Tarot and Qabalah (was ...)
nagasiva
Joel Biroco:
> I mean tarot isn't based on qabala.
what some people call their tarot was based on what they
called their qabalah.
nagasiva
Asiya
news:7Whn8.6969$44.5...@typhoon.sonic.net...
> Joel Biroco:
> > I mean tarot isn't based on qabala.
>
> what some people call their tarot was based on what they
> called their qabalah.
Yes. Waite and Crowley based their decks on the Qabalah, and those
have been the two most influential decks in modern times.
Asiya
**********
www.geocities.com/shadowsofasiya/
Eat the meatballs to email me.
Theo
Asiya wrote:
> "nagasiva" <naga...@yronwode.SPAMcom> wrote in message
> news:7Whn8.6969$44.5...@typhoon.sonic.net...
> > Joel Biroco:
> > > I mean tarot isn't based on qabala.
> >
> > what some people call their tarot was based on what they
> > called their qabalah.
>
> Yes. Waite and Crowley based their decks on the Qabalah, and those
> have been the two most influential decks in modern times.
Tarot existed since long time before Waite and Crowley .. and had
existed very good users of them like Cagliostro and many others that
disappeared unknown in past centuries and probably most of them
did not know Kabala nor were members of GD
So I do not think that W and C made a *more performant tarot* Tarot
is card board and color *hardware* them are just *inert*
the sensibility of some people to interpret them is the real *
software* that *activate* the sincronicity and wells into the
collective inconscious to dig the answer needed .
I think for a reading , a Marseille ,Waite or AC or whatever tarot
are exactly the same .. with the same possibilities
If I use the Thoth's according the Marseille interpretations the
answers should be the same either if I see it under the Gd point of
view or not .Both won't have secrets for an experienced reader even if
he/she is not used to Thoths or Waite or GD interpretations.. and
viceversa ..
of course my personal opinions as usual !
I just made some tarots today .. and they were in the same line with
another reading on thesame topic I made last month, and that has
already been coinfirmed in between the 2 dates of the layouts
Next time I'll do using Thoths and interpreting according Marseille
way and anotehr time thots as as :
Theo
>
>
> Asiya
> **********
> www.geocities.com/shadowsofasiya/
> Eat the meatballs to email me.
--
"93 93/93"
"My interest is in the future as I am going to spend the rest of my
life there"
Charles.F.Kettering
Inventor
Tarots
http://www.AthamZ.com
Casey Sheldon
"Theo" <byj...@ch.inter.net> wrote in message
news:3C9DBECD...@ch.inter.net...
>
>
> Asiya wrote:
>
> > "nagasiva" <naga...@yronwode.SPAMcom> wrote in message
> > news:7Whn8.6969$44.5...@typhoon.sonic.net...
> > > Joel Biroco:
> > > > I mean tarot isn't based on qabala.
> > >
> > > what some people call their tarot was based on what they
> > > called their qabalah.
> >
> > Yes. Waite and Crowley based their decks on the Qabalah, and those
> > have been the two most influential decks in modern times.
>
> Tarot existed since long time before Waite and Crowley
Ford didn't invent the car, but we remember him as the one who made them
mass-marketable.
--
Casey Sheldon
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A man's ethical behavior should be based
effectually on sympathy, education, and social
ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would
indeed be in a poor way if he had to be
restrained by fear of punishment and hope of
reward after death."
- Albert Einstein
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
catherine yronwode
>
> Joel Biroco:
> > I mean tarot isn't based on qabala.
>
> what some people call their tarot was based on what they
> called their qabalah.
ROFLMAO!!!!!
cat yronwode
Hieronymous707
"what some people call their tarot was based on what they called their
qabalah."
>ROFLMAO!!!!!
I'll second that.
-hi-
Pearlz
> "nagasiva" <naga...@yronwode.SPAMcom> wrote in message
> news:7Whn8.6969$44.5...@typhoon.sonic.net...
> > Joel Biroco:
> > > I mean tarot isn't based on qabala.
When tarot is not based on qabala, what set of meanings
do people use for the cards?
> > what some people call their tarot was based on what they
> > called their qabalah.
>
> Yes. Waite and Crowley based their decks on the Qabalah, and those
> have been the two most influential decks in modern times.
I'd be lost doing tarot without the QBL, but I learned to do it
that way. I'm curious about what attributions people use when
they don't use QBL.
- Peggy -
Prophet 718
If there were a positive source for identifying where the meanings
of the cards originate, I could see claiming the Tarot is not based on
Qabala. There are however enough similarities between the symbols of
the Tarot and Qabala that at the very least a valid hypothesis can be
formed demonstrating a relationship between the two systems. The
connection between the symbolism of the trumps and some of the
cosmographic components of the Qabala is obvious, meaning the zodiac,
planets, elements, etc. Early in my study of the Tarot I asked the
inevitable question: where do the meanings of the small cards derive
from? A close study of the meanings of the small cards in relation the
numbers on them indicates a possible connection with Qabala. According
to Crowley there are no contradictions above the abyss on the Tree of
Life. He also postulates that as the numbers increase in size from 1
to 10 in relation to the stations on the Tree, they steadily degrade,
with 1 being purest and 10 the most impure. These two factors can be
shown to roughly correspond with the meanings of the lesser arcana. Of
the cards numbered 1-3, the numbers appearing above the abyss on the
Tree, none of the cards bearing these numbers have meanings with
negative connotations. The first card to exhibit a negative aspect is
one of the cards numbered 4, followed by the cards numbered 5 which
all have essentially negative meanings. Looking at the middle pillar
of the Tree shows all of the aces to be positive, followed by all of
the sixes which are positive in meaning, followed by the cards
numbered 9 which all have positive meanings but one. The meanings of
the cards numbered 10 are in reverse order to those numbered 9,
consisting of three negative aspects and one positive. The prevailing
pattern is impressive enough to consider the smaller arcana as
possibly deriving its meanings from Qabala.
Prophet 718
nagasiva
nagasiva:
eyeo...@yahoo.com (Prophet 718):
> If there were a positive source for identifying where the meanings of the
> cards originate
are you suggesting that there is a single set of meanings which may be
attached to "the cards" (i.e. the decks manufactured by various
occultists)? I gathered that a comparison of Crowley's "Book of Thoth",
for example, with Waite's "Pictorial Key to the Tarot" will yield a
slight variety of differences and overlaps in meaning. this is what we
would expect given the divergence of the authors in question and their
ability to fabricate novel magical systems as artists and occultists.
then again, if Crowley based his stuff on the Golden Dawn (some of
which he certainly did), he may have had Waite's expressions (as well
as Regardie's and anyone else publishing on the subject) in mind when
he issued his own in his guide-book.
> I could see claiming the Tarot is not based on Qabala.
it is far easier to notice the complexity of the Kabbalah and that no
single symbol-system could incorporate the diversity of its content.
what Crowley or whoever dumbed down into "their Qabalah" could of
course substitute and present accordingly, but this is no surprise.
> There are however enough similarities between the symbols of
> the Tarot and Qabala
this is hardly surprising, given the intent of those creating decks.
> that at the very least a valid hypothesis can be formed demonstrating
> a relationship between the two systems.
this is why I responded the way that I did (that what some identified
as their qabalah did form the foundation for what they identified as
their tarot). note that this is quite different than analyzing the
outrageous expressions of fabricators like Eliphas Levi in his
"Transcendental Magic" or Papus in his "Tarot of the Bohemians", which
some of these same magicians decided to use as 'part of their tarot'
as well as 'part of their qabalah'. there's no crime in this, but as
it competes with other religiomagical systems like Judaism's Kabbalah,
it has the ring of the orientalism present in other aspects of their
work as well as that of their predecessors.
> The connection between the symbolism of the trumps and some of the
> cosmographic components of the Qabala is obvious, meaning the zodiac,
> planets, elements, etc.
integral, very likely, in occult tarot decks, agreed, though with
arguable success as regards the composition and 'fit' (we've been
analyzing this 'fit' lately in alt.magick and alt.tarot from the
standpoint of how Waite's deck and expressions compare with that
of the Golden Dawn (significant differences present!). it is also
very important that the association-schemes amongst occultists do
*not* accord with one another (an argument against any kind of
underlying 'necessity' in the symbol-systems they constructed).
> Early in my study of the Tarot I asked the inevitable question:
> where do the meanings of the small cards derive from? A close
> study of the meanings of the small cards in relation the numbers
> on them indicates a possible connection with Qabala.
this is a VERY good question, especially as it centers on any
particular author or deck-describer. might Waite have been
inspired by fortune-teller decks, for example? quite possible.
it seems worthwhile to consider whether he was inspired by the
art of alchemists too ('emblems', see such works as "Michael
Maier's Atalanta Fugiens: Links with the Archetypal Symbolism
of the Vault" for some Rosicrucian graphics of comparisons).
> According to Crowley there are no contradictions above the abyss on
> the Tree of Life.
he got the idea from von Rosenroth, mostly likely. I doubt that
he much to add from direct experience as a mystic (because it
seems very plain that his mystico-magical system failed him).
> He also postulates that as the numbers increase in size from 1
> to 10 in relation to the stations on the Tree, they steadily
> degrade....
again, my impression is that Crowley's is mere redaction of
Christianized and Hermeticized Jewish sources, and that he is
relatively nonauthoritative to any outside his cult, especially
where anything mystical is concerned (because he demonstrates
in his diaries his abject spiritual immaturity).
> ...The meanings of the cards numbered 10 are in reverse order
> to those numbered 9, consisting of three negative aspects and
> one positive. The prevailing pattern is impressive enough to
> consider the smaller arcana as possibly deriving its meanings
> from Qabala.
it is far easier to merely take what these authors have said
about the decks which they've contracted artists to help them
create (with Waite, Pamela Colman-Smith, with Crowley, Freida
Harris) and see how this fits with their other expressions on
the nature of "the Holy Kabbalah" (in Waite's case, "Qabalah"
with Crowley; again, selected micro-versions of what they knew).
I think we're making about the same point, saying less about the
origins of Tarot (which most agree were in an Italian card game
called 'Tarocci'), and more about how any particular occultists
may have constructed their decks. the same might be claimed or
analyzed regarding the modern constructions of tarot decks. I
have in my own creation of a tarot deck used Taoist elements and
penta- and decimal symbol associations (in part to allow for a
more modern and scientific presentation, but also because I find
it more elegant than the Aristotlean quaternals). it might be
said to "integrate my QBL" as long as "my QBL" only includes my
circle-line-constructions that identify as a "Tree of Life" (on
a tetraktys or tetrahedron and theories surrounding number and
letters).
it is no surprise when an artist chooses from what she wishes to
be inspired in her creation of the art, whether that be something
she calls "her Qabalah" or "her Qablahblah".
n
a B
g l b
a e e
s s a
i s s
v e t
a d !
@yronwode.com
Joseph
>
> 50020325 VI
>
> nagasiva:
> >> what some people call their tarot was based on what they called their qabalah.
if the qabalah is an explanation of creation and how everything came into
being then the tarot must fit in there somewhere.
if a flower can be indicative of the qabalah why not a deck of cards, even if
not specifically meant to be so?
even if the tarot has nothing to do with the qabalah doesn't the qabalah have
something to do with tarot? even if nothing more than elementary "flash cards"
or a tool for teaching and learning the exegesis of hebraic-christian
mysticism? which ultimately must be experienced, no matter what the tools
used to bring one closer to the state of mind that allows the experience to
blossom and unfold are?
as many people have pointed out, whatever the origins of the tarot may be, it
is possible to see a sympathy between them and the revealed writings on the
symbols of the qabalah. the letters and numbers of creation.
debating the merits of one deck over another in this respect is like saying
one flavour of cheese is correct and another is wrong, one view of creation is
correct and another is not. ultimately one must decide for oneself based on
ones own experiences assuming one gets beyond scholastic speculation and into
actual experience of the subject.
joseph
Pearlz
What about the 3 of cups -- Sorrow. That is negative.
At the same time it still might fit into the model you present.
I think of it as the Sorrow depicted in the rosary's "sorrowful
> The first card to exhibit a negative aspect is
> one of the cards numbered 4, followed by the cards numbered 5 which
> all have essentially negative meanings. Looking at the middle pillar
> of the Tree shows all of the aces to be positive, followed by all of
> the sixes which are positive in meaning, followed by the cards
> numbered 9 which all have positive meanings but one. The meanings of
> the cards numbered 10 are in reverse order to those numbered 9,
> consisting of three negative aspects and one positive. The prevailing
> pattern is impressive enough to consider the smaller arcana as
> possibly deriving its meanings from Qabala.
I think you're onto something in that your model makes sense.
However, most modern systems do use the QBL. Certainly Crowley
does.
Prior to the Golden Dawn, what system was used for the minor arcana?
If you're looking for a modern system that does not use QBL, some
of the celtic-inspired decks qualify.
- Peggy -
Joel Biroco
I trust this was an error and you meant Three of Swords.
>That is negative.
>At the same time it still might fit into the model you present.
>I think of it as the Sorrow depicted in the rosary's "sorrowful
>
>> The first card to exhibit a negative aspect is
>> one of the cards numbered 4, followed by the cards numbered 5 which
>> all have essentially negative meanings. Looking at the middle pillar
>> of the Tree shows all of the aces to be positive, followed by all of
>> the sixes which are positive in meaning, followed by the cards
>> numbered 9 which all have positive meanings but one. The meanings of
>> the cards numbered 10 are in reverse order to those numbered 9,
>> consisting of three negative aspects and one positive. The prevailing
>> pattern is impressive enough to consider the smaller arcana as
>> possibly deriving its meanings from Qabala.
