Deva Tarot / "Non-Standard" Tarots

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 17 Jun 2002, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Jeannette	17 Jun 2002
Greetings! I've taken the liberty of starting a new thread on the topic of "non-standard" tarots. This thread is an extension of the thread, now listed under the "Non-Tarot > Divination" forum heading, entitled Three-suit minor arcana. In replying to the original poster's question about the possible existence of a three-suit "tarot," mention was made of a five-suit "tarot," which is Piatnik's "Deva Tarot." In response to an offer I made in that thread to post samples of the Deva, I've added the deck, along with six sample scans, to the Tarot Garden database here: http://www.tarotgarden.com/database/dbsearchengine.php?view_title=deva+tarot And subsequently posted scans of nine additional cards, as per one forum member's request, here: http://www.tarotgarden.com/special/devacards2.gif In the midst of this discussion, the quite-valid point was raised: does a deck such as the Deva truly merit classification as a "tarot"? Or, because of the inclusion of an additional suit (and one additional major arcana card), does the Deva no longer fit the profile of a "true" tarot closely enough for its classification as such to be considered accurate? In order to assess the question for yourself, here's some details on the structure of the Deva tarot, for those who may not already be familiar with this deck: - The Major Arcana cards of the Deva follow a "standard" numbering sequence (with Justice as VIII and Strength as XI), although two of the card titles have been altered: the Hierophant, as "The Antar," and the Hermit as "The Searcher." - One additional card has been added to the Major Arcana. Numbered as XXII, it is entitled "The Separator." (Note: the Fool card is numbered 0, and is placed in the sequence before the Magician.) - Of the five suits, four follow standard naming conventions and common elemental attribution alignment: Wands/Fire, Cups/Water, Swords/Air, and Discs/Earth. Each suit consists of ten numbered "pip" cards, and four Court cards. - The fifth suit is entitled "Triax," and is, according to the LWB, intended to represent Ether or the Spirit. - A great deal of the symbolism is quite obviously patterned after Crowley's Thoth tarot. Beginning with the adoption of Crowley's Strength/Justice sequence, the designers go on to base a large number of their minor arcana cards directly on Crowley & Harris' designs. - The Court cards follow Crowley's titles, but reverse the order of the masculine and feminine cards "at the top." The Deva deck Court titles and sequence is as follows: Princess, Prince, Knight, Queen. So -- where does this deck fall on the "tarot continuum"? (If there can even be said to be such a thing.) Is it "tarot enough" because it includes all the "standard" cards, and merely expands on them? Is the reliance on Crowley's model further proof that this deck is "undeniably" a tarot? Or is the inclusion of the additional cards (and perhaps the reversal of the Queen/Knight sequence and/or the alteration of two of the Major Arcana card titles) enough of a variation to land the Deva outside the realm of a "true tarot"? Has it crossed the line, and thus entered the realm of a non-tarot, or a "beyond tarot"? Perhaps a more concise statement of the question-at-hand would be: where does one draw the line between tarot and non-tarot? Like anyone, I have my own opinion on this, which I roughly stated in the aforementioned "Three-suit" thread. But my statement was just that -- an opinion, and was not based on any sort of belief that I have an ultimate answer to this question. At this point, I'm more interested in what other opinions people might care to share. Perhaps this thread has already come up many times before, but having been able to visit the Aeclectic forum only sporadically over the past eight months, I would have missed it. If this discussion has come-and-gone one or more times in the past, I'd be perfectly happy if someone directed me to that (those) thread(s), and I could bring myself up-to-date on the various board member views by reviewing those posts. So, 'nuff said... :D -- Jeannette http://www.tarotgarden.com

MeeWah	17 Jun 2002
Jeanette: Your post is most welcome, & thank you for the concise information & the links! I tend to see this deck as a Tarot deck because it incorporates the features of such despite its additional suit & Major Arcana. I have had this deck for a few years. I was drawn to it because of the 5 suits & its artwork is interesting. I have tried to use it for my daily cards. This requires an adjustment in thinking/approach because of the additional cards. I mentioned The Deva Tarot in passing a long time ago on a thread about decks, but I do not recall any comments resulting on it. I am fairly sure the thread it was on is amongst those that were lost when the forums crashed a while back.

Jeannette	17 Jun 2002
MeeWah: That's interesting. I've chatted with a few folks who have the Deva, but you're the first person I've heard say that they actually actively use it. It's more interesting still to read that you're working with the expanded structure. My personal approach would simply be to pitch the extra cards for reading purposes, and use the rest. But then again, readings -- even personal ones -- are not exactly my "strong suit" (no pun intended) in tarot, so I'm hardly one to be clever, creative, or "brave" in this regard. Yet I'd be the first to acknowledge that it's possible to have a need for an "evolved" tarot (which is apparently how the creators of the Deva view their deck) that offers something beyond the current, common structural bounds. The Rider-Waite deck seems to have pretty much set the "standard" in tarot for the twentieth century. It would be interesting to see if a new tarot is developed that truly expands our concepts of what tarot is, and subsequently set a "new standard" for the twenty-first... -- Jeannette http://www.tarotgarden.com

MeeWah	17 Jun 2002
Jeanette: At first, I considered using the deck without the additional cards since the deck does contain the usual Tarot structure. In view of what its creators intended, I did not feel comfortable doing it so I gamely went on with it. Also, I was curious as to the results--which have been thought-provoking. I have not worked extensively with the deck, but what experience I have had with it seems to indicate the "fifth element" acts as a wholly spiritual aspect. There is the sense of an omniscent view or that of a Higher Self; however, I have received similar impressions from the Majors of "regular" Tarot decks. In the traditional-type deck, Wands is usually seen as pertaining to the spiritual as well as to creativity that is inspired by the divine. The suit of Triax encourages, even demands a more "wholistic" approach. I can see where its cards could be approached as being the voice of a guidance beyond one's self, such as that of God/dess or a guide. I do not know what impact such a deck could have on the world of Tarot, but it does offer a different view. In recent years, I heard the trend is for individuals to be their own psychic rather than relying on someone else. This could be representative of such a movement; or part of the continuing expansion of consciousness mankind is supposed to be heading towards.

Kiama	19 Jun 2002
I feel that nearly all decks that call themselves Tarot can be classed as Tarot... Inmy eyes they have taken the concept and setup of the orignal tarot deck, and changed it slightly to fit the creator's outlook, just in the same way that a creator might change some f thesymbolism in certain cads to fit their views of that particular card. Tarot is not set in stone, and is constantly changing and evolving to fit into the minds and hearts of those who use it. Thus, it needs obe flexible in its presentation, and be able to be oulded aroun other concepts. It is also worthwhile to remember that the'orignal' Tarot deck, and it orering of the Majors, its presentation of them, etc, was not the deck we mostly ue today... For example,the 'Steele Order; of Majors is entirey diffrent t the Marseilles type which most of us are familiar with... If we are to take the idea that any deck which changes the ordering or setout of deck is not truly Tarot then we coldgo so far as to say that the modern one we use today is also not a 'true Tarot deck... So, that's just my two cents. Personally, I would rather have the 'non-tardtional; decks to study now that I have stduie the tarditional ones, cuz I want o know about all the different views and approaces to Tarot, and a non-traditional deck gives this. Kiama

Jeannette	19 Jun 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Kiama I feel that nearly all decks that call themselves Tarot can be classed as Tarot... Inmy eyes they have taken the concept and setup of the orignal tarot deck, and changed it slightly to fit the creator's outlook, just in the same way that a creator might change some f thesymbolism in certain cads to fit their views of that particular card. Tarot is not set in stone, and is constantly changing and evolving to fit into the minds and hearts of those who use it. Thus, it needs obe flexible in its presentation, and be able to be oulded aroun other concepts. Kiama: Although there are definitely some decks wearing the "tarot" appellation that clearly have no connection to tarot at all, historical or otherwise, I would agree with your general comments. As mankind evolves, it should be only natural that tarot would evolve, too. But therein lies the double-edged sword: if we accept that tarot must evolve, must we also accept any variation that presents itself to us? Of course, the answer is "no," but it is up to us to carefully weigh each deck offered and assess whether the new insights that it purports to offer are valid, or whether an inexperienced designer's ego has injected too much into the cards that could lead us astray... I do not mean to discourage the creation of new tarots, only to acknowledge that in reality, we must always remember: caveat emptor. -- Jeannette http://www.tarotgarden.com

Kaz	19 Jun 2002
jeanette, thanks for the pictures :-) i like this deck, it might be a weird thing with 5 suits, but it looks attractive and interesting. as such, i think it qualifies as a tarotdeck, just a bit different, as everything is there what a tarot deck normally has, just some extra. i usually take the extra cards out of a deck, master in osho etc, but a whole suit and an extra major is to much to take out, might corrupt the idea and structure of this deck. kaz

Liliana	19 Jun 2002
I most defniately would call this tarot my husand considered doing a 5 suit deck once, his fifth suit was technomancy. Never did do it tho. One deck that calls it self Tarot tha ti dont consider to be tarot is the Master Tarot..It has the right number of cards, but its majors are totally changed and it has no suits (cards numered 1-40). :THP

Jeannette	19 Jun 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Liliana ...One deck that calls it self Tarot tha ti dont consider to be tarot is the Master Tarot..It has the right number of cards, but its majors are totally changed and it has no suits (cards numered 1-40) Liliana: Good example. I would most definitely agree that while lovely (and with artwork by Folchi, how could it not be?), the connection of the "Master Tarot" to any actual established tarot structure is extremeley tenuous, at best. -- Jeannette http://www.tarotgarden.com

jmd	20 Jun 2002
Very useful thread of discussion indeed! As I moved the thread mentioned from Tarot Decks to Divination, let me briefly point that it was because of the original question in the thread, which queried a searched-for deck with three suits, not the Deva deck (maybe I should have split the thread into two discussions before moving it!). The Deva, like various Minchiate decks of earlier centuries, is certainly related to the Tarot. As a deck which is based on the Tarot, it nonetheless deviates from it by as much as a whole suit. Is this, then, still Tarot? In my opinion, any such creation is a wonderful (or otherwise) deck, and one which emerges from considerations of the Tarot, but yet not be such. I suppose that, with the Deva deck at least, its internal beauty will be sufficient merit for its acquisition, and in readings, one may, after all, not limit oneself to the cards of a Tarot deck.

