View Full Version : Tarot and Alchemy?
Did you ever bring Tarot and Alchemy in connection? As I am into alchemy at the moment I was struck by the fact how many things in alchemy can be found in the Major Arcana.
Yes. The Fool's journey corresponds to the science of Alchemy.
The Fool can be seen as the base material (lead)... who must go through some kind of transformation... to reach the completion... The World (gold). :)
P.S. Have you checked out Alchemical Tarot yet?
It's a deck by Rosemary Guiley & Robert M. Place.
Hi Strega,
No, I still haven't added this deck to my collection. I think I should add this one to my collection.
Hmm, Diana, would you mind telling me more about your opinion? Either here or in PM? I'd like to put your Magician theory in relation to the general Fool's journey.
Hi Diana,
I had started with reading your Fool's history early this morning but then I was interrupted. I hope I'll have some more time to read it in full length. I'll keep you posted.
Originally posted by Diana
It is not the Fool's journey. It is the so-called Magician's journey. The Bateleur's journey. The Fool is something else.Interesting...
I wouldn't argue (or debate) whether it's right or wrong to call it the Fool's journey - that's just how I see it. And I don't believe in numbering the Fool either.
In connection to Alchemy, I see the Fool as the "base material" and the Magician as the "alchemist"... (only in my opinion - not stating it a fact). :)
Originally posted by Diana
I do not agree. But I know I am in the minority here, and I'm used to my opinion about this falling on deaf ears.
}) UAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Yes you are in minority here. But this does not mean we can't have a nice tarotical debate - I'm off to PM Kiama, who's PMing Jmd? ;) *LOL*
And that thing about deaf ears is unfair, firstly cos we ARE listening to you - I would even if you called me names *LOL* :* - it's just that we don't agree; and, secondly, becuase I could say exactly the same thing for your not subsiding to the Fool's Jorney account... :D *LOL*
It is not the Fool's journey. It is the so-called Magician's journey. The Bateleur's journey. The Fool is something else. (...) The Bateleur is the lead. Perhaps the World is the gold, perhaps it is the Fool. But perhaps the truth is elsewhere. If only I knew....... (that is what I am seeking for).
Well, I tend to like the idea of a Fool's Journey much better. Obviously because my POOR tarotical education mainly has modern sources probably, and because I have not studied much the Marseille in that sense (even though I always feel the need to point out I started with a Marseille).
The Fool is (or could be) something else, as you suggested.
But he is also the main character of the story, the reckless inner kid going through his journey of transformation, experience and learning that life/tarot is. Of course, he is not the journey itself - so he'd better be kept apart from the 21 other majors. Yet he is the journeyer, and he touches and goes through all the other 21 phases without being or becoming one definitively. He's continuos utter metamorphosis and learning.
The Magician/Bateleur instead is a stage already. It's a step taken with a very specific behaviour, a certain background and a definitive intention.
He is a polarity. And when you mention the Magician, how can you leave the High Priestess - the other polarity - out? It's like Ying & Yang, a dicotomy that cannot be reduced further, or taken partly without at least keeping in mind there is another side...
Obviously my position is affected by the different "education" *I am only using this word cos you always do LOL* even though it stems from NO BOOK - the first I have read with this intention is 78DW and I am still reading it... My "education" is related what I have learnt simply by using the cards, looking at them and developing my very own sense of them; while in a second moment it was supported and nurtured by what I have found on these boards, and what I have read and assimilated - therefore a more structured and modern view.
In your view, I bet, the High Priestess (or Popess ;););)) IMMEDIATELY recalls the High Priest/Pope rather than the Magician and all the pseudo-psychologic taoistic image of Active/Passive.
I understand this, and would probably think the same when reading with and focusing on a Marseille deck - but modern stuff is different (loves teasing *LOL*). Also when I look at Visconti-Sforza, for example, the link between Popess and Pope is evident, and the Magician comes in a different light, trough which the sense of Sun/Moon, Light/Shadow is so faded - it almost feels like stretching the interpretation on purpose... But with RW and following, The Magician is a stage, or an elementary force - such as The High Priestess.
All this talk about the Fool's journey. To me it just doesn't make any sense at all. To me it's like a big misunderstanding that has permeated the Tarot world last century and has changed the meaning of Tarot (to put it nicely.....)
