Tree of Life--a fun little theological riddle

[Tiassa]

From The Book of Thoth

THE TREE OF LIFE

1. This figure must be studied very carefully, for it is the basis of the whole system on which the Tarot is based. It is quite impossible to give a complete explanation of this figure, because (for one thing) it is quite universal. Therefore it cannot mean the same to any one person as to any other. A's universe is not B's universe. If A and B are sitting opposite each other at (a) table, A sees the right side of the lobster and B the left. If they stand side by side and look at a star, the angle is different; although this differense is infinitesimal, it exists. But Tarot is the same for all in the same way in which any scientific fact or formula is the same for all. It is most important to remember that the facts of science, though universally true in the abstract, are still not precisely true for any one observer, because even if the observation of any common object is made by two people of identical sensory reactions from the same spot, it cannot be done directly at the same time; and even the smallest fraction of a second is sufficient to move both object and observer in space.

This fact is to be emphasised, because one must not take the Tree of Life as a dead fixed formula. It is in a sense an eternal pattern of the Universe, just because it is infinitely elastic; and it is to be used as an instrument in one's researches into nature and her forces. It is not to be made an excuse for Dogmatism. The Tarot should be learnt as early in life as possible; a fulcrum for memory and a schema for mind. It should be studied constantly, a daily exercise; for it is universally elastic, and grows in proportion to the use intelligently made of it. Thus it becomes a most ingenious and excellent method of appreciating the whole of Existence.

2. It seems probable that the Qabalists who invented the Tree of Life were inspired by Pythagoras, or that both he and they derived their knowledge from a common source in higher antiquity. In any case, both schools agree upon one fundamentla postulate, which is as follows: Ultimate Reality is best described by Numbers and their interplay. It is interesting to note that modern Mathematical Physics has been finally driven to some similar assumption. Further, the attempt to describe Reality by a single definite term has been abandoned. Modern thought conceives Reality under the image of a ring of ten ideas, such as Potential, Matter, and so on. Each term has no meaning in itself; it can only be understood in terms of others ....

But the further attempt to reach Reality led the Qabalists to sum up the qualities of these rather vague and literary ideas by referring them all to the numbers of the decimal scale.

Numbers, then, are the nearest approach to Reality which is shown in this system. The number 4, for instance, is not so specially the result of adding one to three, or squaring two, or halving eight. It is a thing it itself, with all sorts of moral, sensible, and intellectual qualities. It symbolises such ideas as Law, Restraint, Power, Protection and Stability. (30-31)

• • • • •

It is interesting to point out that Crowley is not really inventing any new ideas here, but rather rehashing what mystics had figured out before him. The Book of Thoth is the textbook to a Tarot system developed by Crowley.

What are the implications, then? Quite broad and vague, to be exact. We might look to the number four, symbolizing Law, Restraint, Power, Protection and Stability. There are philosophical reasons for this; such assignations are not arbitrary.

Yet something I've said before and something I'll say again is that the only reason three is significant to mystics is that it's one more than two. Likewise, four becomes significant because it is one more than three.

Among Satanism there exists an Order of the Trapezoid. No, I am not joking.

Why a trapezoid? Because it isn't a square, because it has four sides, and only two of the sides are parallel. Symbolism? Right angles are too dogmatic, if you can make that connection. I have no idea what the significance of two parallel sides is. But four is important literally because it is one more than three.

Or we could look to the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No Qabalist or other mystic would say that such an Amendment pertaining to Law, Restraint, Power, Protection, and Stability was numbered fourth by the will of God; such infantile notions have no place in mysticism. Yet there is a corellation. Where Amendments 1, 2, and 3, for instance, all restrain the government, so do all 10 Amendments of the Bill of Rights. But Amendment 4 pertains to Law (enforcement), Restraint (thereof), Power (authority), (procedures of) Protection, and (communal) Stability. Some would go so far as to say that properly enumerated laws, as such, will be more significant than "wrongly" enumerated laws (your guess is as good as mine). Some would say that kind of stuff is balderdash, and they're probably right. Yet I note the Amendment because Crowley and the Constitution have a common tie: Freemasons. And, frankly, if there's any trippy numerology affecting the US and its government, it would be found in Freemasonry. (Look at a US dollar if you doubt the Freemasons' quiet authority.)

