Variant approaches to the Thoth: Angeles Arrien's book

Teheuti said:

Angie says some stuff that is nonsense or factually wrong. She also has some wonderful ways of looking at the cards from a personal growth and cross-cultural perspective.

Click to expand...

This is where I have a problem with Arrien's approach. The symbolism used to illustrate the Thoth deck is highly specific. It's a compendium of hieroglyphs. A symbolic language. It has meaning and purpose behind it. But if you completely ignore that purpose and intent how do you know what is being said?

For example, when discussing the Empress, Arrien draws our attention to something that she thinks is a swan. From this misconception she starts going on about transformation and ugly ducklings. But what has all this to do with the Empress? In reality the swan is a pelican. It is a link to the legend of the pelican who wounds her breast and feeds her chicks with her own blood. An allusion to the sacrifce of motherhood. Which is more appropriate to the meaning of the Empress?

The trouble I see with The Tarot Handbook is that it does not teach the language of the Thoth. Instead it teaches the highly personal language of Angeles Arrien. (Just to clarify, I'm not talking about interpretations here.)

If that's all someone wants, then fine, good luck to them. But what happens when the beginning student wants to take it a step further? Where can they go that won't contradict everthing they've already learnt? Why not make things easier and start on the right track.

Teheuti said:

Arrien's book can be a way to access a deck that, at first, may be impenetrable. It can also be an inspiration to personal growth work and creativity.

Click to expand...

And I think that's a valid point, Teheuti. It's not one I agree with or would join in, but I do see what you're saying and respect you for expressing it with patience.

I tend to be more demanding with books (especially concerning things I think are important) but as you say, many people are perfectly happy not to know... much to my chagrin and sadness. My eternal impatience is with laziness and inattention, and yet for many people laziness and inattention are the very things they cultivate. The choice between something easy and empty or difficult and rich seems obvious. I just can't imagine encouraging it even passively, but that's just me.

And so... I just keep steering people towards (what I believe to be) valuable content, with the knowledge that some peope might acquire the taste, but that some people will never want it. Which is okay. It's a kind of active participatory hope I think I have... like a wish that we can all help to make come true.

X

S

Well... Seeing what Crowley himself did during his life, I think some of the critiques here are a bit unfair to Arrien. Crowley did not exactly follow the rules of standard symbolism in his days. And the advise that one should study ancient Egypt, instead of reading the book by Arrien, since one only gets confused by the differences between Arrien and Crowley, is quite fun, if one knows that Crowley reinterpreted a lot of the ancient Egyptian symbols. Egyptologists does not really agree with Crowley you know (understatement of the week!)... Less confused? Well, hardly!

In the same way a lot of people did not agree with his Thoth-tarot or with his view on quabbalah... And so on...

Crowley is not a God, the end and the beginning of everything that has to do with magick. And I hardly think he wanted us to view his work as a bible with the final words about how everything works.

i believe that we all in our own ways has to use reason, emotions and intuition to develop an understanding of thoth...

We CAN do with Thoth-tarot as Crowley did with the egyptian heritage... Use our higher spiritual senses to investigate Thoth and do a reinterpretation if our spiritual journey leads us to that conclusion.

There is a sying that "The journey is the aim of a journeyt, not to reach the destination"... And in that spiritual journey Crowley did wonderful things!

I love Crowley but have learned a lot about Thoth and the journey we all have to do from Arrien too.

But the Libri of Crowley are no Lawbooks in the traditional sense, and not a bible that we have to learn by heart and follow like we were slaves. The libri, and the Thoth-tarot shows us a method! We can use and investigate that method. BUT IF WE REGARD THE BOOKS OF CROWLEY AS ABSOLUT TRUTH, SCIENTIFIC FACTS OR AS SOME KIND OF BIBLE WITH LAWS THAT WE HAVE TO FOLLOW EXACTLY, THEN WE FAIL TO GRASP THE METHOD OF CROWLEY.

And the very moment that Crowley is turned to fixed law, we loose all understanding of him!


