Nagging Questions from a Maybe-Wiccan?
joneko
the edge of my mind and are driving me absolutely mad, Andrew is
currently asleep and I didn't get a chance to bug him with them, and
besides that fact we *have* been collectively mulling over them, but I
would like to bring them up in a discussion where I could here other
thoughts as well.
(Nothing against yours of course, sweetheart. I'm just curious.)
I may be a bit manic right now thoughts-wise, so *further* apologies if
any of this doesn't make much sense. Alright, so the series of
seemingly unrelated questions:
- I've read about the concept of Patron deities, but is it possible for
someone to be clue-by-foured by such when considering Wicca rather than
when they are a Wiccan? Is there a *point* at which one is considered
Wiccan as opposed to not Wiccan if they integrate Wiccan beliefs?
- What can be done with Tarot that isn't necessarily giving readings?
I am fascinated by tarot and have been for quite a while and (if this
makes *any* sense) feel some sort of connection with the cards whenever
I'm studying them. However, I don't feel like I could (or would be
comfortable enough to) give readings to others; I've seen this done
before and used more as fortune-telling than anything, and I don't feel
like that's what the cards should be used for. I don't mean that in a
judgemental "Tarot should not be fortune-telling tools" sort of way;
it's just that, when I'm holding the deck, I feel like they should be
used for something, but not *that*, that they have some sort of
potential I'm not grasping.
Now I'm sure I sound insane.
- When making one's own tarot is it more appropriate to try and
maintain the symbology used in old, traditional decks? Or is it best
to just follow one's own associations, interpretations, etc., in
relation to the cards and their meanings?
There was another bit, but I think I'll mull over it a little more in
my head to see if I can reach any sort of conclusion. If not, I'm
afraid I may have to bother you wonderful folks with it in the
future...
Any responses to anything would be very, very appreciated. Again,
apologies for the seeming randomness, and for bombarding you all with
questions like this.
Joseph Littleshoes
>
> - What can be done with Tarot that isn't necessarily giving readings?
> I am fascinated by tarot and have been for quite a while and (if this
> makes *any* sense) feel some sort of connection with the cards whenever
> I'm studying them. However, I don't feel like I could (or would be
> comfortable enough to) give readings to others; I've seen this done
> before and used more as fortune-telling than anything, and I don't feel
> like that's what the cards should be used for. I don't mean that in a
> judgemental "Tarot should not be fortune-telling tools" sort of way;
> it's just that, when I'm holding the deck, I feel like they should be
> used for something, but not *that*, that they have some sort of
> potential I'm not grasping.
Oh, there are several things that can be done with the Tarot besides
'fortune telling' or divination. Though it is admirably suited for use
as a divinatory tool.
There are formal magical system that use the tarot as a kind of filing
system, and in ritual, ceremonial or "High Magick". It can be used to
compare differing philosophical perspectives and also as a kind of
'flash cards' for certain mathematical forms of mysticism. It can be
used in an initiatory manner, for astral projection or guided imagery
meditations.
>
> Now I'm sure I sound insane.
>
> - When making one's own tarot is it more appropriate to try and
> maintain the symbology used in old, traditional decks?
In a perfect world i would assume you would want to become so familiar
with he tarot that translating it into contemporary phenomena would be
second nature, only then would i think you would want to try to
'translate' or interpret the tarot.
Creating a copy of a deck rather than creating a new deck can be good
exercise in familiarizing oneself with the tarot. But its a big job.
Fortunately when it comes to 'translating' the deck into contemporary
images we also have contemporary technology with which to do so.
Or is it best
> to just follow one's own associations, interpretations, etc., in
> relation to the cards and their meanings?
Some people will maintain that there is a message or propaganda encoded
in the tarot. Some even find morality and ethics there but that is more
difficult to demonstrate.
To create a new system is not impossible but probably even harder than
an attempt to understand the tarot and create your own unique version of
it.
You have to know what it is before you can interpret it.
---
JL
Yowie
news:1148962672.2...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Apologies for the seemingly random slew of questions; they're stuck at
> the edge of my mind and are driving me absolutely mad, Andrew is
> currently asleep and I didn't get a chance to bug him with them, and
> besides that fact we *have* been collectively mulling over them, but I
> would like to bring them up in a discussion where I could here other
> thoughts as well.
>
> (Nothing against yours of course, sweetheart. I'm just curious.)
>
> I may be a bit manic right now thoughts-wise, so *further* apologies if
> any of this doesn't make much sense. Alright, so the series of
> seemingly unrelated questions:
Just so you know, I'm not a Wiccan. A Christo-Pagan, the Paganpart heavily
influenced by Wicca..
>
> - I've read about the concept of Patron deities, but is it possible for
> someone to be clue-by-foured by such when considering Wicca rather than
> when they are a Wiccan?
Sure. Gods(esses) clue-by-four people all the time. You don't need to be
Wiccan to have a Patron Deity(ies) outside of the JCI complex (ask a Hindu)
:-)
> Is there a *point* at which one is considered
> Wiccan as opposed to not Wiccan if they integrate Wiccan beliefs?
This comes down to your definition of "Wicca" and "Wiccan" (says she,
desperately trying to hold down the lid down so the worms don't escape).
> - What can be done with Tarot that isn't necessarily giving readings?
> I am fascinated by tarot and have been for quite a while and (if this
> makes *any* sense) feel some sort of connection with the cards whenever
> I'm studying them. However, I don't feel like I could (or would be
> comfortable enough to) give readings to others; I've seen this done
> before and used more as fortune-telling than anything, and I don't feel
> like that's what the cards should be used for. I don't mean that in a
> judgemental "Tarot should not be fortune-telling tools" sort of way;
> it's just that, when I'm holding the deck, I feel like they should be
> used for something, but not *that*, that they have some sort of
> potential I'm not grasping.
Meditiation, inspiration, clarity of thought etc etc. I do not do fortune
telling with my tarot deck (my Christian aspect doesn't look kindly on
'fortune tellers') but sometimes if I need clarity on a situation, I'll get
out my tarot and do a spread. I'm not then "predicting the future" as such,
but rather, trying to get some insight into the *now*. I tend to lokk at
Tarot like a Rosach blob - random information that my subconcious will make
a pattern out of that seems to make sense. YMMV with that one.
But many people use Tarot to gain inspiration and to meditate on something -
for example, "who is The Fool", "What is the Fool", how am I the fool", when
is being the fool good, when is it bad... how does the fool realte to the
rest of the universe etc etc. Whats with the dog & the fool? Does the fool
resonate with me in any unespected way? How could youdepict the fool
diferently? Does the fool have any symbology within the JCI complex? How
does it realte to the Tree of Life etc etc
Food for thought, exploration, meditation.
>
> Now I'm sure I sound insane.
Only as insane as the rest of us :-)
> - When making one's own tarot is it more appropriate to try and
> maintain the symbology used in old, traditional decks? Or is it best
> to just follow one's own associations, interpretations, etc., in
> relation to the cards and their meanings?
There is no 'best'. YOu wan to follow your own associations & meanings, then
go ahead. It will be a deck of cards (not necessarily "tarot") that means
something to you personally. Then again, the symbology in the traditional
tarot is so complex, you may suddenly 'experience' a symbol in a card that
you've looked at over and over again, and have only just noticed that symbol
and have a whole new mind-f*ck experience just because you notice that
symbol thats always been there.
You make your own tarot, and its unlikely you'll have an experience like
that, because most likely you'll only include stuff that you know about *at
the moment*. But it will certainly speak to you like no other deck ever will
be able to (unless of course, you make another.....)
YMMV.
> There was another bit, but I think I'll mull over it a little more in
> my head to see if I can reach any sort of conclusion. If not, I'm
> afraid I may have to bother you wonderful folks with it in the
> future...
>
> Any responses to anything would be very, very appreciated. Again,
> apologies for the seeming randomness, and for bombarding you all with
> questions like this.
Bother away. You have a bright, inquisitive mind and its a pleasure to read
what you write as it gets us (me?)thinking too. And darn, didn't Andrew do
well on that love spell of his. Wow. Talk about a magical match.
Yowie
Dan Holzman
>
> - I've read about the concept of Patron deities, but is it possible for
> someone to be clue-by-foured by such when considering Wicca rather than
> when they are a Wiccan? Is there a *point* at which one is considered
> Wiccan as opposed to not Wiccan if they integrate Wiccan beliefs?
I would say it is at the point at which they consider themselves Wiccan.
> - What can be done with Tarot that isn't necessarily giving readings?
> I am fascinated by tarot and have been for quite a while and (if this
> makes *any* sense) feel some sort of connection with the cards whenever
> I'm studying them. However, I don't feel like I could (or would be
> comfortable enough to) give readings to others; I've seen this done
> before and used more as fortune-telling than anything, and I don't feel
> like that's what the cards should be used for. I don't mean that in a
> judgemental "Tarot should not be fortune-telling tools" sort of way;
> it's just that, when I'm holding the deck, I feel like they should be
> used for something, but not *that*, that they have some sort of
> potential I'm not grasping.
One can meditate upon them, either by choosing a given card to consider
or by doing a reading for oneself.
> - When making one's own tarot is it more appropriate to try and
> maintain the symbology used in old, traditional decks? Or is it best
> to just follow one's own associations, interpretations, etc., in
> relation to the cards and their meanings?
I recommend being certain one understands the traditional symbols and
associations in order to best articulate how one's own symbols map to them.
'Thenie
<snip>
> - I've read about the concept of Patron deities, but is it
> possible for someone to be clue-by-foured by such
> when considering Wicca rather than when they are a
> Wiccan? Is there a *point* at which one is considered
> Wiccan as opposed to not Wiccan if they integrate
> Wiccan beliefs?
First, one does not have to be W/wiccan to get 'adopted' or
'selected' or whatever by a Patron Deity. Point of fact,
the first I heard of Patron Deities was at Broomcon 2002,
given in the context of Norse Deities, which places the
concept in Paganism, not Wicca. I hadn't even been aware of
my Patron until then, and then it came as blindingly obvious
to me. Sometimes They pounce and sometimes They sneak up on
you.
Second, in my own case, I have been acquired by a Greek
Deity, which is nowhere near what my own personal belief
system happens to be. So Patrons come of Their Own reasons
irrespective of one's own preferred or natural orientation.
Third, I'm not sure one is required to be on >any< sort of
spiritual or magickal path, though it sure would be helpful.
But the idea that a Patron could be waiting for you by the
'gate' (so to speak) of your entrance to your path sounds
like a possibility. I was eventually dragged onto my path,
sort of against my will. This was decades before my Patron
revealed Herself (more that I finally became aware of Her),
so it's possible She was the one that dragged me onto that
path.
As far as when one decides one is W/wiccan or not (and the
'W' vs 'w' distinction refers to Jani's specifying original
Wiccan trads from the less formal forms that have sprung
from their footprints, especially here in the US), I would
suppose that depends on you and your own definitions.
There are W/wicca definitions that seem to vary somewhat
according to who is providing the definition, but ultimately
it comes down to you and your relationship with Deity. It's
a very complicated question, due to there being such
difficulty getting consensus about >anything< in the
magickal community, especially definitions...
> - What can be done with Tarot that isn't necessarily
> giving readings?
> I am fascinated by tarot and have been for quite a
> while and (if this makes *any* sense) feel some sort
> of connection with the cards whenever I'm studying
> them. However, I don't feel like I could (or would
> be comfortable enough to) give readings to others;
> I've seen this done before and used more as fortune-
> telling than anything, and I don't feel like that's what
> the cards should be used for. I don't mean that in a
> judgemental "Tarot should not be fortune-telling
> tools" sort of way; it's just that, when I'm holding the
> deck, I feel like they should be used for something,
> but not *that*, that they have some sort of potential
> I'm not grasping.
>
> Now I'm sure I sound insane.
Not at all; it's a reasonable question.
Let me state at the start that I do read Tarot and that I
bristle at the term 'fortunetelling'; I do not 'tell
fortunes'. My primary application is as a tool for
counselling and for situational context.
Tarot is also used in Pathwork, an exercise of exploration
of inner landscapes. As such it is a meditation and
visualization tool. Some use it in a shamanic context (to
go to other dimensions underground), others use it in a
ceremonial magick context (for astral or Tree of Life work).
By concentrating on the card, you can enter it. The card
becomes a gate, a door, a room, or a landscape, according to
your experience of it and/or the mindset you bring to it.
Tarot can be used in spellcraft, utilizing the card as
representative of some component of the spell (the action to
be taken, the goal, the target to be influenced, etc). The
cards can be laid out in a spread to enact the spell or one
or more cards can be used as a visual aid to focus energy
and intent.
Tarot can be used as a charm, amulet, or talisman. In such
a case, it needs to be in physical contact with either the
one utilizing it in that way or in physical contact with the
person or object it is to influence.
Tarot can also be used as a book of knowledge, one that is
studied and confers new information through being open to
the symbolism in the card(s). It can teach how to read and
think in symbolism. It can teach a range of magickal
systems. It can teach about magick and mundane structure
and how they are interwoven. Differing decks have different
perspectives, which can add to one's understanding and
knowledge.
But what I personally prefer is to use them in counselling,
to help people prepare, understand, and heal. Whether
looking at past situations, present ones, or potential
futures, Tarot (in the method I use) shines a light and
notifies people of their options as well as the likely
results of those options. Tarot can be used to present
information within a context, rather than merely a
subjective and hobbled experience.
> - When making one's own tarot is it more appropriate to
> try and maintain the symbology used in old, traditional
> decks? Or is it best to just follow one's own
> associations, interpretations, etc., in relation to the
> cards and their meanings?
My own feeling is that those who would create their own
decks would do best to study and research extensively before
beginning. There are reasons there are 78 cards in the
deck, a Major and a minor Arcana, 4 suits in the minor
arcana. The symbols were not chosen randomly, but according
to an integrated system. Knowing why the deck is organised
the way it is and why the images were chosen helps in
creating another vision, another system based on different
symbols and images. Not all decks are the traditional
78-count; not all decks have the two arcanas; not all minor
arcanas have 4 suits; even among the 4 suits, not all are
wand/club, cup/heart, sword/spade, and pentacle/diamond; and
not all Court cards are 4-levelled (page, knight, queen,
king). The ones that differ do so for a reason, based on
its own integrated system and created with weighed choices.
