Newsgroups: alt.tarot,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick Path: Supernews!supernews.com!news.IAEhv.nl!news1.netusa.net!baron.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!azoth From: azoth@netcom.com (Az0th) Subject: Re: Emblems/Symbols, Meditation/Reading and Case-workers (was Re: Plotinus, evil, ....) Message-ID: Followup-To: alt.tarot,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick Organization: Idoigo, Ltd. X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] References: <5lfgta$ghj@nntp4.u.washington.edu> <5lvouo$amg@nntp4.u.washington.edu> <5m2e07$jv8@nntp4.u.washington.edu> <3385B600.3B16@eden.com> <3388527D.347C@eden.com> <338BFB9B.5AA@eden.com> Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 22:06:49 GMT Lines: 149 Sender: azoth@netcom6.netcom.com Xref: Supernews alt.tarot:20266 alt.magick.tyagi:12420 alt.magick:102986 I heard J. Karlin (r3winter@eden.com) say: : > Agreed. However, there are computers which you will not be able to operate : > successfully without the complementary manual. This isn't a very telling : > argument. : Sure it is, since it illustrates that the 'complementary' : relationship between object (image) and text is NOT what : defines it as 'emblematic'. R Brzustowicz and I agreed that the technical use of 'emblem' and 'emblem book' was inappropriate several posts back. Complementarity of a sort does, however, underlie those emblems consisting of both text and image, and it is this which I've found suggestive. : It does not matter what tarot you are talking about, your : use of 'emblem' to describe the relationship between : tarot decks and the text used to describe them is incorrect. I'm not using 'emblem' in any way at all. I'm discussing a problem in interpretation, from the point of view of other such problems which have a similar structural basis. : > What Crowley had to say : > about Thoth has no deterministic bearing on how I or anyone interprets : > Marseilles, : First, that's not how some people see it. Second, what relevance : does this comment have to whether Thoth tarot cards are 'emblems'? How 'some people see it' isn't my problem. 'Emblems' aren't my problem, either. My problem is how to regard an interesting pattern of tarot book/pack production within the last 100 years. That pattern, which I've come to see is rooted in the Golden Dawn, consists of a number of original tarot packs with accompanying commentary material from the same sources. These packs are different in a number of ways from all earlier packs, and the commentary text is also different in that it explains the differences displayed in the packs, systematically and in unprecedented detail. The creator(s) of Marseilles are unavailable for comment. My position is that this distinction is important, possibly more important than most things which may seem relevant to how we interpret the cards. : Your 'arguments' on any of this can not be taken, period, since : the relationship between image and text in emblem books : is NOT that which we see between Thoth and the book written : by Crowley as a basic guide to to the understanding of its symbolism. I gather that this is your opinion, however your opinion, as others have frequently pointed out, is no argument at all. I should think that you would want to do better. I gave you a concrete, specific and pertinent example of the precise relationship between text and imagery that I want to emphasize, both from an emblem book and from Thoth. If the relationship is not as I've tried to express, please explain the difference, in detail, in the face of that example. I won't mind being proven wrong, but I expect a real argument. : > It makes the text _necessary_, in the same sense. See below. : 'Necessary' for what? 'Necessity' has nothing to do with : establishing a text-graphic relationship as 'emblematic', : at least not in the way you are suggesting here. It has everything to do with interpreting an image accurately, when corresponding reference text is available by which such accuracy may be judged. Occult tarot embodies doctrine. Either that doctrine can be accurately extracted from the occult tarot, or it cannot. Without recourse to the reference text, it cannot. This is a very simple fact. If you're looking for some other meaning in a given deck than that which was documented as having been put there, all this is obviously moot. : > NO. You can of course do whatever you please. However, if your intent : > is to extract from the imagery of Thoth the meaning *placed there* by : > Crowley for us to find, : Then you would be well put to START at 'Book of Thoth'. : But you will not be able to understand Thoth if that's : ALL you read. Therefore, the relationship between Thoth : images and the text in 'Book of Thoth' is NOT exclusive : or 'necessary' in the manner you are suggesting, nor does : any of this explain why it would make the Thoth deck : a set of 'emblems', in the sense of those used in : emblem books. R Brzustowicz and I discussed, briefly, this point as well, in particular the advisability of including other of the creator's work to compensate for inadequacies in the primary reference text, Waite's grail text, for example, or the G.'.D.'. initiation lectures. You may be confusing the process of attaching doctrinal significance to elements of imagery, with the process of relating that assigned significance to a broader class of meaning. The difference, in terms of my previous example, is this: we attach a doctrinal significance to the image of the 'eye' on the Tower card by reading in Thoth that it was meant to signify the 'Eye of Shiva'. This is a process of the first sort. I would also note that this process is iterative both over elements of the imagery and explanations in the text (IOW, we are unrestricted as to relationship, as one-to-many, many-to-many, many-to-one, and one-to-one may be exemplified), so that additional assignments, such as 'Eye of Horus', must also be accomodated. Relating that doctrinal assignment, 'Eye of Shiva', to a broader class of meaning, Shaivite cosmology for example, is a process of the second sort, and has no bearing on my position or past remarks, although it would certainly bear on a more complete understanding of the imagery. Again, your comments, while they may represent your opinion, aren't any kind of argument for or against the points I raise. : > NO. I am simply remarking that the imagery and the text are, in the : > specific instances cited, parts of the same creative effort, : Wrong, they are two distinct efforts applied toward similar, but : not identical, purposes. The cards were meant to create a : New-Aeonic symbol set, which would serve to replace the Old ... : whatever area of knowledge or beliefs the designer : intended, while also, at the same time, providing an : aesthetic experience of those ideas. I made no representations regarding Crowley's purpose or intentions, and your opinions on same fail to address my point. Long before the cards were available, as cards, the book, containing both text and imagery was published. In the simplest possible terms, they are parts of a single creative effort. Is there a _reason_ for considering them independently, and if so, does such reason preclude considering them together, as I have suggested is the more natural and productive view? : It certainly does not make much sense to suggest that : the 'aesthetic' experience of Thoth tarot images : required that one, at the moment of viewing, ALSO : be reading the text of the guide-book, 'Book of Thoth'. No one to my knowledge is suggesting any such thing. Having read Thoth, whenever I did so, I can now enjoy the aesthetic of Shiva's eye slamming shut on the Tower, and a fine aesthetic it is, not available on any other Tower in my collection. : The images of Thoth tarot and the text of 'Book of Thoth' : are NOT 'necessarily' linked in the way of those in an : emblem book. You have failed to so demonstrate. That's OK, too. };-] Az0th