Tarot and New Cosmology

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 05 Jun 2004, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Yatima	05 Jun 2004
This is thought as a thread on the old geocentric background of the Tarot and us, living in a time of quantum physics and relativity theory. I want to open a discussion on the philosophical, iconographical and (deck-)creative perspectives of this tension. It is known that the Tarot was related or even based on a hierarchical cosmology leading back to astrological/astronomical traditions from Babylonian times on, also to be inherited from Greek philosophy, pre-Socratic, Aristotelian, neo-Platonic. All these approaches can in sum be named “geocentric” and “multileveled.” At the time of the invention of the Tarot in the early 15th century, this was common doctrine on the world-structure as was e.g. symbolized in the Mantegna-“Tarot.” Nevertheless, today we have got to accept a totally different cosmological background (at least when we accept the scientific approach to the world to be appropriate). The universe seems to grow and decline, to have a beginning (in the Big Bang), an (possible) ending (in a Big Crunch), a pulsing reproduction (in endless generated world-bubbles as in the newer inflation theory) or to be a "multiverse" (many-world theory). There are many interesting facts when we consider these differences regarding cosmology in relation to the Tarot: It is e.g. interesting that, on the one hand, it was the same neo-Platonic influence on philosophy that led to the elaborate hierarchical universe of the Middle Ages and the early Renaissance (and, hence, to the cosmological background of the early Tarot), but also, on the other hand, to the (philosophical/theological) transformation of its geocentric approach to a more “holocentric,” de-centered view. It were purely philosophical considerations regarding the infinity of the world that led Nicolas of Cusa to the proposition of an non-centered universe that does not have anything – and at least the world (Earth) – as its center. He died 1464; right at the time of the formation of the Tarot. The same considerations led the Hermetic (!) philosopher G. Bruno to about the same consequence: There is no center of the universe! He died through the Inquisition in 1600, right at/before the time the TdM was created/developing. So, suddenly (from internal reasons) the hierarchic, multilayered, but geocentric universe of the Tarot background changed into a multi-centric, but “flat” universe. Another interesting fact is that from the 17th century on almost the whole history of the Tarot was not beckoned by the geocentric cosmology it was (probably) expressing. From Galileo Galilei (who “saw” the planets beyond their Divine essence as material objects) to Yuri Gagarin (who “saw a “heaven” as space without God), the universe had lost its mysterious layers. Was this ever recognized by Tarotists? Or were they hopeless and lost-in-time “geocentrics”? Moreover, it is a fact that only few Tarotists have tried to relate the Tarot’s cosmology to the new cosmology of the 20th century. To my knowledge, only Cynthia Giles has brought up this matter as part of her first book on “The Tarot” by elaborating it within a whole chapter in relation to quantum physics, chaos theory, relativity theory… Why, if the Tarot has such a strong cosmological background, is there so little interest in thoughts and development of Tarots in relation or even in incorporation of the new cosmology of our times as seen in relativity theory, quantum physics and so on - which are around since almost a century! Nevertheless, one of the grand masters of the occult Tarot of the early 20th century has realized this deficit: A. Crowley in his “The Book of Thoth” has quoted Einstein, has related his relativity theory to his idea of the “spiral energy” that evades the universe, and he (or F. Harris) has included these suggestions in the iconography at least of the Fool, the Magician, the High Priestess, and the World (there also including the modern system of chemical elements)… So in a time where we relate Tarot almost always to either its past neo-Platonic/Hermetic (including Kabbalistic) hierarchical background or rearrange its cosmology within a Jungian framework, but also widen it, as many new Tarots demonstrate, to intercultural and inter-mythological studies - why should we not reconsider the Tarot as an expression of a cosmology? And how could we reconsider the Tarot in light of the new cosmology? These are the questions I would like to ask to be discussed at any level – from history to philosophy, from symbolism to card creation… Let me finish with a first consideration: It is at least interesting that the revolution of cosmology in the early 20th century (from 1905 on) has brought back multiple layers to the universe that have been missed and even stripped away in the Galilean and Newtonian “flat” (materialistic) universe: We know today of at least four such layers: the quantum level, the macrocosmic level, the relativistic level of light speed, the level beyond physical space and time in Black Wholes. Yatima

Mojo	05 Jun 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Yatima It is known that the Tarot was related or even based on a hierarchical cosmology leading back to astrological/astronomical traditions from Babylonian times on, also to be inherited from Greek philosophy, pre-Socratic, Aristotelian, neo-Platonic. Oh yeah? And you can prove this?

