Variant approaches to the Thoth: Angeles Arrien's book

[gregory]

If three people were looking at a shiny object, one might see it as a symbol of the Sun, another might see it as a symbol for a light-bulb. The third might find it symbolic of a bomb blast. (people can have very strange ideas...). Now if all three were told that such a shiny thing was symbolic of a spaceship, it would then become a sign, not a symbol.

ACTUALLY - why could it not then become a symbol of a spaceship for all three of them ? Once they had internalised it, that is..... After all - if we say here that an orb is symbolic of power - have we then made it a sign rather than a symbol for ever and ever ? No, so.....

 

[Bernice]

..if we say here that an orb is symbolic of power - have we then made it a sign rather than a symbol for ever and ever

Personally for me on an everyday basis, the words 'sign' and 'symbol' are interchangable. But this discussion seems to have degenerated into nit-picking. It's a dictionary 'definition' that's being bandied about. But it shouldn't obscure the crux of the debate should it.

I stand by my defense of uniqueness. However convoluted or arcane the Thoth may be, it's all part of the rich tapestry of life, a truly unique input that has a historical value.

Bee

 

[Aeon418]

Aeon, I'm thinking that the difference between symbolism and a sign is a matter of (specific) definition. (Please do not hit me on the head with the nearest heavy implement).

No problem.

Unlike some people I don't automatically assume that every disagreement with my opinion is an ad hominem attack.

 

[Bernice]

Thank you Aeon I have a friend who is an avid Crowley fan - even has esoteric dreams! But that's his path at this time, and he's gaining richly from it. We don't argue, we compare the different approaches to arcane & spiritual matters. This way we both gain.

Bee

 

[Bernice]

Arrien's Tarot Handbook

Ha Ha Ha.
Although it might be a good idea for all the psychologically inclined people, so long as they know that it 'aint the 'authentic' Thoth. Oh my, they could try and suss Al Crowley out via his deck!!!! But then we already know he was crackers - a genius, but crackers with it.

Bee

 

[Aeon418]

For anyone that is interested, here's Uncle Al's take on the necessity of a common meaning for symbolism. It goes without saying that if you're able to understand this string of symbolic hieroglyphs (words) you already know the answer.

Of course if you can't understand these commonly agreed upon symbols of abstract thought (words), I'm just talking to myself and it doesn't matter.

http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/mwt/mwt_03.html

 

[frelkins]

Ah Scion of the childish insult! Why do you have to be this way? You know this could have been a really excellent discussion of why Crowley remains the best original source, even for newbies to the deck.

It's interesting how little any of you here can seem to hear Mary's valid questions.

She is not disputing the uniqueness of the Thoth or any of that silliness. She has asked, quite reasonably, if any of you, but particularly Scion, could bother to point out any concrete example of where AA has erred in her discussion of Thoth.

From there, since Scion is quite knowledgeable despite his poor manners, I dropped in because I thought we would get some actual discussion : AA says symbol is X, when no, Crowley says symbol is Y, page xx, etc. That would have been educational even for a non-Crowley person like myself.

Yet none of you have not been able to do so, despite offering literally pages of venom at Mary. Mary then noted that AA had taken a post-modern, Jungian approach to the Thoth, and asked why you objected to that. There hasn't been an answer to that -- why the idea of "an easier door" to Thoth disturbs you all so. You can't seem to articulate this either, except that it might appear "New Age." Whatever that means.

Then you all seem to decide to take on semiotics -- I'm not sure why -- Mary's got you there, the distinction is important -- and conclude by congratulating each other. Pity!

Now Scion is going to return and unload more vitriol instead of just simply making a coherent argument in what should be a friendly discussion in which everyone could have learned a lot.

 

[Aeon418]

Mary then noted that AA had taken a post-modern, Jungian approach to the Thoth, and asked why you objected to that. There hasn't been an answer to that -- why the idea of "an easier door" to Thoth disturbs you all so. You can't seem to articulate this either, except that it might appear "New Age." Whatever that means.

