Year cards/Soul cards...... who? why?

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 04 Aug 2003, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Diana	04 Aug 2003
There are quite a number of threads on Aeclectic which tell you how to calculate your soul card, or your year card, or your birth card...... etc. I have never figured out on what authority all this is based on. Who made this up? And why? What is the "scientific" basis for all this? Okay, it's all got to do with numbers. That part I've figured out. But why were those particular numbers chosen to be added up and not others? I am extremely sceptical. I used to have the book by Mary Greer, where she has her own method of calculating all this stuff..... But she doesn't explain (if my memories are good) why she came to this conclusion. Quite frankly, I don't believe in it..... unless someone can prove to me the whys and wherefores. Just questioning Authority here.........

dolphinprincess	04 Aug 2003
I could be wrong here, but I think the idea comes from basic Numerology. I think they are taking the formulas used in Numerology *for finding your number for that year, etc. * and applying the number to the specific tarot card it represents.

Kiama	04 Aug 2003
I think dolphinprincess could be right, though I've never really delved too much into the whole soul/year card thing. In recent months I have been looking at numerology, and I'm still a little sceptical about the system myself, but sometimes, every now and then, it hits the mark perfectly. Even if it is just fluke, I find it has helped me understand myself better. So, I apply the same 'rules' to this soul/year card thing: Even if it doesn't really work, and even if, when it does seem to apply, it is just fluke, it does seem to have benefits for the person using it. This is just my personal theory though: one that I also use for Tarot itself! (Even if it doesn't work - which is still to be proven either way - it has a profound effect on peoples' lives, and that, I think, is the true test of systems such as these.) :D Kiama

zorya	04 Aug 2003
mary greer credits the system to angelis arrien. angelis arrien explains it in her book 'the tarot handbook'. she is an anthropologist that specializes in cross-cultural symbols, myths etc. looking for universal themes. i can't find where i read it right now, but as i recall, she spent many years and used hundreds of people to verify her system.

Le_Corsair	04 Aug 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Diana I have never figured out on what authority all this is based on. Who made this up? And why? What is the "scientific" basis for all this? Okay, it's all got to do with numbers. That part I've figured out. But why were those particular numbers chosen to be added up and not others? I am extremely sceptical. I used to have the book by Mary Greer, where she has her own method of calculating all this stuff..... But she doesn't explain (if my memories are good) why she came to this conclusion. Quite frankly, I don't believe in it..... unless someone can prove to me the whys and wherefores. Just questioning Authority here......... Thank you, Diana, for that wonderful post. For those of us with a sceptical outlook it is a breath of fresh air. As someone who uses tarot mostly for entertainment and an occasional insight, it is a relief and a pleasure to see a viewpoint that strays from the orthodox. Who made this up? Basis in science? (Bob shakes his head as he leaves the room, chuckling softly to himself) Bob :THERM

Minderwiz	04 Aug 2003
Well, I suppose it was made up originally by Pythagoras (though he probably got it from Babylonian sources) and Plato and Aristotle appear to have used it. And there used to be a view that Aristotle had something to do with the origin of Science - but then as he did little in the way of experimental design, so I suppose we could discount that. Modern Numerology seems to have been resurrected by Mrs. L Dow Bailliet in the States, around the turn of the 20th Century, and her method, or derivatives are still being used. Have they any basis in modern Science - I would expect not. Modern science would have real difficulty in providing operational definitions of all the concepts that would need to be employed, would argue endlessly about the 'correct' experimental design and would also argue about the valdity of any evidence that was collected. We are therefore left with another issue - just because it is not 'scientific' does that make it meaningless or valueless. That is a matter of judgement and evaluation and I think it is rather an open question. It would require some discussion about the nature of 'truth' and also 'reality'. Can an ephemeral world be 'real' for example. I suppose in the end it comes down to 'faith' - if you find it useful and it seems to explain your life in a better way than alternative hypotheses then use it. If you find that it has no relevance to your life then discard it. I see no reason at all why Diana or anyone else should have to acccept that Numerology can directly determine the relevance of particular Tarot cards in their lives. If others feel that the result is meaningful, can science prove them wrong?

