Is the High Priestess a sham?

[katrinka]

 

1 hour ago, Wanderer said:

I wonder that you've not quite 'got' was I was suggesting, though, since you seem to be refuting something that isn't quite what I'm saying. I'm not suggesting that she's a scam artist, or a trickster, but just that her role and appearance is more important than her actuality.

On 12/8/2018 at 4:14 AM, Wanderer said:

I'm not talking about the Miss Cleo scenario here; she's not a complete fraud, by any means, but how much of her aura is bestowed on her by humanity's need to have such a figure? Can a High Priestess be as much a figurehead or an image, as a real embodiment of the virtues associated with her?

A figurehead IS a sham.

[Oxfret]

Thank you @Wanderer. I would add that you don't have to be religious to benefit from the history. I take in as much religious details as I can. Everything past present and future is a reflection of something real. Even most science is half wrong or incomplete. I'm not really religious myself, but I've been finding my own speritual path and the source of religion all seems to stem from the same place. 

 

Just like science it's worth studying and finding where the lines of reality lay. The HP is sitting at the gate but in a sense her knowledge is an illusion, because while she guards the veil the knowledge is truly free for those who care to look. You are ilistrating that to you, this is as far as you'd like to look, and so this is as far as you want to see. The information is out there, but we can not see the answers when we are too focused on the questions. 

 

It is only when a person understands the reflection she presents that they can see past her stature and see her for what/ who she truly is. People with greater sperituallity don't hored it, they truly hope to share it. This consept of not enough or withholding is from the mortal perspective and thus she waits for those capable of seeing past the Vail. She is less stingy than she appears. 

 

At least this is my interpretation after many years of feeling personally attached to this card. Turned into a bit of a rambling.

[Oxfret]

I would disagree, one can be, but I certainly don't see the Dalai Lama as a sham. They are not automatically mutually exclusive.

Edited April 2, 2020 by Oxfret

[Wanderer]

14 minutes ago, katrinka said:

"Can a High Priestess be as much a figurehead or an image, as a real embodiment of the virtues associated with her?"

Note: "as much a...", rather than "instead of". I'm not seeing this as black and white, even though it could be. 

15 minutes ago, katrinka said:

A figurehead IS a sham.

Not necessarily - a figurehead can also be the real deal, for example as a leader that inspires followers and is also the public face of the group. And this is the point - it's a matter of degree, isn't it? There's a big difference (for me, at least) between someone who is a trickster trying to deceive others for their own gain, and someone who fulfills a vital role but in the process allows their reputation to be inflated in order to fulfill that role better. The real question, once again, is whether the card represents only the original archetype in the abstract, or is better thought of as representing our relationship to that archetype. And if it's the latter, then even being a total sham wouldn't make it any less relevant or important. 

[Wanderer]

3 hours ago, Oxfret said:

Thank you @Wanderer. I would add that you don't have to be religious to benefit from the history. I take in as much religious details as I can. Everything past present and future is a reflection of something real. Even most science is half wrong or incomplete. I'm not really religious myself, but I've been finding my own speritual path and the source of religion all seems to stem from the same place. 

I mostly agree with this - there's a lot to learn from among all religions, and we all find our own path through the maze of uncertainties. I also believe that all religions are attempts to address the same thing, but it's a reality that is hard to put into words. I find that the simplest and least specific are the ones that I relate to the most; when it comes to details, I automatically distrust those that are part of a long, complex justification for the whole (and insist they are the only Truth). The concepts, though... yes, those one can always learn from!

Quote

Just like science it's worth studying and finding where the lines of reality lay. The HP is sitting at the gate but in a sense her knowledge is an illusion, because while she guards the veil the knowledge is truly free for those who care to look. You are ilistrating that to you, this is as far as you'd like to look, and so this is as far as you want to see. The information is out there, but we can not see the answers when we are too focused on the questions. 

That's an interesting take on it, but I don't think it's what I'm doing. I have no doubt that the realm of intuitive knowledge is real; what I might question is the role of this particular gatekeeper. To me, perhaps, understanding her archetype (and what she guards) involves seeing through her. I wonder whether we've actually come to the same place by different roads.

Quote

It is only when a person understands the reflection she presents that they can see past her stature and see her for what/ who she truly is. People with greater sperituallity don't hored it, they truly hope to share it. This consept of not enough or withholding is from the mortal perspective and thus she waits for those capable of seeing past the Vail. She is less stingy than she appears. 