Suriel	05 Jun 2004
I agree with you, Yatima! :) I've spend about a few minutes to finish reading your whole long article -- since i'm interested! I am always between the secular humanist and the mysticist... If ever the tarot card can join with the modern science, i would be the happiest person.... Tarot card should change, and it should change base on our modern cosmology....! Lswern

punchinella	06 Jun 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Lswern If ever the tarot card can join with the modern science, i would be the happiest person.... Tarot card should change, and it should change base on our modern cosmology....! I don't know. My gut feeling is that it's all there already (in Tarot de Marseille) if only I could understand it. For one thing, it's hard to examine the relationship between tarot & cutting-edge (or, not . . . ) science when one is not a scientist oneself. My guess is that there aren't a whole lot of people floating around the boards really qualified to discuss--or even capable of discussing!--this subject in any detail. More's the pity, because it is fascinating, & I'll be interested to read what comes up.

Kiama	06 Jun 2004
This is certainly a very interesting idea you have raised, Yatima (and hello: I don't believe we've met before on the boards. :D) My first thoughts on this are that there are two different aspects of the Tarot that could be applied to new cosmology: 1) The Tarot's iconography 2) The Tarot's use. Now, personally I do not apply old cosmology to the Tarot's iconography (I've never been very enamoured with the planets, etc), so I see no reason for myself personally applying new cosmology to it (though out of academic interest I might take a look at it.) However, for the Tarot's use I would love to see quantum theory, relativity, and the like applied. I think this would give us a whole new idea of how the Tarot works, the idea of the entire tract of the future, the present, and the past, if such things exist. You are also correct when you say that Tarot is stuck in the past when it comes to these issues, just as magic and occultism, I believe, is. They look at Freud, Jung, Copernicus, etc, all of whom created models of the human self or the universe which are... *Ahem* slightly 'off'. ;) I have a friend who is currently working on a modern psychological account of magic, so I would love to see a modern cosmological/scientific account of the workings of teh Tarot. Blessings, Kiama

Gerbear	06 Jun 2004
All of your information about the 'new cosmology' is in a state of flux, as new theories compete to replace the old. The "big bang' is still a theory with shortcomings that grow as we find out more. The universe is a stranger place than we can imagine, and each new discovery opens up more questions, than it answers. I feel it will always be this way, as long as we keep looking.

jmd	06 Jun 2004
I'll just focus a little on one aspect which Yatima mentions, and also refer back to especially a couple of much earlier Aeclectic discussions: Sanctum Sanctorum ; and Tarot and the scientist . Specifically, Yatima says that 'only few Tarotists have tried to relate the Tarot’s cosmology to the new cosmology of the 20th century', and mentions Cynthia Giles's The Tarot. Another book which does address this is Paul LaViolette's Beyond the Big Bang: Ancient Myth and the Science of Continuous Creation, 1995 (which, 'coincidentally', I have also recently mentioned in the context of another thread). Within the book - which it has been a number of years since I read - there is much which I would personally seriously question, yet he brings interesting systems analysis, astrology, quantum physics and myriad other bits and pieces together in an original and ingenius manner. Subscribers may also be interested in re-visiting the thread titled Isn't it time to lose the 'mystic-babble'?, which also touches a little on some related aspects.

DeLani	06 Jun 2004
I hope I'm understanding this thread correctly...but here goes... I do agree that we as modern people should strive to keep Tarot meaningful - but let's not forget that science isn't the only thing that is meaningful. I am a huge fan of the late great Joseph Campbell. His work was often about how myths, though they are not "true," fill a need in our psyche. They are instructional and fulfilling. So, in that sense, I see Tarot as more of a mythic system, than a cosmological one. Though we "know" logically that the earth isn't the center of the universe, we also must "know" on some level that for *us*, we are the centers of our own universes. When people (usually) want readings, it is for their own personal problems or questions. It's all about them. And that is what they need. So, as far as meditation and such, the other spiritual/mystical uses besides readings, does this mythic system, while not technically "true," work? For me it does. Nothing in the Tarot says the Earth is the center of the Universe. Nothing in it says the Hebrew's God created the earth in 7 days. It does not put forth a dogma that I can see. There are decks of various religious stripes - Pagan, Christian, Buddhist, Taoist - and that in itself confirms to me that it doesn't put forth a dogma. You can still believe in the modern, scientific view of the universe and still use Tarot cards. So what are the changes you propose? Though I think it's pretty cool the way it is, I also proposed some changes to the astrological correspondences that I thought were more appropriate, even though they contradicted the accepted GD correspondences. So I don't think they are sacrosanct. I would be interested to hear your ideas.

