Tarot and Alchemy?

Pollux

Diana said:
I do not agree. But I know I am in the minority here, and I'm used to my opinion about this falling on deaf ears.

UAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Yes you are in minority here. But this does not mean we can't have a nice tarotical debate - I'm off to PM Kiama, who's PMing Jmd?

*LOL*
And that thing about deaf ears is unfair, firstly cos we ARE listening to you - I would even if you called me names *LOL*

- it's just that we don't agree; and, secondly, becuase I could say exactly the same thing for your not subsiding to the Fool's Jorney account...

*LOL*

It is not the Fool's journey. It is the so-called Magician's journey. The Bateleur's journey. The Fool is something else. (...) The Bateleur is the lead. Perhaps the World is the gold, perhaps it is the Fool. But perhaps the truth is elsewhere. If only I knew....... (that is what I am seeking for).

Well, I tend to like the idea of a Fool's Journey much better. Obviously because my POOR tarotical education mainly has modern sources probably, and because I have not studied much the Marseille in that sense (even though I always feel the need to point out I started with a Marseille).

The Fool is (or could be) something else, as you suggested.
But he is also the main character of the story, the reckless inner kid going through his journey of transformation, experience and learning that life/tarot is. Of course, he is not the journey itself - so he'd better be kept apart from the 21 other majors. Yet he is the journeyer, and he touches and goes through all the other 21 phases without being or becoming one definitively. He's continuos utter metamorphosis and learning.

The Magician/Bateleur instead is a stage already. It's a step taken with a very specific behaviour, a certain background and a definitive intention.
He is a polarity. And when you mention the Magician, how can you leave the High Priestess - the other polarity - out? It's like Ying & Yang, a dicotomy that cannot be reduced further, or taken partly without at least keeping in mind there is another side...

Obviously my position is affected by the different "education" *I am only using this word cos you always do LOL* even though it stems from NO BOOK - the first I have read with this intention is 78DW and I am still reading it... My "education" is related what I have learnt simply by using the cards, looking at them and developing my very own sense of them; while in a second moment it was supported and nurtured by what I have found on these boards, and what I have read and assimilated - therefore a more structured and modern view.

In your view, I bet, the High Priestess (or Popess

) IMMEDIATELY recalls the High Priest/Pope rather than the Magician and all the pseudo-psychologic taoistic image of Active/Passive.
I understand this, and would probably think the same when reading with and focusing on a Marseille deck - but modern stuff is different (loves teasing *LOL*). Also when I look at Visconti-Sforza, for example, the link between Popess and Pope is evident, and the Magician comes in a different light, trough which the sense of Sun/Moon, Light/Shadow is so faded - it almost feels like stretching the interpretation on purpose... But with RW and following, The Magician is a stage, or an elementary force - such as The High Priestess.

All this talk about the Fool's journey. To me it just doesn't make any sense at all. To me it's like a big misunderstanding that has permeated the Tarot world last century and has changed the meaning of Tarot (to put it nicely.....)

I am sure that if you read the first chapters "78 Degrees of Wisdom" - or only the one about the Four Card Diamond Layout - you will understand why this makes sense to so many (beware I am not saying you will change your mind!

*LOL*

).
And we all know there's no official instruction booklet that came with Tarot Cards, so every opinion has its own value and credibility in theory. Some may prevail in that they make sense to many, or more. I am not very fond of the phrase you used, but anyway each to their own... BUT READ 78DW SOON!!! *LOL*

And forget about any numbering on the Fool. The Fool is not 0. That's the wierdest invention I've ever heard.
0 positions the Fool in a system (mathematical). He is NOT in the system. He is beyond it.

Yup, ok, I agree with you on this - if only I had not burnt my Marseille deck...

*LOL*
The Fool should go un-numbered as in Marseille/early (

) decks. But as "0" he is not such a shame anyway. 0 is the egg, the potential, the "All and Nothing". I understand it may seem like placing him in a system - but that is an assumption as well: the "0" can be seen apart from the system too - I intuitively do at least. While I write this, I REALL REALLY REALLY understand what you mean and feel, but I also think I like the association of the "0" for the round cyclic shape... mh...

He is what one always was and what one will become. The Alpha and the Omega. He doesn't need to go on any journey.

Exacty! *LOL*
He does not NEED to go on a journey, not at all! That simply is his nature!

