From occult-owner@hollyfeld.org Thu Apr 30 18:21:18 1998 Return-Path: Received: from ns2.accesscom.com (ns2.accesscom.com [205.226.156.3]) by shell.accesscom.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA19737 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 18:21:16 -0700 Received: from mail-out-0.tiac.net (mail-out-0.tiac.net [199.0.65.247]) by ns2.accesscom.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA22321 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 18:19:19 -0700 Received: from mail-out-3.tiac.net (mail-out-3.tiac.net [199.0.65.15]) by mail-out-0.tiac.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA26830; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 21:19:15 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from occult-owner@hollyfeld.org) Received: from www.hollyfeld.org (dns.hollyfeld.org [204.130.199.1]) by mail-out-3.tiac.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA28366; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 21:19:03 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from occult-owner@hollyfeld.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by www.hollyfeld.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id VAA21773 for occult-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 21:18:48 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: www.hollyfeld.org: majordom set sender to owner-occult@hollyfeld.org using -f Received: from ns2.accesscom.com (ns2.accesscom.com [205.226.156.3]) by www.hollyfeld.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id VAA21758 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 21:17:49 -0400 Received: from shell.accesscom.com (tyagi@shell.accesscom.com [205.226.156.10]) by ns2.accesscom.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA22268 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 18:17:41 -0700 Received: (from tyagi@localhost) by shell.accesscom.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA19633 for occult@hollyfeld.org; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 18:19:36 -0700 Message-Id: <199805010119.SAA19633@shell.accesscom.com> Subject: (O) Tarot Philosophy II To: occult@hollyfeld.org (Occult Elist) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 18:19:36 -0700 (PDT) From: nagasiva@yronwode.com (nagasiva) Orientation: House of Kaos, St. Joseph, Kali Fornika, US -- Kali Yuga X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-occult@hollyfeld.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: occult@hollyfeld.org Status: RO orig-to: tarot-l (edited per elist guidelines and personal interest) ==================================================================== 49980422 aa2 Hail Satan! RE whether tarot is only for readings: of course not. I've done rituals with tarot cards, for example, and used them for communications with spirits and gods. RE activities with tarot: "study and knowledge of symbolism" typically implies a kind of absorption or assimilation of published or traditional significances in association with certain visual objects and patterns. this is one way to approach divination. another is to acquire a self-defined set of significances and then use these to 'read' (from cards or some other phenomena). RE 'proper' interpretation of tarot: symbols have a variety of possible meanings. it is like when we come upon a classic painting from some old traditional master and interpret something completely different than the master is said to have "meant" by the picture. are we "wrong" in our interpretation? hehehe, I think that is funny. statements by mystics and poets sometimes contain not only the originally intended meaning but ALSO ones which weren't even *thought* of by the speaker. the same is true (perhaps even more so, especially when we get all mathematical, symbolic, and syncretic) for graphic imagery, and when it participates in esoteric, spiritual traditions, it can unintentionally inspire entire movements based on MISinterpretation of the original intent. I think this is exciting. RE reasons why not to use simple playing cards: why not indeed?! ever seen the 'Gypsy Witch Fortune-Telling Cards'? I really liked these and they inspired me greatly with their cartoons and subtle suggestions of darkness, witchery and pagan novelty. I've known witches to instruct ONLY using playing cards, considering them to be 'more pure' or 'less subject to interference'. I think your questions are very important, and don't constitute a reason to see that specific uses of tarot are incorrect or imprecise so much as that there is a wide variety from which to choose, and a lot of different meanings of "tarot" and "reading". my preference is to celebrate the diversity, encourage it, and let those who find value in certain approaches sing their praises. RE whether there is such a thing as 'tarot' in definite sense+: oh I love tarot philosophy! I began such a thread a while back and while I probably didn't see all the responses (I love it when people cc me but they don't always do so), I hoped it would pop back up occasionally. these are the fundamental