archetype & symbolism

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 24 Aug 2003, and now archived in the Forum Library.

isthmus nekoi	24 Aug 2003
At Moongold's request, I'm starting a thread to discuss the nature of archetype and symbol in the context of tarot These words are often thrown around a lot when discussing tarot, but they're sort of glossed over and taken for granted. I mean, what exactly is an archetype, or symbol?? This is a broad topic, so my post has two parts: 1) defining the terms of archetype and symbol 2) applying these definitions to tarot. 1) My definition of an archetype is a universal energy. These energies/archetypes have functions which are contained and directed through symbols. Archetypes are universal, symbols are culturally inflected. My understanding of symbols is that they are *images* and are meant to direct you back to the archetypal energy. They are only containers. Like any container, they may appear to be designed to contain certain things, but can hold other things if necessary, hence the ability for the symbol to be spontaneous and ambiguous (ie. take the snake who can symbolize both healing and killing). If you trap an energy in a symbol, the symbol begins to lose its function as a container and may not direct one back to archetypal energy as well as it could. If you are rigid enough, you will not have a symbol, but an *icon*. Icons direct energy only back to *itself*. Pinning symbols to value is very common (Tower is baad. It can only mean something terrible shall happen). Gender is also common (Moon is a woman). Some pinnage is necessary, naturally (if everything symbolized everything, nothing would make sense). But how far can you go??? Anyways, some qs: - Do others have different definitions or different understandings of archetype/symbol? - Is the LWB guilty of too much pinnage? 2) For me tarot is essentially, a structured collection of symbols directing one back to the archetypes using the above definitions. If you accept this premise of tarot being a collection archetypes and symbols being *representations* of such archetypes, here are a few questions to ponder: - The symbolism used in traditional decks can be very Eurocentric and draws heavily from Western discourse. But what happens when you begin to mess around w/the imagery? Is it still tarot? How strongly is the symbol related to the archetype - would you find it unacceptable to have a woman associated w/the sun (as she is in mythologies from Japan and Africa)? Any other questions or comments welcome.

Baby Owl	24 Aug 2003
Great topic, isthmus nekoi! Quote: originally posted by isthmus nekoi The symbolism used in traditional decks can be very Eurocentric and draws heavily from Western discourse. But what happens when you begin to mess around w/the imagery? Is it still tarot? How strongly is the symbol related to the archetype - would you find it unacceptable to have a woman associated w/the sun (as she is in mythologies from Japan and Africa)? For me, this would be similar to how I handle a foreign language. Initially I would have to have a "dictionary" or "teacher" and "translate" the unfamiliar images or symbols into something I can understand. If I kept working with those symbols (and/or that culture), pretty soon I would be able to understand them as they are, without "translating" in my mind. Does that make sense? Baby Owl

jog1118	25 Aug 2003
i agree with baby owl... i,being fairly new to tarot (and my studies have been stagnant for some time now), make use of Joan Bunning's keywords (i can say this is the archetype for me) for the cards: http://www.learntarot.com/course.htm#charts I only have 2 decks right now but i believe in the future, if i get a new deck, i will be using the same keywords to understand each new deck's symbolism. :smoker:

jmd	25 Aug 2003
It is indeed a wonderful topic to visit, and revisit, and reconsider in numerous ways... And earlier thread which also discussed some of these aspects, in undoubtedly different ways, was What drives Tarot - Image or Archetype?. Therein I also attempted to characterise the different senses in which 'archetype' appears to be understood by different people. For myself, I see the Tarot image as the embodiment of a spiritual impulse striving to manifest. Are these too Eurocentric? I don't know - I suppose my own European background ensures I feel comfortable with the images as given. Possibly living on non-European soil also ensures that the historical connection is accentuated by this imagery. Studying Eurocentric esoteric systems also adds to my own peculiar views of the cards. I have tried to characterise (in a post in the above linked thread) archetypes as 'a living spiritual reality which takes various forms according to local conditions'. In a sense, this may also reflect one way of reading isthmus nekoi's characterising of an archetype as 'a universal energy with functions contained and directed through culturally inflected symbols' (I've combined and closely paraphrased her three sentences). It seems to me that what is more likely to change with time are in the fine details of representation, rather than the sweeps of iconic depiction (and here, I view the icon as an image which properly points beyond itself to the spiritual reality it seeks to unveil). The Tarot is neither image nor archetype, nor, for that matter, allegory. Rather, it may be viewed as the manifestation of that living spiritual reality - or universal energy (though I personally prefer the former description), which, veiled in allegory, is illustrated - ie., brought to light - by symbolic images, each of which have innumerable depths of possible interpretation and meaning (on the concept of 'innumerability' it should be remembered that as there are innumerable numbers between zero and one, each and every single one of these is different to the innumerable numbers between one and two. Innumerability does not imply 'anything goes'!). I like isthmus nekoi's comment of Tarot as a 'structured collection'. Here I would only add that this structured collection is not of symbolic images, but utilises symbolic images in its representation. Wonderful thread indeed :)

