ravenest
Actually, I'd agree! I think the chaos magicians have it right, when they say any system will work if you believe in it.
That might be right for tarot, emotive or psychological magic but it wont work for technical magical subjects, like transferring the principles and correspondences of alchemy into agriculture. Belief is a PART of the operators mental state ... not the cause of all operations, it might create a better result but it wont turn water into wine (without the appropriate ingredients, apparatus and conditions).
Personally I just can't believe in the GD or Crowley, though.
But it isnt about 'believing' in THEM ... how did that enter into it ... its a about a system not a person or a group.
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!"
No .... thats not the issue .... regardless, I still havent seen how he didnt make a 'mess of things' ... I know most think he made Tarot 'better' ('easier' to read for the masses by putting little cameo scenes on the minors as well) but does not this very thread and the card used by you (and the comments attached) exhibit the typical 'confusion' that most come across when they try to look at the logic, structuring and reasons behind the card meanings, arrangements and variations (like in the courts) ?