Moongold	06 Jun 2004
Pardon my ignorance but is cosmology the study of the origins of the universe? And what is the new cosmology? I struggled to find something simple on the web but was in a hurry and might have missed something. Just a web link or the name of an available book would be handy. I imagine it includes chaos theory and quantum physics and the like. Sorry to interrupt the flow of the thread. I really llike what delani said but am interested in the further application of some aspects of scientific enquiry to the tarot. I did not there was ever any connection of the tarot to explanations of the origin of the universe. Thanks

Yatima	06 Jun 2004
Cosmology is one of the oldest interests of human thought. We know it from Zoroaster to the Indian religions, from the Bible to the myths of virtual every culture. It is about the world we live in; it is about our interest not just about us, as humans, but of our connectedness with about everything, the universe. Cosmology was (with one or two other issues) the prime focus of early Greek philosophy from Thales to Heraklitus, from Anaximander to Pythagoras, from Plato to Aristotle. In fact, it was the Aristotelian theory of spheres that laid the basis for about the next 1800 years of cosmological considerations: the earth in the center, the combinations of the four elements under the sublunary reign, the substance of the Heavens (ether), the prime mover or God. With very rare exceptions and up to the 17th century, this was the basic cosmological belief of the European civilization. Indeed, mythology, religion and science were related on the same basis; in cosmology, they were united to a grandiose image of a manifold, hierarchically (that is, in spheres) structured world; it included astronomy and astrology, physics and metaphysics. I this regard, the geocentric cosmology or Ptolemaic universe was, indeed, the natural background of the Renaissance and hence (at least on a general level) for the Tarot – there was just no other cosmology around (with few exceptions, I have already named). Furthermore, that the Tarot was based on this unifying cosmology and even expressed (some of) its characteristics can be seen in the cosmographical approach of the Mantegna and the Minchiate, which construct “world-models” according to the scientific and spiritual knowledge of the time. For those who are interested in this connection of Tarot and (geocentric) cosmology to study Bob O’Neill’s iconographic analysis of the Majors as well as his formidable article on the neo-Platonic background of the Tarot and its cosmological implications at “tarot.com” and Tom Little’s analysis of the Mantegna-cosmology in relation to the Tarot trumps at “tarothermit.com” may be inevitable. Since the 17th century two major shifts in cosmology (at least these) emerged: first, the revolution in the break-through of scientific astronomy and physics through Kepler, Galilei and Newton or the experimental proof and theoretical construction of a heliocentric cosmology, which was really a new paradigm (not easily accepted by the powers of the time…) or the Copernican universe and, second, the revolution at the beginning of the 20th century through relativity theory and quantum physics or the Einsteinian universe. Since the Copernican turn wisdom and science broke apart somehow, leaving the implications of the old cosmology (regarding the spheres with its mythological, magical, mystical, and religious tuning) without ground in the physical universe. Interestingly, the theory of the elements held longer, until the second half of the 19th century, when the chemical elements were finally discovered and the ether-theory was discarded by Einstein’s research. Nevertheless, also the new cosmologies had always spiritual implications. I think e.g. of Newton’s universe of absolute time and space that he named the “sensory of God.” And even more, the Einsteinian universe allowed for new strange relationships to old wisdom: interrelatedness of all things (as in the Hermetic “as above, so below”), the difference of space/time and quantum time that allowed for a new theory of the universe not as a fact but a wealth of interfering possibilities, and so on. Cosmology is not just about the origin of the universe (or its end) but about its structure. That the Tarot related to these matters can be seen on some of the Majors, e.g., on the Judgment (the end of this universe) or the Aeon in Crowley (as a new csmic aera), the World in its old depiction as New Jerusalem (a New World or Creation) or the TdM World as figure of the Universe as a whole or Crowley's Universe as implying his "spiral force" related to Einstein and the chemical tree of elements. A very interesting example for an "origin-theory" would be Etteilla's introduction of the theme of "creation" (the seven biblical days of creation) within his Tarot (which some however don't consider a true Tarot) or, even more demanding, Court de Gebelin's and De Mellet's ordering of the trumps in descending order (beginning with XXI, World) indicating creation (e.g. XX meaning "the creatio of man"). This whole development is not so much about a contradiction between science and spirituality, but more about their ever changing relationship at all times. So the “scientific” approach of the Aristotelian universe of spheres were not necessarily implying a “created” universe but led to discussions about the eternity of the universe. In the 13th century these theses were highly discussed at the new founded universities: Even Thomas Aquinas, who emphatically embraced the Aristotelian concept of “sciencia,” agreed with him that the thesis of an eternal universe is the most rational approach (although he would not follow it for biblical reasons). “Science” was to be understood as “knowledge from (rational, that is, through argumentation reached) reasons.” It is nothing neutral, no technique, but a human ability and doing, namely to approach reality outside us. Today, many programs run (especially in the US) on the subject “Science and Spirituality/Religion”; it is a very lively field of research and discussion, worth for tarotists who are interested in magic/mystic/spirituality/religion and science to engage with. That the New Cosmology has its spiritual implications in a wider sense may be pointed out by two interesting facts: On a personal level, I do find it an incredible form of interconnectedness with the wider (non-human) universe to know that to allow for human beings to exist at all had to have as condition a Supanova-explosion (only there iron was created…). We are literally stardust! On a more scholarly level we should not forget that Jung’s theory of “synchronicity”, which tarotists today almost universally (at least in literature) invoke to explain the Tarot-divination, was co-authored by one of the leading quantum physicist of the time: Wolfgang Pauli. There are a lot of unconsidered connections... Not only in the history of the Tarot and its mutability over time can we learn that an open mind is the most human treasure: be adventurous! So to think of new continents to be discovered might lead some of us to think of this relation of the Tarot to the New Cosmology (that in a certain sense nowadays allow even to integrate old ideas on a magical universe anew). And if it is true that to know us would also demand to know the world (wasn’t that an implication of the Hermetic macro/microcosmic connectivity?), some of us might be inclined to follow the traces led by Crowley: Think of Einstein in relation to the Tarot! Yatima

