Would this be a Tarot deck?

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 25 Dec 2003, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Diana	25 Dec 2003
This is not a tongue in cheek thread, I promise you. There is no irony in it, no ill intentions, so if you see any, it is your imagination. I have been pondering on things for the last couple of days, and I have a question to ask you all: If I were to create a deck of cards. Let's say, 78 cards. Two sub-sets - first sub-set would have 22 cards. Second sub-set.... 56 cards divided respectively into four different sub-sets. And then I decided to assign meanings to each card. And on each card I would put a picture so that people would understand what I am trying to convey with my meaning. Let's say the first five cards of the Sub-Set, I would call, after a lot of thought and many weeks of pouring through books and stuff: 1) The Hunter; 2) The Hunted, 3) The Gatherer, 4) The Mother, 5) The Father, etc. etc. etc........ and let's say I called the first sub-set of the second sub-set the suit of "Spears". The meaning I want to give to the first card in this sub-set is "Hope"; the second card in this sub-set is "Greed", and the third is "Anger"....... (etc. etc. ) Would this be a Tarot deck?

Lee	25 Dec 2003
I believe Diana's question revolves around how we define "Tarot." I'm not saying it's good or bad, right or wrong, desirable or un-, but the fact of the matter is that how we define "Tarot" varies greatly among individuals. So, whether or not a deck is a Tarot deck will depend on one's definition of "Tarot." Personally, I feel that each deck needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis. There are many gray areas. For example, if a deck complies totally with one's definition of Tarot in all respects but one, such as two cards with switched numbering, does that switched numbering alone make it not a Tarot deck? (An example would be a Marseilles deck which has Strength as VIII and Justice as XI -- I don't know if such a deck exists but I bet there's one out there.) My own opinion about the deck Diana describes would be "not Tarot," because the trump cards she describes seem to bear little conceptual relation to the standard Tarot trumps. Of course, if one is of the opinion that a deck must be the _____ deck (fill in the blank) or else it's not Tarot, then there will be no gray areas. -- Lee

LadyMedusa	25 Dec 2003
I agree almost entirely with Lee's reply. I think it is up to the individual to decide for themself if a deck is "Tarot" or not. There are as many views as to what consitutes a "Tarot" deck as there are decks. Just because Lee or Diana think a deck is, doesn't necessairly mean Umbrae or Kiama will agree. (not picking on anyone just picked names that popped in my head). To what defines "Tarot" for me. I have my own requirements formed by intuition and information gleaned from book's, this forum, and various other sources. My opinion may be in some views far to flexible, and in others to rigid, but it's my opinion and it works for me. I don't ask that anyone agree with it, just accept that it's mine. I accept that others may feel differently. I am no more or less right or wrong than they. From the discription of the cards given, Speaking only for myself, I don't think "I" would see that deck as being "Tarot", BUT without experiencing the deck... I can't give a more concrete anaswer. LadyMedusa

Simone	25 Dec 2003
Tarots, in my opinion, often "work" with archetypes. I think, Diana, your way of naming the cards (The Hunter, The Hunded, The Gatherer, The Mother etc) is a way of naming archetypes too, a little bit different of the "classical" Tarot. Hope, anger, greed etc are archetype feelings/vibrations. So, in my opinion, this would perfectly make a Tarot - and perhaps a more "direct" one than some! :) If you create it, let me know - I'd be interested in having a deck of it. (I'm not buying a lot of decks just to have them, but this one I'd be very interested in! ;) ) Light and Love Simone

Diana	25 Dec 2003
Simone: I am not planning on making a Tarot deck. It was, as Lee said, a hypothetical question. I am interested in hearing what Aeclecticians consider to be a Tarot deck, and what would not be a Tarot deck. We have had discussions like this on the forum before, but it is always interesting I think, to rediscuss topics again so that new members can also bring their insights. And also to see if the older members have changed their views.

lunalafey	25 Dec 2003
by Lee- Quote: My own opinion about the deck Diana describes would be "not Tarot," because the trump cards she describes seem to bear little conceptual relation to the standard Tarot trumps. an example of a deck{s} in print- The Shapeshifter- 0- initiation 1-sorcerer; 2- S'ess 3- mother 4- father, 5- knowledge {in my Fey deck this is the "wisest"} lovers 7- power 8- courage 9- Seer {in my Fey deck the Seer is the HP} 10- the Circle 11- Nature 12- the Shapeshifter 13- rebirth 14- balance 15- choice 16- serpent 17- star; 18- moon; 19- sun 20- transcendance 21- the double ----added are----- 22 the journey 23 the dreamer 14 Oneness the suits are aknowleged by Element. The deck is labled tarot......do I see it as tarot? ......err.....amm....well, yah & no.....it's not "traditional" for starters. It has extra majors.... many of the Major's do parallel 'tarot', but some are questionable- for example 16- the Serpent; in the tower, one's whole world comes crashing down....for me to think this from a serpent, I think adam & eve and getting kicked out of the garden. The Serpent's key words are forced change and end of a cycle- I did a comparitive reading with this deck {took one 12 card, reading and used every deck I had & compared them all} Every 'book' translation was the 'same'.....the images, that's another story- each deck/card had some different 'tip'.... I don't think Diana's hunter & hunted fit, but the mother and father do.... question I have- is it neccissary to stay within the suits being cups coins sword & wands? water earth fire & air {which- for further argument swd/air & wnd/fyr is a common switch in moder decks} we know that these represent emotions possesions communications & creativity or love money action & intuition...... so things like Bowls, Gems, Spikes & Twigs......could work if it's something one relates to. Personally- I have all sorts of decks- all stray from the standard traditions in some form or fashion.....are they my tarot decks? Yes....do I read them the same?.....no.....is any reading done the same?....no..... so another question, is 'tarot' really limited to the 'same'? tarot is a creative force- how many times will it want to come out the same?.....tarot is an intuitive force.....it speaks perfectly to the one who is listening.....if you don't want to see or hear it's unique language {non-traditional tarot}......then you won't...... is it wrong?....no........is it right?......for some- it's a matter of choice. as I said, I did one spread with all my decks- each one spoke to me in a different way when looked upon- but the message was the same- comparing the book descriptions, pretty much the same....and each deck told one or two things the other decks did not- {by way of image and intuition} so another question- is tarot allowed to grow???