In the Naples Arrangement, an enumerated visualization of existence (that's a broad description), four is "the Point defined by 3 coordinates: Matter". On one side is the Abyss (3) between the Ideal and the Actual; on the other is Motion (Time; 5): "Hé, the Womb; for only through Motion and in Time can events occur."

Now how these ideas play into Law, Restraint, &c., is a little beyond explanation for the moment. But that's hardly the goal here. Such an association can be built over time.

More importantly, when we consider that Crowley wrote this before the majority (if not all) of Sciforums' users were born, I hope to reinforce the notion that many have covered the simple questions pertaining to religions without necessarily making any sense. Mystical perspectives such as these are the reason for that. Much of what we consider dogmatic or doctrinal finds its basis in mysticism. It is from the mystics that we learn the most about how a religion was intended to function, not in the sense of daily function, but in the sense of what, instead of daily function, a religious paradigm ought to offer. Some of the ideas we debate here find resolutions some 800 years ago and more. Without those resolutions, the simpler questions would still be relevant and valid. In the meantime, it is the mystical portion of any religion which will test it more strictly than any atheism could envision.

For instance: tarot. Tarot actually has so little to do with the topic that I shall laugh unkindly if I see anything that has to do with predicting future events.

Or, as Crowley wrote: Thus it becomes a most ingenious and excellent method of appreciating the whole of Existence.

Notes:

Therion, Master (Aleister Crowley). The Book of Thoth. York Beach: Weiser, 1992.

United States Bill of Rights

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Godless]

Interesting...

However most people I've known to use the Tarot is to rip-off the gullible.


I did like numerology as I was growing up, I quess this is why I've got a good memory of numbers though I don't use them mathematically. Numbers are a part of my life, I work in a warehouse, and I was amazed at the speed of which I learnt by "number" were and what all the products are.

Interesting post Tiassa.

Quote: it is the mystical portion of any religion which will test it more strictly than any atheism could envision.

Remember that a larger part of us atheists come from religious backgrounds. Therefore there may remain some illogical reasoning behind our minds, from the parasite that is mysticism.

 

[Tiassa]

Dust Devils

However most people I've known to use the Tarot is to rip-off the gullible.

Indeed, 'tis true. Any complex system that relates tangibly to human behavior can be simplified for exploitation. Just the other day, one of my friends who is generally more intelligent than that forwarded me one of those Microsoft is beta-testing an email tracking system and YOU can make money by just forwarding this email to ten friends tales was true.

I did like numerology as I was growing up, I quess this is why I've got a good memory of numbers though I don't use them mathematically. Numbers are a part of my life, I work in a warehouse, and I was amazed at the speed of which I learnt by "number" were and what all the products are.

The irony that makes me smile is that I never did understand the significance of numerology.

Remember that a larger part of us atheists come from religious backgrounds. Therefore there may remain some illogical reasoning behind our minds, from the parasite that is mysticism.

I always wonder about the need to employ terms like "parasite". Constant anti-identification through condemnation makes it look like you're afraid of mysticism. It is also well to bear in mind that mysticism is generally the illogical religious presumption taken to its logical conclusion and converted into a philosophical groundwork.

More importantly, it is inevitable that you will retain a fragment of that irrational experience. It is part of what makes humans "human". That people try to make sense of the absurdity of life is both irrational and demonstrably inevitable. The only real difference is how each person approaches that absurdity.

In the Wind of the mind arises the turbulence called I.

It breaks; down shower the barren thoughts.

All life is choked.