Jeannette	20 Jun 2002
Quote: Originally posted by jmd ...As I moved the thread mentioned from Tarot Decks to Divination, let me briefly point that it was because of the original question in the thread, which queried a searched-for deck with three suits, not the Deva deck (maybe I should have split the thread into two discussions before moving it!). jmd: I think that your reason for the move was quite clear and quite valid. Although I didn't know it was even possible for you to "split a thread in two," I don't think it was required; the discussion evolved in a productive way, IMHO. As the discussion "forked" into the three-suit/five-suit comments, I took the liberty (I hope you don't mind) of essentially "splitting" it myself by starting this thread, since the originator of the three-suit thread did eventually state a primary interest in the examination of a three-suit cartomantic system. Quote: The Deva, like various Minchiate decks of earlier centuries, is certainly related to the Tarot. As a deck which is based on the Tarot, it nonetheless deviates from it by as much as a whole suit. Is this, then, still Tarot? In my opinion, any such creation is a wonderful (or otherwise) deck, and one which emerges from considerations of the Tarot, but yet not be such. I think the question boils down to this: what is the "structural essence" of tarot? Even if I'm right, the question is still too open-ended to ever come to a definitive conclusion. While I'm personally inclined to disagree with your assessment that the Deva deck is only closely related to tarot, and not actually a tarot in-and-of-itself, I realize that there may be one or both of two reasons at the root of my disagreement: 1) My personal definition of what constitutes the "structural essence" of a tarot is broader than yours (which doesn't make me "right," of course -- it simply explains why we differ), and/or 2) It's simply a matter of semantics, since I clearly agree that the Deva Tarot is not a tarot in the "standard sense." At this point, as much as I'm inclined to continue by providing my personal definition of what forms the "structural essence" of a tarot, I realize that this post will probably go on far too long if I were to make more specific arguments as to why I see a deck like the Deva Tarot as being tarot, and a deck like the Master Tarot as "falling below the threshold" of the "structural essence test." Suffice it to say that in this case, I do not see the addition of more cards as being, in-and-of-itself, a reason to refer to the Deva as a "non-tarot," given that 99 - 100% of the essential tarot structural elements are there. Furthermore, I feel that there is precedent for a deck to include variations from the "standard" (whatever that may be -- R/W, perhaps?) while still being widely accepted as a "tarot." All of which, of course, is still just IMHO. And, quite frankly, it is in fact the differences of opinion on issues such as this that continue to fuel my never-ending fascination with the many facets of tarot. -- Jeannette http://www.tarotgarden.com

Ravenswing	20 Jun 2002
hi all-- i think a basic question to ask here is whether tarot is a 'set-in-stone' system or if it will evove as we do. i can imagine this question being asked in some ancient, dimly lit chamber with a gathering of mages. "if we add the so-called 'court cards' to the tarot, is it still tarot?" or perhaps "can we exchange the positions of fortitude and justice, and still have the fool's journey?" or perhaps "this new glyph-- zero i believe they call it. can we justify using it for the buffon? there are a few of you who believe that it comes before one." or perhaps... you get the idea. i consider the framework for tarot as a set of three distinct sub-sets: the first, an exploration of elementary forces through numerology. (external) the second, an exploration of the various personae of elementary forces. (internal) the third, a series with a definite order, portraying the development of the 'soul' (both internal and external) note: from this definition, a three suited tarot would have only 12 court cards, and a five suited deck 25. an example of an 'alternative' tarot deck is described in piers anthony's tarot trilogy. his deck has 100 cards. i can't go any further into this, cause i lent the books out to someone who moved cross the country with them :( LVX (evolution's liquid form) steve

Liliana	20 Jun 2002
I read those Piers Anthony books,I wish someone would draw and publish the deck it sounded interesting :) :THP

jmd	20 Jun 2002
I'll have to add to this post later, and I agree with Jeanette that differences of opinions and understandings certainly only adds to the beauty and interest in this wonderful area. In a nutshell, I'll comment through an analogy. A (horse drawn) cart needs certain characteristics for it to be a cart. The (automobile) car also clearly developed from the former. There are probably, also, very early models which shared many features, but through adding certain other aspects (in this case an internal engine), it retained all earlier parts, and yet became something other. For me, the Deva deck, or any deck which 'contains' the Tarot, but adds to it, then itself becomes something else. Carts, of course, still exist, in addition to cars!

Kiama	20 Jun 2002
Excellent analogy JMD, but I have a question: When does the cart become the car? How do we decide this? Kiama

Jeannette	20 Jun 2002
Quote: Originally posted by stevepolsz ... i consider the framework for tarot as a set of three distinct sub-sets: the first, an exploration of elementary forces through numerology. (external) the second, an exploration of the various personae of elementary forces. (internal) the third, a series with a definite order, portraying the development of the 'soul' (both internal and external)... Well, Steve... I see that your view of the essence of tarot is even broader than mine -- LOL! Once again, I seem to find myself in the philosophical middleground. (Typical Qabalist I, eh? Always looking for that "balance.") However, I find your definition very well-thought-out and intriguing. The three aspects you've cited are certainly characteristic of how we've come to view tarot, when seen as a tool for understanding metaphysical concepts and achieving personal and spiritual growth. So, then -- how would you "classify" a deck like Montana and Folchi's "Master Tarot?" Tarot, or not? (I have my own guess, based on my interpretation of your comments, but I'm interested in hearing what you have to say.) -- Jeannette http://www.tarotgarden.com

Jeannette	20 Jun 2002
Quote: Originally posted by jmd ...In a nutshell, I'll comment through an analogy. A (horse drawn) cart needs certain characteristics for it to be a cart. The (automobile) car also clearly developed from the former. There are probably, also, very early models which shared many features, but through adding certain other aspects (in this case an internal engine), it retained all earlier parts, and yet became something other... AHA! Excellent analogy, jmd... ...And therein lies the root of our differences in opinion, I think (if I'm understanding your comments correctly): You see the process of classifying something as a "tarot" as defining the "cart"... ...I see the process of classifying something as a "tarot" as defining "ground transportation". (Taken further, I might propose that Steve's view is to define "tarot" as "transportation in general.") In brief, for my purposes, a car is close enough to being a cart when it comes to getting from "point A" to "point B." Likewise, the Deva Tarot is close enough to a "standard" tarot (in this particular case, Crowley's "Thoth" deck) to get me where I need to go in my readings and studies. In contrast, hand me a deck like the "Master Tarot," and with my tarot-centric view of cartomancy and metaphysics, I'd have a great deal of difficulty getting anywhere at all! But -- whether or not my position can be considered valid, Kiama's question remains as an excellent challenge to all of us: how do we decide when the cart becomes the car? -- Jeannette http://www.tarotgarden.com

Ravenswing	20 Jun 2002
great food for thought here. jmd, i agree with you that the addition of non-existing parts to the cart may create a new animal-- related but not quite in the same class as your cart. as in your example of an engine. so too, if you add additional part to tarot you have something other than tarot. but consider, if you pull the cart with two horses instead of one, it is still a cart? this would depend on how you defined the specifics of the cart. if the cart is defined as being pulled by one horse, then you don't have a cart. but then there's a hazy mid-ground dealing with non-specifically defined parts. if you add bearings to your wheels, do you wind up with something that is not a cart? in my opinion, this would still be a cart-- 'improved', but still a cart. in this particular instance, you have modified a part of the cart. i do not see the modification of a part to be the same as the addition of a previously non-existing member of the set. both the part and the cart itself retain their identity. different than what you began with, but the wheel is still a wheel and the cart is still a cart. likewise, i feel if you modify a sub-set, as i have defined, of the tarot, you still have tarot. adding a suit, so long as it follows the pattern of the other pre-existing suits, leaves you with tarot. adding (or subtracting, for that matter-- or even re-titling) a card from the major arcana leaves you with tarot, so long as you are left with a hero's (or fool's, if you prefer) journey. this is my problem with the osho zen tarot; i don't see the additional card entitled 'The Master' as fitting into a fool's journey. this may just possibly be my own mis-sight. so, you can see, i would define the deva deck as tarot (and i am anxiously awaiting its arrival from germany so i can first-hand play with it :) ) my perception of its modifications don't fit the example of adding a motor... all just a matter of point of view... jeanette: i'm not familiar with the Master Tarot. could you point me to a description of structure and content? thanks. LVX steve

