Questions about Waite
Shannon
1959) edition of __The Pictoral Key to the Tarot__. As
other people may have other editions, I've tried to also
include the titles of the sections I've taken quotes from.
1) Why did Waite, in his advice concerning the choice of
significators for querents, place the emphasis on the
physical appearance of the querent rather than on his or her
personality or psychological affinities? He says that "you
can be guided on occasion by the known temperament of a
person," but I would have thought that temperament would
play the primary role more than occasionally (p.299-300,
"Outer Method of the Oracles" part 7--"An Ancient Celtic
Method of Divination"). What do people's physical
appearances have to do with their relationships to Tarot
symbolism?
2) My edition reads, "A Knight should be chosen as the
Significator if the subject of inquiry is a man of forty
years old and upward; a King should be chosen for any male
who is under that age" (p. 299, same heading as above). Is
this a typo? It seems so counter-intuitive; why isn't it
the other way around? Especially since a woman forty years
or older is assigned the Queen, and a younger woman the
Page.
3) Waite also places some importance on the direction that
the picture on the card in the significator position faces.
Are the older decks (Marseilles, Visconti, etc.) uniform in
their depiction of the direction the figures in the court
cards and trumps face? In other words, did a tradition of
"directionality" (sorry for the awkward phrasing--can't
think of better) exist prior to Waite? If not, do we know
why he chose the directions he did for the pictures in his
cards? What associations do the left or right directions
carry, respectively?
4) I don't mean to harp on this positive/negative thing; I
am just trying to wrap my head around a conceptualization of
the cards that does not include value judgments. In part 4
of "The Outer Method of the Oracles," subtitled "Some
Additional Meanings of the Lesser Arcana," (p.288), Waite
characterizes the Kinight of Wands as "A bad card," the 3 of
Wands as "A very good card," the 5 of Cups as "generally
favourable," and so forth. In the "Ancient Celtic Method of
Divination" referred to in question 1 (p. 301), he mentions
in regard to the "crossing" position, "If it is a favourable
card, the opposing forces will not be serious, or it may
indicate that something good in itself will not be
productive of good in the particular connexion."
What do all these references to "good," "bad," "favorable"
and "unfavorable" mean? Was Waite using terminology he felt
was essentially inaccurate because divination was not his
main concern anyway? But it seems that, in other places,
even when he would not reveal his own thoughts he was
careful not to contradict them.
5) What was Waite's basis for calling the Celtic Cross
spread an "ancient Celtic method of divination"? I have
read a fair bit of Irish and Welsh mythology, and while I've
come across references to divination by dreams, visions,
scrying, and bird-watching, and some people make a case for
divination by runes, I haven't encountered any references to
cartomancy or to the shape of the spread (circled cross with
a line to the right). Is there a historical basis for
calling this spread Celtic, or is it simply that the shape
suggests an Irish cross?
I know you guys don't hang out here just to answer
questions, so I'd be quite satisfied by a reference to
helpful sources.
Thanks, Shannon
Alan houghton
The confusing assignation of Knights to men above forty, and Kings to
younger men comes from the system from the Golden Dawn Kabbalistic Tarot. In
that Deck the Knights represent Fire, and Fire stands for the head of the
suits. Therefore, the Golden Dawn Knights represent mature men. But the
Golden Dawn deck (and Crowleys Thoth Tarot) does not contain Kings, or for
that matter, Pages, at all; it uses Knight, Queen, Prince and Princess. It
makes sense for a Prince to represent a younger male than a Knight. It does
not make sense for a King to do so, and most readers do not follow Waites
instructions on this point, even when using his deck. I don't follow this. I
use a King for an older male and a Knight for a younger male. I must admit
that it is very confusing.
Shannon wrote in message ...
ilan pillemer
On Sun, 26 Jul 1998, Shannon wrote:
>
> 2) My edition reads, "A Knight should be chosen as the
> Significator if the subject of inquiry is a man of forty
> years old and upward; a King should be chosen for any male
> who is under that age" (p. 299, same heading as above). Is
> this a typo? It seems so counter-intuitive; why isn't it
> the other way around? Especially since a woman forty years
> or older is assigned the Queen, and a younger woman the
> Page.
My guess is that Waite is comparing the order to that of the
Tetragrammaton. Which is Yod Heh Vav Heh. The yod being attributed to the
knight, the first Heh to the Queen, the Vav to the King, and the Page to
the final Heh. Therefore the Yod is above the Vav, and the first Heh above
the second Heh. Thus the Knight is above the King, and the Queen is above
the Page. Thus the 'older' figures are the Knight and and the Queen, and
the 'younger' figures the King and the Page.
Brooke Burman
reference to the way the Golden Dawn read the tarot. They used
significators based on physical appearance, rather than personality or a
psychological basis. Crowley was entirely the opposite. He chose
significators based on astrological correspondences and psychological
factors.
In the Golden Dawn there are no reversed meanings for cards. When a face
is looking one way, the direction it is facing is meant to indicate that
the card that it is looking at is it's modifier based on it's elemental
dignity. This is the same for the Thoth deck desinged by Crowley. The
refernce to a Knight being a man over 40 and a King being a man under
40, is either a misprint or a blind. I woud venture to say it's a
misprint though because Waite was devoid of any true knowledge of the
occult. He would have no point in placing blinds. The Golden Dawn used
that method of a King being over 40 and a Knight/Page being under 40.
There is nothing Celtic to the Celtic Cross spread at all. Where they
came up with that one I don't know. The spread was invented by someone
in the Golden Dawn as an alternative and easier method of reading the
tarot, rather than the Golden Dawn's extremely complicated and time
consuming method called The Opening of the Key. As far as good, bad,
etc... in reference to certain cards, I feel that was really Waite's
lack of understanding of the tarot and the cabala. A few words on Waite
himself. IMO Waite is NOT a reliable resource for tarot info. He had a
habit of twisting things around to put forth his own agenda. Crowley
somewhat also, but not as bad. For a more reliable book on the Golden
Dawn's method of tarot I would recommend The New Golden Dawn Ritual
Tarot by Chic Cicero. This is based on the Golden Dawn's methods and is
an excellant book. Another classic text is The Book of Thoth by Aleister
Crowley. This book is however based on the Thoth deck he created; which
is my favorite deck to use. Hope this helps.
93,
Steve
It's always something.
- Gilda Radner
Tony Tiger
Burman) wrote:
>All right here we go. Most of the things you have asked about are in
>reference to the way the Golden Dawn read the tarot. They used
>significators based on physical appearance, rather than personality or a
>psychological basis. Crowley was entirely the opposite. He chose
>significators based on astrological correspondences and psychological
>factors.
True this approach was very popular and even cutting edge when you
think that the ideas of Freud
were just taking form. This approach is still popular and I think is
more properly placed with Freud and Carl Jung as anything Crowley
ever had to ascribed to him on this matter.
>In the Golden Dawn there are no reversed meanings for cards. When a face
>is looking one way, the direction it is facing is meant to indicate that
>the card that it is looking at is it's modifier based on it's elemental
>dignity. This is the same for the Thoth deck desinged by Crowley. The
>refernce to a Knight being a man over 40 and a King being a man under
>40, is either a misprint or a blind. I woud venture to say it's a
>misprint though because Waite was devoid of any true knowledge of the
>occult.
I think you mean here that Waite was not stepped in Kabalistic lore of
the Hebrews and was more comfortable in the Hermantic traditions of
the Greeks. Both borrowed much from the other. It is clear when you
read from Israel Reguardi’s Golden Dawn that much of what is ritual is
lifted directly from the masonic traditions, which predated both that
Golden Dawn (as well as Wicca despite some claims) by about seven
thousand years. Kabal is ancient, but deals more with the system and
numbers, more than it has to say about ritual.But I think there is a
good reason for this,but it is clear that even the Hermantic
Pythagorean Ptolomey as much can be read on passage of the door of
Propylon at Karnak, but it was not intentional stealing but more a
blending of traditions. at work. The Ptolemies did not pretend to
invent the number system of the Kabal they simply refined the
system,and made it better.
>He would have no point in placing blinds. The Golden Dawn used
>that method of a King being over 40 and a Knight/Page being under 40.
>There is nothing Celtic to the Celtic Cross spread at all. Where they
>came up with that one I don't know. The spread was invented by someone
>in the Golden Dawn as an alternative and easier method of reading the
>tarot, rather than the Golden Dawn's extremely complicated and time
>consuming method called The Opening of the Key.
Well, you would have a problem with this if you were not familiar with
enochian
magic.This is known but not widely published.
>As far as good, bad,
>etc... in reference to certain cards, I feel that was really Waite's
>lack of understanding of the tarot and the cabala. A few words on Waite
>himself. IMO Waite is NOT a reliable resource for tarot info. He had a
>habit of twisting things around to put forth his own agenda. Crowley
>somewhat also, but not as bad.
Not as bad? I suppose that it is easy to forget that Crowley was
excommunicated from the Golden Dawn movement, not for his original
ideas but rather for his nasty little habit of taking other people’s
ideas and publishing them as his own.
>For a more reliable book on the Golden
>Dawn's method of tarot I would recommend The New Golden Dawn Ritual
>Tarot by Chic Cicero. This is based on the Golden Dawn's methods and is
>an excellant book. Another classic text is The Book of Thoth by Aleister
>Crowley. This book is however based on the Thoth deck he created; which
>is my favorite deck to use. Hope this helps.
>Steve,
>It's always something.
>- Gilda Radner
The thing is Brook, look at it like this and ask yourself, who is
this fellow Thoth, and you will see what I mean, and why the cards, to
me in fact appear deceptive. Thoth was scribe to Osiris, I think the
operative word here is scribe, not Osiris. We in fact do not have
western contact with the tarot until around the 12th century. A
pretender to a pretender, and that is why it is a bit sinister and
deceptive to me.
tiger
RimaBell
>1) Why did Waite, in his advice concerning the choice of
>significators for querents, place the emphasis on the
>physical appearance of the querent rather than on his or her
>personality or psychological affinities? He says that "you
>can be guided on occasion by the known temperament of a
>person," but I would have thought that temperament would
>play the primary role more than occasionally
As I see it the idea is that when someone comes to you for a reading, you don't
immediately know anything about their temperment, but you do know what they
look like and can choose the significator based on that. Also, a person's
coloring is some indication of their temperment. If you feel you know what card
best fits that person, that's the best card to use. I don't use the
significator card.
,
. What do people's physical
>appearances have to do with their relationships to Tarot
>symbolism?
There are archetypical personality traits and even possible moral attributes;
gifts and flaws, which go hand in hand with one's appearance. Queen of
Pentacles has dark hair which she needs to deal with the world.(dark hair often
denotes cunning) The King of wands is often shown with red hair, showing fire
and his ability to deal with spirit.(red hair often denotes passion/enthusiasm)
The cups are often blond for sensitivity and emotion. Crowley was big on
this.
>
Rima
>
>
>
>
>
ski...@earthlinl.net
>2) My edition reads, "A Knight should be chosen as the
>Significator if the subject of inquiry is a man of forty
>years old and upward; a King should be chosen for any male
>who is under that age"
He was intentionally misleading in some of that book, due to the GD
(read God damned) secrecy and oath stuff. This was his give-away, or
so I have been told.
skink
Brooke Burman
African-American people? I'm sorry; I can't totally agree with that line
of reasoning, but then I don't use significators based on physical
appearance. I choose one based on astrological and numerological
correspondences.
93,
Steve
Brooke Burman
one out. Who told you that info?
Tony Tiger
What you say is impart true but I cannot agree with the way you said
but what I release is part which the brothers have seen proper to
publish... I am not the writer or publisher but humble servant. In
the context of Waite, this information was known but not widely.
This is the true background as it has been passed to our time:
About the Book of Enoch
In the year 1773, after a period of almost total obscurity lasting
1500 years, the Scottish explorer, James Bruce,
discovered in what is now Ethiopia, The Book of Enoch.
He writes: "Amongst the articles I consigned to the library at Paris
was a very beautiful and magnificent copy of the prophecies of Enoch,
in large Quarto; another is amongst the books of scripture that I
brought home, standing immediately before the book of Job, which is
it's proper place in the Abyssinian Cannon: and a third copy I
presented to the Bodleian Library at Oxford, by the hands of Dr.
Douglass, the Bishop of Carlisle."
It rested there, forgotten, until 1821 when Laurence issued his first
translation of which there were many additions, culminating in the
revised edition of 1883, compiled from notes in his estate.
As a former professor of Hebrew at Oxford, Laurence's familiarity with
Kabbalah and the Zohar (as shown in the introductions of earlier
editions) gave him unique qualifications that were especially useful
in translating a work of this type.
