What drives Tarot - Image or Archetype?

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 17 Jan 2002, and now archived in the Forum Library.

divinerguy	17 Jan 2002
I just traded someone for the One World Tarot deck, and I noted its lack of images representing any defned archetypes. Its a deck of unconventional symbols, and there is no book (save the LWB) which describes this deck. It made me wonder about my own prejudices and beliefs about the foundations of Tarot reading. For me, I find a lot of Tarot artwork to be beautiful, and I appreciate it for its own sake. When I do readings, I use the aesthetic imagery to help me determine the significance of the card. When I read, I also rely heavily upon the "traditional" publshed archetypal correpsondences to the images. As the cards in the One World Tarot have no well defined archetypal clues, I can't read on that premise either. The LWB is not detailed at all. The whole issue made me wonder. From what source do we derive the meaning of specific tarot cards? I'm not talking the history of the tarocchi from ancient italy or egypt or thoth or gypsies, and I don't want to start that old debate. What is it that makes our minds "zero in" on a specific idea when we turn over a card? Is it the image or the archetype? Tell me your thoughts. Gary

Pollux	17 Jan 2002
Quote: divinerguy (18 Jan, 2002 00:44): I'm not talking the history of the tarocchi from ancient italy or egypt or thoth or gypsies, and I don't want to start that old debate. What is it that makes our minds "zero in" on a specific idea when we turn over a card? Is it the image or the archetype? Gary To me, there's one answer: the archetype. This maybe only applies to Major, but this is not the point I believe. I'm definitely of this opinion as I tested it myself. I started with a grumpy, fuzzy Marseille Deck - very refined pictures, luckily - and one of my first decks was a Viscotni-Sforza (by Lo Scarabeo). "Learning" minors was somewhat daunting, as I had no clue to their meaning looking at them. But my exercise was to focus on the archetype itself. When I looked at the Popess, reading the book or staring at the image was almost the same, but only because the IMAGE was archetypical itself - convoluted :( . I mean, the image of the Marseille recalled the archetypical ideas lying in the cards. The image was sort of a representation, not really a key for interpretation. In addition, this applies even better to Major - their archetypical nature is undeniable. After a half year - which is now ;p - I find I get easy with Rider-Waite, Marseille and their clones, but I feel at impasse looking at more "personal" decks. One for All, the Osho-Zen. (I'm speaking too much against widespread trends! I confide in your understanding and in freedom of expression! :) ). Getting distant from the "standard", the archetype is fairly... disappointing for my performances. I hope I'll manage to improve this with time too. P.S. I say this with no vested interest: as for origins, Tarots WERE born in ITALY! ;p Better still, in NAPLES! :D

truthsayer	17 Jan 2002
WOW! what an interesting question for discussion! i agree that archetypes--touching the universal mind thru imagery is how i read the major arcana expecially. the imagery on the majors is centuries old.but imagery on the cards started w/ the rws deck around 100 years ago--just a baby archetypically or image wise in contrast to the majors. before a.e. waite, the minors were like a deck of playing cards. from my reading on waite, i understand he was like a walking encyclopedia of symbolism. he was able to convert a card system of numbers and court cards to one of symbols and imagery with the help of pamela coleman-smith.since then many ppl have tried their hand doing w/ the minors what what waite and smith did first. i think waite used more universal symbols than i've seen w/ more recent decks. while i like the theme decks, they don't use universal symbols as often. symbols on theme decks tend to be more personal or specific--not universal. not everyone can relate to them--the osho zen or the legend arthurian are perfect examples. not everyone likes the rws b/c of negative imagery but i think most everyone could say something similar when looking at the cards b/c the minor arcana symbolism says similar things to us all. this is not the case in decks other than rws. however, the major arcana seems more translatable or related to many modern decks. this is just my opinion. :)

