yogiman
Because Liber T can be read as Liberty.
well- or ill-dignified?
Because Liber T can be read as Liberty.
firecatpickles
I was trying to be nice
Interesting that our interps are quite similar; you could put yours and mine together and they make total sense as an integral whole We need a "Like" button on this Forum for posts like this one...
yogiman
Though I wonder: who am I to depart from Mathers, I propose the following construction, and I hope I will get some feedback.
In the system of Mathers the two sidecards modify the STRENGTH of the middle card. Mathers doesn't deserve to be imitated, so I propose that the two sidecards modify the MEANING of the middle card.
In the case of trumps and courts this would mean a strong card is a card that is for you well-dignified, and so on.
Example: 2 of cups --------- Hanged Man ---------- 7 of cups
possible meaning:
the promiscuous behaviour of your husband results in his punishment
In case of the minors this would relate to the conceptual spectrum between the keyword and it's alternative meaning, e.g. 9 of swords has keyword -cruelty- and alternative meaning -analysis-.
Example: 3 of disks ---------- 9 of swords ----------7 of disks
possible meaning:
failures in the project (3D) resulted in an analysis of the whole thing
bad analysis resulted in failure of the project
I keep it concise, because I want to know what you people are thinking.
An alternative would be to keep it just simple: http://taroteon.com/tips-and-techni...ght-to-know-about-doing-great-tarot-readings/
In the system of Mathers the two sidecards modify the STRENGTH of the middle card. Mathers doesn't deserve to be imitated, so I propose that the two sidecards modify the MEANING of the middle card.
In the case of trumps and courts this would mean a strong card is a card that is for you well-dignified, and so on.
Example: 2 of cups --------- Hanged Man ---------- 7 of cups
possible meaning:
the promiscuous behaviour of your husband results in his punishment
In case of the minors this would relate to the conceptual spectrum between the keyword and it's alternative meaning, e.g. 9 of swords has keyword -cruelty- and alternative meaning -analysis-.
Example: 3 of disks ---------- 9 of swords ----------7 of disks
possible meaning:
failures in the project (3D) resulted in an analysis of the whole thing
bad analysis resulted in failure of the project
I keep it concise, because I want to know what you people are thinking.
An alternative would be to keep it just simple: http://taroteon.com/tips-and-techni...ght-to-know-about-doing-great-tarot-readings/
firecatpickles
But we have no option but to depart on some level because we don't exactly understand what he meant. We all prooftext the meanings voacbulary words had 100 years ago. What did he mean by "strengthen it", for example:
"A CARD is strong or weak, well dignified or ill dignified, according to the cards next to it on either side.
"Cards of the same suit on either side strengthen it greatly, for good or evil according to their nature.
"Cards of opposite natures on either side weaken it greatly, for either good or evil.
Swords are inimical to Pentacles.
"Wands are inimical to Cups.
"Swords are friendly with Cups and Wands.
"Wands are friendly with Swords and Pentacles.
"If a card fall between two other which are mutually contrary, it is not much affected by either."
To me, strengthen means what you call MODIFY the meaning. Prooftexting here, but when one does strength-training at the gym, for example, you are body-building, or modifying your body. I see no difference in the two, strengthing or modifying.
You could easily replace the word "strengthen" with the word "modify" and the whole thing still makes total sense... "Cards of the same suit on either side [modify] it greatly, for good or evil according to their nature..."
ETA: an afterthought, and I just looked this up, the meaning of "demodify" (ie Mather's "weaken") is used to describe the action taken when you take apart a weapon. You are, in fact, weakening the gun or pistol by "demodifying" it.
Zephyros
In my opinion Mathers had good reasons for doing the things he did, and the way he did them. It is surprising how, despite discrepancies here and there, how cohesive the GD magickal system is, with everything connected to something else. One could propose theories, other than common sense, why the EDs are built the way they are and why they are set up to behave the way they do. Still, that doesn't mean one cannot experiment and adapt. I'm not sure what you meant by "deserve to be imitated," though. What did he do that was so bad?
Personally, however, I prefer to keep the EDs as they are, simply because there are already so many techniques to use to determine a card's meaning, and precious few to determine their strength. Apart from the base formula of world×position on the Tree×astrological attribution, the interaction can be read in many different ways. Two astrological attributions may be detrimental or simply not get along. Positive/negative influences from the Tree could also be used to analyze interaction. Alchemy is another way. Cards like the Priestess, for example, are connected to others as in the Taurus of the Hierophant exalts the Moon, which in turn rules Cancer, the Chariot and all three are in the same area of the Tree. This doesn't mean one always has to look at cards that aren't there, but they all add shades of meaning.
On the other hand, EDs are the most cohesive and thought out system of determining importance, assuming one uses a system at all.