I am sure that if you read the first chapters "78 Degrees of Wisdom" - or only the one about the Four Card Diamond Layout - you will understand why this makes sense to so many (beware I am not saying you will change your mind! ;) *LOL* :D).
And we all know there's no official instruction booklet that came with Tarot Cards, so every opinion has its own value and credibility in theory. Some may prevail in that they make sense to many, or more. I am not very fond of the phrase you used, but anyway each to their own... BUT READ 78DW SOON!!! *LOL*
And forget about any numbering on the Fool. The Fool is not 0. That's the wierdest invention I've ever heard.
0 positions the Fool in a system (mathematical). He is NOT in the system. He is beyond it.
Yup, ok, I agree with you on this - if only I had not burnt my Marseille deck... :( *LOL*
The Fool should go un-numbered as in Marseille/early (;)) decks. But as "0" he is not such a shame anyway. 0 is the egg, the potential, the "All and Nothing". I understand it may seem like placing him in a system - but that is an assumption as well: the "0" can be seen apart from the system too - I intuitively do at least. While I write this, I REALL REALLY REALLY understand what you mean and feel, but I also think I like the association of the "0" for the round cyclic shape... mh...
He is what one always was and what one will become. The Alpha and the Omega. He doesn't need to go on any journey.
Exacty! *LOL*
He does not NEED to go on a journey, not at all! That simply is his nature! :D
There's no "need", it's just that he will go because going on a journey is part of what makes him THE FOOL. What his the image there? A careless, naive wanderer, conveying innocence and faith, taking the leap and moving versus the unknown.
(I think you are closer to the Fool's Journey idea than you may admit... ;) }))
(GGGGGGGRRRRRRRR I wish I were a mothertongue and had a finer command of English... I hope I was clear enough)
Originally posted by Diana
AAAAARRRRGGGGHHHH! It's not the Fool's journey!!Hee-hee-hee! :D
Originally posted by Diana
To me it's like a big misunderstanding that has permeated the Tarot world last century and has changed the meaning of Tarot (to put it nicely.....)Oh goody, I've finally found something I can argue with Diana about! :D
I'm really taken aback by this dogmaticism... it seems to me we're talking about different approaches which can be equally valid. The journeyer can be the Fool, and the journeyer can be the Bateleur, depending on how you look at it. Why does it have to be one or the other? Either will lead to insights, and the great thing is that they will lead to different insights, and thus it's worthwhile to examine both.
Diana, when you say "changed the meaning of Tarot," this suggests that there is an objective "meaning" which people have then "changed." Is this really what you mean to say? If so, I'm sure everyone would love to know where this meaning is to be found. })
-- Lee <who went and hid Diana's rolling pin before he posted this>
Originally posted by Pollux
Well, I tend to like the idea of a Fool's Journey much better. Obviously because my POOR tarotical education mainly has modern sources probably, and because I have not studied much the Marseille in that sense <...>Hi Pollux, I just wanted to say, there's no reason you can't use a Fool's Journey methadology with a Marseilles deck, i.e. there's nothing intrinsic in a Marseilles deck which contradicts it. It's true that with Marseilles terminology the Popess seems to go with the Pope (rather than with the Magician as in the 78DW scheme), but on the other hand, the Marseilles numbering places her with the Magician and not with the Pope. In fact, I find the image of a wandering tramp for the Fool to be in some ways better suited to the Fool's Journey scenario than the R-W-S picture.
Oops, I've just noticed that Pollux had already made the point I was making to Diana:
And we all know there's no official instruction booklet that came with Tarot Cards, so every opinion has its own value and credibility in theory.
Lee, I wrote the post bit by bit, editing it, and updating it.
I just wanted to make sure that while I wrote it down no other replied first, woth the effect of having my post slid after theirs... (I just stole your place uahahah *LOL*) I wanted to be the first, and it seems I am!!! UAHAHAHA!!! *LOL*
Originally posted by Lee
I'm really taken aback by this dogmaticism... it seems to me we're talking about different approaches which can be equally valid. The journeyer can be the Fool, and the journeyer can be the Bateleur, depending on how you look at it.
Dogmaticism! You dared say the word *LOL* :D
I don't see dogmas, I just see different sensitivities, as you suggested too.