Lee	25 Dec 2003
I think the Sacred Circle deck is an interesting example. The Majors are differently ordered, and some of the images and concepts are different than the standard. Personally, the few re-ordered cards bother me less than, for example, the Temperance card, which is renamed "Initiation" and which shows a bird flying over a maze. For me, this change in image and concept in this one card alone is enough to make the deck Not Tarot. For another example, the different suit symbols for the Shining Tribe deck (Trees, Rivers, Stones, Birds) may be enough to make the deck Not Tarot for some people. Personally, I like them, and it doesn't prevent me from seeing the deck as Tarot, because they are conceptually related to the elements, which have been an integral part of Tarot tradition for a long time. But these distinctions are totally arbitrary for each person. It seems to me that what this is really all about is a clash of worldviews. Some people need to live in a world of absolutes. Some people need to live in a world which is relativistic. I don't think either side is going to convince the other. I think the most we can accomplish is to try to respect each others' viewpoint. -- Lee

jmd	25 Dec 2003
This reminds me a little of some wonderful philosophical literature on what is often considered more difficult areas. For example, 'bachelor' means/refers to a unmarried man of marriageable age. A social change may occur in which marriage as is currently understood radically alters, and 'bachelor' may continue to be used to refer to any male between the ages of 16-28. With time, for politically correct reasons, this may change to include individuals of either gender between such ages. It would have a vastly different meaning - and denotation - to what it currently has. Some of this may already have occured with 'Tarot' (note, I am referring to not only the word, but its denotation). As mentioned in other threads, I personally do not consider either the Sola Busca nor the Etteilla as 'Tarot' decks - though they may both be causally related to Tarot. Likewise do I not consider Mamluk decks Tarot, though undoubtedly causally related. Again similarly, there are a number of decks, though they may have been either influenced by, or even expanded from, Tarot, I personally just do not consider them Tarot (whether they appropriate the name or not). My answer to Diana's question about the suggested deck is therefore that it would not be a Tarot, even though it very likely would have arisen from considerations of it. It may be, however, that the term changes further with time - language is fluid - and that the acquired meanings of the term accomodates what I would consider non-Tarot decks. In that case, they would only be 'tarot' in that different usage and meaning of the term.

Page	25 Dec 2003
Originally posted by Diana [/i] This is not a tongue in cheek thread, I promise you. There is no irony in it, no ill intentions, so if you see any, it is your imagination. Would this be a Tarot deck? ................ I do find this ironic :D as I've just finished doing my own cards. You must be psychic! So I've leave it like that now that cat is out of the bag :)

Lee	25 Dec 2003
I have a question. Is anyone actually suggesting that there be a universally-agreed-upon standard for what is a Tarot deck and what isn't? Or for what decks are allowable for certain purposes? Or the methods we use to assign meanings to the cards? If so, then my next questions would be, what are the proposed standards? And who gets to decide what complies with the standard and what doesn't? And what motivation or incentive could possibly get the thousands of members of this forum to agree on such things? If the person who gets to decide is me, then I'm all for it! :D If not, then I'll have to regretfully offer my dissent. -- Lee

Moongold	25 Dec 2003
I had some random thoughts about aspects of Diana’s and subsequent posts Have we reached the stage yet where some professional body has defined Tarot? I’m thinking of Tarot Guilds and associations across the world. It seems doubtful or it would have been passionately debated here. I can’t remember seeing such news but I don’t read every forum. Is the process of accreditation likely to have any influence? Accreditation in tarot studies or work could still allow huge scope in beliefs, values and practices, however. Another interesting question for me is who keeps the traditions alive and who are the major influential interests? The publishers of decks like US Games and some of the European Houses? Specific publishers of esoterica like Llewellyn? Forums of opinion and practice like Aeclectic, Tarot.com and others. Scholars, museums? It is probably a combination of all these things and there are probably links between them. It is always interesting to see observe or formally study the transition of cultural, philosophical, ethical and other values and practices across generations. On a personal level, I appreciate the variety of approaches open to people now. I started using tarot as a tool for personal development and I suppose it will always remain that for me. I guess I’m deeply grateful that various people did and still do keep the history and basic philosophy of Tarot intact and that places like this exist to hand it on and to encourage its development. Moongold

jmd	25 Dec 2003
There are two ways of viewing Lee's question. One is its sociological aspect, the other is what is at times referred to as its 'rigid designation'. With the former, it may be a little like suggesting whether or not we may come to an agreement as to whether the Sun revolves around the Earth, and how we are going to get everyone to agree to it. 'Tarot', in such cases, designates its 'dictionary' or reportative denotations. If the 'being' of Tarot is investigated, than it may be that there is an answer to the question - of course, many may not accept that there is such an independantly investigatible thing... If 'Tarot' is considered to refer to something specific, than only investigations will unveil its denoted self. And of course, we may each, individually or collectively, make errors on the way. Where we may be at odds is on whether we accept or not my previous sentence.

