The Star card

Dulcimer

ravenest said:
Yes, well it's all very obvious ..... NOW!

That damned double loop in the zodiac thingo! ......

......As Crowley has said (in intro to Postcards to Probationers), "I often get carried away by my own enthusiasm."

Brilliant, quite brilliant (sounds of applause).

Nicely done, dude

Aeon418? Over to you m8

Parzival

ravenest said:
Bear with me a moment.
Go to the diagram of the double loop, Book of Thoth. Copy out the diagram accuratly (or be reckless and draw in your book like I did)

Write the number 1 next to IV (the lowest in the series of Roman Numerals shown) and go around the diagram attributing the next number (2) to the next highest Roman Numeral (V) and so on. Dont loop, go around the diagram in a circular path. Now do the same with the astrological signs in their order; 1 to Aries, 2 to Taurus, etc.. Now look at how the two sets of numbers you have written at each position compare with each other (starting from IV / Aries and going anti-clockwise); 1-1,12-12, 11-11, (left hand side) 2-2, 3-3, 4-4, 5-7, 6-6, 7-5 (right hand side) 8-8, 9-9, 10-10. The loop is only on one the right hand side where Adjustment / Lust trump number swap is. There is no left hand loop or double loop!....
Crowley tweaked the loop on the left hand side himself, just by , mearly, drawing it that way. There is no astrological / numerical order switch in the Tarot to justify it on the left hand side.

Now look at the tables in The Book of Thoth, p. 278. (the 'wrong' ones) with the strange attribution of Aries / Star, Aquarius / Emperor. Go down the attribution column but start at Aries; Aries, Pisces, [go up to the top] Aquarius, Taurus (the left hand loop in the diagram), Cancer, Libra, Virgo, Leo, (right hand loop), Scorpio, Sag. Capricorn. The double loop only works (in the tables) if you swap the previous astrological attribution to the Emperor and Star. That is why the attributions are out of wack in the table.
....

In any case the loop diagram attributes IV to Emperor and XVII to Star (as do the cards themselves), again, no need to loop the diagram on the left. Even if we use Crowleys table and put Aries to the Star and Aquarius to the Emperor on the double loop diagram, the loop disappears as the astrological progression is back in order.

This does, however, loop the Roman numeral progression on the left hand side, but why do we need to loop the numbers when the astro progression works out?The only way to justify that is to say that the signs loop on the right and the numbers loop on the left but non of that is valid anyway as it is trying to justify a Hebrew letter swapped attribution.

The double loop in the zodiac diagram is a 'fudge' as far as I can see....

In the Book of Thoth A.C. glosses over it (p.4) "Tzaddi is the Emperor; and therefore the positions of XVII and IV must be counterchanged " (yes, but on the Tree of Life not the Zodiac). And unfortunatly Crowley refers to this balanced double loop as, "The most convincing evidence possible that the Book of the Law is a genuine message from the Secret Chiefs".

Some pertinent excerpts from this interersting close look at the loop. But I don't think this is all a "fudge" of forcing correspondences. Yes, we don't need to make the loop, since the astrological progression already works. But the loop itself creates a different scheme of meaning that breaks away from prior fixed schemes. It's a new, dynamic change of picturing. But not the only picture, anymore than Chinese or Hindu astrology or astrosophy (heliocentric) carries the only whole picture. The only whole picture is the fully awake unity with the whole. All metaphysical schemes are maps and fingers pointing.

Dulcimer

The Thelemicans are getting nervous

Frank Hall said:
Yes, we don't need to make the loop, since the astrological progression already works.

Then don't make it.

Frank Hall said:
But the loop itself creates a different scheme of meaning that breaks away from prior fixed schemes.

But there is no loop. I agree with you that the loop is not a fudge. It is an illusion!

Aeon418

These matters sound rather technical; in fact, they are; but the more one studies the Tarot, the more one perceives the admirable symmetry and perfection of the symbolism. Yet, even to the layman, it ought to be evident that balance and fitness are essential to any perfection,...

The Book of Thoth

Yeah, I'm with you Aleister. It ought to be evident even to the layman. But some people are never happy are they?

Without the Star / Emperor swap we are left with one loop in the Zodiac. Does everyone agree on that at least? Is it a happy state of affairs that we are left with a lob-sided zodiac? I'm sure someone is going to say yes.

Crowley's Star/Emperor swap is a swap on the Tree of Life, not the order of the Tarot. But if an equivalent swap is performed on the position of these cards within the Zodiac, lo and behold, we have balance and symmetry where none existed before.

What's so hard about that?

ravenest

Aeon418 said:
Crowley's Star/Emperor swap is a swap on the Tree of Life, not the order of the Tarot.

Yep, I agree (I hope I made that clear in my previous post? - I did try an attempt to swap their order somehow to justify AC's diagram but it didnt work, I hope that didnt confuse things, It is very clear that there is no swap of the number order with Star and Emperor

Aeon418 said:
But if an equivalent swap is performed on the position of these cards within the Zodiac, lo and behold, we have balance and symmetry where none existed before.

What's so hard about that?

But an equivalent swap ISN"T performed on the positon of these cards in the zodiac ... is it? Star is still Aquarius and Emperor is still Aries. Where is the equivlent swap on the position of these cards within the Zodiac? (excepting the tables in Thoth, which differ from the cards attribution themselves.)

The 'swap' is only done by twisting the zodiac into a loop to make it look like the other side.

Anyway, if you cant get that ... it doesnt really matter. There are much better ways of looking at the letter swap (and justifing it ... if you need to)
And, I believe, much better evidence than that for the Book of the Law.

