MeeWah
MystiqueMoonlight: Are you suggesting The Fool can be anywhere & everywhere? That does make sense to me, as that is "his" nature, is it not? It also supports what Diana has been saying--or my understanding of what she is saying--I think 
Tarot and Alchemy?
MystiqueMoonlight
Meewah,
Try this exercise and then ask the same question. Perhaps after doing it you may not need to ask
Try this exercise and then ask the same question. Perhaps after doing it you may not need to ask
Pollux
OH!!! Yeah, I remember that exercise MystiqueMoonlight!!!
It was one of the first thing I did - with my Marseille deck... *LOL*
I should stop bringing that up, it's only to my detriment.
I also witnessed the opposite-yet-not thing: I have read and seen that, when in a reading the Fool comes up, you can/should draw an extra card, and place it where the fool is. This especially in Majors-only readings with few cards.
Actually I only did it with the 5-card, Majors only - I fail to remember the name!!! ARGH!!! The one you are supposed to add the numbers of the first four cards and get the fifth... ARGH!!!
Anyway, I was saying... when you draw the fool, after you have drawn the first four cards and obtained the fifth, you should draw the next and place it on the fool.
Have you ever heard of this?
It was one of the first thing I did - with my Marseille deck... *LOL*
I should stop bringing that up, it's only to my detriment.
I also witnessed the opposite-yet-not thing: I have read and seen that, when in a reading the Fool comes up, you can/should draw an extra card, and place it where the fool is. This especially in Majors-only readings with few cards.
Actually I only did it with the 5-card, Majors only - I fail to remember the name!!! ARGH!!! The one you are supposed to add the numbers of the first four cards and get the fifth... ARGH!!!
Anyway, I was saying... when you draw the fool, after you have drawn the first four cards and obtained the fifth, you should draw the next and place it on the fool.
Have you ever heard of this?
catlin
Hi Pollux,
Yep, I came across this suggestion but can't remember who brought it up but I have never replaced the fool by another card. I just don't think it appropriate as the fool has also his message so why replace him?
I remember one evening in my tarot circle. I have made the gals there draw 2 cards each, one from the RW, the other one from the Thoth, so we were working with 156 cards. One of the girls drew from both decks the fool (she was the first who wanted to draw the cards and I think it is pretty interesting to get out from 156 cards both fools!).
Yep, I came across this suggestion but can't remember who brought it up but I have never replaced the fool by another card. I just don't think it appropriate as the fool has also his message so why replace him?
I remember one evening in my tarot circle. I have made the gals there draw 2 cards each, one from the RW, the other one from the Thoth, so we were working with 156 cards. One of the girls drew from both decks the fool (she was the first who wanted to draw the cards and I think it is pretty interesting to get out from 156 cards both fools!).
MystiqueMoonlight
I'm kinda with Catlin on this Pollux. However I don't quite understand the method you are explaining and what possible benefit it's suppose to offer. Can you explain?
My point previously was that the Fool is an intergral part of the Tarot ....er......um.....journey There I said it. In fact the influence of the Fool and his perspective within Tarot and indeed our lives (spiritual journey) cannot be reflected by the numerical value of 1.
The number "1", as I understand it, marks the beginning. Whereas the number, or perhaps the non number "0" signifies the all entirity, without a beginning or an end.
I hope that makes sense
My point previously was that the Fool is an intergral part of the Tarot ....er......um.....journey
There I said it. In fact the influence of the Fool and his perspective within Tarot and indeed our lives (spiritual journey) cannot be reflected by the numerical value of 1.The number "1", as I understand it, marks the beginning. Whereas the number, or perhaps the non number "0" signifies the all entirity, without a beginning or an end.
I hope that makes sense
Pollux
Sure it makes sense! I agree with you!
I posted that before:
On that we agree, I believe.
Yet, the Fool to me is an integral part of the Journey in that he/she () sums up the spirit of it, and is not a specific point of it.
As you said, he/she can be placed between ANY two cards, and this because he/she is not a specific stage, but the will and awareness progressing through each of them.
He/she represents the entity experiencing it, the soul taking part into it, and linking all the cards/stages to each other along the path.
I said he/she "is not the journey" since he/she is not a stage of it, and in these regards he/she can be considerd as the journeyer, at the beginning or at the end, as opposed to the other cards, that are points and milestones along the path. In this possible opposition Stager/Stages I meant he is not the journey itself.
I posted that before:
And I also mentioned the number "0" as *cycle* and *egg* before.
On that we agree, I believe.
Yet, the Fool to me is an integral part of the Journey in that he/she (
) sums up the spirit of it, and is not a specific point of it.As you said, he/she can be placed between ANY two cards, and this because he/she is not a specific stage, but the will and awareness progressing through each of them.
