|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:29 am
|
|
|
|
demisara Did I suggest any such thing? I fail to see what you're getting at. Yep. Right here:
Quote: So you're saying that I should deduce their meanings according to my own tradition? ... The images used are another layer of meaning or association that may or may not be useful to the interpretation, not the determinant.
Hence why generating definitions for the cards meanings based on "another layer of meaning" that conflicts with a specific tradition would be a determinant.
Quote: I find this more likely to happen with wood than with canvas. Then I would suggest that you're projecting your expectations onto your medium, since if you're coming from a perspective of animism, the individual pieces, not their form, would be what is setting the price.
Quote: Because I think there is change taking place during the creation process. I'm not an essentialist. Just like sustained exchange with other humans changes both me and them, such intercourse between the artist, muse, and medium changes each. That isn't a proof, just an opinion. I don't know how in the hell you expect me to use proofs in this range of conversation. ******** proofs. I'd settle for rational examination.
Quote: I was saying that I don't know what a proof by assertion is. I've since looked it up, and fail to see how I've made it. By stating your position without any justification or cosmological justification save for "I said so, so that's the way it is."
Quote: Does it make sense to expand the concept to soft-individualist? Would that make my perceptions make more sense? Your positions as presented include numerous internal contradictions. I don't think you can fully explain something that isn't internally sound to begin with.
Actually, you did. The context you provided, compounded by the sarcastic apology was pretty clear.
Quote: I was simply noting that we were using two different rules for engaging in conversation, and this can easily lead to misunderstanding. I'm not asking you to change your mode. Ummm... no. Conversation and debate aren't mutually exclusive. Hence why your position is a false dichotomy.
Quote: I don't shrink from question, I'm just terrible at making myself understood. My suspicion is this has far less to do with making yourself understood, and far more to do with holes in your world view.
Yep. Very clearly with that charming sarcastic quip I quoted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 4:35 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:18 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 11:29 am
|
|
|
|
Reviving this thread because:
An interesting thing happened a couple weeks ago at the library where I work, someone donated a bunch of used books, among which were a couple Tarot books. Sweet Providence! I said, and took them home, and then I learned that they were heavily Qabalistic and Thoth-y and I’ve really only worked with RWS-style decks. I’m keeping the books for reference, though, just to get an idea of how the different system works.
A few days later someone (I’m going to assume it was the same person) donated a bunch of used books, among which was Anthony Clark’s Magickal Tarot pack with cards and a fairly thick book. All the cards are present and accounted for and the whole thing looks barely used.
My question is this: Has anyone used this deck, and, if so, do you think it’s a good representation of a Thoth-style deck? Would it be useful for someone exploring that style of Tarot to learn from?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:02 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:18 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:29 pm
|
|
|
|
AvalonAuggie Brass Bell Doll I'm not sure if you're aware of this- but that deck with the book sells for over a hundred dollars used! Oh my GRAVY. As some wise, wise people named Berry Gordy and Janie Bradford once wrote, the best things in life are free, but you can keep 'em for the birds and bees. The art is pretty bland so I don't feel any special attachment to it, that helps. That and the fact that I could buy half a kitchenaid mixer if I sell it. I feel a little sad that I didn't know how much it was worth at the time. The woman who donated it didn't even want a tax receipt!
I never get a tax receipt when I donate. I figure, meh, if I don't want it and I can hoard with the best of them (see, my cookbook collection. I have three copies of Better Homes and Gardens New Cookbook)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:50 pm
|
|
|
|
maenad nuri I never get a tax receipt when I donate. I figure, meh, if I don't want it and I can hoard with the best of them (see, my cookbook collection. I have three copies of Better Homes and Gardens New Cookbook)
In my experience we get the best quality and most regular donations from truly generous people who don't want the receipt, and the cranky folk dumping off their 30-year-old law encyclopedias which we cannot use generally demand a receipt so they can deduct everything.
I maintain there is nothing wrong with hoarding books (especially cookbooks!), and I pray that a film crew from TLC never sees my room.
These tarot books, by the way, are starting to get under my skin. I can only take so many pages of randomly capitalized words like Higher Self and Age of Aquarius and Love and Divine Spark, particularly when they're describing the origins of the tarot as specifically mystical in purpose and not, say, a Renaissance card game that was also used for divination.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 3:55 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 06, 2010 10:30 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 06, 2010 8:24 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 06, 2010 8:38 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 09, 2010 8:20 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 10, 2010 9:29 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|