The Visconti - and the Marseilles

The School of Athens

Diana said:

I had begun some rather timid posts - mostly because Darla asked the question, and I did not want it to go unexplored and to waste. I was hoping that by starting my posts, others would respond - each response would give rise to more responses and questioning, and quests... and that we may end up with even more questions, because I am personally very interested in questions.
(Cartman of South Park fame has a most beautiful catch-phrase which makes me laugh aloud each time I hear it.)

Click to expand...

I just gotta jump in here... (I hope this isn't too pedantic. Mea maxima culpa. There's a point if you can hang with me.) Does anyone here know the "School of Athens" by Rafael? This thread should be illustrated by it!! The painting was sort of an attempt to summarize western knowledge:

(http://www.artchive.com/artchive/r/raphael/school_athens.jpg)

Perhaps Darla's original question is a rich line of inquiry because (IMO) it contains several embedded questions that interact in fascinating ways...

The first question has to do with the nature of an Ur-Tarot. The second has to do with the Marseilles role as an Ur-Tarot. And the third is a call for specific reasons some folks identify the Marseilles as that Ur-Tarot.

It seems to me that a lot of the "disagreement" in this thread has to do with vagueness of definition of the "UR" prefix. With something as subjective as Tarot, let alone Tarot history, let alone personal opinions about Tarot history, greater clarity of definition can only lead to more specific and useful answers. I apologize if I sound like one of my philosophy professors at college.

The idea of "Ur-" is at the root of all metaphysics: What is the first thing? What is the nature of creation? What are the building blocks of the universe? One of my professors at Columbia used to say that essentially all of Philosophy can be seen as a recapitulation and response to Plato and/or Aristotle across human history. This is where the Rafael's painting "The School of Athens" comes in...

In the painting, Plato, wrapped in red, points up to indicate that the order of all things can be discerned from contemplation of abstraction. For Plato, the world is an imperfect thing and only the world of the mind can express and encapsulate perfection. Extrapolating from this essential idea, Plato formulates His Republic run in rigid adherence to abstract concepts, and theoretical models for love and justice. For Plato the "Ur-" is always located in the world of the mind (hence his idea of Platonic forms, the perfect thing of which it's concrete representations are but shadows).

Next to him, Rafael paints Plato's student Aristotle in blue pointing out at the world, because Aristotle believed in empirical evidence. Aristotle's wisdom comes from observation of nature and human behavior. Aristotle writes about dramatic structure by analyzing successful dramas. He catalogues natural history by describing animals and events, recording the information he has gathered. He writes about morality with examples from day-to-day life. In fact, Aristotle lays the groundwork for Humanism and the Scientific Revolution by insisting on experimentation and observation. For Aristotle, the "Ur-" is situated practically.

Lee said:

Perhaps we (I mean we as in Aeclectic members in general) come at the issue from such vastly different viewpoints that the discussion will automatically become heated.
If we imagine two people, one of whom believes with conviction in a religion, and the other is an atheist, we can easily imagine that the religious person will feel that the atheist simply wants to extinguish other people's conviction, and the atheist will feel that the religious person simply wants to impose their own views on everyone else.

Click to expand...

Essentially, the disagreement in this thread (and many others IMO) is that some people side with Plato and point at the sky and others with Aristotle and point at the world. As in the painting, where all of the philosophers that follow them historically are grouped on the "side" of the proto-philosopher they're descended from intellectually. And this is not an either/or, but rather, a SPECTRUM of approach... Do you see the World in the Cards or the Cards in the World?

rachelcat said:

ur-: 1 : original : primitive <ur-form>
2 : original version of <urtext>
3 : prototypical : ARCH- <ur-anticommunist>

Click to expand...

