Which tarot card suggest the client is platonically in love or passionately?

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 26 Mar 2005, and now archived in the Forum Library.

jumptothemoonyea	26 Mar 2005
Which tarot card suggest the client is platonically in love or passionately? How to discern difference between these 2 very close but very different loves in a reading? I think this could be an interesting and useful topic to discuss. :)

Fulgour	26 Mar 2005
In your example, are you suggesting a client might ask a reader to draw to see whether they are interested in someone sexually, or just as a close personal friend?

Moongold	26 Mar 2005
Fulgour wrote: In your example, are you suggesting a client might ask a reader to draw to see whether they are interested in someone sexually, or just as a close personal friend? Ha - Do you think that makes the Tarot Reader a *Voyeur*?

rainwolf	26 Mar 2005
Maybe if there are more wands and cups it would be more passionate and romantic than if there are a lot of swords and pentacles which would be more practical and mental. I would say the empress, high priestess, star, (and devil })) world hint at more passionate while emperor, magician, hermit,temperance are more platonic.

jumptothemoonyea	26 Mar 2005
Fulgour wrote: In your example, are you suggesting a client might ask a reader to draw to see whether they are interested in someone sexually, or just as a close personal friend? There are many ways when this can come up in a reading: a) as a result of direct question from a client, if s/he confused about their feelings; b) indirectly - when a general question is asked (for example: what is the meaning of recent events in my life?) ; c) when client asks about somebody's feelings toward them or somebody else; d) when client does not ask question, and let the reader perceive what's going on in their life ...... thank you.

feticeira	26 Mar 2005
Would someone care to elaborate on the possible meanings of the Empress and Magician in regards to questions about relationships?

rainwolf	26 Mar 2005
The empress does not fear to show her feelings and embodies passion in that sense-she knows how to express it, when to express it, and does appropriately. You could say she is comfortable with herself and others. Not to say that the magician is the opposite, but the magician is in a sense stricter and more open and honest. As the counterpart to the high priestess, he does not want things hidden, does not want to 'find out', and does not have emotion or sensuality on a first priority, while the HP and Empress easily show these characteristics as they are instinct. It is easier to understand if you think of the Empress/emperor and magician/HP as opposites that need each other. Although passion and platonic love are not the same, they are not that different-they are expressed differently and so too do the archetypes of key 1-4 express them that way. Hope that helps

Moongold	26 Mar 2005
rainwolf wrote: It is easier to understand if you think of the Empress/emperor and magician/HP as opposites that need each other. Although passion and platonic love are not the same, they are not that different-they are expressed differently and so too do the archetypes of key 1-4 express them that way. I am not sure what you mean here, rainwolf :) I think that the "feminine* cards in Tarot are often seen as receptive and the "masculine" cards active. This framework buys into traditional societal stereotypes about male and female sexuality and *passion*. I think it would be good to understand what we mean by *passionate* and *platonic* before answering the question, and Fulgour's comment was entirely relevant. Some people understand *passion* as incorporating sex and some don't . Some understand *platonic* love as being purely spiritual. Of course those definitions are not inclusive of everything. Passionate love can be very spiritual as well. This is where I get into difficulty with this kind of question. Sorry Jump :). It is very individual and different depending on the context of the question, the deck used and the surrounding cards. It really also depends on how both reader and querent understand these terms. I have seen others describe the Magician as a highly passionate personality by none other than Thirteen. She said a whole lot of other things as well and I hope I am doing her justice here. She is married to a Magician like character I believe. Perhaps it would be best to go back through threads on the various cards to see how others understand them. One of my pet *hates* is people attributing qualities to the cards without really explaining how they got there :). Explanations make the interpretation more credible usually. I don't mind if they say it comes from a flash. At least I know then. What people don't realise is that "flashes" often come from integrated knowledge. By the way, Brother rainwolf .... I'm a Sagittarian too. Pisces Moon and Mars in Virgo :laugh: :) :CL

jumptothemoonyea	26 Mar 2005
Moongold wrote: I think it would be good to understand what we mean by *passionate* and *platonic* before answering the question, and Fulgour's comment was entirely relevant. Some people understand *passion* as incorporating sex and some don't . Some understand *platonic* love as being purely spiritual. Of course those definitions are not inclusive of everything. Passionate love can be very spiritual as well. Thanks, Moongold, this is exactly what I want, to see this question from as many angles and depths as possible. I usually like to post my question as generally as possible, to let people express many views, to create a bigger complete picture as an answer. I do not believe in only one view as answer - all of them together generate it.