Liliana	20 Jun 2002
The Master Tarot is based on the life of Jesus The Majors: Comet, Son of Man, Angel, Mother, Father, Temple, Prophet, Magdalen, Temptation, Disciples, Miracle, Forgiving, Whip, Supper, Love One Another, Kiss, Scream, Here and Now, Celebration, Spirit, Apocalypse, Galaxy Suit Names: no separate suits Court Cards: 16 people cards High Priest, Seer, Man of Power, Wife, Moralist, Housekeeper, Chief Disciple, Lady of Alms, Beloved, Devotee, Twice Born, Lady of Ointment, Barabbas, Lady of Sin, Neighbor, Lady of the Well As you can see, definately no fools journey with the majors unless you think VERY abstractly the minors are 1-40 and all are quotes from Jesus The people cards are sort of like courts as they are masculine/feminine pairs (listed male/female above) but there is no younger pair or older pair, nor is there suits since this deck has none As an eclectic Christian ilike having this deck (the quotes are taken from more sources than the Bible,its interesting) but its not tarot :THP

Jeannette	20 Jun 2002
Quote: Originally posted by stevepolsz ...jeanette: i'm not familiar with the Master Tarot. could you point me to a description of structure and content? Steve: First, you can see a half-dozen representative samples from the "Master Tarot" on the Tarot Garden website, here: http://www.tarotgarden.com/database/dbsearchengine.php?view_title=master+tarot Liliana has distilled down the structure of the "Master" deck in her post. You'll see that there are a total of 78 cards, with divisions that can be equated to the Majors, Minor pips, and Minor Courts. But, as Liliana says, there are no suit divisions; the "Minor Cards" are numbered sequentially, 1 - 40. The correspondence of the 22 "Major Cards" to the more common "Major Arcana" structure would probably be a matter of some debate. Some cards seem to match up quite well -- for example, III = "The Mother," IV = "The Father," and XV = "The Kiss" (as in Judas' betrayal). For others, the connection would be more tenuous: VII = "Magdelena," X = "The Miracle," XVIII = "Celebration." There may be a "journey" here, but I'd argue that it's not the Fool's Journey as most of us have come to know it... -- Jeannette http://www.tarotgarden.com

Liliana	20 Jun 2002
Everyone knows Magdalena belongs as II hehe :THP

Ravenswing	20 Jun 2002
i guess i'd really have to play with the deck to see if i would consider this tarot. if the majors follow the life of christ, i would lean towards considering it a fool's journey. i don't know that i could make avalid one-to-one directly translatable corrospondence, but it wouldn't be the first time that's happened... the divisions of this deck are numerically equivalent to the tarot. and the number of cards are the same Sometimes it seems that this is sufficient to call a deck tarot-- it takes a bit more than this to me. i guess the major question here is whether the courts and the minors can be divided into 4 groupings. even though they may not be explicitly divided. from what i've seen so far, i would probably not consider this a tarot; i'd call it a tarotic. LOL steve

Liliana	21 Jun 2002
I looked through the LWB and in general the majors do follow the life of Christ, so I guess there is a Fools journey but the minors cannot be divided into any groupings, and the courts make 8 pairs that really dont group together themselves. Thats why I dont consider it tarot :THP

jmd	21 Jun 2002
So many wonderful thoughts for reflection! Thank you. Going back to my analogy of the Cart and the Car, it has, as an analogy, many limitations, but let me expand it only a little in order to comment on some of the responses. Firstly, a Carriage and Car would have been a better analogy - but this still has as many limitations. With regards to how you 'define' the carriage (drawn by one horse vs drawn by two horses), this is precisely where definitions may be counter-productive, but characterisations assist in the understanding (Steiner and Wittgenstein would surely have agreed here!). To be sure, if someone added another horse to what had until then only been drawn by one, this would not affect the essential characteristics of a carriage. Part of what characterises a carriage is very much that it is used to transport people from one place to the next. According to this picture, cars are also the same. Yet we know that the two, though historically related, are different kettles of fish (NB this is a colloquial expression just meaning that they are different things). It is this knowledge which makes us reflect on what characterises the difference(s) between a carriage and a car: one of these is that, whilst the former is drawn, the latter is self-propelled - whether by spring mechanisms, fuel engines or water turbines doesn't seem to matter! If the above case is accepted, a carriage is not a car, nor is it just something which can get you from one place to the next (a horse, elephant, aeroplane or motorcycle can all do this, yet each is essentially different). The beauty of the 'transport' analogy is that Tarot, too, transports one. So does the I Ching, and the Runes, and a 'standard' pack of cards - if used for that intent (after all, an aeroplane, in a hangar, doesn't get you anywhere either!). The problem remains, then, as to how one is to characterise Tarot. To some extent, this question is also related to the one posed recently by AmounrA: How Does Tarot Work (Here is a summary of the posts until the date I made it). I personally find it helpful to consider what essential characteristics the Being of Tarot may have. Though it may have relatives - some distant and some not, some more friendly than others, some sublimely beautiful and others having features which add to their character - they remain relatives. This doesn't prevent Tarot, incidentally, from having multiple incarnations, each of which may have some peculiarities: a crooked nose (placing a Zero on the Fool); a disjointed elbow (interchanging XI with VIII); &c. Considering Tarot's essential characteristics does, in my opinion, indicate that it has: 22 'Specific' Major Arcana cards; 40 pips divided into four suits; 16 courts also divided into those four suits. Am I restricting the Being of Tarot by these 'limitations'? Personally, I do not think so. Rather, I see this as mentioning some of the essential traits of TAROT. Others may, of course, disagree.

Ravenswing	22 Jun 2002
hi all-- it seems to me then that the difference between my definition and jmd's definition of tarot is basically a question of number. in fact, jmd's definition may be said to be a particular case of my definition. it is as if jmd has a one and only horse cart, while i don't care how many horses pull the cart (as long as horses pull the cart). there is one thing we all agree upon: tarot is made from three distinctly defined inter-related sets. we all just definite the sets a bit diferently. thinking of three: if we consider the triangle, it is the only stable geometric figure. the three segments that create a triangle, make one, and only one, triangle. it is unique. unique and stable-- it does sound like tarot, does it not? LVX steve

jmd	22 Jun 2002
I'm not sure I agree with Steve's post above, although I agree with much that he says. In my chariot analogy, the number of horses is quite irrelevant. For that matter, these may even be replaced by a locomotive, persons, or geese. The analogy of the triangle is, of course, more relevant. In this, one may characterise a triangle as a closed three sided figure. If one adds another side, the essence of the triangle is lost, and a quadrilateral is formed. Here was my point succintly imaged.

Ravenswing	22 Jun 2002
and a quadrilateral can be squshed out of shape :D LVX steve

Ravenswing	22 Jun 2002
i guess i should be more concrete here. jmd-- you have tarot as: 22 'specific' major arcana cards 40 pips divided into 4 suits 16 court cards divided into the same suits when you call the major arcana cards 'specific' i am interpretating that as meaning a definite order creating a journey of the soul. jmd, if i'm wrong, please correct me. my definition of tarot follows jmd's pattern the difference is that my numeration is indeterminant rather then definite. my tarot: x 'specific' major arcana cards y pips divided into z suits 4 * z court cards related to each of the z suits so i see jmd's definition of tarot as a particular case of mine, where x = 22, y = 10, z = 4. (of course, there are limits as to how large x, y and z could be and still be handlable. also x, y, and z would never be less than one.) LVX steve

catboxer	22 Jun 2002
The word that nobody has used in this discussion is "tradition." How far can a purported example of any given form (such as tarot) depart from the traditional composition of the form and still be considered an example of it? For instance, if somebody were to re-write the New Testament in the style of Raymond Chandler, would the result be considered a "real" New Testament? It would read something like: "The first time he laid eyes on Mary Magdalene, Naz copied that she was a dame who had seen too much and forgotten nothing." Some people might consider such a product a legitimate variation of a "real" New Testament, but I wouldn't. It would be too radical a departure from the traditional definition of the form. In the same manner, I have to agree with jmd's enumeration of the elements of which a "real" tarot consists. A departure from that traditional pattern might result in the production of something valuable, innovative, and useful, but tarot it ain't. In the early days of tarot there was a great deal of experimentation with the form. The Mantegna deck, the Florentine Minchiate, and the Sola Busca pack were all non-tarot variations on the tarot theme. I suppose they might be called semi-tarots. Even the first pack that we can point to and say for sure, "Yeah, that's a tarot," may not have been strictly speaking, since the Cary-Yale deck seems to have been an experimental prototype, some of whose elements were later dropped as the definition of what a tarot consists of became more firmly established. We still don't know for sure exactly how many cards were in the Cary-Yale. It contained, for instance, cards representing the theological virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity, as well as six court cards in each suit, making it (probably) an 86-card deck. The appearance of the Visconti-Sforza deck marked the first step in establishing the sequence, structure, and iconography that would evolve into the tradition we're all familiar with, although trump sequences and representations in Italy still were subject to some experimentation and variation throughout the late 15th and early 16th centuries. The tradition was really firmly cemented by 300 years of Marseilles decks, starting in about 1550, which not only codified the constituent parts of a tarot, thus defining it, but also added printed numbers and titles to the trumps. This is the tradition I rely on to define tarot, and my conservative tendencies usually take me in the direction of regarding anything that departs from the traditional format as tarot-like, but at bottom, un-tarot. Having said all that, I have to admit that my own deck, which I call a tarot, does not fit jmd's definition (or my own for that matter), since it contains only 74 cards (no knights) and uses French rather that Italian suit signs. So go figure. (catboxer)

Ravenswing	22 Jun 2002
hey catboxer-- when's the rest of the translation coming out. that beginning was great :D. as you might have figured by now, i tend toward mathematical/logical modeling. and i see the world full of 'fill in the blanks' models. our axioms are just different. that's how the modern variations of geometry have arisen. change an axiom, you change the system. you have traditional tarot. i have no problem with that as the definition-- and within that definition, most of what i would consider as a tarot just ain't. and i have no difficulty with that one; i'd hate a world of clones. it's my belief that you learn more from someone who dis-agrees with you if you have the sense to keep your mouth shut and your ears open than you ever learn from people who agree with you. our world always depends on our a priori assumptions. many times the problem is figuring them out. viva la difference LVX steve

