THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.tarot,alt.divination,alt.magick,alt.magick.pagan
From: nagasiva 
Subject: Emergent Tahutian Tome
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 07:31:28 GMT

50030820 viii om 

Thothic Tome Emergent (ignore the game-origins, will ya!?)

centered emphasis on occult character in historical analysis
as a development and refinement; proximity determining value;
and fabulizing is part of the mechanism of its transmission.


nagasiva:
#> [occult] Tarot instead began with the first speculation on 
#> TOP of the game.
 
# Technically, occult Tarot began with a number of French 
# fortune-tellers 

Alliette <=> etteillA? others?

# and Freemasons 

like? de Gebelin? de Mellet? was Levi a Freemason? 
Waite was, but I'm unsure he really qualifies for the below.

# writing collections of lies about Tarot symbolism and history.
# Honest speculation is when you say, "I don't know, but I think 
# it means..." Lies are when you detail an elaborate fiction 
# you've invented and present it as fact, as if it were based 
# on research and evidence rather than personal fancy.

completely agreed, in case there's any doubt about that. :>

re James Revak (my favourite source on Tarot!): 
# ...Tarot is a broad subject with many facets. Even in that
# tiny snip you are allegedly replying to, he makes the point 
# -- "Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't." Do you 
# understand what that means?

I think I do now that I've watched for a few months, yes.
 
# When has James ever "refused to acknowledge" modern 
# Tarot's occult content?

dunno, I'm not sure I was contending he did. as you say, 
it is the gaming and transitional phases of the origins
of (occult) Tarot that are the controversial portion (on
account of the tradition of fabulizing). few dispute the 
*game's* origins once they become aware of it, however.

# ...James is rightfully insistent that this be included, 
# *along with* the later occult history. It's not 
# "either/or", but "both/and" -- both occult Tarot 
# *and* the older and broader history of the game.

only if one is making no distinction between the game
and (occult) Tarot. you correctly maintain that it is
important to identify the origins of (occult) Tarot as
spinning off the game, but my point was that another
perspective on this is occult-Tarot-centered (i.e. for
what ever reason, 'Tarot' means occult device and some
game sacrificed to the Work is inconsequential to the
real development which proceeds thereafter, socially,
through lineages, and personally, by the people involved.

inasmuch as the (occult) Tarot started *simplistically* 
with base and fabricated beginnings in order to convince 
those who believe that without an ancient pedigree such 
tools are useless or worthless (or maybe the game origins
would be embarrassing or considered suspect to use),
so it has been *evolving* and growing in its elegance,
its usefulness, and its diversity as an arcane tool.

'Tarot' arose from 'tarot', so to speak, when we're
talking about (occult) Tarot. the importance of the
game's origins is less significant to those who know
that the arcane tool is as much an easel as an oracle,
as much a ceremonial tool and initiatory device as a
theurgical weapon or mystical ladder. the game pales
by comparison, and while its contribution is valuable
it truly becomes a backdrop or set of components 
around which a significant technology was fashioned.

# ...Tarot is a big subject, and occult Tarot is just 
# one corner of it -- even if it is the only corner 
# that interests you. 

and my point in comparison is that for a good many
occultists, Tarot *means* occult Tarot (based on the
fabrications and dogmas purported by 'innovators').

many religious have done the same thing in their
origins of cults. whether it is excusable (arguably
a moral corruption sullying the original context in 
which occult Tarot makes its appearance) is not
a subject I'm here or even elsewhere discussing,
but instead the perspective in which 'game tarot'
is seen as extraneous in the same way that such games
as Chaturanga, Four Seasons Chess, or even Chinese 
Chess might be seen as the backdrop for the occult 
tool: Enochian Chess (cf. Regardie, Zalewski, et al). 

greater significance should be given to any 
impressions occultists built onto the game as 
they moulded the graphic design of an occult tool.

occultists who were interested in its function either
wouldn't care much, or they'd think that its gaming 
origins should be considered only secondarily because 
of the twist (content? symbolism? attributions? intent?) 
given to the thing by those who intend it an occult tool.
this in part distinguishes Tarot decks from those other,
typically less complicated and less meaningful, gaming 
variety (I look down my nose at the puny original :>).