Yes, exactly - I like this a lot... and I think our ideas are not so dissimilar at all. I'm basically saying that her stature is something that, at least in part, we bestow on her, rather than something innate. Once we grow past a certain point, so that we're not blinded by her appearance, we can understand that her gifts are something accessible to all who choose to look.  It almost reminds me of the apocryphal gospel of St. Thomas, undermining the whole point of hierarchical and accepted dogma: "Look under a stone, and you will find me." (See, I do pay attention to religions, really! 🤪)

Quote

At least this is my interpretation after many years of feeling personally attached to this card. Turned into a bit of a rambling.

Thanks very much for the thoughtful reply - I do like a good long ramble in the springtime! 

Edited April 2, 2020 by Wanderer

[Marigold]

2 hours ago, Wanderer said:

 

 

 

It's interesting that you say, Marigold, that she can't be a sham because she is meant to be Sophia. But, you see, I'm not Christian or Jewish...

Oh, Sophia has nothing to do with religion. She's also the Greek Sophia. 

 

If one wishes to understand a card, one has to go deep into its past. Its origins. Because without this past, it wouldn't exist. It's the substance from which it was made. 

[Wanderer]

2 hours ago, Marigold said:

Oh, Sophia has nothing to do with religion. She's also the Greek Sophia. 

Ah, OK - I was going by the link you gave, which focused very heavily on Gnosticism! There are obviously some deeper roots, but she seemed to my too-casual reading to have come into her own as a part of gnostic Christianity and related Jewish writings during the Old Testament, or even later Christian era. For a character that has nothing to do with religion, she certainly turns up a lot within it! 😉

2 hours ago, Marigold said:

If one wishes to understand a card, one has to go deep into its past. Its origins. Because without this past, it wouldn't exist. It's the substance from which it was made. 

Now this I only partly agree with... I've come to realise that there are at least two different directions that we can take our reading philosophy in, and they're one of the few things that people get into arguments on forums like this! On the one hand, you have people who read based on a deep knowledge of the historical and traditional symbolism and meanings, and become extremely knowledgeable. Learning new elements of the original meaning enriches their reading directly. I remember a discussion about The Fool, which almost reached the point of becoming heated, because of how the modern usage has drifted away from the original intention.

 

     I used to believe that such drift mattered, that it was diverging from the True meaning of the cards... but in total contrast, you have purely intuitive readers, who refuse to even read the intended meanings of a new deck in case it influences them. And then, every new deck not only shows subtle variety in the way that the cards can lead you to the meaning, but also subtle (or blatant) changes to the meanings themselves. 

 

    So, my primary (virtually only) deck is the Wildwood. There is no deep history to much of this. It's descended from the Greenwood, but isn't shamanic in origin, and refers much more to half-known folklore and legends. It's a long was from the original Tarot, and some of the cards have completely different meanings. This whole thread was based, as you know, on The Seer, who is definitely not Sophia (or Pope Joan! ). There may be overlaps in meaning, but she is her own character. The Wildwood structure is based loosely around the RWS in origin, so it may be fair to say that she wouldn't exist without the HP before her... but this is not the same character. The substance from which the Wildwood was made is a combination of the RWS outline, northern European (especially British) folklore, and shamanic journeying. My understanding of the Seer is quite different to the original High Priestess, and it doesn't make the cards any less usable... indeed, to try to apply the HP meaning to this deck would lead to very limited success. 

 

    Obviously, the Wildwood is a very different deck, but all decks are different to some degree, and modern individuals' understanding of cards is different from what it once was. I don't think this matters. At all. When I first started, I had been reading RWS without ever knowing that Sophia was involved in the HP's origin; I was envisaging the Oracle of Delphi, perhaps, or an unnamed priestess in an ancient temple. Elements of the meaning are very close to the tradition, but I dare say that others are very different. This could be regarded as a corruption of the true messages in a reading, but that, I believe, is not how Tarot works. It works by the interaction of the card with the reader, and it adapts to us. People often attach some personal significance to a particular card, and it will appear in readings for them with that unique meaning. We can't misunderstand a card, because the card's meaning to us personally is the message that cards are giving us. 

 

In other words, I totally agree that digging into the origins of the cards and their symbolism can be fascinating and, for some readers, extremely enriching. But I don't agree that it's essential for understanding a card, because understanding changes with time, culture and individual. Sorry, a bit long-winded, but wanted to spell out my position properly! 

