The Mathematics Tarot!

Cool deck, but a couple of the Aces baffle me. The Ace of Cups and the Ace of Coins look like they'd work better as Twos than as Ones. Interaction on the Cups implies duality. And the two planets on the Coins implies two of something, too.

ETA: The Moebius strip idea would work well for the infinity symbol of the Magician.

Metafizzypop said:

Cool deck, but a couple of the Aces baffle me. The Ace of Cups and the Ace of Coins look like they'd work better as Twos than as Ones. Interaction on the Cups implies duality. And the two planets on the Coins implies two of something, too.

ETA: The Moebius strip idea would work well for the infinity symbol of the Magician.

Click to expand...

The scientific imagery is often at odds with the numbers on the cards -- the Five of Swords, for instance, is the Seven Bridges of Konigsberg. I suspect your confusion is due to using different systems, since mine is somewhat eccentric; I see the aces almost as their own suit, with the rest of the cards sort of hidden inside them, and in this deck in particular I wanted them to represent fundamental base-level concepts rather than trapping the cards as representing strictly Pythagorean monads. They're the atoms to the minors' matter, in a sense. So Swords are the Weak Force (radioactive decay, repellance), Cups are the Strong Force (attraction, peaceful interaction), Coins are Gravity (earthy but hard to grasp), and Wands are Electromagnetism (energy, the spark of creativity).

I never considered the Moebius strip for the Magician, again because of that eccentric reading style. Although I used roughly decan-based meanings for the minors and the courts, my interpretation of the majors is closer to the historical tradition than the GD tradition. The Magician, to me, isn't an occult master; he's clever, subtle, more than a bit of a con man, with just enough real magic up his sleeve to influence spooky action at a distance.

I'm toying with making the Moebius its own card, since I already have two extras, the Empty Set and the Mathematician. There are a few concepts I really just can't bear not to include, even if I wasn't able to find a place for them in the deck proper!

Hi and thanks for your reply. Very interesting stuff. I especially liked this:

Alamaris said:

So Swords are the Weak Force (radioactive decay, repellance), Cups are the Strong Force (attraction, peaceful interaction), Coins are Gravity (earthy but hard to grasp), and Wands are Electromagnetism (energy, the spark of creativity).

Click to expand...

I think that's a great way of handling the elements. But I do hope that you have a LWB that goes along with this deck. You describe your style as eccentric, and I won't argue with that.

I never considered the Moebius strip for the Magician, again because of that eccentric reading style. Although I used roughly decan-based meanings for the minors and the courts, my interpretation of the majors is closer to the historical tradition than the GD tradition. The Magician, to me, isn't an occult master; he's clever, subtle, more than a bit of a con man, with just enough real magic up his sleeve to influence spooky action at a distance.

I'm toying with making the Moebius its own card, since I already have two extras, the Empty Set and the Mathematician. There are a few concepts I really just can't bear not to include, even if I wasn't able to find a place for them in the deck proper!

Click to expand...

How about the 2 of Pentacles for a Moebius strip?

I was also thinking of a Kleins bottle for the Empress for some reason, not sure why, but it seemed to fit. Just a thought.

I love this idea.. but I really suck at math. Maybe by watching this thread it will improve.

I really like this. I suck at math too, but I'm really drawn to this. Maybe it's something that can get me to make an effort to understand a bit more. Great concept.

I don't have to understand it all to know that I LIKE IT! Mathematics is beautiful; art. I think a deck like this could also inspire the more geeky of us to research the Maths represented in the cards. I looove decks that make me want - and need - to learn more about their subject matter!

It's hard for someone who sucks at math to wrap their head around. This one I'll leave, if I can't get the nuances it's not going to work for me.

starlightexp said:

I love this idea.. but I really suck at math. Maybe by watching this thread it will improve.

Click to expand...

Same here.

Hello everyone! I'm terribly sorry for the radio silence. I've been busy finishing the deck!

Yes, it's done! All done. I didn't sleep for two days afterwards because my brain was so busy -- did I do a good job? did I do the concepts justice? did I get something wrong? But after a few more revision passes (and some sleep) I'm still confident in the final product.

Today I ordered a proof copy of the whole deck, so that should be here sooner than later. In the meantime, I have to decide how I'm doing the LWB. I could do a larger, fairly elaborate book with lots of history and neat math games along with the necessary useful information... or I could do a somewhat bare-bones booklet with a little explanation, mostly focused on the meanings. Obviously, the larger one would take longer, but it would provide more substance. Still tossing those two possibilities back and forth.

Now that it's safely in production and I don't feel so paranoid, have some photos! These are just the printer-paper proofs, but they look very similar to the finished cards. No border or fancy additions. The backs will be a simple interlocking vesica piscis pattern in blue.

Some more Courts.

The extra cards and the significator/spare Fool.

And a few of my favorites from the Minors.

Thank you all for your support!

IMHO- the larger book, even though it may take longer- would be wonderful!

Having the history behind the mathematical concepts, to me, is what makes this deck so unique!

I do hope you decide to go for the larger book- for me that would be the main selling point!



Wonderful work!