Kaz	04 Aug 2003
konraad uses this in his book about spreads as well. i havent got a clue who "invented" this, i did calculate my numbers and cards though. how meaningful are they? as much as you want them to be. they are as maeningful as any tarotreading can be.

Umbrae	04 Aug 2003
The soul personality and year cards are indeed based upon numerology and birthdays which in turn is based upon the supposed timing of the birth of JC. Since it’s summertime here in the US, it’s time for re-runs: In the Third century BC, Eratosthenese observed (at noon on the summer solstice) that the sun illuminated the bottom of a well in Aswan (on the Tropic of Cancer) as it crossed the meridian; but in Alexandria (500± miles north) shadows were cast by the sun at high noon. He reasoned that this was due to the curvature of the earth – concluding that it was spherical. By double measurement of the arc of the meridian between the two places in degrees and stadia, Eratosthenes determined the circumference of the earth to be 252,000 stadia (Columbus was using Eratosthenese works when he sailed in 1492 which lead to his conclusion that he had indeed found India…but he could not reconcile (or admit he was wrong) that India just wasn’t there…he was off by just a few miles). It was not until 1669 that Jean Picard computed the circumference of the earth to 24,500 miles, accurate but still off. We had the Ptolemaic Theory, (Claudius Ptolemy used the works of Psoidonius (130-51 BC) to determine the earths circumference to be 180,000 stadia) placing the earth at the center of the solar system. This was refuted in 1543 by the publication of De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium by Nicolaus Copernicus who ‘proved’ the Heliocentric theory first championed by Aristarchus of Samos ( 4th century BC?). Then we had the calendar systems…The Julian calendar was used and accepted by Europeans after the heyday of the Roman Empire. They dickered around about when Christ was born (using that event as a starting point, I think they should use the birth of Ty Cobb myself). Around 1614, Johannes Kepler decided to (Kepler proved much of Tycho Brahe’s work to be archaic, Newton did the same to Kepler, who in turn was refuted by Leverrier, and everyone fell to Einstein) place Christ’s birth at 4 B.C.E. Recently they decided that Kepler was off and the J.C. was born in 6 B.C.E. (but they don’t say if they count year 0 or not…). But the equinox kept falling behind, on the calendar one full day every 130 years. By the 1500’s, the spring equinox was all the way back to early March. This was a dreadful situation… How can we celebrate Easter without ‘knowing’? So the pope decided to mandate a working calendar. 1582 was the year that Pope Gregory XIII ordered ten days to be dropped from the calendar…so that the equinox (vernal) was on March 20th, as it had been during the time of the Council of Nicea (now there is a historical event worth your while to research…woooo hooo!). Also “New Years” was moved from March 31st, to January 1st. Leap years were added. Most European nations adopted the Gregorian reform, with the exception of England and its Colonies, which held out until 1752. At that time, 11 days had to be cut from their calendar. Now the first Chronometer was not invented until 1660 by Christian Huygens. So until that time – time could not be accurately measured, and longitude was guesswork. You see in celestial navigation…Latitude is easy. You take a reading from heavenly bodies. But Longitude my friends, is difficult. You are moving, on a moving body, sighting other moving bodies and attempting to justify relative locations. Now if you know how fast you are moving and for how long (time measurement), you can guestimate approximate location. Worse yet…this all assumes a Eurocentric system. Not a Judaic or Arabic system, and since J.C. was not European… So if the death and resurrection of J.C. is fixed to the Lunar calendar (first full moon etc.), how come the birth is fixed to the Solar calendar (3 days after the Winter Solstice). Now anyone worth their weight in salt knows that in the ‘Holy Land’ you don’t tend your flocks in the mountains in December, also in an agrarian society, you do not pay taxes in the middle of winter, you pay after the harvest. Anyway…here’s the nut…! What is Numerology based on? An un-rectified Julian or Gregorian calendar? It all assumes that the birth date of old J.C. being accurate was year 1 (AD). But that was refuted in 1614 by Kepler…and now they believe he was off by a couple of years… BTW: and if you aren’t hep to the Council of Nicia…you really do need to check it out. Do a google on the Nestorians. Where is the all going? I mean seriously…the current Gregorian calendar was based upon Ecclesiastical convenience – not fact. And if it was ‘agreed’ that JC was born in 4 B.C. then all numerological studies would be off by at least five digits (since the year 0 is not counted). So numerology…and Personality, soul, and year cards…they would be based upon myth… And if Myth is more powerful than truth… Is it unfair for us to tweak our own numerological systems? Just a question folks… vast portions plagiarized from a prior post of my own. Research is from The Practical American Navigator by Nathaniel Bowditch, the History Channel, The Learning Channel, Internet sources, and so on and so forth,… I use a year cycle often. I only use the last two digits of the year. So it’s based on a 100-year cultural cycle as opposed to a 2000 Christian cycle. I find it amazingly accurate. I want to do the same research on year cards. Further, if you are reading for a Jewish person, do you use a Jewish or Christian calendar? And if you are reading for a Chinese-American…