>
>I think you're onto something in that your model makes sense.
>However, most modern systems do use the QBL. Certainly Crowley
>does.
>
>Prior to the Golden Dawn, what system was used for the minor arcana?
It's a fallacy to suppose there was a "system" or need of a system.
Broadly speaking, you could say that the tarot represents society. You
can see that the suits represent classes, cups the clergy, swords the
military nobility, wands (batons) the peasants, coins the merchant
class. The trumps have many precursors, the fool the jester and
trickster, the hanged man the traitor, Death and the Devil being
literally those things etc etc. All the trumps can be traced back to
non-qabalistic origins in the great story. Qabala is just a gross
imposition on the tarot. And true qabalists, as opposed to occultist
pseudo-qabalists, feel exactly the same, reference Gershom Scholem's
comment reproduced in the front matter of Wang's "The Qabalistic
Tarot" in which he says tarot is totally unrelated to Kabbalah and is
merely a confusion by French and English occultists. Michael Dummett
says much the same thing in "The Game of Tarot". The Golden Dawn,
founded on fakery, is not the arbiter of what the tarot is.
>
>If you're looking for a modern system that does not use QBL, some
>of the celtic-inspired decks qualify.
There is no need for those who don't wish to interpret tarot through
the scaffolding of qabala to be relegated to a plagiaristic and
feeble-minded New Age deck. The Waite deck is fine, it is a myth that
it is particularly qabalistic, there is pseudo-masonic flourish and
qabalistic waffle in the Majors (see Bob O'Neill's "Sources of the
Waite/Smith Tarot Symbols", which is on the web) but the Minors are
mostly based on traditional divinatory meanings, in fact the drawings
are mnemonics for these meanings. Nothing especially qabalistic about
it, despite Waite's background. The qabala school of tarot is just an
ill-educated vain elitism that supposes it knows better, but it's
claims don't stack up. To me, qabala applied to tarot is taking a
sledge-hammer to crack a nut and totally obscures the real beauty of
the cards with an undesirable veneer. Try cutting yourself adrift from
qabala and *really looking* at the tarot in its own right, free of
this turgid apparatus that forever keeps you one step removed from the
thing-in-itself.
>
>- Peggy -
Pearlz
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Joel Biroco wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 05:57:29 -0800, Pearlz <pea...@efn.org> wrote:
>
> >On 25 Mar 2002, Prophet 718 wrote:
> >> nagasiva <naga...@yronwode.SPAMcom> wrote in message news:<7Whn8.6969$44.5...@typhoon.sonic.net>...
> >> > 50020324 VI
> >> > Joel Biroco:
> >What about the 3 of cups -- Sorrow.
>
> I trust this was an error and you meant Three of Swords.
Nope. 3 of cups. YMMV of course.
- Peggy -
catherine yronwode
>
> Prior to the Golden Dawn, what system was used for the minor arcana?
Madame LeNormand's system was without a doubt the most popular method
used when ascribing visual symbols and divinatory meanings to playing
cards (which equate to what in GD-style tarot set-ups are called the
"minor arcana" (lesser mysteries)).
cat yronwode
Lucky Mojo Spells Archive ------ http://www.luckymojo.com/spells.html
Joel Biroco
I don't know what YMMV means.
You see the 3 of cups as sorrow? Then I fail to see how your
"qabalistic" approach is helping you at all, you are out of step both
with tradition *and* qabala. How does your understanding of qabala
lead you to interpret the 3 of cups as sorrow?
How do you interpret the 3 of swords? What deck do you use and is this
an interpretation of the 3 of cups that came with it?
>
>- Peggy -
>
J. Karlin
> If there were a positive source for identifying where the meanings
> of the cards originate---
There are positive sources for this. Some are even true.
(jk)
**********************************************
Read the alt.tarot FAQ:
http://lonestar.texas.net/~r3winter/tarotfaq.html
More tarot resources available at:
http://lonestar.texas.net/~r3winter/cinematarotica.html
**********************************************
J. Karlin
> > I trust this was an error and you meant Three of Swords.
> Nope. 3 of cups. YMMV of course.
Yeah, especially if you put water in the gas tank.
J. Karlin
> 50020324 VI
> Joel Biroco:
> > I mean tarot isn't based on qabala.
Occult Tarot is based on a (not necessarily THE) Kabbalistic
myth.
Ignoring that fact can confuse your understanding of lots
of Tarotic and occult matters.
> what some people call their tarot was based on what they
> called their qabalah.
You can be less restrained than that.
While I understand that the idea of accepting certain facts
as irrefutable makes some people automatically start looking
for mind-altering drugs to cope with (or maybe for a lawyer
to get them out of it), the truth is that Tarot WAS a card game,
then it became ALSO a fortune-telling device, then it became
ALSO an occult encyclopedia and Kabbalistic key to the cosmos,
then it became ALSO a product to be mass-marketed to simpletons.
Of course there's a way in which you might say it was always
all these things and, in all these manifestations, Tarot has
also been a tool for swindlers (of numerous stripes and
convictions).
All the while, still a game, and all the while still played
as a game.
J. Karlin
> >Nope. 3 of cups. YMMV of course.
> I don't know what YMMV means.
Your mileage may vary---often said by people who want to dismiss
the obvious fact they don't know what the fuck they're doing or
talking about.
> You see the 3 of cups as sorrow?
Some people get depressed by happiness.
> Then I fail to see how your "qabalistic" approach is helping
> you at all---
Well, she (or he) is getting attention from people.
That's probably a rare thing in her life.
J. Karlin
> Pearlz wrote:
> > Prior to the Golden Dawn, what system was used for the minor arcana?
> Madame LeNormand's system---
Where did she come up with that?
Pearlz
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, catherine yronwode wrote:
> Pearlz wrote:
> >
> > Prior to the Golden Dawn, what system was used for the minor arcana?
>
> Madame LeNormand's system was without a doubt the most popular method
> used when ascribing visual symbols and divinatory meanings to playing
> cards (which equate to what in GD-style tarot set-ups are called the
> "minor arcana" (lesser mysteries)).
Thanks! I will try to locate a copy. I have a feeling this won't
be easy.
- Peggy -
catherine yronwode
>
> catherine yronwode wrote:
> > Madame LeNormand's system---
>
> Where did she come up with that?
I would assume that you, as a tarot historian, would have more
information than i, a generalist, would have. I don't have much
knowledge about Madamoiselle (not Madame, sorry, my error) LeNormand,
merely a ton of early through late 19th century books and card decks
ascribed to her and presenting variations of her system. I assume she
flourished during the Napoleonic era, to judge from what i have read.
Her system of ascriptions (uncredited) is still used today and Le
Normand style divination cards in several beautiful variations are still
in print from the Swiss firm Piatnik. A comparison between LeNormand's
attributions for playing cards and the Waite-Smith "lesser arcana" is
quite interesting, and Waite's text, as i read it, points to the latter
deriving from the former, not the other way around.
cat yronwode
Prophet 718
> > If there were a positive source for identifying where the meanings of the
> > cards originate
>
> are you suggesting that there is a single set of meanings which may be
> attached to "the cards" (i.e. the decks manufactured by various
> occultists)? I gathered that a comparison of Crowley's "Book of Thoth",
> for example, with Waite's "Pictorial Key to the Tarot" will yield a
> slight variety of differences and overlaps in meaning. this is what we
> would expect given the divergence of the authors in question and their
> ability to fabricate novel magical systems as artists and occultists.
I bought Waite's deck at a time when the Book of Thoth deck and
companion book were scarce. I no longer have them, but given the fact
Waite was a member of the G.D. I assume his interpretation of the
cards are similar to those of the G.D and Crowley.
>
> then again, if Crowley based his stuff on the Golden Dawn (some of
> which he certainly did), he may have had Waite's expressions (as well
> as Regardie's and anyone else publishing on the subject) in mind when
> he issued his own in his guide-book.
Crowley's original publication on the Tarot (Equinox volume 1,
number 8 - 'Tarot Divination') is identical to G.D. technical
literature on the subject. The Book of Thoth differs in the fact he
dropped most of the astrological associations found in the first work
and added his syncretic interpretations of the cards utilizing diverse
myths.
>
> > I could see claiming the Tarot is not based on Qabala.
>
> it is far easier to notice the complexity of the Kabbalah and that no
> single symbol-system could incorporate the diversity of its content.
> what Crowley or whoever dumbed down into "their Qabalah" could of
> course substitute and present accordingly, but this is no surprise.
Agreed.
>
> > There are however enough similarities between the symbols of
> > the Tarot and Qabala
>
> this is hardly surprising, given the intent of those creating decks.
>
> > that at the very least a valid hypothesis can be formed demonstrating
> > a relationship between the two systems.
>
> this is why I responded the way that I did (that what some identified
> as their qabalah did form the foundation for what they identified as
> their tarot). note that this is quite different than analyzing the
> outrageous expressions of fabricators like Eliphas Levi in his
> "Transcendental Magic" or Papus in his "Tarot of the Bohemians", which
> some of these same magicians decided to use as 'part of their tarot'
> as well as 'part of their qabalah'.
Perhaps the worst aspect is the usage or reference to the wisdom of
the Egyptians prior to the discovery of the Rosetta stone and the
understanding of Egyptian beliefs / language.
This afternoon I checked Regardie's 'The Golden Dawn' for clues as
to the origin of the meanings of the small cards in the G.D. system,
and it appears the meanings are indeed derived from Qabala. See page
156 of Volume 4 - Book 8 of ' The Golden dawn'. I'm still unclear as
to the minute specifics of the logic, but certainly the meanings of
the numbers are derived from the stations of the TOL. What will skew
this theory is evidence of the meanings existing in a deck before the
Golden Dawn was founded, Levi excluded of course.
>
> > According to Crowley there are no contradictions above the abyss on
> > the Tree of Life.
>
> he got the idea from von Rosenroth, mostly likely. I doubt that
> he much to add from direct experience as a mystic (because it
> seems very plain that his mystico-magical system failed him).
I'm interested in learning your standards for establishing success
in occult work.
>
> > He also postulates that as the numbers increase in size from 1
> > to 10 in relation to the stations on the Tree, they steadily
> > degrade....
>
> again, my impression is that Crowley's is mere redaction of
> Christianized and Hermeticized Jewish sources, and that he is
> relatively nonauthoritative to any outside his cult, especially
> where anything mystical is concerned (because he demonstrates
> in his diaries his abject spiritual immaturity).
I think his syncretic layering of symbolism from multiple cultures
is quite original, although the symbolism used is not. If you find
time to elucidate your theories on occult success standards, please
include any issues related to maturity as well.
>
> > ...The meanings of the cards numbered 10 are in reverse order
> > to those numbered 9, consisting of three negative aspects and
> > one positive. The prevailing pattern is impressive enough to
> > consider the smaller arcana as possibly deriving its meanings
> > from Qabala.
>
> it is far easier to merely take what these authors have said
> about the decks which they've contracted artists to help them
> create (with Waite, Pamela Colman-Smith, with Crowley, Freida
> Harris) and see how this fits with their other expressions on
> the nature of "the Holy Kabbalah" (in Waite's case, "Qabalah"
> with Crowley; again, selected micro-versions of what they knew).
>
> I think we're making about the same point, saying less about the
> origins of Tarot (which most agree were in an Italian card game
> called 'Tarocci'), and more about how any particular occultists
> may have constructed their decks.
Agreed. While there is evidence of divinatory / fortune-telling
aspects of the cards utilized by pre-19th century exponents, it
appears the use of the Tarot by occultists began with Levi and those
to follow him, like Mathers, Crowley and Waite. Are you aware of any
comparisons made between the meanings of the lesser arcana as defined
prior to the 19th century with those of the magical revivalists?
> the same might be claimed or
> analyzed regarding the modern constructions of tarot decks. I
> have in my own creation of a tarot deck used Taoist elements and
> penta- and decimal symbol associations (in part to allow for a
> more modern and scientific presentation, but also because I find
> it more elegant than the Aristotlean quaternals). it might be
> said to "integrate my QBL" as long as "my QBL" only includes my
> circle-line-constructions that identify as a "Tree of Life" (on
> a tetraktys or tetrahedron and theories surrounding number and
> letters).
If you had cards printed, I would like to know where you had them
made. I am also interested in a modern accounting of facts and ideas
which reflect the advances made in human awareness of nature as
opposed to blind obedience to the herd or their traditions. :-).
Prophet 718
catherine yronwode
Actually, many early to mid LeNormand style card decks and books are in
print. About a year ago siva spent a while keying in texts from a batch
of his and my 19th century card-divination books, but he set that
project aside to work on other things and then, due to some hard drive
upgrades and consequent data transfer problems, the material went into
deep electron storage, from which it only recently re-emerged, praise be
to Bob. I have been urging him to get it all online, and i will probably
help him with this, AFTER our next mutual project, the Dr. Strange
(Marvel Comics) index of magical spells.
cat yronwode
The Esoteric Archive --------- http://www.luckymojo.com/esoteric.html
Joel Biroco
wrote:
>nagasiva wrote:
>
>> 50020324 VI
>
>> Joel Biroco:
>
>> > I mean tarot isn't based on qabala.
>
>Occult Tarot is based on a (not necessarily THE) Kabbalistic
>myth.
>
>Ignoring that fact can confuse your understanding of lots
>of Tarotic and occult matters.