psychic sue	27 Mar 2005
Going back to the Empress and Magician:- The Empress, for me, represents an open and mature relationship of some depth. The Magician suggests some sort of control issue - mind games being played, or not being quite so open and honest as one could be. Sue

wandking	27 Mar 2005
As far as passionate vs. plutonic love are concerned, a distinction is better made in the Minors with the Ace and Two of Cups, with the Ace showing plutonic love. In the Majors, I not only see the contrast and balance Rainwolf makes with the Magician and HP but fully support the interpretation. I do not feel Rainwolfs' opinions arise from "social stereotypes" but instead, comes from a broad understanding of card meanings. Contrary to some views, I've read on these boards, many researchers and writers balance the Magician with the Priestess. Perhaps this started with Waite. Although Waite did not draw a direct connection between the cards, he did contrast the energy of "light" on the two trumps. In the Magician, the sun god of enlightenment, Apollo is mentioned: "A youthful figure in the robe of a magician, having the countenance of divine Apollo, with smile of confidence and shining eyes." The High Priestess to Waite is "borrowed light." Waite writes, "She is, in fine, the Queen of the borrowed light, but this is the light of all. She is the Moon nourished by the milk of the Supernal Mother." Other links Waite makes between the cards occur in "above and below references. "In the Magician's right hand is a wand raised towards heaven, while the left hand is pointing to the earth. This dual sign is known in very high grades of the Instituted Mysteries; it shews the descent of grace, virtue and light, drawn from things above and derived to things below." Of the HP, he writes, "In a manner, she is also the Supernal Mother herself, that is to say, she is the bright reflection. It is in this sense of reflection that her truest and highest name in symbolism is Shekinah--the co-habiting glory. According to Kabalism, there is a Shekinah both above and below." I do not believe Waite lessened the HP by ascribing "borrowed light" to the card: He refers to one of the most potent of fertility deities, Isis, in his description but Hecate might have been a better reference. In Greek mythology, Hecate is the consummate Moon deity and acts as protector and high priestess to witches, wielding major influence in the spiritual realm. Waite also uses words that imply "borrowed light" on the Magician, saying; "I should add that many independent students of the subject, following their own lights, have produced individual sequences of meaning in respect of the Trumps Major, and their lights are sometimes suggestive, but they are not the true lights." Each of us must seek balance in their own way with Tarot or life. Unlike Waite, I feel any illumination you derive is indeed your "true light." Waite, although influential, is not the final say on this topic. Before we completely discredit his writings, however, let's make sure we're not throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Moongold	27 Mar 2005
wandking wrote: As far as passionate vs. plutonic love are concerned, a distinction is better made in the Minors with the Ace and Two of Cups, with the Ace showing plutonic love. In the Majors, I not only see the contrast and balance Rainwolf makes with the Magician and HP but fully support the interpretation. I do not feel Rainwolfs' opinions arise from "social stereotypes" but instead, comes from a broad understanding of card meanings. Contrary to some views, I've read on these boards, many researchers and writers balance the Magician with the Priestess. Perhaps this started with Waite. Although Waite did not draw a direct connection between the cards, he did contrast the energy of "light" on the two trumps. Greetings WandKing ~ Do you mean plutonic or platonic? They are different indeed. Interpretations are always individual - This was my first point. It is hard to have agreement about what the "broad understandings" are. They will differ according to the Reader and the context. A Christian Hermeticist, a Pagan Feminist and a 1990's Goth may not have the same view of the Magician or the High Priestess. But that is incidental. My second l point is what do we mean by platonic and passionate? There would perhaps need to be some understanding of that before trying to attribute cards to those words. Moongold

rainwolf	27 Mar 2005
rainwolf wrote: It is easier to understand if you think of the Empress/emperor and magician/HP as opposites that need each other. Although passion and platonic love are not the same, they are not that different-they are expressed differently and so too do the archetypes of key 1-4 express them that way. I am not sure what you mean here, rainwolf I was hoping that no one thought it was confusing LOL. So you talked about the masculine and feminine cards which was basically what i meant. The magician and emperor harbor active and masculine qualities while the empress and HP are as you said receptive feminine qualities. So in the second sentence, i meant that there is a fine line between the two emotions(which also reinforces what you said: "what is passion and what is platonic"-it is sometimes ambiguous). They are basically the same thing, but what makes them distinguishable is how they are expressed (actively/masculine=platonic-fatherly love/brotherly love)(receptively/feminine=passionate-motherly/"passionate lover"). This isnt to say that women are always passionate and men are always platonic, but rather that is the archetype. It is ambiguous because although masculine archtypes are masculine, the active part is also passionate, and the female archetype is receptive, but in a sense more sensual. To sum it all up, the archtypes of keys 2 & 3 are passionate, and the archetypes of keys 1 & 4 are more platonic(they are more serious and focused on the situation). These are just my opinion, so take what you want. Yaay, another sagittarius! I have a mars in pisces though and a moon in aquarius