At present there are three versions of Enoch (not to be confused with
the tabloid clones "Keys of Enoch" or "Secrets of Enoch" which are
presently circulating amongst New Age groups). The first being the
Ethiopian found by James Bruce in Abyssinia in 1773, and culminating
in the present translation of this volume. The second is called the
Book of the Secrets of Enoch, or Slavonian Enoch. It was discovered in
the Belgrade public library by Prof. Sokolov in 1886, and translated
by Morfill and Charles in 1896. The third is (of necessity) called
Enoch III, or the Hebrew Enoch, translated by Hugo Odeberg in 1922.
Each has some variations that will help understanding, and one can
hardly escape the conclusion
that this book may be far older than anyone suspects.
Further correlations can be found in: "Hypostasis of the Archons"
translated by Roger Bullard, 1970, from one of the Nag Hammadi gnostic
codexes. In it are striking parallels with Enoch. The creation of
giants or failures is again met within the Mandaean Codex Nazaraeus,
or Ginza rabba, which can be found in "Gnosis: It's Character and
Testimony" by Roger Haardt, translated by J.F. Hendry, 1971. And of
course, Blavatsky's "The Secret Doctrine" has been in print
continuously since 1888.
Although the Book of Enoch was apparently at one time recognized as a
valid piece of Hebrew (i.e. Judeo-Christian) belief systems and
although it was directly quoted from in the new testament epistle of
Jude, the Council of Nicene voted to exclude it from "canonized"
scripture in 325 AD.
Lyman Abbott notes: "Reverting to the second century of Christianity,
we find Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria citing the Book of Enoch
without questioning it's sacred character. Thus, Irenaeus, assigning
to the Book of Enoch an authenticity analogous to that of Mosaic
literature, affirms that Enoch, although a man, filled the office of
God's messenger to the angels. Tertullian, who flourished at the close
of the first and at the beginning of the second century, whilst
admitting that the 'Scripture of Enoch' is not received by some
because it is not included in the Hebrew Canon, speaks of the author
as 'the most ancient prophet, Enoch,' and of the book as the divinely
inspired autograph of that immortal patriarch..."
After reading Enoch, I was left with the impression that it was either
an extremely precise historical document (one vision of many cows
succinctly traces the developement of Israel and Judah through a few
centuries) with fascinating astronomical data added to the mix which
had to have been written after the fact, or, if written when it was
said to have been, it was without a doubt the most profoundly accurate
prophetic work extant. In either case, Enoch should not be taken
lightly.
Some may find Thomas' work to be too flavored with fundamentalism for
their particular taste but I personally found it to be some
exceptionally well-researched stuff. I make no apologies for it and
challenge you, the reader, to lay aside any predispositions and
consider the work on it's own merits.
Chsmster
broach this area and many find it pointless. Dear student, develop years and
years of Tarot experience and then when the cards and yourself merge; you will
know how to choose the significator. Best of luck!
Gracie
Chsmster <chsm...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199807270450...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
In the meantime????? Just go for years with no significator until one day,
presto-chango there is a large flash of light, insight occurs and ....
TAAAAA DAAAAAA She will merge with the cards and be one with the
significator???? How about read, study and learn? Practice, practice,
practice!
Gracie
ilan pillemer
On 27 Jul 1998, Chsmster wrote:
> You should not worry too much about the significator. Many readers don't even
> broach this area and many find it pointless. Dear student, develop years and
> years of Tarot experience and then when the cards and yourself merge; you will
> know how to choose the significator. Best of luck!
>
>
huh? when me and the cards merge. Please explain what on earth you are
talking about? Because I am very confused. Have you merged with the cards?
What do you look like now? Can you merge with other things too? Perhaps
you could merge with dodo? that would be fascinating.
Simon
> What you say is impart true but I cannot agree with the way you said
> but what I release is part which the brothers have seen proper to
> publish... I am not the writer or publisher but humble servant. In
> the context of Waite, this information was known but not widely.
> This is the true background as it has been passed to our time:
Please give the reference material from which the remainder of your post
was cut and pasted.
Simon
> ... when the cards and yourself merge...
merge as in 'morph' ... as in anthropo'morph' ... or would that be cartopo'morph'
... or anthro-carto ... oh, this is so confusing ... ya mind if some of us just
read cards?
J. Karlin
> Page references are to the (New York: University Books,
> 1959) edition of __The Pictoral Key to the Tarot__. As
> other people may have other editions, I've tried to also
> include the titles of the sections I've taken quotes from.
>
> 1) Why did Waite, in his advice concerning the choice of
> significators for querents, place the emphasis on the
> physical appearance of the querent rather than on his or her
> personality or psychological affinities?
Because physical appearance was one method of determining
'personality' and 'psychological affinities' which cartomancers
used. Waite was just passing along what seemed to be the
'tradition' for fortune-telling, he was not necessarily in
agreement with the details of its directions and implications,
but was offering this, as Crowley pointed out, for the
'edification' of scullery maids. In other words, he could
not and would not reveal the 'true' method of divination in
his book, so Waite provided the vulgar version of it, which
version included some common but not very PC instructions.
> He says that "you
> can be guided on occasion by the known temperament of a
> person," but I would have thought that temperament would
> play the primary role more than occasionally
You don't always know this in detail. One picks the sig based
on a number of factors, the Sun sign is considered the most
reliable. However, THAT, it must be noted, only works with
a certain number of potential subjects (those with 'moral
bite'). Actually, most people and situations rate a Princess
(Page) 'sig'.
> (p.299-300,
> "Outer Method of the Oracles" part 7--"An Ancient Celtic
> Method of Divination"). What do people's physical
> appearances have to do with their relationships to Tarot
> symbolism?
Part of this has to do with a kind of racial theory of
tarot, the belief that certain suits 'ruled' certain parts
of the earth and, of course, that certain parts of the
earth engendered people who possessed racial (as opposed)
to cultural, characteristics of 'personality'.
Interestingly, we are seeing a kind of brainless rebirth
of this nonsense with the attempt by some people to
'multi-culturalize' decks.
> 2) My edition reads, "A Knight should be chosen as the
> Significator if the subject of inquiry is a man of forty
> years old and upward; a King should be chosen for any male
> who is under that age"
Right, this is the scullery maid version---in other words,
it's easy to follow and remember. But again, the astrological and
elemental procedure is the 'advanced' method of picking sigs.
> (p. 299, same heading as above). Is
> this a typo? It seems so counter-intuitive; why isn't it
> the other way around?
It's a long story. It involves certain little attempts at
what are called 'blinds', where 'data' is mixed and crossed to
NOT give the real information out to just anyone. In this
case there was a confusion about the titles of court cards
in the Golden Dawn system. Actually, the King is meant to
be a figure on horseback (in other words, the active force),
the Knight is meant to be drawn by a chariot (as we see in
in Thoth for the Princes), the King in Waite is therefore
doubly wrong, because he is throned, like the Queen, and
his function has been given over to the symbol of the
older, active force, the Knight.
It IS confusing. That's cause Waite apparently intended it
to be so.
I think this is discussed in one of the old threads you
should be able to access on Deja News.
> 3) Waite also places some importance on the direction that
> the picture on the card in the significator position faces.
This is explained in the FAQ. However, 'facing' becomes an
issue in both Keltic Cross, and in the advanced Golden Dawn
Reading.
> Are the older decks (Marseilles, Visconti, etc.) uniform in
> their depiction of the direction the figures in the court
> cards and trumps face? In other words, did a tradition of
> "directionality" (sorry for the awkward phrasing--can't
> think of better) exist prior to Waite?
Certain patterns show up, yes, but the occult 'meaning'
of directionality only gets a public discussion after 1781
and then it is not explicit in fortune-telling instructions.
That cards face a certain way is sometimes merely an aesthetic
issue, but in readings, we are mostly concerned about this
as a means of determining which way to read a card in relation
to others. It's 'facing' determines the 'direction' in which
developments should be read.
> If not, do we know
> why he chose the directions he did for the pictures in his
> cards? What associations do the left or right directions
> carry, respectively?
That would depend upon the deck and the assumptions made by
the designer. In some systems of symbolism, the directions
can be very significant, indicating mainly a kind of binary
between 'positive' and 'negative', male and female, polarities, but
also these can be further divided into quadrants, the cardinal
directions for example, and then further divided ad sillyum.
You can easily get lost concerning yourself about
such symbolic details (which ARE nevertheless interesting and useful to
learn), but you should rather focus on the synthesis of the card
for purposes of READING it.
> 4) I don't mean to harp on this positive/negative thing;
Sure you do. You can't stand thinking some idea you had about
tarot is not actually there. But the problem is that your
idea of what positive and negative mean has nothing to do with
tarot, even though there is in fact a concept of positive and
negative IN tarot.
> I
> am just trying to wrap my head around a conceptualization of
> the cards that does not include value judgments.
'arbitrary' value judgments.
You need to do that with life first, then you might be able to
do that with tarot.
In part 4
> of "The Outer Method of the Oracles," subtitled "Some
> Additional Meanings of the Lesser Arcana," (p.288), Waite
> characterizes the Kinight of Wands as "A bad card,"
'some additional meanings' should be your guide here.
If this were THE meaning, or an important meaning, it would
not be buried back here.
> What do all these references to "good," "bad," "favorable"
> and "unfavorable" mean?
It's fortune-telling. Do you know what that is?
Again, much of this is intended as a vulgarization of
tarot and divination, not what Waite actually thought about it
or its importance, and certainly nothing about the methods he
learned in Golden Dawn.
> 5) What was Waite's basis for calling the Celtic Cross
> spread an "ancient Celtic method of divination"?
It sounds good.
(jk)
J. Karlin
> As I see it the idea is that when someone comes to you for a reading, you don't
> immediately know anything about their temperment, but you do know what they
> look like and can choose the significator based on that. Also, a person's
> coloring is some indication of their temperment.
This is a blatantly racist statement and has NO place in tarot,
nor any place in the 'ideas' of any intelligent person.
(jk)
J. Karlin
>
> So, what about people who have naturally dark coloring; such as
> African-American people? I'm sorry; I can't totally agree with that line
> of reasoning,
Wrong answer---you're supposed to say: "that line of reasoning
is no reasoning at all, it's the product of prejudice and ignorance
and is racist."
That's the correct reply.
(jk)
Leihla
[...] Also, a person's coloring is some indication of their
> temperment. [...]
---------------
Oh, give me a break.
Lee
-------Emailed responses may be posted--------
J. Karlin
>
> rima...@aol.com (RimaBell) writes:
>
> [...] Also, a person's coloring is some indication of their
> > temperment. [...]
> ---------------
> Oh, give me a break.
Hey, it's a tarot 'tradition'.
This is one of those traditions it would not hurt to
pomo-ize into oblivion, but instead, as you can see, it's
working the other way about.
(jk)
Leihla
[...]
>That cards face a certain way is sometimes merely an aesthetic
>issue, but in readings, we are mostly concerned about this
>as a means of determining which way to read a card in relation
>to others. It's 'facing' determines the 'direction' in which
>developments should be read.
You mentioned (figure facing) direction being used in the
Keltic Cross earlier. Are you saying direction (of maybe
crowning or foundation cards?) should (or can?) be used
to determine whether past and future cards should be read
right-to-left or left-to-right?
Shannon
J. Karlin wrote in message <35BC9471...@texas.net>...
>You don't always know this in detail. One picks the sig
based
>on a number of factors, the Sun sign is considered the most
>reliable.
Are there any books on astrological correspondences with
tarot that you would recommend? I suppose Crowley covers
this, and one of these days I will get around to reading
Crowley, but I'm particularly interested in the historical
evolution of these associations.
>It IS confusing. That's cause Waite apparently intended it
>to be so.
>
>I think this is discussed in one of the old threads you
>should be able to access on Deja News.
Do you remember the title of the thread, by any chance?
("Waite" brings up over three thousand entries).
>Certain patterns show up, yes, but the occult 'meaning'
>of directionality only gets a public discussion after 1781
>and then it is not explicit in fortune-telling
instructions.
Can you refer me to specific titles of the 1781 discussion?
Are there other books of Waite's in which he covers the
directionality topic further? Is it in the Book of Thoth?
Are there other books that you would recommend on this
topic?
>> 4) I don't mean to harp on this positive/negative thing;
>
>Sure you do. You can't stand thinking some idea you had
about
>tarot is not actually there.
I abandon ideas all the time. I just like to make sure I've
exhausted them first. Aren't you "cold-reading" here?
And could you explain the concept of positive and negative
that you say does exist in Tarot? Or refer me to a source
which covers this?