They can obviously be equally valid, and therefore we can have either; but...
The journeyer can be the Fool, and the journeyer can be the Bateleur, depending on how you look at it. Why does it have to be one or the other? Either will lead to insights, and the great thing is that they will lead to different insights, and thus it's worthwhile to examine both.
They can obviously be equally valid, and therefore we can have either; but I just think it is hard not to "choose" one in a way because it makes more sense to the individual.
Personally, I cannot think of a Magician's Journey - I dismissed the idea the moment I read of it and started studying the Marseille Ba(gat)tel(li)eur (sp?). Now I've seen how meaningful the Fool's Journey is to me, I am unable to switch to the Magician... Maybe I missed something... :(
Originally posted by Lee
Hi Pollux, I just wanted to say, there's no reason you can't use a Fool's Journey methadology with a Marseilles deck, i.e. there's nothing intrinsic in a Marseilles deck which contradicts it
Hi Lee!!! :D
I only mentioned Marseille-s specifically because Diana was using that as her argument. I didn't meant to say the two were not compatible, let's say I wanted to make my points very Diana-friendly *LOL*, sort of tailor made, since I think I know more or less the background and the reasons she has. She has also mentioned Marseille-s as practical counterpart to the "journey" idea in this thread, as for example by mentioning the "Bateleur" (and not a Magician, what a purist we have!!! *LOL* :* :* :*).
Sorry Diana, that was a Freudian slip in my posting. You know, my unconscious is deeply rooted in German tarotautology (does this word exist or did I make it up?) and when you have lived nearly 2 decades with a Fool's journey, this word just sticks.
Of course I meant your MAGICIAN'S journey.
Ravenswing
24-09-2002, 12:10
diana--
you've got my attention here. if you don't mind, i've got a few questions for you...
do you consider the fool to be a system unto himself?
would you divide the deck into 4 parts: major, minors, courts and the fool?
do you work with the hebrew alphabet corrospondences? if so, which letter is the fool? would it be a pathway on the tree of life?
in all fairness, i give you a bit of my slant on the fool. i see the fool as the identity principle of the tarot. he wanders around, giving meaning to the other cards. it is only through the fool's re-cognition of a card that it exists.
i've worked a lot with gematria-- hebrew version of numerology-- but applying it to the english language. i see the fool as the group of vowels and the 21 majors as each being a consonant. it is the vowels that give a consonant group definite meaning. so i see the fool as giving the remainder of the tarot it's meaning.
thoughts?
raven
My views are probably pretty close to Diana's, so while she might be a minority she's not alone! LOL.
The relationship between The Fool and The Magician is a very interesting one especially in terms of Alchemy. One of the two cards represents Quintessential Air and the zodiacal mode of Mutability. The other represents metallic Mercury, which corresponds to the planet of Mercury in Astrology.
Aleph corresponds specifically to Quintessential Air and Mutability. Nothing brings that more clear in my mind than the Sepher Yetzirah (take your pick of translations). The Golden Dawn slaps Aleph onto The Fool, which gets things rather confusing since Aleph isn't just "A", is numerical for "one" and Beth, which is placed on the Magician is numerical for "two".
Personally, I prefer unnumbered Major Arcana. If I ever create a deck, the Majors won't have numbers- but they will have lots of alchemical symbolism, based off the 12-stage of transfiguration system, which uses zodiacal correspondences. There's also simpler 4-stage and 7-stage alchemical formulas for the Great Work. However, using a 12-stage system allows for the following correspondences with the Major Arcana/Astrology/Hebrew Alphabet:
12 stages 3 Quint. Elements 7 Metals = 22
12 signs/ 3 Modalities 7 ancient
houses planets= 22
12 simples 3 mothers 7 doubles= 22
The trick, or rather the subjective fun, is deciding which tarot card really best suits the closely relating (but not identical) archetypes from each matched set of alchemical/astrological/Kabbalistic symbols. The Golden Dawn simply did it 'one for one', calling the Fool the first card in the deck, hence naming it Aleph(1), the Magican Beth(2), and so on and so forth all the way down. There's no One True Answer. Only an answer that works.
