Plato and Tarot

beanu

Emperor and Hierophant

CHOKMAH

DESCENT
The other polarity, counterpoint to the Female, is the Male, which is also considered to be Hot. The card of the Emperor is relevant here.
He is often recognised as Aries astrologically, and considered war-like.
However, we may also consider Aries to be a reference to the Greek god of war - Aries (aka Mars in Roman history).
While modern trends tend to denigrate any form of worship of war, we must consider it within its timeframe (i.e. that of the Greek and Roman empires, and Plato). War is presented to us here as the ultimate expression of maleness - the urge to compete. This is in good correspondence to our modern understanding of the effects of testosterone.

ASCENT
Here we have the Hierophant card, as an indication of "rising to the top of the hierarchy.
However, Kapoore has referred us to the Platonic concept of the Hierarch, th unity from which the two paths descend - the outward and the inward path.
This would indicate that my concept of the Hierophant in the pattern is not correct. It should be in Kether, where I have the Fool and the Magician.

Any comments, speculation please?
Is there any link from the Hierarch concept to a male-specific concept, to counterpoint the high priestess?
 

kapoore

Hi Beanu,
First a thought on polarity. I don't know the Kabbalistic Tree of Life very well, but it does work differently then "let's say the Eriugena" or Cusan neo-Platonism. Here polarity just means that everything is in a state of relativity. The opposites are not reconciled but form ratios, such as in musical notes are harmonized. My understanding of the Tree of Life in the Hebrew tradition is that the center is the mean between the two extremes of mercy and severity. I remember hearing this one passage that in raising children you don't want to be too severe or too soft, both are bad. I guess the Christianized version has more to do with arithmetic--no two pieces of wood are exactly the same length, no circle is a perfect circle, etc. Eventually you get a theory of infinite/ finite which are not comparible and then the point of coincidence of opposites. Cusa uses the example of the line and the circle. If you take a circle and stretch it out to the infinite it becomes a line--that is the point of coincidence of opposites. Also, I think that in the kabbalistic Tree of life the opposites are reconciled in the moment, but also "evil" has a substance--it is more Gnostic in that sense. The other types of neo-Platonism have evil as "nothingness" or deprivation. Disease for example is the absence of health. Everything that has being is good but some things have more being, more vitality than others. While in the Kabbalistic tree (at least the way I understand it) evil is a force--maybe someone knows more about that.

Also, I am not commenting on where the hierarch comes in the schema because I am not sure---I think the working with it is the point. I was commenting on the evidence that the hierarch is found in an ancient work of neo-Platonism--ancient here is 5th Century. And that whoever created the hierarch based it on the particular passages in the book. So, this is one justification for saying that the Tarot really is Neo-Platonism because the Pope card with the hierarch meeting the two initiates is from a work of Neo-Platonism.
 

kapoore

Hi Beanu,
I guess what I'm trying to say is the Hebrew system is more psychological.
That is why a person working with magic might find it more compatible (and here I am just speculating because I haven't done any magic) because they would want to ground themselves in the center between the polarity. I'm referring to what I could get from Dion Fortuna. The Christian system eventually became science, even though it started out as mathematical Platonism--creating cosmic models. There is just not a lot of magic in it, but maybe a slight wierdness in that these creatures that have being but not sufficient being to exist are sort of hungry demons.

Just a thought on the male/female thing. Of course, the Christian Platonists had the Virgin Mary and I think that probably is the Popess. She is connected with Song of Solomon, her womb is paradise, and she is wisdom. Chokma is male--so Wisdom is male in the Hebrew system. The Christian Platonists also have Providence, which was borrowed from the pagans. Divine Providence is basically "mother nature. (the Empress). The Emperor (intellect or governance of the sensory world) attempts to penetrate the secrets of "mother nature."
In the Hebrew tradition, which was created by married men not monks; there is "sex magic" where the male and female coming together in almost a ritual sense heal the Fall. Sorry if I am wrong on this but this is what I have been able to get from reading the secondary literature.
 

beanu

Hi Kapoore,

I found this comment interesting in the Wikipedia article on neo-platonism -
"This distinction provides a contrast with later movements of Neoplatonism, such as those of Iamblichus and Proclus, which embraced magical practices or theurgy as part of the soul's development in the process of the soul's return to the Source"

also

"Neoplatonism was also present in medieval Islamic and Jewish thinkers such as al-Farabi and Maimonides, and experienced a revival in the Renaissance with the acquisition and translation of Greek and Arabic Neoplatonic texts."