jmd	17 Jan 2002
What wonderful questions you ask: Quote: From what source do we derive the meaning of specific tarot cards? What is it that makes our minds "zero in" on a specific idea when we turn over a card? Is it the image or the archetype? If I may rephrase these questions in my own words, it may make it easier to attempt an answer. Are card images archetypal, and if so, when I do a reading, am I responding to these archetypes or to the peculiarities of the artist’s image in front of me? Further, how influenced is the reader going to be by the publications s/he may have read regarding the supposed meanings of these archetypes? I’m not as certain that either peculiarities of the image or the supposed archetype of the image are exclusive of each other in readings. I am reminded of the traditional Kabbalistic fourfoldness of text interpretation (PaRDeS=Garden/Paradise/Orchard, and therefore fruitful growth), in which one can read (and understand), in ascending order of depth, either (P=) literally, (R=) allegorically, (D=) symbolically, or (S=) mystically/spiritually. I wonder if in readings, the situation at hand, or the circumstances which are playing into the reading, often properly affect the focus one takes... here is the ‘literal’ aspect of the image, in which one’s eyes focuses on a previously un-noticed aspect of the card (was that really a smirk! I had always noticed it as a simple unaffected smile). The allegorical (and metaphorical) aspects of the card also emerges from the reading situation... and here, I suspect that the previous work one has done with the cards, especially previous readings (both as divinatory readings and reading about the cards by various authors), comes to the fore. Aspects of its archetypal imagery may also come to the fore. The symbolic, or, in many ways, its inherent, and ‘true’, aspect, transcend either of these, and hence, if I may be so bold, I think transcends even its allegorical and ‘archetypal’ aspects. Here, the card is entered more than for a specific reading... but thus investigated, results from this will be used, albeit in diluted and filtered form, in future readings. The various archetypal elements which one may discover within a card surface here. The imagery of the card, however, is not limited by this (Jungians will undoubtedly disagree!). The spiritual aspects of the card transcend even the image(s), and are, in my opinion, neither fixed nor determined. Here one may shift from one card’s representation to another... and yet not have moved. The sources for our meanings are thus probably numerous. They include reading about various myths and sagas, personal exploratory investigations, ‘situational’ occurences, and one’s background knowledge of both the general human condition and the local specific situations... as well as the ever so important receptivity to the promptings of that still small spiritual voice within!

Alta	18 Jan 2002
I think you make a good point divinerguy. Most of us on this Forum have been reading, and thinking about, and using the Tarot, and other divination tools for a while. I think the meanings gradually sink in and become a part of the background from which we draw. Not all, but most of us, are familiar with the Waite-Smith images and either conciously or unconciously these sort of 'shine through' from the back, so to speak, when we read from other decks. More artistically personalized decks, or theme decks. Image or archetype? is an interesting question, and I think it follows something like I said above. The archetypes were not 'invented' by anyone, in fact archetypes can be expressed in their aspects through images but are not images themselves. They are inherent, and situations and images crystalize around them. The use of wands and pentacles and cups and swords associated with numbers just brings out the different aspects of the numbers which themselves are related to archetypes. In fact according to what I have read, numbers are just another face of archetypes. So, after all that babbling. I think most readers, whatever deck they use, with experience and sharing forums like this one, gradually relate to not only what they are looking at on the table but what 'shines' through the particular artistic interpretation.

Major Tom	18 Jan 2002
Fascinating thread! This is a question that has occupied my thoughts as an artist working on a tarot deck. I've only ever really studied the Major Arcana - first learning to read with the Majors and then spellwork, which led to some interesting insights with pathwork... Anyway, without further digression I knew as an artist that the Major Arcana represents archtypes - and that in order to be successful for an audience a deck had to portray those archytypes in a manner to make them recognizable as the universal symbols they are. Symbols/images on the minor arcana aren't quite so clear cut. Some of them are undeniably archtypes - the 3 of swords or 10 of swords come immediately to mind - while others are not so clear cut. Maybe it's just the level of my learning but I don't think I'm the only artist that's struggled with the images in the minors... }> After all, there have only been images on the minor arcana since Pamela Coleman Smith painted them as instructed by A.E. Waite...strictly personally, I think archtypes have been around longer than 100 years or so. :D I'm more than willing to accept my position is the result of my lack of learning - perhaps I just haven't been able to connect to the archtypes represented by all the cards? But aren't archtypes universal by definition? ???

