Traditional or non-traditional

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 20 Apr 2005, and now archived in the Forum Library.

theredfox	20 Apr 2005
For many years, I used to think only the traditional decks were worth bothering with. I especially favoured Rider-Waite, Crowley and BOTA: my favourite three. Why? Because the symbolism is very authoritative, embedded in the wisdom traditions of alchemy, kaballa and astrology. I still think that. But recently I've started to think why bother with all that tradition, unless you are working specifically with those systems? I still use my discrimination though, and I find some of the modern packs at best a little weak and unappealing, and at worst perverse, partial and eccentric. 'Eccentric' means 'off-centre', and thats exactly what some of them are: they've lost the 'centre of meaning' of tarot wisdom. I've been enjoying the Liz Greene Mythic tarot, partly for the art-work, partly for the her psychological understanding, and partly because I find the old Greek myths beautiful and resonant. You cant get away from them, if you live in the Western world! And I guess the pack is half traditional and half modern. I also like the Osho Zen pack, and want to get a copy. Thoughts?

ricardozen	20 Apr 2005
Hello, this is my first real post so forgive me my english :) First of all, i've learned that you don't choose a deck. The deck chooses you. I colect decks for the art work and i can even make reading with them. But i only feel secure and confortable with my old Tarot de Marseille deck. And i had several copys of the deck not every copy gave me this feeling of confort. So i guess you haven't found the right deck. You have to shufle, throw the spread, make the reading and you have to feel inside that your reading is acurate. If you have doubth then you are not "talking" the correct way with the deck or maybe it is not the correct one to you. This is just my 2 cents :D ...Z

tarotbear	20 Apr 2005
Based on the arguements that pop up from time to time here on AT, one would be led to believe that certain people's agendas about 'only this or that deck' is the 'true' one that should be used, one suspects that using 'only' that deck is some kind of status symbol, as thought there is a 'wrong' deck to be seen carrying around. This creates a clique, and is unhealthy, IMHO. Whatever tarot deck calls to you is the correct one for you to use. Just because a deck is considered 'traditional' does not make it 'better' or a nontraditional one 'bad.' To be exclusive in tarot is, IMHO, an unwise concept, for you lose the teachings even a deck you dislike can give you. As a deck collector, there are many I like but would not read with (too violent, too cute, just plain boring), but I still work with them - minimally- because every deck has a new 'something' for you to add to your mental treasure trove. Don't be a tarot deck snob. :smoker:

Fudugazi	20 Apr 2005
ricardozen wrote: First of all, i've learned that you don't choose a deck. The deck chooses you. I colect decks for the art work and i can even make reading with them. But i only feel secure and confortable with my old Tarot de Marseille deck. And i had several copys of the deck not every copy gave me this feeling of confort. I find that fascinating! I have quite a few decks - traditional and modern, including some Little red fox would find eccentric ;). I can read with all of them, and indeed, I have little trouble (well, there was that little matter of the Housewives block...). I do trust myself when I read, and when I am wrong it is generally because I did not listen to myself, but let my conscious, logical mind interfere. Some Tarots do feel more like "home" to me - and the Tarot de Marseille is one - though I have not, in fact, been reading with it for that long. I just recognised it as a home when I first picked it up. Yet I would not think of ascribing one particular physical pack as home. One pack I've had for years is the Mythic Tarot, which is battered and worn now. I picked it up yesterday after a fairly long break, and it did feel very comfortable in my hands. But I wouldn't say, for all that, that I have "one" special Tarot, or deck, or that my Tarot home is traditional or modern. It is a bit of both, and my home has many rooms ;) As for Little Red Fox's question: it depends what you want it for. Tradition has the benefit of continuity and generations adding to it, and expanding it (or narrowing it down, depending on how tradition is approached...). But modern decks that are based on firm tradition do have something to offer - a contemporary sensibility; or a spirituality that is more in tune with our concerns (e.g. the Earth-based decks). Those modern decks I find work well and deeply are those that are made by people who know Tarot well and have internalised it over a number of years; and that have a strong creative, intuitive and intellectual bases. Working recently with the DruidCraft on the one hand (Earth based, Druidic, RWS-based), and the Röhrig on the other (contemporary, psychological, Thoth related), I find those traits - very differently expressed - in both those decks. Similarly the Tarot of Prague, RWS-based, with a strong grounding in art and history and very striking visually, works very well and generates some vivid readings and interesting reflections/meditations. There are also some modern decks that have invented a new Tradition - but based on ancient mysticism/esotericism (is that a word??): that's the case of El Gran Tarot Esoterico, based on the Gra Sepher Yetzirah, which spurred several wonderful decks in its wake, like the Tarot Balbi and the Crystal Tarot.