And by the way... Read Arrien and discover the beauty nd challenges of the world of Crowley. Most of his books are available on the internet. Here are some: http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/


/torbjörn

Hey Ligator,

The point is not that Crowley is a god or that his word is law. In fact he says pointedly that no one should take anyone else's word for anything several times throughout his writing. My criticism of Arrien's book was based on the fact that it is virtually worthless, which has little to do with Crowley's canonization and everything to do with Arrien's ineptitude.

The Crowley Harris Thoth was designed thoughtfully and carefully as the summation of a magickal career that most likely hasn't been equalled in the past century. Arrien's ridiculous "book" states in the introductin that history will be rewritten because Arrien doesn't believe Crowley had much to do with the content of the deck because she didn't like him. With typical 80s arrogance, Arrien found him "icky" so she tossed him in the rubbish and decided to wing it. The idea that a middle-class mass-market author with a middling education and some mushy new-age ideas from continuing ed classes could step in and make sense of it on her own is... optimistic to say the least. Setting aside her factual errors which populate every page and her dogged insistence on her own "refreshing" insight, her bourgeois caftans-and-coffee blather is not only incorrect but antithetical to the deck she's discussing. More importantly, that she should decide to do so because she finds the actual material "too hard" and "offputting" should act as a warning to any who approach: "Abandon all hope..."

I've said it over and over in this thread and elsewhere: anything that helps people find meaning is worthwhile. But why would I bother muddling through misguided Aquarian Age ramblings of someone who tells me at the outset that she didn't do her homework and that she's going to make it up as she goes along, ESPECIALLY when her reasoning is that everyone should make up their own interpretations? Why wouldn't I just stagger through on my own? How does reading 300 pages of sloppy mistakes, lazy logic, and the resulting assumptions useful or enlightening? She is so often flat-out WRONG that if you've done any study at all it starts to become enraging... like a daft older relative telling you how to drive from the backseat while napping and farting.

The personal journey is essential. As you say, we all come to truth by our own roads... but we don't stumble around indiscriminately. At least I hope not. I could decide to ignore the writings of Thomas Edison on electricity and every single scientist that came after him because of personal opinions about his character (cruel) and career (conniving). I could decide to invent my own form of artifical light using electricity, blowing a bulb, identifying the perfect filament, assembling a generator. But it does seem silly to ignore his discoveries because I am too proud, ignorant or lazy to admit that they exist at all. Nevertheless, I think anyone who wants to sit out in the street banging rocks together so they can read after sundown should feel free.

As you say, we should access our higher selves in any operation of growth and education. How exactly are the factually inaccurate, self-congratulatory, badly articulated ramblings of Angeles Arrien to be preferred over the man who designed and executed the deck over a five year period after a career studying-seeking-striving? Not because Crowley is a "god" but because she is a moron who happened to publish a book on Tarot at a time when occult publishing had taken a certain self-helpish turn. Crowley created of the deck. Arrien's attempts to deny that fact and the embarassing folderol generated thereby aren't worth the 60 cents it costs to buy a copy of her wrongheaded piffle from used-book bins across the planet. If someone can wring meaning out of such chaff, I'm all for it. But people should know that there are literally STACKS of better books to read on this deck in case they find Crowley himself unpalatable.

I will never stand in the way of anything that leads people to wisdom but I will always try to point people away from the quicksand where I may.

Scion

Well...

A factual correction first. As can be seen in her book, Arrien do say that Crowley designed the deck. And that the deck is unique as the first "cross-cultural" and "multi-disciplinary" deck and philosophy (if that expression is allowed) of the Tarot.. That she totally attributes to Crowley.

But she seems to have problems with the method of Crowley. And that is no crime. That is why she seems to like Harris paintings much.

The comparison with Edison is wrong and correct at the same time. She acknowledges Crowley, she does NOT deny his role. But the comparison can still be used. Edison was no God. He made many mistakes too. The funny thing with science is that the mistakes and unsolved problems of sceintist A often leads scientist B to make discoveries based on the fact that he or she solves the paradoxes that scientist A did not solve.

So too with Edison. With all respect for his genius all scientists that has followed since his age has redeveloped and redefined his findings. Some of his ideas seems naive today. But they were necessary in the development electricity and has to be regarded with respect.

