>the four kerubiim placed in front. (In my rant, I mistakenly
>juxtaposed Waite's sphinxes onto Crowley's card--I can't believe you
>didn't call me on that.) This type of willy-nilly
Why don't I do it now? You claim to
hate something, but you can't even
remember what it is?
symbol exchange is
>what makes me see Crowley as the grandaddy of pomo. You know, there
But is the exchange willy-nilly? Or
are there specific reasons for it?
>really is a difference in symbolic meaning between two horses rendered
>as *moving* forward and four kerubiim (or two sphinxes) *sitting*
>there. Or do you believe otherwise?
Very good. You've made an observation.
Now, the fun begins--figure out why.
Yes, there is a reason. Oh, and the
chariot in Waite's not moving, either.
Indeed, the charioteer is quite solidly
in place.
>
>Then there is the Hanged Man. Look at the way he is rendered and tell
>me how such a dynamic and energetic pose is in keeping with the
>meaning of the card. He seems more to have
Bwa-ha-ha-ha. "This idea of sacrifice is,
in the final analysis, a wrong idea."
>the vigor of "Lust" than
Yes, he does. Intentionally.
>anything having to do with the Hanged Man. Reading the silly shit Wang
>had to say about samadhi and Crowley didn't help matters, I can tell
>you that.
Too bad, you've done your best to
antagonize us--yes, there's more to it
than is in Wang.
Interesting, you see apparent inconsistencies,
but instead of using these as places from
which to begin a search, you respond
with hostility.
>
>The Lovers is another one that strikes me as riduculous from a
>proportionate pov,
"ridiculous"? Why?
as does the Hermit and the Star. The Devil and the
>Fool come across as comic book loonies and Strength, er, excuse me,
>Lust is a joke.
Once again, these are reactions, not judgments. The figures are certainly
stylized, but I don't see a proportion
problem in the Star, or Hermit. As
for the Devil, you're getting confused--
remember, in Thoth, it's realistically
rendered goat, except for the third eye.
As for the Fool, it's not a favorite rendition
of mine, but as a holy fool, he does, indeed,
seem a bit loony. In other words, it's
a successful translation.
>Why does female figure in this one have a *wand* in
>her hand when a point is usually made as to importance of her action
>being bare-handed? (Let me guess--it's a >phallic thing, right?) and
In part, but also it's a wand and a wand is
a magical tool or weapon. It signifies
her will, among other things.
>why is she no longer doing that lion-tamer thing? Is there some reason
Why not read Thoth and find out?
But really it's very simple: is strength
the repression of animal instincts (closing
the lion's mouth), or oneness with them
(riding the lion's back)?
>why AC can make such rampant changes and anyone else doing so is
>branded as pomo?
Yes. It's the depth and type of changes,
of course. You'll find, of course, numerous
changes in Waite as well. It's not a
question of revisionism, per se, but
whether more is gained than lost from
the revisionism.
Both Waite and Crowley spent years
studying the occult before creating decks.
Both decks bear the personal imprints of
these men's beliefs and thoughts about
the universe, what we are, what we can
become. The changes they made were
changes they'd thought about and which
mattered to them. Do you really think this
is on the same level as the current market-
driven decks? Or Brian Williams PoMo
Tarot--should I mention that Williams freely
acknowledges that he has no real interest
in tarot and no background in it?
Now, you can accept or reject these changes?
I don't like all of Crowley's. *However*,
isn't it better to do this after first understanding
what those changes are and why they
were made?
Why are *you* so resistant to understanding?
>
>I also love the fact that he made the pentacles *square* on the 4 of
>coins. What the hell is *that* about?
Page 213, Book of Thoth. It ties into
the solidity of the card
>
>Finally, how the hell does he go and remove the kings out of the court
>cards and get away with replacing them with the knights? The knights
>already had their spot in the deck, so why is it just fine to replace
>them with princes and toss out the kings entirely? Be specific.
Sure. Waite inserted a blind to disguise
certain occult secrets (same with the
pages replacing princesses). Crowley
was reverting to the GD order. The cards
had dual titles--i.e. The Knight of Wands
is the King of the Spirits of Fire, while
the King of Wands is the Prince of the
Chariot of Fire. The Knave of Wands is
the Princess of the Shining Flame.
In other words, there have always been
options. Waite picked one set, Crowley
another. Waite wanted to conceal the
cycle of the Tetragrammaton, Crowley
to reveal. You want more, go read about
it in the Book of Thoth--some of it
should be in Wang.
>
>I can't exactly balance the above gripes, but I will say that I did
>find some of his pips to be nicely done, and far better than what
>Waite did with them. Silly me, I just don't like the pips being
>encumberd by the illustrations Waite and others have added. And I *do*
>know why I don't like it--because I feel it limits the possibilties of
>interpreting the cards.
No. What's becoming clear is that what
limits is your defensive posture towards
things you don't understand.
>>Perhaps you should read more, rant less.
>>You missed a recent thread where I
>>criticized several of the Thoth majors
>>from, yes, an aesthetic standpoint.
>
>Yes, you did. I was here speaking here more of Crowley's system of
>tarot, less than the cards themselves. You
But this contradicts your earlier position.
Certainly, you'd have saved us a lot
of time if you'd just said this.
folk go on about not being
>circumscribed by his system, but I never see any evidence when you
>actually discuss the meaining of the cards or tarot in general. Then,
Funny, I think we discuss them frequently.
Certainly, if you'd taken a less antagonistic
attitude, you could have initiated three
or four fruitful discussions about the
cards you dislike, or should I say, don't
understand?
>its Crowley's way or the highway to ridicule. Can you name a single
>idea or concept regarding tarot that doesn't conform to Crowley's
>views that has garnered any respect around here. Just one, Marg, just
>one. Can you provide anything besides
hollow refutation unsupported by
>anything beyond some version of "because I said so"?
Sure, Waite's use of masonism. Not my
cup of tea, but an interesting use of a
system. I mention this because jk's
discussion of Waite's chariot is readily
available on his Web site. The
historical discussions, of course, tend
to have little to do with Crowley. Also,
of course, jk and Richard Sprigg (I think)
have been debunking one of Crowley's
main ego-myths regarding the Stele.
Of course, you weren't around here for
the infamous Devil/"sacred vessel"
debate, but you can find it in Deja.
You really need to knock that chip off
your shoulder.
You've said
>elsewehre that the connections between tarot and the kabbala was a
>graft that came late in the game, yet I have yet to see anything other
>than a sole reliance on this connection when dealing with the
>numbering of the cards. Do you feel that this system is the only way
>to make sense of the numbering of the cards? Do you find validity in
>any approach to the cards that doesn't contain either a kabbalistic or
>astrological basis? If so, I'd love to hear
I've yet to see one that doesn't rely
on those correspondances--some are
just more honest than others.
about it. You told me
>before that the book I mentioned about tarot and archetypes was
>considered a joke around here, but of course you failed to add any
>evidence as to why it might be. How about taking a shot at it now?
Why?
>
>It also is weird how whatever changes AC makes are just accepted
>without challenge. Imagine someone else
Only, of course, the evidence directly
contradicts that. This is simply wishful
thinking on your part.
Why?
being presumptuous enough to
>change the name of Justice to Adjustment. What reason would you find
>to be sufficient for such a change?
Why don't you read Crowley, summarize
his argument and tell us why or why
not you think it's viable?
Somehow, I just have to imagine
>that it would take a bit more to convince you than the meager one
>sentence reason Beastly provides: "I have changed the name to
>adjustment because while there is equity in nature, there is no
>justice." (paraphrased, of course, since I don't have the book here.)
