punchinella
I have just started to read this book. I aquired it today, started reading the first letter & could not put it down until I came to the very end. It's . . . to say it's gorgeous is a sad understatement. It's breathtaking, it stops my heart. Particularly the first 'practical' portion of the letter, the discussion of silence.
It's interesting to read other people's synopses of significant points, since what different people choose to emphasize varies so much (from, at least, what jumped out at me in this first reading . . . ) I am reminded of a classroom.
Jmd, I too was quite taken with the initial definition of symbols that you mention in your post (dated 19-06-2002). &, as I mentioned above, with the discussion of silence/concentration. The logical connection between this--which UA characterizes as 'practical'--& the discussion of analogy, which s/he characterizes as 'theoretical', at the moment eludes me. To quote:
"As concentration without effort finds expression in the whole picture of the Card--as well as in all its details--and thus constitutes the practical Arcanum here, one also finds expressed in it the method of analogy, which constitutes the theoretical Arcanum. For, seen from the level of the intellect, the practice of the method of analogy corresponds completely to the practice of concentration without effort. Also, it appears there not as 'work' but as 'play.' "
I suppose the connection must be, simply, not so much logical as procedural: the mind can only 'see' analogy when being as a whole is concentrated & relaxed. --Not understanding this connection the first time through (well, I still don't really understand it, above was just a guess) did plague my reading to a certain extent.
On a more superficial (?) level, I would very much like to know:
1) Who UA is--specifically, & generally (gender?) --It strikes me that this is a major piece of writing, & posterity needs to be able to identify its author. (If UA really is U, which I have trouble believing, work should be done on this before the trail goes cold.)
2) Which deck, specifically, s/he is looking at (card described in detail on page 7 of my edition)--It strikes me that color might indicate a particular deck, although, Marseilles newcomer that I am, I'm totally underequipped to identify it myself . . . if such identification is even possible.
Perhaps this thread is really too old for resurrection. On the other hand, I know I'm not the only one who has recently taken this book up (I got the idea from--was it Moongold??)
Anyway, it'd be great to hear from other people also reading UA.
Punchinella
It's interesting to read other people's synopses of significant points, since what different people choose to emphasize varies so much (from, at least, what jumped out at me in this first reading . . . ) I am reminded of a classroom.
Jmd, I too was quite taken with the initial definition of symbols that you mention in your post (dated 19-06-2002). &, as I mentioned above, with the discussion of silence/concentration. The logical connection between this--which UA characterizes as 'practical'--& the discussion of analogy, which s/he characterizes as 'theoretical', at the moment eludes me. To quote:
"As concentration without effort finds expression in the whole picture of the Card--as well as in all its details--and thus constitutes the practical Arcanum here, one also finds expressed in it the method of analogy, which constitutes the theoretical Arcanum. For, seen from the level of the intellect, the practice of the method of analogy corresponds completely to the practice of concentration without effort. Also, it appears there not as 'work' but as 'play.' "
I suppose the connection must be, simply, not so much logical as procedural: the mind can only 'see' analogy when being as a whole is concentrated & relaxed. --Not understanding this connection the first time through (well, I still don't really understand it, above was just a guess) did plague my reading to a certain extent.
On a more superficial (?) level, I would very much like to know:
1) Who UA is--specifically, & generally (gender?) --It strikes me that this is a major piece of writing, & posterity needs to be able to identify its author. (If UA really is U, which I have trouble believing, work should be done on this before the trail goes cold.)
2) Which deck, specifically, s/he is looking at (card described in detail on page 7 of my edition)--It strikes me that color might indicate a particular deck, although, Marseilles newcomer that I am, I'm totally underequipped to identify it myself . . . if such identification is even possible.
Perhaps this thread is really too old for resurrection. On the other hand, I know I'm not the only one who has recently taken this book up (I got the idea from--was it Moongold??)
Anyway, it'd be great to hear from other people also reading UA.
Punchinella