Moongold	27 Mar 2005
rainwolf wrote: So in the second sentence, i meant that there is a fine line between the two emotions(which also reinforces what you said: "what is passion and what is platonic"-it is sometimes ambiguous). They are basically the same thing, but what makes them distinguishable is how they are expressed (actively/masculine=platonic-fatherly love/brotherly love)(receptively/feminine=passionate-motherly/"passionate lover"). This isnt to say that women are always passionate and men are always platonic, but rather that is the archetype. It is ambiguous because although masculine archtypes are masculine, the active part is also passionate, and the female archetype is receptive, but in a sense more sensual. To sum it all up, the archtypes of keys 2 & 3 are passionate, and the archetypes of keys 1 & 4 are more platonic(they are more serious and focused on the situation). Hi Rainwolf ~ I understand what you mean now, particularly in relation to the archetype. Social stereotypes are easy to align with archetypes for obvious reasons. I am always a little prickly about social stereotypes. LOL. It has often been construed that men are more intellectual and women more instinctive but I think this is a too simple analysis which has had detrimental affects on both genders. I understand that is not what you mean, however. It is interesting that the notion of platonic love was derived initially from relationships between males I believe (Socrates and his students), although it has come to mean non-sexual love now. I guess we could agree that the passionate love in Jump's question refers to love with sexual connotations. The interesting thing is that people often confuse the two things - part of defence and development :). However, I still would not use Magician, Emperor, High Priestess or Empress alone to indicate a preference for platonic or passionate love. That is just my preference and others have different ideas :).

Moongold	27 Mar 2005
As something extra - isn't it interesting that the Court cards often don't come up when we have these discussions?

rainwolf	27 Mar 2005
Moongold wrote: As something extra - isn't it interesting that the Court cards often don't come up when we have these discussions? I know!!!! It's crazy! Nobody likes courts (they always have ambiguous meanings for me) In that sense, i think the cup and wand suit would be passionate, while the swords and pentacles would be platonic. I too dont use magician or HP to determine that sort of thing, but more likely the empress and emperor-they have a face that easily reads what we're talking aobut. Also, i dont like social stereotypes either-they are limiting and dont have a place in the aquarian age when everything is becoming androgenous. Funny how that astrology stuff every scoffs about is working its way into social life.

Moongold	27 Mar 2005
rainwolf wrote: I know!!!! It's crazy! Nobody likes courts (they always have ambiguous meanings for me) In that sense, i think the cup and wand suit would be passionate, while the swords and pentacles would be platonic. The Courts are sometimes seen to be the incarnation of qualities in the suits and it is interesting, and more comfortable for me, to speculate about their association with human love whether it be platonic or passionate (carnal?). Interestingly enough, in the Marseille the suit of Swords is often seen to symbolize sexual (male-female) love. Quote: I too dont use magician or HP to determine that sort of thing, but more likely the empress and emperor-they have a face that easily reads what we're talking aobut. Also, i dont like social stereotypes either-they are limiting and dont have a place in the aquarian age when everything is becoming androgenous. Funny how that astrology stuff every scoffs about is working its way into social life. I am more comfortable with the Majors as universal archetypes when they are not gendered so clearly. I have to remind myself that most of the interpretive material is written by heterosexuals who may be more inclined to buy into gendered ideas so unreservedly. Some are not of course. Rachel Pollack is a brilliant transgendered woman. Not sure what you mean in relation to astrology and would be interested to know. Moongold

TemperanceAngel	27 Mar 2005
I suppose it would also depend on what cards you saw in the deck as feminine and masculine, as these can differ between each person/reader, as there are no set rules to the Tarot ;)

rainwolf	27 Mar 2005
Moongold~ I meant that the aquarian age has a theme or making humanity and their thoughts more androgenous. A direct example would be how some readers (you and I in this case) dislike stereotyping and prefer an open interpretation. TA~definitely!