>> 5) What was Waite's basis for calling the Celtic Cross
>> spread an "ancient Celtic method of divination"?
>
>It sounds good.
So Waite was lying and knew he was lying, just because it
sounded good? Doesn't that throw the reliability of the
rest of his information into question?
Thanks for taking the time to answer this so fully.
--Shannon
MLYoung
Aside from the problem with racism,
I think it makes the court cards harder
to read. Is that Prince of Wands a
Leo, or a red-haired dude? Personally,
I find seeing the court cards in terms
of astrology makes 'em a lot easier to
read. Focusing on superficial traits--such
as coloring--is actually somewhat distracting.
--margaret
>
>
>Subject: Re: Questions about Waite
Gracie
MLYoung <mly...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199807271847...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
I disagree, I am a Leo woman but have always used the Queen of Swords as a
significator for myself. The problem with using the astrological method is
the determination of the sign is that someone may be born with Cancer as
their sun sign but after their natal chart has been drawn, the totality of
the chart may turn out to be fixed and fire (Leo) instead of cardinal and
water like Cancer. Like the appearance and the personality, these are
mostly guess work unless you plan on doing a natal chart on each querant
before reading the cards. No matter which method we choose for selecting a
significator, there is built in room for error.
Gracie
MLYoung
>>You don't always know this in detail. One picks the sig
>based
>>on a number of factors, the Sun sign is considered the most
>>reliable.
>
>Are there any books on astrological correspondences with
>tarot that you would recommend? I suppose Crowley covers
>this, and one of these days I will get around to reading
>Crowley, but I'm particularly interested in the historical
>evolution of these associations.
Thoth is the way to go here. Other
possibility is Israel Regardie's The Golden
Dawn--specifically the Book of T. I
like Robert Hand for straight astrology.
For a general history of tarot, try
Cynthia Giles Tarot: History, Mystery
and Lore. Try not to take the back section
too seriously.
>
>>It IS confusing. That's cause Waite apparently intended it
>>to be so.
>>
>>I think this is discussed in one of the old threads you
>>should be able to access on Deja News.
>
>
>Do you remember the title of the thread, by any chance?
>("Waite" brings up over three thousand entries).
Waite's blinds have been discussed
more than once. Basically, he had vows
and this was his way of keeping them.
I think Wang's Qabalistic Tarot explains
some of the blinds.
>
>>Certain patterns show up, yes, but the occult 'meaning'
>>of directionality only gets a public discussion after 1781
>>and then it is not explicit in fortune-telling
>instructions.
>
>
>Can you refer me to specific titles of the 1781 discussion?
Get the Giles.
>
>
>Are there other books of Waite's in which he covers the
>directionality topic further? Is it in the Book of Thoth?
Yes, but get the Regardie.
>>> 5) What was Waite's basis for calling the Celtic Cross
>>> spread an "ancient Celtic method of divination"?
>>
>>It sounds good.
>
>
>So Waite was lying and knew he was lying, just because it
>sounded good? Doesn't that throw the reliability of the
>rest of his information into question?
Yep, and what a bitch it is. Go to jk's
web site and check out his essay on
Waite's Chariot and you'll see to what
extent Waite plays games. He doesn't
lie, but he will mislead.
One person claimed that Yeats was
supposed to have come up with the
Celtic cross and was the "old Celt" in
question, but people are always trying
to drag in Yeats. Also, the shape of the
reading is a Celtic Cross, more or less.
--margaret
A.K.
> Aside from the problem with racism,
> I think it makes the court cards harder
> to read. Is that Prince of Wands a
> Leo, or a red-haired dude? Personally,
> I find seeing the court cards in terms
> of astrology makes 'em a lot easier to
> read. Focusing on superficial traits--such
> as coloring--is actually somewhat distracting.
However I have found it helpful when people affecting the qerant appear in
the reading--I can use their superficial traits to help the q identify who
the peson affecting them is.
Our Lady of the Yo Yo
RimaBell
I agree, and if I used a significator, which I never have, I'd go on
personality and temperment. It wasn't my line of reasoning but other card
designers, Waite being one of them. Rima
RimaBell
So now, let's see JK, you read a Tarot deck with African Americans portrayed?
I wonder how many decks portray African Americans or even Chinese, for that
matter. How would you know if Waite was racist? And if you don't read a deck,
assuming you read at all, without people of color, are you then racist? Don't
see any people of color in the Thoth deck either, mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
RimaBell
of Tarot but have never read Waite, or numerous other writers on Tarot who
describe this approach. I already said I DONT DO IT< NEVER HAVE. By the way,
how many Black people have YOU read for? No, I already know you'll never
answer that.
Tom Ace
> Aside from the problem with racism,
> I think it makes the court cards harder
> to read. Is that Prince of Wands a
> Leo, or a red-haired dude? Personally,
> I find seeing the court cards in terms
> of astrology makes 'em a lot easier to
> read. Focusing on superficial traits--such
> as coloring--is actually somewhat distracting.
Sun sign is a superficial trait.
Tom Ace
cr...@best.com
Mary Cain
>Aside from the problem with racism,
>I think it makes the court cards harder
>to read. Is that Prince of Wands a
>Leo, or a red-haired dude? Personally,
>I find seeing the court cards in terms
>of astrology makes 'em a lot easier to
>read. Focusing on superficial traits--such as
>coloring--is actually somewhat distracting.
I see your point but also found, when doing readings, that a number of
people were reluctant to give their birthdate or sun sign as they felt
it gave the reader inside information about them that would not actually
be from the reading being given.
>--margaret
Karen Cain
late...@webtv.net
Brooke Burman
Brooke Burman
chose not to say that. But you did.
Steve
Brooke Burman
African-American people in them and a Chinese deck as well. What's your
point?
robin
Oh my! Is this the Twilight Zone?
Brooke Burman
sk...@bat.com
Burman) wrote:
>Pretty obvious 'blind' don't you think? A 2 year old could figure that
>one out. Who told you that info?
>
>93,
>Steve
>
>
>It's always something.
> - Gilda Radner
>
Yes, it is pretty obvious, but was not to the person who posted it. I
was trying to be helpful. Why be such a prick?
4+2=8
Edeejay
>
> So now, let's see JK, you read a Tarot deck with African Americans portrayed?
JK didn't say that. Rima, you totally missed JK's point.
> I wonder how many decks portray African Americans or even Chinese, for that
> matter.
Actually, there is an African Tarot deck available.
How would you know if Waite was racist?
It's not about Waite being racist, it's about you.
And if you don't read a deck,
...and judging from some of the things you say in your posts, "you dont
read a deck" either, you cold read.
> assuming you read at all,
Read what? Books, newspapers, magazines?
without people of color,
Explain what you mean by "people of color"?
are you then racist?
Are you?
Don't
> see any people of color in the Thoth deck either,
Why not?
edeejay...:)
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
J. Karlin
> So now, let's see JK, you read a Tarot deck with African Americans portrayed?
What does an 'African-American' look like and how should 'they'
be 'portrayed'? Be specific.
> I wonder how many decks portray African Americans or even Chinese, for that
> matter.
What difference would that make to anything?
There are no African-Americans discussed in I Ching either. Why
aren't you concerned about that?
> How would you know if Waite was racist?
I did not say Waite was a racist. I said that your comment was racist,
which would lead one to the conclusion that you are a racist as well.
> And if you don't read a deck,
> assuming you read at all, without people of color,
What are 'people of color'? Are there 'people of no color'? I think
they call those albinos---but those occur in all racial groups.
> are you then racist?
You seem to have difficulty dealing with metaphors. That ONLY
Europeans and a euro-centric outlook is presented on tarot cards
is no reason that someone who is not European (I'm not European
for example, I'm an American, which is NOT the same thing) can't
study tarot. It is racist to imply that a cultural artifact, such
as tarot, needs to be made 'relevant' to those who are deemed too
different, because of their skin color, to 'get it'.
> Don't see any people of color in the Thoth deck either,
Again, what are 'people of color'?
There are people of all kinds of colors in the Thoth deck---obviously
what you see of it or much of anything is going to be minimized by
your closed eyes and safely padlocked mind.
(jk)
J. Karlin
>
> Lighten up.
Start using quotes. No one knows who the hell you are talking to.
(jk)
J. Karlin
> RimaBell wrote:
> >
> > So now, let's see JK, you read a Tarot deck with African Americans portrayed?
>
It's really kind of painful to even NEED to have this kind
of discussion, isn't it?
But, if people are SO ignorant that they still need help on this
kind of stuff, think how much MORE hopeless it is for them to
take on something like tarot.
Well, that's what this group exists for, to address people's
ignorance and confusion---about all kinds of things.
(jk)
J. Karlin
>
> You are very right on that one. I feel it to be very racist also, but
> chose not to say that. But you did.
OK, I'm assuming you're talking to me here (again, please start using
quotes and indicating who you are replying to).
The point is that if you miss these opportunities to confront
people's racism, and figure maybe somebody else will do it, there
may not always BE someone else to do it.
I realize most of us live lives of utter selfishness and alienation
from the enormous social ills that confront us in whatever part
of the world we live in, but it IS your responsibility to see to
it that ignorance is confronted and that people are told it is
NOT OK to promote racism in ANY form (even forms that seem 'harmless').
Lives depend on it, maybe yours someday.
(jk)
J. Karlin
>
> Steve,
>
> I agree, and if I used a significator, which I never have, I'd go on
> personality and temperment. It wasn't my line of reasoning but other card
> designers,
On the contrary, YOU made the statement as fact, you did not qualify
it according to it being an 'error' of 'other card designers'.
> Waite being one of them.
We've already discussed here what Waite was doing.
The question now before is what YOU were doing, and thinking.
(jk)
J. Karlin
> Get off the soap box JK,
You mean allow you to get away with your racist remarks?
I don't think so.
> I think you have a crush on me
Then along with being a racist you're seriously deluded.
> ;o{ You know so much
> of Tarot but have never read Waite, or numerous other writers on Tarot who
> describe this approach.
'describe' is one thing. Advocate is another.
> I already said I DONT DO IT< NEVER HAVE.
You did not say that when you wrote---
"Also, a person's coloring is some indication of their temperment [sic]."
You offered that as 'advice'. You really ought to shut the fuck up
before someone listens to some of the stupid things you're saying.
> By the way, how many Black people have YOU read for?
Why? Do you think 'Black people' in particular are proof of
your theory that 'a person's coloring is some indication of their
temperment' [sic]?
> No, I already know you'll never answer that.
Nor could I answer it, because I don't read for people on the
basis of ignorant racial and cultural stereotypes.
(jk)
J. Karlin
> RimaBell wrote:
> >
> > Get off the soap box JK, I think you have a crush on me ;o{ You know so much
> > of Tarot but have never read Waite, or numerous other writers on Tarot who
> > how many Black people have YOU read for? No, I already know you'll never
> > answer that.
>
No, it just fucking 1998 and we're still surrounded by morons.
(jk)
J. Karlin
> I disagree, I am a Leo woman but have always used the Queen of Swords as a
> significator for myself.
Why?
> The problem with using the astrological method is
> the determination of the sign is that someone may be born with Cancer as
> their sun sign but after their natal chart has been drawn, the totality of
> the chart may turn out to be fixed and fire (Leo) instead of cardinal and
> water like Cancer.
You're not trying to obtain an astrological 'totality' when
picking a sig, you're just trying to pick a base from which
to work. The sun sign WILL be important in a person's chart,
no matter how many other indications there may be---however,
we should also note the following:
1. Crowley, following the Golden Dawn system, did not use
clean correspondences for these astrological indications, but
rather used mixed signs, so, for example, Prince of Wands
rules the last decan of Cancer AND the first two decans of
Leo. And, Knight of Disks is the LAST decan of Leo, and the
first two of Virgo.
2. People lacking 'moral bite' (in Crowley's words), should be
getting Princesses, not Sun-sign cards. This suggests that people
who are not well-defined astrologically, may be better represented
by an elemental metaphor, or which there are apparently 40
altogether (or 28 if you only count seven planets) because
each element is sub-divided by planetary emphasis to account
for quite a few personality types.
Remember, tarot is NOT astrology, astrology provides a set of
metaphors USED in tarot.
(jk)
J. Karlin
>
> MLYoung wrote:
>
> > Aside from the problem with racism,
> > I think it makes the court cards harder
> > to read. Is that Prince of Wands a
> > Leo, or a red-haired dude? Personally,
> > I find seeing the court cards in terms
> > of astrology makes 'em a lot easier to
> > read. Focusing on superficial traits--such
> > as coloring--is actually somewhat distracting.
>
It provided enough data to allow Margaret to correctly guess
YOURS.
