Escaping from the Tree of Life?

ravenest

Barlow does not seem to understand how the ToL can enrich the interpretation of a spread without necessarily being restrictive.

ETA. Or perhaps he is merely attempting to increase his popularity among Kabbalah detractors, who are seemingly abundant in the Tarot community. However, to "escape from the ToL" is an absurdly dramatic way of stating that one chooses not to use it in Tarot interpretation.

trust you to sum up the topic in one simple and easy sentence (and an observant afterthought ) ! :thumbsup:
 

ravenest

I can't really opine on all the learnéd referenced, but I suppose one of the problems with the subject is that in order to explain Barlow's fallacies one has to be learned in Qabalah, which would imply bias, since if someone saw no worth in it, they would not be avid scholars of it. So I get, in a way, why someone would resist the clamoring of the chorus, as is happening in this thread. However, Barlow does seem to present himself as a sort of authority, which may unfortunately mislead people, because he is, in fact, quite wrong in a few verifiable facts, mainly having to do with system and structure. In terms of Qabalah, he simply lacks vision, and scope.

In my opinion there is nothing less creative than working with the Tree of Life, and I don't find it restrictive at all. On the contrary, although it necessitates a certain discipline in order to use it well, it opens up all forms of avenues of thought and contemplation. It is the machinery that spins Tarot and when it works, it is as satisfying as the humming of a well-oiled engine. And although I tried (and I guess, failed) to explain why and how it can be used for mundane matters, I have no doubt that it can be, since I do it myself all the time.

The thing is to not be so literal with it, but rather extract the base emotion that connects all the ideas that go to make up a respective path or emanation. The same principles that go up to make the big, spiritual things are present in the small ones as well, since the machinery of their manifestation is the same.

While this conversation is fascinating, I fail to see much proper Qabalistic discussion of why the Tree may or may not be a proper tool for analyzing mundane matters.

It is valid tool as a map, but it may not be the territory, maps are often culturally significant and if taken 'literally' may not , with great accuracy, fit one's 'cultural territory'.

Still, to declare the 'Kabbalistic map' as a restriction, when many use it without such restriction seems only referential to the person making the claim ... maybe Barlow approached it the wrong way , and found it was 'wrong', so threw the baby out with the bathwater ?
 

foolMoon

Have you thought about what a red herring is ?

Ummmm .... that IS what the book is about .... how we developed modern scientific method, how it came about by 'separation' into duality of the previous approach and on what basis, belief and cosmological view the old view was based on.

Are you asking me if I thought about what modern science is while reading a book on the development of modern science ?



But you started a thread about the escaping from the Tree of Life ... now you want 'verified scientific truth' ?

all I can do is supply references for you ... and in the nature of 'soul' will not be hard science - of course ! However 'soft sciences' such as psychology, academically accept people such as Jung - who by the way had his own 'familiar' daemon, that taught him things and also played tricks on him.

Its all about the how we perceive the nature of reality. Here are two references the first is a clinically proven research by a qualified psychiatrist ( and here, I might ask , if a psychiatrist comes upon and idea and tries it, and it works, so he tries it again, under similar circumstances and it works again {the 'incurable' patient is cured}, and he does it again and the same results are had ... is that 'verifiable science' ? If I say dont think of an elephant to 15 people and they cant stop thinking of an elephant, is that 'verifiable science', even though psychology is not a 'hard science' ? )

and the other explains very well how certain strange and 'abnormal' occurrences reported in modern life ( hence part of 'human experience' ) might be considered from a 'third perspective.'

first ; http://www.searchwithin.org/download/presence_spirits.pdf

the second ;

" With Jung, Harpur argues that these are phenomena of the psyche, but that psyche is of the world, not just of us as individuals. Indeed, our much cherished individual selves and psyches may be no more than embodiments of that world-soul (rediscovered in our age as the goddess Gaia). The phenomena in which the book rejoices may be appearances to us of its ancient inhabitants. They appear in different forms to match changing cultural expectations and concerns. An appearance of the Goddess becomes an appearance of the Blessed Virgin Mary, becomes a woman with golden hair emerging from her spacecraft. The mistake, he suggests, is to deny and repress these manifestations, since the repressed returns, pathologically and dangerously, if separated from a context of meaning and belief. Harpur suggests that a function of these daimonic forces may now be to undermine a deadening and narrow scientific orthodoxy and world-view - the 'single vision' which Blake so deplored. This sounds very radical but Harpur is the first to point out that it is not very new. By drawing on a philosophical tradition that flows down the centuries from the Neoplatonists, through the Romantics, and crucially in Bake, Yeats and Jung, he shows that there is an ancient history of understanding of this daimonic, Otherworld reality. Indeed, he goes back further still by embracing the folklore and tales of the Otherworld from across the Western tradition, and acknowledges that every culture, except perhaps our own, has seen its world as interpenetrated with another, shadowy, yet powerful reality, full of wonder, beauty and terror. The key to being alert to it lies in what Blake called the Imagination, and in not allowing the rational mind to shut out what it cannot readily comprehend or control. "

