In a sense, Teheuti...
But the thing is, if we are living in the world of the Thoth Tarot, by that I mean using it regularly and meditating on it and dwelling in it, seeing the world through its lens... then Thelema is not a view but THE view. All Art conveys something of its Creator, from the Universe on down.
That is one of the core ideas of the Golden Dawn and all Qabalistic magick: contemplating the order of the Universe is a way of understanding its Creation and its Creator.
This deck is not a random collision of symbols anymore than a book is a random collision of the Alphabet ground out by infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters. Though many people would seem to wish it so,
the Thoth Tarot isn't an accident.
Using the Thoth
is a study of Thelema, in the same way that singing Mozart is a way of studying Mozart. Not everyone aspires to more than singing, but the music is a direct path the the mind of its creator. Any singer who's read Mozart or performed Mozart knows certain things about Mozart that cannot be expressed clearly. Musical gnosis. That said, there isn't a way to AVOID it. Is there a way to pay attention to something and NOT study it? Why would you try? Contemplation of nothingness starts with , uh, nothing. To pay attention to something is to consider its origins and its logic and its purpose and its possibilities. Isn't that the nature of attention thence study?
How could anyone be "insulted" to discover the very thing they are looking at?
Whatever the Crocodile and Lotus in the Thoth Fool may mean to anyone else, the the Crocodile and Lotus in this Fool are CROWLEY'S Crocodile and Lotus in
Crowley's Fool: Crowley chose them as symbols, and (with Harris' gifted help) he placed them in context; he dictated their position, color, size, aspect, composition exactly as they are because he was expressing his worldview as coherently as possible. Crowley's understanding of Lotuses and Crocodiles was based on a LOT of study and experience, and so it behooves us to follow in his footsteps, but they are HIS footsteps and they tread his worldview. If anyone's understanding of the polysemic possibilities of crocodiles and lotuses can add to the understanding of his worldview,
mazel tov. Nevertheless, since Crowley crafted these images (through Harris hands) all addenda are footnotes at best, and distractions at worst. Brainstorming all the possible meanings for Crocodiles and Lotuses doesn't actually illuminate anything other that Lotuses and Crocodiles in general... but NOT in specific and NOT in this deck.
If we are living in Thoth-land, (and that means anyone using the Thoth, even
looking at the Thoth), then Thelema isn't something you choose, it is the way things
are. It is the worldview expressed by this particular work of art. If we are using the deck then we ARE studying Thelema, full stop. In the same way that when we walk through a temple we are participating in the liturgy and mythology of that faith.
Any temple,
any faith. Even with the most glancing attention, the very stones and decor are designed to convey a particular understanding of the universe. This is why the wacky Israelites were so opposed to depictions of the Divine and why acnient cultures stole statuary and razed temples in wars. Those ideas are communicated. That is why people travel, why they look at Art, why they TALK to each other. Because minds colliding produce the only sparks worth noting. The bourgeois idea that we can "shop" for culture or faith is tied with the idea that "all religions are one" or what I call the Baskin Robbin theory of Deity... which gives ride to stupid asssertions like "Set is the Egyptian Satan" or "Hades is the Greek name for Hell." Uh, yeah.
The 12th century Christ and televangelists' Christ wouldn't be able to sit at a table together.
Only in post-mall-culture would people ever think of religion or metaphysics as something we choose. It's actually a weird position if you think about it. A good comparison would be medieval Christianity. If you were born in European cultures there wasn't a "choice" as to religion. Catholicism is named so because it was "catholic" that is to say, orthodox.
Re- ligio means "bound back." CAN people actually alter their worldviews or merely expand them? Can people choose religion the way they choose socks? I'd say no, but then my definition of religion is probably not everyone's. But whatever it is that people think they are "choosing" when they shop for faith in a strip mall doesn't seem to be very rigorous: McChristianity, Scientology, Sitcom Zen, Silver Ravenwolf's Wicca in 20 minutes, Archangels for the masses. Sops to the credulous and lazy and inept.