truthsayer	18 Jan 2002
major tom, i guess this is open to interpretation but my concept of archetypes is that similar/the same stories and imagery are found in every country/culture all over the world. for example, one is that of a creation myth. each creation myth is a bit different but i think all world ppls have wondered this and come up with their own stories. Christianity there's the creation taking place in 7 days and adam and eve. native americans tell something about the world being born on the back of a great turtle. there's also one about white buffalo calf woman.there is generally always a first man and first woman in these tale. i need to go back and review my myths and fairy tales so i can remember better. some of the world tales i've heard of i can't think of a corresponding tarot cards for but have a universal theme of a hidden darkness. for example, the ones about infanticide. Iedypus(sp), hansel and gretel, snow white, and moses are examples. i figure that tarot doesn't emcompass all the archetypal stories out there. that's why the possibilities of tarot growing and expanding w/ who ever pulls together more pieces of the universal mind, the more archetypes and mythology/fairy tales/folk tales we'll be learning. remember, no matter how outlandish the story there's a grain of truth somewhere.

MeeWah	18 Jan 2002
Divinerguy et al: This is a fascinating discussion; makes one think! I vote for the archetype. Though we may not always be aware of it, our common humanity links us all in a community pool of knowledge, a collective (un)consciousness. One means of accessing this source of knowledge is through "magickal" pictures or archetypes. They are magickal because by a mysterious process, they act as triggers or prompts to the unconscious. The capacity at which the recognition occurs is unique for each individual; colored by the accumulated myriad of experiences in the life & past lives, on both the interior & exterior levels. The archetypes are flexible in that they grow & expand in meanings in direct relation to one's own growth & expansion. They are also flexible in that they encompass associations on different levels, from the mundane to the spiritual & points in between.

MeeWah	18 Jan 2002
BTW: The "success" or "failure" of a Tarot deck to speak to us often depends on the employment of archetypes. That is why radically different decks, those that detract from those symbols or those whose pictures are wholly based on the view & mind-set of its creator do not speak to all. They do not always contain the elements of a universal language that transcends the mortal boundaries. Such decks often require an insight to the creator's view first.

northsea	21 Jan 2002
Hi divinerguy, It would seem to me that a tarot reader would use the cards as intermediate tools to actually read the querent in a psychic way. The absolute meanings of the cards that have been discussed in books and forums would be reinterpreted to match the vibes the reader gets from the querent. The Major Arcana are essential tarot cards, and remain more absolute in meaning; so study of their archetypes is important. The Minor Arcana have no etched meanings, and are open to wider interpretations. The images are more important with them (which might account for the popularity of Rider Waite-type decks). Their meanings are more relative to the querent. Also, the classic tarot decks (like Sforza and Marseilles) could possibly be understood by intuitive tarot readers without reference to a manual, whereas newfangled tarot decks like the Norse that change the Major Arcana images in significant ways can challenge even the most intuitive reader. (Perhaps decks that change the images and symbols of the Major Arcana should not be called "tarot" decks per se.)

northsea	21 Jan 2002
Just to clarify what I said above, non-tarot decks can be read intuitively, for sure, and can be used in divination, too. They just might not lead a reader to intuit the traditional tarot meanings of the Majors' archetypes. A 'tarot deck' per se would. So I'm speaking of terminology, not divinatory usefulness. On the other hand, the Aquarian deck has my favorite Sun card which though not traditional could bring-forth the traditional tarot archetypal meaning without reference to a manual. (Ther is a lot of grey area in the definition of tarot. Anyhow, I'm straying off the subject...)

AmounrA	21 Jan 2002
I guess we all know what an image is, its a word which can be used quite plainly, without getting to much into personnal concepts or relativity. The word 'Archetype' however is wholly different. Is the devil, for example an archetypal card?, and if so, is it a human mind generated 'thought-form' or galaxical, or universal? What is the personality of this archetype? What is its purpose? You could say it a hunters focus. When a big cat stares at its prey, ready to pounce, is the archetypal force shown in the devil card, the force that helped in the evolution of carnivorous hunters? This force is not 'evil' but it is very different from say, the force of 'the mother'. There are quite a few tarot cards which seem to show the archetypal force of 'nurture'. All seem to be at various levels, from earth to universal. Could these cards be showing a powerful inner universal force of nurture? This still leaves you non the wiser about what, how, where archetypes come from/are.