There's no "need", it's just that he will go because going on a journey is part of what makes him THE FOOL. What his the image there? A careless, naive wanderer, conveying innocence and faith, taking the leap and moving versus the unknown.
(I think you are closer to the Fool's Journey idea than you may admit...

)

(GGGGGGGRRRRRRRR I wish I were a mothertongue and had a finer command of English... I hope I was clear enough)

Strega

Diana said:
AAAAARRRRGGGGHHHH! It's not the Fool's journey!!

Hee-hee-hee!

Lee

Diana said:
To me it's like a big misunderstanding that has permeated the Tarot world last century and has changed the meaning of Tarot (to put it nicely.....)

Oh goody, I've finally found something I can argue with Diana about!

I'm really taken aback by this dogmaticism... it seems to me we're talking about different approaches which can be equally valid. The journeyer can be the Fool, and the journeyer can be the Bateleur, depending on how you look at it. Why does it have to be one or the other? Either will lead to insights, and the great thing is that they will lead to different insights, and thus it's worthwhile to examine both.

Diana, when you say "changed the meaning of Tarot," this suggests that there is an objective "meaning" which people have then "changed." Is this really what you mean to say? If so, I'm sure everyone would love to know where this meaning is to be found.

-- Lee <who went and hid Diana's rolling pin before he posted this>

Lee

Pollux said:
Well, I tend to like the idea of a Fool's Journey much better. Obviously because my POOR tarotical education mainly has modern sources probably, and because I have not studied much the Marseille in that sense <...>

Hi Pollux, I just wanted to say, there's no reason you can't use a Fool's Journey methadology with a Marseilles deck, i.e. there's nothing intrinsic in a Marseilles deck which contradicts it. It's true that with Marseilles terminology the Popess seems to go with the Pope (rather than with the Magician as in the 78DW scheme), but on the other hand, the Marseilles numbering places her with the Magician and not with the Pope. In fact, I find the image of a wandering tramp for the Fool to be in some ways better suited to the Fool's Journey scenario than the R-W-S picture.

Oops, I've just noticed that Pollux had already made the point I was making to Diana:

And we all know there's no official instruction booklet that came with Tarot Cards, so every opinion has its own value and credibility in theory.

Pollux

Lee, I wrote the post bit by bit, editing it, and updating it.
I just wanted to make sure that while I wrote it down no other replied first, woth the effect of having my post slid after theirs... (I just stole your place uahahah *LOL*) I wanted to be the first, and it seems I am!!! UAHAHAHA!!! *LOL*

Lee said:
I'm really taken aback by this dogmaticism... it seems to me we're talking about different approaches which can be equally valid. The journeyer can be the Fool, and the journeyer can be the Bateleur, depending on how you look at it.

Dogmaticism! You dared say the word *LOL*

I don't see dogmas, I just see different sensitivities, as you suggested too.
They can obviously be equally valid, and therefore we can have either; but...

The journeyer can be the Fool, and the journeyer can be the Bateleur, depending on how you look at it. Why does it have to be one or the other? Either will lead to insights, and the great thing is that they will lead to different insights, and thus it's worthwhile to examine both.

They can obviously be equally valid, and therefore we can have either; but I just think it is hard not to "choose" one in a way because it makes more sense to the individual.
Personally, I cannot think of a Magician's Journey - I dismissed the idea the moment I read of it and started studying the Marseille Ba(gat)tel(li)eur (sp?). Now I've seen how meaningful the Fool's Journey is to me, I am unable to switch to the Magician... Maybe I missed something...

Lee said:
Hi Pollux, I just wanted to say, there's no reason you can't use a Fool's Journey methadology with a Marseilles deck, i.e. there's nothing intrinsic in a Marseilles deck which contradicts it

Hi Lee!!!

I only mentioned Marseille-s specifically because Diana was using that as her argument. I didn't meant to say the two were not compatible, let's say I wanted to make my points very Diana-friendly *LOL*, sort of tailor made, since I think I know more or less the background and the reasons she has. She has also mentioned Marseille-s as practical counterpart to the "journey" idea in this thread, as for example by mentioning the "Bateleur" (and not a Magician, what a purist we have!!! *LOL*

).

catlin

Pardon

Sorry Diana, that was a Freudian slip in my posting. You know, my unconscious is deeply rooted in German tarotautology (does this word exist or did I make it up?) and when you have lived nearly 2 decades with a Fool's journey, this word just sticks.

