Kingdubrock
Never really liked the RW, Crowley or Swiss decks I had access to growing up. Once I saw the Marseille cards I was pretty much done with other decks.
However, like many people (I would assume), I always tended to read the tower card with "tower of destruction" influenced interpretations. Simply out of prior conditioning and habit. Despite the fact that the card is often made less upsetting or frightening with talk about "great change" or whatever, it rarely seems to stop the card from hitting the amygdala or "fight or flight" part of the brain prior to any positive spin one may put on it. At least with anyone I have read or know who has had a reading.
It wasn't until I read Jodorowsky's book that I was startled into seeing it much differently. He pointed out that the people are not particularly terrified, and seem to be floating down or hovering and, sort or, relating to or touching the plants on the ground. The "mana" or "atoms" in the sky are round, not bricks. The Crown on the top of the tower could be seen as opening and not necessarily being knocked off. As well, thats some pretty fluffy swirly looking lightening. Jodorowsky's actual interpretation is not, for me, the point as much as the fact that what he pointed out about the details made me realize i was projecting on the card based on other peoples interpretations and other decks.
Moreover, in the Noblet and Dodal decks which are older than the Conver, the fire or energy or whatever is actually shooting up out of the tower. Once I saw that, not only was I no longer affected by the typical readings, I started to see them as a potentially confusing and unfortunate distortion which dominates the majority of modern decks.
Even if we look at some Visconti style images, which do feature lightening striking the tower more explicitly, it still seems to have a different energy. In one featured on Flornoy's site, there are no people falling. In another I've seen, the people are falling but actually still have that floaty and not scary or catastrophic expressions and gestures. In the Vieville deck its not even a tower but a tree and the "lightening" doesnt look like lightening at all (although Mr Flornoy seemed willing to call it lightening). But again, not a very tragic or chaotic looking card.
One could do a similar comparison with cards like the "magus", the "high priestess", "death" and so on. The RW seems to have hijacked the entire Tarot enterprise.
I guess what I don't understand is if modern decks still patten themselves after the Marseille, why havent issues like this attracted more discussion or debate? Its not as if the most prominent writers in the field have never seen these older decks. I dont begrudge people wanting modern decks, with whatever imagery turns them on. People can perform divination with almost anything really. So why cling to the old (ancient) pattern if one is not interested in what it actually shows, or revisiting "card meanings" when new information and research comes along? It kind of reminds me of when certain "occultists" and new Agers still talk about Tibetans and Tibetan Buddhism, despite what we now know, as if the Caricatures created by folks like Blavatsky, Bailey and Rampa and Victorian "orientalism" haven't been discredited.
Can anyone shed some light on this for me?
http://tarot-history.com/Pages-vrac/Pages/Why-call-it-Maison-Diev.html
However, like many people (I would assume), I always tended to read the tower card with "tower of destruction" influenced interpretations. Simply out of prior conditioning and habit. Despite the fact that the card is often made less upsetting or frightening with talk about "great change" or whatever, it rarely seems to stop the card from hitting the amygdala or "fight or flight" part of the brain prior to any positive spin one may put on it. At least with anyone I have read or know who has had a reading.
It wasn't until I read Jodorowsky's book that I was startled into seeing it much differently. He pointed out that the people are not particularly terrified, and seem to be floating down or hovering and, sort or, relating to or touching the plants on the ground. The "mana" or "atoms" in the sky are round, not bricks. The Crown on the top of the tower could be seen as opening and not necessarily being knocked off. As well, thats some pretty fluffy swirly looking lightening. Jodorowsky's actual interpretation is not, for me, the point as much as the fact that what he pointed out about the details made me realize i was projecting on the card based on other peoples interpretations and other decks.
Moreover, in the Noblet and Dodal decks which are older than the Conver, the fire or energy or whatever is actually shooting up out of the tower. Once I saw that, not only was I no longer affected by the typical readings, I started to see them as a potentially confusing and unfortunate distortion which dominates the majority of modern decks.
Even if we look at some Visconti style images, which do feature lightening striking the tower more explicitly, it still seems to have a different energy. In one featured on Flornoy's site, there are no people falling. In another I've seen, the people are falling but actually still have that floaty and not scary or catastrophic expressions and gestures. In the Vieville deck its not even a tower but a tree and the "lightening" doesnt look like lightening at all (although Mr Flornoy seemed willing to call it lightening). But again, not a very tragic or chaotic looking card.
One could do a similar comparison with cards like the "magus", the "high priestess", "death" and so on. The RW seems to have hijacked the entire Tarot enterprise.
I guess what I don't understand is if modern decks still patten themselves after the Marseille, why havent issues like this attracted more discussion or debate? Its not as if the most prominent writers in the field have never seen these older decks. I dont begrudge people wanting modern decks, with whatever imagery turns them on. People can perform divination with almost anything really. So why cling to the old (ancient) pattern if one is not interested in what it actually shows, or revisiting "card meanings" when new information and research comes along? It kind of reminds me of when certain "occultists" and new Agers still talk about Tibetans and Tibetan Buddhism, despite what we now know, as if the Caricatures created by folks like Blavatsky, Bailey and Rampa and Victorian "orientalism" haven't been discredited.
Can anyone shed some light on this for me?
http://tarot-history.com/Pages-vrac/Pages/Why-call-it-Maison-Diev.html