He/she represents the entity experiencing it, the soul taking part into it, and linking all the cards/stages to each other along the path.
I said he/she "is not the journey" since he/she is not a stage of it, and in these regards he/she can be considerd as the journeyer, at the beginning or at the end, as opposed to the other cards, that are points and milestones along the path. In this possible opposition Stager/Stages I meant he is not the journey itself.
MystiqueMoonlight
Pollux,
Absolutely....I'm just agreeing with what your saying and expanding on my previous post....the exercise I mentioned earlier.
Absolutely....I'm just agreeing with what your saying and expanding on my previous post....the exercise I mentioned earlier.
Diana
edited
Lee
Hi Diana, that was a great post!
I disagree with your suggestion that the "reckless inner kid going through a journey of transformation" (to quote Pollux) is a recent innovation introduced by Waite. I believe that the Marseilles Fool embodies this concept even more than the Waite-Smith Fool does. I think the designers meant to illustrate a progression, from the lowest (Fool) to the highest (World). This sort of thinking can be seen in the Mantegna deck, which starts out with a beggar as the lowest and shows an even clearer progression from low to high. I think that any such progression implies a journey upward, through the stages embodied in the succeeding cards. So that covers the "journey of transformation" part.
As for the "reckless kid," I think a beggar/jester is far more illustrative of recklessness than the overdressed fop on the Waite card, even if he is walking over a cliff. The Waite Fool isn't really risking much, in my opinion, because obviously he's trusting in a higher power (at least that's what I see when I look at the card). How much more reckless to give up one's possessions and strike out on the open road! And, I know I've brought this up before, but I *do* think it's significant that the Marseilles Fool is the only trump character shown walking. Furthermore, if you lay out the cards from left to right, he's walking towards the other figures, as if beginning his journey through the succeeding cards.
The Magician is paired with the Popess because the separation into yin and yang is the first manifestation of reality (at least according to the Tao Te Ching), and thus is appropriate for the first stop on the Fool's journey. Now, I'll admit that this idea is certainly reinforced by Waite's bright Magician and dark High Priestess, but I think the same message can be found in the Marseilles Bateleur, who is very active, and the Popess, who is very passive.
When you say the cards were designed to convey a message, I think it's certainly possible, but the problem is in deciphering just what that message is. Everybody looks at the cards from the viewpoint of their own cultural milieu. Even if we try to discern what the message was of the cards' creator(s), we're *still* looking at their motives and intentions from a modern viewpoint; we can't help it. We'll never be able to look at the cards completely from the point of view of the people of that time, no matter how much we know about history.
When you say "in the end there is only one truth," this really reminds me of those members of evangelical faiths who believe their beliefs are "true" and all others "false." I'll agree that the creator of the cards had *something* in mind, but I disagree a) that this "something" can be discerned by us in this time, and b) that Tarot is only valuable if we look at it from the point of view of the creator (assuming we could know what that is). I believe firmly (and this is one of the few things I do believe firmly) that the Tarot is something different for each of us. There are broad interpretive factors which many can hold in common, but in the end no one person's Tarot will be the same as another's. I think this is one of the great things about the Tarot, that it can help us find ourselves, and in the process adapt itself to one's personality so that it becomes a better tool to do so.
I like very much jmd's statement about the Fool being God. Specifically, it reminds me of something I read in an Alan Watts book, in which he gave a myth which went something like this:
God is Everything and is Omnipotent. However, in the vast stretches of eternity, it becomes boring to have all power and to know everything. Therefore, in order to bring some adventure into His life, He manifests himself as beings (you and me and every other living creature) with no memory of His actual identity. Thus He lives, as you, as me, has adventures, has joys and sorrows, but with no knowledge of His Godhood (otherwise, there would be no adventure or suspense). When you or I die, we remember our true identities and awaken as God.
It seems to me that the Marseilles Fool is a perfect pictorial representation of this idea, God who goes to sleep and wakes up as the lowest of humanity, a tramp or beggar, whose purpose it is to start on his journey and see what he will see.
At least that's how I see things. I'm always anxious to learn more about how you see things Diana, because it's great food for thought! Thank you for coming back to this thread.
-- Lee
I disagree with your suggestion that the "reckless inner kid going through a journey of transformation" (to quote Pollux) is a recent innovation introduced by Waite. I believe that the Marseilles Fool embodies this concept even more than the Waite-Smith Fool does. I think the designers meant to illustrate a progression, from the lowest (Fool) to the highest (World). This sort of thinking can be seen in the Mantegna deck, which starts out with a beggar as the lowest and shows an even clearer progression from low to high. I think that any such progression implies a journey upward, through the stages embodied in the succeeding cards. So that covers the "journey of transformation" part.