Laurel
Originally posted by Diana
If there is any dogmatism in what I say, it is because I feel that the Golden Dawn tarot <...> removed something from the original Tarot and I find it a great pity. I always get the impression that it's been amputated. Of course, someone may come along and prove one day that the Tarot I "believe" in, which goes back hundreds of centuries, is also just a new version of something much older. Diana, here is the problem I have, and I hope I can articulate it adequately.
When you say "original Tarot," I don't know what you mean. Do you mean that the commentaries of, say, Wirth are better than those of Waite? That would be fine, we all have our preferences, but why would the Wirth commentary, or Papus or any other, be considered the "original" Tarot? Is it just because their commentaries were written chronologically before Waite's?
Or do you mean "original" as in when the Tarot was first created in the 15th century? This would really puzzle me, because of course we don't have any commentaries from that time, in fact the evidence is that it was regarded strictly as a game until de Gebelin came along. By "original" are you referring strictly to the images on the Marseilles deck? But these images of course don't in themselves explicitly state doctrines or schemes, and so, if we want to tie the cards together into a pattern, we must impose on them ideas and structures that incorporate elements that don't arise from the images themselves.
So I don't see how any interpretation of the Tarot can be considered any more "original" than any other.
By the way, if we go to a very basic level (which is where my poor brain likes to work), it seems to me that it make sense for the Fool to be the journeyer, for the simple reason that of all the Trump figures, the Fool is the only one who is pictured in the act of walking.
-- Lee
Ravenswing
24-09-2002, 19:32
just a little bit of thinking out loud.
the fool appears at the beginning of the major arcana (numbered zero so we can justify placing it before one), between judgment and the world (numbered zero for no **ligitimate** reason i can think of-- eclectic deck) and after the world (and numbered XXII, which makes sense since it comes after XXI-- ibis deck)
we can go a bit further and consider that the fool isn't even part of the major arcana.
all of these seem to me to lead to **valid** frameworks for a model of structure of **reality**.
so, does order count here a bit too much?
consider: before laying out a spread, we shuffle the cards, in order to generate a **random** ordering. i don't believe anyone would do a spread with the deck in its **natural** order. (i don't say that this couldn't be done, but what would the point be??)
could it be that the **hero** of the tarot is either the fool or the magician only by virtue of being first in line?
consider: have you ever met your hierophant directly upon taking leave of an emperor? when you climb out of your chariot, who DO you meet? is temperence strictly an after-death experience? do you climb out of the wreckage of your tower and serenely watch venus setting? and what about naomi?
(sorry, i just couldn't resist that one :D )
let's scramble the majors and see what kind of story we can come up with. (the navigator's tarot has the **advantage** of unnumbered majors)
i'm working on a **random** order that starts with the moon. i figure that a tale full of archetypes should produce an archetypical tale. no matter the order.
any not so foolish responces??
putting on his jester's cap
ravenswing
Diana: The view of The Fool's Journey lends itself to the story of the journey of Everyman, or of each Soul; however, I can see The Fool as Spirit/Godforce, complete unto Itself & thus independent of any "position".
Numerically speaking--
0 is not merely "zero", but a circle representative of Spirit Unmanifested or the Soul. The beginning & the end; Alpha & Omega; eternity. The superconscious; the collective unconscious.
The Magician as "1": a straight line, Spirit Manifested. The Soul incarnated; man. The active principle; the conscious; the ego.
The High Priestess as "2": a semi-circle above a horizontal line is the "fallen" man with the Soul "above" him. Spirit & matter manifested in duality. The passive principle; the unconscious (residing within the conscious).
The Empress as "3": two semi-circles, the Divine Feminine. Creation. The trinity of conscious, unconscious, superconscious; physical, mental, spiritual; father, mother, child; etc.
The Emperor as "4": a triangle supported by a straight line. Man in an upright position carrying the Divine Principle. Representative of reason/logic, physical achievement. Also symbolic of the earth; the human condition/situation.
The Hierophant/Pope as 5: a right angle supported by a semi-circle, Man. The "fallen" man is supported by his soul. Man perceives his environment through the 5 senses & learns through experiencing life in the earth. Change, testing, instability, imperfection, incompletion.
That is as far as I will go with this as I am running out of steam, but I would like to hear more from others...
Hi Diana and all!
I read this thread and got a feeling that you all don't see the forest for all the trees...