Moongold	25 Aug 2003
I am one of those who has gotten confused from time to time, and simply assumed that every Tarot Major card represented an archetypal energy. Some say yes, some say no. For those who are like me the following map of archetypes may be useful. This one was devised by Stephen Karlon Williams and appears in the book Tarot Handbook by Naomi Ozaniec. I think JMD's comments are very interesting and not withstanding those. think it would be worthwhile for people to see this map to help build up a picture, so to speak. 1st Archetype – the Self 0 Fool; XX1 World 2nd Archetype – the Feminine II High Priestess; III Empress; XVII Star; VIII Strength; XII Justice 3rd Archetype - the Masculine I Magician; IV Emperor; V Hierophant; XIX Sun; IX Hermit 4th Archetype - the Heroic VII Chariot; XII Hanged Man 5th Archetype – Adversity XV the Devil 6th Archetype - Death/Rebirth XIII Death; XVI Tower 7th Archetype – the Journey XIV Temperance; XVII Moon; X Wheel of Fortune; XX Judgment There are other versions of this, I suspect, but this is a beginning. Notice that Williams does regard the Moon as an archetype and puts it in a most unexpected category but it makes sense within his framework. Actually, I've just had a closer look at Ozaniec's comments, and she has Williams include the Moon as Feminine in one part of this chapter and as Journey in another. I laughed out loud. Moon is exerting her influence even in this book :joke:. Eiter Williams or Ozaniec are deluded or confused!

Moongold	25 Aug 2003
I really like thinking of the Moon as representing the Journey or spiritual path rather than the feminine, although it would alsways depend on the context. If I understand JMD correctly the lived spirituality could be either. Moon appears in a real and symbolic way every day of my life, our lives I suspect. I was looking this morning at three very different cards depicting the Moon. We all know the traditional RWS card with the symbols: pool, path, mountain range, pillars, animals (including crustacean), Moon (personified). Light light In the Ancestral Path: pool, river (path?, mountains and trees, pillars, man (comforting animal? I can't make this out well), realistic, non-personified Moon. No crustaceans. Dark light In the Shining Tribe: there is a kind of pool but Pollack has made it look like a vulva, an explicitly female symbol, mountains a kind of rock structure (pillar?) huge crustacian, abstract Moon. Medium light. So there are common symbols in each, although there are significant differences in how they appear. I could weave a different story and different meaning from each of these cards. In the RWS and Pollack versions there is an explicit reference to femininity which is interesting - the vulva image in the Pollack and the almost feminine face on the RWS Moon. There does not seem to be a similar reference to femininity in the Ancestral Path card. In each the Moon dominates. How different it is! And the symbols in the card, although carrying similarities are completely different too. The path symbolizes the journey we are all on and the dominant Moon in each symbolises the significant power of this image for all of us.