at worst, agreed, the occultist is wholly taken in
by the fabricated origins (what by some ceremonialist
magicians is called the 'Charter Myth'), and this is 
as true in religious (and magical) communities (e.g.
BOTA, OTO, GD, etc.), where (occult) Tarot played and
yet in some cases still plays so important a part. 

try as we might to uncover the reality behind the fables, 
this doesn't ever completely efface the faith in the 
fantastic tales. we can, however, make headway in forums 
like this, and simultaneously identify the historical
gaming *pre-history* (of (occult) Tarot) while coming to
understand how the (occult) Tarot has improved for its
intended use. if people use the term 'Tarot' and exclude
the relatively insignificant gaming backdrop, you can
hardly blame us. ;>

# (However, even if occult Tarot is your exclusive 
# interest, the larger history of the game is still 
# the context in which that occult Tarot originated.)

debatable. the game was manipulated conceptually
as a conduit or grid upon which the symbolism of
the occultism of the day was painted. it wasn't
the playing of the game *per se* that gave incentive
for the occult ascription. it might have been called
'Tarock' or 'Scarto', or 'Konigsrufen' or something 
in another lingo if the Frenchies weren't the ones 
falsifying the backdrop (de Gebelin, de Mellet, 
Alliette, Levi, etc.). 

the stories of how the occult tool originated were 
projected back beyond the actual origin, so whether 
it was a game or not was entirely beside the point 
that there was a deck (or set of them) that could be 
manipulated as arcane tools when properly constructed 
by someone of the right background and artistic sense.

does the fact that Chess may have had a background
in divination (Chinese Chess) rather than in warfare 
(Chaturanga) make a difference to game players? not
really. the rules of the game are what is important,
and this is because the game players don't have to
be convinced of the ancient pedigree of the game in
order to give it authority (even though some will in
fact do this, calling it 'The Royal Game' rather
than the more accurate 'Battle to the Death of the 
King' -- from 'checkmate':'Shah Mat'/ The King is Dead!').

the semantics continue!: 
#># Well, that's one relatively narrow and fairly 
#># modern "story". Clearly there are others.
#>
#> only to someone with your inclusive standards! ;>
# 
# No, you're still mistaken  -- there *are* other 
# facets of Tarot. That's a statement of fact (not 
# "inclusive standards") whether you recognize it or
# not, and repeating your error doesn't make it less 
# erroneous.

depends on the termset. if 'Tarot' means to you the
occult Tarot, then your contentions do not apply.

the ignorance of the occult community concerning
the game family of tarot (Tarot, Tarocchi, Tarrock, 
Scarto, etc.) is irrelevant to the overall knowledge 
about when occultists of some *dedication* (rather 
than merely those with compelling stories without 
basis attempting to draw attention or entertain) 
began to encounter and refashion the initial 
'bogosities' (to use a Bill'n'Ted'ism) .
 
# Your inability to understand or refusal to acknowledge 
# the larger world of Tarot doesn't change anything; 

I see the tarot game family, but I don't acknowledge
it as anything other than the forerunner to the (occult)
Tarot, *known as Tarot* to a majority of the occult 
community who may have bought the tall tales 
that are integral to propagation of memes 
in certain pedigree-biased communities.

# ...There is more to Tarot than occult Tarot, (and more 
# to occult Tarot than the personal view you describe 
# above), regardless of your limited personal interests.

I can hardly blame you for mistaking my concentration
on important facets of (occult) Tarot's origins and its
composition (i.e. it develops, rather than disintegrates)
for myopia, especially since the legends and lies have got 
many believing as you seem to want to paint me (as ignoring
the game-body that occultists possessed in order to bring
to life a transcendental Frankeinstein's Monster using the
age-old mechanism of black magic (deceptive manipulation)). 

what I'm really saying has to do with where we place the
centermark of our attention, not trying to dissuade you
of your valiant and important message (with which I by 
and large agree, as I hope you can discern).

the issue: the origin of (occult) Tarot. you want to
argue with me that it starts in a game. I'm telling
you that (occult) Tarot starts off on the foundations

of a game and extends and refines thereafter toward
its *emergent perfection*. where the priorities are 
given to language is in part a standard feature of a 
specialist's lexicon. it is not strictly by historicity 
that 'Tarot' ought exclude its gaming forerunner, 
but based on the fables that serve to undergird 
(occult) Tarot's fantastic origins.

you may want to tear down that dream, unveil the little 
man behind the curtain pulling levers, you may want to 
pretend that it is the man creating the occult tool when 
in fact magicians later undertook a restitution and gentle,
measured, refinement, evaluatable by elegance and mystic
import of symbolism and structure.
  
the Orientalism and Egyptomania of its costumed youth
betray little of its actual occult origins, since 
these fabrications are metaphorical and distinct from 
history or other easily discernable relevant data.

these were but transitional tools conveying to gullible
truth-seekers and aspirant magicians and mystics the
barking of the occult community's carnies. their betters
improved and refined their constructs and added their
own embellishments, sometimes significantly improving 
on the originals constructed on top of games. 
 