By "occult tarot" you presumably mean the tarot of Crowley and Golden
Dawn pseudo-qabalistic tarot. *Any* tarot used for divination is
"occult", irrespective of whether it has qabalistic influence in its
design or not. Choosing not to follow a qabalistic approach (not
"ignoring") does not mean that one is necessarily unaware of the
symbolism used. Take Crowley's 4 of wands for instance, how much does
it really add to the interpretation of the 4 of wands that the wands
carry the head of a ram and a dove? Take that to Venus in Aries, what
then? It's still the 4 of wands. Or the fact that Crowley uses Tibetan
dorjes on the 2 of wands, what does that really add to the 2 of the
wands? A vague hint of thunder perhaps. Take it to Mars in Aries, what
does that add to the 2 of wands? You can stick hexagrams on the cards,
maybe hexagram 55 on the 3 of cups, what does it add, it's still a
tarot card and who is to say the meaning of hexagram 55 hasn't changed
since you last looked ? (It has.) A profusion of occult symbols on
tarot cards may look impressive to beginner magicians, but frankly I
find it vastly over-rated and bordering on mere theme decoration, as
beautiful as the Thoth deck is.
Asiya
news:10cff505.02032...@posting.google.com...
> nagasiva <naga...@yronwode.SPAMcom> wrote:
> >
> > are you suggesting that there is a single set of meanings which
may be
> > attached to "the cards" (i.e. the decks manufactured by various
> > occultists)? I gathered that a comparison of Crowley's "Book of
Thoth",
> > for example, with Waite's "Pictorial Key to the Tarot" will yield
a
> > slight variety of differences and overlaps in meaning. this is
what we
> > would expect given the divergence of the authors in question and
their
> > ability to fabricate novel magical systems as artists and
occultists.
>
> I bought Waite's deck at a time when the Book of Thoth deck and
> companion book were scarce. I no longer have them, but given the
fact
> Waite was a member of the G.D. I assume his interpretation of the
> cards are similar to those of the G.D and Crowley.
They are. The differences between Waite's and Crowley's meanings are
slight, except for the few cards that Crowley felt had to be changed
to reflect the "New Aeon".
J. Karlin
> >Ignoring that fact can confuse your understanding of lots
> >of Tarotic and occult matters.
> By "occult tarot" you presumably mean the tarot of Crowley and Golden
> Dawn pseudo-qabalistic tarot.
Why "pseudo"?
And no, that isn't what I mean by occult Tarot.
> *Any* tarot used for divination is "occult"---
Why is that?
> , irrespective of whether it has qabalistic influence in its
> design or not.
Then what do the designs have to do with anything?
> Choosing not to follow a qabalistic approach (not
> "ignoring")---
Explain this distinction you're making.
> does not mean that one is necessarily unaware of the
> symbolism used. Take Crowley's 4 of wands for instance, how much does
> it really add to the interpretation---
What kind of interpretation? Divinatory or symbolic or something
else?
> of the 4 of wands that the wands carry the head of a
> ram and a dove?
Obviously these symbols are there for a reason.
If the reason doesn't interest you, why bother with
visual depictions of symbols in the first place, or
with those of that particular deck?
> Take that to Venus in Aries, what then?
Same as above.
> It's still the 4 of wands.
Thoth provides a particular expression of 4 of Wands.
"4 of Wands" really doesn't mean anything unless
you understand the language(s) being expressed.
> Or the fact that Crowley uses Tibetan dorjes on the 2 of
> wands, what does that really add to the 2 of the
> wands?
Again, it's his expression of a very old idea, a
Tarot tradition in fact.
What is that tradition?
> A vague hint of thunder perhaps.
Are you asking or telling?
> Take it to Mars in Aries, what does that add to the
> 2 of wands?
Well, what is the traditional symbolic and divinatory
meaning of 2 of Wands?
> You can stick hexagrams on the cards---
But Crowley didn't do that.
> maybe hexagram 55 on the 3 of cups, what does it add, it's still a
> tarot card---
Maybe, maybe not.
Tarot is about something.
You can be wrong in Tarot.
You can (sometimes) add something to Tarot, sometimes
something worth adding.
You can know what you're talking about.
You can most definitely not know what you're
talking about.
Asiya
news:6fo1aukj99e0v9msu...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 19:22:09 GMT, "J. Karlin" <r3wi...@texas.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Occult Tarot is based on a (not necessarily THE) Kabbalistic
> >myth.
> >
> >Ignoring that fact can confuse your understanding of lots
> >of Tarotic and occult matters.
>
> By "occult tarot" you presumably mean the tarot of Crowley and
Golden
> Dawn pseudo-qabalistic tarot. *Any* tarot used for divination is
> "occult",
The Tarot is not used only for divination.
J. Karlin
> J. Karlin wrote:
> > catherine yronwode wrote:
> > > Madame LeNormand's system---
> >
> > Where did she come up with that?
> I would assume---
You do that a lot.
Why?
> that you, as a tarot historian---
When was I promoted, or shunted off, as that?
> , would have more information than i, a generalist---
So "generalists" are allowed to have flimsy grasps
of historical facts?
And how did you come by that understanding of the
demands of the generalist profession?
> , would have. I don't have much knowledge about
> Madamoiselle (not Madame, sorry, my error) LeNormand---
Then how do you know that she ever had a system, about
Tarot, or about anything?
> merely a ton of early through late 19th century books---
Like what for example that would indicate Lenormand had
a system (of Tarot)?
> and card decks ascribed to her and presenting variations of
> her system.
What do you understand to be an example of her system?
> I assume she flourished during the Napoleonic era, to judge
> from what i have read.
In what books have you read about her, the ones which you've
found to be particularly enlightening concerning her and
her system?
> Her system of ascriptions (uncredited)---
Like what for example?
> is still used today and Le Normand style divination cards
> in several beautiful variations---
You sound like you're writing an e-Bay ad.
> are still in print from the Swiss firm Piatnik. A comparison
> between LeNormand's attributions for playing cards and the
> Waite-Smith "lesser arcana" is quite interesting---
How so?
> , and Waite's text, as i read it, points to the latter
> deriving from the former, not the other way around.
Waite never claimed not to be borrower or thief.
But that doesn't mean Lenormand had a system to borrow
or steal from.
J. Karlin
> "Joel Biroco" <bir...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6fo1aukj99e0v9msu...@4ax.com...
> > *Any* tarot used for divination is
> > "occult",
> The Tarot is not used only for divination.
The implications and invitations of that fact have not
dented many minds on these newsgroups, or elsewhere.
BhP
> Of the cards numbered 1-3, the numbers appearing above the abyss on the
> Tree, none of the cards bearing these numbers have meanings with
> negative connotations. The first card to exhibit a negative aspect is
> one of the cards numbered 4, followed by the cards numbered 5 which
> all have essentially negative meanings. Looking at the middle pillar
> of the Tree shows all of the aces to be positive, followed by all of
> the sixes which are positive in meaning, followed by the cards
> numbered 9 which all have positive meanings but one. The meanings of
> the cards numbered 10 are in reverse order to those numbered 9,
> consisting of three negative aspects and one positive.
Do you actually interpret the cards as having inherently "positive" or
"negative" attributions?
> The prevailing
> pattern is impressive enough to consider the smaller arcana as
> possibly deriving its meanings from Qabala.
Are you saying you believe geburah is a "negative" sephirot and
tipareth to be a "positive" sephirot, etc.?
While I agree that most current tarot decks derive their meanings from
qabala, I think your reasoning and your interpretations are
questionable. The sephira are not positive or negative, they simply
are. And the cards can be positive or negative, their interpretation
is determined during the readings. But even besides my opinions, there
is no consistency to your comment - "all but one are..." and that sort
of thing. There is no pattern, so it seems arbitrary.
Besides, it irks the hell out of me to see an association with kether
that is based on duality. With kether, the aces, there is no
"positive" or "negative", there is only pure energy, the source of the
suit. Of course, you can use whatever interpretations you'd like, but
when framing your interpretation in qabalistic terms you must be
consistent with the qabala.
catherine yronwode
>
> catherine yronwode wrote:
>
> > J. Karlin wrote:
>
> > > catherine yronwode wrote:
>
> > > > Madame LeNormand's system---
> > >
> > > Where did she come up with that?
>
> > I would assume---
>
> You do that a lot.
>
> Why?
Why? Because i could. Because it saved time. In this case, i made a
kindly and respectful assumption about your knowledge of both tarot and
cartomancy based on my awareness of your contributions to the field
under your internet aliases as well as your real name, as well as
personal information about your occult interests shared with me by one
of your ex-lovers, who is a friend of mine and has been for longer than
any of us have been on the internet. I enjoyed talking with you by
phone, about ten or twelve years ago, because she wanted us to get know
each other and she thought we had so much in common. It was fun talking
with you about all this stuff. I liked you then and like you still. You
can go all snarky on me now if you want to, but i shan't play that game
with you -- it's pointless.
> > that you, as a tarot historian---
>
> When was I promoted, or shunted off, as that?
It's not an office. It's a description of what i know about you.
> > , would have more information than i, a generalist---
>
> So "generalists" are allowed to have flimsy grasps
> of historical facts?
Generalists, by the very nature of their wide-ranging intereests, may
not have time to deeply research evry topic that passes them on the fly
or which they researched 35 years ago and did not keep as a top-level
interest in after that.
If you are calling upon me to research Mademoiselle LeNormand for you, i
can do it, being a generalist and all, but it would be easier to rely on
research already done by someone of your caliber, if you have looked
into her, or to point you in that direction, since the relaitoonship
between Tarot and cartomancy is probably of more immediate interest to
you.
> And how did you come by that understanding of the
> demands of the generalist profession?
It's not a profession per se, but it is what i am paid to do, so i guess
i have come to understand it by living it.
> > , would have. I don't have much knowledge about
> > Madamoiselle (not Madame, sorry, my error) LeNormand---
>
> Then how do you know that she ever had a system, about
> Tarot, or about anything?
Books containing systems of card divination attriubutired to her exist,
in profusion. I don't have much information about HER.
I did not say that she wrote or created a system of divination for
TAROT, by the way. I was addressing Peggy's question about how Waite and
Crowley came up with minor arcana ascriptions for the Tarot. I
theorized, based on my reading in my library of 19th century books on
cartomancy, that their ascriptionms were borrowed in part or whole, or
otherwise reflect a knowledge of LeNormand's earlier playing card
divination ascriptions.
> > merely a ton of early through late 19th century books---
>
> Like what for example that would indicate Lenormand had
> a system (of Tarot)?
I did not state that LeNormand had a system of Tarot. I have never seen
evidence that she did. She had a system of divination for playing cards.
> > and card decks ascribed to her and presenting variations of
> > her system.
>
> What do you understand to be an example of her system?
Oh, for example, the ascription of the court cards in a deck of playing
cards to people of certain ages, class status, and physical
appearances, which attributes are specifically targeted to match a
common run of people one might encounter in 19th century France. The
relationship between these ascriptions and those given to the court
cards of the Waite "minor arcana" is obvious.
> > I assume she flourished during the Napoleonic era, to judge
> > from what i have read.
>
> In what books have you read about her,
I wish i did have a book *about* her. I have 19th century books
containing catomancy ascriptions attributed to her and which purport to
be faithful transcriptions of her system of ascriptions for playing
cards.
Do you have any more data about her? If so, please share it.
> the ones which you've
> found to be particularly enlightening concerning her and
> her system?
Are you asking for a bibliography of 19th century books on cartomancy?
I could provide it, given time -- but see no reason to do so at this
time. Surely, surely, surely Jess, such a bibliography has already been
produced by someone with greater dedication and time to spend on it.
> > Her system of ascriptions (uncredited)---
>
> Like what for example?
I am not sure what you are asking when calling for an "example" here:
If an example of her *system of ascriptions*, see above.
If an example of her works being republished but *uncredited*, off the
top of my head, i recall that "The Zingara Fortune Teller" (circa 1905)
contains the same contents as earlier books with "LeNormand"-attributed
ascriptions, but these are uncredited to her.
> > is still used today and Le Normand style divination cards
> > in several beautiful variations---
>
> You sound like you're writing an e-Bay ad.
Just an aesthetic review, for those wishing to follow the idea. Does the
word "beautiful" remind you of e-bay?
> > are still in print from the Swiss firm Piatnik. A comparison
> > between LeNormand's attributions for playing cards and the
> > Waite-Smith "lesser arcana" is quite interesting---
>
> How so?
Obtaining the several attributed-to-LeNormand decks and/or their
explanatory booklets and/or cartomancy books of the 19th century
containing material attributed to LeNormand interests me personally
because there are definite indications that Waite read one or more of
the LeNormand style cartomany books available in French or English at
the time.
Beyond the Tarot, the subject of GD sources in general also interests
me; i am curently enjoying my husbnand siva's investigations into the GD
creation of Enochian Chess with respect to how the layout and rules of
play were drawn in large part from the Indian chess-ancestor game
Chatturanga, to which they added a veneer of Egyptian and Enochian
symbology.
> > , and Waite's text, as i read it, points to the latter
> > deriving from the former, not the other way around.
>
> Waite never claimed not to be borrower or thief.
Actually, Waite was quite frank about borrowing. I admire this in him,
despite his failure to supply full bibliographic details (which leads in
turn to conversations such as this, almost one hundred years down the
time-line).
> But that doesn't mean Lenormand had a system to borrow
> or steal from.
Interjecting the word "steal" is scurrilous.
