Zan and BC's Excellent Thoth Adventure: In the beginning....

[Grigori]

How does one on the wrong side of the pond acquire and Greenie and/or Verlag?

Still in the opening chapter of the BoT. Lots of thoughts later this afternoon...

Greenies you need to hit the second hand market. Verlag (Kongis.... um.... sorry Gregory...) are German, so not many non German speaking places have them. I got mine sent over from Amazon UK as it was the first English speaking place I found that had it. Tarot Garden has it now also. Don't know about Canada sorry.

 

[Grigori]

I keep wondering about the inconsistencies, too. I feel like he can't seem to decide which tarot origin story he wants to believe. ...
So which is it?

If I could steal a couple of his quotes from elsewhere to give you an idea of his approach.

In this book it is spoken of the Sephiroth and the Paths; of Spirits and Conjurations; of Gods, Spheres, Planes, and many other things which may or may not exist. It is immaterial whether these exist or not. By doing certain things certain results will follow; students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophic validity to any of them.

The longer I live the more I get bored by the people who boast of their theoretical knowledge which leads absolutely nowhere, if you take it as an end in itself.
The gods that you quote are not at all those given in Liber Resh and I do not see why you should depart from the text, but if for some reason you find them more suited to your peculiar style of beauty, go ahead and heaven prosper you! As long as you do not get into a state of imagining that it matters such a devil of a lot if you have got some detail wrong. It is this state of doubt which damages people's practices. You drift more and more vaguely into the uncharted archipelago of theory; and presently arrive at a state of jitters in which none of your practises work any more at all.

So it doesn't matter, pick the one that works best for you, just don't get too caught up in the idea that you are objectively right. The main thing is, does it work for you?

 

[thorhammer]

Quite aside from the faith implied by Grigori's quotes (G, love that first one of yours, it always makes me smile), my approach to Crowley's rather pompous dealing with the origin of Tarot is patience. It doesn't make sense to me; and yet, enough of the BoT has not made sense to me at first, only to become illuminated upon returning from a minor quest into some other tome, that I'm not bovvered Just let it marinate.

I've found that this particular field of study just isn't like others. In other areas, you work hard and you learn faster. Here . . . not so. I've always had to give it time, and the less I forced it, the easier the revelations came.

I know I sound flakey now, but that's been my overwhelming experience with this deck, and it's why my love for it abides, no matter what else happens around me. I know that every single time I come back to this deck and this material, I'll be discovering something new. I just flip to any random page in BoT and there's the message, that ties a whole sequence of seemingly ill-fitting experiences leading up to that moment.

*ahem*

\m/ Kat

 

[Bat Chicken]

Well I think 2 lines that stood out quite a bit as a I was reading were (do we have the same edition of the BoT? I'm on page 34)

Yup I think so... I warn you I haven't had quite enough time to think this through, so I'll offer a Devil's Advocate approach below for now! It is most likely I have NO idea what I am talking about....

Grand couple of statements there, aren't they? So there is little room for abstract thought, but, "A's universe is not B's universe." Are those two ideas compatible? We all see things differently but we aren't to think abstractly.

Thoughts?

I am trying to decide if Crowley's two statements are compatible!

I think that Crowley is referring to the Qabala as the theory or IDEA and the Tarot as a kind of practice. If the Qabala is fluid, then Tarot must also be to remain relevant. The practical element is also somewhat material in definition - and we are back to two people looking at a star. And, that star has a predetermined structure that each of us will interpret according to our own set of values. But those interpretations are based around that structure. You have to believe, I suppose that there is 'star' to start with. I guess you need to have an understanding of the theory, and that understanding, unique to you, will be reflected back at you in the cards. The cards themselves are not the IDEAS/ideals which are abstract, just their representation or perhaps, their relationships?

And if that is indeed the case, then - to your question - yes the statements are kinda sorta compatible????

I think I was too long in the sun today... LOL!

Also, does the requirement to not think abstractly dictate that we aren't meant to use the tarot for things other than "Qabbalstic calculations and divination"? I guess all that New-Agey self-reflection stuff is out the window, huh?

I am not sure he said not to think abstractly. Perhaps he means to apply the defined abstractions (I use defined very loosely) rather than new theory, maybe? I am not entirely sure what Qabbalistic calculations are, I can visualize the Tree of Life and the 1-10, 22 relationships and can assume they might mean combinations thereof. Are they the application of some kind of meaning? I think self-reflection as opposed to navel gazing is probably a necessary part of it. I am getting stuck on the semantics of abstract and abstractly... Which is maybe the problem.

A few of these definitions of abstract could apply here... Crowley uses the term 'abstract' as an adjective.

From the Free Dictionary:

ab·stract (American)
adj.
1. Considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept.
2. Not applied or practical; theoretical.
3. Difficult to understand; abstruse: abstract philosophical problems.
4. Thought of or stated without reference to a specific instance: abstract words like truth and justice.
5. Impersonal, as in attitude or views.
6. Having an intellectual and affective artistic content that depends solely on intrinsic form rather than on narrative content or pictorial representation: abstract painting and sculpture.

abstract (Collins)
adj [ˈæbstrækt]
1. having no reference to material objects or specific examples; not concrete
2. not applied or practical; theoretical
3. hard to understand; recondite; abstruse
4. (Fine Arts & Visual Arts / Art Terms) denoting art characterized by geometric, formalized, or otherwise nonrepresentational qualities
5. defined in terms of its formal properties an abstract machine
6. (Philosophy) Philosophy (of an idea) functioning for some empiricists as the meaning of a general term the word ``man'' does not name all men but the abstract idea of manhood

Am I taking this way too seriously? I may be supporting a circular argument here, for better or worse.