Liliana	22 Jun 2002
Quote: Originally posted by stevepolsz my tarot: x 'specific' major arcana cards y pips divided into z suits 4 * z court cards related to each of the z suits so i see jmd's definition of tarot as a particular case of mine, where x = 22, y = 10, z = 4. (of course, there are limits as to how large x, y and z could be and still be handlable. also x, y, and z would never be less than one.) LVX steve Does this mean thaty ou do not consider the Parrott Tarot,who has 5 courts per suit instead of 4, not a Tarot? THE :THP

Ravenswing	22 Jun 2002
liliana-- how do you get those quote thingies?? :confused: as to the parrott tarot; if there's five courts per suit, and only four suits, it doesn't fit my definition of tarot. i see suits as 'elemental' aspects (at the moment, due to this thought-provoking thread and today's arrival of the Blake tarot, i'm re-thinking how it is that i define 'elemental') and the courts as elemental 'cross-references'. let's take an example of three suits: mud, stone and sticks. there would be three sets of three 'courts'. the mud court would be: mud of mud, stone of mud and sticks of mud. the stone court would be: mud of stone, stone of stone and sticks of stone. the sticks court would be: mud of sticks, stone of sticks and sticks of sticks. it doesn't matter what you title them, as long as this is their representation-- just as the king of swords is fire of air. LVX steve

Liliana	22 Jun 2002
Ah i see,youd chuck the extra cards to make it tarot :) To get a quote,right below the post you want to quote there is a quote button, click it,but make sure you delete unecessary parts of the quote to save space :) THE :THP

Ravenswing	22 Jun 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Liliana Ah i see,youd chuck the extra cards to make it tarot :) THE :THP thanks liliana. i don't find chucking out the extra cards permissable. i would have no qualms using the deck as is, even if i don't consider it a tarot deck (i guess i might term it 'taroic'; sounds like a neat term :) ) the creator/artist had a particular vision when s/he created the deck. if s/he calls it tarot, that hir belief. diagreeing with the definition does not validate 'mutilation'. kind of funny, i'll cut white boarders off some of my decks and see that as enhancement, but elimination of cards... i guess that destroys the artist's vision. values seem strange sometimes LVX steve

Jeannette	22 Jun 2002
This has been an absolutely fascinating thread for me. I'm really enjoying this opportunity to learn more about how different people approach the question "What makes tarot TAROT?" Steve appears to have summed up the nature of many of the posts-to-date, by noting that we each begin with a slightly different axiom about what tarot is. From different starting assumptions arise different conclusions. I suppose it should come as no surprise to any of us that there are some differences of opinion on the issue. However, it is still extremely entertaining and enlightening to read the specific views of the forum members, and to follow the arguments put forth as explanation for those views. Having said this, I'd be interested to hear more opinions from Aeclectic forum members about just how far a deck can deviate from the "standard" and still not violate your personal definition of "tarot." (For purposes of my question, I will assume it's safe to define the "standard" as the Marseilles and/or Rider-Waite decks.) Below, I've listed some decks that bear the title "Tarot," and yet each clearly deviates from the aforementioned "standard" in some way. For those who've adopted what I'll call the "traditionalist" view -- that is to say, that you can't deviate from the Marseilles/R-W structure and still have a "real tarot" -- the answer will be clear: none of the decks I'll mention here will meet this criteria. For others, such as myself, who believe that there is room for a certain amount of variation without violating the "heart" of tarot, I expect some of these decks will qualify, and others won't. There are many, many more that could be added to this list, but I've tried to select a representative sample. In the end, whatever your views, I hope the exercise will prove interesting. -- Jeannette http://www.tarotgarden.com DECK: Deva Tarot http://www.tarotgarden.com/database/dbsearchengine.php?view_title=deva+tarot STRUCTURE: As Crowley's "Thoth" tarot, but with the Queen/Knight order reversed, one extra Major, and one entire extra suit. 93 cards total. DECK: Master Tarot http://www.tarotgarden.com/database/dbsearchengine.php?view_title=master+tarot STRUCTURE: 22 "Major cards," with debatable correspondence to the "standard" majors; 40 "Minor cards," sequentially numbered with no suit divisions; 16 "People" cards, with no suit divisions. 78 cards total. DECK: Aura Soma Tarot http://www.tarotgarden.com/database/dbsearchengine.php?view_title=aura+soma STRUCTURE: "Standard" 78 cards, plus one additional variant each for Majors 0 - 19 (or for all Majors 0 - 22 in a later edition). The front side of each card is the "tarot" side; the back of each card shows the aromatherapy association for each (meaning there's officially no "back design" on these cards). 98 or 100 cards total, depending on edition. DECK: Tarot in the Restored Order http://www.tarotgarden.com/database/dbsearchengine.php?view_title=restored+order STRUCTURE: "Corrected" version of the R-W deck (according to the creator); the cards are "restored" to their original order. The Minors do not appear to deviate from the R-W structure, but the Majors, while all present, have been substantially (33%) resequenced. Two additional, unnumbered cards are also included, representing the masculine/positive and feminine/negative principles. 80 cards total. DECK: Medicine Woman Tarot http://www.tarotgarden.com/database/dbsearchengine.php?view_title=medicine STRUCTURE: This is only one of any number of tarots that fall into this category: "the words are different, but the tune's the same." Standard 78 cards, with 22 Majors, and 40 "pip" cards and 16 "Court" cards in four suits. However, the titles deviate substantially from the "norm." Each major has received an original title (although the corresponding "standard" title is noted on the card), and the suit names (Pipes, Bowls, Arrows, Stones) and Court card titles (Apprentice, Totem, Harvest Lodge, Exemplar) do not correspond to that of any "traditional" tarot system. 78 cards total. DECK: Minchiate Tarot (Williams) http://www.tarotgarden.com/database/dbsearchengine.php?view_title=minchiate+tarot STRUCTURE: Faithfully follows the historical "Minchiate" format of 40 pip cards and 16 court cards in 4 suits, and 41 "trump" (or Major Arcana) cards. 97 cards total. DECK: Kabbalah Tarot (Saito & Akutsu) http://www.tarotgarden.com/database/dbsearchengine.php?view_title=kabbalah+tarot&view_country=japan STRUCTURE: As the "Restored Order" tarot, but without the two extra cards, and with even more substantial resequencing (91%) of the Majors. 78 cards total. DECK: Infinite Tarot http://www.tarotgarden.com/database/dbsearchengine.php?view_title=infinite STRUCTURE: 40 cards, numbered 1 - 10, in four elemental suits. Four "Family" cards in each suit, but specific titles vary depending on the suit (for example, the "Family" titles for the "Sky" suit are Father, Daughter, Brother, and Spirit, whereas in the "Water" suit, the titles are Mother, Sister, Son, and Spirit). Five additional titled cards in each suit, consistently titled High Ace, King, Queen, Gift, and Joker. 76 cards total. DECK: Fantasy Showcase Tarot (Not in the Tarot Garden database yet; see pictures on Wicce's site at: http://www.wicce.com/fantasyshowpix.html ). STRUCTURE: Collaborative deck, structured as the 78 card "standard," but with one extra Court card in each suit (titled "Lady") and two extra Majors ("Separation" and "The Farrier"). According to the editor, the extra cards were added only because there were more artists involved in the project than there are cards in a "standard" tarot deck. 84 cards total.

Liliana	22 Jun 2002
Quote: Originally posted by stevepolsz i don't find chucking out the extra cards permissable. Ah, I hate it when publishers mess with artistic vision myself, so i dont blame you for not messing with the order. It annoys me to no end that they made him put pants on 3 Rohrig cards for the American version As for chopping them up they were likely created without borders so that brings back the artists vision. But,for me, some decks i may love exceptone card that is a newly made additional card,and then Id just have to get rid of it. The Master Card from Osho Zen is the prime example of this, as many do not agree with Oshos views,but find the Zen perspective of the rest of the deck refreshing. In that case it would be gone, and I feel Id have a good reason behind it THE :THP

Ravenswing	22 Jun 2002
A. When ever you think so :cool: jeanette-- great exercise. see how much we will stretch the limits of our definitions. first-- the deva tarot. i am anxiously awaiting the arrival of this deck from a german swap. i've been told it takes about 6 weeks-- it's getting REAL close. i have no problem with the extra suit. i can easily fit spirit in with the other elemental cards. having an extra major card is not a problem. whether or not it fits in with the 'story' is the deciding factor. i'll assume it does until i actually get my hands on the deck. order of the court cards is not an issue, the number is. my definition of tarot would require this deck to have 25 court cards. so by that, this fails the criteria. but then again... my gut feeling is that this is a tarot. i'm going to re-think out what it is that i consider court cards to be. i'll get back on this one again. second-- the Master Tarot this has the proper numbers in the right places, but isn't sub-grouped into suits. from what i have been told of this deck, the structure mimics tarot to an extent, but does not qualify. i'll say no until and unless actual contact with this deck tells me otherwise. third-- the aura soma deck. info on the back is of no consequence-- it could have just as well gone on the face and there have been a standerized back. many decks add info to the information; i've just gotten the tarot of ceremonial magic. i consider that one a tarot, and it has multiple images for each card. as to the additional majors... as a student of the kabalah, i feel that the path DOWN the tree of life is not the same as the path UP the tree. perhaps we can see the double majors as one to go up, and one to go down... if this is the case, i would consider this a very kabalistic tarot. (i hate when i find another one i'd love to play with... i wish there were a tarot loaning library or something of the sort-- i would even accept a virtual one) or, if these duplicates fit into the journey i'd say tarot. again, i'd have to really see them. fourth-- the restored order. this seems an interesting deck. all cards present and accounted for?? plus two more... i noticed permutations of 'rota' at the top of the pictured majors. the total number of permutations is: 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 24. inotherwords, the 'standard' major arcana plus two. are juno and jupiter numbered? or have a definite position in the major arcana? if they are marked with a permutation of 'rota', i would say that they are a part of the arcana. so i'll say yes for now. fifth-- medicine woman. my wife's got this one. a rose by any other name... sixth-- minchiate tarot. i couldn't be sure how to deal with the zodiac and elements; perhaps a new sub-set. i think i'd consider this a 'pre-tarot'-- a deck that could be honed down to form a traot deck. seventh-- kabbalah tarot i'd consider this a tarot. eighth-- infinite tarot no major arcana, so no tarot. but an interesting layout. (oh no, not another one :( ) ninth-- fantasy showcase love the diversity here, but, stricly speaking, too many courts. but, as i said earlier, i'm going to re-think my idea of courts... well, did i pass??? :D LVX steve