LeNormand -- or someone purporting to be her, said to have been the
cartomancist for the Empress Josephine -- certainly had a coherent
system of ascriptions for playing cards as early as the early 19th
century.
cat yronwode
Freemasonry for Women ------- http://www.luckymojo.com/comasonry.html
Prophet 718
> On 25 Mar 2002, Prophet 718 wrote:
> >
> > If there were a positive source for identifying where the meanings
> > of the cards originate, I could see claiming the Tarot is not based on
> > Qabala. There are however enough similarities between the symbols of
> > the Tarot and Qabala that at the very least a valid hypothesis can be
> > formed demonstrating a relationship between the two systems. The
> > connection between the symbolism of the trumps and some of the
> > cosmographic components of the Qabala is obvious, meaning the zodiac,
> > planets, elements, etc. Early in my study of the Tarot I asked the
> > inevitable question: where do the meanings of the small cards derive
> > from? A close study of the meanings of the small cards in relation the
> > numbers on them indicates a possible connection with Qabala. According
> > to Crowley there are no contradictions above the abyss on the Tree of
> > Life. He also postulates that as the numbers increase in size from 1
> > to 10 in relation to the stations on the Tree, they steadily degrade,
> > with 1 being purest and 10 the most impure. These two factors can be
> > shown to roughly correspond with the meanings of the lesser arcana. Of
> > the cards numbered 1-3, the numbers appearing above the abyss on the
> > Tree, none of the cards bearing these numbers have meanings with
> > negative connotations.
>
> What about the 3 of cups -- Sorrow. That is negative.
> At the same time it still might fit into the model you present.
> I think of it as the Sorrow depicted in the rosary's "sorrowful
You're right, I missed the three of swords. I stand corrected.
>
> > The first card to exhibit a negative aspect is
> > one of the cards numbered 4, followed by the cards numbered 5 which
> > all have essentially negative meanings. Looking at the middle pillar
> > of the Tree shows all of the aces to be positive, followed by all of
> > the sixes which are positive in meaning, followed by the cards
> > numbered 9 which all have positive meanings but one. The meanings of
> > the cards numbered 10 are in reverse order to those numbered 9,
> > consisting of three negative aspects and one positive. The prevailing
> > pattern is impressive enough to consider the smaller arcana as
> > possibly deriving its meanings from Qabala.
>
> I think you're onto something in that your model makes sense.
> However, most modern systems do use the QBL. Certainly Crowley
> does.
>
> Prior to the Golden Dawn, what system was used for the minor arcana?
I would like to know this as well.
Prophet 718
Karipidu
Joel Biroco
wrote:
>Joel Biroco wrote:
>
>> >Ignoring that fact can confuse your understanding of lots
>> >of Tarotic and occult matters.
You're an occultist, are you?
>
>> By "occult tarot" you presumably mean the tarot of Crowley and Golden
>> Dawn pseudo-qabalistic tarot.
>
>Why "pseudo"?
The usual reasons.
>
>And no, that isn't what I mean by occult Tarot.
No need to explain.
>
>> *Any* tarot used for divination is "occult"---
>
>Why is that?
Don't you know?
>
>> , irrespective of whether it has qabalistic influence in its
>> design or not.
>
>Then what do the designs have to do with anything?
How does this relate to the point in hand?
>
>> Choosing not to follow a qabalistic approach (not
>> "ignoring")---
>
>Explain this distinction you're making.
It's self-evident.
>
>> does not mean that one is necessarily unaware of the
>> symbolism used. Take Crowley's 4 of wands for instance, how much does
>> it really add to the interpretation---
>
>What kind of interpretation? Divinatory or symbolic or something
>else?
Explain the difference between divinatory and symbolic interpretation.
>
>> of the 4 of wands that the wands carry the head of a
>> ram and a dove?
>
>Obviously these symbols are there for a reason.
How profound is the reason? Patterns on wallpaper are there for a
reason. Decoration.
>
>If the reason doesn't interest you,
I didn't say it didn't interest me, I questioned the depth of its
value in the 2 examples I gave.
>why bother with
>visual depictions of symbols in the first place, or
>with those of that particular deck?
Did I say I used the Thoth deck? I was asking you since you use it. My
question still stands.
>
>> Take that to Venus in Aries, what then?
>
>Same as above.
My question still stands. If you can't answer it that's okay, no need
for charades.
>> It's still the 4 of wands.
>
>Thoth provides a particular expression of 4 of Wands.
Yes, say some more if you wish, I did ask you a question after all. It
was an answer I was seeking not an interrogation, that doesn't work
with me. If you can't answer my question, that's okay. I can always
ask an expert.
>
>"4 of Wands" really doesn't mean anything unless
>you understand the language(s) being expressed.
Try to stutter out a few more words on this, you may be onto
something.
>
>> Or the fact that Crowley uses Tibetan dorjes on the 2 of
>> wands, what does that really add to the 2 of the
>> wands?
>
>Again, it's his expression of a very old idea, a
>Tarot tradition in fact.
>
>What is that tradition?
You are deflecting my question with implied possession of knowledge.
That is merely insulting. I'll ask you again: what do Tibetan dorjes
add to the 2 of wands? If you wish to cite a tradition cite it, don't
play cat and mouse with me unless you want to be the mouse.
>
>> A vague hint of thunder perhaps.
>
>Are you asking or telling?
Neither.
>
>> Take it to Mars in Aries, what does that add to the
>> 2 of wands?
>
>Well, what is the traditional symbolic and divinatory
>meaning of 2 of Wands?
Look it up.
>
>> You can stick hexagrams on the cards---
>
>But Crowley didn't do that.
I didn't say he did.
>
>> maybe hexagram 55 on the 3 of cups, what does it add, it's still a
>> tarot card---
>
>Maybe, maybe not.
This is fun.
>
>Tarot is about something.
Is it now. Hallelujah. Next you'll trying to make out you know what
that is.
>
>You can be wrong in Tarot.
Do you speak from personal experience?
>
>You can (sometimes) add something to Tarot, sometimes
>something worth adding.
Yes, certainly, I agree.
>
>You can know what you're talking about.
Yes, it is possible.
>
>You can most definitely not know what you're
>talking about.
That too.
Did you want to have a conversation about this? Any time you're ready.
Joel Biroco
<asiya_...@MEATBALLSmindspring.com> wrote:
>"Joel Biroco" <bir...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:6fo1aukj99e0v9msu...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 19:22:09 GMT, "J. Karlin" <r3wi...@texas.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Occult Tarot is based on a (not necessarily THE) Kabbalistic
>> >myth.
>> >
>> >Ignoring that fact can confuse your understanding of lots
>> >of Tarotic and occult matters.
>>
>> By "occult tarot" you presumably mean the tarot of Crowley and
>Golden
>> Dawn pseudo-qabalistic tarot. *Any* tarot used for divination is
>> "occult",
>
>The Tarot is not used only for divination.
Did I say that? You can use it to stop a table wobbling or play a game
of cards. As for pathworking, how quaint.
Asiya
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 22:08:56 GMT, "J. Karlin" <r3wi...@texas.net>
> wrote:
> >Joel Biroco wrote:
> >
> >> Choosing not to follow a qabalistic approach (not
> >> "ignoring")---
> >
> >Explain this distinction you're making.
>
> It's self-evident.
The distinction is not evident to me, unless you use something such as
the Motherpeace deck.
Asiya
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:11:42 -0700, "Asiya"
> <asiya_...@MEATBALLSmindspring.com> wrote:
> >"Joel Biroco" <bir...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:6fo1aukj99e0v9msu...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 19:22:09 GMT, "J. Karlin"
<r3wi...@texas.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Occult Tarot is based on a (not necessarily THE) Kabbalistic
> >> >myth.
> >> >
> >> >Ignoring that fact can confuse your understanding of lots
> >> >of Tarotic and occult matters.
> >>
> >> By "occult tarot" you presumably mean the tarot of Crowley and
> >Golden
> >> Dawn pseudo-qabalistic tarot. *Any* tarot used for divination is
> >> "occult",
> >
> >The Tarot is not used only for divination.
>
> Did I say that?
No, just tossing out a hint that what "occult Tarot" refers to may not
have to do with divination.
> You can use it to stop a table wobbling or play a game
> of cards. As for pathworking, how quaint.
Yes, and there are other purposes and uses for it as well.
Joel Biroco
<asiya_...@MEATBALLSmindspring.com> wrote:
>"Joel Biroco" <bir...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:7cj2auglmdlht52k2...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:11:42 -0700, "Asiya"
>> <asiya_...@MEATBALLSmindspring.com> wrote:
>> >"Joel Biroco" <bir...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:6fo1aukj99e0v9msu...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 19:22:09 GMT, "J. Karlin"
><r3wi...@texas.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Occult Tarot is based on a (not necessarily THE) Kabbalistic
>> >> >myth.
>> >> >
>> >> >Ignoring that fact can confuse your understanding of lots
>> >> >of Tarotic and occult matters.
>> >>
>> >> By "occult tarot" you presumably mean the tarot of Crowley and
>> >Golden
>> >> Dawn pseudo-qabalistic tarot. *Any* tarot used for divination is
>> >> "occult",
>> >
>> >The Tarot is not used only for divination.
>>
>> Did I say that?
>
>No, just tossing out a hint that what "occult Tarot" refers to may not
>have to do with divination.
>
What is divination? Let's get back to basics.
>> You can use it to stop a table wobbling or play a game
>> of cards. As for pathworking, how quaint.
>
>Yes, and there are other purposes and uses for it as well.
You do little bitsy spells with 'em do ya?
Joel Biroco
<asiya_...@MEATBALLSmindspring.com> wrote:
>"Joel Biroco" <bir...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:gog2aucd3lk1jnang...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 22:08:56 GMT, "J. Karlin" <r3wi...@texas.net>
>> wrote:
>> >Joel Biroco wrote:
>> >
>> >> Choosing not to follow a qabalistic approach (not
>> >> "ignoring")---
>> >
>> >Explain this distinction you're making.
>>
>> It's self-evident.
>
>The distinction is not evident to me, unless you use something such as
>the Motherpeace deck.
I even wonder whether, if asked, you could express the particular
distinction Karlin was referring to. I'll put you out your misery, the
distinction was actually between "choosing not to follow" and
"ignoring", the latter being Karlin's characterisation of my previous
statement. If that distinction is not self-evident to you then I'm
afraid I cannot help you. Try to keep up.
nagasiva
ahoy Jess.
"J. Karlin" <r3wi...@texas.net>:
> Occult Tarot is based on a (not necessarily THE)
> Kabbalistic myth.
so do you consider those decks which barely hold to form,
favouring a theme of art or character (Hello Kitty Tarot,
Halloween Tarot, etc.), along with those decks that purport
to be "occult" or by "occult authors" whose actual content
doesn't resemble the work of prominent or even unknown
occultists using Kabbalistic myth as their basis, to be
'pseudo-Tarot'? how much can a deck stray before it stops
being 'Occult Tarot'?
nagasiva:
>> what some people call their tarot was based on what they
>> called their qabalah.
>
> You can be less restrained than that.
as much as I may wish to defend. I can do so and abide your
preferences, I gather, but we are aligned in a great many areas.
> While I understand that the idea of accepting certain facts
> as irrefutable makes some people automatically start looking
> for mind-altering drugs to cope with (or maybe for a lawyer
> to get them out of it), the truth is that Tarot WAS a card game,
> then it became ALSO a fortune-telling device, then it became
> ALSO an occult encyclopedia and Kabbalistic key to the cosmos,
> then it became ALSO a product to be mass-marketed to simpletons.
well said.
> Of course there's a way in which you might say it was always
> all these things and, in all these manifestations, Tarot has
> also been a tool for swindlers (of numerous stripes and
> convictions).
perhaps, but I don't think this is as easily supported as your
other assertions.
> All the while, still a game, and all the while still played
> as a game.
it is actually quite an enjoyable game. friends and I got together
and played Tarocci using a set of rules off a website and the Alice
in Wonderland deck. I recommend a deck with visible corner markings,
for easier reference when holding a good many cards. tarot cards of
an occult type will not always work well for this purpose (it also
depends on how well the players know tarotic ennumeration and
structure).
so I'm imagining a gradation of Tarot:
Occult Tarot -- composed to transmit the mysteries with
reference to Kabbalistic myth, e.g. Smith-Waite,
Harris-Crowley;
Playing Tarot Decks (Tarocci) -- sometimes masquerading
as Occult Tarot decks or mimicking regular playing
cards in form, e.g. Alice in Wonderland Tarot
Theme & Celebrity Tarot Decks -- designed to showcase
something other than tarotic imagery or serve a
purpose other than gaming or mysticism,
e.g. Dali Tarot Deck(?).
non-Tarot decks that aren't intended to be Fortune-Telling Cards
are sometimes quite amusing, some even more popular amongst my
elder friends than conventional decks (e.g. the Morgan Deck,
and the Gypsy Witch cards, though the latter can be used as
player cards also, with some difficulty).
n
a B
g l b
a e e
s s a
i s s
v e t
a d !
@yronwode.com
nagasiva
Peggy Pearlz:
>> Prior to the Golden Dawn, what system was used for the minor arcana?
there *was* Occult Tarot before the Golden Dawn?
sri catyananda <c...@luckymojo.com>:
> Madame LeNormand's system was without a doubt the most popular method
> used when ascribing visual symbols and divinatory meanings to playing
> cards (which equate to what in GD-style tarot set-ups are called the
> "minor arcana" (lesser mysteries)).
I've found them interesting enough to begin cataloguing the composite
for students of Tarot to discover if there is any connection: going as
far as collecting fortune-telling decks, especially those with pictures
on them which are antiques, and examining encyclopaediae of tarot and
playing cards to determine any influencing factors.
