New Book??

smw

I'm still chewing on this one.I do think that Tarot is expressing Archetypes that have a quasi objective reality, independent from esoteric sophistication. Otherwise, how come people who have never even heard of Tarot express so beautifully the Major Arcana derived from their dates of birth in their lives?

hmmm... maybe some archetypal expressions are more pure, such as the mother, eternal child, trickster, wise man, hermit etc. They are experienced or recognised in some form by everyone. We all have a mother, elders etc. So perhaps these while still having a subjective individual element (ie :suffocating destroying Kali mother or loving nurturer) have some objective universal reality. Also, nature is experienced by all, so the stars, moon and tides for example, may be recognised and related to as universal symbols too.

Then there seems to be a different layer with conscious modifications of archetypal symbols, sometimes over long periods of time and though are still expressions are less direct. In this bunch may fall symbols aligned with cultural habits/customs, fairy tales, myths, esoteric teachings and Astrology. I might wonder how much of the content of this group filters down through family stories, and society, through literature, etc,without people necessarily being aware, or of what the sources are.

So trying :laugh: to relate this to your question, not getting far...perhaps the more pure or basic universal symbols can be recognised in the Tarot from inherent archetypal processes reflected in nature and people. I don't know much about Astrology, though it sounds like a mixture of basic symbol - stars linked to created or modified concepts of personality. Personality influenced and shaped by mother, father archetype.....the moon....

When it comes to specific decks like the Thoth though, there seems to be a interconnected system of meanings associated with given (universal) symbols and the main concept of Thelema created by Crowley. I don't think that means archetypal expressions of symbols can't have some objectivity in their own right, more that they are related to, or expressed within the 'whole' of that created system.

Yes, they are part of the universal unconscious collective. We can consider the BoT a guide to (or dictionary of) that symbolism. But it is not the only possible or legitimate one.

The BOT as being a guide or a shopping list of symbols?.. :joke: It seems more like a guide to the Thoth Tarot with symbolism to me.

Hope you enjoyed your weekend. If you wish to continue this conversation, I will be right here.

Thank you, I did :) some archetypes here on a bonfire night procession :):)
 

Attachments

  • 231.jpg
    231.jpg
    68.3 KB · Views: 135
  • 244.jpg
    244.jpg
    54.9 KB · Views: 127
  • 241.jpg
    241.jpg
    50.7 KB · Views: 131

Zephyros

When it comes to specific decks like the Thoth though, there seems to be a interconnected system of meanings associated with given (universal) symbols and the main concept of Thelema created by Crowley. I don't think that means archetypal expressions of symbols can't have some objectivity in their own right, more that they are related to, or expressed within the 'whole' of that created system.

I think this is what it comes down to. The symbols in the deck are expressed through very specific lenses which work in an interconnected fashion through it and the Book of Law. The female archetype in the Empress, for example, is everything that is the traditional view of it but a lot more. One of the deck's stated aims was to challenge what its creators saw as outdated expressions of those same ideas and to present them in an updated version. Beyond being an occult artifact the deck is also a social criticism. This is especially blatant in cards such as the Hanged Man which subvert the traditional view of self-sacrifice as an exalted virtue.

Also, the GD system as well as the ideas and the images all go hand in hand in making the deck what it is. It isn't only Thelemic ideas but also the interconnecting machine which is the GD Tarot system through which those Thelemic ideas are expressed. So these authors don't just ignore Crowley but also much of the additional symbolism that goes into the deck.

So, when you ignore the background of an idea, you do lose something. The question is, do you mind losing it? Some don't, and they may gain something else. To each their own.

I suspect another part of the traditionalists' complaints are because of the RWS "syndrome." Waite didn't leave much cohesive material about his deck, most material must be gleaned from his assorted writings. As the present study group in the RWS forum shows, there is a breathtaking amount of depth in each card but only if one has the wherewithal to do the work of collecting the different sources. Most people don't and that vacuum has been filled by an entire industry of people collating their own ideas onto the RWS and presenting them as "ultimate," "traditional," "big book'o'tarot," etc. Let's face it, Waite's legacy is in the gutter, his original ideas have been either forgotten or pushed aside as irrelevant or "white male" and even his deck is being taken away from him what with the growing sentiment that invents the idea that he had nothing to do with it.

The Thoth isn't immune to such a process as this book shows. Is that good or bad? I think it's bad but that isn't the same as telling someone not to go that route. I just can't recommend it.
 

