Scion
Teheuti said:
Yes, and then he created a masterpiece. Arrien did not.
"Killing the Thoth Deck" -Mary Greer
Yes, and then he created a masterpiece. Arrien did not.
Teheuti
Re: historians recommending that one begin with history texts
My deepest apologies. Ross. I was generalizing and not referring to you in specific as I know you don't feel that way. However, you'll find in many of the threads on this and other forums, that when someone asks what books to get in order to read the cards that there are those who list history books first and insist that one must start there. These people are always the self-identified (usually amateur) historians. I've argued this perspective often enough to have seen it many times over the years on the forums.Ross G Caldwell said:That's not fair Mary!I've never said that. I certainly don't believe it.
I've seen this, too.
Teheuti
Agreed. Although I still got a lot out of Arrien's classes—she is a gifted teacher.Scion said:
Grigori
Teheuti said:
No, I don't think these are comparble things. I see it as if he built a whole new building with similarities to the original structure. He would have done the same with older decks only if he had started selling copies of a TdM deck with the accompanying book written based on his own ideas based on a lack of research or understanding. Which was his original intent in fact, until Freida talked him into doing something much more significant.
Nevada said:
I don't find this an oversight so much as an indication of just how significant the changes are that you miss by not knowing his work. Crowley does the same on the Emperor in fact with the lamb, also a Christian symbol. Each card has a symbol of Christian sacrifice, that means something very different in Crowley's deck, as he abhorred and rejected utterly the Christian idea of sacrifice, as well as the notion of the "good Christian family". Neither the Pelican nor the Lamb means in Crowley's deck, what they do in older depictions of the same symbol. Much like the Whore of Babalon and the Beast of the Apocalypse they are symbols that Crowley has taken and reinterpreted based on his own world view.
I don't meant to say that it may not be useful to have this traditional understanding of those symbols as a reader, or even as a student of Crowley's deck. I find them very interesting, and the placement of the symbols on the cards tells a lot about Crowley's take on then it would seem. But I do mean to say that without any study of Crowley's work, you'll never know how off base that interpretation is from the intent.
Of course that may not matter to most who use the deck only for readings, which is fine of course. I don't think you need to know anything about Crowley to really use the deck, but please don't publish books claiming authority or understanding that surpasses the decks creator, as he already knew that symbol just as well as Jung does, and rejected it's traditional meaning for very specific reasons.
Debra
Apparently the book is in my local library. I'll give it a look.
Teheuti
Why is Waite's very specific Shekinah symbolism in his Greater Arcana not as important to learn? Just curious.
Nevada
But what is its intent then? I didn't get a clear indication of Crowley's intent from the Book of Thoth.Grigori said:
I'm sure Crowley knew of that traditional meaning. I'm not saying I think he was ignorant of it. And perhaps he did choose to apply another meaning to the symbol. But he hasn't shared it in a way I can comprehend. And though the traditional meaning might not have fit his idea of motherhood, it fits mine, at least one of them, and of course that's just one symbol on the card.Grigori said:
ravenest
Aeon418 said:Any one of the Tarot 101 books that seem to endlessly flood the market will do. Extract the bland generic card meanings. Shoe horn them onto the Thoth. And pretend you're actually reading the deck. Bingo!
That works fine ... except when I get to Atu 11! Good Lord! ... I know. I'll replace just that one card with the Strength card from the RW deck into my Thoth. There ... Oh, The Devil ... I'd better swap that too
Scion
It is. Every bit as important. No one said it wasn't. But we aren't discussing Waite here in the Thoth subforum. To wit:Teheuti said:
Waite's ideas about the hieros gamos, Waite's riffs on the Book T material are another mutation of the same magickal system. They are no less complex or valuable, just more often ignored, because of all his "hinting-hinting-hinting." Perhaps Waite simply made it easier for everyone to ignore his sources, which were in many cases identicval to Crowley's. I think the great distinction is that Waite bends over backwards to cover his traces, while Crowley is explicit to the point of absurdity. Waite draws so many veils over his material that people who came upon the deck decided it was the "friendlier" and less "evil" of the Golden Dawn offspring. And of course Pamela Colman Smith's storybook images less overtly disturbing than Lady Harris' ferocious paintings.Scion said:
People studying the Waite-Smith are studying esoterica as well, whether or not they acknowledge it. As I said above, all Golden Dawn Deck's are magickal objects that express and magickal worldview, drawing on a few thousand years of magickal ideas. To use them is to study that material directly or indirectly.
But in this case, the topic was the Thoth, so Waite's conception of the Shekinah and Divine Grace would have been a tangent for another subforum.
ravenest
Nevada said:
No, you will never get the 'full meaning' of anything by joining the OTO. But you will get the full spcific meaning in this context (and just joining wont do it - you'd have to work for years and then wait to be invited to the 5th degree, after lots of study and EXPERIENCE you would hopefully get the greater meaning of it).
The way I see it is, yeah sure, anyone can use the Thoth deck, but what are you using it for? The kids have a great time playing with my phone ... maybe they can even make a call on it soon, but they cant tell if it is about to storm severly by checking the weather radar.
Crowley interpenetrated his systems. EGC, Mystery schools (meaning things like AA and OTO) books, Tarot and I believe it is very difficult to get the WHOLE picture without partaking of all of it. Some things were revealed openly in books, some in symbolism in Tarot and others he felt were best reserved and learnt during the impact of an initiation ceremony - or the knowledge lecture towards the end of the ceremony. But the basics ... well, why would he bother explaining the basic symbolism, he's expecting one to know that already and repeats these things on whim ... or not.
