"Killing the Thoth Deck" -Mary Greer

Teheuti

Aeon418 said:
It could be a blessing in disguise. The first virtue that needs cultivation on the path is discrimination. Sometimes mistaking a charlatan for a teacher can be a valuable lesson in the long run. But if you don't learn the lesson, tant pis!.

I agree with this but it's not just about "charlatans." The GD's history, as presented to the original members, was a consciously perpetrated lie. Many left in disgust when it was discovered. Others were able to discriminate between the flaws in the personalities and the value of the material taught. Still others recognized the "lie" as a manufactured myth—that said something to the heart and soul.

According to people I met in London in the early 70s who had known Crowley, he loved playing practical jokes on people, partly to see if they could see through his tricks.

Mary

Nevada

Sophie said:
You will find that most 'Crowleyites', or most people who have time for him, live lives of non-conformity. So your opinion is not borne out in fact.

Crowley was a social rebel, but he was not a rebel against scholarship and learning: quite the opposite.

With all respect, I am no more passing judgment on "Crowleyites" in that statement of mine than they do when they assume that those who choose not to study Crowley in depth possess no desire for erudition. There is on these boards a certain amount of slavish Crowleyite snobbery. Sorry, but that's how I perceive it. I'm not alone, and some statements in this thread bear that perception out. Telling me to throw away my cards?

I'm assumed to be a fluffy airhead if I say I don't think in-depth study of Crowley is necessary in order to use the deck. So who is judging whom?

Crowley and Jung were contemporaries and came to some similar conclusions, while giving them different names. If I use the term Book of Thoth it's okay, but if I use the term Collective Unconscious it's a sign I'm a dilettante?

Hogwash. Jung was as steeped in erudition, symbolism (including those of alchemy and astrology), as Crowley was. He studied every culture, religion and mythological perspective he could in his lifetime, and encouraged others to do so in order to understand better the material of the Collective Unconscious and the similarities that exist among all human psyches. That's something I've set as a goal for myself. I may not have attained it yet, and admittedly I don't have as sharp a mind as some here. But I'm not just sitting around eating bon bons and engaging in dreamy play with the cards. So please, enough of the assumptions. If I choose to read the Thoth from my own perspective based on study, instead of Crowley's perspective (and I never said that wasn't based on study) I'm no more a dabbler than anyone. Please keep your judgments to yourself.

What I choose is a different filter than Crowley's. That's all. What it boils down to is that some have drunk the Crowley Koolaid (tried it, couldn't take large swallows), others the Jung Koolaid (very tasty, thanks, though not that much easier to absorb), and some others have chosen other paths entirely.

Do you think Jung is "easy" reading?

It's not worth fighting a religious war over every time I come to Aeclectic to discuss the Thoth, though, so I'm usually reluctant even to post in these threads. Others have thanked me in private for posting, just so you know, because they're often intimidated by discussions like this.

I have a great deal of respect for everyone in this thread, but please show others the same by toning down the accusations of dilettantism. That's a judgment based on nothing anyone here has said.

Aeon418

Teheuti said:
Others were able to discriminate between the flaws in the personalities and the value of the material taught.

There is a flip side to this though. Would those same members have been as receptive as they were if they had known the truth from the very beginning? I doubt it.

There comes a point in the process where you realise the question of origins is irrelevant. Only the work matters. But that's not much help to a novice, who might resist something that has an obviously mundane origin. An introductory myth can be a powerful tool that is capable of quieting the critical mind, while facilitating and enhancing the initial receptivity of teaching. It's medicine on a cube of sugar.

Of course it's a double-edged sword. The same tool can easily be abused by those in positions of authority. That's partly what wrecked the Golden Dawn.

This is similar to Crowley's teachings on the Holy Guardian Angel. In Magick Without Tears, a book aimed at beginners, he states emphatically that the HGA is an objective individual. But in the scholion to Liber Samekh, an Adeptus Minor ritual, he describes the angel in much more subjective terms. But giving the same explanation to a complete novice wouldn't really help them much. In fact it would probably cause a lot of confusion and hinder any progress.

Teheuti

Aeon418 said:
giving the same explanation to a complete novice wouldn't really help them much.

Founding myths are powerful and can speak to an inner experience (rather than an outer one) that also changes as one grows. I sometimes speak of three (unofficial) initiations (there are probably really four but we won't go there right now):
• the lie
• discovery of the lie
• recognizing that it belongs/points to a higher/different truth.

Scion

Debra said:
Because these objects appeal to them for reasons perhaps unrecognized by the originators or you.

Because they "get it" without all the stuff that committed practictioners think necessary for getting it.

Because objects can take on a life of their own or be "repurposed" to good effect.

Because beauty has its own language.