(jk)
J. Karlin
> I see your point but also found, when doing readings, that a number of
> people were reluctant to give their birthdate or sun sign as they felt
> it gave the reader inside information about them that would not actually
> be from the reading being given.
Then maybe the querent should be doing the reading.
If you read, you ARE in charge of how it shall be done.
I don't think asking for a birth date (only the month and day
are required, not the year of birth) is giving out 'inside
information'. Reading does not have to be entirely void of
cold data to be honest and true.
(jk)
sk...@bat.com
Burman) wrote:
>I wasn't being a prick. Who gave you that bogus info in the first place?
>
>Steve
>
>
>It's always something.
> - Gilda Radner
>
I was told by someone in a book store, but I actually have a reference
to it here:
" A.E. Waite, who used the traditional terminology in his book and in
his very popular Tarot deck, to avoid giving away the secrets to the
order, nevertheless tipped his hand when he said that the kings are to
be used as significators for young men and the knights for men over
forty. Such a procedure makes no particular sence unless you know the
GD system."
"The Golden Dawn" Israel Regardie, although the above quote was taken
from page xxviii, after the first introduction, under indexing the GD
by D. Godwin.
I knew that I had also read this somewhere. In fact, I can probably
quote several paragraphs from texts by D. Fortune and A.C. refering to
Waite's constant misleading because of his oath. Waite himself said of
his book, " There is another method known to initiates."
Of course it is all moot now, because most of these "secret" oaths
were published, and the GD system of Tarot is widely known, and in my
opinion, was improved and corrected by A.C.
J. Karlin
> On Sun, 26 Jul 1998 21:18:07 GMT, ski...@earthlinl.net wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>2) My edition reads, "A Knight should be chosen as the
> >>Significator if the subject of inquiry is a man of forty
> >>years old and upward; a King should be chosen for any male
> >>who is under that age"
> >
> >He was intentionally misleading in some of that book, due to the GD
> >(read God damned) secrecy and oath stuff. This was his give-away, or
> >so I have been told.
> >
> >skink
>
> What you say is impart true but I cannot agree with the way you said
Why?
> but what I release is part which the brothers have seen proper to
> publish...
What 'brothers'?
> I am not the writer or publisher but humble servant.
Actually, as you've amply demonstrated, you're an idiot and obviously
interested in passing yourself off as the conveyor of some 'great
mystery'.
> In
> the context of Waite, this information was known but not widely.
What do you mean 'in the context of Waite'? 'This information',
concerning the Book of Enoch, is WIDELY known among biblical
scholars. What relevance does it have to the present discussion?
> This is the true background as it has been passed to our time:
> About the Book of Enoch
>
> In the year 1773, after a period of almost total obscurity lasting
> 1500 years, the Scottish explorer, James Bruce,
> discovered in what is now Ethiopia, The Book of Enoch.
That's true, but that does not mean he was the first to
take notice of it. The book is part of what is known as the
pseudepigrapha, and "refers to books similar in type to those of
the Bible whose authors gave them the names of persons of a much
earlier period in order to enhance their authority." You will
find many such books in the Aprocrypha for example.
> At present there are three versions of Enoch
That's not really true, there are different books which explore
Enoch themes (that is, they go to create what is called
Enoch literature), but these are NOT simply versions of the same
book.
Again, what possible relevance does any of this have to what
was being discussed here?
(jk)
J. Karlin
> "J. Karlin" <r3wi...@texas.net> writes:
> >That cards face a certain way is sometimes merely an aesthetic
> >issue, but in readings, we are mostly concerned about this
> >as a means of determining which way to read a card in relation
> >to others. It's 'facing' determines the 'direction' in which
> >developments should be read.
> ----------------
> You mentioned (figure facing) direction being used in the
> Keltic Cross earlier. Are you saying direction (of maybe
> crowning or foundation cards?) should (or can?) be used
> to determine whether past and future cards should be read
> right-to-left or left-to-right?
This is discussed in the FAQ, under the Keltic Cross answer.
(jk)
J. Karlin
> Are there any books on astrological correspondences with
> tarot that you would recommend?
If you want to get to this level of study you may as well
contemplate going to the source and picking up a copy
of Israel Regardie's Golden Dawn (or Golden Dawn System
of Magick).
Most of what modern and postmodern tarot has become is based
on this system of tarot correspondences.
Regardie was a member of the Golden Dawn and became for a while
the student and secretary to Aleister Crowley---at some point
he took it upon himself to publish all (or most of) the
'secret' papers of the order (that is, the Golden Dawn, not
Crowley's order), and this revealed, especially in the documents on
initiations and in the tarot instructions given to members, the utter
devotion members gave (or were supposed to give) to learning tarot.
> I suppose Crowley covers
> this,
He does, and his book, 777, is most useful in concisely explaining
these, but you will still want to get the Golden Dawn books as well.
> and one of these days I will get around to reading
> Crowley, but I'm particularly interested in the historical
> evolution of these associations.
That's another, though related, topic. You might try posting also
to alt.magick and alt.magick.order for some insights about this.
I can provide you with a reading list for Golden Dawn if you are
interested.
> >It IS confusing. That's cause Waite apparently intended it
> >to be so.
> >
> >I think this is discussed in one of the old threads you
> >should be able to access on Deja News.
>
> Do you remember the title of the thread, by any chance?
> ("Waite" brings up over three thousand entries).
Well, you DO need to be a bit creative in your searches.
You can use more than one search parameter to narrow
the focus---try 'waite court card blind' for example.
> >Certain patterns show up, yes, but the occult 'meaning'
> >of directionality only gets a public discussion after 1781
> >and then it is not explicit in fortune-telling
> instructions.
>
> Can you refer me to specific titles of the 1781 discussion?
It's not a 'discussion' in a scholarly sense but simply that
people began publishing books about using tarot for divination
and explaining what they thought they symbolism meant.
If you want a completely hostile review of the events, refer to:
"A Wicked Pack of Cards"
by Decker, Depaulis, and Dummett
You'll get a lot of data, along with a lot of bad moods.
The authors think that playing card games with tarot is
the only thing they ought to be used for.
> Are there other books of Waite's in which he covers the
> directionality topic further?
Not for reading I don't think. The 'topic' is addressed in
his deck---look at the Aces for example.
> Is it in the Book of Thoth?
Yes, briefly, in the section on how to determine the facing
of a card for purposes of reading.
> Are there other books that you would recommend on this
> topic?
I can recommend hundreds of books to you. Take a step at
a time.
> And could you explain the concept of positive and negative
> that you say does exist in Tarot? Or refer me to a source
> which covers this?
Let me put this into terms you seem to like---answer me
this: what is the preferential difference between a positively
and negatively charged particle?
Is an electron evil? Is a proton good?
Or are 'positive' and 'negative' merely useful metaphorical
descriptions of activity, and not an indication of any
inherent moral or preferential value of these particles?
> >> 5) What was Waite's basis for calling the Celtic Cross
> >> spread an "ancient Celtic method of divination"?
> >
> >It sounds good.
>
> So Waite was lying and knew he was lying,
He was a book salesman (otherwise known as pop writer). I
imagine he liked to call it 'romancing the stone'.
He also, on the side, marketed malted milk (the brand of
which can STILL be purchased---the local gourmet-mart here
has the silly jars going for about $14.00 stocked right next
to the American staple priced at $3.00). And no, I've not tried
it, even for research purposes.
> just because it sounded good?
Everyone does it. Just ask your fearful leaders in Washington, D.C.
> Doesn't that throw the reliability of the
> rest of his information into question?
If you need to trust people for the surface meaning of their
words, don't even think about taking on the occult.
Like Mark Twain said (or had Huck Finn say, if I recall)---
it's mainly the truth.
(jk)
ette...@hotmail.com
> Sun sign is a superficial trait.
Not according to astrology.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Simon
> Reading does not have to be entirely void of
> cold data to be honest and true.
Not to take your comment out of context, but you may have answered my question
before I ask it.
Card reading is about simply that, reading cards ... but this does not occur
in a vacuum devoid of other influences. All of my readings are done one on
one, face to face. To what extent is nonverbal communication allowable /
advisable as a tool in assessing context during a reading?
-ZZ
wrote:
>Shannon wrote:
>> and one of these days I will get around to reading
>> Crowley, but I'm particularly interested in the historical
>> evolution of these associations.
>
>That's another, though related, topic. You might try posting also
>to alt.magick and alt.magick.order for some insights about this.
Please post any requests for information regarding the evolution of
the Golden Dawn and all its offspring to alt.magick.order rather than
to alt.magick.
Alt.magick is for the techncial and scholarly discussion on magick and
tends to react poorly to any thread on GD-related orders due to their
tendency to degenerate in hard-to-kill bitch fights.
-ZZ
MLYoung
>>
>Tom Ace wrote:
>> Sun sign is a superficial trait.
>
>YOURS.
Yeah, but in tarot terms this means he's
a page of swords heading towards the
Queen of Swords. I doubt that's how
Tom sees himself.
--margaret
>
>(jk)
>
>
Gracie
J. Karlin <r3wi...@texas.net> wrote in article
<35BDD126...@texas.net>...
> Gracie wrote:
>
> > I disagree, I am a Leo woman but have always used the Queen of Swords
as a
> > significator for myself.
>
> Why?
I started using it when the LB that came with my deck said it was for a
woman of my age and coloring. I kept with it after reading more about the
astrological, personality connection because those meanings seemed more in
keeping with myself.
>
> > The problem with using the astrological method is
> > the determination of the sign is that someone may be born with Cancer
as
> > their sun sign but after their natal chart has been drawn, the totality
of
> > the chart may turn out to be fixed and fire (Leo) instead of cardinal
and
> > water like Cancer.
>
> You're not trying to obtain an astrological 'totality' when
> picking a sig, you're just trying to pick a base from which
> to work. The sun sign WILL be important in a person's chart,
> no matter how many other indications there may be---
Yes, the sun sign is an important factor in some charts but can often be
misleading and downright inaccurate when used to describe someone. I am
not saying that it is a non-valid choice for determining the sig. but that
it is not an absolute. None of the factors are absolute when choosing a
sig for a querant that we are not familiar with. In this situation,
sometimes I go with the coloring thing, sometimes with the astrological and
sometimes with what their personality seems to be. This may seem a
haphazard approach but each sig that I choose, is chosen for reasons that
seem crystal clear at that particular reading. I hesitate to get into the
right way, wrong way debate that seems to go on around here about just
about everything. When the great scholars of that developed the Tarot,
could not agree, I take that to mean that there are many different
approaches that each serve in their own way.
however,
> we should also note the following:
>
> 1. Crowley, following the Golden Dawn system, did not use
> clean correspondences for these astrological indications, but
> rather used mixed signs, so, for example, Prince of Wands
> rules the last decan of Cancer AND the first two decans of
> Leo. And, Knight of Disks is the LAST decan of Leo, and the
> first two of Virgo.
>
> 2. People lacking 'moral bite' (in Crowley's words), should be
> getting Princesses, not Sun-sign cards. This suggests that people
> who are not well-defined astrologically, may be better represented
> by an elemental metaphor, or which there are apparently 40
> altogether (or 28 if you only count seven planets) because
> each element is sub-divided by planetary emphasis to account
> for quite a few personality types.
Damn, does this mean I have to go buy a Crowley deck and start learning
that one too? Yeah, I know......... don't bother to tell me..... I'll see
you when I get back from the bookstore!!!
Gracie
>
> Remember, tarot is NOT astrology, astrology provides a set of
> metaphors USED in tarot.
Agreed.
>
> (jk)
>
Leihla
> Alt.magick is for the techncial and scholarly discussion on
> magick and tends to react poorly to any thread on GD-related
> orders due to their tendency to degenerate in hard-to-kill bitch
> fights.
-------------
Really? We're unfamiliar with those here.
L
-------Emailed responses may be posted--------
-ZZ
>> Alt.magick is for the techncial and scholarly discussion on
>> magick and tends to react poorly to any thread on GD-related
>> orders due to their tendency to degenerate in hard-to-kill bitch
>> fights.
>-------------
>Really? We're unfamiliar with those here.
My sarcasm filter just went ping.
-ZZ
aurel...@yahoo.com
Tom Ace <cr...@best.comX> wrote:
> MLYoung wrote:
>
> > Aside from the problem with racism,
> > I think it makes the court cards harder
> > to read. Is that Prince of Wands a
> > Leo, or a red-haired dude? Personally,
> > I find seeing the court cards in terms
> > of astrology makes 'em a lot easier to
> > read. Focusing on superficial traits--such
>
Actually, the sun sign is the most important astrological factor. Even
without a knowledge of the position of the other planets, one can gain a lot
of insight into a person's character just by knowing his sun sign alone.