#>#> Going deeper into the rabbit hole of Tarot's past 
#>#> history creates opportunities to explore the depth 
#>#> of its mystery and possibilities. The history of the 
#>#> Tarot is interwoven in ways, which many have attempted 
#>#> to unravel. This is best done by tracing the strands 
#>#> that make up the inner secrets of the Tarot.
#># 
#># Is this best done by writing fictions and speculations 
#># with regard to Tarot's original meaning?
#>
#> of course not! it is best done by identifying the creators 
#> of the Occult Tarot and what thoughts went into the 
#> background symbolism of the cards in general that they 
#> considered when selecting from the fortune-telling and
#> gaming backgrounds and what elements (/planets/signs! 
#> a pun!) went into their entire construction.
# 
# ...fortune-telling with Tarot and occult Tarot (referring
# to Cabalistic and astrological associations) were invented 
# at about the same time and place, rather than fortune-
# telling being a precursor to occult Tarot.

fortune-telling using the game tarot and the origins of
(occult) Tarot first appeared together, you're saying?

here's the issue: 

The Emergent Book of Thoth 

the event horizon of activity and that of an emergent, 
shifting and refining occult tool are of different 
qualities. sure, you can locate game Tarot fortune-telling 
along with its probable alternatives in 'game' Euchre and 
'game' Rummy. but you won't be centered on the origins of 
any occult tool that they later may have become.
 
#> oh sure, but you're hooked on inclusivity
# 
# ...you make it sound like acknowledging the breadth 
# of the subject is a bad thing, 

it's just not (occult) Tarot-centered is all.

# whereas insisting that occult Tarot is the only Tarot 
# is somehow liberating.

very. it retrieves the (occult) Tarot from the tinkering
shops of gamesters and cartizans, historians and clerks
of elite triunfi.
 
#> and will get lost in the rudiments of Occult Tarot's 
#> less esoteric foundation.
#>
#> whereas the occultists one may cite that you could 
#> describe as "writing fictions and speculations" 
#> are the better sources of information about this
#> Occult Mystery-Bridge Tool!
# 
# That's just embracing lies and foolishness. 

that an entertaining, compelling fabrication was applied 
like putty over a rough game at a time when such a maneuver 
served to propagate the tool says nothing about its symbolic 
significance on the whole, to what it points as a composite, 
and toward what it ought be put to use. 

ignoring the fabrications of (occult) Tarot's origin is to 
effectively dispense with its (cyphered) instruction manual!
one might as well open up David Parlett's "Oxford Dictionary
of Card Games" and begin telling how the Mysteries are given
through the structure of the game 'Tarot'.

here, let me show you how ludicrous this looks -- or will I 
prove your point? :>):

$	_Tarot (French)_
$
$	French Tarot has been gaining in popularity in
$	France during the latter part of the twentieth
$	century, helped largely by the fact that there
$	is basically only one main French game, despite
$	(or perhaps because of) the complaints of
$	authoritarians that no official standard is
$	universally adhered to.

compare this with how he starts the previous entry:

$	_Tarot_
$	
$	The pack which English-speakers call by the French
$	name Tarot (there being no English tradition of
$	Tarot play) is called Tarocco in Italian, Tarock
$	in German, and various similar words in other
$	languages. Contrary to popular belief, Tarot cards
$	did not precede ordinary playing cards, and they
$	were invented not for occultic but for purely
$	gaming purposes.

and you'll see immediately what distinctions are being
made in this authoritative text on *games*. Tapp Tarock
is classed in this tarot family, and it has *54* cards.
we immediately start to see problems with identifying
the origin of (*occult*) Tarot in the game family. be
that as it may, I'll speculate as to the occult meaning
of the game's rules. :>