Ravenswing	23 Jun 2002
hi all-- i've done some thinking about my view of "to tarot or not...". well, i got the blake deck as a sort of birthday gift-- at least that when i got it. the deck's suits are painting, science, music and poetry. even though they are paterned after fire, air, water and earth, it slows me down to think 'painting... uh, wands sort of...". and after playing with this deck, i have to re-think my tarot definition. let's see..... tarot is a set of cards with two basic sub-sets. the first is termed the major arcana. it is an indeterminate number of cards, numbered in a 'natural' order, such that the series tells a 'story' of a successful internal development. the second (the minor arcana)has two parts: the first is a reflection of the mundane worlds broken up into a number of non-overlapping catagories (suits). these catagories are examined through application of number and each suit is numbered in the same manner. ie-- if one suit is numbered with primes between 1 and 23, then all suits are likewise numerated. the second is a set of persons (courts), one per suit. each court card's characteristics reflect some aspect of the suit. there are the same number of cards in each court, and similarly titled court deal with the same aspect. There. i think that'll do. the deva and the fantasy showcase fit into this defination of tarot. WHEW! Great thread guys. what's next?? LVX steve

Jeannette	24 Jun 2002
Quote: Originally posted by stevepolsz ...well, did i pass???... LOL! You know as well as any of us that there's no "passing" or "failing" on this one. ;) (Do you suppose people who collect, say, Beanie Babies ever have discussions like this?... "So, what makes it a Beanie Baby? Do the "clones" not made by the Ty company count? Is a Beanie Baby with a torn-off limb still a Beanie Baby? LOL!) }) Anyway, so far, I'm seeing three distinct approaches to the question of "what makes a tarot TAROT?" 1) jmd: Tarot has a "core" set of defining features, the specifics of which were described in an earlier post. Deviations from this "core" set can be useful or interesting, but the result is not tarot. 2) Steve: Tarot has as numerological/elemental basis, and has at its center the goal of describing the natural processes of the metaphysical world (or "portraying the development of the 'soul,'" to quote a previous post). Any deck that contains these characteristics as its basis, executed together in a consistent manner, may qualify as tarot. 3) David/catboxer: Tarot is a traditional concept, with a structure that has been established through numerous generations of agreement and consistent execution. Deviations from that established by historical precedent are potentially suspect for classification as a "true tarot." This approach starts from a somewhat different point than jmd's argument, but I would hazard a guess that both arguments lead to similar conclusions. (Gentleman -- feel free to correct me if I've misinterprested or misrepresented your views in my all-too-brief summary here.) At this point, I'd like to throw in a fourth possibility -- my own point-of-view. (Many thanks to all the posters, who have forced me to think through and clarify my own position on this question): 4) Jeannette: Despite having historical roots as a diversion/game, the most important part of tarot is that it has become a vehicle for understanding the world around us -- both its seen and unseen elements -- in a certain fashion. Any deck which is isomorphically similar enough to the established "standard" (and here, I see jmd and catboxer as defining the "standard," and not "tarot as a whole" as I see it) that it allows one to achieve this understanding without having to radically alter one's approach to the subject matter, potentially qualifies as being a "true tarot." In order to clarify my view, which I think differs enough from the others presented so far, I'll introduce a new metaphor: identifying "tarot" is like a forensic science. When a forensic scientist is presented with a DNA sample, and asked to determine whether or not the sample came from a particular subject, the scientist will compare it to another sample that is known to have come from that same subject. Rarely is there a 100% match between the samples, yet the scientist can frequently venture a confident opinion as to whether the samples came from the same subject, or whether they did not. This is generally done by examining the "closeness" of the match -- for example, a DNA sample that is 95% similar to that of a sample taken directly from the subject is typically considered to be close enough to the "standard" to merit a strong opinion that they are, in fact, both from the same subject. So, too, with tarot. If we can agree on the "standard" -- and I expect that part is not too difficult, since it appears that the Marseilles and/or R/W decks are generally accepted as "true tarots" by virtually everyone -- then we have the basis for comparison for any additional "samples" we are offered. Of course, therein lies both the beauty or the weakness of my approach, depending on your point-of-view. Even if one agrees in principle with my analogy, different people will have differing opinions as to how tenuous the "match" can be before we begin to doubt that we are dealing with the same thing. To return to the analogy: one jury may convict on the basis of evidence indicating a 70% match between a suspect and a DNA sample taken from the scene of a crime, while another jury might acquit in the face of such evidence, citing "reasonable doubt." And, to be honest, my own "threshold" for the level of isomorphism required in a deck in order for it to qualify as a tarot has evolved over time, and probably will continue to do so. But for the record, here's my own responses to the list I posted earlier. Ask me about these same decks in six months, however, and we may both find that some of my answers will have changed. Deva: Tarot. Master: Not quite tarot. Aura Soma: Tarot. Restored Order: Tarot. Medicine Woman: Definitely tarot. Minchiate: Borderline. But tarot. (Barely.) Kabbalah: Tarot. Infinite: Not tarot. Fantasy Showcase: Tarot. -- Jeannette http://www.tarotgarden.com

Kiama	24 Jun 2002
Hmmmm.... Deep thoughts on this. ANALGIES... Fine, yep, all good, but the can be used either ay. Catboxer's use of the New Testament, illustrated his point perfectly, but I could also say that women's clothing has changed drastically, in the same way Catboxer's New Testemtn did, but because they are two distintly differetn object, we havedfferen reactions to it, and thus our reactions t whether or not women's cloths are still women's clothes, are different to wether or not the New Testament written by that guy Catboxer mentioned is still the New Testament. Tradition is all fine and good, but where do we draw the line t tradition? And why can't we go against that tradition and change things slightly? Tradition is not tradition if it canot be changed insome way after all! Rebelling against some traditios has brugh about very good and positive changes to our world, and, dare I say it, I believe that sometimes it can happen in Tarot too. Traditionally, the Fool wasn't Zero. Traditionally the Tarot wasn't used for divination orspiritual journeys. Traditionally, it was ued only by very rich people. Traditionally, the Tarot Major Arcana had a totally different orderig than the decks we see today. Traditionally, the Tarot deck was called the Devil's Book. ow I have writer's block... Oh dear... Kiama

Ravenswing	24 Jun 2002
tradition... ah tradition! Traditionally the fool wasn't zero-- might be because zero is a fairly modern convention... Traditionally, only the very rich could afford such an enterprise as a set of 78 paintings-- or even a book. Traditionally, traditionally.... where do you start with a tradition?? and when as a new way comes in, and the old way passes, when is the new way tradition?? lots of questions, lots of musings. any answers (or speculations) out there??

jmd	24 Jun 2002
Wonderful to read your summary, Jeannette, and, of course, wonderful to see Steve's and Kiama's added posts. With Jeannette, I agree that the Medicine Woman deck is a Tarot... as for the others, I am unfamiliar with some and do not consider most (with which I am familiar, even if only superficially) others on the list Tarot. I do not know what Beanie Babies are, but I presume they are some kind of doll. If that is the case, and people didn't just copy them, then I would presume that such discussion would probably occur, giving those of us who do not share the same passion some amusement! With regards to the DNA/forensic science analogy, it is, in many ways, but for different reasons which you apply, a very good one. With DNA, presumably it is useful precisely because from it one can link it to the correct being from which it was originally 'created'. I personally see the Tarot very much in a similar strand. It indicates peculiar spiritual forces at work, through the human being, in the manifestation of a type of deck. As such, similar spiritual beings may share many DNA-Tarot strands, but the specific sequence is, in one case, Tarot, in another, something similar. The problem for the forensic scientist is not, then, an ontological one (either the sample is or isn't, after all, from a specified individual), but an epistemological one (how can we determine whether it is or isn't from this individual). Jeannette's four characterisations of Tarot, then, remain quite useful, and, if I may be so bold, will add to them in an attempt to somehow explain their differences from a certain perspective. Firstly, permit me to re-list them in brief (please refer to Jeannette's post for fuller versions):[list=1] [*]Tarot has a core set of characteristics; [*]Tarot has an internal specific mathematical construction; [*]Tarot warrants this appelation through tradition; [*]Tarot is a tool for understanding with isomorphic similarities to a specified deck previously agreed to be Tarot.[/list=1]The third is, of course, why we call Tarot TAROT. From a philosophical perspective, this is reminisent of what is termed a 'rigid designator': Having pointed to something and said 'This is Tarot' (or 'water', or 'Venus', or ...), any other instance will be truthfully so if it meets what is considered have the same essential qualities. Here is, of course, where one needs to get beyond the historical, for determining what are and what are not essential characteristics is where we begin to have this interesting dialogue (we all, I would hope, at least agree that at least the Marseilles is TAROT!). Those essential aspects, then, are where the four above characterisations are dissimilar, and in, possibly, the following ways:[list=a] [*](1) specifies 'surface' attributes; [*](2) specifies 'internal' attributes; [*](3) specifies 'historical' attributes; and [*](4) specifies 'simililitude' attributes.[/list=a]Please note that I am not diminishing my own characterisation by denoting it as having 'surface' attributes. From my perspective, the internal, historical and similitudinal characteristics are already contained because of its specific attributes. ... and I see that stevepolsz has posted whilst I am writing this very post! Great thread, and thanks, everyone, for enriching me!