But that does not mean that one has to prefer him because he fought for XX years with making his inventions... (In fact a good comparison would be between Edison and the swede L.M. Eriksson... Edison invented the telephone and made the necessary breakthroughs, but in the end the discoveries and redefined telephone that Eriksson developed has meant more for the development of modern phone systems that the phone of Edison... It is possible to acknowledge the importance of Edison AND prefer Eriksson, as ALL phone developers in fact have done...)


But by this I do NOT mean that Arrien ism ore brilliant than Crowley. Only that it certainly is ok to develop the ideas of Crowley.

/Torbjörn

By the way...

I too have problems with the method of Crowley. And it does not have to do with his spiritual reevaluation och redefinition of for example egyptian myths. That is ok. But it has to do with his many unfortunate claims, directly and indirectly, that his interpretations are TRUE...

And I also have the opinion that Crowley was too dominated by the air-element. And that unfortunately goes for many of the followers he had, and has, as far as my experience tells. The symbolistic method he used is very INTELLECTUAL... (But I know, his followers would never agree on that. They always have very handy intellectual arguments for the development of spiritual intuition, and emotions, through symbolistic alchemy of the type Crowley used...)

And as a result, intuition and emotions do too often drown in a mighty sea of symbols and hunt for correpondances, and boring root learning of rituals...

And I DO have problems with the exaggregated hunt for secret symbols and magic cross-references (that in many cases are based on revelations and opinions, but are presented otherwise) that so many secret societies practice.

But I still prefer the Thoth deck and the Book of Thot. And I have learned a lot from his writings.

Interesting paradox...


/T

Scion said:

My criticism of Arrien's book was based on the fact that it is virtually worthless, which has little to do with Crowley's canonization and everything to do with Arrien's ineptitude.

Click to expand...

Granted that you find it worthless, but a great many others do not find her work worthless. There are many faults with her book. Yes, the history is often wrong. Crowley also made many mistakes - for instance, confusing a Tibetan vajra and a dorje. Angie's book is not for everyone and should never be thought of as replacing Crowley's. The fact that they are so radically different is part of what can be gained through reading both. That said, once I "got" what Angie had to say, it is Crowley's Book of Thoth that I come back to again and again, with ever more admiration.

Scion, have you met Angie Arrien? Have you studied with her? She is a powerful modern shaman (raised, in part (biculturally), within a shamanic heritage) whose best work comes through poetry, prophecy and an indescribable energy transference while she struggles to operate within a scientifically-rational verbal cultural. In a sense she's an inspirational bridge-maker who doesn't deserve to be denigrated by someone who has no knowledge of what she really does.

Not to mention the claims of Crowley that some of his books were ancient manuscipts... As with:

"Liber XV
O. T. O.
Ecclesiæ Gnosticæ Catholicæ
Canon Missæ

Edited from the Ancient Documents in
Assyrian and Greek by The Master Therion"

)

Crowley made mistakes too. Should we treat Crowley and his writings, and redefinitions of some past things as you, Scion, treat Arrien?

/T

Ligator said:

Not to mention the claims of Crowley that some of his books were ancient manuscipts... As with:

"Liber XV
O. T. O.
Ecclesiæ Gnosticæ Catholicæ
Canon Missæ

Edited from the Ancient Documents in
Assyrian and Greek by The Master Therion"

Click to expand...

Crowley was in no way suggesting that Liber XV was an ancient manuscript. He is merely making reference to some of his source documents. The Mass predates Christianity. Crowley's Gnostic Mass was an attempt at recapturing that earlier spirit.

Teheuti said:

Granted that you find it worthless, but a great many others do not find her work worthless. There are many faults with her book. Yes, the history is often wrong. Crowley also made many mistakes - for instance, confusing a Tibetan vajra and a dorje. Angie's book is not for everyone and should never be thought of as replacing Crowley's. The fact that they are so radically different is part of what can be gained through reading both. That said, once I "got" what Angie had to say, it is Crowley's Book of Thoth that I come back to again and again, with ever more admiration.

Scion, have you met Angie Arrien? Have you studied with her? She is a powerful modern shaman (raised, in part (biculturally), within a shamanic heritage) whose best work comes through poetry, prophecy and an indescribable energy transference while she struggles to operate within a scientifically-rational verbal cultural. In a sense she's an inspirational bridge-maker who doesn't deserve to be denigrated by someone who has no knowledge of what she really does.