>That this mot is accepted as a good enough reason to change the name
>is bad enough. But the fact that his contradiction a few paragraphes
>later is completely overlooked baffles me. I don't remeber the
>context, but he says something to the effect that "in this instance,
>we see an example of the justice of nature." I
So, look it up and get it right. And, then,
tell us why the arguments are not convincing.
Clue: brevity in and of itself is not a reason
for dismissing or accepting an argument--
profound truths can be simply expressed--
e equals mc squared.
am still trying to
>figure out which part of "there is no justice in nature" this
>exception falls into. But no matter. Clarity isn't necessary when
>insignificant details like changing the name of a card is concerned.
Clearly, it's not insignificant. Now, if
you actually want to discuss this, you'll
break this part out and begin a thread
about it.
But do you want to discuss this or do
you want to grouse about it?
>
>Well, hell. You know, for some daft reason, I have the impression that
>there is a place for us newcomers to have some input into this House
>of Cards. Are we to be relegated to only being allowed to do deja
>searches in order to see what has been done before? Why can't we play,
>too, and why don't the regulars here who were mining the oft-repeated
>tarot and kabbala thread a few days ago not being taken to task
>similarly? What's the deal, Marg? Did I fail to fill out the
>appropriate papers or pay the proper fees or something?
No, but you sulked, bitched about
everyone and everything, proclaimed
everyone who disagreed with you
about Thoth was cultist.
Why on earth should you be surprised
that people aren't thrilled with your
presence?
Like, duh?
<snip-snip>
>Hey, why do I have to play by rules so many around here (and Beasty
>himself) get to skate past? And why is it you
As you sow, so shall you reap? I'd
think it would be obvious.
syour eyes) tarot. What, I
>would be more interesting and thoughtful if I joined you and Katy in
>your neverending savaging of poor Johnnie/Jack? He's a fucking
>*teenager,* for crying out loud, yet you guys pound him as a matter of
>course each and every time he posts
Actually, I don't. He flamed me because
I wasn't paying attention to him.
And felonies committed by teens are
still felonies.
You lie far too much.
--margaret
<snip rest unread>
s
MLYoung
>written word the Goddesses were the dominant figures in religion.
Er, no. We really don't know that. It's
speculation based on meshing together
artifacts thousands of miles and tens
of thousands of years apart.
>Any
>time a society is artistic and creative it is usually dominated by the
>Goddesses. It is only since the written word that man with his wrong
>brain thinking has used God instead of Goddess.
Er, no. Once again, speculation on very
limited evidence open to a multitude of
interpretations.
Kids, listen carefully--it is VERY, VERY
hard to know about a religion when there
is no written record or extant oral tradition.
Certainly, creating entire religions from
Venus of Willendorf doesn't cut it.
And, just as a little something to keep in
mind, the nonliterate cultures for whom
we actually have records are no more
prone to goddess-centered religions
than anyone else. For that matter, several
of them are extremely sexist--including
the matrilineal ones.
You want a matriarchy? Stick to Benobo
chimps.
--margaret
Tarotpoppa
Hageman) writes:
>On 16 May 1999 02:33:05 GMT, tarot...@aol.comnospam (Tarotpoppa)
>wrote:
>
>>>Please explain how you can say someone is a dedicated saint while also
>>>being a dedicated hedonist, charlatan, devil and pervert. This seems
>>>in outright contradiction to any mystical system which has fallen
>>>within my investigation.
>>
>>Exactly my point. From what I've read, the man was a walking contradiction,
>
>Agreed completely.
>
>>and proudly promoted himself as all of the above.
>
>Which would point up his not being a saint as effectively as anything
>else, eh?
One of the problems with trying to understand Crowley, is that he evoked such
strong emotions in people. There are several biographies in print, some
favorable and some damning. I really wish that I could have met him, he sounds
absolutely fascinating.
>>AS I UNDERSTAND what I've
>>read of his works, he didn't see any contradiction in being all of the
>above.
>
>Which is in line with him being a charlatan, not to mention utterly
>deluded. I still fail to see how anyone takes this guy seriously.
From what I can tell, he certainly had a "unique" code of ethics. I don't know
if that qualifies him for "charlatan." Like I said, he himself claimed those
titles.
As far as taking him seriously, I think that the occultists of that time
sometimes took the word "occult" a little too literally. Crowley said that he
was in contact with non-corporeal "Hidden Masters," as did Mathers and a few
others in the Golden Dawn. From what I have read of Crowley's works, he left
out parts here and there. A guy from London that I know, a member of Golden
Dawn, claims that AC did that so that he could charge people for instructions,
if they inquired about the missing bits. Then there is Waite, who just out and
out lied and put blinds in his work that only initiates would know about.
I understand why people are frustrated with these guys. But, some of us feel
it is worth the sorting out to get to the good stuff that they wrote. YMMV
>>> And if you can, maybe you can give an example of how the
>>>symbolism contained in the Marseille deck and its many cousins is less
>>>"honest" than what crowely grafted onto the deck. A definition of what
>>>you mean by honest symbolism as opposed to dishonest symbolism and how
>>>these terms apply might also be helpful.
>>
>>Maybe you saw that I said "seems _to me_." This means that, with my limited
>>knowledge, that this is how it seems to me.
>
>I did see it, which is why I asked you to explain what you meant by
>honest symbolism. I'm not attacking you, just looking for
>clarification re what you are driving at.
I am referring to the fact that the symbols that are there are not meant as
blinds or traps for the uninitiated.
>>I do not mean to imply that the
>>Marseille deck is dishonest,
>
>Saying something is the most honest implies within it that other
>things are less than so, doesn't it? At bottom, I still would like to
>know how honesty enters into it at all.
Saying that I think that Harley Davidson makes the best quality motorcycle does
not imply that Honda makes a motorcycle of low quality. Had I wanted to make
that point I would have done so plainly, such as, "The symbolism in the Thoth
deck is the only honest deck extant."
>>or that it is insignificant. Quite the opposite,
>>I think the Marseille deck is extremely important, and very useful.
>
>Me too.
>
>>In this comment, I was referring to the lengths to which Crowley and Harris
>had
>>gone to incorporate the various Golden Dawn attributions to the cards,
>>especially the colors associated with each. Since the question was about a
>>deck that included Qabalah, etc., IT SEEMS TO ME that the Crowley deck is
>>better suited for this purpose than the Marseille. YMMV
<snip analysis of AC's character>
I have taken an oath not to reveal the actual documents, but I am free to share
the teachings in my own words. If it is important to you, let me know, and
I'll put together my understanding of this in a separate post. (this one is
getting a little unwieldy)
>>I add it here to show that
>>this card can have many more attributions than the fortune telling ones,
>
>I believe at least to this end that you are to be commended, as I find
>the whole fortune telling notion to be suspect at best. (And, as I've
>stated elsewhere, if folks are using the term fortune telling in a way
>that diverges from its usual application, I would love to learn the
>difference.) Anything to widen the attributes of tarot beyond such
>silly notions that it can tell the future is welcomed by me, even
>Crowleyisms!
>
>>and that this is one of the reasons why it is important to have the figures
>>pictured to be male and female.
>
>I'm still waiting for someone to actually comment on whether or not
>they feel that it makes any difference to them whether there are three
>people in the card or two. It seemed like a straightforward question,
>but to this point no one has touched on it at all. Any chance you
>might?