Pocono Platypus	27 Mar 2005
Turns out I have been reading Plato -- the Phaedo, where Socrates, about to die at the hands of the Athenians, explains why he does not fear his end. And I would say that the writing of Plato is quite platonic, and that's more than a simple thing to say. I am glad I have found this thread.... Maybe it's my age, I am having lots of fun now, but the raging passion stream is getting more like a lake -- However the lake, or the ocean, is not platonic. A question to you fine folk -- as you view this thread -- are you feeling passionate? We certainly want to know about it, with lots of description.

firemaiden	27 Mar 2005
I have always wondered if Platonic love really exists, or is it actually passionate love with a heavy dose of denial, and supression of instincts; or alternatively, passionate love tempered down with frustrated hostility. In this case if I were combining cards to spell out platonic love, I'd put 2 of cups + temperance. Not to be a party pooper, but I think this way of looking at cards is a little backwards. I'd rather see the cards first, then figure out what they could mean, then come up with the meaning, and then look for the cards, if you know what I mean.

Moongold	27 Mar 2005
Pocono Platypus, Passion is surfing Love is deep diving and effortless gliding around coral reefs. You can choose which one you want but my experience is that time and experience make one tend to choose the latter. Time and experience tend to come with age, but not always. :) And the Platypus? They swim in quiet rivers. Their habitat makes them quite rare but discriminating.

Moongold	27 Mar 2005
firemaiden wrote: Not to be a party pooper, but I think this way of looking at cards is a little backwards. I'd rather see the cards first, then figure out what they could mean, then come up with the meaning, and then look for the cards, if you know what I mean. Yes :) . We have already said that.

jumptothemoonyea	28 Mar 2005
The only card I really feel is platonic is Hermit - all his passion is in the upper part of the body and above. He does not need a mate. His goal is to stay separate as individual. All the other cards are either a part of a duality, or seeking their missing part, or in one way or another somewhere on the scale of connecting or disconnecting passionately with something.

Thirteen	28 Mar 2005
Wow. Interesting thread. Where to start..... firemaiden wrote: I have always wondered if Platonic love really exists, or is it actually passionate love with a heavy dose of denial, and supression of instincts I do think platonic love can exist--the question is always, "Is it mutual?" And that may be the problem. To one person it's platonic--and so the other ends up having to say "it's platonic" when, really, for them it's not. They're in denial, etc., while the other person really does not want to go beyond being "friends." Sometimes, you're just not sexually attracted to someone and never will be. They don't get your blood moving, they don't stir the romantic juices, they don't make you all hot and bothered. I don't mean wanting sex so much as wanting ALL of the person--wanting to give them pleasure and adoration on every level (and get it back in turn). There are people in love who have lousy sex lives or no sex lives, but this is the person they are passionate about; they at least want to offer and receive physical pleasure and passion with this person, not just mental. That said, we all know that old story of the girl/guy who goes off with the "best friend" because they got along with them better than with the original boyfriend/girlfriend. What starts as platonic can quickly blossom into more. And usually, this is the best way to go. The marriages I've seen that work and really stick are most often those where the two started out as friends and passion came later. All in all, it's a pretty murky line. But then, that's love. I would say, card wise, that Platonic Love would be evidenced in cups & swords. For it to be more than that, I'd want to see some wands at least. Also, I think the Knight of Cups and Queen of Cups would be strong indications of a great love, deep consuming love, than, say, a Page of cups (dalliance or flirtation) or a King of Cups (more paternalistic).

Thirteen	28 Mar 2005
Moongold wrote: I have seen others describe the Magician as a highly passionate personality by none other than Thirteen. Heh. Strange the things that come back to haunt you on this forum. I believe this relates back to a discussion we had on the best mate for a Magician. I recall saying that I thought a Queen of Wands or High Priestess would work because the Magician is a showman, center stage. He either has to have someone out there on stage with him, or someone behind the scenes. I thought the Queen of Wands would work--but they might argue about who gets top billing. While the High Priestess would be best as she'd never want to be on stage, but would be delighted to research and help him put into effect new stage tricks while keeping everything secret. Another discussion we once had that pops to mind is the Apollian/Dionysian dicotomy of Magician vs. Devil. The passionate pleasure and love of, on the Magician's part, mind and words as compared to the pleasure of sensuality/power of the Devil. Both these tricksters delight in displaying their energy, seducing, weaving spells, casting nets and capturing--with mind/words or sensuality/power. When they meet someone who can match them in intensity, that's when they want that person for a partner. I don't think, in either case, however, that there is *love* platonic or otherwise, involved in either the Magician or Devil card. Neither card, on its own, contains compassion, empathy, sacrifice and the willingness to share all of oneself. All of which have to be present if there is to be LOVE, not just the desire to possess. Magician/Devil cards are a bit too self-absorbed to be "Love"--passion, yes, for mind/words or sensuality/power...but not love per se.

