View Single Post
Ross G Caldwell's Avatar
Ross G Caldwell  Ross G Caldwell is offline
Join Date: 07 Jul 2003
Location: Béziers, France
Posts: 2,649
Ross G Caldwell 

Ross G Caldwell's Avatar

Originally Posted by jmd
Correct, Aeon418 - I was actually commenting on Wang's recommendation that a person stick to ONE system and effectively imbue themselves with it.

The problem is if one chooses, I would suggest, a 'system' where the overlays are already made, for then a habit of mind establishes links between disparate 'systems' (such as the Tree of Life, Astrology, Tarot, Alphabets, etc).

If a 'system' already presents these as correlated, then I would advocate the opposite of that which Wang suggests: do NOT choose such a system, but rather study tarot on its own merits, Kabalah on its own foundation, Astrology by its own various methods, and alphabetic traditions on their own.

Then - or at least, once one a basic foundation for each of these is established - one can look at such overlayed systems as presented by the GD (or the different system presented by the OKRC [Kabalistic Order of the Rose Cross]) and more easily assess and discriminate what is being presented.
I think it's a matter of aims. Each method has a different aim.

Like learning a foreign language, if your aim is fluency, it is no good to talk about theory, linguistics, all of the roots of the language, the illogicality of certain idioms, barbarisms, etc.; you have to learn it as it is used, learn the rules - and the rules of thumb - without questioning more than is needed to understand overall usage. Afterward, if you're interested, you should deepen your understanding with those other studies.

But if your interest is historical or scientific, then you will like to start with all of the above. You may come to a better knowledge OF the language than most native speakers - but you will have a hard time communicating with just about anyone.

So like the Tarot; if you want to play a version of the game, or read the cards, you are better learning a system first and then branch out when you feel confident. If you want a global understanding of every aspect - then the theoretical aspects, all the different approaches historically, would be your interest. But you will have a hard time applying this to a specific divinatory or ludic instance, unless you are based in a system first.

A firm base, however limited in the global sense, is nothing to be brushed off. In a sense, once mastered, it contains in itself the kernel of the whole universe of possibilities that the meta-discourse attempts to map.

The two methods are not exclusive; indeed they should always complement one another, after a short start with one or the other. But it is more difficult to go from a large amount of theory to a small amount of practice, than it is to go from a large amount of practice to a small amount of theory.

This is assuming that no prejudice about the superiority of the underlying theory of the practical method chosen is implied, of course.
Top   #42