Michael Sternbach

hmmm... maybe some archetypal expressions are more pure, such as the mother, eternal child, trickster, wise man, hermit etc. They are experienced or recognised in some form by everyone. We all have a mother, elders etc. So perhaps these while still having a subjective individual element (ie :suffocating destroying Kali mother or loving nurturer) have some objective universal reality. Also, nature is experienced by all, so the stars, moon and tides for example, may be recognised and related to as universal symbols too.

Then there seems to be a different layer with conscious modifications of archetypal symbols, sometimes over long periods of time and though are still expressions are less direct. In this bunch may fall symbols aligned with cultural habits/customs, fairy tales, myths, esoteric teachings and Astrology. I might wonder how much of the content of this group filters down through family stories, and society, through literature, etc,without people necessarily being aware, or of what the sources are.

So trying :laugh: to relate this to your question, not getting far...perhaps the more pure or basic universal symbols can be recognised in the Tarot from inherent archetypal processes reflected in nature and people. I don't know much about Astrology, though it sounds like a mixture of basic symbol - stars linked to created or modified concepts of personality. Personality influenced and shaped by mother, father archetype.....the moon....

When it comes to specific decks like the Thoth though, there seems to be a interconnected system of meanings associated with given (universal) symbols and the main concept of Thelema created by Crowley. I don't think that means archetypal expressions of symbols can't have some objectivity in their own right, more that they are related to, or expressed within the 'whole' of that created system.



The BOT as being a guide or a shopping list of symbols?.. :joke: It seems more like a guide to the Thoth Tarot with symbolism to me.



Thank you, I did :) some archetypes here on a bonfire night procession :):)

I would say that all our top-heavy descriptions of the Archetypes are incomplete and ultimately inadequate attempts to approach something that exists quite beyond the grasp of the conscious psyche. Jung writes in The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious:

Not for a moment dare we succumb to the illusion that an archetype can be finally explained and disposed of. Even the best attempts at explanation are only more or less successful translations into another metaphorical language. (Indeed, language itself is only an image.) The most we can do is to*dream*the myth onwards and give it a modern dress. And whatever explanation or interpretation does to it, we do to our own soul as well, with corresponding results for our own well-being.

The archetype—let us never forget this—is a psychic organ present in all of us.*A bad explanation means a correspondingly bad attitude to this organ, which may thus be injured. But the ultimate sufferer is the bad interpreter himself. Hence the "explanation” should always be such that the functional significance of the archetype remains unimpaired, so that an adequate and meaningful connection between the conscious mind and the archetypes is assured.
 

Michael Sternbach

The thing is, the BoT doesn't give any divinatory meanings for the Minors, and after all, divination is what attracts most people to Tarot in the first place. The one author which adheres to the BoT most closely, DuQuette, elaborates on the esoteric symbolism but again doesn't talk about the divinatory aspects other than referring the reader to the appendix of the book where they find the meanings from Book T faithfully reproduced. Those are often of the "fortune telling" type; insofar they are about psychological characteristics, they are rather pithy and lack subtlety. Smulkin is very similar in this regard.

However, nowadays many people turn to Tarot as a tool for psychological self-exploration; especially the Thoth with its suggestive imagery has a lot of potential in this regard. Little wonder then that they hold authors like Fiebig, Bürgin, Ziegler and others from the Arrien school in high regard which offer in-depth treatment of the psychological meanings of the cards.

As a matter of fact, I don't find that those authors are really at odds with the traditionalist take so much; rather, they are approaching the deck from another angle. But perhaps it is exactly the modern psychological (often Jungian) approach which the trads don't appreciate. There is actually a similar gap dividing traditional and modern astrologers.
 

Barleywine

The thing is, the BoT doesn't give any divinatory meanings for the Minors, and after all, divination is what attracts most people to Tarot in the first place. The one author which adheres to the BoT most closely, DuQuette, elaborates on the esoteric symbolism but again doesn't talk about the divinatory aspects other than referring the reader to the appendix of the book where they find the meanings from Book T faithfully reproduced. Those are often of the "fortune telling" type; insofar they are about psychological characteristics, they are rather pithy and lack subtlety. Smulkin is very similar in this regard.

However, nowadays many people turn to Tarot as a tool for psychological self-exploration; especially the Thoth with its suggestive imagery has a lot of potential in this regard. Little wonder then that they hold authors like Fiebig, Bürgin, Ziegler and others from the Arrien school in high regard which offer in-depth treatment of the psychological meanings of the cards.