caridwen	28 Mar 2005
Quote: And I would say that the writing of Plato is quite platonic, and that's more than a simple thing to say. Please forgive but I wasn't sure if you were being ironic or not. The term 'platonic' comes from Plato. Mostly from his idea of the ideal relationship which was purely spiritual and intellectual.

caridwen	28 Mar 2005
jumptothemoonyea wrote: Which tarot card suggest the client is platonically in love or passionately? How to discern difference between these 2 very close but very different loves in a reading? I think this could be an interesting and useful topic to discuss. :) The Lovers has, several times, meant love but not sexual love. The love of a friend for example or compassion. Love in its purest form. I was helping a friend of mine nurse his father through the last stages of a terminal illness and drew a card before I left. The card I turned was The Lovers and, during that time I had an overwhelming sense of compassion and love. The Lovers can also mean a growing or deepening connection based on love and that love does not have to be sexual. However I think both interpretations of the card, The Lovers, lie within it. Both a sexual attraction or relationship based on deep love such as wife and husband or between friends further establising their relationship. It could also represent the love for your child or parents. I would say that the Two of Cups was more of an indicator of two people falling in love or actually in love - during the infatuation stage for example.

Pocono Platypus	28 Mar 2005
Please forgive but I wasn't sure if you were being ironic or not. The term 'platonic' comes from Plato. Mostly from his idea of the ideal relationship which was purely spiritual and intellectual. I was not being ironic. I do not know Plato well, but the word descends from him, so isn't he the source? I have another question: I few posts back I read about archetypes and social stereotypes. I gathered that archetypes were good, but social stereotypes were less so. Can someone clarify this? I will say that one of my pals at the coffee shop began speaking to me by saying "People like you..." and I became instantly defensive.

Thirteen	28 Mar 2005
Pocono Platypus wrote: I have another question: I few posts back I read about archetypes and social stereotypes. I gathered that archetypes were good, but social stereotypes were less so. Can someone clarify this? Archetype: this is a figure that shows up in story and myth no matter where you go. It's a distillation of certain human types that we all know and love. The simplist and most, well, sterotypical those types can be. The Mother figure, for example. Or the Wise Old Man. You see the Wise Old man everywhere--like Star Wars, right? And he's always the same. A little grumpy, mysterious, etc. Right? Another archetype is the Strong Man--Superman, Hercules, doing great deeds. The tarot, especially the majors, are based on archetypes. The Empress/Mother figure, who, like all "archtype" moms is the best mom ever. The one who showers you with love and won't let anyone "hurt her baby!" Meanwhile, there's the Emperor/Father figure, who's the "archetypical" stern dad figure. You respect him--but you don't defy him. Get the idea? A sterotype, on the other hand, goes with that "People like you" comment. It's a bias created to group people together and make them less than human. So someone will say, "All people of this color skin are...." or "all women are....." or "all Frenchmen are....." Now to be fair, cultural upbringing can make some sterotypes true. The more isolated and enclosed the culture, the closer to a sterotype. So, for example, a culture where working hard is valued, and parents force their kids to take jobs and insist that nothing is for free--that might produce a sterotype of "Those people are such hard workers...." It's a sterotype, but it might have some cultural basis in truth. Other sterotypes are created out of fear. "Those people are all criminals. They can't be trusted!" or as a way of justifying poor treatment, "They're all lazy and stupid. If you don't push them they won't do anything!" Sterotypes are placed upon real groups of people and indicate bias. Archetypes are eternal--characters of story and myth, simple but always recognizable.

