The Story of the Tarot

[MaryLupin]

This thread discusses the Tarot as a text and not as an icon of Universal Truth.

When I was taught to read the cards, (about 37 years ago) I was taught that they tell a story about how we (meaning those who come from the same cultural background as my aunties) grow as human beings. I don't want to discuss the Truth Value of the story. I want to discuss the story itself, as a text made of pictures (with symbols and a few words), what it says about a way to be human and how the story shifts depending on how you lay out the cards.

The main “chapters,” as it were, are 5. The first is the major arcana; the last four are the mundane suits. Probably makes sense to start with the major arcana, unless anyone would prefer otherwise.

[PrinceMyshkin]

This thread discusses the Tarot as a text and not as an icon of Universal Truth.

When I was taught to read the cards, (about 37 years ago) I was taught that they tell a story about how we (meaning those who come from the same cultural background as my aunties) grow as human beings. I don't want to discuss the Truth Value of the story. I want to discuss the story itself, as a text made of pictures (with symbols and a few words), what it says about a way to be human and how the story shifts depending on how you lay out the cards.

The main “chapters,” as it were, are 5. The first is the major arcana; the last four are the mundane suits. Probably makes sense to start with the major arcana, unless anyone would prefer otherwise.

Do please start then...

[MaryLupin]

I will be using the The Thoth Tarot as my text. This site provides pictures of the major arcana for those of you who don’t own one.

This is the deck I use when reading for others. I find it useful because its symbology is a syncretic amalgamation of all of the predominant belief systems in use in the West with regard to the concept of what it means to be human.

The Tarot is a pictorial text. Because it is a text, it allows for a variety of reader responses making its meaning dependent on the relationship between the reader and the patterns developed in the text. What this means is that what you get out of the text is dependent on how much you know—on what your experience has been.

One really wonderful thing about a moveable text (where “chapter” elements can be rearranged) is that it allows for both linear and circular readings. So with the Major the story can be read as a journey from 0 to 21 (there are 22 Major cards), or it can be read as a series of layers. For example, card VI (the lovers) is a synthesis card bring together learning and experience from the cards before it before preparing for another bout of “education.” Card XIV (art) is another such card and so is the final card XXI (the world/universe). So if you placed the series of cards from 0-22 on an ascending spiral with the World above Art which was above Lovers you get another reading layer which says something like “Love is an aspect of art just as art is an aspect of the world.” So the story, depending on what way you read it tells the story of an individual an his/her self-development or it can tell a story about belief structures – cultural stories – and how they will proceed. What this implies is that the Hierophant, Death and Aeon also speak to each other as do the Empress, Fortune and Lust, and The Moon and finally, the Fool the Chariot and the Devil. Reading for others is the art of finding out what story the querent inhabits and then figuring out what part of the story they are currently transversing.

Reading the tarot is a lesson in understanding the importance of story in human lives. The best writer I know that deals with this is Frank Kermode. This is the subject of my next post.

[MaryLupin]

in his book The Sense of an Ending, suggests that we live in perpetual crisis because of the way we, in our various non-indigenous Western cultures, structure the story of what it means to be human. Simply, because of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic apocalyptic story, we think we know what our lives mean.

But it has turned on us. The apocalypse of the western and middle-eastern religious worlds has become, instead, the tragedy of the personal—a sense of failure, of powerlessness in the face of the inexorable. Tragedy is a personal apocalypse.

We think we can figure it all out. We think we have the mind of a god (our vaunted rationality which we think separates us from the other animals) and thus cherish our capacity to think our way through that which to us appears as Mystery. And we all know that there have been many predictions of end times, the year 1000 for example, and yet despite overwhelming evidence that the end does not in fact arrive, “we continue to assume…that there is a tolerable degree of conformity between the disconfirmed apocalypse and a respectfully modern view of reality and the powers of the mind. In short, we retain our fictions of epoch, of decadence and renovation, and satisfy in various ways our clerkly skepticism about these and similar fictions.”

It is the fact that we have told many stories about how things were originally perfect for us, how they changed for the worse turning us into aliens in our own garden, and finally how it all gets resolved returning us forever to a state of communion, that gives us rules by which we can guide our behavior as well as the behavior of others. The story gives us the courage to face all that we don’t know, don’t understand and don’t control and because of that we refuse to remember that it is, in fact, a story.

What resists—to the death sometimes—any reasonable light is the idea of a knowable ending. If one precognition of “the end” does not come true, if instead the next day there is just the grocer and the dirty laundry and the rent due, instead of questioning whether there will in fact be a clean-cut end to all the chaos and the merely contingent, we assume we just got the date wrong.

