Book of Thoth Study Group Part 1 sect. 3

ravenest

If it gets confusing (my posts ie) dont forget to ask me what the hell I'm on about.

That's the great things about these forums, often when people do that I realise I've been wrong, or incompleat. Then I have to find out more and communicate with more clarity .....

except when i'm being naughty!

Edge

Ventrue said:
anybody who say they haven't felt exactly what your feeling is a lie information overload is how it is to me...you will get to a point where when you look at a card you see so MUCH different imagery you dont know what direction to go with it, and thats where i started using intuition. i know a lot of people do it the other way around, but whatever works for you is what you do. As you get through BoT you will want to check out some other areas of study that A.C. assumes you are adept at, and this will help you understand him more, but in the process you'll pick up more theories and ideas to confuse you more
Ven

Hello Ventrue, yes it is a bit of information overload but it's very interesting stuff. As far as intuitive reading is concerned that is pretty much how I've been doing things while learning/reading the RW deck. But Thoth seems to be demanding a great deal more from me regarding my time, energy and education. I look forward to the theories, ideas and confusion that you alluded to.

ravenest

Heads up!

Here is something to look out for (if you didnt already know) and are looking at Crowleys work ... he was a 'joker' as well as a lot of other stuff, sometimes people took that the wrong way, and focused a lot of attention on that. Other times he was crystal clear and nearly everyone missed it.
No doubt we'll get to the specifics at a later stage.

Edge

Roman Numbers of the Trumps.

Hi everyone, I have some thoughts/questions on a few things regarding BOT pgs 38-39. Hopefully I am doing the whole "study group" thing right. Don't know if it's proper to start a new thread or not. I'm sure you all will help me find my way regarding study group protocol. Anyways on with my question.

I have been trying to gain a little understanding on the attributions of the Trumps, I'm particularly interested in who AC is talking about on page 38.

"It has puzzled traditional writers on the Tarot that these numbers should run from 0 to XXI." (pg 38 BOT)

I'm curious as to who is he is referring, he goes on to indicate that these "traditional writers" in effect got all the attributions wrong on the trumps with the exception of XXI. As I understand this, the "screw up" for lack of a better word was due to mathematical ignorance.

So going on he states the true attribution was a well guarded secret in the sanctuary I am assuming he is referring to the Golden Dawn. So if the traditional writers got the attributions wrong then is it safe to assume that early decks were flawed as well?

Thoughts...

ravenest

Edge said:
Hopefully I am doing the whole "study group" thing right. Don't know if it's proper to start a new thread or not. I'm sure you all will help me find my way regarding study group protocol. Anyways on with my question.

Don't worry, just do whatever.

Edge said:
I have been trying to gain a little understanding on the attributions of the Trumps, I'm particularly interested in who AC is talking about on page 38.

"It has puzzled traditional writers on the Tarot that these numbers should run from 0 to XXI." (pg 38 BOT)

I'm curious as to who is he is referring,

I guess it is anyone who wrote on the subject previous to AC that didnt make the Fool 0, as that is where it was placed traditionaly (previously). If they write about a deck that puts Fool towards end, (as AC says; between XX and XXI) or if they just espoused that position we could include them.

Edge said:
he goes on to indicate that these "traditional writers" in effect got all the attributions wrong on the trumps with the exception of XXI. As I understand this, the "screw up" for lack of a better word was due to mathematical ignorance.

The attributions start at line 1 and go down, Magican was the first card so it was attributed to line 1. When Fool was put first it took position 1 and line 1. Magician and all others were pushed down 1 line and hence were all one line out. As Fool had been 2nd last trump XXI still has last position and last line, ie, the only one that hasnt changed.

Edge said:
So going on he states the true attribution was a well guarded secret in the sanctuary I am assuming he is referring to the Golden Dawn. So if the traditional writers got the attributions wrong then is it safe to assume that early decks were flawed as well?

Thoughts...

I assume GD too. Flawed? Yes or no, according to your belief system and which deck you prefer, and if your biased or not. I'll let you scan the threads on that one!

Edge

ravenest said:
Flawed? Yes or no, according to your belief system and which deck you prefer, and if your biased or not. I'll let you scan the threads on that one!

Not sure which way I'm leaning yet.... more study, reflection etc.

rachelcat

Ventrue said:
I haven't read too much Browning, but what does "A got leave an ox to be, No camel, Quoth the Jews, like G" mean?

I think Uncle Al is making the point, in a cute Victorian way, complete with Victorian poetry quote, that, as Edge said, "it is what it is."

Language is arbitrary and conventional. There is nothing inherent in the little pixels that make up what you see here--"cat"--that equates to a small, furry living thing that makes lots of noise until you open a can. Because we all read English, we just agree to that meaning by convention.

With Hebrew (and other ancient, culturally important languages, like Sanskrit, Arabic, and runes), people may have trouble remembering the arbitraryness of it. It is the language of the gods. How can it be arbitrary?! It must be FULL of meaning!

And it is. Because not only do you have letters of an alphabet that makes up words, each letter also means a word--aleph means ox, and gimel means camel. And each letter is also a number. It's a very short step from there to gematria. Words that add up to the same number might (must?) have some related meaning.

BUT we have to be ready to at least entertain the idea that the meaning involved comes from the human mind and culture and not from some "outside" "supernatural" source.

(Ah, nothing like a little linguistics in the afternoon . . .)

Ventrue

rachelcat said:
With Hebrew (and other ancient, culturally important languages, like Sanskrit, Arabic, and runes), people may have trouble remembering the arbitraryness of it. It is the language of the gods. How can it be arbitrary?! It must be FULL of meaning!

And it is. Because not only do you have letters of an alphabet that makes up words, each letter also means a word--aleph means ox, and gimel means camel. And each letter is also a number. It's a very short step from there to gematria. Words that add up to the same number might (must?) have some related meaning.

To further complicate things cant each letter also mean several different words, and then without vowels you can have dozens of possible translations? I read somewhere(probably a Duquette book) that in the Bible where it says "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle...." that the Hebrew text could also be translated as 'rope.' "it is easier for a rope to go through the eye of needle..." hmm. gotta love the KJV.

rachelcat said:
BUT we have to be ready to at least entertain the idea that the meaning involved comes from the human mind and culture and not from some "outside" "supernatural" source.

Not sure where I am on that yet but maybe i'll have an answer at some point.

Ven

ravenest

In Book 4 Liber Aba, AC, on the subject of whether some things (or all things) - specifically visions, manifestastions and asssorted magical hodge-podge, are from our own conciousness or an outside force,has no deffinate opinion.