Serious Questions

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 31 Jul 2004, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Dark Inquisitor	31 Jul 2004
People are very serious about their beliefs surrounding the origins and meaning of tarot. What if you suddenly were able to see into the origins of the first tarot major arcana? And you saw that they were not the great mysteries and secrets that everyone has endlessly dissected and obssessed over all this time.That perhaps they were not really all that serious at all , but more like carefully hidden sarcasm and critique . Something sometimes as base and irritating as covert humiliation of their subjects and audience?? It wouldn't affect the operation of the oracle of course, but it might be like telling a kid there is no Santa Claus.... a) Would you tell anybody? b) How do you think people would react?? c) Would this change how you felt about tarot?

darwinia	31 Jul 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Dark Inquisitor a) Would you tell anybody? Yes, everyone always embraces historically accurate information. Quote: b) How do you think people would react?? They would react by showing through various esoteric sources from the 14th century in the original Latin, that the Egyptians had planned this very revelation in order to bring the dawn of a new age to the 21st century. Quote: c) Would this change how you felt about tarot? Nope. My feelings are based on...something else. Nothing would change.

Cerulean	31 Jul 2004
Not all of us are as serious as we sometimes sound via email. I think you are right in terms of how some view the early gilded images and triumphi and tarocchi poems of 15th century Italy--a regular person now can say these images started as graven images of decadence, prestige and beauty that touched on a fictional world of a court and legend that never was true. Although the history of tarot might parallel the history of more vice than virtue, if gambling and card playing and theatre arts were not nice! However, the journey of many of the images in tarot's historical pathways might have evolved into another form of imaginative iconography that serves as interesting snapshots--even superficially of costume, history and art movements (Neoclassical 1806-1810/Ancient Tarots of Lombardy). What I see in different tarots of different times in general is diverse, beautiful, human imagination at work. I don't think my small opinion here adds any weight to anyone's beliefs...and likely may be irritating, even though I try not to be. I try to only to add commentary in posts that invite them here. The conversational nature of these forums invite opinion....and people do react in a lively way! But in real life, if someone is telling me about their belief system with tarot--and if not inviting commentary, they need a listener. I try hard to listen well, read expressions and hear tone carefully. In real life my perceptions are easier--seemingly reflective. But via email, if someone asks a historical tarot or art question, while I assume they are looking for facts, they might be looking for personal validation with their beliefs. I think I wandered quite a bit in answering your interesting question. So here in short: A) I do tell people via reviews and commentary B) People react in terms of their own opinions. I don't think I've changed anyone's mind--although I've may have pointed out a good buying bargain that might have made them happy to buy a certain deck! And there's a certain small cheer in this. C) Yes, I've changed my opinions about tarot decks many times due to further study prompted by questions and views here. Best wishes! Cerulean :C)

firemaiden	31 Jul 2004
Interesting question, Dark Inquisitor. It raises the issue of the relationship between divination, and card origins. I am one of the irreverent goofs who deeply care about the iconographical origins of tarot, and enjoy divination as well, but do not take very seriously the connection between the two. However, a large part of what makes reading in a "spoof" style fun for me, stems from the fact that others do take this relationship very seriously indeed. So I guess it might make me sad if I were to learn something like tarot was created for a derogatory purpose -- Without a sense of the great underlying dignity of the cards, a spoof would have no punch. Nevertheless, the style in which I currently read does not require anything of the cards other than that they have blobs of ink on them that can be read into, in the manner of Roschach cards.

Shalott	31 Jul 2004
A)Yes, I'd try to tell ppl as I think we should deal in truth as much as possible in this little world of ours. B)Some would find it fascinating, some would gather in groups with torches and pitchforks and come after me, most would probably demand an 87-thousand page bibliography documenting my sources, and then spend every waking hour trying to discredit them. (HA - holdover from discussing politics!) C)Nopers, it wouldn't change my opinion as my main concern is using the cards above anything else, although I do find the history (that we have!) very interesting.