{ eg. III,46: I am the warrior Lord of the Forties: the Eighties cower before me, & are abased." ... The Second Word War and the popularity of Disco music.

}

ravenest

Aeon418 said:
Without the Star / Emperor swap we are left with one loop in the Zodiac. Does everyone agree on that at least? Is it a happy state of affairs that we are left with a lob-sided zodiac? I'm sure someone is going to say yes.

Yes! {just for you Aeon

}

But if A.C. had made Lust (leo) card 8 and Adjustment (Libra) card 11, there wouldnt be a one loop on the right anyway. And then we would have a nicely balanced natural zodiac and much better proofs for the Book of the Law could be bought forward.

Do you know of any reason why he did this 8 / 11 swap? Or can you direct me to a reference where he talks about it?

Dulcimer

Aeon418 said:
Yeah, I'm with you Aleister. It ought to be evident even to the layman. But some people are never happy are they?

Without the Star / Emperor swap we are left with one loop in the Zodiac. Does everyone agree on that at least? Is it a happy state of affairs that we are left with a lob-sided zodiac? I'm sure someone is going to say yes.

Crowley's Star/Emperor swap is a swap on the Tree of Life, not the order of the Tarot. But if an equivalent swap is performed on the position of these cards within the Zodiac, lo and behold, we have balance and symmetry where none existed before.

What's so hard about that?

No! "None existed before"? There is no loop, except the one AC created to substantiate The Star/Emperor swap.

All Waite did was swap two cards that look likelier in their new positions. He didn't create a "loop in the Zodiac".

When the GD moved The Fool from the position proposed by Levi into its present position, no-one talked of loops. It was agreed by them that this was a more suitable position given the meanings they ascribed to it. Waite did the same for Justice and Strength. There is no asymetry, no imbalance. No-one picks up a deck of Waite's cards, deals them out and says "Hmmmm, they look unbalanced". We may not agree with what he did, but we can see why he did it. AC on the other hand uses obfuscation.

The "loops" are an invention. They are meaningless and no-one has had more trouble with it than AC himself. How can they be a swap on the Tree but not the order of the Tarot? He cannot sustain the theory. His writings do not prove it, he merely makes references to Aiwass and calls it "obvious" and for back up he falls back on the old con of poo-pooing his critics. Its the Emperor's New Clothes, my friend, and King Aleister is in his underwear.

Aeon418

Ahhhh..... so you think it's fine to play monkey tricks with the order of the Tarot. (The platonic symbolism is ruined by placing Strength before Justice.)

But you are up in arms over a hebrew letter switch! Huh?! I don't get it. Maybe selective something or other....

ravenest

Aeon418 said:
(The platonic symbolism is ruined by placing Strength before Justice.)

Please explain. This is what I want to know about.

Windhorse

ok how about we all take a big breath.....

I refer to my previous posts on this subject.

I began by questioning the veracity of this "Aiwass" character's claims that "Tzaddi is not the Star!"

Then I disagreed with myself, believing that it was possible that Al and Aiwass were right, and that Tzaddi may in fact NOT be the Star.

Having suspended all belief therefore, I found something to dispute the traditional GD associations of the hebrew letters with Lust and Adjustment - thus bringing into disrepute the reasoning behind "Crowley's loop".

And have returned to the idea that the Star IS Tzaddi and the Emperor is Heh because of the astrological and qabbalistic correspondences - not to mention the fact that the images and symbolism on the cards themselves contradict Crowley's own printed words (which came before the Lady Harris' paintings).

We understand that subjectivity allows either card to have valid meaning on either of the paths on the Tree.

But testing Crowley's own reasoning behind it gives us evidence enough to support the hypothesis that Crowley was throwing the public a red herring; and (in my humble opinion anyhow) semiologically pointing to the deliberate flaws/errors/red herrings perpetrated by the Golden Dawn and Waite in particular.

Energetically - ie working on an intuitive basis, and leaving rationality and the words of a drug-affected madman aside - the Star works lying between Yesod and Netzach; and equally the Emperor does work lying between Tiphareth and Chokmah. They work the other way too - but then anyone with the time and effort can explain how any card fits on any path!

Perhaps part of the trouble here is that many of us intuitive, tarot-reading types find it hard to swallow that the card that represents our Fathers and the Patriarchy could be placed so high up on the Tree of Life. As I have said somewhere in this and/or related discussions, what about the positive understanding of this card, of the notion of a masculine god, of patriarchy: the setting of boundaries, the equal and interdependent notion of firmness and law-setting. Why can't the Emperor sit up the top of the tree with the likes of the Empress and the Priestess and the Lovers? Why wo we have a problem with that? Why is it so hard to believe that this is possible? Why does masculinism and patriarchy have to cop such a bad rap? Yang is just as important as Yin!

Looking at the sephirot:
what path lies between the potential-self (chokmah) and the realised ego-self (tiphareth)? Could it not be said that the firm foundation and discipline of the Emperor is how this potential is realised?
Could the Star not adequately signify the link between our unconscious (yesod) and our emotional state (netzach)?
I believe they could.
I think part of the problem here is the overlay of sooooo many different systems. I think the traditional astrological associations need to be re-thunk (especially in the light of the discovery of other planets).

Having said that, it is important to note that this particular deck is set out in a particular way; it is created to exist within a particular - and unique - system of correspondences. Thus when using this deck, perhaps we should observe the way of its creator; as we should when using other decks by other creators.

But it certainly makes for one hell of a discussion.....

The Star card

Dulcimer

Parzival

Dulcimer

Aeon418

ravenest

ravenest

Dulcimer

Aeon418

ravenest

Windhorse