Variant approaches to the Thoth: Angeles Arrien's book

Aeon418 said:

It may be clear to you but it is quite obscure to me. In The Book of Thoth Crowley gives us the grammar and syntax of a symbolic language by defining the symbolism of the Thoth deck.

Click to expand...

Symbolism defined is no longer symbolism - it becomes a sign. The objects serve merely to point to the definitions. Nothing exists beyond that.

So, if the Thoth deck consists of meaningless, arbitrary designs without the text, then if the text were destroyed the deck would be worthless except as pretty pictures. To be used "correctly" it sounds like one has to agree to a fundamentalist approach with the text as bible and Crowley as the only way to conversation with one's HGA through the cards. I don't agree, though it is interesting to know that this is one option.

I prefer the Tarot in its broader concepts - which, even if all texts were destroyed - could be reconstituted into a meaningful work offering divinatory guidance through what would probably not be that much different than the meanings we have today, since it would be based on a Western and occasionally universal human understanding of symbols.

Mary

Teheuti said:

I prefer the Tarot in its broader concepts

Click to expand...

Which makes the existence of different Tarot decks, with their own distinctive features and feel, a moot point. In that case we might as well consolidate all Tarot decks into one boring collective herd deck.

Teheuti said:

Should we throw out Crowley because he was so lazy and inattentive that he mixed up vajras and dorjes? I won't.

Click to expand...

You keep saying this, can you give a reason or reference. Have I missed something or have YOU mixed up something? In my understanding (which may quiet well be wrong) Dorje and Vajra are the same word, the first Tibetan and the second Sanskrit, both meaning "Thunder bolt' or something similar.

And also I have to say I absolutly take the side of Aeon and Scion in this. Crowley deck, Crowley book. To all you Crowley tarot book writers ... go make up your own tarot deck and write a book a book about that. If you understand Crowleys system then comment on it by all means. If you understanding is varient then use the appropriate metaphor (or deck) to illustrate your point. I mean, what if I used the Waite deck to give a varient understanding that was based on Thelema, wouldn't that seem rather strange, pointless and confusing to people that were trying to understand Waite and his system and deck?

Its just like when I had a book stall at the markets, no one bought the reasonibly priced beautifully photographed collection of original Rumi poems but the 'interpretations' (read translations) of Rumi's poetry in other books written by wanky new-age authors sold like pancakes! Books written by Sufis sat unsold while Bhagwan Shree Rajneeshes books ABOUT sufism sold out.

Let me -- as a well-known non-fan of Crowley -- recommend L. Milo DQ's book. Unlike some of the self-appointed Crowley apologists here, Milo is friendly, self-deprecating, and interested in teaching everyone as much as they care to know about the Thoth.

I can't stand the pseudo-theosophical stew that is the junkie Crowley, but Milo! I love Milo. He was the first person to bring out the possibility of the Thoth for me, not that I actually read with it.

Just my two cents, which probably aren't worth a rupee. Now you all can go back to assaulting Mary in your most ungracious manner! Why she is martyrizing herself in this way with people who are in fact Crowley fundamentalists mystifies me! But, you go, girl.

ravenest said:

people that were trying to understand Waite and his system and deck?

Click to expand...

Who are these people who try to understand Waite? I find that very few people really read PKT and fewer still read his other works in order to try and understand the deck. How many people here have checked out the parallels between the deck and Waite's book on the Holy Grail - both published in the same year?

I'm not saying that tarot students have to do this, but I wonder how many Thoth aficionados hold to the same standard in their studies of the RWS deck? Are they aware of how important the Book of Tobit is to this deck? The references are pretty obvious to anyone who looks.

Mary

Teheuti said:

I'm not saying that tarot students have to do this, but I wonder how many Thoth aficionados hold to the same standard in their studies of the RWS deck?

Click to expand...

Out of the two decks, RWS & Thoth, which has been subjected to the greatest amount of sloppy thinking and New Age style vampirism? Without question, the RWS.

By contrast the Thoth has remained pretty much immune to this "anything goes" movement, thanks mostly to the character of one of it's creators and his philosophy that is reflected in the cards. That's why it still has a clear and vibrant identity. Like I have said before, to bring the Thoth within the clutches of the New Age you've got to kill it and what it stands for.