Umbrae	31 Jul 2004
Myth? History? I think the correct answer is to all the questions is sweet n low. Saint Nicholas of Bari? Of course he was real.

Eco74	31 Jul 2004
1) Yes, I would definately tell people about it. I have an ongoing loveaffair with history and truth, though only in areas of particular interest. 2) Possibly there would be some non-believers due to the info, others would not believe me or think I must have found some bogus information used back then to take the edge off the divination due to the religious climate back then, and others would just shrug and say "so what, as long as it works". 3) I'm with the "so what, as long as it works"-group. Regardless of the history of the pretty cards they DO have a lot to tell us and we do have a way of reading a lot of information from the decorative images of the cards. If it was't cards, well there is sweet-n-low, tealeaves, raindrops and all sorts of other options which also do not come from any "magical realm of mystery and divine truth".

Centaur	31 Jul 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Dark Inquisitor a) Would you tell anybody? I would tell everybody. I think that there would also be good scope for a book to be written! Quote: Originally posted by Dark Inquisitor b) How do you think people would react?? I think that reaction would be mixed. On the one hand, there would be those who would not blink an eyelid at the revelation. Then there would be those who would be upset. And then there would remain various fundamentalist and staunch types who would refuse to believe it, even if the evidence were to be right before their eyes. Quote: Originally posted by Dark Inquisitor c) Would this change how you felt about tarot? I think it would definetly cause me to see tarot in a different light... but it would not change my divinatory use of it. If it works, it works. Dark Inquisitor, are you aware of some information that you are not telling us about? :D

jmd	31 Jul 2004
Even in the opening post there are certain assumptions being made. For example, if one genuinely holds a spiritual view of the world, then even if the human 'creators' of Tarot were found to be no more than hoodwinkers and deriders of human nature, one would have to look to the spiritual impulse which moved them to create such a creation - perhaps even despite their own beliefs about what they were doing. Now, if someone was to truly see into the 'origins' of the first Atouts, is the 'origin' seen the one which answers its physical and sociological 'origin', or spiritual origin? It reminds me, again, of an Anthropological paper I recently also mentioned in another place, in which a question was asked (I recall in the 1930s) of some Northern Territory Aborigines about the origin of children. Because they responded in terms of the Stars and the Dreaming, it was at first assumed that there was no understanding of the functions of the sexual act in the process. It was later discovered that of course they knew (and enjoyed) this aspect, but deemed it as insignificant (but nonetheless necessary) in answering the 'real' question about the origins of the child. Could the insight of the 'seer' then be likewise focussed on its physical (but enjoyable) aspects, and totally be remiss in terms of also penetrating its 'true' origins?

Suriel	31 Jul 2004
Hey, Dark Inquisitor... There are so many myths in this world, and none of them are right. So do the origins of tarot cards. And so we should not see either of them as absolute true fact, the historical information. Instead, we should see them as -- myths, stories, tales! And we shall play with them, explore in depths with the tarot cards. It doesn't matter what is the origin of tarot cards, but we should look at how tarot cards have so prefectly fit in so many belief systems, such as Kabbalist and many others. If you really want to know what is the origin of tarot......well, can you imagine, what if they come before time? what if they are actually the maps of our existence, our world? What if, they are even before creation, and only come to the designer's mind one day suddenly? Then it is actually meaningless to know what is the origin of tarot...... Anyway, i mean no offense. What i believe is, not even this world is a fact, even our lives could be myths.:) Suriel