This desert is the Abyss wherein is the Universe. The Stars are but thistles in that waste.

Yet this desert is but one spot accursèd in a world of bliss.

Now and again Travellers cross the desert; they come from the Great Sea, and to the Great Sea they go.

As they go they spill water; one day they will irrigate the desert, till it flower.

See! five footprints of a Camel! V. V. V. V. V.

(Perdurabo, Psalm 42, Dust Devils)

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Raithere]

What value in an unproven system?

Originally posted by tiassa
Ultimate Reality is best described by Numbers and their interplay. It is interesting to note that modern Mathematical Physics has been finally driven to some similar assumption. Further, the attempt to describe Reality by a single definite term has been abandoned. Modern thought conceives Reality under the image of a ring of ten ideas, such as Potential, Matter, and so on.

The attempt to describe reality by a single definite term has not quite been abandoned… there are the M and the brane theories to consider. Still, the recognition that these theories are models and not reality has become more predominant in recent history.

Each term has no meaning in itself; it can only be understood in terms of others

Of course, nothing has meaning in itself, only in relation to other things.

What are the implications, then? Quite broad and vague, to be exact. We might look to the number four, symbolizing Law, Restraint, Power, Protection and Stability. There are philosophical reasons for this; such assignations are not arbitrary.

The question is whether the assignations are relevant. If the number four is "Law, Restraint, Power, Protection and Stability" how does the number 4 relate to other concepts? What is the interrelation and how can you describe it. In other words, what is the formula that explains our observations of these concepts? Without such a function the assignment is meaningless… we might as well equate Law, Restraint, Power, Protection and Stability with the color blue or the name Emily.

Yet there is a corellation.

Be wary, correlation does not imply causality… and may simply be accidental. The relationship needs be identified. This is often a problem in mysticism. A relationship is indicated but never demonstrated. Would I say that these concepts are related to each other and that some interactive process is going on? Yes. But how does the enumeration you describe help us to understand or predict what is going on?

Now how these ideas play into Law, Restraint, &c., is a little beyond explanation for the moment. But that's hardly the goal here. Such an association can be built over time.

I would say that that is the goal. Otherwise it's simply masturbatory. I can invent any number of imagined but unsupported interrelations… what is their value if there is no real correlation between them and reality?

Mystical perspectives such as these are the reason for that. Much of what we consider dogmatic or doctrinal finds its basis in mysticism. It is from the mystics that we learn the most about how a religion was intended to function, not in the sense of daily function, but in the sense of what, instead of daily function, a religious paradigm ought to offer.

Mysticism is an attempt to find order… an attempt to explain the occurrences we observe. In this, it shares a goal with both religion and science… I agree. However, the value of any of theses systems can be determined by accuracy with which we can explain and predict what occurs. The problem with religion and mysticism is that these explanation fail examination in most cases.

Some of the ideas we debate here find resolutions some 800 years ago and more. Without those resolutions, the simpler questions would still be relevant and valid. In the meantime, it is the mystical portion of any religion which will test it more strictly than any atheism could envision.

Again, the question is "Is the assignation relevant?" What do they reveal between the associated concepts? Frankly, I do not see that mysticism is ever really tested internally. Can you provide how this testing occurs?

For instance: tarot. Tarot actually has so little to do with the topic that I shall laugh unkindly if I see anything that has to do with predicting future events.

Then what value does it have?

~Raithere

 

[Tiassa]

Organization, focus--the value of symbols

Of course, nothing has meaning in itself, only in relation to other things

I've long asserted, though the idea has been shot full of holes here at Sciforums, that in religion are hints of "pre-science", an early effort to undertake questions of the Universe before scientific consistency was understood. For instance, in Christian musings of the Devil, there are speculations in history about the nature of evil to the point that they debated whether a blind horse was evil, a result of God's direct disfavor, or somehow "good" since God willed the blind horse. Take that for whatever it's worth.