In my opinion, as a astrologer, there is no singel truth. A Marseilles deck could be much as" truth" as a Golden Dawn deck. And it could be The Fool's journey as well as The Magician's journey.
My point is that we all have different paths to walk, and that the tools we pick up along the way will be the right one for us - even though it's not a "academical truth" we are dealing with.
With a respect for other people, we can exchange thoughts and ideas - but don't you ever say that you carry the truth. But we may have strong beliefs :). Personally I like to think that I always can be wrong, and uses this as the basis of my search.
When we now enter the age of aquarius, (I think) there will be much focus on cooperating as a group. We have to listen to each other, and understand that life is made of many colors - and some times contradictions too. This will be a basis for our future humanity - to be open and respectful over our neighbours opinions.
In the bible, or at least the gospel of Thomas (not sure) - there is a place where Jesus talks about life as a body - where the little toe is much as important as the ear. It's the entirety of life he wants us to respect, and that complete different things is equal important and part of the truth.
So when it comes to tarot and facts, just say what you prefer...
Of course we have absolute facts in life, but they also can change tomorrow. Remember that the whole world once was absolutely sure the earth was flat. We have been wrong before and can be wrong again.
I read somewhere that with the murder of Kain, we got science - and lost our connection with God. If that's the thing (I like the explanation), we - as representing hidden forces and divine power - must be aware that we don't fall into the blind alley of facts and truths.
Well, that was just my opinion....
Originally posted by Balder
So when it comes to tarot and facts, just say what you prefer...Exactly... :)
Diana: Do you see a connection between the "Magician's journey" and Alchemy? If so, in what ways? :)
Hi Diana,
No need to apaoligize, I am not cross with you and there is no need to get me a deck unless you will become sleepless or your soul will get uneasy ;)
I did not feel "hijacked", it takes much more in life to get that feeling on me. We are all friends and everybody can speak and discuss his/her opinion here.
Given the incentive offered by Diana ('Or someone will show me maybe one day that what the Golden Dawn did is an improvement (and the person who is able to convince me of that will get a box of Swiss chocolates every month for a whole year)'), I couldn't resist :)
Before I do, however, I thought I would add another perspective, one possibly also implied by MeeWah's post: it may be neither the Fool's nor the Bateleur's journey, but our own! As such, the positioning of the Fool prior to XXI the World, with this latter's very mediaeval Christ-like representation, is very appropriate. The Fool is the one who can reach - but is not himself - the kingdom of God.
Being un-numbered does not mean that he has no definite position. Rather, his positioning may have to be discovered through looking at the cards themselves. Where it is, of course, will depend precisely on how one enters the cards and the given series.
This is where both the Golden Dawn and Alchemy come in. As mentioned in one of the above posts (I think by Laurel), each card can, if one decides to, be seen as either one of the Alchemical steps of transformation or states. What the Golden Dawn may have done as an 'improvement' (you didn't mention from what !;)!) is the very detailed study they made of various 'systems' and available materials - and sought to unite syncretistically: very much a rebirth or reflection of what occured both in Alexandria and during the birth of Tarot. Before them was, on the whole, a long period of, by comparison, dry replication, at times losing possible esoteric understanding. Though this 'esotericism' may very much have opened dead-end avenues and far-fetched incongruous systems, it also lead to genuine search for in-depth understanding of, amongst other disciplines, the Tarot. In this sense, they surpassed the work done by Levi, Papus and others... is this sufficient for the monthly boxes of Swiss chocolate?
The Alchemical texts and diagrammes are, to my mind, quite different from those of Tarot. It seems that any comparison comes more from similarities in the mind-set of some working with both, rather than obvious similarities. Though to be sure, gaining an understanding of Alchemy undoubtedly can assist in deepening one's understanding of Tarot - and hence one's self!
Diana: As Catlin, I welcome your comments--they make one think!! & to reflect on the possibilities. My post is *not* to refute your ideas or view, but to present a personal view, albeit an incomplete understanding at best! Hopefully, 'tis a view that changes & evolves to encompass a better understanding, which is assisted by associating with the good folks of this venue!
JMD: Yes, & thank ye! I am attempting to explain that what I see may be Man's journey in this plane of existance; the incarnation of Spirit represented by each Soul. I am not knowledgeable about the Golden Dawn teachings nor Alchemy, but those are areas to explore in relation to enhancing the understanding of self & Tarot.