Kiama	31 Jul 2004
I'm only going to answer part C of the original post, because I have visitors coming shortly... C: Would this change how you felt about tarot? Nope, not at all. It would change how I felt about history's methods. But nothing else. You see, I do not believe that the origins of anything dictate how we should view it and use it. True, when we know for sure what something was originally used for, we begin to see it in a more limited light. But Tarot has had hundreds of years in which to be seen in so many different ways, simply because the origins have not yet become clear. If, hypothetically, we had always known the origins of Tarot, I do not doubt that the Tarot would have remained true to its origins- whatever they were- for a long time, because people would have difficulty seeing them as anything else. But if, on the other hand (and as is the case I believe) we have not known the true origins of Tarot for hundreds of years, we would have had room for interpretation, and within that space we came up with a new view of Tarot: the ones we have today. So, what I'm trying to say in a roundabout way is that whilst an object's origins can limit its use, they are not necessarily dictative of its use. Personally, I do not base my view of Tarot and my use of it on what it was hundreds of years ago: it has become something completely different for me. It may have been a game when it first began, and that's fine. Let it be a game on one level. But what rule is there that says I must use it as a game and a game only? There is no such rule. And thus we can also view the Tarot as something else. I see it as a map of the Universe and the human soul, and the relationship between the two. Now, this does not mean that I have to respect for the historical origins of Tarot (or the 'true' Tarot). I have immense respect for them, and would welcome any new theories or evidence relating to Tarot's origins. But I very much doubt they would affect my personal use of the Tarot. Great thread! Kiama

Moongold	31 Jul 2004
I think that Tarot is simply one method of divination. It is beautiful and has certainly evolved and adapted over the years to suit various cultures and trends. There are sceptical views about Tarot anyway. Its practice is based on faith and other "indefinable" principles which cannot really be argued with. People believe or they don't. I guess I have found the Tarot valid enough times in my own life to believe there is something sacred about it. If someone was to produce evidence that the Tarot was " ...... more like carefully hidden sarcasm and critique . Something sometimes as base and irritating as covert humiliation of their subjects and audience??" I'd look at it but I know that faith of any kind can be seen in that light. Moongold

Ace	31 Jul 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Dark Inquisitor What if you suddenly were able to see into the origins of the first tarot major arcana? And you saw that they were not the great mysteries and secrets that everyone has endlessly dissected and obssessed over all this time.That perhaps they were not really all that serious at all , but more like carefully hidden sarcasm and critique . Something sometimes as base and irritating as covert humiliation of their subjects and audience?? a) Would you tell anybody? b) How do you think people would react?? c) Would this change how you felt about tarot? You mean if Tarot cards were designed as "just" a card game? and were meant to satirize the policial situation at the time? My answer is two words: So what? Oracles are not magic because they have special orgins. IMHO, Most oracles are ordinary things that can be used to do magic. Anything can be used as an oracle, I have used chocolate (bars and M&M's), and candy hearts, for example. Most of the "great Egyptian secrets" stuff was added afterward, and doesn' t mean a thing to me. Magic is the power of our minds, not the power of little bits of printed cardboard. I would tell EVERYONE what I found, on the grounds of revealing facts and historical research. As for would it change how I feel about tarot? 4 words this time: not on your life!

Ravenswing	31 Jul 2004
...would I tell anybody? Sure. Would they believe me? Doesn't matter... I've got a strange personal framework of reality already. And THAT"S hard to believe.... would it change my view on Tarot?? Nope. I've found out that many things weren't what I thought. You roll with the punches... fly well Raven

whatever	01 Aug 2004
Ineresting, you all seem very willing to defend tarot because you have practiced it and it has worked for you. I think you are all missing the point, if the fundamental reason for tarot is invalid, doesn't that make a mockery out of the practice? It negates it, it makes all of you fools.

