The rose cross on the back of each card

[Parzival]

Originally Posted by spiral

The Rose-Cross on the back of Thoth isn't complete. It's a simplification of that glyph; an "artist's impression" in the most literal sense.

This is very well said-- "It's a simplification...an 'artist's impression'." And the artist has created a great work of art by taking away too much secondary, unnecessary esoteric-symbolic detail. Apparently, Crowley directed the design. All letters, all astrologic and alchemic glyphs are removed, so that main colors and patterns take the emphasis. Rose and Cross. At the center remains the crimson rose/flower of five petals, as if the Universe flowers out of that flower, as if it all begins not with a point but with red radiant Life, not with abstraction but with animation, roseate vitalization. I know: the rose/flower arises out of the cross. But what's at the center? The rose/flower. At the heart of the cross, the flower.

[Lillie]

Hmmm.

To be honest, I never knew that there should be a white dot, and that it wasn't there.

So, just to get thing straight in my head...

Seeing as the cross on the Thoth, and on the GD decks are so different, What is the 'correct', or 'official' Rose Cross?
Where does it get it's authority from?

Or, perhaps, where is the master cross, to which we compare all other crosses to see what has been added andwhat is missing?

Futhermore, I always assumed that these cards were always meant to have thisdesign on the back. It s in the Book of Thoth, along with all the fronts of the cards, so I assumed that Harris had drawn it for Crowley specifically to be the back.
Is this not right?

Was the picture never meant for the cards? but was put onto the backs and into the book just brecause an image was needed?

If this is so then I suppose we must ask ourselves what it was intended for (if anything) before we analyse it's meaning as part of this deck.

Can we even assume that Lady Frieda Harris drew it?
And if she did, then did Crowley have any hand in its design or structure?

Suddenly, from always seeing this image, but never really paying it much mind, and always assuming it was meant to be there, Suddenly I am full of questions and doubts.

Crowley always wanted this deck published, He even knew the publisher he wanted to print it (The people who do stamps, or bank notes, or something impressive!). Surely he had thought about what was to be on the back.

[Grigori]

This website/page was introduced to me yesterday, and as the finder has not posted it as yet, I shall do so on her behalf

http://www.thelemapedia.org/index.php/Rose_cross

Contains history and definition for the cross, as well as a section of commentary from Crowley. There are also two images of the cross there, neither of which seems to have the white dot.

[Parzival]

Thanks for the invaluable website, similia. The included quotations of Crowley certainly give great insight as to the Image on the back of each card. In a way, each "front Image" grows out of the Universal "back Image." It's the Image of all images.

[spiral]

Originally Posted by Lotem

If this theory doesn't 'click' for you, you are free to see no meaning. Just don't cancel out my application of meaning.

Well if you post on a forum then you should expect that the idea (or whatever) that you present will be dissected by all and sundry. You asked for theories on why the dot wasn't present; I offered one. Beyond that I just pointed out that it hadn't been established that the omission was in any way significant.

It seems rather unfair to ask for theories; reject the ones that you don't like and then to ask me not to question the assumption at the basis of your hypothesis. But I'll get over it!

[Lillie]

I won't though.

I'm just going to be really, really offended on your behalf.

*Sulks*

When I was a kid a white dot meant it was time to go to bed. (for adults) I was only allowed to see the white dot for a treat!