Milfoil	20 Apr 2005
Well, I'm not a great deck collector or drawn to any particular 'genre' or style of deck but I just seem to feel comfortable with one or two decks to actually read with and for different reasons. I ached to own a Visconte Sforza deck (the nearest to original) for years and finally ordered one a couple of years ago - Its beautiful and I love the images, style and history but I can't read with it - it says nothing to me at all. I think its all down to personal taste and what images capture your imagination. Many of the really popular decks I can't connect with at all - thats just me but when one does come up that fires my imagination - thats it, gotta have it even if I can't immediately read with it. Sometimes its just nice to have a deck and simply learn from the new imagery even if you never actually read with it. Ah just go enjoy - don't worry about tradition or semantics. :)

Fudugazi	20 Apr 2005
tarotbear wrote: Don't be a tarot deck snob. :smoker: You know, Tarotbear, I find that expression mildly insulting. If I prefer Shakespeare and George Eliot to Jackie Collins and Jeffrey Archer, am I a literature snob? Or do I simply have a fine appreciation for quality and depth? Tarot is the same - there is some crap out there, and there are decks that have great quality and depths. And as in literature, it is often over decades or centuries that these will become apparent. This is not to say there are are not some wonderful new decks - I cited three off the top of my head: but there are many more that are plain awful - poor in quality, in imagery, in many things that make tarot tarot.

stella01904	20 Apr 2005
theredfox wrote: For many years, I used to think only the traditional decks were worth bothering with. I especially favoured Rider-Waite, Crowley and BOTA: my favourite three. Why? Because the symbolism is very authoritative, embedded in the wisdom traditions of alchemy, kaballa and astrology. I still think that. But recently I've started to think why bother with all that tradition, unless you are working specifically with those systems? MM ~ With traditional decks, you are getting a certain momentum from the past, whether you are working with those traditions or not. Traditional decks, as a rule, seem also to be more "thought out". I prefer traditional decks, as a rule. Of course a rule can be like a piecrust, made to be broken. Once in awhile I stray into modern territory and have even been known to borrow my daughter's Witchy Tarot(!) A little insanity is refreshing, sometimes. But I always come back to Marseilles and RWS. BB, Stella

contradiction	20 Apr 2005
ricardozen wrote: this is my first real post so forgive me my english Your english is very good, don't worry. I refuse to enter this discussion, other than to say You do what works for you. A while back there was a rather long discussion, on this where I enjoyed debating with some of our members, it was all in fun, but could have turned ugly very quickly. I will not do that again.

theredfox	20 Apr 2005
Its not about status, being elitist, or tradition for tradition's sake. The fact is packs like Rider-Waite, Crowley and BOTA are embedded within and derive from very sophisticated philosophical systems. Many of the modern packs completely break away from that. IMO, some of them are actually a bit peculiar, focussing on a very eccentric and/or specialist subject. Others are OK because even if they dont acknowledge all the hermetic symbolism, they find related or similar psychological models - like Greek myth - which are also very rich and comprehensive. So my question is: what value does the hermetic symbolism have? (I fail to see why that's a contentious subject).

contradiction	20 Apr 2005
thereadfox wrote: I fail to see why that is such a contentious subject I said I wasn't going to do this, but you know my big mouth. First of all the Waite (etc..) decks, are only half as old as some others, therefore you calling them traditional is incorrect. I happen to prefer the Waite decks, but facts are facts, the Waite type decks, are actually some of the newer Styles. Second decks are like underwear, some like boxers, some like briefs, some go commando, everyone has their favorite, I know it was not your intention, (by the way you phrased things), to insult anyone. But, some people get more insulted over their decks, than their kids. (I'm taking poetic liscense with that statement). Here is the last time this subject was approached, PLEASE NO ONE RESPOND, AND REVIVE THE THREAD... http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=36200

Fudugazi	20 Apr 2005
theredfox wrote: The fact is packs like Rider-Waite, Crowley and BOTA are embedded within and derive from very sophisticated philosophical systems. Many of the modern packs completely break away from that. IMO, some of them are actually a bit peculiar, focussing on a very eccentric and/or specialist subject. Others are OK because even if they dont acknowledge all the hermetic symbolism, they find related or similar psychological models - like Greek myth - which are also very rich and comprehensive. So my question is: what value does the hermetic symbolism have? But Tarot isn't really - or even primarily - about hermetic systems as reinterpreted (and occulted, in some instances) by the GD and its adepts. Tarot is older - its symbolism has some hermetic elements, some esoteric and some exoteric. The Tarot Tradition predates the GD by some centuries and many say that the GD actually betrayed it - and betrayed true hermeticism (I don't go that far - I am just reporting opinion). When I read with the Tarot de Marseille, I feel in the presence of an older, less manufactured hermeticism, which is not occult but demands concentration and slow initiation. Anyone who has read Meditations on the Tarot will see a mind at work unfolding that hermiticism, arcana by arcana. You might feel the same of GD-derived decks, but that is only one view. They are not even 100 years old - fairly young in the history of hermeticism. These decks were showcases for the GD philosophy and some very mixed symbolism that predated its creation by several millenia, in other ages and places and for other uses than in Victorian England with its fascination for spooks and Egyptian antiquities. Yet, they created some remarkable Tarot decks - strange, not entirely "Tarot" as it had been understood until then, but certainly striking. They did it by rediscovering very ancient symbolism which had not much to do with their own times: and they proved that strong symbolism - whether we call it hermetic or not - crosses the barriers of centuries, culture and religion. They revived a moribund study - Hermetic Qabbalah - and turned it into an live occult pursuit that draws ever growing number of fans a century later (in that, it can no longer be called occult!). There are some contemporary decks that are created by modern Pagans. Are these to be rejected? Is the DruidCraft - created by the chief of the Order of Bards and Druids of England, just another novelty deck? Is it not based on a "sophisticated philosophy" that acknowledges its debt to GD, but plunges its roots much deeper into Druidic mysticism? I fail to see why that is less Tarot, why their symbolism matters less and has less force, than GD-derived decks that were themselves radical departures from Tarot! (don't worry, theredfox, some people got burnt in older debates - but that's no reason for not discussion perfectly valid points: Contradiction - if you are not comfortable discussing this, don't take part - that's you're right which I respect: but please do not censor others. Thank you).

