Re: The Star and the Morning

#21
marco wrote:
Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:I can only note that the Cary Sheet doesn't show seven stars, although the figure does look like a "virgin" (no breasts). Nor does it show a bird in a tree (a cock crowing the dawn?).
I think we can all agree that the Star with a bird represents the Morning (the star is Venus as the star of the morning, Stella Matutina or Lucifer).
Ripa's version has both the bird (a swallow, in this case) and the jar pouring water (representing dew). For Ripa, the human figure is male (since "Crepuscolo" is masculine). The jar is very different from what we see in Tarot Stars, since it is pouring tiny drops of water (and there is no second jar).

http://www.humi.keio.ac.jp/~matsuda/rip ... 0003w.html
http://emblem.libraries.psu.edu/Ripa/Im ... pa019a.htm

Marco
Thanks for those from Ripa Marco.

I do agree, indeed. Star = Morning Star = Venus seems to be the set of associations at work, and explains the nude woman and bird. Since Venus was born from the sea foam, the water association was always with her (as she is portrayed in Leber and shown in countless pictures).

Water-jugs pouring "dew" is something I never thought of (relevant because it is early morning).

I will suppose that a naiad, pouring water from jugs, is an extension of the idea, for the time being...

Ross
Image

Re: Images from a Ferrarese prophetic manuscript (1450 ca)

#22
mjhurst wrote:
This is one of the things (basically, everything) that RLG failed to understand. It's not about my "desire" to see a pattern in which every third card is a religious figure or a Moral Virtue. That IS the order of the Tarot de Marseille trumps, and those religous subjects and virtues, equally spaced, DO constitute a pattern. That's just a fact, the phenomona to be explained, and anyone who, like RLG, fails to see that, who denies that it is real and maligns those who attempt to explain it, should probably find a different hobby.
Hi Michael,

I hardly think your characterization of me is fair. Could you show me anywhere in my response that I 'maligned' you? Because if you can't,then you should retract that statement.

I recall saying that I like your argument in the main, but am not thoroughly convinced on all the details. You yourself do not seem thoroughly convinced about the 'meaning' of the Popess and Pope in their respective positions. Obviously they come in third and sixth, (so long as you put the Fool first, which is a conjecture on your part, since it is unnumbered). And obviously every third card after that is a virtue, followed by the Star and the Angel. The only card here that needs to be explained as 'religious' is the Star, and you do a good job of dealing with that in this thread.

Also, I don't recall saying that there is not a pattern in the Tarot de Marseille, in fact, just the opposite. I entered the conversation saying that I liked a pattern that I thought was an adjunct to your own argument about a 6-9-7 pattern, and you clarified for me that it was descriptive, but not explanatory. Fair enough.


So I'm not sure what it is you think I have 'failed to understand'. I have 'failed to completely agree with you', but I certainly understand your arguments. And I'm in general agreement with you about the overall structure of the trump sequence. But the devil is in the details.
mjhurst wrote: My desire is to understand the pattern, to make sense of the sequence. The fact that there is clearly a systematic design to the lowest and middle trumps, and the fact that it is complex/conflated and subtle with compromised and imperfect meanings -- like a riddle -- tells us that we are justified in approaching the highest trumps with that same expectation. We should look for important and nearly-universal content, with at least two layers of meaning being conflated to make it more interesting (playful?) and profound, and we shouldn't expect it all to be easy. And it certainly isn't.
So it's simple to explain, (every third card), until its difficult to explain, (then it's multi-layered)? There's a system, but sometimes it can only be explained by presuming something is there and then finding it? Is that what I don't understand? That you see some patterns, and then infer that there MUST be others? I guess I am totally dense, because you seem to philosophically beg the question at times. That statement is not meant to malign you; it's my understanding of what you're saying.