I never really gave it much thought. I think that if I used the Marseilles
pack for a reading, I would read this card the way that I read the GD
dirivative packs, just because I already have all that associated with the card
already. I started with the Waite/Smith deck, so I'm going from
man/woman/angel to man/younger worldly woman/older virtuous woman. It doesn't
seem to be as much of a jump as going at it from the other direction. I trust
I have made myself perfectly obscure?
>>>>I honestly do believe that
>>>>someone will come along and do a better deck someday.
>>>
>>>This is my certainly my hope.
>>
>>Mine too.
>
>Well, we can only hope then, eh?
>
>>>After spending a few minutes deriding them, fugured I'd better quit
>>>before I began expanding my derision to tarot in general. So, I went
>>>to what did appeal to me and that was the older decks of the
>>>Marseille/VS variety, finally choosing the Burdel deck.
>
>>And if you are happy with the Marseille, I'm happy for you. I love my
>>Marseille pack (The one by Grimaud, that every card is defaced by the
>logo.).
>
>I'm confused on this point. I've seen mention here and elsewhere of
>there being more than one Marseille deck. Is this true? I don't have
>one since I can't find one anywhere. Like I said up there, I have a
>Burdel deck, which is similar enough to the Marseille, but different
>enough that I wish I could get my hands on a Marseille. In fact,
>although I've seen many pictures of the trumps in the Marseille, I've
>yet to see a single picture of the Marseille minor arcana. Is it
>similar to the Burdel, or Classic deck? I find the minor cards in the
>Burdel deck to be quite beautiful.
I couldn't comment on the pips, as I haven't seent the Burdel pack, but the
Marseilles pips are the suit symbols, no pictures. They have a Marseilles deck
at the bookstore I frequent. It's a nice sharp copy with lots of primary
colors, whereas mine is kind of "off" and is mainly in tones of brown. I'm
sure they are available.
>I know I want to get another deck sometime in the future, but I also
>know that I haven't found any appeal whatsoever in the decks that
>follow in the line of Thoth/Waite and muck up the pip cards with
>cheesy illustrations. I suppose these are meant to support the
>particular meaning of the card according to the system or lack thereof
>that the designer is working with, but only serve (for me) to get in
>the way and limit or distort their usefulness.
Pictures on the pips help people use the cards without actually having to learn
anything about tarot, so it's a blessing and a curse. Some people never get
beyond the pictures. My own philosophy is that, generally, the symbols are
more important than the picture in which they are presented
>>My post was in response to someone who was looking for a different deck.
>
>Perhaps it was, but I found it interesting and have enjoyed butting
>into the middle of it. I hope you don't mind. :)
Hell no, pile on.
>Fred
I don't understand why this has to be an "Us vs. Them" thing. There are plenty
of decks out there and plenty of books on those decks. I like to look at the
way other authors and artists have handled the Tarot. It's an individual
choice that comes down to "What do I want out of the Tarot?" followed by "What
do I need to pursue this desire?" With the plethora of literature and packs
that are (continuously) plublished, one should be able to find the materials
necessary to satisfy these desires.
I have a number of decks and a number of books, and I have learned something
from all of them. Somewhere down the line, I decided that I wanted to study
esoteric Tarot, so I decided that I would like a deck that was designed for
that purpose. The Thoth seemed the best choice to me. As it happens, I
already owned a Thoth deck. I bought it 2 weeks after I bought my first tarot
pack (RWS), because I _loved_ the art. I looked at about 6 cards that they had
on display and bought the deck immediately. I never used it for the next 8
months, but occassionally would take them out and go through the pack, one card
at a time, like going to an art exhibit.
There is absolutely no reason that I couldn't study esoteric Tarot with a
Marseilles pack, but I already liked the Thoth and it is designed to be used
that way, so it seemed a more logical choice. It was only _my_ choice, and I
feel no need to proselytize for any pack or any system. Maybe it's just that I
tend to be non-adverarial about Tarot, but I really don't see this "unwritten
law of alt.tarot. I am the Lord thy Thoth. Thou shalt not have false packs
before me." So, it's possible that this attitude is here and I just don't see
it, or it's not there and people are reading between the lines to suit
themselves. Either way, I still pick up a lot of good information here, and
quite often enjoy a good laugh to boot.
Above all, read skeptically. (Including this post)
Patrick
"I believe I do, I believe it's true.
"I believe exactly what they tell me to." T. Paxton
Fred Hageman
>Fred raved:
Oh, yes I did. Ranted, too.
>>I don't blame you one bit. The idea that either Waite or Thoth is the
>>be all/end all makes me want to laugh to keep from crying. Of course,
>>given the two, I would have to go with Waite, since I dislike Thoth
>>more than any deck I've seen, from an aesthetic standpoint.
>
>Why?
Oh, I imagine that the answer might wind up throughout this post.
> >I will admit that I found it engrossing, even mesmerizing,
>>but not for any reason that would make me want to continue with it in
>>any way.
>
>You found something mesmerizing and
>engrossing, but you can't deal with it?
I found its ugliness engrossing and mesmerizing, kind of like being a
rubbernecker driving by a car wreck. Sure, I will look, but I am not
going to pull over and obsess with it.
>This isn't about your aesthetic judgment,
>but your discomfort and your unwillingness
>to deal with that.
I'm uncomfortable dealing with my aesthetic judgement? What does this
mean? Oh, you mean my inablity to deal with the fact that I found the
deck ugly? I had no problem with that at all. There were fifty or so
other decks to choose from and I found one I was quite comfortable
with. What is the problem with that? You see, it is only the Cult of
Crowley that feels that Thoth *must* be dealt with if any
understanding of tarot's significance is to be had. Those of us not
indoctrinated into the cult don't feel the need to follow its charter.
Any reason why we should?
>Very different--you're
>not judging the cards on, say, their use
>of color, draughtmanship, proportions,
>or effectiveness as illustrations.
>You're trying to dress up what is
>clearly an emotional reaction with
>big words to make it sound more
>respectable.
I have no kick with the coloring, or necessarily with the
draughtmanship, but I can go on quite a bit about the proportions or
the effectiveness of the illustrations. Of course, I couldn't do much
of this when I first saw the deck because I didn't have any background
at all about what the cards were or where they came from. At that
point, it was merely a gut reaction to the way the deck "felt,"
especially its clutter, the way it crams so much into each card. To
me, it just seems like subtraction by addition.
It didn't feel good initially, although I had no clue it was
Crowley's. Having since seen lots of decks and read lots of stuff
about them, I am now in the position to make judgements based on more
data. And the more I learn, the farther the deck and the "system"
behind it plummets.
A few examples of things I do not like about the proportion or
effectiveness of the illustrations now that I have a better grasp of
the cards follows. Feel free, by all means, to add something in their
defense other than you think my points are ignorant or uninteresting.
Evidence as to why these are valid changes is greatly appreciated by
me and perhaps anyone reading this who hasn't been fully indoctrinated
into the Cult of Crowley. You just might help some people reach
intelligent decisions as to why they might go one way or the other.
The scale of the figure in the Chariot I find ridiculously inflated,
and the effectiveness of the card is hampered by the fact that the
figure is seated as he is and the silly placement of the crab on his
head. (Yeah, I know its supposed to represent Cancer.) Then there is
the four kerubiim placed in front. (In my rant, I mistakenly
juxtaposed Waite's sphinxes onto Crowley's card--I can't believe you
didn't call me on that.) This type of willy-nilly symbol exchange is
what makes me see Crowley as the grandaddy of pomo. You know, there
really is a difference in symbolic meaning between two horses rendered
as *moving* forward and four kerubiim (or two sphinxes) *sitting*
there. Or do you believe otherwise?
