Aeclectic Tarot
Tarot Cards & Reviews Tarot Card Meanings Tarot Books Free Tarot Readings Forum Community What's New

  Aeclectic Tarot Forum > Tarot Special Interest > Thoth Tarot > Golden Dawn Traditions

Welcome to the Aeclectic Tarot Forum!

We are the oldest and largest Tarot forum community on the Internet. If you have any questions about any aspect of Tarot or using your Tarot cards, or you just want to connect with other Tarot lovers, you've found the right place!

Registering your account is completely free, and allows you to post your thoughts, share readings, search, save threads, view extra boards and more.


  post a reply
 
Thread Tools
foolMoon 
Citizen
 
foolMoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: 30 Apr 2014
Location: Garden of Light
Posts: 880

Quote:
Originally Posted by JackofWands View Post
Let's slow down here for just a minute. I wish to question your respective definitions of science and metaphysics.

I'm willing to accept your proposition that there is a fundamental division between the two, and that we are currently dealing with the latter (even though, as Ravenest has so beautifully pointed out, that division actually has little historical relevance in understanding the source of the current widely accepted correspondences). However, it's incorrect to say that metaphysics "is in the realm of belief, not universally verifiable truths". Even your buddy Kant (of whom I'm personally not much of a fan) would have disagreed with this. Kant hated belief, and moreover, his categorical imperative was all about universality.
Kant is regarded as one of the most important philosophers since history, so whether one likes or not, he is there to be faced if one is into these topics.

Anyhow, the topics dealt in Metaphysics such as God, Freewill, Life after death ..... how could you come to the universally verifiable truths about them?

They are matter of one's belief or faith, and conclusions about these questions are postulated, not verified by reason according to Kant.

His Categorical imperatives about universality is same, they are postulated concept rather than verified.

The only truths verifiable by reason is mathematical truths such as 1+1=2, or scientific truths such as given all the same conditions, water will boil at 100 degree centigrade, or the Sun will rise in the east which is verified by empirical induction. We don't want to get mixed up with these kind of truths with metaphysical truths postulated by belief and faith, or enlightened by practices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JackofWands View Post
So let's instead propose a different set of definitions (if you'll accept them). Science is empirical, striving for truth based on observational knowledge, whereas metaphysics is purely rational, relying on reason and logic to reveal truths about things we can never directly observe. (In that sense, it's a bit like math.)

Why is this distinction important? Because your argument that metaphysical systems "are not always explainable, or making sense" is wrong. Some systems go back thousands of years, yes, which means that in order to understand them, we have to follow them back thousands of years. (This is exactly what Ravenest has proposed, if I've understood correctly.) But they can still be understood, if you're willing to hunt for the primary sources.
You can use your reason trying to know about all those issues in Metaphysics until the end of the world, but your reason (if it is reasonable), in the end (or instantly) tells you, that it is unknowable, unverifiable, so they are in the realm of faith.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JackofWands View Post
On the flipside, yes, some may be derived from personal, irreducible metaphysical intuitions. Those intuitions are perfectly acceptable on an individual basis, but if they lack intellectual rigor, then they're no basis for a broader, more generalized metaphysics. (This point is similar to the religious idea of UPG; if you have a personal revelation from God telling you that you should wear yellow to church every Sunday, you're more than welcome to do so, but that revelation is not sufficient reason for other people to wear yellow, too.)

If the existing system for astrological correspondences in Tarot doesn't work for you, you are of course welcome to develop a system of your own for personal use. (I myself am guilty of the selfsame sin.) That's totally fair game, and no one on this forum could stop you even if they wanted to. However, you cannot then bring that system into the public sphere and expect people to recognize it or work within its framework. Your personal system can only ever be personal.

And even if you do stray from the garden path, I would still recommend that you do the research (especially since you've bought the books) necessary to understand the existing system of correspondences. There is an underlying logic there, and it's important to recognize that. True, the system is rational rather than empirical, and is in many ways disconnected from the world of modern science, but that does not in any way imply that there aren't still rules guiding its construction. And abandoning that system altogether, or mixing and matching from it without understanding it, means that you'll lose the rigor that makes the system what it is.
Those were just possible options for who are in this journey trying to reach the enlightenment by whatever means possible. It's up to oneself which option to take. Abandoning the whole journey, and then going back to a materialist or nihilist is also an option.

I never said the historical and ancient works are of no use. Whether you follow one of the traditional system, or create your own, you will still rely on the historical sources.



__________________
The universe, including the thinker, exists only by virtue of the thinker's thought. - Crowley, Berashith, Book Four.