With regard to Darla's original question, Plato might argue that the Ur-Tarot is conceptual and ALL Tarot is a dim reflection of the abstract perfection of the "Form" of Tarot... This is the position Smleite takes above: Tarot is something that we approach asymptotically, but can never fully represent in tangible form because its Ur-form, or point of origin, can only exist as an idea. Another dilemma there because "essence" is another Platonic vaguery: how can you define "essence" if essence itself is a definition of the thing (i.e. prototypical)? What is the essence of something essential? Metaphysics again, ergo circular logic. We are left as the Worm Ourobouros, eating our tails.

Fulgour said:

Ur-Tarot (from German ur-, denoting ’earliest’)

Click to expand...

So too, Aristotle might argue for the first chronological deck because the first Tarot occured at a certain point in literal, concrete time. BUT it gets trickier because "earliest" is an adjectival form that requires a referent for comparison: earlier than what exactly? First cards? First trumps? First cartomantic deck? First cartomantic deck reflecting your tradition of choice? Aristotle might argue that the Ur-Tarot is not the first DECK in existence, but the first time the cards showed themselves to be more than pictures on paper, i.e. when divination took hold as the deck's primary use. Other people could (and will ) argue it started there and returned to it's esoteric roots after a sojourn on salon tables. (which actually is a fourth question buried in Darlas original one.) By asking for the "earliest," aren't we really asking when Tarot moved from entertainment to esotericism?

...Which, if I wanted to make an argument for the Marseilles deck as an Ur-deck, is where I would start. (and herein lies my answer to Darla/Diana's original query) The Tarot is not TAROT until it is used for something other than a game, i.e. in chronologically later decks, that are actually expressive of and used for something more than amusement. As Lee points out, the Marseilles deck is the parent of the Golden Dawn decks, and thence, esoteric Tarot. Then again, Aristotle's side of the School might argue that Marseilles is the Ur-esoteric-Tarot, but the Visconti is the Ur-Tarot, and itself may (or may not!) be descended from other pageantry, narrative and ceremonial traditions.

God, this is getting long. But I've been thinking about this issue in several threads...

Diana's curiosity about Darla's question intrigued me because what she was requesting/identifying in the ATF was essentially a "School of Athens" situation. She is not asking everyone to point at the sky or at the earth, but to explain why they are pointing where they are pointing. Do you see the World in the Cards or the Cards in the World? That is why the School of Athens has Plato and Aristotle side by side in a Forum open to the Sky and Earth surrounded by their peers and intellectual progeny that fall along a spectrum of possibility... It's a School, which means exchanging ideas in an open Forum.

Here endeth my blather...

Scion

Scion, that was so brilliantly helpful and specifically clear! Thank you so much!

Plus, Smleite's use of the word primal was a perfect one-word description to capture the huge essence-question debated here. And Helvetica's specific description, imagining the passage of the TdM among people's hands, uses, and reactions, was a wonderful expansion that, for me, exemplified the Aristotelian practicality alongside the Platonian concept of tarot as primal.

It all fits together! These amazing posts are why I keep studying and reading here. A round of applause for all of you!

(The number of exclamation points is a mere caveshadow of my appreciation.)

Imagemaker said:

(The number of exclamation points is a mere caveshadow of my appreciation.)

Click to expand...

ROFLMAO!

~~

Scion..I like your post!

So, RWS /Golden Dawn might be "neo-Aristotilian" and

Marseille might be "neo-Platonic"

They were both pretty amazing....

Now, if we contemplate Plato's Cave....then I guess the people inside would be thinking more along the lines of Aristotle...and our dear Plato, whose one person left the cave and saw "what was beyond" might be more Marseille-style (I am thinking of pips more here....since the Marseille-style have no figures of people in the Minors...

RWS/ GD has some minors without figures...

Now don't all jump on me here and bring up Italian and Thoth and Crowley and Eteilla and anyone else...I am merely trying to support a cool idea that Scion posted and using two "traditions" as extended examples.

How we view the world to gain our knowledge may lead us toward a particular tradition of reading as well...

