Knights, Princes, Princesses: Difference in terms of "messages"?

omnislashed

I use Crowley's Thoth deck, and I've noticed that all of the court cards, with the exception of the Queens (there are no Kings in this deck), imply messages and conversational dynamics to some degree.

I remember asking previously about Thoth Knights (Kings) being messengers, and many people answered in the affirmative. And somebody mentioned that the Knight would represent The Conversation Itself, rather than The Message Itself (Princesses/Pages), which does make sense to me. But where do Princes fit into this?

I suppose what I'm asking is: In the context of messages and conversations (or social movement in general), how do we differentiate Princes from Knights and Princesses, in terms of what they bring? I'm not factoring in the suits, per se, so I apologize if this question is obnoxious or confusing. I'm more referring to the specific dynamic they supply in a social context.

So basically, I'm primarily splitting hairs about Crowley's Princes. Is it just how the traditional Knight is regarded?

Any help would be tremendously appreciated.
 

Probie

People said Thoth Tarot Knights acted like Rider-Waite-Smith Knights on this thread? I'm amazed. When I say something silly I get "probie slapped" like DiNozzo hard - and it's deserved.

Okay, okay...get yourself a diagram of the Tree of Life and hopefully I won't pull us both into a pit - but it's highly likely. I'm ignorant-ignorant of the Tree of Life and not adopting a Buddhist "not-knowing" position here. Well fools rush in where angels fear to tread because if the fools don't go who will?

To begin with, Thoth Tarot reverses the whole Rider-Waite-Smith scheme. In Rider-Waite-Smith, a "10" is a matured element that is [normally] a gift that [normally] keeps on giving like 10/Pentacles - Wealth. A great card! In Thoth Tarot, 10/Pentacles - Wealth is literally the weakest, lowest card in the pack. It's a "10" which means the element has totally degraded (think like radioactive material coming apart) in the lowest of the four worlds (Assiyah) and in the dead last position (Malkut or Malkuth, depending if the last letter is a Teth or a Tav, I don't know I've never seen it in Aramaic block script). This is because Qabalah is a Jewish gnostic emanation scheme where [very glib here] "matter is evil, spirit is good."

The earliest trouble for Christianity (Xtny) wasn't "Is Jesus divine?" as was debated in the 18th through present centurues, but rather "How could Jesus be material - ever?" Some gnostic Xns even said, "If Jesus walked across the beach, there would be no foot prints in the sand" (this is called "Docetism" from the Greek dokeo, "to appear" or "to seem to be." The other one was "adoptionism" - Jesus became "Christ" at the baptism and lost it on the cross, therefore no divine passion) because spirit cannot have emotions or feel pain, let alone die in a crucifixion! The higher emanations are pure spirit and the lower are heavy material. I hope this has been corrected in contemporary gnosticism but I still hear it from time to time in recordings from Sounds True and read quips about "the evil demiurge who made the universe," but basically bodies and sex and Mother Earth are dirty and bad in the classic formulations. This did get into Xtny and that's why all this celibacy and trouble embracing "sex = good gift from the Divine" until very, very recently - and then those of us who still practice would honestly say it is sadly only the tip of iceberg. So take the good, spit the bad with gnosticism. I'll tell you at the end my problem with this belief structure and also how I embrace it too.

But suffice to say, the early gnostics - Xn and non - went to one of two extremes, emasculation or denial plus other extreme ascetic practices or full license like classic orgies. Both were justified because whatever done in the body was moot, only gnosis (Greek for "knowledge") is important. So if you know the secret handshakes and information, your body morality - and in some cases social too - was irrelevant.

The Thoth Tarot Knights and Queens kick the game off in the initial split at Keter (a.k.a., "the Crown") into the first two emanations, (2) Hochmah and (3) Binah. The Knights in Hochmah travel to the Queens in Binah and then emanate "the children" who will go into matter below the abyss. Now this is "spiritual" to avoid that dirty sex, through Crowley will go there [thankfully] through metaphor and also to drive away the squeemish [plus probably to grandstand too].

So the children, which are the Princes and the Princesses descend across the abyss from pure spirit to matter and materialize. Instantly, they're lesser because they've got matter (they've "materialized"), which is dirty. The Princes probably does more messenger work because he runs through the next 6 stations: Hesed, Gevurah (a Beth without a dagesh gets a "v" not "b" sound), Tiferet, Netzach, Hod, and Yesod. The are also known as the Holy Guardian Angels when this Macrocosom is applied to the microcosom of individual humans and the soul becomes the Princess which ascends the stations to find its way back to God (Keter). However the Princess, as earth elements have something all the others don't - a piece of the Knight, the Queen, and the Prince in them as earth is seen as a compilation of fire, water, and air all together.

By the way, all these stations or emanations, or Sefirot (the plural of this feminine noun, Sefirah) are connected by 22 pathways that form the roads. Guess what else has 22 in it? Yep, the Major Arcana form the highways for the Minor Arcana to do their thing.

Lastly in lowly Malkut/Malkuth sits the Princesses. They also forms the Thrones for the Aces of their respective suits. The Aces actually were the card split in Keter, so they trump the Knights (and possibly the Major Arcana) in importance because they are Plotinus' the One. There is nothing higher that the One, and gnosticism sprang from the womb of Plotinus' neo-platonic thought.


If you're thoroughly confused, join the club! Like I said, I really don't much at all...:laugh: I shirk from gnosticism for the same reason I dislike Satanism, left-hand paths, and libertarianism in general. I work with homeless populations almost every day of the week and I really, really do *LOVE* these people. However such persons, if in control, would slash my funding to 25% and I would have to justify this before any service could be given: "Is this person a 'worthy' or an 'unworthy' poor? If the later, let natural selection do its work and butt out." While it may not immediately lead to this, given time these are the natural implications.

