ravenest
You see it clearly I think ... so do a few others ... but I note, you dont seem to have 'investment' in the issue ? You have no need to appeal and placate the 'popular consumption' ?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Symbolism in the RWS 6 of Cups
You see it clearly I think ... so do a few others ... but I note, you dont seem to have 'investment' in the issue ? You have no need to appeal and placate the 'popular consumption' ?
ravenest
I didn't say that and really don't like my long post being reduced to a statement like this. However, within a theme, a card can still take on a range of meanings. In particular instances and in light of the question and other cards, the Six of Cups (or any other card) can take on a very different aspect than the reader's or the book's normal meaning.
And this is what I have been saying all along; a RANGE of meanings ... not ANY meaning one cares to give an image ... but a range of meanings for a CARD .
I wasnt reducing your long post to a 'statement like this' I was only responding to the bit I quoted, a few lines, and this in particular " The cards exist, all the different images of every card in all the different decks exist, and all the differing ideas about the cards and the images exist."
Aside from the approach of saying - you just said that things that exist do exist - I took it a bit deeper than that in that I thought you meant also - therefore those meanings are relevant to the card. Otherwise the statement just means - 'things that exist exist'.
Zephyros
Sorry I can't answer all the posts I would like to as I am on my phone. I will try to do so in the morning.
In any case I think it depends what kind of range we are talking about. While the Thoth and RWS aren't the same deck one can glean much about one from the other. The Lord of pleasure does have a sinister side to it. There is what Crowley says about the card and the dark waves of the ocean and vines like tentacles. I find it ironic that although Waite chose to accentuate the brighter aspects of this card its darker ones still manage to filter through.
But that range should be based on something, if only because the Six is what it is because of the Five and Seven and also because of the Emperor, Justice, Hermit and Lovers. It is easy to ask "what if" when that serves free association but then any discussion becomes simple art appreciation, valid in its own way but ultimately as onanistic as, well, Sun in Scorpio itself, when discussing Tarot cards. It can be again easy to ask "what if" Waite used this or that influence and he probably did use all the ones Tehuti posted but we know what were his main influences and can, perhaps even should, use those as our base. Without that we have no structure to our enquiry. This is because the images have passed through several filters of interpretation and are second or third hand.
What a card means and how it is used in a reading are very often two very different things. Even Waite understood this, adding the chapter on related meanings for the cards at the end. This chapter is often at odds with the first part but it does constitute an important section for readers. Not necessarily for occult purposes, though.
This isn't to say I believe my own interpretation to be "correct." It is my own, subject to my own fallacies and biases. As has been shown, my own interpretation differs from ravenest's, even though we use more or less the same tools. I myself tend to see the negative aspects of the card highlighted while he sees the positive ones. The difference is that I can back up my conclusions about the card by attempting to recreate the working process by which the card was made. I didn't make up that process. Rather I have observed several coincidences and tried several hypotheses. At some point coincidence becomes evidence. It walks like a duck and quacks like one, so it isn't too far fetched to conclude what it is. Whether it is a loon or something else of that family can be debated, but it is highly unlikely that it is in fact an armadillo. The ultimate difference is that I can do that, and not just say "that bleeping dwarf creeps me out."
In any case I think it depends what kind of range we are talking about. While the Thoth and RWS aren't the same deck one can glean much about one from the other. The Lord of pleasure does have a sinister side to it. There is what Crowley says about the card and the dark waves of the ocean and vines like tentacles. I find it ironic that although Waite chose to accentuate the brighter aspects of this card its darker ones still manage to filter through.
But that range should be based on something, if only because the Six is what it is because of the Five and Seven and also because of the Emperor, Justice, Hermit and Lovers. It is easy to ask "what if" when that serves free association but then any discussion becomes simple art appreciation, valid in its own way but ultimately as onanistic as, well, Sun in Scorpio itself, when discussing Tarot cards. It can be again easy to ask "what if" Waite used this or that influence and he probably did use all the ones Tehuti posted but we know what were his main influences and can, perhaps even should, use those as our base. Without that we have no structure to our enquiry. This is because the images have passed through several filters of interpretation and are second or third hand.