$	*Cards.* Four players use a 78-card French Tarot
$	pack, consisting of
$
$	1. the Fool, or 'Excuse';

right off the bat we have a differentiation between the
game and occult (the role and use of the 'Fool'/'Excuse').
collaging Parlett's text on this card, the rules he lays
out indicate that

$	*The Excuse.* The holder of the Excuse may play it
$	at any time and in contravention of any [of the
$	foregoing rules in the game]. If it is led, the
$	suit to be followed is that of the second card
$	played. The Excuse normally loses the trick.

that is, effectively it is counted as a *slough* card if
played prior to the last trick, which Parlett describes:

$	If, however, it is led to the last trick, and
$	its holder has won all 17 previous tricks, 
$	then it wins.

this 'win' is therefore a capping to a perfect round of
play. i.e. (my text now, separated for emphasis):

     the gaming Tarot Fool has no hierarchical value
     excepting that it is played as the final lead in
     an otherwise perfect game.



its use is, contrariwise, *dynamic*, serving as an
"excuse" to give the original claimant to the card
(whether one's opponent *or* one's temporary team-
mate in solidarity against a soloist who is trying
to what we used to call in Hearts 'run the hand',
or by some 'shoot the moon' in the same game) some
*alternative* for which they might substitute from
the cards they have already won or will win later
in the hand. in fact, the card is *only lost if the
player never takes a trick*, it then being discarded.

therefore despite the historical origins of the cards,
the Fool or Excuse *is* comparable to a 'Joker' in
some card games in that it is a 'Wild Card' and, quite
beyond this, has a *spicing effect* that the 'Petit',
the actual *lowest value Trump* (1) cannot attain.

$       2. 21 trumps numbered 1-21;

note that neither is the Fool/Excuse considered a
trump, nor is it numbered "0". this is because of its
'otherworldly' and transitive properties, working
quite beyond the bounds of the conventional game.

in fact the *game* Tarot specifically undermines what
occultists refer to as 'the trump sequence', considering
their preponderant number to be VALUELESS (for the
purposes of winning the game) other than the numbers 
1 & 21. these two trumps are grouped *with* the Fool
and referred to as the 'butts' (ends), which are counted 
with the *16 COURT CARDS* for scoring in trick-taking. 

the trump number *1* has the added value of allowing
(at least) the annulment of the deal, where a player
dealt it who has "no other trump, nor the Excuse".
apparently variations in gaming allow additional
'powers' by the holder of the solitary trump, whereas
the distinction of the 21 is that no other card can
take it except the Excuse led as the last trick.

the significance for this in terms of (occult) Tarot,
rather than the game upon which it was constructed,
would be to identify those decks that gave a special
placement to the Fool (non-numbered) as patterning
themselves after the game in form at least. Levi's
decision (or at least one of them?) to set the Fool
prior to the Greatest Trump at least pairs it with
one of the 2 'ends' (the three in sequence if the
whole is taken as a cyclic series in a manner not
unlike the result if the Fool is provided a 0).

it also gives the impression that all the trumps
between 2 and 20 inclusive are JUST POWER-ORIENTED
and have no value except insofar as they manipulate
the 'ends' and Courts/Faces. the *focal value of the
Courts* indicates, infusing occult standards backward
to game construct, the focal importance of at least
*personal* if not elemental dominion and control.
these Faces are *the highest values of their
respective suits*, as Parlett gives it:

$	3. 14 cards in each of the plain suits, spades,
$	clubs, hearts, diamonds, ranking from high to low:
$	King (R), Queen (D), Cavalier (C), Jack (V),
$	10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1.
$
$	...
$
$	Play centers on the winning of tricks containing
$	counters or scoring-cards, these being the three
$	butts and 16 courts. All other trumps and plain
$	cards are non-counters, or blanks.

which is strongly adverse to the (occult) Tarot
tradition of identifying a particular value to at
LEAST the Aces, as Roots of the Elements. the
importance of simultaneously *including Queens*
and staking these as the Quaternal Value within
plain suits folds nicely into neo-Kabbalistic
notions of the Tetragrammaton (YH^1VH^2) but gives
short-shrift to the sephiroth in Biodendritic
constructs of lines and circles ('Aces', 'Twos',
etc. aligned with these worthies).

examining the Kircher-style and other Trees of
Life upon which occultists exhibit their (occult)
Tarot, it is amusing that the butts or ends within
the game comprise, on a Kircher-tree-structure,
three (as those emanated from sephira 1) of the
five possible path-trajectories, the first two
and the last one in a kind of forked pattern:

                O (01)
               / \
          "1" /   \ "Excuse" [occult '0']
             /     \
       (03) O       O (02)  
               
               ...
               