When I dialogue with my Republican wife and other Republicans or Libertarians, I have to explain to them in our modern world how charities and/or churches cannot provide the kind of social support persons need today. The churches in our rural county, who we love dearly, say to our little non-profit, secular community action agency, "We look to you to screen people because we have so little money to help." People come in with $2500-$3000 utility shut-off bills in the dead of winter and have 4 children under 12 in the housing unit. Did they run the bill and not pay it? Yes. But what does that say about us if we let them die? Then later we work with them towards self-sufficiency...
 

omnislashed

Wow. First of all, I appreciate your detailed and extremely well-thought-out response. Complicated, sure, but it provides something interesting to dissect and analyze.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly on this particular subject: You believe that the material Thoth Princes sort-of encapsulate a more "messenger" vibe than the material Princesses, even though the latter courts can represent correspondence as well? If I'm pinpointing it correctly, this seems clearer ... Although, I must confess, now I'm shifting to being stuck on the Princesses instead. Hah. I remember reading how they (Princesses) possess qualities of all the courts, so what sort of dynamic do you believe they harbor in terms of social forces (as differentiated from the Prince)? How does the elemental compilation influence their psychology?

(Example: I recieved the Prince of Disks in a reading, where it was clearly representing a forthcoming discussion. In another spread, I recieved the Knight of Swords, representing an instantaneous contact. The nature of Swords versus Disks quite obviously does not confuse me, but the nature of approach between Knights vs. Princes vs. Princesses does perplex me. Knights on horseback, Princes driving chariots, whereas the Princesses appear to be more "in flight" ... It led me to wonder: "What is the significance of these differences in terms of a predictive/reflective reading?")

Crowley mentioned that Queens and Princes are considerably more likely to represent actual people, whereas Knights (and Princesses...?) symbolized the arrival or departure of ___. (Or, that Princesses encapsulated the matter's psychology.) This ended up throwing a wrench into my previous conceptualizations, although I'm sure the symbolism can be fairly fluid. Yet...

You will have to forgive me, given that I'm a neophyte apprentice with this deck. ;) Your elaborate insight on the Thoth Courts has been highly informative, however, so I'm injecting this into my indexed notes. More to ingest tonight, more to absorb. Muito apreciado.
 

ravenest

Hmmm, I'll try a less complicated approach.

Since I think the 4 courts can be related to the four color scales and I love the way Don Pavey (color researcher / artists / designer) talks about color - and I just wrote about him the other day - he says there are 4 main groups of colour AND he describes these by modes of vocalisation, I see a connection to your question about messages.

Don's four catagories are; scream, command, speak and whisper. (A fluro color screams and a pastel whispers.)

The knight being first and active, a strong onrush of the energy is the scream, this type of message could be seen as an urgent warning. The Queen commands (of course), she's telling you, you better do what she says. The Prince is speaking and communicating normally while the Princess is very subtle and her messages may even come through in dreams or omens.

I dont use courts as you do, but maybe this fits for you?
 

omnislashed

Amazing. I'm considerably obsessed with color psychology, yet I never conceptualized the Court cards in this manner.

Reading your interpretation makes a lot of sense to me; it sort-of "clicks" right into my intuition. Very interesting. You've definitely stirred something here.

Framed with an eye backwards, I can easily see how those Princes represented "communicating normally" -- those discussions weren't driven by calculated purpose, there was no rhyme or reason ... Just garden-variety dialog. So your theory works here, and on all other counts.

(Out of curiousity, how is "command" and "speak" generally represented in the color spectrum Don uses? I'd just like to figure out how this directly corresponds to the Princes in particular.)

Thank you for this interpretation; I'm glad this thread is helping me reconcile a lot of "blind-spots" I was experiencing. You've definitely helped!
 

ravenest

omnislashed said:
(Out of curiousity, how is "command" and "speak" generally represented in the color spectrum Don uses? I'd just like to figure out how this directly corresponds to the Princes in particular.)
Not sure what you mean, do you mean what is the color equivlent of fluros and pastels for command and speak? Or something else?
 

omnislashed

Not sure what you mean, do you mean what is the color equivlent of fluros and pastels for command and speak?
Right, that's what I meant. As in, how is the coloration of command (Queen) and speak (Prince) represented through the interpretation you posited? And, I suppose, how "command" and "speak" is represented in Don's theory in general.

I'm just curious, is all. ;)
 

ravenest

Okay, I had to dig out some old notes from a color workshop:

Don Pavey talks about the need to create a color 'stimulus gradient', high on the grade are colors of high luminance and intensity, dark colors that are positive due to the strength of their field contrast, or those low on the gradient with subtle difference in luminance and intensity when compared to a neutral reference.

He suggests a chart that has at the top the most intense stimulants (Don comments that these colors are usefull for "the lunatic fringe of Op and Psycadelic art" {he wrote in the 50's and 60's :laugh:} ) Second down he places rich and powerful colors, strong but not strident, next are 'hard' colors with firm contrast with mid-grey, then muted colors that 'produce no emotional overtones', dark colors, blacks and mid luminence colors and lastly sedative colors.

So;
1 - Stimulants
2 - Powerful and forceful
3 - Stable and hard
4 - Tranquilizers or sedatives.

He compares these to sound
1 - Scream
2 - Command
3 - Speaking tone
4 - Whisper.

He attempts to explain this in 'The Science of Color' (NY 1953) p. 151. under the term 'insistence'. (Which is basically about the 'impressiveness or attention getting power' of a color, which is associated with tone (brightness) and saturation (intensity).