Because they are as much creators as students, acolytes, users or consumers and these objects facilitate their creativity.

Because they want to, for their own reasons, and they are free.

I can grok all these, Debra. I can understand them as a rationale, but they sort of prove my point. For each of these the essential thought is, I can do what I want with what I want... as if the deck sprang out of thin air. So they all seem to champion a kind of sloppiness and inattention that borders on plagiarism, a denial of the deck itself, as if the beauty, the appeal, the purpose were (as I said above) somehow random or accidental. As if using the cards doesn't in fact force people to see the world with the creators' preconceptions as a filter.

Using the Crowley-Harris guarantees that certain biases are firmly in place. Ditto any creation. The very thing that people are "getting" is a system that was lovingly woven through these 78 images by someone with very strong ideas. The ideas are part of the "beauty" and the "power" and the "appeal" that draws people to it. The Thoth has taken on a life of its own because of that carefully constructed content, but it hasn't packed up and moved into the Llewellyn House of Wicca or Angelic Affirmations. All the original material is right there being what it was. Even if you disagree with the creators' intentions it WAS an intentional creation.

Of course objects can take on a life of their own: shields as cradles and curtains as gowns, Latin evolves into French. Sure, whatever. The thing is... it isn't actually a case of "repurposing" the Thoth Tarot. It isn't as though someone is picking up a shovel and using it to slice bread. People are picking up a deck of cards created with esoteric intent and using it AS a deck of cards for esoteric purposestaking note of the symbols for their intended purpose. Everyone can only do what they WILL, but giving oneself permission to squat in the mud isn't freedom, it's lassitude. "Repurposing" the Thoth or "just getting it" doesn't go back in time and erase Harris and Crowley from the equation. Again, I think it's wonderful, as Debra says, that people are inspired by things, repurpose things, rediscover and reinvent things, but the Thoth isn't a blank slate and it contains (hell, it trumpets) a coherent system. Ignore it, deride it, sidestep it, but it is adamantly there. People who pretend that it isn't there reminds me of children who squeeze their eyes shut and insist that they are invisible. A College of Ostriches.

Please note that I am not saying that anyone SHOULD look around them, but rather that if they don't that they are choosing not to. I'm only pointing out the choice.

Again, the amazing thing is that the deck is a refractive curriculum; I think it is literally impossible to ignore what it teaches when you look at it. That's me. Perhaps there are armies of Thoth users who can look at it and insist that the Thoth indicates women should be meek and mild, opposites should stay separated, sex is wrong, and power is to be distrusted. I don't see how, but may be. People CAN insist that America is run by interdimensional lizards, but to what effect? And is their freedom to do so somehow meaningful beyond comedy? Again, whatever "freedom" people have with the Thoth, the minute they use it they are affected by it, else they are NOT using it.

Teheuti said:
Someone may choose to simply enjoy listening to Mozart without learning anything about him or the music. Likewise, someone may want to simply read the tarot using the Thoth deck with only some basic direction for its use. I agree that they will not truly understand it. Whether that's right or not for them is an irrelevant opinion on our part.

Even the most casual listener discovers things about Mozart by listening to Mozart. After 15 seconds of eartime listeners begin to expect certain things, take pleasure in certain things, are curious about certain things because Mozart teaches us how to hear Mozart. Structure, symmetry, ornament, grace. Listening IS study because it is at core attention paid to a text. Experiencing the Art iluminates things for us. The thing is, I'm not suggesting that listening to music means you "should" study music but that by listening you ARE studying it. Spend a month in Spain and you will learn some Spanish. Try not to! Unless you are wrapped in a sheet and buried in a box, you WILL learn something of the language because you will be paying attention.

So, while I see the appeal of Debra's list, I don't see what it clarifies beyond people's freedom to pretend that the Thoth came from nowhere and means nothing. It doesn't change the fact that people using the Thoth are USING the Thoth. They are paying attention to it. They are reading it. They are decoding symbols and being swayed by images in which every single millimeter is packed with meaning. Resting their eyes on it for enough time to recognize an image guarantees that they are being exposed to one perspective on a symbol: Crowley's. So I'm not suggesting anyone MUST do anything, but rather that they ARE doing it even if they don't realize it. Can someone explain to me how you could read a Tarot deck and NOT pay attention to it?

Teheuti said:
This seems to be all about "should," "should," "should"—because there is only one right way and all others should be condemned as heresy.

I'd never make a claim of heresy. Crowley himself ridicules the idea. And nowhere have I claimed that there is one right way; rather I've said I don't believe it is possible to study the deck and NOT absorb Crowley's worldview. Moreover, I'm baffled by people who abhor that worldview and still "love" the Thoth... Like Nazis collecting Shofars.

