Fundamental

[jmd]

As we each strive to deepen and further our myriad views on Tarot, there comes a point where certain fundamental structures, images, historical connections, allegorical understandings, or imagery becomes viewed as very much providing Tarot's foundation, or fundament.

We each carry these in various ways, whether it be that Tarot is properly grounded in one deck, in a small number of decks... in all and any decks whose creators decided to use the appelation 'tarot', including and irrespective as to whether they may have resemblance to what most of us would agree on.

When we meet others whose fundamental views on Tarot are different, there can develop either a clash of 'cultures', or a dialogue.

I am aware, for example, of numerous examples in these very forums of people who have considered decks they may never have otherwise considered and evaluated. Comparing is one thing, to decide to discern how a deck may or not be Tarot is another.

For myself, as some here are already aware, the fundamental characteristics of a deck includes much which manifests in the Marseille.

Am I therefore a 'fundamentalist'? Yes and no.

The term has come to be associated with religious bigotry. I certainly do not consider myself a bigot, and would also like to think that others do not see me that way - for I know that in my heart and soul I am not.

Am I, however, a fundamentalist in that other sense of that term - ie, in the sense that there are certain aspects which I consider that a deck needs to have in order to remain a 'true' Tarot? Here I will have to place myself in the fundamentalist camp.

This, of course, does not imply that the many wonderful other decks, many of which may have been imspired by Tarot, or have numerous similarities to Tarot, have no merit - quite the contrary. Numerous decks, including, for example, the Mantegna, are superb and beautiful (visually as well as in other senses). Even decks which may not have personal appeal have their incredible charm...

a question which I ask myself is how much can be changed of the deck, and it still remain Tarot ?. Here, of course, we may each have various answers, answers which show what type of fundamental attributes we discern for Tarot, and what kind, therefore, of fundamentalists we each are... not, of course, in the 'bigot' sense of the term!

[northsea]

The definition of tarot has widened over time with the availability of new decks to the masses. Up to about 1970, 'tarot' included mainly the Marseille, Visconti, Wirth, Egyptian, and the newcomers Rider-Waite and Thoth. Since around 1970, the term 'tarot' has expanded in the mass conscious to include decks such as the 'Dune tarot' which is certainly not 'tarot' in the Marseille sense.

Modern tarot artists have largely ignored the Marseille pattern in favor of Rider-Waite and Thoth. There are many 'Rider-Waite' clones, but few Marseille clones. The Nigel Jackson majors are loosely-based on Marseille.

The Old English is the closest modern interpretation of Marseille I can think of, but unfortunately over-simplified the Majors symbolism (and unfortunately for fans of pictorial minors, omitted the pictorial symbolism on the Cups cards). The only real Marseille-clone I can think of is the Fournier Marseille. The Jonathan Dee and Secret tarots have some Marseille symbolism, too.

Okay, I think I'm trying to say that I wish more modern artists would base their decks on the Marseille, but with pictorial minors (just my own preference). (I know you are familiar the history, jmd, but just rehashing it for myself.)

[Rusty Neon]

Here's where I sit on this debate.

I'll answer your question with some quick examples.

For me ....

Examples of Tarot decks

- Tarot de Marseille
- Viéville (even though its trump don't follow TdM sequence and that some are different in iconography)
- Visconti family deck
- Rider-Waite
- Motherpeace
- Shapeshifter (even though it has > 78 cards)
- Thoth
- Osho Zen (unconventional court cards)
- PoMo Tarot
- Greenwood Tarot
- Grand Etteilla
- Pythagorean Tarot
- LS Tarot of the Origins (re-visioned court cards and pip cards)
- LS Tarot of the Imagination
- modern day French decks for playing tarot (even though they have numbered postcard type trumps that have no traditional tarot trump counterparts)
- art versions of such French decks


Borderline

- Egipcios Kier: I'm really sitting on the fence with this one. It has no explicit suits or courts, but it is obviously based on a Grand Etteilla deck.
- Decks with a fifth suit: I'm ok with extra court cards or extra trumps, but I'm not sure whether a fifth suit keeps the deck as a tarot deck.

Examples of decks that are not tarot decks

- Minchiate
- Mantegna
- bridge/poker playing cards
- French piquet decks
- 64 card I Ching decks
- 52 card French cartomancy decks
- Symbolon
- rune cards
- Medicine cards

If someone has some other examples, I'd be interested in categorizing them. :)

[Lee]

Originally posted by Tommy
The Jonathan Dee and Secret tarots have some Marseille symbolism, too.Hi Tommy, can you tell me, is there an actual Jonathan Dee deck? I have only seen this deck as illustrations in a book (Tarot Mysteries by Jonathan Dee), and I've been wondering if it exists as a deck.

Thanks --
Lee

[mj07]

Originally posted by Tommy
Modern tarot artists have largely ignored the Marseille pattern in favor of Rider-Waite and Thoth. There are many 'Rider-Waite' clones, but few Marseille clones. The Nigel Jackson majors are loosely-based on Marseille.
...
Okay, I think I'm trying to say that I wish more modern artists would base their decks on the Marseille, but with pictorial minors (just my own preference). (I know you are familiar the history, jmd, but just rehashing it for myself.)

I was thinking the same thing.

Also, what are the FUNDAMENTAL differences between the Marsielles and the RWS decks (other than the non-pictorial minors)? I assume this has already been a topic of discussion but don't know how I would go about finding it! Thanks!

[Moongold]

I like this definition which came from Aoife in another thread from last year. Can't remember which one, but here is the quotation

Originally posted by Aoife
I have found it useful to arrive at my own working categories:

Tarot Deck - pre-20th century, French/Italian - of which Marseilles and Soprafino are the master moulds

Tarot-Derivative Deck - RWS, CH Thoth, and their clones

Tarot-Inspired Deck - e.g. Sacred Circle, Osho Zen

As I said, these are purely my personal, working defintions.

I can see how the 20th century decks are derived from the Marseilles but I still think they are genuine tarot because they seem to have the fundamental structure.

Hope that isn't contradictory. :)

[Diana]

From the Merriam-Webster Online dictionary:

Main Entry: 1fun·da·men·tal
Pronunciation: "f&n-d&-'men-t&l
Function: adjective
1 a : serving as an original or generating source : PRIMARY <a discovery fundamental to modern computers> b : serving as a basis supporting existence or determining essential structure or function : BASIC
2 a : of or relating to essential structure, function, or facts : RADICAL <fundamental change>; also : of or dealing with general principles rather than practical application <fundamental science> b : adhering to fundamentalism
3 : of, relating to, or produced by the lowest component of a complex vibration
4 : of central importance : PRINCIPAL <fundamental purpose>
5 : belonging to one's innate or ingrained characteristics : DEEP-ROOTED <her fundamental good humor>
synonym see ESSENTIAL
- fun·da·men·tal·ly /-t&l-E/ adverb


1. The very first entry above is one which made me jump. Jump with excitement and relief. "Serving as an original or generating source". The original and generating source for the Tarot as we know it today, with its esoteric symbology (so I'm not talking about the Visconti Sforza here) is the Tarot of Marseille.

As I am a student of the Tarot of Marseille, the Ur-Tarot, and as I stand in awe of it, I can proudly stand before it and proclaim "I am a Tarot Fundamentalist". For yes, I rely on this original and generating source for my understanding of Tarot. The original and generating source is enough for me. I prefer to go directly to the source, rather than go through different channels. (I don't believe in the Pope, for instance. No, I prefer him in the chocolate medal form. :D )

2. of or relating to essential structure, function, or facts : RADICAL <fundamental change>; also : of or dealing with general principles rather than practical application <fundamental science>

I am present here too. The essential structure I adhere to. Absolutely. Goodness, I once tried doing additions with 2 and 2 equal five, but they did not work at all. This is very much an Emperor definition.

3. adhering to fundamentalism - obviously I do, if I am a fundamentalist. :)


4. of, relating to, or produced by the lowest component of a complex vibration - I don't know what this means. So I'll abstain here.... :confused:

4 : of central importance : PRINCIPAL <fundamental purpose>
5 : belonging to one's innate or ingrained characteristics : DEEP-ROOTED <her fundamental good humor>

Yup. Most definitely of central importance to me. And the Tarot certainly belongs to my innate or ingrained characteristics.

I have just discovered that I am a Tarot Fundamentalist, and wow, am I proud to be one.

Nay, not proud. Honoured. The Tarot has a humbling influence on one. Especially if one is a Fundamentalist. :) :) :)

[Diana]

Originally posted by mj07
Also, what are the FUNDAMENTAL differences between the Marsielles and the RWS decks (other than the non-pictorial minors)? I assume this has already been a topic of discussion but don't know how I would go about finding it! Thanks!

Gosh mj07. The answer to your question is very complex. If you don't have copies of both decks. If you have copies of both decks, you can begin by comparing them card by card, detail by detail.

That would be step number one.

[DewDrop]

Originally posted by Diana



3 : of, relating to, or produced by the lowest component of a complex vibration





Can it be that WE are relating to this "lowest component" of our complexed mind (that is realy a vibration in the sense of Albert Einstein: E-m3) when we read our tarotcards?
or in other words: our reading is produced by this "lowest componet" of our complexed mind and transformed into words so it can reach the Querent, and that we are meerly a medium in this case.

WE: the person who is giving a reading.

[mj07]

Originally posted by Diana
Gosh mj07. The answer to your question is very complex. If you don't have copies of both decks. If you have copies of both decks, you can begin by comparing them card by card, detail by detail.

That would be step number one.

hmmm... thanks. but what I don't understand is, how do you read the numbered cards intuitively without any kind of picture on it? *confused*
maybe I just need to spend some time in the Marsielles study group, or something?

[Moongold]

Originally posted by mj07
hmmm... thanks. but what I don't understand is, how do you read the numbered cards intuitively without any kind of picture on it? *confused*
maybe I just need to spend some time in the Marsielles study group, or something?

Hi mj07 :)

I am quite new to the Marseilles but I have been reading with non-scenic pips for a little while. Could I make a few suggestions?
You will know something about the meaning of numbers and the elements in suits e.g. Batons are fire. Coins are earth and so on.This information will be in your conscious and sub conscious.

Non-scenic pips, including the Marseilles do have some illustrations, quite a lot in fact. All the Marseilles pips have illustrations of Coups, Batons, deniers or les epees, pardon my French - symbols of the elements of each suit. They also have flowers and greenery and in the Fournier, the most amazing colours.

And lastly the cards are not alone! They appear in groups and themes flow. All of this helps intuitive reading. Just looking at a card, with all these components can evoke the most amazing thoughts, associations and insights.

See.....I know you feel uncertain and nervous perhaps. I certainly felt like that at first. We all do. It just takes practice and confidence comes from that. It will come, I promise you, if simply jump in the water and practise the strokes.

Best wishes ~

Moongold

[firemaiden]

Originally posted by jmd
When we meet others whose fundamental views on Tarot are different, there can develop either a clash of 'cultures', or a dialogue.

It might help everyone to understand eachother better, if we would but realize, those who carry the 'fundamentalist' tarot torch on this site, do so *not* out of desire to annoy -- but as mere spokespersons, for the large francophonic tradition.

If this were not an anglophonic (english speaking) site, the RWS-tradition would very likely seem much more marginal!!! One need only plug into a few french wesites, to realize, absolutely, our 'fundamentalists' are mere spokespersons.

Yes, while it may make some uncomfortable to realize it, there is indeed a *great* land where the RWS is barely a blip on the radar screen, where no one has ever heard of transposing VIII and XI, where the Bateleur, not the Fool, is without argument the beginning of the trump series, etc...

In that great land, our 'fundamentalist' spokespersons would not be seen as extreme, in *any* way.

I think it behooves us, as a site which would be international, to understand what an important and necessary opportunity it is, to have a few messangers, capable of dialoguing, like Hermes, between these two disparate universes, -- we ought to welcome them with ardent curiosity, as we would welcome someone just back from another planet, who can tell us what it is like there... instead of seeing them as fomenters of dissent.

In fact, without these spokespersons, we anglophones might grow complacent, and think our tradition is "it" -- and that would be provincialism.

Yes, as tarologues, I think we need to be aware the anglophonic viewpoint is only one particular and culturally determined angle on the tarot.

The lone voices who feel it is an uphill battle to educate us of the tradition of the other great land, can take comfort in realizing that there are many of us who have heard you.

[smleite]

Being absolutely new to this, I couldn’t pretend to say anything relevant about any of these traditions. But I can say this: when I started searching for information about tarot in the Internet, I was amazed to see that most sites in English were mainly focused in decks other than Marseilles, since here (Portugal, but I think the same happens in Spain, for instance) the major influence is French. Of course, decks like RWS are very popular everywhere! But the general feeling is that Marseilles is “the real thing” – better said, the idea is that it comes from that original and generating source that Diana referred to. For me, personally, the Tarot de Marseille is so fascinating and enchanting that I can’t thing about using any other deck – for the moment. Because all this Anglophonic talk about RWS, for instance, is making me very curious! But, and please don’t be offended by my doubts, don’t you feel more secure, in what relates to symbology and esoteric meanings, using decks that were not re-interpreted by other people, rather than yourselves?