You say there is a systematic design, which seems undeniable, but then you claim as a 'fact' that it is complex/conflated. That sounds as if your conclusion has become your premise. By going further and saying there are 'compromised and imperfect meanings' certainly makes it easy to explain just about anything -- 'here's a great system, but since I can't completely explain it in simple terms, and must rely on convoluted explanations, then it must be convoluted all along'. Hmmm...
mjhurst wrote: You don't get to just look at the pictures and make up your favorite story. You have to look at the sequence and figure out a meaningful story.
This is a good example of one of my objections. Your premise is that there is a 'meaningful story' to the trump sequence. But that's exactly what you're trying to prove. You can't have your conclusion as your premise.

If you DO find a meaningful story, then great. And you certainly have given us plenty of good stories. But finding certain parts of the sequence to be meaningful in certain ways is no guarantee that other parts are also meaningful in a similar way. For example, it is undeniable that the three virtues are numbered 8, 11 and 14, (but only in the Tarot de Marseille order). That does not mean that they will also be numbered 2, and 5, or even 17 and 20. If you can make a persuasive argument that they are, then great. You have made an argument for 2 and 5, Popess and Pope, but it seems a little bit forced. And since you're aware of this, as in other instances, you then go on to claim that the meanings are subtle or compromised. That seems a pretty easy way out... But what if you're just wrong about the meaning?

For example, what if the Popess is really supposed to symbolize Faith, in terms of the Mother Church, and the Pope is Love as Caritas , (then followed by Love as Amor), and Hope is the Star? Or maybe those three cards have nothing to do with theological virtues at all.
mjhurst wrote: Starting from the known, what is the series about? What is the plain and literal context of the obscure or mysterious symbolism? What interpretation of the enigmatic makes sense of the things we've already figured out?
This makes more sense to me, although the last sentence is veering back to question-begging, and might be better phrased as 'IS THERE an interpretation of the enigmatic that makes sense of the things we've already figured out?'.

But I digress... so starting from the known - we know the virtues were placed three cards apart. So is there anything more to it than that? There are 6 possible ways to order the virtues. Presumably you have systematically looked at every order and determined why the other 5 were ruled out? Because if none of the 6 orders shows a simple relationship between ALL 3 virtues to the cards that precede them, then why conclude that there is a relationship at all? Obviously you have concluded that, because you believe that the received order DOES relate to the preceding cards, but I and others have not seen the fit to be completely persuasive in all cases. Its doable, but not completely beyond dispute. Perhaps that was the best the designer could come up with, or perhaps there was no intent behind it other than staggering the virtues every three cards. Maybe the designer just wanted a 3 x 7 structure, and every third card was 'different from' but not necessarily 'directly related to', the 2 prior cards.

It would seem part of the argument rests on whether the Tarot de Marseille order precedes the others or not. Did someone try this and someone else thought, 'no way, makes no sense, put the three virtues all together'? Or was it the other way 'round?
But if you're only interested in explaining the Tarot de Marseille order, and aren't concerned with what the 'original' order was, then it wouldn't be so important.

So,if I haven't made myself clear enough yet, then I'll try again, for the last time. I'm in general agreement with your approach to the Tarot de Marseille sequence, and I think every third card is significant, however I don't think you have an iron-clad case in all the details. But if everyone who does not agree with you wholeheartedly is 'maligning' you, then you should probably include quite a few other members on your list. As for me, I'm not interested in maligning anybody, since I don't know any of you personally. I'm only here to learn from people who have more knowledge of the subject than I do. And maybe, just maybe, have something worthy to contribute to the conversation, even if it's only a pertinent question, or an idea that turns out to be wrong. Because we learn more from our failures than our successes.

