CBD Tarot de Marseille - new Conver restoration

Yoav Ben-Dov said:

actually i chose it to be so, i thought it would be more convenient to have a searchable digital version for quick reference - and it's ok by me if you give the paper copy to a friend and keep the digital. but i didn't consider the delay, i was thinking of people reading the paper first. do you think it is a good idea?

Click to expand...

Of course it's a good idea! And thank you for having it. The book itself is a beautiful object, and for me easier to consult as a quick reference than the Kindle version. But because of my advanced age the Kindle version is easier just to read and study, so I'm happy to have both. A lot easier than dealing with Jodo's overstuffed tome

LRichard said:

You probably know that Ben Dov studied under Jodorowsky. That probably influenced the book. It's very good, but not really my style of reading. I love the deck, however.

Click to expand...

I have trouble thinking of Jodorowsky as a tarot inspiration since I have a permanent image of him burned on my brain from his surrealistic early-'70s movie, El Topo (I now have a DVD of that and his other two movies). He was unquestionably a mystic, and a radical one at that, but I lost track of him over the years while I pursued Crowley, and didn't find out about his tarot involvement until I came to AT. I can't say that I've seen a lot that's positive about him here, though. Does he have any defenders?

Barleywine said:

.........I can't say that I've seen a lot that's positive about him here, though. Does he have any defenders?

Click to expand...

Probably. The Way of Tarot gets mixed reviews here. There is a strange maverick syndrome that afflicts a lot of TdM users: originality for the sake of originality. They gleefully adopt this deck because it represents freedom from the Golden Dawn influence. Apparently Jodorowsky's pecking order for the courts is Knight-King-Queen-Page. This differs from the customary King-Queen-Knight-Page as well as the Golden Dawn's Knight-Queen-King/Prince-Page. The book also is said to have a distinct heterosexual bias.

I don't know whether he assigns elements to the suits, but among TdM users there is a tendency to adopt any correlation as long is it differs from the usual fire-water-air-earth for wands-cups-swords-disks/pentacles. All these maverick antics are a turnoff for me. It just seems perverse and snobby and a bit childish. TdM is as much a part of the tarot mainstream as the RWS or Thoth. I don't wish to cut myself off from other tarot users by reinventing the wheel specifically for this deck, when it rolls along just fine on the same wheels as any other deck.

These remarks were about TdM generally, and certain idiosyncracies which I have noticed among TdM afficionados. They do not pertain to any particular deck or author other than what little I have gleaned from reviews of the Jodorowsky book.

LRichard said:

Probably. The Way of Tarot gets mixed reviews here. There is a strange maverick syndrome that afflicts a lot of TdM users: originality for the sake of originality. They gleefully adopt this deck because it represents freedom from the Golden Dawn influence.

TdM is as much a part of the tarot mainstream as the RWS or Thoth. I don't wish to cut myself off from other tarot users by reinventing the wheel specifically for this deck, when it rolls along just fine on the same wheels as any other deck.

Click to expand...

Interesting that you should say this about originality and the TdM since its origins pre-date the Golden Dawn, Crowley, Waite, Wirth, Papus, Levi, Court de Gebelin and even Etteilla by a good long stretch. One would think it would be positively calcified in traditional lore by this time; as near as I can tell it was Etteilla in the 18th century who first associated the elements, humours and astrological significators with the TdM. But I guess you mean the way it's now being championed as an antidote for the obfuscation (damn, I knew I'd use that word sooner or later here, but I've been resisting) inherent - intentionally or otherwise - in the numerous, more modern esoteric approaches to tarot interpretation.

But I agree. Personally I see no reason to cut the legs out from under everything I've been doing just to bring myself to the TdM with an unfettered objectivism. Seems to me that Pythagorian number theory, Tree of Life correspondences and astrological notation - to name just a few of my normal inputs for dealing with other "pip" decks like the Thoth - won't magically become inoperative when I make that move.

Hello,

Regarding Dr. Ben-Dov's work, I can say that his text is refreshing compared to A. Jodorowsky's in that his teaching style allows for what any reader may or not bring to the cards already. His open method would work with those correspondences one already employs, I think. I did not realize until starting The Open Reading that Dr. Ben-Dov had studied with Alejandro Jodorowsky. Dr. Ben-Dov writes not as an authority--which he is--but as a gentle guide to exploring the reader's own relationship with the cards, as well as with the people for whom he or she reads the cards, and the relationships among the cards themselves. I'm not knocking Way of Tarot, though. I got a lot out of it and left some behind.

I received the CBD Tarot cards a long time ago and promised Dr. Ben-Dov an objective review if I used a forum such as this. I haven't contributed here, but I might start. I am so pleased to see this enormous thread about his restoration, and now, his book. There isn't much more positive light I can shine on these cards. The only negative that I perceived at first, and which was influenced by the pre-63 Grimaud that I was handling a lot when I got the CBD, was that the cardstock was thin. It really isn't so thin, and the cards have held up to a couple years' worth of use. They continue to look almost new, in fact. The restoration of lines and color is quite elegant. The entire production is top of the mark. For reading, comparison, contemplation, or just plain enjoyment of the images that comprise this tradition, this deck is a worthy addition to the taroist's toolbox.