[firemaiden]

Originally posted by smleite
... please don’t be offended by my doubts, don’t you feel more secure, in what relates to symbology and esoteric meanings, using decks that were not re-interpreted by other people, rather than yourselves?

YES! beautifully put, smleite. Your post gets to the heart of the matter, I think. Welcome to the forum. :)

[crystal cove]

Originally posted by smleite
But, and please don’t be offended by my doubts, don’t you feel more secure, in what relates to symbology and esoteric meanings, using decks that were not re-interpreted by other people, rather than yourselves?

Yes, and I've pretty much come to this conclusion, I think, once and for all this past week when I finished a book I thought would clear up some things for me concerning the Thoth deck. I finished the book with more questions than answers and felt myself questioning most of my decks.

[Diana]

Originally posted by smleite
Because all this Anglophonic talk about RWS, for instance, is making me very curious!

That is the primary reason I joined Aeclectic too. :) It was like falling into a world I didn't know existed. And I spent many many agreeable and exciting months buying decks, books and doing readings with "Anglophonic" decks, mainly RWS and clones.

I think it is important to know about this tradition, because it has had a terrific impact on the development of Tarot. (Development does not necessarily mean evolution in the sense of improvement.)

I still need to study the Thoth in more depth though. I have only touched on it briefly.

It's thanks to my study of the anglo tradition, that I became a Tarot of Marseille Fundamentalist. :D

[Osher]

The real question is this: Does a Marseille deck provide better answers and more depth & understanding than a later deck, such as the RWS?

[mj07]

Originally posted by Happiness
The real question is this: Does a Marseille deck provide better answers and more depth & understanding than a later deck, such as the RWS?

good question! since I haven't even located the tip of the Marseille iceberg, much less hit it, I'm clueless!

[smleite]

The question posted by Happiness is the key question, as I see it. Well, since I’ve just joined the forum, it is possible that my doubts have already been debated by most of you, and I don’t intend to be boring and bring up issues that are just time lost for the rest of the tarot lovers. So, please warn me if that happens. In my mind, I’ve been trying to figure this out: what is there that makes tarot works? Is it me, is it my unconscious, some deep layer of my brain, or my so-called “guardian angel” or Higher Self? Is it a kind of “guiding spirit of tarot”, an entity that answers any call that is made with the help of tarot cards? Or is there a power in the cards themselves, obviously related to their drawings and colours? Are they valid for themselves, or are they “just” a sort of alphabet with which “something higher” can communicate? I feel that I need to answer this in order to really situate myself among the various tarot decks!

[Umbrae]

Hey.

I've been reading RWS for 30+ years.

I am a fundimentalist.

and there IS room for us all.

[Diana]

Originally posted by Umbrae
and there IS room for us all.

Most definitely! These forums are huge!

[Diana]

Originally posted by Happiness
The real question is this: Does a Marseille deck provide better answers and more depth & understanding than a later deck, such as the RWS?

This reminds me of that old saying: There are plenty of answers, but what exactly was the question?

[northsea]

Sorry for going off-topic in my earlier post. Tarot purists probably don't have much use for a Marseille-clone, though some of the rest of us do. I agree with what others have stated about the regional/cultural difference. And I thank the purists on this forum for providing information about the Marseille!

Lee,
I , probably by mistake, think of the Barnes and Noble tarot (the one that's now out-of-print [?]) as the Dee tarot. (The one with the Charioteer holding a grail, like Thoth... and a monkey sitting on the Magician's table.)

[Rusty Neon]

It was mentioned above that the Anglophone tarot tradition has an effect on tarot generally. Another influence on tarot generally is the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (which had lodges in both England and in France). A blatant example of this is the divinatory meanings given to the pip cards of the Marseilles deck by Francophone tarotist Claude Darche in _Pratique du Tarot de Marseille_. He refers to 10 of Cups as the Lord of Pleasure, the 10 of Swords as the Lord of Ruin, and the 10 of Deniers as the Lord of Wealth. The divinatory meaning he gives for the 10 of Batons is Oppression. Methinks he's been reading the HOGD's _Book T_. :) I think he needs to be taught a thing or two by some of the H&I "spokespeople".

[jmd]

Rusty Neon, there are no 'spokespeople' for any sections of these boards when it comes to members posting. The comment is thus unfortunate [edited to shorten the point and remove a term which may have been misread].

With regards to the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and the 'Anglophonic' tradition (a term used especially Christine's book The Underground Stream - which I highly recommend, by the way), they are, in many ways, one and the same.

The Golden Dawn has indeed had influence on some authors in the French authorship of Tarot books, and have another book (also in French, but which is in many ways unfortunately quite poor) also highly influenced by the GD. Influencing the GD is of course E. Levi, who himself had peculiar views on Tarot.

This, however, shows only that various authors, as each of us, have various characteristics which we view as fundamental.

I am not sure I agree with Happiness that the question is whether a particular deck (whether Marseilles, RWCS or any other) 'provide better answers and more depth & understanding'. It may be, for example, that a non-tarot deck or other (such as the I-Ching) provides such. It does not, however, make it Tarot! It may also be that a deck which deviates from Tarot, but is tarot-related, meets Happiness's also very important considerations...

smleite (welcome, by the way) focusses the question to its precise and difficult aspect - for in its answering may part of the answer to what is fundamental arise:'what is there that makes tarot work?'... though the question has been asked before, it is one which needs to be asked again and again - at least to my mind.

In determining what makes Tarot work, part of its answer may have similarities to what makes other divinatory tools also work. It may also provide, however, part of that other important answer: what makes Tarot Tarot!

[Osher]

What I mean JMD, is this (and I apologise for not being clear beforehand): I view Tarot as a conduit to answers.

I also read non-Tarot cards, as well as Runes. For me therefore, the question of whether a card with illustrations is a genuine Tarot card, or just 78 cards with pretty pictures is irrelevent.

Of course, it is an interesting discussion in it's own right. However, I became upset when I saw some of the vitriolic things being said. I just felt that the raision d'etre of why we read Tarot, which in my view is to gain understanding, had been lost.

However, in a strange way, I do have a certain sympathy with those who argue that 'pip' decks are genuine. When I read Runes, I do find that I am forced to use my intuition more, and this can make more, well, intuitive, readings.

[jmd]

I am reminded also of Umbrae's toothpick readings: throw them, and read them!

There is a sense in which, as you say, Happiness, it does not matter 'whether a card with illustrations is a genuine Tarot card, or just 78 cards with pretty pictures'. The divinatory or mantic arts are such... yet, I wonder if that is really so.

Allow me to take the train of thought a little further, with an analogy with the Runes (since you also use them :)).

If I took a Runic letter, say 'M' (not the Roman 'm', by the way, but the rune of similar form), and decided to alter its figure in order to join its two lower end points, and also decided to alter its position in the Futhark sequence (let's not get into whether this is the 'correct' sequence for now, for similar arguments can also be made for Tarot).

There are a number of questions which could then easily arise, and for which strong emotions would also undoubtedly arise.

One of these is whether the 'rune', as changed, really was a rune, and whether its new position 'properly' belonged in its new location. That I could give numerous instances of varied alternatives ordering to the Futhark one, or show that there were a variety of forms some runes took depending on both location and time, would not take away from the question.

This would, of course, not impact in any obvious manner on its divinatory use... except if (and some will say what a big 'if') there was some spiritual connection between the medium (the rune in this instance) and the spiritual beings beyond them - not Odin, but the forces which manifested into each rune.

Runes, in that sense, are not mere scratchings on river pebbles, any more than Tarot cards are mere bits of paint or ink on parchment or cardboard. These are one of the means by which they are represented. For runes, wood, stone, and numerous other materials may form the container of the rune, as various materials may present a container for each card.

By altering a card, or a rune, is there a sense in which the spiritual forces behind the specific image are themselves altered in their expression? if so, does this possibly impact on divinatory usage?

How, of course, we can possibly know this is a different question - a meta-question to the basic consideration at hand.

It is, in some way, these considerations, whether consciously articulated or not, which may also be at play in the ways we differently and variously consider what is fundamental - and essential - to Tarot, and shows the type of fundamentalist we may each be... again, not in its pejorative sense.

[Phoenyx*]

I have to say this...I'm very interested in the Marseilles deck. I'm wishy-washy though on whether I should get one, and the reason, beyond the fact that the old artwork doesn't inspire me, is the nonscenic pips.
I had a reading that I did for13thFaeChylde just yesterday, where I came up with 4 of Pentacles reversed. And what I saw was a very Gollum-like figure clutching his coin to him, I could even hear that hissing voice saying, "My precioussssss..."
But, say I had a Marseilles deck and didn't have that Gollum-like old man, how would I read it? Could I read it? Would I get the same impression? Would I come up with the same interpretation?
Of course, I'm really speaking completely out of ignorance here, since I don't have a Marseilles deck, and perhaps the "fundementalists" can snub their noses at me for being so "modern" and sticking to my RW and RW-clones and Tarot-derived decks...*consoles her Inner Child deck..."It's okay sweetie, don't let anyone ever tell you you're not a real Tarot deck..."* :D
Honestly, I've been thinking of getting a Marseilles deck, just to say that I have one, and to compare it to the others, but, right now, it's one of the last ones on my wishlist.

[Rusty Neon]

Originally posted by jmd
IBy altering a card, or a rune, is there a sense in which the spiritual forces behind the specific image are themselves altered in their expression? if so, does this possibly impact on divinatory usage?


In at least some sense, every tarot deck (be it RWS, Conver Marseilles, Noblet Marseilles, Viéville, Visconti, etc.) is not a true tarot deck to the extent that it strays from the non-existent or as-yet-undiscovered (depending on your perspective) Ür-Tarot. Even between the various antique tarot decks there are icongraphic differences, as regards major arcana, court cards and pips.

[mj07]

Originally posted by Triquetra
I have to say this...I'm very interested in the Marseilles deck. I'm wishy-washy though on whether I should get one, and the reason, beyond the fact that the old artwork doesn't inspire me, is the nonscenic pips.
...
But, say I had a Marseilles deck and didn't have that Gollum-like old man, how would I read it? Could I read it? Would I get the same impression? Would I come up with the same interpretation?

Of course, I'm really speaking completely out of ignorance here...

I have the same issues with the Marseilles. First of all, and this is a big one for me anyway, I find the images very UNattractive. That's my nice way of saying they're ugly in my eyes (in fact, I feel the same way about the RWS, which is why I don't/can't use it but rather have several clones).

The second being that I'm clueless on how to read the pips. Do I have to become an expert in numerology, Kabbalah (sp?), etc. etc. in order to understand them? In which case, what happens to the use of intuition? If I can't "intuit" from a card, where do I go from there? And I know people say look at the position of the card, those surrounding it, etc. but what if it happens to be surrounded by other pips???

[Moongold]

Mj07 and Triquetra,

As a person relatively new to the Marseilles, I read your comments with interest. Both of you said things which could easily have come from me a year ago.

I started reading tarot about 20 months ago. As a newcomer, there is no way I could have learned on the Marseilles given my cultural back ground.

As I progressed in Tarot reading, I became really interested in other things which give depth to reading and understanding the Tarot – astrology, numerology, symbolism, mythology, art, colour and so on. I have always been interested in philosophy. Lots of reading at Aeclectic helped develop my intuitive skills as well. Over time I also acquired decks like the Old English, Tarot of the Sephiroth and Thoth which have non-scenic pips and began to be quite comfortable in reading with them.

I never really liked the Marseilles either but coming to it has been a natural progression, and I find it very interesting now. It took at least 18 months to get here and I am very much a newcomer. I would suggest that you come at you own pace. Obviously you are interested or you would not be reading this thread and posting in it.

I find the entire world of Tarot fascinating, and my venture into this aspect of Tarot is no less so. I can see real beauty and depth in the Marseilles and find myself so looking forward to more discovery and reading with it.. I love to read and am delighted in the thoughts and feelings my Fournier Marseilles evokes. I am even becoming interested in other Marseilles decks now, but really love the Fournier.

I guess your questions and doubts are a natural part of the Tarot journey. Progress at your own pace. It wouldn’t hurt to have an example of various types of Tarot as part of your collection, and just to play with from time to time. I will continue to use my RWS clones and Thoth inspired decks too, as I am very fond of them and they are an essential part of Tarot. To be completely honest though I didn’t like the Rider Waite very much at all initially, really learning on the Morgan Greer.

It may be that you never really like the Marseilles, and that is quite all right too, but you never know. :)

My best wishes to you both ~

Moongold

[Diana]

Originally posted by mj07
And I know people say look at the position of the card, those surrounding it, etc. but what if it happens to be surrounded by other pips???

LOL - Then you read the other pips! :D

Let's say you're doing a reading on someone who is having problems at work. And along comes the Five of Cups in the past position, the Four of Batons in the Present situation, and the Three of Swords in the Future position.

