Aleister Crowley (Thoth deck)

[thinbuddha]

However (bear with me here) most people who read the tarot should take into account who made the specific decks. After all are they just cards or do they not have part of their creator in them? And I mean more then just the art work. Don't we respect the decks and feel a certain way towards them? If a deck was created by someone who had an "evil" or "bad" intent couldent the deck have a negative affect?

It seems that a lot of people believe in this. It's the same reason why some people wouldn't feel comfortable handling a deck of tarot cards at all (because of the "evil" they perceive to be locked in the deck)

This theory doesn't apply only to occult items. Why is a $1500 guitar suddenly worth $150,000 because Jimi Hendrix used to use it? Because it is rare? I have a one of a kind Thoth deck- one of only a few decks ever used by me (very rare!) but not valuable (alas!).

There is a belief that the people who handle something somehow add power to the object. The more "powerful" the person, the more value the object has.

I am sort of on the fence about this- On the one hand, I do believe that objects *can* hold power, but I'm not quite sure how that power manifests. I have a Buddha statue that is reputed to be 500 years old. It is beautiful. Somehow, if I were to find that it was a fake (newly manufactured) then I would still think that it is beautiful- but somehow I would feel that it has less "power" than if it is authentic (certainly less monetary value-but also less power). I guess that I can imagine the energy that people have put into the statue as an object of veneration has somehow been stored within the object itself- if it's new, then ther is no power there, right?

I'm digressing- I guess that I don't think that there is power in tarot cards because of what is printed upon them- I think that whatever power (or energy) is in the cards is put there by the people who use them..... and I'm not really even sure of that. That said, I think that what is printed on the cards certainly helps define the nature of the power that people channel into the cards.....

So I guess I'm not decided about this-

But I do think that the Thoth energy isn't bad.

 

[Lillie]

Why should we take into account the creator of a tarot deck?
Or indeed any art or anything.

Who created the Marseilles deck?
Or the 1JJ Swiss deck?

I personally do not know anything about the creators of many of the decks I own.
Some of them I know a name, but nothing about the person, the ideas that name is connected too.

Who the Hell is Evan Show? What does he like/hate? No idea. I like the deck though.
Same for Palladini who did the Aquarian.
Same for Loads of decks, loads of people.
And I feel no urge, no need to find out.
I like the decks and that is enough.

Why is it always different when it's Crowley?

 

[thinbuddha]

Why is it always different when it's Crowley?

If the Pope, or Jerry Fallwell, or Jim Morrison, or Tom Cruise, or the Dali Lama, or Walter Cronkite made a tarot deck, would you be able to separate the man from the deck? I know I wouldn't.

Crowley is a sort of celebrity. He made the cover of Sgt Peppers. It is hard not to take him into account when regarding the deck with his name on it unless you've never heard of him.

 

[gregory]

I'm not sure what you mean by black magic. Do you mean magic used in a negative way, ie to harm. Do you classify science in the same way. Black and White science. You can light a city with electricity, you can also kill people with it. The electricity is not to blame though.

I'm afraid that any budding black magicians will be seriously disappointed if they hope to find black magic in Crowley's writtings. As Israel Regardie said in one of his book, "Crowley was God-intoxicated."

A fair cop. I guess to be honest black magic is one of those sloppy, lazy terms – white magic is good, black is bad… it’s quicker to say that than to try to differentiate. One should really say magic and look at everything on its merits. My apologies - I am usually intellectually more rigorous than this ! And I will be reading up further…. (though not immediately as my best books on the subject are behind the Christmas tree…!) I’ll be back to you on this when I can say something more sensible !

But I don't think the person behind a deck necessarily influences its future and how it can be used. Frieda Harris actually created it anyway - as someone just said. Some brilliant novels were penned by exceptionally revolting authors but are still worth reading. Same difference here. The art holds up even if the person was someone we would never wish to know. The only exception would be if they somehow managed to imbue their work with some kind of evil power - and I really don't think that is the case here (or indeed in any other deck I own.)

 

[Lillie]

If the Pope, or Jerry Fallwell, or Jim Morrison, or Tom Cruise, or the Dali Lama, or Walter Cronkite made a tarot deck, would you be able to separate the man from the deck? I know I wouldn't.

