Another way of approaching the thoth

[inomminate]

https://marykgreer.com/2008/05/06/books ... hoth-deck/

[katrinka]

I'm with Scion on that particular issue. http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=98307

[Joan Marie]

Posting links is great you guys but it's a little hard to follow discussion-wise.

If you could tell us a bit about what's in the link or why you find it interesting it would help a lot.

Thank you!

[Charlie Brown]

Given that this was, like, one of the most controversial broo-ha-has in the history of AT, I'm a little skeptical of it popping up on the same day as a "let's all remember AT" post. For the record, my understanding is that MKG deleted a lot of her AT comments and then proceeded to misrepresent parts of the discussion on her linked essay.

I've actually seen the Arrian book and was somewhat surprised. It seems to be more a general "here's my idea of symbolic/intuitive reading" using the Thoth as an example then it does a book on the Thoth. Of course, anyone can use any techniques they want to read any deck they want but, at the same time, it is a bit misleading to then claim that you're "reading Thoth" just because you're using a Thoth deck while ignoring its in-built methodology. Especially since information was much harder to come by in the 70s, it does seem kind of scammy.

[katrinka]

Apologies! Still getting used how things run here.

Arrien suggests ignoring Crowley and goes on to give made-up interpretations of the images on the cards. But she doesn't even identify the images correctly. Crowley’s pelican, according to her, is a “swan” and “the ugly duckling”, the venom is “tears of the spirit”

Just a little of what Scion said:

"I'm not sure why people would want to ignore Crowley's writings on his own deck, but I know some people do. Still, if you want to create your own interpretations why would you want HERS?! Isn't the idea of intuitive meanings that you arrive at them on your own?"

"On Arrien's discussion of the Death trump, because she hasn't done her homework, she doesn't know that the Eagle, Snake, and Scorpion are actually three different ways of magically depicting Scorpio... and flails around with the generic symbolism that you'd find in a continuing ed poetry course carefully keeping everythign upbeat and friendly. From p. 72 Tarot Handbook, Arrien: "the scorpion represents that part of ourselves willing to protect or defend ourselves," "snake sheds its skin", "the phoenix, or eagle reflects the overall vision and perspective that is needed to become even more of what we are." Uhhh, right. Not only can't she identify the actual symbol, she's just slopping the candy coat wherever her logic doesn't follow. She's got enough sense to identify the double crown as Egyptian, but again ties it into her feeble phoenix rebirth business.

"People do have to find ways to connect to symbols personally and subjectively. BUT... derivative, self-involved books like The Tarot Handbook are worse than useless. Why would I want to read a catalog of someone else's errors rather than just making mistakes on my own? At least if it's my mistake I am more invested in finding the answers rather than taking it as writ. If all we can expect from a book is someone hugging us sporadically to say that whatever we think is great and we're special and unique (just like everybody else apparently) then why is the book longer than a greeting card? and there's the answer: Arrien wrote a 320 page beautifully printed, sporadically articulate greeting card thanking Harris and giving Crowley the fluffy New-Age finger."

For the record, I'm not one of the "Crowley can do no wrong" crowd. I have some profound issues with some of the things he said and did. But his view is crucial to even beginning to understand the deck.

[katrinka]

Given that this was, like, one of the most controversial broo-ha-has in the history of AT, I'm a little skeptical of it popping up on the same day as a "let's all remember AT" post. For the record, my understanding is that MKG deleted a lot of her AT comments and then proceeded to misrepresent parts of the discussion on her linked essay.

I understand that Arrien was a personal friend of hers, and that's why she dug her heels in and defended the book so stridently.
Loyalty is a fine thing, and I can get behind defending a person, but defending that book is another matter entirely.

I've actually seen the Arrian book and was somewhat surprised. It seems to be more a general "here's my idea of symbolic/intuitive reading" using the Thoth as an example then it does a book on the Thoth. Of course, anyone can use any techniques they want to read any deck they want but, at the same time, it is a bit misleading to then claim that you're "reading Thoth" just because you're using a Thoth deck while ignoring its in-built methodology. Especially since information was much harder to come by in the 70s, it does seem kind of scammy.

I agree. Imagine expecting something to help you crack the BoT, and getting THAT. I'd have been royally cheesed.

[Charlie Brown]

I do think the talk about "damage" was a little hyperbolic, but if I said as a neophyte "I want to learn about the Thoth tarot" and you claim that this is a means to do that. It does seem dishonest to me. At this point though the book may or may not have value on its own merits vis a vis intuition. In my local group, it seems to be a favorite of those who I like as people but not as readers.

