divinerguy
Re: Re: Re: Tarot for dummies
Rusty - sounds like a dogmatic challenge. I decline the offer.
Rusty Neon said:
Rusty - sounds like a dogmatic challenge. I decline the offer.
Tarot for Dummies
Rusty Neon
Hi divinerguy ... I didn't mean to get you all up in arms. I was genuinely interested. All i was asking was for more details about your statements: "Their course about the Tarot focuses on the Qaballah as a basis for card correspondences. Should you follow Golden Dawn, Thoth or other systems of correspondences, it could be in conflict." Statements like that will naturally elicit requests from those like me who wish to learn from your experience and knowledge.
jmd
Paul Foster Case (the founder of BOTA) was a member of the GD prior to his expulsion, and much of the basis of his work stems from GD material which, however, he takes in his own peculiar (and wonderful) routes.
His deck's Major Arcana are very RWCS-like, except that Death and the Sun 'revert' to more traditional Marseilles-type imagery. Like Waite (& the GD), he transposes VIII & XI for astrological reasons.
The uses of the deck in the GD is also quite ritualistic, wheras the BOTA's focus is somewhat different. I have not, however, personally noted any obvious discrepancies in their Kabbalisitc attributions.
As to Crowley, he of course also 'swaps' the GD's letter attributions to IIII & XVI, and adds various analogical comments to the cards which the BOTA may very well not agree with.
Additionally, the BOTA, especially post-Davies, appears totally opposed to Enochian magic, which forms part of the GD.
His deck's Major Arcana are very RWCS-like, except that Death and the Sun 'revert' to more traditional Marseilles-type imagery. Like Waite (& the GD), he transposes VIII & XI for astrological reasons.
The uses of the deck in the GD is also quite ritualistic, wheras the BOTA's focus is somewhat different. I have not, however, personally noted any obvious discrepancies in their Kabbalisitc attributions.
As to Crowley, he of course also 'swaps' the GD's letter attributions to IIII & XVI, and adds various analogical comments to the cards which the BOTA may very well not agree with.
Additionally, the BOTA, especially post-Davies, appears totally opposed to Enochian magic, which forms part of the GD.
paradoxx
sunflowr said:
Has it helped: yes. the review on this site describes many of my feelings and perceptions rather well, and to answer the first question:
First of all, i have the full edition with the quabbalistic tree presented rather well, so the full edition of the book may be the way to go and just avoid the packaged deal. The reason i say this is that i also have astrology for dummies, which is a much larger book as compared to its tarot counterpart. Abridging the Tarot For Dummies text won't help, it needs to be expanded upon to begin with to dispell some of the vaugness this book presents. I was expecting more about how the spreads and details of the spreads afected the reading, but i will have to wait for "Tarot Spreads for Dummies" for that. The explanation of how tarot came from wherever and whenever misses the point all together. Its not just tarot, but cartomancy in general that should be part of the focus of this book, I guess I will have to wait for "Cartomancy for Dummies." However, Tarot for Dummies should cover these topics given the nature of what is presented, but it seems more effort was placed into making the Tarot a mystery than making specific points.
The cartoons are funny.
HudsonGray
How does this book compare to, say, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Tarot & Fortunetelling? I've seen that one in the bookstores too. Most of the 'Dummies' books have an 'Idiot's' counterpart.
sunflowr
HudsonGray said:
Thanks for the feedback.
