Gurdjieff/Ouspensky

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 28 Apr 2005, and now archived in the Forum Library.

theredfox	28 Apr 2005
Has anyone read this book: http://www.shambhala.com/html/catalog/items/isbn/1-57062-132-2.cfm I find it interesting, the way it uses the imagery to depict the ideas of the Gurdjieff/Ouspensky Fourth Way. The Fool for example is not the wise person he's normally construed to be, he's the fool who is unconscious and needs to awaken. He's stepping off a cliff, not going into the creative unknown but just before he harms himself, because he is psychologically asleep. I know Ouspensky writes about the Tarot...has anyone studied this way of working with the cards?

jmd	29 Apr 2005
Though I have read the book, it is not one I would normally recommend. Micheline has, with this book, provided a wonderful short story, using the Marseille sequence in reversed order - hence she begins with the Fool, then the World, Judgement, the Sun, Moon, etc until reaching card one, the Bateleur. Written in 1977, she uses the titles then more common for some of the cards, and for some others her own peculiar preferences (e.g., XV as 'The Black Magician'). What she does not do, however, is suggest that the Fool is in any manner about to step off any cliff (which the Marseille does not have). Rather, she mentions that 'he is walking towards the abyss, turning his back to the light'. Of the next card (XXI the World), Micheline says that 'desiring to attach us to herself, by her artifices she has woven around us the chain of nature, from which we cannot escape'. The reversed sequence, then, is taken as an allegory of both incarnation and initiation. Ouspensky, by contrast, has produced a short work (The Symbolism of the Tarot) that, as decribed by Mouni Sadhu, was the work of his youth, and quite poor (in at least my personal opinion).

theredfox	29 Apr 2005
I may have had one of the details wrong (the stepping off the cliff detail), which is because I read it a long time ago and was using my memory. I do have a copy, but can't find it! I realise her interpretation is non-conventional. But apart from the historical comparisons etc, the point is it expresses the 4th Way ideas quite nicely. Its not so much 'initiation' as advance according to the 4th Way 'work'. Ouspensky's commentary would perhaps best be understood in relation to his other writings, and those of his mentor GI Gurdjieff, and not in relation - again - to established or reputed tarot scholarship. So I wasn't really asking about an evaluation in relation to more conventional ideas, but about the idea of using the imagery in that way. Which probably requires that you are have a good grounding in 4th Way teachings *first*, *before* you consider the cards - not the other way round. I dont have any great opinion about this, either way. But I respect the 4th Way ideas, read many of the books, and used to attend 4th Way meetings. Its certainly an interesting way of interpreting the tarot. Theres no doubt about the sophistication of this philosophical system, and I like seeing the cards located in that kind of context, in that way, because they become endowed with a 'teaching' value which (as I've mentioned at another thread), many modern packs completely lack. Ouspensky used the idea of 'objective art', taken from Gurdjieff, according to which a system like tarot is equivalent to sacred architecture, constructed according to esoteric numerological design, to create a deliberate psychological effect.

Aoife	29 Apr 2005
What is the 4th Way?

jmd	29 Apr 2005
Ouspensky, working out of Gurdieff, wrote a book of the same title. Gurdieff basically suggests that life is like being in a prison, and that there are various ways to enlightened escape: the way of the Monk, the Fakir, and the Yogi... and the fourth way. I have personally not sought to pursue any of my own personal spiritual work following the works or thoughts of those two individuals, though have read and but poorly studied, quite some years ago, some of their work. Better for theredfox, who seems to be in agreement with that 'path', to bring greater explanatory light to what this is, and how it may relate to Tarot. :)

theredfox	29 Apr 2005
I think if someone is interested, its best that they research it themself using Google. Its difficult to summarise, especially on the internet, is likely to provoke all kinds of associations that may or may not be correct which I don't want to deal with, and I also dont want to be in a position of some kind of advocate. The 4th Way is just one subject I've studied and while some of it is useful and perceptive, there's some of it I think is just plain wrong and misleading. I found Ouspensky's The Psychology Of Man's Possible Evolution the best introductory book; some of his other books introduce very subjective material that doesn't necessarily represent the 4th Way. However in relation to tarot, you would probably use the imagery in a different fashion, because the 4th Way offers a different way of thinking. Micheline Stuart's book is an example of this. What I find interesting is the way she/the 4th Way incorporates the notion that you have to start at the beginning stage, which paradoxically becomes something much greater than that, which is acknowledging your own psychological 'sleep'. So right from the beginning, it avoids fanciful or imaginative castle-building. This also has a parallel with the Jungian idea of 'shadow': you have to acknowledge darkness and ignorance, before you can make any progress. Its a waste of time just building 'castles in the air', imagining stuff that has no basis.

Obscure	02 May 2005
For anyone who is interested, Ouspensky has a fuller account of the Tarot in "A New Model of the Universe." The chapter on the Tarot in this book incorporates his earlier work with more general considerations about symbolism.