> There was another bit, but I think I'll mull over it a
> little more in my head to see if I can reach any sort
> of conclusion. If not, I'm afraid I may have to
> bother you wonderful folks with it in the future...
Please do.
> Any responses to anything would be very, very appreciated.
> Again, apologies for the seeming randomness, and for
> bombarding you all with questions like this.
This is not a bombardment by any means. We've had longer
and more varied inquiries. And we enjoy this sort of thing;
we get to learn along with you.
-'Thenie
Romauld
: - I've read about the concept of Patron deities, but is it possible for
: someone to be clue-by-foured by such when considering Wicca rather than
: when they are a Wiccan?
Yes.
: Is there a *point* at which one is considered
: Wiccan as opposed to not Wiccan if they integrate Wiccan beliefs?
This is a matter of much debate in the community. Traditionalists would
say 'Absolutely: the point at which one is initiated into Wicca by a
lineaged High Priestess or High Priest'. Those of a less traditional
frame of mind would say all kinds of things, some of which include
references to getting in touch with one's inner dolphin.
Personally I would argue that an initiatory experience, either of
direct gnosis sought and found through Wiccan ritual (eg. the self-
initiation paths written about by Cunningham) or through similar
gnosis that the initiant is guided towards by one or more existing
Wiccan leaders, is pretty much necessary to be a Wiccan.
: - What can be done with Tarot that isn't necessarily giving readings?
Well, there's a really good card game which is half way between whist/bridge
and poker. There's quite a few localised variations on the rules, and the
most common set (French Tarot) and the earliest recorded sets (Spanish and
Italian Tarot) can be reliably traced to prior to the known use of the cards
as divining tools.
: Now I'm sure I sound insane.
<snip>
You really don't. What I see in your paragraph is very sound instincts:
everything I know about Tarot diviniation suggests that one must use one's
deck/s a great deal for one's own self, and gain experience and hone one's
skill through that process, before one can reliably divine for others. You
seem to instinctively understand that, reflected in your reluctance to do so.
: - When making one's own tarot is it more appropriate to try and
: maintain the symbology used in old, traditional decks? Or is it best
: to just follow one's own associations, interpretations, etc., in
: relation to the cards and their meanings?
I would say that a fairly traditional witch's attitude would be "Does
it work? Well then."
: Any responses to anything would be very, very appreciated. Again,
: apologies for the seeming randomness, and for bombarding you all with
: questions like this.
Your questions are focussed, well-expressed and relevant to the topic of
the group: you have no idea how *nice* that is. :)
~R
--
Romauld - romauld at necrotheque dot dcu
"It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses
or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not
change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
- Giordano Bruno
Morgan Sarum
"joneko"
> Apologies for the seemingly random slew of questions; they're stuck at
> the edge of my mind and are driving me absolutely mad, Andrew is
> currently asleep and I didn't get a chance to bug him with them, and
> besides that fact we *have* been collectively mulling over them, but I
> would like to bring them up in a discussion where I could here other
> thoughts as well.
No worries =)
> (Nothing against yours of course, sweetheart. I'm just curious.)
>
> I may be a bit manic right now thoughts-wise, so *further* apologies if
> any of this doesn't make much sense. Alright, so the series of
> seemingly unrelated questions:
>
> - I've read about the concept of Patron deities, but is it possible for
> someone to be clue-by-foured by such when considering Wicca rather than
> when they are a Wiccan? Is there a *point* at which one is considered
> Wiccan as opposed to not Wiccan if they integrate Wiccan beliefs?
yes, that's very possible, and happens...
there's an interesting tale on the net about a
Christian Blacksmith who met Bridget and Volund....
much discussion over the second question...
woo-ee..
depends whose idea of wicca we're measuring against, for a start..
=)
> - What can be done with Tarot that isn't necessarily giving readings?
> I am fascinated by tarot and have been for quite a while and (if this
> makes *any* sense) feel some sort of connection with the cards whenever
> I'm studying them. However, I don't feel like I could (or would be
> comfortable enough to) give readings to others; I've seen this done
> before and used more as fortune-telling than anything, and I don't feel
> like that's what the cards should be used for. I don't mean that in a
> judgemental "Tarot should not be fortune-telling tools" sort of way;
> it's just that, when I'm holding the deck, I feel like they should be
> used for something, but not *that*, that they have some sort of
> potential I'm not grasping.
pathworking, meditation, magic, ooh, lots!
> Now I'm sure I sound insane.
no you don't.
you're asking sensible intelligent and/or interesting questions.
> - When making one's own tarot is it more appropriate to try and
> maintain the symbology used in old, traditional decks? Or is it best
> to just follow one's own associations, interpretations, etc., in
> relation to the cards and their meanings?
some people say one thing, some that the other,
what would you choose for yourself?
> There was another bit, but I think I'll mull over it a little more in
> my head to see if I can reach any sort of conclusion. If not, I'm
> afraid I may have to bother you wonderful folks with it in the
> future...
Oh please do, we like strange questions, they cause interesting answers..
> Any responses to anything would be very, very appreciated. Again,
> apologies for the seeming randomness, and for bombarding you all with
> questions like this.
not a problem at all sweetie =)
Morgan
joneko
gave me plenty of food for thought.
As for the first thing, I've become resolved to the fact that this is
what happened. As far as the definition of Wiccan is concerned...I'm
going to study Wicca more, but I don't believe I'll be doing spellwork
or participating in anything more organized than this newsgroup in the
future. I'll probably go by the "not entirely Wiccan" label.
The bit I had been mulling over was closely related to this, actually.
I was having terrible writer's block but (unfortunately, or
fortunately?) this was not due to a lack of ideas. I had been filled
with ideas but just...couldn't write. Anything. It was torturous.
The opportunity to ask for assistance was dangling in front of me -- if
my unexplainable obsession with Apollo a few years back, immediately
followed by a sudden interest in Wicca, was truly a clue-by-fouring,
couldn't I pray for help to end the block, or perform a spell, or some
such? But, the more I thought about it the more I felt that it would
be a disservice to all my friends who had experienced writers' block,
and to any writer who had before, to try and weasel my way around a
natural part of an artist's life with prayers or craft.
However, once I finally acknowledged, "Alright. I guess it was Apollo
giving me a friendly whack on the head. I can do that," my writers'
block ended, and suddenly I was spitting out pages for the next
chapter, notes for new stories, scenes for plays...
That cinched it. I've been giving thanks every time I pick up a pencil
since.
And the Tarot...my own deck seems to be floating somewhere in the
endless abyss that is my room. But, for some reason, I think I know
where it is (which makes no sense at all, because where I think it is
now is nowhere near where I know I left it). I'm going to continue to
study it and, after a little bit of research, I'm going to invest in
another deck as well. I'd like to continue to simply study the Tarot,
as many decks as I can. Maybe after a few more decks I will feel
confident enough to take another step in using them.
I'm going to do some art for the deck (tarot art? tarot-inspired art?).
I don't think that I will be using them in a deck for myself; the
illustrations will be more like a report of what I've learned. There
will probably be several different series of them as I continue to
learn from the tarot, a way to catalogue my progress at least.
joneko
Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
> In a perfect world i would assume you would want to become so familiar
> with he tarot that translating it into contemporary phenomena would be
> second nature, only then would i think you would want to try to
> 'translate' or interpret the tarot.
Why "in a perfect world"? Otherwise, yes, that's exactly what I'd like
to do! ...I think. What do you mean by contemporary phenomena?
>
> Creating a copy of a deck rather than creating a new deck can be good
> exercise in familiarizing oneself with the tarot. But its a big job.
>
> Fortunately when it comes to 'translating' the deck into contemporary
> images we also have contemporary technology with which to do so.
>
I spend massive amounts of time on artistic ventures that have special
meaning, especially if motivated by something as personal as
spirituality.
However, what do you mean by translating to contemporary images, and
contemporary technology?
> Or is it best
> > to just follow one's own associations, interpretations, etc., in
> > relation to the cards and their meanings?
>
> Some people will maintain that there is a message or propaganda encoded
> in the tarot. Some even find morality and ethics there but that is more
> difficult to demonstrate.
>
> To create a new system is not impossible but probably even harder than
> an attempt to understand the tarot and create your own unique version of
> it.
>
> You have to know what it is before you can interpret it.
Ah! Don't worry -- attempting to create a new system is out of the
question for me! Even if I devoted the rest of my life to studying
every deck there is, I don't think I'd ever be able to fathom it.
I *have* been avidly studying the deck I have for awhile, but I do
think that I need to look at other decks as well in order to gain
anything closer to an understanding of tarot.
joneko
Yowie wrote:
<snip Yowie's helpful and interesting post>
Your personal description (of your religion), and the note on having
Patron Deities without being Wicca...that was *extremely* helpful. I
generally can't make myself fit into any one religion, so the idea that
I could be...part Wiccan? That makes a lot of sense to me, and to some
degree puts me at ease.
I especially like your comparison of tarot to Rosach blobs.
And as per that extra bit of flattery on the end...Andrew and some of
his friends must compete to see who can make me turn pink the fastest!
Thank you though. I think I must have sent out a prayer of my own
without realizing it, to end up with someone as special as him.
joneko
'Thenie wrote:
<snip>
> First, one does not have to be W/wiccan to get 'adopted' or
> 'selected' or whatever by a Patron Deity. Point of fact,
> the first I heard of Patron Deities was at Broomcon 2002,
> given in the context of Norse Deities, which places the
> concept in Paganism, not Wicca. I hadn't even been aware of
> my Patron until then, and then it came as blindingly obvious
> to me. Sometimes They pounce and sometimes They sneak up on
> you.
>
> Second, in my own case, I have been acquired by a Greek
> Deity, which is nowhere near what my own personal belief
> system happens to be. So Patrons come of Their Own reasons
> irrespective of one's own preferred or natural orientation.
I get the idea that this may be what happened to me in some respect.
As in, I had been nudged without realizing it, and then, when I learned
*about* Patron Deities, it started to become clear to me.
> the idea that a Patron could be waiting for you by the
> 'gate' (so to speak) of your entrance to your path sounds
> like a possibility.
This is very similar to what Andrew said when I was first mulling over
it with him at...unnatural hours of the morning.
<snip>
> Tarot is also used in Pathwork, an exercise of exploration
> of inner landscapes. As such it is a meditation and
> visualization tool. Some use it in a shamanic context (to
> go to other dimensions underground), others use it in a
> ceremonial magick context (for astral or Tree of Life work).
> By concentrating on the card, you can enter it. The card
> becomes a gate, a door, a room, or a landscape, according to
> your experience of it and/or the mindset you bring to it.
...I've used this concept with a Tarot-reading character in my creative
writing, but had no idea one could actually do this. This is
incredibly *exciting*.
> This is not a bombardment by any means. We've had longer
> and more varied inquiries. And we enjoy this sort of thing;
> we get to learn along with you.
You shouldn't encourage me, or I'll do this all the time! : )
Christianne Cottrell
<snip>
> Ah! Don't worry -- attempting to create a new system is
out of the
> question for me! Even if I devoted the rest of my life to
studying
> every deck there is, I don't think I'd ever be able to
fathom it.
>
> I *have* been avidly studying the deck I have for awhile,
but I do
> think that I need to look at other decks as well in order
to gain
> anything closer to an understanding of tarot.
<sigh>
I wish you were located closer to me. I teach Tarot and I
know I can transmit to you a clear understanding of the
symbolism in fairly short order. It's really not that
difficult, at least in the method I use. And given that you
are an artist, you should be able to catch on very quickly.
I encourage you to look and compare other decks, but also
study Elements, numerology, and astrology, if you can take
the time. A grounding in Jungian psychology would also be
good, as well as some comparative religion and an immersion
in myths, legends, and fairy tales. Sounds like a lot, but
they interconnect, so the information actual "compacts" or
"nests" in itself.
Even without any of the above, my method is so easy to
learn, you can learn to understand and read cards like a pro
with about 24 hours of instruction (I structure my classes
into 3-hour sessions spread over 8 days, usually 2 days a
week for a month). So far there's been 100% success with
everyone seeing the class through to the end.
So don't think that Tarot is too complicated to pick up.
And do work from the images with your intuition for now. If
you already feel an attraction and affinity to the Tarot, I
think you'll find meaning in the images faster than you
thought possible.
-'Thenie
joneko
Christianne Cottrell wrote:
> I encourage you to look and compare other decks, but also
> study Elements, numerology, and astrology, if you can take
> the time. A grounding in Jungian psychology would also be
> good, as well as some comparative religion and an immersion
> in myths, legends, and fairy tales. Sounds like a lot, but
> they interconnect, so the information actual "compacts" or
> "nests" in itself.
Doesn't sound like a lot to me -- sounds like a whole lifetime of
fascinating study. Whenever I can find an excuse or a spot on my
schedule I try to fit in philosophy courses (it's very important not
just to tarot, but to writing, I think, and to understanding the self
and others in general). I'm trying to find one this semester. Myths,
legends and fairy tales are a staple for any writer *or* avid reader.
My original plan was to major in International Studies with a
concentration in world religions, so that's certainly no chore.
Elements? Fascinating. And, while I'm not fond of horoscopes if only
because they've been so watered down in contemporary modern culture,
that and numerology are my dirty little secrets. *chuckle*
Now if only I could make this a minor at college...
> Even without any of the above, my method is so easy to
> learn, you can learn to understand and read cards like a pro
> with about 24 hours of instruction (I structure my classes
> into 3-hour sessions spread over 8 days, usually 2 days a
> week for a month). So far there's been 100% success with
> everyone seeing the class through to the end.
>
Honestly? I'm perfectly happy with the concept of having a lifetime of
study ahead of me. Things like this -- studying, meditating on things,
thinking -- are a big part of what I live for!