- Aurelian Summers
J. Karlin
> > Why?
> I started using it when the LB that came with my deck said it was for a
> woman of my age and coloring.
'age and coloring'?
I'd suggest you focus on something more pertinent than that.
> I kept with it after reading more about the
> astrological, personality connection because those meanings seemed more in
> keeping with myself.
This would be 'pop' astrology?
Again, the point of identifying with a particular card is not
always strictly astrological, and should REALLY NOT be limited
to a physical consideration.
I'd suggest you examine what Crowley says about court cards and
decide anew. It may be that you have correctly selected after all,
but these matters are not as simple (nor as complicated) as people
try to make them.
> > You're not trying to obtain an astrological 'totality' when
> > picking a sig, you're just trying to pick a base from which
> > to work. The sun sign WILL be important in a person's chart,
> > no matter how many other indications there may be---
>
> Yes, the sun sign is an important factor in some charts
No, in ALL charts. It's importance is simply not as obviously
expressed in some rather than others.
Let me put it this way, if you are really a Leo, as I believe you
indicated you were, your sun-sign, and the Sun, are very important
in your chart.
> but can often be
> misleading and downright inaccurate when used to describe someone.
Depends on the quality of the description.
> I am
> not saying that it is a non-valid choice for determining the sig. but that
> it is not an absolute.
Look, is it possible for you people to not break the world down
into---
1. what you feel is true.
2. THE ABSOLUTE which can not be accepted as such.
It's really a dreary way of dealing with things.
If I told you to put the car into drive to and press the
accelerator to go forward, would you want to tell me that's not
the ABSOLUTE ONLY choice for getting the card to go forward?
It's not a question of 'absolutes' so much as 'reasonable' and
'pertinent' choices.
> None of the factors are absolute when choosing a
> sig for a querant that we are not familiar with.
That's why we standardize the thing---you should not be struggling
over this kind of choice.
> In this situation, sometimes I go with the coloring thing,
'the coloring thing' is highly subjective, and comes attached to
some blatantly racist implications. You should drop it.
> This may seem a
> haphazard approach
Yes.
> but each sig that I choose, is chosen for reasons that
> seem crystal clear at that particular reading.
'seem'. You're working more on feeling than thought, more
on 'feelers' than 'thinkers'.
> I hesitate to get into the
> right way, wrong way debate
Why? Do you imagine there can BE NO wrong ways and ideas about
tarot?
> that seems to go on around here about just
> about everything. When the great scholars of that developed the Tarot,
> could not agree,
This stuff is usually not about scholarship or 'great scholars', it's
about traditions and prejudices which were peddled to the public
in lieu of actually teaching people tarot.
> I take that to mean that there are many different approaches
Most of which are complete bullshit.
> Damn, does this mean I have to go buy a Crowley deck and start learning
> that one too?
I don't know what that means (to you).
If you want to learn tarot you will do what is necessary to
learn it. If you don't want to learn tarot, but are merely interested
in plying a comfy hobby, you'll just do what 'feels' crystal clear
at any particular moment.
(jk)
J. Karlin
>
> J. Karlin wrote:
>
> > Reading does not have to be entirely void of
> > cold data to be honest and true.
>
> Not to take your comment out of context, but you may have answered my question
> before I ask it.
>
> Card reading is about simply that, reading cards ...
It is about 'simply' that, but not everyone agrees what that means.
> but this does not occur
> in a vacuum devoid of other influences.
Think about how little one gets out of great literature when he
is 20, and how much more it means to him when he is 40.
What you bring to the table (in terms of knowledge and experience) DOES
count. BUT, some people ONLY bring their accumulated and ever-hardening
prejudices, and that's not what tarot is about nor does it yield well to
prejudicial inquiries. And of course, as we know, SOME people merely
use their experience as a tool or weapon against the less-experienced
'subject' to try and con him.
> To what extent is nonverbal communication allowable /
You're in charge. You figure it out. 'allowable' for what
exactly? To read cards? To con the mark? To get a useful
answer to a question?
> advisable as a tool in assessing context during a reading?
I think it's fair to at least ask the person what their question
or concern is (of course, querents lie a lot).
(jk)
Simon
> > To what extent is nonverbal communication allowable /
>
> 'allowable' for what exactly? To read cards?
I use cards to read cards.
> To con the mark?
No ... Unless I can get a really good pound cake out of the deal.
> To get a useful answer to a question?
That's more what I was getting at.
> > advisable as a tool in assessing context during a reading?
>
> I think it's fair to at least ask the person what their question
> or concern is (of course, querents lie a lot).
I don't generally ask any questions. I don't perceive it as a querent's lying per
se, as much as it is that they have little specific idea, or are unable to
articulate precisely and succinctly what their 'real' concerns are. Their attitude
and 'body language' speak volumes, and more directly and honestly than their words.
A.K.
> I think it's fair to at least ask the person what their question
> or concern is (of course, querents lie a lot).
Too true. I have been stuck in a game of "test the psychic" several
times when reading tarot when I was first learning the basics of reading
and was eager to try out my knowledge on others.
Now I read only for friendds or people who ask me for serious advice (and
I do it for free).
But I am curious how people here deal with lying querants, especially
those of you who read proffesionally. I mean by this, how do you detect
lies. Do you rely primarily on body language, contradictions in what the
person is saying, the cards themselves? Have you found that when certain
cards or card combitnations appear it indicates a lying querant, or are
you tipped off more by the inconsistency between what you see in the cards
and what the querant is saying?
And how do you distinguish between someone who is lying to you and someone
who is in denial themselves?
Once you recognize that someone is lying, how do you react to it? Do you
confront them? Do you just go on with the reading?
I'd be interested to hear about your experiences.
Our Lady of the Yo Yo
MLYoung
>those of you who read proffesionally. I mean by this, how do you detect
>lies. Do you rely primarily on body language, contradictions in what the
>person is saying, the cards themselves? Have you found that when certain
>cards or card combitnations appear it indicates a lying querant, or are
>you tipped off more by the inconsistency between what you see in the cards
>and what the querant is saying?
I don't read professionally and I only
read when asked, so I doubt my
querents are lying. However, there
is a tendency to ask about some
surface concern when something
more intimate and important is really
at stake--basically, it shows up in the
reading--usually, in the form of cards
that allude to more powerful feelings
than the situation merits.
I once had a querent ask about a
writing block. I did a simple Celtic
Cross for her. All these cards indicating
despair and heartbreak showed up.
As she was a friend, after reading the
cards to answer her question, I looked
at one of the cards and said, "This is
about your divorce."
She just started crying. And, of course,
the writing block was rooted in feelings
about her divorce with which she
wasn't totally acknowledging.
I reread the cards with this in mind and
the overall reading fell into place.
Generally, I take a lot of time with any
card that doesn't seem to "fit"--it's
usually the key that something more
complex is going on.
>And how do you distinguish between someone who is lying to you and someone
>who is in denial themselves?
It's almost always the latter. But, then,
I don't do this professionally. You
can tell when someone's not taking the
reading seriously. I'll call people on this.
Frankly, reading's too much work to do
it for people who want to play games.
--margaret
J. Karlin
> But I am curious how people here deal with lying querants, especially
> those of you who read proffesionally. I mean by this, how do you detect
> lies.
Don't the cards reveal the truth? They are supposed to.
> Have you found that when certain
> cards or card combitnations appear it indicates a lying querant, or are
> you tipped off more by the inconsistency between what you see in the cards
> and what the querant is saying?
Sometimes people lie outright, to test the reader. Sometimes
they are confused themselves about what they really want to
know. If a reading is merely a synchronic summary of a confused
person's momentary focus, of course its pertinence (to what's
REALLY bothering the person) may be only superficial. By this
I mean that a lot of people figure---'hey, I've got this ONE
question I can ask the Magic 8-ball', and I'd better try to
ask it right and ask the right one, even though what I really
need to do is have the reader tell ME what I should be asking.'
That's the way a lot of people approach the thing---as if the
reading itself is a valuable commodity and so they have to make
a wise choice about how to exchange it. Of course, if they were
much given to making wise choices they wouldn't be searching out
the services of a fortune-teller in the first place.
SO, we sort of FORCE them to focus (some people even make a ritual
out of it) on A question or A concern, and what comes out may
instead reflect the ONLY concern the person really has, which
is that they are a generally confused person.
Consequently, if they ask a question about a job, but all that
spews out are Cups cards and Swords cards then either they
have odd mental dynamics dealing with material concerns OR
maybe their mind(s) are on something else.
Honestly, you don't need tarot cards to figure out most
people's problems---they are all pretty much the same and
pretty much a sad state of affairs (sometimes literally this).
They want some meaning to life when the fact is there may
not BE ANY that the person does not supply FOR HIMSELF.
> And how do you distinguish between someone who is lying to you and someone
> who is in denial themselves?
I would ask 'what's the difference'?
After all, you go to a fortune-teller and, IF the reader can actually
read, then the cards will reveal the truth to the reader, no matter
what the motives may be of the querent. So, the querent who thinks
he's putting one over on the reader is ALSO in denial.
> Once you recognize that someone is lying, how do you react to it? Do you
> confront them?
You don't have to slap them. But you could simply point out that your
sense is that what they asked about is not really their concern,
or that it may mask something else which the cards are now indicating.
Of course, in the hands of an artful dodger, it's easy to use THAT
technique to take advantage of the querent---you can ALWAYS say
'the cards are indicating something different' and just make
up any bullshit that you want.
That is why personal integrity is important in reading (even if
you are just reading for yourself). It's also why it's important
to learn HOW to read so you can know what 'integrity' even
means with respect to reading tarot cards.
(jk)
Gracie
J. Karlin <r3wi...@texas.net> wrote in article
> Gracie wrote:
>
> > > Why?
>
> > I started using it when the LB that came with my deck said it was for a
> > woman of my age and coloring.
>
> 'age and coloring'?
Yes, it said that the Queen of Swords was for an adult woman of Brown hair
and Eyes.
>
> I'd suggest you focus on something more pertinent than that.
I do now, I just gave the reasons for originally picking this card as a
representation of myself some 20 years ago
>
> > I kept with it after reading more about the
> > astrological, personality connection because those meanings seemed more
in
> > keeping with myself.
>
> This would be 'pop' astrology?
No, I have been an astrologer for longer than I have been doing Tarot.
>
> Again, the point of identifying with a particular card is not
> always strictly astrological, and should REALLY NOT be limited
> to a physical consideration.
You and I are making the same point here. The point is not to say there is
one and only one way to chose a Sig, it is important to pick one that fits
the circumstances of the person you are reading for.
>
> I'd suggest you examine what Crowley says about court cards and
> decide anew. It may be that you have correctly selected after all,
> but these matters are not as simple (nor as complicated) as people
> try to make them.
I do believe that the Queen of Swords is more appropriate for me as a Sig
(when I use one) than the Queen of Wands which is the traditional choice
for a Leo woman. My astrology chart totality is fixed and fire which is
about as Leo as a chart can get. If you need to see the chart for
confirmation I can send it to you. But, the solitary significance of the
Queen of Swords and the more intense aspects of the card meanings
(familiarity with sorrow, mourning, separation) make it more of a choice
for me. The efficiency of the wands Queen, the practicality is not one of
my great strengths <Grin>
> > > You're not trying to obtain an astrological 'totality' when
> > > picking a sig, you're just trying to pick a base from which
> > > to work. The sun sign WILL be important in a person's chart,
> > > no matter how many other indications there may be---
> >
> > Yes, the sun sign is an important factor in some charts
>
> No, in ALL charts. It's importance is simply not as obviously
> expressed in some rather than others.
No, not in all charts. In many charts the sun reflects an energy that is
almost subliminal in it's influence. If the sun is located in it's
detriment and other influences in the chart are more powerful, then the
totality of the chart can push the sun sign into a relatively minor role.
The most graphic example I can think of was a woman who was a Pisces (water
and mutable) The rest of her chart sythesized out into an Aries. She was
Cardinal and Fire energy in everything else in her chart. The only thing
water in her entire chart was the sun sign. Do you honestly think that the
sign of Pisces is an apt influence to base the choice of her sig?
>
> Let me put it this way, if you are really a Leo, as I believe you
> indicated you were, your sun-sign, and the Sun, are very important
> in your chart.
Yes the sun is powerful in MY chart and is in it's exaltation in Leo,
conjunct to Mars and the rising sign. This is a chart that gives an
example of how a strong sun sign can affect a chart. But again for the
reasons I list above, I still see the Queen of Swords as the proper choice
for my own readings when I use a significator.
>
> > but can often be
> > misleading and downright inaccurate when used to describe someone.