 

 

[gregory]

4 hours ago, Marigold said:

If one wishes to understand a card, one has to go deep into its past. Its origins. Because without this past, it wouldn't exist. It's the substance from which it was made. 

 

1 hour ago, Wanderer said:

Now this I only partly agree with... I've come to realise that there are at least two different directions that we can take our reading philosophy in, and they're one of the few things that people get into arguments on forums like this! On the one hand, you have people who read based on a deep knowledge of the historical and traditional symbolism and meanings, and become extremely knowledgeable. Learning new elements of the original meaning enriches their reading directly. I remember a discussion about The Fool, which almost reached the point of becoming heated, because of how the modern usage has drifted away from the original intention.

 

     I used to believe that such drift mattered, that it was diverging from the True meaning of the cards... but in total contrast, you have purely intuitive readers, who refuse to even read the intended meanings of a new deck in case it influences them. And then, every new deck not only shows subtle variety in the way that the cards can lead you to the meaning, but also subtle (or blatant) changes to the meanings themselves. 

 <snip>

 

In other words, I totally agree that digging into the origins of the cards and their symbolism can be fascinating and, for some readers, extremely enriching. But I don't agree that it's essential for understanding a card, because understanding changes with time, culture and individual. Sorry, a bit long-winded, but wanted to spell out my position properly! 

 

I am very much with Wanderer here. Tarot is not some solid set in stone thing that never changes The world changes and tarot changes with it or it risks becoming irrelevant.

 

Michelangelo's David is made from Carrara marble - an actual block that Donatello had worked on 50 years earlier but discarded as too brittle, but you don't have to dig into geology or the artwork of Donatello to see it for what it now is - much changed, and more than once. And no, I don't think that's an invalid analogy. The now does count.

Edited April 2, 2020 by gregory

[katrinka]

4 hours ago, Oxfret said:

I would disagree, one can be, but I certainly don't see the Dalai Lama as a sham. They are not automatically mutually exclusive.

The Dalai Lama is not a figurehead. He has only stepped down from political leadership. He still holds his position as spiritual leader of the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism. He is not without power. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/10/dalai-lama-step-down-qanda

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalai_Lama
 

4 hours ago, Wanderer said:

Not necessarily - a figurehead can also be the real deal, for example as a leader that inspires followers and is also the public face of the group. And this is the point - it's a matter of degree, isn't it?

The OED defines "figurehead" as "a person who is in a high position in a country or an organization but who has no real power or authority." https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/figurehead
A person who inspires followers to any significant degree does have power and authority, and so is not a figurehead.
There was a time when John Lennon could say "Plant a tree for peace" and a lot of people would actually go out and plant trees, just because he said that. That scared some people. Lennon was on Nixon's enemies list because Nixon was paranoid and worried that Lennon would stir the pot and people would listen. That's power and authority, even though Lennon did not hold an official position. He was the opposite of a figurehead. 

If it appears that a figurehead is making important decisions and pronouncements, it's actually someone else behind the scenes. Figureheads are sockpuppets, in that situation. In a less sinister light, they're simply ceremonial/symbolic, like a lot of royals. https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/figurehead

 

So, a figurehead can't be "the real deal". It's a sham by definition.
 

Quote

There's a big difference (for me, at least) between someone who is a trickster trying to deceive others for their own gain,

That's not inherent in "sham". A sham is simply something that is not what it's purported to be. There is no real implied intent, for good or ill.
I wouldn't call Queen Elizabeth "a trickster trying to deceive others for (her) own gain."
She's considered a figurehead, though.

 

Read the HPS any way you like, but I will say that in the GD tradition, what she represents is not without power. https://www.corax.com/tarot/cards/priestess.html

 

Edited April 2, 2020 by katrinka

[Raggydoll]

11 minutes ago, gregory said:

 

I am very much with Wanderer here. Tarot is not some solid set in stone thing that never changes The world changes and tarot changes with it or it risks becoming irrelevant.

 

Michelangelo's David is made from Carrara marble - an actual block that Donatello had worked on 50 years earlier but discarded as too brittle, but you don't have to dig into geology pr the artwork of Donatello to see it for what it now is - much changed, and more than once. And no, I don't think that's an invalid analogy. The now does count.

