Well, gang, you knew Old Loudmouth was gonna pop in here sooner or later,
but I wanted a chance to read the whole thread from the top.
The initial post
was baiting, but frankly, I don't mind that because I have no fear of debate and I love the discussion that's ensued. Still, the essential core of the "controversy" is rooted in a mistaken assumption. I'm gonna deal with that first.
Baccus93 said:
Of all the decks I own, and some that I've browsed through, I'll admit that some resonate better with me than others, but in none of the meanings assigned to them in what we call the Little White Books (LWB) have I found any differences.
The only thing I can say to this is that you haven't made a very good sampling of the decks available (a little like claiming that no one speaks anything but English because you grew up in rural Montana). Out of the 100s of decks I own I can think of 3 distinct, popular deck "strains" that often directly contradict each other: Golden Dawn, Levi-based, Spanish... Moreover, I can think of literally 30 decks that have one-off systems that buck the GD hegemony. So I think you're making your case on a biased sample.
To put your argument another way... GD decks are all Tarot, GD decks share meaning, all Tarot decks share meaning: that is what we call a syllogistic fallacy.
Baccus93 said:
What I have stated was that all the published interpretations boil down to the same. Why?? Because, as I have stated, they have all come from the same system.(snip) Read the LWB of any Tarot deck and you'll find the core of every assigned interpretation the same. And look into the systems I've mentioned, you'll find the roots.
No question: if you go to an apple orchard you are going to find apples. What you are proposing is what is known as a
post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy because you've equated sequence with causality. Many decks ARE GD-based, but that is because the Waite-Smith is the most popular deck in the United States (though not in Europe). Since it is popular, people know it and seek its brethren, and since publishers know this they produce decks that reflect its structure. That isn't a conspiracy or a secret society, that's capitalism.
Trouble is, even a casual survey of deck reviews will turn up decks that don't follow the Book T meanings. Folks grumble about these "anomalies" on AT all the time, because many folks expect the WS meanings to be universal, which they are not, categorically. To claim that they are says more about where and how you've been looking than establishing the existence any kind of controversy. If you poke your head into the Marseilles groups or almost any part of the Historical section, you might broaden your perspective.
I do think there are "great" controversies in esoterica, some of which have larger implications, but frankly the "dastardly LWB Agreement sham" is not one of them. To say so was baiting, pure and simple, and uninformed baiting at that.
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. With 10 minutes of research you could have demolished your own line of reasoning.
Baccus93 said:
It is painfully certain that Western Kabbalah and Tarot are definitely related, but not with Hebrew Kabbalah so much (which I think is the confusion).
Maybe painful, not so certain. If this read "Western Kabbalah and Tarot are NOW related" I would agree with you. But again
post hoc ergo propter hoc which doesn't leave much room for discussion. The simple fact is, if you study a little history and a little religion, that statement will seem patently uninformed. For the record, I'm sure you know that Judaism is not big on depictions of the supernal... "graven images" and all. Although cases have been made for QBLH's relation to Tarot, they are tenuous and speculative at best. And the vast brangle of different QBLH is too complicated and polyvalent to even approach in this thread. So too, what we know of Tarot history brings the minors through Islamic North Africa (hardly jewish-friendly) into medieval Europe, with the Trumps popping up mysteriously in the 15th century in northern Italy. Not so much with "painful obviousness" of the Jewish mystical connection. But again, I think a little research is indicated.
Baccus93 said:
it will be accurate for every deck. And my readings will accurately apply.
This IS interesting to me, and it's something that many people have discussed many times in many threads: the idea that the reader and not the reading system is the source of the reading. But again, not especially controversial. If someone is a crappy reader, no deck will be "great" in their hands, and if someone is great, gregory's 78 index cards will work wonders. Still, not so controversial a statement.
Baccus93 said:
To me, if you haven't got a grasp of the basic astrological and qabalistic symbolisms behind Tarot, and therefore don't have the answer to "why is that meaning assigned to such and such card", you aren't likely very accurate.
I half agree with you here. I don't agree that you MUST know the astrological, Qabalistic structures to get a good read, but I do think (as I've said in any number of other threads on this topic) you will give a better read if you aren't just spitting back someone else's prechewed astrology or QBLH without knowing why. Not all astrology or QBLH comes from reading books; frankly lots of people pick up a lot of both from the cards directly because most modern decks are self-conciously designed to be used in studying both esoteric branches.
Mastery arises from effort, the more the better. This is one of the reasons I suggested above that you look into history and religion a little more before stating "painfully obvious" assumptions. Knowledge is good. But people come to life with different passions and abilities, so I'm certainly not going to assume everyone will learn the same material the same way at the same juncture. We are not insects! Anyone who picks up a Book-T-based deck is studying Book T whether they like it or not. And some people don't want to read Book T. Gnosis is critical and subjective and hard-won.
Baccus93 said:
Who's ego is really going to be offended when I tell you that I believe you're wrong?
Certainly not mine, though I'm still not sure what I was supposed to be "wrong" about. And to be frank, I don't know where you've decided you're "right." I went back over your posts, but there isn't an argument per se, more a series of narrow observations... Golden Dawn decks are based on the Golden Dawn: Ummm, okay... no disagreements there. Golden Dawn decks are popular, yep
and Stuart Kaplan has the fortune to prove it. Golden Dawn decks are the original and only Tarot, the best, most coherent, most accurate, most historically sound, most direct path to divine communication ever invented and they predate the solar system: Nope.
But, Baccus, that isn't a controvery either, because it is literally foolish to suggest that anyone would make claims like that for something invented less than a century ago.
I love the discussion you've inspired, but the baiting does have a way of inciting ire. From the good humor and intelligence, you've shown in the thread, I'm hoping your ego won't be bruised either if I suggest you do a little more investigating before making claims. Not because baiting hurts anyone, but because it puts people in the position of calling you uninformed.
Scion
.