Cerulean	06 Jun 2004
I like your overview. I think this link below has a series of lessons that is helpful because it takes past examples of what cosmology was and touches upon some of the items you wrote about. I happened first on the page where it showed the sign of infinity for the fool and moved on from there... http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/cosmo/index.html I'm still exploring starting points, so I'm not fast-forwarded into your range of interests...but maybe it will help us more plodding souls expand our interests. Thanks for your great thoughts! Cerulean

Yatima	07 Jun 2004
Thank you Cerulean: A wonderful site you found for a beginning in a course in cosmology - especially regarding the differences of the paradigms from Ptolemy to Einstein... Yatima

Dark Inquisitor	07 Jun 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Mojo Oh yeah? And you can prove this? Shhh!! Nobody can "prove" anything except to themselves, mostly based on how they secretly wish to view things for various reasons. (Don't tell anybody. ) I think I like this one best though.

Yatima	12 Jun 2004
Although there are not many Tarot-books that refer to New Cosmology, some do. Mostly their interest end with some allusions to the “synchronicity” of Jung and Pauli, which has – as I have already stated in this thread – a cosmological background, but mostly they do not explain this implication. Additional to Giles book “The Tarot: History…” (1992) but also some pages in her “The Tarot: Methods…” (1996), there are two other books that might interest us here: Paul Hughes-Barlow’s “Tarot and the Magus” (2004) and Donald Michael Kraig’s “Tarot and Magic” (2002). The latter refers to the geocentric world-view with its three levels – underworld, (human) world, Heavenly world – and its relations to the Kabbalistic Tree of Life as “cosmology,” especially when he explains the world of the Shamanic travel… The first one does something very rarely done in the kind of Tarot-studies that want to “explain” divination through science: He questions the principle of synchronicity with the introduction of chaos theory, another element of the New Cosmology. In his opinion, synchronicity does not explain anything, but chaos theory would allow for an understanding of the divination process as a “necessary procedure” in which all things, although they cannot be reckoned because of a complexity beyond mathematical possibilities, things cling together not by chance but by cause and effect. Indeed, while synchronicity refers to quantum physics, which states that at least on the quantum level of reality there is true chance (beyond any necessity and in principle beyond cause and effect), chaos theory is a “classical” theory for the macroscopic level of reality as a theory of “necessity”: All clings together in causal relations beyond chance (although at a certain complexity of relationship this can lead to a seemingly unordered chaos). Well, there has been a famous quantum physicist, David Bohm, who in his book “Wholeness and the Implicate Order” (1980) has developed quantum theory in consonance with relativity theory (since both have major differences that are not connected up today): He thought that the quantum chaos would hide an “implicate order” that could be discovered (today, on purely physical reason, that theory seems to have proven wrong: there is a real level of pure chance at the quantum level of reality!). This is, indeed, a cosmological theory and there are tarotists who know that and who like Tarot to be connected with this kind of (scientific) research for reality… Yatima