Creation myths tackle nagging questions for which there is no scientific explanation. You and I might accept the Big Bang or other scientific theory. You and I might accept evolution, but when we get right down to it we cannot prove the very beginning with any authenticity. Rather than asserting religious models as authentic, it is more correct to say that they may speak toward interpretations of truths. Consider Cosmic Background Radiation. We don't "hear" the radiation because we developed in the environment and it's so fundamentally a part of reality around us that it is included in "silence". If we noticed everything going on around us, we wouldn't be able to function.

I do wonder, then, in the Hitchhiker's Guide sense if maybe there is a reason religious and spiritual ideas bear certain consistencies. The tangible expressions may have little to do with the real reason, a principle we discover is true elsewhere in life. Just as the formula of the computer program was allegedly imprinted somewhere in Arthur Dent's brain--for he is a product of the computer's process, a byproduct or even a planned product of the program--so, too, do the common elements of religious creation myths tackle certain questions.

Void, water, the rising of the land from a lack thereof. In the beginning there was a ball that went "bang", but anyone familiar with artistic distortion of history and reality in order to convey specific points from history will be aware that the stories can be taken as allegories in terms of what the human mind was capable of recognizing at the time. I find old native American tales such as the Hopi Spider Woman saving those who sang the old harmonies in times of cataclysm strikingly accurate. We do hear an echo of creation, a specific signal from the beginning of the Universe. We do hear stars sing. Blackbody radiation is constantly emitted at various frequencies. And here is a myth which speaks of harmonies. It's not accurate by any means, but it does recognize something that science would eventually find--interrelated frequencies bouncing around the Universe.

Of course, if you throw enough darts, you'll hit the bullseye, so to speak. The problem is that when we look back at these myths, we look at them with modern eyes. But the point is that the religious tales do contain a certain amount of knowledge the same way abstract art contains a certain amount of knowledge. Anyone can interpret it, but the "right" interpretation depends on understanding the right factors, something that may only be possible to the inventor or inventors of the tale. I cannot be in the Garden of Eden, as such, so I cannot write the history. Nor am I of pre-Judaic civilization, or even an ancient Jew. As with all stories, I attempt as much sympathy in reading as I can, but at some point, I have to admit that I don't know entirely what Genesis-creation stories mean because I don't have the immediate reference.

Look at the things that we take scientifically: stars, molecules, human biology. These are fair results we've discovered, but when I look at simple application, merely following the instructions on a box of cake mix does not guarantee success. That harsh vibrations make a cake fall does not mean the science behind the instructions is wrong, but we can no more take science to be correct than we can guarantee that following the instructions will make a good cake. Factors we have not yet accounted for affect our observations.

In that sense, the only thing to do, of course, is keep looking. And that's what has never quite happened with the spiritual ideas; they were replaced before a lot of people were finished with them.

That nothing has meaning in itself, but only in relation to other things is a philosophy understood in superstitions past. Science itself may deal with this idea just fine, but people demonstrably do not--how much of politics would be easier if people simply remembered that nothing has meaning in itself?

The question is whether the assignations are relevant. If the number four is "Law, Restraint, Power, Protection and Stability" how does the number 4 relate to other concepts? What is the interrelation and how can you describe it. In other words, what is the formula that explains our observations of these concepts? Without such a function the assignment is meaningless… we might as well equate Law, Restraint, Power, Protection and Stability with the color blue or the name Emily.

A number of ways of looking at it.

