Lillie
Thank you wandking. You are quite right.
My primary interest in these books is not fortune telling, but understanding what the designer/ertist meant when he/she used certain symbols. The philosophy behind the cards.
Not that I am averse to fortune telling, but that is a whole different thing, and one which (for me) does not need an in depth understanding of the symbology. It is meerly a matter of letting my mind go and seeing where it leads, saying what comes into my head using the cards as a focus. (if you know what I mean, you'll know what I mean, if not I can't explain any better. Sorry)
Vincent. Thank you for the info on the Star, the cubic block and all that. It was very helpful. That all ties in with some other stuff. Cheers.
I have always been a bit funny about Masons. They don't let women join, so I've always had the reaction of 'you don't want me? well, **** you then.' So, I've tended to ignore most stuff about Masons (unless it also concerns Jack the Ripper), which was probably an oversight on my part. as however misogynistic they may be, their ideas have had a big impact on occult philosophy.
As for Waite being difficult, he is, as much as anyone from that time is difficult. Wether they are writing fiction or philosophy they all seem to have this obfusticated way of writing. (if obfusticated is not a word I don't care. I like how it sounds). None of them will use a simple sentence when they can write a paragraph instead.
Except for De Quincey's Opium Eater. He would rather write a whole chapter where a sentence would have sufficed.
But that's a different book entirely.
Occultists from this period are always unneccesarily cryptic. But Waite, once you get used to his style, is quite comprehensible. My problem lies in what he choose to say, and what he chooses to leave out.
Have I learned anything from Waites book? Yes, I suppose I have, and anyway, a book for 99p is never wasted, put it on a fire and it wil keep you warm for at least 10 minutes.
I said I was not stupid, nor am I particularly ignorant. I almost took offence there, but in the end I couldn't be bothered.
No one knows everything, and therefore we are all ignorant of certain things. However I am not more ignorant than most, and I am a lot less ignorant than some.
I am more used to Crowleys writings than to Waites, from a occult point of view I have always stood with more modern traditions, Chaos etc. but I have studied more Crowley than any other occultist of his time.
Never the less, I would have liked even more from him in the Thoth book, he can be as (if not more) cryptic, than the rest of them. But I, personally. find more in his book than in Waites.
Damn, I've got to go. I've got to put the cabbage on.
I expect I'll find more to say later.
My primary interest in these books is not fortune telling, but understanding what the designer/ertist meant when he/she used certain symbols. The philosophy behind the cards.
Not that I am averse to fortune telling, but that is a whole different thing, and one which (for me) does not need an in depth understanding of the symbology. It is meerly a matter of letting my mind go and seeing where it leads, saying what comes into my head using the cards as a focus. (if you know what I mean, you'll know what I mean, if not I can't explain any better. Sorry)
Vincent. Thank you for the info on the Star, the cubic block and all that. It was very helpful. That all ties in with some other stuff. Cheers.
I have always been a bit funny about Masons. They don't let women join, so I've always had the reaction of 'you don't want me? well, **** you then.' So, I've tended to ignore most stuff about Masons (unless it also concerns Jack the Ripper), which was probably an oversight on my part. as however misogynistic they may be, their ideas have had a big impact on occult philosophy.
As for Waite being difficult, he is, as much as anyone from that time is difficult. Wether they are writing fiction or philosophy they all seem to have this obfusticated way of writing. (if obfusticated is not a word I don't care. I like how it sounds). None of them will use a simple sentence when they can write a paragraph instead.
Except for De Quincey's Opium Eater. He would rather write a whole chapter where a sentence would have sufficed.
But that's a different book entirely.
Occultists from this period are always unneccesarily cryptic. But Waite, once you get used to his style, is quite comprehensible. My problem lies in what he choose to say, and what he chooses to leave out.
Have I learned anything from Waites book? Yes, I suppose I have, and anyway, a book for 99p is never wasted, put it on a fire and it wil keep you warm for at least 10 minutes.
I said I was not stupid, nor am I particularly ignorant. I almost took offence there, but in the end I couldn't be bothered.
No one knows everything, and therefore we are all ignorant of certain things. However I am not more ignorant than most, and I am a lot less ignorant than some.
I am more used to Crowleys writings than to Waites, from a occult point of view I have always stood with more modern traditions, Chaos etc. but I have studied more Crowley than any other occultist of his time.
Never the less, I would have liked even more from him in the Thoth book, he can be as (if not more) cryptic, than the rest of them. But I, personally. find more in his book than in Waites.
Damn, I've got to go. I've got to put the cabbage on.
I expect I'll find more to say later.
