New Book??

Barleywine

I had two different experiences with Banzhaf. Keywords for the Crowley Tarot, written with Brigitte Theler, I find useful as far as keyword books go; it is intellegently arranged by category and has at least brief coverage of the major symbolism. It would be interesting to compare this to the "Ultimate Guide." On the other hand, The Crowley Tarot, written in collaboration with "Akron," (C.J. Frey), who seems to be an astrologer, general occultist and - if his writing is any kind of clue - mystic, I don't care for at all. The impression I get from the book in comparison to Keywords is that Akron's writing derails Banzhaf's more economical, direct style. I simply can't read it. It might be a translation issue; perhaps Michael can comment on that.
 

Thoughtful

Thoughtful, if you feel you resonate with the book that is the topic of this thread, I would suggest you get it. Perhaps buy one of the books approved of by the trads additionally. Eventually, you must find out how the Thoth wants to communicate with you, anyway.

Hope this helps.

Thank you Michael, l do want to come to the Thoth in a way that not only appeals to me for easy reference but has the essence of Crowley. So in that respect your advice is invaluable. l will buy the book which is the subject of this thread and also invest in the Duquette. Be interesting to compare and as you say when the deck arrives see how it wants to communicate with me.
l Suppose l have been dithering because l know how important a tarot the Thoth is l want to take it seriously and to be able to do the Thoth and myself justice.
Thanks again Michael:)
 

Michael Sternbach

hmmm...I am not familiar with historical feuds or camps. What I have understood from this thread so far when mentioned is that a subjective interpretation of the Thoth is not so much about being wrong, but whether such interpretations are actually about the Thoth. That seems to me to be more of a factual issue.

If you search a little on this forum, you will indeed find fairly emotionalized threads on the question what counts as legitimate Thoth literature and what does not. It became a political issue, of sorts, not to say a small religious war in cyberspace. :rolleyes:

Tarot interpretations necessarily always include subjective elements. Of course, we could (and do) discuss whether, or to what degree, an intuitive approach to Tarot is generally permissible. However, while hardly anybody objects to what writers (and readers) make of the TdM, there is a little less tolerance found among the RWS aficionados, and much less among the member of the species of the Thothies. :D

To further illustrate this: Sallie Nichols chose the TdM as the object of her famous Jung and Tarot not least because she felt she could freely develop her own associations to it, whereas more modern decks come with elaborate texts explaining what the artist meant to express by this and that detail. Even though it is said that a picture tells more than a thousand words...

Well, Arrien, Ziegler, Fiebig dared to take in the pictures directly rather than to read them primarily as illustrations of the BoT, Book of the Law and Crowley's other writings (which, anticipating your next question, I call the intellectual approach). I think this is perfectly respectable because Tarot (ancient or modern) is first of all a pictorial language. The symbolism of the Thoth must be able to stand on its own, even if the BoT were tragically lost. It should not be seen as separate from symbolism in general, which is forming a part of the collective unconscious that belongs to all humanity, as Jungian psychology understands. Otherwise, what we see on the Thoth cards would be downgraded from symbols to mere signs, which have much more specific meanings than the latter.

I am not sure either what you mean by intellectual. I understand that as being the area of thoughts, ideas and concepts.

I hope that I have been able to clarify what I meant by that.

I can't see why those who like Jungian approaches to the Thoth would only use intuition switching off any thinking... maybe I am misunderstanding you?

Of course, those who take an intuitive/associative ("Jungian") approach don't switch off their thinking (although that's what some would like us to believe :laugh:). Angeles Arrien, Ph.D., as a cultural anthropologist, award-winning author, educator, and consultant to many organizations and businesses, was hardly prone to that. But, as I said, she didn't choose to base her take on the deck on Crowley's writings. What makes her transgression worse is that the Thoth deck, according to Crowley, is meant as an illustration of The Book of the Law - the most sacred text of the Thelemic religion.

Among orthodox Thothies equally well deplored Ziegler however did, time and again, incorporate material from the BoT in his Mirror of the Soul - but I doubt that any of the aforesaid traditionalists read the book thoroughly enough to even notice this.