• The assignations are relevant because people have made them so.
• Crowley's attribution of four to "matter" in the Naples arrangement, for instance, has better foundation insofar as I can see, than asserting Four as law, restraint, &c.
• Many attributions seem arbitrary, and many probably are. However, some attributions are simply obscure. There is only a certain point in history where traditions are finally written down. If people were recognizing associations in groups of four ... well, here's one slim possibility: One is the self, two is the man and the woman; three their union, for one plus one equals 3 through the child. Four implies a destabilizing of the harmony of the two plus the one. How so? Well, as Crowley notes for the Naples Arrangement: 2--The point distinguishable from one other. At which time the individual comprising the third aspect now has something to potentially compare itself against in respect to the consistent association of the original two. Jealousy between children, covetousness among adults in the secret lover. Law and power--governance as such--become necessary to regulate the situation. Restraint, stability, protection? Think of it in terms of a primal family. Adam, Eve, child ... now two children, now the collapse of that paradigm as jealousy--a lack of restraint, a sense of the necessity of demonstrative power, a need for protection. Or consider what we think of as dimensions: three--height, width, depth, and then the fourth (time) is required for an object to change or, in fact, do anything. As the doing of things commences, we can envision the need for restraint and order. Or we can look to natural law such as the laws of physics as the law, restraint, and (relative) stability implied by the numerical association. At some point, it seems almost an arbitrary assignation, but arbitrary human output is not wholly arbitrary. It seems arbitrary but it still accords to what the individual human finds important.

It's philosophy, which point I would ask you to hold until the end.

As to the color blue and the name Emily--if you make the association, and demand it, people will eventually start making those associations, and from those associations achieve new perspectives on old data and, perhaps, see something that they didn't see before. Why go back to the same place for vacation you did before? Because it's not exactly the same. We can camp and climb the other side of the valley. We may be seeing the same vista, but the same vista from a different perspective. Or, as the pseudo-scientific truth of Crowley's assertions has it:

It is most important to remember that the facts of science, though universally true in the abstract, are still not precisely true for any one observer, because even if the observation of any common object is made by two people of identical sensory reactions from the same spot, it cannot be done directly at the same time; and even the smallest fraction of a second is sufficient to move both object and observer in space.

And, given that most modern names have older definitions--for instance "Nadira", the intended middle name of my daughter, means "star".while "nadir" is the point "below the observer" in the celestial sphere, is anyone going to question how "Nadira" came to mean "star"? The etymology includes "naara" (to see or watch) and "nair" (opposite).

But you've given a fair term: Emily. The Baby Name Network lists the simple definition "industrious" for the name Emily, and points to "Amelia", also a Teutonic name, which means "industrious" or "striving". The related words "ameliorate" and "meliorate" (the former an alternate form of the latter according to American Heritage) mean "to make better", "to improve", or "to grow better". Now, we can see some common themes between the Latin "meliorate" and "ameliorate" and the Teutonic-derived "Emily". Rome met the Teutons in battle somewhere around 103 BCE, after several years of prelude, and again (possibly) encountered elements of Teutonic culture in 55 BCE when the Romans met the Celts of Brittany. To build a new myth relevant to our discussion around "Emily", I would probably pick on the stability aspect and combine that with the industrious striving and see a long-term transformation taking place that would associate "Emily" with prosperity.

Now, of colors ... that's a whole different cup of tea. I have a silly book on my shelf about cats (Pawmistry) that contains all sorts of associations; numerological formulae, zodiacal summaries, and at one point even mentions pitch (sound) and color (light). Wow, it occurred to me that I'm back at frequencies.

What's the frequency, Kenneth? Ow, my head.

But I don't have as good a grasp of the psychology of color as I would like at this point. I can't believe I'm citing what appears to be a fashion or design page, but oh, well. Take a look at these most basic color associations. Look around your environment--nature is preferable, as compared to the walls around me right now--and try to be sympathetic to superstition. Yellow, the color of the sun. Red for fire, the passions of the heart. Green for life (health), need we wonder why? Blue, the color of the sea and sky speak to values. (Incidentally, blue is the color of water, which is seen as maternal in most obscure Western theological associations.)

I'm looking through some color-related links right now. Best to leave it with the fashion/design page until I have a chance to read through this. I suppose I could also get out all my books and start building you a massive table of color associations from various spiritual systems for comparison. And then we would have to haul out all the color data from psychologists and decide what that means and how relevant the data is. And then we might be able to begin our survey of the significance of color in religion and how those associations interact with humanity.