We want to know how life turns out. If we don’t know, if we can never know, then maybe all the choices we have made make no sense, have no meaning, have no purpose. And that, for many, is terrifying. “Men in the middest make considerable imaginative investments in coherent patterns which, by the provision of an end, make possible a satisfying consonance with the origins and with the middle. That is why the image of the end can never be permanently falsified.” We story away the unknown and adjust the details as things change, make “adjustments in the interest of reality as well as of control.”

The not knowing, the places that story cannot penetrate, the intellectual dark, all that we can never know, is an immane universe—and that void, those places that we can never understand, never encompass, never realize, make of both the metaphorical and physical dark a scary place.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

And, how does this qualify as philosophical literature...? This is astrology at best...

[MaryLupin]

In the American Heritage Dictionary one definition of philosophy is “The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.” The tarot is a symbol system of some antiquity and one that encodes Western “fundamental assumptions” and “beliefs” about the nature of reality. Thus it is a valid subject of philosophical enquiry. With regard to the tarot and its truth value…all I am willing to say about this topic is that it represents what hundreds of years of religious and spiritual seekers/thinkers feel is true about the human world. Using Jung’s terminology, it is a representation of the collective unconscious of the western mind.

The tarot is a book of psychology—of ethical philosophy. As such it is a guide to behavior. Figuring out what part of the story you inhabit can tell you what is the most appropriate set of behaviors for the circumstances in which you find yourself.

Fundamentally the tarot accepts that life is generally unknowable. That is why the tarot exists, to shed a small amount of light on the particular ground upon which you stand, because you cannot know what will happen too far ahead. Too much depends on other humans. Much too much depends on the non-human world. At best, you can try to understand what drives you and what the world is like in which you live. This acceptance of fundamental human vulnerability and limitation, the acceptance that we are operating in a vastly powerful world most of which simply is beyond us, and certainly not built for us, is the core of the difference between a world view oriented to the tarot stories and a world view oriented toward the “apocalyptic.”

Finally, the tarot takes no position about the universe as a whole. It is the story of the human universe. It focuses on what we do, what we need, and the places where we impinge upon the rest of the universe.

By the way, although the Thoth deck does use the symbol system inherent in astrology as part of the overall symbolic language of the cards, astrology is the study of planetary patterns and how they can be used to explain human predilections and behaviors. This is not the same thing as tarot—just as ontology and epistemology, although allied, are not the same study.

[MaryLupin]

This is astrology at best...

An addendum: You might want to read Dr. Richard Tarnas' most recent book called Cosmos and Psyche: Intimations of a New World View to understand the endemic nature of such thought systems in the human mind (even in well read, well schooled and deeply knowledgeable western Doctors, Dr. Ralph).

[MaryLupin]

for those of you who don’t have the foggiest what the tarot cards mean, go to the website linked at the top of post #3 and look at the pictures. Look at them carefully. Try to find the symbols in the pictures. While you are doing this think about how your life is then pick the card that – to you – is the most compelling, the least compelling – basically, the card to which you have the strongest emotional reaction (even if at this point it is a rather weak reaction). Then post it here.

For those of you who are already readers, separate out your major, shuffle, think about how your life is then pick a card. Post it here.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

No, they are silly pieces of plastic, and they have as much insight into "our" lives as anything else, which happens to be zero.

I am somewhat familiar with Cosmos and Psyche and I am not very impressed...it's a stretch to believe that planets are responsible for modeling human behavior with a shred of certainty, or even doing anything besides moving in predictable patterns, for that matter. The lower down the science hierarchy you go, the easier it is to get away with questionable data...that is, everyone will clearly tell when someone's math is wrong, but falsifying a psychological study is much harder due to its inherent qualitative nature.

Unless tarot is founded on reason (or at least an attempt at it), it surely disqualifies itself as philosophical literature.

[MaryLupin]

No, they are silly pieces of plastic, and they have as much insight into "our" lives as anything else, which happens to be zero.

Human beings have two basic ways of making sense of the world. One is logic (or linear reason), another is pattern recognition (reason by virtue of perceived commonality - one common term for this is art). Both processes are necessary for contemporary human beings (hominids) to deal with the world they live in. Using one system without the other (or attempting to) leads to social disaster. Since philosophy is “the critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs,” then to examine the processes of pattern recognition by examining them in action - learning to use both forms of human reason – is deeply philosophical - and the source of much potential insight.

A further note on pattern recognition -- Unless you are trying to say that the processes involved in the creation of and capacity to appreciate art provide “zero” insight into what it means to be human?