Teheuti, I haven't used the words should or shouldn't anywhere, you have... several times actually. In fact I specifically rejected the word "should" in the earlier post because it seemed literally "nonsensical." The word I've used is can't. In literal terms, I do not believe it is possible to interact with a work of Art meaningfully and not be affected by it. With every work of Art, we take away slivers of the Artist's way of parsing the world. I don't believe you can study this deck and not see certain patterns. That's not a subjunctive, but rather something that seems like a syllogism:

Reading Tarot requires paying attention.
Paying attention is how we study.
Reading the Thoth is studying the Thoth.

Art shows us worldviews, therefore we experience a worldview the moment we experience the Art. Crowley is in the deck therefore we use the deck and we will interact with Crowley (and Harris, and Mathers for that matter). Even dividing the Tarot into Majors and Minors is a worldview. The TITLES represent a worldview. The colors and the pictures. Every choice narrows down the possibilitties to an actual approach espoused by the creator.

As I've always said, anyone can pretend that Chartres is a giant toilet and crap to their heart's content surrounded by splendor to a chorus of hosannas, but it doesn't MAKE Chartres a toilet. A book isn't toilet paper even if it can be "repurposed." The beauty, utility, and power of any great Work has a source and ignoring the source is a testament to ignorance, not to "freedom." That isn't to say there's only ONE way to approach a creation, but rather that you must pay attention to it to get anything from it.

To take Teheuti's word, I DON'T think people should use cathedrals to take a shit, but (in metaphoric terms) the lazy and silly people of the world love to do exactly that. That bums me out, and I'll make fun of them for doing it, but namaste, crap away. Much of the modern world involves "repurposing" greatness for banality. People WILL do exactly what they Will. I think it's fantastic that people are inspired by great works, that they have idiosyncratic reactions to someone else's creation, but a Rhapsody on a theme by Harris and Crowley is still a Rhapsody. No artist is a bastard, not even Crowley.

Nevada said:
I'm assumed to be a fluffy airhead if I say I don't think in-depth study of Crowley is necessary in order to use the deck. So who is judging whom?

I hope this isn't in reference to anything I've posted, Nevada. As I stated above, I don't think anyone HAS to study anything, rather I think that by using the Deck you are already studying Crowley's work. As long as the Thoth is what you're using you are studying Crowley, even if you never read a sentence the man wrote. An in-depth study of the deck IS an in-depth study of Crowley (and indirectly the Golden Dawn); he cannot be removed from it.

The Thoth's access to the collective unconscious is not direct or "pure" it is personal and specific. Jung did not create this deck, and a Jungian "filter" of Crowley is still an examination of Crowley. Jung is a layer you're adding to what is there already, and it IS there already; Crowley and Harris put it there. The only "choice" is whether you acknowledge Crowley's influence on your Tarot practice. Using his deck has changed the way you read Tarot. No two ways. There's no judgment there, just a basic assumption about what it means to pay attention to a deck that was designed to affect attention. It is however ridiculous to suggest (as Arrien) does that reading Crowley is somehow a "hindrance" to understanding the deck. But I don't think anyone has suggested that in this thread.

I don't think anyone is saying anything about the absolute need to study Crowley's writings, but there seem to be some recurrent muttering about fundamentalism (something which also surfaced out of thin air in that long-ago Arrien thread), I've nowhere suggested anyone MUST do anything, rather that they WILL do something: reading the Thoth puts users in direct contact with Crowley's work. It is unavoidable. And no amount of repurposing or denial will make the Crowley deck anyone else's. Attempts to do so tend to be embarassing and pointless. I wouldn't dream of forcing anyone to learn anything, but when people are using the Thoth THEY are choosing to learn something even if they pretend that they are not.

I know that people can only do what they will, but why pretend? It's only the pretense that I find strange.

Aeon418

There's still one aspect to this thread which confuses me. I think there's broad agreement that Tarot cards can, to some degree, have an effect on the readers consciousness that relates to the card under examination. This forms part of Tahuti's argument that the Book of Thoth is an optional extra and not really needed to read with the Thoth deck. But this process of "sympathetic induction", or whatever you want to call it, presupposes that the cards were designed according to specific principles. There is a clear intention behind them that is meant to produce a corresponding effect in the reader.

But where does this leave Angeles Arrien's book? Previously Tahuti defended Arrien, and her revisionism of the intention behind the cards, by calling it an alternative approach. Ok...... but isn't this a little bit like drawing up a new and completely different set of blueprints to a building that's already been designed and built? How on earth does that work?!!! When we look at the cards, whos intention is being communicated through the image. It can only be the original designer's intent. Aleister Crowley.

To claim that the Book of Thoth is not needed because the cards already speak for themselves is one thing. But to also insist that the original intention, which produces this very effect, can be changed by a third party is contradictory nonsense.