Yatima	21 Jun 2004
It seems to be a very difficult thought – the reconsideration of the Tarot in light of the cosmological revolutions of the 20th century. So let me add another thought that got to my mind recently: At some point of the discussion of the changes New Cosmology initiated in the cosmology of today, I suggested that to apply it to the Tarot could (not necessarily must or should) include a reconsideration of order, symbolism and iconography of the cards (at least the Majors). A basic issue at stake here is the double-question whether, first, changes could be appropriate for reasons of cosmology inherent to the Tarot and, second, changes have been made already because of the background cosmology or its development. Let’s consider some interesting facts regarding historical changes of Tarot order and iconography and their possible cosmological reasons or at least implications: First, such changes of structure appeared at various times and for various reasons: Waite exchanged Strength and Justice for astrological reasons (which are, seen from the origin of astrology, also cosmological reasons). In his Thoth book (although not in his Thoth deck), Crowley exchanges Star and Emperor because of a private “revelation,” and he rationalized this move also by astrological reasons, especially because of a symmetry with Waite’s exchange. John Shepherd has put forward the thesis that in the early Tarot of the first century of its existence such a change has appeared: The famous Bembo-cards (only 14 of a whole deck with missing Devil and Tower, which we don’t have discovered to this day, and six cards – Temperance, Star, Moon, Strength, Sun and New Jerusalem – added later by another artist, having possibly been structured as a 5x14 deck) may have been “restructured” by adding (the) six (mentioned) cards to introduce another order instead of the one given in the original Tarot painted of Bembo. While the earlier deck, so Shepherd, could have referred to the triumphal tradition (of Petrarch and Renaissance events, as already Moakley has considered), with the added cards, the newly structured Tarot now could have referred to the (geocentric) cosmological order as given, e.g., in the Mantegna-Tarot. Whether or not this theory will be proven right in light of further historical research, indeed, Tarot-structure (as such) – at least at a certain point of its ever fluent manifestations – seems to include a statement on the cosmology that at its early time was standard. Other examples would include the already mentioned Mantegna-Tarot (which is not a Tarot) and the Minchiate, which adds another 20 trumps to the Tarot-structure of the 20+1 Majors (omitting the Papess), depicting the “cosmic powers” not included in the (“regular”?) Tarot: Prudence, three theological Virtues, the four Elements, the Zodiac – truly a sign if cosmological knowledge and intention. By their reconsideration through time, not only structure but also iconography and symbolism show signs of cosmological interference. Iconographical changes have occurred in the long history of the Tarot for various reasons. Some were quite major changes and have proven durable: When Oswald Wirth in his Tarot (1889) shifted from there on the Juggler of the old decks to the image of the Magician, exposing the four elements on his magical table, a whole new paradigm was manifested in the new (occult) Tarot (other changes included the Papess, now the High Priestess, and the Pope, now the High Priest or Hierophant). At least in the Thoth Tarot, Crowley initiated some explicit “cosmological revisions”: The introduction of the “spiral force” that he, in his Thoth book, has related to Einstein, appearing in the Fool and the World; the dimensional distortions, typical the Einstein’s General Relativity Theory, appearing in the Magician (the one, finally included in the deck) and the High Priestess; the reinterpretation of the Judgment as a kind of a pulsating universe with different aeons in the Aeon, which also is a cosmological term. So there are, indeed, some reasons to back up a view that proposes a reconsideration of the Tarot today out of cosmological reasons. Given the many creative advances of Tarot decks today – why not having New Cosmology form the Tarot? Or have such changes, transformations, or inclusions already taken place – in some of the new decks? Have you any suggestions looking through your decks? Yatima

jmd	21 Jun 2004
One of the consequences, however, of post-1904 cosmological considerations is that it becomes again legitimate to consider the universe from the human point of observation. Further, the projective geometry incorporated by Harris in what is also, in terms of its depiction, quite her deck, is the interplay which finds itself between the realm of the mathematical infinite and the finite. This already transcends the current cosmological views, but does not, in my view, show itself in any way superior to what was already depicted in the Marseille. I suppose I write this because, also, the considerations which play themselves out in the deck, whether in the 15th or the 21st century, are not only those of the physicalist manifestation of the world, but also of a spiritual understanding of the same. What probably 'instructed' earlier cosmological models was also a view which took as its basis spiritual reality. This spiritual reality has not altered, though, of course, there have also been changes over time. Essentially, however, for many of us the spiritual hierarchies, and underpinnings of the material world, and the basic human individual and social elements remain as they essentially were in late mediaeval times. Perhaps, then, it may be worth reflecting on what our own spiritual views are, and see how it may be reflected therein. In that sense, people have indeed made alterations to various decks in order to reflect their particular views. Whether these remain Tarot is of course open to differing views. The return to the Marseille pattern, VIII & XI in the CH 'Thoth' deck was certainly one change towards tradition which Crowley made. Given his acceptance of the Hebrew alphabetical placement as proposed by Wescott (and adopted by the GD, and hence Waite), it was perhaps expected that Crowley would make further modifications. Whether or not there is symmetry (the double looped astrological consequence using his letter attributions and their yetziratic zodiacal attributions) as a consequence does not reflect in any greater detail current cosmological views. I suppose that it may be worth pointing out that I do not personally agree with Crowley's views on numerous things - not that this thread is about Crowley. Perhaps, then, to return to the focus of the thread, it may be that the Tarot already reflects deep esoteric and spiritual cosmological structures - and that these, inherent to the Tarot, need not be changed just because our scientific views have altered from one based on a spiritual foundation, but described geocentrically; to then a view reflecting a deep-seated physicalist framework and lacking a centre; to now one which, though still lacking a centre, may be seen to be quite legitimately described from an anthropocentric perspective. We still perceive the Moon to be of roughly equal sensory size as the Sun. Seasons - or even days - are still experienced with increases and decreases of light and heat. The Earth is still experienced as immovable under our feet as the Sun, Moon and Stars rise and fall over the horizon. Humans still have differing positions of power and involvement in the social world. Forces are still at play as they were in the 1500s. And humanity is still facing the development of the same individual moral virtues and metamorphising with similar struggles.

