The Tarot of today evolved from a historical past that includes the influence of playing card decks with four suits and no trumps. Historical evidence indicates that the suits of some early playing card decks were actually considered "good" and "bad" in their essential form. Other decks used a scheme of ascending or descending values across each suit, where the value of a card in the play of a game would ascend from Ace on up in two suits and descend from Ace on down in the other two, making the increase of value in the second two suits the inverse of their numerical quantity. The later invention of French suit signs also includes an implicatiton of two suits being one way and two others being of an opposite way. In the French suit signs Diamonds and Hearts are the opposite of Clubs and Spades, which of course are equal to the more familiar tarot suits of Coins and Cups vs. Staves and Swords. The Rider/Waite/Smith deck seems to hint to a similar split between suits, with images in two of its suits that look somewhat questionable, or unfavorable, and leading to a dark, or strange end (Wands and Swords), and being opposed by two suits with images that look largely beneficial, or favorable, and leading to a light, or happy end (Pentacles and Cups). But, unfortunately, the way most authors of tarot describe the Rider/Waite/Smith deck, this split is not consistent all the way across each suit.

Given a superficial examination of the Rider/Waite/Smith deck, most people agree that Swords look pretty ominous. And most agree that Cups and Coins look pretty fortunate, while many remain somewhat mixed about Staves. Some people, however, don't see any gaps in consistency at all. While others, indeed, don't even view the suits as needing to be consistent in the first place. They just accept each card of the Minors individually... as is, and don't see them as fitting into any kind of procession of ideas that are devoted to one consistent statment or underlying structure. This study of tarot does not agree with this at all. It would be my unprovable speculation that the original design of tarot incorporated contrast, balance and symmetry - being as it was, originally a logical a game of numbers... derived from even older playing card decks that also came with some logical structurre in mind - and that occult tarot has lost sight of (or deliberately hidden, and then lost site of) this contrast, balance and symmetry... preferring instead to make each suit to represent something unique, with less logical associations of contrast, balance and symmetry... thus preventing many from seeing the residual evidence of the former design.

Thus, the question of this essay is... what would happen to our perception of a deck like RWS, if we were to restore this earlier "two suits good, two suits bad" design (or, if we prefer to avoid all mention of good and bad - this "two suits positive, two suits negative" design)? As just mentioned, many people suggest that Pentacles are equivalent to Diamonds, Cups to Hearts, Wands to Clubs and Swords to Spades. Diamonds and Hearts are usually red, or something not black, and Clubs and Spades are usually black. If we take black to be negative, the the suit of Wands and Swords would both represent a negative path, while Pentacles and Cups would be partners in a positive path. Yes?? So??

What would happen if we were to look at the RWS deck with this "two suits positive, two suits negative" mindset in place - UN-learning whatever associations we currently prefer, like the Four Worlds of the Qabalah, or the Four Elements of Alchemy, or Jungian personality types? In other words, instead of trying to reconcile or assimilate former associations to this positive/negative scheme, what if we just looked at the suits as positive and negative? I can tell you what happens, many many correlations can be found. Unfortunately, we would also encounter a few areas where things don't fit so perfectly. In this way, my unprovable theory would continue, by suggesting that what doesn't fit is a corruption or corrosion of the original design (perhaps even an occult blind), made to suit a more occult bias, and that by repairing just a few of these holes, a more balanced, symmetrical, contrasting and consistent design could be re-discovered that would lead to a fuller range of meanings - i.e. a more complete vocabulary of human experience. By restoring tarot to a more balanced, contrasting design we allow for equal potential for examination of "the dard side" of life experience. By examining the dark side of life, we come to know our Shadow Self. By better knowing our Shadow Self, we come closer to the goal of Jungian Individuation. The design I'm proposing works toward this goal beautifully.