Crowley is a sort of celebrity. He made the cover of Sgt Peppers. It is hard not to take him into account when regarding the deck with his name on it unless you've never heard of him.

Who's Walter Cronkite?

And most of the people on Sgt Pepper are complete strangers to me.

But my ignorance is beside the point.

So. You are saying that it is OK to like something by somebody reprehensible, so long as we do not know about the reprehensible things they did?

Does it change the 9th gate if you find out Polanski is a child rapist?
Does it change again if you find out he was widowed in a terrible crime?
Does it change it again if it's revealed that he paid Manson to do it? (It's a theory I have heard)

Who knows, weird questions.
Now, personally I like Crowey, he was funny, I am constantly amused by him. So my opinion of him does not colour my opinion of the deck.

But I think if anyone does care, if their opinion is coloured by their views of Crowley, then they are duty bound to find out all they can about the creators of other decks, so they can judge them as people before they decide wether they like the decks or not.

 

[gregory]

I am half asleep, and may be missing something here - but did Lillie just agree with me ? WOW !

 

[thinbuddha]

So. You are saying that it is OK to like something by somebody reprehensible, so long as we do not know about the reprehensible things they did?

No- I'm saying that if I know something about someone, I can't possibly ignore what I know (or think I know) while looking at their art.

Personally, I never let Woody Allen's alledged semi-insestuous pedephilia get in the way of enjoying or appreciating a movie of his. but it's not possible for me to watch a WA film without that lingering in the back of my mind. If a character in his film puts his arm around his young step daughter, my mind smiles at the parallel to real life.

You want me to forget that Crowley has a reputation when looking at his cards? Impossible! You can't do it either:

Now, personally I like Crowey, he was funny, I am constantly amused by him. So my opinion of him does not colour my opinion of the deck.<snip>
But I think if anyone does care, if their opinion is coloured by their views of Crowley, then they are duty bound to find out all they can about the creators of other decks, so they can judge them as people before they decide wether they like the decks or not.

To suggest that because I know something about Crowley and have let it inform my view of his deck (something you have quite obviously done) means that I am obliged to research every filmmaker, painter, author and/or deck artist before forming an opinion of their work is just silly. I mean..... you know this is silly, right?

I will say this: the more you know about the artist, the more informed your opinion of their work is. But at the end of the day, an opinion is just an opinion.

 

[ShekinahMoon]

Why should we take into account the creator of a tarot deck?
Or indeed any art or anything.

Who created the Marseilles deck?
Or the 1JJ Swiss deck?

I personally do not know anything about the creators of many of the decks I own.
Some of them I know a name, but nothing about the person, the ideas that name is connected too.

Why is it always different when it's Crowley?

Because its Crowley and the scandalous life he lived not to mention he started a religion. How many Tarot deck creators have also started a religion? A religion that thrives even after the death of the creator. That says a lot about Crowley. To me the ultimate test of a person's ideas is if those ideas survive and thrive after you die. Which is why I'm learning about Crowley. His religion thrives and I give Crowley respect because of that.

 

[ShekinahMoon]

Who's Walter Cronkite?

He was an American news reporter. Very famous here in America.

 

[rainwolf]

If the Pope, or Jerry Fallwell, or Jim Morrison, or Tom Cruise, or the Dali Lama, or Walter Cronkite made a tarot deck, would you be able to separate the man from the deck?

Haha the TOM CRUISE deck?

After he said he didn't believe in psychology I had no respect for him. I'd imagine that his tarot deck would have a lot of pictures of him trying to look good though.

About the satanic religion--have we defined what that consisted of? There is an objectifiable meaning and purpose of it and I don't know if we're all on the same page. In the Necromicon (however it's spelled), it basically said that the religion is based on the purpose of satisfying basic urges, such as those of sexual, hunger, and others that seem primitive and basic. These are in my own words however, as I don't have the book and only read that little bit once.

I don't think A.C. fulfilled the requirements even for my makeshift definition. He seemed more spiritual than that and I see it reflected in the cards.