I love this analogy. And your phrase "The world changes and tarot changes with it or it risks becoming irrelevant" is very similar to what a Norse shaman once said about shamanism (I am paraphrasing): We can never know all there is to know about the first shamans, nor would their practices be the most relevant and effective in today's society. Any practice and any tool must evolve. That does not mean that we do not have an interest in the past, or that we do not honor what we know about it. But we must not cling to it.

[gregory]

28 minutes ago, katrinka said:

The Dalai Lama is not a figurehead. He has only stepped down from political leadership. He still holds his position as spiritual leader of the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism. He is not without power. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/10/dalai-lama-step-down-qanda

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalai_Lama

This - very much.

Quote

The OED defines "figurehead" as "a person who is in a high position in a country or an organization but who has no real power or authority." https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/figurehead
A person who inspires followers to any significant degree does have power and authority, and so is not a figurehead.
There was a time when John Lennon could say "Plant a tree for peace" and a lot of people would actually go out and plant trees, just because he said that. That scared some people. Lennon was on Nixon's enemies list because Nixon was paranoid and worried that Lennon would stir the pot and people would listen. That's power and authority, even though Lennon did not hold an official position. He was the opposite of a figurehead. 

 

But Lennon's power was not "real" as such. He had no way to enforce anything. The whim behind his popularity could have turned totally against him at any time. I'm not sure that being in a position to influence is quite the same thing as actual power.

 

 

Edited April 2, 2020 by gregory

[katrinka]

Just now, gregory said:

But his power was not "real" as such. He had no way to enforce anything. The whim behind his popularity could have turned totally against him at any time. I'm not sure that being in a position to influence is quite the same thing as actual power.

True enough, where the general public is concerned.
But he IS in the top position of authority in the Gelug school.

[Wanderer]

18 minutes ago, katrinka said:

A person who inspires followers to any significant degree does have power and authority, and so is not a figurehead.

I don't want to lose the plot by following the definitions round in circles (and you're basically right about the term 'figurehead'), but you seem to be saying that the Royal Family don't inspire followers. In many ways, the whole point of a decent figurehead is to inspire followers. That's why organisations have famous patrons with no power - to get more people to join them. Anyhow, I think it's clear now what I meant, even if I could have used a better word! 😉

 

23 minutes ago, katrinka said:

That's not inherent in "sham". A sham is simply something that is not what it's purported to be. There is no real implied intent, for good or ill.

Precisely... that's why I was saying it's a matter of degree. Being a fraud for personal gain is just one extreme. 

[gregory]

2 minutes ago, katrinka said:

True enough, where the general public is concerned.
But he IS in the top position of authority in the Gelug school.

Oops there I referred to Lennon. Off to edit for clarity.

[katrinka]

1 minute ago, Wanderer said:

I don't want to lose the plot by following the definitions round in circles (and you're basically right about the term 'figurehead'), but you seem to be saying that the Royal Family don't inspire followers. In many ways, the whole point of a decent figurehead is to inspire followers.

That's why I said she's considered a figurehead. Not "she's a complete and utter figurehead."
Words. 😉

1 minute ago, Wanderer said:

Precisely... that's why I was saying it's a matter of degree. Being a fraud for personal gain is just one extreme. 

I have to disagree. The definitions of "sham" and "figurehead" are pretty cut and dried. What you're talking about is intent.

[zedekiel]

This is a really interesting discussion, I've never thought of the HP like this before. What it reminds me of is the figure head of a movement or belief system. Greta Thunberg types, who are not here to talk about anything else but their cause. Not here to delve into their personal lives, or to promote *themselves*, but they become the mascots in a way. The idols of movements or beliefs. And in that way they have to keep their secrecy, they can never be seen as a full human because if they were the power and the guidance that comes from their persona could be lost. It reminds me of the same mentality children have when they are shocked to see their teachers outside of school for the first time.

Interesting in connection to @katrinka's points, that a figurehead by definition can't be the real deal. But this doesn't mean a moral wrong is had by being a "sham". A lot of movements have figureheads that just came about organically with no ill intent.

@Raggydoll I love that quote on shamanism. I suppose there's ancient figures that we see now as figureheads, to the point that they've become almost mythological. People like Cleotpatra, Jesus, even more recent figure like Gandhi. Even if certain historical figures weren't figureheads in their times, now that they have died and can no longer presently live their humanity, they grow in the social mythos to become figureheads now. Because we cling so dearly to them, in the same way the quote you have describes.

I feel like it's possible for the HP to represent these concepts when paired with others things. It's a really interesting idea.

