Payewacker's Tarot - General discussions on the Two's.

[Payewacker]

All the topics being discussed is listed in this Sticky; http://mysticboard.org/vi ... hp?t=67787

Hi Guys.

Ok, let's tackle the second step in Tarot. We need to always remember everything has a purpose. So here we find a tangible development in the movement from one to ten.

Discussing the Two's has an inevitable link to the High Priestess. But we also need to have a good look at the Kabbalah, as these cards are all linked. We can find symbolism, beyond what we perceive as important.

In starting this discussion, I don't think we want to make it so complex, as it actually may be.

A very simplistic description from the Kaballah:

Bayt or Beth (2) is any container, any physical support, any gestalt. It is the first or primary divisor or separator, for to contain or hold is to separate that which is held from that which is not. It is the primary act of consciousness recognising itself. If Aleph is spiritual, Bayt-Beth is material.

I thought of editing this posting, and add the links between these paragraphs. The rest of this explanation or interpritation gets a bit involved, more than the basic description above;

Here we have the links to the High Priestess and the Two's.

The High Priestess:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZyuZ ... 4ZzQ&hl=en

Two;s  
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZyuZ ... Znbg&hl=en

Two of Swords:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZyuZ ... qY3I&hl=en

Two of Cups:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZyuZ ... jZmY&hl=en

Two of Pentacles:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZyuZ ... 3aG0&hl=en

Two of Wands:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZyuZ ... yZ2c&hl=en


Now we get a bit more technical. This is unfortunately what has to happen. Everything is simple in life, so is the movement of 1+1, let us have a look at this. All of us may think it's 2, not necessarily! Count the number of symbols and we see it's actually three?

Aleph. In thinking about Bayt/Beth, we create Beth's of thought about what Beth might be. This is the logical place to realize that Beth is not any specific Beth (container) of thought (an idea or image or abstraction). The problem with thought (Beth-ing) is that sensuously-based, colloquial languages train our minds to think in semantically arbitrary specifics (the signs point to the material world). To understand Beth, we have to train our minds to think in semantically non-arbitrary generalities (the signs point in the opposite direction). In my discussion on the High-Priestess, I liken her to a road sign, prominent, yet shy!

Beth is not any of our Beths about Beth, such as container, matter, duality, separation, division. It is the Beth-ness of all those specific qualifications, across the entire range of structuration of matter and consciousness. Similarly, as we encounter each letter, Ghimel is not our Beth of Ghimel, but a sign for a completely generalized abstract organizational principle underlying all our Beths of motion, movement, change, interchange and relationship. In fact, Ghimmel is not in our Beths at all, but rather in the movement of our Beths animated by Aleph, of which we have no Beth (thought) at all.

The particular words or descriptions chosen to describe the basic energies are simply intended to be as general as possible and to lead the mind away from specifics and towards a set of underlying, generalized, structures. The reader can use more appropriate terms from their own language or experience.

The other quality of our new way of thinking, besides learning to Beth in the most generalized structural terms instead of about specific objects, is the non-arbitrary part. It is difficult to even begin to think about a non-arbitrary language because we are so saturated in arbitrary ones.

This is not my brainstorm, but the way I interpret is to consider the movement from Aleph to Beth. The path is one of continuation and "overlap" each other. Although our main thinking may be that of, how to combine opposites or reconcile dualities, we need to consider that we are now presented with "that which contains".

If we are the container, what is the influence from Aleph, and the way we perceive that which we need to "contain"? In the same sense, we need to consider Gimel and "movement" from Beth, in the sense that, what do we transfer as from the container? What is the fruit of our Aleph, linked to Beth and continuing into the threes?

Cassie, once again, Please share with us any info you have on the Fools journey. We are not merely walking through the Tarot, we are studying, and in-depth. Your understanding, input and views are important and can bring a differing point of view!

Blessed be.

[Payewacker]

Here we have the links to the High Priestess and the Two's.

The High Priestess:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZyuZ ... 4ZzQ&hl=en

Two;s  
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZyuZ ... Znbg&hl=en

Two of Swords:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZyuZ ... qY3I&hl=en

Two of Cups:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZyuZ ... jZmY&hl=en

Two of Pentacles:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZyuZ ... 3aG0&hl=en

Two of Wands:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZyuZ ... yZ2c&hl=en