RLG

Re: Images from a Ferrarese prophetic manuscript (1450 ca)

#23
RLG wrote: Hi Michael,

I hardly think your characterization of me is fair. Could you show me anywhere in my response that I 'maligned' you? Because if you can't,then you should retract that statement.
I was surprised by it too RLG. It had seemed to me that you had been gracious, and obviously willing to listen and consider Michael's POV.
RLG wrote:I recall saying that I like your argument in the main, but am not thoroughly convinced on all the details.
You're not alone here. I have great respect for Michael, and I think he presents one of the most cohesive arguments on the series; but I still, personally, favour the Bologna order, and struggle with his interpretation of the "ranks of man".
RLG wrote:So,if I haven't made myself clear enough yet, then I'll try again, for the last time. I'm in general agreement with your approach to the Tarot de Marseille sequence, and I think every third card is significant, however I don't think you have an iron-clad case in all the details. But if everyone who does not agree with you wholeheartedly is 'maligning' you, then you should probably include quite a few other members on your list. As for me, I'm not interested in maligning anybody, since I don't know any of you personally. I'm only here to learn from people who have more knowledge of the subject than I do. And maybe, just maybe, have something worthy to contribute to the conversation, even if it's only a pertinent question, or an idea that turns out to be wrong. Because we learn more from our failures than our successes.
I'm personally very happy to have you here RLG, and I look forward to learning from your contributions. If Michael becomes annoying, he, like anyone on the forum, can be added to the FOE list and his posts will be invisible. Which really, of course, would be a shame as he is also one of the members most likely to inspire and educate.
The Tarot will lose all its vitality for one who allows himself to be side-tracked by its pedantry. - Aleister Crowley

Re: Images from a Ferrarese prophetic manuscript (1450 ca)

#24
RLG wrote: You yourself do not seem thoroughly convinced about the 'meaning' of the Popess and Pope in their respective positions. Obviously they come in third and sixth, (so long as you put the Fool first, which is a conjecture on your part, since it is unnumbered). And obviously every third card after that is a virtue, followed by the Star and the Angel. The only card here that needs to be explained as 'religious' is the Star, and you do a good job of dealing with that in this thread.
If the pope, popesse, star and judgement were the only or somehow uniquely religious cards, as obvious as the sole and unique virtue cards are virtue cards, then the statement that a 3(2+1) card is somehow confirmed by every third card being either a religious figure or virtue might have some value; but what about the hermit or the devil, the house of god or the world are they not open to a religious interpretation too? What significance is there in every third card presenting a religious figure or virtue when 50% of the cards present a religious figure or virtue; yes we can agree every third card is either a virtue or religious figure, and so is the 10, the 16th, the 17th and 22nd.
Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different.
T. S. Eliot

Re: Images from a Ferrarese prophetic manuscript (1450 ca)

#25
Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:The closest cognates for the image are pictures of Aquarius and some of water-nymphs (Vitali has some), but there is no reason I can think of to put one on this card. The star in the shoulder on the figure on the Cary Sheet indicates that the figure was celestial (stars in figures was the most common way to indicate personifications of constellations and planets), so I tend to think it has to be Aquarius - despite being utterly unclued as to why Aquarius might the "Star" (constellation) chosen. Is there a tradition of Aquarius allegorically representing the pouring out of (the) Blood and Water? I guess it's possible.
Behold the Lamb of God, says St. John the Baptist, according to St. John the Evangelist:
Behold The Lamb of God.jpg
Ecce Agnus Dei
Behold The Lamb of God.jpg (30.16 KiB) Viewed 2317 times
In Christianised versions of the zodiac St. John the Baptist, who proclaims the advent of Christ, is identified with Aquarius.
Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different.
T. S. Eliot

Re: Images from a Ferrarese prophetic manuscript (1450 ca)

#26
SteveM wrote:
Behold the Lamb of God, says St. John the Baptist, according to St. John the Evangelist:
Behold The Lamb of God.jpg
In Christianised versions of the zodiac St. John the Baptist, who proclaims the advent of Christ, is identified with Aquarius.
Thanks Steve - cool. I thought it might be an intelligent and precise question, with a provable answer.

Where is this from?

I should have thought to look in my own Richard Hinckley Allen, Star Names, Their Lore and Meaning for a clue. He says about Aquarius "New Testament Christians of the 16th and 17th centuries likened it appropriately enough to John the Baptist..." (Dover reprint, page 46 (his bold)).

