Path: ultra.sonic.net!news
From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nagasiva)
Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick,alt.divination,alt.tarot,alt.occult
Subject: Tarot Philosophy
Date: 13 Jan 1999 02:27:43 -0800
Organization: Sonoma Interconnect,Santa Rosa,CA(us),http://www.sonic.net
Lines: 166
Message-ID: <77hsev$bna@bolt.sonic.net>
Reply-To: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: bolt.sonic.net
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
Xref: ultra.sonic.net alt.magick.tyagi:15266 alt.magick:131478 alt.divination:13217 alt.tarot:38536

 [old stuff, sorry for any duplication -- technical difficulties]

49980430 aa2 Hail Satan!  (talking with Enrique; genericized for repost)
 
RE the differences in the ways that tarot may be used:
strict tarot reading -- using the cards which one identifies as
			'tarot' for the focus of a divination.
			divination reflects something about the
			present or a configuration of powers,
			intelligences or circumstances.  the
			symbols on the cards fit into a coherent
			framework or pattern in association with
			the dynamics between the reader and
			querent which inspires the interpretation.

general divination --	engaging in such divination using any
			means, inclusive of merely touching cards
			or fiddling around with objects of
			divination, regardless of whether one is
			concerned with seeing the divinatory items.
			the symbols on the cards may be of little or
			no consequence in the divinatory result.

fortune telling --	using cards one may identify as 'tarot'
			or indeed any number of tools in order
			to attempt prophesy or a vision of the
			future in relation to the querent.  I 
			have never seen this accomplished in what 
			I could call a 'convincing manner.'  the
			symbols on the cards are important but
			only in what I would say is an enterprise
			of fabricated charlatanry.

psychicism --		obtaining 'impressions' from the aura of
			a person while fiddling with cards,
			holding their hand, or merely observing
			their totality.  various means obtain
			a variety of results.  the symbols are
			generally unimportant except as they are
			deemed to have power in and of themselves,
			in this case the cards being used as a
			psychic tool to amplify or orient the 
			process or obtaining impressions.

previous nagasiva:
# >of COURSE there is such a thing as "tarot". :>  a deck is a "tarot"
# >deck because someone thinks that it is.  this is the case for
# >all objects of perception.  it may be less fundamentally a tarot
# >deck in terms of whether that same person would, if exposed to
# >many classic and popular versions of objects provided a similar
# >identification, continue to agree it qualifies, but at least for
# >the moment it is a "tarot" deck.
 
RE the objection that someone's thought may be a 'mistake':
knowledge is subjectively-defined.  within the perceptual and
deduced conclusions of any single person may be all manner of
'false' or 'mistaken' perceptions as assessed by a wider field
of experience and perception as well as a different knowledge-set.  

if we seek to know whether a deck is 'really tarot or not',
then we shall have to examine our criteria for what makes a
thing 'real'.  I provide two possibilities here: 

	a) a thing is 'real' as it is perceived

	b) a thing is 'real' as it stands up to challenge 
	   and observation over time, reflecting consensual
	   perception that stands up to reason.

for those who prefer objective knowledge (so-called) then option
'b)' above will be their preference.  in this case an individual
or group still (though more rigorously) defines the category of
knowledge such that artistic forms like 'tarot' will be directly
relative to the observer and its biases and dependent upon its
prejudices and perceptions.

that is, there is ultimately no way to discover an absolute 
definition for 'real tarot' outside some presumed criteria of 
our own devise, and this rests upon as much a castle in the 
clouds (whether we select that 'previous usage' or 'historical 
association') as any preliminarily ignorant choice.


# >there is no fundamental structure to tarot except in terms of
# >historic precedent and bias.  this means that if one values
# >history and the preferences of certain sources then one will
# >naturally place a greater emphasis on these in an evaluation
# >of whether a deck qualifies as "tarot".

RE the objection that no consensus or agreement is herein possible:
this is a fallcious objection.  merely because there is no absolute
and fundamental structure to be obtained this does not mean that
concretations of preference might not develop within certain
cultures that seize hold of the tool and language.  

for the Hermetics<Rosicrucians<GolDawnians perhaps we shall find
that such expostulators as Regardie, Waite, Case and maybe even
Crowley define the parameters of their consideration and signifi-
cance.  within this limited lexocon, 'tarot' takes on a definite
and important meaning, yet never deriving from 'ultimate' values.

for the Gypsies<Eclectics<Iconoclasts perhaps we shall find
that such decks (I am unfamiliar with their creators in many
cases) as the Voyager, the Gypsy-Witch-Fortune-Telling Cards,
the Osho Zen Tarot and maybe even the Secret Dakini Oracle
constitute "taro decks" (a kind of hip slang, ya know).  within
this more loose lexicon those who may have come before or set
about attempting a restriction on the language are 'just fuddie-
duddies and spoilsports, ignorant of the perfection which tarot
was eventually to include quite beyond the silliness of ritual
magic, the falsity of cosmic mysteries effable through symbols,
or the structure devised by the old gamesters'.

and so on.  knowledge-structures devised by the interested would
and could support any number of 'correct' formulations of some
certainty, and yet ultimately none are logically necessary 
without adopting the criteria for the selection, the rationale 
one may use to define 'tarot'.


RE the value of defining at least approximately the word 'tarot':
of immense value, it can assist us in discussing matters concerning
what we associate with the term.  this definition is not a
restrictive device but for the interaction between those who are
discussing the tool or pheneomenon.  it contains no absolute
requirements unless mandated from some cosmic God (which I do not
believe exists to render it).  absent that, we have provided 
ourselves with a facilitation of communication and nothing more.


RE a comparison, in suspension of traditional definitions, with 
   using two Queens in the game of Chess:
this would be fine if this is what we both understood to be possible
within the confines of the definition "Chess".  in fact, the history
of Chess is filled with a greater diversity than is typically known
concerning the elements and even board size of this game that seems
to have arisen in India as 'Shah Mat'.  for example, in games that
precursed modern versions there are in many cases NO Queens (a 'Pir'
precursive and having less power).  also, there is a game popularly
known as 'Japanese Chess' which has very different pieces and rules,
yet which may not contain a single 'Queen'.  Multilevel 'Chess'
games sometimes contain more than even TWO Queens, though there is
no reason that these games must be restricted excepting within the
confines of traditional rule systems.

and this is what we're talking about here when we compare games with
definitions of words (essentially studying epistemology and semantics):
assignments and their absolute values.  I am here claiming that such
assignments are arbitrary and not ultimate; that a culture or sub-
culture which defines a word or set of rules differently is of no less
'authority' by virtue of its variation.  

it may be received more critically by the overall society, but this
is more a function of resistance to change, of the ossification that
tradition tends to bear, than any sort of incorrect assignment.

where this applies to 'tarot' we have first to discern our criteria
for the creating this assignment (IF we decide to do that -- I don't,
and think that requiring it is elitist or utilitarian and asserting
that it need be required is completely fallacious).

blessed beast!
nagasiva
-- 
tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (emailed replies may be posted); cc me replies;
http://www.abyss.com/tokus; http://www.luckymojo.com/mojocatSPELLS.html