I include below a special Madame LeNormande system of attribution.
this is a 'Continental' or 'French' method with a 32-card euchre
deck (she has systems of attribution for 52-card playing decks too,
but I'm too lazy to do more than this for usenet, and they'll give
you some idea of the kind of thing cat's mentioning :>):
CARDS (NUMBER)
==============
A(4)
Four aces coming together, or following each other,
announce danger, failure in business, and sometimes
imprisonment. If one or more of them be reversed the
danger will be lessened.
A(3)
coming in the same manner -- good tidings; if reversed, folly
7(4)
intrigues among servants or low people, threats, snares,
and disputes; reversed, that their malice will be impotent
to harm, and that the punishment will fall on themselves
7(3)
sickness, premature old age; reversed, slight and brief
indisposition
7(2)
levity; reversed, regret
8(4)
a short journey; reversed, he return of a friend or relative
8(3)
thoughts of marriage; reversed, folly, flirtation
8(2)
a brief love-dream; reversed, small pleasures and
trifling pains
9(4)
a great surprise; reversed, a public dinner
9(3)
joy, fortune, health; reversed, wealth lost by imprudence
9(2)
a little gain; reversed, trifling losses at cards
10(4)
great success in projected enterprises; reversed, the
success will not be so brilliant, but still it will be sure
10(3)
improper conduct; reversed, failure
10(2)
change of trade or profession; reversed, denotes
that the prospect is only a distant one
J(4)
a noisy party -- mostly young people; reversed,
a drinking bout
J(3)
false friends; reversed, a quarrel with some low person
J(2)
evil intentions; reversed, danger
Q(4)
company, society; one or more reversed denotes that the
entertainment will not go off well
Q(3)
friendly calls; reversed, chattering, scandal and deceit
Q(2)
a meeting between friends; reversed, poverty, troubles
in which one will involve the other
K(4)
rewards, dignities, honors; reversed, they will be less,
but sooner received
K(3)
a consultation on important business, the result of
which will be highly satisfactory; if reversed,
success will be doubtful
K(2)
a partnership in business; if reversed, a dissolution of
the same; sometimes this only denotes friendly projects
CARD
=========
A Hearts
a love-letter, or some pleasant news;
reversed, a friend's visit
7 Hearts
pleasant thoughts, tranquility; reversed, tedium, weariness,
langour of spirits
8 Hearts
a fair person's affections; reversed, indifference on his
or her part
9 Hearts
joy, satisfaction, success; reversed, a passing chagrin
10 Hearts
happiness, triumph; if reversed, some sleight anxiety
J Hearts
a gay young bachelor, who dreams only of pleasure; reversed,
a discontented military man
Q Hearts
a mild, amiable woman; reversed, indicates she has
been crossed in love
K Hearts
a fair, liberal man; reversed, will meet with disappointment
A Diamonds
a letter soon to be received, reversed, containing bad news
7 Diamonds
satire, mockery; reversed, a foolish scandal
8 Diamonds
love-making; if reversed, unsuccessful
9 Diamonds
annoyance, or delay; if reversed, either a family or a
love quarrel
10 Diamonds
journey, or change of residence; if reversed, it will not
prove fortunate
J Diamonds
a tale-bearing servant, or unfaithful friend; if reversed,
will be the cause of mischief
Q Diamonds
an ill-bred, scandal-loving woman; if reversed, she is to be
greatly feared
K Diamonds
a fair man -- generally in the army -- but both cunning and
dangerous; if reversed, a threatened danger, caused by
machinations on his part
A Clubs
joy, money, or good news; if reversed, the joy will be of
brief duration
7 Clubs
a small sum of money, or unexpectedly recovered debt;
reversed, a yet smaller amount
8 Clubs
a dark person's affections, which, if returned, will be
the cause of great prosperity; reversed, the affections
of an undesirable person, and attendant unhappiness,
if reciprocated
9 Clubs
unexpected gain, or a legacy; reversed, some trifling present
10 Clubs
fortune, success, or grandeur; reversed, want of success in
some small matter
J Clubs
a clever and enterprising young man; reversed, a harmless
flirt and flatterer
Q Clubs
an affectionate woman, but quick-witted and touchy;
if reversed, jealous and malicous
K Clubs
a frank, liberal man, fond of serving his friends;
if reversed, he will meet with a disappointment
A Spades
pleasure; reversed, grief, bad news
7 Spades
slight annoyances; reversed, a foolish intrigue.
8 Spades
approaching illness; reversed, a marriage broken off
or offer refused
9 Spades
tidings of a death; if reversed, it will be some near relative
10 Spades
tears, a prison; reversed, a brief affliction
J Spades
a dark, ill-bred young man; reversed, he is plotting
some mischief
Q Spades
a widow, reversed, a dangerous and malicious woman
K Spades
the envious man, an enemy, or a dishonest lawyer, who is to
be feared; reversed, impotent malice
====================================================================
from
'The Combination Fortune-Teller and Dictionary of Dreams: the Whole
Combining "Madame [Victorine] Le Normand's Unerring Fortune-Teller,"
"Fontain's Golden Wheel Fortune-Teller," and "Madame Le Marchand's
Fortune-Teller, and Dreamer's Dictionary"', edited by [?] published
by Dick and Fitzgerald, 1866; published in a double-volume in 1890
or later [no publishing date] with "Fontaine's Golden Wheel Dream-Book
and Fortune-Teller", [-] Fontain [in French?], originally published
by Dick & Fitzgerald, 1862; republished by William B. Dick, 1890.
hope that helps. :>
nagasiva
catherine yronwode
Anyone interested in comparing the below set to the Waite-Smith
ascriptions for "minor arcna" will see the similarities, no doubt.
cat (and this is just LeNormand's Euchre Deck Method, wait'll you see
the whole 52 Card Pick-Up, and the Spanish Method and the Italian
Method) yronwode
> a short journey; reversed, the return of a friend or
cat yronwode
Hoodoo in Theory and Practice -- http://www.luckymojo.com/hoodoo.html
MLYoung
>
>Peggy Pearlz:
>>> Prior to the Golden Dawn, what system was used for the minor arcana?
>
>there *was* Occult Tarot before the Golden Dawn?
Yes. Mostly among the French post
deGebelin.
<LeNormand Fortune-Telling stuff>
Okay, I've gotta say I don't see a huge
connection here between Waite's
meanings and LeNormand's. The 9 and
10 of Cups correspond to the 9 and 10
of Hearts, but the 7 and 8 don't.
The 7,8,9,10 of Diamonds don't seem
to correspond to the 7,8,9,10 of Pentacles.
The later Wands don't correspond to the
Clubs
Among the Spades, only the 9 seems
to match up to its Swords counterpart.
Why do you think Waite derived his
meanings from LeNormand?
--margaret
MLYoung
>
>Anyone interested in comparing the below set to the Waite-Smith
>ascriptions for "minor arcna" will see the similarities, no doubt.
Not really. I see surprisingly few
similarities; I'd actually have expected
more if Waite lifted LeNormand's system
directly.
--margaret
Hieronymous707
>catherine yronwode wrote:
>> that you, as a tarot historian---
>When was I promoted, or shunted off, as that?
One might logically suppose you to be more a tarot historicist than, say, a
radical relativist, although I am certainly not one to pidgeon hole you. I saw
it as a compliment, but I suppose you can take it however you want.
>So "generalists" are allowed to have flimsy grasps
>of historical facts?
If what you mean by quoting generalists is consistent with what most
historicists mean by quoting radical relativists, then the answer to your
question is self-evident.
-hi-
Prophet 718
> eyeo...@yahoo.com (Prophet 718) wrote
> >
> > Of the cards numbered 1-3, the numbers appearing above the abyss on the
> > Tree, none of the cards bearing these numbers have meanings with
> > negative connotations. The first card to exhibit a negative aspect is
> > one of the cards numbered 4, followed by the cards numbered 5 which
> > all have essentially negative meanings. Looking at the middle pillar
> > of the Tree shows all of the aces to be positive, followed by all of
> > the sixes which are positive in meaning, followed by the cards
> > numbered 9 which all have positive meanings but one. The meanings of
> > the cards numbered 10 are in reverse order to those numbered 9,
> > consisting of three negative aspects and one positive.
>
> Do you actually interpret the cards as having inherently "positive" or
> "negative" attributions?
In the case of the lesser arcana of the Book of Thoth, no
interpretation is necessary - the meanings are printed on the cards.
;-)
> > The prevailing
> > pattern is impressive enough to consider the smaller arcana as
> > possibly deriving its meanings from Qabala.
>
> Are you saying you believe geburah is a "negative" sephirot and
> tipareth to be a "positive" sephirot, etc.?
No. The meanings of all of the cards numbered 5 are essentially
unfavorable conditions, while the cards numbered 6 have favorable
meanings.
> While I agree that most current tarot decks derive their meanings from
> qabala, I think your reasoning and your interpretations are
> questionable. The sephira are not positive or negative, they simply
> are.
I made no assessment of the sephira, you're confusing my query into
the meanings of the cards with projected Qabalistic dogma.
> And the cards can be positive or negative,
Which is exactly what I proposed in my statement.
> their interpretation
> is determined during the readings.
You've strayed into the area of divinatory processes and away from
the subject matter of the thread. The only serious use I've made of
the Tarot is the employment of the 22 trumps as ceremonial symbols. I
have no serious interest in the Tarot as a divinatory system.
> But even besides my opinions, there
> is no consistency to your comment - "all but one are..." and that sort
> of thing. There is no pattern, so it seems arbitrary.
I formulated a hypothesis and indeed it does seem to have arbitrary
elements.
>
> Besides, it irks the hell out of me to see an association with kether
> that is based on duality. With kether, the aces, there is no
> "positive" or "negative", there is only pure energy, the source of the
> suit. Of course, you can use whatever interpretations you'd like, but
> when framing your interpretation in qabalistic terms you must be
> consistent with the qabala.
I hear your dogma barking. ;-)
Prophet 718
Asiya
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 23:06:46 -0700, "Asiya"
> <asiya_...@MEATBALLSmindspring.com> wrote:
> >"Joel Biroco" <bir...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:gog2aucd3lk1jnang...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 22:08:56 GMT, "J. Karlin"
<r3wi...@texas.net>
> >> wrote:
> >> >Joel Biroco wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Choosing not to follow a qabalistic approach (not
> >> >> "ignoring")---
> >> >
> >> >Explain this distinction you're making.
> >>
> >> It's self-evident.
> >
> >The distinction is not evident to me, unless you use something such
as
> >the Motherpeace deck.
>
> I even wonder whether, if asked, you could express the particular
> distinction Karlin was referring to. I'll put you out your misery,
the
> distinction was actually between "choosing not to follow" and
> "ignoring", the latter being Karlin's characterisation of my
previous
> statement.
<sigh> No shit. I'll be more precise.
What is the difference between ignoring the relationship between
Qabalah and Tarot, and choosing not to take it into consideration?
Ignoring it, choosing not to "follow" it, is the post-modern (such as
the Motherpeace deck) approach.
> If that distinction is not self-evident to you then I'm
> afraid I cannot help you. Try to keep up.
No problem here with keeping up. This topic is common, thereby
somewhat tedious.
Asiya
news:20020327050957...@mb-ca.aol.com...
Hi Margaret, all these posters are from alt.magick and may not read
your responses here, so you might want to post it in alt.magick as
well.
Joel Biroco
<asiya_...@MEATBALLSmindspring.com> wrote:
The difference is in not being ignorant of qabala, and the way it has
been applied to tarot, but preferring a different approach. The
implication of ignoring it is being ignorant of it, ie it going over
your head. I am talking about being fully aware of the qabalistic
symbolism, but not being obsessively interested in taking it into
account. Some qabalists seem not to be able to look at the world
without imposing a qabalistic matrix upon it as a way of understanding
it. I don't even apply bagua correspondences to the world, even
though I am quite capable of doing so. "If you know what the kernel
tastes like you can dispense with the shell."---Sufi proverb.
>
>> If that distinction is not self-evident to you then I'm
>> afraid I cannot help you. Try to keep up.
>
>No problem here with keeping up. This topic is common, thereby
>somewhat tedious.
I'll tell you what's tedious, the blind consensus that passes for
insight and understanding among western occultists.
BhP
> axial...@yahoo.com (BhP) wrote
> > "negative" attributions?
>
> In the case of the lesser arcana of the Book of Thoth, no
> interpretation is necessary - the meanings are printed on the cards.
> ;-)
Heh, well, let me be more specific. For example, the 3 of swords says
"sorrow" and according to your previous post it would be a "negative"
card. I don't see it that way. It is simply information. Maybe the
querant is moving past sorrow. Maybe there will be sorrow in the
future, but is that necessarily bad? It might be part of a greater
process - graduating from school (or ending a relationship, or...) may
be a sorrowful ending but also may be an important step towards a
grander future. You get my idea, I'm sure. I just try to avoid
describing cards as positive or negative.
Hell, there are some times in my life where I wish for that 10 of
swords. Who doesn't want to end a difficult cycle every now and then?
What may seem "negative" could actually be a welcome release, or a
necessary lesson, or a warning about unconscious tendencies.
> > Besides, it irks the hell out of me to see an association with kether
> > that is based on duality. With kether, the aces, there is no
> > "positive" or "negative", there is only pure energy, the source of the
> > suit. Of course, you can use whatever interpretations you'd like, but
> > when framing your interpretation in qabalistic terms you must be
> > consistent with the qabala.
>
> I hear your dogma barking. ;-)
Heh, well, if you associate some kind of dualistic concept with the
aces, you are no longer using the tarot as a mirror of the qabalistic
tree of life - you see that as dogmatic, I see that as consistency.