tabbycat	26 Dec 2003
If it has 78 cards with 22 trumps and four suits of minors, yes, it's a tarot deck. Variations in names of majors, suits or court cards don't bother me at all. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and goes 'quack'... it's a duck! ;) Jilly

spoonbender	26 Dec 2003
I agree with a number of statements above. This discussion reminds me of the discussion we have sometimes in philosophy-class: what is a chair? Can you define it completely? You can never, because there are so many different ones! I believe this is the same way with tarot. Some tarot decks are very different from each other, yet I do believe them to be Tarot... It's very important to remember that Tarot changes and evolves all the time. And this is, IMHO, the way it should be. Even the Marseille Tarot has, of course, changed and grown, and is already very different, I think, from the Visconti Tarots (for example: the card 'L'Amoureux'). As Carole Sédillot says: "Tarot is. Its time has another reality, because it contains the past, the present, the future... Hebrew, Egyptian, Chinese, Oriental, Medieval, tarot hasn't got limits, it represents the entire humanity." I don't agree with Tabbycat, I don't believe that every deck that has 78 cards with 22 trumps and four suits of minors is a tarot deck. I agree with Lee that you should "judge on a case-by-case basis". Waking The Wild Spirit Tarot, for example, is called 'Tarot', but in my definition does not qualify. I read in the review by Lee on Tarotpassages that, amongst other things, the Knight of Earth is shown as the Giant from Jack and the Beanstalk and is described as a “dirty, smelly, stingy tyrant” with no positive attributes. And that's only one example. This deck, for me, is not tarot.

Ruby7	26 Dec 2003
I would agree with Tabbycat in that if it has 78 cards, 22 trumps and 4 suits with 56 cards then yes technically it could be called "Tarot". But I like Lee's point about deciding on a case by case basis. Personally, (and I mean personally as in everyone else is free to do as they please with no judgement passed by me,) I would not use a deck like this. I prefer to work with more traditional/standard tarot decks with symbology that has been passed down for a few centuries. To me that is what a "tarot" deck is. However, i did just receive the Faery Wicca for Christmas, and am looking forward to working with this, but I don't really think of it as "tarot". It has 83 cards (plus five extra duplicate cards) and is so heavily based on Faery Wicca that to me it is the "Faery Wicca Deck" with which I am exploring Faery wicca and divination through the Faery Wicca system. This deck does have 22 trumps and 4 suits but the cards are altered and there are extra cards. I guess I am more of a traditionalist when it comes to tarot, Ruby7

yve	26 Dec 2003
If it doesn't fit into what might be classified Tarot, then it could be considered an oracle deck...And what is wrong with an oracle deck? For many purposes, it's function is similar to the Tarot as far as divination, readings and spreads, but the mechanics of the deck are different...The wolfpack could be considered such a deck, as there are no court cards or pips and no major arcana...however the creator has chosen to call it a tarot deck...an oversight on his part???

Umbrae	26 Dec 2003
"Why is it necessary, for us to 'define' Tarot? Does it help a spiritual journey? Does it help divination? Why must we quantify, qualify, verify what is and what is not tarot? Tarot by its nature is European - must we then further state that if a deck is not Eurocentric that it cannot be Tarot?" Does Tarot depend upon a 21 (+1) + 56 card structure? What of Tarock decks? If we begin by classifying that Tarot must be synonymous with Tarocchi, then we must open up the classification to a deck that contains fifty-four cards also. Then we have to open the definition to include Minchiate decks also. Once we know why we are defining Tarot – placing limits upon it, then we may have a clearer understanding of the confines we wish to place upon it (numbers or labels). So WHY must we define?

firestorm	26 Dec 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Umbrae " So WHY must we define? Good question. I've been sitting here thinking about this for several minutes now and every "argument" basically comes down to one thing: desire for one way to the exclusion of everything else. Not compatible with tarot IMO. Thanks for making me think.

Diana	26 Dec 2003
I think it is important for each and everyone to define what Tarot is . This can of course end up with a million different definitions. If we don't do this on an individual basis at least, then there is a danger that we will accept any rubbish that comes along and think it is Tarot..... but we will be allowing ourselves to be led up a garden path, or along a path that will lead us nowhere. Any spiritual path needs to have some light shone on it. Because there are many wolves dressed in sheep's clothing. (Some of these wolves are just out to make money, for instance.) Does it make any difference when it comes to divination? Probably not, because one can divine with tea leaves. But of course, this depends on one's definition of Tarot and if one believes that Tarot is only for divination or if it can be used also for other purposes as well. I like to know what I am ingesting.... whether it be physical nourishment (chicken, eggs, pizza......) or spiritual food (Tarot, channelings, yoga.......). Because there is chicken and chicken, and there is yoga and yoga. I heard that they are going to breed a new kind of genetically modified chicken without feathers. To me, this is no longer a chicken. But it will be sold as a chicken.... and some people will buy it. Good luck to them. To me a chicken has feathers, I have decided that this is part of the definition of a chicken.

