Escaping from the Tree of Life?

foolMoon

The use of the Tree in Tarot reading may be superficial compared to its significance in the Rosicrucian grades.

For example, consider the Hermit. Its position on the ToL is path 20 joining Sephirot 4 and 6. Thus it not only has the letter Yod and zodiac sign Virgo, but it is associated with Chesed (Mercy), Jupiter, the pips of denomination 4, and Tiphareth (Beauty), the Sun, the pips of denomination 6, and the Princes. There is even more that can be considered. For example, path 20 is adjacent to paths 15 (Emperor or Star) and path 24 (Death), and it is opposite path 22 (Justice). Moreover, the Hermit is associated with Sephirah 9, and thus it inherits the foundational characteristics of Yesod. Anyhow, there is a huge amount of information related to the Hermit which is provided by the ToL, and this can enrich its divinatory significance in a spread and suggest all sorts of associations which might not be seen otherwise, without necessarily involving an excursion into the deeper esoteric aspects of the Tree.

I am not familiar with the Rosicrusian grades. Are the Rosicrusian the precursor magical society of the GD? What would be difference between the two societies? - maybe this could be discussed in entirely new thread, as it looks a huge topic?

I know you have rejected PHB's views on escaping from TOL completely, but what I can recall from his sayings, that TOL has been adopted by these magical societies for gradings, which gave turgid hierarchical structure and form. These structure and hierarchy have been inherited by magicians and tarot readers, which obstructs, and limits their divinatory practices rather than help. PHB says, therefore they must escape to free themselves from any type of limitation in order to see the world and life without prejudices.

It was interesting to see different opinions about this topic from different people, and now I do feel I can understand the topic better, although I still remain open minded.

My feeling is that PHB's claim has a definite flaw in logic, as the OOTK spread (his recommended option after escape from TOL), and even using Tarot cards itself could be interpreted as limitation i.e. the structures of 78 or 36 cards and images from the traditional archetype.
 

Richard

I am not familiar to the Rosicrusian grades at all. Are the Rosicrusian the precursor magical society of the GD? What would be difference between the two societies? - maybe this could be discussed in entirely new thread, as it looks a huge topic?.......
It is P. F. Case's terminology, in order to free the concept from a specific esoteric society. Golden Dawn grades it is, if you prefer. This is not the only way to use the ToL structure. In fact, the Golden Dawn (or Hermetic) ToL (the structure of which originated with Athanasius Kircher, a Jesuit scholar) is itself a specific adaptation of the concept which arose in Jewish mysticism. For example, the Golden Dawn's planetary attributions of the double letters are unique, differing from those of any 'standard' version of the Sefer Yetzirah.

I don't want to stray too far from the topic of this thread. Suffice it to say that the version of the ToL used by the Golden Dawn and other esoteric orders is an original adaption of the ToL, which differs from the Trees used in traditional Kabbalism.
 

ravenest

'The concept' of the world - concepts of world we were talking about, not a concept. The issue has been more to do with your inappropriate ideas and applications of philosophical terms rather than 'A' or 'The' issue. I admit English is not my strong subject, but I don't believe that is the issue.

My inappropriate ideas ?

There is a whole section of academia based on 'my inappropriate ideas'

but then again, if one will not look at the references and insist how people used to think is inappropriate ... then I guess we better end here.

But for anyone else interested, a starter;

https://archive.org/stream/originsofmoderns007291mbp#page/n9/mode/2up

Anyway, isn't the Anima mundi totally different entity from the world we have been talking about? We are talking about the views rather than connection.

Its exactly what I have been talking about, and without that understanding one will not understand hermetics or hermetic Kabbalah .... just as a tribal stone age person will make wrong assumptions about how we think a piano works ;

Old style Pidgin English for 'piano' ; ' little fellah inside wood box, you sit him and hit black and white and fellah inside sing out nice. '

I do not see what does not make sense, and what it has to do with language. If anything, I find your posting unclear - I am not sure actually if its your language, style of writing or ideas. I understand other people's postings clear, but not yours.

What makes no sense (to me) is what any person ( a relative or not) that knows nothing of the ToL , thinks about what the ToL means ... a tree from the garden centre or not .

The only sense I can make of that is some type of comparison that tries to show what something means to me does not mean the same to others. Not everyone instinctively understands or has access consciously to the 'collective unconscious' , and if they did, it is the 'components of myth' that resonate across cultures, not the 'story' that those components tell ( as in the ToL symbol ).