What a card means and how it is used in a reading are very often two very different things. Even Waite understood this, adding the chapter on related meanings for the cards at the end. This chapter is often at odds with the first part but it does constitute an important section for readers. Not necessarily for occult purposes, though.
This isn't to say I believe my own interpretation to be "correct." It is my own, subject to my own fallacies and biases. As has been shown, my own interpretation differs from ravenest's, even though we use more or less the same tools. I myself tend to see the negative aspects of the card highlighted while he sees the positive ones. The difference is that I can back up my conclusions about the card by attempting to recreate the working process by which the card was made. I didn't make up that process. Rather I have observed several coincidences and tried several hypotheses. At some point coincidence becomes evidence. It walks like a duck and quacks like one, so it isn't too far fetched to conclude what it is. Whether it is a loon or something else of that family can be debated, but it is highly unlikely that it is in fact an armadillo. The ultimate difference is that I can do that, and not just say "that bleeping dwarf creeps me out."
Teheuti
First - all kinds of approaches and beliefs exist. Second - some work better than others. Third - statements about what works best need to be evaluated in context, including the style, approach and philosophy of the reader, the kind of client and question, and the deck being used.Aside from the approach of saying - you just said that things that exist do exist - I took it a bit deeper than that in that I thought you meant also - therefore those meanings are relevant to the card. Otherwise the statement just means - 'things that exist exist'.
Which interpretation of the 6 of Cups, among those I quoted would you say is wrong and why?
Zephyros
They are surprisingly similar. Even where the sources don't seem to coincide, as in the Saint Germain, there is still a hint of the decan.
ravenest
QUOTE
I know ... we just did that . I know they exist ... I dont get why you keep listing things and saying they exist .
yep.
yes as I keep saying , in context of a reading any of the whole range of meanings can emerge, but associations with those symbols in the cards image is for the one having their cards read and not the one reading ... like child molesting. I have said this in so many ways I dont know how else to say it.
I wasnt saying that, what I was saying is in post 102.
First - all kinds of approaches and beliefs exist.
I know ... we just did that . I know they exist ... I dont get why you keep listing things and saying they exist .
Second - some work better than others.
yep.
Third - statements about what works best need to be evaluated in context, including the style, approach and philosophy of the reader, the kind of client and question, and the deck being used.
yes as I keep saying , in context of a reading any of the whole range of meanings can emerge, but associations with those symbols in the cards image is for the one having their cards read and not the one reading ... like child molesting. I have said this in so many ways I dont know how else to say it.
Which interpretation of the 6 of Cups, among those I quoted would you say is wrong and why?
I wasnt saying that, what I was saying is in post 102.
ravenest
Sorry I can't answer all the posts I would like to as I am on my phone. I will try to do so in the morning.
In any case I think it depends what kind of range we are talking about. While the Thoth and RWS aren't the same deck one can glean much about one from the other. The Lord of pleasure does have a sinister side to it. There is what Crowley says about the card and the dark waves of the ocean and vines like tentacles. I find it ironic that although Waite chose to accentuate the brighter aspects of this card its darker ones still manage to filter through.
Huh ? A bit confused here, are you saying " the dark waves of the ocean and vines like tentacles" following on 'what Crowley says about the card' ?
Who made the 'vines' like 'tentacles' ? Are 'dark' waves symbolic of something. And what Crowley says about the card ... well that is an easier one;
" The Six of Cups is called Pleasure. This pleasure is a kind of pleasure which is completely harmonized. The zodiacal sign governing the card being Scorpio, pleasure is here rooted in its most convenient soil. This is pre-eminently a fertile card; it is one of the best in the pack."
Completely harmonised ... one of the best in the pack .
" The lotus stems are grouped in an elaborate dancing movement." Is that your "vines like tentacles" ?
" Pleasure, in the title of this card, must be understood in its highest sense." (not the lowest , like a peadophile ) " it implies well-being, harmony of natural forces without effort or strain, ease, satisfaction. "
" Foreign to the idea of the card is the gratification of natural or artificial desires."