Well, very briefly here (because this is a Fundamental thread and not a how to read the Marseille thread), one of the interpretations could be: the guy's job is obviously what he loves doing and if there are any problems arising it's not because he's in the wrong place at the wrong time. But that he needs to be more structured in his work, he is not focusing enough on the important things but getting lost in the details and that his feelings of insecurity are at the root of the problem; and that he must be more daring at work and more creative because otherwise he bosses will not realise the great potential he has. And that he will end up bored or losing his job through his own fault.... (and then I'd give him a bottle of Bach Flower Remedies and ask him to phone me to tell me when he gets his promotion. :) ).

[Jewel-ry]

Originally posted by Triquetra
I had a reading that I did for13thFaeChylde just yesterday, where I came up with 4 of Pentacles reversed. And what I saw was a very Gollum-like figure clutching his coin to him, I could even hear that hissing voice saying, "My precioussssss..."
But, say I had a Marseilles deck and didn't have that Gollum-like old man, how would I read it? Could I read it? Would I get the same impression? Would I come up with the same interpretation?

Triquetra,

I don't think you should try to read the cards the same, although in this instance you may well do. Just look at this card.

http://www.tarotforum.net/attachment.php?s=&postid=201928

Does it not speak to you of My precioussssss??


Honestly, I've been thinking of getting a Marseilles deck, just to say that I have one, and to compare it to the others, but, right now, it's one of the last ones on my wishlist.

Perhaps you should get one and make those comparisons. You may be surprised! I certainly was.

I am very new to tarot and even newer to Marseille, and I feel more and more in tune with my Marseille decks with every passing day.

J :)

[Phoenyx*]

What deck did that card come from Jewl-ry?

[Jewel-ry]

Its Kris Hadars deck.

Are we peaking your interest???

J :)

[mj07]

Originally posted by Moongold
Mj07 and Triquetra,

As a person relatively new to the Marseilles, I read your comments with interest. Both of you said things which could easily have come from me a year ago.
...
I never really liked the Marseilles either but coming to it has been a natural progression, and I find it very interesting now. It took at least 18 months to get here and I am very much a newcomer. I would suggest that you come at you own pace. Obviously you are interested or you would not be reading this thread and posting in it.
...
I guess your questions and doubts are a natural part of the Tarot journey. Progress at your own pace. It wouldn’t hurt to have an example of various types of Tarot as part of your collection, and just to play with from time to time. I will continue to use my RWS clones and Thoth inspired decks too, as I am very fond of them and they are an essential part of Tarot. To be completely honest though I didn’t like the Rider Waite very much at all initially, really learning on the Morgan Greer.
Moongold

thanks for your comments, moongold. you may be right, it might not be the right time for me to delve into the Marseilles. I have a difficult enough time as it is trying to intuit using the pictoral pips. If you give me a deck with just symbols I'll be completely lost without a great deal further study.

I don't understand, though, how someone could start OUT with a Marseilles-type deck and understand tarot? What if you don't know anything about numerology or astrology and you pick up a non-pictural pips deck? I'm sorry, but sometimes even the RSW images don't even speak to me! Is this a topic for a new thread?

[Diana]

Originally posted by mj07
I don't understand, though, how someone could start OUT with a Marseilles-type deck and understand tarot? What if you don't know anything about numerology or astrology and you pick up a non-pictural pips deck? I'm sorry, but sometimes even the RSW images don't even speak to me! Is this a topic for a new thread?

I don't know if it's a topic for a new thread. After all, you're really talking basics here.... fundamentals.

It's perhaps what is first put in our hands that makes us think it's the easiest. The first Tarot I had in my hands was a Marseille (I didn't realise at that time that all the other Tarots available were considered real Tarots!!). It's so easy to understand the pips you see. I mean to have a basic understanding. To understand them fully would probably take a lifetime or more - like any science (Tarot is a science after all. An art, a science, a language... not something one can learn in a day.)

To start out with, one just needs a basic understanding of numbers from 1 to 10 (afterwards you can start fiddling with other numbers, but 1 to 10 are quite sufficient to start with), understand the suits and what they represent, understand the elements and what they represent, and then include also the pictures on the cards and what they say to you. Because it is an urban legend that these cards are unillustrated. They have colours, flowers, stems, leaves and many other details. The coins, swords or whatever are placed in various positions which evoke feelings in us.....

You mention astrology. You don't need astrology to understand Tarot. Just as you don't need to understand the Kabbal. These things may enhance your own personal understanding, but they are definitely not essential to study Tarot.

These so-called non-scenic pips may look abstract but that's just because you're looking at them with a pre-conceived ideas. They are extremely concrete and not abstract at all.

When you have some money to spare, if ever, why not buy a second-hand deck off e-bay or something and see for yourself. :)

[Moongold]

Originally posted by mj07
I don't understand, though, how someone could start OUT with a Marseilles-type deck and understand tarot? What if you don't know anything about numerology or astrology and you pick up a non-pictural pips deck? I'm sorry, but sometimes even the RSW images don't even speak to me! Is this a topic for a new thread?
Hi mj07,

It probably is a good topic for a new thread about reading and how people get started, and how they do it currently. Some people just grow up with this knowledge as others do with dance, music, art, religion and it just seems really natural. My brother lin law is an artist and his kids are growing up in an environment where painting is just part of life.

I don't think I would have gotten interested in Tarot had the Marseilles been the only deck available. It didn't have resonance with me at all at first and it has taken quite a long time for this to develop. I guess that is a matter of culture, the way people learn, and individuality.

If you have the money, I'd have a copy of the Marseilles as part of your collection. Take your time and get the one that really appeals to you and you might find yourself looking at it with curiosity as you learn more. Some of the Marseilles decks are quite beautiful.

Try to get the Sally Nicholls and Irene Gad books eventually as they are really good references to have on Tarot generally as well as the Marseilles. I don't know how much of a beginner you actually are but Rachel Pollack's Complete Illustrated Guide to the Tarot is a delightful, beautifully illustrated book to have on hand. It has a general coverage of history and areas of study intricately involved in tarot like astrology. numerology and the kabbalah.

Above all, have fun. It is really nice to have you here, asking questions like this. I hope your learning remains enjoyable. :)

Moongold

[smleite]

I, personally, feel in love with the Marseilles illustrations of the Major Arcane, so there was nothing I could do but embrace their study. It’s really an irrational thing, what you could call a “coup-de-foudre”… The word resonance is ideal to explain this, because it relates to how I react to these pictures: they resonate in me very deeply.

The pips are harder to deal with, but I don’t think that should be a problem to beginners (like me): I believe, just as I’ve been told by others with lots of experience, that their study can (and should?) be delayed to a moment when you are already familiar with the trumps. As far as I can see it, the trumps are in themselves an entire world to explore!

[mj07]

Originally posted by Diana
I don't know if it's a topic for a new thread. After all, you're really talking basics here.... fundamentals.

To start out with, one just needs a basic understanding of numbers from 1 to 10 (afterwards you can start fiddling with other numbers, but 1 to 10 are quite sufficient to start with), understand the suits and what they represent, understand the elements and what they represent, and then include also the pictures on the cards and what they say to you. Because it is an urban legend that these cards are unillustrated. They have colours, flowers, stems, leaves and many other details. The coins, swords or whatever are placed in various positions which evoke feelings in us.....

These so-called non-scenic pips may look abstract but that's just because you're looking at them with a pre-conceived ideas. They are extremely concrete and not abstract at all.

When you have some money to spare, if ever, why not buy a second-hand deck off e-bay or something and see for yourself. :)

I'll definitely take that into consideration, Diana, and try to pick up a deck some time. I AM very curious about it.

I wonder, in terms of understanding the suits, once I get down some basics on the numbers, meaning of suits, et . etc. will I find it changes my interpretations of what the pictoral/RWS type cards mean? In other words, are there times when the numerology + suit + intuition will go against a picture? Thanks!

[Diana]

Originally posted by mj07
I wonder, in terms of understanding the suits, once I get down some basics on the numbers, meaning of suits, et . etc. will I find it changes my interpretations of what the pictoral/RWS type cards mean?

Yes. :) But not always. You will find some correlations. But I would advise forgetting about what you've learnt first, starting anew and only AFTERWARDS seeing if there are any correlations because otherwise you're confusing two different systems and you'll land up with a curious mixture that is neither here nor there.

smleite: You could study the minors along with the Majors. The Aces with the Bateleur, and when you study the Wheel of Fortune (when you will study the 10s as well of course), and also with the Sun if you want to (you can study the 10s and the Aces with the Sun).

etc. etc. etc.

[mj07]

Originally posted by Diana
Yes. :) But not always. You will find some correlations. But I would advise forgetting about what you've learnt first, starting anew and only AFTERWARDS seeing if there are any correlations because otherwise you're confusing two different systems and you'll land up with a curious mixture that is neither here nor there.

hmmm... in which case, should I NOT try and apply numerology to the RWS type decks??

[Phoenyx*]

Originally posted by Jewel-ry
Its Kris Hadars deck.

Are we peaking your interest???

J :)

;) Maybeeeee....

[Diana]

Originally posted by mj07
hmmm... in which case, should I NOT try and apply numerology to the RWS type decks??

Sure! Try it and let us know of your findings. :)

[Moongold]

Originally posted by mj07
hmmm... in which case, should I NOT try and apply numerology to the RWS type decks??

Numerology enriches your understanding of tarot. In my view it is essential eventually to have some understading of numerology, no matter what deck you read with.

Do you know the advice most commonly given to new people? Spend a lot of time with the cards. Study a card each day or each week, whatever suits you, and get to know it really well. Journal with it, meditate on it, read with it.

mj07, there is no mystery about this. :) When you learn anything you usually start with the fundamental things you need to know. I would choose your deck then sit down and get to know it really well.

If you are starting with the Rider Waite or a clone of the Rider Waite like the Morgan Greer, using a book like Sandra Thomson's Pictures from the heart: a tarot dictionary or Rachel Pollack's 78 degrees of wisdom will help immensely.

You will want to map out your own learning needs and plan and you'll find lots of DIFFERENT advice at Aeclectic by posting and by searching the forums.

May I may a suggestion? Go to the Using Tarot Cards Forum and check firemaiden's excellent Table of contents which organizes beautifully all the threads in this forum about learning to use Tarot cards.

It seems that the key question for you right now is whether to begin with the Marseilles or the RWS system. You cannot go wrong either way so simply follow your heart.

There are many Marseilles people here who will help you and many others who use both systems or the RWS or Thoth clones exclusively.


Edited to add: Hahahaha mj07. I just remembered that there are people here who will also tell you to learn without books! You will find the way that best suits you :).

[mj07]

Originally posted by Moongold
Numerology enriches your understanding of tarot. In my view it is essential eventually to have some understading of numerology, no matter what deck you read with.

Do you know the advice most commonly given to new people? Spend a lot of time with the cards. Study a card each day or each week, whatever suits you, and get to know it really well. Journal with it, meditate on it, read with it.

mj07, there is no mystery about this. :) When you learn anything you usually start with the fundamental things you need to know. I would choose your deck then sit down and get to know it really well.

If you are starting with the Rider Waite or a clone of the Rider Waite like the Morgan Greer, using a book like Sandra Thomson's Pictures from the heart: a tarot dictionary or Rachel Pollack's 78 degrees of wisdom will help immensely.

You will want to map out your own learning needs and plan and you'll find lots of DIFFERENT advice at Aeclectic by posting and by searching the forums.

May I may a suggestion? Go to the Using Tarot Cards Forum and check firemaiden's excellent Table of contents which organizes beautifully all the threads in this forum about learning to use Tarot cards.

It seems that the key question for you right now is whether to begin with the Marseilles or the RWS system. You cannot go wrong either way so simply follow your heart.

There are many Marseilles people here who will help you and many others who use both systems or the RWS or Thoth clones exclusively.


Edited to add: Hahahaha mj07. I just remembered that there are people here who will also tell you to learn without books! You will find the way that best suits you :).

thanks for all your advice, moongold! I've been at this a little over a month now. I do have Pollack's book which I find very helpful (actually, both books you mentioned!) I guess I stuggle with the idea that there might be one "best" way to learn, or that I'm not learning fast enough, or that I don't have enough intuition or imagination... all that! And then there's the confusion of the different "schools" of thought! Appreciate the advice!

[TemperanceAngel]

Originally posted by Triquetra
I have to say this...I'm very interested in the Marseilles deck. I'm wishy-washy though on whether I should get one, and the reason, beyond the fact that the old artwork doesn't inspire me, is the nonscenic pips.

Yes. I too would love to get a Marseilles (and a Thoth...) But I am the other way around, the pips intrigue me so much, along with Numerology and the different systems that go with, actually I am becoming a bit obsessed by Numerology at the moment...

It's the Majors, that don't inspire me at all...ughhh!!!

Fundamental(ist), is a far too intense word for me to choose when discussing the Tarot and my relationship with it and use of...