>
> Depends on the quality of the description.
Case in point is the recent discussion into the sign of Baddmojo. The
ability to pick someone's sun sign is no criteria for judging their
astrological knowledge. People often look more like their rising signs
which governs appearance and unless the sun is the predominant influence in
the chart, is not an accurate tool for describing the person. Someone may
be under a particularly strong natal return that is temporarily influencing
their behavior or personality.
>
> > I am
> > not saying that it is a non-valid choice for determining the sig. but
that
> > it is not an absolute.
>
> Look, is it possible for you people to not break the world down
> into---
"you people" were you responding to me or me as a part of a larger group?
>
> 1. what you feel is true.
>
> 2. THE ABSOLUTE which can not be accepted as such.
>
> It's really a dreary way of dealing with things.
I'm sorry if my personal choices are so dreary for you. I find them
fascinating (Though as a Leo, I am often fascinated by myself <grin> )
>
> If I told you to put the car into drive to and press the
> accelerator to go forward, would you want to tell me that's not
> the ABSOLUTE ONLY choice for getting the card to go forward?
Yes I would if I were out of gas and you were insisting that I use that
method for getting to the gas station.
>
> It's not a question of 'absolutes' so much as 'reasonable' and
> 'pertinent' choices.
>
> > None of the factors are absolute when choosing a
> > sig for a querant that we are not familiar with.
>
> That's why we standardize the thing---you should not be struggling
> over this kind of choice.
I am not struggling, and I agree that the standards are there to help us
out when we don't have other information to base the choice on. I was
addressing the attitude that there is one and only one way to choose a Sig.
I think there are times to be flexible rather than bound by one
particular tradition.
>
> > In this situation, sometimes I go with the coloring thing,
>
> 'the coloring thing' is highly subjective, and comes attached to
> some blatantly racist implications. You should drop it.
I should???? You are telling me what I 'should' do? I didn't think that
was your style!
I said that I 'sometimes' go with the coloring not that it was my method of
choice.
>
> > This may seem a
> > haphazard approach
>
> Yes.
>
> > but each sig that I choose, is chosen for reasons that
> > seem crystal clear at that particular reading.
>
> 'seem'. You're working more on feeling than thought, more
> on 'feelers' than 'thinkers'.
No I am not. There are different meanings associated with the sig's. I
have not read Crowley (I'm going to though, I never really cared for the
deck on aesthetic grounds but am gaining a new respect for the historical,
educational aspects of it) But, when one book tells you to choose a sig
based on personality traits, another on coloring and a third on
astrological signs, there is a ducks soup of information on each individual
card. In different readings, one particular meaning or symbolism will come
out as more fitting with that reading. If there were no human element in
the interpretation of the cards, then the computer would be the ultimate
card reader, just spitting out quotes and meanings on the cards.
> > I hesitate to get into the
> > right way, wrong way debate
>
> Why? Do you imagine there can BE NO wrong ways and ideas about
> tarot?
I definitely agree that some things proposed on this ng alone are flat out
wrong! There are many so-called readers that are blatantly spitting in the
face of Tarot tradition. I once met a young man who bragged about the fact
that he never studied any of the traditional meanings of the cards because
he didn't want to interfere with the 'pure meanings of the cards
themselves'.
That is far different from acknowledging the gray areas in Tarot
interpretation. Like you say in the FAQ, we need to read with scepticsm
and filter out the chaff. What I was addressing was the debate that you
'must' use the astrological form of determining the sig or you 'should' use
the coloring or you can only use the personality. I say there is a blend
of them all. There are times for each to be used and it is the judgement
call of the reader.
>
> > that seems to go on around here about just
> > about everything. When the great scholars of that developed the Tarot,
> > could not agree,
>
> This stuff is usually not about scholarship or 'great scholars', it's
> about traditions and prejudices which were peddled to the public
> in lieu of actually teaching people tarot.
>
> > I take that to mean that there are many different approaches
>
> Most of which are complete bullshit.
Agreed! But, some are not!
>
> > Damn, does this mean I have to go buy a Crowley deck and start learning
> > that one too?
>
> I don't know what that means (to you).
>
> If you want to learn tarot you will do what is necessary to
> learn it. If you don't want to learn tarot, but are merely interested
> in plying a comfy hobby, you'll just do what 'feels' crystal clear
> at any particular moment.
Damn, there is that wit again! I am buying the Crowley deck and book on my
next trip into town. As I have said in previous posts, I take the Tarot
very seriously. This ng is the first in depth discussion of the Crowley
deck that I have read that wasn't steeped in fear. I never cared much for
the art work and the leafing through the deck that I have done showed it to
be a bit dark for my taste, but if I can wade through Vickie Noble and the
Motherpeace Coaster deck ( I really loved that crack you made about it only
being good for beverage coasters!) tackling Crowley will at least be more
challenging with greater reward.
Be warned though, I will probably pester you endlessly with those
irritating novice questions about the deck.
Gracie
Shannon
Gracie wrote in message
<01bdbc08$46fd2f40$8bdd6420@default>...
>> > Yes, the sun sign is an important factor in some charts
>>
>> No, in ALL charts. It's importance is simply not as
obviously
>> expressed in some rather than others.
>
>No, not in all charts. In many charts the sun reflects an
energy that is
>almost subliminal in it's influence.
This is an interesting topic for me personally, and as it
does have some relevance to Tarot, I'd like to hear it
expanded. I'm a Gemini, but I don't feel like that sign
describes me well at all. The intellectual curiosity stuff
is fine, but the emotional aspects are all wrong. Geminis
are supposed to be afraid of commitment and tend toward
short-term relationships, right? Well, my biggest problems
in life have all come from the fact that I get way too
intense about people and don't let go, ever. (My greatest
satisfactions have probably stemmed from the same source.)
I have a small, intense circle of friends, all of whom are
very long-term. My inability to reconcile this with what
I'm told are the typical Gemini characteristics has made me
doubt astrology in general, though I'd like to learn it a
little better. In picking a sig for myself, I generally go
with the Page of Wands, because I am young, and because I'm
usually asking about relationship-of-self-to-world type
things.
What sig would you guys pick for me? And why?
--Shannon
MLYoung
>>>
>>> No, in ALL charts. It's importance is simply not as
>obviously
>>> expressed in some rather than others.
>>
>>No, not in all charts. In many charts the sun reflects an
>energy that is
>>almost subliminal in it's influence.
>
>This is an interesting topic for me personally, and as it
>does have some relevance to Tarot, I'd like to hear it
>expanded. I'm a Gemini, but I don't feel like that sign
>describes me well at all. The intellectual curiosity stuff
>is fine, but the emotional aspects are all wrong. Geminis
>are supposed to be afraid of commitment and tend toward
>short-term relationships, right? Well, my biggest problems
>in life have all come from the fact that I get way too
>intense about people and don't let go, ever.
other personal planets are in more stable
signs--a Scorpio or Cancer moon would
make for intense relationships. I know a
Gemini with a Scorpio asc. He's witty, flakey,
kidlike--Gemini traits--but he's stuck to
this one woman in this weird uncommited
relationship for ten years.
(My greatest
>satisfactions have probably stemmed from the same source.)
>I have a small, intense circle of friends, all of whom are
>very long-term. My inability to reconcile this with what
>I'm told are the typical Gemini characteristics has made me
>doubt astrology in general, though I'd like to learn it a
>little better. In picking a sig for myself, I
You really have to cast and read the
whole chart to get an idea whether
your astrological profile fits you. Your
Sun represents your ego, but your asc.
represents how you relate to the world
and your moon shows what kind of
situations make you feel secure.
You seem to be flexible and willing
to adapt and learn, which strikes me
as very much a mutable sign thing.
generally go
>with the Page of Wands, because I am young, and because I'm
>usually asking about relationship-of-self-to-world type
>things.
If you're a Gemini that should be a
Page or Princess of Swords if you
want to try astrological significators.
--margaret
Rhianna
>>> > Yes, the sun sign is an important factor in some charts
<snip>
>This is an interesting topic for me personally, and as it
>does have some relevance to Tarot, I'd like to hear it
>expanded. I'm a Gemini, but I don't feel like that sign
>describes me well at all.
That's because many people tend to label the signs without examining
the unique characteristics of the decanates of the Zodiac signs.
The decanate describes in degrees within a Zodiac chart the location
of stars in an individual's astrological pattern. I discuss this on
my site & with javascript buttons I describe online tarot card
readings for each sign of the Zodiac.
My method of card readings are aligned with the Hermetic theory of
Tarot. The Order of the Golden Dawn (which included as a member
Aleister Crowley) linked the tarot cards with the signs of the zodiac,
the elements and thye planets.
So you are a Gemini? The first decante of Gemini applies to May 21
through May 31 birthdates. The 2nd decanate is from June 1 through
June 10 and the 3rd decante of gemini applies to the birthdates from
June 11 through June 21. So which decante applies to you?
I would consider your decante before assigning your pictorial
representation which would either be the Princess of Swords, the Page
of Swords (some decks do not include the Princess) or depending on
your decanate & possibly considering your age as well, you might be
the Queen of Swords.
~Cheers~
Rhianna
Rhianna's Groovy Homepage(s)
Zodiac, stars, Tarot cards, Groovy fortunetelling, mystical fun stuff
http://www.pipeline.com/~rhianna/index.htm
Rhianna
I would like to apologize to this usenet group for my typographical
errors: "decante" is not a word; I meant to type "decanate" and
apologize for any confusion.
ilan pillemer
> I would consider your decante before assigning your pictorial
> representation which would either be the Princess of Swords, the Page
> of Swords (some decks do not include the Princess) or depending on
> your decanate & possibly considering your age as well, you might be
> the Queen of Swords.
hmmm. what is the difference between the page and the princess?
I mean in terms of what the card symbolises and not the fact that a page
is not a princess.
ilan pillemer
> one, face to face. To what extent is nonverbal communication allowable /
> advisable as a tool in assessing context during a reading?
>
what is non-verbal communication. Sign language?
little me
MLYoung
>I mean in terms of what the card symbolises and not the fact that a page
>is not a princess.
>
None.
--margaret
>
onebro...@my-dejanews.com
"Gracie" <Nos...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
> > J. Karlin <r3wi...@texas.net> wrote in article
> ><35BF1EE2...@texas.net>...
> > > Gracie wrote:
> >
>
> > > > You're not trying to obtain an astrological 'totality' when
> > > > picking a sig, you're just trying to pick a base from which
> > > > to work. The sun sign WILL be important in a person's chart,
> > > > no matter how many other indications there may be---
> > >
> > > Yes, the sun sign is an important factor in some charts
> >
> > No, in ALL charts. It's importance is simply not as obviously
> > expressed in some rather than others.
>
> No, not in all charts. In many charts the sun reflects an energy that is
> almost subliminal in it's influence. If the sun is located in it's
> detriment and other influences in the chart are more powerful, then the
> totality of the chart can push the sun sign into a relatively minor role.
> The most graphic example I can think of was a woman who was a Pisces (water
> and mutable) The rest of her chart sythesized out into an Aries. She was
> Cardinal and Fire energy in everything else in her chart. The only thing
> water in her entire chart was the sun sign. Do you honestly think that the
> sign of Pisces is an apt influence to base the choice of her sig?
JK is absolutely right, Gracie. The Sun in a person's chart is *always*--no
exceptions--of major importance. Don't confuse its ease of expression, or
lack thereof, with its importance and influence. Being the central point of
the person's consciousness & individuality, around which all the other
characteristics of the person (as symbolized by the planets in signs &
houses) revolve, the Sun by definition *must* be THE most important factor.
To misunderstand this is to seriously skew the interpretation of a chart.
You mentioned, in your above example, that the chart "synthesized out" into
an Aries. I am assuming you used a weighting system--assigning 1 point per
planet, AC, MC and 2 points each for Sun & Moon? That's the usual method,
anyway. The very fact that the Sun & Moon always receive 2 points to the
other planets' 1 should indicate to you the importance of the Lights IN ALL
CHARTS. I suppose a discussion of your example chart is beyond the bounds of,
and not necessary to, the present discussion on choosing significators, but
I'll just say that when you talk about pushing the "sun sign into a
relatively minor role", you're talking about *observable* characteristics.
Just because you can't readily observe a thing, don't assume that it isn't
playing a powerful and central role. You seldom see the producer of a play,
but the play wouldn't go on if not for him/her.
OneBrownMouse
-----
All elements agree in sweet and stormy blend--
Midwife to winds that send me home.
-----
Simon
> what is non-verbal communication. Sign language?
Could be, I guess. Actually, I was referring more to what is commonly called
'body language' - mannerisms, physical posturing, etc.