Though it IS a shame that we don't live closer together, just on
principle. : )
'Thenie
> 'Thenie wrote:
>
<past snippage>
> > I encourage you to look and compare other decks,
> > but also study Elements, numerology, and
> > astrology, if you can take the time. A grounding in
> > Jungian psychology would also be good, as well as
> > some comparative religion and an immersion in
> > myths, legends, and fairy tales. Sounds like a lot,
> > "compacts" or "nests" in itself.
>
> Doesn't sound like a lot to me -- sounds like a whole
> lifetime of fascinating study. Whenever I can find an
> excuse or a spot on my schedule I try to fit in
> philosophy courses (it's very important not just to
> tarot, but to writing, I think, and to understanding the
> self and others in general).
I agree.
> I'm trying to find one this
> semester. Myths, legends and fairy tales are a
> staple for any writer *or* avid reader. My original
> plan was to major in International Studies with a
> concentration in world religions, so that's certainly no
> chore.
Sounds like you're getting there already then...
> Elements? Fascinating. And, while I'm not
> fond of horoscopes if only because they've been so
> watered down in contemporary modern culture, that
> and numerology are my dirty little secrets. *chuckle*
Tarot directly applies numerology and Elements; they're the
X and Y of Tarot's grid. If you get those down, then you're
about 85 or 90% there.
> Now if only I could make this a minor at college...
I've said that myself at times...
> > Even without any of the above, my method is so
> > easy to learn, you can learn to understand and
> > read cards like a pro with about 24 hours of
> > instruction (I structure my classes into 3-hour
> > sessions spread over 8 days, usually 2 days a
> > week for a month). So far there's been 100%
> > success with everyone seeing the class through
> > to the end.
>
> Honestly?
Honestly.
> I'm perfectly happy with the concept
> of having a lifetime of study ahead of me. Things
> like this -- studying, meditating on things, thinking
> -- are a big part of what I live for!
Hey, I still call myself a student of Tarot (after 36 years
of study) and of astrology (after 41 years of study). I
find new things in both disciplines all the time.
> Though it IS a shame that we don't live closer
> together, just on principle. : )
Oh, absolutely. Though that might put a scare in Andrew.
;o >
-'Thenie
joneko
'Thenie wrote:
<snippage>
> Oh, absolutely. Though that might put a scare in Andrew.
> ;o >
...*chuckle* Oh boy. I really shouldn't have laughed at that as hard
as I did.
'Thenie
Now, sweetie, if you're going to try on W/wicca, you'll have
to give up chuckling and learn to cackle...
-'Thenie
-A.
Um - with the number of Evil Geniuses(TM) in Wicca I've met (and on
ARWM...), chuckling and learning to cackle are prerequisites!
Blessed Be,
-A.
--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS d-- s-:+ a-- C++ UL++$ P+ L++ E-
W+++ N++ o K w$ O- M V- PS++ PE- Y+
PGP t+ 5 X+ R+ tv b+++ DI++++ D--- G
e>e++ h !r !y+
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
-A.
> "joneko" wrote...
<SNIP>
>>Though it IS a shame that we don't live closer
>>together, just on principle. : )
>
>
> Oh, absolutely. Though that might put a scare in Andrew.
> ;o >
>
> -'Thenie
>
You're operating under the assumption that she meant she wished closer
to *you*. It is entirely possible that she meant that she wished you
lived closer to *us*.
Under *that* assumption, why would I be scared?
We shared a long car ride up from Baltimore, remember? I found it both
enlightening and enjoyable. I must make it a point to come down and
visit you again some time. Or, if you're ever in New York, you are
welcome to look me up.
-A.
Well, I've always been under the impression that the best way to learn
something is to try teaching it to someone else (provided that one has a
working knowledge from which to draw upon). Thus, I will be asking
Joanna to try and teach me Tarot.
Wait - she's going to read this post, isn't she.
Sweetie? Will you please teach me Tarot?
Yowie
news:EGagg.1314$PY6.354@trnddc05...
*snort*
Yowie
(I'm not Wiccan, therefore I snort)
joneko
-A. wrote:
> Well, I've always been under the impression that the best way to learn
> something is to try teaching it to someone else (provided that one has a
> working knowledge from which to draw upon).
Agreed! *nod* You have to really know you're talking about in order
to explain it to someone. So, when you try and explain things to
another person and you're not exactly an expert, you end up looking at
it from a whole different standpoint -- "How do I explain this? What
does this mean to someone who's never seen it before?" -- and,
afterwards, generally mull over these things for yourself much longer.
>Thus, I will be asking
> Joanna to try and teach me Tarot.
>
> Wait - she's going to read this post, isn't she.
>
> Sweetie? Will you please teach me Tarot?
You're so subtle! Hee. Yes, as soon as I get to my deck.
I may be making another of hundreds of cycles through the cards for
introspection and study. Is it alright if, when that happens, I start
a topic(s) to see what the rest of the group thinks of the "card(s) of
the moment", so-to-speak?
'Thenie
Email me; there may be something we can do...
-'Thenie
Joseph Littleshoes
> Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>
>
>>In a perfect world i would assume you would want to become so familiar
>>with he tarot that translating it into contemporary phenomena would be
>>second nature, only then would i think you would want to try to
>>'translate' or interpret the tarot.
>
>
> Why "in a perfect world"? Otherwise, yes, that's exactly what I'd like
> to do! ...I think. What do you mean by contemporary phenomena?
"In a perfect world" is just a way of saying that should everything be
done correctly this is how it would go.
As for contemporary phenomena, i think it is possible to 'translate' the
mediaeval images of the tarot into modern ones more recognizable, and
perhaps even more relatable to, by moderns.
>
>
>>Creating a copy of a deck rather than creating a new deck can be good
>>exercise in familiarizing oneself with the tarot. But its a big job.
>>
>>Fortunately when it comes to 'translating' the deck into contemporary
>>images we also have contemporary technology with which to do so.
>>
>
>
> I spend massive amounts of time on artistic ventures that have special
> meaning, especially if motivated by something as personal as
> spirituality.
>
> However, what do you mean by translating to contemporary images, and
> contemporary technology?
We have computers, photography & etc. to aid in the construction of a
deck, it don't necessarily have to be drawn by hand any more.
Though if you wanted to use gold leaf, and pulverized gemstones to make
your colours i would not discourage you, only advise you of the
technical difficulties & expense of doing so.
>
>
>
>> Or is it best
>>
>>>to just follow one's own associations, interpretations, etc., in
>>>relation to the cards and their meanings?
>>
>>Some people will maintain that there is a message or propaganda encoded
>>in the tarot. Some even find morality and ethics there but that is more
>>difficult to demonstrate.
>>
>>To create a new system is not impossible but probably even harder than
>>an attempt to understand the tarot and create your own unique version of
>>it.
>>
>>You have to know what it is before you can interpret it.
>
>
> Ah! Don't worry -- attempting to create a new system is out of the
> question for me! Even if I devoted the rest of my life to studying
> every deck there is, I don't think I'd ever be able to fathom it.
>
> I *have* been avidly studying the deck I have for awhile, but I do
> think that I need to look at other decks as well in order to gain
> anything closer to an understanding of tarot.
You might want to take a look at the "Star Maiden" trumps as an example
of an updating (and then some, its a sci-fi tarot) of the tarot images,
go to
http://www.tarotgarden.com/database/dbsearchengine.php?search_type=instock&pageenter=61
and scroll down till you come to Sternenmadchens Wahrsagespiel Tarot.
---
JL
>
-A.
> joneko wrote:
>
>> Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>>
>>
>>> In a perfect world i would assume you would want to become so familiar
>>> with he tarot that translating it into contemporary phenomena would be
>>> second nature, only then would i think you would want to try to
>>> 'translate' or interpret the tarot.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why "in a perfect world"? Otherwise, yes, that's exactly what I'd like
>> to do! ...I think. What do you mean by contemporary phenomena?
>
>
> "In a perfect world" is just a way of saying that should everything be
> done correctly this is how it would go.
>
> As for contemporary phenomena, i think it is possible to 'translate' the
> mediaeval images of the tarot into modern ones more recognizable, and
> perhaps even more relatable to, by moderns.
Having read up and down this thread several times, there is nothing to
suggest that Joneko wants to "translate" the Tarot into contemorary
images. Where you are getting this quaint notion from is completely
beyond me.
>
>>
>>
>>> Creating a copy of a deck rather than creating a new deck can be good
>>> exercise in familiarizing oneself with the tarot. But its a big job.
>>>
>>> Fortunately when it comes to 'translating' the deck into contemporary
>>> images we also have contemporary technology with which to do so.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I spend massive amounts of time on artistic ventures that have special
>> meaning, especially if motivated by something as personal as
>> spirituality.
>>
>> However, what do you mean by translating to contemporary images, and
>> contemporary technology?
>
>
> We have computers, photography & etc. to aid in the construction of a
> deck, it don't necessarily have to be drawn by hand any more.
>
> Though if you wanted to use gold leaf, and pulverized gemstones to make
> your colours i would not discourage you, only advise you of the
> technical difficulties & expense of doing so.
>
Now that is just snarky, Joseph. I assume, arguendo, that you have been
reading most of the posts in mosts of the threads since I first
mentioned Joanna, many months ago. One thing that has come up about
her, time and time again, has been her artistic prowess. She is an
artist of the truest sort, as I have told this group more times than I
can count at this ungodly hour of the morning (i.e. 2:54AM). She works
by hand.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Or is it best
>>>
>>>> to just follow one's own associations, interpretations, etc., in
>>>> relation to the cards and their meanings?
>>>
>>>
>>> Some people will maintain that there is a message or propaganda encoded
>>> in the tarot. Some even find morality and ethics there but that is more
>>> difficult to demonstrate.
>>>
>>> To create a new system is not impossible but probably even harder than
>>> an attempt to understand the tarot and create your own unique version of
>>> it.
>>>
>>> You have to know what it is before you can interpret it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ah! Don't worry -- attempting to create a new system is out of the
>> question for me! Even if I devoted the rest of my life to studying
>> every deck there is, I don't think I'd ever be able to fathom it.
>>
>> I *have* been avidly studying the deck I have for awhile, but I do
>> think that I need to look at other decks as well in order to gain
>> anything closer to an understanding of tarot.
>
>
> You might want to take a look at the "Star Maiden" trumps as an example
> of an updating (and then some, its a sci-fi tarot) of the tarot images,
> go to
>
> http://www.tarotgarden.com/database/dbsearchengine.php?search_type=instock&pageenter=61
>
>
> and scroll down till you come to Sternenmadchens Wahrsagespiel Tarot.
> ---
> JL
>
>>
>
Again, I fail to see where you are getting the notion that she wants to
do a "modernization" of the Tarot, an "updating" of the Tarot, or
anything of the sort. From where I stand (sit?), and from a plain-text
reading of the posts here, it is clear, to me at least, that her aim in
this is to translate the Tarot into imagery that speaks directly to her,
drawn from her own mind, not from "modern" imagery.
Joseph Littleshoes
>
> Having read up and down this thread several times, there is nothing to
> suggest that Joneko wants to "translate" the Tarot into contemorary
> images. Where you are getting this quaint notion from is completely
> beyond me.
>
So if you were to create a 'new' deck, you would copy the mediaeval
images rather than attempt to update them? contemporize them?
It is almost traditional now a days to create a deck using mediaeval
images and i would argue that this cant really be done as well as the
original Tarots simply because we are so far in time from it that it
would be difficult if not impossible to really understand & relate to
the mediaeval world view.
Does one correct the mediaeval errors of the tarot? assuming one agrees
that the mediaeval world view of the time of the original cards was not
only in error about a number of things but that these errors should not
be perpetuated.
Is the 'mad man' a 'holly fool' a 'hippy' an innocent youth, Pan? or
just a bum, hobo, vagabond etc.? Is the juggler a "magus"? the great
god Mercury? or a mountebank, a charlatan. Is pope joan a pagan
priestess? the virgin isis? or a mediaeval myth? All of the above?
Does on continue the tradition of the "Royal Family" of the tarot or
place it in a more modern, egalitarian context?
If one draws ones inspiration from the earliest decks which format does
one use? they vary greatly from deck to deck.
>>
>
> Again, I fail to see where you are getting the notion that she wants to
> do a "modernization" of the Tarot, an "updating" of the Tarot, or
> anything of the sort. From where I stand (sit?), and from a plain-text
> reading of the posts here, it is clear, to me at least, that her aim in
> this is to translate the Tarot into imagery that speaks directly to her,
> drawn from her own mind, not from "modern" imagery.
Do you suppose she thinks in terms of mediaeval images or even the faux
mediaevalism of the RWS deck?
And only because we are discussing the Tarot, interpretation varies,
even with the simplest symbolism and words.
IO PAN
--
JL
>
> Blessed Be,
> -A.
>
-A.
> -A. wrote:
>
>>
>> Having read up and down this thread several times, there is nothing to
>> suggest that Joneko wants to "translate" the Tarot into contemorary
>> images. Where you are getting this quaint notion from is completely
>> beyond me.
>>
>
> So if you were to create a 'new' deck, you would copy the mediaeval
> images rather than attempt to update them? contemporize them?
You are creating a binary choice where none exists - one does not have
to only choose between "modern" imagery and "medieval" imagery. There
are many other routes one can take.
Also, the "you" (third word in the above quoted text) is the wrong
pronoun for this question - it should be "she". As much as people's
jokes to the contrary go, we *are* two separate people ;)
>
> It is almost traditional now a days to create a deck using mediaeval
> images and i would argue that this cant really be done as well as the
> original Tarots simply because we are so far in time from it that it
> would be difficult if not impossible to really understand & relate to
> the mediaeval world view.
>
"As well as" implies that she is doing this for commercial gain. Her
intent is to create a deck for her *own*, *personal* use. If medieval
imagery speaks to her more than modern imagery does, then a
medieval-themed deck would, ergo, work *better* than a modern-themed
deck. She is created a deck for herself, drawn from imagery that speaks
to her, created by her own hand. If I recall correctly, one of the
ideas she was considering an Alphons Maria Mucha-esque theme, Mucha
being her favorite artist (examples can be found at
http://www.goodart.org/artofam.htm). Other ideas I have heard (we have
had several lengthy conversations about this) include drawing from
eastern art styles (esp. the "manga" style of art), among other ideas.