Fudugazi	28 Mar 2005
caridwen wrote: Please forgive but I wasn't sure if you were being ironic or not. The term 'platonic' comes from Plato. Mostly from his idea of the ideal relationship which was purely spiritual and intellectual. Probably came from his wanting to kick his habit of lusting after young working class boys, which he would have felt rather injurious to his dignity as a philosopher... I'm with firemaiden on this. In which case the cards would be Lovers and 8 of Swords.

kwaw	28 Mar 2005
Helvetica wrote: Probably came from his wanting to kick his habit of lusting after young working class boys, which he would have felt rather injurious to his dignity as a philosopher... So have you got anything serious to say, or is snide mockery of the dead the limit of your criteria. Thereagain if you did have anything serious to say, realize it or not, you would probably be using the language language of Plato, his hero Socrates as analysed and structured into a language of logic by his pupil Aristotle. There is plenty to regale against Plato, so why not read him and have the dignity of coming up with some real criticism. Kwaw

Pocono Platypus	28 Mar 2005
Well said, Thirteen, Didn't Plato posit Ideals/Archetypes -- such as Justice, Beauty, Harmony and Truth? But he didn't make them into people, as I recall, but they seemed quite ethereal. The Major Arcana are archetypes and images of people. Are they real people? If I meet someone who seems like the Emperor, whom have I met? Which part is the archetypal image, which part is the person?

Pocono Platypus	28 Mar 2005
Moongold wrote: Pocono Platypus, Passion is surfing Love is deep diving and effortless gliding around coral reefs. You can choose which one you want but my experience is that time and experience make one tend to choose the latter. Time and experience tend to come with age, but not always. :) And the Platypus? They swim in quiet rivers. Their habitat makes them quite rare but discriminating. Passion is surfing -- I like that. The surf, the waves -- I never thought of them as being passionate, but I want to be in the surf forever, even when I'm not there. Maybe that is passion. The surf is where the ocean meets the land. Is this meeting the passion of earth-love?

Thirteen	28 Mar 2005
Pocono Platypus wrote: Didn't Plato posit Ideals/Archetypes -- such as Justice, Beauty, Harmony and Truth? Those aren't archetypes. Those are platonic "ideals"--things you reach for. Although it's likely that Plato did see such ideals as figures. You know, the statue of Justice with her scales, or the statue of Harmony with a lyre. Summer, fall, winter, spring as four ladies. But these things have no personality, no human attributes. Archetypes are based on PEOPLE. Not particular people, but types of people. And the thing about Archetypes is that each of us can be any of these types at any given time. So when we're young we may be the Fool, when we're old we might be The Hermit. Become a parent and you might find yourself playing the part of Empress or Emperor toward your kids. Archetypes are facets of humanity that we all recognize. Quote: The Major Arcana are archetypes and images of people. Are they real people? If I meet someone who seems like the Emperor, whom have I met? Which part is the archetypal image, which part is the person? Human beings have many facets. When you're reading the tarot, you're seeing a facet of a person that may be recognized either as a real person, or as a part of a person. For example, let's say you get the "Fool" card in a reading. This is the Archetype of a wandering, carefree, innocent but foolish youth. Who is this? Well, it could be someone you know. A friend, who, like the Fool, never worries, enjoys life, has fun, but also never watches where he's going and sometimes gets into trouble. Now this may not be all there is to your friend, but he's more Fool than anything else, so when you get the Fool in the "friends" section of your spread, you immediately think of him. On the other hand, the Fool could be you at the moment--maybe just for that reading. Doesn't mean that's all you are or all you're going to be, but for now, in this situation, it's how you're feeling and acting. That facet of your personality has taken control. By the by, I think we're wandering a bit far from the subject here. Perhaps we should turn this into a new thread?

caridwen	28 Mar 2005
Quote: I was not being ironic. I do not know Plato well, but the word descends from him, so isn't he the source? Yes he or, the culture in which he lived is the source. It was common at that time for men to form deep bonds - although men married they did so for reproductive reasons. Love and passion were reserved for their homosexual relationships. Although Plato gives women as well as men equal opportunity to become the highest form of human (see Republic) as Philospher within his conecpt of the ideal society - women were still deemed inferior beings. Plato's theories on love can be gleened from the Symposium where he discusses our 'other half' and the idea of true love. According to Plato, love has many forms or degrees but the highest or purest form of love is of an intellectual nature or love of 'the Good'. Sexual pleasure takes one away from rationalisation and the Forms. (Death in Venice by Mann is a brilliant twist on Platonic love - well worth the read:) )

caridwen	28 Mar 2005
Helvetica wrote: Probably came from his wanting to kick his habit of lusting after young working class boys, which he would have felt rather injurious to his dignity as a philosopher... I'm with firemaiden on this. In which case the cards would be Lovers and 8 of Swords. Not at all - homosexuality was very common and accepted as part of ancient Athenian society. Aristotle describes our affinity with the 'Good' as 'the bloom of a young boys cheek'. :D

Fudugazi	29 Mar 2005
kwaw wrote: So have you got anything serious to say, or is snide mockery of the dead the limit of your criteria. Thereagain if you did have anything serious to say, realize it or not, you would probably be using the language language of Plato, his hero Socrates as analysed and structured into a language of logic by his pupil Aristotle. Oh dear kwaw, are you having a bit of a sense of humour failure, or is Plato an untouchable? He's one of my favourites, if you want to know. But yes, I do allow myself to laugh at him. And he did like young boys.

