The Numerical Tarot has no 10s!! And for good reason. To those who have been taught that the foundations of tarot are derived from the structure of The Kabbalah, or Cabala, or Qabalah... not having any 10s might seem like an abomination before the Lord! To those accustomed to normal playing cards, not having 10s might seem impractical. For many reasons, having no 10s might seem just plain wrong to many people. But there is method to this madness if one takes the time to look.
Elsewhere on this site, a theoretical model of existence was created, using only two logical steps. Within the book All Things Are Numbers the same theoretical model is also constructed using more elaborate analysis. In both cases, a diagram is suggested to highlight significant parts for subsequent consideration. In both cases, the resulting diagram consists of four circles and a point, which are meant to represent four concentric spheres and a center.
 |
|
Simplicity equals truth. Or some say.
|
This theoretical model of existence, drawn as it is in your mind's eye (i.e. infinitely drawn nowhere) stands as a representation of "The Essence of Being" that surrounds and contains all manifest entities that breach the continuum of infinity. Four circles and a point, that's all. Very simple. Very archetypal. But whereas four circles and a point might be a bit too abstract for some people, analogies and allegories can be offered to help visualize the significant parts of this theoretical model. One such analogy is that of a planet in space. A planet is a celestial body that breaches the infinite continuum of empty space with a field of discernible energy. That field of energy defines a presence - a wrinkle in the fabric of spacetime. The extent of that presence can be visualized in many ways: heat radiating, atmosphere dissipating, gravity diminishing, or sound fading. The point at which a planet's field of energy becomes so insignificantly small as to be negligible and immeasurable in its influence, a line of demarcation can be drawn. Outside that line of demarcation, there is nothing. Inside that line of demarcation, there is something.
We can of course theorize that the stuff inside and the stuff outside are in fact made of the same stuff, or... cut from the same cloth of spacetime fabric, but in another way, they are not the same; one is discernible, and the other is much, much less discernible. Like a mountain thrusting up out of the flat lands of the prairie, the mountain and the land are made of the same stuff, but there is a definite, discernible difference to be seen and considered between mountain and prairie. As further analogies are made between existence and consciousness, the discernible is conscious and the indiscernible is unconscious. Thus it is the job of our model of existence, to mark off a more or less arbitrary and sometimes blurry line of demarcation between conscious and unconscious, or existence and nothingness - between mountain and prairie... between something and nothing.
-----
The Planetary Model
In the planetary analogy, the outer circle - or Circumsphere - defines a reference frame (see Content + Context = Meaning elsewhere on this site). Between the Circumsphere and the planet's surface there is an area of open space. Some planets fill this area with Atmosphere of one kind of another. The surface of some planets is a hard and well defined crust. On other planets, it is not so finite. But whether well defined or not, there is always a point where one can differentiate between the insides of an object and its outsides. This line of demarcation marks the Surface of our planet. The stuff that defines the insides becomes the Mass of substance that is characteristic of all manifest entities. Finally, an Axis of rotation locates the center of manifest coagulation. The completed analogy includes:
1-9 Circumsphere - or sphere of influence
2-8 Atmosphere - or space displaced
3-7 Surface - or theoretical skin
4-6 Mass - or coagulated guts
5 Axis - or core
Here is a diagram:
 |
|
Two simple steps of logic create a model of existence. Pretty simple.
|
Pretty simple eh? It is. But why only nine? Easy. The number line that is seen within the planetary analogy diagram shown above, is a one dimensional representation of this model of theoretical ideas. It is used to label the significant parts of the model, and as you can see, it does so with only nine numbers. That is why there are only nine numbers to any row of cards in The Numerical Tarot deck. Nine numbers describe the "essence of being" for any entity breaching the continuum of nothingness that surrounds us. Conversely, the number zero, stands as a representation of that nothingness, as would the number 10, if it were to be included within this schema. But they aren't included... why? The reason 10s do not appear as a card within any of my decks is because my decks are supposed to stand as a representation of these stages of existence... not non-existence. So things that stand outside the defined reference frame of existence - like 10s - are considered superfluous. They can be added back in, if someone has a lot to say about nothingness. But I, personally, don't think they should be used to describe the culmination of each number line's progress within the deck, the way they are in so many decks today.