Last edited by foolMoon; 11-03-2016 at 07:42.
foolMoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2016     Top   #61
ravenest 
ravenator
 
ravenest's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02 Feb 2006
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 13,748

Quote:
Originally Posted by JackofWands View Post
Let's slow down here for just a minute. I wish to question your respective definitions of science and metaphysics.

I'm willing to accept your proposition that there is a fundamental division between the two, and that we are currently dealing with the latter (even though, as Ravenest has so beautifully pointed out, that division actually has little historical relevance in understanding the source of the current widely accepted correspondences). However, it's incorrect to say that metaphysics "is in the realm of belief, not universally verifiable truths". Even your buddy Kant (of whom I'm personally not much of a fan) would have disagreed with this. Kant hated belief, and moreover, his categorical imperative was all about universality.

So let's instead propose a different set of definitions (if you'll accept them). Science is empirical, striving for truth based on observational knowledge, whereas metaphysics is purely rational, relying on reason and logic to reveal truths about things we can never directly observe. (In that sense, it's a bit like math.)

Why is this distinction important? Because your argument that metaphysical systems "are not always explainable, or making sense" is wrong. Some systems go back thousands of years, yes, which means that in order to understand them, we have to follow them back thousands of years. (This is exactly what Ravenest has proposed, if I've understood correctly.) But they can still be understood, if you're willing to hunt for the primary sources.

On the flipside, yes, some may be derived from personal, irreducible metaphysical intuitions. Those intuitions are perfectly acceptable on an individual basis, but if they lack intellectual rigor, then they're no basis for a broader, more generalized metaphysics. (This point is similar to the religious idea of UPG; if you have a personal revelation from God telling you that you should wear yellow to church every Sunday, you're more than welcome to do so, but that revelation is not sufficient reason for other people to wear yellow, too.)

If the existing system for astrological correspondences in Tarot doesn't work for you, you are of course welcome to develop a system of your own for personal use. (I myself am guilty of the selfsame sin.) That's totally fair game, and no one on this forum could stop you even if they wanted to. However, you cannot then bring that system into the public sphere and expect people to recognize it or work within its framework. Your personal system can only ever be personal.

And even if you do stray from the garden path, I would still recommend that you do the research (especially since you've bought the books) necessary to understand the existing system of correspondences. There is an underlying logic there, and it's important to recognize that. True, the system is rational rather than empirical, and is in many ways disconnected from the world of modern science, but that does not in any way imply that there aren't still rules guiding its construction. And abandoning that system altogether, or mixing and matching from it without understanding it, means that you'll lose the rigor that makes the system what it is.
yes, you pretty much got me. and added some extra good points.

One thing though, with this;

" Science is empirical, striving for truth based on observational knowledge, whereas metaphysics is purely rational, relying on reason and logic to reveal truths about things we can never directly observe."

Its a great current definition. But to extend beyond the 'current' 'metaphysics came about in the PAST ( or, its roots that were developed in the past) by observation of nature and observational knowledge relying on reason and logic OF THE TIME ....

why does an orange fall to earth when thrown and not keep going, why does it take a curved path down ward, why when it is dropped and not thrown does it fall straight down ? Their answers, although considered wrong today, are interesting and make perfect sense , in their own context, not just from logic and past philosophical axioms, but by observation as well.

and science ? it strives for truth based on observational knowledge , sense and logic in its own current context ... similar thing .

But modern science can achieve things physically that previously WERE thought to be 'magical', like a man can fly. What changed? IMO, partially, the observation started to be done by newer and newer technology, this opened up the paradigm and created new thought, new philosophies, new research , and a whole lot of dynamics cam into play, that Butterfield (in 'The Origins of Modern Science ' talks about.

But many people today dont want to know about all that. They live in the age of science and want to operate in a realm of pop occult, divination, invocation ... mmmhe !

Thats life ..... chuck the Butterfield in the basket of old skimmed and abandoned books ; Plato , Agrippa, Rumi, Ficino .....

Wait ! What's this ??? 'The Secret ' ! Ooooo I read that .... wait ! There is a DVD of it, even better !



__________________
Caaw! Arrk arrk arrrrrrrrr
ravenest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2016     Top   #62
ravenest 
ravenator
 
ravenest's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02 Feb 2006
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 13,748

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barleywine View Post
It's probably more than a little disingenuous to propose at this late date in such a long and thought-provoking thread, but I was wondering if it's possible to identify which key works in the Golden Dawn corpus (including its crucial antecedents) one who wants a reasonable grounding in the system would take to that proverbial "desert island." (I'm not suggesting a complete philosophical library, just the vital "entry-level" few).

Over the years I've accumulated several that seemed important, but I was drawn off into Thelema early on and my Golden Dawn explorations were somewhat curtailed, except by obvious association to my other interests.

