Insectile Wings?

blue_fusion

Agreed. No one's disputing what's said (or wasn't said) in Crowley's works. For my part, they have always seemed vaguely insectile, even from my earliest exposure to the deck. Which I guess always bothered me a bit as I was used to more common animal associations (amphibious[?!]/reptilian for wands, because of the salamander, avian for swords, etc). I've meant to ask about this in the past, but always seemed to forget about it. And in a way, it's comforting to know that there are some others who also see them as insect wings-y.

I do not see any semblance of wings no matter how vague in that crystalline structure behind the queen. As for the prince, I wouldn't have much thought of his as wings, had there not been those smaller figures at the bottom to reinforce the impression.

I'm not insisting that they're wings, though. I'm just wondering why they seem like that to me and to some others and if this was a deliberate move on the part of the creators. (And why there's no mention of it in the BoT! :D)
 

Zephyros

I actually don't see the Queen having wings, either. It actually makes sense that she wouldn't, for a whole host of reasons. She is Cardinal, she is Binah, Water of Air, etc. Point is, she doesn't move, and has no need for wings. She represents the end-point for the energies of her Knight, by which she is lifted by the column of his vapor... and then she kills him, already envisioning the child of their union which springs from her mind.

I wonder if there isn't anything vaguely Osirian about her, though. Off-topic, of course, but why does her husband have to die?

ETA: "Liberator of the mind," of course. She is the cold logic to the Knights more primal influences.
 

Zephyros

As for the prince, I wouldn't have much thought of his as wings, had there not been those smaller figures at the bottom to reinforce the impression.

I think his wings, or at least their vague shapes, are hinted at.

Aleister Crowley said:
The operation of his logical mental processes have reduced the Air, which is his element, to many diverse geometrical patterns, but in these there is no real plan; they are demonstrations of the powers of the Mind without definite purpose. In his right hand is a lifted sword wherewith to create, but in his left hand a sickle, so that what he creates he instantly destroys.

His wings seem to be, like himself, intentionally vague. He may represent the perfect mind, but Crowley didn't seem to like the perfect mind that much. It destroys itself, for every idea or endeavor there are a million logical reasons not to carry it out. The mind thus holds within it the seeds of its own destruction. Without the lust of Fire, emotion of Water or practicality of Earth, ideas can't really be implemented.

Aleister Crowley said:
A person thus symbolized is purely intellectual. He is full of ideas and designs which tumble over each other. He is a mass of fine ideals unrelated to practical effort. He has all the apparatus of Thought in the highest degree, intensely clever, admirably rational, but unstable of purpose, and in reality indifferent even to his own ideas, as knowing that any one of them is just as good as any other. He reduces everything to unreality by removing its substance and transmuting it to an ideal world of ratiocination which is purely formal and out of relation to any facts, even those upon which it is based.

Hence his unformed wings. They aren't even wings, merely the idea of wings.
 

ravenest

Agreed. No one's disputing what's said (or wasn't said) in Crowley's works. For my part, they have always seemed vaguely insectile, even from my earliest exposure to the deck.

For me, on first view, yes , I associated the Knight 'wings' as insectile as I am familiar with dragonflies - and also the 'winged helm '

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Hb2h_XAIK...0/ronald_weinland_in_propeller_beanie_hat.png

But with the other similar designs on the courts and minors, I am familiar with planetary squares and kamea from the G.D. and other sources. There is a long thread about that here somewhere - what these designs might represent.
Which I guess always bothered me a bit as I was used to more common animal associations (amphibious[?!]/reptilian for wands, because of the salamander, avian for swords, etc). I've meant to ask about this in the past, but always seemed to forget about it. And in a way, it's comforting to know that there are some others who also see them as insect wings-y.

Well, the bird is THE obvious symbol for air ... strangely enough (just to throw a spanner into the works ;) ) , other knights seem to have bird wings;

http://www.palyne.com/blog.psiche/wp-content/uploads/knight-of-cups-thoth.jpg

I suppose he would look silly with 'water wings'

http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/angel-water-wings.jpg

The knight of swords appears clearly to have 'wings', the princess goes at first glance until one examines the shape and outline closely. The others dont, maybe the Prince, as said above; an idea about wings but not wings as such.

I do not see any semblance of wings no matter how vague in that crystalline structure behind the queen. As for the prince, I wouldn't have much thought of his as wings, had there not been those smaller figures at the bottom to reinforce the impression.

I'm not insisting that they're wings, though. I'm just wondering why they seem like that to me and to some others and if this was a deliberate move on the part of the creators. (And why there's no mention of it in the BoT! :D)

Maybe its not mentioned as it wasnt the intention ?

We see what we 'expect' to see ;) - what we associate with the image ... if I had not a background with magick squares - via G.D. (study) AND Crowley ( Practical - making them for the altars in the Rites of Eleusis ) I might have thought insect wings myself on the Princess and all over the sword cards.

There is so much that is NOT mentioned in the Book of Thoth ( yep ... :D ) there are tables and charts with no explanation, a variant underlying astrological system with no explanation or indication that it is even understood by the author, illogical argument sequences, and vast areas of assumption ... it would be a pretty loooong book with everything in it.