Currently I see a tremendous bias in the worrld of tarot toward putting a good or positive spin on as many cards as possible (see Fluffy Bunny vs. Blind Oracle elsewhere on this site). With some cards this is more of a challenge than others. Thus, over the years man have come to view the deck as having "three suits positive and one that is... well... a bit more difficult to deal with" rather than "two suits positive, two suits negative." To me, the fact that so many only see negativity in the suit of swords, and see mostly good or positive things in the other three, is prima facie evidence of an extreme and unhealthy bias (see Stuck in the Mudaphor elsewhere on this site). If we were to explore this "two suits positive, two suits negative" idea, it would certainly balance that out a bit more. The question is whether that kind of balance would be a good thing to have in a deck design or not. For those reading this essay it is perhaps an interesting idea to explore. But in putting this idea to the tarot public, it has usually been met with great hostility, because of A) how negative it is - suggesting as it does that Wands and Swords represent a path toward something negative, like death, and B) how it threatens to change the face of RWS, and everything everyone has ever learned about tarot, relative to the indelible mental imprint of that "sacred" form. Also, C) by how non-occult it is. Thus, to explore this idea any further, one would have to be of an EXTREMELY open mind.

-----

A Survey of Initial Reactions

With a minimal amount of consensus regarding the idea of Coins and Cups (or Diamonds and Hearts) as mostly light or favorable and Staves and Swords (or Clubs and Spades) as mostly dark or unfavorable, I decided to conduct a survey and ask some people to tell me which cards of the Rider/Waite/Smith deck they would change to make the suits of Coins and Cups look consistently "good" or light or favorable, all the way across. And which cards they would change to make the suits of Staves and Swords look consistently "bad" or dark or unfavorable, all the way across. Some of the people I asked were tarot enthusiasts, some were not. Instructions included a request that they judge each card based on an initial reaction to the image, and NOT on a reasoned response thought through over time, or a learned response, or a conditioned response that might include a bias to mitigate darkness, severity or "bad" from every card.

Some didn't like the idea of imposing moral judgments like "good" and "bad" onto the cards. Instructions were clarified to allow for any form of discrimination that suited their own sensibilities, but would allow them to achieve the stated goal of making cards of each suit look more consistent all the way across. Light and Dark were suggested substitutes for "good" and "bad" as were Smile and Frown. Given that a request had been made to use initial reactions, Smile and Frown seemed the most appropriate tool for such unbiased discrimination. Thus the instructions were summed up as: Which cards, initially, make you smile? Which cards, initially, make you frown? Admittedly, it was difficult for some of the experienced tarot card users to not let their reasoned responses influence them, and to instead recall an initial reaction felt years ago, but some were able. The highlighted cards in the diagram below, represent the most common result of which cards people would change to make the suits of Coins and Cups all Smile, and Staves and Swords all Frown.

In the early days of tarot, the sequence of the trumps changed several times between various card makers. Sometimes the Popess was the 4th card, next to the Pope. Sometimes the virtues traded places with other cards. With this in mind, we could theorize that: regardless of what story someone might have set out to tell with these images, the two most popular sequences that have come down to us today represent a kind of "settling of consciousness" into the expression of a universal, archetypal pattern. What is that pattern? And just how close do the two most popular sequences of tarot come in illustrating that pattern? And... what role do the Minor Pips play in illustrating that pattern?

As you can see, not all that many cards of the RWS deck would need to be changed, if a consistently light vs. dark, or smile vs. frown arrangement was desired. But that, of course is a huge "IF." A binary approach, like the one being suggested here, has been a very popular approach for many a wisdom system... for many centuries (like I_Ching). But somehow, it has not been so respected within the design of most modern tarot decks. In my opinion, the RWS deck stands as evidence of that fact. I see the RWS deck as a documentation of dualism, or binary thinking... corroded and corrupted. And as tarot moves further and further away from any game-like structure of opposing suits, and more and more toward decks with little or no underlying structure, and cards that are not viewed in any dualistic, polar, binary, opposite way one to another, dualism, or binary thinking has become an evil to be banished. This, in my opinion, is a shame (see The Way elsewhere on this site).