Then there is the Hanged Man. Look at the way he is rendered and tell
me how such a dynamic and energetic pose is in keeping with the
meaning of the card. He seems more to have the vigor of "Lust" than
anything having to do with the Hanged Man. Reading the silly shit Wang
had to say about samadhi and Crowley didn't help matters, I can tell
you that.
The Lovers is another one that strikes me as riduculous from a
proportionate pov, as does the Hermit and the Star. The Devil and the
Fool come across as comic book loonies and Strength, er, excuse me,
Lust is a joke. Why does female figure in this one have a *wand* in
her hand when a point is usually made as to importance of her action
being bare-handed? (Let me guess--it's a phallic thing, right?) and
why is she no longer doing that lion-tamer thing? Is there some reason
why AC can make such rampant changes and anyone else doing so is
branded as pomo?
I also love the fact that he made the pentacles *square* on the 4 of
coins. What the hell is *that* about?
Finally, how the hell does he go and remove the kings out of the court
cards and get away with replacing them with the knights? The knights
already had their spot in the deck, so why is it just fine to replace
them with princes and toss out the kings entirely? Be specific.
I can't exactly balance the above gripes, but I will say that I did
find some of his pips to be nicely done, and far better than what
Waite did with them. Silly me, I just don't like the pips being
encumberd by the illustrations Waite and others have added. And I *do*
know why I don't like it--because I feel it limits the possibilties of
interpreting the cards.
>>Gee, you too? I hope you are not drawn into the pov (which is
>>endlessly denied, yet endlessly obvious to anyone who doesn't suffer
>>from it) that Thoth and Crowley are the end all/be all of tarot's
>>development.
>
>Perhaps you should read more, rant less.
>You missed a recent thread where I
>criticized several of the Thoth majors
>from, yes, an aesthetic standpoint.
Yes, you did. I was here speaking here more of Crowley's system of
tarot, less than the cards themselves. You folk go on about not being
circumscribed by his system, but I never see any evidence when you
actually discuss the meaining of the cards or tarot in general. Then,
its Crowley's way or the highway to ridicule. Can you name a single
idea or concept regarding tarot that doesn't conform to Crowley's
views that has garnered any respect around here. Just one, Marg, just
one. Can you provide anything besides hollow refutation unsupported by
anything beyond some version of "because I said so"? You've said
elsewehre that the connections between tarot and the kabbala was a
graft that came late in the game, yet I have yet to see anything other
than a sole reliance on this connection when dealing with the
numbering of the cards. Do you feel that this system is the only way
to make sense of the numbering of the cards? Do you find validity in
any approach to the cards that doesn't contain either a kabbalistic or
astrological basis? If so, I'd love to hear about it. You told me
before that the book I mentioned about tarot and archetypes was
considered a joke around here, but of course you failed to add any
evidence as to why it might be. How about taking a shot at it now?
It also is weird how whatever changes AC makes are just accepted
without challenge. Imagine someone else being presumptuous enough to
change the name of Justice to Adjustment. What reason would you find
to be sufficient for such a change? Somehow, I just have to imagine
that it would take a bit more to convince you than the meager one
sentence reason Beastly provides: "I have changed the name to
adjustment because while there is equity in nature, there is no
justice." (paraphrased, of course, since I don't have the book here.)
That this mot is accepted as a good enough reason to change the name
is bad enough. But the fact that his contradiction a few paragraphes
later is completely overlooked baffles me. I don't remeber the
context, but he says something to the effect that "in this instance,
we see an example of the justice of nature." I am still trying to
figure out which part of "there is no justice in nature" this
exception falls into. But no matter. Clarity isn't necessary when
insignificant details like changing the name of a card is concerned.
>Note, also, you're not posting a
>counterargument as why another deck
>is better than Thoth. You haven't even
>told us why Thoth is bad--just that you
>find it mesmerizing, engrossing, but
>ugly. Not that you say how you think
>it's ugly.
I think I've covered enough of why I think so by now. As for other
decks being better, I have said that I prefer the older decks of the
Marseille and Burdel variety, and I have said the reason is because
the symbolism remains largely intact in them. I find this to be better
than any deck which incorporates symbolic changes that are unique to
that deck. Like me, maybe you could read more and rant less. But,
either way is fine with me.
>You're not really say anything rational
>here, you know.
Well, if not, it would place me in the illustrious company of Beastly
himself. I notice no one has any kick with his blatant irrationality,
so I will take what you say as praise of the highest order. :)
>[Hell, jk or anybody, tell me how the changes in thoth are somehow
>>different or superior than any of the changes pomo decks incorporate.
>>Be specific.]
>
>Why don't you read his essay on Waite's
>Chariot, that will give you some idea of
>how jk looks at card symbolism. It's on
>his Web site.
Thank you, I will. I'm quite interested in seeing what he has to say,
since he was pretty much mum about it in the faq.
>There's one basic problem with your
>rant, Fred.
Oh, please, Margaret. There's far more one thing wrong with it. :) I'm
still suprised you didn't call me on the sphinx gaffe for starters.
>It's all very old. Indeed,
>it's simply a long version of something
>we've seen numerous times before
Well, hell. You know, for some daft reason, I have the impression that
there is a place for us newcomers to have some input into this House
of Cards. Are we to be relegated to only being allowed to do deja
searches in order to see what has been done before? Why can't we play,
too, and why don't the regulars here who were mining the oft-repeated
tarot and kabbala thread a few days ago not being taken to task
similarly? What's the deal, Marg? Did I fail to fill out the
appropriate papers or pay the proper fees or something?
> and
>it's predicated on the notion that your
>opinion matters. But it doesn't.
Thanks! What do I have to do to make mine matter as much as yours or
anyone of the elect, for that matter? You do of course infer that
yours is somehow of matter as mine is not. What is the deal here, and
please be specific.
>If you'd
>made a thoughtful informed argument,
>it might have been interesting.
Hey, why do I have to play by rules so many around here (and Beasty
himself) get to skate past? And why is it you spend so much time
responding to thoughtless, uninformed, uninteresting arguments? Hell,
at least I am discussing (however poorly in your eyes) tarot. What, I
would be more interesting and thoughtful if I joined you and Katy in
your neverending savaging of poor Johnnie/Jack? He's a fucking
*teenager,* for crying out loud, yet you guys pound him as a matter of
course each and every time he posts something. It's pathetic to watch,
but if this is what you deem interesting or thoughtful, I'll just
stick to my stupid and ignorant ranting, thanks.
>But this
>is really 16,000+ bits of you don't like
>Thoth for reasons you, yourself, don't
>know
You realize that the charge that I don't know is only put there by
you, and presumptuously so. I know quite well why I don't like it. You
are picking apart my not liking it, but of course you aren't adding
anything to counter why it is so good. Why don't you tell me why you
think it is so important from anything but a historical pov. Maybe you
could say something about why you think the changes he put are somehow
better than what he discarded, or why you feel he was justified in
doing so. You've heard my complaints, so why not counter them with
something beyond how misinformed and uninteresting my thoughts are? In
short, as I've said to you in the past: HOW ABOUT BACKING UP SOME OF
YOUR ASSERTIONS?
>and how people who like the deck
>better than you are BAD.
I never said they were BAD. I do think they overestimate the
importance of Thoth as a pinnacle of tarot, however. And, if they
think that Crowley knows what he is talking about regarding mysticism
or spirituality, they really do need to get out of the House of Cards
a little more often and investigate some sources of higher caliber
than the poor misbegotten Beasty.