Of course it is 'unclear' ... I am talking about a mental process has invaded the whole of modern consciousness ... virtually like a plague.

With far reaches in modern science ( like asto / quantum / sub-atomic physics ) they are coming back to a real understanding ... and this aspect of science is moving away from its negative counterpart 'scientism' (look that one up ) that the overtly 'dualistic' world view had created.

Is it not the case of seeing a few 'coincidences', and then generalising?

In some cases is it was, not in the ones I was referring to .... I am quiet cynical and doubting person ( I think that is obvious ) but I am not so much that way that evidence in front of me will be doubted solely because of my proclivities.

The case seems to be that, regardless of environment and time, certain aspects of the human psyche are 'universal' .

There are some interesting anthropological papers on this subject, and of course, like all academia, they are in debate, but too OT to go into here.

Is it a proven theory, facts or your guess? What is source of this claim?

I can supply more if you are really open to it ... but I dont want to do a whole lot of finding and pasting if you are not that interested.

I have already given sources and refs, but I think you didnt read them , but disputed anyway ... thats okay, I can supply more refs if you really want them.
 

Zephyros

I seem to have lost the conversation somewhat, but behind all the wise references it seems to be another of those "esoteric vs intuitive" interpretation debates.

But let's play. Let's assume I have now escaped the Tree of Life, and do not use it in any way in readings. What now? How do you interpret readings, simply by looking at the pictures? Is that what the point of all this was? Is that what Barlow is talking about? Does he even know the difference between the Tree of Life and the OOTK?

And for the record, ravenest does back up his claims with references, which is far more than I can say for Barlow.
 

foolMoon

My inappropriate ideas ?

There is a whole section of academia based on 'my inappropriate ideas'

but then again, if one will not look at the references and insist how people used to think is inappropriate ... then I guess we better end here.

But for anyone else interested, a starter;

https://archive.org/stream/originsofmoderns007291mbp#page/n9/mode/2up



Its exactly what I have been talking about, and without that understanding one will not understand hermetics or hermetic Kabbalah .... just as a tribal stone age person will make wrong assumptions about how we think a piano works ;

Old style Pidgin English for 'piano' ; ' little fellah inside wood box, you sit him and hit black and white and fellah inside sing out nice. '



What makes no sense (to me) is what any person ( a relative or not) that knows nothing of the ToL , thinks about what the ToL means ... a tree from the garden centre or not .

The only sense I can make of that is some type of comparison that tries to show what something means to me does not mean the same to others. Not everyone instinctively understands or has access consciously to the 'collective unconscious' , and if they did, it is the 'components of myth' that resonate across cultures, not the 'story' that those components tell ( as in the ToL symbol ).

Of course it is 'unclear' ... I am talking about a mental process has invaded the whole of modern consciousness ... virtually like a plague.

With far reaches in modern science ( like asto / quantum / sub-atomic physics ) they are coming back to a real understanding ... and this aspect of science is moving away from its negative counterpart 'scientism' (look that one up ) that the overtly 'dualistic' world view had created.



In some cases is it was, not in the ones I was referring to .... I am quiet cynical and doubting person ( I think that is obvious ) but I am not so much that way that evidence in front of me will be doubted solely because of my proclivities.

The case seems to be that, regardless of environment and time, certain aspects of the human psyche are 'universal' .

There are some interesting anthropological papers on this subject, and of course, like all academia, they are in debate, but too OT to go into here.



I can supply more if you are really open to it ... but I dont want to do a whole lot of finding and pasting if you are not that interested.

I have already given sources and refs, but I think you didnt read them , but disputed anyway ... thats okay, I can supply more refs if you really want them.


I am saying this because you have quoted a link for The Origins of Modern Science.

There are arguments by many scientists that all arts subjects do not even qualify for science, i.e. Arts subjects such as Sociology, Psychology, Religious Studies and Literature ... etc, they are not sciences but just studies. When you read that book in your link, have you thought about what the true scientific methods are? Do your statements and claims about minds and souls qualify as verified scientific truths? In the view of the mainstream scientists, all the issues about minds, its localities and its existence are still in the realm of faith, conjectures and mythologies rather than facts.

Quoting non critically relevant paragraphs has double side effects - it is good in a way that it widens the readers views surrounding the topic, but it could also cloud the main topic and focus in the thread.

Plus if you bring in claims and statements in the realm of mythologies, hypothesis and conjectures as your references, and try to make out that they are some sort of universally verified truths and facts, and then reject, dispute and ignore others opinions on the basis of those references, it does not seem appropriate ways to debate.