theredfox	20 Apr 2005
Look guys, its a perfectly reasonable, sensible kind of enquiry. If this has ever been heated and argumentative...well, I suggest it may have something to say about the people that contributed in that manner. I'm not interested. I shall not trawl around here to read it, or confim that observation or not. I made a few observations about the 'traditional' packs, which was then miscontrued in terms of elitism and tradition for tradition's sake. What I said is neither: it simply acknowledges the tremendous learning and rich symbolism that you see in the traditional packs. I also said I like the Osho Zen pack -very different - demonstrating that for me this is not some kind of religion, that I will advocate or defend with a religious attitude. I will add that "paganism" and things of that ilk are, IMO, pretty vacuous compared to the Theosophical/hermetic/Golden Dawn systems; just one aspect of indigenous New Agism. However, that has got nothing to do with 'being silenced'. I cant silence those packs and have no interest in doing so....but I *am* entitled to have an opinion. However (again), that is slightly tangential to the theme of this thread. I have stated what I think the value is of the 'traditional' decks, and to reject that value is probably a kind of *inverse* snobbery. I've also stated that I enjoy the Osho Zen pack, which is completely anarchic in relation to the older symbolism. Therefore, this presents the following kind of questions: what value does the older symbolism have? If there is such a thing as 'symbol' and 'thing itself', is it possible that another model will access the kind of meaning - or not? I suspect the latter. So how valuable is the older symbolism? Etc. I also said I am moving away from the traditional symbolism. But that doesn't mean I reject or deny the wisdom within it - in the Paul foster-Case book, for example. It simply means, something like this.....that maybe the traditional packs are like the Major Arcana, and the modern packs are like the Minor Arcana (as a generalisation). You need both. You cant live a Major Arcana life all the time - most of the time time, in fact, we are occupied with more Minor Arcana kind of themes: the basic stuff of being human.

Fudugazi	20 Apr 2005
thered fox - rather than flaring up at one remark (which was made because of past history) - why don't you answer my last? I was actually trying to engage with you, you know :)

theredfox	20 Apr 2005
I'm not flaring up. I am reinstating something that was going astray. I'm interested in engaging with people but cant see any question in your post, and I will decide if I think something is interesting or relevant! If I "answer" or not, thats my decision - especially since I started this thread! Why dont you respond to what I said?! You do make one point in regard to history, and while its not something I've studied I think the Tarot origins were indeed highly esoteric, like you see in the Egyptian symbols. And I suspect that over the years, some of that original essence was lost and people became almost wholly interested in the divination aspect. And I'm not especially referring to divination. And before anyone jumps at that and miscontrues me....read what I've said in this thread. What does the fact that I like the Osho Zen pack tell you?

stella01904	20 Apr 2005
contradiction wrote: I said I wasn't going to do this, but you know my big mouth. First of all the Waite (etc..) decks, are only half as old as some others, therefore you calling them traditional is incorrect. MM ~ Less than half as old! Still, I view "Traditional" as "before the glut" - i.e., Visconti, Marseilles, Minchiate, Ettiella, RWS, and yes, Crowley Thoth (although several of these are "rules unto themselves") would be considered "traditional". I consider the "glut" to begin with Tarot in pop culture, i.e., James Bond movies, etc., right up to our present state of innumerable decks with more coming available all the time, ranging from sublime to something beyond trite...just my humble way of sorting things out. BB, Stella