When I think of another I will let you know! XTAX

[jmd]

TemperanceAngel, you say that 'Fundamental(ist), is a far too intense word', yet I wonder if that is partly because it has, in many ways, been misappropriated in particular sectors and become a pejorative word... as wiccans did a number of years ago with the term 'witch', I would suggest re-appropriating the term 'fundamental(ist)', and not confuse it for bigatry :)

With regards to whether to begin Tarot with a particular deck, there seems to be three main points when it comes to the Marseille: whether there are 'sufficient' books to refer to;
whether the pips are simpler or more difficult; and
whether the deck appeals.* With regards to resources, though there are certainly less books available than than there are on specifically other decks, this is not to me the most important. There are a number of very good general books around which provides sound commentary - the Gettings book referred to earlier is such a one.

In addition, it is worth remembering that resources are more than mere books (if this were not so, then the vast number of books NOT available in the early 1970s would have meant that no deck would be recommended!). Of key resource is this Forum...

* In terms of the pip cards, there is certainly a sense in which the lack of already interpreted illustration adds to the apparent level of difficulty - yet it is also liberating.

To begin to reflect on the individual numbers, and actually look carefully as to what the patterned image evokes (in, for example, the four of Swords), develops in one a twofold skill: the first is the ability to broaden and loosen one's intuitive and imaginative grasp (which is very important in readings generally); and the second is a slow appreciation for the symbolic essence of numbers.

Of course, this is part of the problem. We leave in a world in which the word 'slow' has become associated with 'un-intelligent', rather than the important virtue of patience, and the important element of transformation.

* With regards to the third point, I tend to agree that a chosen deck needs to appeal to the person. Yet, as in this post I am also addressing how the Marseille may be used by a beginner, I will also add that appreciation develops. It may be true that some are interested in Tarot because they like a particular image, yet, there is more to it than that, or shop-keepers (and on Aeclectic) there would be no questions about which deck to choose.

The interest, generally, is more about which is a central deck from which to learn - ie, and here we come back again to this word, which deck provides a solid foundation to learn Tarot (rather than appreciating images).

To answer, as is often done, that 'the most popular deck...' or 'there are more books on...' only perpetuates popularity of sales, not discernment (this is not to argue that some may suggest a different deck on fundamental-ist grounds either, by the way, which is of course to be respected).

In my personal view, the learning from a specified deck will very much depend on where one stands with regards to one's fundamental views as to what the Tarot is, and what its function(s) are...

[TemperanceAngel]

I am always in such a rush, that I never explain myself properly and it's also the politicial content...what I mean is that when I hear the word fundamental I think politics, a word I don't say out loud and very rarely mentally.

It's about 1999 or 2000 and I am in Egypt after working my butt off at the Ediburgh Festival and in need of some sunshine. Everywhere I go there are Egyptian Tourist Police with machine guns. It's all a joke for them. Many a time I had one of their machine guns pointed directly at me (sometimes touching me!) to prove something, never figured out what it was?

It was all because Western people in Egypt needed to be protected from some "fundamentalist" group....

There it is, that word, can't relate it to anything but that. So now I am way off thread, but I learnt when studying the Nervous System this week that the short term memory when activated by fear or anger or happiness (some kind of intense emotion) it then is converted to the long term memory and that's how you remember things for ever or for a long time....that's how I remember that....

So I stand by saying I am not a Tarot fundamental(ist) :) XTAX

P.S. jmd are you picking on me?

[jmd]

Picking ? Not at all... I didn't even realise my comment could be taken that way - I'll have to be very careful how I re-read my words.

It was rather that the word, as you so pointedly demonstrated by relating your experience, has been misappropriated. 'Potentially murderous Islamic bigots' (in the specific instance you I surmise you relate) have rather simply been referred to as 'fundamentalists' by, in this case, moderate, armed and reasonable Muslims. I suppose these days the new catch-word is 'terrorist'. In many ways, neither is correct, though the more recent one captures an element sought to be engendered: terror of fear.

I acknowledge that a number of people, for numerous reasons (and yours is very clear) will not tend to want to use the term for their own position. And that is a position, of course, I fully respect.

There is always an element of what is clearly viewed as fundamental in the bigot - whereas for most of us, what we regard as fundamental becomes only more easily articulated as we more deeply study and further investigate the specific subject at hand (in our case, the Tarot).

When I wrote 'I would suggest re-appropriating the term 'fundamental(ist)'', I was writing not specifically of you, but as a general suggestion to those who may be so inclined. I acknowledge that, in the context of its preceding sentence, it may have appeared other... :(

As you are, I hope, aware (from Tarot Café and other wonderful conversations), I strive to encourage a broad study of Tarot and its myriad related subjects... for to my mind, only then may one begin to more properly ascertain and discern Tarot's fundamentals.

Whether others agree with us or not shows our differing fundamental positions - 'fundamental' by this or any other name :)

[TemperanceAngel]

Yeah, I know you weren't picking on me specifically, jmd, but I suppose by relating my story other people may feel the same or at least make sense of it (that word) in different ways or experiences....

The english language is a strange thing, it becomes distorted, disintergrated, reapropreated,abused, misused and many other things....

Religion and sex ( and not necessarily mixed together ) create strange ideals.

Hey, but I got to remember the time when I was having a beautiful, sunny holiday, it was fundamental to my existence....*aaahhhhh* XTAX

[smleite]

Diana,

Wonderful suggestion. Makes a big difference. Thank you.

[Diana]

Originally posted by TemperanceAngel
The english language is a strange thing, it becomes distorted, disintergrated, reapropreated,abused, misused and many other things....


All languages are strange things, etc. etc.

Tarot is a language too.

[Kissa]

sensational thread!!! nothing to add, just counting the points between the Marseilles fundamentalists, the Marseilles liberals, the RWS fundamentalists, the RWS liberals, the fundamental fundamentalits, the fundamental liberals, the liberal fundementalists and the liberal liberals... ;)

please just don't start a war pretending that there are somewhere some massive symbolism distorsions putting at risk the balance of the tarot world...

no, honestly, i enjoy reading this thread a lot. thanks for making me think, jmd. i am with temperance angel and the word "fundamentalist" has a terrible taste for me. then comes super diana with her laser dictionary and it takes a wonderul turn...

too tough for a friday evening though ;) ohhhhh! i just love this thread, haven't been interested like this in a while, nam! the aeclectic i love is back, must be spring out there!!!

kissa

[Lee]

My American Heritage College Dictionary contains a definition for the word "fundamental" similar to that which Diana quotes on the first page of this thread.

However, directly after it is an entry for the word "fundamentalism" which goes in a somewhat different direction:

fundamentalism 1.a. An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in 1920 in opposition to Liberalism and secularism. b. Adherence to its theology. 2. A movement or point of view characterized by rigid adherence to fundamental or basic principles.

Here is a definition of fundamentalism by Bruce Lawrence, author of "Defenders of God: The Fundamentalist Revolt Against the Modern Age." I found it on the following site:

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/fund.html

"the affirmation of religious authority as holistic and absolute, admitting of neither criticism nor reduction; it is expressed through the collective demand that specific creedal and ethical dictates derived from scripture be publicly recognized and legally enforced."

I think these are the sorts of meanings that many people associate with the term "fundamentalist" or "fundamentalism."

-- Lee

[Moongold]

Originally posted by jmd
.........smleite (welcome, by the way) focusses the question to its precise and difficult aspect - for in its answering may part of the answer to what is fundamental arise:'what is there that makes tarot work?'... though the question has been asked before, it is one which needs to be asked again and again - at least to my mind.

In determining what makes Tarot work, part of its answer may have similarities to what makes other divinatory tools also work. It may also provide, however, part of that other important answer: what makes Tarot Tarot!

The discussion is interesting but I liken it a little to, say, a discussion of religion. How did religion begin? What was the first religion? Are all the various and many religions really religion? How does religion work? What is important - religion or spirituality?

I use the word religion because it it means a particular system and structure of faith and worship and it can be likened to tarot in a way - a particular system and structure of .......................?

For me , the answer to the question ......? is communicating with something that I do not understand - something perhaps divine . For many others it mean something different. And I also do not mean to equate Tarot fundamentalists to the generally understood meaning associated with religious fundamentalists.

Perhaps it will come to matter more to me, but it doesn't very much at the moment. I think the Marseilles decks certainly have a depth and beauty to them that I didn't really understand until recently and I am still exploring that, If one is interested in communicating with the Divine, perhaps how that happens is very individual and personal. People come from such varied backgrounds that there could probably never be the the one true Tarot .... Perhaps there could be and is the first but that does not really matter to me right now.

My brother-in- law paints and creates sign art with gold leaf. I think he calls it verre l'eglise but I will have to check. It is an old art, fairly much replaced by computer generated methods now. His work is exquisite and you can see it on various shops and icons around Melbourne. including the Paragon Cafe, that Irish pub in the casino complex, and one of the restaurant trams that you see travelling around the city. I am so glad that he has chosen to keep this art alive. It was passed down from his grand father and there is an internet community of these artists.

I am also really grateful that some of you have kept the Marseilles traditions alive here, or I probably would not have discovered them. I am attracted to the purity and simplicity of the Marseilles. There is still an immense amount for me to learn about this deck, and other decks too. I am bedazzled by the immense variety of decks available and there is a place for all of them, although I do not like them all by any means. I own just 15 decks representative of most types of tarot but really want to focus on just a few of them.

Thank you for the discussion. As usual, it helps put the whole picture together, although it is like a kaleidoscope at times. This is good of course.

[TemperanceAngel]

Originally posted by Diana
Tarot is a language too.
YES! And what a wonderful universal language it is :)

I have decided that I am not a Tarot fundamentalist, but Tarot is fundamental to me being ;) XTAX

[crystal cove]

Originally posted by mj07
hmmm... in which case, should I NOT try and apply numerology to the RWS type decks??

The question I asked myself when I was first trying to find my way in tarot was, how could I NOT apply numerology.....or suits for that matter? It was impossible for me to not question WHY meanings are assigned the way they are, regardless of the deck.

In the RW tradition, why is "heartbreak" representative of the three of swords and not, for example, the 9 of cups? or the 5 of batons? There has to be a REASON for why certain meanings were given to certain numbers and suits. The question I asked myself was if it was a reasoning I believed in.

[Rusty Neon]

Originally posted by twenty~one
In the RW tradition, why is "heartbreak" representative of the three of swords and not, for example, the 9 of cups? or the 5 of batons? There has to be a REASON for why certain meanings were given to certain numbers and suits. The question I asked myself was if it was a reasoning I believed in.

In general, the RWS meanings for the pips follow the Golden Dawn meanings. The GD meanings are based not on numerology of the card number nor the psychological or traditional meanings of the suits. Instead, the GD meanings are based on Mathers' interpretation of the combined effect of

- the GD Qabalistic attributions to the number of the card,

- the GD Qabalistic attributions to the suit of the card, and

- GD astrological attributions (planet-in-sign and decanates) of the card.

Sometimes the astrology overrules the Qabalah, and other times it's the other way around.

[Diana]

Rusty Neon: So this would mean that in order to understand the RWS deck, one would need to study the Golden Dawn teachings.

Does this not imply that one would also then have to accept their teachings as valid, in order to use this deck comfortably and in order to remain true to oneself?

In other words, to use a Golden Dawn inspired Tarot, one would need to adhere to the Golden Dawn beliefs.

[Rusty Neon]

Originally posted by Diana
In other words, to use a Golden Dawn inspired Tarot, one would need to adhere to the Golden Dawn beliefs.

No, no adherence to such beliefs is required. And I don't adhere to such beliefs. The GD keywords and divinatory meanings result in a broad range of psychologically-interesting keywords and divinatory meanings for the pip cards.

As for the Thoth deck, it's a GD-inspired deck with Crowley's Thelemic overlay. I don't adhere to Thelemic beliefs. Unfortunately, it's more difficult to screen out Thelemic aspects which are clearly illustrated in the Thoth deck. I own the Thoth but don't pull it out often.

[jmd]

There is certainly a sense in which, as Rusty Neon points out, 'no adherence to such beliefs is required' - yet the consequences are that such beliefs are generally adhered to with regards to, specifically, Tarot meanings and correlations.

For example, such corrrelations has implications, such as whether the Fool is placed first or last in the Major Arcana sequence, and concomittently whether it is viewed to be a reflection of the element of Air, of Fire, or of the physical limitations of the cross of the Earth. If one looks through various discussions even on these boards, the GD correlation of, for example, Cancer and the Chariot, becomes viewed as somehow 'belonging' to the card (which it doesn't, unless one has already adopted the GD fundamentals, knowingly or via the derivative works of others).

The 'broad range' mentioned by Rusty Neon points, of course, precisely to views of the GD: those 'psychologically-interesting keywords and divinatory meanings' are more than merely interesting - they reflect the peculiar ways in which very specific astrological allocations are made by the GD.

Unless the 'GD inspired deck' - to paraphrase Diana - did not depict GD attributions (in which case one may very well question to what extant it would really be 'GD inspired'), one would indeed begin to adhere to Golden Dawn beliefs with regards Tarot attributions. Whether this is consciously done or not is of course another matter.