As for the "reckless kid," I think a beggar/jester is far more illustrative of recklessness than the overdressed fop on the Waite card, even if he is walking over a cliff. The Waite Fool isn't really risking much, in my opinion, because obviously he's trusting in a higher power (at least that's what I see when I look at the card). How much more reckless to give up one's possessions and strike out on the open road! And, I know I've brought this up before, but I *do* think it's significant that the Marseilles Fool is the only trump character shown walking. Furthermore, if you lay out the cards from left to right, he's walking towards the other figures, as if beginning his journey through the succeeding cards.
The Magician is paired with the Popess because the separation into yin and yang is the first manifestation of reality (at least according to the Tao Te Ching), and thus is appropriate for the first stop on the Fool's journey. Now, I'll admit that this idea is certainly reinforced by Waite's bright Magician and dark High Priestess, but I think the same message can be found in the Marseilles Bateleur, who is very active, and the Popess, who is very passive.
When you say the cards were designed to convey a message, I think it's certainly possible, but the problem is in deciphering just what that message is. Everybody looks at the cards from the viewpoint of their own cultural milieu. Even if we try to discern what the message was of the cards' creator(s), we're *still* looking at their motives and intentions from a modern viewpoint; we can't help it. We'll never be able to look at the cards completely from the point of view of the people of that time, no matter how much we know about history.
When you say "in the end there is only one truth," this really reminds me of those members of evangelical faiths who believe their beliefs are "true" and all others "false." I'll agree that the creator of the cards had *something* in mind, but I disagree a) that this "something" can be discerned by us in this time, and b) that Tarot is only valuable if we look at it from the point of view of the creator (assuming we could know what that is). I believe firmly (and this is one of the few things I do believe firmly) that the Tarot is something different for each of us. There are broad interpretive factors which many can hold in common, but in the end no one person's Tarot will be the same as another's. I think this is one of the great things about the Tarot, that it can help us find ourselves, and in the process adapt itself to one's personality so that it becomes a better tool to do so.
I like very much jmd's statement about the Fool being God. Specifically, it reminds me of something I read in an Alan Watts book, in which he gave a myth which went something like this:
God is Everything and is Omnipotent. However, in the vast stretches of eternity, it becomes boring to have all power and to know everything. Therefore, in order to bring some adventure into His life, He manifests himself as beings (you and me and every other living creature) with no memory of His actual identity. Thus He lives, as you, as me, has adventures, has joys and sorrows, but with no knowledge of His Godhood (otherwise, there would be no adventure or suspense). When you or I die, we remember our true identities and awaken as God.
It seems to me that the Marseilles Fool is a perfect pictorial representation of this idea, God who goes to sleep and wakes up as the lowest of humanity, a tramp or beggar, whose purpose it is to start on his journey and see what he will see.
At least that's how I see things. I'm always anxious to learn more about how you see things Diana, because it's great food for thought! Thank you for coming back to this thread.
-- Lee
MeeWah
Diana: Thank you for your thoughtful responses to all of us I enjoyed reading them all!
I shall continue what I started as soon as I get my thoughts organised.
Lee: I read your post with great interest. I like the reference to Alan Watts' writings, some of which I read too long ago to recall in any detail. The myth you mention sort of expresses part of a view I have of our incarnations.
We are as fragments of the Source. Once we were part of the I Am, created for companionship. Endowed with free will, we chose to "split" with the Godhead & ventured out to experiment & to experience. We became so encased in matter that we became as lost, unable to return "home". The vehicle of earthly lives was conceived as a means to not merely perfect our knowledge, but to remember who & what we are--spiritual beings with a place other than the earthly life. Each lifetime is another step along the journey home. Thus, we are as godlings in the making. Also, together we comprise the Consciousness That Is. Hence, the references to the Collective Unconscious is more apt than most may realize.
I hope I have not digressed too much from the topic--
I enjoyed reading them all! I shall continue what I started as soon as I get my thoughts organised.
Lee: I read your post with great interest. I like the reference to Alan Watts' writings, some of which I read too long ago to recall in any detail. The myth you mention sort of expresses part of a view I have of our incarnations.
We are as fragments of the Source. Once we were part of the I Am, created for companionship. Endowed with free will, we chose to "split" with the Godhead & ventured out to experiment & to experience. We became so encased in matter that we became as lost, unable to return "home". The vehicle of earthly lives was conceived as a means to not merely perfect our knowledge, but to remember who & what we are--spiritual beings with a place other than the earthly life. Each lifetime is another step along the journey home. Thus, we are as godlings in the making. Also, together we comprise the Consciousness That Is. Hence, the references to the Collective Unconscious is more apt than most may realize.
I hope I have not digressed too much from the topic--