Cerulean	20 Apr 2005
...but they do all mistake their own period's view of mythology as the truth for the time...in many cases, a snapshot of a 'period understanding'. That's my own thoughts. Non-traditional is most likely how I think of my various tarot reproductions, even though they might be reproducing deck art over a hundred years old or perhaps four or five hundred of years old. I almost believe the many flavors of the Osho Zen encodes an East-West cross tradition of Western fascination with outgrowths of Eastern spirituality begun by the Theosophy movement around the turn of the 1900s--it's hard to pinpoint unless one was looking backwards at East-West cross-currents in terms of spiritual writers and thinkers. The Jeu de Princess reproduction in Italianate majors and Papus-approved pips is a lovely deck for me and is likely over a hundred years old...it is both an outgrowth of Milan/Bologna trumps and Etteilla minors. Nontraditional. The meanings originally written on the cards are more alike to Etteilla than anything else. I think that might be the only older reproduction that I have that I can safely say that I believe that I really know meaning assignment. Papus suggested that people were straying away from the spirit of a true tarot with that silly Etteilla fad...Waite suggested Papus was straying away from true tarot designs with that silly Egyptianized fad that Papus wrote about in La Tarot Divinataire (in French). By 2009, the Rider Waite and various workalikes around 1910 will also be considered antique enough to have started a 'tradition' of sorts. Thankfully, there is some documentation on suggested symbol significance. Any Visconti or Italian variation or reproduction that I have has modernized meanings attached--I believe the Jeu de Princesse is an exception--and each reproduced deck has twists and slants... Just my thoughts on this... Best regards, Cerulean P.S. I'm currently looking at Augustus Knapp's various illustrated books and a PRS-issued Knapp Hall in regards to the interesting bits and pieces of designs...Knapp's tarot designs came out in the 1920s, but he illustrated books with an esoteric slant since the 1890s...non-traditional, as well.

cybercat	20 Apr 2005
Ok here is my slant. If the tarot is suppose to be used to open ones higher self or commune with your own inner psychic. Then does it not go to reason that whatever deck works for you is OK. Who cares what others think about the deck you use. If you can work with it and it speaks to you then it is a good deck. I know of a few readers that do not use decks with all the symbols. There are many people that read with plain playing cards. How I can only say they listen to that inner voice and are good empaths. Personally I find a little symbolism helps. Some need alot and some none at all. I have not run into this deck elitism stuff. Then again I am new to this site but have worked with the tarot for 17+ years. I personally do not care what others think about what deck I read from for it works for me and that is all that counts. Traditional or non-traditional they are all tarot decks. Cat theredfox wrote: For many years, I used to think only the traditional decks were worth bothering with. I especially favoured Rider-Waite, Crowley and BOTA: my favourite three. Why? Because the symbolism is very authoritative, embedded in the wisdom traditions of alchemy, kaballa and astrology. I still think that. But recently I've started to think why bother with all that tradition, unless you are working specifically with those systems? I still use my discrimination though, and I find some of the modern packs at best a little weak and unappealing, and at worst perverse, partial and eccentric. 'Eccentric' means 'off-centre', and thats exactly what some of them are: they've lost the 'centre of meaning' of tarot wisdom. I've been enjoying the Liz Greene Mythic tarot, partly for the art-work, partly for the her psychological understanding, and partly because I find the old Greek myths beautiful and resonant. You cant get away from them, if you live in the Western world! And I guess the pack is half traditional and half modern. I also like the Osho Zen pack, and want to get a copy. Thoughts?

jmd	20 Apr 2005
In my personal view, if we are discussing divination, then certainly any deck, and whether Tarot or not, is fine and is perhaps better chosen according to the way in which it permits the person engaging in the art. If we are discussing Tarot, however, questions may also be raised as to whether the deck deviates - and in what manner - from what may be considered essential to it being Tarot. In many decks, even in many decks that some consider 'traditional' (and I personally would not have included, for example, the BOTA in that list), additions such astrological, specific Hebrew (&/or other) letter or elemental attributions are incorporated within the image, giving the appearance that these are intrinsic to Tarot. The symbolism of Tarot, however, has its own very peculiar imagery - often easily connected to ancient sources (eg, allegory of Strength), at other times more general and undoubtedly not as ancient (eg, the Empress or the Pope). Are all decks equal in terms of their proximity to a more archetypal depiction? I would (and have also previously) claim that they are not. Further, even some decks that I personally enjoy and like to use I likewise recognise that they deviate from iconography I consider 'truer' when it comes to discerning not their quality as decks I may enjoy, but as tarot.

spoonbender	21 Apr 2005
jmd wrote: Are all decks equal in terms of their proximity to a more archetypal depiction? I would (and have also previously) claim that they are not. Further, even some decks that I personally enjoy and like to use I likewise recognise that they deviate from iconography I consider 'truer' when it comes to discerning not their quality as decks I may enjoy, but as tarot . Very well said, Jmd. Thank you for your post :) .

Fudugazi	21 Apr 2005
theredfox wrote: Why dont you respond to what I said? I did answer you. Did you not see? Of course you could go on discussing the discussion. I prefer to come back to the topic. What I answered - to remind you - was that I do not think Tarot traditionally wholly hermetic and its symbolism is partly, but not wholly hermetic. That the GD and decks derived from it borrowed - probably because of a fascination with spiritism and Egyptology at the time - very ancient symbolism that was as far removed from its time, place and religious sensibility as the Chaldean clock is from us. Nevertheless, such is the force of that ancient symbolism per se - whether it is attached to a Victorian occult philosophy or not - that the GD-inspired creators made remarkable decks, but which were a huge departure from Tarot as it had been known until then. I shall now add that I believe that in the RWS particularly there is such a mish-mash of undigested symbolism that it does not all work for me: something doesn't gel with this overload. The Thoth I find powerful and more unified though I disagree with Crowley's Hebrew correspondences. I don't know the BOTA. They started a fashion and a tradition. I also said that in my view, Marseille symbolism - with is mixture of hermetic and non-hermetic elements, to be a far a more natural and holistic esotericism than any of the GD-derived deck, as it evolved over centuries. This has been amply demonstrated, in my view, in the wonderful Meditations on the Tarot, that goes through the Marseille, symbol by symbol, drawing out its mystical essence.