                O (09)
                |
                | "21"
                |
                O (10)
                
though I'm not sure that there is any very clear
meaning we might *necessarily* derive from it.
I can imagine a few, but these are informed by
my clearly biased and limited perspective on
a single occult toolset refined over time.

$       Aces, numbered '1', have no special value.
$       The total value of all tricks and counters
$       is 91.

tying Aces in with the number 1 (as trump) gives 
them a special resonance (the 'creation' of the
Magician, a 'butt' despite its inferior value), 
but none command power in the sense of gameplay,
that is until the first deal:

$       *Deal.* The first deal is made by whoever
$       draws the lowest card, trumps counting
$       higher than plain suits. The turn to deal
$       and play then passes to the right.

counter-clockwise. oh those Frenchies! :> a symbol
of descension and entropy, the dynamic sequence of
the Play in the game Tarot doesn't convey divination,
initiation, or mysticism, except maybe in an ascetic
or wrathful sense. the deal is likewise widdershins,
3 cards at a time and 1 to a centerpile, called
a 'dog' ('le chien'; in Hearts we call it a 'kitty',
how cute). 

91 is 13 x 7, the two ultimate numbers of bad and
good luck, respectively. being odd, this requires
a majority of points captured by either the auctioned
soloist or by the trinity who lost the auction (the
game conventionally played by 4 people). in fact,
the chart for winning points for the soloist shows
that the points needed to win are dependent upon the
number of butts contained in the tricks won:

	 0 butts	36 points [3 x 3 x 2 x 2; 36+56=92]
	 1 butt		41 points [17 x 3;        41+51=92]
	                46        [(13 x 7)/2 + 1;46+46=92]
	 2 butts	51 points [prime;         51+41=92]
	 3 butts	56 points [7 x 2 x 2 x 2; 56+36=92]

during the 'Declaration' portion of the game just before
the playing the first trick, the Excuse is allowed as a
"trump substitute", giving it closer resemblance to these
as a set of cards than otherwise implied. the high bid
sets up for aims

	Take (dog added to hand, substituted for other cards)
	Push (dog added, but higher score)
	Dogless (dog remains untouched, added to soloist tricks)
	Contra-Dog (dog remains untouched, added to 3-team tricks)

with their overall value for end-scoring as

	card		points
	butt		5
	King		5
	Queen		4
	Cavalier	3
	Jack		2

now what might be the symbolism of the dog? again this gets
into the meaning of *game-play* rather than the game deck,
which I've about worn out and see no necessity to fabricate.

$	----------------------------------------------------
$	"Oxford Dictionary of Card Games", by David Parlett,
$ 	 Oxford Univ. Press, 1996;. pp. 300, 301-
$	 Parlett cites Dummett's "Game of Tarot" and with
$	 reference to Arnett's "Le Tarot" and Laurent's
$	 "Le Jeu de Tarots", publ. in mid 1970-1980. the
$	 author specifically says that "the rules are
$	 typical, rather than definitive" (p. 301).
$	===================================================== 

# Even a sympathetic scholar of the occult like A.E. Waite, 
# nearly a century ago, dismissed their tales of Tarot, 
# introducing his own discussion by saying, "our immediate 
# next concern is to speak of the cards in their history, 
# so that the speculations and reveries which have been 
# perpetuated and multiplied in the schools of occult 
# research may be disposed of once and for all."  
# (Would that he had been successful.)

suuuuure. and then he talks about Albigensians.
critical analysis is part of occult tradition, and Waite
was one of the more astute of those participating in the
development of (occult) Tarot.


# Playing card historians of Waite's day had already 
# debunked much of the occultists' nonsense, and those 
# since 1980 have discovered and documented a very 
# different history of Tarot than any imagined by the 
# originators of this Absolute Key to Occult Science. 

I maintain that their imagination has significance,
even if it isn't historical significance. mapping the
purpose and use of the tool which is accompanied by it,
the foundation myths of (occult) Tarot (e.g. "The Book
of Thoth" <== you can't call the game this :>) is more
important than any puny games occultists have employed.