AmounrA	21 Jan 2002
(continued.....) When our universe was 'born/appeared' , the matter/energy inside it could be said to have been born. I think science now accepts that particles/energy seem to be linked from inside in some way.....they seem to be aware of 'eachother' regardless of phyical distance [non-locality?]. I personally feel, that all matter/energy is concious, that our brains are very clever bio machines which conciousness created. A bit like a computer's hard drive can be a single portal which is connected [via web] to millions of other singular hardrive portals. The hard drive is solid, but the info is digital energy. Perhaps the matter/energy was born 'blind'. In the same sense as a new born child. As energy has learnt, so we see evolution. First it condensed [hived] forming particles, then on to things like galaxies, and the smaller and more detailed with planets..........them smaller and even more expressive in the shape of life forms. To be there is no doubt that matter is concious and connected. Could this child, energy, born into 'the' abyss [space] have had its own archetypes, guiding it, so that it , could start creating highly complex and detailed bio machines? If we take it that there a millions of planets with lfe out there, could that been seen as the 'child/energy, born into space as having billions upon billions of eyes, looking out? All linked deeply with? And could that 'babe in the abyss' also have developed models/systems, seen to us as archetypes, which gently push from within the inter connected concious 'hive'? Forces like 'nurture' , 'hunter', 'defence', 'sex' ? I would say the archetype makes the taro, and made the taro. That the universal conciousness can drop ideas into our imagination............further more, it seems to have a sense of humour :-)

Lilliana	23 Jan 2002
One thing that I've always found interesting about the use of Archetypes in the tarot, is that while we still carry the actual Archetypes with us in these modern times, the imagery and depictions of these Archetypes is still based on historical times (eg. we still depict the chariot as a chariot, even though they've been replaced with cars). I think that this was one of the reasons why I found it hard to learn the tarot at first. Even though the Archetypes are universal, the old fashioned images confused me. I started with the tarot when I was 13, and I had never met a High Preistess, so I didn't really understand the meaning behind the card. It wasn't until I learnt to apply the Archetypes to real life that they started to make sense. I suppose I'm just a modernist, but I would like to see the Hermit depicted with a flashlight and the Magician shown as a businessman. I think that even if you change the imagery or "update it", the Archetype remains the same, it's just in a different costume. Lilli

jmd	23 Jan 2002
There are a number of standard meanings to 'archetypes', even though many authors on the Tarot tend to use the term more in its Jungian sense. For the sake of clarity, I'll attempt to briefly characterise the four major differences of usage, and then relate these to this thread. The first, and oldest, is the way in which Plato used it. He saw that any form out there was but a poor duplicate of something which exists in the realm of Ideas (the capital 'i' is intentional); With later (post Renaissance) developments, it came to inverse its meaning, so that the archetype was the item out in the world, from which our ideas were but poor representations; Thirdly, Jung postulated that there were common human psychological 'pressures', which took various local shape. The former common human ones he called archetypes; Finally, there is the more Goethean form of the archetype, or Urphenomenon. This has similarities with all three above. Here, the archetype is a living spiritual reality which takes various forms according to 'local conditions'. For the Tarot, the question which needs to be asked is whether any particular image is an archetype in any of the above ways. One can answer 'yes' only with qualifications. To cut this to a reasonable length, let me bluntly just state that, in my opinion, the cards have the force and power of the spiritual reality (and therefore spiritual beings) which live within the spiritual dimensions of this world. An artist will inevitably be influenced by these beings, and produce a deck consistent with what he or she allows. These same beings will also have various influences upon human beings generally... this is not the same, however, as the Jungian archetype, which attempts to undertand similar psychological strivings by comparing partial images. I think that Jung did wonderful work, and he was certainly true to his own striving... but I also think he was mistaken, and that his concept of 'archetype' has been used as a simplification label for many deeper spiritual truths which have not been investigated as a result. The pictures definitely have spiritually charged imagery, and are thus, in more ways than one, magical. They also allow doorways to open towards archetypal influences... In readings, surely all of these play in!?!

