feynrir
Reflections, response, and a query
Hi Mi-Shell (and everyone!!)
I took this deck out today and read a bit with it. I was contemplating the whole time if I should trade it away or not, and the deck seemed to cry out "Just a little more effort and you will understand me! Please don't give up on me yet!!"
Ugh. Okay, Chrysalis, okay. >:[
But I had a thought today, though I'm not too knowledgable about this yet (haven't researched):
Despite being a metaphysical scholar and expert (to some degree that others think he is, at least)--does Mr. Brooks have a solid knowledge of tarot at all??
I don't mean to call the man out (though I'm kind of doing exactly that), but it's possible that he thought his metaphysical knowledge would make for a good deck, but he didn't have a clue about how to do that within the tarot structure. I do think this would have worked better as an oracle, though since it's kind of forced into the tarot structure, it does force readers to dissociate (or completely ignore) tarot in a historical context.
I would ask the same about Ms. Sierra, but as Brooks "wrote" the deck and I've listened to interviews with him expressly about it, I'm holding him a little more responsible for the subject matter in my admitted ignorance.
For example, I have learned a LOT about tarot history through Rachel Pollack's and Robert Place's writings alone. These are two people who have very solid understandings about historical decks, alchemy, Christianity, Kabbalah (in its various forms), and other spiritual/scholarly underpinnings. These schools of knowledge have helped develop and ground tarot into its most standard and significant incarnation(s).
Toney Brooks? Has he written anything about the Tarot with a capital T? And does he understand it like many of us do?
I think that the deck is nice for a beautiful and flexible exercise of the intuition--much like many Lo Scarabeo decks, actually, which I find to often "stray" a bit. But this one takes it further into New Age territory, and as I've written previously, the LWB expresses that clearly and makes me uncomfortable. All the while, I do try to remain receptive.
Mi-Shell's pointed criticisms (which all really resonate with me!!) made me want to share all this with the rest of you, and I look forward to seeing what others know and think. I'll be googling now, thanks
Hi Mi-Shell (and everyone!!)
I took this deck out today and read a bit with it. I was contemplating the whole time if I should trade it away or not, and the deck seemed to cry out "Just a little more effort and you will understand me! Please don't give up on me yet!!"
Ugh. Okay, Chrysalis, okay. >:[
But I had a thought today, though I'm not too knowledgable about this yet (haven't researched):
Despite being a metaphysical scholar and expert (to some degree that others think he is, at least)--does Mr. Brooks have a solid knowledge of tarot at all??
I don't mean to call the man out (though I'm kind of doing exactly that), but it's possible that he thought his metaphysical knowledge would make for a good deck, but he didn't have a clue about how to do that within the tarot structure. I do think this would have worked better as an oracle, though since it's kind of forced into the tarot structure, it does force readers to dissociate (or completely ignore) tarot in a historical context.
I would ask the same about Ms. Sierra, but as Brooks "wrote" the deck and I've listened to interviews with him expressly about it, I'm holding him a little more responsible for the subject matter in my admitted ignorance.
For example, I have learned a LOT about tarot history through Rachel Pollack's and Robert Place's writings alone. These are two people who have very solid understandings about historical decks, alchemy, Christianity, Kabbalah (in its various forms), and other spiritual/scholarly underpinnings. These schools of knowledge have helped develop and ground tarot into its most standard and significant incarnation(s).
Toney Brooks? Has he written anything about the Tarot with a capital T? And does he understand it like many of us do?
I think that the deck is nice for a beautiful and flexible exercise of the intuition--much like many Lo Scarabeo decks, actually, which I find to often "stray" a bit. But this one takes it further into New Age territory, and as I've written previously, the LWB expresses that clearly and makes me uncomfortable. All the while, I do try to remain receptive.
Mi-Shell's pointed criticisms (which all really resonate with me!!) made me want to share all this with the rest of you, and I look forward to seeing what others know and think. I'll be googling now, thanks
Questions questions questions...
...that I have about this deck:
The 5 of Mirrors: I is supposed to be the Bodhisattva Quan Yin? But the female looks like a brunette Byzantine woman! Why is she not shown as the Asian Spirit Being Quan Yin is? Black hair and slanted eyes......?
Besides: This image looks like a Mayor Arcana card [...]