The Pictorial Key / LWB and Widely-Accepted Card Meanings

Zephyros

Each to their own, of course. Thats why I think he botched it ... it doesnt suit me or my purposes. If it suits yours ( except for the courts :) ... }) ) ...

Hell no, it doesn't. I find it Victorian, preachy, too clean and virginal and generally ill-suited for modern times. It hasn't aged as well as people think, if it was ever relevant in the first place. My argument though, is that as an esoteric deck, it "works," regardless of what I think of it. Personality goes a long way, so obviously it is difficult to respect something if you don't like it.

Perhaps there is no confusion about the meaning of the card mentioned above and the image on the card. There are quiet a few unanswered questions above ... and a few observations, not made by me, that I thought if followed through .... and vast blocks of stuff which seem to indicate certain connections and not a peep out of anyone about them ... <shrug>

Obviously no point harping on it here.

On the contrary, I don't want to end the discussion. But the proof is in the deck itself. We could carry out an experiment. Choose a card you feel is wrong, and we can try to analyze it, using the tools at our disposal. We probably won't agree in any case, but it will make for an interesting exchange.
 

Richard

.....On the contrary, I don't want to end the discussion. But the proof is in the deck itself. We could carry out an experiment. Choose a card you feel is wrong, and we can try to analyze it, using the tools at our disposal. We probably won't agree in any case, but it will make for an interesting exchange.
But . . . but . . . on AT every opinion about a tarot card is right, and no one is wrong :angel:. So if you think a card is wrong, you are right; and if I think it's right, I'm right too. Therefore right = wrong, and disagreement = agreement.
 

ravenest

Hell no, it doesn't. I find it Victorian, preachy, too clean and virginal and generally ill-suited for modern times. It hasn't aged as well as people think, if it was ever relevant in the first place. My argument though, is that as an esoteric deck, it "works," regardless of what I think of it. Personality goes a long way, so obviously it is difficult to respect something if you don't like it.

Okay ( this is probably going to come out as a confusing mess but .... when did I ever let THAT stop me :laugh: )

I suppose I mean, yes it does work as an esoteric deck ... if one wants to be an initiate of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Arthur , but the more I get into 'that' the more I think that is mussed / messed up too.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'esoteric' and 'works' ? For me, such a system should exhibit the same as I want from a deck ... which Deborah succinctly put elsewhere - and which I just quoted ... so I will put it here too;
... intellectually cohesive, no detail is arbitrary, the plan and meaning are integral to each card (component) and the deck (system) as a whole, the range of symbols--from the obvious to the most subtle--are consistent and meaningful. It has depth, and a kind of beauty.

I just cant find that ' holistic fruit' in Waite ... anyway, that's what would make it an esoteric deck that works .... for me. If it does that for someone, fine ... then for them, on this level, its a great deck. However I have yet to meet an initiate of Waite's system, a 'good peer review', a subsequent development, evolution or movement from it ... except for the RW deck, who many seem to use mostly for other reasons ( a subject already explored in a thread somewhere ).
On the contrary, I don't want to end the discussion. But the proof is in the deck itself. We could carry out an experiment. Choose a card you feel is wrong, and we can try to analyze it, using the tools at our disposal. We probably won't agree in any case, but it will make for an interesting exchange.

Its not so much that a card is 'wrong' its that Waite's system is often confusing and seems disparate. This very thread , I thought, was about that? Many people, when they penetrate the surface have similar questions. IF the card is about failure, why the image? Its been a common question in one form or another hasn't it ?

With the card already bought up as an example in this thread, I thought we were already trying to analyze it using the tools at our disposal? But that seemed a slippery fish for some ... hence my comments in my last post .
 

ravenest

Hemlock anyone ?

But . . . but . . . on AT every opinion about a tarot card is right, and no one is wrong :angel:. So if you think a card is wrong, you are right; and if I think it's right, I'm right too. Therefore right = wrong, and disagreement = agreement.

I'm not sure I agree with that .... you could be wrong. And if I am always right ( including in that, you are wrong ) then agreement does not equal disagreement .... right ?