http://www.harpur.org/PJCHdaimonicreality.htm

For a background on the Hermetic tradition I recommend another of Harpur's books

http://www.harpur.org/PJCHsecretfire.htm

If you are only seeking information that has " verified scientific truths" why are you even dealing with Kabbalah and Tarot in the first place ?

I am coming from a background and interest in psychology and cultural anthropology - both 'soft sciences' - but still, the basic groundwork in these studies is considered academic, papers are peer reviewed , books are written, theories are argued ... that happens in hard science too.




My point and contention is that without a basic understanding of the subject then the topic of (particularly) this thread is confused in the first place.

If one asks 'how can I get out of this box' one either has to explain how their is a box and how to get out of it (or what ever made you think you were in it in the first place ), the box is an analogy for a situation that one is immersed in so there is no way out, or there is no box in the first place.

If someone wanted to get out of a box they were not in, why would I explain the escape more than the issue that there is no box ?



Where are the references that show what 'others' are saying that is the opposite to what I say. All I see is a running dispute from you, from just about any idea I bring up, these Ideas I bring up are easily recognised by any one with any type of slightly deeper association or reading of hermetics.

Now you are acting like I am the only person with these ideas and they are at odds with 'verifiable scientific truth' ... considering the view of hermetics and 'verifiable science', have you looked into any of the lesser known works of Isaac Newton ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_occult_studies

Honestly, you will learn a LOT more from these refs than watching that youtube guy and having some strange need to defend him and try to refute everything written otherwise.

If you want hard core science - stick to maths ... that wont wobble ...

if you want eroticism or the occult - which includes tarot, by wide definition - as wisdom or divination - and demand it be backed up by 'verifiable science ' .... well, good luck with that one !

I am just saying that metaphysical, occult, religious and psychological claims and statements are based on faith, beliefs and meditation, so you cannot put down the counter arguments as false or wrong.

Only Scientific and Mathematical statements are true or false after logical or experimental verification processes.

I was not agreeing with your way of debate branding others statements as false and not making sense on the basis of your quotes and reference, which are actually subject to conjecture and debate.

I was not saying that you must use universally verified scientific truths in debate, but you cannot reject other views as false on the basis of your reference, which are not universally verified scientific truths, therefore might be also false.
 

ravenest

Well then, please define those things you say I am claiming as false, particularly the 'counter-arguments'.

And also what is a 'universally verified scientific truth' ? Something like ; water boils at 100 degrees C. ?
 

Zephyros

And also what is a 'universally verified scientific truth' ? Something like ; water boils at 100 degrees C. ?

Which isn't actually universal either, since it depends on a wide range of factors having to do with the point of view of the observer. Altitude has a great effect, as water does boil at a different temperature on planes. Salinity is also a factor, as water with high concentrations of salts in it boils at higher temperatures, etc.
 

foolMoon

Well then, please define those things you say I am claiming as false, particularly the 'counter-arguments'.

And also what is a 'universally verified scientific truth' ? Something like ; water boils at 100 degrees C. ?


I don't feel it is necessary, as it is not main topic of the thread. I was just saying, I repeat, you cannot claim others' views as false based on your references, which is also non universally verified truths.
 

foolMoon

Which isn't actually universal either, since it depends on a wide range of factors having to do with the point of view of the observer. Altitude has a great effect, as water does boil at a different temperature on planes. Salinity is also a factor, as water with high concentrations of salts in it boils at higher temperatures, etc.

All the condition has to be the same to arrive the same result. If you change the conditions, then of course you will get different results.
 

Michael Sternbach

It is valid tool as a map, but it may not be the territory, maps are often culturally significant and if taken 'literally' may not , with great accuracy, fit one's 'cultural territory'.

That is true, to a degree. However, I am of the Platonic view that the Archetypes have a quasi objective existence on a certain plane of existence. Writing this, I realize that the word "objective" may be misleading here as we are talking in terms of what Jung called "psychoid space", where the clear lines of objectivity and subjectivity tend to blur. Let's simply say, the Archetypes are something as concrete as the numbers - which are themselves the Archetypes on the most basic level according to Platonic and Pythagorean thinking.