Yatima	22 Jun 2004
Thank you jmd for your interesting thoughts! As to the debate on science and spirituality, it is a really difficult matter, sure. It is a high profile debate, if you want to follow it, with many, many publications and original thoughts. However, I don't see any reason to be anti-scientific at all. I have been engaged in these matters for years, and I can tell you from experience that precisely when we become anti-scientific, "fundamentalism" lurks in some dark holes. When we discard one of our most valuable eyes to the world that surrounds us, we loose contact, and are drawn back to fancy theories. It is known that every scientific revolution has brought up fundamentalist reactions because it felt like loosing ground under our feet. It is, as ever, a matter of security, not of reason. So, why not have both eyes open: the scientific and the spiritual? In my eyes, to ignore cosmological developments is to react like the Church did to Galileo; what a pity… Indeed, cosmology was a matter not only of the physical universe but the spiritual – and it still is! I have given some reference to this matter regarding even the Newtonian Universe (universe as the sensory "body" of God) and especially to the New Cosmology: Many of the quantum physicists wrote on the spiritual dimension of this cosmology. Lately, and very well known, is the work of Capra, I already mentioned. So, really, its not cosmology versus spirituality, but it is about changes in spirituality because of changing cosmology. And things have somehow changed: As I also said earlier, the "flat universe" instead of a "levelled" universe was NOT meant just regarding the physical universe, but also it brought in a new spiritual basis. I have mentioned Nicolas of Cusa, who was avant-garde for this. It is really an important question to follow the differences here: In my knowledge of Christian theology, the (spiritually) hierarchical universe was never considered "official" doctrine (or only partly and at certain times and being present in this or other ways), and it is definitely not today. In the old Church, with high probability this was a reaction against Gnostic and Plotinean multi-levelled theories failing to account for the immediacy of God and the creation as believed to have been endorced especially in the incarnated Logos, but also regarding the Spirit, the Trinity, and the "real" history of God with mankind in this world. Angles, always present, where regarded as helping spirits, as "messengers" regarding THIS history (not their own realm). Although it came in through the immense authority the Areopagit he had because he was held a pupil of Paul, it got never into the "theological universe" of the academia to deeply, that is, regarding the central doctrines – exceptions apply. One would have to research this further… New Cosmology, I believe, has NOT brought us back to a human-centered universe, but to a de-centred universe (also already seen by Cusa!). Although some implications allow for the thesis that we are now again "center", e.g. the subject-object problem of quantum epistemology, in general it is a relativist universe. It is also my experience (and subject of many discussions in religious studies) that every relativism tends to fall in fundamentalism when the consequence is drawn that if all is relative "I" am just "right," regardless what others think (we know this from a long discussion in philosophy: post-structuralist and deconstructivist philosophy) and from theological movements like "New Orthodoxy". Of course, I am not saying that anything in the Tarot must be changed because of cosmology, but only that it might be interesting to see changes in our world to have an impact on and to be mirrored in the Tarot, even more, since this has taken place over the times, already… Yatima

