Symbolism in the RWS 6 of Cups

Michael Sternbach

Well, it could be argued there really is only one card anyway, the Ace of Wands. All the others are elaborations on it. ;)

Could you please explain what you mean by this?
 

kwaw

Well, it could be argued there really is only one card anyway, the Ace of Wands. All the others are elaborations on it. ;)

?

Yod of Yod, the first letter of the divine name, the tip of which is in Keter and thus the root or source of all others?

Or the fool, as Aleph, the source of the other 21 letters (which are organised under three groups of seven, the rules of grace, love and judgement)?

Or something like that ;)
 

Zephyros

Yod of Yod, the first letter of the divine name, the tip of which is in Keter and thus the root or source of all others?

Or something like that ;)

Yes this is what I meant. Although Aleph is the first, the source is Yod, the infinitely contracted point. The Fool issues out from the Ace. Keter in Atziluth, pure Will.

(Of course this would mean a very thin and useless deck but probably quite cheap)
 

Teheuti

Indulge me for a moment and set personal meanings to one side for a while. Where does the theme come from? Is it imposed by the reader on the art. Or has the artist tried to express a theme through the language of form, colour, and symbol to which meaning may then be applied by the reader.
Obviously it depends on the deck and the intent of 1) the conceptualizer, 2) the artist, 3) the reader, and 4) the querent, separately or in combination. For instance, no matter what the reader may say, the querent may respond negatively to Death, the Tower or the Hanged Man - obviating anything the reader says about the card. I can't read with certain Tarot decks because the artwork is too alien to my own conceptions of the cards and I, personally, can't overlook that, while others can.

Since divinatory meanings for the cards were attached several hundred years after its creation, any intent or meaning could be seen as valid if it works. However the Western European allegorical associations for the cards dominate for the Majors and, to a lesser extent, for the suit images - Batons, Cups, Swords and Coins. In general, the numbers are more or less associated with Pythagorean number symbology and/or an increase in the suit - at least until the Golden Dawn began associating the numbers with the Sephiroth.

The 19th century French commentators, based on Etteilla, tended to see 5s as the height of the suit, based on a Pythagorean approach (5 is the "marriage" of the first even and first odd number 2+3, since 1 is unity and neither odd nor even). 6 was the imperfect female marriage number with a connection to Venus. Papus added that it was the "synthesis of the opposition" in its suit. [See Medieval Number Symbolism: Its Sources, Meaning and Influence on Thought and Expression by Vincent Hopper for more details and variations.]

For the Golden Dawn, which owed some of its approach to Etteilla (Mathers' 1888 Tarot book was basically a compilation of Etteilla's meanings), Fives were associated with Geburah and Mars on the Pillar of Severity. Sixes were associated with Tiphereth and the Sun (Beauty) on the Middle Pillar. Six became the point at which each suit reached the height of perfection (but not completion). Like the summit of a mountain, one must then begin a perilous descent (7s) until reaching the end of the journey.

Most modern deck creators are unaware of the principles that informed Etteilla, Eliphas Lévi and the Golden Dawn, and so they just generally follow the theme they see or are taught. Some even come up with their own variations, as in the attempt by a few to have as many good cards as bad in the suit of Swords (see The Voyager Tarot).
 

ravenest

Well, it could be argued there really is only one card anyway, the Ace of Wands. All the others are elaborations on it. ;)

Even the elaborations are separate 'entities'. They are formed from the primal Platonic form.

In our world ( even though they had one origin in the ideal world), on this plane they are a multitude - but I know that you already know this. ;)

For others; think of white light as the source, the 'elaborations' are different colours coming out of a prism. Look closely, one cant really say where one colour changes into another.

But you can tell yellow from indigo cant you? We can say, in one way, they are all originate from the one source, that is the white light. Mix all the colours together ... again- slush -

You cant work it backwards ... this one form is in an ideal world, above the abyss ( and above our 'wisdom and understanding' ) ,mix what is below, to try and make the 'one above' ... you get slush as you are doing it in the world below the primal unity.

This argument seems to be suggesting that red is really blue and anyone can call any colour whatever one wants to (well one can IF one wants to ..... but go out and try that in communication and observe the reaction ) or suggest it to a colour therapist.
 

Teheuti

After our (+ Scion) previous discussion on the Thoth Tarot I came away with the impression that you thought the artist/creator had little or no input in this area. They just splashed a canvas with random blobs of paint completely without rhyme or reason. Only later could a reader come along and impose order on this artistic Tarot chaos. The original intent of the deck creator was irrelevant and superfluous.
No matter what I say about a range of experience, or my obvious knowledge and use of traditional Tarot meanings - the fact that I don't read *exclusively* "by the book" gives people license to declare that I advocate an "anything goes" attitude - as if one has to cling to the extreme. It's this kind of either/or attitude that I find silly. Read what Pamela Colman Smith said about looking at an image!
 

rwcarter

Moderator Note

So let's bring this discussion back to the symbolism in the 6 Cups.
 

Teheuti

Originally Posted by closrapexa:
Well, it could be argued there really is only one card anyway, the Ace of Wands. All the others are elaborations on it.
Or, if reading the RWS deck, one could take seriously what Waite said about the Ace of Cups: "It is an intimation of that which may lie behind the Lesser Arcana." (PKT, p. 224)
 

Zephyros

Or, if reading the RWS deck, one could take seriously what Waite said about the Ace of Cups: "It is an intimation of that which may lie behind the Lesser Arcana." (PKT, p. 224)

Perhaps he was referring to the enveloping shell, the negative veils, Love as the driving force, etc. Or maybe even some other doctrine I'm not familiar with.

ravenest said:
This argument seems to be suggesting that red is really blue and anyone can call any colour whatever one wants to (well one can IF one wants to ..... but go out and try that in communication and observe the reaction ) or suggest it to a colour therapist.

Only to the Adept. He develops perhaps a type of "Matrix (the film) vision" in which all is numbers, and all is One. Ultimately all the cards are illusions, separations that exist only for our benefit as flawed individuals separated from the primal unity. Etc. etc. etc.

In any case, the mod has already issued a slap on the wrist, and so we had better go back to the card. What I find somewhat missing from the conversation is what is actually going on there. Like I said several times, while personal intuition may be valid, you can either agree or disagree with it, it doesn't go to far in a discussion.

Pertaining to the decan I still find it a somewhat negative card, whether or not I confused myself or not. Sun in Scorpio still seems like stunted growth to me, or else pleasure that has an end point (valid, of course, if rather vulgar). But does the card show the kabbalistic/astrological equation in any way, or is there something else at work entirely? Could the larger figure be the Sun giving Love to Scorpio and the latter accepting it? Is that the "pleasure" that is derived here? Do the five-petaled flowers signify Geburah in some way, and if so, why? The mitten has been discussed as Masonic, what is the significance there?

I just need something substantial to chew on.