Cerulean	03 Aug 2003
1. JMD's summary is very refreshing to me: "Finally, there is the more Goethean form of the archetype, or Urphenomenon. This has similarities with all three above. Here, the archetype is a living spiritual reality which takes various forms according to 'local conditions'." I was thinking that we as human beings learn to see so early in our lives and from the images that are around us, we learn association from those images and appropriate responses. 2. In the next paragraph, JMD notes: "For the Tarot, the question which needs to be asked is whether any particular image is an archetype in any of the above ways. One can answer 'yes' only with qualifications." And that is a yes, for me, with qualifications. I am aware of how much learning it took for me to recognize the "Star" card in its various forms, from historical to modern. The images that I associate with the Star usually include: 1) a certain number of star symbols 2) One brighter star overhead or in the middle 3) One person, usually female, kneeling near or in water 4) She is pouring flasks of water 5) The scenery and setting is a moonlit night and may include flowers and a bird. To me, it is an allegorical figure that I learned to represent the Star card and my image meanings include: Hope, Inspiration, Promise. I learned a rather traditional association to a more old-fashioned setting in the card scene. So if a deck artist or author varies the image or scene according to their own theme or ideas, I want them to tell me so. I've seen people write that about their modern conception of tarots being universal or intuitive or easy to 'read'. But I find myself disagreeing that their images were universal or easy or intuitive to me. 3. I think I agree how JMD is observing and defining the term 'archetype'. I am rethinking my use of this word--perhaps my use is best termed 'allegorical' because I'm waking up to memories of how I learned the tarot symbolism over time. I'm stopping short of JMD's clearly expressed conclusion on what forces would influence an artist. Simply, because in art expression, I'm only aware up to a point on the limitations and influences that go into developing my own images. I'm slowly developing the ideas how art images emerge from the play of local conditions (nurture) and inner drives (nature) in art expression.

Wisp Wings	05 Aug 2003
I believe it is archetype. Several ones having gave their thoughts on this I can relate, but I tend to be most inline with the two post that MeeWah wrote. When did it begin? As the tarot itself, it would be from its inception and development and I feel up to Waite and Crowley era. I believe the more that a Waite clone removes itself from the original, the more diluted the concepts of the archetypes. As far as archetypes themselves having existed? Since man first picked up a tool to draw, carving an image into. I believe that there is a "collective (un)consciousness" as MeeWah said it. IMHO I believe while having physical life that much of it is only known in the unconscious state, whereas having crossed over into death and the other side it is totally a collective consciousness. All of everything "sings", meaning gives off a vibration. Memory is now being seen by scientist not to be only within the brain. Every cell has memory. There is a connection between all realms, whether we sense it or not. Much is in the recess of our unconscious minds. Why have we made huge strides and advancements in our world? I believe that each generation from the dawn of time, what they learnt was stored in memory and was passed down. Passed down not just from mankind to mankind, but on other levels of beings and all known from spirit (living on) in a collective consciousness. What is known in the collective universal mind-spirit (using that loosely) is layers of wisdom from all of time. In addition to this, with reincarnation, we carry in soul or spirit memories of past lives. This is all a vast ocean of knowledge that we can tap into. Do I believe that there will be new archetypes established? No. Why? I think all is in existence already. Archetypes are symbolic. Numbers are established and can be deduced down to fitting the archetypes. Color is archetypes too. No new color will be made. Where what is yet to be in the mind of mankind to create and make will also be able to deduce back to a less means of the same. Example, our computers, although we can use them various functions, they deduce to being information/knowledge, so would be equal to books/libraries. Be it a car, motorcycle, wagon, all can relate this example back to wheels of might and fast travel. Isn't it funny that even into this new century that engines, being totally non-living and mostly metal, is talked of horsepower for the level of speed performance? One last thought, for the image of the Magician in a business suit, there is at least one deck out there like that. For me, it doesn't relate to being the same. One that would more spring to mind is a teacher with his desk and a pointer stick for his wand, but would I want a deck to be made as that? No. Why? The other symbols and the color. There is reason that the belt is a snake eating its tail. None of my teachers wore such belts ever! LOL, snakeskin maybe. There is reason for his position, reason for the background of yellow and his clothing being white and red, as well as the flowers that are shown and that they are these same colors. A business man would be in most likely a dark colored suit, that wouldn't have the same meaning of color in your unconsciousness.