Fudugazi	21 Apr 2005
jmd wrote: In many decks, even in many decks that some consider 'traditional' (and I personally would not have included, for example, the BOTA in that list), additions such astrological, specific Hebrew (&/or other) letter or elemental attributions are incorporated within the image, giving the appearance that these are intrinsic to Tarot. The symbolism of Tarot, however, has its own very peculiar imagery - often easily connected to ancient sources (eg, allegory of Strength), at other times more general and undoubtedly not as ancient (eg, the Empress or the Pope). I agree jmd. It is interesting to find correspondences between Tarot and Hebrew letters, places on the Tree of Life and astrological signs, if one also studies Kabbalah and Astrology - but it is something we do with Tarot, if we are so moved. It is not intrinsic to Tarot, which needs no correspondence to any other system that its own.

theredfox	21 Apr 2005
Hel: no you didnt answer me. And you came here with the discussions about discussions, not me, and then with remarks about me answering you! Please stop it! I began "this topic" (thread), not you, and have no interest in argumentation. Jmd: yes, some good points. Firstly for distinguishing between divination and symbolism, which is actually what I was referring to, and secondly for referring to the 'proximity to archetype'. I think its obvious that as far as divination is concerned, its not only very personal but its also not relevant which pack you use, or if you prefer tea leaves or patterns in the sand! In that respect tarot is just a tool to divine information in relation to yourself or another person - and which tool you use doesn't matter. Thats not actually what I was referring to - as you allude to. I dont have such a detailed knowledge of the different packs as some people here so I cant comment in that way. My point is more general in relation to symbolism and the power it has/doesn't have. For example, you could construe all tarot as expressing 'narrative'. Thats quite an 'academic' viewpoint; I'm thinking about a subject some people call 'narratology'. Everything is a story, that can be deconstructed. Now, if you take that as your starting point, is the 'traditional' story, the hermetic one, any better than any other story? Well its certainly different, if for example its full of thesosophical ideas and principles. Interesting equating the Osho deck with theosophy....it certainly adopts a cross-cultural approach, based on the idea that there's an inner core of universal meaning etc etc - although I dont think his teachings, and the 'teachings' you see in those cards, have anything like the learning and authority of Theosophy or Alice Bailey. More like a 60s hippy thing, or New Ageism. But that doesnt bother me, because I can construe the cards in my own way (and ignore or remove The Master card with the image of you-know-who!).

jmd	21 Apr 2005
In theredfox's opening post, the following is mentioned - a statement that seems to be at the very centre of the issue under discussion, and also that seems to generate quite potent expressions from time to time:[indent]'I find some of the modern packs at best a little weak and unappealing, and at worst perverse, partial and eccentric. 'Eccentric' means 'off-centre', and thats exactly what some of them are: they've lost the 'centre of meaning' of tarot wisdom.'[/indent] I suppose that for at least some of us, this very 'centre of meaning' is also what we strive for when assessing a deck against another. When looking, for example, at the Waite Colman-Smith [wcs], what strikes one are some of those very alterations that have, especially over the past forty or fifty years, become so much adopted by other designers. There may indeed be thoughts argued for in terms of the altered numbering of VIII and XI, or of even numbering the un-numbered Fool. But these are still legitimate questions as to whether, by doing so, Tarot as Tarot as been depicted in what is here referred to in an 'eccentric', or 'off-centred', manner. Perhaps my own preference for a deck such as the Marseille is precisely because I have been unable to detect such eccentricities in its general form, though of course each individual Marseille also displays minor 'eccentricities'. In quite a number of wonderful threads, such as Why do people use the Tarot of Marseilles? and The Visconti - and the Marseilles, a number of contributors also address the very question that seems to here be discussed.

contradiction	21 Apr 2005
Helvetica wrote: (don't worry, theredfox, some people got burnt in older debates - but that's no reason for not discussion perfectly valid points: Contradiction - if you are not comfortable discussing this, don't take part - that's you're right which I respect: but please do not censor others. Thank you). My intention, is not to censor. If you follow any of my post on controversial, topics, you would know that I firmly believe that everyone has a right to their opinion. And, they also have a right to verbilize their opinion. And I also believe that debate is good. But, I also believe that if someone brings up a topic that is guaranteed to ruffle feathers, then it should be stated in the beginning that, the likelihood of such happening is inevitable. Especially if someone participating is unaware of how strongly others feel about the subject, or previous volitile discussions. Then if everyone wishes to continue, then a healthy debate can arise out of a potentially bad situation. If you feel that my original post was intended to censor, then maybe I worded my self incorrectly. But, the fact that you felt I was trying to censor just proves my point. This is one subject that can cause hurt feelings, everyone involved should use caution. I do hope you understand what I am trying to say. I will, follow this thread because I do feel everyone has something of importance to say. And, I do learn from these debates, they can be healthy. If everyone, understands the situation and uses temperance. Redfox, my intention of linking to the previous thread, is some of the things you are asking about, were discussed in that thread. If you want to know how others feel about the subject, that is a good place to start. I wanted to give you the opportunity to gather information, and insight, what you do with it is up to you.