Sometimes, rather than ask people to indicate which cards they would change for greater consistency across each suit of the Minor Pips, I try asking which cards of the Rider/Waite/Smith deck they see as mostly negative or "bad" or "frown." The answer that comes back usually includes The Devil, The Tower, maybe Death, and maybe The Moon, within the Major Trumps. And among the Minor Pips, usually all the 5s, most of the Swords, except maybe the Ace and 2, then maybe the 4 of Cups, and the 8 of Cups... and possibly the 9 and 10 of Wands. A reply to which I find myself compelled to wonder... how such a drastic imbalance between "good" and "bad" cards came to be? People claim that the tarot speaks to all of humanity. How does it do this, with such an incredible imbalance of forces? Is humanity 3/4 "good" and only 1/4 "bad?" I think the average person on the street would probably estimate it to be the exact opposite! In constructing a design for expessing as much of humanity as possible, The Numerical Tarot attempts to split the difference between the wishful thinking of many tarot enthusiasts and their "three suits positive and one that is... well... a bit more difficult to deal with" and the perceptions of everyday people who would probably view life as 180 degrees opposite. The Numerical Tarot attempts to present a balanced pespective, thereby duplicating the binary design of playing card origins, as well as giving an unbiased view of life itself.

History suggests that tarot evolved from regular playing cards, and not the other way around. The Trumps of tarot were added to a pack of playing cards, to act as trumps in the playing of cards games. Some think that, in addition to being trumps in a game, these cards were meant to tell a story containing ancient wisdom. In the early days of tarot, the sequence of the trumps changed several times between various card makers. Sometimes the Popess was the 4th card, next to the Pope. Sometimes the virtues traded places with other cards. With this in mind, we could theorize that: regardless of what story someone might have set out to tell with these images, the two most popular sequences that have come down to us today represent a kind of "settling of consciousness" into the expression of a universal, archetypal pattern. What is that pattern? And just how close do the two most popular sequences of tarot trumps come in illustrating that pattern? And... what role do the Minor Pips play in illustrating that pattern?

-----

The Advantage of Consistency

Most people tend to accept that certain astrological associations were assigned to certain cards, years ago, by knowledgeable occult scholars studying ancient mysteries. And out of reverence for these occult magi, many people never ask why each of those associations came to be. S.L. Mathers of The Hermitic Order of The Golden Dawn was one such occultist, who devised a scheme for associating astrology with tarot. Although systematic, his approach seems somewhat arbitrary - running the seven planets through the zodiac five times, starting with the slowest (Saturn) to the fastest (Moon) to equal 35, with an extra Mars thrown in to reach 36 decans. Then running the Minor Pip cards along side this planet/zodiac arrangment, based on the associations of the elements to the suits and the zodiac. When I look at the end result of imposing those astrological associations on the four suits of ancient playing cards (whose suits used to be seen as balanced opposites in the logical structure of a game of numbers) I see a monstrosity of confusion, and an offensive corrosion of dualistic, binary ideals... dualistic, binary ideals that are rooted in an approach to wisdom that has been embraced by a whole lot of people for a whole lot of years.

Thankfully though (unlike many decks of today) dualism wasn't completely obliterated from the Rider/Waite/Smith deck... just corroded. If we look, we can see that even if we are to completely reject the notion of "good" and "bad", there is still a discernible degree of contrast to be found between suits... like Cups and Swords for example. Most of the images found within the suit of Swords require a certain amount of "spin" to be seen as favorable or non-threatening. Most of the Cups don't. But this is not consistent, some of the Cups do need some "spin" to be seen as favorable. Why? What is the functional advantage to a deck that does not present a consistent look to its design?

The Numerical Tarot does not use astrological association to determine the intended meaning of cards from the Minor Suits. The Numerical Tarot prefers to return to the original design of suits that stand as logical opposites to each other, as they did in their original game structure. The Numerical Tarot embraces balance, symmetry, contrast and consistency. The Numerical Tarot does not see dualism, or binary thinking, as an evil to be banished from the world of tarot. What is the advantage to a deck that presents a consistent look to its design? (see Divine Mechanics elsewhere on this site).

