THE |
|
a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining
to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects. |
To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick,alt.tarot,alt.divination,alt.occult,talk.philosophy.misc From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nagasiva) Subject: Re: Tarot Definitions and Philosophy Date: 12 Jan 1998 15:31:51 -0800 49980104 aa2 Hail Satan! nagasiva: # >#>...'how much can a deck be changed before it can no longer be # >#> said to be (even a nontraditional) "tarot" deck?'. "Bob O'Neill"regarding structure: # ...the argument can certainly be raised that the deck called # "tarot" in France had 4 suits and 78 cards beginning sometime # between 1482 and 1536. So that has a fair claim on the definition # of "tarot." a very important point. likely we will be able to ascertain no ABSOLUTE definitions (this being dependent upon the views of the one making the distinction), yet any 'prototypical' decks such as you are pointing out would be very important standards for consideration. I'm beginning to understand a kind of taxonomy where tarot definition is concerned through discussion with you and others: one of the criteria levelled upon it is the structure of the object of discussion: the material of its composition (cards, of paper, containing images, etc.) and the specific arrangement of the cards themselves (#, divisions, symbolic components, etc.). another set of criteria seems to center on functional or purposive qualities: composite and/or emblematic symbol constructs used for divination and meditation, archetypal representations designed to facilitate an encounter with the unconscious, implicative graphic devices that portray a psychological and spiritual allegory of personal maturation, etc. # ...there are decks that I call "Tarot" that deviated from this # formula along the way. ...you could change a lot of the # suited cards and I would still call it Tarot. yes, it seems very difficult to draw a specific dividing line between 'non-tarot' and 'tarot' on the basis of qualities, and yet we seem to be able to arrive at assessments of individual decks. perhaps, therefore, a COMBINATION of contributing and valuable factors inspire the identification, without which their CUMULATIVE absence would necessitate the 'non-tarot' assessment. the question then becomes which factors locatable from a traditional or a core modern tarot deck (e.g. Smith-Waite, Harris-Crowley, perhaps earlier) should be considered as contributing toward disqualification when cumulatively absent. I hear us talking about many here: Suits, possibly 4 of them; Numbers, possibly 1-10 and of variable graphic quality; Courts, probably limited in number; Trumps, their qualities proving a subset of criteria of their own -- of symbolic style, perhaps with traditional predecessors, possibly associated with other occult attributive themes, possibly of archetypal quality, etc. without identifying any single category of the above I think they can be roughly stated as comprising basic and important elements of a traditional tarot deck. it would be interesting to compare sets of qualities which different readers and occultists find imperative. # >why put a time constraint on it? you appear here (in an # >admitted Straw Man :>) to be deriving your definition for # >'tarot' from an 'older is more [authentic]' perspective. # >what is the justification for this? explaining 'more authentic': # ...closer to the intent of the designers. I'm still unsure why you choose this standard (design) over more conceptual and less historically-based alternatives. again, why locate the standard as relates to time? couldn't what could or should be called 'tarot' vary over the years? if so, what is the logical extent of variation possible before a deck stops being 'tarot'? perhaps you think that such a discernment is impossible. if so, I'm largely inclined to agree, though I don't know why the time-standard necessarily therefore becomes the default. this reminds me very strongly of discussions I've had with people about what constitutes a 'viable religious tradition'. ;> # >... do you want to relate to the game of tarocci? # # I don't make a distinction between tarot and tarocchi - tarocchi is # the Italian word for Tarot - not something different. I don't # understand the distinction you are making between game decks and # Tarot - the Tarot deck was used to play a game and still is. VERY interesting. I am unfamiliar with the precise details of how tarocci is related to or identifiable with tarot. I understand you to be saying that a person could take a deck of cards sold from a local occult shop and easily use these to play the game. this conforms to the testimonies of a couple Italians I have known, but I've never heard anyone with an extensive knowledge of occult decks render the same verdict. in reviewing Douglas' description of the game it does seem to be the case, inclusive of a role for the Fool (0). my comments were mostly based on my exposure to modern *American* playing card decks (which omit the Higher Cards and limit the Courts to three, sometimes including a 'Joker'). I have little exposure to other types of decks beyond that used for Pinochle or games like Uno, Old Maid, Nuclear War, Risk, Illuminati, Rook and Grass. # The deck of cards did not change when court de Gebelin discovered # (or rediscovered) the symbolic significance of the systems. It # was a Tarot deck before and a Tarot deck after. There has always # been a game played with the cards and there is still is. There # has always been a symbolic system on the Trumps, and there still # is. People's awareness of the significance of the symbols is the # only thing that changed - or being more radical, maybe we should # say that it became possible to discuss openly something that had # been realized from the beginning. lovely. I would like to repost my email to Usenet and archive it for further study. (I'll follow this request up in private email) # >...are you convinced that the European prototypes are the # >limitations of what should be called 'tarot'? if so, why? # # Yes, I am convinced of that - We started out to define "Tarot", # didn't we? yes, but not the game (which was a particular usage of the cards). instead I was talking about the divinatory tool (regardless of its identity and original structure as an Italian game). # Well, the Europeans invented a symbolic system, placed it on cards, # and called it "Tarot". There are other symbolic systems and other # divinatory systems, but they are not named "Tarot". actually there are some which go by the name 'tarot', but they don't attempt to retain the standards you have mentioned. the "Osho Neo-Tarot" (cards 1-60, no divisions) is an example, as are a few other decks I have occasionally classed as 'tarouche' (Morgan deck if memory serves, which is mostly batch of weird pictures of a kid named Morgan -- it's been awhile since I saw this one, but I did like it). new 'tarot' decks (centered not on the historical structure but on the arcane function, varying the structure to suit other criteria -- inclusive of the one I've developing) would be yet another example. I'm not saying there are easy solutions, just that a quick reference to prototypical standards doesn't seem necessarily the only or best solution, and if you'd select it, then it does seem important to explain why (which you have, apparently based on your preference for the Italian deck originals). #> aren't the Higher Cards usually supposed to have an archetypal #> significance? if they do not, could we rule out those which #> don't have them as tarot decks? # I'd rather say "symbolic significance", but yes, that is what # I meant. The confusion in my mind is how MANY changes into a # new symbolic system would disqualify a deck? # ...how many changes in the traditional symbols before the deck # is no longer a Tarot deck?? I don't know the answer. it seems to me that this 'number of changes' becomes a subjective assessment very quickly, thus my suggestion for discovering any essentials whose cumulative absence disqualifies. if we come up with differentiated criteria (essentials which MUST be maintained as compared to important items which should not in aggregate be absent), then this would assist in the general definition. re the Higher Cards: # ># Cannot specify the names or the ordering of the cards. # >no specific names or sequence of these names is identifiable # >as 'restriction for tarot' and yet is ANY number of cards # >acceptable in this categority? # ...the exact name of the cards cannot be equal to a definition # of Tarot. # ...we cannot use the exact ordering of the cards as a definition. agreed, naming and sequencing conventions are unreliable. it seems to me that total quantity, proportion to the rest of the deck, and appearance would be useful criteria for assessing Higher Cards, however. # ...is it tarot?? ...yes... it retains the 15th century symbols # on the trumps. given your standard of historical origin this is understandable. # How about the Lenthall Deck - no trump symbols at all, but the # cards have divinatory meanings on them - so does their use in # divination make them Tarot? I say no because the symbolism is # not there. so we have * Esoteric Decks, roughly and fairly subjectively divided into two categories: = divinatory cards (which I am calling 'cartouche'), = tarot cards (for which we are providing some approximate specificity of definition), and * Game Decks, which may or may not have the same structure as the esoteric decks. this would seem to provide a foundation for further classification. # And how about the Tarot of Etteilla - the first of the French # Occult decks? ... # 78 cards, 15 recognizable traditional images, names mostly changed, # ordering changed - an esoteric deck (definitely not for playing a # game) - lots of astrological signs scattered through the suit # cards. Is that a Tarot deck?? In my opinion, yes (but that is # pushing it to the extremes). yes, because of the number of changes, the cumulative quantity of variation from the standards chosen (whatever these may be, either of structural -- historical or modern -- criteria or that of functionality) will determine the qualification. your assessment of Ettiella is valuable provided that we understand the standard you are using and the criteria of assessing cumulative qualities thereafter. # Where would you draw the line??? I am still confused. I don't think that being able to draw distinct lines is necessary in identifying elements of tarot. what strikes me as more important is identifying standards from which evaluations CAN be made, and then providing such evaluations using common notions of essential qualities as they have appeared within historical and popular decks in identification with esoteric decks (rather than game decks, even if there is overlap between these) from these types of descriptions general discernments CAN be made (admittedly subjective but based on solid and rational methods) which would allow discussion about the specifics of structure and function without needless quibbling based on misunderstanding. it would be a kind of 'tarot science' in the sense of identifying terminology and values without the prerequisite of arriving at a basic and rigidly defined set of requirements for what constitutes "tarot"'. I think this would have limited application -- to those who enjoy talking about the obscene and arcane details of tarotic design and history. :> blessed beast! __________________________________________________________________________ nagasiva -- tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com; http://www.hollyfeld.org/~tyagi/ -- (emailed replies may be posted); http://www.hollyfeld.org/~tyagi; 408/2-666-SLUG join the esoteric syncretism in alt.magick.tyagi; http://www.abyss.com/tokus
The Arcane Archive is copyright by the authors cited.
Send comments to the Arcane Archivist: tyaginator@arcane-archive.org. |
Did you like what you read here? Find it useful?
Then please click on the Paypal Secure Server logo and make a small donation to the site maintainer for the creation and upkeep of this site. |
The ARCANE ARCHIVE is a large domain,
organized into a number of sub-directories, each dealing with a different branch of religion, mysticism, occultism, or esoteric knowledge. Here are the major ARCANE ARCHIVE directories you can visit: |
|
interdisciplinary:
geometry, natural proportion, ratio, archaeoastronomy
mysticism: enlightenment, self-realization, trance, meditation, consciousness occultism: divination, hermeticism, amulets, sigils, magick, witchcraft, spells religion: buddhism, christianity, hinduism, islam, judaism, taoism, wicca, voodoo societies and fraternal orders: freemasonry, golden dawn, rosicrucians, etc. |
SEARCH THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
There are thousands of web pages at the ARCANE ARCHIVE. You can use ATOMZ.COM
to search for a single word (like witchcraft, hoodoo, pagan, or magic) or an
exact phrase (like Kwan Yin, golden ratio, or book of shadows):
OTHER ESOTERIC AND OCCULT SITES OF INTEREST
Southern
Spirits: 19th and 20th century accounts of hoodoo,
including slave narratives & interviews
|