Ravenswing	24 Jun 2002
jeanette-- if i understand you rightly (which may not be the case-- i just rolled out of bed and am in the middle of the first cup of coffee for the day. shows my addiction to this place :D )) there is a gradational system with 'absolute tarot' (whatever that may be :confused: ) at one end and 'absolute non-tarot' at the other. how close am i? ***brushing out the mental cobwebs with a mighty yawn*** LVX steve

AmounrA	24 Jun 2002
Hello, great thread this. I am strict about what can be called a tarot deck, to me it must have 22 trumps,16 court cards and 40 minors...........any variation from this means [ in my mind] that the deck may be a perfectly valid meditation or divination deck, but it is not a tarot deck. I think an artist who takes on the tarot, MUST have respect and understanding of its roots and traditions, therefore the artist is not free to draw there own interpritations without any question......they must keep within certain perameters. What I mean by this is basically 'theme' decks.....I feel if you can't recognize a card by its apperance then it is not a tarot card.....the artist has feed there own personal interpritations to far. Drawing a tarot deck is hard work, one reason why it is hard on the artist is because they are not free to do as they please. Regarding the numbers given to the trumps, on this I am not overly concerned....I don't mind what numbers they are given , so long as the 22 images are there. Regarding the names given to the trumps , here I also do not mind, although I think it goes into the ridiculous ,for example...tarot of the old path calls hanged man...'the lone man', which I consider to be laughable....but the card is still easily reconizable as the hanged man. The osho zen deck is a deck I have never seen in 'person', but I do have examples of three cards........the fool, which I think is a tarot card, a card called 'creativity, which despite the silly name is obviously the empress, so I would class it as a tarot card......but the third is called 'integration'........what is it meant to be? I think its temperance, but I don't like it..........to many names changed for the artists own personal beliefs, to me this deck is corrupted due to over tampering. regarding a deck with a 23rd trump..........to me this is fine on the following condition, the card is not named or numbered, and is not included in the card count. The thoth deck has such a floating card, which to me is a 'daath' card, it is not mentioned in the book and has no name or number. regarding an exta suit.......on merit this seems understandable, to add a spirit suit, but I find it unacceptable to still call such a deck 'tarot'...perhaps they could give the decks name and say 'a deck closely alligned with the tarot'.....but to call it tarot would be mis-leading. To me the name 'tarot' must be gaurded from dilution...a death of a thousand cuts......to many little changes and what you have left may look great........have meaning.......but it would not be what it says on the packet.......to give a simple analogy........if I sold stawberry milk as 'milk' it would be mis-leading, the addition of the word 'strawberry' makes it all o.k again............if some of these decks just added ....'closely based', or 'tarot inspired', then all would be fine............but to point blankly call them tarot is taking liberties. :-)

Kiama	24 Jun 2002
Quote: Originally posted by AmounrA I think an artist who takes on the tarot, MUST have respect and understanding of its roots and traditions, therefore the artist is not free to draw there own interpritations without any question......they must keep within certain perameters. What I mean by this is basically 'theme' decks.....I feel if you can't recognize a card by its apperance then it is not a tarot card.....the artist has feed there own personal interpritations to far. But let's think about how many people in this world actively use Tarot in their everyday life... And then let's think about all those people, and their different backgrounds, religions, views, associations... Where one person may see a snake as representing evil and temptation, another may see it as sexuality, and wisdom... It has become apparant to me, that no interpretation of the same symbol is ever the same as another interpretation, and that no view on the world is ever the same as another. Gven this, why do we have to make a deck creator stick to certain guidelines such as 'The card must be recognisable as what it is supposed to be'? I remember the Empress in the RW deck, which spoke absolutely NOTHING to me. Would I be justified in creating that card so that instead of having the Empress sitting on that cold grey bench, I have a field of corn, a flowing river, and a hill that looks very pregnant, from which runs that river? To me that speaks more than Waite and Smith's passive Empress any day. I find it enriching to see other creator's views of each card: Where one may represent the concepts of the Empress as the RW deck does, another may reresent it how I did, or with something else. Why is one person's opinion more valid than the other? Cuz they painted theirs on a piece of card first? This is exactly what troubles me about tradition: If something was written down first, it MUST be the correct way... It leaves very little room for others to say, hey, this is what I think of it... (Not havin a go at you, just airing some thoughts which seem to be all creased and damp in my mind...) :D Kiama

Jeannette	24 Jun 2002
I know this is slightly off-topic, but I can't resist... Quote: Originally posted by jmd I do not know what Beanie Babies are, but I presume they are some kind of doll. If that is the case, and people didn't just copy them, then I would presume that such discussion would probably occur, giving those of us who do not share the same passion some amusement! The reason I often find myself wanting to contrast tarot collecting with Beanie Baby collecting in particular is because I see them as being on the opposite ends of the "collecting scale." "Beanie Babies" are a series of "collectors" stuffed animal toys that were "all the rage" here in the 'States a few years ago. They're manufactured by a company called the Ty Corporation. Some Beanie Babies were selling for hundreds, even thousands, of dollars at one time (before the "bottom fell out of the Beanie Baby market" -- really). Here are some of the reasons why I see collecting tarot and collecting something like Beanie Babies as being almost diametrically opposite: Sources __Tarot: Many thousands __Beanies: One (Ty Inc.) History: __Tarot: Hundreds of years __Beanies: Since 1993 Evolution __Tarot: Natural __Beanies: Manufactured Potential academic interest: __Tarot: High __Beanies: Low Potential as a tool for personal/spiritual growth: __Tarot: High __Beanies: Low "Cuteness" factor: __Tarot: Varies, often low __Beanies: High Overall "fuzziness" __Tarot: Low __Beanies: High General overall utilitarian potential: __Tarot: High __Beanies: Low Social acceptability / chance you'll get a positive reaction from your in-laws if you give it to your 9-year-old niece or nephew for their birthday: __Tarot: Varies, sometimes low __Beanies: High ... I could go on with this silliness, but you get the idea. The whole concept just amuses me to no end. :D I'll get back on track with the thread now... LOL! -- Jeannette http://www.tarotgarden.com

Jeannette	24 Jun 2002
I assume the pun (seeing the DNA analogy in a similar "strand") was intended? LOL! Good point. Still a difficult question to resolve, but a very good point. The fact that we seem to all be able to agree on the Marseilles as an acceptable "standard" is, I think, what makes it possible for this discussion to even take place. And I do have respect for the role and importance of "tradition" -- no arguments there. However, I tend to see tarot as being, in part, an almost "living" entity, insofar as so many tarot designers have poured their hearts and souls into their creations, each potentially bringing new insights into the same subject. Thus, I tend to regard tarot as having a certain amount of an ability to change/evolve, and yet still be "tarot" -- the ability to grow and adapt being definitionally part of its essence (to me). One could say that decks which do not match the "historical standard" with some degree of exactness are simply "tarot-like" or "tarot-inspired," but on the other hand, it strikes me as equally possible to consider such creations as members of the same family -- each different in its way, to be sure, but closely enough related to be considered not only on the same "tree," but on the same "branch." Of course, those who feel all tarots must be on the same "twig" (a perfectly valid viewpoint) would disagree... However, the difficulty that I have with the concept of a "rigid designator" when applied to tarot is that tarot is a man-made construct, unlike water, or the planet Venus, which exist whether we conceive of them or not. Working from the a priori assumption that everyone's five senses all work in the same way (or close enough, barring impairment), it is relatively easy to define "water" and agree upon that definition. Or at least, it is if we all using the same language/vocabulary (but we can skip the implications of the Whorfian hypothesis here). However, to me, tarot is not completely something that can be understood merely with the five senses. We can describe the cardstock used, or the colors in the pictures, but the "soul" of tarot -- what it truly is -- is not paper or ink or boxes and LWBs. And it is not even, from my viewpoint, Magicians and Cups and Kings and Fools. Each of these things has their function within tarot, but they are not what tarot is, IMHO. Which is, I think, what puts my perspective at odds with a strictly historical/traditional or a strictly definitional one. I agree that tarot has a history that in part defines what it is, and I agree that there are certain essential definitional characteristics of a tarot. And I do not believe that any deck of cards that claims to have uses for cartomantic, spiritual, metaphysical, and/or magical work qualifies. While I'll admit that my personal view of tarot is fluid, it is not without its limits. Nonetheless, my answer to the question of whether a "non-standard" tarot can still potentially be a "true" tarot remains this: yes, absolutely. But I think I'll save any further exposition on that point for a reply to Steve's post, which I should probably handle in a seperate message. -- Jeannette http://www.tarotgarden.com

AmounrA	24 Jun 2002
kiama, I am not knocking decks which do not follow the tarot system and symbology, the same imagination that runs through them runs through the tarot..........I find the osho zen deck very beautiful, I just don't like is as a tarot deck much.....as spiritual cards though, I think it is very powerful and en-riching......but as tarot I find them lacking. I also find it enriching to see others interpritations of the tarot, but sometimes this interpritations are so far off the tradition and spirit of a card/deck as to become a different entity.....still being forced into a box marked 'tarot'.........and others are just stupid [he says diplomatically:-)] I accept that different people, of different cultures, religons and backgrounds see different things, but I don't see how that affects the tarot symbology and symbolizom....for example, I may respect tibetan buddists....but I would not expect them to change there symbols and teachings to please me Lori, I certainly do consider these other decks to be part of the tarot family............but I don't call chimpanzees gorillas, and they are part of the same family......I would say all these cards, tarot included, fall under the group-'cards used for meditation and divination', in this family group the tarot 'animal' is defined by clear charactoristics [22 trumps, 16 court and 40 minor cards, also the trumps have unique charactoristics]...........card decks which fall out of this perameter, are still in the same family.......but they are not tarot cards.

