Eureka!

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 06 Jul 2004, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Sauwelios	06 Jul 2004
I have finally found out the true order of things. Crowley was wrong, very wrong. Following is my list of cards and astrological correspondences; i ask you to contemplate on this. 1. Magician - Capricorn 2. Priestess - Aquarius 3. Empress - Pisces 4. Emperor - Aries 5. Hierophant - Taurus 6. Brothers - Gemini* 7. Chariot - Cancer 8. Justice - Leo 9. Hermit - Virgo 11. Strength - Libra 22. World - Scorpio 33. Star - Sagittarius *This is an instance where crowley was right. Now I will delve into this deeper.

Sauwelios	06 Jul 2004
Though perhaps, Crowley was more right than i thought. I think 1, Capricorn, 2, Aquarius, and 3, Pisces, may be more accurately represented by The Devil, The Star, and The Moon respectively. Where he was wrong, though, is in switching Justice and Strength, which he went to call Lust. He was deceived because of the scales [libra in latin], thinking that Libra seeks justice. Libra seeks harmony. I should know, as my Rising Sign is Libra, whereas my Sun Sign is Leo, which I certainly identify with Justice. "The will to power appears b. among a stronger type of man, getting ready for power, as will to overpower; if it is at first unsuccessful, then it limits itself to the will to "JUSTICE", i.e., to the SAME MEASURE OF RIGHTS as the ruling type possesses". [nietzsche, the will to power, section 776.]

Sauwelios	06 Jul 2004
Wait, I see now: 1, 2, and 3 correspond to Madness, Falsehood and Glamour, the three Guardians mentioned in One Star in Sight: Duality in Act, Word, and Thought respectively. For the Empress confuses herself in Glamour, that is, how she thinks about herself: scil., in relation to what [[i]she[/i] thinks] others think of her. The Priestess Acts & Thinks in Truth, but expresses herself dualistically in Word for the limitations of Speech. And Madness - what must we think of Madness... What CAN we think! The Empress is true in Word and Deed, the Priestess in Deed and Thought; The Magus, however, the Ipsissimus, is beyond himSelf: he is noth the Word OR the fool, he is beyond them; dualistic in deed, doing and not doing, BEING NOR NON-BEING...

Thirteen	06 Jul 2004
I would be leary of claiming that Crowley was "Wrong" given that he was pretty well versed in the history of religion and magic from, well, around the world and certainly must have thought out his astrological correspondences carefully. It took him YEARS to create his deck and although sudden insights can be...insightful, they don't always trump years of hands-on research and past insights. On the other hand, the tarot is personal and flexable and the Golden Dawn's vision of it is hardly the be-all, end-all. Far from it. There are plenty of Tarot scholars who have assigned radically different astological signs to the cards, and plenty of valid arguements that there should be NO astrologically assignments. So there's nothing wrong with you using whatever astrological assignments work for you. Have at it! HOWEVER, just telling us to "ponder" your choices without explaination does not convince. We end up with a question of which came first, "The chicken or the egg." For example, you assign Capricorn to the Magician. Do you assign this to him because of how YOU interpet him? You have an interpetation that is very "Capricornish" and therefore he is Capricorn? Or do you assign it because the USUAL interpetation is more Capricornish to you than Mercury? Because, frankly, the USUAL interpetation of him suits Mercury perfectly, at least IMHO. Smooth talker, psychopomp, clever with his hands, etc. If you're in agreement with the above interpetation (and we might well ask which came first there as well? The Magician and his interpetation or assigning Mercury then interpeting the Magician to fit it?), HOW do you get Capricorn, the epitomy of materialism, of nimble climbing feet--NOT thieving hands--and steady, real-world ambition to fit this card that's about magic and communication? Ditto with the HPS. Aquarius is about knowledge and the HPS is about knowledge, but she's also about secrets, about the dark and light side of things. That's very much THE MOON, ever cycling through light and dark. Hardly like Aquarians that I know who dispense their scientific knowledge at a drop of the hat and are far more like bright, shiny fixed stars. Seeing a future no one else can see...that's very Aquarian, like The Star card. I suspect you need to delve a bit deeper into these revelations before ruling out Crowley's assignments.

Sauwelios	07 Jul 2004
Crowley may have been more right than i thought, but he was still wrong in the Strength/Justice case. He did reassign Strength to the number 11, and Justice to the number 8, but he also swapped their correspondences, Leo and Libra. I tell you, being a Leo AND a Libra, that Leo is definitely 8, whereas Libra's definitely 11. Now as for the Magician, he was originally a shoemaker. Very Saturnian job that. You say he is about magic and communication; but isn't that a preconception? And even so, is magick not the physical side of the mystical? I think i was wrong, too, in assigning the World to Scorpio. If the Magician's 1, the Fool is 22. This corresponds exactly to Scorpio, "whose scope ranges from sin to God" [b.barret, astrology and appearance].

