ravenest
U
No ... the last Huson book I read was soooooo long ago ... when did this one come out, recently?
" occult nature of the tarot from its origins in ancient Persia "
that got me!
I see it as a misinterpretation if the decans WERE the sole model ... but I dont think they were. As I said .... somewhere ... sometimes they fit, sometimes they dont. LIke the 22 trumps and 22 letters ... that sounds good, lets match them up ... some seem to fit some dont. 40 minors, 36 decans ... do a flourish with the aces (as they dont really count, not being the same) and presto. If I was fitting cards (with an already established meaning) into decans ... I would have to decide which system had the most influence, some might match and some might not, do I change the meaning of a card to match?
Like I said before, I looked at some extensively - some match some dont.
In any case , how do we know the Picatrix (or Ibn Ezra or Agrippa) got the decans 'right' (in some cases they are at odds with each other).
What is a decan anyway? Is it defined by an obscure medieval text or by Chaldean astrology or ancient Egyptian time keeping. My take is that it is defined by the mean influence of the significant stars that are located IN that decan ... I have also worked with that meaning, but of course there is some variation in what influence those stars have ... and even my idea about that is often poo-pooed (yet ; anyone got a better one ? ). We could try to nut it all out in another thread (sounds like fun) ... but we may even be touching on knowledge here beyond what Waite or the G.D. had access to back then.
(Oh ... I meant to say before that I meant 'old style' traditional astrology is better understood now than when the GD was using it. You will get more understanding about that and links to good works on it, in the astro forum here than from a GD book )
... your making Waite sound like Crowley ... (now Crowley is rolling over in his grave )
Settle down now ... ... MUCH in the magical tradition is repeated with mistakes ... there are some DOOZIES in the GD books ... people keep repeating them ... you know why ? Because they dont show up until you DO THE WORK ... the thing is, with books , they seem to give the author some type of instant validity and they might not have done ANY practical work or their own research.
Okay , now I am curious to read what is on those pages ... but it will have to go on end of the queue .
Yep, you just have to decide what Picatrix meaning 'Trumps' previous meanings that you are attached to .
Sure, why not. Picatrix tarot. ( You could publish it and have all these Freemasonic / Kabbalistic tarot readers scratching their heads and going "Where did she get THAT from?" )
No ... the last Huson book I read was soooooo long ago ... when did this one come out, recently?
" occult nature of the tarot from its origins in ancient Persia "
that got me! I see it as a misinterpretation if the decans WERE the sole model ... but I dont think they were. As I said .... somewhere ... sometimes they fit, sometimes they dont. LIke the 22 trumps and 22 letters ... that sounds good, lets match them up ... some seem to fit some dont. 40 minors, 36 decans ... do a flourish with the aces (as they dont really count, not being the same) and presto. If I was fitting cards (with an already established meaning) into decans ... I would have to decide which system had the most influence, some might match and some might not, do I change the meaning of a card to match?
Like I said before, I looked at some extensively - some match some dont.
In any case , how do we know the Picatrix (or Ibn Ezra or Agrippa) got the decans 'right' (in some cases they are at odds with each other).
What is a decan anyway? Is it defined by an obscure medieval text or by Chaldean astrology or ancient Egyptian time keeping. My take is that it is defined by the mean influence of the significant stars that are located IN that decan ... I have also worked with that meaning, but of course there is some variation in what influence those stars have ... and even my idea about that is often poo-pooed (yet ; anyone got a better one ? ). We could try to nut it all out in another thread (sounds like fun) ... but we may even be touching on knowledge here beyond what Waite or the G.D. had access to back then.
(Oh ... I meant to say before that I meant 'old style' traditional astrology is better understood now than when the GD was using it. You will get more understanding about that and links to good works on it, in the astro forum here than from a GD book )
... your making Waite sound like Crowley ... (now Crowley is rolling over in his grave )This is where I am at odds with Waites deck, and darn it makes me mad, why cause some really good artist have created lovely decks, but the imagery on some of the cards, title/order, etc are wrong.
Settle down now ...
... MUCH in the magical tradition is repeated with mistakes ... there are some DOOZIES in the GD books ... people keep repeating them ... you know why ? Because they dont show up until you DO THE WORK ... the thing is, with books , they seem to give the author some type of instant validity and they might not have done ANY practical work or their own research. Okay , now I am curious to read what is on those pages ... but it will have to go on end of the queue .
ETA: I am going to follow only the meanings that follow the "Picatrix". and I going to turn my Marseille by Jane Lyle into new flash cards with the Picatrix meanings on the pips or use a regular deck of playing cards. No more confusion
Yep, you just have to decide what Picatrix meaning 'Trumps' previous meanings that you are attached to .
Sure, why not. Picatrix tarot. ( You could publish it and have all these Freemasonic / Kabbalistic tarot readers scratching their heads and going "Where did she get THAT from?" )