Fudugazi	29 Mar 2005
caridwen wrote: Not at all - homosexuality was very common and accepted as part of ancient Athenian society. Aristotle describes our affinity with the 'Good' as 'the bloom of a young boys cheek'. :D Ah, too true - and I quite understand his liking for such bloom ;) But still - "platonic love" - as commonly understood today (ie unconsummated passion) grew out of that famous dinner party where Socrates expanded on how much closer to the Divine was non-physical expressions of love (he actually built a whole architecture of love from the simple eros right up to the Divine) - meaning, some kind of sublimation of the eros, rather than repression. In real life, however, platonic love often plays out as repression. So unless we are in the presence of a truly sublimated eros, then I would suggested cards of repression - like the 8 of swords - are likely to show up.

caridwen	29 Mar 2005
Helvetica wrote: Ah, too true - and I quite understand his liking for such bloom ;) But still - "platonic love" - as commonly understood today (ie unconsummated passion) grew out of that famous dinner party where Socrates expanded on how much closer to the Divine was non-physical expressions of love (he actually built a whole architecture of love from the simple eros right up to the Divine) - meaning, some kind of sublimation of the eros, rather than repression. In real life, however, platonic love often plays out as repression. So unless we are in the presence of a truly sublimated eros, then I would suggested cards of repression - like the 8 of swords - are likely to show up. And so we move onto grouchy old Freud...lol:D

Pocono Platypus	29 Mar 2005
Back to the beginning of this thread, as Thirteen suggested. (and to thank her for clarifying Archetype and Ideal) I spread out the cards this morning which suggested passion -- Star, Devil, Empress and High Priestess -- this reminded me of a photo that I keep, and can send to someone -- of Irene Pappas, the Greek actress in Zorba the Greek and other films. This photo is more passion than I can imagine. We also suggested the Page, Knight, Queen and King of Cups as suggesting passion, but to me they did not. Now I'm thinking that passion/platonic don't make such a good pair of opposites. But for platonic love we suggested the Magician, Emperor, Hermit, Temperance, and the two of cups. In platonic love I imagine men that I care about, women that I love but don't seem to lust after, and women that I love but can't get near (That would actually be frustration, not platonic love. It happens a lot, and we could be friends, but where do I put my eyes? -- meaning that "platonic" is often a fake.) Final category -- passion and platonic love towards the same person, all nicely mixed up and very wonderful.

Thirteen	29 Mar 2005
Pocono Platypus wrote: But for platonic love we suggested the Magician, Emperor, Hermit, Temperance, and the two of cups. These might have been suggested, but I think you might be confused. I don't think they were all suggested for platonic love. The Magician and Emperor are passionate people, self-absorbed and remote--and as such, it's hard to have a platonic relationship. I'm not saying you can't be friends with them, but they do demand your attention. The Magician relates to others as showman to audience, as advisor and orator. The Emperor sits on his throne and people wait on him or he commands them. He may have a father's fierce love for those he commands, a general's impassioned love for his troops, but that's a bit different from the implied equality of a platonic relationship. I suspect that the Emperor was mentioned in relationship to the Empress--as her partner and passionate lover. The Hermit *might* indicate platonic love between a teacher and student, but most often the Hermit is all about being alone, not being with someone else, not even a friend. In short, I would say that Magician, Emperor and Hermit really aren't cards that relate to friendship or love. That's just not what they're about. They're about ideas (Magician), about control and command (Emperor), about solitude and investagation (Hermit). These have passionate energies, but they're not going to signal a beautiful friendship or a torrid affair. They're not going to tell you if that 2/cups you got is a platonic or passionate relationship. All they might tell you is WHO you're attracted to. Temperance and 2/Cups certainly could relate to either type of love. Temperance is often seen as a fire card, mixing it up, so likely more than just platonic. 2/cups is that first contact, that recognition of someone you want to talk to. Could be any kind of mutual attraction. As for the Cup Court cards--you're not going to feel "passion" from them. The cups represent LOVE. That's the sort of love that yearns, that searches, that adores, that worships, that imagines and dreams. You can't relegate such cards to just platonic or passionate love, not by themselves. They cover the spectrum and so you have to rely on other cards to say if they're indicative of platonic, romantic, spiritual or passionate love--or a mix of any of those loves.