I could write a lot about this, but I will try keep it short. I hope you get my point.
 

foolMoon

I seem to have lost the conversation somewhat, but behind all the wise references it seems to be another of those "esoteric vs intuitive" interpretation debates.

But let's play. Let's assume I have now escaped the Tree of Life, and do not use it in any way in readings. What now? How do you interpret readings, simply by looking at the pictures? Is that what the point of all this was? Is that what Barlow is talking about? Does he even know the difference between the Tree of Life and the OOTK?

And for the record, ravenest does back up his claims with references, which is far more than I can say for Barlow.

I think my previous replies to ravenist answers part of your question :)
 

Richard

Does he even know the difference between the Tree of Life and the OOTK?......
Barlow does not seem to understand how the ToL can enrich the interpretation of a spread without necessarily being restrictive.

ETA. Or perhaps he is merely attempting to increase his popularity among Kabbalah detractors, who are seemingly abundant in the Tarot community. However, to "escape from the ToL" is an absurdly dramatic way of stating that one chooses not to use it in Tarot interpretation.
 

ravenest

I am saying this because you have quoted a link for The Origins of Modern Science.

There are arguments by many scientists that all arts subjects do not even qualify for science, i.e. Arts subjects such as Sociology, Psychology, Religious Studies and Literature ... etc, they are not sciences but just studies. When you read that book in your link, have you thought about what the true scientific methods are?

Have you thought about what a red herring is ?

Ummmm .... that IS what the book is about .... how we developed modern scientific method, how it came about by 'separation' into duality of the previous approach and on what basis, belief and cosmological view the old view was based on.

Are you asking me if I thought about what modern science is while reading a book on the development of modern science ?

Do your statements and claims about minds and souls qualify as verified scientific truths? In the view of the mainstream scientists, all the issues about minds, its localities and its existence are still in the realm of faith, conjectures and mythologies rather than facts.

But you started a thread about the escaping from the Tree of Life ... now you want 'verified scientific truth' ?

all I can do is supply references for you ... and in the nature of 'soul' will not be hard science - of course ! However 'soft sciences' such as psychology, academically accept people such as Jung - who by the way had his own 'familiar' daemon, that taught him things and also played tricks on him.

Its all about the how we perceive the nature of reality. Here are two references the first is a clinically proven research by a qualified psychiatrist ( and here, I might ask , if a psychiatrist comes upon and idea and tries it, and it works, so he tries it again, under similar circumstances and it works again {the 'incurable' patient is cured}, and he does it again and the same results are had ... is that 'verifiable science' ? If I say dont think of an elephant to 15 people and they cant stop thinking of an elephant, is that 'verifiable science', even though psychology is not a 'hard science' ? )

and the other explains very well how certain strange and 'abnormal' occurrences reported in modern life ( hence part of 'human experience' ) might be considered from a 'third perspective.'

first ; http://www.searchwithin.org/download/presence_spirits.pdf

the second ;

" With Jung, Harpur argues that these are phenomena of the psyche, but that psyche is of the world, not just of us as individuals. Indeed, our much cherished individual selves and psyches may be no more than embodiments of that world-soul (rediscovered in our age as the goddess Gaia). The phenomena in which the book rejoices may be appearances to us of its ancient inhabitants. They appear in different forms to match changing cultural expectations and concerns. An appearance of the Goddess becomes an appearance of the Blessed Virgin Mary, becomes a woman with golden hair emerging from her spacecraft. The mistake, he suggests, is to deny and repress these manifestations, since the repressed returns, pathologically and dangerously, if separated from a context of meaning and belief. Harpur suggests that a function of these daimonic forces may now be to undermine a deadening and narrow scientific orthodoxy and world-view - the 'single vision' which Blake so deplored. This sounds very radical but Harpur is the first to point out that it is not very new. By drawing on a philosophical tradition that flows down the centuries from the Neoplatonists, through the Romantics, and crucially in Bake, Yeats and Jung, he shows that there is an ancient history of understanding of this daimonic, Otherworld reality. Indeed, he goes back further still by embracing the folklore and tales of the Otherworld from across the Western tradition, and acknowledges that every culture, except perhaps our own, has seen its world as interpenetrated with another, shadowy, yet powerful reality, full of wonder, beauty and terror. The key to being alert to it lies in what Blake called the Imagination, and in not allowing the rational mind to shut out what it cannot readily comprehend or control. "

http://www.harpur.org/PJCHdaimonicreality.htm

For a background on the Hermetic tradition I recommend another of Harpur's books

http://www.harpur.org/PJCHsecretfire.htm

If you are only seeking information that has " verified scientific truths" why are you even dealing with Kabbalah and Tarot in the first place ?