jog1118	05 Aug 2003
i go for archetype. whenever i turn up a card, regardless of its image, its the archetype i see first...eventually i take a look at the image and look for things that may relate to (be it to strengthen or weaken) the archetype :smoker:

tmgrl2	30 Nov 2004
jmd wrote: I’m not as certain that either peculiarities of the image or the supposed archetype of the image are exclusive of each other in readings. I am reminded of the traditional Kabbalistic fourfoldness of text interpretation (PaRDeS=Garden/Paradise/Orchard, and therefore fruitful growth), in which one can read (and understand), in ascending order of depth, either (P=) literally, (R=) allegorically, (D=) symbolically, or (S=) mystically/spiritually. The allegorical (and metaphorical) aspects of the card also emerges from the reading situation... and here, I suspect that the previous work one has done with the cards, especially previous readings (both as divinatory readings and reading about the cards by various authors), comes to the fore. Aspects of its archetypal imagery may also come to the fore. Using one trump, perhaps, could you explain your take on allegorical (metaphorical) vs. symbolic meanings? Quote: The symbolic, or, in many ways, its inherent, and ‘true’, aspect, transcend either of these, and hence, if I may be so bold, I think transcends even its allegorical and ‘archetypal’ aspects. Here, the card is entered more than for a specific reading... but thus investigated, results from this will be used, albeit in diluted and filtered form, in future readings. The various archetypal elements which one may discover within a card surface here. The imagery of the card, however, is not limited by this (Jungians will undoubtedly disagree!). The literal and the spiritual/mystical I can get my mind around a bit better.... Thanks! terri Symbolism and allegory are for me not at distinct in my thinking as I would wish. I will back up and read through the newer thread as well.