This is not a Photoshopping project. This is a project done manually,
with ink or pastel or watercolor (etc.), on cardstock. She is doing
this by her own hands, drawing from her own mind. This isn't a "let's
create a Tarot deck where GW Bush is The Devil" or somesuch. This is
both an art project and a project coming from the soul.
> Does one correct the mediaeval errors of the tarot? assuming one agrees
> that the mediaeval world view of the time of the original cards was not
> only in error about a number of things but that these errors should not
> be perpetuated.
>
> Is the 'mad man' a 'holly fool' a 'hippy' an innocent youth, Pan? or
> just a bum, hobo, vagabond etc.? Is the juggler a "magus"? the great
> god Mercury? or a mountebank, a charlatan. Is pope joan a pagan
> priestess? the virgin isis? or a mediaeval myth? All of the above?
>
Ask *her*, not me. When it comes to the cards themselves, I have no
idea. I would do well to take 'Thenie up on her offer myself and take
online lessons from her.
> Does on continue the tradition of the "Royal Family" of the tarot or
> place it in a more modern, egalitarian context?
>
> If one draws ones inspiration from the earliest decks which format does
> one use? they vary greatly from deck to deck.
>
>>>
>>
>> Again, I fail to see where you are getting the notion that she wants
>> to do a "modernization" of the Tarot, an "updating" of the Tarot, or
>> anything of the sort. From where I stand (sit?), and from a
>> plain-text reading of the posts here, it is clear, to me at least,
>> that her aim in this is to translate the Tarot into imagery that
>> speaks directly to her, drawn from her own mind, not from "modern"
>> imagery.
>
>
> Do you suppose she thinks in terms of mediaeval images or even the faux
> mediaevalism of the RWS deck?
>
She thinks in a variety of images. When it comes to art, she is
extremely multi-talented and her tastes are multi-faceted and varied.
This deck will draw from her own mind and beliefs. I've only known her
since Samhain (give or take a week), and we've only been a couple for
just over a month, so there is a ton of stuff about her I don't know.
Again, ask her, not me.
> And only because we are discussing the Tarot, interpretation varies,
> even with the simplest symbolism and words.
>
That much is plainly obvious. That said, since she is designing and
creating a deck for her own personal use, it would be symbolism that
speaks specifically to her, designed from the ground up to have meaning
for her first, others second. This is not a deck she intends to sell.
> IO PAN
> --
> JL
>
>>
>> Blessed Be,
>> -A.
>>
>
Blessed Be,
Joseph Littleshoes
> Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>
>> -A. wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Having read up and down this thread several times, there is nothing
>>> to suggest that Joneko wants to "translate" the Tarot into
>>> contemorary images. Where you are getting this quaint notion from is
>>> completely beyond me.
>>>
>>
>> So if you were to create a 'new' deck, you would copy the mediaeval
>> images rather than attempt to update them? contemporize them?
>
>
> You are creating a binary choice where none exists - one does not have
> to only choose between "modern" imagery and "medieval" imagery. There
> are many other routes one can take.
Such as? either a copy inspired by the originals or a modern
interpretation, what's the 3rd or other choices? Inventing something
and calling it Tarot? Even Ram Dass in his admirable attempt to do so
called "Seed" did not call his collection of images "Tarot". Nor do the
publishers of the Tibetan "Secret Dakini Oracle" or various I Ching Cards.
Even if 'mediaeval' images were used it would still be an
'interpretation' of the 'mediaeval' as it would be created in modern
times with not only the modern tools and supplies for doing so but with
a modern 'interpretation' of the 'mediaeval' which, since the first
publishing of the Marseilles, has gotten progressively more and more
romanticized and the rather more gruesome aspects of mediaeval life less
and less emphasized, to the point where it has disappeared into the
romantic haze of the modern faux mediaeval decks.
And of course there is plenty in the modern world to qualify as
'gruesome' without recourse to mediaeval imagery that many people would
see as merely 'quaint'.
Compare the Devil of the Marseilles Tarot with that of its 19th century
interpretation commonly called the "1JJ Swiss Deck"
Swiss deck here
http://www.madamelulu.com/tarot-decks/swiss01.htm
and Marseilles here
http://www.mysticgames.com/mysticgames_cfmfiles/TarotInfo/showcard.cfm?CardID=60&DeckID=9
>
> Also, the "you" (third word in the above quoted text) is the wrong
> pronoun for this question - it should be "she". As much as people's
> jokes to the contrary go, we *are* two separate people ;)
I was replying to "you" not her.
>
>>
>> It is almost traditional now a days to create a deck using mediaeval
>> images and i would argue that this cant really be done as well as the
>> original Tarots simply because we are so far in time from it that it
>> would be difficult if not impossible to really understand & relate to
>> the mediaeval world view.
>>
>
> "As well as" implies that she is doing this for commercial gain.
No it means 'as well as' a mediaeval person, of that time, could
understand - relate to the images. How you read 'commercial gain' into
the above is beyond me.
...
...
>
>> And only because we are discussing the Tarot, interpretation varies,
>> even with the simplest symbolism and words.
>>
>
> That much is plainly obvious. That said, since she is designing and
> creating a deck for her own personal use, it would be symbolism that
> speaks specifically to her, designed from the ground up to have meaning
> for her first, others second. This is not a deck she intends to sell.
That seems to be an issue only in your mind. It matters not to me what a
person intended to do with the deck they crate, i was only discussing
the merits of the kind of deck they might want to create.
There are 16th - 20th century 'interpretations' of mediaeval decks. The
earliest decks were one of a kind, hand made for individuals. It was
not till the 1500's and the Tarot de Marseilles that the deck was first
mass produced, and even then it was done in a style of an earlier time.
---
JL
-A.
> -A. wrote:
>
>> Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>>
>>> -A. wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Having read up and down this thread several times, there is nothing
>>>> to suggest that Joneko wants to "translate" the Tarot into
>>>> contemorary images. Where you are getting this quaint notion from
>>>> is completely beyond me.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So if you were to create a 'new' deck, you would copy the mediaeval
>>> images rather than attempt to update them? contemporize them?
>>
>>
>>
>> You are creating a binary choice where none exists - one does not have
>> to only choose between "modern" imagery and "medieval" imagery. There
>> are many other routes one can take.
>
>
> Such as? either a copy inspired by the originals or a modern
> interpretation, what's the 3rd or other choices? Inventing something
> and calling it Tarot? Even Ram Dass in his admirable attempt to do so
> called "Seed" did not call his collection of images "Tarot". Nor do the
> publishers of the Tibetan "Secret Dakini Oracle" or various I Ching Cards.
Well, how about an Elizabethan deck, a Victorian-era-themed deck, a
Civil War-themed deck, etc. etc. etc. ? You make it seem as if there is
nothing at all between medieval and modern in terms of imagery, as if
one day the entire world decided upon a whole new set of imagery and
termed it "modern", terming all of the imagery before it as "medieval".
Consider the "Lego Tarot" deck, f'rinstance, or the Housewive's Tarot
(using images from 1950's kitch), or the various Dragon Tarot decks.
Heck, Joanna could construct a deck entirely from imagery from Kurosawa
films - that would be neither "modern" nor "medieval". For example.
Thus, it is not a binary choice.
I also note that you completely disregarded the "Mucha deck" idea that
Joanna wants to implement. Why? Is it because it proves my point and
you'd rather split hairs?
<SNIP bit that is neither here nor there>
>
>>
>> Also, the "you" (third word in the above quoted text) is the wrong
>> pronoun for this question - it should be "she". As much as people's
>> jokes to the contrary go, we *are* two separate people ;)
>
>
> I was replying to "you" not her.
All well and good, but the context of the pronoun suggested that it was
*I* and not *she* who would be building the deck.
<SNIP>
> There are 16th - 20th century 'interpretations' of mediaeval decks. The
> earliest decks were one of a kind, hand made for individuals. It was
> not till the 1500's and the Tarot de Marseilles that the deck was first
> mass produced, and even then it was done in a style of an earlier time.
> ---
> JL
>
And yet you argue that there is something wrong with constructing a
deck, hand made for an individual, in today's world, yet it was fine for
people to do that back then.
Joseph Littleshoes
> Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>
>> -A. wrote:
>>
>>> Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>>>
>>>> -A. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Having read up and down this thread several times, there is nothing
>>>>> to suggest that Joneko wants to "translate" the Tarot into
>>>>> contemorary images. Where you are getting this quaint notion from
>>>>> is completely beyond me.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So if you were to create a 'new' deck, you would copy the mediaeval
>>>> images rather than attempt to update them? contemporize them?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You are creating a binary choice where none exists - one does not
>>> have to only choose between "modern" imagery and "medieval" imagery.
>>> There are many other routes one can take.
>>
>>
>>
>> Such as? either a copy inspired by the originals or a modern
>> interpretation, what's the 3rd or other choices? Inventing something
>> and calling it Tarot? Even Ram Dass in his admirable attempt to do so
>> called "Seed" did not call his collection of images "Tarot". Nor do
>> the publishers of the Tibetan "Secret Dakini Oracle" or various I
>> Ching Cards.
>
>
> Well, how about an Elizabethan deck, a Victorian-era-themed deck, a
> Civil War-themed deck, etc. etc. etc. ?
The examples of those that exist, and i refer to something more than a
cut and paste version are 'interpretations' of the mediaeval. And one
has to be careful what one is calling a tarot, some of these decks like
the po mo are not IMO tarots at all.
You make it seem as if there is
> nothing at all between medieval and modern in terms of imagery, as if
> one day the entire world decided upon a whole new set of imagery and
> termed it "modern", terming all of the imagery before it as "medieval".
>
> Consider the "Lego Tarot" deck, f'rinstance, or the Housewive's Tarot
> (using images from 1950's kitch), or the various Dragon Tarot decks.
Or the baseball tarot or the Ukioye but again these draw their
inspiration from the mediaeval. There are also 'Trade decks" that use
various products such as the "Heinz" products to advertise their wares.
But again these are still if in nothing else, formatted from the mediaeval.
>
> Heck, Joanna could construct a deck entirely from imagery from Kurosawa
> films - that would be neither "modern" nor "medieval". For example.
It would be a modern interpretation of the tarot which is mediaeval in
origin. As are some of the Kurosawa films such as "Ran" an
interpretation of medieval Japan.
---
JL
joneko
JL, please direct your questions as to my actions to myself, not to
Andrew. I'm capable of speaking. Thank you.
Second of all:
Art is expression. I want to create a tarot deck for that reason. It
may not (and probably will not) even function as a deck, but more an
art installation, a series of paintings. I'm doing it to translate the
tarot in my own way, a result of study, something to show me what I've
gleaned, what I've learned. There will assumedly be several such
series of art for the tarot from myself in the future as my impression
of the meanings of the tarot change.
There is no express intent in my translations.
And, as for being able to understand the tarot asthey did in the
medieval era, it is entirely possible as long as one carries out
extensive study and has the ability to understand others views in
social, historical, religious, etc. context.
If one tries hard enough, they can see things from anyone's point of
view. It is the assumption that this is impossible that contributes to
dispute, war, racism, religious persecution, etc.
And Andy, thank you, I'll take it from here.
'Thenie
> Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
> > -A. wrote:
> >> Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
> >>> -A. wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Having read up and down this thread several times,
there is nothing
> >>>> to suggest that Joneko wants to "translate" the Tarot
into
> >>>> contemorary images. Where you are getting this
quaint notion from
> >>>> is completely beyond me.
I'm only getting this thread from the 'non-JL' side (as I've
plonked him), so I am responding to your concern, Andrew,
and the concern anyone else might have in this subject.
That being said, I think I can look at the idea of creating
one's own Tarot images from all three sides: the artist's
(as I am one), the intuitive novice (as I have been and
still am one), and the seasoned reader (as I have a good
3-1/2 decades under my belt as a professional, a teacher,
and a continuing student in Tarot).
I don't see the problem that JL seems to be having with the
idea of creating a new deck that speaks to its creator
without necessarily aping what came before. Developing
personal images only requires that they speak to the
intended reader, which in this case is joneko herself.
Graphic art is an amazing language to work in, being able to
speak on multiple levels simultaneously. The really great
thing is that the closer one gets to Truth, the more ways
the art can speak to all who view it. Often an image that
speaks Truth will reveal new information that even the
creator had not suspected. It only comes down to
>channeling< the art rather than manipulating imagery.
The bottom line is how much the images are channeling
information after all, in which case the one channeling does
not actually select the images at all. Discussions of
whether it will be 'contemporary' or follow original
appearances are all moot; those who are led execute the
channeled work. And I believe joneko is being led, so her
deck will be unique in many ways, regardless of whether it
resembles other decks or even other Tarot systems. It's
both too early and irrelevent to discuss the cosmetics of
the work yet to come.
> >>> So if you were to create a 'new' deck, you would copy
the mediaeval
> >>> images rather than attempt to update them?
contemporize them?
> >>
> >> You are creating a binary choice where none exists -
one does not have
> >> to only choose between "modern" imagery and "medieval"
imagery. There
> >> are many other routes one can take.
I agree.
Mucha is actually a very good choice. There was a showing
of his art here in Baltimore some decades back, the first
time actually that all of his Sarah Bernhart posters were
shown together, and his son gave a lecture. I attended,
because I also was a fan and hoped to create in his
beautiful style. It nearly crushed me, seeing the show,
because I couldn't imagine doing anything near to what he
accomplished, it was so perfect in my eyes.
Anyway, at the show were samples of his automatic writings;
he was a spiritual, inspired person. Another visionary, led
to channel. I think joneko has the right idea.
And again I agree that there is more than just copying
either old form or contemporary. Look at Robin Wood's deck;
her inclusion of the DNA helix in the depiction of wands is
inspired; her reworking of the devil card is genius; the
inclusion of a butterfly on the Death card is a perfect
commentary. To suggest one must select Path A or Path B is
very short/narrow-minded, imho.