As a matter of fact, I don't find that those authors are really at odds with the traditionalist take so much; rather, they are approaching the deck from another angle. But perhaps it is exactly the modern psychological (often Jungian) approach which the trads don't appreciate. There is actually a similar gap dividing traditional and modern astrologers.

I think it's precisely the lack of formal divinatory meaning that makes the Thoth Minors such a joy to approach using only the symbolic correspondences, the colors and the suggestive images. I'm hardly ever at a loss for vivid insights with them, and they seldom fail to stoke my imagination when stuck on a puzzling connection. I didn't use the RWS deck for the first 40-or-so years of my tarot journey, and - while I occasionally find some of the visual cues an inspiration in reading - I still see it as a distant second to the Thoth in that regard.

When I started with astrology and tarot, the New Age (Jungian) psychological model was in ascendancy for the former and just emerging for the latter. I've backtracked almost completely into traditional astrology now (with minor nods to the trans-Saturnian planets) and am moving that way with my tarot practice as well. Most people I read for don't want a character analysis, they're after situational awareness regarding their life circumstances. The psychology is really only useful to me to the extent it can further that objective when a more literal approach stalls. It's probably why I'm gaining an enormous amount of confidence in Lenormand. Anyway, I don't presently have much use for heavily psychological treatises on tarot, so this one I think I'll pass.
 

Zephyros

The thing is, the BoT doesn't give any divinatory meanings for the Minors, and after all, divination is what attracts most people to Tarot in the first place.

I think it depends mainly on who you mean by people. Readers aren't people who just come for a reading and they needn't necessarily need pre-written meanings. I find that the "psychological", "spiritual," "Jungian" or whatever approaches do actually have applications in real life. In my readings I may deal mainly in the causes, that is, the abstract "energies" of the Minors, but from that I extrapolate practical things, even predictions. I don't know whether this or that person likes you but from piecing together the cards and looking at their attributions and the abstract occult influences I can make a pretty good guess.

None of the highbrow occult stuff would have any importance if it didn't have practical use.

I think it's precisely the lack of formal divinatory meaning that makes the Thoth Minors such a joy to approach using only the symbolic correspondences, the colors and the suggestive images. I'm hardly ever at a loss for vivid insights with them, and they seldom fail to stoke my imagination when stuck on a puzzling connection. I didn't use the RWS deck for the first 40-or-so years of my tarot journey, and - while I occasionally find some of the visual cues an inspiration in reading - I still see it as a distant second to the Thoth in that regard.

I agree. Used correctly the attributions are powerful tools to look at any situation.
 

smw

I would say that all our top-heavy descriptions of the Archetypes are incomplete and ultimately inadequate attempts to approach something that exists quite beyond the grasp of the conscious psyche. Jung writes in The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious:

yes, a good reminder, that there is a distinction between the (unknowable) archetypes themselves and exploring their expressions or effects.

Jung;On the Nature of the psyche said:
we must constantly bear in mind that what we mean by "archetype" is in itself irrepresentable, but has effects which make visualisations of it possible, namely, the archetypal images and ideas.

Jung (Michael Sternbach said:
The archetype—let us never forget this—is a psychic organ present in all of us.*A bad explanation means a correspondingly bad attitude to this organ, which may thus be injured. But the ultimate sufferer is the bad interpreter himself. Hence the "explanation” should always be such that the functional significance of the archetype remains unimpaired, so that an adequate and meaningful connection between the conscious mind and the archetypes is assured.

This quote is in the context of the psychology of the Child Archetype. I'm not entirely sure what it means. From my reading of the section though, it seems to relate to explanations of archetypes that do not include purpose or function.ie:

Jung said:
"The Child motif is a vestigial memory of one's own childhood"[

rather than

Jung said:
The child motif is a picture of forgotten things........represents the pre-conscious, childhood aspect of the collective psyche

He goes on to discuss how the child archetype also has a functioning system, not just from the past (as in the first quote) but for the present and future as well. According to him (I think) the importance of the purpose of this function is to compensate the civilised (so called) over rational mind, so that the child aspect is not split off in the unconscious where it can overwhelm the mind or collective mind.... lots of talk generally from Jung on the possessory gripping nature of the numinous archetypes.....:confused:

Jung said:
..The Child paves the way for future change of personality. In the individuation process, it anticipates the figure that comes from the synthesis of conscious and unconscious elements in the personality. It is therefore a symbol that unites the opposites ;a mediatior, a bringer of healing, that is one who makes whole.