As a side note, Robert Place doesn't use the Golden Dawn's alchemical attributions; he's gone to other sources. Sometimes I'm a little harsh or critical on the Golden Dawn, but that doesn't mean they haven't been among of my most profound and inspiring teachers :) Aristotle criticized some of his teacher Plato's ideas and both worked with Plato's ideas and his own; that didn't make either of them less than Great Men.
Certainly, to truly study alchemy one would have to... errr... study alchemy. Alchemy within tarot is a way of giving some of the ideas of alchemy a different form, but its not the same thing. The same can be said about Astrology, Kabbalah, Runes, Sacred Geometry, etc.
Yet the more I study various esoteric arts and sciences, the more I'm struck by the profound symbiotic nature of the ideas that underlay all of it. Further, these ideas are so flexible and easy to personalize so they have both universal and personal meaning. So if I see the "Great Work" of alchemy or the "Journey" within the tarot trumps as one and the same and 'The Magician's Journey', part of that might be because its written as such in some moldering tome... but really, its because I see *myself* as 'The Magician' and its my own story being told. Likewise, someone who identified with 'The Fool', 'The High Priestess', "The Sacred Shaman' might look at that archetype as a central role. In the end, everyone is right. Its a story, a process, that takes place within every single person who's open to the experience... and every story is both holistic and unique, part of the universe and completely individualistic. The apparent paradox is in itself part of the magic of the whole thing.
Laurel
MystiqueMoonlight
25-09-2002, 19:48
Diana raises an interesting debate here and I certainly hope it can be taken up on a seperate thread.
Diana: don't be shy, we're all friends here. IMO an open discussion on the Fool's/Magician's Journey is very practical and probably very welcome in this forum.
Just a thought for everybody though regarding the numbering of the Fool.
Take out all of your Majors and lay them out in numerical order starting with the I Magician. You should have 3 rows of seven cards. Now place the Fool at the very top on his own.
Study what you have before you.
Now take the Fool and place him between any 2 cards in any of the 3 rows. Study the entire sequence again.
Repeat this.
Does this explain the number "0" of the Fool after trying this out for anyone?
MystiqueMoonlight: Are you suggesting The Fool can be anywhere & everywhere? That does make sense to me, as that is "his" nature, is it not? It also supports what Diana has been saying--or my understanding of what she is saying--I think :D
MystiqueMoonlight
25-09-2002, 20:16
Meewah,
Try this exercise and then ask the same question. Perhaps after doing it you may not need to ask :)
OH!!! Yeah, I remember that exercise MystiqueMoonlight!!! :D
It was one of the first thing I did - with my Marseille deck... *LOL*
I should stop bringing that up, it's only to my detriment.
I also witnessed the opposite-yet-not thing: I have read and seen that, when in a reading the Fool comes up, you can/should draw an extra card, and place it where the fool is. This especially in Majors-only readings with few cards.
Actually I only did it with the 5-card, Majors only - I fail to remember the name!!! ARGH!!! The one you are supposed to add the numbers of the first four cards and get the fifth... ARGH!!!
Anyway, I was saying... when you draw the fool, after you have drawn the first four cards and obtained the fifth, you should draw the next and place it on the fool.
Have you ever heard of this?
Hi Pollux,
Yep, I came across this suggestion but can't remember who brought it up but I have never replaced the fool by another card. I just don't think it appropriate as the fool has also his message so why replace him?
I remember one evening in my tarot circle. I have made the gals there draw 2 cards each, one from the RW, the other one from the Thoth, so we were working with 156 cards. One of the girls drew from both decks the fool (she was the first who wanted to draw the cards and I think it is pretty interesting to get out from 156 cards both fools!).
MystiqueMoonlight
26-09-2002, 06:45
I'm kinda with Catlin on this Pollux. However I don't quite understand the method you are explaining and what possible benefit it's suppose to offer. Can you explain?
My point previously was that the Fool is an intergral part of the Tarot ....er......um.....journey :) There I said it. In fact the influence of the Fool and his perspective within Tarot and indeed our lives (spiritual journey) cannot be reflected by the numerical value of 1.
The number "1", as I understand it, marks the beginning. Whereas the number, or perhaps the non number "0" signifies the all entirity, without a beginning or an end.