Note that when the cards are reworked into different imgaes,
even if it means expressing the basic Tarot concepts through
another culture (see Mythic deck, Native American deck, New
Orleans VooDoo deck, etc), then new perspectives come to
light that provide more depth to the old meanings. But
there is nothing wrong with stretching Tarot into new
magickal, spiritual, or philosophic systems. Truth is
truth, so the images will either ring false or true. And
for those in sincere search for truth (and even more so
those who are being led) will know when the images ring
false and need reworking.
> <SNIP bit that is neither here nor there>
<snip petty point, re: who is being addressed>
> <SNIP>
> > There are 16th - 20th century 'interpretations' of
mediaeval decks. The
> > earliest decks were one of a kind, hand made for
individuals. It was
> > not till the 1500's and the Tarot de Marseilles that the
deck was first
> > mass produced, and even then it was done in a style of
an earlier time.
>
> And yet you argue that there is something wrong with
constructing a
> deck, hand made for an individual, in today's world, yet
it was fine for
> people to do that back then.
Just because it was done according to tradition back then
does not mean it is enough now. Religion was taught then by
rote and memorization as well; that's not enough now.
Tarot has grown, and the world is the better for it. Some
have imagination and intuition enough to feel the tug of
being led to channel something new. The Goddess loves new
things; this thing of becoming more than one thing, that was
Her invention, resulting in a God Consort, resulting in a
universe, resulting in Tao's ten thousand things. Tradition
gives a guide when taking a shakey first step; tradition
confers a standard for comparison, but not anal replication.
Let the girl follow where she is called.
-'Thenie
'Thenie
You go, girl!
JL is not the Tarot police; his opinion is one of many and
not required nor should it affect your work or intent at
all. The points he makes has (imo) holes in it that do
nothing to support his 'authority' in the matter.
I am most interested in what you end up channelling and look
forward to what I may learn in seeing your finished work.
-'Thenie
Joseph Littleshoes
> First of all:
>
> JL, please direct your questions as to my actions to myself, not to
> Andrew. I'm capable of speaking. Thank you.
>
Well when you directly address me i will, however i do not see the
relevance to asking me to direct statements to you that were the result
of a conversation with another person.
>
> Second of all:
>
> Art is expression. I want to create a tarot deck for that reason. It
> may not (and probably will not) even function as a deck, but more an
> art installation, a series of paintings. I'm doing it to translate the
> tarot in my own way, a result of study, something to show me what I've
> gleaned, what I've learned. There will assumedly be several such
> series of art for the tarot from myself in the future as my impression
> of the meanings of the tarot change.
>
> There is no express intent in my translations.
You mean beyond that which you express above? Dali is the only 'Famous
Artist" i can thank of that created a tarot deck and there is some
debate as to how much of that was his and how much his students. But
you might find his XVIII Trump of interest
http://www.andriaroberto.com/Salvador%20Dali%20Tarot%20Watercolors%20-%20La%20Lune.jpg
A few artists have become famous for their tarot work, Pamela Coleman
Smith and Lady Frida Harris for example.
And various Famous artists have had their work used by others to create
a tarot based on the other artists works such as the Geiger or William
Blake tarot.
I have often thought the tarot would appeal more to artists but some few
i have talked to seem to resent the parameters the tarot imposes on them.
There is a recurring theme in modern tarot works, either the person
creating the deck knows a lot about tarot or a lot about art, rarely
both. It would be a welcome change to see an artist have an in depth
knowledge of the tarot and be willing to create their own version.
But i think this may get into an area where tarot and art differ. "IF"
the tarot does mean something then it would seem important to keep that
meaning even if updating it to modern terms and symbols, not unlike the
difference and similarities between Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet and
Bernstiens "West Side Story". OF course one first has to figure out
what that meaning may be.
>
> And, as for being able to understand the tarot asthey did in the
> medieval era, it is entirely possible as long as one carries out
> extensive study and has the ability to understand others views in
> social, historical, religious, etc. context.
>
> If one tries hard enough, they can see things from anyone's point of
> view. It is the assumption that this is impossible that contributes to
> dispute, war, racism, religious persecution, etc.
I have to disagree, the assumption that we can relate the same way to
the mediaeval world the people of that time did is just wrong, and has
led to much error of interpretation of previous times, something's are
unknowable. Are you familiar with the concept of Historical Revisionism?
We may know manes, dates, places, we may have letters, diaries, and
other writings form previous eras but we can not duplicate the mind set
of those people, people who, for example, thought the plague was divine
punishment for earthly misdeeds and new nothing about pathogens or
disease vectors. YOu may understand this intellectually but can you
duplicate the reaction in yourself a mediaeval person would have had? I
doubt it.
A scholar or historian can become very familiar with a period but can
not reproduce its intensity or other intangible qualities that passed
away with the era.
---
JL
joneko
Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
<snip my bit>
> > There is no express intent in my translations.
>
> You mean beyond that which you express above? Dali is the only 'Famous
> Artist" i can thank of that created a tarot deck and there is some
> debate as to how much of that was his and how much his students. But
> you might find his XVIII Trump of interest
>
> http://www.andriaroberto.com/Salvador%20Dali%20Tarot%20Watercolors%20-%20La%20Lune.jpg
>
> A few artists have become famous for their tarot work, Pamela Coleman
> Smith and Lady Frida Harris for example.
>
> And various Famous artists have had their work used by others to create
> a tarot based on the other artists works such as the Geiger or William
> Blake tarot.
Excuse what may come across as attitude here, but I really don't care
what famous artists did, nor am I doing this to mimic any of them or to
become famous myself. Some people do things sheerly for the experience
of doing them and, as an artist and writer, this is sometimes the bulk
of motivation behind many of my actions.
> There is a recurring theme in modern tarot works, either the person
> creating the deck knows a lot about tarot or a lot about art, rarely
> both. It would be a welcome change to see an artist have an in depth
> knowledge of the tarot and be willing to create their own version.
>
> But i think this may get into an area where tarot and art differ. "IF"
> the tarot does mean something then it would seem important to keep that
> meaning even if updating it to modern terms and symbols, not unlike the
> difference and similarities between Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet and
> Bernstiens "West Side Story". OF course one first has to figure out
> what that meaning may be.
I am a novice compared to someone that has had many years of study. I
don't claim to understand the tarot as deeply as I should. I do,
however, have a good grounding in the tarot and am continuing my study.
I continually get the notion that you assume I know nothing of what
I'm talking about.
Meanings behind the tarot are, to some extent, personal interpretation.
Please keep this in mind.
> >
> > And, as for being able to understand the tarot asthey did in the
> > medieval era, it is entirely possible as long as one carries out
> > extensive study and has the ability to understand others views in
> > social, historical, religious, etc. context.
> >
> > If one tries hard enough, they can see things from anyone's point of
> > view. It is the assumption that this is impossible that contributes to
> > dispute, war, racism, religious persecution, etc.
>
> I have to disagree, the assumption that we can relate the same way to
> the mediaeval world the people of that time did is just wrong, and has
> led to much error of interpretation of previous times, something's are
> unknowable. Are you familiar with the concept of Historical Revisionism?
>
> We may know manes, dates, places, we may have letters, diaries, and
> other writings form previous eras but we can not duplicate the mind set
> of those people, people who, for example, thought the plague was divine
> punishment for earthly misdeeds and new nothing about pathogens or
> disease vectors. YOu may understand this intellectually but can you
> duplicate the reaction in yourself a mediaeval person would have had? I
> doubt it.
>
> A scholar or historian can become very familiar with a period but can
> not reproduce its intensity or other intangible qualities that passed
> away with the era.
> ---
> JL
This reaction, imo, only serves to illustrate what I said about the
link between assuming one cannot understand something and a lack of
action taken to even try.
Apart from that, and again excuse what may sound like attitude, but
does any argument make you happy Joseph? From what I've seen, you
always have a response to everything anyone says, and you will
perpetually argue your point despite anyone else's responses to it. I
understand that standing behind one's ideals is a virture, but there's
a difference between having an opinion and seeing only that opinion.
I'm not going to argue with you any further on this mainly because, if
any of your other posts are any indication, it will be the equivalent
of banging my head on a brick wall.
As for this:
>> JL, please direct your questions as to my actions to myself, not to
>> Andrew. I'm capable of speaking. Thank you.
>
>Well when you directly address me i will, however i do not see the
>relevance to asking me to direct statements to you that were the result
>of a conversation with another person.
The tone is completely unappreciated and, imo, uncalled for. Please
don't be so blatantly condescending, and -- for the record -- although
you were having a discussion with another person, the discussion not
only directly involved me, but was held where I would read it. You
were asking Andrew about my motivations and actions, even after he said
outright that he did not necessarily know them all. It was
*completely* relevent, therefore, to ask you to address these questions
to myself rather than badger him about them.
joneko
'Thenie wrote:
> You go, girl!
That made me smile when I really needed it. Thank you. : )
> JL is not the Tarot police; his opinion is one of many and
> not required nor should it affect your work or intent at
> all. The points he makes has (imo) holes in it that do
> nothing to support his 'authority' in the matter.
Don't worry. I'm certainly not going to drastically alter or abandon
my work because of it. If I *were* "translating" the tarot his posts
would require from me a bit more introspection on the topic; however, I
am not aiming to do that.
I'm also of the mind that one *can* understand things from anothers'
eyes if they make the effort. Nothing anyone says about that can prove
to me that it is not simply a lack of effort on anothers' part to do
so, and the idea that one cannot do so is too often used as an excuse.
Sorry, I feel very strongly on that. Maybe it's a side-effect of being
a literature student.
> I am most interested in what you end up channelling and look
> forward to what I may learn in seeing your finished work.
You think my work could invoke any thought on the subject? Wow.
Please don't get your hopes too high, I'm afraid it may be quite a
dissappointment if I churn out nothing but pretty pictures. But, f
that happens, I'll just keep trying again. (Van Gogh did routinely go
back and redid old pieces, after all.)
> -'Thenie
Jani
"joneko" <joanna....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149821736.7...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[]
> If one tries hard enough, they can see things from anyone's point of
> view. It is the assumption that this is impossible that contributes to
> dispute, war, racism, religious persecution, etc.
I'm sorry, but I'm still blinking at this. It's the fact that you can see it
from the other person's point of view and still find it *totally and utterly
fucking unacceptable* that makes dispute and, sometimes, war, necessary.
Jani
joneko
When one group of people does not understand another this can lead to
fear. The more afraid of this other group they are the less willing
they are to try to see things from their side. If one looks at the
history behind many instances of racism or civil war one can see this.
I'm not saying that this always leads to war or dispute, nor am I
implying that this is necessarily the *origin* of these things.
However, they do *contribute*, and when one goes into a situation
unprepared...
For example, when Chinatown first started to flourish, police stationed
there in some instances knew very little about Chinese culture. So,
needless brutality sometimes occured because the Chinese immigrants
would not meet the eyes of the police, and the police would consider
this an insolent gesture.
Many people disagree with this view however, and it is only my own
opinion based one what I've seen of history and human relations thus
far. I'm not saying there is no such thing as a necessary war; my
Mother has often told me that WWII was the only "just" war. However,
that's a whole other can of worms that I'm not going to touch.
Joseph Littleshoes
> Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>
> <snip my bit>
>
>>>There is no express intent in my translations.
>>
>>You mean beyond that which you express above? Dali is the only 'Famous
>>Artist" i can thank of that created a tarot deck and there is some
>>debate as to how much of that was his and how much his students. But
>>you might find his XVIII Trump of interest
>>
>>http://www.andriaroberto.com/Salvador%20Dali%20Tarot%20Watercolors%20-%20La%20Lune.jpg
>>
>>A few artists have become famous for their tarot work, Pamela Coleman
>>Smith and Lady Frida Harris for example.
>>
>>And various Famous artists have had their work used by others to create
>>a tarot based on the other artists works such as the Geiger or William
>>Blake tarot.
>
>
> Excuse what may come across as attitude here, but I really don't care
> what famous artists did, nor am I doing this to mimic any of them or to
> become famous myself.
I was merely citing examples of people creating tarot decks.
Some people do things sheerly for the experience
> of doing them and, as an artist and writer, this is sometimes the bulk
> of motivation behind many of my actions.
I can sympathize and relate, the first time i ever tried to make 'cream
puffs' we ended up eating dumplings for a week.
One time i tried to mix acrylics with oil paints with results you are
probably all ready familiar with.
And of course one can bring in the 'abstract expressionist' argument.
There are a number of "Tarot" decks done in this style with, IMO,
unrecognizable images that while possibly meaningful to the artist
(which, from what i gather from your comments here is all that matters
to you) are not recognizable as Tarot cards to any one else unless told
specifically that they are, and even then....
"IF" Tarot is meant to convey symbolic imagery of specific ideas (rather
than being merely a card game) then this sort of deck is more of a
meditation tool than a Tarot per se.
http://www.timelessspirit.com/JULY04/review1.shtml
I do not endorse any of the sentiments expressed in the review of the
deck, and only post the URL as an example of an abstract impressionist
tarot.
To me this is like taking the alphabet, making an subjective
"impression" of it and saying this blob of colour is an "A" and this
swirl of colour is "B" & etc. while possibly meaningful to the creator
of such a thing it is of little to no use to any one else (though
hypothetically a person could be trained to use such a system, why bother?)
>
>
>>There is a recurring theme in modern tarot works, either the person
>>creating the deck knows a lot about tarot or a lot about art, rarely
>>both. It would be a welcome change to see an artist have an in depth
>>knowledge of the tarot and be willing to create their own version.
>>
>>But i think this may get into an area where tarot and art differ. "IF"
>>the tarot does mean something then it would seem important to keep that
>>meaning even if updating it to modern terms and symbols, not unlike the
>>difference and similarities between Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet and
>>Bernstiens "West Side Story". OF course one first has to figure out
>>what that meaning may be.
>
>
> I am a novice compared to someone that has had many years of study. I
> don't claim to understand the tarot as deeply as I should. I do,
> however, have a good grounding in the tarot and am continuing my study.
> I continually get the notion that you assume I know nothing of what
> I'm talking about.