Melissa`	07 Jul 2004
I am also a Leo and a Libra.. accept I am backwards from you. Leo is my rising sign. I am having a hard time understanding your view. I am curious as to why you relate Libra to 11. Is this for your own personal use or across the board so to speak, and why? Just curious ~ Melissa

Sauwelios	07 Jul 2004
My father is the reverse from me, too. 11 is not just 2 as in two apples [quantitative], but a double 1, as in two eyes etc. It balances the two. But it also has the soft side of the 2, as is witnessed by the woman calming the lion. The woman balances the hard control of the lion with her own soft control.

Diana	07 Jul 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Sauwelios Now as for the Magician, he was originally a shoemaker. Sauwelois: Personally, I don't give two hoots (or even one) about Crowely's astrological correspondences. They leave me quite cold. But I did find your statement as to the Magician being originally a shoemaker rather intriguing. I must say, I am laughing here, but not in a mean way. I find the idea delightful, but I would love to know where this comes from. Please take some time to answer me. Thank you in advance.

Thirteen	07 Jul 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Sauwelios Now as for the Magician, he was originally a shoemaker. Very Saturnian job that. He was? Where did you get that? There are many old decks, but my understanding is that the earliest decks have him as the "Bateleur," a juggler, montebank, trickster. Clever hands. Of course, I could be very wrong. Tarot history is not my forté. But I expect JMD, our resident expert in historical tarot to chime in on this. Which early deck do you know of which has him as a shoemaker? Which book by which author did you find this information? Quote: You say he is about magic and communication; but isn't that a preconception? If you're accusing me of bias, the please include yourself and everyone else on this forum. We learn the tarot from teachers who have preconcieved notions that they learned from teachers who have preconcieved notions. We also forumlate our own ideas from the bias of our culture, upbringing, and what we think we see when we look at those cards--which is different for each one of us. Bias rests behind all interpetations of art. However, in my defence, all my research, including Butler's Dictionary of the Tarot (which lists some twenty different interpetations of the card by twenty different tarot scholars) have this card as representing: Mercury, Hermes, Hermetic science, willpower, trickery, communication. This is the most COMMON perception of the card. The closest I get to Capricorn is G. Dawn's "Mercury on Saturn" which is defined as the "mobile acting through the philosophic" and "craft or cunning." The only opposing astrological sign I get, interestingly, is Aries, as Thierens says, "the Querent, beginnings." As for shoemaker, the closest we come to on that is that the Magician is a craftsman, jeweler or freemason. Here's an interesting discusson that point: http://67.19.40.82/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16974

Sauwelios	07 Jul 2004
I have not read the discussion yet. But I know Hephaistos is often attributed to the same Sephira as Hermes or Mercury, to wit Hod, the 8th Sephira. Leo, which I now associate with 8, is often attributed together with Mercury to the number 5. There seems to be no explanation for this diverse attribution. There is no question as to the attributions of Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, and Scorpio to 4 [chesed], 5 [geburah], 6 [tiphareth], 7 [netzach], 8 [hod], 9 [yesod], 11 and 22 respectively. 4 the Ram 5 he Bull 6 The Twins 7 the Crab 8 the Lion 9 the Virgin 11 the Scales 22 the Scorpion Now if we follow Crowley, in that all the symbols are interchangeable above the Abyss, meaning the Sephira Kether, Chokmah, and Binah, then we could just as well attribute to those 3 the Ibex 2 the Fish 1 the Waterbearer This agree with Crowley's attributions of Saturn to Binah, Neptune to Chokmah, but not with Pluto to Kether. Should we make Scorpio nr. 1? But Scorpio, number 22, the Fool, is Zero. This agrees with the double image of the Scorpion as Eagle and Serpent, and, again, with Crowley: "One cannot "find the Lady" by any other way than that of the Knight-Errant, of the Great Fool - the Way of the Eagle in the Air - whose Sacred Number is the Sacred Zero. Yea also, Naught being All, and All being Pan, the only due address to Godhead is in the dual form pamphage pangenetor ["all-devourer, all-begetter"]. For all must be destroyed that All may be begotten." [little essays toward truth, understanding.]

The Eureka! thread was originally posted on 06 Jul 2004 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.