Barleywine
I've been reading Paul Fenton-Smith's Tarot Masterclass and scratching my head over his take on elemental opposites. He's been saying "Wands are opposite to Pentacles" and "Cups are opposite to Swords." In the usual Golden Dawn system of correspondences, Wands are opposite and unfriendly to Cups (Fire and Water can't coexist in their pure forms) and Swords are opposite and unfriendly to Pentacles, while the Wands/Pentacles and Cups/Swords pairings are mutually "neutral and supportive."
Then I realized he seems to be talking about complementary opposites but failed to make that point clear, as in one suit lacking something the other suit can supply (for example, Wands can lack staying power while Pentacles can be too inert); in pursuing the "Wands path," he advises taking on some of the qualities of Pentacles. My usual thinking about opposites in GD terms is that they're antagonistic to one another; it's the neutral pairs that are more complementary. I can only think that it's Fenton-Smith's unspoken resolve to not have any negative connotations in his book because it does seem pretty "vanilla" overall.
If you use elemental dignities, how do you see it?
Then I realized he seems to be talking about complementary opposites but failed to make that point clear, as in one suit lacking something the other suit can supply (for example, Wands can lack staying power while Pentacles can be too inert); in pursuing the "Wands path," he advises taking on some of the qualities of Pentacles. My usual thinking about opposites in GD terms is that they're antagonistic to one another; it's the neutral pairs that are more complementary. I can only think that it's Fenton-Smith's unspoken resolve to not have any negative connotations in his book because it does seem pretty "vanilla" overall.
If you use elemental dignities, how do you see it?