Le_Corsair	26 Dec 2003
As with so much of artistic endeavor these days, the question appears to hinge on intent and perception. If an artiste declares an object to be a tarot deck, then it is a tarot deck, as long as the intended audience chooses to perceive the object as a tarot deck. As for myself, I am among the intolerant that snarl "Rubbish!" (usually something stronger involving equine excrement, actually) when confronted with this sort of attitude. I've found that anything involving an artiste tends to cause me to gnash my teeth and mutter to myself. Sincerely, Bob the Philistine. :THERM edited to change "feces" to "excrement" in the interest of alliteration.

jmd	26 Dec 2003
In my garden are many beautiful flowers (please remember that we are here in early Summer). There are a variety of roses - some of which with designated names I do not recall, some native bushes with incredibly delicate, yet robust, flowers, some lillies, and many other smaller petalled, or virtually spherical looking, flowers. I may decide to call all of these 'roses' - but roses, for most, they are not. Is it a matter of definition, which becomes to some extant a linguistic exercise, or a matter of appreciating both the variety of flowers, but also specifically investigating and coming to appreciate in greater detail one of these types of flowers - the Rose? This is not, to my mind, about 'putting down' the Violet nor the Tulip, but of understanding and determining what is in fact a Rose. Violets and Tulips also have their incredible beauty... Part of the reason I do not consider the Visconti-Sforza, nor the Minchiate, nor the Sola Busca decks 'Tarot' - though undoubtedly related they are - is because of their differences. A Leopard is not a Panther, though both are felines. Is 'Tarot' an equivalent term to 'feline' or 'flower', or is it more an equivalent term to 'Rose' or 'Leopard'? For me, it is the latter.

Astra	26 Dec 2003
So the general category is "divination decks which are NOT standard poker or bridge decks"? Because, of course, you can do divination with a standard deck of cards. And those get broken down into "Tarot" and "Oracle" or non-Tarot decks. Hmmm. How about - a Tarot deck is one with which you can play Tarocchi(sp)? (which I think was the original original definition). Four suites of 14, 22 numbered Majors, and the majors, evidently, varied from deck to deck before things standardized. I think that any more specific definition pretty much depends on just who the definer thinks created the "definitive" Tarot deck.

Moongold	26 Dec 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Umbrae . So WHY must we define? Language gives meaning. Otherwise how do we communicate at all? It's what we do with the definition that matters. We can accept it as something prescriptive and restricting (and that could be mere projection) or as the beginning of communication. Something creative and meaningful...... because it is the expression of another person's understanding. Moongold

lunalafey	26 Dec 2003
Quote: Originally posted by jmd A Leopard is not a Panther, though both are felines. Is 'Tarot' an equivalent term to 'feline' or 'flower', or is it more an equivalent term to 'Rose' or 'Leopard'? For me, it is the latter. In the animal kingdom there is a "ladder" of classifications starting with Kingdom and ending with Species. the purpose is for identification and to catalogue the fauna. SO.....for the purpose of definition.... Kingdom= divination tools/ all things used for divination Phylum= cards/ all are a deck of cards Subphylum= decks under 78 cards Subphylum= and decks 78 cards & over Class={this is where it splits} 1) tarot/ decks with Majors & Minors 2) Oracle decks/ cards of varied # of cards and form __let's toss the oracle deck, and go from the Tarot Class... traditional/ {ok tarot historians....list the 'characteristics'} Order= decks with 0-21 Majors 4 Suits & 4 Courts per suit Order= decks with more majors Family=Marsallies Family=Rider-Waite Family=umm...golden dawn? crowley? thoth?.....{HELP} Family=???....those decks that are creative etc.....have I overlooked any? Genus= ??.....fluffy? dark? Fine Art, Modern Art, Computer, Published.....etc.... Species= the deck it's self.....like "Tarot Art Nuoveau" SO...... :D If you must have an absolute.... :) ;) feel free to fine tune....:D

tabbycat	27 Dec 2003
lunalafey said In the animal kingdom there is a "ladder" of classifications starting with Kingdom and ending with Species. The biologist in me can relate to that! So, we could have Visconti aureus, Riderwaitus colemanii, Riderwaitus universalis and even the subspecies R. colemanii var. hanson-roberts, Crowleyiella major and C.minor, Nigelus jacksonii and several species of Pollockiana, Folchia and Williamsia! I suspect that when defining tarot we need to borrow a convention from the S-F world - it's tarot if I point at it and say it's tarot! Jilly

Diana	27 Dec 2003
I had a terrific argument a couple of weeks ago with someone. Only to discover that the whole misunderstanding was because we were giving a different definition to the word we were using - so we were talking at cross purposes. So after checking in my dictionary, we decided that one of the synonyms was better suited for what we were trying to convey. I think any word needs defining if it is to be used in discussion with others.

Kaz	27 Dec 2003
the thing you describe, is imho a tarot-look-alike, or an oracle deck. so many nowadays called traotdecks arent tarotdecks if you ask me, but thats just me. each to his own.