The RWCS deck, of course, is not solely a reflection of GD views, and neither is the CH 'Thoth', for each reflects also the peculiar views and respective Orders created by their founder (Waite and Crowley respectively), as well as the creative and spiritual impulse playing through their respective artists (Colman Smith and Harris respectively).

Still, to understand the RWCS deck, to return to Diana's question, I would suggest that one would indeed need to study GD teachings with, at least, regards their Tarot attributions.

[Rusty Neon]

jmd: There is certainly a sense in which, as Rusty Neon points out, 'no adherence to such beliefs is required' - yet the consequences are that such beliefs are generally adhered to with regards to, specifically, Tarot meanings and correlations.

***RN: Let's agree to disagree. I don't view myself as adhering to GD beliefs by the mere fact of my using tarot meanings and correlations developed by the GD. I find them to be a worthwhile convention. In effect, those meanings and correlations have become a lingua franca of sorts among Anglo-American tarotists, including those who aren't GD adherents. A rough analogy for want of a better one: The Gregorian calendar is Western-Christian-based and has become a convention among, for example, Canadians, but that doesn't mean that those in Canada who use the Gregorian calendar are "adhering" to Western Christianity.

jmd: For example, such corrrelations has implications, such as whether the Fool is placed first or last in the Major Arcana sequence, ...

**RN: The Fool is numbered zero in the GD inspired decks rather than being unnumbered. I realize that's heterodoxy. But that doesn't stop you from treating it as the 21st, 22nd, or 78th, or whatever card of the deck.

jmd: and concomittently whether it is viewed to be a reflection of the element of Air, of Fire, or of the physical limitations of the cross of the Earth. If one looks through various discussions even on these boards, the GD correlation of, for example, Cancer and the Chariot, becomes viewed as somehow 'belonging' to the card (which it doesn't, unless one has already adopted the GD fundamentals, knowingly or via the derivative works of others).

**RN: When using the RWS deck, you're free to still view suits with different elemental attributions if you wish. Some may feel that the adoption of a convention (especially a convention that can be traced to the teachings of a mystery school) of astrological attributions of tarot cards is a bad thing; it can also be a good thing, as part of a lingua franca among Anglo-American tarotists not all of whom are GD adherents.

.....

jmd: Still, to understand the RWCS deck, to return to Diana's question, I would suggest that one would indeed need to study GD teachings with, at least, regards their Tarot attributions. [/B][/QUOTE]

**RN: It can certainly be helpful to study the GD materials, and Etteilla School materials, touching on tarot if one wishes to use GD-inspired tarot decks. However, if one is using the RWS deck (a GD-inspired tarot deck) or a deck based on the RWS, one can get by happily on an intuitive, general Western symbolic approach to the cards. In that regard, there are many books, such as Pollack's _Seventy-Eight Degrees of Wisdom_.

[tmgrl2]

Such a delicious! thread!

Thank you for starting it, jmd....yesterday I PM'd you and Diana since I have decided I MUST study TdMarseilles....

Also, hats off to you, mj07...I know you, too, are new, here, as I am...and you are posting your questions and conflicts and opening all sorts of dialogue...now, many of my questions are being answered once again here at AT.

So, all of that being said...

Aeclectic....eclectic: Acc. to the American Heritage Dictionary (sorry francophiles)..."selecting or employing individual elements from a variety of sources, systems, or styles..." How aptly named Aeclectic Tarot is!

Since I joined AT, I feel as though I have been climbing this giant tree...at first there was just a big trunk (call it my RW trunk with my Bunning, Pollack, Grey books and my first decks of Tarot: RW which just "clicked" for me and Thoth, which I put away for much later)....then, I realized there were all these branches on this tree and so, for weeks, I have been climbing along branches Reading threads whose posters used decks like Fey Tarot and Sacred Circle.

....also, branches on history and iconography....discussions that were way over my head and still are...and that's ok...so I crawled back down to my RW and my new books and settled in to begin some readings....

but those other branches kept calling me...and so again, I climbed....and, now I ordered the Fey and Sacred Circles and even GIbby's Blue Rose Tarots...simply because I love the way they look ...and because of the wonderful readings I followed in the threads....

and now, I'm hooked...I perused the bibiolography of books here at AT and ordererd the three Kaplan Encyclopedias (jmd's musts to have) and two Tde Marseilles decks...U.S. Games...and, after reading jmd's review, the Camoin deck/Marseilles...of course, I don't know what to do with them...but feel that there are more than enough branches here at AT to climb where I will find what I need....Just in this thread alone, ty, Diana and jmd...more books I might want to consider....and, good suggestion, Diana, I will look at RW and TdeMarseilles side by side...

And so, I paraphrase...is it the existentialists? who say...
Everything is important and nothing is important....

And I think it was Jean-Paul Sartre (at last, one for the francophiles...) who believed that we are totally and entirely responsible for what we make of ourselves...

And that is just what all of AT allows us to do with/for Tarot...
develop Tarot to suit (no pun intended) ourselves....

So...I will plod along with my RW, simply because I love it (I'm with you, Umbrae...I probably will still be using it if I live another thirty years...don't know about the toothpicks, though)...but I also know, I will continue to climb out on those "tarot" branches and explore....

So, fundamentally, I may wind up being a reader who uses and resonates with RW....and then, again, I may find that at my core, I will have gone back to the TdeMarseilles and find an even deeper "fundamental" core there. At the very least, I am beginning to use my French again...and have even ordered a book from France....isn't learning wonderful?

ty all

tmgrl2

((((Aeclectic Tarot))))

[Moongold]

Hello tmgrl2 -

Here is a thread which explains the beginning of Aeclectic. You were not far off in your understanding.

http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11556&highlight=Altar+to+the+Eclectic

Many blessings on your journey. You have reminded me of the excitement of tree climbing. :)

Moongold

[firemaiden]

wonderful post terri, nice to see you combing through the old threads. *firemaiden pats old threads on the head*

[tmgrl2]

ty, firemaiden..for all you have passed along to me...
ty,too, moongold...I read that "little" thread..
ty, everyone ELSE, TOO>>>

It's really great for those of us that are new when an old thread that is really good gets bumped up..sometimes I find them when I search for a topic...buts it's fun to continue...

terri

[crystal cove]

Originally posted by Rusty Neon
In general, the RWS meanings for the pips follow the Golden Dawn meanings. The GD meanings are based not on numerology of the card number nor the psychological or traditional meanings of the suits. Instead, the GD meanings are based on Mathers' interpretation of the combined effect of

- the GD Qabalistic attributions to the number of the card,

- the GD Qabalistic attributions to the suit of the card, and

- GD astrological attributions (planet-in-sign and decanates) of the card.

Sometimes the astrology overrules the Qabalah, and other times it's the other way around.

Actually, it was a rhetorical question. The GD meanings of the RW and other decks were what I had in mind when I posted that I had to think about what I believed about their interpretations.

I think in trying to be polite to those who feel otherwise, I didn't make my post clear. Sorry.

[jmd]

Though your question may have been rethorical, twenty~one, your point also had a vitality and importance with regards this thread. You said, with regards the RWCS, that 'the question I asked myself was if it was a reasoning I believed in'.

Here another aspect of the heart of the matter is touched. Whether the 'reasoning' behind the depicted illustrations, as modified from an earlier deck or not, makes both sense, and reflects what one may accept.

This is, of course, where our various and differing views not only hold sway, but where with time we may alter our personal views. The 'rough analogy' of the Calendar presented but Rusty Neon doesn't properly reflect the differences - of course, one may argue about the details as to which aspects provide for analogy and which do not...

With the Tarot, what is also of importance is the combination of specific imagery and ordering. Adding a zero on the Fool provides it with a specific placement in the number-pattern. Of course, one may personally decide to place any number anywhere - but then, it needs to be recognised that this is against the 'prescribed' order specified by simple mathematics, an argument Crowley also used to 'demonstrate' why the Fool, if numbered zero, 'must' precede 'one'. Likewise, adding representations of Salamanders upon, for example, the court cards of a suit 'directs' that suit to be lilnked with the element of Fire.

One may very well agree with the peculiar views of those who founded the GD. If one does, then of course this also shows where one lies with regards one's basic position.

For myself, the GD provides a wonderful reflection as to how certain individuals took various bits and pieces from various initiatic orders, world views and personal opinions, and skillfully overlayed them. A difference of view amongst its critics and adherents are whether this overlay also provided for a syncretic integration. I do not sense that, and have come to reject much of their personal views.

Of course, this also touches sensitive areas, for some do consider the GD somehow bearing a sacred dictate or impulse. Others, as I, tend to see them more as reflecting the varied strivings of the times, often missing what I would personally see as the sacred.

This reflects in Tarot as to what may or may not be deemed central, fundamental, or of basic importance... and whether the 'reasoning', stated or hidden, is one wants to accept.

For those of us who simultaneously encourage their friends and peers - and themselves! - to obtain a variety of decks, whilst at the same time also encourage discrimination through slow and ongoing learning, reflection, and meditation, the question of what is fundamental in a deck is not only ongoing, but relates ever so deeply to both what Tarot is, what its uses are, and how it works... and where one stands.

[smleite]

quote:

Originally posted by jmd
…one would indeed begin to adhere to Golden Dawn beliefs with regards Tarot attributions. Whether this is consciously done or not is of course another matter.
Still, to understand the RWCS deck, to return to Diana's question, I would suggest that one would indeed need to study GD teachings with, at least, regards their Tarot attributions.
Originally posted by Rusty Neon
I don't view myself as adhering to GD beliefs by the mere fact of my using tarot meanings and correlations developed by the GD. I find them to be a worthwhile convention.
The Fool is numbered zero in the GD inspired decks rather than being unnumbered. I realize that's heterodoxy. But that doesn't stop you from treating it as the 21st, 22nd, or 78th, or whatever card of the deck.



The GD conventions are present in the RWS cards, and if you know this, and pretend to use these cards with full responsibility and awareness, you cannot just “skip” that fact. Unless we are speaking about the cards as mere nice pictures on cardboard.

As to the possibility of using this GD – inspired decks and not being aware of it: I think this kind of “ignorance” has two sides. At a certain level, it is just fine, you can certainly achieve a lot in the Tarot path even if you are not conscious of what lays underneath. But this unawareness can’t last forever! If someone keeps pretending that there is nothing more to the choice one’s made but a mere aesthetical preference… well, I see Tarot as an instrument of Truth, and truth will come to the surface, no matter when. So, I strongly believe that a person who consciously decides to use a certain deck should fully accept everything that comes with it. If that means to study GD philosophy, why not do it? Why not go deeper into the chosen path?

For me, the fact that the fool is not numbered is of supreme importance. I see it as representative of the presence of the “Holy Ghost” among the other cards, as a sort of “divine grace” that has no defined place but belongs everywhere, that cannot be captured or analyzed… and we cannot also forget that there is an unnamed card! There is certainly a reason for this, and, as far as I see it, it seems a bit vain to decide, based on one’s own convictions (no matter how deep and grounded they are supposed to be), to change such a meaningful aspect of what I consider to be a sacred path.

(Now, as I don’t want to be misunderstood about this, when I use the analogy of the Holy Ghost and the word “sacred”, I do it in a very broad sense, not in a religious one.)

The Fool must not precede “one”, he must not anything! He is probably the only one that faces no “musts”… Anyway, he may very well precede “one” (which is a very different thing), as he may very well follow card 21, or even link both, the ends to the beginnings.

[tmgrl2]

Originally posted by Umbrae
Hey.

I've been reading RWS for 30+ years.

I am a fundimentalist.

and there IS room for us all.

Have been following this thread since it started...Umbrae, as a "fundamentalist" in RWS, I would ask you to comment, if you would, on how you view the Golden Dawn etiology for the RW and other decks based on GD...I am still learning, but find myself drawn to RW...I know little of astrology and of the Quabbalah/Kabbalah...but seem to be "hearing"that these elements are entwined in the RW decks...I have also been reading Dr. Robert O'Neill's "history" of iconology of individual cards....he goes way back into biblical/religious themes behind individual cards, especially the trumps...for ALL decks...I just started working my way through these. They seem excellent...

Please, everyone, jump in here and comment....I am learning....

From what I understand so far....since literacy was not widespread in medieval times, art was some form of an "alphabet" that represented for the masses sacred, theological, symbolic, allegorical representations....

So the Italian Visconti Sfroza deck in first half of 1400's seems to be earliest historical deck...preserved almost in entirety...
and the Italians produced cards...until 1900's...but the "game" of Tarot spread throughout Europe, becoming extremely popular in France around 1600.

France, having a printing factory, could "mass" produce decks of quality...so the Marseilles deck became the "standard"....
Then a fashion for things "Egyptian" came into play along with a
a renewal of Hermeticism....(Hermes? the occult sciences?) from the ancient Greek cultures...with many people becoming convinced as well that Tarot had an Egyptian etiology and were instruments of Hermetic occult magic....

