Symbolism in the RWS 6 of Cups

ravenest

But it's the combination of all the symbols that creates the Universal Pantacle. Individually each symbol stands for a definite category of idea. No one is disputing about their width of scope! But each individual symbol isn't inclusive of every single idea. There has to be division and demarcation between the individual parts. If each symbol were a pantacle in it's own right you would have a Tarot deck composed of a single card.

This is my view (if I understand you rightly) ... yes, it would be one card ...that is what I mean when I say that without 'boundaries' it all turns to slush ... becoming one card is ... 'neater ' :) .


One example (using Jung's archetypal / collective unconscious idea ) ; we all have a related understanding what a crescent moon shape represents (unless we have never seen a night sky -which would be very unusual). One person might see 'moon' or it might represent phases, or a lunar month, or the fertility cycle, or the tides or a horned creature or or or .... now if I say ... running , that is out of the 'Moon field' .

If I say, 'running' because once I was chased by a bull and had to run ... that is a personal association and not a part of the symbolism of the crescent moon shape.

Again; its up to the person having the reading to make associations, the tarot readers job, as I see it, is to supply interpretation and meaning of symbols as they interrelate in a reading, not to project their personal associations into the reading (unless it is their reading)
 

Aeon418

I go with a card representing a range of meanings around certain themes.
Indulge me for a moment and set personal meanings to one side for a while. Where does the theme come from? Is it imposed by the reader on the art. Or has the artist tried to express a theme through the language of form, colour, and symbol to which meaning may then be applied by the reader.

I'm asking because I'm not altogether clear on where you stand on this issue. After our (+ Scion) previous discussion on the Thoth Tarot I came away with the impression that you thought the artist/creator had little or no input in this area. They just splashed a canvas with random blobs of paint completely without rhyme or reason. Only later could a reader come along and impose order on this artistic Tarot chaos. The original intent of the deck creator was irrelevant and superfluous.

In my opinion that horse has already bolted. Why do I see a certain kind of meaning in one card and not in another? I contend that the deck creator has already set the stage for that to happen. Not in the fine details of personal meaning, but in the broad strokes that direct attention, thought and feeling in particular directions. I think there is intention and purpose behind this and not random free association.

Your thoughts? :)
 

Aeon418

This is my view (if I understand you rightly) ... yes, it would be one card ...that is what I mean when I say that without 'boundaries' it all turns to slush ... becoming one card is ... 'neater ' :) .
Yep, just slap The Fool down on the table and let the verbal diarrhea flow. Ka-ching! $25. Who needs the rest of the deck! It's all right there in that card.... somewhere. :laugh:
 

Zephyros

I wouldn't actually call any of the GD decks "Tarot" at all... as you mentioned that the problem was in capping them both under the same umbrella term. I don't know what to call them though.
 

Michael Sternbach

Aeon,

You seem to assume that Waite had a precisely defined set of meanings in mind that Pixie then merely painted on paper. This is certainly true, to a degree. However, works of art (be they painted, written or what not) often take on a life of their own.

Think perhaps of a book like the Tao Te Ching... Meanings upon meanings in every sentence, stuff for endless contemplation and, surely, also debate regarding what Lao Tzu 'really' meant. Fact is, with such (and lesser) works not even the artist is fully aware of all the implications of what their inspiration leads them to create.

Now, Waite was in fact somewhat of an encyclopedist, but he wouldn't have been an occultist worth his money if what he was trying to create would have been the result a head trip alone. Most certainly, his artist was, well, exactly that, an artist, and a psychic one too.

To say it yet another way, a work like the RWS is as much a right cerebral hemisphere thing as it is a left cerebral hemisphere thing. (There are parallels to Crowley and Harris, as an aside.)
 

Aeon418

You seem to assume that Waite had a precisely defined set of meanings in mind that Pixie then merely painted on paper. This is certainly true, to a degree. However, works of art (be they painted, written or what not) often take on a life of their own.
Are you referring to post #132? This relates to an old discussion from several years back about the Thoth Tarot. That deck is far more Golden Dawn system specific than the RWS. One bone of contention was the importance of the influence of the deck creators and their intent behind the symbolism used on the cards. Some thought it was significant others didn't.
 

Zephyros

Just an aside, I put my foot in my mouth and got confused with the Four of Cups in my comments. Carry on.
 

Michael Sternbach

Are you referring to post #132? This relates to an old discussion from several years back about the Thoth Tarot. That deck is far more Golden Dawn system specific than the RWS. One bone of contention was the importance of the influence of the deck creators and their intent behind the symbolism used on the cards. Some thought it was significant others didn't.

Indeed your question to Mary in that post made me think this. Which sort of ties in with other views expressed by you. Please clarify if my assumption is wrong.
 

ravenest

Yep, just slap The Fool down on the table and let the verbal diarrhea flow. Ka-ching! $25. Who needs the rest of the deck! It's all right there in that card.... somewhere. :laugh:

Nah ... people wont like that ... we have to give em their moneys worth.

Use a whole deck and treat every card like a one card (The Fool) deck with any meaning for any card.

[ Thats how the NSW government works ... three heads of the ' Three Separate Powers', but one has all three 'separate' powers ( like a triple 'double crown of Egypt') ... but people dont like that so they appointed three ministars ministers to sit under the one triple hat that is supposed to be three separate ones .... slush . ]
 

Zephyros

Well, it could be argued there really is only one card anyway, the Ace of Wands. All the others are elaborations on it. ;)