>In some ways, you're even more of a
>ditz than Hypernos.
Trust me, this is no great insult. Hypernos, whatever else can be said
about him, made some dead-on observations about this place and its
elect. Hell, jk is the acknowledged flame-throwing master here, and
Hypernos absolutely cleaned his clock in that little flame war. I'm
sure there were many lurkers who enjoyed that drubbing. Believe me,
the endless calling him an idiot and whatnot didn't do much to erase
the textual evidence. It was a knockout, plain and simple.
>At least he had
>a reason for liking Cosmic Tribe, silly
>though it was, but you don't know why
>you like or dislike something.
Hey, this stuff gets old fast. I know why I like the decks I like and
why I don't like the ones I don't like. This goes for the systems
behind them, as well.
>Willful ignorance of one's motivations
>is hardly the path to wisdom.
No, it isn't. But hey, you already told me I needed a few more
lifetimes, right? This could very well be. But, hey, this would put us
in the same boat, unless you want to claim that you've got it all
figured out. If you do, you are certainly living up to that old
precept that it is a fool who cannot hide his wisdom. At least in this
case, you are no fool, cause whatever wisdom you do possess is clearly
hidden from view behind these assumptions and unsupported conclusions
you so delight in.
Fred
Fred Hageman
>>Which would point up his not being a saint as effectively as anything
>>else, eh?
>
>Why? There are several saints with
>checkered backgrounds.
Oh, many more than several, Margaret. But the key to it isn't where
any of these saints, you, me, or Crowley started out on the journey,
but where we end up. The saints may have come from checkered
beginings, but they didn't remain there. Is anyone implying that
Crowley ever got past all of the garbage that all of us have to deal
with sooner or later?
>I see where your block is, however--
>you need the messenger to be as
>perfect as the message.
Yeah, I'm *blocked* that way. Is it so much to ask that before
accepting someone's words as gospel that a some proof that they can
walk the walk instead of just talking the talk be evident. Besides, in
this case, I do feel that the message and the messenger are perfect
for each other. I don't find anything in Crowley's rap to be
indicative of a pefect message any more than I find his behavior
to be indicative of a perfect message. It's a mess and he was a
mess--perfect fit.
I've just returned from the bookstore, where I spent about an hour and
a half with Wang's Qabbalistic Tarot. I found so much of it hilarious,
especially his stuff about Crowley's take. It really has to be tough
trying to intelligently explain and support a guy who says on one hand
that attaining samadhi is the most important thing and then states
that he purposefully held himself away from dhyana and samadhi because
he felt that the intense spiritual joys of these were an impediment to
true spiritual progress! Can you or anyone explain such "gospel"?
>Humans don't work that way.
No, not normally.
> When you're
>made of dirt, you tend to have feet of
>clay.
Hmm. Doesn't having feet of clay indicate an inabilty to take action,
or cowardice? What are you saying here? Besides, if you have any truck
whatsoever with the purported goal of mysticism, don't you think
identification with the "dirt" of elements which compose the body is
*not* where you should be focusing. I seem to remember something about
identification with the Divine as being the point of it all. And that
identification is hardly circumscribed by dirt.
Fred
Fred Hageman
>Without
>Robert Graves *The White Goddess* there
>would be no Goddess worship.
Whoa, Margaret. Slow down here. Again, you are correct in your
statement that much of wicca is derived from such sources as Graves,
but that doesn't mean you are accurate that there is no Goddess
worship that isn't Wiccan or neo-pagan. What about India? The
expression of God as the Divine Mother has gone on unbroken for
milleniums, from pre-patriarchal times up to today. How can you
discount this entire tradition?
Fred
zenbabe
> Thank you Molli, for pointing this perspective on card reading out.
Before this
> I hadn't thought of reading tarot as an art form, or like, well,
"reading art."
> I tended to think of it like understanding a science, a system,
something purely
> intellectual, but because of the area it falls under (divination, the occult,
> "mysticism," and the like) still very intuitive.
Right. I've read posts by several people in here over the years who think
of tarot that way, or something very like it, but I could never get it to
work for me. You might say it put the light bulb above my head, but it
didn't turn it on. I couldn't put the ideas of something purely
intellectual and also very intuitive together in a way I could grasp well
enough to even feel that I had a solid idea, let alone be able to put
words to it.
The light should have gone on way back when I read jk's post (which, like
Fred's, was about something else. Poetry was just touched on.), but it
remained a mere flicker until the other day. I'm slow like that :-).
> I've never seen Sister Wendy on TV (I don't even have a TV), but I think I'd
> love to see her at least once. I had a Humanities teacher that sounds like she
> was a lot like Sister Wendy -entusiastic, knowledgable, pErKy, appreciative,
> intuitive and creative...
If you have a friend who has a tv and a vcr, you might be in luck, because
I haven't happened across her show on PBS in a long time. However, she
does have at least one book available that I'm aware of, which you can
find in the art section of your bookstore or on the web. But to really
experience her, you should see her all in her full habit floating around
museums. You might be in luck there as well, because I think there are
tapes of her show available. I read once that virtually all of those shows
were taped in one take.
I should probably buy them as well, since it appears that she's my idol ;-).
> So, thank you for posting what you have. I found your post interesting
and very
> well written. I like your writing style. :)
That was *very* formalized for me, and it really took hours to write, so I
appreciate the compliment. I don't know if I'm willing to put myself
through that every time I post here, so keep your expectations (if you
have any) low.
Ok. Get ready for Waite questions. I hate to suffer alone.
-Molli
zenbabe
> jk is without question the Sister Wendy of tarot.
At first glance at this I hooted with laughter (it's still funny), but
once I calmed down it wasn't hard to admit that the comparison is very
valid to me.
The only difference is that you carry, and use frequently, a barbed ruler.
It's even been used on me, once.
Three years ago I very nervously, and very badly, made one post in here.
At the time I had access to an extremely shitty news server and it was a
while before I came across your reply on deja. It was actually a fairly
mild smack, all things considered, but it was enough to make me realize
that I wasn't ready to handle this at all.
I'm probably still not ready, but I'm not quite as spooked.
Daffyd ap Morgen
wrote:
>Fred Hageman wrote:
> The best was about his
>> believing that his attaining samadhi is the most important thing and
>> then a few paragraphs down the page it is said that he purposefully
>> held himself away from dhyana and samadhi because he felt that the
>> intense spiritual joys of these were an impediment to true spiritual
>> progress!
>>
>> What do you think Ramakrishna would have to say about such folderol?
>
I would be more interested in what you would have to say about such.
How is an attachment to experiences of attainment folderol?
Daffyd ap Morgen
Daffyd ap Morgen
wrote:
>On Wed, 19 May 1999 03:47:31 GMT, l...@pacbell.net (Fred Hageman)
>wrote:
>
>>>Take the pearl and throw away the oyster shell.
>>>Meditate on the Mantra given to you by the Guru and leave out of
>>>consideration the human frailties of the teacher.
>>>Listen not to anyone censuring your Guru.
>>>
>>>Sri Ramakrishna
>>
>>Ramakrishna, huh? One of my favorites.
>
>Oh, I almost forgot. One of the reasons he is one of my favorites is
>that he is living proof, so to speak, against the notion that Margaret
>champions about it being impossible to disconnect religion from
>culture or that mystic systems lose their fundamental context when
>divorced from their culture, or that they are not interchangable.
>
>He knocked those ideas right out of the box with his own experience in
>each of the major systems.