Kind of reminds me of Crowley's Aeon of Horus:)
 

Michael Sternbach

I think it's precisely the lack of formal divinatory meaning that makes the Thoth Minors such a joy to approach using only the symbolic correspondences, the colors and the suggestive images. I'm hardly ever at a loss for vivid insights with them, and they seldom fail to stoke my imagination when stuck on a puzzling connection. I didn't use the RWS deck for the first 40-or-so years of my tarot journey, and - while I occasionally find some of the visual cues an inspiration in reading - I still see it as a distant second to the Thoth in that regard.

When I started with astrology and tarot, the New Age (Jungian) psychological model was in ascendancy for the former and just emerging for the latter. I've backtracked almost completely into traditional astrology now (with minor nods to the trans-Saturnian planets) and am moving that way with my tarot practice as well. Most people I read for don't want a character analysis, they're after situational awareness regarding their life circumstances. The psychology is really only useful to me to the extent it can further that objective when a more literal approach stalls. It's probably why I'm gaining an enormous amount of confidence in Lenormand. Anyway, I don't presently have much use for heavily psychological treatises on tarot, so this one I think I'll pass.

I think that's what it really boils down to: The traditionalists tend to dismiss the psychological approach to Tarot (and Astrology, Alchemy etc) as a "New Age hype". But after all, it's our psyche which creates and/or reacts to all our "external" experience. We will never experience ourselves as anything but a psyche! AC once even went ss far as saying that all magic is basically psychology (or something to that effect). What approach to Tarot could then be more important and conclusive than the psychological one? In people who oppose this, isn't there some kind of denial at work?
 

Barleywine

I think that's what it really boils down to: The traditionalists tend to dismiss the psychological approach to Tarot (and Astrology, Alchemy etc) as a "New Age hype". But after all, it's our psyche which creates and/or reacts to all our "external" experience. We will never experience ourselves as anything but a psyche! AC once even went ss far as saying that all magic is basically psychology (or something to that effect). What approach to Tarot could then be more important and conclusive than the psychological one? In people who oppose this, isn't there some kind of denial at work?

It seems to be largely a matter of semantics and refinement. Traditional astrology has a rough-and-ready form of character analysis in the "temperaments," and tarot has its court cards for a similar purpose. When I talk about "situational positioning," often what I'm getting at is an "attitude adjustment" to better integtrate experience with one's self-understanding. But I don't get too "precious" about it, I'm looking for practical significance, not purely intellectual ramifications. Take the Sun and Moon in tarot; I see a strong tendency to give them sensitive astro-psychological overtones when they have a broad range of more literal, mundane meanings readily available. The purpose to which one puts the tarot also seems crucial. If you use it mainly for self-analysis, the psychological approach may be the only one that makes any sense; if you're sitting in a room gazing into a mirror, the more pragmatic interpretations won't yield much of value on a day-to-day basis. On the other hand, someone who has a burning interest in what might happen will have less patience with anything that doesn't shed light directly on their situation, in the most unambiguous terms possible. In that sense, I'm probably more of a "barnyard psychologist" than an acedemic one.

ETA: Oh, and having lived through it from the beginning, I'm still not convinced (as I've said here often) that the so-called "New Age" wasn't - and apparently still isn't - anything more than a "False Spring" and a "Piscean Pipe-dream." The magic got hijacked by the mercenaries to sell stuff. Technically, the Age of Aquarius won't arrive until around 2150.
 

EmpyreanKnight

I am currently reading this after Ziegler (my pace is rather slow because of work). I'm also going through Duquette, although since I intend to finish this one first, I can only go deeper in the Duquette later. There are explanations of symbols that do not exactly match between the three, but they do not seem to blatantly clash, so it's all good. I have yet to read Hughes-Barlow; and the Snuffin, Banzhaf-Akron, and the Book of Thoth itself are also going to move into my personal library before the week ends, so let's see how they compare.

Taken on its own, I think this is rather good. Definitely offers good insights, and it is impressively formatted. It may only be because I have been studying the Thoth for less than a year, but I think the book is very much worth the time I invested in it. But then again, let's see how they compare to the big guns once I get my hands on them.