{The Invisible Cards [continued(5)]}[10th July 1987]

[Redbook4:31][19870710:0855c]{The Invisible Cards [continued(5)]}[10^th July 1987]

19870710.0855

[continued]

A practical reason for omitting the Two Invisibles* might be that while both are Archangels and function in that capacity, one ought to be represented as Female. Although Angels are often visualised with a rather Female dress and manner, I have always seen them described as Male. A better reason for not showing them is that they are Kabbalistic, and can only be numbered so. Their π numbers enable them to appear anywhere in the Pack: they are indeed 'not one of the pack'** in either case, but exist alongside it – as do [T]0 & [T]I while being also of it.*** Nevertheless, if one were to set them out in their best order they would probably appear as follows:

0	(or י )	Fool
π	[= ה]	G~
I	(or ו )	Magician
π	[= ה]	M~
II		High Priestess
etc.

This adds an extra circle, while (by the invisibility of the 2 Cards) preserving the initial act of Separation in (the conventional pack).

0

|

I

or, possibly:

י	{(or 0)}
π
π
ו	{(or 1)}
2
etc.

Although this preserves the main order of the Trumps, I do not favour it.****

#

*[See 4 last previous entries (since [Redbook4:28-29][19870709:2358]{The Invisible Cards}[9^th July 1987].]

**[Per [2] (See [Redbook4:29][19870710:0105]{The Invisible Cards [continued]}[10^th July 1987]).]

***? Take it easy, old boy.

****Or do I? <870817>

#In S&C (0-1):

0

1

R

L

2

(&c.)

– but this owes something to the requirements of the booklet. <930420>

#*I have put the Marseilles Tarot 2 'blank' cards at beginning and end of the whole pack, reversed (because of the nice back design) <871215-16>

[continues]

[PostedBlogger20072016]