Well you know what they say about 'assumptions'.
>
> Meanings behind the tarot are, to some extent, personal interpretation.
> Please keep this in mind.
Oh i agree that in traditional & historical tarot, even occult tarot the
images may be 'interpreted' differently, have different meanings to
different people, but at the same time there is a recognizable image to
differ on the meaning of.
There's you 'assuming' again. If a subject interests a person they will
try to understand it as best they can. But this does not mean that they
will be able to exactly replicate in precise detail the context of that
understanding, though we have good translations of Egyptian hieroglyphs,
and a fairly complete understanding of the words and ideas used this
does not make us ancient Egyptians with the cultural context to
understand and relate to them in the same way the ancient Egyptians did.
Consider the loss of 'mystery' that happened to the Roman Mass when it
was made widely available in languages other than Latin.
>
> Apart from that, and again excuse what may sound like attitude, but
> does any argument make you happy Joseph?
My "happiness" is not dependent on people agreeing with me. I was
merely trying to share some of my OPINIONS with what i thought was a
person interested in them. My apologies for misjudging your interest in
my admittedly limited knowledge of such an esoteric subject.
From what I've seen, you
> always have a response to everything anyone says,
So what are you saying? i should only respond to those post i am in
agreement with, pardon my contrariness but i usually only respond to
those posts in which i have some difference with the opinions expressed
in them. I rarely contribute one of the 'oh i agree posts' though
should someone write something in an exceptionally well crafted manner,
or present me with an idea or opinion that is revelatory i would say so
but with a bit more commentary than a mere "i agree".
Or perhaps you prefer the extended commentary on personal aspects of
individuals lives, contributors who post their on going existential
angst with life and the troubles they have with it? That is not my style
either, though on one occasion i did think i had gone too far in my own
personal revelations and apologized for it only to find it was not as
extreme as i had feared.
and you will
> perpetually argue your point despite anyone else's responses to it.
"Perpetually" is a long time.
I
> understand that standing behind one's ideals is a virture, but there's
> a difference between having an opinion and seeing only that opinion.
So far in this thread neither you nor any one else has written anything
that challenges my conceptions of the tarot.
Though if you want to see such a thing you only have to google group
search my name and tarot. I have been contributing to various tarot &
tarot related groups for many years now and much of my thoughts are on
file with google.
>
> I'm not going to argue with you any further on this mainly because, if
> any of your other posts are any indication, it will be the equivalent
> of banging my head on a brick wall.
I can only hope you are not so easily deterred in other aspects of your
life.
>
> As for this:
>
>>>JL, please direct your questions as to my actions to myself, not to
>>>Andrew. I'm capable of speaking. Thank you.
>>
>>Well when you directly address me i will, however i do not see the
>>relevance to asking me to direct statements to you that were the result
>>of a conversation with another person.
>
>
> The tone is completely unappreciated and, imo, uncalled for. Please
> don't be so blatantly condescending, and -- for the record -- although
> you were having a discussion with another person, the discussion not
> only directly involved me, but was held where I would read it. You
> were asking Andrew about my motivations and actions,
No, i was hypothesizing various scenarios in response to statements made
regarding my own comments.
even after he said
> outright that he did not necessarily know them all. It was
> *completely* relevent, therefore, to ask you to address these questions
> to myself rather than badger him about them.
"Badger"? this is a discussion group, we were discussing some points you
had made, there was nothing stopping you from jumping in before this
and clarifying or rectifying any misunderstandings of your original post
on the subject.
---
JL
>
Joseph Littleshoes
> "joneko" wrote...
>
>>And Andy, thank you, I'll take it from here.
>
>
>
> You go, girl!
>
> JL is not the Tarot police; his opinion is one of many and
> not required nor should it affect your work or intent at
> all. The points he makes has (imo) holes in it that do
> nothing to support his 'authority' in the matter.
>
"Be not as the Ass in the Lion's Skin; but if thou be born Ass, bear
patiently thy Burdens, and enjoy thy Thistles; for an Ass also, as in
the Fables of Apuleius and Matthias, may come to Glory in the Path of
his own Virtue."
Lilith
Back on topic....
Creating your own tarot with imagery that speaks to you is an
exceedingly fine and thorough way to learn it.
There's lots of folk that don't have the artistic talent to do so
without resorting to electronics or other aids, but as you're an artist
it should be an excellent vehicle for you to use to explore your own
Self via the cards... long time doing, but well worth doing I'm sure.
And, as you *are* an Artist, it's an exercise that should speak even
more clearly... if that makes sense.
;)
I know it looks like I just repeated myself, but there's nuance there -
being an artist will help you understand the cards, and being an Artist
will help you understand *through* the cards.
It doesn't matter if no one else ever sees them, or if you share them
with the World - and you may well come up with imagery that speaks to
others as well, who can say?
That's not the point, the point is using this tool - the Tarot - by
creating it.
Plus, practically speaking, the time spent on each card as you create it
helps you focus on the symbolism more deeply.
I recommend that people choosing to learn Norse Runes create their own
for just those reasons, focusing on each one as you make it, makes you
learn it.
Good luck!
Lilith
(nice to meet you, by the way, though we've never really met. <grin>)
--
Lilith Dragonswife, Yin Bitch
~ "Better to be an enemy than a slave." ~
Yowie
news:AVmig.41640$4L1....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Because everyone has their own system, anyway. What you get out of art is
not necesarily what the artist intended, but it is *your* reaction, *your*
interpretation.
The review of the above deck is interesting. The authour intially did the
classic "WTF?" when seeing the deck. "There were no images at all" she said.
But after opening her mind to possibilities, she began to get the 'feel' of
hthe deck, how it flowed, how it made sense as a tarot deck, how the images
invoked something within her. You'll note that she never did read the
booklet that came with the deck, but can now use the deck perfectly well,
just by interpretting the abstract images in the cards. The author finishes
the review by saying
"Usually once I finish reviewing a deck it goes onto the bookshelf in my
living room while I move onto another. This one is staying by my side! It
lights the journey of my 'flow' like no other deck I've used and has quickly
become another one of my personal favorites."
The author did not need to understand the system used to create the art of
the artist to get meaning out of hte deck. In fact, she found her own
meaning, one that works and works well for her. Is she using he system of
the artists? No. Does it work for her anyway? Of course.
It seems to me what we are actually debating is the definition of Tarot. If
a deck of cards can be used by a person as if it was a tarot deck (I dont
care how many cards there are, or what the image on the cards is) then to my
mind, its a tarot deck (even plain playign cards can be used as a tarot
deck). I gather your definition is much narrower.
Yowie
Joseph Littleshoes
IMO divination can be performed with any objects or images, Ram Dass
(actually by 'anonymous' but produced with Ram Dass's help) in the book
"Seed" goes into this and provides about 500 images to be used in this
and other ways.
From a review of the book:
"This book is about an inch and a half thick. The latter half of the
book is a series of perforated pages each of which contains four tear
out cards with a photo. These cards are intended for use in several
games which are detailed by the authors. The first part of the book is a
mystical treatise on the nature of God and the "way" which is
illuminated through a verbal and illustrated montage borrowing from the
full range of religious and spiritual practices and traditions. Although
the authors had "wished to remain anonymous", Ram Dass played a central
role in the books creation."
The point i seem to be having trouble making is that while divination is
a universal phenomena, variations are culturally specific.
I would no more call the Dogon seed divination "Tarot", than i would the
I ching, though all are mechanical similar.
http://www.metmuseum.org/explore/oracle/essayPemberton.html
In a similar vein i would not call the Crowley's Gnostic Mass 'Wiccan'
though there are points of similarity, a recognition of the Goddess if
not else.
As i pointed out in my very first reply to "Joneko" creating a whole new
system of divinatory images & meanings for them would probably be more
difficult than immersing oneself in and attempting to understand an
existing system.
That alone should not deter a person from trying but my point is that
there are system that are the product of the cultures they arose in,
obviously, but in the case of the tarot we are talking about the culture
of mediaeval europe that no matter how much time has passed the images
are still relevant to the "Christian" west. In the same way the ancient
Greco-Roman world was relevant to the mediaeval and renaissance European
world.
But this is also part of what makes the Tarot interesting to me, though
the images of the original decks (and there is wide variation between
the oldest decks) are capable of being compared to similar phenomena in
other cultures, brother, sister, mother, father, teacher, lover,
warrior, seeker etc. etc. the Tarot images are uniquely western
european, even though similar archetypes may be found in any culture,
with differant emphasis being placed on them in their degrees of
relative importance.
Many attempts have been made to 'universalize' the tarot or to make it
more specific to a particular sub group "the witches tarot" or the
"Celtic" tarot for example.
But i am a purist in this regard and would prefer to see a divinatory
tool evolve out of a specific group of people rather than have a
culturally specific object such as the Tarot adopted and altered (often
times whimsically IMO) by one and all.
While i would encourage any one to interpret the standard images in
light of their own experience, i would also urge a restraint in altering
those images in anything other than an technical way, a well drawn or
painted or photographed image is IMO better than a crude wood block
print and certainly much better than an "abstract impression".
This is of course all just my opinion, which i had hoped to share with
the group in the same spirit that anybody would share their opinions or
information. Hopefully the amount of time and energy i have devoted to
my studies of divination in general and the tarot specifically is
welcome here, and will hopefully be seen as something other than an
exercise in ego on my part.
For those interested in more information here is a good place to start.
http://dmoz.org/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Divination/
For an opposing view point, and given the Catholic nature of the
earliest cards, people might perhaps find the following of interest.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05048b.htm
For all it is a Catholic site and 'against' any form of divination it
has a well written article on it that i think might almost inadvertently
give a lot of hints and links to those interested in cultivating the art.
Naturally i do not agree with the fraudulent aspect the essay concludes
with though i recognize fraud exists within the practise of divination,
as with most any other aspect of human existence.
"As magic aims to do, divination aims to know. Divination is practically
as old as the human race. It is found in every age and country, among
the Egyptians, Chaldeans, Hindus, Romans, and Greeks; that tribes of
Northern Asia had their shamans, the inhabitants of Africa their
mgangas, the Celtic nation their druids, the aborigines of America their
medicine-men -- all recognized diviners and wizards. Everywhere
divination flourished and nowhere, even to-day, is it completely
neglected. Cicero's words were, and apparently always will be, true,
that there is no nation, civilized or barbarian, which does not believe
that there are signs of the future and persons who interpret them.
Cicero divided divination into natural and artificial. Natural
(untaught, unskilled) included dreams and oracles in which the diviner
was a passive subject of inspiration, and the prediction that from a
power supposed to be then and there within him. Artificial (taught,
studied) comprised all foretelling from signs found in nature or
produced by man. Here the diviner was active, and the divination came
apparently from his own skill and observation. This division is almost
the same as that given by St. Thomas with respect to the invocation of
demons: divination with express invocation of spirits, embracing dreams,
portents, or prodigies, and necromancy, and divination with tacit
invocation through signs and movements observed in objects in nature,
such as stars, birds, figures, etc., or through signs and arrangements
produced by man, such as molten lead poured in water, casting of lots,
etc. Dreams here mean those expressly prepared and prayed for with hope
of intercourse with gods or the dead. Portents or prodigies are unusual
and marvellous sights coming from the lower world. Here we are
considering artificial divination."
---
JL
-A.
'Thenie, I have to say that when I saw that you had responded to this
thread, I had a moment's pause, a Shroedingerian moment during which I
thought "this could either be really good or this could be really bad".
I'm glad it was the latter.
JL had me a bit worried here and there (which is why I am greatful
Joneko disarmed him with the post you quote above). Glad to see you
weighing in on this in the manner you did.
By the way, would it be at all possible for *me* to take you up on the
Tarot lessons you offered Joneko? I've already got a Rider-Waite deck
ready and waiting (two, actually - one was given to me by a good friend,
lovingly used, a second I bought new). Email addy is
andrew....@gmail.com (as always, unmunged)
-A.
> "-A." wrote...
>
>>Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>>
>>>-A. wrote:
>>>
>>>>Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>-A. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Having read up and down this thread several times,
>
> there is nothing
>
>>>>>>to suggest that Joneko wants to "translate" the Tarot
>
> into
>
>>>>>>contemorary images. Where you are getting this
>
> quaint notion from
>
>>>>>>is completely beyond me.
First thing I must say here is an apology - my style of reading ARWM is
to reply as I read, which means I read and replied to your reply to
Joneko's post (in which she said "And Andy, thank you, I'll take it from
here."), i.e. the one that begins with "You go, girl!". I came to
*this* post second. As such, the preamble of my reply to the previous
post is moot and I apologize for thinking badly of how you might reply.
(God, that is a horrible paragraph, but I can't word it any better
right now!).
>
>
> I'm only getting this thread from the 'non-JL' side (as I've
> plonked him), so I am responding to your concern, Andrew,
> and the concern anyone else might have in this subject.
>
I am increasingly of the opinion that I might have to rethink my "no
plonking" policy insofar as JL is concerned.
> That being said, I think I can look at the idea of creating
> one's own Tarot images from all three sides: the artist's
> (as I am one), the intuitive novice (as I have been and
> still am one), and the seasoned reader (as I have a good
> 3-1/2 decades under my belt as a professional, a teacher,
> and a continuing student in Tarot).
>
Unfortunately, I come to Tarot neither as an artist nor as an intuitive
person. As Joneko would tell you, I am an incredibly logic-minded
person. I don't remember who it was on ARWM, but someone here used to
have in their sig "Textessentialist". I've been borrowing that one a
bit (especially when people ask me what style of literary criticism I
prefer). I am a bit of a literalist, too, which makes things difficult.
When it comes to metaphor, or any concept, for that matter, I either
miss it the first dozen or so passes by, or I seize upon it and follow
it for miles and miles.
> I don't see the problem that JL seems to be having with the
> idea of creating a new deck that speaks to its creator
> without necessarily aping what came before. Developing
> personal images only requires that they speak to the
> intended reader, which in this case is joneko herself.