While there have been different numerical systems in use by different cultures (i.e. decimal system verses duodecimal system), all these can easily be translated into one another for they all follow the same abstract but immutable truth that is underlying arithmetic, no matter in what numerical system it is being expressed.

Likewise, although different cultures may vary in their angle of vision of metaphysical things, insofar their models hold true, they will be invariably describing "objective" spiritual reality.

This is particularly evident with a system so obviously numerologically based like the I Ching, but it is no less valid for Astrology whose underlying mathematical structure I have been researching for a long time. Regarding the Kabbalah, all I can say right now is that it seems to tie in with certain axioms of Projective Geometry, however, my exploration of this connection is at a rather preliminary stage.

That being said, it would seem that - unlike the I Ching or Astrology - the asymmetrical ToL overall is hardly recognizable as a rigorous mathematical model of the metaphysicist's Cosmos, let alone its paths supposedly exact attributions withMajor Arcana etc. Let's not forget here that the nowadays so widespread version of the ToL is just one of several; as it happens, it was Athanasius Kircher's rather late (17th century) variation which was adopted and popularized by the Golden Dawn and its descendants.

Now, I don't exclude the possibility that there could be a mathematically more refined version of the ToL, but the way things are, I do understand Paul's scepticism. Notice that he doesn't disapprove of the Kabbalah per say, in fact he sees in its original version as another system that highlights the Unity of Creation. - As a hint, may I remark that earlier Kabbalists thought of the Sephiroth as a system of concentric spheres (Sephira meaning "sphere" ;)).

So Paul's problem seems to be that some occultists, based on their personal beliefs and subjective experiences, made the Kircher/GD ToL an irrefutable model for occultists to follow, when it is at best a working hypothesis.

Considering this, does it really make sense then that some esoteric orders define their ranks in the terms of this ToL, especially if these are meant to coincide with degrees of spiritual attainment? Can or should we use it to classify the stages of our own individual progress? Spiritual evolution, if it can be "measured" at all, is a highly complex topic. Safe to say, all the "Sephirothic forces" are active at once in every individual at any moment, much like the planets and the chakras are.

Still, to declare the 'Kabbalistic map' as a restriction, when many use it without such restriction seems only referential to the person making the claim ... maybe Barlow approached it the wrong way , and found it was 'wrong', so threw the baby out with the bathwater ?

Can the "Kabbalistic map" be used in a Tarot reading? Yes, to some degree. I would say, it has a relative validity when used with a deck based on a certain system of Kabbalistic references. (I won't stretch your patience by going into the differences between the French and the English schools of Tarot, as represented by Levy and Mathers, right now, or by the liberties Aleister Crowley took with the GD scheme, although that's where the topic gets REALLY interesting! :D)

I actually like what Paul says (in the second linked video) about the drishti state of the reader that allows them full access to their intuition, unhindered by slavish adherence to a system. He is quite right that an overly intellectual approach makes you lose sight of your client's reality, while the cards may be mirroring it in a simple and direct way.
 

Aeon418

Considering this, does it really make sense then that some esoteric orders define their ranks in the terms of this ToL, especially if these are meant to coincide with degrees of spiritual attainment?
What is the foundational principle of many of these orders? It is the identity of the macrocosm and the microcosm. Unless you want to abandon that fundamental starting position you will find it difficult to avoid the necessity that (a) human consciousness, (b) the universe, and (c) the path of initiation, are all represented by one common model of classification.

Orders that use the Tree of Life as a map of attainment are merely being consistent. How can that not make sense?
 

ravenest

That is true, to a degree. However, I am of the Platonic view that the Archetypes have a quasi objective existence on a certain plane of existence.

Sure, but that is beyond 'cultural definition and application'.

The forms, in 'themselves' are 'abstract, they have to manifest through a medium. And one medium will utilise set of 'potentials' in a form while another medium will utilise a different set of 'potentials' .

A bit like whether one twin activates certain genes or not.


'Culturally significant' is an application (extraction or part ) of a form. If one reads the application of another, it might not be the application for you.

back to the source .... strong branches grow from the trunk, not the twigs. Want to read Rumi ? Read Rumi's writings .... not Shree Bagwan Rajneesh's version of them. Wnat to read ABOUT Rumi ? Many scholastic works on him are around.

Unfortunately the fashion of today is try to grow a branch of some one else's branch .... when the trunk is just 'over there' >

on top of this root

http://hermetic.com/texts/emerald.html