These are sort of my own words of summary of what I have gleaned so far....
In a time frame that I seem to follow at this point:

Tarot de Marseilles....first "real" widespread Tarot deck...(not to mean others aren't "real"...but for many reasons, it seems that the mass production, the widespread acceptance of interpretation, the lack of pictures in the Minor Arcana) all made the Tarot de Marseilles...the "beginner" of the "modern" long range interest in Tarot...(or a "fundamental" deck which because of its widespread use, squeezed out, if you will, other alternative decks around at the time....

Then...
.A. Court de Gebelin...late 1780's...Taot connection with Egyptian book of Thoth...

Etteilla........did he change the Marseille iconography under the guise of "restoring" the cards to Hermietic and/or Egyptian influences...also read he changed card numbering...

E. Levi...brings in Kabbalah and Hebrew alphabet...

W. Westcott...founder of Hermetic Order of Golden Dawn...
esoteric aspects come in here...secret societies?..magic?

Papus....Western magic traditions along with Kabbalistic astrological ...influrences...

And the, Arthur Edward Waite...ta da! Re: the links between images and their meaning...Is Waite(PCSmith, artist) deck...based on?
Golden Dawn primarily? or does it go way back as well to bibliical/religious, early medieval iconology?, aspects of Tarot de Marseilles?

As you can see, I have a lot of questions. I am beginning to study the Tarot de Marseilles...but can see how "fundamentalism" would apply to one's comfort with a particular "era" of decks...but am unclear as to how much any of them can be separated if the underlying symbolism draws from all these various aspects of culture, religion, art.

I am tempted to just print this out for myself and put it somewhere and wait for answers...but am going to post, since one of my mentors here has encouraged me to do so...I am truly a seeker of what will be my "fundamental" approach to reading.

So, thank you for your patience. I have been reading through threads on History/Iconology Forum...but am left with questions about why any deck would be more "valid" than another as a tool...and perhaps that isn't the question here" validity? since fundamentalism and validity are perhaps not even in the same topic area of discussion...(there are some decks that I consider more beautiful to look at rather than decks based on these long-standing traditions of underlying and representational meanings )

terri asking for information, answers and please, ((patience))

[Cerulean]

I have to be honest, I find it easier because of my tastes to have begun with Dante and Giotto to understand the Renaissance and then moved slowly forward until I gained some context for the art and societies that surrounded Milan, Florence, Rome and Ferarra. Lately I've been cross-referencing and revisiting periods with emphasis on the societies surrounding Ferarra.

Dante, Petrach and Boccaccio seem to be a tight triad of historical humanists that many literature references in Italian spring from and I was fortunate...because I liked Boccaccio in school, then had a good summary of Petracha/Petrach and lastly, had a great class in Dante's Divine Comedy.

First in English, the Brian William's book of A Renaissance Tarot to explain allegory and the line drawings with hundreds of samples of tarocchi or Italian or related art gave me a basis that I still pull from today. While Stuart Kaplan's Encyclopedia of the Tarot Volume II is the next best, it's not portable--but the Visconti Gold book and deck set is and there's various Visconti decks around to enjoy...

I cannot say what is the most popular fundamental road to travel, but for me the Milanese Visconti patterns began a basic something that bears a beautiful fruit in interests and researches...so much so, my favored decks echo this pattern and I sometimes refer mistakenly to my Vieville deck one of my favored Marseilles. It's actually a mutt-tarot-type of many different designs.

And for some reason, the Italian Turin-based Vacchetta, with it's references to earlier designs, has been doing more for me this weekend...sigh...

Mari the Milanese fan from about six years...

[Major Tom]

Ahhh Terri - don't apologise for such posts. :) They are a gift to the community. Let's hope someone can answer some of your questions. ;)

I've been contemplating my fundament since the first post in this thread. I suppose it's time to pull my head out. :laugh:

I guess, in tarot terms, I am a fundamentalist too.

For me, there's three fundamental decks. There's the Rider-Waite-Smith Tarot which I've been using more than 20 years. There is the Tarot of Marseilles in it's various forms and there is the Crowley/Harris Thoth Tarot. From these 3 decks we can trace all examples of any 'modern' Tarot. I'll go further to say most Tarot decks produced in the last 30 years will cite at least one of these decks as a claim to validity. That is not to say there are no decks that do not make any claims.

Nonetheless, there is a great deal of knowledge encoded into each of these examples.

I have to mention Paul Foster Case and his book The Tarot as an excellent journey into the majors from a Golden Dawn viewpoint. Dr. Case considered the minors and 'reading the cards' as frivolous. ;)

I get a bit prickly when I see the line between Tarot and Oracle decks getting blurred. I suppose this comes from my desire to encourage people to create their own Tarot decks. I want folks to aim to create a true Tarot - not just something they can read with. You can read anything - even toothpicks! :laugh:

*Outrageous Claim Alert*

Creating your own Tarot Deck is an excellent way to learn Tarot. Just make sure you know where your fundament is. :laugh:

[Phoenyx*]

When I hear the word "fundementalist" I tend to think of the severe right wing conservatives, the violent religious groups, the ones knocking at your door uninvited, of Isreal and Palestine now...the word has such a horrid meaning, that yes, its hard to distinguish whether you mean the dictionary meaning of fundemental, or the political/religious meaning of fundementalist.

On that note, yes, the word brings up some of my own defenses, and prickliness. It has the tendency to make me think of children..."I'm better than you because my deck is historically older than your deck nannynannybooboo..."

Frankly, not only do I consider the TdM as fundemental, but I also consider the RW and the Thoth to be fundemental.... if[/if] we take the definition of fundemantal to be...

[i]Taken from Dictionary.com
Of or relating to the foundation or base; elementary

After all, the RW is the one usually considered to be the beginning deck, the study deck, the one to start with on a person's journey into the Tarot. And what is more fundemental than what you first learned from, what gave you your base to build upon?

[firemaiden]

Well, yes, as Tom has reminded us there are three foundational decks - Marseilles - RWS and Thoth. However, is not the Marseilles the deck which is the primary foundation for the other two?

Also, remember that there is a bit of a cultural divide, in that the RWS may be the deck we learn on in the english speaking countries, but not necessarily so in France and other parts of Europe.

Another point of curiosity, do I remember correctly, that tarot as a game has an unbroken history in France, whereas in England, there was a long period where the tarot was forgotten? If I remember this correctly, it is easier to understand why the sense of "this is the only real tarot deck" vis a vis the Marseilles might be prevalent in France.

I can accept that what is true for ze froggies is not true for ze "rosbif"... and vice versa... so we have baguette for ze foundation at dinner (deenaire) in la Frahnce, but you know in Angleesh, eez maybe not ze brrrrrread, but potato she eez fondation...

[tmgrl2]

Just got up bit late for work and saw e-mail notice for this ...can't wait to return and read reply posts! TY

terri

[jmd]

One of the questions/comments near the end of tmgrl2's previous post has various possible answers - but allow me to address it in terms of this thread.

tmgrl2 mentions that she is 'left with questions about why any deck would be more "valid" than another as a tool'.

Question is, a tool put to what use? If the tool is the divinatory one, then certainly toothpicks may also do. If the tool is to deepen one's understanding of humanity, than I would suggest that most decks - and especially Tarot decks, would also do the work admirably.

If it is to walk along spiritual paths and be guided by signposts indicated by the Tarot, then those signposts need to reflect the direction one wishes to travel. Here, it may be that some have more 'validity' than others. How to determine this is, again, a more difficult question, for how does one begin to ascertain and discern what is best for oneself from the numerous shouts in varied directions?

So a question which also has to be asked is: 'to what end use the Tarot?'

[tmgrl2]

Originally posted by Major Tom
Ahhh Terri - don't apologise for such posts. :) They are a gift to the community. Let's hope someone can answer some of your questions. ;)

I've been contemplating my fundament since the first post in this thread. I suppose it's time to pull my head out. :laugh:

I guess, in tarot terms, I am a fundamentalist too.

For me, there's three fundamental decks. There's the Rider-Waite-Smith Tarot which I've been using more than 20 years. There is the Tarot of Marseilles in it's various forms and there is the Crowley/Harris Thoth Tarot. From these 3 decks we can trace all examples of any 'modern' Tarot. I'll go further to say most Tarot decks produced in the last 30 years will cite at least one of these decks as a claim to validity. That is not to say there are no decks that do not make any claims.

Nonetheless, there is a great deal of knowledge encoded into each of these examples.

I have to mention Paul Foster Case and his book The Tarot as an excellent journey into the majors from a Golden Dawn viewpoint. Dr. Case considered the minors and 'reading the cards' as frivolous. ;)

I get a bit prickly when I see the line between Tarot and Oracle decks getting blurred. I suppose this comes from my desire to encourage people to create their own Tarot decks. I want folks to aim to create a true Tarot - not just something they can read with. You can read anything - even toothpicks! :laugh:

*Outrageous Claim Alert*

Creating your own Tarot Deck is an excellent way to learn Tarot. Just make sure you know where your fundament is. :laugh:

ty MT...I wil get that book...I am reading some R. Pollack and "exploring" Tarot d Marseilles...and hope my French isn't too rusty for the books I bought..ultimately, I will find, sooner maybe than later, the deck I want to use...For now, it's RWS

[tmgrl2]

Originally posted by Triquetra
When I hear the word "fundementalist" I tend to think of the severe right wing conservatives, the violent religious groups, the ones knocking at your door uninvited, of Isreal and Palestine now...the word has such a horrid meaning, that yes, its hard to distinguish whether you mean the dictionary meaning of fundemental, or the political/religious meaning of fundementalist.

On that note, yes, the word brings up some of my own defenses, and prickliness. It has the tendency to make me think of children..."I'm better than you because my deck is historically older than your deck nannynannybooboo..."

Frankly, not only do I consider the TdM as fundemental, but I also consider the RW and the Thoth to be fundemental.... [i]if[/if] we take the definition of fundemantal to be...



After all, the RW is the one usually considered to be the beginning deck, the study deck, the one to start with on a person's journey into the Tarot. And what is more fundemental than what you first learned from, what gave you your base to build upon?

Wanted to reply to each of these posts (Still didn' leave for work...late start)....I agree, Triquetra....I have trouble with some of the semantics and I like MT's descriptions....I have no knowledge of astrology, the plantets, the Hebrew alphabet...I know RW has many such allusions and as I go along I am learning more and more about elements of various RW cards that only add to what I already have..I don't see not knowing all about the references contained in a card as "subtracting" from the quality of the reading....since I use what I know plus intuition...BUT, I also continue to learn...we have some wonderful discussions of individual cards and things people notice that they have never seen before...layers upon layers of meaning (I love how they use that in Dune!)

I have some basic materials on Astrology..but know I will never delve into it like someone who uses it in-depth...the Aclectic Tarot Astrological Chart thread is amazing to read and I only understand some of the summary pieces...
ty

terri

[tmgrl2]

Originally posted by firemaiden
Well, yes, as Tom has reminded us there are three foundational decks - Marseilles - RWS and Thoth. However, is not the Marseilles the deck which is the primary foundation for the other two?

This is what I haved gleaned so far from my readings...I'm only exploring the Marseilles because of my background in and love for things French....so we shall see...but it does seem it is the foundation based on many factors....

Also, remember that there is a bit of a cultural divide, in that the RWS may be the deck we learn on in the english speaking countries, but not necessarily so in France and other parts of Europe.

Ditto to this again....Sometimes I regret that we are so isolated from European countries here in the U.S. Canada has its French component (let's not get into "that" discussion!)...and we have Mexico, CAmerica and S. America with heavily Latin American influence...I regret that my parents wouldn't let me speak/learn German...they came here as adults from Germany...but I love the French language...

Another point of curiosity, do I remember correctly, that tarot as a game has an unbroken history in France, whereas in England, there was a long period where the tarot was forgotten? If I remember this correctly, it is easier to understand why the sense of "this is the only real tarot deck" vis a vis the Marseilles might be prevalent in France.

Good question. Anybody have any info re England and Tarot? My understanding about the Marseilles, however, has to do with fact that the printing press there made the decks widely available over a long period of time....

I can accept that what is true for ze froggies is not true for ze "rosbif"... and vice versa... so we have baguette for ze foundation at dinner (deenaire) in la Frahnce, but you know in Angleesh, eez maybe not ze brrrrrread, but potato she eez fondation...

eeezzz also ze baguette maintenant, ici in ze states.....yum-yum
and all other kinds of breads...pototoes (frites?) are popular in various forms...garlic mashed - yummy....but breads and especially quality breads/rolls from various ethnic backgrounds are big too...dipped in flavored extra virgin-pressed olive oil...Ooops ...Is that the Guess what I had for Dinner thread?

ty all better go to work....or all I will have for any dinner iz zeeeee bread and potatoes...

terri

[smleite]

Originally posted by jmd

If it is to walk along spiritual paths and be guided by signposts indicated by the Tarot, then those signposts need to reflect the direction one wishes to travel. Here, it may be that some have more 'validity' than others. How to determine this is, again, a more difficult question, for how does one begin to ascertain and discern what is best for oneself from the numerous shouts in varied directions?

