What do you say to someone who has a "fantasy" idea of the origins of Tarot?

[blackroseivy]

I am into HISTORICAL RESEARCH. Robert Place is the PREMIER authority on the subject as far as I am concerned, though Michael Dummet, Rachel Pollack, Alfred Douglas & Stuart R. Kaplan all have very interesting things to say.

I find the Milanese court 1st coming up with the Trumps based upon a Triumphal Parade which goes back to antiquity to be an immensely satisfying explanation as to the origins of Tarot.

I am not trying to sound like a "Tarot snob"; but when we get into Hermes Trismagistus, etc. etc., & wander away from historical fact, I get very unhappy!

Don't get me wrong here, either - I have 0 desire to argue with this person. I just wonder what exactly I can say that will be tactful & not overly dismissive, but will stick to "just the facts, ma'am"!!

[LisaT4P]

Well, I guess you could say something like, "The research I've done over the years leads me to believe that X happened. I can point you to some sources if you'd like to check it out".

That way you're being fairly non-confrontational. You're stating that you have researched this, you've formed an opinion and you're happy to share the sources of your opinion, but it is in a non-threatening and non-you're-full-of-crap kind of way. :)

[blackroseivy]

That sounds like an excellent approach - I knew you'd be here with some common sense!! ;)

People like that tend to be VERY VERY ATTATCHED to their ideas indeed! So I need to be very tactful. :) Thanx for the advice! :D

[LisaT4P]

I have to practice the tactful. What I usually WANT to say is "wow, you're really a dumb@ss!" LOL

Tact & diplomacy is an art. And I'm a really good bullsh#tter.

[aranarose]

I have to practice the tactful. What I usually WANT to say is "wow, you're really a dumb@ss!" LOL

Tact & diplomacy is an art. And I'm a really good bullsh#tter.

I think that's what we all want to say at times! I know I do. But I've got a huge supply of duct tape to apply to my mouth when those urges come forth.

[blackroseivy]

AH!! :D

Well, now this guy in question: Honestly, he may be engaged in rampant speculation BUT I do believe he is a Wise Man (`a la The Hermit) & +, at my other community, someone pointed out that EVERYTHING that we take for granted about the Tarot is really based upon someone's speculations based upon assumptions based upon someone ELSE'S speculations, etc. etc. ad nauseum - so, since I'm inclined to agree with him, I'm going to see what "my man" has to say about things. I'm "after" befriending him, haha - it's ok, I think he's read these posts but like I said, I was never after a fight or anything like that, being combative is NOT a strong point of mine. I have a great willingness to expand my horizons the wee, see where it might take me... ;)

[SweetIsTheTruth]

I just wonder what exactly I can say that will be tactful & not overly dismissive, but will stick to "just the facts, ma'am"!!

Why whatever could you possibly mean? Everyone knows the Tarot contains the wisdom of the Egyptians as passed down by the historical figure known as Hermes Trimegistus! It's where Moses and Solomon both learned their magick, as well as the evocation of Goetic spirits in the case of Solomon.




HA! Just kidding!

Could you tell them you will believe it when the Keebler elves show up and bake cookies in your kitchen?

[blackroseivy]

(stage-whispering) *I'm afraid this might be somewhat the case, actually!!*

No, but seriously - he seems to have some things to say that are "outside the box" - so I will follow along TO A POINT. No elves, however, need apply!! :p

[LisaT4P]

Could you tell them you will believe it when the Keebler elves show up and bake cookies in your kitchen?mmmmmm, cookies! *homer simpson drool*

:elf: + _cookie_ = :drool:

Send them to my house when you're done with them.

[SweetIsTheTruth]

mmmmmm, cookies! *homer simpson drool*

:elf: + _cookie_ = :drool:

Send them to my house when you're done with them.

Speaking of cookies, I could bake you some white chocolate chip macadamia nut cookies that taste SO GOOD, it would make you wanna jump up and slap yo granny, as we say in the south.

