Tarot and Numerology

Barleywine

LRichard said:
OK, I checked it out. Magic Without Tears, Chapter 5. He fusses around with 0^0 (0 raised to the power 0), which is undefined in mathematics. In itself, it is meaningless and cannot be defined in a consistent fashion. Ultimately, Crowley unknowingly divides by 0.
Click to expand...

Thanks! I will have to go read that again. I seem to recall him taking it out of the realm of mathematics and into more speculative territory, but it's been a long time. I'm sure he convinced himself (of course he would), but I remember grappling with it for quite some time. If memory serves, I eventually came to terms (of some kind) with it.
 

nisaba

Very basic numerology as well as a very basic knowledge of the elements work when using decks, old and modern, with unillustrated pips.

Other than that, I see them as very different skills, with very different uses.
 

frejasphere

nisaba said:
Very basic numerology as well as a very basic knowledge of the elements work when using decks, old and modern, with unillustrated pips.

Other than that, I see them as very different skills, with very different uses.
Click to expand...

Exactly :) That is how I see it too, they are ever so different and have their own distinct place and/or use.

I don't tend to apply numerology to the Tarot cards (i.e. follow a system where each tarot card is read with a numerological influence) or vice versa... I prefer the voice of each method to be it's own if that makes sense ...?

Numerological influences sit somewhere in the back of my mind (not part of a systematic reading method, more like the weather chart that pops up on the 'screen' every now and then...) The Tarot, to me, is more a channel to understanding and reflecting on what is happening/important in the here and how.

HOWEVER, I do find it interesting to casually note how the cards will be in agreement with currently influential numbers :) I probably have a slightly lop-sided and personal way of connecting the two, but to me it makes perfect sense :)
 

ravenest

Barleywine said:
Thanks! I will have to go read that again. I seem to recall him taking it out of the realm of mathematics and into more speculative territory, but it's been a long time. I'm sure he convinced himself (of course he would), but I remember grappling with it for quite some time. If memory serves, I eventually came to terms (of some kind) with it.
Click to expand...

You should have asked for an analogical demonstration of 0 = 2 ... not a 'proof' of it ;)
 

ravenest

I dont go along with 'numerology' as usually that means some modern system I dont think much of and supposedly applies to all sorts of things. 'Lucky numbers' indeed!

The roots of what became modern numerology are outlined above ( Platonic theory, Kabbalah, Agrippa, etc. )

If one was bought up in a household where one was told "Oh don't worry dear, you're probably feeling this way because you are in a 4 month - wearing green should definitely help" ... or such things ... constantly .... you would be loaded for free-association and then will see numbers as meaning something more than a subjective association such as' 'the Tower often shows when a 9 or 11 is influencing events'.

But dont worry about me, the above is just all IMO - I am very sceptical about it at the moment ( I'm half way through my 7th hour of the 5th day of the week ;) )
 

firecatpickles

LRichard said:
1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12 = 78

The 'proof' that 0 = 2 is fallacious and uses a hidden division by 0, which is an illegal operation.

ETA. Oh, the Crowley thing. I forget. Maybe a Thelemite can explain.

OK, I checked it out. Magic Without Tears, Chapter 5. He fusses around with 0^0 (0 raised to the power 0), which is undefined in mathematics. In itself, it is meaningless and cannot be defined in a consistent fashion. Ultimately, Crowley unknowingly divides by 0.
Click to expand...
Anything to the power of 0 is 1. Solving radicals in polynomial functions uses this principal.
 

Richard

Fire Cat said:
Anything to the power of 0 is 1. Solving radicals in polynomial functions uses this principal.
Click to expand...

n^0 = 1 for any non-zero number n.

0^n = 0 for any positive number n.

Therefore it is best to leave 0^0 as an indeterminate form, as is done in calculus.
 

Lillium

I'm new to tarot and learning meanings is hard enough without complicating matters by adding numerological nuances to it. I do think when I get the hang of it, I'll delve more into the numerological meanings to see if it enhances understanding. I don't think it's necessary to read effectively though.
 

frejasphere

ravenest said:
I dont go along with 'numerology' as usually that means some modern system I dont think much of and supposedly applies to all sorts of things. 'Lucky numbers' indeed!

The roots of what became modern numerology are outlined above ( Platonic theory, Kabbalah, Agrippa, etc. )

If one was bought up in a household where one was told "Oh don't worry dear, you're probably feeling this way because you are in a 4 month - wearing green should definitely help" ... or such things ... constantly .... you would be loaded for free-association and then will see numbers as meaning something more than a subjective association such as' 'the Tower often shows when a 9 or 11 is influencing events'.

But dont worry about me, the above is just all IMO - I am very sceptical about it at the moment ( I'm half way through my 7th hour of the 5th day of the week ;) )
Click to expand...


Hi ravenest :) Oh, I do think being sceptical is a good thing, it allows you to look at things/situations from many different angles, while working out if it makes sense and/or feels right for you ...

I admit that my description of childhood (and mother's advice) was perhaps too simplistic ... I guess I was trying to paint a conversational picture ;)

The readings my mother did for people were long (1-2 hours) and detailed (~20 pages), and to give some idea of the format (old vs new), I would lean towards 'old', as a personal reading would generally reflect what an in-depth astrological reading (taking into account exact times, places etc) would arrive at .... That said, many different paths and ideas coexisted as I was growing up (astrology, meditation, yoga ...), and if this eclectic upbringing taught me anything, it was to have an open mind and look at situations from more than one angle :)
 

frejasphere

Lillium said:
I'm new to tarot and learning meanings is hard enough without complicating matters by adding numerological nuances to it. I do think when I get the hang of it, I'll delve more into the numerological meanings to see if it enhances understanding. I don't think it's necessary to read effectively though.
Click to expand...


Hi Lillium :) You absolutely don't need to learn numerological meanings in order to understand or learn to read the Tarot. :)

My curiosity behind starting this thread was if others notice a 'nod of agreement' between 2 or more distinctly different tools of introspection or divination (such as Tarot and Numerology)... it wasn't about merging systems :)

Good luck learning your cards - the Tarot is a wonderful journey! :)
 
Deck of the Week : Sign-Up Thread : Week 149 : June 7th - June 14th Continual Reversals