isthmus nekoi	25 Aug 2003
BabyOwl, I think your post means perfect sense. To paraphrase, I take it you mean learning two different symbolic representations is like learning two different words for the same thing/signified. Eventually you no longer have to 'translate' to your mother tongue, but the newer word will directly lead you to what is being signified. Quote: Innumerability does not imply 'anything goes'! jmd, I think this is very very important. While I'm grateful for all the discourses generated by identity politics (namely poststructuralism and deconstructionism).... I do not agree w/the idea that 'anything goes'. There is no meaning left if everything can signify anything. Hm, another question. Is there anything wrong w/tarot decks being Eurocentric, is a multicultural deck inherently better? I find the main criticisms of Eurocentric discourse are charged when it imposes its world view upon others, devalues or obliterates other, just as valid discourses, or attempts to interpret all texts through the lens of its own (ie. trying to judge and understand an African film w/Freudian psychoanalysis). But do Eurocentric decks really do this? Having had to read and write in a postmodern vein, I have learned to be very wary of the word universal. Too many texts I have read supporting 'universals' (ie. the ever popular Joseph Campbell for example, even much written by Jung) I have found to be phallocentric, Eurocentric and (you knew this was coming) heterosexual centric (is that even a word??). However, I'm not about to abandon the idea of universal archetypes b/c of this. I recognize the contradiction, but to write off universals seems to me to be throwing the baby out w/the bathwater. Questions: - do the images of tarot then, transcend our postmodern ways of establishing identity (gender/ethnicity/sexual orientation etc etc)? I mean, do these things really matter when you're reading a deck? Is calling a deck Eurocentric really amount to calling another deck darkimagery centric? Unicorn-centric? CG-centric? Youth-centric? OR is there something different about a deck that is clearly Euro/hetero/phallocentric? - in changing tarot to encorporate other cultures, eras, etc. are we beginning to dilute tarot and lose its meaning, or add to tarot's vocabulary? Can both be happening simultaneously? If tarot symbolism can be analogous to language (I would argue not, but for this example's sake...), perhaps we can see the changing English language's shift away from standard, "Queen's" English to the many different versions of English spoken internationally... So are the newer Englishes still English? (I don't know, but hey, if they get the job of communicating done.....) I know this q's been asked before, but I'd like to read other's thoughts when considering archetypes... Moongold, Is an archetypal map (structure) universal?........ ie are the structural similarities b/w tarot & the kaballah contrived, or natural?

jmd	25 Aug 2003
Looking at how the Tarot may map onto other views certainly has a long tradition. The Golden Dawn did this in one particular way, and, as shown by Moongold, S K Williams does it in another. Whereas the first sought for a way in which to understand and view the Tarot according to particular ways of understanding its possible correlations with Hebrew letters and its consequent correlations with astrological and peculiar Kabalistic concepts, Williams seems to want to see how the cards fall into Campbell-type frames. Each has its merits... What may result from each of these is a deeper appreciation for the cards as one's knowledge and understanding in myriad areas is brought to the deck. Conversely, however, the attendent danger is that the peculiar views of other systems 'traps' one's knowledge, preventing a further ascent towards deeper understanding. With Moongold, I accept that finding keys - which may either initially assist or through which different reflections can be made - can be quite useful. Williams's suggested sevenfoldness is undoubtedly one such division (Self, the Feminine, the Masculine, the Heroic, Adversity, Death/Rebirth, and the Journey). Another sevenfold unfolding of the Tarot, which may inform as deeply (more for some, less for others) may be to see the cards in their aspect of spiritual unfoldment (placing the cards as 7 X 3, with the Fool, as un-numbered, out of this process). Though names may be given, they may again constrain what speaks through careful meditation on the cards' images. Another sevenfold way may be to carefully see how the seven virtues (the four cardinal virtues and three theological virtues) are depicted and reflected in all the cards. I am certainly not against the combining of various systems in order to further seek to understand the deck as a whole. When, however, certain authors presume that it reflects only one kind of thing (as Jung did for alchemy), errors not only arise, but, in my view, the discipline, or, in our case, the Tarot, becomes diminished. Is XVIII - the Moon symbolic of the path? maybe another question which may be asked is how each card reflects the path, or reflects our understanding of the self, of the masculine and feminine (for even depicting Justice as feminine and the Charioteer as masculine says something of Justice and the Chariot), ... and of numerous other aspects not listed thereon: how does each card inform or reflect our understanding of our spiritual makeup, of the nature of the supersensible, of the direction towards awakefulness, of the influence of the stars, of angels, and of societal factors? These are not, of course, 'archetypes' - yet Tarot also reflects these. Is Tarot, in some of its depictions, closely connected with Kabalistic concepts? undoubtedly. Maybe with Tarot it is not the deconstructionist approach which yields the greatest fruits (for that matter, I personally do not think it yields the best fruits in any discipline, though it has its usefulness). Perhaps the deconstructionist and similarly related fields are extremely useful for the person already adept. But like one would not begin to deconstruct a nursery rhyme with a five-year old, nor deconstruct a physics paper with a budding-physicist 18 year old, the de-constructionist approach to Tarot (which has possibly occured far more than I prefer to reflect on) has resulted in numerous alterations without having understood what was being presented. The Bateleur/Magician as masculine does have particular import, as does the Papess/High Priestess as feminine. Williams's seven-fold division, or the Golden Dawn's correlations, become, then, as dictionaries to assist on the task of understanding (to use Baby Owl's wonderful metaphor) - eventually, one hopes, to be discarded as the Tarot is more properly entered of its own accord. But enough rambling...