tmgrl2	01 Dec 2004
I've been reading through the thread that got me here...the discussion started by isthmus nekoi.... I loved AmounrA's spikey/sphere example. Also, I become nervous with deconstructionism, myself, jmd. You present very well, how the term archetype has changed in its conceptual usage over time. I think of when I used to teach English at high school level, for example, and we would discuss "myths." Then I fast forward to teachers teaching "myths" as a subcategory of folktales to children ages 8-10. Well, the teachers here use the word "myth" to cover just about any kind of folktale, except the fable, which usually has animals as characters and a moral. So, for them, when they discuss "creation myths" they talk about stories various cultures have to explain "creation." However, one must remember that at one time, what we call a "myth" was an attempt on the part of the storyteller to create an explanation for something that wasn't understood, or perhaps to create a story that would frighten a young child to keep them safe and away from dangerous places. I remember the first time Joseph Campbell talked about the "Christ myth." I thought, "Christ isn't a myth!" I was much younger, of course, when I first heard this and still very Christian, if not Catholic, in my beliefs (Catholic with capital "C" not small "c" as in "universal.") So words, themselves are "spikey/spheres. So, when I think of symbolism and allegory, for example, I associate a symbol with perhaps a "visible" object or action that suggests a meaning in addition to or deeper than the literal...i.e., the symbol "stands" for something. The flag is a symbol of a country, simply put. Allegory, on the other hand, for me, implies a broader description ...more likely a narrative, in whihch events, persons, places, objects are used in a continuous system of equivalents. So, in a story or narrative, each character or element (allegorical since it is the combined references within a description or narrative that represents something)for example might be part of a situation or illustration of something. There is a "linking" of elements, allegorical in nature since the whole, or end result could be, a representation of e.g., spirituality ....or love....or death.... Metaphors I think of similies without the "like," "as, " or "than." So the "The sidewalk was as hot as a sizzling griddle." (simile) as opposed to "The sidewalk was a sizzling griddle." (metaphor). So, in looking at a particular card in the Tarot, then, there are symbols that could stand alone. An object on the Batteleur's table. Allegorically speaking, the grouping of objects representing all four elements along with the missing table leg, gives one the sense of the "story" that the tools to create are at hand, but much is yet hidden. I'm just rambling. Deconstructing language sometimes gets me crazy. I do love the spikey/spheres...reminds me of a graphic organizer that we use in school with a central theme and all the spikes connecting to other spheres with another lesser or equal central theme and spikes from these going out yet again. Reconstructing, then, I like to think that Tarot allows us to transcend space-time and enter into that when-where that has particles flowing in, perhaps, all directions...hence, no past, present or future. Like the term Akashic records....all exists in a single present moment in which that which exists is in tune with truth. We see linear because our time passes. That is what is visible to us so we find it difficult to get around the idea of a Quote: motionless eternity as J.B. Rousseau referred to time.... Quote: it is time that is motionless and the dynamic universe that moves in continual expansion (Silvie Simon quotes Rousseau in her discussion of Tarot and how it works.) So, whether we focus on a literal meaning, a symbolic meaning, an allegorical or mystical/spiritual meaning....I believe that ultimately, for a brief moment while we reflect upon the Tarot in a reading or in a study of a card or cards, we do and should enter an "elsewhere" with perception traveling along a path unfolded before it. Taoism teaches us that if we act according to "intuitive wisdom" within the world around us, our actions will be successful in accordance with a "divine" plan. So, once again, we come back to As it is above, so it is below. Spikey/spheres Quiet reflection as we move into a sacred place. Then we no longer use metalinguistic terms like "image," "allegory," "archetype." We tell the story that comes to us. Just some thoughts, since I have been reflecting on these things off and on today. I remembered liking Simon's passage on PPF. She further says: Quote: These images, connected to the magical art of invocation, activate the creative forces of our psyche and cause the emergence into our conscious mind of those powers drawn from the collective unconscious. They animate our sensory perceptions, our instincts and intuitions...(and) awaken in us sleeping or unrevealed knowledge, from the most secret depths of our unconscious... The Tarot contains the cosmic plan.

jmd	01 Dec 2004
...so glad I was able to so simply answer your question, tmgrl2 :D

WolfyJames	02 Dec 2004
I would vote for both. When I first started, I was more into archetypes. My knowledge was flawed until I came here, due to the lack of information on RWS tarot in French, but it was slowly corrected. I have a male brain, and archetypes fit well a male brain: cold logic, order, analyse. Still, there are many readings I made I couldn't understand. I heard about the female brain here, which implies intuition. Many just look at the image on the cards and can come up with a reading, great reading. My male brain toss that away at first, for this act seemed to be ridiculous and not logical. I think it's the Sola-Busca that made me realise I was wrong. I made a reading for my mother, about her health and work, and the Three of Wands came up as the obstacle, the infamous decapitated cupid. I was just trying the deck, it was my first reading with it. I was thinking about the archetype of the Three of Wands when the answer came to me right there on the image of the card. The face was spiked with the wands around the jaws and the face was swollen. The exact places where my mother was in pain. I made a reading quite later about a situation with my mother, and The High Priestess came up as the obstacle. I was using The Fey Tarot. I started to think about the archetype, when I noticed on the card that there was a door behind the High Priestess, and two dragons next to it seemed like they were inviting me to go through it. Problem was that she was there, sitting in front of the door, blocking the passage, and completely ignoring me by absorbing herself into a book. The door was what I wanted to get and my mother didn't want to let me pass, which was, and still is, the truth (I'm still hoping she will give up ;)). I make the effort now to take both into account. I now know the answer can be as simple as just looking at the card and what is going on on it.

tmgrl2	02 Dec 2004
jmd...I'll bet when you teach, a student asks a question, you smile, and wait...and wait.... :D:D:D | t

The What drives Tarot - Image or Archetype? thread was originally posted on 17 Jan 2002 in the Using Tarot Cards board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Using Tarot Cards, or read more archived threads.