As an _individual_ he was able to explore major religions and from
them derive (or extract) what he considered spiritual truths. Did he
teach them as a religion or as a spiritual discipline? What religious
doctrine did he use as a "core" teaching?
Ramakhrisna demonstrated what was possible for someone who makes the
effort to transcend religious bias--but did he therefore discard or
set aside all religions?
Daffyd ap Morgen
MLYoung
>on this ?
>
>"impossible to disconnect religion from culture etc..."
>
>My religion has nothing to do with the culture of my birth/childhood,
>Hewbrew and egyptian symbols are culturaly divorced from their origins when
>used in tarot ....
Yes, they're transformed. Just because
Osiris shows up on a card does not
mean that anyone's close to practicing
the religion of the Egyptians.
It's like this: cultures evolve religions
that suit their needs. Divorce a religion
from its original culture and you have taken
away its context--its family, if you like.
Tibetan buddhism, for example, is substantially different than what originated
in India. When incorporated into a new
culture, religions are altered--the hierarchical
Roman Catholic church differs substantially
from the early slave sects of Christianity and
the two forms serve very different purposes.
Not long ago, I read a quote from the
Dalai Llama--he said that he had no
interest in converting Westerners--that most
of them should learn to practice their own
native religions. Indeed, most Westerners
are rather too attached to the idea of the
individual to handle the egoless-ness of
the Eastern religions. There are exceptions,
of course, and in a global society a
great deal of cross-pollination--but the
religions do change.
--margaret
>
>I'm afraid that such a high percentage of your posts that I read are wound
>up with some on-going slagging-match that I've prolly missed a great deal of
>what you otherwise have to say :(
>
>Just wondering
>
>regards
MLYoung
>
>> I've never seen Sister Wendy on TV
>
>
>
Including overbite and habit?
--margaret
MLYoung
>>personal attacks, the unwillingness to
>>understand another point of view,
>
>Ahem. POT POT POT.
>
Hello, Johnny Jack--the attacks on
you all have a point and I understand
your point of view. I just disagree with
it.
Your sense of irony needs work.
--margaret
Leon
<snip>
>Yes, but also the idea that early religions
>were goddess-centered. Some might have
>been, but we don't know. Paleolithic
>statuettes do not a religion make.
No. There are, however, clues buried within mythology. I realize it's a
THEORY, and, albeit the most popular one, it is now and probably always will
be, unproven. I also neglected to say I meant indo-european religion. Don't
know enough about other cultures to make a blanket statement.
You don't seem to like Robert Graves very much -- I do.
A lot of what I know (but by no means all) about greeek mythology comes from
"The Greek Myths". However, he's not the only person who believed/beliefs in
the godess theory-thing; my encyclopedia (Britannica) also espouses it.
I've seen "The White Godess" described as Graves using 'poetic' leaps of
thought on the subject of mythology -- sounds dangerous, but also
intrigueing.
>What do you know of Greek mythology
>or Mespotamian that tells you this?
>Both sets tells me that there pantheons
>with both gods and godesses.
>
>Also, it's not a good idea to read myth
>as history.
No, but see the myth about the birth of Athena. Something similar with
Marduk and Tiamat.
>>>The spirit dates back to Robert Graves
>>>and the 19th century Celtic revival.
Isn't Graves (and to a lesser degree Frazer) still required study?
>>Haven't read 'The White Godess' yet -- guess I should.
>>
>>>There's a basic truth about religion--it
>>>can't be separated from culture. Neo-
>>>paganism is much more a reflection of
>>>a dissatisfaction with Christianity than it
>>>is any sort of remnant or spirit of
>>>nonliterate Celts, midwives, and Vikings.
>>
>>Indeed.
>>
>That's what I'm getting at.
That's something entirely different from speculating about the origin of the
religious beliefs we DO know about, though, isn't it?
This discussion made me think (thanks for that), but I guess we just
disagree. If you have some suggested reading, I'll add it to my reading list
(which has grown rather longer during the last week or so). I really am
interested, just not my highest priority right now...
Leon
>--margaret
Leon
>> >Have you read much of St. Augustine?
>> >You may yet be surprised.
>" And I enquired
>what iniquity was, and found it to be substance, but the perversion
>of the will, turned aside from Thee, O God,"
>
>fascinating stuff.
So true. Book X (from the Confessions) is awe insipring. You will not regret
making the aquintance.
Leon
Leon
>Does the New Criticism literary theory also say something about how a
>piece of writing, or a painting, etc can be almost infinitely interpreted,
>regardless of what the author or artist intended? If so, I'm grateful you
>mentioned it, because I've been trying to remember the name of it for a
>good seven or eight years now. (And I couldn't say I disagree with it. As
>usual, I think the way to go is somewhere in the middle. Intuition coupled
>with factual knowledge.)
You might enjoy reading some of the books on semiotics by Umberto Eco.
Erudite discussion of the above, from one of the world's foremost experts in
the field.
And, as you so eloquently pointed out, very relevant when interpreting tarot
cards.
Titles I know (have) are "Lector in fabula" and "The limits of
interpretation".
Leon
MLYoung
>
><snip>
>
>>Yes, but also the idea that early religions
>>were goddess-centered. Some might have
>>been, but we don't know. Paleolithic
>>statuettes do not a religion make.
>
>
>No. There are, however, clues buried within mythology. I realize it's a
Another thing to realize about mythology--
it must address concerns pertinent to the
living culture. Otherwise, it's dropped.
It's a very bad idea to look at mythology
as indicative of any kind of "forgotten"
history.
>THEORY, and, albeit the most popular one, it is now and probably always will
>be, unproven. I also neglected to say I meant indo-european religion. Don't
>know enough about other cultures to make a blanket statement.
>
>You don't seem to like Robert Graves very much -- I do.
It's not a question of liking Robert Graves,
but recognizing that he wasn't a historian,
an archaeologist, folklorist, or anthropologist.
He was a poet--he created myths that
inspired him.
>
>A lot of what I know (but by no means all) about greeek mythology comes from
>"The Greek Myths". However, he's not the
Why not try the originals? They're all
available in translation.
only person who believed/beliefs in
>the godess theory-thing; my encyclopedia (Britannica) also espouses it.
Once again, it's worth looking at what
the evidence actually is and is not.
>
>I've seen "The White Godess" described as Graves using 'poetic' leaps of
>thought on the subject of mythology -- sounds dangerous, but also
>intrigueing.
Sure, but it's a work of fiction, not of
history.
>
>>What do you know of Greek mythology
>>or Mespotamian that tells you this?
>>Both sets tells me that there pantheons
>>with both gods and godesses.
>>
>>Also, it's not a good idea to read myth
>>as history.
>
>No, but see the myth about the birth of Athena. Something similar with
>Marduk and Tiamat.
So? You can find versions of the Orpheus
myth all over the place. There are lots
of common myth motifs--sometimes it implies
a connections, sometimes it simply denotes
common human experience. It's human
nature to create religion and myth--can't
think of a culture that hasn't.
Certainly unilateral parthogenesis is
all over the place. Gods are always getting
born and conceived through unconventional means.
>
>>>>The spirit dates back to Robert Graves
>>>>and the 19th century Celtic revival.
>
>Isn't Graves (and to a lesser degree Frazer) still required study?
By whom? Certainly not in anthropology.
English or comparative lit. maybe.
>
>>>Haven't read 'The White Godess' yet -- guess I should.
>>>
>>>>There's a basic truth about religion--it
>>>>can't be separated from culture. Neo-
>>>>paganism is much more a reflection of
>>>>a dissatisfaction with Christianity than it
>>>>is any sort of remnant or spirit of
>>>>nonliterate Celts, midwives, and Vikings.