If you're doing non-qabalistic tarot, associate whatever you want with
the aces, it's just inappropriate to call it "qabalistic".
I'm not criticizing your tarot style or choices. I'm just clarifying
a mis-interpretation of a qabalistic concept. This is no more
dogmatic than defining what a verb is in a grammar class. If you
don't think you mis-interpreted anything and I'm projecting my
personal dogma onto you, then let's discuss theory - challenge me.
Otherwise, thanks for indulging my intrusion into this thread.
MLYoung
>> The later Wands don't correspond to the
>> Clubs
>>
>> Among the Spades, only the 9 seems
>> to match up to its Swords counterpart.
>>
>> Why do you think Waite derived his
>> meanings from LeNormand?
>
>Hi Margaret, all these posters are from alt.magick and may not read
>your responses here, so you might want to post it in alt.magick as
>well.
I was afraid of that. I've always avoided
posting in alt.magick.
--margaret
>
>Asiya
>**********
Blazin' Tommy D.
deck. I use the Waite deck and there the relationship is thus:
* the minor arcana coincide with the 10 Sephiroth;
* the suits correspond to Atziluth, Briah, Yetzirah and Assiah and in
conjunction with the court cards the Sephiroth of the central pillar;
* the major arcana coincide with the 22 paths [11-(Aleph) thru 32]
nagasiva <naga...@yronwode.SPAMcom> wrote in article
<7Whn8.6969$44.5...@typhoon.sonic.net>...
> 50020324 VI
>
> Joel Biroco:
> > I mean tarot isn't based on qabala.
>
> what some people call their tarot was based on what they
> called their qabalah.
>
> nagasiva
>
Blazin' Tommy D.
referred to as a "witch's deck": 52 weeks inthe year, 4 seasons, 13 weeks
in each season; &c.
Blazin' Tommy D. <td...@stny.rr.com> wrote in article
<01c1d5f2$921d4c00$d8865f18@federalist>...
BhP
>
> What is the difference between ignoring the relationship between
> Qabalah and Tarot, and choosing not to take it into consideration?
> Ignoring it, choosing not to "follow" it, is the post-modern (such as
> the Motherpeace deck) approach.
I don't think there's a difference between the two. For example, I
have a friend who knows nothing about the qabala yet she uses the
Thoth tarot. It's just that good - the imagery is powerful enough
that someone with no interest in qabala could use the cards for magick
or divination, just as they'd use a fully non-qabalistic deck like
Motherpeace.
So ignoring the qabalistic aspect of some tarot decks is just like
using non-qabalistic decks, no big deal. But obtaining all of one's
knowledge of the qabala from a tarot deck is tricky. In a way, all
the information is there, so it's possible, but since there are so
many different decks and books and such, it's easy to get a little
misdirected or to get misinformation (like what I've been commenting
on in my other posts in this thread).
Asiya
news:361f09a8.02032...@posting.google.com...
> eyeo...@yahoo.com (Prophet 718) wrote
> > axial...@yahoo.com (BhP) wrote
> > > Do you actually interpret the cards as having inherently
"positive" or
> > > "negative" attributions?
> >
> > In the case of the lesser arcana of the Book of Thoth, no
> > interpretation is necessary - the meanings are printed on the
cards.
> > ;-)
>
> Heh, well, let me be more specific. For example, the 3 of swords
says
> "sorrow" and according to your previous post it would be a
"negative"
> card. I don't see it that way. It is simply information. Maybe the
> querant is moving past sorrow. Maybe there will be sorrow in the
> future, but is that necessarily bad? It might be part of a greater
> process - graduating from school (or ending a relationship, or...)
may
> be a sorrowful ending but also may be an important step towards a
> grander future.
Exactly, while doing a reading there is context provided with the
surrounding cards that would be considered.
The querent may view something like the 3 of Swords in the future as
"negative", regardless of the bigger picture, but the reader doesn't
have to present it as negative.
> You get my idea, I'm sure. I just try to avoid
> describing cards as positive or negative.
When someone thinks in terms of "negative" or "positive", that way of
thinking will be imposed upon the cards anyway, and interpreted as
such.
Asiya
I suppose it depends on what deck you use, and what you apply it
towards. Rider-Waite and Thoth were designed with the Qabalah (among
other things) in mind, which shaped the meanings of the cards. Many
modern decks are based off of those two decks. That makes it quite
difficult to not take into account the Tarot-Qabalah relationship,
because it is inherent.
If one uses an older or post-modern deck, then "non-Qabalistic
approach" makes sense.
> "If you know what the kernel
> tastes like you can dispense with the shell."---Sufi proverb.
I've always liked that saying.
Sue
axial...@yahoo.com (BhP) wrote:
> eyeo...@yahoo.com (Prophet 718) wrote
> > axial...@yahoo.com (BhP) wrote
> > > Do you actually interpret the cards as having inherently "positive" or
> > > "negative" attributions?
> >
> > In the case of the lesser arcana of the Book of Thoth, no
> > interpretation is necessary - the meanings are printed on the cards.
> > ;-)
>
> Heh, well, let me be more specific. For example, the 3 of swords says
> "sorrow" and according to your previous post it would be a "negative"
> card. I don't see it that way. It is simply information. Maybe the
> querant is moving past sorrow. Maybe there will be sorrow in the
> future, but is that necessarily bad? It might be part of a greater
> process - graduating from school (or ending a relationship, or...) may
> be a sorrowful ending but also may be an important step towards a
> grander future. You get my idea, I'm sure. I just try to avoid
> describing cards as positive or negative.
Have you read what Crowley has to say about the Three of Swords when he
writes about "The Four Threes" (on pg. 179) in the _Book of Thoth_?
--
"...and it seems to have a vague, haunting mass appeal..."
Asiya
news:EvilWickedBunny-...@user47.net180.fl.sprint-hsd.net.
..
He writes:
"The idea of division, of mutability, the idea of the airy quality of
things, manifests itself in the Three of Swords, the Lord of Sorrow.
Here one is reminded of the darkness of Binah, of the mourning of
Isis; but this is not any vulgar sorrow dependent upon any individual
disappointment or discontent. It is Weltschmerz, the universal sorrow;
it is the quality of melancholy."
How is that "negative" or "positive"?
Asiya
> >
> >Hi Margaret, all these posters are from alt.magick and may not read
> >your responses here, so you might want to post it in alt.magick as
> >well.
>
> I was afraid of that. I've always avoided
> posting in alt.magick.
Why? Just curious.
Joel Biroco
>eyeo...@yahoo.com (Prophet 718) wrote
>> axial...@yahoo.com (BhP) wrote
>> > Do you actually interpret the cards as having inherently "positive" or
>> > "negative" attributions?
>>
>> In the case of the lesser arcana of the Book of Thoth, no
>> interpretation is necessary - the meanings are printed on the cards.
>> ;-)
>
>Heh, well, let me be more specific. For example, the 3 of swords says
>"sorrow" and according to your previous post it would be a "negative"
>card. I don't see it that way. It is simply information. Maybe the
>querant is moving past sorrow. Maybe there will be sorrow in the
>future, but is that necessarily bad? It might be part of a greater
>process - graduating from school (or ending a relationship, or...) may
>be a sorrowful ending but also may be an important step towards a
>grander future. You get my idea, I'm sure. I just try to avoid
>describing cards as positive or negative.
>
>Hell, there are some times in my life where I wish for that 10 of
>swords. Who doesn't want to end a difficult cycle every now and then?
Or even wish for death.
> What may seem "negative" could actually be a welcome release, or a
>necessary lesson, or a warning about unconscious tendencies.
>
>> > Besides, it irks the hell out of me to see an association with kether
>> > that is based on duality. With kether, the aces, there is no
>> > "positive" or "negative", there is only pure energy, the source of the
>> > suit. Of course, you can use whatever interpretations you'd like, but
>> > when framing your interpretation in qabalistic terms you must be
>> > consistent with the qabala.
>>
>> I hear your dogma barking. ;-)
>
>Heh, well, if you associate some kind of dualistic concept with the
>aces, you are no longer using the tarot as a mirror of the qabalistic
>tree of life - you see that as dogmatic, I see that as consistency.
>If you're doing non-qabalistic tarot, associate whatever you want with
>the aces, it's just inappropriate to call it "qabalistic".
I would suggest that you merely try to apply a non-dualistic
interpretation to the aces to keep in line with qabala, in practice
this is not possible unless you happen to have dissolved the illusion
of dualism, and if you've done that why are you doing a tarot reading?
Kether is in malkuth.
Joel Biroco
<asiya_...@MEATBALLSmindspring.com> wrote:
As I said in a previous post, the Waite deck is perfectly fine without
a qabalistic approach. And so is the Thoth deck. Occasionally I might
find something of interest in his appended symbolism, after all that
statement in Liber Al "tzaddi is not the star", which led him
reversing the Star and Emperor, is inherently intriguing, so I
wouldn't want to give the impression that I am absolutely bored by the
qabalistic approach, simply that I distance myself from those who
believe tarot and qabala are inseparable. It is quite possible to come
up with interesting insights into tarot via qabala, but I do also
think that most who obsess about this fallacious tarot-qabala
connection miss the simply beauty of the cards that exists free of
this enormous appendage.
Sue
<asiya_...@MEATBALLSmindspring.com> wrote:
Exactly. And within that passage, I don't necessarily find the meanings
which were attributed to the card by BhP - although I can see this card
referring to 'part of a greater process" (Can't that be said regarding any
of the tarot cards?). Is BhP basing the meaning of the card on Crowley's
writings regarding Aethyr 14 in _The Vision and the Voice_? Or on the
astrological information for the card?
>
> How is that "negative" or "positive"?
I wasn't referring to whether the card was positive of negative when I
posted. I was interested in the meanings attributed to the card by BhP.
Asiya
I think you missed the point made by BhP, which was that the meanings
of the cards are not "positive" or "negative". The 3 of Swords was
just an example of a card that is normally thought of as negative,
because its title is Sorrow.
Asiya
>
> in practice
> this is not possible unless you happen to have dissolved the
illusion
> of dualism, and if you've done that why are you doing a tarot
reading?
> Kether is in malkuth.
Are you serious? If so, can you elaborate on that?
Asiya
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 22:16:02 -0700, "Asiya"
> <asiya_...@MEATBALLSmindspring.com> wrote:
> >"Joel Biroco" <bir...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:5l94aucqmcnom2eoc...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >has
> >> been applied to tarot, but preferring a different approach. The
> >> implication of ignoring it is being ignorant of it, ie it going
over
> >> your head. I am talking about being fully aware of the qabalistic
> >> symbolism, but not being obsessively interested in taking it into
> >> account.
> >
> >I suppose it depends on what deck you use, and what you apply it
> >towards. Rider-Waite and Thoth were designed with the Qabalah
(among
> >other things) in mind, which shaped the meanings of the cards. Many
> >modern decks are based off of those two decks. That makes it quite
> >difficult to not take into account the Tarot-Qabalah relationship,
> >because it is inherent.
> >If one uses an older or post-modern deck, then "non-Qabalistic
> >approach" makes sense.
>
> As I said in a previous post, the Waite deck is perfectly fine
without
> a qabalistic approach. And so is the Thoth deck.
What is the source of your divinatory meanings?
> It is quite possible to come
> up with interesting insights into tarot via qabala,
Sure, and vice versa.
> but I do also
> think that most who obsess about this fallacious tarot-qabala
> connection miss the simply beauty of the cards that exists free of
> this enormous appendage.
One can appreciate the cards on different levels at once. It doesn't
have to be either-or. Modern Tarot is not based only on the Qabalah,
of course.
BhP
I simply threw out a 2 sentence quickie interpretation based on my own
experience with the card, which was influenced by Crowley's work,
astrological information, the qabala, etc.
I was writing about the kind of sorrow that is felt when one ends
something - separates from something - for no other reason than
because it is for the "greater good" of the person. Like finishing
school - it can be an exciting new start but the person is also
leaving the safety and comfort of one life for a future of
uncertainty, responsibility, fears, potential isolation, etc. Or
ending a relationship that is generally healthy but has no future (eg
not both partners want children) - you know the situation has to end
but it's difficult and painful because there's no immediacy. The
decision is based on an uncertain future but you do it anyway. To me,
that in part can represent a sorrow that is not based on surface
emotions, it is a melancholy that is felt when the adult in you makes
decisions that the child in you doesn't want to face. In short:
swords - the intellect, threes - Binah, the mother: the bird knowing
it must force its baby out of the nest for its own good: will it fly?
maybe, maybe not, but what is the alternative?
> > I wasn't referring to whether the card was positive of negative when
> I
> > posted. I was interested in the meanings attributed to the card by
> BhP.
>
> I think you missed the point made by BhP, which was that the meanings
> of the cards are not "positive" or "negative". The 3 of Swords was
> just an example of a card that is normally thought of as negative,
> because its title is Sorrow.
Thanks. Maybe I picked a poor example.
Joel Biroco
<asiya_...@MEATBALLSmindspring.com> wrote:
>"Joel Biroco" <bir...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:mbf5auougpi764t70...@4ax.com...
>>
>> in practice
>> this is not possible unless you happen to have dissolved the
>illusion
>> of dualism, and if you've done that why are you doing a tarot
>reading?
>> Kether is in malkuth.
>
>Are you serious? If so, can you elaborate on that?
Have you not heard anyone say Kether is in Malkuth before? Kether is
in Malkuth because what people think of as Kether is not Kether, since
Kether is inconceivable. Frater Achad's work "The Anatomy of the Body
of God" is interesting in this respect with some great diagrams of
entire trees within a sephiroth extending to infinity and is available
as a PDF on the web somewhere. Very elegant geometry, much
underestimated Achad, even if he was a nutty as a fruitcake.