[katrinka]

1 minute ago, zedekiel said:

nteresting in connection to @katrinka's points, that a figurehead by definition can't be the real deal. But this doesn't mean a moral wrong is had by being a "sham". A lot of movements have figureheads that just came about organically with no ill intent.

Lies are not necessarily morally wrong. You can lie to protect someone from people who are evil. But it's still a lie, it's BS.

As for movements, Greta, etc., those are activists, not figureheads. Nobody's appointed them to any official position where they do nothing.

[katrinka]

16 minutes ago, gregory said:

Oops there I referred to Lennon. Off to edit for clarity.

OK, with Lennon, people could have turned against him, true enough.
People turned against Nixon, too. Official positions don't guarantee permanence.
 

[zedekiel]

9 minutes ago, katrinka said:

Lies are not necessarily morally wrong. You can lie to protect someone from people who are evil. But it's still a lie, it's BS.

As for movements, Greta, etc., those are activists, not figureheads. Nobody's appointed them to any official position where they do nothing.

I agree completely with the first point!

To the second, is it possible to say though, that activists become figureheads sometimes due to how the public perceives them and transforms them? Or that a person could be both? Greta is an activist, of course, but the amount of posters, signs, ads, promotions, for all environmental activism in the marches last year that depicted her was staggering. And she didn't ask to be used in that way, but still. If Greta wasn't at a rally but the rally used her image as promotion, is that not in that case a transformation of her from her true self, the activist, into a figurehead for the people? Not of her own volition of course. This is a bit in relation to my point on Raggydoll's quote, but is it not true that sometimes people are turned into figureheads by the public instead, who yearn for a figurehead to mythologize for their cause?

[Wanderer]

3 minutes ago, katrinka said:

That's why I said she's considered a figurehead. Not "she's a complete and utter figurehead."
Words. 😉

But you also said...

34 minutes ago, katrinka said:

A person who inspires followers to any significant degree does have power and authority, and so is not a figurehead.

...and that's what I'm disagreeing with. My understanding of the meaning of the word 'power' in the definition is that it's referring to legal or constitutional authority, and the ability to make changes directly. The definition doesn't refer to indirect power or influence, and I still maintain that a figurehead that doesn't inspire followers isn't much of a figurehead. .That would rather condemn the term to irrelevance!  😅

3 minutes ago, katrinka said:

I have to disagree. The definitions of "sham" and "figurehead" are pretty cut and dried. What you're talking about is intent.

Of course! I was giving extreme examples of actions that could be included within such a subterfuge (which one can refer to as a sham, perhaps conducted by a 'figurehead' using the soft definition of the term previously), precisely in order to illustrate the range of possible intentions behind it. Surely that's clear? This whole thread has been about whether the appearance of the HP/Seer is truly reflective of the intended reality of the character, and whether it even matters to us as readers; not about narrowing down the hypothetical intent of said character, even though that might be interesting if an approachable subject. However, to be honest, this is all rather tangential to the point of the thread now... unless I'm missing what you're trying to say?

 

[Oxfret]

This is where I needed to be.. you are the people I have been looking for lol. I LOVE this thread, so glad I refreshed it.! pretty much going to skim over the quotes and such since I just wont reply with all that effort right now. But I am loving the conversation from everyone!

One point not elaborated on is perspectives.. this is very important. Science is even clear on the fact that we create our own reality with our own perspectives. So each perspective is battling each others, but the HP is sitting on the precipice between realities, between perception and reality. So the perception a person has when looking upon her is only their own reflection. She offers all insights, because she is the "vail" but her insights are only reflections of the lessons already learnt.

I personally love the historical meaning, and am just coming to tarot and the meaning behind it. I like to balance the middle ground and very much try to go on intuition still. (I haven't researched the links yet but I am very excited to do so when the energy / calling comes to me)

I guess what I am saying is that whatever she knows or doesn't know, or whether she is a figure head or not (I was not clear on the definition of such I suppose, because I take it differently but I wont argue that, as my definition is intuition based  lol) She is a representation of the veil, even if that veil is in your head, representing your own intuition. For me the HP card only comes up when my cards are telling me I already have the answer (and I usually already know this), but she also popped out at me 10-15 times when I was 12 until I found out she represented my life path and then she stopped showing herself.

I think her power is absolute, because the powers that be are absolute and she is only a reflection of such. What power she has to share is dependent on the people around her and how they are willing to perceive her knowledge.