Cocobird55	27 Dec 2003
I am working on the new American Tarot Association course. Here is an excerpt that explains what their definition is. I'm not saying they are necessarily correct... Sue "So what makes up a tarot deck? The typical deck consists of 78 cards. They are divided as follows: 22 Major Arcana cards, numbered 0-21 The specific name of the card may change from deck to deck, but most often, they consist of: 0: The Fool 11. Justice 1: The Magician 12: The Hanged Man 2: The High Priestess 13: Death 3: The Empress 14: Temperance 4: The Emperor 15: The Devil 5: The Hierophant 16: The Tower 6: The Lovers 17: The Star 7: The Chariot 18: The Moon 8: Strength 19: The Sun 9: The Hermit 20: Judgment 10: Wheel of Fortune 21: The World "40 Minor Arcana cards The minor arcana cards are split into four suits, like playing cards. They number 1-10 within each suit. Most decks have illustrations on these cards, which illustrate the concept of the card; some decks have simple representations of the number and suit, typically called “pips.” When reading with pips, the reader relies on memorized meanings or meanings derived from the number and suit involved. "16 Court cards Similar to playing cards, there are court cards for each suit, but in tarot, there are four court cards per suit, rather than three. In most decks, the court cards are King, Queen, Knight, and Page. "While this program is designed to be used with any tarot deck, it’s suggested that you use a deck with 78 cards. "

Khatruman	27 Dec 2003
Having not totally looked through all the responses in this thread, and assuming that Diana is bringing up the issue of what constitutes a "true" tarot deck, I will answer as I have before. I think that, in order for tarot to be a truly living study, its traditions must be challenged, must be stretched and changed. It is like a language. The definition of a dead language is one in which people do not redefine and change the words, grammar, syntax, etc., to allow it to evolve. Latin and Yiddish, among others, are considered dead languages because they are "finished". Yes, they are used, but there will no longer be any new Latin words or Yiddish words, or new conceptions because it is no longer a living force. Similarly, I see that tarot, in order to be a living practice, a living oracular language, must be challenged and stretched. If we keep to standards of the Marseilles, or even standards of RWS (which in itself offered changes), it stagnates, and we do not allow it to evolve. People here have asked what will be the significant tarot of the 21st century. Surely, if one surfaces, it must be a change from some of those traditions we hold on to so vehemently. Just my two cents.

jmd	27 Dec 2003
Katruman brings refreshing thoughts (again) here... so how may I myself 'challenge' (in the most positive sense of the term) those views? I agree that Tarot must remain a living tradition. This includes having challenges, reflecting on its structure, experimenting with changes, indeed, as I personally often suggest (though probably more off-line than online) making one's own deck - even if, the moment it is complete, it is deemed inappropriate by its maker! Doing all this, however, does not necessarily mean that either the structure of Tarot changes, nor its iconography or numbering alters. Rather, its inner life pushes and pulls in various directions. Eventually, it may mutate. A duck may give rise to a new species (maybe a diuck)... During its existence, however, Tarot will be Tarot not only because it walks, smells, quacks and looks like a duck (to use tabbycat's analogy), but because of something far more ephemeral. It is this 'inner life', in its incarnated form, which remains Tarot. I personally find it interesting that cocobird55's post, which mentions the ATA's characterisation of a 'typical' Tarot deck, is taken from depictions and titles of the RWCS. Even if one wants to take the RWCS as a base, it negates two other important decks - the Marseilles and the Crowley-Harris Thoth. Of course, those who have already Tarot experience would recognise this, but as the course is presumably aimed at beginners, it would present the RWCS peculiar numbering as 'standard'.

Shade	28 Dec 2003
I think I probably have a fairly conservative view of what is and is not a tarot deck to me. I don't mind renaming a card but I feel that the definition of the card should in some way coincide with tarot tradition. For example you can call the High Priestess The Lady of Veils, the Seer, Truth or whatever and the card can show a tree or a man or whatever you want but fpor me the card needs to relate to intuition or wisdom or secrets, etc. For example the Olympus tarot (a deck I love) strays VERY far from traditional minor arcana meanings. It is a great deck but TO ME it is not Tarot.

Kiama	28 Dec 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Shade I think I probably have a fairly conservative view of what is and is not a tarot deck to me. I don't mind renaming a card but I feel that the definition of the card should in some way coincide with tarot tradition. For example you can call the High Priestess The Lady of Veils, the Seer, Truth or whatever and the card can show a tree or a man or whatever you want but fpor me the card needs to relate to intuition or wisdom or secrets, etc. For example the Olympus tarot (a deck I love) strays VERY far from traditional minor arcana meanings. It is a great deck but TO ME it is not Tarot. This is very similar to my own views on the matter: I don't mind what title is given to the cards, as long as their meanings remain roughly the same. In fact, I feel that the changing of titles, especially for the Major Arcana, adds to my understanding of the cards. My classification of what is and what isn't a Tarot deck is very loose. Sometimes I'll even accept a deck that has more than 78 cards as a Tarot deck, as long as those extra cards can be discarded easily. (So, the Quest Tarot, with an extra Multiverse card is still a Tarot deck to me, though the Shapeshifter is bordering very close to non-Tarot for me, because it's extra cards are placed in between the normal cards, and the numbering goes funny when you remove them.) The way I see it, change is bound to happen, and is good: it adds to our understanding. I think it is excellent that there are so many decks out there nowadays to appeal to so many diverse people, and I think it is amazing how somebody who has been learning Tarot for, say 30+ years can still learn more, simply by looking at a new deck. One question that came to me however, in reading this thread.... Many people say that a Tarot deck must consist of 78 cards... But what about just a 22 card Majors only deck? Is it Tarot or not? Personally, I'd say yes. What does everybody else think? Something spoonbender said reminded me of Plato's theory of the Forms: Quote: This discussion reminds me of the discussion we have sometimes in philosophy-class: what is a chair? Can you define it completely? You can never, because there are so many different ones! I believe this is the same way with tarot. Some tarot decks are very different from each other, yet I do believe them to be Tarot... In his theory of the Forms, Plato said there was a 'True Form' of every object that exists in the world, on some 'higher plane' of existence. So, there is a 'True Form' of the 'chair'. Plato went on to say that all chairs in this world are 'copies' of the 'True Form' of the chair, and because they are imperfect copies of the True Form of the chair, they are all bound to be different. But there does exist, he said, an 'essence', a 'True Form', of the chair. Maybe this is also true of a Tarot deck? Maybe there is a True Form of Tarot, that exists on a different 'level', and that all decks in this world (including those almost all of us would class as Tarot, such as the Marseilles, aswell as those we have problems with, such as the Shapeshifter...) are just imperfect copies of it. Yet they are all 'Tarot' because they are derived from the True Form of the Tarot. Now, I don't particularly like Plato's theory of Forms. But if we exchange the word 'True Form' for something like 'essence'...? Maybe? It's interesting to think about anyway. Great thread Diana! Kiama