>
> Graphic art is an amazing language to work in, being able to
> speak on multiple levels simultaneously. The really great
> thing is that the closer one gets to Truth, the more ways
> the art can speak to all who view it. Often an image that
> speaks Truth will reveal new information that even the
> creator had not suspected. It only comes down to
> >channeling< the art rather than manipulating imagery.
>
That is most definitely true (especially when it comes to being able to
challenge conventions and force new paradigms (my favorite of these
paradigm-shifters is Henri Magritte's Treachery of Images - it depicts a
pipe above the text "Ceci nes pas un pipe (This is not a pipe)"). It
is, however, a language I can *read* but not *write*, hence why I stick
to text for my own expression.
>
> The bottom line is how much the images are channeling
> information after all, in which case the one channeling does
> not actually select the images at all. Discussions of
> whether it will be 'contemporary' or follow original
> appearances are all moot; those who are led execute the
> channeled work. And I believe joneko is being led, so her
> deck will be unique in many ways, regardless of whether it
> resembles other decks or even other Tarot systems. It's
> both too early and irrelevent to discuss the cosmetics of
> the work yet to come.
>
She is most definitely being led. As to by whom or what, that remains
to be seen (she doesn't know, at least, not since we last spoke about
this (a few days ago), ergo I don't know).
<SNIP>
>>I also note that you completely disregarded the "Mucha deck" idea that
>>Joanna wants to implement. Why? Is it because it proves my point and
>>you'd rather split hairs?
>
>
> Mucha is actually a very good choice. There was a showing
> of his art here in Baltimore some decades back, the first
> time actually that all of his Sarah Bernhart posters were
> shown together, and his son gave a lecture. I attended,
> because I also was a fan and hoped to create in his
> beautiful style. It nearly crushed me, seeing the show,
> because I couldn't imagine doing anything near to what he
> accomplished, it was so perfect in my eyes.
>
I never knew that you are a fan of Mucha. Heh. Makes sense, now, though.
> Anyway, at the show were samples of his automatic writings;
> he was a spiritual, inspired person. Another visionary, led
> to channel. I think joneko has the right idea.
>
I don't know whether or not she will ultimately go with the "Mucha deck"
or whether she will go with something else entirely. What I do know is
that this is something she's got herself, heart and mind, set on doing,
JL's quibblings notwithstanding.
> And again I agree that there is more than just copying
> either old form or contemporary. Look at Robin Wood's deck;
> her inclusion of the DNA helix in the depiction of wands is
> inspired; her reworking of the devil card is genius; the
> inclusion of a butterfly on the Death card is a perfect
> commentary. To suggest one must select Path A or Path B is
> very short/narrow-minded, imho.
>
I don't like creating dichotomies where none exist. Certain things are
a continuum, a spectrum. History is one of them. Joseph's idea that
one day, at the twelfth stroke of midnight, the entire world changed
from being medieval to being modern is ludicrous.
> Note that when the cards are reworked into different imgaes,
> even if it means expressing the basic Tarot concepts through
> another culture (see Mythic deck, Native American deck, New
> Orleans VooDoo deck, etc), then new perspectives come to
> light that provide more depth to the old meanings. But
> there is nothing wrong with stretching Tarot into new
> magickal, spiritual, or philosophic systems. Truth is
> truth, so the images will either ring false or true. And
> for those in sincere search for truth (and even more so
> those who are being led) will know when the images ring
> false and need reworking.
>
Joneko is a syncretist of the highest sort. That said, pidgeonholing
her is a futile activity, first of all because it really would require
far too many hyphens and footnotes, and second of all because she
herself doesn't see the need. We both agree that when it comes to
Truth, labels are something one hides behind.
I don't think I have ever heard that said in such a beautiful fashion,
'Thenie. I don't have a word to add here. Bravo!
-A.
Um? I may not be well-read on the Bible (ok - call a spade a spade: I
don't know the Bible that well at all, save for certain tidbits here and
there), but Mods? Ad hominem in implication?
Yowie
news:128kqt1...@news.supernews.com...
> Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>> 'Thenie wrote:
>>
>>> "joneko" wrote...
>>>
>>>> And Andy, thank you, I'll take it from here.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You go, girl!
>>>
>>> JL is not the Tarot police; his opinion is one of many and
>>> not required nor should it affect your work or intent at
>>> all. The points he makes has (imo) holes in it that do
>>> nothing to support his 'authority' in the matter.
>>> -'Thenie
>>>
>>
>> "Be not as the Ass in the Lion's Skin; but if thou be born Ass, bear
>> patiently thy Burdens, and enjoy thy Thistles; for an Ass also, as in the
>> Fables of Apuleius and Matthias, may come to Glory in the Path of his own
>> Virtue."
>>
>
> Um? I may not be well-read on the Bible (ok - call a spade a spade: I
> don't know the Bible that well at all, save for certain tidbits here and
> there), but Mods? Ad hominem in implication?
I didn't read it as an Ad Hominem, but rather "I am what I am, and I don't
pretend to be otherwise" comment from Joseph about himself.
Yowie
Jani
>> 'Thenie wrote:
>>
>>> "joneko" wrote...
>>>
>>>> And Andy, thank you, I'll take it from here.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You go, girl!
>>>
>>> JL is not the Tarot police; his opinion is one of many and
>>> not required nor should it affect your work or intent at
>>> all. The points he makes has (imo) holes in it that do
>>> nothing to support his 'authority' in the matter.
>>> -'Thenie
>>>
>>
>> "Be not as the Ass in the Lion's Skin; but if thou be born Ass, bear
>> patiently thy Burdens, and enjoy thy Thistles; for an Ass also, as in the
>> Fables of Apuleius and Matthias, may come to Glory in the Path of his own
>> Virtue."
>>
>
> Um? I may not be well-read on the Bible (ok - call a spade a spade: I
> don't know the Bible that well at all, save for certain tidbits here and
> there), but Mods? Ad hominem in implication?
"Bible" ??
Jani
'Thenie
> 'Thenie wrote:
> > "joneko" wrote...
> >
> >>First of all:
> >>
> >>JL, please direct your questions as to my actions to
> >>myself, not to Andrew. I'm capable of speaking.
> >>Thank you.
> >>
> >>Second of all:
> >>
> >>Art is expression. I want to create a tarot deck for
> >>that reason. It may not (and probably will not) even
> >>function as a deck, but more an art installation, a
> >>series of paintings. I'm doing it to translate the
> >>tarot in my own way, a result of study, something to
> >>show me what I've gleaned, what I've learned.
> >>There will assumedly be several such series of art
> >>for the tarot from myself in the future as my
> >>impression of the meanings of the tarot change.
> >>
> >>There is no express intent in my translations.
> >>
> >>And, as for being able to understand the tarot
> >>possible as long as one carries out extensive
> >>study and has the ability to understand others
> >>views in social, historical, religious, etc. context.
> >>
> >>If one tries hard enough, they can see things
> >>from anyone's point of view. It is the
> >>assumption that this is impossible that
> >>contributes to dispute, war, racism, religious
> >>persecution, etc.
> >>
> >>And Andy, thank you, I'll take it from here.
> >
> > You go, girl!
> >
> > JL is not the Tarot police; his opinion is one of many
> > and not required nor should it affect your work or
> > intent at all. The points he makes has (imo) holes in
> > it that do nothing to support his 'authority' in the
matter.
> >
> > I am most interested in what you end up channelling and
> > look forward to what I may learn in seeing your finished
> > work.
>
> responded to this thread, I had a moment's pause, a
> Shroedingerian moment during which I thought "this could
> either be really good or this could be really bad". I'm
> glad it was the latter.
(I assume you meant the former...that it was 'good'...)
> JL had me a bit worried here and there (which is why I
> am greatful Joneko disarmed him with the post you
> quote above). Glad to see you weighing in on this in the
> manner you did.
>
> By the way, would it be at all possible for *me* to take
> you up on the Tarot lessons you offered Joneko?
Sure; no problem.
> I've already got a Rider-Waite deck ready and waiting
> (two, actually - one was given to me by a good friend,
> lovingly used, a second I bought new). Email addy is
> andrew....@gmail.com (as always, unmunged)
Use the new deck; better to concentrate on the images at
first, unaffected by emotional or psychic associations.
Open the new deck and double-check the contents, that each
card is present, unduplicated, and that no card is printed
badly. Also, if you have been given extra cards (an ID
card, an instructional card, even a blank card), hang onto
those, and I'll discuss their possible use.
I'll be in touch...
-'Thenie
'Thenie
Outlook Express; the incoming/outgoing isn't working at all
now, and my posts reaching the newsgroups have been sporadic
in their successful transmission at best for some time
now...
-'Thenie
Dan Holzman
>
> I'm not saying there is no such thing as a necessary war; my
> Mother has often told me that WWII was the only "just" war. However,
> that's a whole other can of worms that I'm not going to touch.
I will: a "just war" is a contradiction in terms. Wars are inherently
unjust, and attempts to sweep that fundamental injustice under the rug
of whatever necessary causes might obtain only serve to compound the
injustice.
World War II was not just, it was necessary. "Necessary" is the best
any war can hope to be, and even that's faint praise, because it's only
ever someone's collossal screw-up that brings that necessity about.
Gale
<snip> Also, if you have been given extra cards (an ID
> card, an instructional card, even a blank card), hang onto
> those, and I'll discuss their possible use.
"That card, which is blank, is something he carries on his back."
--
Blessed Be,
Gale
original fiction, poetry, reviews http://www.capjewels.com
"I would extirpate heresy. and all learning and knowledge as inevitably
tending thereunto. ... I would observe an austere propriety of conduct,
and be especially careful not to loosen one rivet in the tremendous yoke
I was forging for the minds and consciences of mankind." -- Lucifer in
Richard Garnett's "The Demon Pope"
-A.
Gah! That is the second time in about a week I have made such a mistake
(transposing former and latter)! Wow. I really need to double-check
when I say such things, as this is making me sound quite silly. Yes, I
meant "former". Oops.
>
>
>>JL had me a bit worried here and there (which is why I
>>am greatful Joneko disarmed him with the post you
>>quote above). Glad to see you weighing in on this in the
>>manner you did.
>>
>>By the way, would it be at all possible for *me* to take
>>you up on the Tarot lessons you offered Joneko?
>
>
> Sure; no problem.
>
Thanks in advance. I hope I won't be too difficult a student.
>
>>I've already got a Rider-Waite deck ready and waiting
>>(two, actually - one was given to me by a good friend,
>>lovingly used, a second I bought new). Email addy is
>>andrew....@gmail.com (as always, unmunged)
>
>
> Use the new deck; better to concentrate on the images at
> first, unaffected by emotional or psychic associations.
>
> Open the new deck and double-check the contents, that each
> card is present, unduplicated, and that no card is printed
> badly. Also, if you have been given extra cards (an ID
> card, an instructional card, even a blank card), hang onto
> those, and I'll discuss their possible use.
>
I shall do this tonight - it's in the Box o' Wicca-ie Goodness(TM) from
when I moved out of the dorm.
> I'll be in touch...
>
> -'Thenie
>
Thanks.
-A.
Hmmm... (puts Tech Guy hat on). Have you recently tried to update
Windows through the Windows Update service?
Do you have any firewall software?
Have you recently downloaded a new copy of Outlook Express?
Try checking the first two (and if Windows Update hasn't been run in a
while, run that (email me if you need step-by-step on that)). If the
answer to number three is yes, download a new copy again.
If all that fails, get back to me via email.
Joseph Littleshoes
>>
>
> I don't like creating dichotomies where none exist. Certain things are
> a continuum, a spectrum. History is one of them. Joseph's idea that
> one day, at the twelfth stroke of midnight, the entire world changed
> from being medieval to being modern is ludicrous.
Well it cant be any more "ludicrous" than suggesting i implied, much
less stated, the above.
>
>>>> There are 16th - 20th century 'interpretations' of
>>
>>
>> mediaeval decks. The
>>
>>>> earliest decks were one of a kind, hand made for
>>
>>
>> individuals. It was
>>
>>>> not till the 1500's and the Tarot de Marseilles that the
>>
>>
>> deck was first
>>
>>>> mass produced, and even then it was done in a style of
>>
>>
>> an earlier time.
>>
========
>>> And yet you argue that there is something wrong with
>>
>>
>> constructing a
>>
>>> deck, hand made for an individual, in today's world, yet
>>
>>
>> it was fine for
>>
>>> people to do that back then.
They had the 'template' & I was commenting on the technique of producing
decks before the Marseilles & I wrote that the first mass produced deck
the "Tarot de Marseilles" looked back to an earlier style, but i also
understand that the style of the Marseilles deck was as much influenced
by older existing cards than it was revolutionary in any way beyond
being mass produced and therefor available to the middle classes and
that in a more technically & artistically inferior style than what had
gone before, or was available then, crude wood block prints rather than
the technical expertise that went into the production of such earlier
decks as the Visconti.
I only argued the images should be true to the originals in symbolism,
obviously the images are updated every generation until we reach the
present, where there seems to be more of a desire, for whatever reason
to look back and imitate the mediaeval, including the early 20th century
Waite deck and its faux medievalism. Much of which i think is a
marketing technique, the old is more 'mysterious' & romantic than the
new, at least to people who have no real understanding of the Tarot.
Actually the "Renaissance" deck by Brian William's is one of my
favourites, but that more for its homo erotic content than anything
else. I am not a fan of the "pictorial" pips, the small cards with
people doing things on them, which, is basically a 20th century
invention to make it easier to 'read' the small cards and which IMO does
a disservice to the deck, primarily because there is no system to the
images, and it is left to the artist/author to decide what the symbolism
of the individual small card should be. In one example we have 6 cups
that is then 'translated' to show 2 children offering each other baskets
of flowers.
Now if anyone wants to argue that this is fine, that an artist can
'channel' images or invent them with or without inner plane guidance and
still call it "Tarot" i would disagree with that argument.
To me this would be like someone inventing or creating something
completely new and calling it by a name of something old and well known.
When this is done with just about anything else it is called fraud.