>
>
> little me
ilan pillemer
Thats what I thought.
> --margaret
little me
>
> >
>
>
>
>
Mary Cain
>what is non-verbal communication. Sign language?
I think the term used here is "cold read". It is body language, facial
expressions, gender, race, manner of dress, what jewelry is worn,
cosmetics, etc.
>little me
Karen Cain
late...@webtv.net
Gracie
onebro...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
<6prph7$g6k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> In article
<01bdbc08$46fd2f40$8bdd6420@default>,
> "Gracie" <Nos...@email.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> JK is absolutely right, Gracie. The Sun in a
person's chart is *always*--no
> exceptions--of major importance. Don't confuse
its ease of expression, or
> lack thereof, with its importance and
influence. Being the central point of
> the person's consciousness & individuality,
around which all the other
> characteristics of the person (as symbolized by
the planets in signs &
> houses) revolve, the Sun by definition *must*
be THE most important factor.
> To misunderstand this is to seriously skew the
interpretation of a chart.
I agree that the sun is an important factor in
the charts ( one of many) I just am pointing out
that it is not always the best choice for
selecting a sig. The person that is sitting in
front of you in some cases is not best
represented by their astrological sun sign. I am
not trying to say that the sun is not a powerful
influence in the chart. It is, but in the
choosing of a sig (this is alt Tarot, not alt.
Astrology) I think that to insist on the
astrological method is not accurate all the time.
I think it is the role of the reader to
determine which sig best represents the querent
in front of them. Yes, it is important to have
the understanding of the different methods of
selection that different authors have used, but
all I was trying to say was that you need to be
able to choose a sig based on the method that is
most appropriate for your querent. I am a case
in point. I am about as leo as they come. My
chart has a 7 planet stellium in the 12th house.
Leo is my rising sign and most of the planets in
the stellium are in Leo. My sun is also in leo,
conjunct the ascendent. Yet, I still feel that
the Queen of Swords is a more appropriate choice
for my sig. when I use one. I have used the
birthdate/astrological method for choosing the
sig on a new querent but have run into the
situation where the querent doesn't want to give
out that information, they are sometimes afraid
that it is a type of cheating. This is most
evident in the 'test the reader' sort of querent.
>
> You mentioned, in your above example, that the
chart "synthesized out" into
> an Aries. I am assuming you used a weighting
system--assigning 1 point per
> planet, AC, MC and 2 points each for Sun &
Moon? That's the usual method,
> anyway. The very fact that the Sun & Moon
always receive 2 points to the
> other planets' 1 should indicate to you the
importance of the Lights IN ALL
> CHARTS.
Okay then by that logic, the moon is equal in
influence to the sun sign, if the moon is in a
sign that is more strongly represented in the
chart; by the point system alone, that sign would
carry more weight in the totality of the chart
than a 2 point sun standing alone.
>I suppose a discussion of your example chart is
beyond the bounds of,
> and not necessary to, the present discussion on
choosing significators, but
> I'll just say that when you talk about pushing
the "sun sign into a
> relatively minor role", you're talking about
*observable* characteristics.
> Just because you can't readily observe a thing,
don't assume that it isn't
> playing a powerful and central role. You seldom
see the producer of a play,
> but the play wouldn't go on if not for him/her.
I never assume anything. I am going to hold to
my original position though that the sun sign is
not the absolute, best, only, cast in stone, no
other options considered, method to picking a
sig, There are exceptions to the rule and a
certain amount of flexibility on that issue does
not necessarily make anyone an air head, psychic,
intuitive, never open a book on tarot, new age
reader with no respect for the tradition of the
Tarot.
Gracie
onebro...@my-dejanews.com
"Gracie" <Nos...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
> onebro...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
> <6prph7$g6k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >
> > JK is absolutely right, Gracie. The Sun in a
> person's chart is *always*--no
> > exceptions--of major importance.
>
> I agree that the sun is an important factor in
> the charts ( one of many) I just am pointing out
> that it is not always the best choice for
> selecting a sig. The person that is sitting in
> front of you in some cases is not best
> represented by their astrological sun sign. I am
> not trying to say that the sun is not a powerful
> influence in the chart. It is, but in the
> choosing of a sig (this is alt Tarot, not alt.
> Astrology) I think that to insist on the
> astrological method is not accurate all the time.
It's not a matter of "insistence" (though I still disagree with your
assessment of "accuracy"), merely one of simplicity. IMO, choosing a
significator should not require any internal debate. The Sun's sign is always
important, describing the individual's basic "ego", so choosing the sig by
sun sign attribution is always appropriate, and always accurate in
representing the querant. It doesn't have to be a personality profile. I
mean, really, what would happen if the sig wasn't the "best" or "right"
choice? Would the tarot cards get "confused"? I'm pretty sure that the sig is
more for the benefit of the reader than for that of the cards, so it would
make sense that the reader should be comfortable with their selection of sig.
On that point we can agree (can't we?).
Is it (the sun sign method) the "absolute, best, only, cast in stone, no
other options considered, method to picking a sig"? Well, I think it's the
best, and I don't generally consider other options because frankly, I don't
think it's worth the trouble, but obviously it's not the absolute, only, cast
in stone method. I certainly am not *insisting* that you agree with me.
>There are exceptions to the rule and a
> certain amount of flexibility on that issue does
> not necessarily make anyone an air head, psychic,
> intuitive, never open a book on tarot, new age
> reader with no respect for the tradition of the
> Tarot.
> Gracie
>
Geez, I hope you don't feel like I've implied any of those things, because
that was no part of my thinking when I posted previously.
OneBrownMouse
-----
All elements agree in sweet and stormy blend,
Midwife to winds that send me home
J. Karlin
> I do believe that the Queen of Swords is more appropriate for me as a Sig
> (when I use one) than the Queen of Wands which is the traditional choice
> for a Leo woman. My astrology chart totality is fixed and fire which is
> about as Leo as a chart can get.
I pity you.
> If you need to see the chart for
> confirmation I can send it to you.
That's OK. Leos are always so proud of their little charts---they
figure everyone will want to admire the 'uniqueness' of
the silly thing.
> But, the solitary significance of the
> Queen of Swords and the more intense aspects of the card meanings
> (familiarity with sorrow, mourning, separation) make it more of a choice
> for me.
So you figure Leo is real bright and childishly cheery and
that can't be you?
I've known some pretty dark Leos in my time.
> The efficiency of the wands Queen, the practicality is not one of
> my great strengths <Grin>
Well, actually, and depending on exactly when your birthday is,
it is likely the Prince of Wands who would be your card---(it rules the
last 10 degrees of Cancer and the first 20 of Leo).
Most of the Wands cards (in Crowley's view) are
not very practical and only stable in so far as their
ephemeral natures appear to pause for a moment before
once again dancing and shimmering out of balance (and
those are the 'GOOD' ones).
> > > Yes, the sun sign is an important factor in some charts
> >
> > No, in ALL charts. It's importance is simply not as obviously
> > expressed in some rather than others.
>
> No, not in all charts. In many charts the sun reflects an energy that is
> almost subliminal in it's influence.
That's what I said, but 'subliminal' only means 'below the threshold of
conscious perception.'
There are a lot of people who muddle through with THAT problem,
that what they truly are is 'below the threshold of conscious
perception.'
> If the sun is located in it's
> detriment and other influences in the chart are more powerful, then the
> totality of the chart
You shouldn't make too much of 'totalities', that's really just
a basic guide to a chart, it's not a determining factor about
much of anything. You still have to look at the aspect dynamics
and all kinds of factors but even when the Sun is poorly aspected
or UNaspected it's still going to be important.
I think you're just jealous and figure you 'own' the Sun.
Lots of Leos think that way.
> Do you honestly think that the
> sign of Pisces is an apt influence to base the choice of her sig?
I'd have to examine her chart. Adjacent signs have complex relationships,
so it is not so odd or unusual that a person with a basic Piscean
center expresses themselves actively and energetically.
Astrology, like tarot, is a complicated thing, and one has to
look at lots of indications before making any conclusions about
how a chart might express itself (in a person).
> > Let me put it this way, if you are really a Leo, as I believe you
> > indicated you were, your sun-sign, and the Sun, are very important
> > in your chart.
>
> Yes the sun is powerful in MY chart and is in it's exaltation in Leo,
> conjunct to Mars and the rising sign.
How very exalted for you.
> > > but can often be
> > > misleading and downright inaccurate when used to describe someone.
> >
> > Depends on the quality of the description.
>
> Case in point is the recent discussion into the sign of Baddmojo. The
> ability to pick someone's sun sign is no criteria for judging their
> astrological knowledge. People often look more like their rising signs
> which governs appearance
Well, that's what (some) people claim anyway.
> and unless the sun is the predominant influence in
> the chart, is not an accurate tool for describing the person.
I'd probably tend to shy away from that sort of thing.
> > Look, is it possible for you people to not break the world down
> > into---
>
> "you people" were you responding to me or me as a part of a larger group?
An unspecified you-all.
To whom it may concern.
> > 1. what you feel is true.
> >
> > 2. THE ABSOLUTE which can not be accepted as such.
> >
> > It's really a dreary way of dealing with things.
>
> I'm sorry if my personal choices are so dreary for you. I find them
> fascinating (Though as a Leo, I am often fascinated by myself <grin> )
One could never have told by the amount of blathering you do
about it in this post.
> > If I told you to put the car into drive to and press the
> > accelerator to go forward, would you want to tell me that's not
> > the ABSOLUTE ONLY choice for getting the card to go forward?
> Yes I would if I were out of gas
Or didn't have any tires or in fact were only pretending to
BE in a car.
Leos are not terribly pertinent souls sometimes.
> > That's why we standardize the thing---you should not be struggling
> > over this kind of choice.
> I am not struggling,
Of course not, that would, after all, be undignified, right?
> and I agree that the standards are there to help us
I believe you mean to say 'serve' us.
> I think there are times to be flexible rather than bound by one
> particular tradition.
Especially when you've not established the particular tradition.
> > > In this situation, sometimes I go with the coloring thing,
> >
> > 'the coloring thing' is highly subjective, and comes attached to
> > some blatantly racist implications. You should drop it.
> I should???? You are telling me what I 'should' do? I didn't think that
> was your style!
Then you've not observed very well or closely.
Life is short. And there ARE shoulds in this life and in tarot.
> > > but each sig that I choose, is chosen for reasons that
> > > seem crystal clear at that particular reading.
> >
> > 'seem'. You're working more on feeling than thought, more
> > on 'feelers' than 'thinkers'.
>
> No I am not. There are different meanings associated with the sig's. I
> have not read Crowley
When you've had a chance we'll talk more about this.
> >
> > Why? Do you imagine there can BE NO wrong ways and ideas about
> > tarot?
>
> I definitely agree that some things proposed on this ng alone are flat out
> wrong! There are many so-called readers that are blatantly spitting in the
> face of Tarot tradition.
Well, at lot of what we argue about here is what even constitutes
'tradition' and why should anyone care about it.
A lot of pomos want 'us' to be accepting of them and theirs even
though they are not accepting of anything even remotely suggesting
a 'should'. The problem is that what is interesting about tarot,
really interesting, is a lot about learning the shoulds, and
the true merit and value of them, so you can then think about
the coulds. Too many people want to skip the discipline of
learning tarot and just be a mysterious and powerful cartomancier
RIGHT NOW!!
> I once met a young man who bragged about the fact
> that he never studied any of the traditional meanings of the cards because
> he didn't want to interfere with the 'pure meanings of the cards
> themselves'.
Well, he must have fucking cloned himself, cause he shows up
here with all kinds of different names about 10 times a month
at least.
> That is far different from acknowledging the gray areas in Tarot
> interpretation. Like you say in the FAQ, we need to read with scepticsm
> and filter out the chaff.
Did I say to 'filter out the chaff'? I think I just say 'read
skeptically'. I don't say what I think one SHOULD do with the
results of having done so.
I don't want people to get the idea I'm telling them what to
do. It's best they are left unaware of that fact.
> What I was addressing was the debate that you
> 'must' use the astrological form of determining the sig
No one MUST do anything except die. One SHOULD use the astrological
method for determining a sig (if he's not just going to do it 'cold'
---which is what I prefer).
> Motherpeace Coaster deck ( I really loved that crack you made about it only
> being good for beverage coasters!)
I wonder if that's ever gotten back to Noble.
I hope she would think it was funny, but that would not be
par for the reactions of tarotiers to what jk says.
Some day, if you want to read something REALLY brutal, I'll
post the collected 'Greer Files'.
(jk)
J. Karlin
> >No, not in all charts. In many charts the sun reflects an
> energy that is
> >almost subliminal in it's influence.