I hope that makes sense :)
Sure it makes sense! I agree with you!
I posted that before:
The Magician/Bateleur instead is a stage already. It's a step taken with a very specific behaviour, a certain background and a definitive intention.
And I also mentioned the number "0" as *cycle* and *egg* before.
On that we agree, I believe.
Yet, the Fool to me is an integral part of the Journey in that he/she (;)) sums up the spirit of it, and is not a specific point of it.
As you said, he/she can be placed between ANY two cards, and this because he/she is not a specific stage, but the will and awareness progressing through each of them.
He/she represents the entity experiencing it, the soul taking part into it, and linking all the cards/stages to each other along the path.
I said he/she "is not the journey" since he/she is not a stage of it, and in these regards he/she can be considerd as the journeyer, at the beginning or at the end, as opposed to the other cards, that are points and milestones along the path. In this possible opposition Stager/Stages I meant he is not the journey itself.
MystiqueMoonlight
26-09-2002, 16:12
Pollux,
Absolutely....I'm just agreeing with what your saying and expanding on my previous post....the exercise I mentioned earlier. :)
Hi Diana, that was a great post! :)
I disagree with your suggestion that the "reckless inner kid going through a journey of transformation" (to quote Pollux) is a recent innovation introduced by Waite. I believe that the Marseilles Fool embodies this concept even more than the Waite-Smith Fool does. I think the designers meant to illustrate a progression, from the lowest (Fool) to the highest (World). This sort of thinking can be seen in the Mantegna deck, which starts out with a beggar as the lowest and shows an even clearer progression from low to high. I think that any such progression implies a journey upward, through the stages embodied in the succeeding cards. So that covers the "journey of transformation" part.
As for the "reckless kid," I think a beggar/jester is far more illustrative of recklessness than the overdressed fop on the Waite card, even if he is walking over a cliff. The Waite Fool isn't really risking much, in my opinion, because obviously he's trusting in a higher power (at least that's what I see when I look at the card). How much more reckless to give up one's possessions and strike out on the open road! And, I know I've brought this up before, but I *do* think it's significant that the Marseilles Fool is the only trump character shown walking. Furthermore, if you lay out the cards from left to right, he's walking towards the other figures, as if beginning his journey through the succeeding cards.
The Magician is paired with the Popess because the separation into yin and yang is the first manifestation of reality (at least according to the Tao Te Ching), and thus is appropriate for the first stop on the Fool's journey. Now, I'll admit that this idea is certainly reinforced by Waite's bright Magician and dark High Priestess, but I think the same message can be found in the Marseilles Bateleur, who is very active, and the Popess, who is very passive.
When you say the cards were designed to convey a message, I think it's certainly possible, but the problem is in deciphering just what that message is. Everybody looks at the cards from the viewpoint of their own cultural milieu. Even if we try to discern what the message was of the cards' creator(s), we're *still* looking at their motives and intentions from a modern viewpoint; we can't help it. We'll never be able to look at the cards completely from the point of view of the people of that time, no matter how much we know about history.
When you say "in the end there is only one truth," this really reminds me of those members of evangelical faiths who believe their beliefs are "true" and all others "false." I'll agree that the creator of the cards had *something* in mind, but I disagree a) that this "something" can be discerned by us in this time, and b) that Tarot is only valuable if we look at it from the point of view of the creator (assuming we could know what that is). I believe firmly (and this is one of the few things I do believe firmly) that the Tarot is something different for each of us. There are broad interpretive factors which many can hold in common, but in the end no one person's Tarot will be the same as another's. I think this is one of the great things about the Tarot, that it can help us find ourselves, and in the process adapt itself to one's personality so that it becomes a better tool to do so.
I like very much jmd's statement about the Fool being God. Specifically, it reminds me of something I read in an Alan Watts book, in which he gave a myth which went something like this:
God is Everything and is Omnipotent. However, in the vast stretches of eternity, it becomes boring to have all power and to know everything. Therefore, in order to bring some adventure into His life, He manifests himself as beings (you and me and every other living creature) with no memory of His actual identity. Thus He lives, as you, as me, has adventures, has joys and sorrows, but with no knowledge of His Godhood (otherwise, there would be no adventure or suspense). When you or I die, we remember our true identities and awaken as God.
