Jungian analysis and the Tarot

[JSNYC]

I recently posted some long, and rather dry analysis of Jung's concepts and their relation to the Tarot, specifically Jung's function types or attitude types. However, I don't believe those things even begin to explain the Tarot. And because I am a Rational, I think it may be assumed that I am trying to quantify and rationalize the Tarot, which nothing could be further from the truth... (Well, some things may. ) I believe the personality types add depth and understanding to the Tarot for me. More importantly, they help me to relate the Tarot's principles to the real world, the external world that I see and interact with every day. But the personality types (alone) have almost nothing to say about what truly underlies the Tarot. There is no insight that can be gleaned from the personality types that cannot be gleaned using a plethora of other methods, more suited to the individual reader. My fascination and understanding of the personality types are what give those concepts color as well as usefulness, at least for me.

One of Jung's other concepts in particular, I believe to be much more relevant to the Tarot itself. That concept is Jung's concept of the Symbol. I am not going to even begin to try to explain what a Symbol is in any depth, Jung spent many, many pages explaining Symbols and their potency, and he mentions them repeatedly in his writings. He even has an entire book on this concept, Man and his Symbols. I will just say this; Jung's Symbols are not merely an image, or the symbol in an image (or a dream). They are something much, much more powerful. They are not even really a physical entity at all, they are something that is expressed in physical form but with a psychological or spiritual resonance that far surpasses their physical representation.

Jung talked at great length about the personal unconscious as well as the collective unconscious and the archetypes and complexes that reside therein. He proposed that these unconscious components are there because they have not attained the required "energy threshold" to enter the conscious mind. A Symbol, when it connects to an archetype, complex, or any unconscious component, however it is named, can imbue that unconscious component with the necessary energy to bring it, or at least a part of it, into the conscious. That is the primary and fundamental power of a Symbol, a true Jungian Symbol. The Symbol connects to us in a primordial, fundamental, and very real way. This is not simply recognition, because recognition happens in the conscious mind. The connection with the Symbol is unconscious and thus is much more powerful, indescribable, and potent.

Those spreads that are particularly powerful, even stunning, when it seems as if the message can almost be audibly heard, and that message is extraordinarily pertinent, relevant, and meaningful. I believe that those are the kind of times when we experience the power of the Symbol, and the unconscious components that the Symbol awakens or brings to light, into the light of the conscious.

I want to reiterate yet again; what I have proposed here does not even begin to describe the Tarot. This is only one aspect of the Tarot, and that assumes that I have even described this aspect adequately, which I do not believe I have. If anyone has ever proposed a concept that described the Tarot, the Tarot would now be explained and its mystery gone. The mystery isn't gone, so no one has yet explained it.

And finally, I will close with a brief mention about frameworks and the systems we use to understand the Tarot. And I will relate that with a story from the Buddha*:

"'O bhikkhus, even this view, which is so pure and so clear, if you cling to it, if you fondle it, if you treasure it, if you are attached to it, then you do not understand that the teaching is similar to a raft, which is for crossing over, and not for getting hold of."

The Buddha then goes on to the tell the story of a man, who finds a raft, which carries him over the river and takes him away from a bad situation. To which the man says, "With its aid I have crossed safely over to this side, exerting myself with my hands and feet. It would be good if I carry this raft on my head or on my back wherever I go." The Buddha then admonishes the man in the story for his "improper" actions. The man should desert the raft, for it is no longer of use.

Jung does not tell us how the Tarot works, Jung helps us understand how a person really works. And I also believe that is also what the Tarot does, at least partly if not primarily. Thus both the Tarot and Jung can be used to help understand the other. But Jung does not explain the Tarot. I actually think the Tarot does more to explain Jung, than Jung does to explain the Tarot. And I think we, all of us, are a very long way from really, truly understanding the Tarot. But that does not mean that explanations and insights cannot be attained today to help us further that journey. And I believe those explanations and insights will only serve to enhance the Tarot, not devalue it.

And one last thing, I believe that Jung says very little about the major arcana. Obviously archetypes and Symbols may apply, but as far as the meaning of the cards, or anything similar, I think Jung says very little or nothing.

And that is quite enough said. I have a lot more to say, but not much more I can explain. And I am thinking too much... my head hurts.

But for a question for the thread, how do you think Jung applies to the Tarot, if at all? I thought about starting a poll, but because I just did one, I thought that might be perceived as me becoming poll happy. So I refrained.

* What the Buddha Taught by Walpola Rahula

 

[spiritualfields]

Hi, JSNYC,

But for a question for the thread, how do you think Jung applies to the Tarot, if at all?

My short answer is that Jung has reinvented the lexicon that Tarot users speak with when they explain the Tarot: archetypes; the collective unconscious; the conscious; the relationship of symbol to the archetypes and how prevalent they are and important to the self, etc. Browse through this early 20th century book on the tarot, the one whose title begins with "The Illustrated key to the Tarot..." and you'll see that the terminology used is very different than most intro books of its kind today.