>
> This is an interesting topic for me personally, and as it
> does have some relevance to Tarot, I'd like to hear it
> expanded. I'm a Gemini, but I don't feel like that sign
> describes me well at all.
I'm sure that's especially true after the beating they've
been taking around here the last couple of days.
I've never met a Gemini I didn't like. I've quite a few
I wouldn't trust, but that's another consideration entirely.
> The intellectual curiosity stuff
> is fine, but the emotional aspects are all wrong. Geminis
> are supposed to be afraid of commitment and tend toward
> short-term relationships, right?
Not necessarily, they just have a different view of the
meaning and value of committment than do most other human
beings. But all air signs are sluts (socially or literally).
It's in their nature. They like people---sometimes a little
too easily and too much.
The trade-off is supposed to be then a lack of emotional
depth and passion (we're talking Romeo and Juliet pathologicial
love-you-to-DEATH kind of passion) in Air signs. Supposedly, a very
Air-focused chart-person would not get along with, nor be
able to understand the depth of feeling, of a strongly
Watery person. Of course, the Air sign would disagree that
he was lacking passion, he would argue (a lot) that he
was just as passionate as the next person (and the next person
and the next person) but the point is that he would not have
a clue about how the world looks and feels to a Scorpio, for
example. So, when the Scorpio seethes with jealous rage because
the Gemini wants to have 'other friends', the Gemini just sees
him as a obsessive personality and someone trying to suppress
her natural urge to bond (and 'communicate') with the WHOLE FUCKING
WORLD!!!
These are merely generalizations of course, again, the chart
has to be examined in detail to say anything safely specific
about it (assuming one believes in astrology anyway).
> Well, my biggest problems
> in life have all come from the fact that I get way too
> intense about people
'way too intense about people' is something a Gemini would
complain about.
> (My greatest
> satisfactions have probably stemmed from the same source.)
> I have a small, intense circle of friends,
How small is this 'circle'?
> What sig would you guys pick for me? And why?
Have you looked in Crowley's descriptions? Which one seems
right to you? 'Knight of Swords' is the 'usual' Gemini card.
(jk)
MLYoung
>I've known some pretty dark Leos in my time.
>
>
I once read that it's one of the signs
with a propensity for suicide when
badly afflicted--has to do with the
focus and need to express the ego.
I think it's also, like Scorpio and Pisces,
one of the signs prone to tragedy of
some sort, though Leo's the strongest
and most vital sign.
>Well, actually, and depending on exactly when your birthday is,
>it is likely the Prince of Wands who would be your card---(it rules the
>last 10 degrees of Cancer and the first 20 of Leo).
Okay, Gracie, are you swift and strong?
Sometimes impulsive, sometimes easily
led by external influences and prey,
in small matters, to indecision? Do you
violently express your opinion, even if
you don't hold that strongly? Are you
secretly slow in making a decision, considering all sides? Are you noble
and just, prone to boasting, but
laughing at yourself for doing so? Are
you romantic and are you an "omniverous
joker"?
etc., etc.
>I'd have to examine her chart. Adjacent signs have complex relationships,
>so it is not so odd or unusual that a person with a basic Piscean
>center expresses themselves actively and energetically.
I knew a Leo with a strong Piscean
influence. She was very droopy and
depressed, but extravagantly so with
all sorts of dramatic, misfired romances
that would have left a sensitive Pisces
hiding out. She didn't have
the usual Leo bounce,
but she was rather theatrical depressed--
it was sort of hard to ignore. In many
ways, the Pisces aspect was a lot easier
to spot, but she didn't, on the other hand,
have certain Piscean indicators--there
was no confusion about where she stopped
and others began. She had no real empathy
or interest in anyone else. Nor, unlike
some Pisces I've known, did she seem to
be emotionally shutting down to avoid
feeling too much empathy. And, no,
she didn't have Piscean eyes.
>> Yes the sun is powerful in MY chart and is in it's exaltation in Leo,
>> conjunct to Mars and the rising sign.
>
>How very exalted for you.
And how very, very Leo to tell us . . .
--margaret (who never has a chance to
guess Leos--they tell you first.)
MLYoung
>I'm sure that's especially true after the beating they've
>been taking around here the last couple of days.
>
>I've never met a Gemini I didn't like. I've
You like flirts. Geminis are excellent flirts.
quite a few
>I wouldn't trust, but that's another consideration entirely.
As the person who led Gemini
bashing, I feel I should say I rather
like them myself.
>
>Not necessarily, they just have a different view of the
>meaning and value of committment than do most other human
>beings. But all air signs are sluts (socially or literally).
>It's in their nature. They like people---sometimes a little
>too easily and too much.
>
>The trade-off is supposed to be then a lack of emotional
>depth and passion (we're talking Romeo and Juliet pathologicial
>love-you-to-DEATH kind of passion) in Air signs. Supposedly, a very
>Air-focused chart-person would not get along with, nor be
>able to understand the depth of feeling, of a strongly
>Watery person. Of course, the Air sign would disagree that
>he was lacking passion, he would argue (a lot) that he
>was just as passionate as the next person (and the next person
>and the next person) but the point is that he would not have
>a clue about how the world looks and feels to a Scorpio, for
>example. So, when the Scorpio seethes with jealous rage because
>the Gemini wants to have 'other friends', the Gemini just sees
>him as a obsessive personality and someone trying to suppress
>her natural urge to bond (and 'communicate') with the WHOLE FUCKING
>WORLD!!!
My own experience with airy types is
a little different. They seem to have
plenty of feelings--they just don't consider
them real or important. As a result,
the water-light ones tend to be clueless
about their emotional motivations--li'l
Cro being an example of that. In other
words, when an air sign argues about
doing dishes, he or she really thinks its
about doing dishes while the water sign
knows it's really about emotional neglect--
though often this is a sort of incoherent
intuition.
>
>> Well, my biggest problems
>> in life have all come from the fact that I get way too
>> intense about people
>
>'way too intense about people' is something a Gemini would
>complain about.
Hee-hee, very true. Scorpios figure
that being too intense is the only way
to go--not that they can help it.
--margaret
>(jk)
>
>
lr...@concentric.net
Libra) I can assure you that SOME Geminis are capable of actual real
feelings (more so than a certain Scorpio ex-boyfriend of mine). One
characteristic you haven't mentioned though is the increased possibility
of being involved in two relationships at the same time. LS
J. Karlin
>
> Hi-since I AM a Gemini, with Mercury also in Gemini ( & with the Moon in
> Libra) I can assure you that SOME Geminis are capable of actual real
> feelings
Told you, see, they want to argue about it.
> (more so than a certain Scorpio ex-boyfriend of mine).
And discount the possibility that the useless Scorpio had
any REAL feelings.
> One
> characteristic you haven't mentioned though is the increased possibility
> of being involved in two relationships at the same time.
I mentioned it---I said you were all sluts.
(jk)
J. Karlin
> --margaret (who never has a chance to
> guess Leos--they tell you first.)
They know you want to know---better than being 'psychic'.
(jk)
lr...@concentric.net
>
> lr...@concentric.net wrote:
> >
> > Hi-since I AM a Gemini, with Mercury also in Gemini ( & with the Moon in
> > Libra) I can assure you that SOME Geminis are capable of actual real
> > feelings
>
> Told you, see, they want to argue about it.
I don't want to argue, I want you to agree with me.
>
> > (more so than a certain Scorpio ex-boyfriend of mine).
>
> And discount the possibility that the useless Scorpio had
> any REAL feelings.
I never said he was useless. And he's the one who insists he doesn't
have feelings.
>
> > One
> > characteristic you haven't mentioned though is the increased possibility
> > of being involved in two relationships at the same time.
>
> I mentioned it---I said you were all sluts.
I never denied that! (I was the one defending the phone sex lines in
prior posts)
>
> (jk)
ok, I know they said you made your sign public already, but my computer
doesn't have the memory to do a search-so if you don't mind making it
public again, what's your sign? (such a cliche, but I'm curious) LS
J. Karlin
> > Told you, see, they want to argue about it.
> I don't want to argue, I want you to agree with me.
Agreement is sex for a Gemini---mind-melding and all that.
> > And discount the possibility that the useless Scorpio had
> > any REAL feelings.
> I never said he was useless. And he's the one who insists he doesn't
> have feelings.
That's what Scorpios do. It's a control thing. Sometimes, if they
are REALLY not very self-aware, they will even believe it.
But, it's just that they realize the implications of the depth
of their feeling and definitely don't want anyone else knowing
about it---especially a jabbermouth Air sign.
> > I mentioned it---I said you were all sluts.
>
> I never denied that! (I was the one defending the phone sex lines in
> prior posts)
> >
> > (jk)
> ok, I know they said you made your sign public already, but my computer
> doesn't have the memory to do a search-
Even on Deja News? What do you have, a calculator? Actually, this
'confession' was so long ago I think it might not be on Deja.
> so if you don't mind making it
> public again, what's your sign?
I think some Gemini invented that line---back in 1974 or
something.
I think my sign is obvious.
(jk)
MLYoung
Not to mention--oh, horrors--that I
might confuse them with a Taurus or
Capricorn. Shudder.
--margaret
>
>(jk)
MLYoung
>> Libra) I can assure you that SOME Geminis are capable of actual real
>> feelings
>
<g> Note, too, that I didn't say they
lacked real feelings, more that they
don't readily acknowledge what
those feelings are--especially the
unpleasant ones. Me, jealoous? Never!!!
>
>> (more so than a certain Scorpio ex-boyfriend of mine).
>
>And discount the possibility that the useless Scorpio had
>any REAL feelings.
Scorpios specialize in unpleasant
emotions.
>
>> One
>> characteristic you haven't mentioned though is the increased possibility
>> of being involved in two relationships at the same time.
>
>I mentioned it---I said you were all sluts.
And here I thought I was being nice.
--margaret
>
>(jk)
>
>
>Subject: Re: of sun signs and significators
>Path:
>lobby01.news.aol.com!newstf02.news.aol.com!portc01.blue.aol.com!news-peer
.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news-xfer.netaxs.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.
giganews.com.POSTED!
Don and Angie
ilan pillemer wrote in message ...
>>
>> I think my sign is obvious.
>>
>> (jk)
>>
>
I would guess Jess as a Sagittarius. Mostly because of his harsh
truthfulness : ).
If his sun sign is something else... I would bet there is a strong Sag..
influence elsewhere in his chart.
Keep in mind that I am really an amateur at astrology... so jk... am I
close??
-----Angie
(or I could be projecting : P )
Mary Cain
>I mentioned it---I said you were all sluts.
Oh, I thought she meant the "useless scorpio ex"
I was going to say, hon, that isn't a possibility, it's a probability
--- if not a definate!!
>(jk)
Karen Cain
late...@webtv.net
lr...@concentric.net
>
>
> Agreement is sex for a Gemini---mind-melding and all that.
so by that reasoning, I was really asking you to have sex with me??
>
> I think my sign is obvious.
I don't. You're more complex than that. LS
lr...@concentric.net
>
> And here I thought I was being nice.
>
> --margaret
You were. So can I ask you what JK's sign is, or has he sworn you to
secrecy? And have you made your sign public? Incidentally, thanks for
your many interesting & informative posts on tarot and on astrology.
(Now please give us "gossipy" air-signs some inside info.on jk-he's so
mysterious sometimes) Thanks,LS
lr...@concentric.net
>
> >I mentioned it---I said you were all sluts.
>
> Oh, I thought she meant the "useless scorpio ex"
> I was going to say, hon, that isn't a possibility, it's a probability
> --- if not a definate!!
I know. That's why I said he wasn't useless. LS
ilan pillemer
> I think my sign is obvious.
>
>
Libra?
MLYoung
><HTML><PRE>>
>> I think my sign is obvious.
>>
>> (jk)
>>
>Libra?
The sign of harmony?
--margaret
MLYoung
>secrecy?
He doesn't have to. I know better
than to spoil his fun.
>And have you made your sign
>public?
Not in alt.tarot.
>Incidentally, thanks for
>your many interesting & informative posts on >tarot and on astrology.
You're welcome.
>(Now please give us "gossipy" air-signs some inside info.on jk-he's so
>mysterious sometimes) Thanks,LS
Come, come, figuring it out is half the
fun.
Happy hunting,
--margaret (who laughed when she learned
jk's sign)
>
>
Simon
> Come, come, figuring it out is half the fun.
Well ... presented with the disclaimer that astrology is certainly not my
strong suit, and with the understanding that at least 1/4 of the
astrological signs have already been suggested ... my guess would be that
jk is a Capricorn ... for he is nothing if not an old goat ... <g>