My belief, regarding Tarot, is that it comes primarily from work done by Moses de Leon and cronies in Spain 1200's. So I expect it to be a modification of whatever went before. However aspects of the "inputs" should still be recognisable in the outputs.
It looks as if neo-platonism is a major input.
This revival in the Renaissance looks interesting.
 

beanu

The Virgin Mary is sometimes viewed as the Christian church's attempt to put back some of the female influence. However, the basic Christ story is one more example of "the dying God" legend, as expounded by J G Frazer in the Golden Bough,
and having examples in Egyptian mythology Horus), and in the Mithraic religion (Mithras), both preceding Christ.
In each case (I believe), the mother of the God is a virgin. In Egypt she was Isis.

I will address this further in the Strength card later.
 

beanu

Da'ath

In the Tree of Life, there is one sphere, which is always difficult to understand - Da'ath.
It is called the "sphere of negative existence"

One interpretation of this is that it corresponds to the abstract concept of "not", in the boolean logic sense. The concept comes from before de Leon, and seems likely to be attributed to Da'ath.

Previously we saw Wet and Hot as attributions of female and male.
With the additiion of Da'ath, we can develop new attributions -
not wet = dry
not hot = cold

This seems to follow the new-platonic concepts, in that we have a property, and its absence, rather than a property and its opposite.

We now have two gradients against each of the two polarities.
We can have
hot and wet = air
hot and dry = fire
cold and wet = water
cold and dry = earth

Thus the elements are derived from Binah, Chokmah, and Da'ath.

The confusing bit is that the four elements seem much older than their hot/cold/wet/dry attributions ?

The

Anyway, I believe that these four elements are attributed to four spheres as follows:-
Fire = Geburah (Strength and Chariot)
Air = Chesed (Hanged Man and Hermit)
Water = Netzach (Star and Temperance)
Earth = Hod. ( Devil and Tower)

I also notice that there appear to element-like aspects to Plato's four types of divine intoxication, as discussed previously. However, these are probably due to the merging of concepts in the Tree of Life a in the 1200's.
Is there any evidence that Plato used the four elements in his philosophies?

Unfortunately there are some indications also that Hod = Fire and Geburah = Earth, but these come mostly from the alchemical attributions, rather than from the tree of life.

This probably all seems irrelevant, but will become clearer as we work through the spheres
 

kwaw

beanu said:
Anyway, I believe that these four elements are attributed to four spheres as follows:-
Fire = Geburah
Air = Chesed
Water = Netzach
Earth = Hod.

If it is your belief that tarot originates primarily from work done by 'Moses de Leon and cronies', why do you not use the attributions of 'Moses de Leon and his cronies'? What is the historical source/tradition for your attributions? Surely if your system uses attributions that were totally alien to MdL and cronies then that would demonstrate that the tarot had nothing to do with MdL and cronies?
 

beanu

kwaw said:
If it is your belief that tarot originates primarily from work done by 'Moses de Leon and cronies', why do you not use the attributions of 'Moses de Leon and his cronies'? What is the historical source/tradition for your attributions? Surely if your system uses attributions that were totally alien to MdL and cronies then that would demonstrate that the tarot had nothing to do with MdL and cronies?

Firstly, I believe that the Tarot comes from the work done by MdL et al.
I do NOT say that MdL invented the Tarot. MdL was an influence on the concepts behind the Tarot, and he is prior to the Tarot. Hence he obviously could not have provided attributions for them.

The system of attribution is my own, but draws upon previous influences,
as I claim the Tarot draws on previous influences of MdL et al, (and later works also)

My influences include
Modern kabalistic meanings attributed to the Tree of Life (with small changes)
Various traditional meanings attached to the major arcana
Myths and Legends that show similarity to the major arcana.
The sequence of the Major Arcana (with small changes)
Correspondences of imagery and symbolism between the major arcana and alchemical images
and now I am attempting to work out how the concepts of Plato, through two waves of neo-platonism, might have influenced the concepts behind the major arcana. Naturally, I am basing this on my previous work. If this new exploration introduces changes to my theories, then so be it.