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=tarot AND mediatype:texts

I'm only learning the tarot now, but I wonder if it is even feasible to teach or think or apply the tarot without being influenced by Jung's ideas, without using his lexicon? And why would anyone want to? The man was a brilliant scientific mystic. One thing he has done, I'd say, is make the tarot less esoteric, less of an arcane mystery. The tarot now is anything we want it to be. For anything we want it to be: divining, psychological therapy, self-exploration, games. How did Jung do this? Indirectly. Tarot practioners must have seen the obvious associations between Jung's research and the Tarot, absorbed it en masse, and spread it to the point where Jung and his teachings are now pervasive today...even when his name isn't directly mentioned in the material.

 

[Umbrae]

I'm only learning the tarot now, but I wonder if it is even feasible to teach or think or apply the tarot without being influenced by Jung's ideas, without using his lexicon? And why would anyone want to

Please remember this is a personal opinion and not a statement of facts (as above, so below). I began reading the very early 70's. Didn't go the route of building a foundation built upon what other people think, but built a foundation upon journaling, observations, and subsequent researches.

...never ran across Jung in conjuction with Tarot until the very early two-thousands. And in reality - he didn't write about Tarot, although he did mention it once...

I still steer clear of Jungian tie-ins with Tarot.

I've seen too many weekend Tarot readers think they are therapists and begin tweaking with the minds of others - with sad results; along wiith charlatan Con Artists using Tarot to bilk thousands from unsuspecting victims.

...just my opinions. Jung may have been brilliant, but he was also locked into the Western Christian viewpoint.

 

[spiritualfields]

Well, this topic is going over like gangbusters.

I've seen too many weekend Tarot readers think they are therapists and begin tweaking with the minds of others - with sad results; along wiith charlatan Con Artists using Tarot to bilk thousands from unsuspecting victims.

This is one example of the sort of influence that Jung has brought to the Tarot...INDIRECTLY. The real culprits are your colleagues who are spreading it around. Have you looked at the bookshelf full of Tarot books that are on sale in Barnes & Nobles lately? Whew!

The one thing that Jung has given me, and this is way before I ever thought about learning about Tarot cards, is a lexical language with which to objectively communicate my thoughts concerning 'selfness', and how my 'selfness' connects with others. The unconscious, the conscious, the archetypes, etc...these are universal terms that have generally agreed upon consensus meanings. You may dispute Jung's specific content, but surely you don't dispute the concept of archetypes?

Jung may have been brilliant, but he was also locked into the Western Christian viewpoint.

Yes, for prehistorical interpretations of the ancient symbols and rituals, I rely on Robert Graves and Joseph Campbell. I don't think Jung understood that the savageries that were acted out symbolically in the ancient fertility rituals, for example, were actually re-enactments of real human sacrifices that had once been conducted during even more ancient times.

 

[Metafizzypop]

I've been a fan of Carl Jung for a long time. I'm fascinated by the collective unconscious and the archetypes of personality contained in it: the ego (sense of identity), persona (the face we show the world), anima and animus (the contrasexual elements), shadow (our dark side), and Self (totality of being).

Anyway, I know that Jung was into a lot of different things, and he left behind an immense body of work, but I don't think he talked tarot very much. I think that the connections between Jungian theory and tarot were made not so much by Jung himself as by his followers.

I've come across some interesting material on these connections, but unfortunately for the life of me I can't remember where I read it (the plague of people who read too many books). But it said that the Magician of the tarot could be associated with a woman's animus, and the High Priestess with a man's anima. I've also seen, not surprisingly, the Devil associated with the Shadow, and the Hierophant with the Self.

These are only possible associations. Clearly, when we get these cards in a reading, we know that there are a lot of possibilities for what they may mean. Each major arcana covers a lot of ground. For that matter, so do archetypes. I think any archetype worth its salt can be represented by more than one card. An animus might be represented by the Magician. but at more didactic moments by the Emperor. I could also see a cranky anima showing up as the Moon, and a benevolent but authoritarian one as the Empress.

At any rate, here's what I would suggest about the tarot. I think that one of the things that gives it its visceral appeal, and has made it hang around for as long as it has, is that each of the major arcana represents an archetype, symbol, or concept from the collective unconscious. Each of the 22 cards represents something that exists down in the recesses of human awareness. We are all already familiar with and understand, even if only on a subconscious level, what all the concepts mean. They are contained in our psychology, and form a part of us.

This is why it is possible for there to be "intuitive" readers. The reason it is possible to do intuitive readings with tarot is because we already know the meanings of the major arcana without having read any books.

Unfortunately, I am not an intuitive reader, and would be completely lost without the book.

And that is my 2 cents.

 

[re-pete-a]

Please remember this is a personal opinion and not a statement of facts (as above, so below).


