Does astrology really fit tarot?

earthair

GD has a mixture of zodiac signs, planets and selected elements for Majors.
Miller Universal removed 4 court cards to make them fit the zodiac.
Holy Light questioned everything.

Is it time to admit that astrology has to be manipulated too much to get it to fit into tarot?

Has any deck come up with a perfect system to blend the 2 yet?

:confused:
 

Barleywine

GD has a mixture of zodiac signs, planets and selected elements for Majors.
Miller Universal removed 4 court cards to make them fit the zodiac.
Holy Light questioned everything.

Is it time to admit that astrology has to be manipulated too much to get it to fit into tarot?

Has any deck come up with a perfect system to blend the 2 yet?

:confused:

The Thoth, hands-down. Crowley wasn't one to swallow anything uncritically, and he examines the Golden Dawn bases at considerable length in the Book of Thoth. As a long-time astrologer, I see where the associations were drawn from and I have no quarrel with most of them (and for those that don't seem like a perfect fit, I've taken Crowley's reasoning "under advisement" until something more convincing emerges).
 

earthair

Have you ever thought about having a go at devising a better system yourself Barleywine?
 

Zephyros

Well, I think it does actually fit but when looked at properly. The Majors are ordered not haphazardly but according to the scheme of the classical planets as derived from the Sepher Yetzirah, although some changes were made. The other cards derive from this scheme and are drawn from it.

It ultimately does work but only when the Kabbalistic context is understood. As Barleywine said aptly in the other thread, there is little connection between the astrological attributions and making a classic horoscope. These attributions may not be immediately apparent in the intuitive sense, but they do absolutely make sense when considering the bigger picture and not, as again Barleywine said, "cherrypicking" here and there.

For example, many people have trouble with something like the Cancer/Chariot connection, because it does not make immediate sense. In truth it really is difficult when you consider only the personality attributes of Cancer, but it becomes crystal clear when factoring in the greater systematic "need," and then you realize that the Chariot must be Cancer and no other. I won't go into it now, but it can be explained quite easily.

Remember that the GD system is just that, a system, hence in order to get it, it must be considered internally, according to its own rules.

In addition, as far as I know, the Holy Light merely uses a different Tree of Life, hence its attributions are different.
 

Barleywine

Have you ever thought about having a go at devising a better system yourself Barleywine?

I haven't felt a strong urge to reinvent the wheel. Way back in the beginning (early '70s) I did a lot of reading and thinking in the qabalistic/kabbalistic vein; I read and worked with everything I could get my hands on, including all of the BOTA course material. The only hiccups I ever ran into were Crowley's "Tzaddi is not the Star" argument and his swapping of Strength/Lust and Justice/Adjustment. I still think his "Tzaddi = Tsar = Emperor" justification is a bit suspect, but his astrological basis for swtiching Strength and Justice seems to hold water. I've also listened to the complaining about how Cancer doesn't fit the Chariot and really should be assigned to Temperance. But Sagittarius embodies the "higher mind" aspects that philosophical alchemy is really all about, so it makes eminent sense right where it is. I've seen a few other innovations going all the way back to Eden Gray, who had an astrologer help her reconfigure the arrangement, but I've never been convinced that any of them are an improvement.
 

JackofWands

I also think it's important to note that such a thing as a "perfect system" in the sense of an objective truth connecting the two systems does not and cannot exist. As Closrapexa and Barleywine have pointed out, the Thoth system (derived from the Sepher Yetzirah) actually has a strong interior logic that matches the symbolism of the cards. However, it's also important to realize that this is a system designed for personal use in understanding the symbols of Tarot. It has little to nothing to do with horary or natal chart astrology, and on top of that is only "true" up to the point that it stops being useful for an individual practitioner. If you don't like the system, don't work with it (or develop an alternate system for your own use, the way THL did), but that does not make the system wrong. It's actually quite sound in its construction, and is very useful for those Tarot practitioners who choose to work with it.

ETA: In this vein, I use a different version of the Tree of Life in my personal work with Tarot, because it makes more sense to me personally. But I still recognize the value of the widely accepted Tree and the logic of it as a system.
 

Zephyros

I think the question itself is misleading. When you're talking about "Tarot," which Tarot is actually meant? Are you approaching the question based on previous knowledge and opinion and judging based on that? The GD system fits itself perfectly fine, but it may not fit other systems and it isn't the only one. It might not even fit popular opinion, but that doesn't mean comparisons will get you anywhere.

Say I'm baking raisin bread, I will use sugar and raisins and cinnamon. It will be perfect in the sense that it is suited to my purposes, I like it and it goes with what I have for breakfast. However, as good as my bread is, those ingredients would be terrible in a different dish like meat. This doesn't make my bread any less perfect, only that it is what it is.

It is only because of the popularity of the GD system, much of it because of the RWS, that it is seen as the default, and so people ask if it fits.
 

tarotbear

I have been quoted many times on AT that 'all this other stuff has been GLOMMED onto the Tarot' - and when you take one concise system and try to impose another, constricted system over it - something's got to give! What is pointed out in doing so is what is similar within the systems and what is dissimilar between the systems. Many followers of the New Age understand that all the many different 'systems' overlap each other to some degree - but do they necessarily 'fit'? Probably not! :surprise:

The same thing can be asked of anything that people have 'connected' to the Tarot' - astrology, numerology, Kabbalah (any way you want to spell it), the Hebrew alphabet, herbalogy, stones and crystals, metallurgy, mixology, the Kardashians, etc., etc ..... ;)
 

Zephyros

I have been quoted many times on AT that 'all this other stuff has been GLOMMED onto the Tarot' - and when you take one concise system and try to impose another, constricted system over it - something's got to give! What is pointed out in doing so is what is similar within the systems and what is dissimilar between the systems. Many followers of the New Age understand that all the many different 'systems' overlap each other to some degree - but do they necessarily 'fit'? Probably not! :surprise:

The same thing can be asked of anything that people have 'connected' to the Tarot' - astrology, numerology, Kabbalah (any way you want to spell it), the Hebrew alphabet, herbalogy, stones and crystals, metallurgy, mixology, the Kardashians, etc., etc ..... ;)

Yes... except that none of that is true. As I said myself above, nothing has been glommed onto anything, and no comprehensive system existed before, unless you're talking about Ettiella that has never proven popular and was never a big mover of Tarot into the public eye. And before what? The oral traditions centering on the unillustrated Marseille? Before that?

You have to be a little more precise when implying a restoration to the "original" Tarot pre-glomming, especially when such a period never actually existed. What constricted system has been overlaid over what concise one? When did that happen? Who did the glomming? Are you saying the RWS stood as it was until "someone" came along and started to glom?
 

tarotbear

You have to be a little more precise when implying a restoration to the "original" Tarot pre-glomming, especially when such a period never actually existed. What constricted system has been overlaid over what concise one? When did that happen? Who did the glomming? Are you saying the RWS stood as it was until "someone" came along and started to glom?

I have said nothing about 'restoring' anything. My statements are dealing with the popularization of 'Tarot Additives', and more correctly my statements deal with the fact that when someone does 'glomm' something onto Tarot they have to come up with a way to fill the gaps ... sometimes successfully, sometimes not.