Scion
What a spectacular thread to wake up to!!
Again, exactly my point:
The reason I referenced the School of Athens is because although it is an attempt to "sum up Western Knowledge" Knowledge isn't depicted in the image, just a bunch of famous middle-aged men. Rather than LITERALLY painting an allegorical figure or symbol for knowledge, Rafael gives us an open space, open to sky and earth. I would argue that the very light and space which characterizes the painting is the attempt to depict knowledge. Notice that Aristotle and Plato look at each other but point away, and that the entire image centers on a point behind them in infinite space that could be sky OR horizon (i.e. earth). I don't know if it's possible that art can ever be literal. Which is why allegory is so tricky.
The School, the Forum, IS the very middle ground you're looking for. The knowledge/wisdom is not the men standing around pontificating, but rather inhabits the space and light and openness between them.
The urge of the Demiurge!!... Spoken like a devoted Albigensian Gnostic, Diana! You're getting at something critical here. People often think in cliches because they're prechewed. We all retreat to well-worn grooves. Perhaps the reason you feel your posts draw ire is because you're tracing the ridge between two world views... and for the most part people like to stick to one mental model or the other. To take the world at face value.
Yes! We reconstruct history through the eyes of the present. Perhaps this comes down to personal taste. I gotta admit I'm perplexed by the demand for "equal representation" I've found on ATF. To reject the Marseille because it does not depict non-white faces is a bit like the medieval Catholics damning the saints and scholars of antiquity for not being Christian. (Dante populates the first ring with those who had the misfortune to be born too early.) Tarot was rendered by medieval Europeans. If you use it, you're using something European. 'Nuff said.
The "Ur-Tarot" will mean something different to anyone who answers the original question. The way I see it, A strictly universal deck would have to be blank... because there is NO rendering that could literally depict every possible expression of a card. Does everything have to be so literal? Not to seem glib, but we could also complain that the Tarot only depicts two-dimensional people and therefore doesn't represent three-dimensional life. That sounded more harsh than I intended, but I'm going to let it stand as an opinion.
Which gets back to my earlier point... Humans tend put things into neat boxes: either/or. Nothing is as simple or literal as much of the world would have it. I'm not saying everyone is either a Platonist or an Aristotelian, but rather that they represent two pillars of western thought that everyone has emerged between.What is fascinating about life and Tarot is the variegated difference between us. Friction produces energy. Reading Tarot is itself an attemopt to discern somplicated patterns in a matrix of conflicting possibilities. Tarot requires one thing: paying attention, and paying attention to anything reveals its complexity. Even if we come together around it, we are all going to approach it as individuals.
I didn't bring up the School of Athens as an example of a polarized situation, but rather as a depiction of a whole system that verges on the numinous. Even if the painting is divided into two sides, it is a painting of a single system. I have a sense that knowledge and Tarot (and all of numinous experience) exists in the space between us.
Scion
Frank Hall said:Coleridge said that everyone is born either a Platonist or an Aristotelian --- but he's off track, I think. Everyone's got both in his or her soul, and everyone needs "Temperance" to mix and blend them.
Maybe it depends on how Aristotle dominant or Plato dominant I am or you are. There must be a middle ground to this, I hope.
Again, exactly my point:
Scion said:Plato and Aristotle are always in the room together... It's always a dialectic. ... The one thing that Tarot teaches all of us is to look closer . And anyone who's paying attention eventually notices that life is full of paradox and contradiction.
The reason I referenced the School of Athens is because although it is an attempt to "sum up Western Knowledge" Knowledge isn't depicted in the image, just a bunch of famous middle-aged men. Rather than LITERALLY painting an allegorical figure or symbol for knowledge, Rafael gives us an open space, open to sky and earth. I would argue that the very light and space which characterizes the painting is the attempt to depict knowledge. Notice that Aristotle and Plato look at each other but point away, and that the entire image centers on a point behind them in infinite space that could be sky OR horizon (i.e. earth). I don't know if it's possible that art can ever be literal. Which is why allegory is so tricky.
The School, the Forum, IS the very middle ground you're looking for. The knowledge/wisdom is not the men standing around pontificating, but rather inhabits the space and light and openness between them.
Diana said:I think there are two reconcilers. Because there are always two sides to the Divine - The Divine created both God and the Devil.
The urge of the Demiurge!!... Spoken like a devoted Albigensian Gnostic, Diana! You're getting at something critical here. People often think in cliches because they're prechewed. We all retreat to well-worn grooves. Perhaps the reason you feel your posts draw ire is because you're tracing the ridge between two world views... and for the most part people like to stick to one mental model or the other. To take the world at face value.
smleite said:Tarot is, by nature, a white, occidental construction. What is the problem with that? I practice an oriental discipline called Taijiwuxigong. When I do so, I am fully conscious that I am practicing an oriental discipline, am don’t rebel against it, saying that it is not universal enough to me. How can it not be universal enough to me, if I practice it?
Yes! We reconstruct history through the eyes of the present. Perhaps this comes down to personal taste. I gotta admit I'm perplexed by the demand for "equal representation" I've found on ATF. To reject the Marseille because it does not depict non-white faces is a bit like the medieval Catholics damning the saints and scholars of antiquity for not being Christian. (Dante populates the first ring with those who had the misfortune to be born too early.) Tarot was rendered by medieval Europeans. If you use it, you're using something European. 'Nuff said.
The "Ur-Tarot" will mean something different to anyone who answers the original question. The way I see it, A strictly universal deck would have to be blank... because there is NO rendering that could literally depict every possible expression of a card. Does everything have to be so literal? Not to seem glib, but we could also complain that the Tarot only depicts two-dimensional people and therefore doesn't represent three-dimensional life. That sounded more harsh than I intended, but I'm going to let it stand as an opinion.
Ross G Caldwell said:In fact it has been said that there are only two ways to look at the world, the Platonist, and the Aristotelian, as though the two were mutually exclusive. However, this is a mistake because Aristotle's reverence for his teacher was not merely as an idol but as the fundamental source of his thought.
Which gets back to my earlier point... Humans tend put things into neat boxes: either/or. Nothing is as simple or literal as much of the world would have it. I'm not saying everyone is either a Platonist or an Aristotelian, but rather that they represent two pillars of western thought that everyone has emerged between.What is fascinating about life and Tarot is the variegated difference between us. Friction produces energy. Reading Tarot is itself an attemopt to discern somplicated patterns in a matrix of conflicting possibilities. Tarot requires one thing: paying attention, and paying attention to anything reveals its complexity. Even if we come together around it, we are all going to approach it as individuals.
I didn't bring up the School of Athens as an example of a polarized situation, but rather as a depiction of a whole system that verges on the numinous. Even if the painting is divided into two sides, it is a painting of a single system. I have a sense that knowledge and Tarot (and all of numinous experience) exists in the space between us.
Scion