Richard
Waite also had a regular job writing advertising copy for Horlick's Malted Milk:
A.E.Waite said:
Greater Arcana Study Group—The Fool
Waite also had a regular job writing advertising copy for Horlick's Malted Milk:
INIVEA
Please do not take this as off topic, I am only making a comparison point.
Like the story mystery behind the Coral castle, Edward Leedskalnin, spent many hours in the library studying the Egyptians and history etc. Now he was a true Mason. He made a Discovery, he built it. He shared it with the world (public), without expectations, didn't ask for much.
Waite and A.C both also studied the same info. Waite spent many hours in the library studying whatever esoteric books he could get his hands on. A. C. Went to Egypt. A.C flat stated that his deck was to be free. All of them shared with the public with very little expectations.
The question we need to be asking, which Maybe hidden or secret, that may have been discovered is decoded in the Tarot. What did they really discover. Hmmmm Eygpt / text.
ETA: These men could be saying, here we provide you with symbols, go research and discover for yourself. You will decode the symbols unlock the doors with the keys. Be the Fool, step into the unknown.
Michael Sternbach
Very interesting. Crowley represented the view that Levi secretly knew the "correct" letter correspondences (as in the Cipher MS), while what he published was nothing but red herring. However, I said repeatedly (over in the Thoth forum) that there may be truth to both Levi's (official) and the GD's system. It looks like Waite would have agreed.
Richard
Since we are considering the Waite deck within the context of PKT, the following statement near the end of Part II is interesting:
I have also not adopted the prevailing attribution of the cards to the Hebrew alphabet--firstly, because it would serve no purpose in an elementary handbook; secondly, because nearly every attribution is wrong.
The clause "nearly every attribution is wrong" indicates that he did have a specific system of attributions firmly in mind. Since the GD and Levi Hebrew letter attributions differ for all Trumps except #21, it seems likely that Waite's preferred system of attributions at this point in time is essentially either that of Levi or that of the GD. Since he rejects Levi's placement of the Fool in position 21, it is plausible that he had a preference for the GD attributions. Of course, this does not rule out the possibility that he may have relaxed this opinion at a later date.
ETA: FWIW, P. F. Case was of the opinion that Levi's attributions were a red herring.
Michael Sternbach
But then what do we make of the letter Shin on The Fool?
It is not exactly unusual that Waite doesn't mean what he says and doesn't say what he means. I am always ready to take his words with a grain of salt. But pictures are quite a different story.
Already the equally secretive Alchemists emphasized that they left clues in images that they would never express in words. Waite may well have thought about his Tarot deck similarly.
Although there is no hard evidence, I think Mary may be on to something with the statement that I quoted.
I particularly resonate with her "multi-dimensional" take on symbols. It reminds me of the two different suggestions regarding the Trumps VIII and XII. Strange as it sounds, both seem to hold true, as i.e. my research regarding birth cards on Aeclectic suggests. Based on the usual ToL, this is hard to understand. However, Robert C. Stein's three-dimensional "quantum tree" might reconcile both views.
Apparent contradictions in occultism are often two sides of a thing. To understand their unity, a higher perspective must be adopted, which is difficult to express in words. However, THIS is the true content of Waite's Secret Tradition.
It is not exactly unusual that Waite doesn't mean what he says and doesn't say what he means. I am always ready to take his words with a grain of salt. But pictures are quite a different story.
Already the equally secretive Alchemists emphasized that they left clues in images that they would never express in words. Waite may well have thought about his Tarot deck similarly.
Although there is no hard evidence, I think Mary may be on to something with the statement that I quoted.
I particularly resonate with her "multi-dimensional" take on symbols. It reminds me of the two different suggestions regarding the Trumps VIII and XII. Strange as it sounds, both seem to hold true, as i.e. my research regarding birth cards on Aeclectic suggests. Based on the usual ToL, this is hard to understand. However, Robert C. Stein's three-dimensional "quantum tree" might reconcile both views.
Apparent contradictions in occultism are often two sides of a thing. To understand their unity, a higher perspective must be adopted, which is difficult to express in words. However, THIS is the true content of Waite's Secret Tradition.
Yelell
A search said Waite's introduction to the Book of Formation was in 1923. So as time passed he later became less convinced of it at all?
-----------
The "nearly every attribution is wrong" does make it sound like he had correct ones in mind, and if nearly all were wrong then something was right?
Abrac
I agree symbols can have more than one meaning but within a given framework; they can't mean anything, i.e. whatever a person wants them to mean. In schools of initiation, initiates are given keys to guide them in a certain direction. Without the keys, the symbolism is almost meaningless because if a symbol can mean anything it really means nothing. I don't believe a symbol's proper interpretation should have contradictions; different ways of seeing the same thing perhaps. I might say, "look at that cat over here" and someone else might say, "what an impressive feline." Both are correct. But if someone says, "that dog has a beautiful coat," it wouldn't be true at all.
Michael Sternbach
I agree that symbols can't be taken to mean anything at all. But to stay with your metaphor, it could be that the animal is in truth a fox. Lacking knowledge of that species, one beholder might refer to it as a cat, another one as a dog.
Our situation in the various brands of occultism is similar. So many times, we are trying to describe multi-dimensional realities that in fact defy our four-dimensionally bound perception, thinking and language. It's not surprising that distortions and seeming contradictions occur. It is said that all contradictions are dissolved only when we cross the abyss and find access into the upper triad of the ToL, i.e. experience initiation into transcendent consciousness.
Abrac
I agree someone might mistake a fox for a cat, but that's a lack of knowledge and a misunderstanding on the part of the observer. The cat's still a cat.
My whole point is that symbols are trying to communicate a message, oftentimes messages that are hard to put into words, but a message nonetheless. I hear all the time, "you interpret a symbol one way and I another, we're both right because there is no wrong answer." I strongly disagree, else why would there be schools of initiation? Schools may disagree with one another, but each school has it's own framework within which symbols are interpreted.
I've probably said all I will say on this. My point has been made and I've already spent too much time debating it in the past.
My whole point is that symbols are trying to communicate a message, oftentimes messages that are hard to put into words, but a message nonetheless. I hear all the time, "you interpret a symbol one way and I another, we're both right because there is no wrong answer." I strongly disagree, else why would there be schools of initiation? Schools may disagree with one another, but each school has it's own framework within which symbols are interpreted.
I've probably said all I will say on this. My point has been made and I've already spent too much time debating it in the past.
Richard
Thanks for sharing your opinion. If you are correct, then Waite is about as reliable as Christine Payne-Towler, who is notorious for failing to distinguish fact from fantasy, although she is, in effect, Waite's nemesis.
What then is the point of studying PKT if we cannot know if he means what he says? It would seem to be a somewhat hollow pursuit. I am sorry for wasting everyone's time applying deductive logic to the issue of Hebrew letter attributions, since the premises of the deduction were Waite's untrustworthy statements. A Shin shaped design on the Fool's garment surely settles that issue once and for all. Pictures speak louder than words.
Fortunately, I have more worthwhile activities with which to occupy my time. Adieu.