Diana	28 Dec 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Khatruman The definition of a dead language is one in which people do not redefine and change the words, grammar, syntax, etc., to allow it to evolve. Are you sure? I thought a dead language was "a language that is no longer learned as a native language by a speech community".

HudsonGray	28 Dec 2003
For some Native American languages I've seen 'dead language' referred to as a language spoken by less than 2 dozen people, according to what I've read about linguistics studies.

WolfSpirit	28 Dec 2003
Great thread, I have read some interesting ideas here. Yes, I think decks with majors only are also tarot. And I would call a deck that renames the majors still a tarot deck, as long as the meanings are not completely different. I think a good non-traditional deck may alter or stretch the traditional meaning of a card a bit, without changing it completely. It challenges you to look at the fixed meanings in a different way. Decks that are not considered tarot can still be very valuable. For example, I love the already mentioned Wolf Pack "tarot" that is not tarot at all, the only thing it has in common with tarot is that it has 78 cards. I still think it is a great deck but I wish it was not called tarot...

Khatruman	02 Jan 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Diana I thought a dead language was "a language that is no longer learned as a native language by a speech community". Forgive me, Diana. Perhaps I should not have stated that "the definition of a dead language is..." and indeed my definition may not appear in a dictionary. Nonetheless, when a language becomes dead, it no longer evolves through everyday use, which of course is what happens when it is not a native language. Seems that we are dealing in semantics, which was not my point. I merely used the analogy to illustrate that tarot should be considered a form of language in that it communicates meaning. As a form of communication, the users should be willing to challenge the parameters to be assured that it remains a valid communication form. Have I correctly used my language, Diana? :D

Diana	03 Jan 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Khatruman Have I correctly used my language, Diana? :D You get 10 out of 10, plus a little silver star. When you have 5 silver stars, you get a lollipop! :D

Alex	03 Jan 2004
Diana Your view of the Tarot seems to me purely essentialist, a theory of classification that roots in Plato's "theory of forms". Objects observed in the real world are reflections of a limited number of essences, or eide, and variation is merely the manifestation of imperfect reflections of constant essences. For example, in the world, statements I make today may be just today but tomorrow the same statements may be unjust. This does not mean that there is no such thing as justice. Justice exists, unchanging and perfect, in the world of forms. The same applies to objects: Waite's deck is different from the Marseilles decks but you still recognize both as being Tarot decks. How? Because both conform to the basic "essence" of a Tarot deck. The Visconti, the Marseilles, and the Waite's decks are different, but the essence of "Tarot", that existent in the world of forms, is but one, unchanging, and perfect. The problem you are asking, re-phrasing it, is simply "what is the essence of the Tarot?” Biologists who try to circumscribe species face similar problem. Under the essentialist view, species are fixed units that can be recognized by their respective essences. Essentialism does not work in biology because species evolve, hybridize, and change constantly. It also does not work in the study of languages, because languages change constantly. Asking what is "the tarot" is the same as asking, "what is this language called German?” The proto-indo-European language? One of the so-called "Germanic Languages"? Hochdeutsh? Modern decks are a result of evolution (change through time), caused by, among other things, hybridization with other decks, and with other systems of divination (as for example astrology). When does a deck that has evolved from a Tarot deck ceases to be a tarot deck? It's the same as asking, "how do you know that Homo erectus and Homo sapiens are separate species? My answer is: there's no "objective criterion", and that's more patently true when it comes to extinct "species" and dead objects. There's not "objective" criterion of DEFINING something. I know I haven't answered your original question, i.e., what is the "essence" of the Tarot. We're a century away from essentialism, already. Alex.

Diana	04 Jan 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Alex I know I haven't answered your original question, i.e., what is the "essence" of the Tarot. No, but you've written a damn good post.... It was worthwhile logging-in to Aeclectic today. Thank you very much. :)

Mystic Zyl	04 Jan 2004
I would call this deck Primal Instincts.........it is all that the human world encounters that is not learned, like psychic ability.