So a question which also has to be asked is: 'to what end use the Tarot?'

Yes, this keeps crossing my mind. And one of the reasons I feel so comfortable with the TdM is deeply related to such question.

For divinatory purposes, I agree, basically anything can be used, as long as we can relate to it in some way. I believe any answer given by an oracle is truly being given by a part of us, a part that just needs this kind of objects as a means of expression (since we are usually “deaf” to it). In other words, divination methods appear to me as catalysers for our psychic “powers”, and if this is true, then making our own cards should be a great idea… perhaps this is why people who have learned different meanings to the same cards can still be equally effective with them.

But then, there is the amazing possibility of turning to the cards in order to be guided by them in our spiritual path (a exercise that is only remotely related to divination), in a way that seems closely related to the noblest and purest use of oracles like the I–Ching. In this sense, it looks to me that any answer received will never be strictly personal, but mostly universal. The Tarot would then broaden much more than one's understanding of humanity – it could be a real Book of Revelation, exposing the whole structure of Life before our eyes. Believing in this as I honestly do, I can’t turn to other decks then the Marseilles. Any deck should be great for divination, or even psychological e spiritual insights, helping us to grow and exercising powerful tools like our intuition. But only the original archetypes can be trusted if we want to peer into the Mysteries of Life – and, if not even the TdM we know today is entirely pure, what can we say about the others?

[Moongold]

originally posted by JMD

tmgrl2 mentions that she is 'left with questions about why any deck would be more "valid" than another as a tool'.

Question is, a tool put to what use? If the tool is the divinatory one, then certainly toothpicks may also do. If the tool is to deepen one's understanding of humanity, than I would suggest that most decks - and especially Tarot decks, would also do the work admirably.

If it is to walk along spiritual paths and be guided by signposts indicated by the Tarot, then those signposts need to reflect the direction one wishes to travel. Here, it may be that some have more 'validity' than others. How to determine this is, again, a more difficult question, for how does one begin to ascertain and discern what is best for oneself from the numerous shouts in varied directions?

So a question which also has to be asked is: 'to what end use the Tarot?

I would be most grateful if you would explain more. Perhaps I am misunderstanding but I think you have been saying that the Tarot de Marseilles offers the most pure voice, or the better grounded approach, in providing those signposts.

This seems very similar to the Catholic Church of my childhood saying that it is the only true Church, the most pure voice of God, which clearly it is not and it was that very claim which turned me away from it.

I must say that it is the simplicity that I see in the Marseilles which attracts me to it, and I acknowledge that I am in the very early days of learning. I guess I am interested in the clarity of the spiritual insights offered by the way of Tarot and therefore the more "uncluttered" the symbolism the better. I understand that this, in itself, is a very personal thing.

If the Tarot de Marseilles has some hidden coda to which one must subscribe then I might be disappointed. The Marseilles is perhaps the first Tarot but that does not necessarly mean that it was perfect or ideal. Often things in their first incarnation, are not so. They develop over time.

I am not trying to be difficult and I realise that you are arguing that the Marseilles is the fundamental Tarot. I guess I am a little concerned that this apparent exclusivity was one of the things that turned me away from the Marseilles in the first place. I know more now than to be turned away by this but it still makes me feel a little uncomfortable.

I must acknowledge, JMD, that you do present your views with courtesy and respect but I often feel there is something retained, some mystery perpetuated. Obviously what is mysterious to one might be commonplace to another, and perhaps I am simply not yet advanced enough. :)

However, I like to discover my own meaning, and the Marseilles just recently has delighted me with its language and voice.

[mj07]

Originally posted by smleite
But then, there is the amazing possibility of turning to the cards in order to be guided by them in our spiritual path (a exercise that is only remotely related to divination), in a way that seems closely related to the noblest and purest use of oracles like the I–Ching. In this sense, it looks to me that any answer received will never be strictly personal, but mostly universal. The Tarot would then broaden much more than one's understanding of humanity – it could be a real Book of Revelation, exposing the whole structure of Life before our eyes. Believing in this as I honestly do, I can’t turn to other decks then the Marseilles. Any deck should be great for divination, or even psychological e spiritual insights, helping us to grow and exercising powerful tools like our intuition. But only the original archetypes can be trusted if we want to peer into the Mysteries of Life – and, if not even the TdM we know today is entirely pure, what can we say about the others?

interesting, but I have a question: what if your cultural upbringing is not European? And what if your religion is not Judeo-Christian?

[Moongold]

Originally posted by smleite
But then, there is the amazing possibility of turning to the cards in order to be guided by them in our spiritual path (a exercise that is only remotely related to divination), in a way that seems closely related to the noblest and purest use of oracles like the I–Ching. In this sense, it looks to me that any answer received will never be strictly personal, but mostly universal. The Tarot would then broaden much more than one's understanding of humanity – it could be a real Book of Revelation, exposing the whole structure of Life before our eyes. Believing in this as I honestly do, I can’t turn to other decks then the Marseilles. Any deck should be great for divination, or even psychological e spiritual insights, helping us to grow and exercising powerful tools like our intuition. But only the original archetypes can be trusted if we want to peer into the Mysteries of Life – and, if not even the TdM we know today is entirely pure, what can we say about the others?
Original archetypes?

[tmgrl2]

Originally posted by jmd
One of the questions/comments near the end of tmgrl2's previous post has various possible answers - but allow me to address it in terms of this thread.

tmgrl2 mentions that she is 'left with questions about why any deck would be more "valid" than another as a tool'.

Question is, a tool put to what use? If the tool is the divinatory one, then certainly toothpicks may also do. If the tool is to deepen one's understanding of humanity, than I would suggest that most decks - and especially Tarot decks, would also do the work admirably.

Personally, I use Tarot for self-reflection, for another guide when I get stuck in looking at a situation in a narrow way, also to deepen my understanding of humanity, as you say....Not for divinitory purposes...although, occasionally the outcome contains suggestions for actions now or in future....but for me not divinitory

If it is to walk along spiritual paths and be guided by signposts indicated by the Tarot, then those signposts need to reflect the direction one wishes to travel. Here, it may be that some have more 'validity' than others. How to determine this is, again, a more difficult question, for how does one begin to ascertain and discern what is best for oneself from the numerous shouts in varied directions?

Yes, definitely for me...spiritual paths with the cards as signposts...they contain, after all, elements of sound basic philosophy and wisdom....

So a question which also has to be asked is: 'to what end use the Tarot?'

Couldn't agree more...with your last question? One's personal answer to this last question, jmd, certainly is the underlying, sometimes not always conscious, "driver" of the readings....To know one's purpose in using Tarot is the most "fundamental" of underpinnings.

terri

[TemperanceAngel]

One can't help but be pulled into this thread.

jmd, thanks for starting such an interesting and enlightening debate, and terri thanks for your wonderful posts and questions and thoughts!!! AMAZING stuff :)

Having been a member of AT for 6 months now, I can't help but feel overwhelmed at times by the feeling here that if one does not study the Marseilles, then one really doesn't understand the essence of Tarot...

To some the History of the Tarot is very important, perhaps even fundamental and to others, well it's interesting but perhaps not so fundamental as they may be more interested in the imagery from an artistic sense or divinatory sense or perhaps something completely different.

But, again, there is a nagging feeling....if you don't study the Marseilles you are a lesser Tarot person.... And I know that this is not the intention of the community, but none the less, the message can appear this way. Especially to 'newcomers' to Tarot, not the boards, who are unsure and overwhelmed by the many decks available....

Now I will happily admit, I am a RWS snob, oh yes SNOB! To me why would you want to use any other deck?? But I am not a RWS fundamentalist, no no no....I love the decks imagery and colors. Colors are very important to me. I know very little about the Golden Dawn, enough to get me by, but essentially I find them not so interesting. My thoughts are that I do not follow their system.

How do I know this? I have studied Tarot for 15 years and very rarely picked up a book. Perhaps I have my own system?

Would I like to study Marseilles and Thoth? YES, of course, but I do not have the time and energy to devote myself to these decks for the next 15 years or so, and that's what they deserve!

What am I saying here? I don't know really but it felt good ;)
XTAX

Edited for typo.

[Phoenyx*]

Thank you TA for saying it SO well!

[jmd]

I return to a few posts up, in which Moongold asks cleanly and openly, whether, in effect, my statements are suggestions that the Marseilles is the equivalent of the Roman Catholic Chruch in terms of, perhaps, both its claim to apostolic succession and claims to 'purity' of direction.

What I wrote in that post is that one needs to determine 'the direction one wishes to travel. Here, it may be that some have more 'validity' than others'. If, for example, one wishes to travel along the lines indicated by the GD (this is only an example), then it may very well be that, fundamentally, a Tarot having incorporated sutble signposts along that direction is more suitable. If one desires for a direction leading to certain Wiccan directions, than, for example, the Old Path deck may be more suitable...

The Marseille, also, incorporates certain markers.

Some of these, devoid with time of specific overt overlays, may have loosening correlations. Nonetheless, they also, I would suggest, have deeply embedded spiritual signage. Earlier, the idea of long gone Mystery Schools was mentioned (in which I would personally not include the GD). It seems to me that a number of descendents of these arise, but not in quite the same way as may have been the case in late antiquity or earlier. Rather, it may be that certain transformative elements arose within a broader public domain.

In terms of imagery, I personally see the Marseille as embodying this in its strongest and clearest form. Others may determine, for themselves, different decks.

Whilst on the one hand I have no wish nor desire to 'convert' - for each needs to investigate and reach their conclusions from open and careful reflection and discernment - I do speak attempting to further refine my own specific views.

Somebody once said that without friction, there would be no warmth between individuals (using, in an unexpected way, a metaphor from the physics realm to the psychological one). These 'frictions' I find only assist me in my own ongoing search, reflections and discovery.

Does this mean that I assume I am correct? No... what it does is show me where I may disagree, and slowly begin to deepen my reflections by first looking openly at the other's statement.

This, incidently, also points out to me where certain of my views have a more fundamental location within my web of belief than certain of my other views.

[tmgrl2]

I hear you, TA .....I find it takes so much time with just one deck...and I am VERY new...and I, too, love RW....tonight I realigned my study deck which I keep in a photo album so, e.g. all the Aces, ones, twos, are on one page.....instead of in sequence by suit.... Firemaiden said it well when she mentioned, too, that Tarot de Marseilles is basically French in origin...and as such, much of the literature is in French...

I am merely exploring, not because I feel I must, but because I want to climb out on those others branches and look around...Maybe I will find I like something better than RWS...but I do love it now....

This is a great thread...because it points out there are different strands of decks historically, but basically, we choose the line/strand that suits our needs, tastes, intuitions, availability of literature if we choose...we are all different and yet we share love of the Tarot...each in our own way...

I love Firemaiden's multiple deck readings...The images and ideas flow together so beautifully when she does them...But I also value each and every reading I have seen here in the threads because I learn from all of them...if I start mentioning more names I will run out of space....Some readers are more straightforward in their readings, others use more imagery and still others use decks outside the traditional ones we might be more familiar with...but I love that too...the Fey...can't wait for Karen and Alex' s new deck...again...too many to mention...To me it's about identification...whose style of reading and choice of decks resonates most with who we are....that's what "growing" is about....getting what we need when our teachers appear...

In the process, I am discovering my "fundamental" style....I have only been reading a short time, yet each time I lay out cards and get Trump cards, they start talking to each other....it just happens....works for me....

terri

[TemperanceAngel]

jmd, you could please repeat inlaymens terms what you said after this statement below, thanks it would be much appreciated!
XTAX
Originally posted by jmd

The Marseille, also, incorporates certain markers.

[jmd]

TemperanceAngel, you posted as I began writing my reply, and did not take your words into consideration.

For those who genuinely believe not to have been influenced by GD views in using the RWCS, may I ask if you see the suit of swords as having a wind/air type quality? and what do you make of the High Priestess... do you link it with the Moon in some way?

And what of those salamanders on the Wands Courts? and the symbol of Venus on the Shield of the Empress? can these GD imprinted representations be avoided as one contemplates the cards?

Can you see Justice as coming after the Chariot (in the card sequence, not just a reading) ? and Strength as following the Wheel of Fortune - and not connected to Leo ?

The list could go on to virtually ever card - my point is precisely that if one uses a particular deck (irrespective as to which), then some of the internal imagery may reflect very specific views, and signpost particular directions.

In which direction do we each go? what are individual fundamentals of Tarot and its imagery? these are questions to which we may certainly answer differently - but these answers also reflect our peculiar central position.

I also am aware that those who do not principally use the RWCS are, in some cases, sensing that there many RWCS type posts which somehow presumes the 'proper correctness' of the same: in terms of astrologically presumed correlations, in terms of numbering, and in terms of, as often repeated, what may be a better deck to begin with - and in terms of general imagery.