Cerulean	01 Aug 2004
This makes me smile. It is also fun to look at something that might have common roots in 1450 may even extend to perhaps 2050..and that doesn't negate the practice for me to see tarot and trump variations. I have interest to see tarot used so imaginatively over the age. I'm explaining what I said before: What I see in different tarots of different times in general is diverse, beautiful, human imagination at work. Tarot games of their times--maybe beginning with the 1450's might have been similar to say---oh board games of strategy, card games among gamblers and family gatherings. Sometimes a reflection of noble culture, than later a reflection of more popular culture. The techniques with woodblock prints and engraving...a general historical interest. Foolish, yes.. The tarocchi poetry, painted icons of carnivals and cultural celebrations that we look back on in historical trumps and tarocchi also decorated books, fine illuminations and religious icons. So that's humanities and art history associations....ah, another silly context. In the twentieth and twenti-first centuries people look back at folkloric games and arts to see snapshots of earlier time. They also evaluate past contexts of symbology. This adds a sociological and cultural anthropology aspect? Oh, that's funny... But tarot in general can also looked at as modern and psychological because people are interested in how a similar icon might be reflected historically and reinterpreted. I like modern artists who takes time and trouble to put some sort of symbolic context and meaning to their images for others to understand. I believe they are hoping to make their art useful and good to others. Many artist are attracted to the tarot structure to frame their pictorial expression--its attracted artists of many countries outside of Europe. Now you must be really laughing at my silliness. I actually also practise foolish things such as poetry writing and art as therapeutic and educational. Poetry might be likened to tarocchi card art because its use and the impulse to create or share it may stem from satirical, religious, gaming or diverse historical associations. The root impulse and raw early forms of using poetic verse or making crude trump and tarocchi art may have evolved with human imagination into different forms. I'm not certain if I'm defending as much as just trying to explain a little clearer how interesting this foolish corner of the world is to me. Regards, Cerulean P.S. My thanks at your question! You gave me some things to digest and think about--but again, I may have missed your point entirely to develop my ideas.

jmd	02 Aug 2004
Welcome to Aeclectic, whatever. I'll take the opportunity to just address what you seem to consider the most important element, ie, 'If the fundamental reason for tarot is invalid [...]'. For the purposes of the argument, let us assume that one individual carved or painted some cards or woodblocks as the very first deck. Let us further assume that this was done in order to play a game. Now to your point: it presumably meant that the 'reason' for Tarot is to be deemed according to what this very person deems it to be. If such of course was the case, then, to give an analogy, we would also be in agreement with an earlier chairman of IBM who expressed the view that there is only need for a maximum of three (I seem to recall) computers across the world. This aspect is similar to the argument presented by Kiama above: whatever the originators had in mind is quite independent to its development. The second aspect is that the view presented makes an assumption that 'the fundamental reason for [the existence] of Tarot' is going to be determined by documentary evidence as to its very early usage or intent. If, however, one has a spiritual view of the world, then life, creations, acts and events are not viewed solely from the perhaps known intent of only some of its actors (by which I mean us human beings). Rather, one recognises that any significant development has its spiritual aspects - and that a development or occurance of something is also the expression of various forces at work in the spiritual dimensions. If someone was then to have seen that the early developers of the deck was as described by Dark Inquisitor in the opening post, then perhaps it would show no more than they were indeed blind to the forces playing through them.

Eco74	02 Aug 2004
Quote: Originally posted by whatever Ineresting, you all seem very willing to defend tarot because you have practiced it and it has worked for you. I think you are all missing the point, if the fundamental reason for tarot is invalid, doesn't that make a mockery out of the practice? It negates it, it makes all of you fools. But no, that IS the point you see... It may make us all fools, but the tarot starts of with a fool after all and along the way we ARE all fools. Not only because of all the options available to us during a lifetime, but for all the lessons we learn and for all the things we remain open to. The reason the tarot starts off with the fool is obvious when one has looked into the system and meaning of the tarot, and thus, beeing called a fool is really more of a compliment than an insult. Imagine, beeing the fool in the kings court. You know all conventions ofcourse, and many secrets of the court aswell because enough people do not take you seriously enough to remain silent when you are close enough to hear the secrets they speak of. On top of all this information you have at your fingertips, you can do with it what you will. You can make a mockery of the king, and praise the little kitchen-wench for her countenance. You can call the queen a hag and the butler an epiphany of beauty and grace. All the while beeing perfectly safe in the role of the fool... So, you see, saying that makes us feel rather special. :o) Also that we are willing to defend Tarot (and indeed other divinaton) "because we have practiced it and it has worked for us" is quite logical, don't you think? After testing it out and seeing with our own eyes that it works - should we then Not believe??

