I never noticed that before.

7Nica7nor7

For those who have doubts about The Fool and the air atribution

For those who have doubts about The Fool and the air attribution,
i have to say that on my last vacation "accidentally" bumped in to
a Eliphas Levi Transcendental Magic, its Doctrine and Ritual, it's a
2006 edition on Spanish, i think its really a must read, must have,
even the images shown in the book are amazing, and I'm aware that
many things that master Levi wrote has been already rephrased by
another authors but I'm trilled by words that Levi uses, at solid as it
gets!

Quoting Levi:
(the chapter begins with a big Aleph letter as title)

WHEN a philosopher adopted as the basis for a new apocalypse
of human wisdom the axiom :
"I think, therefore I am," in a measure he unconsciously altered,
from the standpoint of Christian revelation, the old conception of the
Supreme Being. I am that I am, said the Being of beings
of Moses. I am he who thinks, says the man of Descartes,
and to think being to speak inwardly, this man may affirm
like the God of St John the Evangelist : I am he in whom
and by whom the word manifests In prindpio erat verbum.
Now, what is a principle ? It is a groundwork of speech, it
is a reason for the existence of the word. The essence of
the word is in the principle ; the principle is that which is;
intelligence is a principle which speaks. What, further, is
intellectual light ? It is speech. What is revelation ? It
is also speech ; being is the principle, speech is the means,
and the plenitude or development and perfection of being is
the end. To speak is to create. But to say :
" I think, therefore I exist," is to argue from consequence to principle,
and certain contradictions which have been adduced by a
great writer, Lamennais, have abundantly proved the philosophical
imperfection of this method. I am, therefore something
exists would appear to us a more primitive and
simple foundation for experimental philosophy, I AM,
THEREFORE BEING EXISTS. Ego sum gui sum such is the
first revelation of God in man and of man in the world,
while it is also the first axiom of occult philosophy.
Being is being. Hence this philosophy, having
that which is for its principle, is in no sense hypothesis or
guesswork.

here a link if any one interested.
http://www.4shared.com/file/8784859...scendental_Magic_Its_Doctrine_and_Ritual.html

btw sorry for any grammar and stuff.
 

by zero

Thoth Magician / RWS Fool ?

Did anyone ever notice the strong resemblance of the "official" Thoth Magician to the RWS Fool?

The overall attitude,
the form of the Thoth I's left hand and the RWS 0's left sleeve,
the ape and the dog,
carelessly tossing up the egg / the rose ...

What do you make of this?
 

by zero

I'm not too familiar with all this GD stuff.

So I looked up the Golden Dawn deck on the site, where most of the decks are listed and to which you are not allowed to link to from AT (*eca.mult*pl*.com).

Over there, the fool looks slightly different from the one you linked to.
What kind of GD deck is this?

Oh, the rose of course was picked and is simply held, not tossed up, my bad.

But I have no idea, what you are suggesting...
 

Grigori

by zero said:
What kind of GD deck is this?

The one I linked to is the Cicero's version, no real reasons to pick that one, just the first one I found a link to is all. It's as close as any available to the "historical" one.

But I have no idea, what you are suggesting...

I'm not really suggesting anything, other than if someone were looking for similarities between the RWS and Thoth its worthwhile to remember the other versions that informed them. Folks often forget that the RWS and Thoth have a common ancestry and I like to remind them :D

As far as the posture of the two figures, I think from memory that the Thoth Magus was supposed to resemble a swastika, and the RWS Fool Aleph.
 

Saker

Magus

Grigori said:
This is the official one, the others are drafts there were rejected. There are many versions of several of the cards, Harris would paint them and if Crowley didn't like her work she'd have to do it again. They are included as a little present from the publisher, not meant to be used though of course they can be if you want :)

You can see some of the other alternates here.

Thanks for the information! I just bought a Thoth deck last night and didn't know there were three Magus cards. Sure enough, there they are. Now, to decide which to use, or whether to use all of them...
 

by zero

RWS <-> Thoth

by zero said:
Did anyone ever notice the strong resemblance of the "official" Thoth Magician to the RWS Fool?

The overall attitude,
the form of the Thoth I's left hand and the RWS 0's left sleeve,
the ape and the dog,
[...]

What do you make of this?

Once I thought that was a hint for one thing or another.
But there are some more cross references:



II RWS -> III Thoth
the crown almost identical, the cross moving up from the breast,
J + B represented by the two different birds,
the moon morphed into the left arm​

V RWS -> IV Thoth
the tau of the robe moves to the legs
the columns become the rams
the monks' heads become the stars on the throne​

IV RWS -> V Thoth
The goat's heads of the throne become the elephants
the sceptre similar regarding position and style​

III RWS -> II Thoth
to me the least clear cross reference here
the pearl of the sceptre moves to the crown
the shape of the throne reflected in the bow​


now it becomes more and more obscure



VI RWS / VII Thoth
orthogonal transformation: rays from a center become circles​

VII RWS / VI Thoth
dark and light,
winged emblem on the chariot to winged egg​


and later on the traces get lost in the sand.


Especially V RWS -> IV Thoth seems really obvious.
So, I see something here, but I don't know why it's there...

Any suggestions?
 

Grigori

by zero said:
So, I see something here, but I don't know why it's there...

Any suggestions?

I think you're reaching a bit zero, I can't imagine any situation where Crowley would want his ideas linked to or dependent on Waite's, especially regarding the tarot as Crowley was a ruthless mocker of the RWS deck.

However, at the time of the Thoth's design, the RWS was the only other occult(sort of), commercially produced deck available. Maybe Frieda saw it and got some general ideas re staging from it. Though I'd be a bit doubtful about that suggestion too.
 

by zero

Well, of course one could imagine Crowley mocking somebody,
and taking him seriously on the next level,
just to mock him on the following again;
only to take him seriously in the core.

The same would hold for magical systems, flavours or methods, I guess.

So I can't see Crowley's mocking somebody or something really mean too much!

If you don't see the Thoth's images referring to RWS's, it's just fine with me,
if you have a good reason for it, the better,
but I keep seeing it.


I can think of several reasons for Crowley/Harris to include this twist:
  1. just for fun
  2. intellectual gymnastics
  3. formal structure
  4. pointing the reader to the RWS universe as a basis for some more subtle references, jokes, mocking etc.
  5. hinting at something in the common ancestry of the decks
  6. mocking the RWS deck