Joel Biroco
<asiya_...@MEATBALLSmindspring.com> wrote:
I mostly follow Waite, whose meanings are similar to the versions
before him. James Revak did an interesting comparison of Waite's
meanings with Mathers and Etteilla. But I don't consult books or my
memory when doing tarot, if my mind suggests a different
interpretation to a remembered traditional meaning I go with my mind,
since the picture develops as a whole.
Asiya
when
> > I
> > > posted. I was interested in the meanings attributed to the card
by
> > BhP.
> >
> > I think you missed the point made by BhP, which was that the
meanings
> > of the cards are not "positive" or "negative". The 3 of Swords was
> > just an example of a card that is normally thought of as negative,
> > because its title is Sorrow.
>
> Thanks. Maybe I picked a poor example.
Nope, it's a good, obvious example.
Asiya
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 02:52:40 -0700, "Asiya"
> <asiya_...@MEATBALLSmindspring.com> wrote:
> >"Joel Biroco" <bir...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:mbf5auougpi764t70...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> in practice
> >> this is not possible unless you happen to have dissolved the
> >illusion
> >> of dualism, and if you've done that why are you doing a tarot
> >reading?
> >> Kether is in malkuth.
> >
> >Are you serious? If so, can you elaborate on that?
>
> Have you not heard anyone say Kether is in Malkuth before?
Oh of course.
What got me was the if you're not a dualist then why are you doing a
Tarot reading. Why do you say that?
Asiya
Yeah, they incorporated the Qabalah into Tarot too, shaping their
meanings.
> But I don't consult books or my
> memory when doing tarot, if my mind suggests a different
> interpretation to a remembered traditional meaning I go with my
mind,
> since the picture develops as a whole.
I think I'm starting to see where you're coming from with this. You
mean during a reading, you mostly interpret based on the symbols
involved, like if you see connections with the various cards?
I'm curious Joel, if you have used or studied Tarot for anything other
than divination.
Casey Sheldon
> in Malkuth because what people think of as Kether is not Kether, since
> Kether is inconceivable. Frater Achad's work "The Anatomy of the Body
> of God" is interesting in this respect with some great diagrams of
> entire trees within a sephiroth extending to infinity and is available
> as a PDF on the web somewhere. Very elegant geometry, much
> underestimated Achad, even if he was a nutty as a fruitcake.
I saw a little "catch-all guide to the occult" book at Borders awhile
back that had some of Knorr von Rosenroth's diagrams... Amazing stuff! Makes
me wish I could get a hold of some of the pictures from it.
BTW What exactly happened to Achad? I generally don't ascribe to the
Hermetic idea that one progresses from Sefirah to Sefirah, but somebody told
me he had "jumped from Tiphereth to Da'ath" using his reversed pathways, and
that that had driven him mad. Now, my first thought was that the person
spreading this rumor was mad, but I thought I'd ask in any case.
--
Casey Sheldon
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A man's ethical behavior should be based
effectually on sympathy, education, and social
ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would
indeed be in a poor way if he had to be
restrained by fear of punishment and hope of
reward after death."
- Albert Einstein
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
MLYoung
>> posting in alt.magick.
>
>Why? Just curious.
Two things: No real interest in actual
magick (I'm more interested in the
symbolism and philosophy of tarot--
its power as metaphor) and no interest
in deciphering the group's internal dynamics. Just from the little I've seen,
there seem to be a lot of weird little
power struggles. Which is no big deal-
just not something with which I'm inclined
to bother if I'm not into the topic.
--margaret
>
>Asiya
MLYoung
>a qabalistic approach.
Define "fine" and what it means to use
Waite or Thoth without a qabalistic
approach? If you're using Waite or
Crowley's interpretations, you are
using a Qabalistic approach.
>simply that I distance myself from those who
>believe tarot and qabala are inseparable. It is quite possible to come
>up with interesting insights into tarot via qabala, but I do also
>think that most who obsess about this fallacious tarot-qabala
>connection miss the simply beauty of the cards that exists free of
>this enormous appendage.
But the beauty isn't simple--not if you're
using Waite or Thoth. It's complex
and the Qabalistic links are strong and
intentional.
You're simply making an argument for
intentional ignorance.
--margaret
Odysseus
>
> > >"Joel Biroco" <bir...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:mbf5auougpi764t70...@4ax.com...
> > >>
> > >> in practice
> > >> this is not possible unless you happen to have dissolved the
> > >illusion
> > >> of dualism, and if you've done that why are you doing a tarot
> > >reading?
> > >> Kether is in malkuth.
> > >
> > >Are you serious? If so, can you elaborate on that?
> >
> > Have you not heard anyone say Kether is in Malkuth before?
>
> Oh of course.
> What got me was the if you're not a dualist then why are you doing a
> Tarot reading. Why do you say that?
>
duality -- implying something like omniscience, hence no need for
divination -- rather than merely not applying dualistic categorizations
to the symbols.
--Odysseus
Sir Tekeli Lee
>BTW What exactly happened to Achad? I generally don't ascribe to the
>Hermetic idea that one progresses from Sefirah to Sefirah, but somebody told
>me he had "jumped from Tiphereth to Da'ath" using his reversed pathways, and
>that that had driven him mad. Now, my first thought was that the person
>spreading this rumor was mad, but I thought I'd ask in any case.
>
Well, that's one way of putting it. The idea is that when one takes the Oath
of the Abyss in the A.'.A.'., they either succeed, face a total annhilation,
become a Babe of the Abyss, and emerge as a Magister Templi - or they become a
Black Brother, and reside in Daath. He initially took the Oath, and was
thought to have successfully emerged, but he quickly began challenging many of
the traditional attributions. After Crowley expelled him from the OTO in 1936,
he let it be known that there was a good possibility Achad had become a Black
Brother, most likely as a result of him never completing the seven lower grades
of the A.'.A.'.,
Interestingly, in 1948, after declaring yet another new Aeon to have been
initiated, Achad wrote the following: "If this New Aeon is what it seems to
be, it will have lifted the Curse of the Magus and destroyed the Glamour and
Lies and Madness of the Supernal Paths. That would leave one in Daath - and
represent real Attainment - the becoming one with Those Who Know."
A boy takes a feather out his mouth...
-Sir Tekeli Lee
Pineal...@aol.com
---
Uberwachen Sie die Himmel!
Er kommt!
Er hat einen Esel fur einen Kopf!
Alle wir beten zu ihm!
Joel Biroco
<asiya_...@MEATBALLSmindspring.com> wrote:
They mostly used traditional meanings then extant. If you believe they
changed meanings to accord with qabala then you should be able to cite
all the cards in Waite you think are influenced by qabala and state
why. I think you'll find that the influence of qabala is slight, and
virtually non-existent in the Minor Arcana. Even in the Majors it is
mostly rearranging the mantelpiece on a few cards. Compare with
Marseilles deck. Or do you believe the Marseilles deck is qabalistic
too?
>
>> But I don't consult books or my
>> memory when doing tarot, if my mind suggests a different
>> interpretation to a remembered traditional meaning I go with my
>mind,
>> since the picture develops as a whole.
>
>I think I'm starting to see where you're coming from with this. You
>mean during a reading, you mostly interpret based on the symbols
>involved, like if you see connections with the various cards?
I merely attempt to discern what it is trying to tell me. I don't
analyse, I just look. How do you do it?
>
>I'm curious Joel, if you have used or studied Tarot for anything other
>than divination.
Yes I have, but I suspect I need to clear up what my view of
divination is, since I get the impression you think it is some minor
thing compared to the glory of qabalistic pathways or whathaveyou.
My interest in divination goes way beyond tarot, from omens and
oracle-bones to Ling Qi Jing, Yijing, patterns in powder, flight of
birds, plum-blossom numerology, haloes around the moon, and many more,
so I bring what I have learnt in reading oracles to the tarot.
For instance, for a year I recorded detailed subjective impressions of
changes in light intensity of the star Alcor observed through a
telescope in order to test the ancient Chinese proposition that this
star could be used to predict political changes in the world. When the
Hale-Bopp comet was present in the sky I made correlations with world
events. I described on a.r.w a hawk omen I experienced, for instance.
I am used to interpreting the world around me according to the
movements of currents within it that many people hardly notice, I have
done so for a long time, and for me tarot is simply a part of that.
A closely observed fight between two magpies and a rook can have as
much if not more meaning for me than a tarot spread. What is the fight
about, who is in the right, are the magpies being a nuisance to the
rook or is the rook invading the magpie's territory. These questions
emanating from natural curiosity into an event that has attracted
one's attention can have natural resonances with one's own current
situation. There are no books to describe how to interpret such things
(apart from Shao Yong's plum blossom numerology, but I rarely apply
that), it is an art one learns through practice.
The word "juxtaposition" is relevant here, which I have used to
describe a way I practice magick that is related to these studies over
the years. It is generally related also to the sheer meaningfulness of
all existence, and to prana, the Norse Wyrd, Tao, "li" (pattern in the
world, originally the pattern in jade, which much interested Cheng Yi
who wrote to the Emperor about it as a teenager at risk of death for
his impertinence). As with any subject you study in depth over time,
it first becomes complicated but later simplicities emerge, and that
is usually the result of a change of consciousness.
Reading oracles is more a state of consciousness than an ability to
analyse. Thus divination properly appreciated is not merely fortune
telling but attainment of a state of mind. Tarot speaks differently to
say Yijing, but at heart it is still an oracle and I find the best way
to understand it is to allow it to speak rather than to put words into
its mouth via various systems for attempting to understand it. It is
useful to acquaint oneself with what all the cards are supposed to
mean, but it is equally useful to discard that once done and let the
tarot speak with its own voice. Traditional divinatory meanings are
just an alphabet, they are not the language.
Joel Biroco
<ho.h...@green.giant.com> wrote:
>> Have you not heard anyone say Kether is in Malkuth before? Kether is
>> in Malkuth because what people think of as Kether is not Kether, since
>> Kether is inconceivable. Frater Achad's work "The Anatomy of the Body
>> of God" is interesting in this respect with some great diagrams of
>> entire trees within a sephiroth extending to infinity and is available
>> as a PDF on the web somewhere. Very elegant geometry, much
>> underestimated Achad, even if he was a nutty as a fruitcake.
>
> I saw a little "catch-all guide to the occult" book at Borders awhile
>back that had some of Knorr von Rosenroth's diagrams... Amazing stuff! Makes
>me wish I could get a hold of some of the pictures from it.
> BTW What exactly happened to Achad? I generally don't ascribe to the
>Hermetic idea that one progresses from Sefirah to Sefirah, but somebody told
>me he had "jumped from Tiphereth to Da'ath" using his reversed pathways, and
>that that had driven him mad. Now, my first thought was that the person
>spreading this rumor was mad, but I thought I'd ask in any case.
The PDF of "Anatomy" on the web has diagrams, including an excellent
colour plate. Achad is famous for walking through the streets naked
claiming to have cast off the shackles of illusion. I forget now where
I read that (perhaps in Kenneth Grant), whether it was true or merely
apocryphal. But if you read his Liber 31 it is delightfully unhinged,
and a fascinating read because it's so off the wall. He believed
himself to be the fulfillment of Liber Al, as he puts it "I am the
Crowned Child whom thou knowest not, O Therion". Liber 31 contains
diary entries in which not a day goes by on which he doesn't have some
new revelation about the meaning of the universe and his own
magnificent place in it (typical of Abyss falling). I particularly
liked his description of being totally out of his head while "seated
on the Stele of Revealing in the Smoke Room of an ordinary steamer
plying between Vancouver and Victoria". Liber 31 is a great magical
classic actually, I thought it was wonderful, although I don't think
many people read it any more. And I was surprised by his work on
Qabala, having formed an early impression of him via Crowley and
others that he was some kind of magical failure, he was on the ball
and had a good style of writing. Greg Wotton had a lot of Achad PDFs
on his site, but I can't recall the URL. Ben Rowe created some Achad
PDFs so maybe they can be found on his site somewhere.
Joel Biroco
wrote:
Exactly. I sometimes wonder about Asiya, how does she manage to
interpret tarot given her frequent misinterpretation of perfectly
ordinary things I'm saying....?
>
>--Odysseus
Sue
<bir...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:
Well, Waite obviously thought the influence of qabalah was significant
enough for him to change the attribution of The Fool from Shin (where
Wirth had placed it) to Aleph - which then made the Magician correspond to
Beth, etc. Without any other changes, this assigment of Aleph to the Fool
offset each of the qabalistic attributions that Levi had assigned prior to
Wirth placing The Fool (Shin) between XX (Judgement) and XXI (The World).
But Waite made further changes to Wirth's ordering of the Trumps - Waite
placed Justice as Trump XI (while Wirth had placed Justice as Trump VIII)
and Strenth to Trump VIII (while Wirth had Strength placed at Trump XI).
Why would Waite have made such changes if the influence of qabalah wasn't
significant enough to support it?
Sue
I understood that the interpretations you provided were based on your own
experiences with the card. What I was trying to understand was what
information provided by Crowley caused you to interpret the card in that
particular manner.