But I'm no elf. A fairy maybe, but no elf ;)

[Troubadour]

Of course there are two answers, and both of you are right! Right? I'd probably agree-but disagree, the old wise one's approach. "Well, of course you're right that the symbols are based on archetypes that stretch back all the way to ancient Egypt, perhaps beyond, but the first actual tarot decks as we really know them today date to..."

You'll probably just throw my latest historical novel across the room, blackroseivy. In it, I give credit for the first deck to a 13th century pagan. Ha. Mind you, although the characters and events in my novel are mostly "real history" (as close to real history as you can get in fiction, I suppose -- the rise of the Inquisition, the Cathar crusade, Pope Innocent IV, etc), but my flight of fancy on the tarot card developer is based on legend, not history, and I added it mostly for fun and theme. At least it wasn't Hermes! Best,

[plumedsnake]

hmmm.. . . so do we all believe that the tarot was/is a human fabrication. That in fact no ancient authorities were involved in transmitting the knowledge it contains. You are obviously not a hermeticist.

[SweetIsTheTruth]

hmmm.. . . so do we all believe that the tarot was/is a human fabrication.

I don't believe the tarot is 'fabricated' at all. I believe some stories told about it's origins are fabricated, since the first decks appeared in the late 1300s.



That in fact no ancient authorities were involved in transmitting the knowledge it contains.

Had the deck existed in ancient history, I don't doubt for one minute the ancients would have grasped what the deck is about. Since the first decks did not appear in ancient history, I have no reason to presume any ancients were involved in transmitting whatever the knowledge the tarot contains.



You are obviously not a hermeticist.

Then Regardie must not have been a hermeticist either. Read page 203 of "The Tree of Life A Study in Magic," in which Regardie discusses the evocation of spirits. Here's a quote from that page;

"While within the constitution of the Magician there lie hidden, uncontrolled and unknown, those subconscious powers or spirits..."

He clearly labels subconscious powers as 'spirits.' The entire passage compares the similarities of a psychologist helping a patient reveal his own subconscious motivations, with a magician doing the same for himself by working with spirits, implying the spirits are subconscious forces.

In other words, it very strongly appears to me that Regardie was working from the standpoint of a psychological model in explaining the evocation of spirits. Given the fact Regardie was a psychologist, this makes perfect sense.

As far as my own perceptions, I guess you could say I follow a psychological model as well, even with respect to the tarot. If you ask me if the tarot contains the wisdom of the ages, my answer would be;

Indeed it does. The images of the tarot are much like dream symbols, which spring from the subconscious of humanity. Any human culture or society, could therefore make use of tarot imagery, since the subconscious nature of the themes of the images are common to all humanity. This is basically the view that Jung, another psychologist, took with respect to the tarot.

But you are correct. I am not a hermeticist. I am not anything really, beyond a gatherer of information at this point, nor do I claim to be anything beyond that.

[LisaT4P]

hmmm.. . . so do we all believe that the tarot was/is a human fabrication. That in fact no ancient authorities were involved in transmitting the knowledge it contains. You are obviously not a hermeticist.Occam's Razor. :D

[plumedsnake]

I have no reason to presume any ancients were involved in transmitting whatever the knowledge the tarot contains.

Then Regardie must not have been a hermeticist either. Read page 203 of "The Tree of Life A Study in Magic," in which Regardie discusses the evocation of spirits. Here's a quote from that page;

"While within the constitution of the Magician there lie hidden, uncontrolled and unknown, those subconscious powers or spirits..."

He clearly labels subconscious powers as 'spirits.' The entire passage compares the similarities of a psychologist helping a patient reveal his own subconscious motivations, with a magician doing the same for himself by working with spirits, implying the spirits are subconscious forces.

I guess that it is really just an ontological problem. Now I don't claim to know the entire ontological truth, but I do feel that there are strong problems with the psychological approach.
First it is only fair that I come clean with where I'm coming from. I do believe in the existence of spirits and spiritual teachers that impart knowledge to seekers. Now, if the Tarot was taught to 13th century adepts by these entities then I believe that they were also the same source for older traditions. Not only that but that ancient questers can actually come to the aid of and impart knowledge to contemporary questers.