In other words, there's a reason no comprehensive survey of religious attributes has ever been completed. Just the religious systems would be hard enough, but pulling in the various attendant and relevant psychological theories, well, all of a sudden we can see why some people spent their whole lives on riddles of God and humankind.

Over the long run, much more enumeration and recording of data is necessary before we can truly understand the conceptual whole. Inherent in Master Therion's note that each term has no meaning in itself is a quiet awareness that his entire system is useless as a stand-alone.

I would say that that is the goal. Otherwise it's simply masturbatory. I can invent any number of imagined but unsupported interrelations… what is their value if there is no real correlation between them and reality?

Quite simply, one of the reasons I found atheism insufficient for me is exactly this. Simply masturbatory? Since when did everything you did have to be for your own gratification? Yet people get angry when I accuse atheists of commonly harboring a certain selfishness?

And the implications of "I can invent ...." You know, did it ever occur to you that the people "inventing" these "masturbatory" ideas were actually doing as best they could with what they had? Perhaps you don't realize that Crowley didn't have the internet and five-hundred satellite channels or even a boob-tube to watch them on. It's kind of like throwing a kid into a pond in the middle of summer in order to teach him how to ice skate: he first must learn to endure until the winter comes and the water freezes over.

The real correlations are often buried in history and not easily discovered by the presumptuous. Many systems with merely imagined interrelations have evaporated into history with nobody to testify to their greatness or lack thereof. For instance, if you could live for two-hundred years and watch the future development of EBE-religion, you'll see both arbitrary and commonsense measures thrown into the mix. There are reasons why each factor is important, and discovering the factors and their importance is what will finally help us unlock the secrets of religions.

Think of it this way: you and I both have issues with the Bible. Neither one of us, insofar as I can tell, hold it to be true. For my part, though, seeing what a huge effect the Bible has had on human development, I would like to understand how this travesty came to be. What, good sir, is your excuse?

Anti-identification? Something to condemn? Some process by which you seek gratification? I'll leave it to you to fill in the blank, but really, why bother with masturbatory inventions at all?

In the meantime, since it is your goal, please excuse me while I go get a PhD in history and ascend through the ranks of the Freemasons. Let's schedule to meet back here in thirty years.

Did you miss the line which comes next?

Ah, I see by your post that you did, in fact, miss what comes next. So a reminder: More importantly, when we consider that Crowley wrote this before the majority (if not all) of Sciforums' users were born, I hope to reinforce the notion that many have covered the simple questions pertaining to religions without necessarily making any sense.

Oh, well, at least we know what's important to you.

Gratification.

Mysticism is an attempt to find order… an attempt to explain the occurrences we observe. In this, it shares a goal with both religion and science… I agree. However, the value of any of theses systems can be determined by accuracy with which we can explain and predict what occurs. The problem with religion and mysticism is that these explanation fail examination in most cases.

And, as a result of missing that point, you seem to be slightly off track.

Start with the simple premise--easily acceptable--that religions offer explanations of the Universe when knowledge doesn't suffice. Had we scientific answers to some very basic questions, religions might not need to exist, or else we would have found God itself and therefore religion would exist. But the religious explanations are obviously inadequate. Mysticism takes those paradigms and runs them out to the logical extremes. That's why so many mystics in Christian history were considered heretics, and why so many mystics in Islam were martyred as heretics. Most people don't want to hear about God delighting in the destruction of a child, but if the religion calls God omnipotent, such is the result. God is responsible for the bad, too. The psychology of how to deal with that idea is a checkered history, as various perverse cults would demonstrate. But we find in the modern day most common religionists are rehashing issues that the mystics came to terms with centuries ago.