[inomminate]

I was playing devils advocate here but for a reason. If you read the RWS no one says you can only read it according to Waite. I suspect very few people actually know Waite. If you pick up the thoth there are a different set of rules, Suddenly reading by intuition is wrong. I don't think this is about Arrien it's more that we could look at reading the thoth in different ways say in terms of jung. My own approach is to do both. I find the book of thoth be to very rewarding but Crowley was his own man he would not have wanted to be followed slavishly with people endlessly arguing about what he meant.

[katrinka]

I was playing devils advocate here but for a reason. If you read the RWS no one says you can only read it according to Waite. I suspect very few people actually know Waite.

I would think that since the PKT is so readily available (you can easily access it cheap or free), most people who have an interest in the RWS would be at least passingly familiar with what's in it.

As far as "only reading it according to Waite", the images align with Waite's meanings. So even if you purposely avoided the PKT, reading off the pictures should still get you something "according to Waite".

[inomminate]

I would think that since the PKT is so readily available (you can easily access it cheap or free), most people who have an interest in the RWS would be at least passingly familiar with what's in it.

This isn't true. Waite is very difficult to read and few people make the effort,

[Charlie Brown]

I don't feel that the situation is quite the same though since RWS traditions in general are so heavily engrained into English language tarot practice. Again, I think the important distinction is between using a Thoth deck to do whatever kind of reading you want vs. claiming that one is speaking about the Thoth with in any sort of authoritative fashion or that one is giving a 'Thoth reading' simply by using the deck.There are hundreds of decks out there that you can use to let your mind wander through the pretty pictures and only a handful that are fully composed, finely wrought semiotic webs. That's why I think it's important to defend its integrity.

FTR, I'm not a Thothy so it isn't like I have a personal investment in the system.

And, Katrinka, fwiw, I don't get the sense that most new readers are looking at Pictoral Key. With the new (and much deserved) ascendency of PSC in the popular imagination, I'm not sure most even really have a sense of how Waite is or else they think he's just a patriarchal oppressor.

[katrinka]

And, Katrinka, fwiw, I don't get the sense that most new readers are looking at Pictoral Key. With the new (and much deserved) ascendency of PSC in the popular imagination, I'm not sure most even really have a sense of how Waite is or else they think he's just a patriarchal oppressor.

We need a "hell in a handbasket" emote.
They can make any judgements they like after having read him. Refusing to read it amounts to willful ignorance. Send them this. https://www.sacred-texts.com/tarot/pkt/index.htm

[katrinka]

And, Katrinka, fwiw, I don't get the sense that most new readers are looking at Pictoral Key. With the new (and much deserved) ascendency of PSC in the popular imagination, I'm not sure most even really have a sense of how Waite is or else they think he's just a patriarchal oppressor.

We need a "hell in a handbasket" emote.
They can make any judgements they like after having read him. Refusing to read it amounts to willful ignorance. Send them this. https://www.sacred-texts.com/tarot/pkt/index.htm

[katrinka]

I would think that since the PKT is so readily available (you can easily access it cheap or free), most people who have an interest in the RWS would be at least passingly familiar with what's in it.

This isn't true. Waite is very difficult to read and few people make the effort,

Difficult? How so?
That book was written for the masses.

[Charlie Brown]

Yes, but the masses of a different time. The ideas are not difficult, especially in comparison to Crowley. Nevertheless, something like this:

The resources of interpretation have been lavished, if not exhausted, on the twenty-two Trumps Major, the symbolism of which is unquestionable. There remain the four suits, being Wands or Sceptres--ex hypothesi, in the archæology of the subject, the antecedents of Diamonds in modern cards: Cups, corresponding to Hearts; Swords, which answer to Clubs, as the weapon of chivalry is in relation to the peasant's quarter-staff or the Alsatian bludgeon; and, finally, Pentacles--called also Deniers and Money--which are the prototypes of Spades, In the old as in the new suits, there are ten numbered cards, but in the Tarot there are four Court Cards allocated to each suit, or a Knight in addition to King, Queen and Knave. The Knave is a page, valet, or damoiseau; most correctly, he is an esquire, presumably in the service of the Knight; but there are certain rare sets in which the page becomes a maid of honour, thus pairing the sexes in the tetrad of the court cards. There are naturally distinctive features in respect of the several pictures, by which I mean that the

is, sadly, difficult for a less seasoned modern reader to parse. All that Edwardian styling: run-on sentences, meandering clauses, passive voice, etc. can be alienating to those educated in the so-called Language Arts rather than English class.

