Path: typhoon.sonic.net!not-for-mail Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.tarot,alt.divination,alt.magick Subject: JK: The "Death" of Tarot References: <3E2D3C75.D64D4EF2@jktarotX.com> From: nagasiva Reply-To: spam@luckymojo.com User-Agent: nn/6.6.0 Lines: 89 Message-ID: <75jX9.61758$Ik.2349999@typhoon.sonic.net> Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:38:11 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.201.242.18 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sonic.net X-Trace: typhoon.sonic.net 1043185091 208.201.242.18 (Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:38:11 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:38:11 PST Xref: typhoon.sonic.net alt.magick.tyagi:35868 alt.tarot:114717 alt.divination:20970 alt.magick:333211 50030121 VII om "J. Karlin" at: > http://jktarot.com/tarotdeath.html an amusing and informative piece on pop-culture's tendency to downplay difficult or unpopular interpretations of the Tarot's 'Death' card in favour of holistic vageness ("It's *really* about change, not death!" ;> ;> ). here I respond to the terminal paragraph or two, which offers some very curious insight into the mind and doings of one Stuart Kaplan (U.S. Games Systems): JK: # ...it has also been reported that [Stuart] Kaplan initiated # this contact [with police] himself by calling the tip # line. While helping police to identify the Tarot card # seems a worthwhile offer, Kaplan was willing to go much # further than this. Kaplan offered to release to police a # list of his customers "in the capital area", a move which # even Kaplan admitted was like looking for "a needle in # a haystack", and that "...there's just a slim chance # that what I have can help locate this guy." For those # who therefore might have considered Kaplan's actions a # questionable invasion of his customers' privacy, his # retort is simple: "U.S. Games Systems reasoned, and # rightly so, that to refuse to cooperate with the # authorities would be very damaging to tarot's image..." instead, SKaplan damages his own image and that of US Games, despite his claims to the contrary. [and then draws some conclusions based on recent events] # ...it seems likely that Tarot has been damaged by the # events of 2002, events which one could reasonably argue # are the logical consequences of decades of dishonesty # practiced by a community and industry far more concerned # with peddling a Tower of positive images than telling # something (perhaps painfully) true about Tarot. the Reader community seems to be at odds with the movie industry on this one, but it isn't unprecedented. I like the various 'You Will Die!' uses of the Death-card in pop-classic James Bond exoticism, for example. # The damage, therefore, may be truly positive in the sense # of helping to focus attention on some long-standing # destructive habits into which many Tarot students, # practitioners, and peddlers have fallen. the issue always turns on meaning, its location, and the status of the real with respect to interpretation of the arcane. go for the tough sell (death!) or for some less abrasive and more embraceable result (change!), but your axioms about what is Tarot typically informs your selection. # In 2003 we can hope that another, better, Tarot community # starts to emerge from the ashes of these disasters, a # community which doesn't unduly concern itself with the # "positive image of tarot", but which instead devotes # itself to learning about, and telling the truth about, # Tarot. (jk) hopeful you are. after all... 'witches' aren't *really* witches, of course. they don't use animal parts and roots and things to curse folks. no, those are the satanists. the Witches (a religion) worship nature and fly on greased broomhandles to psychoactive summerlands. oh I forgot, 'Satanists' aren't *really* satanists. they don't worship Satan and have anti-Roman Catholic sabbats. no, that is the Demonolaters. the Satanists adore animals and children and would never harm the innocent, whom they revere as exemplary of nature untouched by the corrupting hand of societal conditioning. oh damn, but 'sorcerers' aren't *really* sorcerers, are they? when does it *really* end? choose a stop and get off? is the literal or the symbolic meaning the *real meaning*? the choice between these two is identifying of one's relation to the interpreted (be it in cartomancy or vague and confusing scripture) and what one discerns or introduces into Tarot. nagasiva