Hi smw,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
Thank you for your reply and background explanation to the Thothie saga.
What I understand from what you say here is that because Tarot uses pictorial language and symbols it is a part of the collective unconscious and therefore available to all. That seems reasonable (assuming you agree with Jung).
Yes, that summarizes my view well.
On the other hand some thoughts though. The unconscious according to Jung does not have just the collective, universal aspect but also the personal. Are personal interpretations linked to universal symbols also the property of everyone? It kind of looks to me that Crowley describes symbols with his own flavour...
According to this, Crowley would be the one with the overly subjective and somewhat limited interpretation of his own deck. That's an interesting twist...
On a basic level I can't help thinking it is kind of yucky to use the results of other people's work and not acknowledge them properly. There also seems something a bit dubious about claiming an entitlement to represent the Thoth tarot, outside the intentions of it's creator, because of your own personal intellectual belief system.
I am not fond at all of the way Arrien downplayed Crowley's fundamental contribution to the deck, ascribing it almost entirely to Harris. Personally, I did and continue to study Crowley's accompanying book and I consider it essential reading for understanding the Thoth in depth.
On the other hand, I like to find what is valuable in whatever I study, and I don't go overboard like some others who disdain anything connected to the Arrien school a priori. Especially Ziegler has proven useful in my practice, not least in my work with psychiatric patients. That's not very surprising, because he wrote his books based on his experience with self-help groups. Tarantino is brilliant too.
Without a doubt, the BoT and other writings related to Tarot by Crowley are
the source books for understanding the Thoth as a spiritual system, but they are of less immediate use for readings, overall.
I am not quite with you that if the Thoth doesn't use universal symbols they must be signs. Well, that has been vexing me thanks!
In contrast a sign seems to have no underlying meanings just the obvious concrete one, ie an arrow sign to the toilets.
I am not sure so far that the symbols or imagery in the BOT are signs suggested by this. What is interesting though is that although symbols and signs seem clearly different to start with and then things get slippery.
This seems to me to be in a similar vein to the descriptions of symbolic imagery in the BOT, where a symbol (a sign in your reasoning) appears to be explained but really is not described fully because the other images or associations given for it are also actually symbols and not entirely knowable.
Crowley does seem to be aware of this unknowable element of symbols. He gives (I think?) an explanation of how symbols are shown and limited according to the differing understandings of the receiver.
Things easily get confusing in this area, and I am not sure if I made myself understood well enough. Surely, Crowley had a deep understanding of symbolism. But there are some "Crowley purists" out there, degrading what is shown on the cards to mere signs by not allowing to read them as symbols - which entails psychological association, vagueness, even a degree of subjectivity
although symbols are in fact a universally understood language. Instead, those purists seem to insist that the images are nothing but some kind of shorthand for concepts in Crowley's complex metaphysical system, therefore quite impossible to properly understand without reference to the latter.
Let's look at a quite arbitrarily chosen example. About the Princess of Cups, Ziegler says: "With great tenderness and gentleness she holds the cup with the turtle in her hand as a hint of the protection she lovingly assures herself and others." This is in tune with the shell like shape of the cup as well as with the turtle shell and tells us directly something about the character of the Princess.
Crowley however gives us a more abstract, esoteric explanation: "She bears a covered cup from which issues a tortoise. This is again the tortoise which in Hindu philosophy supports the elephant on whose back is the Universe." Food for further metaphysical thought, to be sure, but hardly something a sitter can make much practical use of.
Neither view is wrong, nor is there any contradiction between them, they are just different ways to read the symbolism.
that is why I was wondering why you divided Thoth purists and the Jungian approach books into intellectual and intuitive, it seemed a tad divisive... I do get your point about practicality though.
I have got Zieglers' book. At first I thought I had made a mistake as it seemed to not go at all with Duquette or BOT. Also, I have a mean knee jerk to positive affirmations
maybe as I tend to be negative, I could re think this.
Yes, I think this would be well worth your while.
However, I have looked at it recently and although it explores from a different angle, it does seem to be more Thoth based and I could see where some of the meanings and descriptions were coming from.