But that range should be based on something, if only because the Six is what it is because of the Five and Seven and also because of the Emperor, Justice, Hermit and Lovers. It is easy to ask "what if" when that serves free association but then any discussion becomes simple art appreciation, valid in its own way but ultimately as onanistic as, well, Sun in Scorpio itself, when discussing Tarot cards. It can be again easy to ask "what if" Waite used this or that influence and he probably did use all the ones Tehuti posted but we know what were his main influences and can, perhaps even should, use those as our base. Without that we have no structure to our enquiry. This is because the images have passed through several filters of interpretation and are second or third hand.
What a card means and how it is used in a reading are very often two very different things. Even Waite understood this, adding the chapter on related meanings for the cards at the end. This chapter is often at odds with the first part but it does constitute an important section for readers. Not necessarily for occult purposes, though.
This isn't to say I believe my own interpretation to be "correct." It is my own, subject to my own fallacies and biases. As has been shown, my own interpretation differs from ravenest's, even though we use more or less the same tools. I myself tend to see the negative aspects of the card highlighted while he sees the positive ones.
I see them highlighted by the card itself, the card has a good spin on itself ... dont tell me now that it is going to be seen as mostly negative aspects now ... except for ravenest's 'unusual' take on it .
The difference is that I can back up my conclusions about the card by attempting to recreate the working process by which the card was made. I didn't make up that process. Rather I have observed several coincidences and tried several hypotheses. At some point coincidence becomes evidence. It walks like a duck and quacks like one, so it isn't too far fetched to conclude what it is. Whether it is a loon or something else of that family can be debated, but it is highly unlikely that it is in fact an armadillo. The ultimate difference is that I can do that, and not just say "that bleeping dwarf creeps me out."
" Children in an old garden, their cups filled with flowers " ... children <walks off sadly shaking head >
Aoife
Part of the problem is that two different uses of Tarot are frequently presented under the same catch all term of "Tarot reading."
In one approach the cards have a strictly defined meaning that is tied to the symbols on the cards. But this 'magical language' has to be absorbed and deeply integrated in such a way that it 'seeds' the subconscious mind and sets up a channel of communication via a clearly defined set of symbols. To me that is Tarot reading in the proper sense.
The second approach came out of the self help scene in 80's and basically sees the cards as meaningless pictorial designs. These are then used as a blank 'field' for the projection of the personal psyche. This is a perfectly valid use of Tarot, but I personally would not call it 'reading'. In fact you could use any kind of cards for this sort of exercise. But this is the method pushed by many modern day Tarot authors for popular consumption.
I agree... but only in the sense that these are the two ends of a continuum. Be it a straight line or bell curve, I suspect the majority of readers occupy the middle ground. As such, maybe there is a need for a refining of the definition of 'reading'... one which takes into account the vast range and fundamental differences in style. Otherwise a new word or phrase entirely?
Aoife
Oh dear, I should have read on before replying. Mary expresses it far better than me.
I agree with your statement totally although I don't have the problem with labeling one 'reading' and the other something else. And, you seem to overlook that a reading can incorporate several approaches. I tend to integrate what the client projects with my own knowledge of the Golden Dawn & other traditional meanings of the cards, as well as my own wider ranging knowledge of myth and symbol. I don't think it has to be either-or.
Aeon418
The 'popular' approach to Tarot is a valid use of the cards in my opinion. I also think playing games with the cards is valid too. But are all uses equally valuable? That's a different question altogether.You see it clearly I think ... so do a few others ... but I note, you dont seem to have 'investment' in the issue ? You have no need to appeal and placate the 'popular consumption' ?
The 'modern day projection method' is a different use of Tarot that has it's place. Where I feel it loses 'value' is when it is confused with the practice of divination. If someone wants to explore and externalise the contents of their own mind and project it onto the cards as a method of self-exploration, that's fine. But projections of personal meaning should not be confused with reading in my opinion. Also I think the value of this 'projection' approach decreases in direct proportion to a persons blindness to their own projections because the Tarot is such an effective magick mirror. The possibilities for self-deception are endless.