questions for both beginning and expert study of tarot, and certain traditional and individual sources will consistently respond to the questions in the same ways. I don't think that this makes their replies 'correct', however. :> "tarot" may be examined in a similar way to how Schopenhauer (if memory serves) attempted to examine "religion". of course there are many ways to go about such an examination, and a common way is a taxonomy of common characteristics things which are called "tarot" may contain (something I was looking at more closely in my previous post). we may find that, over time, more and more is included under the title "tarot", in which case we might try to understand what things have had the most emphasis, which were the earliest, which were favored by schools which derived the fundamentals of modern popular decks, etc. of COURSE there is such a thing as "tarot". :> a deck is a "tarot" deck because someone thinks that it is. this is the case for all objects of perception. it may be less fundamentally a tarot deck in terms of whether that same person would, if exposed to many classic and popular versions of objects provided a similar identification, continue to agree it qualifies, but at least for the moment it is a "tarot" deck. there is no fundamental structure to tarot except in terms of historic precedent and bias. this means that if one values history and the preferences of certain sources then one will naturally place a greater emphasis on these in an evaluation of whether a deck qualifies as "tarot". for example, if my friend says that he calls "tarot" decks those derived from European playing card decks evidencing reflections in 14th and 15th century and having some rough structure as might be found in the deck called the Visconti-Sforza, then this can be helpful to me in being able to discern what he means when he says he thinks a deck new to his review is a "tarot" deck. it would not apply to everyone. RE possible variations which could still be considered 'tarot': the "Osho Neo-Tarot" doesn't appear to have any suits and either all of them are Trumps or there aren't any. it is like the Secret Dakini Oracle (which I adore, btw :>), in that it has a sequence of cards (1-60), the Osho deck of course featuring pictures of Osho and others within quite instructional poses or illustrations. it is *called* a tarot deck. for a long time I've now called it 'cartouche' and meant by this that it didn't have some of what I have defined for myself as fundamentals of a tarot I would devise (suits, big/small, courts, maybe more, maybe not). it is tarot to you if you THINK it is tarot, it isn't tarot to someone else if they don't think it is. :> RE whether a single deck called 'tarot' proves tarot doesn't have Trumps if indeed it doesn't, etc.: 'proof' is never obtained, even in science. we decide what we accept as sufficient criteria and allow this to persuade us to accept an hypothesis. this is the reason that some will *never* be convinced contrary to their preferred ideas -- they have either never defined the criteria by which they will be convinced or their criteria are so stringent that they will never be met. perhaps you will have proved that a deck called 'tarot' doesn't have Trumps and, though some will of course object, that not all tarot has Trumps. the argument that a particular deck is not tarot is valuable from the perspective of those who like to talk about tarot philosophy, understand different people's criteria for identifying a deck as "tarot", and perhaps even coming to understand the history of what has been called "tarot" through the years. now if the tarot fundies had their way, nobody would be able to call anything except decks which met *their* definition set (and could become VERY limited!) a 'real tarot deck'. I'll listen to a point, but I won't promise to agree or abide! how can I love tarot and refuse to look more deeply into the growing, deepening, widening, tarot traditions and their children? next, like the Buddhist 'Mahaprajnaparamita', we will be saying that Taro is a great, circular goddess, composed of terran rectangles displaying the secret keys of the cosmos in order to instruct our deepest self! Om Taro! Om Taro! Great Goddess Taro! ::laughing gaily:: RE the notion of some sort of 'tarot archetype': I think it valuable to consider this as well as the possibility that we may be projecting those "archetypes" as much as discovering them. can an archetype which ostensibly applies to all humankind be created? there is so much in Jungian psychology that I find compelling. I had considered naming big cards "Mother" (3), "Father" (4), for this reason, yet I wanted them to mean more than this too. blessed beast! __________________________________________________________________________ nagasiva -- nagasiva@yronwode.com; http://www.hollyfeld.org/~tyagi/ ____________...oooOOO---occult@hollyfeld.org---OOOooo..._____________ To unsubscribe send "unsubscribe" to occult-request@hollyfeld.org To unsubscribe your@email.com send "unsubscribe your@email.com" http://www.hollyfeld.org/heaven/elists/occult.phtml