Kiama	04 Aug 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Le_Corsair [color=orange] Thank you, Diana, for that wonderful post. For those of us with a sceptical outlook it is a breath of fresh air. As someone who uses tarot mostly for entertainment and an occasional insight, it is a relief and a pleasure to see a viewpoint that strays from the orthodox. Who made this up? Basis in science? Actually, I know of many many people on this forum who would wholeheartedly agree with Diana's viewpoint, so I wouldn't call it unorthodox. ;) Merely thought-provoking. Umbrae raises some excellent points (with some astounding research aswell! Well done Umbrae!) He points out that essentially numerology, and therefore soul cards and years cards, are based on myth. 'Myth' I think is the keyword here, as I have seen many people finding myth to be a useful tool in many things. Often, myth is the vehicle through which we express timeless truths, and we can use it to also find out more about ourselves. I'm sure many Christians will tell you that even if Jesus is only a myth, he still managed to express some excellent wisdom. The myths we apply to Tarot, whilst only being made up, also express timeless truths that apply and are relevant to our lives today. In just the same way, possibly, numerology may be totally fake, and based on myth and have no basis in science or reality... But somehow, it may apply to some peoples' lives. Somehow, the 'myth' of numerology, when applied to the Tarot, works for people. To illustrate my point: Tarot itself is based on many many systems which have their basis in myth. The use of Tarot for divination and self-exploration may also have no historical grounding. Who was the first person to use the Tarot for such purposes? Maybe we shouldn't believe him? Indeed, I have found myself in the past thinking that just because some ancient, long dead person decided to take a really cool game and do something more with it, shouldn't mean that Tarot actually works. It shouldn't mean that when we see the 2 of Cups that it has always been what it is today. After all, who decided that the 2 of Cups meant love and friendship? I questioned this alot, but in the end came to the conclusion that somehow, it all still works, and applies to my life perfectly. Even if it is based on myth. Maybe the same is true of this numerology/soul card thing...? :D Kiama PS- I'm not saying I necessarily believe any of this, I'm just exploring all the possibilities. :D

Elle	04 Aug 2003
All I know is that my soul year is a 6: The Lovers - it supposedly represents bringing the two parts of the self together - I am a psychologist- in- training and have always had this goal. Seems to make sense in my life. Numerology is universal, as was stated previously... Not a big deal, just interesting. Going thru a Strength year, and that is certainly my personal truth for the year 2003! (Humdinger would be putting it lightly, but I shan't bore you). Warmest, Elle