The problem with mysticism is that it intentionally must adhere to certain aspects of the religious paradigm with which it is associated. If you've paid attention, you should have noticed at some point in your life that mysticism seems rather quite insane much of the time. And it is supposed to. Back any relatively-educated Christian, for instance, into the proper corner, and they will abandon the personal idea of Jesus and God in favor of keeping the idea of God around. When that happens, they slip into very basic mysticism; God is bigger than we comprehend, yadda-yadda-yadda.

And you'll notice that among mystics there comes to be less division and more compassion. Those goals of religion are easily attained once one shakes off the divisive accretions of superstition.

The problem with religion and mysticism, insofar as I can tell from what you've told me, is that it doesn't gratify you.

Again, the question is "Is the assignation relevant?" What do they reveal between the associated concepts? Frankly, I do not see that mysticism is ever really tested internally. Can you provide how this testing occurs?

Mysticism tests the religion. The simple test of mysticism for itself is whether or not I can summon a spirit. It don't happen, so I'm pretty sure that part of it is bunk. But because of that, I have learned a little about the process of how philosophy waters down into superstition and ritual. It's a massive human error. Think of it this way: there's a lot of information in the world, and much mystical symbolism is merely compressions of various principles well-known in other aspects of life. The object, however, is to understand the reasons behind those compressions so that the full meaning of the data can be understood. Or, at least, the full relevant meaning.

In the meantime, what kind of internal testing would you like to see? I can better answer you if I know how simplistically you're looking at the idea, and so far it's balbutive.

Then what value does it have?

Organized symbols for conceptual reflection, the building of associations from that reflection, and a constant interaction with a dynamic tradition.

I can read anybody's cards. I cannot predict the future as in "this will happen on this day". But, if you happen to be one of my close friends, I can, indeed, predict the future. I can't do that if I don't know you, though, which is one of the pieces of evidence by which I have determined that those mystics who say tarot is not for simple divination are, in fact, correct in that statement. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

In the meantime, I can also play a bit of a psychologist with the cards. This kind of a reading ends up sounding like psychotherapy, and you must be very careful to not digress too far or the "magic" disappears; that is, the common mindset, the restricted focus, the consensual opening of honesty will evaporate if you let yourself get too far off the path.

But if you want tarot to predict your future, try Fourth Dimension. It uses the Thoth deck (the topic of the book from which the topic excerpt was taken). You'll see tarot at its shallowest; I can do this kind of divination easily (although I use the a different deck). Even this won't tell you such-event at such-time, but that was never the point.

And, if you think honestly about the things it's telling you, insight might be one of the results, although that may not be gratifying enough.

If you go to a tarot reader for a reading with no real knowledge of the tarot, it will seem like your average psychic-medium charlatan. If, however, you are a student of the tarot, it becomes an introspective quest; the tarot reader a simplified psychologist, picking various symbols and arranging them according to serious priorities. And if you have knowledge of the tarot, you can gain immense psychological insight. I just did a run through the site and it's pretty easy. Yeah, that kind of "divination" is easily done. But, knowing a little about the cards, I did have a couple of significant insights, and even caught myself attempting to deflect a card by constructing a recollection of events that was demonstrably untrue.

There is a reason I appreciate the tarot. Unlike human beings, when cards ping at my conscience, I know for a fact that it's me and my conscience, not some preachy bastard seeking to exploit my conscience for gratification.

Frankly, that's a pretty fucking big value.

The Universe is in equilibrium; therefore He that is without it, though his force be but a feather, can overturn the Universe.

Be not caught within that web, O child of Freedom! Be not entangled in the universal lie, O child of Truth!

(Perdurabo, Psalm 20, Samson)

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Ekimklaw]

Pardon me a second...

Um... excuse me... Tiassa?

Dude, you need to set down the bong, leave your house and get a life. I mean seriously... your posts are way too long and filled with arrogant self-aggrandizement...

Remember, "brevity is the soul of wit".