Okay, we have pouring water on Christ, and an association with Aquarius, but I can't believe that any Star card depicts John the Baptist. It's a nude woman, or at least a virgin, one way or the other in the Tarot de Marseille and Cary Sheet.

But ask and ye shall receive.

Ross
Image

Re: Images from a Ferrarese prophetic manuscript (1450 ca)

#27
Two points about the Tarot de Marseille Star that seem to resonate with me are -

a) The idea of the Dawn - the Morning Star - a quiet, beautiful indicator of the soon to rise Sun (or Son, in this case).

b) The symbolism of the 'pouring out", as in the gift of Salvation, and the fulfillment of God's promise.

If we take the Tower as purgatory, the 'pouring out' can also take on yet a second meaning, the purified waters (souls) being released back into their source.
When a clock is hungry, it goes back four seconds.

Re: Images from a Ferrarese prophetic manuscript (1450 ca)

#28
R.A. Hendley wrote:Two points about the Tarot de Marseille Star that seem to resonate with me are -

a) The idea of the Dawn - the Morning Star - a quiet, beautiful indicator of the soon to rise Sun (or Son, in this case).
quote:
"The identification of Christ/God with the supreme Sun struck a deep chord within the Celtic psyche, resonating with ancestral religious archetypes and their calendars. The solstice festivals of Christmas and St. John the Baptist spurred contemplation of how "John and his light declined from his birth at midsummer, while Christ's grew from his birth in the dark of winter." [69] As the Baptist said, "he must grow greater, while I must diminish" (John 3:30), while, every morning, the Sun of Justice arose with healing under his wings (Mal 3:20)."*

http://cura.free.fr/xxx/29robts.html

SteveM
*Following the scheme presented in St. Augustine's sermons on St. John.
Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different.
T. S. Eliot

What a world, what a world...

#29
Hi, RLG,

Okay... you want to play, I'll play a bit, but only briefly.

Let me first emphasize that several of the people here are obsessed with something that I am not particularly concerned with, the Ur Tarot. I am not talking about Tarot de Marseille because I insist that it, or something like it was probably the Ur Tarot. I have attempted to explain EVERY known ordering of the trumps. This confuses the hell out of people like Ross, with whom I've tried to explain the point repeatedly over the years. Each change in ordering and icongraphy was a change in meaning. The occultist view that every Tarot deck is essentially the same, conveying as they supposedly do "universals", is nonsense, and would be recognized as such in any other area of art history. So when I say something about one deck I am most emphatically NOT insinuating that about other decks.
RLG wrote:Part of the thrust of your overall approach seems to be a desire for patterns to emerge, patterns that will give us a clue to what the original designer was thinking. Having found a few things that look like patterns,
At this point you are making a couple of what appear to be calculated rhetorical moves. Whether you are deceiving yourself or attempting to deceive others, you frame the topic of discussion as my personal bias, a "desire" on my part, and refer to "things that look like patterns" rather than acknowledging the facts. Yeah, I find that kind of bullshit offensive. If you actually fail to see that every third card in the lowest section of Tarot de Marseille is a religious figure and that every third trump in the middle section is a virtue, then you must have done very poorly on those tests where children put square pegs in square holes and so on. But you don't actually fail to see those things -- you pretend that it's a figment of my imagination for rhetorical effect. That is gamesmanship, and after 11 years of it, I'm just really tired of anonymous twits like you and the passive-aggressive games.