MystiqueMoonlight	04 Aug 2003
Myth or Science hhhmmmmm? Well I suppose in the age of the Emperor (card number 4 of 78 cards on Path number 15 on the Otz Chiim between Sephiroth number 2 Chokmah to Sephiroth number 6 Tiphareth of this year the year number 2003) myth may take a back seat. I am intrigued at the sceptics of Tarot who use a decks of cards with numbers on each and every one of them. To ask for scientific fact in relation to the numbers of the cards and the relevance of a year, perhaps we should question the scientific fact of astrological associations (not astronomical) to a persons day, month and year of birth. Maybe we should question the scientific significance of celebrating a birthday (it's just a number), or a new year (just another number), or why indeed is there no scientific fact with regards to how the Tarot are numbered in the first place. We could just discard that too? Or is the relevance not in the numbering of the cards but the pictures on them? If so whose interpretation of the cards and the pictures they create for them is scientifically correct? Where's their proof? :)

MystiqueMoonlight	05 Aug 2003
May I direct the "scientists" to the work Tarot of the Bohemians by Papus as an introduction to Tarot and number relationships. Sure it is an esoteric work, but the sensibilty of his reason and logical explanation may be of some general guidance. Perhaps my earlier posts on Soul cards and the now "How has your year been" in the Talking Tarot group illicited this discussion. The consequent replies in those threads pay some relevance to this theory of numbers to Tarot in accordance to birth and current year. Another worthwhile course of study is Qabalistic Tarot by Robert Wang. I don't think the "father" of modern science (A. Einstein) actually wrote a study on Tarot and numbers :) This brings to mind a discussion I had with a medical scientist. I am currently studying herbal medicine (from generations of herbalists). His theory was that "science" is a far more reliable source. Simply explained pop 2 synthetic aspirins and your headache will be cured. Aspirin, I told him, is a plant. For many thousands of years people knew to take this natural occuring herb to remedy their ailment. Science can now make a "synthetic aspirin" obtained from the knowledge of the use of a natural herb and those "non scientists" who used it. In the age of the Emperor the synthetic drug is accepted as being the original. (MM shakes his head as he leaves the room, chuckling softly to himself) :)

Diana	05 Aug 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Umbrae So numerology…and Personality, soul, and year cards…they would be based upon myth… And if Myth is more powerful than truth… That, plus the other info is sufficient for me! I didn't realise that it was based on "normal" numerology. (I could have done my own research, but then we wouldn't have had all these great posts!) The only place where I had read about these soul/year cards was in Mary Greer's book, Tarot for Yourself, and as I found her book to be terribly new-agey and far-fetched in many places, I kind of ended up by doubting the whole business, because I thought she had made it up. Thanks everyone for all your answers!

MystiqueMoonlight	05 Aug 2003
Thank you for a great post, it is discussions like these that really keep the flame glowing :)

Moongold	05 Aug 2003
Diana, In Tarot Constellations Mary Greer discusses how Angeles Arriens created the Tarot Constellations idea. To quote her directly: Quote: She was playing with the cards one evening, she told me, and had laid out on the floor both the major and the minor arcana cards in groupings based on the numbers: all of the One’s together and all of the Two’s etc. She also placed with each of the groups all other cards that added up to the nine basic (prime) numbers. For instance 17 = 1 + 7 = 8, and so the 17th card, the Star, was placed with the Eight’s and so on. She was arranging the groups so that they made pictures or patterns, when the phone rang. It was Joseph Campbell, author of many books on mythology and symbols, with whom she was leading a workshop at the Esselen Institute, He was excited by a realization he had recently had of how constellations are not just in the heavens and the stars, but that such pattern groupings occur everywhere in our lives. Angie said she stood there, as he spoke to her on the phone, looking around the room at the cards grouped together on the floor and saw - the Tarot Constellations. These are the constellations: ============================================== ..19……20……21……22……………………………………….. ..10……11……12……13…..14……15……16……17…18…MAJOR ARCANA …1……..2……..3……..4…….5……..6……..7……..8…..9……………………… ________________________________________________ 10s.1’s 2’s… 3’s …4’s ….5’s …… 6’s ….7’s……8’s….9’s Minor Arcana 1………2……..3……..4……..5………6…….5……..8…….9…Root numbers Then she goes on to speak about basic numerology, expressing the historical issues with the Gregorian calendar to which Umbrae refers and essentially saying that the system could be adapted to any calendar system. As you are aware the life time card concept is fairly common in numerology. Arriens and Greer simply connected it to the Tarot. Many blessings