I don't know if any one reading this, is familiar with the Czarist era
Russian gold smith "Faberge" but it seems he has a descendent that while
having a legitimate right to use the name of "Faberge" has lent it to a
mass marketing scheme to sell cheap knock off imitations (and poor ones
at that) of the famous Faberge Easter Eggs, to an uninformed public
that pays ridiculous prices for bad imitations of a more famous product.
I really don't know which is worse, the production of such objects or
the naivety that would cause a person to want to purchase them. And
this is not the same thing as buying a print of a famous painting, or an
accurate copy of a sculpture, not every one can own an original
Caneletto, there are not enough to go around, but just about any body
who wants a good copy can get one. If the Faberge eggs were 'good
copies' in less costly materials, but true to the original i would not
use it as an 'eggample':)
>>
>> Tarot has grown, and the world is the better for it. Some
>> have imagination and intuition enough to feel the tug of
>> being led to channel something new. The Goddess loves new
>> things;
For me the "gods" are all & eternal & multi dimensional and so nothing
is new to them.
this thing of becoming more than one thing, that was
>> Her invention, resulting in a God Consort,
In your opinion, in mine the creator god is not symbolized as either
male or female, is not symbolized at all.
And the first emanation of that original creator god produced a deity
and consort of equal powers and antiquity, one can not exist without the
other, one is dependent on the other and THEIRS is the work of creation.
And ultimately THEY are but an extension of the ONE.
resulting in a
>> universe, resulting in Tao's ten thousand things. Tradition
>> gives a guide when taking a shakey first step; tradition
>> confers a standard for comparison, but not anal replication.
>> Let the girl follow where she is called.
I have no ability to make a Joneko do anything, i was merely suggesting
that before something is altered it should be understood in its original
state, and with the tarot even that is hard to pin down, as there are
wide variations in the oldest sets of Trumps.
I truly do not understand the few people here who have seemed to take
umbrage at my idea that the tarot does mean something, and that
'something' should be understood as well as possible before
'reinventing' it.
I wonder how people would feel if i took one of their books of shadow
and reproduced it according to my "interpretation" of what i think they
meant.
I consider the Tarot to be a kind of almost universal Book of Shadows,
detailing gods, powers, forces, elements that may be used or interacted
with by the reader in various ways. How would people feel if i invented
a book of shadows and called it "The Wicaan book of Shadows" or used
Gardners name in the title and yet had no connection with Gardnarian
traditions? What about the guy Oprah had on recently that detailed his
climb from the depths of degradation to his redemption and appearance on
and support by Oprah, and which was later proven to be more or less a
fiction on his part? Am i that bad at explaining myself or can no one
see the connection between such a thing and inventing a set of images
and calling it a "Tarot"?
I have no problem with translating, updating or interpreting the tarot
so long as a person knows what they are doing and why, i do not like the
type of deck that ignores the traditions of the tarot and completely
alters the images to something unrecognizable in the traditional tarot
context such as the "timeless spirit" cards.
http://www.timelessspirit.com/JULY04/review1.shtml
But this is just me, do i now need to apologize for having an opinion
and ask permission before i discuss, or try to discuss it?
---
JL
Joseph Littleshoes
Joseph Littleshoes
> It seems to me what we are actually debating is the definition of Tarot. If
> a deck of cards can be used by a person as if it was a tarot deck (I dont
> care how many cards there are, or what the image on the cards is) then to my
> mind, its a tarot deck (even plain playign cards can be used as a tarot
> deck). I gather your definition is much narrower.
>
> Yowie
>
Yep, as i mentioned in another post, i tend to be a purist with the
tarot as well as other things.
I make my own oil paints, prefer real garlic to garlic powder, live in
an early 20th century house rather than a more modern one, prefer 19th
century literature (and earlier) to the more modern stuff, and am, in
general more an antiquarian than a modernist.
If i could get away with a horse and carriage i would probly have that
instead of an automobile.
Given my personal proclivities i am constantly surprised at how much i
enjoy the computer.
Though i still keep my journal in long hand.
---
JL
Jani
Yes, but you were not quoting from the Bible, there. Didn't you realise
that? ;-)
Jani
Jani
[]
I am not a fan of the "pictorial" pips, the small cards with
> people doing things on them, which, is basically a 20th century invention
> to make it easier to 'read' the small cards and which IMO does a
> disservice to the deck, primarily because there is no system to the
> images, and it is left to the artist/author to decide what the symbolism
> of the individual small card should be. In one example we have 6 cups
> that is then 'translated' to show 2 children offering each other baskets
> of flowers.
Strange though it is for me to agree with Joseph about anything, I have to
say that I'm with him on this one. I learned tarot on a Marseilles deck, and
was never very good at it, but that was *my* lack of discipline rather than
any fault in the system itself. I've looked at many decks with pictorial
pips, and very rarely felt that the author's interpretation is anything like
my own; in fact, the pictures, however aesthetically pleasing, tend to be
limiting rather than opening.
I tend to regard the major arcana as having a lot more acceptable leeway, as
regards the artistic content, but to have pictorial minors as well is
somehow too "pushy" towards the author's ideas and preconceptions. But then
I know very little about it; I'm just much happier, when I do periodically
go back to tarot, having the hard work of the Marseilles than the (to me)
easy way out of someone else's pictorial minors.
Jani
Joseph Littleshoes
> "Joseph Littleshoes" wrote
>>>
>>>"Bible" ??
>>>
>>>Jani
>>
>>
>>http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/M/MATTHIAS/
>
>
> Yes, but you were not quoting from the Bible, there. Didn't you realise
> that? ;-)
>
> Jani
>
Well i was quoting from what is a if not "The" Book however
I was merely supplying a URL to explain "Matthias" and his link with the
"Bible". Why would you think i would not know who i was quoting?
---
JL
'Thenie
> "Joseph Littleshoes" wrote...
Well, that is not true of all readers. In the method I use,
the pictorial suit cards carry a great deal of meaning; the
pictures actually do illustrate the card's meaning in each
case.
Keep in mind that Pamela Coleman Smith, in executing Arthur
E. Waite's symbolism was creating a Tarot system that was
contained and integrated. Leave it to Eden Gray to assemble
unrelated materials and try to pass it off as anything that
made any sense. There does exist systems of interpretation
that >are< integrated, which do make sense of the suit
cards.
Remember, YMMV.
In a couple of months, ask about this again. By then Andrew
will have learned my method and can comment on the matter of
whether the suit card meanings are limited or expanded by
carrying images in place of pips...
-'Thenie
Jani
Joke. My "Bible??" comment was to Andrew, because I was surprised that he
assumed your quote from Uncle Al was biblical. Ne'mind, I'm obviously too
obscure for my own good this week ...
Jani
-A.
Ah - it was Crowley? Well, no wonder I couldn't place it.
Sergeant Tibbs
> 'Thenie wrote:
>> Also, maybe you can return the favor by helping with my
>> Outlook Express; the incoming/outgoing isn't working at all
>> now, and my posts reaching the newsgroups have been sporadic
>> in their successful transmission at best for some time
>> now...
>>
>> -'Thenie
>>
>
> Hmmm... (puts Tech Guy hat on). Have you recently tried to update
> Windows through the Windows Update service?
>
> Do you have any firewall software?
>
> Have you recently downloaded a new copy of Outlook Express?
>
> Try checking the first two (and if Windows Update hasn't been run in a
> while, run that (email me if you need step-by-step on that)). If the
> answer to number three is yes, download a new copy again.
>
> If all that fails, get back to me via email.
>
> Blessed Be,
> -A.
>
I'm more inclined to think her ISP has changed its POP3 and SMTP servers
and is quite possibly deprecating their news support. This seems to be
happening among the big name ISPs without telling anyone, and the
third-party reseller ISPs hose a whole lot of their customers by not
informing them of the changes, or by failing to update their own service
The cheapie ISPs are notorious for this, although sometimes the ISP
they resell hasn't done anything but the reseller decided to screw
around, and have trashed their own service (GoDaddy, anyone?).
Besides, Thenie didn't mention any error messages or a firewall alert.
Every firewall I've seen or used so far at least asks about outgoing
connections, and a router or hardware firewall would cause some sort of
error message to the effect of "Could not connect to
pop3.such_and_such.com."
With an ISP name we could easily confirm her settings against changes,
or with some almighty error messages we might see what's up.
Of course if her emails are simply vanishing into the ether and her
settings are correct, I suspect a righteously thrown Holy Handgrenade
lobbed at the count of three (three being the number thou shalt count)
at her ISP may be in order.
But Thenie, to go with the easiest solutions first, run a virus scan,
run Lavasoft Ad-Aware, send two emails and post back in the morning.
--
I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of this signature.
Jani
"'Thenie" <mtn_...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:79Jig.1021$db5.514@trnddc03...
OK, but I don't see how Andrew's understanding of tarot is going to
influence mine; if I was taught a method which involved pictorial minors I
would still feel it was the equivalent of being given the film version of a
book, while the book remained on the shelf. I've seen some very nice
integrated decks (there's a Norse tarot which I found very appealing, for
instance) but at the end of the day, it's still somebody else's
interpretation. The Marseilles, to me, is the closest you can get to basics,
with no spoonfeeding.
(It may or may not be significant that the only decks I really have any time
for are an old pocket Marseilles and a reasonably well-printed Thoth ;)
Jani
-A.
Um, methinks you are confusing Joneko and me - Joneko has an
understanding of the Tarot. I most assuredly do not, hence why I am
asking 'Thenie to teach me. I am a genuine novice when it comes to this
- I own a deck (ok, two, both Rider-Waite), but that's as far as it
goes. I know nothing.
Blessed Be,
-A., who, it seems, once again has to make it clear that Joneko and he
are indeed two seperate people
--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS d-- s-:+ a-- C++ UL++$ P+ L++ E-
W+++ N++ o K w$ O- M V- PS++ PE- Y+
PGP t+ 5 X+ R+ tv b+++ DI++++ D--- G
e>e++ h !r !y+
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
---------------------- OmniCode 0.1.6 -----------------------
sxy cm166 kg99 ske09264 ha2a1a1b ey31190f es# sp= Ag1982
anE.mutt hdd Lo40,47N-73,58W ZoP GM-5DN rlN
LAEN(9)&LA(9)&JI(2) CrL(7) Edc(7)&O(7).English PlD MvD
RlD.(Finally!) Kd! PeD MBINFJ FH!.usually UFAJ IN8 AdN&C
PrJava(6)&C(4)&C++(3)&Perl(3)&HTML(5)
----------- Omnicode http://www.gadgeteer.net/omnicode/ -----
Jani
> Jani wrote:
>> "'Thenie" <mtn_...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:79Jig.1021$db5.514@trnddc03...
[]
>>>In a couple of months, ask about this again. By then Andrew
>>>will have learned my method and can comment on the matter of
>>>whether the suit card meanings are limited or expanded by
>>>carrying images in place of pips...
>>
>>
>> OK, but I don't see how Andrew's understanding of tarot is going to
>> influence mine; if I was taught a method which involved pictorial minors
>> I would still feel it was the equivalent of being given the film version
>> of a book, while the book remained on the shelf. I've seen some very nice
>> integrated decks (there's a Norse tarot which I found very appealing, for
>> instance) but at the end of the day, it's still somebody else's
>> interpretation. The Marseilles, to me, is the closest you can get to
>> basics, with no spoonfeeding.
>>
>> (It may or may not be significant that the only decks I really have any
>> time for are an old pocket Marseilles and a reasonably well-printed Thoth
>> ;)
>>
>> Jani
>>
>
> Um, methinks you are confusing Joneko and me - Joneko has an understanding
> of the Tarot. I most assuredly do not, hence why I am asking 'Thenie to
> teach me. I am a genuine novice when it comes to this - I own a deck (ok,
> two, both Rider-Waite), but that's as far as it goes. I know nothing.
I've snipped some of the earlier material, above, to make it clearer.
Thenie said that when you, (Andrew), had learned her method and could
comment on tarot, I should ask about the topic again.
I said that I didn't see how your (Andrew's) understanding of tarot would
affect mine.
Joneko wasn't mentioned at all, because the exchange was about *you*
learning tarot from Thenie and *you* then being able to comment on it.
> Blessed Be,
> -A., who, it seems, once again has to make it clear that Joneko and he are
> indeed two seperate people
Why? Did you think Thenie was writing "Andrew" when she meant "Joneko"?
Because I certainly wasn't confused - I responded to what she wrote, which
was about you.
Jani
'Thenie
<snip>
> Thenie said that when you, (Andrew), had learned
>her method and could comment on tarot, I should
>ask about the topic again.
>
> I said that I didn't see how your (Andrew's)
>understanding of tarot would affect mine.
I said that because I considered you might be approaching
the cards a different way than I or anyone using my method
would.
It sounded like you couldn't see how images translate the
suit cards, and my response is that there are ways to do so.
I mentioned Andrew, because he will have newly gone from a
similar state to my perspective, making him better
positioned to address the issue than I am after decades of
using suit images.
How Andrew's new understanding of tarot would affect yours
would depend on what he said and what you were ready to
consider. I was thinking that he might describe something
about the process of interpreting (not that he would attempt
to teach the method and the card meanings) to you.
Basically, Andrew would be in the best position to provide
commentary on both your and my perspective of imaged suit
cards.
Does that clear anything up, or have I just further swirled
the muck?
-'Thenie
'Thenie
<snip>
> Thenie said that when you, (Andrew), had learned her
method and could
> comment on tarot, I should ask about the topic again.
>
> I said that I didn't see how your (Andrew's) understanding
of tarot would
> affect mine.
Jani
No, that's fine - I knew where you were coming from ;) My point is that I'm
perfectly happy using the non-pictorial cards; my lack of any in-depth
knowledge about tarot is down to my own laziness, as opposed to never having
tried/been shown different approaches.
Jani
-A.
To which I say: mea culpa. I was honestly confused. I've been in a lot
of pain this past week, due to a broken tail bone (my own stupid fault -
I slipped getting out of bed on a sheet of paper I should have secured
better), and the pain has caused me to be quite distracted. I'm
normally better at reading and getting context than this. Many apologies.
I should be back to normal soon (I hope!).
Blessed Be,
-A.