Moongold	26 Aug 2003
Quote: Originally posted by isthmus nekoi Moongold, Is an archetypal map (structure) universal?........ ie are the structural similarities b/w tarot & the kaballah contrived, or natural? I am very basically informed on this but I am sure the kaballah existed long before tarot has been documented as existing. As with many spiritual philosophies, however, the basis on which kaballah is developed could be "universal" in that spiritual principles often run parallel in different philosophies or faiths, whatever you call them. There are some parallels of between kaballah and Tarot that demand comparison. The structure of three triangles of the Tree of Life could be relevant to the three levels of the major Arcana. There are 22 pathways on the Tree of Life and 22 Tarot majors. There ar probably other connections which I don't know about. Numerology is one such. There are 10 minor cards in each tarot suit and 10 spheres on the Tree of Life and I imagine there is some connection there. I don't know enough about Tarot history to understand actually how these two mystical systems came to be connected.

Moongold	26 Aug 2003
Quote: Originally posted by jmd With Moongold, I accept that finding keys - which may either initially assist or through which different reflections can be made - can be quite useful. Williams's seven-fold division, or the Golden Dawn's correlations, become, then, as dictionaries to assist on the task of understanding (to use Baby Owl's wonderful metaphor) - eventually, one hopes, to be discarded as the Tarot is more properly entered of its own accord. My academic training has been in community development, social policy, management and librarianship. Any other knowledge I've picked up through eclectic reading, which is non-systemic. The little I have read about archetypes imagery and symbolism has been in connection with the Tarot. The authors I've read assume the use of various maps often without explaining the assumptions that they naturally make. So I am really quite new to this, and initially find the use of keys helpful. I guess it is useful to establish a framework in which you can ground and move on. An image of the Moon as representing unbounded ego just floated through my consciousness :). I think it came from you, initially, Isthmus! The basic Tarot structure is well bounded. How far away do we go from this before what we create is no longer Tarot? I came to Tarot comparatively late, and was not one of those who could immediately intuitively read. I had to open the dictionary and then begin with the John and Betty explanations. It was like having the curtain opened however. Now I can alternately zoom in and out of the big picture. I am very much drawn to your comment about entering into the Tarot of its own accord, JMD, but need a basis from which to begin. If I did not have the basic framework as a reference point, I could create something quite delusional. Each Tarot deck could be seen as a map in the sense we have been discussing, I think - a map of the way to (or through) the spiritual world. If we stop at each location on the map we'll find much more beauty and information than is at first apparent. We can interpret the symbols and imagery in our unique way, as an artist or photographer might see her own vision, but that does remain connected with reality. I might, and do, want to see the Moon differently at different times. And at times I do want maps that give me a different picture. I am one of those who do need, a this stage anyway, decks that move away from the traditional Eurocentric view. One day, I will be able to see much more in that view, I think. Now I am rambling. It is too early in the morning.

Inana	27 Aug 2003
Havent read all the answers but I want to post this first. Quote: Originally posted by isthmus nekoi - Do others have different definitions or different understandings of archetype/symbol? An archetype is the primary model of something. The ideal or the "pure" prototype. A symbol is a representation of another thing by analogy, similarity or convention. So, its a bit like the myth of Plato in the cave. The archetype is the Idea itself. The symbols are distorted images we use to refer to it. In other words, the archetype is the abstract concept and the symbol is a way we use to represent the archetypes or other things. BOTH are culturally inflected, although archetypes have a more universal sense. Why? Because when we are talking about concepts like love, mother or death... these concepts exist in all the cultures. No matter where in the world we live, we all know what this things are. But still we have different meanings involved in them. Not all cultures understand death the same way, or give the same importance to love, or relate the same characteristics to the role of the paternal figure. Everything in this world is influenced by the culture we belong.