 

[Bat Chicken]

Join in any time, Emily!

It's pretty simple actually, and not that earth shattering.
BatChicken = 107. So now we look at other words that numerate to 107 and see what they tell us about their shared nature with BatChicken.

Wow, a very fortuitous number BC!

THE BEAST HAS RETURNED TO AT

But we could now start to speculate as to what way BatChicken is similar to The Great Beast (i.e. Crowley)

Yikes!!
Now if only I knew what that meant...

Greenies you need to hit the second hand market. Verlag (Kongis.... um.... sorry Gregory...) are German, so not many non German speaking places have them. I got mine sent over from Amazon UK as it was the first English speaking place I found that had it. Tarot Garden has it now also. Don't know about Canada sorry.

Thanks for that. Tarot Garden works for me!

..And great quotes... *Goes into the notebook for future reference*

In this book it is spoken of the Sephiroth and the Paths; of Spirits and Conjurations; of Gods, Spheres, Planes, and many other things which may or may not exist. It is immaterial whether these exist or not. By doing certain things certain results will follow; students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophic validity to any of them.

Now if only I had read this one before my last post :

The longer I live the more I get bored by the people who boast of their theoretical knowledge which leads absolutely nowhere, if you take it as an end in itself.
The gods that you quote are not at all those given in Liber Resh and I do not see why you should depart from the text, but if for some reason you find them more suited to your peculiar style of beauty, go ahead and heaven prosper you! As long as you do not get into a state of imagining that it matters such a devil of a lot if you have got some detail wrong. It is this state of doubt which damages people's practices. You drift more and more vaguely into the uncharted archipelago of theory; and presently arrive at a state of jitters in which none of your practises work any more at all.

This reminds me of art classes...

So it doesn't matter, pick the one that works best for you, just don't get too caught up in the idea that you are objectively right. The main thing is, does it work for you?

Excellent advice for this quest...!

Kat - I agree with the idea of letting things marinate. All problems, be they philosophical or scientific, sometimes the answers come only with time and little working over in the subconscious!

 

[Grigori]

Yikes!!
Now if only I knew what that meant...

hehe, Therion is greek for "Beast", i.e. the beast of the apocalypse, the anti-christ, the lion looking fella on the Thoth's Lust card etc.. The "bad guy" who brings about the end of times in the Book of Revelations. Crowley identified with him partly cause he was a naughty little boy and his mother gave him that nickname as a child, and partly because he saw his new aeon prophecy as ushering in the end of the old religion (i.e. Christian) formula, and starting of a new one based on individual liberty and love. So in that context "Beast" is the prophet of the new aeon.

The interesting thing, is he took Therion as one of his magical names, and it was under that name that he penned the Book of Thoth. To Mega Therion (The Great Beast) and you see that name on the Ace of Disks also.

So it's a fortuitous combination for studying the deck. Next time you're reading the BoT and thinking "wt* is he saying?!?", try thinking "wt* am I saying!?!"

 

[sapienza]

There are a couple of spectacular threads with the digested brains of our local experts in the GD forum.
http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=123884
http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=96946

I'd just like to second Grigori's suggested threads. They are both really, really worth reading.

Another book I'd recommend if you can find a copy is called 'The Truth About Tarot' by Gerard Suster. I'm most of the way through it now. It's only a small book but it has provided me with a great deal of insight to the Thoth deck. I've already read many of the others mentioned so it may not have been so helpful if I'd read it first, but in my opinion, it's certainly worth a read at some point in your study of this deck.

Oh, and on Astrology....as well as the threads Grigori linked, there is a very interesting thread in the astrology section here which gives a great overview of traditional astrology and how it differs from modern astrology. If you are not keen (or don't have enough time) to read the book Le Fanu suggested (The Real Astrology) then this thread is definitely worth reading. I think it's important to understand some of the key differences between modern and traditional astrology. For me this really helped a lot of stuff fall into place.

Enjoy the Thoth journey.

 

[gregory]

But we could now start to speculate as to what way BatChicken is similar to The Great Beast (i.e. Crowley)

I have met her..... I can answer that

 

[zan_chan]

So what do you think, BC - shall we move into the Fool? I've been reading the chapter and its gonna take us some real buckling down to get a handle on him, I think...

 

[Bat Chicken]

So it's a fortuitous combination for studying the deck. Next time you're reading the BoT and thinking "wt* is he saying?!?", try thinking "wt* am I saying!?!"

I think I am really screwed....
That is kinda neat, really - and encouraging on the other hand.
Thanks for that info Grigori... much appreciated. I am learning fast on this one!

I have met her..... I can answer that

Just never forget you are dishing on the Beast..! LOL! You and Mi-Shell are thinking - "So that's what it was???"

And I don't suppose there is a book with the letters of Crowley and Lady Harris about creating the deck?
I've read some snippets of them here and there, would love to read more.

Welcome hedera!
That would be interesting wouldn't it? The biographical note at the front of the BoT is too limited.

So what do you think, BC - shall we move into the Fool? I've been reading the chapter and its gonna take us some real buckling down to get a handle on him, I think...

Are we ready to move forward?
Did you not have any further thoughts or the compulsion to tell me I am full of s***? I haven't reread my defense of AC yet in a refreshed and awake state... Really - be argumentative Zan. Question everything - especially me!

OK - The Fool it is, but I want to do this one slowly. I will depend on your questions, Zan, so toss them out as they occur to you! They force me to think... And I need you to challenge me when I get too comfortable... because I am LOVING this so far...