Observations about the Thoth Tarot
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I haven't given an opinion on that here."
It is evident that you haven't...are you avoiding the inquiry for a reason?
R.E.D.
-
@Red Eagle of Death said
"I'm with KRVB. Don't you think A.C. would've made sure that everything was done according to his standards? - especially a card as signifigant as The Chariot?"
What do you make of the white light coming down from the top-right of Atu IV? Hint: It's another error, if AC's commentary in The Book of Thoth is accurate as to what it's supposed to be.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
""Proper construction" of a Tarot deck refers to the symbols on it, not the words. Anything your conscious mind can read is pretty insignificant. (And yes, that includes the titles of the cards.)"
This is a logical inconsistency. Everything is a symbol that communicates something or another to the subconscious mind - & for a Qabalist, this is especially true of letters.
L.Lazuli
-
@zeph said
"
@Red Eagle of Death said
"I'm with KRVB. Don't you think A.C. would've made sure that everything was done according to his standards? - especially a card as signifigant as The Chariot?"What do you make of the white light coming down from the top-right of Atu IV? Hint: It's another error, if AC's commentary in The Book of Thoth is accurate as to what it's supposed to be."
If it's a pictoral error, then(unless that light is made of letters), according to Jim's definition of 'properly constructed', it is an improperly constructed deck...so which is it?
R.E.D.
-
@zeph said
"Fortunately, dear Eagle, the world is not cleanly subdivided into This or That, so I'm quite comfortable saying that it's a properly constructed Tarot deck with the occasional error."
...proper but with errors...if that isn't an oxymoron
~dear Eagle
-
The assumption I operate under is that the cards were received, not engineered by A.C. If there is conflict with the book, the card wins. I stopped refering to the book altogether. Even is his brilliance, trying to describe infinite chaos and forces of the universe manifested in the cards is an infinite road to nowhere. I suppose it is possible he purposely introduced misleading notions in the book (but NOT the cards).
-
Perhaps, Student, but what I know of the method by which these cards were created, they were not divinely received, but carefully constructed by Harris in consultation with Crowley. Divinely received texts do not require rewrite after rewrite.
Eagle, you'll find many oxymorons as you study the occult.
-
@student2012 said
"The assumption I operate under is that the cards were received, not engineered by A.C. If there is conflict with the book, the card wins. I stopped refering to the book altogether. Even is his brilliance, trying to describe infinite chaos and forces of the universe manifested in the cards is an infinite road to nowhere. I suppose it is possible he purposely introduced misleading notions in the book (but NOT the cards)."
...but the card Zeph is referencing does contain an inconsistency. The bright light is supposed to be the Light of Chokmah shining down into Tiphareth - but since Tzaddi is not the Star, but the Emperor(Atu IV), that Light should be in the upper right-hand corner of Atu XVII.
616
-
-
@miss ruby said
"i think the very famous red unicursal hexagram that comes with the cards is supposed to have the pentagram/rose facing upright.... i think...
"...you think right miss ruby
616
-
@zeph said
"Perhaps, Student, but what I know of the method by which these cards were created, they were not divinely received, but carefully constructed by Harris in consultation with Crowley. Divinely received texts do not require rewrite after rewrite."
I am not aware of the method of their construction, but the things I have seen there make me think it is unlikely these were created by careful planning and rational thought. Channeled if not divine perhaps, but I doubt the hand that created the cards was guided purely by the will of AC or Harris. I wish I could explain more why I have this impression but I think it might be irresponsible to do so on this forum.
-
Miss Ruby, it definitely is supposed to be upright. A printing error, that, not a "typo"/artistic error. You'd think the publishers would have fixed that by now, but perhaps they're protecting the market for reversed-rose pendants, which market would otherwise be nil.
-
@Red Eagle of Death said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"I haven't given an opinion on that here."It is evident that you haven't...are you avoiding the inquiry for a reason?"
Oh, several. The biggest is that I don't think it matters much. This probably comes partly from my using so many decks over the years that I'm used to ignoring most details in favor of simply understanding the core idea of the card.
In this particular case, somewhere around here I have Crowley's correspondence with Harris on the matter where this is discussed. I'd hate to take a position at odds with such a record, but I'm sure not going to take the time to dig out the record. (Again, I was so unconcerned about the matter that I didn't bother even to decisively note the outcome.)
Subject to contradiction by the actual correspondence, I think it was an error that Harris made and which Crowley didn't manage to get her to correct.
-
@Lapis said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
""Proper construction" of a Tarot deck refers to the symbols on it, not the words. Anything your conscious mind can read is pretty insignificant. (And yes, that includes the titles of the cards.)"This is a logical inconsistency. Everything is a symbol that communicates something or another to the subconscious mind - & for a Qabalist, this is especially true of letters."
Letters such as the Hebrew letter of the path - but not so much words written on it.
In other words: Is it being used as a symbol (speaking to subconsciousness) or a word (speaking to self-consciousness). I submit that the word on the awning is of the latter type (utterly unnecessary for the former).
-
@Red Eagle of Death said
"If it's a pictoral error, then(unless that light is made of letters), according to Jim's definition of 'properly constructed', it is an improperly constructed deck...so which is it?"
You're missing a third possibility: It's visually accurate, but the light is not (as the text suggests) from Chokmah.
-
@student2012 said
"The assumption I operate under is that the cards were received, not engineered by A.C."
No, that's wrong. That's not how it happened.
Crowley gave some rough notes to Harris. Harris painted pictures (and any real inspiration was hers). He asked her for corrections sometimes and to redo cards sometimes. Usually she did. He was grateful for the paintings.
It was an artistic-literary collaboration. She drew on his writings and her own artistry, he had (for the most part) editorial control.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@student2012 said
"The assumption I operate under is that the cards were received, not engineered by A.C."No, that's wrong. That's not how it happened.
Crowley gave some rough notes to Harris. Harris painted pictures (and any real inspiration was hers). He asked her for corrections sometimes and to redo cards sometimes. Usually she did. He was grateful for the paintings.
It was an artistic-literary collaboration. She drew on his writings and her own
artistry, he had (for the most part) editorial control."Hey Jim, ok fair enough.
Was there some magical operation in progress parallel to this collaboration?
29/55