Jeannette	24 Jun 2002
Quote: Originally posted by stevepolsz jeanette--if i understand you rightly... there is a gradational system with 'absolute tarot' (whatever that may be :confused: ) at one end and 'absolute non-tarot' at the other...how close am i? From my perspective, you are dead-on, Steve. In my original post, I made reference to what I called the "tarot continuum." I didn't elaborate on the term, because at that point, I was really more interested in setting up the discussion and in reading what other people had to say. But yes -- in my admittedly "fluid" perception of tarot, the "DNA test" (to refer to my later analogy) for a tarot can be handled on a Likert scale. For those not familiar with the reference, the Likert scale is just a fancy name for that line with two extremes labeled at each end, and the assumption of a wide range (or even infinite) number of possibilities in between. You usually see it on personality tests and the like, with the words "Strongly Agree" at one end, and "Strongly Disagree" at the other, like this: Q: I love Beanie Babies more than life itself Strongly Disagree |----------------------| Strongly Agree You then place an "X" on the line, wherever you feel it's appropriate, in order to express your personal viewpoint on the question. So, regarding Beanie Babies, Jeannette marks the scale thus: Strongly Disagree |X---------------------| Strongly Agree Whereas another lady I know, who is passionate about collecting certain types of Beanie Babies, would probably mark the scale as: Strongly Disagree |----------------X-----| Strongly Agree Applied to tarot, a Likert scale might look like this: NOT Tarot |----------------------| Tarot If the label on the right end of the scale is considered to represent an accepted "standard" (say, the Marseilles or R-W), then there's two questions that must be answered when rendering a judgement on a particular items "tarotness": 1) Where does the item in question fall on the scale for you?, and... 2) How far away from the right edge of the scale can you get before you consider the item too far away to be "tarot enough"? For me, I'm usually okay with being up to about 25% of the distance away from the right end of the scale before I begin to question the "tarot-ness" of a deck. And, just to clarify, my use of the word "Tarot" at the right end of the scale is really only meant to represent the "standard," not to imply that anything that deviates from the standard cannot be tarot. But by the same token, viewing tarot in terms of a Likert scale likewise makes it clear that there are limits to how far one can deviate before you no longer have one. What those limits are, however, is partly subjective in nature. Just another one of my mushy, fluid ways of describing what "tarot" is to me... -- Jeannette http://www.tarotgarden.com

Ravenswing	24 Jun 2002
okay-- here goes again. take your test deck, load it into your bow and shoot. the closer to the bull's eye, the 'purer' the tarot. jeanette: let's extend the concept of your line. let's have a particular set of criteria for tarot. with our absolute tarot at the center of a circle, we send out test lines towards the circumference. if we have three criteria, we can have three lines, 120 degrees apart; four criteria, four lines at 90 degrees apart; etc. evaluate the value (absolute tarot through absolutely not tarot) for each of the criteria. place the proper point for your test deck on each of the criteria lines, and play dot-to-dot. the closer the area of the figure is to zero, the closer it is to tarot. (you could get a 'closeness' value by figuring out what percentage of the circle your figure is) the distance of any point to the center will tell you what the varience from tarot is for that deck in that particular criteria. i understand what i mean. am i making sense to anyone out there? LVX steve

catboxer	25 Jun 2002
Hmmmmm...when I introduced the word "tradition" into this thread I did so because I thought it would help clarify some of the issues that are being tossed around, and it did somewhat. But it has also proved a lightning rod. The great thing about tradition is that it provides a basis for people to share concepts, or in other words, easily and effectively communicate. When we see a red traffic light, we all know immediately what it symbolizes. Even though our culture seems to be dominated by a rage for innovation at the moment, I hope no one decides to get "creative" with traffic lights in order to "express myself." Following tradition does not mean that the creator is confined to executing dead, mechanical copies of what has gone before. The great artists of the Renaissance were following the tradition established by the Greek and Roman painters, sculptors, and architects of the classical age, but far from producing slavish imitations of the earlier work, the Renaissance artists outstripped their teachers, particularly in painting, to which they introduced linear perspective -- something never seen in classical times. But in doing this, they preserved the symbols, meanings, and essential forms of their predecessors, as they knew that these things would be immediately understood by anyone who looked at them. They added only the symbols of Christianity to the ancient formula, since those had become part of the cultural heritage of anyone viewing them, and would further enable the artist to communicate effortlessly. I have no problem with innovative approaches to tarot. For instance, Robin Wood's deck (not my favorite, but familiar to everyone here and a perfect example) uses many unorthodox and highly original pictures to illustrate both the trumps and the suited cards, but in every case these are linked to the established titles and numbers, and are close enough to the traditional concept that the viewer is never confused about which card he or she is looking at. The era of innovation started with the occultists of the 19th century, and shifted into high gear with the appearance of Pamela Coleman Smith's replacement of pips with anecdotal pictures in 1909. I have no doubt that the Rider-Waite is a tarot; the 78-card configuration and structure is immediately recognizable. But I do much prefer pips with spots rather than visual anecdotes. That's my conservative nature. What I consider un-tarot are the decks, and there is currently a proliferation of them, that take such liberty with the structures, symbols, names, and numbers of the tarot that you have to read the accompanying book to figure out what it all means, or e-mail the artist and ask for an explanation. These projects might be a perfect vehicle for self-expression, but they're a lousy medium for communication. Personally, I have no interest in such a constipated idiom. catboxer

Jeannette	25 Jun 2002
AmounrA: No question about that. Speaking as one who will buy about anything that is a tarot -- and keeping in mind that I've already established that my definition of the term is broad -- I've still learned to check carefully before investing in any deck simply because the word "Tarot" is printed on the outside. For example, the so-called "Tarot" Astro Karmique is lovely, and a great deck for those interested in astrology-based cartomantic decks, but it is not tarot by the definition of anyone who has posted here so far. ...Still Jeannette here, but that's okay. Such are the hazards of a "shared" handle... LOL! :D Quote: ...I certainly do consider these other decks to be part of the tarot family............but I don't call chimpanzees gorillas, and they are part of the same family......I would say all these cards, tarot included, fall under the group-'cards used for meditation and divination', in this family group the tarot 'animal' is defined by clear charactoristics [22 trumps, 16 court and 40 minor cards, also the trumps have unique charactoristics] ...........card decks which fall out of this perameter, are still in the same family.......but they are not tarot cards. I hear ya. To extend your analogy, what this tells me is that you and I consider the term "tarot" to be at different levels of the "taxonomic hierarchy of cards." For those of you who need a review of the taxonimic hierarchy (I did; I had to go look up the specifics), it is more-or-less as follows: - Kingdom - Phylum - Class - Order - Family - Genus - Species Yes, gorillas and chimpanzees are part of the same family -- Pongidae -- and furthermore, they are members of different Genuses... uh, Genusi... uh, whatever the plural of "Genus" is. I think the question her is: how far down the hierarchy must we go before we can separate tarot- from non-tarot? To say that we don't call Gorillas "Chimpanzees" is to imply that Kiama's viewpoint misclassifies a particular deck in the taxonomic hierarchy. But one of the things that might be useful to keep in mind is that when it comes to life-on-earth, even biologists don't agree 100% on the taxonomic classification of things. Let me see if I can capture the difference in viewpoints with an example... View #1 may perhaps look at the taxonomy of the R/W deck like this: - Kingdom: Decks of cards - Phylum: Illustrated decks - Class: Cartomantic decks - Order: 78-card cartomantic decks - Family: 78-card decks with 22 Majors/40 Minors and 16 Court cards - Genus: Tarot (here the specifics of the particular set of 22 majors et al are defined) - Species:Standard Rider-Waite tarot Whereas view #2 might look like this: - Kingdom: Decks of cards - Phylum:Cartomantic decks - Class:"Traditionally-based" cartomantic decks - Order:Tarot - Family:Golden Dawn-based tarots - Genus:Rider-Waite-like decks - Species:Standard Rider-Waite tarot Now, let's look at some possibilities for the Deva "Tarot." View #1: - Kingdom: Decks of cards - Phylum: Illustrated decks - Class: Cartomantic decks - Order: Non-78-card cartomantic decks - Family: Expanded cartomantic systems - Genus: Tarot-inspired - Species: Deva Tarot View #2: - Kingdom: Decks of cards - Phylum:Cartomantic decks - Class:"Traditionally-based" cartomantic decks - Order:Tarot - Family:Golden Dawn-based tarots - Genus:Thoth-like decks - Species: Deva Tarot While I don't mean to imply that these are your views, AmounrA (and I'm not sure that my counterpoints really accurately reflect my own), the point is that I don't think there's any way to definitively say where the concept of "tarot" falls within a taxonomic order. All that can be said is that it may fall higher or lower, depending on the subjective considerations of each individual. But it once again explains why one person's non-tarot is another person's "true" tarot. -- Jeannette http://www.tarotgarden.com