Cerulean	02 May 2005
It may be a coincidence of the reverse order of the majors, or it may be similar to the system advocated by Julia Turk: The Trumps are more consistent with other decks, although Navigator's major difference is that it reverses the order of the Major Arcana cards, starting with the World and working backward to the Fool. http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/navigators-mystic-sea/review.shtml Because if it is, then this explains her descriptions and ideas--I've looked at this reverse ordering system and sometimes find it works with a 'surrealistic' mood for creative writing. But I've never read for others using it. Best wishes, Cerulean

ananda	02 May 2005
A synopsis of the 4th way can be found here: http://www.shsu.edu/~vis_kas/work/faq.html ~Ananda

jmd	02 May 2005
Le Comte de M***, included in De Gebelin's 1781 work, also includes the list in a 'reversed' sequence, naming what he otherwise calls the 22nd card as card zero (the Fool). His sequence, then, also matches the 'descent' though reflecting, in this person's view, the 'ages of humanity'.

Cerulean	02 May 2005
"The Navigator's Tarot starts in the...lowest sphere that manifested human life has reached. In terms of personal growth on a spiritual path, the tendency is to move upward toward greater knowledge of the complexities of the cosmos until a simple understanding of 'truth' is established. Likewise the the four suits of the Navigators tarot are graded from the lowest suit, the pentacles, representing the body and its sensations, through the suits of the swords (the intellect) and cups (the emotions) to the highest suit, wands, symbolizing intuition, the highest function. Therefore the ten of pentacles is the lowest card of the pips and the ace of wands is the highest... (The Fool is the lowest card of the majors; there are variations in the trump sequence in the ascent upward through the 'Tree of Life' assignments as per the author) Julia Turk, Navigator's Tarot book P.D. Ouspensky's Tertium Organum, among many other books, are listed in the bibliography. Unfortunately, from the discussions that I see, Navigators Tarot at first feel seems like a complex system--but it's good to know that there was some reason behind the reverse ordering that others discussed in regards to this deck. Best regards, Cerulean

theredfox	03 May 2005
Interesting. I think I recall seeing this reversal in another source, and it may have been that one (Le Comte, de Gebelin). Its not a big shock; its an obvious way to 'play' with the cards to hopefully expand your learning and understanding. I think I prefer the conventional order, because I like the idea of the Fool as the supremely wise image, and the World at the other end as final manifestation/incarnation, and the kaballistic associations. But I liked the reversal-exploration, because it makes you think. Incidentally, I think to understand Ouspensky's views you have to understand his ideas about 'objective art'. He wasn't especially interested in tarot, but saw it as one example, comparable to other sources, where esoteric ideas are presented in artistic or symbolic terms. (Do you have any internet links for the Navigator Tarot? I could find it in Google no doubt, but as you know you always get a lot of rubbish, when you do a search).

jmd	03 May 2005
The 'conventional order', according to those who follow one of the dominant traditions, is to place the Fool (un-numbered) between XX Judgement and XXI the World; according to those who follow more Golden Dawn orientations, to add a zero and thus make the card precede card one; and according to the other dominant tradition, to place the un-numbered Fool as last in the sequence, following XXI the World. Of course, I have my personal preference, as also have many others.

Cerulean	03 May 2005
http://www.learntarot.com/nvdesc.htm The little white booklet that comes with the deck has a description of the reverse ordering. You can buy it as a deck alone with booklet or deck-book set. Hope this sounds good to you. I think in another thread you said that you started with the Thoth and wanted to move away from that style. Once in awhile I see bits and pieces of Thoth-like allegory in the designs, but I haven't compared the cards side by side. I picked up a used copy with a deck and book because I actually missed the set I gave away...turns out the used copy was a first edition that had the original shrink wrap. Someone opened it, looked at it and decided to sell it to the used bookstore. Regards, Cerulean

theredfox	03 May 2005
OK thanks. Behind some of my questioning is a search to find a pack that has some of the depth, balance and authority of the philosophical packs, but which is maybe less rigid about it. I dont mean mess with the meaning of the symbols or deliberately change them around, but maybe dont take the hermetic models as your definitive starting point. Which is not to say I even *prefer* that, necessarily, more that I want to expand my knowledge-repertoire, after having studied the R-W and also BOTA packs.

Obscure	11 May 2005
Thanks for mentioning the book, theredfox. I tracked it down and found the description of The Fool to really accord with my sense of the card. Especially the idea that The Fool represents our life of fantasy, our sleeping life, in Gurdjieff's terms. I think of The Fool as in a state of nearly perpetual reverie, from which even the pestering dog cannot awake him. It seems appropriate to me to begin the cards there, especially as The Tarot seems to so directly address itself to our life of dreams and imagination, regardless of whether and how we think we should awaken from this state. I questioned the idea, however, that The Magician represents a fully awake, fully integrated state of being. I need to reflect more on that, perhaps by working through the cards in reverse order, as the book does. Does anyone know more about the author? Obscure

The Gurdjieff/Ouspensky thread was originally posted on 28 Apr 2005 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.