HOLMES	05 Jan 2004
1. if you decided to do so , i would ask did you intend to create a tarot or just decided to divide up such ? 2. i would then concur that you followed the collective unconscious and super conscious and followed your higher guidance. 3. and then i would say it sounds to me that the higher conscious set out to make the hunter trip tarot . or the hunter quest tarot. as i know for you the key is the batleur/magican card 4.then i would say isn't it interesting how spirit guides us ? -------------------- for the essence of a tarot , if it looks like tarot, smells like tarot, works like tarot , is it therefore a tarot ? i don't know, a shapeshifter trickster could take the perfect form of a tarot look a like but wouldn't he get trapped in such a form and then become what he was trying to be. ?? it is very much a personal choice and stands vary from author to author. some say that tarot cards which claim to be are clearly not , while others which say they are not are cleary tarot but have an extra two cards added and a card added to each suit. (soul tidings truth cards assemble that latter description to the day i die i feel eheh )

Star Spirit	06 Jan 2004
I said to someone the other day, tarot is about non-conforming. Everyone has their own way of doing things, of learning, of reading, of caring for their cards (or not). Card meanings are not solid. They all have their opposities, and their "outside the box" spur of the moment type meanings. Tarot is like an invisible dictionary, where the cards are all just words and their individual definitions are always changing. The meanings aren't always the same, and the pictures sure aren't, so why should the cards be? Change the names all you like, add a few cards, what difference does it make? If one Magician card differs from another but has the same name, does that make them the same? No, it doesn't. Individuality is key. Learn to see what is there, not what reminds you of conformity. Here's an example from Dictionary.com: 2 entries found for tarot. tar·ot (conformity) - Any of a set of usually 78 playing cards including 22 cards depicting vices, virtues, and elemental forces, used in fortunetelling. ---------------------------------------------- tarot (non-conformity) - A game of cards.

Diana	06 Jan 2004
Quote: Originally posted by HOLMES for the essence of a tarot , if it looks like tarot, smells like tarot, works like tarot , is it therefore a tarot ? i don't know, a shapeshifter trickster could take the perfect form of a tarot look a like but wouldn't he get trapped in such a form and then become what he was trying to be. ?? I am very happy to read all these replies to the thread I started. I didn't expect so many... especially as it is a subject that has been brought up before. But I want to thank Holmes particularly for his post and especially for the paragraph I quote above. I has opened a little window in my heart and the view from the window is pretty indeed.

Aoife	06 Jan 2004
I have found it useful to arrive at my own working categories: Tarot Deck - pre-20th century, French/Italian - of which Marseilles and Soprafino are the master moulds Tarot-Derivative Deck - RWS, CH Thoth, and their clones Tarot-Inspired Deck - e.g. Sacred Circle, Osho Zen As I said, these are purely my personal, working defintions.

Diana	06 Jan 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Aoife I have found it useful to arrive at my own working categories: Tarot Deck - pre-20th century, French/Italian - of which Marseilles and Soprafino are the master moulds Tarot-Derivative Deck - RWS, CH Thoth, and their clones Tarot-Inspired Deck - e.g. Sacred Circle, Osho Zen As I said, these are purely my personal, working defintions. Are these definitions for sale? How much do they cost? Can I buy a set from you please? And can I have a signed edition? No, I'm serious..... these speak to me absolutely and completely. I consider these definitions to be 100% accurate and extremely well thought-out. Thank you for sharing this. I have in the past considered the RWS decks to be more of an Oracle type but I have changed my mind over the past few months after considering various discussions and views of people on Aeclectic. However, I am still not convinced that they are really Tarot, and think they fit into your definition perfectly.

blue_fusion	28 Jan 2004
hmmm. i'm so much reminded of a thread and discussion we had waay back about doing a deck with three suits in it. it will still bear the same majors (perhaps with additions) but with ony 3 suits for the minors. it was moved to the oracle deck section because it was "deemed" as not tarot-related. however, this got me to thinking since there are tarot decks in existence with 5 suits, why does 3 make a difference? again, this is more of an inquiry into that essence, that perfect abstraction of tarot. :) blue_fusion by the way, here's the thread: http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4576&highlight=fates

Major Tom	28 Jan 2004
Quote: Originally posted by jmd I agree that Tarot must remain a living tradition. This includes having challenges, reflecting on its structure, experimenting with changes, indeed, as I personally often suggest (though probably more off-line than online) making one's own deck - even if, the moment it is complete, it is deemed inappropriate by its maker! I knew there was a reason I like you Jmd. :laugh: I keep trying to encourage people to make their own decks. :) This tempts me to hijack the thread. :laugh: I keep asking the question "What is tarot?" and getting a huge variety of answers. Yet, I still have my own opinion which is that tarot is continually evolving and not everything it evolves into can still be considered tarot. I like the idea of the essessential or as you've so aptly put it elsewhere and others have used an Ur-tarot. Aoife - I like your 'working' definitions, but where does this leave decks like the Camoin Marseilles which definitely came out in the last part of the 20th Century? More importantly where does it leave the deck I'm creating as part of the 78 weeks study? :laugh:

Aoife	28 Jan 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Major Tom Aoife - I like your 'working' definitions, but where does this leave decks like the Camoin Marseilles which definitely came out in the last part of the 20th Century? More importantly where does it leave the deck I'm creating as part of the 78 weeks study? :laugh: Indeed Tom, any attempt to define something as organic as tarot is likely to throw up discrepancies - which is why I call them 'working' definitions. As far as the Camoin is concerned..... and those more knowledgeable than I will correct me..... I see it to be a synthesis of a number of Marseille styles. Similarly the Hadar. As both essentially conform to the Marseille 'mould', I regard the changes as minor ammendments and therefore define them as Tarot decks. As for your new Marseille-inspired deck, Tom, I'm waiting expectantly to see more before deciding how I would define it :) ;)

firemaiden	28 Jan 2004
Camoin? Synthesis? maybe. Most of all it is an attempted reconstruction of some kind of Ur-deck. I prefer to think of it as a reconstruction. But reconstruction also involves sythesis... LOL. ...a bit like the postulated "proto-indo-european language" - reconstructed by comparing the languages which have decended from it, and imagining what their ancestor might have been like... a bit like trying to divine the trunk from the branches. :)

skytwig	29 Jan 2004
Quote: Originally posted by firemaiden a bit like trying to divine the trunk from the branches. :) Love that language! :laugh: SWEET!!