I am somewhat familiar with Cosmos and Psyche and I am not very impressed...it's a stretch to believe that planets are responsible for modeling human behavior with a shred of certainty, or even doing anything besides moving in predictable patterns, for that matter.

As I said in an earlier post, I am not interested in its inherent truth value but in what it represents…that is, the endemic nature of such “stories” (perceived patterns, observed synchronicities) about the nature of human reality. This way of understanding the nature of reality is one root (as it were) of our humanity. Reason is the other. It cannot be pulled like a weed. It can be understood. The attempt to uproot our “superstitious” nature only attests to the lack of understanding of our evolutionary psychology. The resurgence of Romanticism as the Enlightenment grew attests to the inability of human kind to live on reason alone. We have not evolved to do so.

The lower down the science hierarchy you go, the easier it is to get away with questionable data...that is, everyone will clearly tell when someone's math is wrong, but falsifying a psychological study is much harder due to its inherent qualitative nature.

On questionable data…yes there is much questionable data in the world, as well as questionable reasoning, although whether Tarnas is the kind of scientist to do that, I do not know. Do you know something about Dr. Tarnas that would indicate that he is likely to do such a thing, or are you just sure he must be because you don’t like his book?

On psychology…I take it you tend toward the behaviorist approach? The reason I ask is because art (i.e. astrology, tarot, myth, novels, poems and other such coded perceptions) are a staple of many psychologists (not to mention literary critics). Insight through pattern recognition of the sort I am proposing here, and its analysis with respect to basic assumptions and beliefs (one staple of philosophy), is a basic function of psychology today.

To return to my first post:

This thread discusses the Tarot as a text and not as an icon of Universal Truth.

[PrinceMyshkin]

No, they are silly pieces of plastic, and they have as much insight into "our" lives as anything else, which happens to be zero.

I wonder what you would say then of the wafers and the communion wine by which communicants take into themselves the body and blood of Christ?

The lower down the science hierarchy you go, the easier it is to get away with questionable data...that is, everyone will clearly tell when someone's math is wrong, but falsifying a psychological study is much harder due to its inherent qualitative nature.

Unless tarot is founded on reason (or at least an attempt at it), it surely disqualifies itself as philosophical literature.

See: the Holy Bible, OT & NT, and explain if you can how mathematically provable is anything in them. And how 'reason' can explain a spontaneously burning bush, the parting of the Red Sea, a virgin birth, the resurrection and bodily assumption into heaven of a crucified man.

[MaryLupin]

Very briefly, the story of the first 6 card of the Major Arcana read as a “soul road” says that a person is born pretty much unformed by life and society and that s/he will go through a fairly predictable series of learnings, achieve new levels of organization and ultimately come out a fully formed human individual. The series of learnings—the steps between soul-infancy and soul-power—are the individual major arcana cards.

(A note on these meanings: the internet is full of sites that list what the tarot cards mean. Go ahead and read the ones you are interested in. Create a story for yourself. Look at the cards and see if you can come up with a story that fits the images and the development between the images. Post it here if you want to.)

0 – The Fool – There is a completely unformed person (the holy fool archetype and androgyne) who is all potential; s/he has not realized him/herself. This can lead to a rather aimless life, yet because s/he is all potential s/he tends toward creativity and experimentation about life. Because s/he has yet to solidify (i.e. enculturate) s/he can stumble on the most amazing things, wisdoms, unusual perceptions etc., but it isn’t that long before logos begins to solidify the “liquid” world of the Fool. This is

I – The Magician – The Magician is about the formation of the rules by which the “universe” (remember this is the human universe we are talking about) will run. The magician is seen as an intermediary between the “original” holy fool nature of human kind and what will become our mortal nature. It is the magician that is responsible for creating the basic “elements” of nature, symbolized in the tarot as earth, air, fire and water. At this point in our development we have imbibed some rules about how things work, but we have yet to experience much. This is the role of

II – The Priestess – The Priestess creates the first “things” of the universe. She is the embodiment of the injunction “to be fruitful.” Whereas the Magus organizes the universe, the Priestess begins the process of creating the Firsts. Think of it this way, the first time you kissed someone in passion you already knew that there was such a thing (Magus) but that knowledge wasn’t at all the same thing as the knowledge you gained in the experience of passion. Following these Firsts come consequences. This is

III – The Empress – The Empress is also about creation, but her role is more about proliferation. (After that first kiss the mind/body naturally starts thinking about all the other possible sensations that might come after.) I think of her as the impulse to adapt to the environment as it changes. So while The Priestess creates the “firsts,” the Empress plays with the forms she was given and makes of the world the wondrously diverse place it is. (An example: In human terms this is the ability to take the words we have been given – our natal language – and try to make of it something new and distinctly us – poetry, for example) But of course all this stuff needs to go to its proper place and that is the role of the Empress’ consort