For me I can find at times Crowley's descriptions of symbols and interpretations in the Book of Thoth cryptic, or overwhelming with lots of references from different sources, mythology etc,.However, maybe this is because while it is useful to have an informed (academic/intellectual) basis, too concrete meanings would limit and stifle personal, intuitive subjective understandings.

Yes, Crowley is often a rather heavy read. We have many excellent threads on individual cards on the Thoth forum, by the way.

I am not sure there is a need to take an either/or approach.

Why would it have to be? To value my BoT, I don't need to throw my Ziegler etc into the garbage bin. The concern of the purists seems to be that people's understanding of the Thoth would get tainted by reading those "unworthy" authors.

eta as an aside I find trying to read Jung like that too, he gives a mind boggling amount of references, names, myths, ideasl, concepts until I have forgotten what the point was or what he actually thinks or whether he is just laying out the table with an informed background to the topics he is discussing.

What we see in the aforesaid Thoth books I would rather call the practical application of Jungian psychology than a scholarly treatment of it.
 

Michael Sternbach

I had two different experiences with Banzhaf. Keywords for the Crowley Tarot, written with Brigitte Theler, I find useful as far as keyword books go; it is intellegently arranged by category and has at least brief coverage of the major symbolism. It would be interesting to compare this to the "Ultimate Guide." On the other hand, The Crowley Tarot, written in collaboration with "Akron," (C.J. Frey), who seems to be an astrologer, general occultist and - if his writing is any kind of clue - mystic, I don't care for at all. The impression I get from the book in comparison to Keywords is that Akron's writing derails Banzhaf's more economical, direct style. I simply can't read it. It might be a translation issue; perhaps Michael can comment on that.

If you think that The Crowley Tarot is long wound, then you obviously don't know the two volumes of Akrons Tarot Führer. Not surprisingly, because it hasn't been translated to English so far, to my knowledge. There, Akron conveys loads of information on symbolism and mythology. The BoT looks like a quickie by comparison.

Banzhaf's style was much more concise as evident from his other books, such as his excellent Key Words for Astrology. Akron's style takes some getting used to, and not everybody does. He typically creates twisted phrases that probably don't translate well to English. So, yes, I feel with you.

The comparison you mention sounds like an interesting idea. :)
 

Michael Sternbach

Thank you Michael, l do want to come to the Thoth in a way that not only appeals to me for easy reference but has the essence of Crowley. So in that respect your advice is invaluable. l will buy the book which is the subject of this thread and also invest in the Duquette. Be interesting to compare and as you say when the deck arrives see how it wants to communicate with me.
l Suppose l have been dithering because l know how important a tarot the Thoth is l want to take it seriously and to be able to do the Thoth and myself justice.
Thanks again Michael:)

You are welcome. Glad that you found my contribution helpful. :)
 

Zephyros

The issue is not even tradition, really. It is more about what makes a deck what it is. Is the Thoth Tarot Deck conceived by the Ipsissimus Aleister Crowley and painstakingly executed by Lady Frieda Harris over a period of five years, a culmination of a unmatched magickal career, a blank slate upon which one can draw one's own unlimited conclusions based on the images alone? Arrien and the authors of this new book would seem to think so. If it actually is so, what differentiates it from any other deck? It would seem to me, whether one calls it "Jungian" or anything else, that this would make it just a collection of pretty pictures devoid of any extra "power."

I do see worth in reading any and all books about the Thoth and in fact I have read Arrien's Tarot Handbook. It didn't suck. Sure, I disagreed with great swaths of it, but any information adds at least something to my knowledge and appreciation of the deck. But, and this is a huge and possibly condescending but, a beginning student simply isn't ready for it. Why learn some modified, sometimes bizarre, subjective interpretation that someone else created (possibly out of ulterior motives, Arrien hints at her dislike for Crowley in the introduction) and then unlearn the wrong information you've already assimilated? By the time I came to read Arrien I already had the tools with which to make up my own mind about her ideas. And, as I said, some were good, some were horrible but at least I was in an informed position to use ever her ideas to the best of my advantage.

