Princess as the Throne for the Ace

Barleywine

and the rest of the cards ?

Yeah, I made that point earlier: the seven planetary Trumps and the three elemental Trumps don't seem to have a place in any of the models. Maybe the "Trumps as Pips" concept that gets applied to TdM interpretation should be trotted out so they can be brought in from the cold. (On second thought, forget I said that; they probably wouldn't be happy down there at the South Pole :))
 

Barleywine

The GD scheme brings to mind the Revelation of John which describes the zodiac with an initial emphasis on the fixed signs, and speaks of thrones. The seven Spirits of God are the seven planets (the respective Majors are said not to have any fixed place in the GD text). The division of the zodiac in 24 sectors is an ancient alternative to the more popular division in 36 sectors (decans). It seems quite possible that here we have the source of the GD idea of the thrones before us.

It's certainly conceivable, all of the elements are there for the taking. But I think I prefer the Golden Dawn gibberish to the biblical gibberish. It would take two straitjackets to hold me if I had to read too much of this stuff.
 

Richard

.......But perhaps I misunderstand your diagram somehow.

No you didn't. I understood the north celestial pole to be the usual extension of the terrestrial pole. It greatly simplifies the model if the polar axis is perpendicular to the ecliptic.
 

Richard

Yeah, I made that point earlier: the seven planetary Trumps and the three elemental Trumps don't seem to have a place in any of the models. Maybe the "Trumps as Pips" concept that gets applied to TdM interpretation should be trotted out so they can be brought in from the cold. (On second thought, forget I said that; they probably wouldn't be happy down there at the South Pole :))

Trumps as pips is not merely a TdM trick. The pips and the first 10 trumps are associated via the Sephirot.
 

Barleywine

Please correct me if I'm getting you wrong, but if the curve in your diagram is meant to be the ecliptic, it is incorrect. Where the GD text refers to the North Pole and South Pole of the celestial sphere, it means the poles of the ecliptic (a.k.a. the zodiac, for our purposes here), not the North Pole and South Pole as in the projection of the terrestrial poles on the celestial sphere. To make this clearer, the axis between the latter is currently aimed at the Polar Star, the axis between the former at a nebula in the Draco constellation.

The ecliptic/zodiac is perpendicular to the axis that connects the two ecliptical poles, whereas the celestial equator is at a 23,5 degrees angle to it. The zones of the Court Cards (minus the Princesses) and the zodiacal Majors are both ending right at the line of the ecliptic.

But perhaps I misunderstand your diagram somehow.

This is correct. I spent a good deal of time messing around with Right Ascension one time to show that a planet in zodiacal longitude (that is, on the ecliptic) crosses the horizon at a different time if it's position is mapped onto the equator. I was using the celestial equator in my model here; I must have missed that subtlety in the GD text, but all of the assumptions I was making were for schematic ordering purposes and only loosely astronomical.
 

Barleywine

Trumps as pips is not merely a TdM trick. The pips and the first 10 trumps are associated via the Sephirot.

Yes, I do remember that from an earlier thread. My only use of it was to glean more meaning from the non-scenic TdM pips by relating them symbolically to the Trumps of the same number. That was just a random thought in this discussion since I don't think it adds anything useful.
 

ravenest

Yeah, I made that point earlier: the seven planetary Trumps and the three elemental Trumps don't seem to have a place in any of the models.

In ANY of the models ???


< Coff ... coff ...... tap tap tap .... >
 

ravenest

It's certainly conceivable, all of the elements are there for the taking. But I think I prefer the Golden Dawn gibberish to the biblical gibberish. It would take two straitjackets to hold me if I had to read too much of this stuff.

I am way past the straight jacket ! The specifics of which are being currently rehashed, I thought were in my earlier posts in this thread .... or the astro layout one.

I keep saying this and I will say it again now;

Thoth astrology is , at least, based on the GD system, and the GD system is strange beastie and not at all what many assume it is.

This is becoming apparent again here ( even though .... hasnt it been addressed or at least mentioned earlier in this thread ? )
 

Barleywine

also in this thread ( and the links in post # 5 )

I think !



Some stuff from Ross Caldwell and Scion (if people remember him ? )

http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=120383

I can see why you didn't want to "reinvent the wheel" here! The second picture from Ross and his explanation gets at the things discussed above concerning the incline of the ecliptical plane to the plane of the equator. I was working with the celestial equator as well. That picture also clears up - at least for me - the GD rambling about the "convolutions" of Draco. Now I need to go back and read the text with that in mind.

The lengthy near-manifesto by Scion concerning traditional-vs-modern astrology was fantastic. The "one man out" conundrum regarding the match-up of the seven planets to the 36 decans, and the GD's cut-to-fit "Mars fudge" always seemed curious but understandable in its way. (A double dose of Mars just to kick-start Spring? Ummm . . . OK.) The Princesses had already locked up the whole concept of "earth." But I agree with Scion that the GD's qabalistic remapping of astrological factors wasn't really satisfactory as a faithful representation of the visible solar system. Then again, I'm not sure it was intended to be. The concepts are useful but seem more grafted on than part of the core tradition.