IV – The Emperor – He is the archetypal ruler. His job is to make sure what is created by his consort gets to where it needs to go. He is the local rule maker: He is local order. Just as the Empress is a worldly echo of the Priestess, the Emperor is an echo of the Magician. And now there is some distance between the original state of the world when there was just the Fool (i.e. when you really didn’t get it that there were other people out there) and the state of the world now that there are all these rules and material presences: there is a kind of distance developing between that which is possible and that which is true. This is uncomfortable. We are beginning to realize we are vulnerable and that there is a gap in the world between what we feel we need to know and what we actually know. The distance is negotiated by

V – The Hierophant – A hierophant is an interpreter of the mysteries. It is the Hierophant’s job to help people connect with the original Fool (the place where there were no questions and therefore no need for answers). He is also the one who bridges the gap between the creators of the world we know (the cultural rules and objects which originally define for us what we must strive to become) and the individual we must try to be. He is, in a sense, personified story. We are immersed in a very big and very confusing universe. He is the impulse we have, to create a meaning-bridge. It is that bridge that allows us to discount some experience and focus on others. It is the way we take a big universe (that was built without our limitations and needs in mind) and re-size it…so we think we understand what is happening to us. But to make this understanding real, to actually believe in it (what ever “it” is for you), we must share the experience. This is

VI – The Lovers – The lovers is both the world of others and the world of self. That is, the Lovers is the acceptance that the world is not a reflection of you and the simultaneous acceptance that the not-you is necessary to happiness. It is the first time a person looks at someone really OTHER and sees a human being. It is also the first time you look in a mirror and have no idea who that person is. The Lovers is also the fact that we are social creatures. We are designed by our biology to need others, to desire connection, to strive to see and be seen. Finally, the Lovers is the consequence of the road splitting after the androgyne (The Fool) into “logos” and “eros:” “ontology” and “epistemology” must recombine to allow for a new level of understanding. This is the child the lovers will ultimately create.

Since I pulled The Lovers, what I would do with that is look at my life right now and ask questions like, “What Other, in myself and in someone else, is trying to create new fertility in my life?” “Is there a need to relate more deeply or intimately with another person?” I mean, I know why I pulled that card. There is this person who has (completely unexpectedly) shown up in my life and my first impulse is to run. The card makes me think about it…because without this step card VII (The Chariot) is not possible and as much as I like my Hermit status, I am even more in love with learning.

If I had pulled the Hierophant, I would have asked questions like “Am I acting as an understanding-bridge for someone else? Is someone doing that for me?” “Is there an understanding gap in my life that I need to address right now?”

A note about bad stuff: It is possible to be a good Emperor. It is also possible to be a bad Emperor. A bad Emperor, for example, is one who orders out of a desire to control rather than a desire to meet his “people’s” needs. S/he tends to be rigid about rules, a control-freak and not much capable of empathy. A bad Empress is one who creates indiscriminately. S/he is the kind of person that forces “help” on people who don’t want it and probably don’t need it. So pulling the Lovers could mean I am in a “fertility” mode with someone else or the traits could be sour, a kind of refusing to fertilize, to join. Traditionally, if you pull the card “reversed” (i.e. upside down) it indicates that the shadow-side of the trait inherent in the card is present in your thinking and acting. If that is true (and you have to think about your life to see whether it fits) then the implication is that you change your behavior.

[JJLuke]

To my knowledge there was a great fantasy series written by Marget Wies and Tracy Hickman involving Tarot.

[MaryLupin]

To my knowledge there was a great fantasy series written by Marget Wies and Tracy Hickman involving Tarot.

That would be the Darksword Trilogy I think.

There is an entry in Wikipedia that says "he Tarot has inspired writers as well as visual artists. Italo Calvino described the Tarot as a "machine for telling stories", writing the novel The Castle of Crossed Destinies with plots and characters constructed through the Tarot. T. S. Eliot's poem The Waste Land uses only superficial descriptions of Tarot cards, a few of which are genuine. Random selections of Tarot cards have also been used to construct stories for writing exercises and writing games."

I have read the Calvio piece and, of course, Eliot, but not Darksword. Have you read it? Have you ever played a writing game using the Tarot as inspiration?

[NikolaiI]

Roger Zelazny has some books where the main character, a wizard, travels through tarot-like cards to sort of teleport, because each card is like a portal. Not tarot, but similar. Oh, and the wizards make the cards themselves.

I chose The Star, but haven't had a chance to look it up on other sites. It seems interesting though, thanks for posting this.