Centaur	02 Aug 2004
Quote: Originally posted by whatever I think you are all missing the point, if the fundamental reason for tarot is invalid, doesn't that make a mockery out of the practice? It negates it, it makes all of you fools. Interesting. Is there a law that states that we as human beings cannot use something that originally had its purpose in something else, in order to perform some other function also? As an example, a banana is a rather tasty fruit for eating. However, the skin of the banana can also be used to clean one's shoes. Seriously! Also, aspirin was originally used for pain relief, but is now also recommended for some individuals who are at high risk of heart attack. Is there anything foolish about that? :D I would say that instead of being foolish, it is novel, and smart.

Ace	02 Aug 2004
Quote: Originally posted by whatever Ineresting, you all seem very willing to defend tarot because you have practiced it and it has worked for you. I think you are all missing the point, if the fundamental reason for tarot is invalid, doesn't that make a mockery out of the practice? It negates it, it makes all of you fools. welcome to AT, Whatever! Do a new members intro for youself if you haven't yet so we can all get to know you better. In answer to your question, it does not make a mockery out of the practice, IMHO. Again I say, it does matter what oracle you use, there is no one true way. if it gets you to an answer, what difference does it make? I feel that what you are saying is, Tarot answers important questions for me, so it must be important. No. No more than a great architect must use special important tools. His ruler and blueprint paper are just tools. If he uses a special brand, they are still not magic. the talent is in HIM not the tools. The tarot is tool. The magic is in YOU. Tarot cards started as a card game. that does not make them invalid as an oracle, anymore than using regular cards is an invalid oracle. Ultimately, Tarot is a set of 78 pretty pictures on cardboard. But I still get answers from them.

Dark Inquisitor	02 Aug 2004
This path now leads here: http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?threadid=29588

Flavio	02 Aug 2004
Quote: a) Would you tell anybody? Yes! I think it might help the whole world to realize the real scope of action of Tarot in its origins and compare it with the further development during the years. Quote: b) How do you think people would react?? Each person would have a different reaction (all to be respected) some will believe, other don't, maybe we already know the real origin of Tarot but everyday come out new theories that fits someone's way of thinking. Quote: c) Would this change how you felt about tarot? No, I respect and use Tarot based on what it has done for me, if Tarot was born as joke or as a game but transformed into a useful and powerful tool, it wouldn't change my mind about Tarot, it would change my mind about the serious students of Tarot during the time, I would respect and admire them more than now because of the transformation they did.

firemaiden	02 Aug 2004
Quote: Originally posted by whatever Ineresting, you all seem very willing to defend tarot because you have practiced it and it has worked for you. I think you are all missing the point, if the fundamental reason for tarot is invalid, doesn't that make a mockery out of the practice? It negates it, it makes all of you fools. That is assuming that there is such thing as a "fundamental reason" for tarot being valid. However, if the reason reading cards works has nothing to do with the cards, and everything to do with you, then you can burn the cards, and scatter their ashes to the wind, and still you have lost nothing.

Satori	02 Aug 2004
Black obelisk has shot up out of the ground. Group of Apes are playing with bones in front of it. Desolate, arid desert playground, with Ape, a creature of the Jungle, using a bone and hammering said ground. {Cue music....} Shift scene. Same obelisk. Same Apes. Delete bones, add Tarot cards. Hang name placards on Apes to read: jmd, Umbrae, firemaiden, Diana, elf, Dark Inquisitor and whatever. Cue music.......

jmd	03 Aug 2004
...would that be ape-ing the apes?