>>>
>>>Indeed.
>>>
>>That's what I'm getting at.
>
>
>That's something entirely different from speculating about the origin of the
>religious beliefs we DO know about, though, isn't it?
When it comes to Goddess worship, no.
Neo-pagan Goddess worship seeks
legitimacy by harking back to goddesses
such as Demeter and Kali--however, in
an attempt to create one big Goddess,
the meaning and place of these goddesses
in their respective pantheons are distorted.
>
>This discussion made me think (thanks for that), but I guess we just
>disagree. If you have some suggested reading, I'll add it to my reading list
> (which has grown rather longer during the last week or so). I really am
>interested, just not my highest priority right now...
I like Ronald Hutton's *The Pagan
Religions of the Ancient British Isles*--
it's just one segment of the debate, but
should give you an idea of the difference
between the scholarly and the popular
approach. If you're pressed for time,
just look up Robert Graves in the index.
Cheers,
--margaret
>
>Leon
>
benedicthassell
>Another thing to realize about mythology--
>it must address concerns pertinent to the
>living culture. Otherwise, it's dropped.
>It's a very bad idea to look at mythology
>as indicative of any kind of "forgotten"
>history...
>Neo-pagan Goddess worship seeks
>legitimacy by harking back to goddesses
>such as Demeter and Kali...
Is all that talk about an Earth Goddess largely invention then?
Is there no evidence for the mythical pre-patriarchal goddess worshipping
matriachy?
I've seen a lot of (fictional) literature portraying early Celtic society
(for example) as Goddess worshipping, with the horned god (Cernunnos,
usually) as less important consort.
I'd assumed that all that fiction was based on *some* historical evidence.
>--however, in
>an attempt to create one big Goddess,
>the meaning and place of these goddesses
>in their respective pantheons are distorted.
Yes, but it's not like the meaning and place of goddesses in their pantheons
is static.
The importance of (for example) Mary the Virgin or Durga the Destroyer has
varied - in some regions (and periods) Mary / the Durga aspect of Kali was
worshipped as much as (or more than) JC / Shiva.
(Not that I can back up that last opinion with any evidence).
However, I get your point.
--
Ben H
Medusa8S8S
>Is all that talk about an Earth Goddess largely invention then?
>Is there no evidence for the mythical pre-patriarchal goddess worshipping
>matriachy?
>I've seen a lot of (fictional) literature portraying early Celtic society
>(for example) as Goddess worshipping, with the horned god (Cernunnos,
>usually) as less important consort.
>I'd assumed that all that fiction was based on *some* historical evidence.
>
What difference does it make? I fail to understand the obsession that some
folks have of proving that worship of The Goddess, rather than a goddess, ever
occurred. Why should an argument regarding the nature of the Divine be
contingent upon historical precedence? Because something is what people have
always believed, or once believed, is not evidence to anything other than just
that. (People used to all think the world was flat, too.)
As far as the history thing goes, though, there is an interesting book out
titled _The Alphabet and the Goddess: The Conflict Between Word and Image_ that
postulates that literacy (the written word), was responsible for the shift in
focus from feminine to masculine.
Of course, there's lots of interesting theories about how it once was, but
ultimately bearing little significance to how things really are, could be, or
should be.
Celebrate!
KatyRose (who thinks perhaps there's a Great Gopher who took power after eating
the Great Dandelion)
ilan pillemer
On Tue, 18 May 1999, Hash B~'/ wrote:
> Gypsy Cowboy wrote in message <24373-37408052-29@newsd-
>
> It is only since the written word that man with his wrong
> brain thinking has used God instead of Goddess. Is it possible that
> if
> one chooses to believe in a diety the diety is both masculine and
> feminine or nonsexual? These are my understandings and subject to
> human
> err and misinformation on my part. jc
Well if you believe God is One and possess no form (and thus limitations)
God is not male, female, hemaphrodite, bisexual or square or circular.
>
>
> Above is from GC - don't know why I lost the indents ...
>
> Prior to the written word did anyone actually differentiate between
> Godand Goddess?
Prior to the written word then thought could not be systemised.
>
> We are talking about omni-~~~ etc and suddendly it boils down to does
> it have a dick or not. I don't mind trying to respect all the s/he and
> hir business but there a some words which do not imply gender and all
> this ~essing at the the end is rather pointless.
Its not pointless. Its a raising of awareness of prejudiced habits that
need to be raised to consciousness before they can be overcome.
Little me
>
> --
> Hash B~'/
>
> @Kabir's House, where the ant can't keep its footing
ilan pillemer
>
> I don't blame you one bit. The idea that either Waite or Thoth is the
> be all/end all makes me want to laugh to keep from crying. Of course,
If thats what makes you cry then this is a very poor showing of your
hierachisation of values. There are refugees fleeing through Europe. There
are women being battered by their husbands. There are children being born
with AIDS because their mothers' made a mistake.
There are far better reasons to cry.
Little me.
>
Shannon
MLYoung wrote in message
<19990518163240...@ng-fx1.aol.com>...
That gar is very Sister Wendy-ish, come to think of it. I think
it's the glasses.
--Shannon
robin
>
>
> I'm probably still not ready, but I'm not quite as spooked.
And We thank you for your Courage!
Sincerely
Tarotpoppa
writes:
>
>On Mon, 17 May 1999 04:35:49 GMT, richard sprigg <kt...@sympatico.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>Fred Hageman wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Which would point up his not being a saint as effectively as anything
>>> else, eh?
>>
>>Have you read much of St. Augustine?
>>You may yet be surprised.
>
>Enough to know that he had came from a very checkered background and
>that after he began on his path he truned away from it all and went on
>to have a completely different life.
>
>Yes, many saints have had checkered backgrounds. It's the fact that
>their foregrounds were entirely different from their backgrounds due
>to their spiritual development that is the point. You will have no
>difficulty in discovering that not a one of them became a saint or
>sage while continuing in all of the stuff that we describe as
>checkered.
So, you believe that the "flesh" is evil and one must give up fleshly pleasures
to become a saint. Might I ask how you came to know this?
> In order to advance, they had to put it all behind them,
>which is what anyone who wishes the same type of results must do. And
>yes, that even applies to Crowley.
>
>Fred
>
So, you are going to be the new guru here? Great, because I would like access
to your source of information as to the steps to sainthood. Please elaborate.
Tell me, oh wise one, how shall I become a saint?
Patrick
"Down in southern California there's a guru who's a-guruing there.
"He's got one hundred and fifty million followers, and they follow him
everywhere." L. Wainright III
richard sprigg
The best was about his
> believing that his attaining samadhi is the most important thing and
> then a few paragraphs down the page it is said that he purposefully
> held himself away from dhyana and samadhi because he felt that the
> intense spiritual joys of these were an impediment to true spiritual
> progress!
>
> What do you think Ramakrishna would have to say about such folderol?
gate
gate
parasumgate
bhottisava.
Tratichema Colbiras
Tarotpoppa wrote in message <19990518002027...@ngol05.aol.com>...
>Tell me, oh wise one, how shall I become a saint?
>
>Patrick
>
>"Down in southern California there's a guru who's a-guruing there.
>"He's got one hundred and fifty million followers, and they follow him
>everywhere." L. Wainright III
>
Damn Pops, where do you get these things? How long does it take you to come up
with an appropriate quote like that???