Of course I meant your MAGICIAN'S journey.

Ravenswing

a few questions...

diana--

you've got my attention here. if you don't mind, i've got a few questions for you...

do you consider the fool to be a system unto himself?

would you divide the deck into 4 parts: major, minors, courts and the fool?

do you work with the hebrew alphabet corrospondences? if so, which letter is the fool? would it be a pathway on the tree of life?

in all fairness, i give you a bit of my slant on the fool. i see the fool as the identity principle of the tarot. he wanders around, giving meaning to the other cards. it is only through the fool's re-cognition of a card that it exists.

i've worked a lot with gematria-- hebrew version of numerology-- but applying it to the english language. i see the fool as the group of vowels and the 21 majors as each being a consonant. it is the vowels that give a consonant group definite meaning. so i see the fool as giving the remainder of the tarot it's meaning.

thoughts?

raven

Laurel

My views are probably pretty close to Diana's, so while she might be a minority she's not alone! LOL.

The relationship between The Fool and The Magician is a very interesting one especially in terms of Alchemy. One of the two cards represents Quintessential Air and the zodiacal mode of Mutability. The other represents metallic Mercury, which corresponds to the planet of Mercury in Astrology.

Aleph corresponds specifically to Quintessential Air and Mutability. Nothing brings that more clear in my mind than the Sepher Yetzirah (take your pick of translations). The Golden Dawn slaps Aleph onto The Fool, which gets things rather confusing since Aleph isn't just "A", is numerical for "one" and Beth, which is placed on the Magician is numerical for "two".

Personally, I prefer unnumbered Major Arcana. If I ever create a deck, the Majors won't have numbers- but they will have lots of alchemical symbolism, based off the 12-stage of transfiguration system, which uses zodiacal correspondences. There's also simpler 4-stage and 7-stage alchemical formulas for the Great Work. However, using a 12-stage system allows for the following correspondences with the Major Arcana/Astrology/Hebrew Alphabet:

12 stages 3 Quint. Elements 7 Metals = 22
12 signs/ 3 Modalities 7 ancient
houses planets= 22
12 simples 3 mothers 7 doubles= 22

The trick, or rather the subjective fun, is deciding which tarot card really best suits the closely relating (but not identical) archetypes from each matched set of alchemical/astrological/Kabbalistic symbols. The Golden Dawn simply did it 'one for one', calling the Fool the first card in the deck, hence naming it Aleph(1), the Magican Beth(2), and so on and so forth all the way down. There's no One True Answer. Only an answer that works.

Laurel

Diana

edited

Lee

Diana said:
If there is any dogmatism in what I say, it is because I feel that the Golden Dawn tarot <...> removed something from the original Tarot and I find it a great pity. I always get the impression that it's been amputated. Of course, someone may come along and prove one day that the Tarot I "believe" in, which goes back hundreds of centuries, is also just a new version of something much older.

Diana, here is the problem I have, and I hope I can articulate it adequately.

When you say "original Tarot," I don't know what you mean. Do you mean that the commentaries of, say, Wirth are better than those of Waite? That would be fine, we all have our preferences, but why would the Wirth commentary, or Papus or any other, be considered the "original" Tarot? Is it just because their commentaries were written chronologically before Waite's?

Or do you mean "original" as in when the Tarot was first created in the 15th century? This would really puzzle me, because of course we don't have any commentaries from that time, in fact the evidence is that it was regarded strictly as a game until de Gebelin came along. By "original" are you referring strictly to the images on the Marseilles deck? But these images of course don't in themselves explicitly state doctrines or schemes, and so, if we want to tie the cards together into a pattern, we must impose on them ideas and structures that incorporate elements that don't arise from the images themselves.

So I don't see how any interpretation of the Tarot can be considered any more "original" than any other.

By the way, if we go to a very basic level (which is where my poor brain likes to work), it seems to me that it make sense for the Fool to be the journeyer, for the simple reason that of all the Trump figures, the Fool is the only one who is pictured in the act of walking.

-- Lee

Tarot and Alchemy?

Pollux

Strega

Lee

Lee

Pollux

catlin

Ravenswing

Laurel

Diana

Lee