# The occultists were oblivious, totally indifferent to 
# the actual history of their subject. They made up "history"
# that suited their purposes, with little or no regard for 
# facts or evidence.

do you have some kind of substantiation to support this?

I'm not saying you're wrong about this, but I haven't seen
much attention paid to *how much occultists knew about the
game history they were overwriting for their purposes*. was
Levi unfamiliar with the French Tarot's history/purpose?
Etteilla? I frankly doubt this, but am curious enough to ask.

# Most people would call that "lying" about history, 

there is a hierarchy of deception involved. if they don't
actually *know* the history, then they are fabricating on
top of their ignorance. if they *do* know the history and
tell tall tales, then they are abjectly lying for their
intended purpose. the motivations are clear enough. 
the result jump-started the (occult) Tarot.

# and many of those lies are widely promoted even today.

of course they are. so you want to say that the lies they
told somehow shift the (occult) Tarot's origins to games?
preposterous!! the (occult) Tarot begins in the roots of
the deck's symbolism and structure, whether that falls
into a specific lineage (e.g. British, Swiss, Spanish, etc.)
or extends from some theory of (occult) Tarot or set of
thematic alignments (e.g. religious, mercantile, New Age). 
 
# If there *had* been an occultist who told the truth, 
# it would be a great thing! 

truth is irrelevant if they didn't know it. all that they
might do is utilize the constructed tool to reflect the
Mysteries as they knew them to their students and any 
who might come after them and use the deck as intended.

# ...instead they lied, and therefore anyone wanting 
# to know the truth about early Tarot, or early occult 
# Tarot, has to begin by digging through two centuries 
# of steaming, reeking manure.
  
it's good to know where the plants grow.

# In addition to not trusting the occultists for 
# history lessons, 

good idea!

# why would anyone seek moral or spiritual guidance 
# from such unrepentant liars? Is being a bullshit 
# artist one of the touchstones for spiritual teaching? 

it helps spread the, uh, wurd.

# Various occultists may have constructed delightful 
# and/or useful systems of correspondences for Tarot, 
# which one may choose to adopt for various purposes. 
# But to consider such charlatans to be mystically 
# enlightened, or even reliable teachers on any level, 
# suggests wanton gullibility -- is that a prerequisite 
# for occult Tarot? 

thus the rational occultist evaluates from themselves
*outwards*. the (occult) Tarot is better if newer, 
rather than older.

# Does occult Tarot require turning one's back on the 
# truth about Tarot history? 

of course not, but it makes it possible so that you'll
have the opportunity to completely confuse yourself.

# Does it require a set of blinders like those you 
# wear, which block out all those older and broader 
# aspects of Tarot?

sir! you've mistaken my corrective spectacles for
blinders! in fact, these shades help me to view with
precision the relation between games and divination
in the context of (occult) Tarot, known *as* Tarot
to the bulk of occultists. are *your* glasses smudged? :>

#> ... whereas there may not be "ancient origins" to 
#> the tarot proper there are ancient origins to some 
#> of the symbolism which was employed upon the 
#> [occult] Tarot in its inception.
#
# Exactly correct. Since you know the difference between 
# the two statements which you contrasted there -- and 
# since you know that one is true and the other is false 
# -- why do you complain about James insisting that the 
# true statements are better history than the false ones?

because an inception isn't perfection or manifestation.
(occult) Tarot emerged after a struggle of gestation.

# ...you can distinguish between correct statements and 
# false ones, and yet you insist on defending the false 
# statements as legitimate.

the falsity has a purpose. pointing out its falsity 
is valuable to skeptical occultists. overlooking its
purpose while doing that is more myopic than what 
you are saying about me (that I'm ignoring history,
which I'm not, I'm just knocking it down to size).

# Why not prefer the correct ones?

sometimes symbolism isn't literal. 'correctness' isn't
just historical. failing to appreciate the correctness
of symbolism in fantasy is just as foolhardy as 
failing to acknowledge the historicity of a thing.

once the mechanism of the propagation is understood 
it might itself be interpreted for the clues as to 
how to use the deck around which it was fastened.

nagasiva
-- 
yronwode.com@nagasiva; http://www.satanservice.org/
emailed replies may be posted; cc replies if response desired; 
HOODOO CATALOGUE! send street addy to: catalogue@luckymojo.com