Waite and his numerous "veils"

arya ishtar

Lol @ "phantom collective." I'm not going to waste time finding citations, but have read on at least 3 diff blogs comments about people on here getting uppity, and have seen it myself. (Directed at myself and other newbies.) perhaps extensive knowledge makes one insensitive when dispensing wisdom to the unwashed masses? I was under the impression this was a site for learning, not metaphysical masturbation.

And, no, my search is no less valid. And to say it is just proves my point...
 

Zephyros

I don't understand why you would say that, no one on this thread has been uppity, and if you're saying that what I said proves your point it's obvious you didn't get the context of why I said what I said. (Well, isn't that a badly written sentence :) )

Let's put it another way. The Lord of the Rings Tarot doesn't explain at every mention of Frodo who he is and what he did. It doesn't include a complete edition of the Lord of the Rings with every deck, it assumes you've read it. Is that a veil or a blind? No, because either you've read the book or you haven't, and the deck is targeted specifically at a certain target audience who has. People coming to the LOTR deck and complaining that the deck's LWB doesn't explain the entire history of the Ring, well, their complaints would in fact be less valid simply because they aren't the target audience.

Golden Dawn decks, with the RWS included, are targeted at a specific audience. Either one is familiar with the material or not. And in case that is seen as "uppity" well, I'm not the target audience either. The only deliberate falsification of Waite's that I have seen, and really take issue with, is his ordering of the Courts in the PKT. I'll add the obligatory note that this doesn't mean others can't use them, but the companion literature will indeed a certain base knowledge it assumes the reader is fluent in.
 

ravenest

Lol @ "phantom collective."

Glad you liked that one :) it was good wasn't it.

Hey, that post #30 was pretty good too, especially the last 2 paragraphs.

The great thing here (I reckon) is that SUCH a book / deck /man with all the things he was into and implied and twisted and pomposed and hid and teased and metaphysically ... (you know ... that word you used ) to the ... ooooh 'outside observer' ... there! I said it. ... which is probably a large proportion of tarot readers (unless Waite style GD Christianity Freemasonry has recently suged ahead of general New Age interest :bugeyed: ) MOST Tarot readers (including me) find hims somewhat ... 'awkward' ?? AND (back to the 'great thing') his deck has become one of the mainstream most commonly used decks (until pussycats and fairies took over) and familiar images.

So in a way, if one wants to understand one of the most 'common' decks or the book that goes with it one has to read those other books C. mentioned (and probably more).

Gee .... it even reads like a conspiracy.


I'm not going to waste time finding citations,

Of course you wouldn't :laugh: that would be ridiculous ; posting a list of comments from other sites here about those terrible people over at Tarot Forum ... yes, that would be a waste of time ... but pretty funny.


but have read on at least 3 diff blogs comments about people on here getting uppity,

Uppity ? :laugh: Uppity? whats that? Like 'up ourselves'? Next thing the other sites will gang up on us and want to have an intervention.


and have seen it myself. (Directed at myself and other newbies.)

Heaps of new people here say thanks to AT and its members for the info and support they get ... gosh! I read them everyday, including personal thanks to the posters above ... even sometimes me !!! I know, I know .... but its true!

Maybe it has something to do with the 'type of Newbie' and how they come across ... or should I say ... how they 'look over the fence' (in my case the gate was open, I just walked on through)

It takes two to Tango, as they say ;)


perhaps extensive knowledge makes one insensitive when dispensing wisdom to the unwashed masses?
2 things ... 1.yes. you will be required to wash first, its only polite ; wether it is "Aspurge me with hyssop O Lord and make me clean " or empting your mind to hear Zen discourse , or showering the days grime off before formal Ju-jitsu class ... that's the way it is, it applies everywhere and a hard line is drawn ; if one doesn't like it, well; its 'What too hard Princess?" No one one is forced to attend in the first place.

2. Yes, in another way you are right and it bugged the hell out of me when it happened to me, fortunately for me, my traditions had a fairly good view of that and too an extent came down on those who did it. What do you think ended the GD (and it wasn't just AC ) and why did AC's order after that (AA) mask identity? Yes its in the 'tradition' but some people just have a really bad approach and that can trigger that, at the same time I have seen the same people that got triggered and do it be absolute gems to others.

I was under the impression this was a site for learning,

That's not all it is for ... its for lots of stuff ... I mean I came on as a non member the other day and I did not get the impression that was the main focus of the site. Although it is a big part of it.

not metaphysical masturbation.

Heavens forbid! Mr Waite would not have a bar of it (get it?) In any case the correct section for MM is in the Thoth forum, GD section , under OTO VI* (in some cases apparently it DOESNT take two to tango)

And, no, my search is no less valid. And to say it is just proves my point...

Nah, I don't think anyone's search is less valid ... but then I am a metaphysical liberal ;)
 

Teheuti

In reading the comments section on Amazon, I've discovered there are a certain number of people will give a book only one or two stars because: 1) it didn't arrive promptly, 2) it was about apples when they wanted oranges (despite the title being "The Complete Book of Apples"), or 3) it refers them to other books (footnotes & a bibliography) rather than telling them *everything* about the subject & in very simple language.

What I tell people who complain that a book was not exactly what they wanted is that that is the book they need to write. This was my perspective when writing several of my books. Write the book you want to read! It should be noted that it might take you many years and lots of research to be able to do it adequately - but look at all you will have learned in the meantime!

