So, Do I throw out -everything- I already know? Got a Definitive TdM Guide?

euripides

Marion suggested that my interpretation of the Fives as having that sense of 'too much, or not enough'... stuck in the middle - was an RWS meaning, which of course it is. Though it seemed to me to kind of make sense numerologically.

So now I'm feeling like I have to throw out everything I know about Tarot and start over for the Marseilles. Now I DON'T want to start of by counting petals. To me that sort of detail comes later, its an enrichment of the interpretation, not the guts.

The guts to me must lie in two things: the element and the numbers. So where do I start? I had a bit of a look around the threads and most of them tend to be pretty conjectural or start off with petal-counting straight away... elements I'm beginning to get, but the numbers... well, if I throw out my previous understanding of fives, what do they mean now?

THe Grimaud LWB might be some use but sometimes the meanings seem to be plucked out of thin air.

Has anyone created a sort of definitive guide to the TdM? I don't expect meanings set in stone, so much as some sort of roadmap for finding things. If there isn't one, I think we need to establish some sort of document that we can share in creating, that defines at least a starting-point so that we are at least functioning in the same universe.

Now I know you're going to tell me 'context!' 'spread!'... too... but surely, there are -some- things that can be agreed upon?

any thoughts?

Edited to add: what do you think of this page:
http://magickalmusings.net/wicca/topic22.php

Euri

Aoife

euripides said:
I'm feeling like I have to throw out everything I know about Tarot and start over for the Marseilles.

I felt that way too.
There are those who say its perfectly okay to overlay RWS meanings.
For me, TdM is an opportunity to work directly, without someone else's system intruding. If nothing else, it can be an interesting exercise to look afresh at numbers and elements.

The guts to me must lie in two things: the element and the numbers.

Yes.

So where do I start? I had a bit of a look around the threads and most of them tend to be pretty conjectural or start off with petal-counting straight away... elements I'm beginning to get, but the numbers... well, if I throw out my previous understanding of fives, what do they mean now?

There are some excellent threads, but you may have to dig back two or three years. Numerology threads are located in Divination.
Better still, although time consuming, is to think in the abstract about numbers. For me, it helped to play with objects to create shapes, and to think of numbers as metaphors - with the aim of developing my own understanding and eventually system.

THe Grimaud LWB might be some use but sometimes the meanings seem to be plucked out of thin air.

I agree.

Has anyone created a sort of definitive guide to the TdM?

Lots have done it, I'm sure. And whilst its interesting as a starting point, in the end only your own analysis is likely to satisfy you. Also the trouble with definitive guides is that it becomes very hard to change them once established, and thoughts are constantly developing and changing in the light of experience.

If there isn't one, I think we need to establish some sort of document that we can share in creating, that defines at least a starting-point so that we are at least functioning in the same universe.

I'm not sure it would be possible to agree. Its likely the committee would sit for an eternity, and they can get pretty heated at times.

Edited to add: what do you think of this page:
http://magickalmusings.net/wicca/topic22.php

Its following the RWS system. [Shame about the sexist graphic]

jmd

In terms of a Marseille as a Marseille, there are no 'elements' save the implements themselves... if by 'element' one means Earth, Water, Air and Fire.

These are not depicted on the cards, and each of those four has been at various times by various people correlated with, for example, the suit of swords.

At the same time, I do not think it is a matter of throwing out everything. Rather, it is an opportunity, I would think, to further question why some have preferred to see fives as problematic, or see swords as associated with Air (both of which also makes sense... amongst alternatives.

My suggestion would be to put aside exclusive elemental attributions, and perhaps instead ask something like: in what manner are swords Earth-like, in what manner are they Water like, in what manner Air-like, and in what manner Fire-like?

Given the specific more-or-less standard depiction of, for example, the five swords, what do I see in the image as it presents itself? How does this relate to the nature of the sword? what difference does it make that there are five (neither three nor seven)... and how can this be justified by the differences in imagery! Further, how different are the five swords to the five cups to the five batons to the five coins?

How much do I allow past reflections from other decks influence my own reflections? I acknowledge my past, look as to how this may be reflected in the deck at hand, and then seek other insights that may even seemingly contradict those views.

Fulgour

euripides said:
THe Grimaud LWB might be some use but sometimes
the meanings seem to be plucked out of thin air.

This is why it is safe to say that there are no strictly
RWS meanings, because there are no strict meanings
anywhere at all. Waite's book is unhelpful in this way,
and the one true value of reading it is to see that no
one person or group of people can speak for ~ Tarot.

TAROT defines itself each time you come to read it...
why deny your intuitive impressions for any text book
set of 1-2-3 attributions or meanings. Read the Tarot.