Lady Eclipse	29 Jan 2004
Hi Diana, IMO, yes, it would be a tarot deck. The tarot is not something that should have limitations imposed upon it by what people "think" it should be. Should this happen, tarot will not continue to evolve over time and that would be a detriment in the long run. Joy to you, Maralee

Rusty Neon	29 Jan 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Aoife I have found it useful to arrive at my own working categories: Tarot Deck - pre-20th century, French/Italian - of which Marseilles and Soprafino are the master moulds Tarot-Derivative Deck - RWS, CH Thoth, and their clones Tarot-Inspired Deck - e.g. Sacred Circle, Osho Zen As I said, these are purely my personal, working defintions. On the other hand, I consider all of the named decks to be Tarot Decks.

Rusty Neon	29 Jan 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Diana This is not a tongue in cheek thread, I promise you. There is no irony in it, no ill intentions, so if you see any, it is your imagination. I have been pondering on things for the last couple of days, and I have a question to ask you all: If I were to create a deck of cards. Let's say, 78 cards. Two sub-sets - first sub-set would have 22 cards. Second sub-set.... 56 cards divided respectively into four different sub-sets. And then I decided to assign meanings to each card. And on each card I would put a picture so that people would understand what I am trying to convey with my meaning. Let's say the first five cards of the Sub-Set, I would call, after a lot of thought and many weeks of pouring through books and stuff: 1) The Hunter; 2) The Hunted, 3) The Gatherer, 4) The Mother, 5) The Father, etc. etc. etc........ and let's say I called the first sub-set of the second sub-set the suit of "Spears". The meaning I want to give to the first card in this sub-set is "Hope"; the second card in this sub-set is "Greed", and the third is "Anger"....... (etc. etc. ) Would this be a Tarot deck? Yes. As a matter of fact, the deck you describe in quite similar in concept to Lo Scarabeo's _Tarot of the Origins_. http://www.spiritone.com/~filipas/Masquerade/Reviews/origins.html

Imagemaker	29 Jan 2004
Isn't that one of the decks on the Comparative Tarot? I find it very interesting.

Rusty Neon	29 Jan 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Imagemaker Isn't that one of the decks on the Comparative Tarot? I find it very interesting. Yes.

Rusty Neon	29 Jan 2004
Many of such decks have 78 cards, of which 22 are trumps that are numbered but unnamed. The trumps have illustrations that don't resemble any of the 22 major arcana of the Tarot de Marseilles. They have illustrations but often without any archetypal themes. The minor arcana have, in each suit, playing card like One to Ten Cards and 4 court cards similar to French playing cards. For example, the Tarot of the Regions of France is such a deck. http://www.spiritone.com/~filipas/Masquerade/Reviews/regions.html http://www.spiritone.com/~filipas/Masquerade/Reviews/regions2.html Under some of the definitions given in various posts, such decks would not be tarot decks. As for me, I would consider such decks to be, even tarot decks (and my view would remain the same even if such decks weren't conceived to be used for the game of tarot.)

Aoife	30 Jan 2004
Since first posting Ive been racking my brain to remember what led to my personal working definitions....... and I've found it. http://www.telp.com/tarot/classics.htm http://www.telp.com/tarot/occults.htm http://www.telp.com/tarot/moderns.htm All at Tom Tadfor Little's Telperion site........ an excellent site

jmd	30 Jan 2004
I was recently looking at a few cards of a deck which many consider undoubtedly Tarot, and could not, in all honesty, remotely accept as being such. I prefer to not name the deck at this stage, as the deck itself is not as relevant as the point I want to make. To my mind, there are two predominant types of decks: those which are designed from, so to speak, the inside out, and those designed from the outside in. Those of the first sort seek to work out of the spirit or impulse of Tarot, and may manifest in various ways. Those of the second arise from those who seek to superimpose, on the structure found on Tarot, their own images - often with similar characteristic traits. The Ür-Tarot manifest in each and every deck which manifest from the same impulse, whereas those which manifest out of the second description only visually parrot the Tarot. Those of the first group may, indeed, have many features which differ from each other, whereas those from the second group will usually have a surface similarity which is striking. In an analogical manner, one may consider the difference between a human being and a humanoid-robot. What characterises the human being is not so much outer characteristics (each of which could be, in specific circumstances, altered or lost, whether it be eyesight or arm), but an embodiment of Spirit. Conversely, a humanoid robot will be devoid of this, yet its surface appearance will bear increasingly striking similarities to the 'average' form of a human being. Many which have been called 'Tarot' decks seem to me to be of the second category. Others, such as the Marseille, but also the altered Etteilla, the altered Falconnier ('Egyptian'), the altered Wirth and the altered RWCS are each examples of the former - of the 'genuine' branch - though I would personally see most in this list as malformed or mis-shapen (others of course would not).

unreality	30 Jan 2004
Yes, I think I would have to consider that a tarot deck. I use the term very loosely, though, to generally encompas any suited deck with two divisions whose purpose is for divination, so...

The Would this be a Tarot deck? thread was originally posted on 25 Dec 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.