Yatima	23 Jun 2004
jmd, I found a quite interesting article on this matter, written by Vaclav Havel, the former Poet and President of the Check Republic. He formulates an argument in favor of your thesis of the predominance of the spiritual over the scientific and the new to find human "centeredness" of cosmology in this regard – as present in the Tarot. I would agree with this in the line of his arguments. You can find the whole article "The Need for Transcendence in the Postmodern World" at: www.worldtrans.org/whole/havelspeech.html. I quote here the most interesting passages: [begin quote]"I think there are good reasons for suggesting that the modern age has ended. Today, many things indicate that we are going thorough a transitional period, when it seems that something is on the way out and something else is painfully being born. It is as if something were crumbling, decaying, and exhausting itself, while something else, still indistinct, were arising from the rubble. … This is related to the crisis, or to the transformation, of science as the basis of the modern conception of the world. The dizzying development of this science, with its unconditional faith in objective reality and its complete dependency on general and rationally knowable laws, led to the birth of modern technological civilization. It is the first civilization in the history of the human race that spans the entire globe and firmly binds together all human societies, submitting them to a common global destiny. It was this science that enabled man, for the first time, to see Earth from space with his own eyes; that is, to see it as another star in the sky. At the same time, however, the relationship to the world that the modern science fostered and shaped now appears to have exhausted its potential. It is increasingly clear that, strangely, the relationship is missing something. It fails to connect with the most intrinsic nature of reality and with natural human experience. It is now more of a source of disintegration and doubt than a source of integration and meaning. It produces what amounts to a state of schizophrenia: Man as an observer is becoming completely alienated from himself as a being. Classical modern science described only the surface of things, a single dimension of reality. And the more dogmatically science treated it as the only dimension, as the very essence of reality, the more misleading it became. Today, for instance, we may know immeasurably more about the universe than our ancestors did, and yet, it increasingly seems they knew something more essential about it than we do, something that escapes us. The same thing is true of nature and of ourselves. The more thoroughly all our organs and their functions, their internal structure, and the biochemical reactions that take place within them are described, the more we seem to fail to grasp the spirit, purpose, and meaning of the system that they create together and that we experience as our unique "self". And thus today we find ourselves in a paradoxical situation. We enjoy all the achievements of modern civilization that have made our physical existence on this earth easier so in many important ways. Yet we do not know exactly what to do with ourselves, where to turn. The world of our experiences seems chaotic, disconnected, confusing. There appear to be no integrating forces, no unified meaning, no true inner understanding of phenomena in our experience of the world. Experts can explain anything in the objective world to us, yet we understand our own lives less and less. In short, we live in the postmodern world, where everything is possible and almost nothing is certain. … What I am about to say may sound provocative, but I feel more and more strongly that even these ideas are not enough, that we must go farther and deeper. The point is that the solution they offer is still, as it were, modern, derived from the climate of the Enlightenment and from a view of man and his relation to the world that has been characteristic of the Euro-American sphere for the last two centuries. Today, however, we are in a different place and facing a different situation, one to which classical modern solutions in themselves do not give a satisfactory response. After all, the very principle of inalienable human rights, conferred on man by the Creator, grew out of the typically modern notion that man - as a being capable of knowing nature and the world - was the pinnacle of creation and lord of the world, This modern anthropocentrism inevitably meant that He who allegedly endowed man with his inalienable rights began to disappear from the world: He was so far beyond the grasp of modern science that he was gradually pushed into a sphere of privacy of sorts, if not directly into a sphere of private fancy - that is, to a place where public obligations no longer apply. The existence of a higher authority than man himself simply began to get in the way of human aspirations. … Paradoxically, inspiration for the renewal of this lost integrity can once again be found in science, in a science that is new - let us say postmodern - a science producing ideas that in a certain sense allow it to transcend its own limits. I will give two examples: The first is the Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Its authors and adherents have pointed out that from the countless possible courses of its evolution the universe took the only one that enabled life to emerge. This is not yet proof that the aim of the universe has always been that it should one day see itself through our eyes. But how else can this matter be explained? I think the Anthropic Cosmological Principle brings to us an idea perhaps as old as humanity itself: that we are not at all just an accidental anomaly, the microscopic caprice of a tine particle whirling in the endless depth of the universe. Instead, we are mysteriously connected to the entire universe, we are mirrored in it, just as the entire evolution of the universe is mirrored in us. Until recently, it might have seemed that we were an unhappy bit of mildew on a heavenly body whirling in space among many that have no mildew on them at all. this was something that classical science could explain. Yet, the moment it begins to appear that we are deeply connected to the entire universe, science reaches the outer limits of its powers. Because it is founded on the search for universal laws, it cannot deal with singularity, that is, with uniqueness. The universe is a unique event and a unique story, and so far we are the unique point of that story. But unique events and stories are the domain of poetry, not science. With the formulation of the Anthropic Cosmological Principle, science has found itself on the border between formula and story, between science and myth. In that, however, science has paradoxically returned, in a roundabout way, to man, and offers him - in new clothing - his lost integrity. It does so by anchoring him once more in the cosmos. The second example is the Gaia Hypothesis. This theory brings together proof that the dense network of mutual interactions between the organic and inorganic portions of the earth's surface form a single system, a kind of mega-organism, a living planet - Gaia - named after an ancient goddess who is recognizable as an archetype of the Earth Mother in perhaps all religions. According to the Gaia Hypothesis, we are parts of a greater whole. If we endanger her, she will dispense with us in the interest of a higher value - that is, life itself. … What makes the Anthropic Principle and the Gaia Hypothesis so inspiring? One simple thing: Both remind us, in modern language, of what we have long suspected, of what we have long projected into our forgotten myths and perhaps what has always lain dormant within us as archetypes. That is, the awareness of our being anchored in the earth and the universe, the awareness that we are not here alone nor for ourselves alone, but that we are an integral part of higher, mysterious entities against whom it is not advisable to blaspheme. This forgotten awareness is encoded in all religions. All cultures anticipate it in various forms. It is one of the things that form the basis of man's understanding of himself, of his place in the world, and ultimately of the world as such." [end quote] Indeed, the Tarot seems allow for such a view: the Anthropic Principle and the Gaia-Hypothesis. And most interestingly, both grew out of New Cosmology, but restructur science from a spiritual perspective that newly "centers" on mankind without its anthropomorphic negatives, Havel mentioned before their introduction. I think, in this sense it is really promising to (re)view the Tarot. Yatima