Fudugazi	21 Apr 2005
What do you think is the value of such symbolism - adopted out of context by the GD - since you seem to think modern decks lacking in some way? Can symbolism mean anything at all if derived from its initial impulse? I believe it can - like myth, symbol transcends culture. But I do wonder why an Egyptian sphinx has some value for us - or had for the GD - so far away from its culture and religious meaning of origin. What is the force of such sign? Where does it come from? Contradiction - thanks for clarifying. I did not know you for a censor - I was surprised! I'm glad it ain't so ;)

theredfox	26 Apr 2005
If that question 'what do you think' is addressed to me, in the argumentative context that has been set up here - not by me - it is not a question I can respect. Especially when its linked to a negative opinion, suggesting you dont really want an answer anyway. Con: you mostly provided those thread links indicating that it had been an argumentative topic. I dont want to read people's arguments. And presumably if anyone is interested - not in arguing - they would be interested in this thread. No one is, so I assume....no one is.

Emily	27 Apr 2005
I think as Beauty is in the eye of the beholder so is Tarot symbolism. As much as I like the traditional Marseille artwork, the symbolism doesn't work for me. I can look at the say the 4 Swords and the only thing that sticks with me is the meaning of the Number 4. I can't read the artwork, it isn't visual enough for me. I like to be able to see evident symbolism, to have a fully illustrated card to focus on. And I get this with Rider Waite or clones. My main decks are the Morgan Greer and the Spiral but I also use the Thoth and non-traditional tarot decks like the Bright Idea deck and the Quest. These decks do still give you a challenge. I really do think that its down to personal choice, and that one style of deck is not better than another style of deck - All decks are equal. The best kind of deck is one that you can read. :)

theredfox	28 Apr 2005
I guess one of the factors I was considering was the 'wisdom' contained within the more traditional packs, the way they are embedded within kaballa, alchemy etc. What this means is, beyond their divinatory value the cards are a like a book of philosophy, offering the kind of 'messages' and guidance you get from those systems. Which also have a deep archetypal power. Many of the modern packs completely lack that dimension. The I Ching has this dimension as well - the entire system is philosophically based. Another factor worth remembering is that even an authoritative hermetic pack reflects the thoughts of its creator - its not an abstract code, but is mediated by the prejudices, preferences and limitations of the person. The Thoth pack is a good example there: Crowley developed his own system based on traditional sources, but much of it was his own invention. I personally find his pack strangely powerful, almost a little disturbing, and I dont feel that way about any other pack. Why? I think it uses astral imagery more than other pack. And whatever you think about Crowley, he did mess with some strange psychological subjects. But its nicely correlated with astrology, which is a useful link.

Fudugazi	28 Apr 2005
theredfox wrote: If that question 'what do you think' is addressed to me, in the argumentative context that has been set up here - not by me - it is not a question I can respect. Especially when its linked to a negative opinion, suggesting you dont really want an answer anyway. How did you come to such a conclusion about a total stranger? I am fascinated by symbolism and its expressive power - and have been at pains to ignore your rudeness and understand what it is you are trying to say about symbolism yourself. Your last post is interesting, but you seem to be saying that only decks with kabbalah and alchemy embedded in them - and astrology - have this force. What of a really traditional deck like the Marseille, where symbol is strong, despite the lack of obvious kabbalistic or astrological corrrespondence (such correspondence is possible of course - but not inherent to the deck)? Has, for instance, the stick of the Fool or the mandorla of the World any inherent force, apart from their traditional meanings?

psychic sue	28 Apr 2005
Why get so het up over this guy's? Surely it's whatever floats your boat. The reader is the one who interprets the cards - so if a particular deck sings a song to a particular person, great. We all have preferences for everything in life. If I like bacon and you like eggs, who is to say that bacon is superior to eggs or vice-versa? Live and let live. If you give brilliant readings with the Mickey Mouse deck, then great. Just HMO. Sue x