I have little or no interest in exact dates of documentary evidence of the cards, or who change the shape of a crown from one card to the next, except in the context of sequence of who influenced who, and how these changes modified our understanding of the meaning of the cards.

Consider the difference between my work and straight history as like the difference between archaeology and history. History may record when a certain person dug up a certain artifact or bone, but does not attempt to place meaning on the date and context of the artifact's origins.
Archeology tries to puzzle out the meaning behind the artifact.
Similarly, Semiotics studies the meaning behind imagery.
So my postings do not strictly belong in the history section of this board,
but there is not yet an appropriate section for them. I have discussed this with the moderator, and we are adopting a wait and see attitude, rather than creating a new section.

BTW, your last sentence is a non-sequitur.
Its like saying that the Space Shuttle uses heat resistant tiles which were completely alien to von Braun ( father of rockets from WWII through to the Saturn V), therefore the Space Shuttle had nothing to do with von Braun.

i.e. it is completely possible for the Tarot to contain much influence from MdL,
while also including work that has been added since.

The significance of MdL and his environment is that is the start of a period of merging of philosophies whose influence continues to this day. He was also only 150 years or so before the cards, and a few hundred kilometers from Italy. That is the historical bit.

The archaelogical/semiotic bit is :-
From that influence arose Kabalistic magic traditions (from MdL's Zohar) and a new phase of Alchemical traditions, evolving into Rosicrucianism. By comparing Tarot with these two traditions, it is possible to find many points of correspondence, indicating a likelihood that the design and evolution of the major arcana was also influenced by the same philosophical train of thought.
Several possibilities exist here,
1) The Tarot majors were developed individually, and adopted by the other two.
2) The other two were influence by the Tarot Majors
3) The Tarot Majors were influenced by the other two
etc.

The decisive factor for me in choosing between possibilities is that, if they developed individually and then were homogenised to fit the other two, then we would see a reasonably drastic change in the imagery at that point. I don't see such a change. It is possible, chronologically, that the images in renaissance alchemy are derived from Tarot, but there are two arguments against this. The first is that the alchemical images contain more than their corresponding tarot cards. This implies that the cards are a cut-down mnemonic for the alchemical images. The second is that if this were so, we should expect to see a dramatic change in alchemical philosophy at this point, and we don't.

In summary, modern Tree of Life, Alchemy, and Tarot Majors show strong levels of synergy indicating that they probably represent, or represented, one common philosophy. The most likely source for that philosophy is MdL et al.
Thus, it seems wise to investigate the Tarot Majors in light of that philosophy.

As a side issue, it appears that the common philosophy shows evidence of Platonic and neo-platonic concepts, which would have been well known to MdL, and to Llull especially, being a Christian scholar.
One way to investigate these links is through Tarot, in a Tarot forum, which is what I am doing.
 

kwaw

beanu said:
The system of attribution is my own...

That's fine, and I appreciate you taking the time to share your personal system, but a personal system is not 'history', and as yours is primarily kabbala based, I would have thought the kabbala forum rather than the history forum would be the most appropriate place to share them?
 

beanu

I understand, but I'm sure the kabalists would object to my diuscussion of Plato,
and if there was a Plato section, they would object to kabalah and Alchemy,
and the Alchemists from other sources are adamant that no connection between alchemy and kabalah can possibly exist...

Tracking meaning of cards through history needs to visit virtually any school of thought that may have any relelvance, and there just isn't anywhere on this forum to put such adiscussion.

I'm happy to move if the moderator decides there is a better place for this, but for now, please consider the following:-

This discussion is about Plato and Tarot, using my system as a key to analysis. While it makes reference to kabalah, it is not about kabalah. The kabalistic tree of life is simply being used as a likely map to the Platonic Descent and Ascent through the cards oft he major arcana.

Sorry, but it doesn't really fit under Kabalah either.

If it helps, I won't refer to the sefira explicitly. Readers can look at the card positions on my diagram to infer that...