RWS Esoteric or Exoteric?

Zephyros

That picture reminds me of the island of Medusa in the old (good) version of the Clash of the Titans. It could be argued that you don't need a special deck for mythology, the attributions are already there. Even if you're interpreting the astrological attributions in a purely, well, astrological way, the mythology is still there. I myself don't use astrology, I do use the mythology. Charon is still there, though there may not be a boat, even if he's called "Mercury in Aquarius..."
 

Lillie

Nope, not to me it didnt (but then I have read quiet a few of your posts , going back some time :) ) . But since esoteric means "intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest" ... we might say it is the MOST esoteric deck of them all :)

Damn your logic!!!
I am defeated.

I love the picture, proper good isle of the dead.
 

Lillie

Lillie, I was speaking in general terms, not especially at you. I tend to put my foot in my mouth. :)
Oh, me too. No worries.

As to why he did it, I think it was because despite his apparent snobbish attitude and ridicule for the layman in the PKT, he did have faith both in humanity and the GD system. It works, even if you don't know how or why, and he seemed to think people would benefit from it regardless of their education in esoteric matters. Of course, one could nitpick whether his message was lost due to constraints, and in my opinion his deck somewhat perverts some good things, which is a shame. But I do think (or prefer to think) that he ultimately had good intentions.
Do you know what?
I think the same. I'm so irritated by his 'I've got a secret that I can't tell' attitude, and his turgid prose. But still, I get the feeling he was a good man.
In a way that Crowley really wasn't.


For example, most people memorize the meanings of the cards and then mix and match when performing a divination, using whatever method they wish (let's say "intuition"). The degradation of the elements through the suits is still a thread that goes through all the simplistic divinatory meanings, even if it is veiled, even if it is changed, perverted or misunderstood. I think he hoped some of that would nevertheless filter into people, even through the images. Whether he did it well or not is another matter.

Yes :)
Like an image/symbols on a card should, to an extent, express their intended meanings through the image alone, triggering thoughts/feelings/whatever in the reader.
And if the picture don't triger those thoughts etc. then it really doesn't work for that person.
 

gregory

Like an image/symbols on a card should, to an extent, express their intended meanings through the image alone, triggering thoughts/feelings/whatever in the reader.
And if the picture don't triger those thoughts etc. then it really doesn't work for that person.
Right on. That's why I HAVEN'T memorised it all. I rely on the images to do it for me.
 

Teheuti

Waite is actually pretty specific about the esoteric meaning of the Major Arcana, with a few hints regarding the Minors. By esoteric, regarding Waite this means mystical - what we might call an esoteric or Hermetic mysticism. He saw Tarot as a "mutus liber" - a silent book like many of the alchemical texts and he coded its information much like the alchemists did - saying one thing on the surface that points to another that is readily apparent only to those "who have eyes to see." His section in PKT on "The Doctrine Behind the Veil" is key to the mystical elements and is filled with subtle references to other works (including his own) that elucidate his comments. Hiding things in plain sight is pretty much straight out of the traditions he was working with.
 

Zephyros

Yes ... can you guess why ?

Because bad photoshop and bad special effects look surprisingly similar?

Kidding, I know, it's the same place, they even get there by Charon (and it wasn't even bad special effects, some of them still look good today).
 

ravenest

Movies often used evocative paintings, images from the past and such as backdrops -by getting the set artist to copy the image by painting it onto the backdrop . I have watched them do it. Still done today, but its an old trick ... Way before 'photoshop' and 'green screen' were around.
 

Zephyros

Oh, that. Yeah, somehow the eye is more ready to believe "real places" (even if they're imaginary) probably because we are somehow culturally fed these images, maybe even subliminally. Today, when everything is digitized, that's when things actually look more fake than matte paintings, simply because reality and believability aren't factors. Before, if you wanted to show a fantastical Greek temple, it would be something like the Parthenon. Today it would have to be a thousand times as big and as gaudy, and would lose its credibility, as often happens.