jmd	28 Apr 2005
I have seen the expression 'whatever floats your boat' only ever on Aeclectic, and can only surmise its meaning from the context - yet it is metaphorically rich, for that which may float our individual boats is the common sea of rich symbol and allegory, a sea with a bed rich with the sands of past generations. If the deck is used for the purposes of a reading, then I would certainly personally agree that 'the reader is the one who interprets the cards'. Despite the obvious surface disagreement in some of the above posts, however, there are points raised that are to the comments made, rather than ad hominem. For example, theredfox (to return to the opening post) states that:[indent]'I especially favoured Rider-Waite, Crowley and BOTA: my favourite three. Why? Because the symbolism is very authoritative, embedded in the wisdom traditions of alchemy, kaballa and astrology. I still think that. [...]'[/indent] The question that Helvetica raises in the above post addresses precisely the comment made, by asking:[indent]'What of a really traditional deck like the Marseille, where symbol is strong, despite the lack of obvious kabbalistic or astrological corrrespondence [...]?'[/indent] The 'wisdom' contained within a traditional deck such as the Marseille is, ideed, and to my personal considerations, quite deep, and that without any of the later incorporated allusions to the specific manner in which the Golden Dawn and its myriad derivatives (such as the BOTA) makes of their peculiarly assigned Kabalistic correlations.

theredfox	28 Apr 2005
I'm not very familiar with the Marseilles deck, and will have to consult my books. Although my question is actually not confined to the Western hermetic tradition; its just something I know about. The same point applies to any pack that expresses a comparable philosophical system - it doesn't have to be Western hermeticism, but for the sake of this questioning, it does have to be comparable. An extreme example of the opposite is the so called gay Tarot - which IMO appears to have a disproportionate emphasis here, in relation to the wider subject. Its totally contemporary, and political. Entirely the other end of the spectrum.

Alta	28 Apr 2005
Hi folks, just a reminder that personal comments are to be confined to PMs. Try to see each others points of view as they are written without any imputed layer of intent. Thanks, Marion co-moderator of Talking Tarot

theredfox	28 Apr 2005
If you delete my post, I suggest you also delete the abusive *personal* remarks to which I responded. That would be consistent, and it would also clean up this thread. I dont like being accused of "flaring up" when I wasnt, being censorious or rude, or having a subject interrupted by other peoples arguments.

psychic sue	29 Apr 2005
jmd wrote: Despite the obvious surface disagreement in some of the above posts, however, there are points raised that are to the comments made, rather than ad hominem . For example, theredfox (to return to the opening post) states that: [indent] 'I especially favoured Rider-Waite, Crowley and BOTA: my favourite three. Why? Because the symbolism is very authoritative, embedded in the wisdom traditions of alchemy, kaballa and astrology. I still think that. [...] ' [/indent] The question that Helvetica raises in the above post addresses precisely the comment made, by asking: [indent] 'What of a really traditional deck like the Marseille, where symbol is strong, despite the lack of obvious kabbalistic or astrological corrrespondence [...] ?' [/indent] The 'wisdom' contained within a traditional deck such as the Marseille is, ideed, and to my personal considerations, quite deep, and that without any of the later incorporated allusions to the specific manner in which the Golden Dawn and its myriad derivatives (such as the BOTA) makes of their peculiarly assigned Kabalistic correlations. I see the point, but you are still talking personal preference. If a particular deck doesn't connect to YOU in some way (whatever symbology it has or whatever you use the cards for) then it's not going to work for YOU. Do you see my point?

stella01904	29 Apr 2005
jmd wrote: The 'wisdom' contained within a traditional deck such as the Marseille is, ideed, and to my personal considerations, quite deep, and that without any of the later incorporated allusions to the specific manner in which the Golden Dawn and its myriad derivatives (such as the BOTA) makes of their peculiarly assigned Kabalistic correlations. MM ~ I just wanted to add, I personally do see a Kabalistic correlation with the Marseilles - look at the pose of the Magician and compare it to Aleph, or the Hermit compared to Gimmel - they do follow the Hebrew alphabet, subtly, but, I think, purposely. BB, Stella

jmd	29 Apr 2005
I personally agree, stella01904, that the Marseille indeed reflects the Hebrew letters with their ordinal value (1st to card I, 2nd to card II, etc) - thankyou for explicitly mentioning this. Hence for the qualification that I make that this is 'without any of the later incorporated allusions to the specific manner in which the Golden Dawn [...] makes of their peculiarly assigned Kabalistic correlations'. Further, I personally find that the Atouts paired follow quite well a path of return upon the Tree of Life... without having to further add to the imagery.

stella01904	29 Apr 2005
jmd wrote: Further, I personally find that the Atouts paired follow quite well a path of return upon the Tree of Life... without having to further add to the imagery. MM ~ I totally agree, you have the Trumps as the alphabet, then the pips numbered one through ten - what else could it be? It's no big stretch to make the connection, and the simple explanation is usually the correct one. BB, Stella

Vadella	29 Apr 2005
This may be a short answer... but just go with the flow.

theredfox	29 Apr 2005
Yes, but as I said on my original point: what value do the traditional packs have - perhaps more accurately called the 'philosophical' packs - compared to the modern ones that are totally different? That is to say, how do the 'philosophical' (hermetic) packs compare to the others, in terms of how you use them? I suggested that in terms of *principle*, the former are like the major arcana, and the latter are like are like the minor arcana, in relation to the kind of themes and ideas they depict.