We don't need to write a book~ we must be the book.
I hope you never suppress your 'intuitive' experiences.

euripides

Aoife said:
Better still, although time consuming, is to think in the abstract about numbers. For me, it helped to play with objects to create shapes, and to think of numbers as metaphors - with the aim of developing my own understanding and eventually system.

Excellent approach, Aoife. Thanks so much for this idea! This will be very useful indeed. Actually I quite enjoyed maths as a school student and there is a certain elegance to some mathematical problems that fascinates me. This idea of getting back to what numbers are on a really fundamental level...

JMD said:
Rather, it is an opportunity, I would think, to further question why some have preferred to see fives as problematic, or see swords as associated with Air (both of which also makes sense... amongst alternatives.

My suggestion would be to put aside exclusive elemental attributions, and perhaps instead ask something like: in what manner are swords Earth-like, in what manner are they Water like, in what manner Air-like, and in what manner Fire-like?

Oh, this is really significant for me, Jean-Michel. Did you hear that penny clunking to the floor!? I'd just kind of 'accepted' the elements "as read", despite knowing of the swords air/fire argument.

Fulgour said:
TAROT defines itself each time you come to read it...
why deny your intuitive impressions for any text book
set of 1-2-3 attributions or meanings. Read the Tarot.

We don't need to write a book~ we must be the book.
I hope you never suppress your 'intuitive' experiences.

Thanks for this advice, Fulgour. I'm still open to learning - just got '21 ways' -- but basically avoid looking meanings up now. Its more as part of a learning process, and sometimes as a sort of "ok, where did I get THAT idea from?" when something has come out of left field. But I wasn't too sure how much my 'intuition' is simply remembering stuff that I'd read.

So I guess when I am really looking at the internal structure of the TdM, at the significance of the numbers, the relationships between the suits, the courts and minors, then the meanings are coming directly from that 'book', as you say, from the cards and from myself, and so cannot then be 'wrong' because they have their own internal logic that is not dependant on something being overlaid from outside.

cheers!
Euri

euripides

and so the definitive TdM guide is the Tarot de Marseilles itself. The cards are the pages of the Little White Book.

jmd

Totally agree...

(...now the question is, which Marseille!?!!)

Fulgour

Tarot Readers

euripides said:
and so the definitive TdM guide is the Tarot de Marseilles itself. The cards are the pages of the Little White Book.

This is where, as a Tarot reader, you become the book,
in the sense that we move forward as our awarenesses
increase through experience, so all decks speak to your
complete sense of what everything means, beyond any
one deck or version, as a living expression of your best
and brightest motivation~ contributing to improvement.

euripides

(personal information deleted)

Fulgour

Non-Theoretical Nature

jmd said:
Given the specific more-or-less standard depiction of, for example, the five swords, what do I see in the image as it presents itself? How does this relate to the nature of the sword? what difference does it make that there are five (neither three nor seven)... and how can this be justified by the differences in imagery! Further, how different are the five swords to the five cups to the five batons to the five coins?

The "Elements" in Tarot refer to Sacred Astrology, but...

The four classical elements were independently proposed
by early Presocratic philosophers:

Water (Thales)
Air (Anaximenes)
Earth (Xenophanes)
Fire (Heraclitus)

http://www.friesian.com/elements.htm
[Hang on to your hats for this one!

]

*

Empedoclean Theory: The Greek philosopher Empedocles of Acragas asserts that matter consists of four elements - earth, air, fire & water - a theory that is later supported and embellished upon by Aristotle. This concept influenced the philosophical basis for the next advance in the science of matter - alchemy. Empedocles, and later Aristotle, developed the theory that all things are composed of four elements: air, earth, water, and fire.

Empedocles of Acragas 495-435 B.C.

"Although Empedocles developed radically new ideas about the nature of the universe, most of his work is an extension of Parmenidean and Pythagorean philosophy. How does one account for the kaleidoscopic nature of the world if we maintain Parmenides' belief in a permanent, singular, and eternal universe? In the process of answering this question, Empedocles introduces new physical, chemical, and biological insights that influence later philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle."

"Empedocles explains the nature of the universe through the interaction of two governing principles, Love and Strife, on four primary elements. Unlike his predecessors, Empedocles claims that there are four elements in the universe; air, fire, earth, and water. Particular and indestructible, these elements foreshadow later developments in atomic theory by philosophers such as Leucippus and Democritus."

~Jesse Weissman

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/GreekScience/Students/Jesse/Jesse.html

*

Wikipedia: classical elements

The Greek classical elements are Fire, Earth, Air, and Water. They represent in Greek philosophy, science, and medicine the realms of the cosmos wherein all things exist and whereof all things consist.

Aristotle added aether as the quintessence, reasoning that whereas Fire, Earth, Air, and Water were earthly and corruptible, since no changes had been perceived in the heavenly regions, the stars cannot be made out of any of the four elements but must be made of a different, unchangeable, heavenly substance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_elements