Nothing personal.
RLG wrote:you continue looking for them throughout the trump sequence, and find them with more or less success. For example, you have the pair of cards Fortune and the Hermit/Time, and you see these as a pair of reversals which are triumphed by Fortitude. On the face of it, this seems to be a reasonable interpretation, and so you treat the other virtues similarly, as the culmination of a triptych.
Time and Fortune are deeply related in the philosophy and symbolism of the Middle Ages and Renaissance, and Fortitude is a traditional virtue for dealing with Fortune. There are books you might want to read.
RLG wrote:But these triptychs only work very loosely, and are not completely convincing.
LOL! Indeed, as I emphatically pointed out, it's much worse than "not completely convincing". Up until a year ago, after years of promotion, there was still NO ONE who thought that even the most basic of these ideas were right. That is one of the most important criteria for being a crackpot -- nobody else "gets it". I am farther "out there" than 9/11 Conspiracy theorists or Birthers or Holocaust deniers or astrologers...

LOL -- "not completely convincing" doesn't begin to cover it. Have I ever suggested otherwise?
RLG wrote:For example, I would think Fortitude would be much more appropriate to the Triumphal Chariot, representing as it does victory in war.
It is certainly possible that one might put Fortitude before the Chariot to suggest the meaning you have in mind. A person's great Fortitude (maybe even a man named Sforza) might indeed lead to a triumph. And I've made precisely that argument, but for a different deck -- an appropriate deck. You might want to look at other orderings of the trumps, where you find different things done that can very well be explained in such a manner. Some of the so-called Southern orderings, where youthful Love is the lowest card in the middle section, followed by the Moral Virtues and then a mature Triumph, the Chariot, seems to be consistent with this interpretation, which is why that is my interpretation of those decks. But it makes nonesense out of Tarot de Marseille, which we were discussing with that whole "pattern" thing.

Tarot is not just one thing.

You may have noticed in my first reply, (and repeatedly since), when I pointed out that your pyramid did violence to the apparent design of Tarot de Marseille, I ALSO pointed out that there were OTHER orderings where that kind of design might be much more appropriately descriptive. The main constraint in my approach is that you accept what was actually done. You don't get to impose different ordering on the trumps, and you try to find that meaning which makes the best sense of a given ordering.

Tarot de Marseille has the subjects it has, in the order it has. Your task is not to rearrange it, or suggest what they should have done, but to explain what they did do. People like Moakley, Shephard, Betts, and many others, including me, have tried this exercise with different decks and orderings, and none of us has found a simple explanation that makes good sense of the subjects and their sequence -- for any known deck. Nor has anyone found a source work which explains the subjects and their sequence for any known deck. IMO, that "mystery of Tarot" is a direct result of it having originally been both subtle and complicated, and having thereafter been simplified in a variety of ways, none of which were particularly successful. It may, however, be the case that there never was any systematic original design. Those are the two main possibilities. At this late date it is not the least bit believable that there is a simple and clear explanation for the trump cycle.
RLG wrote:Also, Temperance might be better matched with the asceticism of the Hermit, while Justice is easily the response to the Traitor, who gets his just rewards and meets his Death. None of these associations works for you, because it upsets the triptych idea,
You're close to being right here... they don't work for me because they fail to make sense of the subjects and their sequence. The triptych structure can be thrown out, just as soon as someone else finds something better. But if the equally-spaced Popess/Pope/Virtue/Virtue/Virtue order of the cards is not meaningful and indicative of some systematic design, then it would seem extremely likely that there is no coherent meaning in Tarot de Marseille. Either that pattern has meaning, or Tarot de Marseille is a random mashup that just happened to result in that pattern. That seems absurd on its face, despite the fact that you doubt that there is any pattern there. Or now you don't doubt it. Or maybe you want to take both positions?
RLG wrote:but if the virtues don't resonate well with the pair of cards that precede them in the Tarot de Marseille order, then why is it okay to look for variora in their meanings?
It's not just okay, it's the entire project. Iconography identifies the subject matter of didactic art, and it isn't always easy. Whenever an image is obscure, ambiguous, or otherwise not easily identified, looking for variora -- cool word BTW -- is the whole point.