Note: Many people have written their own version of a Rider-Waite book because they didn't like Waite's or felt he didn't explain enough.
 

ravenest

That's interesting to hear the main reasons people complain.

With the Waite book I suppose it is that discrepancy again; one of the most obscure writers on tarot has one of the most popular decks.

It is a good idea to write one's own book, but most people want someone else to do it (i.e. write their own book for them ... no wonder it gets confused).
 

Teheuti

Just to clarify, I didn't claim those were the main reasons. Another complaint is that the author could have stated the whole book in a paragraph, or that he or she shouldn't have wasted their time with examples, or should have included more examples. I even saw one comment where the person was outraged that the author acknowledged those who had helped in the writing of the book. People get offended by the strangest things - as if the author was deliberately doing it to be mean to them.
 

momentarylight

Rosanne's comments are well worth considering. We are being a bit myopic. Instead of finding fault with what we see as shortcomings due to historical circumstances, let's see what we have now, and take advantage of it.

We should not fault Waite for his oaths, nor can we fault him for his inability to see that a book like PKT would not communicate (assuming that he had Asperberger's Syndrome).

Instead, we have a beautiful Tarot deck which speaks to many people according to their level of understanding. It led me to AT and consequently the revelation that it is related to a philosophical system which is inclusive of everything that exists (and nonexists, in the sense of negative existence).

Yes, I bought PKT at a Theosophical bookshop in Philadelphia PA, around 1958, and it meant nothing to me then. It means a lot to me now, in the light of what I have learned more recently, and an understanding of its self-imposed limitations.

Except for the RWS I would not be futzing around with Tarot at all, the magnificant Crowley Thoth notwithstanding.

I read the PKT long after purchasing the RWS and found it quite refreshing having read countless other books on the RWS symbolism. Simplicity appeals.

I would not be able to read the RWS without some study, however. When I first got it, I put the deck aside and chose another RWS type that was more to my liking at that time.

The deck does indeed have a life of its own, and many descendants :).

Incidentally, hearing that Waite possibly had Aspergers Syndrome suddenly made him much more accessible to me.
 

uri_raz

IMHO, Waite does give hints to correspondences

Where the Thoth shows you all of the correspondences on the card, the RWS doesn't even hint at any correspondences, it just gives you a picture.

I disagree - there are plenty of hints.

For starters, Waite used plenty of G.D. elements in the court cards, see http://www.tarot.org.il/RWS/RWSvsGD_Court_Cards.html, and the PKT notes some of those, e.g. it says of the king of pentacles that "the bull's head should be noted as a recurrent symbol on the throne".

The astrological sign for Venus appears in the Empress card, and ram heads (for Aries) in the Emperor. Of the Strength card Waite writes in the PKT that "for reasons which satisfy myself, this card has been interchanged with that of justice". IMHO, anyone trying to match trumps to Hebrew letters & their associations per Sefer Yetzira would get a hint from those three.
 

Zephyros

It is very good to see another Israeli here interested in GD lore, Uri. I also recall your website helping me when I was researching something, can't remember what.

I agree with you that for those who know what to look for, it is all there is the Waite deck. However, something that has not been mentioned in this thread, and I hope no one shoots me for saying this, is that maybe Waite's legendary pomposity was actually justified and correct. I have heard complaints from many, even those not interested in esoteric minutiae, about how obscure Waite was, how little he says in the PKT, how he condescendingly says certain topics are too complicated or not suitable for the general reader, etc. Still, when those same subjects are explained to those same people (and this phenomenon is seen quite acutely in most parts of Aeclectic) the explainer is met with glassy eyes, and the inquirer inevitably retreats to the warm embrace of "intuitive reading."

People just aren't interested, and in many cases even those who are angered by Waite's obscurity resist actually doing the work of lifting the veils. Like Mary said quite rightly, people find any reason to lodge complaints, and if Waite had, indeed, written a book comparable in scope to the Book of Thoth, the same complaints made against that book would be made against Waite, that it is too long, too complicated, etc. In order to understand the interchange of Strength and Justice one would have to study Kabbalah, astrology and a few other things just for the explanation not to sound like gibberish, and that still wouldn't guarantee understanding the reasoning behind it. But general readers mostly confine themselves to complaining about the style while being disinterested in the substance.
 

uri_raz

Ain't that the sad truth

It is very good to see another Israeli here interested in GD lore, Uri. I also recall your website helping me when I was researching something, can't remember what.

If you count people interested in offshoots (OTO, BOTA, etc), there are plenty. Apparently they don't talk much with each other. Or maybe they just don't like talking with me, not blaming them any for it.

I have heard complaints from many, even those not interested in esoteric minutiae, about how obscure Waite was, how little he says in the PKT, how he condescendingly says certain topics are too complicated or not suitable for the general reader, etc. Still, when those same subjects are explained to those same people (and this phenomenon is seen quite acutely in most parts of Aeclectic) the explainer is met with glassy eyes, and the inquirer inevitably retreats to the warm embrace of "intuitive reading."

My impression is most of them want the explanation to validate their preconceptions, and are unhappy when it doesn't.

<bitching>
I get this most often with astrological attribution to the court cards - when I give them the correct answer, they just quote scripture (read: Dr. Yoav Ben Dov's book, whether they learnt it directly or indirectly), even in face of scripture's author's admission the attribution he uses is in no way Waite's.
</bitching>