Inana	27 Aug 2003
Quote: Originally posted by isthmus nekoi Hm, another question. Is there anything wrong w/tarot decks being Eurocentric, is a multicultural deck inherently better? I find the main criticisms of Eurocentric discourse are charged when it imposes its world view upon others, devalues or obliterates other, just as valid discourses, or attempts to interpret all texts through the lens of its own (ie. trying to judge and understand an African film w/Freudian psychoanalysis). But do Eurocentric decks really do this? I dont think eurocentric is a fair term to use, because tarot is not showing any kind of superiority upon nothing or trying to impose a world view to anyone. It only shows a specific way to understand some concepts, wich is a quite different thing. Is a system built upon traditional archetypes, grown in Europe, that has been used by people of a western culture,so is the way it has to be. Better to call it "european" or "occidental" rather than eurocentric. Each culture has its own way to understand the world, its own mythology and divinatory systems, tainted with their characteristics and i dont see nothing bad on it. Anyways, I understand some archetypes can look a bit obsolete now, specially the ones refering to male/female roles. Its natural since tarot is old and the society has changed lots. Quote: Originally posted by isthmus nekoi - in changing tarot to encorporate other cultures, eras, etc. are we beginning to dilute tarot and lose its meaning, or add to tarot's vocabulary? Can both be happening simultaneously? By changing symbols, we are modifying the views on the archetypes. So we are both adding and substracting meanings. Probabily if we change too much, what we have is not tarot anymore. And im probabily alone here, but I dont understand where is the point in trying to adapt tarot to other cultures (and here im not refering at picturing people with dark skin or things like that, but at bigger changes in the symbolism). Should i try to make a set of mediterranean runes? Is very good to respect, approach and learn from other cultures, but there’s no point into mixing all them lossing the traditional aspects. What is the purpouse? To built a global culture and loss all the bagagge of the different civilizations?

Moongold	28 Aug 2003
The map of archetypes I referred to above is simply an example of the structured collection of archetypes to which Isthmus referred. It simply helps me understand how this knowledge can be “held” or organized. As JMD comments, there are other “maps” that can be just as useful. I really like the idea of archetypes as a living spiritual reality which takes various forms according to local conditions. For me this simply means the Divine uses these forms as a way of speaking to us and through us. Tarot is one way of doing this - Isthmus’ structured collection of archetypes - but there are obviously others. This one reason why I really like to see other culturally relevant versions of Tarot. These are simply ways of speaking according to local conditions or to special groups of people. Tarot as a system has 22 Majors and 56 Minors. It is an interesting question as to whether Tarot remains Tarot it the structure of the Major Arcana, for instance, is significantly altered. Tarot is still evolving, and I guess the answer to that would depend on how purist one wants to be. These things tend to have a life of their own. I like the idea of looking at each card as a manifestation of the living spiritual reality, an aspect of the Divine perhaps? It also makes sense to have the different versions of this living spiritual reality connected in such a meaningful way as the Tarot. Our existence is made meaningful mostly by our connections with others.