The idea that people are blank slates that drift through an enormous market of cultural content picking and choosing at random is an invention of 20th century capitalism. Only in a world of consumers could anyone believe that ALL religions, ALL ideas, ALL possibilities are accessible and equivalent to everyone. People are not interchangeable any more than worldviews are. That is because it is a convenient fiction for selling things to people, but a lunacy when you are looking at active dynamic theology. Christians who like the art but hate all that cannibalism and crucifixion business. The kind of cultural tourism where Americans travel to China and complain about the food being inauthentic. People who defend their illusions and apathy with fire and sword.
It reminds me a bit of the dopey Fate vs. Free Will debate that flares into silly life every so often on the forum. People who don't do much reading like the word "Free" because of the way it's been branded by modern advertisiers, but on examination Free Will is actually a terrifying burden. Again, the near impossibility of stepping outside our own worldviews proves the lie. This is the reason that books ARE dangerous, that wars have been fought over art, that censorship is so appealing to fundamentalists. Ideas are infectious and immortal. They cannot be controlled.
And again again again I will say it and say it and say it because it seems so obvious to me. If you are studying a Golden Dawn deck then
you are studying the Golden Dawn's view of the world. If you are using the Crowley-Harris Thoth then you are living inside Crowley's head, looking at the Universe through his eyes... however shallow or slight a grasp you may cultivate of that connection. Further study of writings ON the deck will sped up certain connections, but the connections are inevitable. Things as simple as the portrayal of women throughout, the dynamism of the Knights, the recurrence of certain shapes and colors. All these things cobble together a mosaic of Crowley's own devising.
Only someone who did not use the Thoth could avoid Thelema. Only someone who did not use the Waite-Smith could avoid Waite's brand of mystical Christianity.
Computer programming is actually a perfect metaphor. Everyone who uses a computer is in effect studying "computers" as a topic, but how many people actually take the time to peel back the skin and look at the architecture of the software? How many people go further and actually create software? More people want a lovely GUI than a string of 1s and 0s. But the 1s and 0s are all there even if you only use your computer to surf the web and types tweets. All differing levels of expertise, of study... but ALL study of the topic at varying degrees of attention and effort.
Should everyone who studies the Thoth Tarot study Thelema? This is a
nonsensical question; THEY ALREADY ARE! This is like asking if everyone who reads the Shakespeare should study Elizabethan theatre.
Granted some people study things more casually and superficially and that is of course their right.
But any object of attention is studied nonetheless, and if that object was created by Crowley then they ARE studying Crowley. How could they not? Why would they pretend it possible? The Thoth is NOT a tabula rasa. Who would ever claim it was?! It did not fall from the sky. The egomaniacal belief that our OWN perceptions are somehow unique and individual and devoid of influence seems like frantic solipsism (
me-me-me!)... but everything we are and do is built on things that came before. Even Crowley, egomaniac that he was, insisted on study of his esoteric and intellectual forebears.
And this brings me back to one of my biggest questions...
If in fact someone doesn't want to study Thelema or the Golden Dawn then WHY are they using objects created for the express purpose of communicating those worldviews?! Why would someone who thinks magick is delusional horseshit and divination is a sort of "psychology in fancy dress" bother to use something lovingly, obsessively crafted to conver a Truth predicated on a magickal worldview? That's not to say that people who actively avoid deeper study AREN'T using Tarot, but rather that they are absorbing a deliberately skewed curriculum every time they shuffle. How could they not?! They are holding the curriculum in their hands, they are looking at snapshots of that worldview, they are tracing the way that worldview fits together. They are looking through somone else's eyes because that is the function of all Art, all Creations: to allow us to share experience with another consciousness.
The only way they could avoid it is by
closing their eyes, which answers the question; They could only be insulted if they were willfully blind.
Scion