But this is the point, frelkins. This supposed "easier door to the Thoth" is nothing of the sort. It's merely a door into the mind of Angeles Arrien and her own personal hijacking and gross trivialisation of the Thoth's deep and complex symbolism. Not only that, Arrien's new meanings for the symbolism stand in stark contrast to the intended meaning. In fact they practically contradict the intended meaning at every point. Arrien's "easier door" may be more accommodating, but it doesn't lead to the Thoth or the language of the Thoth. It only leads to the private world of Angeles Arrien.

Of course it can be argued that the traditional approach only leads to the world of Aleister Crowley. And why not? He was co-creator of the deck after all. His ideas are the driving force behind the deck. Ideas that are in complete opposition to bourgeois morality, mainstream society, and the glib vacuity of the new age movement. Unfortunately this normative view is exactly the same angle that Arrien wishes people to view Thoth from. The Thoth was intended to be a tool for self liberation and self discovery. It was intended to help people break out of normative society and it's herd values. Instead Arrien is determined to drag it backwards into the very same prison system of the human spirit it was designed to usurp. Do you think that's a good thing?

 

[Scion]

She has asked, quite reasonably, if any of you, but particularly Scion, could bother to point out any concrete example of where AA has erred in her discussion of Thoth. (snip) Yet none of you have not been able to do so, despite offering literally pages of venom at Mary.

Hey Frelkins,

Hardly childish. You used the word "martyrized" (by which I assume you meant martyrdom) to refer to Teheuti's participation in this thread...the implication being that we were the visious Romans molesting and ruining her sanctfied flesh. Your comment was literally and factually condescending, since it characterized us as evil cretins and Arrien's defenders as holy self-sacrificers... and snarky, because it popped up in a discussion in which you have participated not at all save to mouth off without reading the posts that precede you. Your post contained not one iota of content other than a generalized mood of righteous indignation devoid of context or discussion. I'd love it if anyone else would pop in to speak to Teheuti's suggestion that Arrien's book has value; if you would like to be that person, I'm ready to actually hear something like an idea, or a quote or even and opinion from you. You suggested a book that's been recommended and discussed by myself and others about 4 times in the thread... because you hadn't bothered to read the thread.

I did in fact "namecall" a single time in this entire thread, by calling Arrien a "moron" for the purposes of creating a parallel construction to Ligator's characterization of Crowley as a "god" in an earlier post. That insult was a result of rhetoric, but I've already apologized for it. You don't seem to have read very carefully. the "Bile" has mounted around the defense of a book that every single person in this thread admits is FILLED stem to stern with errors of fact, ommission, and poor resrch. That is not the discussion. The utility is the crux of our discussion. Mary's ideas about semiotics are valid enough, but are only a position which require defense as much as any other theoretical position. Semiotics has evolved in the last 5 years, let alone in the past 30.

Not for nothing was I rased by lawyers! I detest unsupported argument and am never guilty of it, because it is A) foolish, B) worthless, and C) so easily dismissed. Why would I waste the time typing? In fact, you don't seem to have read the thread before responding. So I'll point you back towards earlier pages where we cited not just examples from Arrien but PAGE NUMBERS. But I want to offer a larger response to Mary's (and now your) protestations, since following a clear line of argument seems to be ardous without explicit references. I can promise they won't be offered without specific citation since a few folks seem to be unable to read and retain more than a hundred words at a time. So far in this thread I've been called, childish, vicious, insulting, rude, depressing, harsh, uninformed, inexperienced and fundmentalist. I have to confess I take it all with a handful of salt. I just don't take this stuff very personally. A fact of which you should be aware, Frelkins. I've discussed it with you before.

Since apparently anything I post beyond 200 words is left unread by people who disagree with me on something they might call principle, give me a moment to collect my thoughts and break everything down into nice bitesized chunks with hard quotes so people will actually be clear on what I have and have not said.

Scion

 

[Grigori]

Moderator Note

Hi Everyone

I've split this conversation from the thread on Crowley's Tarot Books as it has become a significantly different and larger topic now.

There are a number of posts here that insult other members. Removing this is difficult to do without disrupting the more useful conversation which they are contained within. Subsequently I've elected to leave these posts as they stand. Any further posts containing personal attacks will be deleted in their entirety so please make your points with respect for those who disagree with you.

Thanks everyone for your ongoing participation in this excellent topic.
Similia