Moongold	28 Aug 2003
It is very early in the morning and my sleep patterns have placed me in a state of wakefulness :). I find my mind drifting, in the context of the above discussion to the Hanged Man , an image which has always called to me but I have never been able to really understand it. To be honest, it has always confronted me a little. There are three cards on my desk. One is the traditional RWS Hanged Man. A young man hangs by one foot, from a tree, his other foot in a kind of balletic postion behind the opposite thigh, His arms are behind his back, and his hair hangs free against a halo. He looks peaceful. Another card is the New Vision card from the Osho Zen Deck, the equivalent to the RWS Hanged Man. It is completely different, showing a figure being born anew, emerging from his earthbound roots and growing wings to fly into the unbounded. The third card is from the Ancestral Path and is called The Hanged One. It shows a foetus, hanging in the womb. It is a stunningly beautiful image. All of these cards are very different but the most common theme is of transition. In the RWS and Ancestral Path there is more of a sense of waiting. In the Osho Zen, the figure is active, being reborn after a period of waiting, but seems not fully conscious, as though still suspended in his former state. In fact I would say that suspension is a more accurate description of the common theme. What archetype would this card represent? I think this is one of the less clear Tarot to cards to see archetypally. Williams has it representing the Heroic . The Qabalah has the Hanged Man on the 23rd Path of the Tree of Life, between Geborah (form and structure) and Hod (analysis and communication. Jung seems to place Hanged Man in an archetype of transformation or change. The card doesn’t really fit a map or category of archetypes that I know. So I have to discover my own meaning. No other is really relevant. It is a good card to enter and meditate on. I guess I see it more as suspension but I can’t think of an elegant phrase to describe it. Such a state is sometimes characterized by uncertainty or anxiety but not always. All of the figures in these particular cards don’t look anxious at all. Perhaps a more appropriate word would be surrender . I love this concept! For me it is a spiritual one of handing over , of saying I have done all I can do and now I need simply to wait for the Divine. All will become known in the fullness of time. In all three of these cards there is a promise, hope of something new but we must wait and trust. This is about discovering one's own spiritual reality.

isthmus nekoi	28 Aug 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Moongold The basic Tarot structure is well bounded. How far away do we go from this before what we create is no longer Tarot? Yes, time and time again, this question comes up and I wonder about it. After all, from what I've seen, the Rider Waite deck changed tarot significantly, and yet it is regarded as a primary/'true' deck. Is there are point to being a purist about tarot? I recall Neil Gaiman describing language as a river. Words always evolve their meanings, this is what makes language alive. Symbols, I believe should be like this too, I think. However, is an older symbol more powerful than a newer one? It makes no logical sense to me, but for some reason, a symbol that has more or less been used heavily over time seems to hold more 'weight' for me. This is why I don't like decks that deviate too much from 'traditional' tarot, even though I have nothing to back up this feeling w/.

isthmus nekoi	28 Aug 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Inana I dont think eurocentric is a fair term to use, because tarot is not showing any kind of superiority upon nothing or trying to impose a world view to anyone. Ah, yes... European is a better term. However, I don't think Eurocentrism necessarily means a superior attitude although this is somewhat implied. But not here to split semantic hairs.... It's not really the decks themselves, it's when ppl write of tarot as depicting the 'universal' fool's journey. They begin to ascribe universality to the *symbolism* of tarot, instead of the *archetype* (going by my definitions though...). Campbell sort of falls into this trap as well in Hero w/a Thousand Faces. As for adaptation, I guess it's more fun for some ppl, and perhaps it's easier to relate. A common exercise we find on this forum is identification w/the cards. Adapting cards to include more familiar imagery, or themes make it easier to do this I suppose. I think partly, this is why I love to use Rider Waite but have never felt intimate w/it. All those ppl prancing around in medieval garb, it does nothing for me. However, I agree.... like words, when meaning is gained, sometimes meaning is also lost....

isthmus nekoi	28 Aug 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Moongold Tarot is still evolving, and I guess the answer to that would depend on how purist one wants to be. These things tend to have a life of their own. The thing is, like language.... tarot isn't going to evolve arbitrarily. Sometimes ppl take responsibility for the changes. Sometimes they don't. Often they don't. Sometimes it just happens, and sometimes there are motives behind the changes. I guess it wouldn't hurt to wonder about who is making the changes, and are their hearts/spirits in the right place? Is the person changing a tarot deck someone who has studied tarot and truly understands it? Someone who has an innate connection w/tarot? What is the nature of their insight (that gives them the impetus to change such an old system)? Could they be trying to cash in on a market and make a quick buck?...... Is someone's personal motive important in the long run????.......... I guess this might be a more fruitful deconstructionist approach to tarot :D

