canasia.org

: Even Dummett admits the value of her study. It's a far cry from Petrarch : to Luria, however. : Perhaps.  Perhaps not.  What's the metric of distance in such matters? Excellent question! I hope this isn't something like 'Just how big *is* your idea, anyway?' };-] Well, we could start with time and space, or period and distribution, and work from there... Was Lurianic Kabbalah _ever_ part of popular culture, as discinct from academic or vocational religious culture? Well, first, since Luria was about 1534-1572 (note that he died before he was old enough to study Kabbalah), his ideas probably had little influence on the formation of the Tarot emblems. However, Lurianic Kabbalah was influential in non-Jewish esoteric circles in what seem to have been several waves of influence, and could very likely have influenced later esotericizing interpretations of the Tarot (and undoubtedly did play an influence on the GD Tarot). (And what is popular culture ?  Is the world of Masonic secret societies part of popular culture?  (Are Llewellyn's publications?!) What about all the little sects that popped up after Charles I, and continued during the Restoration?) There were shared systems of ideas

I heard J. Karlin ( This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ) say: : A computer manual 'complements' the computer. : That does not make the relationship 'emblematic'. 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. Please note that I am also not talking about any hypothetical, generic, imparticular 'tarot' thing. I'm talking about a very restricted subset of available tarot pack/text pairs, and my comments should be understood to apply within this context and not some other. What Crowley had to say about Thoth has no deterministic bearing on how I or anyone interprets Marseilles, IOW, and whatever arguments I adduce to indicate a pertinent relation between specific pack/text pairs and emblem-book morphology can not be taken as bearing on tarot generally. : So? That exclusive (or 'privileged') position does not make the : relationship 'emblematic', any more than it does if a : the computer designer (instead of a tech-writer) writes the : usage manual in the example I mentioned above. It makes the text _necessary_, in the same sense. See below. : and from : our position as post facto interpreters of Thoth, we have little practical : choice but to deal with image and text as a coherent whole. : Nonsense, there are MANY choices available to us; we can, : as many people do, ignore Crowley's text for 'Book of Thoth' : entirely, and instead write another text that will, : in our opinion, 'describe and elaborate' what it means. 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, you will most probably fail to do so if you disregard Crowley's text. This is, in your terms, 'choosing to remain ignorant'. : You seem to be confusing 'emblem' with the notion of : 'authority', in the sense that authoritative commentary : melds with image in a sense, 'emblematic', which : can not be achieved by alternative texts. None of : this has anything to do with the meaning of 'emblems'. NO. I am simply remarking that the imagery and the text are, in the specific instances cited, parts of the same creative effort, and as they are together used by their creator to communicate a consistent message, they bear a structural similarity to earlier image/text pairs, and the problem of interpretation is similar. I have before me _The Rosicrucian Emblems of Daniel Cramer_. I open it at random to Emblem 7. There is an image of a burning heart-shape on a pedestal, being blown by four cloudlike faces. Meaning? There are parts of text: a _title_, 'Sum Constans', 'I am constant'; a Biblical quote from Psalms 39:3, 'My heart was hot within me, while I was musing the fire burned'; a caption, 'Blow winds, I meditate, by contemplation am I fired on the altar. The more I am stirred, the hotter I become.' Meaning? The image and text are being used together to convey a message, and the relationship between the text and the image is obvious, and necessary. I pick up a Thoth image, a Tower I've been contemplating; you know how it looks. Meaning? If you know something about other versions of the Tower, you'll ignore the deviations of Crowley's design and think you know what this one means, too. I pick up the book Thoth and turning to page 108 (K@shmarin Press, 1969) I read 'The dominating feature of this card is the Eye of Horus. This is also the Eye of Shiva, on the opening of which, according to the legend of this cult, the universe is destroyed.' Is this meaning contained in the Thoth Tower image? For modern interpreters, once they've read the text, it is. Without the text, in all probability, it is not, especially as Hindu mythology has historically played little part in tarot orthography. The image and text are being used together to convey a message, and the relationship between the text and the image is obvious, and necessary. Az0th

49970526 AA1  Hail Satan! This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it (R Brzustowicz): #What, no GD fundamentalists?  Too bad.   hey, you can have that category if you like it. ; This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it (R Brzustowicz): ##

Why did the Tarot attract the kind of interest and commentary it did from commentators who saw in it a repository of esoteric knowledge?  Amd why did that kind of commentary catch on in the way that it has? I'm going to write something on this in the next week or so, IF I don't get distracted. I think that's an 'obvious' and very worthwhile question to explore. Another, related question is why general interest didn't fixate on other emblematic images or image sequences

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it (R Brzustowicz): #What, no GD fundamentalists?  Too bad.   hey, you can have that category if you like it. ; That's ok