I purchased Dr. Ben-Dov's book and am midway through a first reading of it, and I love it so far. As I said, he is a gentle guide as to what these images *may* signify for the reader. There are no absolutes, but "everything is a symbol!" Good Stuff.

I agree with what you say about Ben-Dov being a gentle guide. I love his style. I have read all of his book, but am placing a lot of what he says on the back burner for a while. It needs to simmer there for a spell. I think I'm not quite in the frame of mind to read tarot in this manner YET. I'm trying to keep an open mind about it. Getting your clues from swirls and curlicues... just not sure.... I quite like using the RWS and Thoth systems for my readings at this point in time. (I'm toying with the idea of reading the Jodo "Way of the Tarot" but that ride may be too wild for me too at present

I really like the LOOK of TdM tarot though. I have the Camoin-Jodo deck and like it, although the Grimaud TdM is probably my favorite TdM that I own. The CBD is on my list to order soon. Very much looking forward to owning that deck.

I slid Way of Tarot to the back burner a couple times, myself. The guy is a surrealist; it shows in his writing.

I think I am already doing some of what Dr. Ben-Dov is talking about so far. I am learning new things, too, but I am in agreement with a lot that he says. The book is an easy read, but I can see it is pretty rich stuff, so it will deserve more than one read-through.

I highly recommend the CBD. It really is an elegant deck. It was created to help illustrate the text, so they do well together. They each stand alone well, too.

I just bought it. I've been thinking for some time that I NEED a TdM - I found my way to the tarot via Thoth in the 1980s... and only recently bought my first Waite-Smith.

I'm very excited. Since I live in Israel, I'd love to do a workshop with Yoav - as soon as I feel I've found my feet in the TdM tradition. I'll buy the Kindle version of his book and oh, I'm happy and excited! It looks wonderful.

LRichard said:

I don't know whether he assigns elements to the suits, but among TdM users there is a tendency to adopt any correlation as long is it differs from the usual fire-water-air-earth for wands-cups-swords-disks/pentacles. All these maverick antics are a turnoff for me. It just seems perverse and snobby and a bit childish.

Click to expand...

I don't see how an idiosyncratic interpretation of tarot meanings necessarily has to be snobby and childish. That's one possibly interpretation but presumably not a given? Unless the writing style is indicative of snobbery and childishness. You haven't even read the book but your own account and you are dismissing the author as snobby and childish. I'd personally be a little more cautious in my judgement.

Also if you haven't found out whether he actually has changed the suit assignments, then why mention it? It seems to suggest they are changed when you say 'all these mavericks' immediately afterwards.

Being said to have a heterosexual bias is a subjective value judgement, and without directly experiencing this 'bias' yourself, but merely relying on the words of others, then it is hard to say whether such criticisms are excessive complaints from purists or whether the bias is really in your face. The severity of this bias will determine its generic usefulness as a one book for everyone, but seeing as it is an idiosyncratic interpretation anyway, will this really matter? How do you know said individuals are not being over-sensitive? Or reading too much into it? If several people have commented as such then perhaps there is something to it, but exactly how much you cannot say without reading it yourself. If someone would like to step forward with an example quotation, that might help to clear the air here, and people can make up their own minds - but even then, picking a worst case example might imply the whole book was like that when it might not be.

Also, having a heterosexual bias need not be a negative for a large number of readers or clients, who are using it in a hetero context. The author should not apologise for his sexuality nor a bias towards this sexuality in his own book (I'm not saying that's what you meant), much like a non-heterosexual author should not apologise or be marked down for imparting their own sexual bias in their interpretations (or indeed producing a 'gay' tarot deck). There are books without such biases and which follow a more 'accepted' TdM set of interpretations, and if this is something one is after, then evidently this book is not for them. However, it is worth mentioning as it may put some readers off potentially, which you did, but I can't help but feel it was meant as a criticism.

DeToX said:

I don't see how an idiosyncratic interpretation of tarot meanings necessarily has to be snobby and childish. That's one possibly interpretation but presumably not a given? Unless the writing style is indicative of snobbery and childishness. You haven't even read the book but your own account and you are dismissing the author as snobby and childish. I'd personally be a little more cautious in my judgement.......

Click to expand...

I have read the Ben-Dov book, and I am not dismissive of it, and I believe the author knows this from other correspondence. I was speaking of an all too common tendency in certain posts to this forum and elsewhere (often by unpublished 'authors'). It has gotten better the past couple of years as new TdM reconstructions have become available.

FYI, I have no intention of purchasing or even reading the Jodorovsky book. Life's too short for that, and I do have a life which is not centered on a particular deck of cards, particularly not a deck (Camoin-Jodo) which claims an origin near the beginning of the Common Era.