Colloquial vs. Pure Tarot

[Satori]

Was listening to NPR a few days ago and heard a British gentleman talking about using colloquialisms.

He was talking about how certain catchy phrases become popularized, and then how they become part of language. He was sort of defending himself against having been called a snob by a listener. What caught me was that he said that these catchy phrases while interesting and colorful shouldn't be allowed into the speech of educated folk. That we should police ourselves in a way, and not allow in these popular expressions.

I was thinking about Tarot after listening, thinking about the sort of ongoing argument about modern decks and modern symbols vs more antiquated decks.

Here's the rub; some decks are very inviting in terms of understandability for me. Like the Victorian Romantic. I sort of got it. It was accessible on many levels to me. But I'm not a Victorian, although admit to being a Romantic. I love reading with the Wheel of Change deck, and with the Osho Zen.

So, if we need to keep the Tarot "pure" but the deck feels sort of inaccessible...what does that say about our level of iconographic education???

Can we even lay claim to saying we could recognize pure Tarot, that a deck is pure, because do we even really know if our use if truly correct.

Further, in terms of symbol, why do some decks that are more modern really work for some of us, and not for others....wait. Fast forward.

Is the level of understanding regarding symbol simply a matter of education and exposure to myth, stories, good classical writing? This is sort of what came out of my listening to the man on the radio.

What are we diluting out of Tarot?
Are we diluting anything out of Tarot at all?
Should we be purists on some level?

Obviously all things change and the adaptability of a "thing" sort of marks the survival of the thing in today's world. But some things have true staying power.

As I look more and more at decks and think about WCS and the Thoth I'm actually very impressed in a whole new way with these Tarots. They have stood the test of time, they remain useful to modern readers and they still have symbols that many if really pressed might not know what they were. (In light of this, if we use the deck from a purely intuitive perspective is that still Tarot reading? If we don't the language of the card, just perhaps some of the language, what are we really doing with the thing? And if it is working, does it matter?)

So in the case of using a deck, but not really knowing all the symbols, what is happening that allows us to use it, access it and make the thing work????

Should we care about the deck, the structure, the symbols, if it works?
Should we care if we know the symbolic language or it is a "fluffy" deck so long as we can read it?
When does it matter?
Why?

I'm asking many questions here. Have at it.

 

[Grizabella]

This, to me, is like the people who won't read anything but the King James Bible. They insist that something has been misconstrued in putting the Bible into more readable, modern language, as though the King James were THE original Bible, and forgetting that someone translated that at one time into the popular language of whatever time that was that they did it.

It's like my journey to my present spiritual beliefs. It finally occurred to me that before Judaism and before Christianity, there was Something----Something that has existed since before time began and will always exist. Man has made his God in man's own likeness and then stuffed him into a box in all the different religions, almost all of whom claim to know THE God and to have a hotline right to his ear.

The Tarot "purists" may like to go all the way back to whatever deck was first discovered and declare that that's THE one and only "pure" Tarot. (I don't know that they do, mind you, but I'll bet there are some who adhere to that.)

Art pulls wisdom out of our subconscious. Or to be "pure", maybe I should say that images access the wisdom. I don't think it matters what deck you use that does it best for you. If it does it, then use it. And don't ever be ashamed or feel weird that what works for you isn't what works for others who use more traditional decks and don't feel that you're "not really" reading Tarot.

I just don't worry about it. I smile and wave respectfully to those who believe something else and go on about my business.

I don't think we're diluting a thing out of Tarot. If anything, we're just expanding on it.

You'll find elitists everywhere, in every walk of life, concerning everything under the sun. It's man's propensity for thinking that his way is the only way and that it makes him somehow superior to the seething masses at his feet.

If there weren't growth and change, we'd all still be sleeping in stables.

 

[Anyankah]

I think that the analogy to language is a good one, and the relevant idea from linguistics is that language change being bad is a fallacy. Grammar nazis lament the things that language loses without noticing that just as many new things pop up. We don't have the noun cases of latin, but we have the progressive verb tense which they didn't. The languages at various points have different features but they are all fully expressive languages.

To apply this to tarot: we lose some meanings of cards, we gain others, and they're all expressive symbolic systems, which is what matters.

 

[Dwaas]

Well, first I have to admit I had to look up some meanings of words used in the initial post. Not because I'm a dummy, but because English isn't my native language, like some other languages I speak and write at this level. Changing language may be percepted the same as a lack of knowledge of a language. This may be a good reason for elitair including/excluding, regarding language, general knowledge, or even specific knowledge and insight like in tarot when perfect English would have been the norm. While English is a fine lingua franca, AT would not have been the friendly environment it actually is where everybody can learn and share if it was ruled by rigid English language purists.
Appreciating tarot on different levels does not make it less important or deep. Just different.

Is the level of understanding regarding symbol simply a matter of education and exposure to myth, stories, good classical writing?

No, I don't believe so. It might help. But imo the archetypes are pictures we inherited in our genes from our ancestors. So we are all perceptive to tarot in whatever way. Just give a deck to people completely strange to tarot and they can make stories, have feelings, likes and dislikes, anything because tarot evokes emotions. And when you like to study tarot you might broaden the possibilities because then an exchange of information and thoughts happens. But it is not needed imo to have fun with tarot and be a good reader. That depends on so much more.

