Escaping from the Tree of Life?

Richard

Do we have to escape from the ToL? What do you think?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukwodOqlTHU

Escape from a metaphor? :confused: If that guy would rather read tarot without mapping it onto the ToL, he's free to do so. There's no need to justify it with Kabbalahbabble.

Maybe he's been reading too much. In The Fellowship of the Ring, Frodo and gang get trapped by Old Man Willow, but they are rescued by Tom Bombadil.

I guess if you attain the unlikely grade of Ipsissimus (10=1) :!:, the only place left to go is off the Tree and up into the Void, but Paul Hughes-Barlow is not even a member of the Golden Dawn (or so he says).
 

Richard

I could not quite grasp what he is talking about, so wondered what others think about it. :)
Here is the follow-up vid by him, which I will try to view later in the day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ua3_yFkYzlc

I just watched it. He starts out by mumbling something incoherent about the fact that you can't really escape the ToL. (Probably someone had tried to correct his misconception.) Then he evasively changes the subject and gets even more incoherent trying to explain the relationship between "consciousness" and tarot reading. I get the impression that he's a little out of his depth with this psycho-philosophical stuff.
 

Zephyros

I get the impression that he's a little out of his depth with this psycho-philosophical stuff.

He is. I've watched others of his videos over time, and I always get that same feeling. He just says he is knowledgeable, but when it comes to the nitty-gritty, that's where he often falls apart. Other things he "knows" but fails to understand them in their greater context and significance, especially things relating to GD lore (and of course, Quabalah).

If you want to see some great comedy, try watching his review of the Book of Thoth. He looks as of he's leafing through it for the first time, really he does. I could overlook the mumbling (I stutter myself, I know how speech impediments work) if there was anything of worth behind it, but every time I watch him I find myself banging my head against a wall.

Both of the above videos just display a deplorable lack of understanding of what the Tree is, why it is, and how it works. One does not escape the Tree any more than one escapes a map of the world by taking a walk around the neighborhood. He also seems to have a limited, derogatory view of magicians, and his insistence on that point is just plain weired.
 

smw

He is. I've watched others of his videos over time, and I always get that same feeling. He just says he is knowledgeable, but when it comes to the nitty-gritty, that's where he often falls apart. Other things he "knows" but fails to understand them in their greater context and significance, especially things relating to GD lore (and of course, Quabalah).

If you want to see some great comedy, try watching his review of the Book of Thoth. He looks as of he's leafing through it for the first time, really he does. I could overlook the mumbling (I stutter myself, I know how speech impediments work) if there was anything of worth behind it, but every time I watch him I find myself banging my head against a wall.

Both of the above videos just display a deplorable lack of understanding of what the Tree is, why it is, and how it works. One does not escape the Tree any more than one escapes a map of the world by taking a walk around the neighborhood. He also seems to have a limited, derogatory view of magicians, and his insistence on that point is just plain weired.

Not so weird when you consider that he offers a service to help people suffering from (black) magician attacks. He seems well versed in this area.
 

Aeon418

Not so weird when you consider that he offers a service to help people suffering from (black) magician attacks. He seems well versed in this area.

:bugeyed: .... ₤₤₤ Ka-Ching! $$$
 

Zephyros

The problem I have with many Youtube speakers like Barlow is that they speak authoritatively about things most people can't make heads or tails of anyway, and are thus perceived as good authorities. After all, what's the point of even criticizing him, he just makes Youtube videos as a front for his... ahem, "colorful" occupation. I guess it's a living.

I like princeofcups518 a lot more. He at least knows his stuff, or at least doesn't talk about stuff he doesn't know. Plus he's kinda hot.
 

JackofWands

Returning to the original topic, I don't know that the Tree of Life is hegemonic enough for anyone to need to "escape" from it. It's a symbol that many readers find useful in understanding the underlying structure of the Tarot, but there are also lots of readers (just leave the Kabbalah subforum and ask about this subject in Talking Tarot) who don't use it at all. Moreover, in addition to the ToL, there's the Cube of Space, the wheel of the Zodiac, etc. The Tree of Life is not the only way to understand Tarot (or even Qabalah); rather, it's a tool that a practitioner can use or not use depending on personal preference.

In that sense, because no one is forcing anyone else to use the Tree of Life, I don't know if it's reasonable to say that we need to "escape" from it. I think it's fair to take a step back and question the usefulness of the Tree of Life before deciding to work with it, but, well, that's a different question altogether. And I certainly don't think that practitioners who do use the ToL need to stopdoing so.
 

foolMoon

I viewed the video twice to understand it more clearly. As I am a newbie in the topic, I find the topic a bit challenge to fully understand.

What I thought he was saying is that, Tree of Life is a conceptual frame of understanding Mind, Spirits, Universe and Deity, so if Tarot readers are fully thinking and viewing the world and life in Terms of that frame, then she or he would not be able to help out his clients, who comes along for advices and answers for their mundane profane life problems.

In dealing with these daily mundane problems of general public, Tarot readers have to come out of the Tree of Life frame, and try to see the issues from the point of view which is unbiased and same level as normal daily life of modernity.

I feel this is what I got from his talkings, but I am not sure if I had understood him correctly. Any other criticisms, corrections or different opinions would be much appreciated. :)