It's a good article, as far as it goes, but although I myself could say I read semi-intuitively, there are reasons not to go the full pure intuition route. The fallacy of every reading is that it is subjective, highly subject to a reader's biases, history, personal connection, etc. The advantage of using a seemingly rigid system (although it isn't really that rigid) is that it allows you to go outside yourself, not be subject to your own wims and wishful thinking. I believe that is why the EDs were invented in the first place. The other advantage is that it affords a view of the interconnectivity of the entire deck, and as a result life itself, of which a Tarot deck is merely a model. The Tree of life is one model through which one can look at and analyze processes, see where something comes from and where it is going. For example, the Seven of Swords, Futility, Moon in Aquarius could denote a certain absent-mindedness, noise in the head, inability to concentrate on the task at hand. The natural consequence of this is the Tower, which leads in turn to the Eight of Swords, Interference, Jupiter in Gemini, a certain restoration after the tumult of the Tower, but not in a good direction.
firecatpickles
I took this to mean that Mathers deserves the respect not to be copied to the point of plaigarism. I don't think yogiman intended this to come across in any was negative, the way it may have done to native English-speakers...
[yogiman, please excuse my presumtion; I hope you don't mind my responding to this... (noticed you are a Netherlander
)]yogiman
I took this to mean that Mathers deserves the respect not to be copied to the point of plaigarism. I don't think yogiman intended this to come across in any was negative, the way it may have done to native English-speakers...
[yogiman, please excuse my presumtion; I hope you don't mind my responding to this... (noticed you are a Netherlander
Thank you, for assuming the archetype of the hierophant, firecat. I was half-joking. I've spent weeks on finding a system on basis of his logic defying examples.
yogiman
Ofcourse, this is the system you have been practising so long.
I agree about the whimsical risk of the intuitive approach, but I agree with Douglas Gibb that the card is a unity. If you involve other factors as tree of life and astrology, you are taking an aspect of the card and give it a significant role, and make it quite complex. You should also be aware that you cannot put too many constraints on the procedure, because the cards have already been submitted to the law of elemental dignities, card counting, and pairing. Two cards with inimical astrological attributions will not get along in any session, and that is too big a constraint.
The strength of a card I find much less important, than it's meaning.
Zephyros
Not that long, I've only been studying these things for about two+ years.
I don't really see them as other factors, not when the cards themselves are built upon them. Decks like the Marseilles, for instance, are pretty neutral, one can add or subtract any procedure to analyze them. GD decks, on the other hand, as well as any esoteric deck, are inherently the sum of their parts (and more), and as a result contradictory statements are part and parcel in interpretation. Contradiction can be found also in unity. Without all those other things, there would be no RWS, and no Thoth. It's like saying George Orwell's 1984 is a good book, provided one removes all the political commentary. These things are the bricks that make up the house, so to speak.
Let's take the Fool, for example. It is the first, the first stirrings, the first force, Air, the spiritual sun, etc. But the crocodile is both Mako, the creator who came out of the waters and also Sobek the destroyer. This, to me, implies the connection the Fool has with Death (Atu XIII), through the letter Nun (fish) in that the Fool is the "death" of the purity of nothingness that existed beforehand and also the secondary Death idea of putrefaction. The Fool is something from nothing while Death is something from something... one could go on and on in comparing the two. Point is, while I agree each card is a complete individual, there is no individual that is only one thing, but rather has many facets.
When reading for others, which is rare, I don't go into Kabbalah and Egyptian mythology, but the fact that they are there serve to add depth to the cards, transforming the Fool from the stock LWB "new beginnings" meaning into something far greater and more profound. I mean, do use these methods, just not out loud. Ultimately the process is still intuitive, as I, the reader, decide what factors play into the interpretation. One time it may be the astrology, another time it could be Kabbalah, while at other times nothing but the seat of my pants. However, even then, I do this within my belief that the Tarot is a spiritual, balanced model, with its own checks and balances just as the physical universe does. I think this is why Mathers' and Crowley's explanations of the OOTK are so sketchy; even they understood there is a limit to how far one can take mathematics into Tarot. There is always the X factor.
EDs are a reading method, just as the OOTK is but one spread out of perhaps millions. Personally I agree with you on that point, mostly because I rarely read for others, I am not that interested in that side of Tarot. When I read for myself, I feel far more flexible in "overriding" everything I learn with my own interpretation, reshuffling, looking at things from different angles, etc.
Ultimately, I'm biased, because all this stuff I like to blather on about may seem dry and technical, but to me it is beautiful poetry, and each card has its own stanzas, rhymes and melody. I don't differentiate between technical and emotional, since the technical is very emotional for me. This is part of why I feel that the bad rap study of esoterics receives in the rest of the forum as being strictly intellectual is both unwarranted and inexact.
Whisper sweet Sephiroth in my ear and I'll be yours forever.
yogiman
Suppose an old unknown manuscript would surface with the initials A.C. upon it, stating that the ED's are not about the importance of a card, but about it's meaning, you would likely say to yourself that you knew there was something lacking. Liber T was published still before the 20th century, and maybe Crowley would have revised it in his later years if he had paid attention to it.
Now I am a little bit at a loss, because your attitude differs considerably with the respondents to my thread http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=204059. But as I spent so much time to get this ED thing right, while trusting on an authority, I understand your point.
This was just what I wanted to make clear. The part is not the same part when you isolate it, because it is part+interconnections.