Find many; discard many; select the best. Best in what way? Making sense of the series.
RLG wrote:If the connections that you claim are in the tarot images were easily understood,
I said that the big picture was universally understood. This is attested to by that crucial fact that Dummett discovered three decades ago, that changes in the ordering took place within rather than between the three segments of the trump series. I also said that the details were probably not understood perfectly by anyone other than the original designer, and were only vaguely understood by most. That's just the nature of things subtle and complex.
RLG wrote:then why are there so many different orders, (perhaps that's a question for a different thread?).
It's a question to which I gave a reasonably detailed answer. You may find it if you search for "civic pride".
RLG wrote:If the Tarot de Marseille order made such perfect sense,
As I've reconstructed it, it makes great sense in many ways, but the different ways conflict, because there is no way to make a multi-layered allegory perfect. If it were simply explained with one layer of meaning, then the others would be superfluous, and excluded by parsimony. That is, they would have no explanatory value. Conflation of meanings results in compromises, which are all messy. Remember reading some of those words, especially the word "messy"?

Here you are flagrantly lying about me, about what I wrote.

I said that it is very complex and difficult to understand, and you suggest I said the opposite. And why would I object to such misrepresentation? Precisely because I don't have a simple and clear explanation for the trumps, and have never claimed to. No one does. The only explanation I've been able to offer is a difficult and confusing mess, which makes it challenging to present even when not misrepresented.
RLG wrote:and was really intended as a linear narrative,
The "linear" or, more properly, hierarchical design of the trump cycle is a fact. That's how trumps work.
RLG wrote:then why would other regions tamper with subsections of it?
They would change the depictions and ordering to change the meaning. I've offered a two-fold explanation for their desire to change the decks. One part is precisely because the original design, whatever it was, was messy and people wanted to make parts of it simpler; the second part was a desire for novelty, which is expressed in minor ways in some decks and in dramatic ways in others. This gets back to the basic fact that it's a card game, and novelty decks are fun, and also to the "civic pride" theory about standard pattern decks in Italy during Tarot's first century.

By pretending that I did not answer that question, in some detail, you are again playing games. If you didn't read what I wrote before, why should I write again; and if you did read what I wrote before and are intentionally ignoring it, rather than rebutting it or even acknowledging it, then you're just an asshole. A decade of this kind of crap is a long time.
RLG wrote:This would suggest to me that there was no easily recognizable narrative in that order, or whichever was the original order, or else it would not have been changed.
Two problems there. First, as I constantly emphasize, there is no simple and clear reading of any known Tarot trump cycle. Seriously. If you find one, let all of us retards in on the secret, 'cause we've been trying for decades. So you are telling me -- NEWS FLASH! FILM AT 11! -- something dead obvious that, despite being dead obvious, I have taken pains to emphasize. Wake up.

Second, your implicit suggestion that depictions normally stay the same is simply false. Pick an historical genre, even a fairly canonical one like Last Supper depictions, and look at how people changed them over and over and over. Look at a dozen different Annunciations. Sometimes things were copied very closely, while other times they were varied wildly.
RLG wrote:From an outsider's perspective, it appears that you at times are over-complicating the story of the sequence, because parts of it are inscrutable to you.
LOL! Those of us who are pursuing the iconographic questions are trying to explain the choice of subject matter and the arrangement of those subjects into a sequential composition. Those are the facts to be explained. When simple and obvious explanations fail, then more complex and subtle ones are attempted. (This runs very directly into the quicksands of occultism and crackpot theories.) However, it is not OVER-complicating the explanation, unless someone finds a simple one.

If you've got one, why not share?

At this point in time, a decade into the 21st century, the only simple explanation worth spit is that of Michael Dummett, that there is no detailed systematic design but only a vaguely hierarchical series of commonplace subjects chosen to use as essentially meaningless trumps in a game, divided into three segments but with no systematic meaning to any of them, or overall. That is the null hypothesis which would-be iconographers contest.
RLG wrote:But perhaps you're correct, and the original designer really was making multiple layers of meaning work together in a very elaborate scheme; so elaborate that most people didn't get it, and rearranged the cards as they saw fit.
That's my view of one particular deck.
RLG wrote:But the undeniable fact that there are three main sequences and many variants not only argues for their being no definitive sequence at all, but also argues for the 'true' or 'original' sequence to be so obscure as to have gone over everyone's heads. That's rather convenient for a theorist, but how much is too much, and when does the theory run out of steam?
Here you are again working on that Ur Tarot obsession. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a shit.