To reflect on where we each stand - whether or not we post - and to respect the position of another, even if we believe them to be incorrect... but at the same time to be able to post clearly from whence we may come, for it is in the increased clarity of one's stance that we are both able to change and maintain deepened study of our mutual interest.

tmgrl2 says that 'there are different strands of decks'... the divergence, and our stand in regards to these, may certainly also reflect where each of our fundamental views lie.

[TemperanceAngel]

jmd, I understand what you are saying, I promise I do, and not only that I agree to some extent to what you are saying.

But everyone studies to different degrees and in different ways....it's such a difficult topic to debate on a Web Forum.

And what you are saying is obviously important to you, but to me whether Strength is at position 8 or 11 makes no difference when I am reading for someone and whether swords mean Air or salamanders Fire.

You cannot help but be influenced by the Golden Dawn if you read RWS. But that's not the only factor involved with the deck of influence, as stated in my pervious post about colors.

And there are reasons that I think would never be factual evidence in how and why and who and what and where you relate to or read or study a deck.

It just ain't that simple and that's why I love Tarot so much (or one of the many reasons) because there is no reasonable explanation, there are systems, granted. But no factual, evidence based explanations. This includes history, because with history we do not know the whole picture, and we can all interpret in different ways. So essentially, a lot of history is theory based.

XTAX

[Phoenyx*]

But what if you don't know anything about the GD, and you don't know anything about astrology, and you don't know anything about alchemy? And what if you don't know about the history of the Tarot?
What if you just read the deck because you LIKE it? Not because its the oldest historically drawn deck, or because it's got GD influences within it.
What if you don't care about what is fundemental and what isn't? Or what fundemental is to someone versus what it is to another?

This is me just rambling at 6:16 AM, kinda tired.

[smleite]

Originally posted by mj07
interesting, but I have a question: what if your cultural upbringing is not European? And what if your religion is not Judeo-Christian?



Originally posted by Moongold
Original archetypes?



Originally posted by jmd
What I wrote in that post is that one needs to determine 'the direction one wishes to travel. Here, it may be that some have more 'validity' than others'. If, for example, one wishes to travel along the lines indicated by the GD (this is only an example), then it may very well be that, fundamentally, a Tarot having incorporated sutble signposts along that direction is more suitable. If one desires for a direction leading to certain Wiccan directions, than, for example, the Old Path deck may be more suitable...

The Marseille, also, incorporates certain markers.

Well, mj07, I think most people walking around us, on the streets, have absolutely no information about Christian iconography, though they consider themselves to be Christians, obviously. If you choose Tarot as a path, it means something in it has attracted your attention, whatever it may be – and then you just study and practice. I can do the same with the I–Ching, even if it takes a lot of both exterior and interior work, because I realize I would have to absorb a lot of the cultural background in which this oracle was born and developed, if I wanted to deepen my knowledge of it. I believe that oracles like the I-Ching (non-Christian and non-European), or like the Runes (European but non-Christian), represent just the same as Tarot, as divinatory AND as spiritual tools!

Then, there is the question of archetypes. I am aware that I made a very simplistic use of the term, in my former post; thank you for pointing that out, Moongold. I will try to be more precise and careful. I know that questions about what an archetype is were already held several times in this forum!

I didn’t pretend to use the word in the exact manner that Jung would, that is, as a preconscious psychic pattern that tends to emerge in the form of certain images, to which a human being tends to react in a instinctive manner (this is also a very simplistic explanation, but I am not an expert in the matter, and am not writing in my native language…). I guess what I meant was mainly what jmd meant with the word “markers”. So let me rephrase that: only the original markers present in Tarot cards can be trusted if we want to use this method in order to peer into the Mysteries of Life. We can use other methods, of course!

Triquetra, I think you’ve made a wonderful remark. What about doing something just out of love? Or just out of fun? That could be the way (the Fool’s way - or the wise way, the Way of the Heart).

[firemaiden]

Originally posted by Triquetra
But what if you don't know anything about the GD, and you don't know anything about astrology, and you don't know anything about alchemy? And what if you don't know about the history of the Tarot?
What if you just read the deck because you LIKE it? Not because its the oldest historically drawn deck, or because it's got GD influences within it.
What if you don't care about what is fundemental and what isn't? Or what fundemental is to someone versus what it is to another?

This is me just rambling at 6:16 AM, kinda tired.

Well, then Triquetra, you're pretty much just like me, and we're both doing juuuuuuuuuuust fine...

I am interested in the history of tarot though, because history in and of itself is interesting to me, but I wouldn't say it informs my reading in the slightest.

As jmd says... it depends on what you use the tarot for. I use it for brainstorming, and for triggering ideas -- as many have said before, it could just as well be pictures in an art book, or raindrops, or cold cuts... (though I much prefer the 78 pretty pictures in a box.)

But I know the others who find this sacrilegious still love me. :D :D

[Macavity]

I think we should concede the word TAROT to the "fundamentalists" (since ostensibly they were there first!) and use something different? Suggestions welcome! But I think unless one has a universal definition of EVERY term used - e.g. "spiritual progress" (NOOOO that is NOT an invitation! :laugh: ) we are still doomed. Though not to discourage anyone... ;)

But simply, there is always going to be debate with such a lot of (intentional? })) wiggle room, No? And I think it is cross-purpose that results in far more fur flying around on the internet than any other cause... :D

Macavity

[Moongold]

Originally posted by jmd .

What I wrote in that post is that one needs to determine 'the direction one wishes to travel. Here, it may be that some have more 'validity' than others'. If, for example, one wishes to travel along the lines indicated by the GD (this is only an example), then it may very well be that, fundamentally, a Tarot having incorporated sutble signposts along that direction is more suitable. If one desires for a direction leading to certain Wiccan directions, than, for example, the Old Path deck may be more suitable...

The Marseille, also, incorporates certain markers.

Some of these, devoid with time of specific overt overlays, may have loosening correlations. Nonetheless, they also, I would suggest, have deeply embedded spiritual signage. Earlier, the idea of long gone Mystery Schools was mentioned (in which I would personally not include the GD). It seems to me that a number of descendents of these arise, but not in quite the same way as may have been the case in late antiquity or earlier. Rather, it may be that certain transformative elements arose within a broader public domain.

In terms of imagery, I personally see the Marseille as embodying this in its strongest and clearest form. Others may determine, for themselves, different decks.

Thanks for your explanation JMD. For me, very simply, the tarot is path to spiritual enlightenment, a way of communicating with the Divine. My introduction to Tarot occurred just twenty-one months ago and I am very much an initiate.

The tarot images I saw at the beginning (RWS based) spoke to me so evocatively that I was compelled to explore. The exploration of Tarot has opened many other spiritual doors and I am still finding my way. The Marseilles is beautiful and I am exploring it with the same curiosity and delight that has marked every step of my path here.

I hope that people manage to maintain the excitement, curiosity and respect that has marked this thread so far. There are many explanations, systems of thought, symbols to consider and my own understanding is quite incomplete at present. At present I am very much enjoying Meditations on the Tarot and Tarot and Individuation which I'm reading in tandem as they complement each other so well. My thoughts around these books are very much in motion.

:) smleite, welcome to Aeclectic also, and thanks for your explanation. I look forward to further discussions with you. I think our understanding of archetypes has been so coloured by the Jungian interpretations it is easy to overlook their representation in earlier symbology and systems of knowledge, though Jung himself did not.

Many blessings,

Moongold

[Diana]

Originally posted by firemaiden
But I know the others who find this sacrilegious still love me. :D :D

Oh, I will love you until the day of Judgement, my dearest lady of fire. (XX).

And I will also love smleite, because I think she is my twin-sister in Tarot. :)

[tmgrl2]

Originally posted by firemaiden
Well, then Triquetra, you're pretty much just like me, and we're both doing juuuuuuuuuuust fine...

I am interested in the history of tarot though, because history in and of itself is interesting to me, but I wouldn't say it informs my reading in the slightest.

As jmd says... it depends on what you use the tarot for. I use it for brainstorming, and for triggering ideas -- as many have said before, it could just as well be pictures in an art book, or raindrops, or cold cuts... (though I much prefer the 78 pretty pictures in a box.)

But I know the others who find this sacrilegious still love me. :D :D

This is pretty much where I am coming from right now...I know there are images on the RWS that have elements of astrology...and/or Kabbalastic influence.... but even when I did my very first readings, images and ideas jumped out at me from the cards....Maybe what I "didn't"use in the reading isn't as important as the imagery and elements I "did" use.....Not that this will stop me from exploring and studying because that is what I enjoy....but right now, and maybe even later, it's the triggering of ideas, as fm says, that clicks for me...I used to use color and people's handwritings...that worked too...Intuition is a marvelous part of our makeup as human beings....as is our quest for knowledge...for me it's the balance, since I tend to get caught up in the "knowledge" part too much sometimes and then I do a reading...and out pops, The Sun talking to the Devil...about the Q's question...there you have it...I want to trust this part of me more and more...I let it go too long ago...and it's awakening again and flowering and it's precious and valuable....
.....and, it makes no other person's readings/methods/decks less valid....nor does it diminish my way....

terri

[Moongold]

In thinking about fundamentalism in Tarot it is interesting to draw some comparisons with astrology.

Modern Astrology has moved a long way from the classical astrology of the Sumerians, Babylonians and Greeks. My understanding of early astrology was that it was fairly fate based whereas astrology today seems to focus more on spiritual guidance and free will.

In astrology also I think we can ask a similar question to your question, JMD, as to what we use astrology for, but even so I can see room for classical and modern astrology in a contemporary spiritual search. I guess there is also room for classical tarot and modern tarot in a contemporary spiritual search. Possible the same would apply for Divining.

I guess another major point you seem to be making concerns whether one can effectively mix symbols of knowledge from different systems and eras and still maintain integrity. That is a very good question. A question following from that is about how we allow for the growth and development of knowledge and understanding.

Is there such a thing as pure truth, or just truth itself? The answer is possibly no, and for each person using Tarot the "truth" will always be very individual.

[tmgrl2]

((((Moongold))))

All good points....Moongold....we evolve as do systems....e.g. in quantum physics...just looking at something causes it to change somehow...nothing is really static is it?? And the nature of the universe is very different from the world we see...it's about perspective, isn't it....rather than any "absolute" kind of truth...

tmgrl

[Macavity]

I think one can draw a lot of parallels like that. In various religions and/or spirituality, certain ethical or moral "summaries" stand out e.g. the Christian Ten Commandments. Presumably it is by following those, one arrives at this spiritual growth (eradication of sin, ego etc) too? Are they then analogues to the usage of Tarot Archtypes... by those otherwise so disposed? Aside: I guess I have always want to know how (150 or so?) possible symbols in the Marseille majors can be functionally equivalent to hundreds of thousands of words in the average mainstream religious text? But, as an agnostic, I've no personal experience of either in this context. I'm not necessarily doubting, merely wondering... })

I think it is also aknowledged that the Bible was "optimised" for a semi-nomadic desert patriachy? Is e.g. the Medieval mindset, to whom the tarot was probably(?) addressed, something that remains ubiquitously relevant today? Clearly many authors argue it is, based on assumptions that the "ancients" were somehow more "in touch" with things? Nevertheless the contrary argument for studying ALL (esp. modern!) decks too, might apply, especially THESE days? FWIW, I have always been quite attracted e.g. by the "comparitive tarot" methods (qv) where the optimal deck exists perhaps only in the mind of the user as a superposition (O.K. just plain average!) of as many decks as it takes. ;)

I think, with almost all spiritual and religious ideas, there is this HUMAN tendancy to pine after the "good old days". We see almost everywhere, from politics to religion, the repeated movements "back to basics". Perhaps these are the Tarot fundamentalists? :D

Seemingly, this whole process of "modernisation" has to begin all over again...

Macavity

[Cerulean]

There is a certain dream-laden aspect of tarot that looks at humanity from a pictorial visualness that doesn't agree with my small experiences of the I-Ching.

The clatter of sticks and coins in delicate patterns that remind the I-Ching reader of reading lines to form patterns and concepts explained with a book of phrases...and the beautiful poetic constructs of a family culture (mother, father, daughter, son) and then someone's behavior in allegorical community and kingdom. Even though it is somewhat feudalistic, it reminds me broadly of a rune set with a book of poems and meanings...and there are elemental parallels with Feng Shui and language pictographs. But it pulls from a different brain area for me, much like writing but not like the softness of drawing and painting and swimming in the waters of my mind.

To me, the pictorial appeal of humanity is so rich in the trumps and courts, that somehow activates an area of my mind that begins to be able to the use of numbers and symbols of the minors as pictorial patterns. The pictures interact with visual concepts in my mind and the use of cards with fingering movements are physically engaging, interactive.

I may be straying too far, just want to describe a fundamental difference in my experience of enjoying tarot...

Mari H.

[tmgrl2]

Bump.

Since the polls have been "bumped" and since Merc has a thread going about "Saturation" and "meaty thread discussions," I thought I would bump up one of the "meatier" ones I have saved in my subscriptions.

This should give us all some pause for reflection...I'm even rereading what I wrote only a month after joining AT and starting my work with the Tarot.

Thought-provoking posts here for all Aeclectians....

terri