Inana	28 Aug 2003
Quote: Originally posted by isthmus nekoi It's not really the decks themselves, it's when ppl write of tarot as depicting the 'universal' fool's journey. They begin to ascribe universality to the *symbolism* of tarot, instead of the *archetype* (going by my definitions though...). Campbell sort of falls into this trap as well in Hero w/a Thousand Faces. I understand what you mean. Thats the problem, when one wants to universalize the way they understand something. The symbols in this case (but archetypes too from my point of view). But this can happen with any kind of deck, not only the traditional ones. Its the same problem always... we forget not everyone lives the same way. Quote: Originally posted by isthmus nekoi As for adaptation, I guess it's more fun for some ppl, and perhaps it's easier to relate. A common exercise we find on this forum is identification w/the cards. Adapting cards to include more familiar imagery, or themes make it easier to do this I suppose. I think partly, this is why I love to use Rider Waite but have never felt intimate w/it. All those ppl prancing around in medieval garb, it does nothing for me. However, I agree.... like words, when meaning is gained, sometimes meaning is also lost.... I dont see nothing wrong in adaptation to include more familiar imaginery if it responds a purpouse. The problem is when the meanings start to differ a lot from the originals, or you can say when the symbolism is altering the archetypes. But yes, while something is alive, is in permanent mutation. I like and use the Rider Waite. Is not how is the people looking, its more about the feelings you get, in any deck.

AmounrA	28 Aug 2003
My view is that the mind does not exist in the same world as the body. Laws of Space and time do not affect it. Our personalities exist purely to interact with the world. They are heavily influenced by sensory data and external reality. They serve a job, bridging this limitless external reality, with the limitless internal one. The further we take our minds from the window and rivers of sensory information, the more abstract mind becomes. The realms of imagination and internal communication. It is here I believe what some called archetypes interact with the human mind. I think archetypes are beings, beings that existed before physical life perhaps. These being perhaps are different aspects of one. This is hard to put into words perhaps image would be better. If you imagine a sphere covered by billions of spikes. The tip of each spike represents the sensory window, personality of an individual being. The further down the spike the travelled, the further you get from personality and individual self. The Thoughts and Emotions we control [or try to] become less and less relevant. At the same time the consciousness of the Sphere gets closer. Thoughts and emotions grow more abstract, words cease and symbolic language takes over. Music could perhaps be thought of as a symbolic language, it copes far better than words at revealing, in a way we can understand, the highly abstract nature of mind. Each spike is a 2 way street, information can travel down it as well as up. All life in the entire universe [each represented as a spike] ultimately goes back to the sphere. As a result the sphere is at the heart of everything, it can get into every mind. Can an individual being, at the tip of a spike, travel back to the sphere, then voyage out to into another spike and communicate? If so, then archetypes need not emanate from the sphere, they may emanate from another star system, on a planet a temple, with beings channelling there minds into the core, and then back out again to us. Perhaps the sphere is the seed of all minds, and acts like a telephone exchange. If you are looking for something, the sphere could connect you to what you are looking for, or a guide. Perhaps the end destiny of all life in our universe is do die. The sensory windows close, individual personalities cease. If so, the sphere would loss its spikes, but it would have had access to every being that had ever lived. Access to their discoveries and views. It would make a powerful guide to any new creed of being that developed. It would be the ultimate archetype. Perhaps the sphere itself is connected to a spike that leads back to a sphere that has, not individuals at each tip, but universes. How all this relates to the Tarot, is that I believe it is a representation of a very alive and active/interactive universe. It is a tool that in its very essence comes from deep within the spike. The deeper a human travels into his/her spike [mind], the more likely is it that contact will be made with beings who have been playing this game a LOT longer than us is.

Umbrae	28 Aug 2003
AmounrA’s spike/sphere metaphor is wonderful. And in my milieu, accurate. I want to wander off for a very brief bit. The Voyager deck is not eurocentric. Wanless has changed varied the archetypal images – and they work. Besides, what good is a picture of someone who looks like they got lost on the way to an SCA meet? What meaning does it hold? Jung said, “The symbol is the mechanism that moves and transforms energy.” But the world is not static, and neither are its symbols.

Diana	29 Aug 2003
I'm taking a required break from Tarot at the moment, but can't resist reading any thread that AmounrA makes. Just want to thank you sincerely for taking time to explain your view so clearly. Seems like your different day and night locations provide you with much inspiration.