jmd	30 Apr 2005
This brings the very idea as to what a deck of Tarot (as opposed to a perhaps nice, or oracular, or other 'philosophical' - such as the Mantegna) actually is. I would suggest that each and every deck that is basically a Tarot deck reflects in some way or other the deep impulse finding its way into its 'better' samples. In reply to psychic sue's earlier question (which I had previously missed), I would also claim that a deck's connection with oneself is also partly dependent not just on the first impact of the imagery, but also, perhaps, with the careful work and study that one puts into it. For this, I would of course then be more careful as to how much work I would put into a particular deck, and here perhaps partially give a reply to the question theredfox asks above: in terms of how one uses a deck, there is perhaps greater worth in studying carefully, no matter how unappealing the deck may at first be, a deck that forms a foundational reflection of Tarot. Of course, in my personal opinion, the decks that form the deepest foundational reflection of Tarot are the Marseille-types - 'philosophical' in their foundation they certainly are, and hermetic in their seal, as well as in their iconography, they appear to remain for some.

theredfox	02 May 2005
Right. Now that's established, and the subject isnt being deflected all over the place, it can be sensibly pursued. Clearly, there are huge differences in some of the packs and one of the fundamental differences is philosophical/traditional, or not. Historically, the former were the actual origin of tarot, generally speaking, although I'm not getting into a tangential discussion about that in relation to specific packs etc etc. As I've said throughout, I dont automatically dismiss all modern "innovative" packs, although I find some of them very peculiar and eccentric - the so called "gay" pack, for example - whats going on there?! (and thats a rhetorical question. I dont want to pursue it, and if you do, start another thread! Or post on the existing one). Basically, tarot has become like a novel, or a poem: it can be based on absolutely anything, if its a theme that people identify with. And as with everything else in society, at some point commercial considerations will arise, and packs can and will be published simply because people will buy them - which is no indication of intrinsic worth. However, if you regard the imagery as a philosophical teaching device, then clearly some packs are substantially better than others. So....what value does the traditional imagery have? I've also stated that I've been moving away from packs like R-W/Thoth, and become interested in Liz Greenes Mythic Tarot and the Osho Zen. However, in both those cases theres a strong core of 'philosophical' content - albeit, different from the traditional hermeticism. The first is more psychological/jungian using Greek myth in psychological terms, and the second is overtly eclectic.

Sulis	02 May 2005
theredfox wrote: and the second is overtly eclectic. As I understand it the Osho Zen tarot is based on the teachings of the now deceased Zen Master, Osho and on zen Buddhism - not really so overtly eclectic :) Sulis xx

mike gorth	02 May 2005
I say a mix but I like the modern day because it's easier on the eye. Symbolism is good to a point but when there are 10 to a card, it just gets exhausting.

gilded goat	02 May 2005
I do not see that it matters much either way, personally i have quite a few decks and i often pick and mix from each deck to make one i can get into depends what you use them for i suppose either reading or meditation

theredfox	02 May 2005
Theres definitely an Osho influence in those cards, so the Master card is a picture of....guess who?! But he doesnt own that symbolism and it doesnt have to be attached to the deceased teacher - who I dont think was a Master at all. Bit surprised there isnt a Rolls Royce card, if you know what I mean - I think he owned about 25 of them. "The Chariot" - Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh sitting in his Rolls Royce! I agree that the symbolism on some packs is maybe too dense. And if you dont understand half of it, or dont find it useful, its unhelpful because its just a distraction and a hindrance.

jmd	02 May 2005
I personally do not (as yet) have the Gay Tarot, so only comment on the deck in a very second-hand manner. It seems to me, however, that it, as for either the Mythic or the Osho Zen, reflects quite well the personal striving or views of the respective creators. I recall many years ago in various classes using the Mythic as an example as to what could be done to strive to understand the Atouts (Major Arcana) of the Tarot by seeking to re-define and re-present them according to a quite restricted personal view, or within quite a restricted mythical framework. Of course, I personally consider these as just that: a personal re-presentation of the deck, and to be assessed (in my personal view) against Tarot as Tarot. Some decks will there be either more closely or more remotely reflective of the impulse of Tarot as it arises more independently of the personal views of the designer.

theredfox	03 May 2005
I dont think you can equate those packs like that. They may be similar in the sense that they reflect a 'personal striving', but they are not similar in the quality, breadth, depth, psychology and philosophy of the actual *content*. I dont think you are actually saying it, but by omission what you wrote *implies* exactly that. For example, sex in a 'traditional' pack is only definitively symbolised in a few cards, and is usually quite subtle...it isnt used as a theme for all of them - I find that ludicrously eccentric, using sex and politics as an all-encompassing theme. Same applies to the Mythic Tarot - it features as just one part of a diverse and rich range of themes. This is my objection to the very facile modern packs....they have as an underlying rationale that every subject/theme/preoccupation/interest is the same as everything else. Its complete nonsense. Theres a nice humorous thread somewhere else where people are having a bit of fun with this, imagining a (me) South Park tarot pack, or a Charlie Brown and Snoopy pack.

The Traditional or non-traditional thread was originally posted on 20 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.