The scary part is that anyone with a strong voice can become a figurehead in this consent. (Something I wonder about and fear for for future generations) I think John Lennon does count, I think he had real power in the heart of the people. That is all it takes. I also think the Queen does have real power, though maybe not the sort of power a person would expect from a Queen. She also seems to have the power of love like Lennon, and both are admirable I believe. (As long as used morally of course.)

I do think all the conversation is on par. I get frustrated when people only want the conversation to go in one direction. Sometimes trailing away from the conversation leads to new insights that might not have made connections otherwise. IMO.

 

[Wanderer]

38 minutes ago, zedekiel said:

This is a really interesting discussion, I've never thought of the HP like this before. What it reminds me of is the figure head of a movement or belief system. Greta Thunberg types, who are not here to talk about anything else but their cause. Not here to delve into their personal lives, or to promote *themselves*, but they become the mascots in a way. The idols of movements or beliefs. And in that way they have to keep their secrecy, they can never be seen as a full human because if they were the power and the guidance that comes from their persona could be lost. It reminds me of the same mentality children have when they are shocked to see their teachers outside of school for the first time.

Interesting in connection to @katrinka's points, that a figurehead by definition can't be the real deal. But this doesn't mean a moral wrong is had by being a "sham". A lot of movements have figureheads that just came about organically with no ill intent.

@Raggydoll I love that quote on shamanism. I suppose there's ancient figures that we see now as figureheads, to the point that they've become almost mythological. People like Cleotpatra, Jesus, even more recent figure like Gandhi. Even if certain historical figures weren't figureheads in their times, now that they have died and can no longer presently live their humanity, they grow in the social mythos to become figureheads now. Because we cling so dearly to them, in the same way the quote you have describes.

I feel like it's possible for the HP to represent these concepts when paired with others things. It's a really interesting idea.

Thanks for chiming in, zedekiel! Yes, your use of the word 'figurehead' was what I originally had in mind at that point, but isn't strictly accurate in terms of the definition. We hear the term being used for the 'public face' of a movement very commonly, but this probably isn't linguisitically correct... but that's rather beside the point, in the end. 

 

The basic question at the heart of this is whether the HP represents a character who has all the wisdom and knowledge that is ascribed to her, or whether it is the existence of her role is what is more important. Is it about her, or about how we relate to her? In the context of interpreting the cards, do we assume that we create and exaggerate the archetype of her because we need her to exist, or is she an absolute, outside of our perspective? Be interested to hear your thoughts on that! 

[Oxfret]

14 minutes ago, Wanderer said:

Is it about her, or about how we relate to her? In the context of interpreting the cards, do we assume that we create and exaggerate the archetype of her because we need her to exist, or is she an absolute, outside of our perspective? Be interested to hear your thoughts on that! 

Well when put like this, both are true. This is the point I was trying to make in saying that you get the knowledge when you have the proper reflection of such. We are not arguing a physical person here, so this argument is based of your own perception of the cards and what they are telling you. There are only 78 cards, and so any given card is going to tell you one thing or another based off the question and surrounding cards. So to me at least, in the way you have stated this question you are actually giving the answer. The HP is anywhere on this spectrum depending on who is looking.

In Buddhism (witch is one of the religions I would subscribe to if I where do do such) they say Buddha is as Buddha does. When you bring Buddhas life force into existence you are bring Buddha to life. I see the HP the same way, I try to bring her to life (and often have no choice in the mater). In this way she is an arch typ that can be grasped by anyone in a material or metaphysical way. How you read it will depend on your intuition, if she keeps popping out at you, she is likely calling on you to think of her differently IMO.

[katrinka]

1 hour ago, Wanderer said:

But you also said...

...and that's what I'm disagreeing with. My understanding of the meaning of the word 'power' in the definition is that it's referring to legal or constitutional authority, and the ability to make changes directly.

Yes, but by whose laws?
Natives were free to follow who they wanted. A lot of the Lakota followed Red Cloud when he was winning a war against the US army. Later, Red Cloud came to the conclusion that the whites were too numerous to beat, so he took his people in to the fort. But a lot of people didn't agree, they didn't approve of the "hang around the forts". They stayed free and went to join Crazy Horse's band. Later, various bands would unite under Sitting Bull. Additionally, there were different kinds of chiefs. War chiefs, camp chiefs...

