NotMS study group--no sex characters, renumbering, emotions of cards

These prompts were posted in the original thread, but I thought we could address them here altogether since I dont think we will get lost. If you want just skip spaces between each response:

What are some purposes of no-sex characters and their colors?
What are some advantages of the renumbering or the majors?
What emotions do each card employ and how does this interact with the mental/analytical view of it?

I'll let you guys think about it for a while and then start to post.

If you want me to send you an update, PM me and I'll put you on the ''mailing list''

rainwolf

Thanks for this, I was going to start a thread on the 'people' and their colours but I've been a little busy. I'll be back to this thread later... but in the meantime...

nope! you can't go wrong with 'that' avatar.

The people in the minors of the deck are different colours and relate the colours of the Sephiroth in the Tree of Life.

• Tens (Malkuth) = Harlequin colours e.g. black, citrine, russet, olive green
• Nines (Yesod) = Purple
• Eights (Hod) = Orange
• Sevens (Netzach) = Light blues and greens
• Sixes (Tiphareth) = Golds
• Fives (Geburah) = Scarlet
• Fours (Chesed) = Deep blue
• Threes (Binah) = Grey, black
• Twos (Chockmah) = Lavender
• Aces (Kether) = White

I believe there are ranges within the colours but these are the basic ones used for the people. Here is an image of the Tree of Life showing the colours of the Sephiroth. There seem to be many vaiations and opinions at to which of the Majors relates to the paths between the Sephiroth so not too much notice should be taken of the ones in the link, infact Julia Turk's are different. But this Tree of Life gives some idea as to why the people are the colours they are. Further work into the Jewish Cabala would need to be done to fully understand what this represents, but it's a start in understanding why she chose the colours that she did

I read that in her book also, but i thought it would be worth talking about for reference and analysis.

I think the colors match the sephirah theme. Although this may sound intuitive and worthless to mention, it ties into color sybology.
Tens: Resplendent intelligence
Nines: Pure intelligence
Eights: Absolute intelligence
Sevens: Occult intelligence
Sixes: Mediating intelligence
Fives: Radical intelligence
Fours: Cohesive/Receptive intelligence
Threes: Sanctifying intelligence
Twos: Illuminating intelligence
Ones: Admirable intelligence

Please forgive me for any errors because I don't have my deck or book on me right now.

I've been thinking about the androgynous characters. I think the androgyny ties in with the coloration to remind us that these are symbols, not precisely people per se. It's a lot harder with this deck than with some to look at a card and say, "hey, that looks like my friend Dave!" or whatever. That kind of association can be good, especially for beginners, because when you draw that card you can think of Dave and immediately have a set of associations. But this isn't a deck for beginners, and that kind of association can also be highly limiting...if you can't get beyond the image of Dave, then you will have a hard time associating this card with attributes that don't necessarily belong to Dave. It's interesting in this vein that the court cards are colored much more realistically, and also have defined gender. It's almost begging you to read courts more literally as people in your life, and the majors and pips as symbols or events that may or may not have to do with real human beings, if that makes any sense.

It's so hard not to assign gender when you're looking at the cards. For example, I did a reading recently in which (I believe) the four of wands came up (I wish I could find a picture of this card online, but a cursory search reveals nothing. Does anyone know of a good site with scans?). It's difficult to say why, but of the two figures on the card, I immediately saw one as female and the other as male, despite their, er, lack of definition. Gender in human societies is defined by so much more than genitalia; it's in body shape and type, basic movements and carriage of the body, not to mention actions. In that sense it's almost impossible to draw people of neither gender, and I'm not sure Ms. Turk was trying to do precisely that.

When you see a card containing a figure that appears feminine but has no breasts or other seemingly defining features, can you say, "This is a woman, and the fact that it's a woman means x"? Or do you try to get around your possibly limiting stereotypes? What would it mean if it were a man in that exact position? Who says it isn't anyway? How would you react differently?

It's interesting to see the attitudes toward gender that this teases out.

wonderful insights Formicida.

I've just looked at the Four of Wands and I see exactly what you mean about some of the people looking one sex specifically (despite the lack of genitalia)

The figures in the card are dancing together, one is shown as being smaller than the other and also by 'her' stance definately looks female. She is throwing her hips out far more than the 'male' figure. I wonder why she is holding a bunch of grapes....... well no doubt the book will tell, but I like to figure it out for myself first, it's one of the reasons that I like this deck so much.. there is such alot to notice and delve into.

I wonder why Julia Turk felt that she needed to make one figure look more effeminate than the other. To make them look more of a couple perhaps?

I agree, thats a great insight formicida. It makes sense she would try to not have stereotypes because her book seems to dislike placing stereotypes which are usually very limiting and frankly usually incorrect both in readings and in life matters.

In the four, the figure (maybe thats how we should refer to them LOL) has the hips in a feminine position--maybe this is not to be seen as the female, but as the femenine principle in the cards meaning. That way, interpretations would be void of gender specifications, and instead the metaphysical theme of duality of masculinity and femininity in the situation itself is explored.

Sound plausible?

Hey, rainwolf.... very plausible.

So... perhaps without realising it, we are taking in the Yin and Yang of each card while the figures appear to be sexless. I like.

I will look at the cards in a new light tomorrow and see if this crops up elsewhere.