Anyway, now you can go back to writing 15 pages of impenetrable doggerel... didn't mean to interrupt... sorry...

-Mike

 

[Tiassa]

Don't like it? Don't read it.

I really thought you were smart enough to figure that out. Look, I'm sorry it's too complicated for you, Mike, but don't get all pissy about it. Jesus fucking Christ!

--Tiassa

(Brief enough? Good. Now, go the hell back to whining. Jesus won't teach you how to read.)

 

[oedipus]

believer in a black jesus. so then god must be black, the virgin mary not black sure, but that only strengthens the evidence that god is black. ha tell that to jerry fallwell.

im so tired

i think ill take a nap

 

[oedipus]

and aside from making fun of christians i should say that i do use and own a set of tarrot cards, they work out most of the time but however i should say:

some, myself included, believe that tarrots card do not nessecarily predict the exact future, i and my aunt use them to tell people what the need to hear, so they make the right decisions. the idea behind them is just to let people know archetypes and arcana (seemingly mystical powers) are affecting their life and make them aware of how the have to make their descions and how these changes will affect major aspects of your life.

at least that's how I see it...

 

[oedipus]

believer in a black jesus. so then god must be black, the virgin mary not black sure, but that only strengthens the evidence that god is black. ha tell that to jerry fallwell.

im so tired

i think ill take a nap

 

[Ekimklaw]

Hey Tiassa

Hehe, Tiassa, you crack me up...

==============================================
Tiassa wrote:
Don't like it? Don't read it.
==============================================

Oh make no mistake about it... I did NOT read your long posts. By the way, it has nothing to do with the subject matter being "complicated", and everything to do with "I don't care anymore what your views are".

I read your short post though... thought it was nice and cogent and straight to the point; "no filler, all killer".

Also, I don't "whine", I "bheer"...

Give me some credit... at least I'm not a phony-baloney, plastic-banana, tell-ya-what-ya-wanna-hear type. Honesty is a virtue too isn't it?

Now you be honest with me... how many Cypress Hill CD's do you own?

-Mike

 

[Tiassa]

If you say so

Oh make no mistake about it... I did NOT read your long posts. By the way, it has nothing to do with the subject matter being "complicated", and everything to do with "I don't care anymore what your views are".

Yet you keep posting ... try this: don't say anything, then. Post about whatever, Mike, but leave your inner feelings of inadequacy out of it and leave me alone.

We'll believe you don't care when it's no longer evident that you do. Prove it and shut the hell up.

Give me some credit... at least I'm not a phony-baloney, plastic-banana, tell-ya-what-ya-wanna-hear type. Honesty is a virtue too isn't it?

Yes it is. Thank you for the reminder:

• You're a fucking childish, whining moron, Mike. Get an IQ point or two, even if you have to borrow it from the eggplant.

How's that for virtuous?

Now you be honest with me... how many Cypress Hill CD's do you own?

Well, none.

What does that have to do with it?

Now, I must insist, little Mikey, that you post something relevant to the topic or get the hell out of it.

You say you don't care, yet you don't shut up.

Give it a try, we'll all be thankful.

,
Tiassa

 

[oedipus]

well whatever i just want to know what god it is that you believe in mike....

 

[Stryder]

I'm sure I've mentioned that Tiassa's posts are extremely long previously, I too have difficulty in even attempting to read them. Not because I can't read but purely because a wall of text becomes really hard to see where you were actually at, in context, like what line.

Perhaps Tiassa you should number your paragraphs when you post in the religion section

 

[Tiassa]

Excellent suggestion, Stryder

I do have 37 pages divided into sections that y'all get at some point, but I intend to post that at my dot-Mac homepage. But it is split into six or seven sections.

Numbered paragraphs might be excessive per se, but I do see the wisdom in marking smaller sections, perhaps of two or three paragraphs, or perhaps based on the groupings of relevant ideas within the progression.

I'll give it some thought, Stryder.

thanx,
Tiassa