So ... what do we do ... we go to DuQuette - who cant apparently even copy Crowley right ( the location of the Knights wings) or Wang ... whose equally obvious mistakes and wrong copy have been highlighted a few times here.

But generally its all pretty good ... its only when you get down to small details and intricacies that the mistakes and omissions start to show.
 

Zephyros

Even, or especially, DuQuette never wrote to be the end of everything. There are some things that are mistaken even in the BoT, such as when it seems clear that Crowley was either not looking at the card, or looking at an earlier draft. Still other things aren't mentioned because by the time the student is ready to face them, either emotionally or intellectually, they can be extrapolated without further aid. Many times while reading I get the feeling that he was not seeking out his model reader, as many authors do. Instead, he was trying to create his model reader, a far more exciting endeavor. Insects they may be, but there is also a method for determining if they are. In my opinion this method isn't intuition or free association.

That method is to basically understand the language and to use it. What and why a symbol is can be ascertained to a degree using the available sources. Some things may make no sense, whatever logic one can use to try, and saying that if it isn't in the book means anything is possible isn't quite true. I guess the real question is not whether they look like insect wings, but how can one justify that view within the greater symbolic language of a deck that does manage to integrate and assimilate many different influences into a whole that is at once disparate and unified.

So why would they be insects? And I'm not asking in order to contradict or judge, I've already said my opinion.
 

blue_fusion

She represents the end-point for the energies of her Knight, by which she is lifted by the column of his vapor... and then she kills him, already envisioning the child of their union which springs from her mind.
How very praying mantis of her. :D

I wonder if there isn't anything vaguely Osirian about her, though. Off-topic, of course, but why does her husband have to die?
True, but don't you think she seems too frigid to be an Isis?

Interestingly, the knight of cups' wings remind one of the ribbed curved forms of seashells, which are reinforced by the shapes of the waves around him. Hmm. First insects, then mollusks.

I do not see the princess of swords' "wings" as a crystal formation, even the beginnings of one. The veining has curved forms. And it's rather flat for something that's supposed to be obviously meant as a crystalline structure, especially when compared with the queen's.

I know a lot of the opinions I mentioned weren't really referred to or addressed in Crowley's works. Just wanted to hear some of yours. But I think discussion of opinions is healthy. While I'm no scholar myself, I think scholarship does not begin and end with a person's body of works. If anything, what's left unsaid, will be talked of (because curious minds are restless when it comes to vague, indefinite areas in their study), often with contradicting opinions, sometimes until there's a second body of work to supplement the original. :)
 

Marcus R

Forgive this naive apprentice...
The first time I laid eyes on the knight of swords I saw a four bladed winged helmet. Reminded me immediately of a helicopter. An attack helicopter as stated earlier.

His rashness and single-minded energy is shown in his looming over the horses neck, both hands armed. His intent carries himself and the horse over the ocean, high in the clouds. The swifts flying with him, indicate the speed and distance he would cover to fulfill his task. The wings roar with power as they spin.... he is upon you.
Well, not a lot of the other cards made sense at the time, but this one sorta did.
That's what I thought.
 

Barleywine

I've been following this thread with interest, and pulled out the Swords court cards to see what I can make of them. Apart from the Knight and the Prince, where the crystalline "wings" can be seen as a representation of airy mobility, I never thought much about them - as "insectoid" or otherwise. So, just a few semi-random observations:

The Knight's wings are clearly "helicopter-like" and, in apparent contrast to the Princess, show self-initiated activity.

The Queen's jagged backdrop looks like part of her throne, and not wings at all.

The Prince's wings remind me of that old comic-book character, the Rocketeer. Wings on steroids.

The Princess's wings resemble a pinwheel, reactive to the wind rather than creating their own movement.

Crowley's commentary regarding "diverse geometrical patterns" seems to summarize the underlying motif behind the background art for all of the minor Swords cards (with the partial exception of the 3 of Swords, where the crystalline patterns largely give way to more cloud-like formations), and - in my opinion - have always evoked a sense of the restless, often fragmentary nature of thought.
 

ravenest

The Princess's wings resemble a pinwheel, reactive to the wind rather than creating their own movement.

yes, I see that now :) .... perhaps, in a way, the 'wind' moves her as the tide moves the princess of cups.

Still looks crystalline to me though (and I see no reason why artistic symbology, especially in tarot, cannot show a crystal outline with an organic form within it ... mixing symbols)

A flat crystal ? Rare ? I thought there were HEAPS of them ???

http://i.livescience.com/images/i/000/009/272/i02/ig35_snowflakes_01_02.jpg?1296257667
 

blue_fusion


Oh yes! my bad. Who said "rare", though? I totally forgot about snowflakes! I guess when someone says "crystal", what first comes to mind are, well, bigger, faceted formations.

Yes, I see the pinwheel form too, though I didn't associate the image with that in the beginning. Maybe because we're "rigged" to see things differently based on our different experiences. :)

Seeing them as rotor blades is equally interesting, though. Something more "modern" incorporated into a system that (and again I'm no expert here), mostly deals with traditional and old imagery.