.... You know ... sometimes I wish discussion and argument required the same validity similar to the things outline in Deborah's quote ... whats that ? It does ? ... with the ancient 'wise ones', Greek Philosophers, mystics and all the way from them up to modern scientific and mathematical theories and developments from that way of thinking?
 

Richard

Aside from logic and philosophy.....

I value PKT only for the sections on history and the trumps. For the minors, I use the GD decans and titles. The Waite pips illustrations are close enough to provide a memory jog for the decans, whether or not that was intended. I do not use any of the divinatory meanings given in PKT. They are a concession to fortune-tellers. As Waite says of the trumps: 'The allocation of a fortune-telling aspect to these cards is the story of a prolonged impertinence.' Book meanings are always of limited value anyhow: 'In proportion as this gift [intuition and second sight] is present in a particular case, the specific meanings recorded by past cartomancists will be disregarded in favour of the personal appreciation of card values.'

Anyhow, having done counseling in a previous lifetime, I don't think I have the intestinal fortitude to field questions about the love life or money issues of querents. I congratulate those who can do this.
 

DavidMcCann

The 'connection' is demonstrated all the time. Thats what correspondences are all about, it basic hermetic theory to assume the connections are there in the first place and if we look we will find them. This goes for something which may even be invented tomorrow ... if it is a 'valid structure' ... that is how something is determined valid, if it fits into the 'fields of resonance' of hermetic correspondences.
I have problems with the correspondences idea. Take the equation of the 22 trumps to the 22 paths in the cabala. Even if you consider both to be maps of reality, you can't just assume they map in the same way. For example, Aristotelian, Daoist, and Vedanta philosophy all assumed 5 elements, but these do not correspond and serve different functions. And are the two sets of 22 both maps of reality? There is no evidence that the tarot trumps (which actually numbered 21) had any esoteric significance to start with. As for the Hebrew alphabet, do you really believe Hebrew is in any way special? And which Hebrew: modern, Biblical, or that of Abraham? None of those actually had 22 consonants, anyway, as the alphabet was created for Phoenician.
 

ravenest

I have problems with the correspondences idea.

Well, yes, I have problems with it to ... when I look at it a certain way.

Take the equation of the 22 trumps to the 22 paths in the cabala. Even if you consider both to be maps of reality, you can't just assume they map in the same way.

I rarely 'just assume' things David :) ... it goes a bit deeper than that.

I am not talking about things mapping in the same way ... I , all along (and have pointed out time and time again) that variant views are valid IF they can show their own logic and internal consistency and pass certain tests ... thats the beauty of different VALID maps - one gets a variant perspective .... that is different from a made up system that is based on one's prejudices other than connections observed with people AND in / through nature.

For example, Aristotelian, Daoist, and Vedanta philosophy all assumed 5 elements, but these do not correspond and serve different functions.

I know ... thats the beauty of it. I wrote somewhere recently how it worked with the Ancient Egyptians through time and location ... they have different ideas of generation . cosmology, etc, they say different things but on a deeper level they are not in conflict, although one system is an Ogdoad, one a Triad and another an Ennead and still another a Quaternary ( not even with the same number of components in each) one is describing natural 'formation' ( Nun / Naunet) while another describes 'augmentation' ( Atum) ... they serve different functions and any valid system should be able to serve different functions .... IMO. The same with my studies with the local indigenous ... their stories are in seeming conflict ... but really they are just different views of valid systems ... the view doesnt make the system valid or not. By studying all of it, one starts to get a picture , like one eventually does from piecing a jigsaw puzzle together... and by 'knowing it' (by learning, travelling to those areas, partaking of those mysteries, enacting the 'myths') one becomes a 'proper man ' (or a high initiate).

The same as an eclectic education broadens one's horizon ... but not if the subjects one studies are rubbish, disconnected or illogical ... especially within their own field or system.
And are the two sets of 22 both maps of reality?

Not sure what you mean there ... but the above should clear up the answer to that ... any two sets (or more) of any numbers can be valid maps of reality; Unity, Duality, triplicity, 4/5 - the elements, 7 the Planets, 12 - astrology, 22 Kabbalah, 64 I Ching.

There isnt ONE reality ... thats a very modern and very western concept.