It seems to me that the Marseilles Fool is a perfect pictorial representation of this idea, God who goes to sleep and wakes up as the lowest of humanity, a tramp or beggar, whose purpose it is to start on his journey and see what he will see.
At least that's how I see things. I'm always anxious to learn more about how you see things Diana, because it's great food for thought! Thank you for coming back to this thread.
-- Lee
Diana: Thank you for your thoughtful responses to all of us :D I enjoyed reading them all!
I shall continue what I started as soon as I get my thoughts organised.
Lee: I read your post with great interest. I like the reference to Alan Watts' writings, some of which I read too long ago to recall in any detail. The myth you mention sort of expresses part of a view I have of our incarnations.
We are as fragments of the Source. Once we were part of the I Am, created for companionship. Endowed with free will, we chose to "split" with the Godhead & ventured out to experiment & to experience. We became so encased in matter that we became as lost, unable to return "home". The vehicle of earthly lives was conceived as a means to not merely perfect our knowledge, but to remember who & what we are--spiritual beings with a place other than the earthly life. Each lifetime is another step along the journey home. Thus, we are as godlings in the making. Also, together we comprise the Consciousness That Is. Hence, the references to the Collective Unconscious is more apt than most may realize.
I hope I have not digressed too much from the topic--
Cerulean
19-12-2002, 15:46
http://www.rcpe.ac.uk/library/ripley/ripley1.html
Page through the five buttons. The illustrations are very nice.
I came across it researching Siena Cathedrel and alchemy images. This is just alchemy images in an old scroll but may help the pictorially minded among you.
During alchemey's heyday in Europe (14th - 17th century), many would-be adepts were reduced to rags and starvation in the quest for gold. As the rational 18th century approached mystics in general, and alchemists in particurlar became the butts of jokes and ridicule. If there is a connection between the tarot Fool and alchemy, this seems the most obvious, to me anyway.
ff
SunChariot
20-11-2005, 01:00
Did you ever bring Tarot and Alchemy in connection? As I am into alchemy at the moment I was struck by the fact how many things in alchemy can be found in the Major Arcana.
I think there is a very strong connection there. In fact as few decks have an Alchemy card in the Major Arcana. My first, the Haindl was one of them.
If Alchemy is turning lead into gold, to me that is very much what Tarot is in my life. It is a tool for self improvement, and personal/spiritual growth. In effect I am taking the raw ore of what I am currently and turning myself more and more into "gold". :-)
I really do see a connection for me.
Bar
I'm suprised to see how everybody think that alchemy is all about turning lead to gold. the whole of alchemy revolved aruond one poinient fact, "If humanity is to ever gain any thing, something must first be lost." this is alcemy's first law of equivelent exchange. yes alchemiest did try to turn lead to gold, but this was only a small part of the quest for the pholisipher's stone, which was said to turn lead to gold & produce the life giving elixer of life.
SunChariot
20-11-2005, 15:48
"If humanity is to ever gain any thing, something must first be lost." this is alcemy's first law of equivelent exchange.
This is fascinating actually, and it still could apply to my vision of what Tarot is. Tarot is still first and foremost for me a tool for self-improvement. And to improve your way of being you need to let go of whatever faulty perceptions you are holding onto that are getting in your way. To change you must let go of something so you can embrace something new, I would say.
Bar
This is all very interesting but a couple of things must be considered. First of all, the "first matter" wasn't lead. No one is really sure what it was. Finding the right first matter was the primary concern for the alchemist, and many different things were tried. Everything else depended on finding the right first matter. Once selected, it was used create the Philosopher's Stone, which in turn was added to lead to transform it into gold. So if the Fool is going to be considered as a metaphor for an alchemical process, he would be the first matter, not lead.
Secondly, the processes for the creating the Stone don't fall neatly into 22 stages.
I can see how the 22 tarot trumps might be viewed as a sort of pilgrim's progress, or Fool's journey, from a fallen state (folly, first matter) to redemption (wisdom, the Stone) in which the Fool is the first matter and the World is the Stone. In many of the Marseille decks the woman on the World card holds in her right hand a small object. This object bugged me for the longest time, then I saw a picture of it in a book; it's an alchemists flask, quite possibly used for carrying the Elixir or the Stone!
ff