And that's what the "traditionalist" approach does. It does not give you the interpretations, it merely gives you the tools with which to work with the deck to your own will, and Will. Once you have those tools under your belt, it would be irresponsible and un-Thelemic of me to recommend anyone close their eyes and ears and read only Crowley. But, until someone has them, Arrien and her kind are just confusing noise.

I won't even go (in depth) into Arrien's scholarly laziness in this respect. In the introduction she all but brags of her ignorance, declaring Crowley to be too difficult thus justifying her throwing him out the window. That's not vision, that's not purpose, that's not Jungian. That attitude actually belittles and disresprects her audience. Despite that, I'm not saying she herself has no worth, only that it is better if those kinds of books be taken in at the proper time. Starting with her or this book or Zeigler (for the most part) teaches you very little about the actual Thoth, but much about Arrien and Zeigler. Read them, sure, but not as the first Thoth influence you get. Beginning students deserve better.
 

Michael Sternbach

Zephyros,

I agree insofar I also think that beginners should study the BoT (or perhaps DuQuette) either before or at least simultaneously with one of the other books.
 

Barleywine

If you think that The Crowley Tarot is long wound, then you obviously don't know the two volumes of Akrons Tarot Führer. Not surprisingly, because it hasn't been translated to English so far, to my knowledge. There, Akron conveys loads of information on symbolism and mythology. The BoT looks like a quickie by comparison.

Banzhaf's style was much more concise as evident from his other books, such as his excellent Key Words for Astrology. Akron's style takes some getting used to, and not everybody does. He typically creates twisted phrases that probably don't translate well to English. So, yes, I feel with you.

The comparison you mention sounds like an interesting idea. :)

Thanks for the input. Interesting you should decribe the BoT as a "quickie." Although Crowley's stated purpose was to "reproduce the whole of his Magical Mind" in the Thoth deck, the BoT itself - as dense as it is - always felt a little like a "taster" or smorgasbord in places. He covered a lot of topics in Part One (The Theory of the Tarot), but often with only a handful of sentences before moving on. Granted, it inspired me to dig deeper into other sources (and to contemplate things I likely never would have encountered otherwise), but I never thought Part One was anything more than an introduction to some of the ideas he covered much more comprehensively elsewhere. As a companion book to the deck, Parts Two through IV are indispensable, of course.

I have Banzhaf's astrological keywords book as well, and find it quite valuable. So far I've tried to get into The Handbook to the Cards several times with little success. Perhaps, if I just use it as a reference text and not try to read it cover-to-cover, I'll have a better opinion of its usefulness.
 

Aeon418

It would seem to me, whether one calls it "Jungian" or anything else, that this would make it just a collection of pretty pictures devoid of any extra "power."

To me the assimilation and internalization of a specific and well defined symbol set that facilitates and provides a conduit for intuition is the basis of Tarot reading.

But there's a secondary use that also goes by the name of "Tarot reading" thanks to the modern day, self help therapy style authors. This method sees the cards as little more than a screen onto which the contents of the personal psyche are projected. Any intended meaning behind the composition of the cards is irrelevant. But aesthetically pleasing "pretty pictures" are helpful to the projection process. And the Thoth deck does look great.

Is this latter approach reading? Not in my book. It's certainly a valid and different use of the cards if you want to explore the contents of your own mind. But when I read I would much rather tap into something Other than my personal psyche. Allowing the cards to reflect my personal bias is what I'm trying to minimise during a reading.
 

Barleywine

Zephyros,

I agree insofar I also think that beginners should study the BoT (or perhaps DuQuette) either before or at least simultaneously with one of the other books.

Beginners today have a much better situation than I did starting into my BoT studies, since there weren't any other Thoth companion books. But I agree that every neophyte should have the BoT even if it baffles more than enlightens at first. Having the less challenging books to retreat to will prevent bafflement from hardening into discouragement. I was coming off qabalistic studies (Regardie, William Grey, Fortune, Knight, Bardon, Achad, BOTA, etc.) when I first encountered the BoT, so I could at least stay afloat in those waters, although still floundering more than I care to remember.