There is no evidence that the tarot trumps (which actually numbered 21) had any esoteric significance to start with.

I thought I already addressed this ? Maybe it was elsewhere. Did the stars have any esoteric significance to start with ? Did animals, Everyday objects? Its human nature to give things esoteric significance and to see patterns and similarities in things ... the 'Doctrine of Signatures' ? ... stuff like that. Just because someone didnt sit down one day and say "I am going to create an esoteric tool" and create the first tarot deck does not matter.

For what reason was Chess invented ? ... yet :

http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/esotericism_chess.html


As for the Hebrew alphabet, do you really believe Hebrew is in any way special? And which Hebrew: modern, Biblical, or that of Abraham? None of those actually had 22 consonants, anyway, as the alphabet was created for Phoenician.

I believe that any language that used letters as numbers can interchange them and extract values form words and compare them , etc. is 'special' ... more so than alanguage where one cant really do this.

This might be hard to understand ... but it is very special ... again for different reasons ... for me, its utterance has virtually the significance of a 'barbarous language' * while for someone like Closrapexa, the opposite might be true. Hebrew is special because of its outlook ... so are many other languages ... because of THEIR outlook . Hebrew happened to be that one the G. D. focused on (as well as English :) ) ... crowley also used Greek and Latin. ( English is good for commerce but hopeless for spiritual or esoteric subjects ... evidenced by the fact that we had to incorporate so many other terms from different languages in this field - but I guess thats our karma :) ... OI! ... I'm no mashugana ... comprendo ? )


* Omari tessala marax,
tessala dodi phornepax.
amri radara poliax
armana piliu.
amri radara piliu son';
mari narya barbiton
madara anaphax sarpedon
andala hriliu.

and

http://books.google.com.au/books?id...v=onepage&q=magical barbarous tongues&f=false
 

Richard

I have problems with the correspondences idea. Take the equation of the 22 trumps to the 22 paths in the cabala. Even if you consider both to be maps of reality, you can't just assume they map in the same way. For example, Aristotelian, Daoist, and Vedanta philosophy all assumed 5 elements, but these do not correspond and serve different functions. And are the two sets of 22 both maps of reality? There is no evidence that the tarot trumps (which actually numbered 21) had any esoteric significance to start with. As for the Hebrew alphabet, do you really believe Hebrew is in any way special? And which Hebrew: modern, Biblical, or that of Abraham? None of those actually had 22 consonants, anyway, as the alphabet was created for Phoenician.
You are basically correct, but don't let that bother you. The systems now in use by GD and Thelema are consistent and have proven to be more than satisfactory to its users. If you are looking for some sort of objective historical or empirical evidence or proof of validity, it just doesn't work that way. Sorry about that.
 

Zephyros

It ultimately doesn't matter whether correspondences work out in reality or not, but whether they work in the context of the work being done. That Tarot didn't have occult influences to begin with is immaterial, because when the GD "rebooted" Tarot they built it according to a certain system. One can argue whether the system is correct or not, but a deck like the RWS does display that structure, and although it can be ignored, it can't be made to vanish.

Otherwise, where did all those pretty pictures come from? Why is there downward progression in the pips? Did Waite simply put a boat in Six of Swords because he was feeling nautical that day?

The Tree of Life does not purport to show reality, but a paradigm of it. A map, for example, has lines and colors according to an agreed upon symbolic language. It does not show reality, but a model which allows you to make use of it in order to get places. A map's correspondences aren't always intuitive, such as green not showing grass but low elevation, but that doesn't matter, because like the Tree of Life, it works.
 

DavidMcCann

You are basically correct, but don't let that bother you. The systems now in use by GD and Thelema are consistent and have proven to be more than satisfactory to its users. If you are looking for some sort of objective historical or empirical evidence or proof of validity, it just doesn't work that way. Sorry about that.
Actually, I'd agree! I think the chaos magicians have it right, when they say any system will work if you believe in it. Personally I just can't believe in the GD or Crowley, though. But really, I was just defending poor old Waite from the charge of having made a mess of things. I'll admit he did lead with his chin: that perpetual air of "Oh dear, what a lot of fools I do have to associate with!"