jmd	26 Jun 2004
Personally, I do not consider that an anti-scientific attitude in any way assists in the development of one's own understanding of either oneself nor the world one lives in. Neither, for that matter, do I consider that the investigative methodologies appropriate for one area (eg sub-atomic physics) to be the sole methodologies by which to investigate the World. In that sense, the assumption made by some that 'science' and the way it currently operates in some of its fields is the way by which to judge or determine other fields of human endeavour just doesn't seem correct. Appropriate astronomical observations, and conclusions drawn therefrom about the astronomical considerations about Pluto, do not necessarily open understanding on the astrological insights about, for example, pluto in scorpio. I personally encourage the reading and seeking to understand numerous aspects about science - including the holding back in assuming that provisional conclusions which have been reached are necessarily correct. In our society's veneration of 'science' as the beholders of truth, we can likewise go too far. This is not anti-science, but perhaps it is anti-'scientism'. Tarot is continuously (re-)viewed by each of us. With that, I personally not only have no doubt nor qualms, but also a deep sense that it is indeed necessary, in order for Tarot to remain Tarot, and not merely empty shells (like perhaps the gaming decks) occupied by cosmic hermit-crabs gambling at play. The difficulties in this is in achieving the fine balance between seeking to investigate and discover what Tarot has to offer, whilst at the same time allowing an alteration of the deck in numerous ways in the process of developing both one's Imaginative faculty (part of the proper investigative tool when it comes to Tarot, from my perspective) - and, simultaneously, not altering it to one's whims because it is assumed that the current personal insights are superior to those presented. A personal alteration for the purposes of playing with possibilities is distinct to publication of the deck with an accompanying note claiming some 'rectification' - whether to some long lost or hidden secret, or to bring it in line with 'current scientific views of the world and the human being'. I always personally find these threads both wonderful to read, yet ever so difficult to contribute to - as one often (or myself at any case) is on the 'run' doing other things at the same time. Thank you also for the wonderful link to Vaclav Havel's The Need for Transcendence in the Postmodern World... a wonderful read indeed - as are the various posts in this thread :)

cartarum	26 Jun 2004
there are numerous theories put forth by many brilliant physicists, tarotists, mathmaticians, and the like. but we must never forget that the same mystics and wise men in the past that have founded numerous longstanding religions were guided primarily by that which resides in all of us, what jung termed the collective unconcious. how can any of us compare with the total sum of all human thought? all paraphrase meant to disguise the truth, is actually meant to protect us from ourselves. the creator/s of the cards were obviously exceptionally brilliant people. geniuses. it is said that tarot is divinely inspired. going along with this, it may be that the original purpose of the cards were to prove to the creators that the universe itself had a brain. if so, then our concept of god could move beyond that of the collective unconcious. the god of god. so, why did the creator of tarot not claim to be the creator? they definitely had bragging rights. it may just be, that the truth is too hard for a human mind to handle. it goes beyond math and reason. ya know what? it dont matter. unless such a study could have some benefit for human kind, like an infinite power source, or someway for a human to have everything they wanted, basicly, satisfaction, it still dont matter. what you get, is a bunch of very brilliant, very intriguing crap. now, figure out with your clever brilliance why we still blab about what ifs and the creation of the universe, when there are more important, earthly matters. like the destruction of our ozone layer or the dehumanization of our youth. before we seek god, we must find ourselves. so lets say we know it all.. the creation of the universe, the real purpose of black holes. we still have ourselves to discover. so we know it all.. at this time in the future, the way things are going, before we all die from a planet we killed, we finally know it all. public knowledge! now we just have to figure out how to avoid all the radiation, and our own demise. i learned at a young age, that if you let yourself be careless because you cant see the repercussions right away, you will be left with nothing but sadness and regret. the entire world is filled with nothing but reversed fools. we know, but we just dont give a damn. and anybody who does, doesent have the power to change the world. either mankind changes its path, or we are all stagnant. and all the philosophy, mathmatics, and brilliance wont come to a hill of beans, cause we just didnt care.... thats all i have to say about that. ~A~

Yatima	06 Jul 2004
If there is any brilliance in the universe as depicted in the Tarot, it seems to me, it is not that it is any kind of meaningful place (which the Tarot does obviously imply anyway) or a hierarchical order of spiritual layers (dividing us from God or us, for that matter) but that the universe matters to us immediately, imminently, alarmingly with all its beauty and strangness, even when we look away, disregard, or don't care... We are star-childs, born from a nova, nurtured by mother earth and put to death (in some future) by the same sun (when s/he will extend to Mars) who gave us life... What else we are - the Tarot guesses with us: children of death?, children of God?, children of the cosmos? We'll see, finally... Yatima

The Tarot and New Cosmology thread was originally posted on 05 Jun 2004 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.