>
> I was writing about the kind of sorrow that is felt when one ends
> something - separates from something - for no other reason than
> because it is for the "greater good" of the person. Like finishing
> school - it can be an exciting new start but the person is also
> leaving the safety and comfort of one life for a future of
> uncertainty, responsibility, fears, potential isolation, etc. Or
> ending a relationship that is generally healthy but has no future (eg
> not both partners want children) - you know the situation has to end
> but it's difficult and painful because there's no immediacy. The
> decision is based on an uncertain future but you do it anyway. To me,
> that in part can represent a sorrow that is not based on surface
> emotions, it is a melancholy that is felt when the adult in you makes
> decisions that the child in you doesn't want to face. In short:
> swords - the intellect, threes - Binah, the mother: the bird knowing
> it must force its baby out of the nest for its own good: will it fly?
> maybe, maybe not, but what is the alternative?
Is this concept of 'separating from something' caused in part by Crowley's
interpretation of the Threes as representing "...a certain stability which
can never be upset, but from which a child can issue."? (_BoT_ p. 178) You
see, I'm actually trying to pin down why you (or anyone else, for that
matter) would interpret the card in this particular manner - in part
because Crowley claims this card represents "the universal sorrow" as
opposed to "any vulgar sorrow dependent on any individual disappointment
or discontent". (_BoT_ p. 179) While I can understand (and feel agreement
with you on an emotional level) your choice of "the bird knowing it must
force its baby out of the nest..." description, I wonder if Crowley was
going even deeper than that when it comes to "the universal sorrow".
>
> > > I wasn't referring to whether the card was positive of negative when
> > I
> > > posted. I was interested in the meanings attributed to the card by
> > BhP.
> >
> > I think you missed the point made by BhP, which was that the meanings
> > of the cards are not "positive" or "negative". The 3 of Swords was
> > just an example of a card that is normally thought of as negative,
> > because its title is Sorrow.
>
> Thanks. Maybe I picked a poor example.
My post wasn't directly addressing whether cards are 'positive' or
'negative'. My post was addressing the particular interpretation of
Crowley's 3 of Swords. I was obviously not clear about that at the time.
Asiya
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 01:47:06 GMT, Odysseus <odysse...@yahoo.ca>
> wrote:
> >
> >I think Joel was referring to someone's having attained a state
beyond
> >duality -- implying something like omniscience, hence no need for
> >divination -- rather than merely not applying dualistic
categorizations
> >to the symbols.
Thanks.
> Exactly. I sometimes wonder about Asiya, how does she manage to
> interpret tarot given her frequent misinterpretation of perfectly
> ordinary things I'm saying....?
Yawn. Time to come up with a new angle, Joel.
For alt.tarot posters: Joel sometimes attempts to start shit with me
by suggesting that things are over my head.
Asiya
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 01:47:06 GMT, Odysseus <odysse...@yahoo.ca>
> wrote:
> >
> >I think Joel was referring to someone's having attained a state
beyond
> >duality -- implying something like omniscience, hence no need for
> >divination -- rather than merely not applying dualistic
categorizations
> >to the symbols.
Thanks.
> Exactly. I sometimes wonder about Asiya, how does she manage to
> interpret tarot given her frequent misinterpretation of perfectly
> ordinary things I'm saying....?
Yawn. Time to come up with a new angle, Joel.
For alt.tarot posters: Joel sometimes attempts to start shit with me
by suggesting that things are over my head.
Asiya
Asiya
...
Hopping over to the divinatory level, a few of the meanings given in
the LWB are: disruption, delay, absence, separation.
Joel Biroco
<asiya_...@MEATBALLSmindspring.com> wrote:
>"Joel Biroco" <bir...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:gdv7auc1ebl5038q6...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 01:47:06 GMT, Odysseus <odysse...@yahoo.ca>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >I think Joel was referring to someone's having attained a state
>beyond
>> >duality -- implying something like omniscience, hence no need for
>> >divination -- rather than merely not applying dualistic
>categorizations
>> >to the symbols.
>
>Thanks.
>
>> Exactly. I sometimes wonder about Asiya, how does she manage to
>> interpret tarot given her frequent misinterpretation of perfectly
>> ordinary things I'm saying....?
>
>Yawn. Time to come up with a new angle, Joel.
You don't think that is a valid point?
>
>For alt.tarot posters: Joel sometimes attempts to start shit with me
>by suggesting that things are over my head.
So nothing goes over your head ever? Must be because it is so big.
I have no interest in starting shit with you, I take as I find with
everyone. You have struck me as dense in your response to some of the
things I have said. That's the long and short of it. No need to
manufacture a persecution complex.
Joel Biroco
wrote:
I agree with you about the above. I have already acknowledged that
there was a little mantelpiece rearrangement in the Major Arcana. What
about the Minor Arcana, can you find any qabalistic influence there?
Paul Hume
> in deciphering the group's internal dynamics. Just from the little I've seen,
> there seem to be a lot of weird little
> power struggles.
So it might appear to the profane eye, barely capable of delineating
the merest outline of the outermost veil of the sanctuary, but once
this astral myopia has been corrected by the lens of true initiation,
one perceives the innermost love-death entwinings of the struggle
between the perverse and inane blackest of black bretheren (all the
other posters) and the magi of the most high (tm, pat pend...me for
one) which underlies all interchange on alt.magick.
Be aware that if you choose to approach that most arcane of arcana,
that most ineffable of ineffabilities, that most
supercallifragilisticexpialidocious of ....things, that is alt.magick,
that the true law will entangle you, not to go all fours on the
ground!
Are we not men? Or are we Devo?
Paul
Sue
<bir...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:
Each of the numbered 'pip' cards are representative of a sphere in the
Tree of Life - Aces being attributed to Kether, Twos to Chokmah, etc.
That's a qabalistic influence right there. The court cards are attributed
to the Yod-He-Vau-He sequence of the Tetragrammaton. Granted, the
qabalistic attributions aren't the only aspects of the Minor Arcana, but
the influence is there and is presented in various texts.
Sue
<asiya_...@MEATBALLSmindspring.com> wrote:
> "Sue" <EvilWic...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:EvilWickedBunny-...@user212.net180.fl.sprint-hsd.net
> ...
> >
> > Is this concept of 'separating from something' caused in part by
> Crowley's
> > interpretation of the Threes as representing "...a certain stability
> which
> > can never be upset, but from which a child can issue."? (_BoT_ p.
> 178) You
> > see, I'm actually trying to pin down why you (or anyone else, for
> that
> > matter) would interpret the card in this particular manner - in part
> > because Crowley claims this card represents "the universal sorrow"
> as
> > opposed to "any vulgar sorrow dependent on any individual
> disappointment
> > or discontent". (_BoT_ p. 179) While I can understand (and feel
> agreement
> > with you on an emotional level) your choice of "the bird knowing it
> must
> > force its baby out of the nest..." description, I wonder if Crowley
> was
> > going even deeper than that when it comes to "the universal sorrow".
>
> Hopping over to the divinatory level, a few of the meanings given in
> the LWB are: disruption, delay, absence, separation.
>
OK. So let's say that you purchase a tarot deck and you start to learn the
divinitory meanings of the cards within it and the LWB for a certain card
gives the meaning for that card as "Represents the need to jump off the
Golden Gate Bridge." Wouldn't you wonder how that meaning was derived for
that particular card?
Asiya
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 03:01:07 -0700, "Asiya"
> <asiya_...@MEATBALLSmindspring.com> wrote:
> >"Joel Biroco" <bir...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:gdv7auc1ebl5038q6...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 01:47:06 GMT, Odysseus
<odysse...@yahoo.ca>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >I think Joel was referring to someone's having attained a state
> >beyond
> >> >duality -- implying something like omniscience, hence no need
for
> >> >divination -- rather than merely not applying dualistic
> >categorizations
> >> >to the symbols.
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >> Exactly. I sometimes wonder about Asiya, how does she manage to
> >> interpret tarot given her frequent misinterpretation of perfectly
> >> ordinary things I'm saying....?
> >
> >Yawn. Time to come up with a new angle, Joel.
>
> You don't think that is a valid point?
I misinterpreted *that* particular thing you wrote. But there is no
"frequent" misinterpretation.
And yes, if someone were to frequently misinterpret English, they
would have a difficult time with Tarot.
> >For alt.tarot posters: Joel sometimes attempts to start shit with
me
> >by suggesting that things are over my head.
>
> So nothing goes over your head ever? Must be because it is so big.
heh See? You're taking something that referred to specific incidents
and attempting to apply it to *all* things. Yawn.
> I have no interest in starting shit with you,
Good, because when I told you: "When you're not hiding under the guise
of 'if you don't understand me, I must be too wise for you', your
posts are intelligible", I meant it. You're intelligent, informative,
and entertaining, but this projected holier-than-thou attitude is
predictable. It no longer has an effect.
> I take as I find with everyone.
Then find something true.
> You have struck me as dense in your response to some of the
> things I have said.
The times that you have said such things to me have been when you're
not paying attention, or are avoiding certain questions or points of
discussion. That has been shown.
If there have been genuine times that I've replied to you in a dense
manner, you haven't ever pointed it out. And I wouldn't mind that
being pointed out, if the reply was informative in some way. I'm here
to learn.
> That's the long and short of it. No need to
> manufacture a persecution complex.
Nope, it's merely a dull pattern.
Shaun Goodwin
"Paul Hume" <paul...@lan2wan.com> wrote in message
>
> Are we not men? Or are we Devo?
>
Had a hard day Paul?
Shaun
> Paul
MLYoung
>> in deciphering the group's internal dynamics. Just from the little I've
>seen,
>> there seem to be a lot of weird little
>> power struggles.
>
>So it might appear to the profane eye, barely capable of delineating
>the merest outline of the outermost veil of the sanctuary, but once
>this astral myopia has been corrected by the lens of true initiation,
>one perceives the innermost love-death entwinings of the struggle
>between the perverse and inane blackest of black bretheren (all the
>other posters) and the magi of the most high (tm, pat pend...me for
>one) which underlies all interchange on alt.magick.
Yeah, well, there's that, too.
>Be aware that if you choose to approach that most arcane of arcana,
>that most ineffable of ineffabilities, that most
>supercallifragilisticexpialidocious of ....things, that is alt.magick,
>that the true law will entangle you, not to go all fours on the
>ground!
Well, it's rather hard to type that way,
anyway.
>
>Are we not men? Or are we Devo?
I think I have their lead singer's autograph
around somewhere.
--margaret
>
>Paul
>
>
Joel Biroco
<asiya_...@MEATBALLSmindspring.com> wrote:
Well, at least you acknowledge it, that's a start. I'm impressed that
you can be so candid about it, many people would think that was too
personal a thing to admit to.
Joel Biroco
wrote:
Yes, I know how qabalists look at it, my point was that this was an
overlay and there is nothing inherently qabalistic about Waite's Minor
Arcana in the design or the attributed meanings. To prove your point
you'll need to cite specific qabalistic influences in the design of
the pictures (which are simply mnemonic drawings for traditional
divinatory meanings) or in the meanings Waite gives. Even Robert Wang
in "The Qabalistic Tarot", where he compares Waite's deck to the
Golden Dawn , Thoth, and Marseilles decks, notes that Waite simply
provides divinatory Minor Arcana cards and points to no explicit
qabalistic symbolism in the design or meanings. If Waite wished to
produce an overtly "qabalistic deck" he was mightily restrained.
Apart from the fact that the pip cards were given pictures to
illustrate the meanings, there is no substantial difference between
his Minors and those of an earlier acknowledged non-qabalistic deck.
This was my point. If, however, you are saying that even the earlier
tarot decks are also qabalistic because of coincidental things such as
10 sephira then I'm afraid I simply don't accept that the evidence is
good enough and neither does Gershom Scholem. You may as well say an
ordinary deck of 52 playing cards is qabalistic. I fully realise that
qabala can be applied to many things, but the argument was about
specific influences in the Waite deck, not what can be read into or
imposed on the given structure, that is a different argument
altogether.
cheyne
> Well, at least you acknowledge it, that's a start. I'm impressed that
> you can be so candid about it, many people would think that was too
> personal a thing to admit to.
Joel,
You're a moron. Yet another.
Time you fucked off.
Bye bye.
cheyne
cheyne
> Apart from the fact that the pip cards were given pictures to
> illustrate the meanings, there is no substantial difference between
> his Minors and those of an earlier acknowledged non-qabalistic deck.
What earlier deck?
So you know what are the sources of Waite's minor arcana illustrations?
I bet you don't.
And there's nothing Kabbalistic about Waite's minors?
How did you arrive at that?
Give over.
cheyne
Gloat
"cheyne" <chey...@btopenworldSPAMOFF.com> wrote in
message news:3ca50c92$0$87939$45be...@newscene.com...
> Joel Biroco <bir...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote...
>
> > Apart from the fact that the pip cards were given
pictures to
> > illustrate the meanings, there is no substantial
difference between
> > his Minors and those of an earlier acknowledged
non-qabalistic deck.
>
> What earlier deck?
>
> So you know what are the sources of Waite's minor
arcana illustrations?
>
> I bet you don't.
>
I have just been looking at the Sola-Busca deck, and
found some interesting images, the 3 of Swords being
one of the most striking;
http://sword.lightspeed.bc.ca/hilander/sola/solaswords.
htm
A beautiful deck to look at... I would like to own a
copy, if only the trumps were a little more
conventional.
g
cheyne
>
> "cheyne" wrote...
> > So you know what are the sources of Waite's minor
> arcana illustrations?
> >
> > I bet you don't.
> >
>
>
> I have just been looking at the Sola-Busca deck
OK, so that's one of them.
Would Joel like to take over here?
cheyne
Karipidu
>I have just been looking at the Sola-Busca deck, and
>found some interesting images, the 3 of Swords being
>one of the most striking;
>
>http://sword.lightspeed.bc.ca/hilander/sola/solaswords.
>htm
>
Did you see the 10 of Swords?