I'm baffled.

Scion

That's exactly it: drawing up blueprints after a building is built! Exactly. Thank you for articulating that.

Actually it reminds me of drawing up blueprints for the Coliseum and labeling it as a senior citizens food court and being annoyed when someone mentions lions.

Aeon418

Scion said:
That's exactly it: drawing up blueprints after a building is built! Exactly. Thank you for articulating that.

The only way to change the intent behind the cards is to physically alter the cards. I certainly don't remember Arrien knocking out any walls, or building an extension. So where does that leave this thread?

Nevada

Aeon418 said:
When we look at the cards, whos intention is being communicated through the image. It can only be the original designer's intent. Aleister Crowley.

I don't think anyone is denying that the cards present us with an image that comes from Crowley - as it's laid out on the cards. However many components of those images don't come from him, but from earlier sources. The combination of images is his.

Still I don't think one has to study the Book of Thoth or Crowley's other writings in order to get a meaningful reading from the cards.

I find that some of what Crowley provides about the cards is deliberately incomplete. I could take the pelican on the Empress card as an example. That is in fact an old symbol of Christ's sacrifice, used as such in Europe for centuries. Crowley doesn't mention that fact or interpretation at all in The Book of Thoth - at least I couldn't find it. I only came across that interpretation attached to a similar image (credited to Boschius, Symbolographia, 1702) in a collection of Carl Jung's writings on Dreams (capitalized because that's the title of the book). Boschius wasn't the first to depict this. It's an older symbol than that.

In the Book of Thoth, Crowley writes:

With regard to the Pelican, its full symbolism is only available to Initiates of the Fifth degree of the O.T.O. In general terms, the meaning may be suggested by identifying the Pelican herself with the Great Mother and her offspring, with the Daughter in the formula of Tetragrammaton. It is because the daughter is the daughter of her mother that she can be raised to her throne. In other language, there is a continuity of life, an inheritance of blood, which binds all forms of Nature together. There is no break between light and darkness. Natura non facit saltum. If these considerations were fully understood, it would become possible to reconcile the Quantum theory with the Electro-magnetic equations.

Now someone replied to me earlier in this thread that no one here has said one has to become a Thelemite in order to understand the Thoth, but here Crowley has said it himself. He never mentions the idea of selflessness or sacrifice, even though Gerd Ziegler does:

The pink-white pelican which feeds its brood with its own blood signified unconditional mother-love, nourishing the young with its whole being. The Empress also represents the Great Mother, Mother Earth, who gives birth to and nourishes all living beings.

Someone else here mentioned that Arrien didn't even know the pelican was a pelican, that she mistook it for a swan. If I hadn't read any books on the Thoth, I might have made the same mistake, since although I've lived near pelicans all my life, I didn't recognize that depiction as one until I read that it was. Sorry, I love Lady Frieda's paintings, but this symbol was badly rendered. I probably learned what it was from Ziegler's book (I don't recall now), since I gave up on Crowley fairly early. I finally only recently learned it was an older symbol, and I learned that from reading Jung.

So I could in fact read that card and get meaning from it for the purpose of reading, without ever checking in with Crowley. In fact he gave me less information about it than Jung, who never saw the card. But according to Crowley I have to get the full meaning by joining the O.T.O.

ETA: (Sorry, pressed submit too soon.) Additionally, I understood the image as one of self-sacrifice without reading any book. In fact I grew up watching mother birds (parakeets in my case) pluck the feathers from their breasts in order to keep their eggs warm, so life itself taught me that one. But I think even without that experience, the image would have spoken to me louder than any book.

Oh, and please don't take anything I've said here as defense of Arrien's book. I haven't read it. I only mentioned her in reference to another post in the thread. I'm not recommending Ziegler's either, only pointing out that one description.

P.S. If you want to learn more about the pelican as an older symbol than the Thoth, just Google "pelican nourishing her young with her blood" and follow some links there. The Boschius image is harder to find. I couldn't locate it online. But there's a beautiful relief of the symbol on a cathedral (in Canada, I think) shown in a photo on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelican. Scroll down to the Gallery section.

Teheuti

Aeon418 said:
Previously Tahuti defended Arrien, and her revisionism of the intention behind the cards, by calling it an alternative approach. Ok...... but isn't this a little bit like drawing up a new and completely different set of blueprints to a building that's already been designed and built?

Didn't Crowley do this in regards to the earlier Renaissance and Marseille Tarot decks? Didn't the esotericists do something similar to drawing up their own blueprints for what was a card game and labeling it as a Kabbalistic 'royal road' to the Divine (or HGA) and being annoyed when someone mentions trick-taking? In my worldview it is not a problem.