I've seen too many weekend Tarot readers think they are therapists and begin tweaking with the minds of others - with sad results; along wiith charlatan Con Artists using Tarot to bilk thousands from unsuspecting victims.

...just my opinions.

Un fortunately just using the Tarot is PLAYING Therapist, and reading for others is tweaking with their minds.

Not knowing Jung, nor having read his, or supposedly his books there is only one comment that can be made from hearing and reading snippets that float throughout threads such as this.

Interesting opinions.!

 

[greatdane]

When all is said and done....

isn't tarot what we make of it anyway? I see all the different perspectives. I have a lot of respect for Jung, but don't just go along with all the Jung theorists. Even though a novice (to tarot, not life or psychology), I really liked Umbrae's idea about journaling our OWN thoughts. Because no matter how many books we read, how many theories, how many ways to read into it, it's how well we figure out what helps us get in touch with ourselves...or what doesn't. Or have I realllly missed something from reading a zillion posts in these forums on how different things work for different people and everyone embraces whatever theories or systems work for them?

 

[spiritualfields]

I've come across some interesting material on these connections, but unfortunately for the life of me I can't remember where I read it (the plague of people who read too many books). But it said that the Magician of the tarot could be associated with a woman's animus, and the High Priestess with a man's anima. I've also seen, not surprisingly, the Devil associated with the Shadow, and the Hierophant with the Self.

You're probably referring to "Jung and Tarot" by Sallie Nichols, as she refers to the anima in her description of the High Priestess. I started on the High Priestess a little while ago, and had to take a break because the book is driving me crazy! As I'm reading it, I'm saying to myself "No! No! No! Maybe for you but not for me!" For example, I don't associate fertility or childbirth with the High Priestess, yet Nichols does very much so. For me, that archetype belongs to the Mother Goddess...yet there is no Mother Goddess card...hmm..so I have to reconcile these two archetypes into one conflicting whole: the Celibate Abbess High Priestess wedded to God, with the ancient Mother Goddess sacrificing a male king annually to ensure continued fertility. Whatever.

But yes, it looks like there's no getting around reconciling our plethora of archetypes and abstracting them into the 22 cards. So the High Priestess represents fertility and childbirth...whew, I guess I just had my consciousness expanded.

Anyway, I know that Jung was into a lot of different things, and he left behind an immense body of work, but I don't think he talked tarot very much. I think that the connections between Jungian theory and tarot were made not so much by Jung himself as by his followers.

I've read a few of Jung's books from his collected works, and don't recall ever reading anything specific that he said about the Tarot. I wouldn't be surprised if he referred to it once or twice, however. But so far, in Nichols's book, the quotes she uses from Jung do not refer directly to any card or the Tarot itself (so far I've read The Fool, The Magician, and partly the High Priestess). She "interprets" the quotes as being relevant to the card.

 

[Metafizzypop]

You're probably referring to "Jung and Tarot" by Sallie Nichols, as she refers to the anima in her description of the High Priestess.

The title of that book sounds very familiar. I don't own it, though. I think I might have read a few pages of it one day while I was lounging in a bookstore. It may well be one of my forgotten sources.

I've read a few of Jung's books from his collected works, and don't recall ever reading anything specific that he said about the Tarot. I wouldn't be surprised if he referred to it once or twice, however. But so far, in Nichols's book, the quotes she uses from Jung do not refer directly to any card or the Tarot itself (so far I've read The Fool, The Magician, and partly the High Priestess). She "interprets" the quotes as being relevant to the card.

I've read a lot of his Collected Works too, and I never found any direct references to tarot, either. I think the issue with Jung is that his approach to psychology was very spiritual and mystical and arty, and this lends itself to associating his ideas with metaphysical things like tarot.

BTW, I own the Jungian Tarot, and there is virtually no material in its companion book from Carl. The book was written by Robert Wang, and it is entirely his own vision/interpretation.

 

[Gazel]

Being interested in both jungian psycholgy and in tarot, I find this is indeed a difficult, yet interesting, question.

I think that it is right that the jungian terminology provides a way to talk about the tarot in a way so that modern people can understand and relate to it. And I do think that the jungian terms in some extension can explain and interpret the images of the Tarot. The problem being if it happens one to one, i.e. the magician is the animus, the hierophant is the self and so on.

That being said it raises two dangers; the one being that Tarot as a symbolic language is being "psychologized" i.e. reduced and infected so that the symbols can not speak clearly in their own right. The other that tarot reading becomes some kind of wanna-be therapy, when it is not supposed to and then can in fact be dangerous to make it so.

How to solve this, I'm not sure.

I guess some of the answer lies in the symbols, i.e. to read the tarot as an symbolical, imaginal language, and leave the psychological explanations to the real therapy rooms.

And I would like to bring this quote:

"The true Tarot is symbolism;it speaks no other language and offers no other signs." A.E. Waite.

As for Jung; I think he was a genius. And instead of being locked in it, he tried to unlock the western tradition of wisdom so that it could flourish again ;o).