Click to expand...

Hey Mary,

As I've said above in the thread several times. I know that Arrien has admirers and I know about her practice and teaching background. I have my own opinions about the use of the word "shaman" in a modern, postindustrial context which don't bear discussion in this thread. All of that is irrelevant in the context of a discussion of her book about the Thoth. By definition shamanism is preliterate and indigenous, so I don't really understand how it factors here. I have met a few powerful wonderworkers and have respect for most of them... but that doesn't mean I'd defend their right to talk bollocks in print, even if they wanted to... (an unlikely proposition in any case)

It's wonderful that Arrien manifests a personal potency that effects change in the world and elicits loyalty, but that cannot be captured between pages, nor should the attempt be made. I can appreciate that her "bridgebuilding" is admirable and that she represents a moment in time authorially. But surely Arrien would not defend her mistakes and misdirection as somehow "inspired" or "purposive." She didn't plan to screw up so much and so often. She didn't carefully map out every place she'd get the facts wrong or just wing it based on her own grasp of pop psychology. And the fact that this book was printed in bales and continues to circulate just means that someone has the responsibility of calling attention to the out-and-out problems when beginner's start looking to them. Aren't we all trying to stagger towards some truth?

I understand your desire to defend Arrien personally, but my only interest is in the content of her book and the way that content does or does not help people studying the Thoth. I can respect your feelings for her, but I am under no obligation to share them, nor will I gloss over her book's shortcomings for fear someone might discover her foolishness with regard to Crowley's deck. I see no need to tiptoe around error to spare her feelings. With all due respect, I didn't buy the book for her feelings. I bought it for the content. And while Crowley's mistakes are the result of a vast lifelong study crowned with the creation of the deck in question, her mistakes are the result of New Age sloppiness and inattention. That doesn't make her a bad person, it just makes The Tarot Handbook a bad book.

Now, obviously I can only offer my opinion of her book. It is my opinion. I did not say the book was worthless, but that I found it "virtually worthless"; You'll notice that I went on to add that if anyone can glean some kind of value from it then they must have oceanic patience and much more time than I'd be willing to invest. I was responding above the Ligator's suggestion that Arrien's book provides some kind of "guidance" or "framework" for study of the Thoth. I shouldn't need to take Arrien's class or know her intimately for her book to be of value. And just because I find her book silly and pointless doesn't mean I have any feelings about her; I shouldn't need to have feelings about her to find worth in her book. Why should I? I keep saying it: I'm not standing in anyone's way. Everyone should of course feel free to drink at whatever wells they choose.

Whether or not Arrien's book deserves denigration is another topic. Frankly, it is impossible to denigrate something that spends so much time unwittingly belittling itself with no help from anyone... I have only stated facts and opinions based on those facts. I'll stick to my guns there. If I read bullshit I'm going to name it so. If that bullshit is adamant and arrogant, double ditto. I won't roll over just because she's "really nice" in person. Despite your protestations, Arrien most certainly DOES intend her book to replace Crowley's; in her introduction she states pointedly that his Book of Thoth "hindered" study of the deck and that he is merely an interpreter of the Tarot he created. She takes pains to let us know how nasty, complex, misguided, and vestigial she finds Crowley and insists that the entire deck is the result of Harris' vision. Whether or not she is a bridgebuilder, her book on the Thoth remains a hopeless clutter of mistakes and supposition based on virtually no researched grasp of the material.

Let me say it again, clearly and respectfully: I'm not trying to convince any of Arrien's fans that they shouldn't love her; I am only trying to warn the innocent and unwary that when it comes to the Thoth she has a habit of offering mistakes and fabrication, then spinning them into a foolish idiosyncratic meringue. Some people may find infinite wisdom and possibility in that. But Ligator characterized the thread's early supported criticism of Arrien's Handbook as rash and unfair. It was neither, as even you've admitted. I only posted the above response to point out that people had offered hard evidence of her mistakes and impatience with the way these mistakes enter discussions of the Thoth because of the book's ubiquity. I wasn't proselytizing; I just felt it deserved comment.

Scion