What identity does the RWS have? What does it stand for? I have no idea? Does anyone? It has had so much alien matter pumped into it over the years that it has lost it's unique flavour. It has just become some sort of amorphous blob that is being forced to mean all things to all people. You can make the RWS mean anything you like, because no one is wrong in the New Age.

But like the saying goes, "if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything".

frelkins said:

Let me -- as a well-known non-fan of Crowley -- recommend L. Milo DQ's book. Unlike some of the self-appointed Crowley apologists here, Milo is friendly, self-deprecating, and interested in teaching everyone as much as they care to know about the Thoth.

I can't stand the pseudo-theosophical stew that is the junkie Crowley, but Milo! I love Milo. He was the first person to bring out the possibility of the Thoth for me, not that I actually read with it.

Click to expand...

Several of us HAVE suggested Duquette. Excellent book - I absolutely agree. I'm working through it along with the Book Of Thoth....

RWS - actually, when I can get hold of more of the Waite books, I do plan to read them. I have read the book of Tobit though. Before I had even heard of Tarot. And the PKT. But libraries don't tend to carry too many tarot books, and I do have limited funds.... But as a concept/basis for decks and fuzzy thinking - it certainly has been more abused than the Thoth. That doesn't make abusing the Thoth any more acceptable.

Eta:

Bernice said:

They (Crowley's writings) contain enough for a life-time study and are paramount for information about the Thoth deck. Any other 'take' on the cards would not only remove the original content for which they were created, it would almost amount to sacrilege - historically speaking.

Having said all that, I'm NOT personally a Crowley/Golden Dawn fan, they created a 'new' unique system that works. And because it works, in order to understand the full import and depth of the Thoth deck, Crowley's writings are of prime importance.

Unfortunately, although he wasn't a very nice man, he was well informed and clever, and his writings abound with many arcane references. This can be a great challenge for a 'newbie' - and even an 'oldie'.

Lets not forget it was primarily designed for magical workings on the Tree of Life, and even talking about using it for divination, flies in the face of it's creation. So, lets talk about it , but at least stick to the esoterica that is integral to it.

Click to expand...

Quite.

Teheuti said:

Symbolism defined is no longer symbolism - it becomes a sign. The objects serve merely to point to the definitions. Nothing exists beyond that.

Click to expand...

Are you seriously trying to say that symbols are not symbolic of something? If that were the case what use are symbols? Strip symbols of definition and they convey no information. Or, at the other end of the spectrum, you make them mean anything you like.

For example, why does the Emperor hold an Orb and Sceptre? For no reason at all? Or because they are symbols of authority and power? By providing definition to those symbols do they suddenly cease to be symbols and become signs? How else can we conceptualise abtract qualities, like authority and power, except by the use of well defined symbols? The definition of these symbols plays an important role in the interpretation of the card. But if the meaning of the symbols changes, so does the interpretation. The symbols in any particular card are used because they are in harmony with the overall theme of the card, which results in each card having a distinctive personality and character that sets it apart from the rest of the deck. If this were not so all the cards would instantly become 78 meaningless tokens of no inherent value.

Aeon what are you banging on about? Mary's point about signs & symbols is quite valid. Perhaps you are not familiar with contemporary thinking in this subject. May I politely suggest you set down your defensiveness & check out wikipedia? Since you believe in reading original sources perhaps you should start with Saussure & Lacan & Derrida. Lacan & Derrida especially are almost as obscure as Crowley and their defenders nearly as rabid as you all here, so you might feel at home.

Aeon, I'm thinking that the difference between symbolism and a sign is a matter of (specific) definition. (Please do not hit me on the head with the nearest heavy implement).

If three people were looking at a shiny object, one might see it as a symbol of the Sun, another might see it as a symbol for a light-bulb. The third might find it symbolic of a bomb blast. (people can have very strange ideas...). Now if all three were told that such a shiny thing was symbolic of a spaceship, it would then become a sign, not a symbol.

On this assumption, all tarot decks have common signs, including the Thoth. But, and here's the difference, each deck also contains symbolisms created by the authors/artists, and THAT'S the uniqueness of every deck (apart from the watered down RW), and especially the Thoth.

I shall now retire - bugger off - avoid the flack.

Bee

Opps - frelkins posted just ahead of me.

frelkins: I'm not a rabid Crowley fan, but feel that one must defend uniqueness.