I have a couple that qualify in the "warm cat-piss" category: Mathers' Zohar translation from the Knorr von Rosenroth Latin The Kabbalah Unveiled (more on that later) and Waite's The Holy Kabbalah, as well as Westcott's Sepher Yetzirah.

The legitimacy of Regardie's "reportage" aside, I have the Falcon Press "brick," The Complete Golden Dawn System of Magic, which purports to contain the original GD papers, but I'm suspicious that Regardie may have exercised some "editorial license" with them.

I have Agrippa's Three Books of Occult Philosophy, which seems to go a long way toward filling the "antecedent" niche. On the other hand, I don't have The Picatrix, which looks like another contender in that category, or anything by Eliphas Levi.

I have a number of seemingly non-essential works by other "interpreters" who were either GD-affiliated or influenced: Dion Fortune, William Gray, Gareth Knight, etc. as well as a complete set of Case's BOTA correspondence course.

If you had to select a half-dozen as "core" contributors to the system, where would you start?

By the way, I absolutely love serendipity: I randomly cracked open The Kabbalah Unveiled to Chapter LXI, and lo-and-behold, there was a thorough explanation of the "right arm" and "left arm" of Microprosopus, which has a direct bearing on a discussion I had with Zephyros in a another thread a couple of weeks ago. Until I sort it out, I'm both confused and illuminated (that is to say, thrilled) in equal measure, which is a good start toward understanding.

tricky question , I cant answer it. For me its like asking , which few pieces of a jig saw puzzle of a map of the island would you take with you to an unknown island.



__________________
Caaw! Arrk arrk arrrrrrrrr
ravenest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2016     Top   #63
foolMoon 
Citizen
 
foolMoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: 30 Apr 2014
Location: Garden of Light
Posts: 880

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barleywine View Post

The legitimacy of Regardie's "reportage" aside, I have the Falcon Press "brick," The Complete Golden Dawn System of Magic, which purports to contain the original GD papers, but I'm suspicious that Regardie may have exercised some "editorial license" with them.

I have Agrippa's Three Books of Occult Philosophy, which seems to go a long way toward filling the "antecedent" niche. On the other hand, I don't have The Picatrix, which looks like another contender in that category, or anything by Eliphas Levi.
I recall skimming through a copy of The Picatrix in the book shop. It had a lot of details of how to make talisman to do such and such and also astrological rituals for achieving this and that. From the translator's introduction to the book, I remember the part where it says that it has influenced the Agrippa, the GD and most of the Western occult and divination in great deal. At the time I mistakenly thought it would not be very relevant to my interest, and put it back to the shelf in the shop.

I was wrong. Definitely a nice book to add to the Occult Library. I will be ordering a copy soon.



__________________
The universe, including the thinker, exists only by virtue of the thinker's thought. - Crowley, Berashith, Book Four.
foolMoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2016     Top   #64
  post a reply

Latest Threads in Tarot Decks

Latest Threads in Talking Tarot

Latest Threads in Using Tarot Cards



Go ad-free and support us too - upgrade your account to subscriber today

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off



All times are GMT +10. The time now is 09:27.

 


Tarot Forum Categories
· Tarot Decks
· Using Tarot Cards
· Tarot Trading
· Talking Tarot
· Reading Exchange
· Your Readings
· Tarot Games & Fun
· Tarot Deck Creation
· Marseilles
· Rider-Waite-Smith
· Thoth Tarot
· Tarot Study Groups
· Lenormand
· Oracles
· Divination
· Spirituality
· Chat
· New Members
· Advertisements
· Forum Help


Aeclectic Tarot Categories
· Dark & Gothic Decks
· Steampunk Decks
· Goddess Decks
· Angel Decks
· Fairy Decks
· Dragon Decks
· Beginner Decks
· Pagan & Wiccan Decks
· Ancient Egyptian Decks
· Celtic Decks
· Fantasy Decks
· Tarot Books
· Lenormand Decks
· Rider-Waite Decks
· Marseilles Decks
· Thoth Decks
· Oracle Decks
· Doreen Virtue Decks
· Popular Tarot Decks
· Available Decks
· Upcoming Decks
· Solandia's Top Ten
· Top Ten Decks
· List All Decks

Who is behind the Aeclectic Tarot Forum?

My name is Kate Hill (also known as Solandia) and I'm a Tarot reader, deck collector, and lifelong student of the beauty and diversity of Tarot cards.

I created Aeclectic in 1996 to share my passion for Tarot with the world, and started the forum in 2000 so others could share theirs too. Read more about me, contact me or connect in the forum.

  Contribute to Aeclectic

· Add your deck
· Advertise
· Write a review
· Join the community

  Aeclectic Tarot Resources

Copyright © 1996 - 2017 Aeclectic Tarot. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy. Contact us.