The rose cross on the back of each card

That's good. Sometimes the other members just need to clearly understand where you are coming from.

And keep in mind that on discussion boards it sometimes takes a few days to discuss things through.

The Earth arm of the cross is also not divided into the 4 colors of Citrine, Olive, Russet and Black as it usually is. From this I assume that the picture is a simplification, rather than a reproduction, and so I do not focus on the missing details as having intended significance (which does not mean they are insignificant of course)

There does not seem to be any reference that explicitly relates to the backs in the Book of Thoth. I wonder if Crowley and Harris had any correspondance about the backs details? Or if the back was displayed along with the other cards when Harris exhibited the paintings?

Wang's Golden Dawn deck seems to have even larger changes made. Image attached. Something interesting to think about.

PS Lillie already told us where God is in the Crowley tarot
http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=45293

Lotem said:

It may mean there is no god, but I doubt the lack of god is any simpler than his existence.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I was only joking.

As has already been pointed out, we don't know what design Crowley and Harris had planned for the card backs because they never got round to printing them. I wouldn't be surprised if it were Grady McMurtry that chose that image for the card backs from Harris's artwork collection.

Has anyone noticed that the Rose at the centre of the cross looks more like a Ruby. Rosea Rubea et Aurea Crucis.

Aeon418 said:

Sorry, I was only joking.

Has anyone noticed that the Rose at the centre of the cross looks more like a Ruby. Rosea Rubea et Aurea Crucis.

Click to expand...

That's interesting... The Ruby Rose might mean that Will has taken over the 'god of the white dot'.
In a closer ( or wider) inspection, there are quite a lot of little white dots in the drawing, as a part of four symbols (which I can assume to be representatives of earth, fire, water and air, the dots or discs representing earth). So I can reason that Crowley was degrading God as we know it, by making himself, his Will into God. And all the other dots are the 'gods' that seem to be moving toward, or being suck into- the rose-cross (and the Ruby Rose at the center).

Analyzing my own speculation I can see how Crowley has just replaced the name, and not the idea. For if the Ruby Rose is the center, it can be 'hacked' into and through it correspond to all parts of the world. It is God, with a different name.

I don't think I am pleased with this theory, though I have a few others to back it up (like that he believed in reincarnation because of fear of death).
Can anyone think of another idea?

Huh !?

You've seriously lost me Lotem. You're making a lot of wild speculations about Crowley and his spiritual philosophy based on the absence of a white dot on the back of a Tarot card ! What if the absence of the dot is simply a mistake by Harris ?

The Rose-Cross on the back of Thoth isn't complete. It's a simplification of that glyph; an "artist's impression" in the most literal sense.

spiral said:

The Rose-Cross on the back of Thoth isn't complete. It's a simplification of that glyph; an "artist's impression" in the most literal sense.

Click to expand...

The entire deck is an "artistic impression", it does not mean we discard it and ignore all the symbolism. None of the cards are *complete* they are only a representation. So is the rose-cross on the back of them.

I belive that everything says something (and these 'something' eventually reflect those who find them) so I can put out any speculation and examine it. It does not matter what Crowley *actually* meant, because he no longer lives, and the book and cards have evolved beyond what they were when they were first drawn.

So "wild speculations" these may be, but so is everything else.
I'm trying to find another idea which can develop into something relevant and practical, rather than finding ways to disprove the original.

Indeed, but one must balance speculation against education. It would be just as easy to argue that since Harris didn't include the hexagram and pentagrams on the rose cross that this is somehow a coded denial of the great work. Since this goes against everything that Crowley ever wrote we can safely assume that this isn't true and deduce that we are reading too much significance into too insignificant a thing.

Since the Rose-cross on the back of the Thoth is so obviously incomplete, how can one reasonably have a discussion about the significance of one single omissions amongst a host of other omissions?

It is rather like giving an answer to three decimal places whilst knowing our error lies in the region of +-1.0. It is meaningless to do so.

If you put in something meaning, it has it. It is only a human and subject idea so everything can have meaning. I belive Crowley saw it the same way - and he found meanings and connections in everything and he devised a way of using specific connotation. This is no different of what I am doing now. More than that- I am using his methods to explore his works, which I think is quite fair.

If something clicks when analyzing and comparing Crowley's work I like to go along with it and see where it leads.
If this theory doesn't 'click' for you, you are free to see no meaning. Just don't cancel out my application of meaning.
I opened this thread not to argue if the white dot "actually' means something, but out of curiosity to see if anyone has a theory I can add to my own.

Lotem said:

I opened this thread not to argue if the white dot "actually' means something, but out of curiosity to see if anyone has a theory I can add to my own.

Click to expand...

Actually you have denied several other theories already.