Moongold	29 Aug 2003
AmounrA, Your sphere and spike could simply be God?

isthmus nekoi	29 Aug 2003
Great image!!! The funny thing is, the further down the spike you go, the *more* the sensory capabilities are awakened. I would say, the further down you go, the more the spike is lengthened; your powers of perception and cognition are strengthened, instead of diminished. This is getting really really out of my league, but just free associating here.... I can see each spike as being a concentration of energy. Energy condensed, crystalized. In death, the energy becomes unstable for various reasons, and the condensed form can no longer maintain cohesion. Hence, death is not really the destruction of energy (you can't just cancel out energy right??), but energy released, the spike collapses. This could be the death of a person, a language, a civilization. OK, I know how weird that must sound, I can't believe I'm posting this lol!!!

magicmadrigal	29 Aug 2003
In Jungian psychology, an inherited pattern of thought or symbolic imagery derived from the past collective experience and present in the individual unconscious which makes archetypes by definition universal. I have a few books that I have read on this subject and they can be very dry and tough to wade through. But in my quest to understand the tarot, this is where it has lead me for now. What I have found when working with the major arcana is that they do embody the base elements of human emotions and experiences in a fairly logical and circular path. From the Fool (the beginning), through adolescences, to adulthood and old age, eventually coming to the end where presumably one has gained all knowledge (or all the knowledge they were meant to learn this time around) and finally to become all knowing as you become one with the universe, completing this particular stage of the journey. Of course, only to find yourself back at the beginning with the fool again. The symbolism and imagery itself must morph to reflect changes in society and cultures, which for me is why tarot cards are so beautiful. It's as if they encompass and reflect those changes in a multitude of layers. At times it seems impossible for one person to grasp every aspect of the symbolism within a single card. Yet other decks are direct and affective in their simplicity and austerity. I think this is why tarot cards are so personal, and so diverse, they tap into your individual consciousness drawing you in or in some cases pushing you away. I know we have all bought or received cards that we think are beautiful, yet we can't seem to connect with the symbols within those particular cards. I have even seen cards that invoke even stronger emotions from love to loathing. LOL! There are some decks that I won't even pick up because I get almost physically ill from them. The other part of archetypes in Tarot is the story telling aspect. When I layout a spread it's as if I have opened to a page in someone’s private journal at times. You can see the story of their lives through the universal emotions and experiences of the archetypes. The minors seem to round it all out - they are the details and the adjectives of the reading that pull the rest together to point out the story within the reading. I guess this is something that one continues to study and attempt to comprehend over ones life. And I can't think of a better way to spend my idle time than in the pursuit of attempting to understand at least some of the facets of the tarot. Great thread! .

AmounrA	29 Aug 2003
:-):-):-) “I would say, the further down you go, the more the spike is lengthened; your powers of perception and cognition are strengthened, instead of diminished.” Yes. I would agree. The beauty about having consciousness is that we really are inside the ‘universe/energy’. [perhaps more than a universe?] In my experience, the universe is as diverse inside, as it is outside. The spiky ball analogy does work quite well. I tried to keep it as simple as possible, but I would reckon if you travelled into your own spike, the first sphere you came to would be a human sphere. All spikes coming off it being individual humans. The sphere would itself be connected to a spike, which would connect to another spiky sphere. This time all the spikes would lead to different primate family spheres, except one, which would lead to a deeper sphere, from which each spike lead off to different mammals. I guess you can work out where it goes next. Upon reaching each sphere we would have a collective consciousness point. [human-primate, mammal, animal…elemental?] I wonder where the tarot archetypes are coming from. I would imagine the human sphere would hold data from every human that ever existed since it ‘grew’ out of the primate sphere. I would imagine it’s possible it can also access future humans consciousness. If you like, after reaching a sphere from which all life on earth is reached, the next [station] sphere, would start to branch to all life in our galaxy. When you put a car to a scrap yard, you would really get out of it and either find a new car or walk about a bit :-) Perhaps the body can be likened to that car. I could easily see how civilizations, religions could also develop a sphere [collective point], perhaps such a spike exists from which a tarot deck lies as the physical manifestation on its point. This could be seen, simply as god, if you where of that nature. :-)

The archetype & symbolism thread was originally posted on 24 Aug 2003 in the Talking Tarot board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Talking Tarot, or read more archived threads.