There are a few decks many people believe to be important for the history of tarot and many modern decks pay hommage to these earlier decks by having perhaps different themes but rely heavily on older systems. I think these decks (like Visconti, the many Marseilles, Minchiates, Thoth, RWS) to be important as well. But if anyone never studied a "serious" tarotbook and reads best with the Celtic Mermaid Gnomes of the Mystic Whimsical Dragons that's fine with me. And good for them. Why bother? If it works it works.

Lyric said it so much better:

Art pulls wisdom out of our subconscious. Or to be "pure", maybe I should say that images access the wisdom. I don't think it matters what deck you use that does it best for you. If it does it, then use it. And don't ever be ashamed or feel weird that what works for you isn't what works for others who use more traditional decks and don't feel that you're "not really" reading Tarot.

I just don't worry about it. I smile and wave respectfully to those who believe something else and go on about my business.

There were so many questions in this thread. And now I am not sure if I answered just even one. This was just a first reaction. Give me some time to re-read and think a bit more and I will get back to this for sure.
Thanks for this great thread.

 

[mollymawk]

If you look at the RWS and you know what to look for, there's definitely a system in place. To me, it's worth studying and using, though I'm generally in the minority on that one. Which is fine, there isn't one true way to use tarot.

There are some modern decks out there that are really brilliant, lots that I think are truly godawful, but if they work for somebody else, that's great--and there's definitely a market.

Do I think you're missing something by not learning the symbolism? Yeah, probably. But unless you're learning tarot from me, who cares?

 

[thinbuddha]

So is the tarot being watered down by modern interpretations? This is really the question of the thread. Is Shakesphere watered down by Kurosawa films? By the films and stories of others who borrow his plots and characters?

I think that the answer is twofold:

No in that the surviving original old decks (and plays) aren't going anywhere- as a matter of fact, most are probably more widely available now than they ever were "back in the day". If you view them as being the true kernel of truth of the message of tarot, they are still there for you to find. You'll find them burried under 40 copies of Tarot of Dolphin Angel Spirit Guides, but youcan find them all the same.

But yes- the less talented, less educated, deck creaters (and there are TONS of them) will make decks that...... miss the point (to put it nicely). And people who spend time learning the ins and outs of these decks could be perceived in the same way that one perceives the person who spends time learning the in's and outs of obselete technology....

But you have to think that these decks won't stand the test of time, so what is the harm?

-tb

 

[Elnor]

I believe that the Tarot works because of how we respond to and interpret the archetypes portrayed on the cards... the thing is, we all have different experiences and memories of those archetypes that are personal to us.

So, as an example; someone who had a difficult childhood is going to respond differently to the Emperor and Empress than someone who had an idyllic and happy childhood... they might need different decks in order to work with and benefit from the symbolism in those particular cards.

Also, times have changed from when the first decks were created. The Fool in Medieval times would have had much more serious implications in times when a tramp or beggar might very well have wandered into a village carrying the plague- while these days, (thanks primarily to our greater understandings of our 'inner child' through Jung and other psychoanalysts) we see a wandering minstral in a more open and tolerant way, relating it more to our own inner self.

So I think that the evolution of the Tarot is a positive thing, because a deeper symbolism can be the result.

Elnor

 

[Shade]

Hmmm.... very interesting to ponder. I think each of us has our own line somewhere in our mind of how much change is too much.

I can see how this could easily be applied to tarot. The Golden Dawn stuck a Magician on Trump I and it went over big with people to the point that most tarot decks on the market have a wizard or witch on that card officiating some kind of spell or ritual. There is a great deal of overlap here and there and some decks do a great job of blurring the lines between the two (The Gay Tarot, The Nigel Jackson, etc), but mostly the variant has become the norm, irrevocably changing the world of tarot. Between you and me, I prefer to have a Magician to a Juggler but I'm hardly high class.

I think tarot will remain all right as there are usually a few decks published each year that reach back to tarot's roots and keep some of the old traditions alive. It's natural for tarot to evolve especially whne you consider the extent to which the needs/backgrounds/spiritual outlooks of tarot readers has changed over the years. Some people will not be happy with a Catholic Hierophant, an all-caucasian deck, or a deck that doesn't have scenic minors. Just like in biology, variation is healthy.

 

[Miren]

I think what people who search for the "pure" form are forgetting is that language (and tarot) is always evolving and changing. King James English was developed from Old English (KJ is early modern). Old English is pretty hard for us to understand. And spellings weren't set down until the 18th century. Until then, things like "debt" were spelled "dette" (which makes so much more sense) or any other way that could be pronounced to say the right word. Then ppl set down the spelling. Is that the pure language? Did it come before?

Technically, "pure" tarot should have pictures of greek gods and goddesses...since that's what the original deck had (as far as we know). But it developed, it got standardized, it got interpreted and reinterpreted and unstandardized and now we've got a beautiful spectrum of decks and meanings. I think that's just the way culture works. And it's beautiful.

 

[Umbrae]

How pure is pure?

Now nutritious is it if you've refined the food value out of it in order to make it 'pure'?

Or like cheese on broccoli (FYI – I will not be in the same room with broccoli). Folks always tell me they got the cheese sauce recipe for me – that I'll enjoy broccoli.
WRONG...
It's the Cheese Sauce that I'd be enjoying if I even got near it, not the broccoli.

Sometimes it's important to study the colloquial, and enjoy its accessibility in order to recognize the brilliance of the pure.

This winter, I've put away all decks except the Lunatic and the Grimaud TdM. Brilliant pair btw...