I'm not even going into discussing the Ur-Tarot.....

We are all evolving and are today the compilation of all who have gone before.....

terri

(Edited to add: Hmmm....once Plato's guy left the cave, however, didn't he measure the world by what he saw...nature and other creatures...)...and the circle goes round and round)

I love all my "favorite" decks equally as well...they suit my various moods and my sitter's varying tastes.

How we view the world to gain our knowledge may lead us toward a particular tradition of reading as well...

Click to expand...

I think this is so accurate (no "may" about it)--the conceptualists have a natural interest in the background and development of the Big Picture. The practicalists (is that a word? No, should probably be pragmatists) want use-it-now applications and methods.

Fortunately, the world needs both of us!

tmgrl2 said:

Scion..I like your post!

So, RWS /Golden Dawn might be "neo-Aristotilian" and
Marseille might be "neo-Platonic"

(Edited to add: Hmmm....once Plato's guy left the cave, however, didn't he measure the world by what he saw...nature and other creatures...)...and the circle goes round and round).

Click to expand...

But see again, some RWS people may be die-hard Platonic idealists (mystical tradition/esotericism, etc) and some Marseilles people may be hard-nosed pragmatic Aristotelians (based on historical shift in usage from gaming to divination). People's approaches are as individual as the decks and the traditions. I think it's more complicated than dividing decks or traditions or even readers into the two sides of the School of Athens, which is why Darla's original question is interesting.

Readers (and querents) will fall all along the spectrum between the two extremes. Some people who use Marseilles may beilieve it is the PLatonic "Form" of Tarot. Likewise, I imagine that some look practically at the rise and use of the Marseilles and will point out that Marseilles is where divination starts. I imagine no one is all one or the other... Tarot is wildly subjective (there's the Aristotelian in me!). The Marseilles can be portrayed equally as a less-illustrated conceptual deck and as a practical, nuts-and-bolts Tarot-of-the-People. What's illuminating/interesting to me is where people put themselves in that matrix.

Which takes us back to the question: in individual cases, how much of the belief that the Marseilles is the Ur-Tarot derives from practical experience/readings of history and how much from a conceptual/spiritual sense of Ur-status?

Scion

P.S. And, Terri, I agree with you about the post-cave explorer. Being leads to doing which leads to being. It's a chicken/egg: they're inseparable. But putting the emphasis on one can change the fabric of a life.

Scion said:

But see again, some RWS people may be die-hard Platonic idealists (mystical tradition/esotericism, etc) and some Marseilles people may be hard-nosed pragmatic Aristotelians (based on historical shift in usage from gaming to divination). People's approaches are as individual as the decks and the traditions. I think it's more complicated than dividing decks or traditions or even readers into the two sides of the School of Athens, which is why Darla's original question is interesting.

Readers (and querents) will fall all along the spectrum between the two extremes.
Scion

P.S. And, Terri, I agree with you about the post-cave explorer. Being leads to doing which leads to being. It's a chicken/egg: they're inseparable. But putting the emphasis on one can change the fabric of a life.

Click to expand...

Here! Here!

All my life's a circle...sunrise and sunset....

terri

Helvetica said:

Darla, you started this thread. I'm not sure you realised what you were going to unleash...

Click to expand...

Oh yes, I had no idea! When I just logged myself in I nearly fell off my chair when I saw that you guys already filled 6 pages! It's amazing what reactions I'm getting to this question. I wished I wasn't so busy right now. Unfortunately I'm barely home this week and if I am I have to learn. I would so love to dive into the discussion. I have yet to read the rest but I'm following the thread, will add a few comments here and there and if I'm finding myself to have some spare time I will jump in.

smleite said:

I was experiencing some difficulties with the concept of TdM as the Ur-Tarot, but I think the whole question is now clearer to me, so I’ll finally dare to post here.