The US would say that neither Red Cloud nor Crazy Horse had legal authority. But the US was a foreign, invading body. For hundreds, maybe thousands of years leading up to that time, power came down to influence. And prior to Wounded Knee I, influence DID equal power.

Not everyone does things the same way.

Quote

The definition doesn't refer to indirect power or influence, and I still maintain that a figurehead that doesn't inspire followers isn't much of a figurehead. .That would rather condemn the term to irrelevance!  😅

Your boss has an incompetent son. He's worried for the kid's future, so he creates a figurehead position for him with some jumped-up title. You can generate one here https://www.bullshitjob.com/title/

Everybody knows what's up, and that the kid puts a funnel on his rain gauge so he can catch rain from all directions and walks around with his shirttail sticking out of his fly. Would you say he "inspires followers"?

Quote

Of course! I was giving extreme examples of actions that could be included within such a subterfuge (which one can refer to as a sham, perhaps conducted by a 'figurehead' using the soft definition of the term previously), precisely in order to illustrate the range of possible intentions behind it. Surely that's clear? This whole thread has been about whether the appearance of the HP/Seer is truly reflective of the intended reality of the character, and whether it even matters to us as readers; not about narrowing down the hypothetical intent of said character, even though that might be interesting if an approachable subject. However, to be honest, this is all rather tangential to the point of the thread now... unless I'm missing what you're trying to say?

As a reader, I find it important to narrow a card to its core essence. You can riff on that and take it in various directions, but in order to get an answer from the cards, it's important. Otherwise, every card is good and bad and yes and no...and real, and a sham.

Edited April 2, 2020 by katrinka
typo

[katrinka]

1 hour ago, Oxfret said:

This is where I needed to be.. you are the people I have been looking for lol. I LOVE this thread, so glad I refreshed it.! pretty much going to skim over the quotes and such since I just wont reply with all that effort right now. But I am loving the conversation from everyone!

And I like this new person. The new person is putting a lot of thought into this. 🙂

Quote

One point not elaborated on is perspectives.. this is very important. Science is even clear on the fact that we create our own reality with our own perspectives. So each perspective is battling each others, but the HP is sitting on the precipice between realities, between perception and reality. So the perception a person has when looking upon her is only their own reflection. She offers all insights, because she is the "vail" but her insights are only reflections of the lessons already learnt.

Well yes. Tarot can be a bit of a mirror.

Quote

I personally love the historical meaning, and am just coming to tarot and the meaning behind it. I like to balance the middle ground and very much try to go on intuition still. (I haven't researched the links yet but I am very excited to do so when the energy / calling comes to me)

I guess what I am saying is that whatever she knows or doesn't know, or whether she is a figure head or not (I was not clear on the definition of such I suppose, because I take it differently but I wont argue that, as my definition is intuition based  lol)

That's why I keep going back to definitions (and probably coming off like a pedant.)
We're communicating with words. In order to be clear with each other, we need a common understanding of what those words mean. Then we can have different ideas, disagree, etc., but we're not talking past each other because Moe defines "dog" as a canine but Joe includes lions in his definition.

Quote

The scary part is that anyone with a strong voice can become a figurehead in this consent. (Something I wonder about and fear for for future generations) I think John Lennon does count, I think he had real power in the heart of the people. That is all it takes.

Yes. Like those Natives I was talking about earlier.
I don't care what happens to most of our political leaders. I don't like them. (It's OK, LF, I'm not going there.) But when, say, Neil Young goes, I'll be in (figurative) sackcloth and ashes.

ETA: Forget sackcloth and ashes. I will cry tears of blood when this old seer goes!

Quote

I also think the Queen does have real power, though maybe not the sort of power a person would expect from a Queen. She also seems to have the power of love like Lennon, and both are admirable I believe. (As long as used morally of course.)

Yes. I admire what she did in WWII, and if I were to meet her, I'd be busting butt trying to learn the proper protocols. What do I say? You might even see Katrinka attempt a curtsy, lol. I don't necessarily approve of everything she's done, but I respect her.
She doesn't have the kind of power her office once had, and that's why she's referred to as a figurehead. But she's important.

Quote

I do think all the conversation is on par. I get frustrated when people only want the conversation to go in one direction. Sometimes trailing away from the conversation leads to new insights that might not have made connections otherwise. IMO.

Agreed. A bit of thread drift is natural, and debate is good - throw an idea out there and see whether it can be picked apart. It helps.

Edited April 2, 2020 by katrinka