Just like, DAYum and stuff. O_o
-Colbi
richard sprigg
>
> On Mon, 17 May 1999 04:35:49 GMT, richard sprigg <kt...@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >Fred Hageman wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Which would point up his not being a saint as effectively as anything
> >> else, eh?
> >
> >Have you read much of St. Augustine?
> >You may yet be surprised.
>
> Enough to know that he had came from a very checkered background and
> that after he began on his path he truned away from it all and went on
> to have a completely different life.
Indeed.
"The confessions" are worth a read; they were, I am told, an influence
upon Old Bullethead.
>
> Yes, many saints have had checkered backgrounds. It's the fact that
> their foregrounds were entirely different from their backgrounds due
> to their spiritual development that is the point.
You will have no
> difficulty in discovering that not a one of them became a saint or
> sage while continuing in all of the stuff that we describe as
> checkered. In order to advance, they had to put it all behind them,
> which is what anyone who wishes the same type of results must do. And
> yes, that even applies to Crowley.
You seem to see only one discipline for "saints".
Do you regard St.Tropez as more worthy than Any particular holy man from
another tradition?
richard sprigg
>
> richard sprigg <kt...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:373F9F...@sympatico.ca...
> >Fred Hageman wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Which would point up his not being a saint as effectively as anything
> >> else, eh?
> >
> >Have you read much of St. Augustine?
> >You may yet be surprised.
>
>
Read the confessions, there is an english version on the web.
MLYoung
>Generally, each male divinity has a female "consort" connected with
>it. But, numbers of images aside, Kali and Durga are worshipped by
>many millions of devotees in India. Joyfully, I might add. :)
You don't know your Kali well, do
you?
--margaret
>
>Fred
MLYoung
>that he is living proof, so to speak, against the notion that Margaret
>champions about it being impossible to disconnect religion from
>culture or that mystic systems lose their fundamental context when
>divorced from their culture, or
No, dear, *you're* living proof of
that little theory. You seem to have
a passing familiarity with various
religious beliefs, but clearly understand
none of them.
You've been given several chances to
say something thoughtful or knowledgeable.
Instead, when pressed, you've revealed
your opinions are little more than
wishful thinking and sulking fits.
The depth of your knowledge re:
occult tarot, for example, seems to
be an hour and a half skimming Wang,
about which you're all too ready to
spout glib opinions.
--margaret
Tarotpoppa
>Tarotpoppa wrote:
>
>>Tell me, oh wise one, how shall I become a saint?
>>
>>Patrick
>>
>>"Down in southern California there's a guru who's a-guruing there.
>>"He's got one hundred and fifty million followers, and they follow him
>>everywhere." L. Wainright III
>>
>Damn Pops, where do you get these things? How long does it take you to come
>up
>with an appropriate quote like that???
>Just like, DAYum and stuff. O_o
>
>-Colbi
For most of my life, I was a musician. Full time when the money was good, but
always playing someplace. I was called "Famous Patrick" then, as I was famous
for remembering words to almost every song I had ever learned. I won several
bets for being able to play and sing, word for word, songs like "American Pie,"
" Tamborine Man (4 verses)," "El Paso" etc. The memory is starting to slip,
since I don't play as often, but most of it is still there.
The biggest problem is that I get into a rut where I think about one or two of
my favorite writers. That's when the quotes come hard, because I'm focused on
the one quote, which might be perfect, but I hate to use the same
songwriter/artist over and over.
I love a wide variety of music, so I have a lot of sources.
And now you know "the rest of the story."
Patrick
"And she must have known the words to at least a million tunes." T. O. Boys
MLYoung
>You will have no
>> difficulty in discovering that not a one of them became a saint or
>> sage while continuing in all of the stuff that we describe as
>> checkered. In order to advance, they had to put it all behind them,
>> which is what anyone who wishes the same type of results must do. And
>> yes, that even applies to Crowley.
>
>You seem to see only one discipline for "saints".
>Do you regard St.Tropez as more worthy than Any particular holy man from
>another tradition?
Fred knows about as much about sainthood
as he does about any religious practice.
Several of 'em led less than virtuous lives,
but were sainted for politically expedient
reasons. St. Irene of the Eastern Orthodox
Church was particularly charming--murder,
torture, castration, burning out eyes--she
was less than gentle with her, er, competition.
However, she held the right views on
icons, thus, sainthood.
Then there are the mythical ones--local
deities incorporated into the Catholic
"pantheon."
--margaret
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Subject: Re: Rohrig?
>Path:
>lobby!newstf02.news.aol.com!portc02.blue.aol.com!howland.erols.net!newspe
er.monmouth.com!nf1.mgmt.sympatico.ca!news1.bellglobal.com!news21.bellglob
al.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
>Message-ID: <3740F9...@sympatico.ca>
>From: richard sprigg <kt...@sympatico.ca>
>Reply-To: kt...@sympatico.ca
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-SYMPA (Win95; U)
>MIME-Version: 1.0
Medusa8S8S
>You've been given several chances to
>say something thoughtful or knowledgeable.
>Instead, when pressed, you've revealed
>your opinions are little more than
>wishful thinking and sulking fits.
>
Actually, Margaret, I think you should be nominated for sainthood for actually
attempting intelligent conversation with the fool. He wants no information,
just someone to pit himself against.
Celebrate!
KatyRose
MLYoung
Yeah, well, he asked me for a second
chance in e-mail a week or so ago.
Seemed to think he could behave himself.
Unfortunately, he seems to have no idea
how to actually have a discussion.
I just get so tired of that sort of egotism--
the tedious ego-puffing, the pointless
personal attacks, the unwillingness to
understand another point of view,
combined with a sense that one is
entitled to information on demand.
It never seems to occur to them that
we don't exist solely for their benefit.
--margaret
--margaret
>
>Celebrate!
>KatyRose
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Subject: Re: Rohrig?
>Path: lobby!newstf02.news.aol.com!audrey03.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
>From: medus...@aol.com8S (Medusa8S8S)
>Newsgroups: alt.tarot
>Lines: 17
>NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder06.news.aol.com
>X-Admin: ne...@aol.com
>Date: 18 May 1999 05:55:07 GMT
>Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>References: <19990518013353...@ng-cn1.aol.com>
>Message-ID: <19990518015507...@ng-cc1.aol.com>
Medusa8S8S
>Kali and Durga are worshipped by
>>many millions of devotees in India. Joyfully, I might add. :)
>
>You don't know your Kali well, do
>you?
>
But whether you think Kali should be worshipped, joyfully or otherwise, it does
not change the fact that she is, and with great joy and devotion.
Celebrate!
KatyRose
MLYoung
Devotion, yes, but, joy? With Kali, it's
more like worship, or else! Basically,
one worships Kali because she wouldn't
have it any other way. Indeed, an acquaintance of mine born under Kali was
supposed to be drowned at birth because
it was considered a bad omen. The cult of
Kali is also one of the few that still practices
human sacrifice.
One of the things modern Westerners
forget, I think, is that gods and godesses
are worshipped out of fear as often as
joy. Awe is awesome and awful.
--margaret
>
>Celebrate!
>KatyRose
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Subject: Re: Rohrig?
>Path: lobby!newstf02.news.aol.com!audrey03.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
>From: medus...@aol.com8S (Medusa8S8S)
>Newsgroups: alt.tarot
>Lines: 16
>NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder06.news.aol.com
>X-Admin: ne...@aol.com
>Date: 18 May 1999 06:27:25 GMT
>Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>References: <19990518012256...@ng-cn1.aol.com>
>Message-ID: <19990518022725...@ng-cc1.aol.com>
>