I'm not looking at Tarot as an occultist, searching for the True Tarot, the "definitive" Ur Tarot. I'm looking at each deck as an art historian, attempt to see what was there. That's why I originally suggested to you other orderings, a suggestion which you ignored. I don't know what you are looking for, other than an argument, and I'm just about out of those.

Note that your preamble to that question is a repetition of my own statements. You have the tone of correcting me, but your comments are little different than my own. I've been emphasizing the fact of a dozen early orderings for many years now, and you want to school me with "undeniable facts"? Piss down someone else's boot and tell 'em it's raining.

I said that PERHAPS there was such deep meaning, probably only in one deck, but I emphasized that was a working hypothesis. Do you understand that term? That was the first thing on my list, and I took time and effort to emphasize it and you still pretend I didn't say it? I have emphasized the different orderings. Whatever the original design might have been, it was certainly changed everywhere it went in Italy, and I offered an explanation for that fact generally, involving the complexity and subtlety of the original, whatever it may have been, and more importantly, the desire of each locale to have its own Tarot. I have also attempted to offer explanations for those variations specifically.

Then there's your "rather convenient for a theorist" comment -- I don't know that was intended to convey, but it seems... odd if not disingenuously snide. A rational person might think that the confirmation of a theory would be "convenient for a theorist". A really messy historical artifact is going to generate endless theories, none of which can be well confirmed. So perhaps you meant, congenial for the development of many competing theories?

Your question," when is it better to give up?" is key. The balance is between explanatory power and parsimony, between Dummett's assessment on one extreme and people like Moakley, Shephard, Betts, and myself on the other. There aren't many people actually pursuing the iconography question, (if any), and even in the decade I've been part of the Tarot community it has been a rotating cast, with people coming on board and people falling away. I've been trying to STFU for a couple years now, but I've been waiting for some good news, a new interpretation that was supposedly "forthcoming".

So those are some examples of why I'm really tired of people like you, RLG, whomever you might be behind that mask. If you think you can do better, please give it a try. As for me, now that it appears that the good news I've waited 2-1/2 years for may NOT be forthcoming, I think I may finally be able to rest a while.

Wish me luck. I wish you well.

Best regards,
Michael
We are either dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants, or we are just dwarfs.

Epihany ~ The Four Theophanies of Christ's Divinity:

#30
SteveM wrote: In Christianised versions of the zodiac St. John the Baptist, who proclaims the advent of Christ, is identified with Aquarius.
The cup bearer also links in with Christs first miracle, the marriage at cana and the turning of water into wine; thus in the Star we may see a conflation the concepts of Christ's birth and the visitation by the Magi, and in the lower image of Aquarius Christ's baptism and the Miracle at the Marriage of Cana:

Quote
"Epiphany originally celebrated four different events, in the following order of importance: the Baptism of Christ; Christ's first miracle, the changing of water into wine at the wedding in Cana; the Nativity of Christ; and the visitation of the Wise Men or Magi. Each of these is a revelation of God to man: At Christ's Baptism, the Holy Spirit descends and the voice of God the Father is heard, declaring that Jesus is His Son; at the wedding in Cana, the miracle reveals Christ's divinity; at the Nativity, the angels bear witness to Christ, and the shepherds, representing the people of Israel, bow down before Him; and at the visitation of the Magi, Christ's divinity is revealed to the Gentiles—the other nations of the earth."

http://catholicism.about.com/od/holyday ... iphany.htm

And Christ also of course, the cup of salvation, whose blood is the wine of eternal life, is himself signified through the concept of the cupbearer.
Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different.
T. S. Eliot

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron