Article about Tarot Cards Are Having A Moment With Help From Pandemic

[gregory]

That was also the way Crowley worked, don't forget.

[devin]

17 hours ago, gregory said:

That was also the way Crowley worked, don't forget.

 

You mean hiding the truth amidst a storm of bull? I hadn't thought of that. Still, one would think firm complaints would have emerged by now. That said, since I haven't had to deal with such situations, or the possibility of them, if someone tells me young Jodo pings their radar, I have to respect that.

 

EDIT: I see a mysterious cartomancer named Stella has blogged about the original subject of this thread. https://fatekeepson.blogspot.com/2021/12/media-misrepresentation.html

Edited December 20, 2021 by devin

[gregory]

 Yes - I always enjoy Stella. Except when she goes for me (it has happened...)

 

In one of the decent Crowley biographies, it is pointed out that - for instance - the stuff about his abuse of cats and of small boys was said for effect, and never happened. I forget; it might have been Kazynski. Or Churton, Or Sutin. (Yes I read them all.... I was on a major Crowley kick at the time.) It certainly wasn't Symons, who reported it with great gusto - but he wrote his JUST to be sensational. And it was a lot more fun - but wildly inaccurate in places.

[devin]

40 minutes ago, gregory said:

 Yes - I always enjoy Stella. Except when she goes for me (it has happened...)

 

In one of the decent Crowley biographies, it is pointed out that - for instance - the stuff about his abuse of cats and of small boys was said for effect, and never happened. I forget; it might have been Kazynski. Or Churton, Or Sutin. (Yes I read them all.... I was on a major Crowley kick at the time.) It certainly wasn't Symons, who reported it with great gusto - but he wrote his JUST to be sensational. And it was a lot more fun - but wildly inaccurate in places.

 

Ah, I misunderstood. I thought you were outlining a technique in which you surround real nasty deeds with vast quantities of bumph. Said bumph then covers over or hides the nasty. Like hiding the truth in a lie or something. 🤪 

 

But, yes, I get it now. Even reading the opening chapters of Jodo's Tarot book gives fair warning that one is in the realm of self mythologizing. 

 

 

[devin]

If I may briefly revive my tack of trying to give the Guardian newspaper a cheap kicking, this is brilliant.

 

In 2017 a Guardian columnist (maybe for the Australian edition?) quoted George Orwell's 1984 to make some point or other about misinformation. Hardly original, but all fine and good. Trouble is, the quote itself was a fake, dreamt up by a Twitter comedian.

 

Have such ambitious levels of post-ironic, reflexive meta-narrative ever before been attempted in the history of journalism and or chronicling? I think not.

 

Here it is in all its faux glory.

 

Quote

 

Big brother smirked, “Facts are whatever I say they are. For example, trains are small. Really small. You could fit a train in the palm of your hand.”

“That’s not true,” spluttered Winston. “I was on a train yesterday. It’s the biggest damn thing I’d ever seen.”

“No!” boomed Big Brother. “It was small! Welcome to Tiny Train World, Winston. Enjoy not being able to catch a train on account of their being too small, you idiot!”

 

 

I presume the columnist in question had never read Orwell, or perhaps a book in general. And then there are the sub editors....

 

The article, amended to include an actual Orwell quote, can be found here.

 

Lord have mercy on us all and forgive me in particular for being unkind.

[MuninnMissinHuginn]

When I look up an artist to see their artwork often times along with the actual art created by that artist there are images of art created in the style of, without clear indication of such. It is so easy to be mislead. 

 

For those who have had a lifetime of getting information from the internet, and really all of us going forward, how difficult it is to know the truth of a comment - fact, theory, sarcasm, parody, etc. Personally it is very difficult for me.

 

The error of the quote it’s self seems to make one of Orwell’s points - anything repeated often enough becomes the truth.  

 

It is not unkind, but a frightening proof that reading without critical thinking has inherent dangers. 

 

And for me to relate the conversation back to tarot, it seems that much of the information easily found on the internet about the meaning of the cards comes filtered through the RWS deck.  Being a unstudied person in the history of tarot, I do wonder how distorted the RWS interpretation is from the thinking of the 15th century users of the decks. 

[gregory]

The internet has a lot to answer for, it's true. And sometimes people are terminally thick. I am having an argument on twitter (because it amuses me that the other person is so VERY thick) about whether the Queen minds Lilibet being named for her. She knows FOR A FACT that the Queen minds. I ask her repeatedly what evidence she has; responses have ranged from "Common sense" to "You'd mind if someone named their child with a private nickname of yours". I have said over and over that I have no idea whether the Queen minds, as I haven't spoken to her about it and she certainty hasn't said anything that anyone has seen - that neither of us has a shred of evidence either way; maybe she minds, maybe she doesn't. The latest response was along the lines of she isn't bothering any more with liars like me.

 

It is impossible, any more to have a sensible discussion about anything. (Which is why forums like this are the last hope - anything on social media attracts these lunatics to whom "evidence" is how they happen to feel about things.)

 

Not everyone even reads. Twas ever thus:

 

 

But back to tarot - the RWS meanings are  basically their own. Created by Waite from his own personal mythology (with a healthy dose of Golden Dawn etc - nothing whatever to do with 15th century users - who used them primarily to play games with anyway. - the famous sermon against trumps (the name for them at the time- was in the late 15th century and was strictly about gaming with them and how it would lead to hell. The first suggestion of any esoteric use of the cards isn't till 1527, when it was mentioned in passing in a play. There were loads of treatises about all sorts of magic and occult practices, alchemy and astrology - but none about tarot, I think. The esotericism kicked off big time at the end of the 18th century. Really there wasn't anything established from the 15th century for Waite to "distort".

 

Just saying. Because I do read - a lot !

[MuninnMissinHuginn]

33 minutes ago, gregory said:

Really there wasn't anything established from the 15th century for Waite to "distort".

Ah, thank you.  

[gregory]

29 minutes ago, MuninnMissinHuginn said:

Ah, thank you.  

 

Oops - didn't mean to be condescending - just that twitter has been so startlingly illogical all week that I sort of got into the mode....!

[Chariot]

I know this thread has moved on a lot, from the original Washington Post article that  @Mi-Shell posted at the start.  But I did want to react to that article, which I just saw ...and as the the thread is still ongoing, why not?  I actually liked the article.  Why?  Because it presents tarot as something that is kinda 'normal.'  It's taken a while for this public change of attitude to happen, and I'm glad it has.

Sure, there will be people 'doing' tarot because it's a fad.  They will play with it for a while, buy a few decks, wear (purple) flow-y costumes or make like a turbaned Bugs Bunny in the Swami Says cartoons—then drop it for the next fad.  But there will also be some who actually DO go on to respect the tarot and learn what it actually can do.   And realise that wearing a witchy costume spangled with stars and talismans isn't going to make them any better reader than somebody who wears a heather twin-set and a string of pearls.  (Best reader I ever encountered dressed like that.)

What this article does is present tarot as accessible and normal ...and helpful.  I'm all for it.

Of course there is the problem that some newbies will set themselves up as 'readers' and start charging people for shallow, inexpert readings that are simply a load of cack—which may have a detrimental effect on getting folks to take readings seriously. That is a danger. But I'm hoping that tarot is powerful enough to rise above occasional misuse.  It doesn't have to remain a niche pursuit or an arcane skill in order to be useful.  Tarot is actually open to anybody who cares to work at it.  And now there are many decks out there, many instructional videos and books, forums like this one where people can interact on the subject, it is gaining more practitioners.  I think this is good news.  

Edited September 4, 2022 by Chariot

[MuninnMissinHuginn]

3 hours ago, gregory said:

Oops - didn't mean to be condescending - just that twitter has been so startlingly illogical all week that I sort of got into the mode....!

Not read by me as condescending, at all!  Your explanation was news to me, so it was a sincere Ah and thank you. 🙂 

[RunningWild]

On 12/20/2021 at 8:11 AM, gregory said:

Yes - I always enjoy Stella. Except when she goes for me (it has happened...)

 

I know it's from an older post but I have to say that I was so glad to know I wasn't the only one.  That said, she still reads the forum, so this part is to her latest and greatest:

 

Yes, you must.  And thank you.

[devin]

8 hours ago, MuninnMissinHuginn said:

The error of the quote it’s self seems to make one of Orwell’s points - anything repeated often enough becomes the truth.  

 

Yes, I think the writer unintentionally created a piece of high conceptual art!

 

8 hours ago, MuninnMissinHuginn said:

And for me to relate the conversation back to tarot, it seems that much of the information easily found on the internet about the meaning of the cards comes filtered through the RWS deck.  Being a unstudied person in the history of tarot, I do wonder how distorted the RWS interpretation is from the thinking of the 15th century users of the decks. 

 

I too am not much of a Tarot historian. Plus I have an awful memory. Still, I will try and add a little meat (and me a vegetarian) to what gregory had to say. I hope someone will correct me if I make any glaring errors.

 

When it comes to the minors, Waite essentially listed and summarised various meanings to be found in older playing card/Tarot divination books and manuals. You can read Waite's listings here if you're interested and haven't done so before. As mentioned upthread, these meanings started popping up at the end of the 1700s. It's worth noting that many of the earliest sources from the period claim to be derived from older folk traditions. This is certainly possible, but there is no firm evidence to be found one way or the other. (Here we can perhaps echo Carl Sagan regarding aliens and at least say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.) So reading Waite on the minor arcana gives a good indication of the meanings used from the late 1700s up until his time.

 

Of course, one should keep in mind that the minors are most likely descendants of Mamluk cards. So there could be some structural or otherwise secrets lurking in the Tarot family lineage on that front.

 

As for the majors, they too only provably achieved a detailed esoteric and fortune-telling significance at the end of the 1700s. 

 

You can see a version of the Tarot majors and their meanings here by Jean-Baptiste Pitois (A.K.A. Paul Christian). This dates, I think, from the 1870s and gives a good flavour of the variable and somewhat individualistic meanings ascribed to the Tarot pre1900 (or maybe even pre1960!).

 

There are many theories as to the origin and significance of the original Tarot majors and their ordering: Catharism, Gnosticism, religious processions, ancient Egypt, Dante's Divine Comedy, etc. Obviously, these theories vary greatly in their believability.

 

The safest bet is to assume that the original Tarot majors are comprised of a series of depictions of common medieval and renaissance subjects (characters, religious themes, celestial entities, rulers, virtues, etc.) that are potentially assembled in no particular order. 

 

That's the safest bet. Personally I think the truth is almost definitely more interesting.

 

5 hours ago, gregory said:

Not everyone even reads.

 

That's cool, of course, I get it, but you don't expect them to run off and become writers, do you? 🙂 

 

5 hours ago, gregory said:

Because I do read - a lot !

 

Lately I've been too tired to follow my usual reading habits and have been stalled halfway through a 150 page novel for three months. Now that's sad.

[MuninnMissinHuginn]

4 hours ago, devin said:

I too am not much of a Tarot historian. Plus I have an awful memory. Still, I will try and add a little meat (and me a vegetarian) to what gregory had to say. I hope someone will correct me if I make any glaring errors.

I will repeat my Ah, and thank you.  I really know very little. 

[devin]

4 hours ago, MuninnMissinHuginn said:

I will repeat my Ah, and thank you.  I really know very little. 

 

Cool. I thought it might be useful to put out a little summary. 🙂 But you where right: It was last century that things really took off, leading to the great variety of meanings and techniques around today.

[gregory]

To all those who say they didn't know - I commend the wonderful Cynthia Giles, who covers all this, and more, sensibly and evenhandedly, with facts and no taking sides. She's so good that before I posted I got her out to check my dates and then started reading on, and then my partner started reading it over my shoulder and took it away when  I put it down (and he doesn't even DO tarot !)

 

I LOVE this: thanks for the laugh.

 

15 hours ago, devin said:

That's cool, of course, I get it, but you don't expect them to run off and become writers, do you? 🙂 

 

 

Edited September 5, 2022 by gregory

[MuninnMissinHuginn]

3 hours ago, gregory said:

Cynthia Giles,

Ordered, thank you.

[devin]

4 hours ago, gregory said:

LOVE this: thanks for the laugh.

 

It's nice to know I've achieved at least something in my day. 🙂 

[gregory]

1 hour ago, MuninnMissinHuginn said:

Ordered, thank you.

 

 History Mystery and Lore rather than  Methods, Mastery, and More  I hope (both are very good, but... The first shows up under two names, just to be annoying - Tarot: the Complete Guide is as far as I can see identical....

[MuninnMissinHuginn]

Got both, as it made shipping free, so essentially buy one get one….. 🙂

 

[gregory]

 Way to go !

[Natural Mystic Guide]

I liked the article.  It documents what we all know -- that interest in Tarot is growing at a huge rate.

 

I was particularly interested to learn about the MIT Library of Tarot.

 

Thanks for sharing.

[Hypnomoon]

On 12/14/2021 at 9:56 AM, RunningWild said:

 

One day they looked at the cards and were instantaneously tarot gurus. 

 

 

I hate that word 'guru'. It's never used correctly and, it's overused. Even after half a century of being a reader, I wouldn't have the audacity of calling myself a guru.

*shudders

[Natural Mystic Guide]

On 9/25/2023 at 11:18 AM, Hypnomoon said:

I hate that word 'guru'. It's never used correctly and, it's overused.

Here in Bali (and I'm not talking about Yogaland Beautiful People Bali, but about Balinese people) the word 'guru' is used in daily parlance and simply means 'teacher'.  It doesn't mean super teacher or great teacher or anything like that.  It's the word for teacher.

[Misterei]

10 hours ago, Natural Mystic Guide said:

Here in Bali (and I'm not talking about Yogaland Beautiful People Bali, but about Balinese people) the word 'guru' is used in daily parlance and simply means 'teacher'.  It doesn't mean super teacher or great teacher or anything like that.  It's the word for teacher.

LOL I actually got trolled on Reddit for mentioning this very fact.

 

Discussion was on Krishnamurti not wanting to be perceived as a "guru".

I pointed out the he never wanted to be perceived as the second coming of Christ or whatnot ... but guru to Indian people just means teacher ... and he was a teacher.

 

OMG! This troll guy lost his mind b/c "guru" has come to mean something else here in USA (an expert, a leader, for example).

What was so funny is that I would find a troll on a Krishnamurti thread. The Internet is a sad, sad, place sometimes.