Granted, The Divine Triangle is a book I have flipped through only a few times, but each time I looked got the impression that it was biting off way more than it could chew in addition to it being overly obtuse. It goes on and on about the geometry of the Divine Trianlge itself and then applies it to various forms of divination, including tarot. Each card is assigned a number, 1 to 78, and numerology / keywords / meanings derived from this basic numerological concept.
It just seemed unnecessary to me to go through such great links to redefine a simple system, like reinventing the wheel.
Trying to pin every tarot card to a unique numerological basis must be an interesting challenge for any author. It would seem to be a much more difficult task than blending tarot with the Tree of Life, which shares an almost organic correspondence, or the I Ching, which comes closer with its 64 hexagrams. Given the numerological practice of reduction, you really start out with only the nine Pythagorean archetypes, and, short of shoehorning everything into that model (which would result in a lot of repetition and more than a few non-intuitive match-ups unless considerable theoretical "revisionism" is applied), some creative way has to be found to expand the alphabet. I don't really like the "78 unique number" approach with someone's personal take on what each one might mean (which to me would always seem provisional and hypothetical until it attains an historical stature akin to the I Ching, and I don't see that happening in our "throw-away" culture). Perhaps the constituent numbers of each trump card past The Hermit and of the suits (I, II, II, IV) and minor cards (1-9 plus "1-and-0") or of the suits (I, II, II, IV) and the court cards (1 through 4) could form the philosophical basis for reading the number symbolism as " complexes" or "constellations" rather than synthesized units, although there would still be some duplication unless additional variables could be brought in (maybe astrological and geomantic?). But I'm sure that's already been tried by someone or other. Perhaps by Paul Foster Case somewhere in the depths of the BOTA material.
I agree that it seems to be an interesting but overly iterative exercise that doesn't serve to expand the card meanings in any very useful way. Then again I'm only a fledgling numerologist, and others with broader exposure may have found better source material on this subject. I'd be interested in knowing whether it exists.