The advantage to a deck that presents a consistent look to its design, is clarity of thought... and being straightforward and obvious in the communication of ideas... and, in being so clear and obvious, the banishment of occult obfuscation. In my opinion, too many people accept the notion that tarot is based on the obfuscating mysteries of the occult, and in being based on mysteries intended to obfuscate, tend to accept arbitrary, inconsistent, chaotic and convoluted designs as part and parcel of the inherent mystery. In fact, historically, such convoluted designs have been entirely intentional, and have been employed as occult devices of obfuscation, to prevent casual, uninitiated and unworthy observers from obtaining knowledge that has been deemed fit only for devoted members of a cult. Sometimes these convoluted designs even go so far as to include deliberate misinformation to throw the curious off track, and preserve the correct knowledge only for the devotees who hold the keys to the mysteries.

The Numerical Tarot is not about mysteries. The Numerical Tarot is all about observing the obvious, and through observing the obvious, revealing, or shedding light upon the darkness of obfuscating mysteries. The Numerical Tarot is a wisdom system for anyone and everyone, not just those willing to suffer through initiation rites of passage, and the memorization of arbitrary, asymmetrical, convoluted, chaotic and mysterious designs full of blinds and obfuscations. In trying to reach anyone and everyone, The Numerical Tarot uses balance, symmetry, contrast and consistency as "tools of the obvious," to get a message across in as straightforward and simple a way as possible.

In attempting to be clear, rather than obscure and inscrutable, The Numerical Tarot does not attempt to forcefully assimilate other belief systems into its structure. The Numerical Tarot is based on a simple model of existence that is built in our mind's eye using plainly obvious, common sense reasoning, combined with creatively imaginative speculations about the ramifications of abstract, conceptual patterns upon humans. The deck itself stands as a visual documentation of important, primordial, archetypal patterns that are uncovered using BOTH logical analysis and creative speculation. The binary result of balance, symmetry, contrast and consistency enables cards in the deck to work together as sets of ideas that span spectrums of possibilities from one extreme to another, good, bad and everything in between (see A Spectrum of Possibilities elsewhere on this site). By presenting spectrums of possibilities that span the extremes and in betweens of two suits positive and two suits negative, The Numerical Tarot becomes a wisdom system with as complete a vocabulary of human experience as possible. If one does not care about things like balance and consistency in the design of a wisdom system, then any tarot deck will do. If, however, one does put some value on these things, they might find some advantage to the design of The Numerical Tarot.

On the surface, abandoning tradition might seem scary (see The Handrail of History elsewhere on this site). But, if examined at length, it will be found that an amazing number of cards in The Numerical Tarot remain essentially unchanged from that of RWS tradition. This, I think, is amazing, considering the fact that The Numerical Tarot does not use any of the traditional devices used by other decks to determine intended meanings for the cards. The only difference that will be found in comparing The Numerical Tarot to a deck like Rider/Waite/Smith, is consistency across each suit. In other words, it will be found that the highlighted cards from the survey above have been changed to make each suit consistently light or dark. For those who are adaptable enough to accept those few changes, and are the sort to embrace things like balance, symmetry, contrast and consistency The Numerical Tarot might be the deck to use!

Every side has an other side. Embrace both sides, and everything in between. That is the underlying philosophy of The Numerical Tarot and the All Things Are Numbers approach.

-----

Don't Ever Change

By departing from tradition, The Numerical Tarot enjoys very little in the way of popularity. In fact it is mostly met with hostility, as people cling to things they already know, and things that are popular (see The Handrail of History elsewhere on this site). Thus, to use The Numerical Tarot is to step outside the norm and be different. That can be a lonely existence. In designing a tarot deck, I could have succumbed to the peer presure to conform to existing imagery, but... if I had, I would not have been able to develop the system of logical analysis seen everywhere on this site. Without such a logical system of binary opposites, things like The Binary Influence Calculator and The Dream Analysis Calculator and the Shake the Trees game would not be possible at all.

