This is a game played with cards, a conversation which will try to answer a relatively simple question: Can the Tarot deck, or any system like it, describe reality?
I can't personally justify the number, and don't think it's particularly important (though I'm glad it was made so over time by those who needed it to be).
As some know, Timothy Leary's The Game of Life proposed that there were two missing Major Arcana cards, that was the only way he could use the deck as a metaphor for his cosmology. Later when Alan Moore wrote the Promethea series his heroine discovers the two lost trumps in the Abyss: "The Beggar" and "The Fountain." While a brief description of their significance is offered, Moore doesn't really explore the numerological ramifications that a 24-card M.A. would have on the system.
Some decks have changed the lineup or amount of cards, or even changed the cards themselves, but if I was making a deck I would only give into this temptation if there was foremost a complete and recognizable Major Arcana, to which my additions would be a optional expansion pack that could be voluntarily shuffled or switched in. Does the reader want a "traditional" view, or are they open to experimentation? It would be fun to provide this option.
For as long as I have been reading, I have been doing so as if the fact that Hebrew has 22 letters (the aleph-bet) was a sufficient explanation. Of course, it sure does seem like no one said these were the same 22 until the nineteenth century, and frankly, the recurrence of this number does little to explain why that number would be good for anything.
But, when we act like these traditions read well together, it does let us put Jewish Mystical readings of the aleph-bet on top of the cards, and that lets us systematize the deck some. For instance, the Sefer Yetzira (6-9th century CE?) says there are three mother letters, seven double letters, and twelve simple letters in the aleph-bet. This lets the cards relate to one another without being totally atomistic, and it also lets us say that seven cards are like planets and other fun things like that.
But this system is already a little arbitrary because the doubles mostly contain letters that take a dagesh (a little dot that appears in certain grammatical contexts, changing the pronunciation of the letter), but only imperfectly so. Bet (Magus/Mercury) is double because it can sound like "buh" or "vuh," but resh (Sun/Sun) is already a double letter in the Sefer Yetzira, even though it doesn't "double" at all, and shin (Judgment/fire) is a mother letter, even though it does take a dagesh.
Really, I think 22 is only useful if the Hebrew alphabet describes the universe really well. I usually read as if I buy that proposal, and as if the largely arbitrary divisions of the Sefer Yetzira are terribly helpful. But I am willing to try nearly anything else.
I can't personally justify the number, and don't think it's particularly important (though I'm glad it was made so over time by those who needed it to be).
ReplyDeleteAs some know, Timothy Leary's The Game of Life proposed that there were two missing Major Arcana cards, that was the only way he could use the deck as a metaphor for his cosmology. Later when Alan Moore wrote the Promethea series his heroine discovers the two lost trumps in the Abyss: "The Beggar" and "The Fountain." While a brief description of their significance is offered, Moore doesn't really explore the numerological ramifications that a 24-card M.A. would have on the system.
Some decks have changed the lineup or amount of cards, or even changed the cards themselves, but if I was making a deck I would only give into this temptation if there was foremost a complete and recognizable Major Arcana, to which my additions would be a optional expansion pack that could be voluntarily shuffled or switched in. Does the reader want a "traditional" view, or are they open to experimentation? It would be fun to provide this option.
For as long as I have been reading, I have been doing so as if the fact that Hebrew has 22 letters (the aleph-bet) was a sufficient explanation. Of course, it sure does seem like no one said these were the same 22 until the nineteenth century, and frankly, the recurrence of this number does little to explain why that number would be good for anything.
ReplyDeleteBut, when we act like these traditions read well together, it does let us put Jewish Mystical readings of the aleph-bet on top of the cards, and that lets us systematize the deck some. For instance, the Sefer Yetzira (6-9th century CE?) says there are three mother letters, seven double letters, and twelve simple letters in the aleph-bet. This lets the cards relate to one another without being totally atomistic, and it also lets us say that seven cards are like planets and other fun things like that.
But this system is already a little arbitrary because the doubles mostly contain letters that take a dagesh (a little dot that appears in certain grammatical contexts, changing the pronunciation of the letter), but only imperfectly so. Bet (Magus/Mercury) is double because it can sound like "buh" or "vuh," but resh (Sun/Sun) is already a double letter in the Sefer Yetzira, even though it doesn't "double" at all, and shin (Judgment/fire) is a mother letter, even though it does take a dagesh.
Really, I think 22 is only useful if the Hebrew alphabet describes the universe really well. I usually read as if I buy that proposal, and as if the largely arbitrary divisions of the Sefer Yetzira are terribly helpful. But I am willing to try nearly anything else.