Chubby Mummy	29 Mar 2005
Helvetica wrote: Oh dear kwaw, are you having a bit of a sense of humour failure, or is Plato an untouchable? He's one of my favourites, if you want to know. But yes, I do allow myself to laugh at him. And he did like young boys. I have to agree here with Helvetica, its an extremely important part of being and enjoying life to be able to integrate a sense of humour into our everyday mundane routines. Otherwise we would all be grumpy old pensioners by the time weve reached 65 and we wouldnt have a single enjoyable memory to gaze back upon. (unless you consider chastising people "fond memories").... I dont know much about Plato but even I knew he liked young boys!! lol (probably coz Im greek and its something youre brought up on out there!) xx cm

wandking	06 Apr 2005
Yes, use of the term "Plutonic" instead of Platonic in an earlier reference is a mistake: Thanks for pointing it out Moongold. Plutonic is a word that relates to geology or astronomy not love. In common references Platonic deals with love that is not sexual, like the love we feel for family members and historically originates from concepts conceived by Plato, where feelings ascend from passion for the individual to contemplation of some universal ideal. In modern usage, Platonic love generally implies a type of non-romantic love we feel for close friends of the opposite sex. If we are only dealing with the semantics of words, you should reconsider your use of the term "always." You said, "Interpretations are always individual." Whenever i see the words never, always and forever it sends up a big red flag. How many other human issues do you feel the word "always" describes? Words like always, never and forever represent constants and as Einstein said, "the only constant in the universe is change." Certainly, you are entitled to an opinion that "Interpretations are always individual" but there are other opinions on this topic, like those of Carl Jung. In my humble opinion, a stereotype, as you mentioned earlier, might evolve into an archetype of sorts but this theory differs from a Jungian approach. Many believe the Jungian term archetype can describe Tarot imagery. A fine line distinguishes archetype from stereotype. According to Merriam/ Webster stereotype is "to repeat without variation" and archetype is "the original pattern or model of which all things of the same type are representations or copies." Both words deal with replication but archetype implies originality, like prototype. If we subscribe to Jungian theory, archetypes are innate within the human psyche. Jung focuses on ideal images seated in a collective unconsciousness that we subconsciously project onto other people and then set conscious expectations on them. When someone does not meet our ideal image, serious conflict can arise. When we become aware of specific unconscious ideals we assign others, we can adjust our expectations and responses. Tarot card images often evoke feelings that might affect changes in internal images and then help us modify negative behavior patterns, which results in new responses from others. Tarot used in this way does not attempt to predict the future but rather allows individuals to take active roles in creating newly transformed futures. By doing this they achieve an awareness of Self, as defined by Jung, who placed emphasis upon spiritual values and believed that a yearning to understand the meaning of existence is the most basic human drive. According to Jung, Synchronicity provides access to archetypes of a not “individual” but instead shared collective unconscious, which he characterizes as universal predispositions unfounded in experience like stereotypes. Much like Platonic Forms (eidos), the archetypes do not originate in the world of the traditional senses, but exist independent of that domain. Unlike Plato, Jung taught that archetypes arise spontaneously in the mind, especially in times of crisis. Just as meaningful coincidences, such as the Jung example of beetle/ scarab dreams open the door to transcendental truths, a crisis opens a path to the collective unconscious and allows an archetype to reveal some deep value hidden from ordinary consciousness.

Marquise	13 Apr 2005
Could the ace of cups mean that someone is in love?

Thirteen	13 Apr 2005
Marquise wrote: Could the ace of cups mean that someone is in love? Aces mean beginnings, thus the Ace of Cups is the welling up of feelings, if you will, that first stirring of emotion, that first attraction, that first strong reaction. This initial strong feeling *might* turn into love. But for the moment it's too immature, too unfocused, and just as likely to vanish as remain. Rather like a teenager who sees a cute guy (or girl) for the first time and shrieks to her/his friends, "oh, my gawd! I'm in LOVE!" Well, she/he feels something, that's certain. Is it really love? Or will it vanish at the sight of the next cute guy/girl? Time--and the adult that teen grows into--alone will tell.

The Which tarot card suggest the client is platonically in love or passionately? thread was originally posted on 26 Mar 2005 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.