Jeannette	25 Jun 2002
Quote: Originally posted by stevepolsz jeanette: let's extend the concept of your line. let's have a particular set of criteria for tarot. with our absolute tarot at the center of a circle, we send out test lines towards the circumference. if we have three criteria, we can have three lines, 120 degrees apart; four criteria, four lines at 90 degrees apart; etc...evaluate the value (absolute tarot through absolutely not tarot) for each of the criteria. place the proper point for your test deck on each of the criteria lines, and play dot-to-dot. the closer the area of the figure is to zero, the closer it is to tarot. i understand what i mean. am i making sense to anyone out there? Steve: Makes complete sense to me. Sounds like you're describing a three-axis "radar chart," which in this context, would simply be a three-dimensional variant of the Likert scale. Nothing wrong with that -- the end result is the same, assuming that (from my perspective) it isn't deemed absolutely necessary to "hit the bullseye" to be tarot. And it does capture more of the "specifics" for a particular deck than would a Likert scale, which always makes things more interesting, IMHO. -- Jeannette http://www.tarotgarden.com

Jeannette	25 Jun 2002
Catboxer: This is an excellent point, and one that hasn't been brought up -- at least, not quite in such plain terms -- to this point in the discussion, I think. Tarot is definitely a form of communication, to my way of thinking. Agreed. And your example of the Robin Wood deck to illustrate the point was perfect. I can certainly see your point here, although I don't completely agree with it (in terms of my personal approach to tarot). Take two teachers in any subject -- say, economics ('cuz my dad was an economics professor) -- and ask them to give a lecture on supply-and-demand. One may provide a clear, riveting lecture on the topic, while the other may present a laboring, tedious, and muddy discourse that either confuses the listeners or puts them to sleep. While the second teacher in my example has been "a lousy medium for communication," that doesn't necessarily mean that his lecture was not on the subject of supply-and-demand. But all this analogy serves to show is that yes, there's a lot of crappy tarots out there. What's more important about the communicative role of tarot, from my admittedly less-conservative viewpoint, is that it can serve the important function as being a translator of concepts. I'm sure that some people could care less about using tarot for this purpose, but it is a subject of extreme fascination for me. Let me illustrate with the following example: let's take someone with a great interest in Arthurian legends who's just "getting into" tarot. Or perhaps someone well-versed in astrology (or Native American culture or whatever) who's looking to learn more about what tarot can teach him/her. In such instances, what deck(s) might they choose to help them best understand what tarot is? For the Arthurian, it could be the Matthews' "Arturian" deck, or the "Legend" Arthurian deck. For the astrologer, perhaps the Mandala Astrological Tarot. And there's any number of Native American-based decks on the market. Such decks might not communicate tarot concepts easily to you or I, but to someone who already has the base knowledge in the non-tarot part of the subject matter, learning might come quickly. In brief, tarot has "translated" tarot concepts into Arthurian ones, or astrological ones, or Native American ones. Now, on the flip side -- and here's where I often get my "jollies" -- take someone who knows tarot, but knows nothing about Arthurian mythos, astrology, or Native American culture. What would such decks communicate under those circumstances? Not basic tarot concepts -- we presume in this example that the person in question already has a reasonable understanding of those. Instead, the cards "translate" information about Arthurian mythos, astrology, and Native American culture into the ideas known as tarot. Translation can sometimes be a slow, laborious process, but the results can often be very rewarding. Thus, when it comes to the effectiveness of communication, I think it helps to remember that the process is a "two-way street." It doesn't matter if the economics lecture on supply-and-demand is the most brilliant discourse in the history of the subject, if the reason you came to class was to learn how to play golf. Me? I'm the person who shows up to class without checking the agenda first. I don't care what the lecture's about -- if the presentation is good, I'm sure I'll be glad I came. -- Jeannette http://www.tarotgarden.com

MeeWah	25 Jun 2002
This fascinating discussion offers echoes of a previous thread posted by AmounrA: "What makes Tarot work?" & that old saying: "A picture speaks a thousand words" I hope this does not stray from the topic, but my main complaint with "themed" Tarot decks is that one needs a book of directions/how to's in order to navigate the paths of the oft puzzling associations of card images, some of which seem to have little or nothing to do with the more common or traditional correspondences. Unless one is somewhat familiar with the theme to begin with--that is, has the background knowledge from which to extrapolate the possible meanings, the deck may not significantly broaden one's understanding of Tarot. In fact, it can lead to confusion rather than further learning or scholarship. Aside from any academic considerations, there are many decks that fall into this category--which undoubtedly differs according to the individual view. Whilst I do not object to reading an accompanying text, generally, I prefer to see what I can glean from a deck's pictures alone. Many decks are equipped only with an LWB which serves more as a general reference rather than provides an in-depth analysis of the deck. Indeed, many LWB's only leave one hungry for more "meat". On the other hand, I tend to agree with Jeanette: that if one already has a basis of knowledge in Tarot, such decks can serve as a "translator" of concepts & thus assist in broadening the perception. Ultimately, that is what Tarot is about. It may boil down to the purpose for which one acquires a deck--whether it is strictly for how well it lends itself to the learning/reading process or for its artwork/theme alone. Those again may differ according to the individual view of Tarot. Whilst a deck's art is the oft the first quality that appeals, decks that contribute to knowledge or to readings offer more value. (This in no way makes light of the collectors amongst us, who fuel the Tarot industry!)

star streak	25 Jun 2002
I only want to say that I find the wide diversity among art styles, symbols, and approaches to tarot very much adds to my own learning of the ways my fellow humans think, feel, and live. Tarot is a form of communication, but I think we use it as a way for our own Higher power to talk to our 'selves', or for our subconscious self to talk to our concious self. For myself, however, one of the BIG joys is that Tarot, (and other oracle cards), start with many facets of a common ground we all share-the joys, trials, awes of being human,--and then allows the individual artist to express these huge, deep commomanlities according to the symbols, traditions, etc. of his/her own culture, spirituality, creativity, understanding, beliefs. Tarot Itself is a Great 'translator'; if one is wiling to learn about others with similar detail that one wishes to learn about oneself. In other words, the diviersity in tarot allows us the opportunity to not only examine ourselves, but each other. For me, It contributes color, depth and detail to my knowledge that we are all one, even as individuals. I grow in my empathy for others, and have far less pity for myself. I am inspired and encouraged and awed by the achievments of my fellow beings, and I am amazed that 'I', am one of 'us' to such detail! The diversity in Tarot colors all of this in for me. I LOVE this stuff! And besides, if the book doesn't give me enough information about the 'theme' of the deck, then I am inspired to go off and find a book that will teach me more about the 'theme'. The more I learn about the world around me and the creatures in it, the better off I am. Hope this adds. Love, Light, Blessings, StarStreak

Jeannette	26 Jun 2002
In my view, this already-fascinating thread has just taken another interesting turn... Although it's possible we may be wandering "off topic" here with a discussion of the "communcative properties" of tarot (no finger pointing here -- I started it), further reflection brought the following possibility to mind regarding the issue of "defining tarot"... ...Could it be that part of our individual perceptions regarding what tarot is (and is not) are influenced by what we expect it to communicate to us? Catboxer refers to the "un-tarot"-like features of many current decks that are presented as tarot, citing the trend toward highly "non-standard" card titles, symbols, sequencing, and so forth. On the other hand, star streak refers to the "diversity in tarot" as being something that "allows us the opportunity to not only examine ourselves, but each other." (And MeeWah goes both ways -- LOL! Bravo, MeeWah! I always like hearing one person present both sides of an argument.) Could we possibly infer from this that our personal definition of the "tarot-ness" of something is largely influenced by the primary communicative function(s) that tarot serves for each of us? From the standpoint of a tarot reader, I can definitely, definitely see catboxer's point. If I'm going to whip out a new deck to do a reading, I don't want to be struggling with having to figure out why in the bloody h*ll the designer put pictures of a Beanie Baby and a spatula on the "Tower" card, with no actual tower in sight. When reading, I have a question I need answered, and I need a "clean channel of communcation" coming my way if I hope to answer it with some degree of confidence. The more I think about it, the more I'd have to say I'd be inclined to accept the arguments of catboxer, AmounrA, and jmd (in regards to the question of "when is a tarot not a tarot?") if my sole interest in tarot was as a reading/cartomantic tool. However, from the standpoint of a student of metaphysics, I would argue that the list of defining characteristics of tarot needs to be broadened. Assuming one has not reached a status of "total enlightment," then it follows that one has more to learn. While we may require a clean, clear channel of communcation to start with, we may need, after a while, something that challenges us to go further, or to look at things in a different way. While I realize that no one here has argued against allowing any variation in the design of a tarot, I would also propose that too little variation is like reading the same book over and over. After a while, we cease to be able to glean anything new from the words. A second book which essentially paraphrases the first may provide clarification, but in the long run, it may not actually lead to any real expansion of knowledge. Thus, there may be times when we need a book with a few new chapters, or one that takes a few of the "old" concepts and turns them upside-down to force a new perpsective, and thus re-energize the learning process. From this perspective, one might be more inclined to agree with the views expressed by Kiama, star streak, and Liliana. [btw, lest anyone argue that a book that has extra chapters or that has a differing viewpoint on a several of the fine points is a book on a different subject, i would beg to disagree. i do not think that such a con