MystiqueMoonlight	05 Aug 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Diana That, plus the other info is sufficient for me! I didn't realise that it was based on "normal" numerology. The only place where I had read about these soul/year cards was in Mary Greer's book, Tarot for Yourself, and as I found her book to be terribly new-agey and far-fetched in many places, Ok my curiosity has gotten the better of me now Diana :) What is "normal" numerology? What do you mean by "new-agey". I think I know (just want to see if we're on the same wave length). I often get put off by this "new Age" concept myself. I even dislike the term.....new age yuk!

Minderwiz	05 Aug 2003
Yes, I find 'New Age' a term I'd rather do without, especially as it does have a precise meaning which is different from its every day use. I'm not sure myself, whether there is 'normal' numerology, or 'normal' Astrology or even 'normal' Tarot reading. However, I think the point is that the 'Soul Card' derives from the 'Soul' Number used by many modern Numerologists - in that sense it is not something that someone thought of off the top of their heads but an attempt to apply a concept used in one divinatory method to another divinatory method. I tend to be a little sceptical myself about the efficacy of such 'imports' in general but they may well work in particular instances and there is no harm in trying.

Macavity	05 Aug 2003
Aren't most of these things conventions? The meaning of cards... these methods to derive "significant" numbers... But Hey, I LIKE conventions! (I tend to favour those with a degree of antiquity, albeit for no good reason) They lend consistency to what we discuss here - otherwise, why bother at all? I'm not sure ANY of this information is in some real sense absolute (I may be wrong on that!) but I think it provokes thought - Am I really like "xxx" predicts... or actually NOT? To my mind these are (as with Tarot draws) random numbers that simply get people to think about possibilities... That said, I have been interested in e.g. the historical order (as presented here) in which these rules have been derived. I guess some of these systems e.g. astrology were (and continue to be) "experimental sciences"? Doubtless e.g. our differing systems of dates has a big influence on absolute results, but I guess it's really only some "shift in origin" - Perhaps these have been compensated experimentally? I think it might indeed be rewarding to study (culturally) different systems. Do they predict the same "result" (I'm sure to SOME extent they must!) and, even if they don't, it may still be worthy of the exercise? As someone remarked, a stopped clock is "right" twice a day and (probably) more accurate than one that consistently runs either fast or slow... ;) Macavity

Minderwiz	05 Aug 2003
Yes, much of what we talk about are indeed conventions. However conventions don't just happen. They grow out of a preceived need to do things in a particular way and indeed may grow to have considerable force - for example constiutional conventions may dictate how a government is run and breaking them may well lead to revolution. It is always worth knowing WHY conventions exist because like all things, the circumstances which gave rise to their need may no longer apply. I must admit that I cannot give any definitive statements on this subject, but L Dow Bailliet claimed that numerology was cultural related - the numerology for the US is different from that of say, first century (AD) Palestine or indeed 21st Century France. In reading for Americans, I use the US date system in calculating the Life Path and corresponding Development, Transition and Integration periods, but I would use a European date system for someone living in England. I can't justify this, only say that it seems the best approach. I'm not sure that Astrology or indeed any other system is 'scientific' - though reading the methodolgical arguments of Astrologers and comparing them to Scientists, I sometimes doubt that opinion. I believe that there is more than one way of attaining knowledge, science being one of them but not the only one (A moment's reflection should actually convince you of that). However, what knowlege I gain is always imperfect - I think, as St Paul said, we often see life 'through a glass darkly' or alternatively we spend much of our time in Plato's cave. Always be suspicious of anyone who claims to have 'the answer' but always be prepared to listen.

The Year cards/Soul cards...... who? why? thread was originally posted on 04 Aug 2003 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.