I am coming from a background and interest in psychology and cultural anthropology - both 'soft sciences' - but still, the basic groundwork in these studies is considered academic, papers are peer reviewed , books are written, theories are argued ... that happens in hard science too.


Quoting non critically relevant paragraphs has double side effects - it is good in a way that it widens the readers views surrounding the topic, but it could also cloud the main topic and focus in the thread.

My point and contention is that without a basic understanding of the subject then the topic of (particularly) this thread is confused in the first place.

If one asks 'how can I get out of this box' one either has to explain how their is a box and how to get out of it (or what ever made you think you were in it in the first place ), the box is an analogy for a situation that one is immersed in so there is no way out, or there is no box in the first place.

If someone wanted to get out of a box they were not in, why would I explain the escape more than the issue that there is no box ?

Plus if you bring in claims and statements in the realm of mythologies, hypothesis and conjectures as your references, and try to make out that they are some sort of universally verified truths and facts, and then reject, dispute and ignore others opinions on the basis of those references, it does not seem appropriate ways to debate.

Where are the references that show what 'others' are saying that is the opposite to what I say. All I see is a running dispute from you, from just about any idea I bring up, these Ideas I bring up are easily recognised by any one with any type of slightly deeper association or reading of hermetics.

Now you are acting like I am the only person with these ideas and they are at odds with 'verifiable scientific truth' ... considering the view of hermetics and 'verifiable science', have you looked into any of the lesser known works of Isaac Newton ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_occult_studies

Honestly, you will learn a LOT more from these refs than watching that youtube guy and having some strange need to defend him and try to refute everything written otherwise.

If you want hard core science - stick to maths ... that wont wobble ...

if you want eroticism or the occult - which includes tarot, by wide definition - as wisdom or divination - and demand it be backed up by 'verifiable science ' .... well, good luck with that one !
 

ravenest

I seem to have lost the conversation somewhat, but behind all the wise references it seems to be another of those "esoteric vs intuitive" interpretation debates.

But let's play. Let's assume I have now escaped the Tree of Life, and do not use it in any way in readings. What now? How do you interpret readings, simply by looking at the pictures? Is that what the point of all this was? Is that what Barlow is talking about? Does he even know the difference between the Tree of Life and the OOTK?

And for the record, ravenest does back up his claims with references, which is far more than I can say for Barlow.

You buy the book that comes with the deck and use the meanings written in it (dont worry, it won't be too complex. it will probably just say 'what' and no hint if 'why', so you won't have to think much ) ... or, you could take up channelling ;)
 

Zephyros

You buy the book that comes with the deck and use the meanings written in it (dont worry, it won't be too complex. it will probably just say 'what' and no hint if 'why', so you won't have to think much ) ... or, you could take up channelling ;)

If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit." Matthew 15:13-14, New International Version

I can't really opine on all the learnéd referenced, but I suppose one of the problems with the subject is that in order to explain Barlow's fallacies one has to be learned in Qabalah, which would imply bias, since if someone saw no worth in it, they would not be avid scholars of it. So I get, in a way, why someone would resist the clamoring of the chorus, as is happening in this thread. However, Barlow does seem to present himself as a sort of authority, which may unfortunately mislead people, because he is, in fact, quite wrong in a few verifiable facts, mainly having to do with system and structure. In terms of Qabalah, he simply lacks vision, and scope.

In my opinion there is nothing less creative than working with the Tree of Life, and I don't find it restrictive at all. On the contrary, although it necessitates a certain discipline in order to use it well, it opens up all forms of avenues of thought and contemplation. It is the machinery that spins Tarot and when it works, it is as satisfying as the humming of a well-oiled engine. And although I tried (and I guess, failed) to explain why and how it can be used for mundane matters, I have no doubt that it can be, since I do it myself all the time.

The thing is to not be so literal with it, but rather extract the base emotion that connects all the ideas that go to make up a respective path or emanation. The same principles that go up to make the big, spiritual things are present in the small ones as well, since the machinery of their manifestation is the same.

While this conversation is fascinating, I fail to see much proper Qabalistic discussion of why the Tree may or may not be a proper tool for analyzing mundane matters.