Satori	03 Aug 2004
Monkey SEE..... Monkey DO.... ;)

Kiama	03 Aug 2004
Quote: Originally posted by whatever I think you are all missing the point, if the fundamental reason for tarot is invalid, doesn't that make a mockery out of the practice? It negates it, it makes all of you fools. In order for your statement to bear any relevance, you must first prove what the fundamental reason for Tarot is, and secondly show it to be invalid. Since you have done neither one, nor two, and even if you could you could not logically leap from the two premises to a conclusion of 'therefore it negates it and makes it a mockery', we can safely answer 'No'. Kiama

Fulgour	18 Aug 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Dark Inquisitor What if you suddenly were able to see into the origins of the first tarot major arcana? I can only speak for myself, but you'll see yourself if it fits. It's pretty likely that unless you've worked long hours for little pay actually making something, crafting an object, that you can understand how the cookie-cutter mentality robs people of the ability to understand or appreciate the skill that goes into working as an apprentice or journeyman. Looking at an old Tarot, one can see in an instant if there was any heart put into the work, no matter how seemingly flawed ~ it's as simple as the difference between art and crap. Narcissus and Goldmund, by Hermann Hesse is a good book to read if you want to go time travelling in the middle ages... (See you on the next thread...)

Ravenswing	19 Aug 2004
Quote: Originally posted by whatever Ineresting, you all seem very willing to defend tarot because you have practiced it and it has worked for you. I think you are all missing the point, if the fundamental reason for tarot is invalid, doesn't that make a mockery out of the practice? It negates it, it makes all of you fools. If you found out that hammers were invented strickly as an offensive weapon designed to kill, would you stop using nails? don't build your house on sand fly well Raven

Dark Inquisitor	19 Aug 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Fulgour It's pretty likely that unless you've worked long hours for little pay actually making something, crafting an object, that you can understand how the cookie-cutter mentality robs people of the ability to understand or appreciate the skill that goes into working as an apprentice or journeyman. [/i] ) That's very interesting Fulgour, because I spent many years making dirt into art. And it does give you an eye for the small detail and a window into visual symbolism. What appears on the surface level is sometimes an intentional deception . It often depends on the context . And to understand the context we must see as the artist sees his particular work. And you are quite right Ravenswing - the tarot would not be invalid just because what we mistook it for might not be the case. It would be no less miraculous to discover the miracle was within ourselves and not in the cards. After all, the suits existed before the majors came along, and I am sure there were people reading them just as there are people reading playing cards today. I guess being a Fool depends on your point of view. Anyone who says they have not been a fool at some point or other is not being truthful. It is just part of the human condition.

Seed Crystal	20 Aug 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Dark Inquisitor That's very interesting Fulgour, because I spent many years making dirt into art. And it does give you an eye for the small detail and a window into visual symbolism. What appears on the surface level is sometimes an intentional deception . It often depends on the context . And to understand the context we must see as the artist sees his particular work. And you are quite right Ravenswing - the tarot would not be invalid just because what we mistook it for might not be the case. It would be no less miraculous to discover the miracle was within ourselves and not in the cards. ... As an artist, or anyone who has ever studied art, you must know that an artist is always a fool; there is artist planning, and execution, and product. How often do those EXACTLY as envisioned? But even if they did - the miracle of art is that it is communicative, and interactive. The audience, or even a single member of the audience, can perceive meanings never imagined or planned by the artist; and they are valid!!! And if the art work, the medium, is able of carrying many messages, of speaking anew to generations - what a miracle... The miracle is always in ourselves, in the artist and the audience and the connections they make; and in the wonderous human capability to grow, to mature, to change. There's nothing magic about the Tarot. Except it is a remarkably fine tool, one that triggers vision bigger than that of any author and artist, or reader, or querent. Tool, yes. Remarkable tool. And if I learned it started as a joke, I 'd laugh and laugh, at the joke, and the joke played on the jokers, because it works. Deity's got a sense of humor.

Fulgour	20 Aug 2004
Hamlet must have been a shock to audiences expecting the action to follow the formula of the normal revenge play. It goes entirely against the grain, like a reverse-rambo spoof. And yet even today, productions miss the point: Hamlet was not a young man (he was 30), nor was his problem that he could not make up his mind (he does, almost at once). He cannot act! as must needs be his true course... Tarot is layer upon layer of the most obvious misdirection, all of which speaks directly to the point: as plain as day. But can we be expected to see that which hides itself right there in our own hands, clearly before our very eyes?

The Serious Questions thread was originally posted on 31 Jul 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.