The Ur-Tarot is not a material reality, but a concept. And this by no means lessens it! I don’t think any Ur-phenomenon can be material. I think that when it is materialized, it becomes a demonstration of itself – which is not the same. Here is where I place the TdM: as the more adequate presentation of the Ur-Tarot we have. Not necessarily the first ever, but simply the most adequate we have at present.

Darla wants to know why.

Well, all I can say is this: There are several religions, and each of them has a way of presenting the path that might lead a man towards God. There are spiritual schools, not exactly – or not at all – religions, which also present their own path for mystical union and spiritual fulfilment of Men. I believe Tarot also presents a path. I don’t know if it is a Royal Way or a minor trail, I don’t even know if it is complete, in the sense that it eventually leads directly to the Divine, or it is partial, and at a certain point we will have to catch another train if we want to continue our journey. Anyway, each true path (there are lots of false ones) has a “perfect” structure underneath its concepts, which is the hallmark of the divine idea from which it issued. If it didn’t issued from a divine, pristine idea, then it will never take us to the divine realms, but that is another story. If Tarot (and not TdM) is a true spiritual path, than it also includes such perfect structure. A structure to which every station of the path can be related to, as a sort of road map, so that we can understand the nodal moments on our evolution as universal, no matter the tradition we are in, because – another thing in which I believe – all those structures are ultimately one, common to any religion or any spiritual path. What is that I see in the Tarot of Marseilles? I see the more adequate presentation of Tarot’s structure, essentially. Where do I see it? In the fact that its archetypes are tremendously pure and intense, directly referring to the most basic and powerful symbols that form the substrate of man’s psyche.

Now, do they have to come to us in medieval clothing or in crude and archaic traces? No, of course not. I like them this way, but those beautiful major cards Oswald Wirth created are a great idea, and by no means a sacrilege... And Major Tom’s Tarot de Marseilles could be another answer for those who dread the medieval look! All this to say, it’s not because they are ancient that they represent the purest archetypes of mankind, it’s because they are primal, they belong to the deeper layers of our psyche, those layers that, being so powerful, undiluted, and primeval, were able to shape and form the rest of our human structures: our mental processes, our emotional responses, our instinctive attitudes.

I myself believe in this: if I am to choose Tarot as a path for seeking spiritual knowledge, than I am into Marseilles. But this, of course, has nothing to do with the relative value of TdM and other decks are divinatory tools – though the divinatory use of the cards is deeply connected to their spiritual study, of course ( ora et labora ...).

Click to expand...

This time, Silvia, I gave in to temptation and quoted your entire post, just for the pleasure of seeing it reproduced entirely. So quietly and truly spoken. Have you been reading in the book of the Papesse? This is the most illuminating - and numinous - explanation I have read. The underlying structure. Undoubtedly an opinion, as Dark Inquisitor would say. But very eloquently argued, and you have encouraged me - as you often do - to explore this structure - as structure - further. (It is not that I compare and contrast, but each post shines a torch on that huge landscape that is Tarot).

I think, though, that one day you might be tempted to go along the by-ways, as Diana calls them, discover strange, quirky , intensely modern decks that will give you something else- what, I don't know, only you know your own thirst. For many who find the reflection of the Divine in them, they are the highways. For some, they are but tools of trade (as the Marseille can be). And why not? for there are Deniers and Bâtons in the Tarot, as well as Swords and Cups, and it is often in unexpected ways that we make spiritual breakthroughs. I think, however, that your own depth of vision would seek out those decks that give you more than a quick fix, decks both simple and deep. As you say, there are many paths to the divine, some false, but not one true single one.

To me walking that path implies two attitudes - an attitude of openness - of emptiness so I can receive, and join with the Multitude, that is the One, the Beloved; and an attitude of discrimination and mental freedom - so I do not get led down a false path. In the ideal, both are effortless! (in the ideal...)

Aaaaaaaaahhhhhh...........what a wonderful discussion to wake up to! Thank you all