[Charlie Brown]

Also, wait, is he really saying that wands are diamonds, pentacles are spades, etc?

[katrinka]

Yes. He's got the suits all screwy except for Cups.

But old fashioned or no, it's not difficult. Kids still read the classics for book reports and whatnot, don't they? And they can simply google word definitions, rather than hauling out a big dictionary like we had to.

If it was in the style of Finnegan's Wake or The Canterbury Tales, I could see the average person being stumped by it. But it isn't. It's very plain and clear.

I don't think comprehension issues are what's behind this. I think there's a lot of Arrien-style bad info out there telling people that reading cards is just making things up.

But you don't learn anything by being deliberately oblivious. Quite the oposite.

[inomminate]

But old fashioned or no, it's not difficult.

It is difficult and when you progress to some of his other books it is worse.

[Joan Marie]

But you don't learn anything by being deliberately oblivious. Quite the opposite.

This reminded me of that saying that is usually applied to artists who experiment with very abstract styles and methods: You have to know the rules before you can break them.


People are often surprised to learn how technically skilled artists like Picasso or Jackson Pollock were before they embarked on their far more artistically adventurous pursuits.

I want to draw your attention to an interview I am currently editing and will get posted shortly. I think it may be germain to this discussion.

It is with M.M. Meleen and T. Susan Chang, two people who have a vast understanding of symbolism and correspondences (See their books for starters - these two are no dilettantes) and who have produced an intensely in-depth study of the Thoth and RWS decks in a 78-part podcast series. And yet, they offer a very interesting and maybe surprising take on how we use symbols and interpret card meanings in our everyday ives.

[katrinka]

But you don't learn anything by being deliberately oblivious. Quite the opposite.

This reminded me of that saying that is usually applied to artists who experiment with very abstract styles and methods: You have to know the rules before you can break them.

You really do. You have to humble yourself and learn your craft.

People are often surprised to learn how technically skilled artists like Picasso or Jackson Pollock were before they embarked on their far more artistically adventurous pursuits.

Yes. Those two are something people have to learn how to LOOK at - much less actually doing stuff like that!

Do THAT many people lack curiousity? Do only a few bother to find out why the splattery paintings and the weird, multi-perspective figures are such a big deal? How can RWS be such a perennial favorite, yet people don't want to know anything about it?

I was in an unrelated discussion on facebook recently. Somebody dropped a purebred Bull Terrier at a shelter because it wanted to fight their other dog. Dog aggression is fairly common with this breed, and a ten minute web search would have told them as much if they'd even bothered to do that BEFORE they got the dog. The idea is to get a dog that's compatible with your living situation. I guess they weren't even curious? WTH is wrong with people???

Looking forward to the interview!

[BlueStar]

I bought Arrien's book and for me I think it was a waste of money. Not sure now why I thought it might be good. I think I was looking for some help in interpreting the imagery, but along the lines of what Crowley was trying to convey. I don't think that's what I got...

I wouldn't say avoid it like the plague though. If anything, I'd say if you want someone else's alternative interpretations to the Thoth Deck, you may find this useful. However, my personal recommendation for a very detailed good look at the symbology of the Thoth deck, including Kabbalah correspondences check out this YouTube channel.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMtMWi ... rZQ/videos

For me, it's the best I've come across and I would really recommend it for getting more insight.

[Charlie Brown]

Kids still read the classics for book reports and whatnot, don't they?

Not in most of the publics, I don't think.

[katrinka]

However, my personal recommendation for a very detailed good look at the symbology of the Thoth deck, including Kabbalah correspondences check out this YouTube channel.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMtMWi ... rZQ/videos

For me, it's the best I've come across and I would really recommend it for getting more insight.

And Paul Hughes Barlow, of course. https://www.youtube.com/user/PaulHughesBarlow

The Corax site gives clear explanations, card by card. [url]https://www.corax.com/tarot/cards/index.html[/url]

[katrinka]

Kids still read the classics for book reports and whatnot, don't they?

Not in most of the publics, I don't think.

Things are bad, but not that bad yet. (And teachers are hip to SparkNotes, and have tricks to find out if people didn't actually read the book. )
https://mybookcave.com/the-book-wyrm-gr ... -you-read/