People resist change, especially where deep, historical traditions are in place. For example: I remember seeing something years ago about someone who had invented a new typewriter keyboard arrangement (for the English alphabet). Rather than the 'standard' or 'traditional' "qwertyuiop" arrangement of letters, they claimed that their arrangement was more ergonomic and more user friendly. They tested it with people who type for a living. Those people said that it didn't take much to re-learn where the letters were, and that they actually liked the new arrangement! This was just before the personal computer revolution, when typing was a skill that people used to made a living. If this new arrangement had caught on, we might all be using it today. But it didn't. The qwertyuiop 'standard' is what we all use. And now that computer keyboards are everywhere, and everyone and their grandma types on them, can we imagine changing to anything else? That alternative keyboard might very well be more ergonomic and user friendly, but we will probably never know, because, we will probably never change.

People might think "so what... qwertyuiop is good enough" and be perfectly correct, qwertyuiop is "good enough." But... to some people, good enough just isn't good enough. When people learn a system like the qwertyuiop keyboard, they memorize and practice; they learn all the quirks and foibles of the system and adapt to accommodate them, so that they can accomplish a task set before them. And when someone comes along with something that is thought to be more ergonomic and user friendly, many will ask "why bother, what we have is good enough." Once learned, we tend to forget all the quirks and foibles of a system that we've had to adapt to, and we just accept what we have as good enough, simply because we don't want to be bothered with learning the quirks and foibles of another system - even one that claims to have fewer quirks and foibles, and a promise of more efficient use. Learning the quirks and foibles of the existing system thus becomes a right of passage that all must suffer through to obtain the prized skill being offered. And as the end result of pursuing either path results in the same output of words on a page, the keyboard that is used by the majority becomes the one to dominate - no matter how much better the other might be.

Indeed, an argument that might be put forth by those who think the qwertyuiop keyboard to be good enough, would be to point out how there has been no loss of creativity while using the existing system. Many people have written great works of literature using the qwertyuiop keyboard. So, if the end result is the same, why change? The answer, I believe; to change the learning process from a right of passage through difficulties, to that of an ergonomic, user friendly experience of ease. We can all be selfish and say "I had to learn the hard way, so must you - it's tradition!" Or, we can look back on that path of difficulty and try to make it easier for the next person. The Numerical Tarot is an attempt to make things easier for the next person.

As mentioned above, in the old days of Tarot, rights of passage were also considered rituals of devotion, and made extra complex on purpose, so as to keep the unworthy out. In many ways, we abide by these complexities, and they linger on, in much the same way as we find ourselves stuck, forever it seems, with the qwertyuiop keyboard. Except, unlike the qwertyuiop keyboard, we voluntarily stick with the complexities of tarot's old ways, because of a perception that wisdom of long ago and far away is better than anything anyone might throw out for consideration today. Our need to justify everything relative to some historical reference or occult tradition keeps us with the old ways, and those difficult rights of passage... forever (see The Handrail of History elsewhere on this site).

There are a few books on tarot with "easy" in the title, as they try to impart our existing qwertyuiop-like approach to tarot into the minds of those learning. But while their methods of teaching might be easier, the subject matter remains a complex right of passage for many. But... what if the path itself was easier? Think of how many times you've used something that is good enough, only to be forced into using something else, whereupon you discover, to your amazement, that the thing you had resisted using all this time is "so much better" than the old way. The end result of whatever task it accomplishes might be unchanged, but the process of getting there can often be much improved over that of good enough.

That other keyboard might be better, or someone might invent another option that is even better than that. Will we change? Or will we stick to our old ways, out of respect for the history of typewriters of yore? Will the design of tarot ever change? Will the indelible mental imprint of the Rider/Waite/Smith deck EVER be replaced by anything else? Or are we stuck with this layout for EVER, out of respect for tarot of yore? What if we didn't do that?

-----

EXTRA CREDIT

The people of ancient times, who invented a logical structure of numbers, with suits designed to be seen as binry opposites knew what they were doing! I believe that the Tarot of today is an abomination of that simple genius. The Numerical Tarot is an attempt to restore that simple genius and show what it can do. Thus, I encourage anyone and everyone to explore the devices mentioned above, and ask if such things could ever come about using the popular tarot decks of today - like the Rider/Waite/Smith deck.