Now I understand Israel Regardie saying that it is a matter of perceptions and what I see as independent entities he calls subconscious forces. True. Most everything is a matter of perception. Yet certain models work a lot worse than certain others. He says: . . .Within the constitution of . . . ..
That for me is a very important error. Of course it can be argued that everything that I experience I experience in my head so therefore the experience is contained in my head. Then of course the whole universe is the content of one Giant Mind. Yeah, this is actually what hermeticist believe too, but I think that Israel Regardie was not thinking in those terms. He, I believe, is presuming that the Magician and his mind is an entity separate from the rest of existence. And within this mind are certain forces contained within the mind and not to be found outside of the constitution of the magician.

I could only concur with Regardie if his idea of the magician's constitution consisted of the entire universe , ie the full range of his/her experience (fantastical, or physical). I believe that long after a magician is dead and gone, and that constitution we referred to as his person has ceased to exist, those spirits that conjured blah blah blah still remain. In fact in dying all that happens to the magician is that the constitution disintegrates yet the magician remains, albeit translated into another form. And in this new form he can continue to act and influence the universe.

Regardie is not far off, but his model contains flaws.




But you are correct. I am not a hermeticist. I am not anything really, beyond a gatherer of information at this point, nor do I claim to be anything beyond that.

ooo I don't know. There's an hermeticist in there (in the subconscious, uncontrolled and 'unknown'(?)) waiting to come out, it seems.
I suggested you weren't an hermeticist because recieving transmissions is central to the hermetic traditions.

[SphinYote]

Well, if we want to stretch things a little, it's not really incorrect to say that the contemporary tarot had origins partly stemming from egypt and the cabala.

After all, various occultists and esotericists put those ideas there, however much they might be transformed from their original form and context...

And many of them did a good job of it, as well. Tarot is a crock pot (in a good way)--you can add just about anything to it and cook it into a good stew....

Yote

[SweetIsTheTruth]

Now I understand Israel Regardie saying that it is a matter of perceptions and what I see as independent entities he calls subconscious forces.

To me, this is the same debate that rages forever on. Are the gods/spirits within us, without us, or some combination in between?

[SweetIsTheTruth]

Of course it can be argued that everything that I experience I experience in my head so therefore the experience is contained in my head.

Honestly, I don't think it matters what anyone argues regarding this. The only thing that matters is, does the model from which you operate work for you? If it does, then carry on, while paying no mind to the naysayers (which from your standpoint would include me, but then, I am the perennial skeptic.)

[blackroseivy]

Of course there are two answers, and both of you are right! Right? I'd probably agree-but disagree, the old wise one's approach. "Well, of course you're right that the symbols are based on archetypes that stretch back all the way to ancient Egypt, perhaps beyond, but the first actual tarot decks as we really know them today date to..."

You'll probably just throw my latest historical novel across the room, blackroseivy. In it, I give credit for the first deck to a 13th century pagan. Ha. Mind you, although the characters and events in my novel are mostly "real history" (as close to real history as you can get in fiction, I suppose -- the rise of the Inquisition, the Cathar crusade, Pope Innocent IV, etc), but my flight of fancy on the tarot card developer is based on legend, not history, and I added it mostly for fun and theme. At least it wasn't Hermes! Best,

EH! I'd NEVER throw that across the room, it sounds FASCINATING!!! :D

Hmmm... How much writing about the Tarot have you done? (Yes, I have a reason for asking....)

[blackroseivy]

& just as a side-note:

WOWOWOW did I ever open up a CAN'O'WOIMS on here!! :p

[SweetIsTheTruth]

Hmmm... How much writing about the Tarot have you done? (Yes, I have a reason for asking....)

You might have missed the thread regarding the release of Troubadour's book, found in the MW Books section. The thread itself, with links to the website, is found here (http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=166553).