Any ideas for a study group?

Teheuti

It seems to me that there has been plenty of open-ended discussions of the details of the RWS cards on this forum and on the Using Tarot Cards and Talking Tarot sections. People can speculate about the cards all they wish and make up meanings for the symbols and referents. We do that all the time on Aeclectic and there's nothing wrong with it.

What there hasn't been here is much discussion of Pamela's specific intentions for cards and their symbols - which is blatantly impossible because there is no indication anywhere of what she intended or even if she knew anything about Tarot other than the brief introduction of her GD grade level and what Waite shared with her (of which we don't know anything definitively). There is nothing to study except for the free-wheeling discussion I've mentioned above - unless you want to debate Katz & Goodwin's assertions in their book.

Nor has there been a structured study here of what Waite was actually saying in PKT. Few understand how important and significant this book has been. That would be a real study and it would accord Waite the same significance in its creation as has been regularly given to Crowley & the Thoth. Of course, in studying Waite, not all ideas are equal. Some will accord with what Waite said in PKT and others of his works and other ideas will not.

Do you want to study what is or make up whatever strikes your fancy?
 

Teheuti

"All ideas should be accepted." Ummmmm....OK. Sorry, I didn't know there were rules regarding the discussion of ideas for a study group. I won't be posting any more in this thread.
LRichard - I think Rodney meant that everyone is free to present an idea about what a study group could be. But, I shouldn't speak for Rodney.

Of course the problem is that the most persistent and definitive voices tend to carry more weight than do the most viable ideas.
 

TheRiderDeck

It seems to me that there has been plenty of open-ended discussions of the details of the RWS cards on this forum and on the Using Tarot Cards and Talking Tarot sections. People can speculate about the cards all they wish and make up meanings for the symbols and referents. We do that all the time on Aeclectic and there's nothing wrong with it.

What there hasn't been here is much discussion of Pamela's specific intentions for cards and their symbols - which is blatantly impossible because there is no indication anywhere of what she intended or even if she knew anything about Tarot other than the brief introduction of her GD grade level and what Waite shared with her (of which we don't know anything definitively). There is nothing to study except for the free-wheeling discussion I've mentioned above - unless you want to debate Katz & Goodwin's assertions in their book.

Nor has there been a structured study here of what Waite was actually saying in PKT. Few understand how important and significant this book has been. That would be a real study and it would accord Waite the same significance in its creation as has been regularly given to Crowley & the Thoth. Of course, in studying Waite, not all ideas are equal. Some will accord with what Waite said in PKT and others of his works and other ideas will not.

Do you want to study what is or make up whatever strikes your fancy?

Exactly!!! We need to study what is. What was Waites interpretation of each card in the Majors and using the PKT as our primary source. For instance, the roses and lilies in front of the Magicians table in the Magician card. What do the signify? Well that we know because if you read that section in the PKT Waite says they represent the"culture of aspiration" it is specific. That I he instructions Pam to put them there. He was very particular about the greater arcana. Artwork and symbols he wanted to illustrate a narrative of the relationship of our soul to the Shekinah, the divine presence. Also symbols of the GD and freemasonry he purposely put in the majors, the stages on the kabbalistic tree of life and so forth. My point is he did not put mountains in a certain card so you can think it is A or B it is there to have a fixed meaning according to Waite.
 

rwcarter

Moderator Note

Per Historical Research is now Tarot History & Development, the forums under what was Historical Research are now under the banner of Tarot History & Development. I can't speak for the other forums under TH&D, but non-scholarly studies are just as welcome in RWS as scholarly studies are. There is no reason why both can't occur. And those who aren't interested in non-scholarly studies don't have to participate in them. But they also won't be allowed to bully those who don't want to do the more scholarly studies.
 

Richard

Hi Rodney,

My understanding is that RWS previously was a subgroup of Historical Research (which is one of the main reasons I found certain "free association" posts bothersome). Now both RWS and Tarot History and Development are subgroups of Tarot Special Interest, which is a better description of the sort of posts which are now allowed.

Peace,
Richard
 

rwcarter

Thanks for that correction. But of course the more important point in the post was Solandia's announcement of the expanded scope of the forums in this part of Aeclectic.
 

Teheuti

Exactly!!! We need to study what is.
Actually, I think it is still an open decision for the study group to make.

The only problem comes when people say things like:

Waite's meaning for the Moon was "green cheese is good for you."

Either decide to discuss why you personally think the Moon expresses "green cheese is good for you" OR discuss what evidence in Waite supports that Waite thought this. If you are going to channel Pixie's intentions, then I think that's another whole group.
 

Yelell

Sounds good. :)
I agree that we should do this "by the book", there are already plenty of general threads on the RWS. However, there should be some leeway granted, as long as what is being said ties in with the topic.

I like going through the Waite book straightforwardly without too much going off course. But there might be room for some brief secondary interpretive insights regarding imagery on cards or brief questions about the book's/cards' contents. Focused on the book but open to more than just summarizing the book.

There may be some overreacting going on, because I haven't seen anyone really promoting unrestrained free association, or being against a direct study of the PKT. Maybe I'm being naive, but I can't quite imagine this snowballing into green cheese and dwarf pedophiles. (at least not from me, I swear!! :angel: )
 

Richard

Yelell, in the past there have been many attempts to discuss the Waite cards objectively, and these discussions have almost always been taken over by Tarot readers desirous of communicating ideas which have come to them while doing divinatory readings, and this group of readers is massive enough to prevail, even when this was a subforum of historical research.

Tarot cards can have an infinity of meanings in divination. Perhaps they can even indicate the dietary advantages of green cheese (although I happen to prefer blue cheese and limburger). Thus, outside of a reading context, a free association interpretation may convey no relevant information whatsoever regarding the intrinsic meaning of a card (i.e. that intended by the author(s)). For many Tarot readers, the notion of intrinsic meaning is totally irrelevant. That is perfectly okay, perhaps even necessary, but I cannot see how it fits into a discussion of a specific deck, such as the Smith-Waite. It belongs, rather, to the topic of divination.

For most decks, Waite and Thoth excepted, there is little to go on regarding intrinsic meanings. Admittedly, PKT may seem a bit sketchy, but it still contains a wealth of information regarding the deck. However, most readers probably think of it as a cookbook of divinatory meanings (which Waite himself admits are essentially generic) and ignore the parts which are more specifically relevant to his deck. Add to PKT Waite's voluminous writings on mysticism and esotericism, and we have a pretty good idea of where he was coming from. In view of this, what could possibly be the value of arbitrary free associative interpretations in this connection?

I suggest that we try to head off such thread hijackings at the outset. ETA: However, I agree totally with Rodney that staying on track should not be attempted by bullying. I had more than my share of actual bullying when I was a youngster, which lasted until I had a growing spurt as a teenager. There is also virtual bullying on the internet, of which I have been on the receiving end in other AT forums, when my heartfelt esoteric perspective has been ridiculed as irrelevant and nonsensical. It is not nice, and I am sorry if any of my posts have been seen as bullying, and apparently they have been so interpreted. I need to be more careful.