But even more to the point is the fact that one of the most important concepts of the uninterrupted continuum of nothingness that surrounds us all is its eternal sameness, standing in direct opposition to the infinite variety and diversity of each manifest being that is created from that sameness. Thus, if zeros were included in a deck (as tens or zeros), they would have to all look the same to accurately represent the sameness of nothingness - so what's the point of having them if they are all the same? Plus... to accurately represent the contiguous continuum of nothingness surrounding an entity, both zeros and tens would be required, as the nothingness that surrounds us does not just exist at one END of the number line, but at both ends.
-----
Counting vs. Labeling
I believe that most people's adherence to 10 cards in a tarot suit is born out of an adherence to counting in 10s, combined with the occult influence of the Qabalah, and its use of 10 sephiroth. My use of numbers, however, is more of a labeling device than a counting device. There are nine steps to my model, whether we count in 12s or 10s or whatever. My model describes the essence of "being" with nine steps. Outside the model is the nothingness of the infinite continuum. I label this with a zero, because we use zero to mean nothing. So whether we count in 10s or 12s is irrelevant to my system. My system is based on 9 numbers and zero. That's it. The fact that we have chosen to count in 10s, and theosophically reduce to single digits is a happy coincidence.
Given that a lot of us do count in 10s, I view 10s in two ways, depending on whether we are theosophically reducing or not. If we are not, then I see tens as zeros. Thus, as multiple "1 thru 9" entities are juxtaposed against each other, a zero of nothingness resides between them. In this premise, it would logically follow that the first zero be characteristically un-numbered. A ten, then, is the first (1) numbered zero (0). Twenty is the second (2) zero (0). Each zero is followed by a set of 1thru 9, (2)1, (2)2, (2)3, etc. up to (9)9 and on. So, in my world, tens (or counted zeroes) are like bookends to each 1 thru 9 progression. They are like the space we have to jump across between railroad cars on a train:
... 6 7 8 9 (10) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (20) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (30) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (40) 1 2 3 4 ... etc.
On the other hand, If we are theosophically reducing, then the 10s just disappear! When theosophically reducing, a 10 becomes a 1, so there is no 10, there is no nothingness, just reduced numbers describing existence. So, 20 is a 2, there is no 20. And 30 is a 3 etc. up to 90 which is a 9. So even though reducing shifts things over a bit from normal counting, we are still on a 1 thru 9 number line. It's like a recursive fractal thing. There is no 100, 100 is a 1. 200 is a 2. 300 is a 3 etc up to 900 which is a 9. There is no 1000, 1000 is a 1. When we are theosophically reducing to single digits, we are labeling. When we are adding one thing to another, and incrementing the zero that lies between, we are counting.
The theoretical model of existence being put forth here describes existence in 9 steps. So, zero represents the environment that contains existence - just like the contiguous continuum of empty space contains spiraling galaxies, or the contiguous continuum of oceans contain the continents... or individual ships floating on the seas. Each ship is an entity - which I would describe with 9 numbers. The zero would be the space between two ships. We could think of that as the contiguous continuum of air that we pass through when jumping from one ship to another. Or... if jumping out of one boat to swim to another, zero would be the contiguous continuum of water that we pass through from one boat to another. If we consider the "reality" of the boats as an illusion that persists only in the minds of those acknowledging them, then the dissolution of that illusion would cause the boats - and everything on them to melt back into the sea of possibilities from which they once emerged (see boat analogy offered below).
-----
Going Nowhere
Each manifest entity comes into existence by way of a progression of ideas. To maintain the persistent illusion of reality, this progression repeats throughout the life of the entity. Thus, for each manifest entity, ongoing progressions of 1 through 9 cycles become the heart beat of the persistent illusion we have come to know as reality. If we choose to count these cycles, we could use incremented zeroes. In that way, zero becomes analogous to the "GO" square on a Monopoly board. However, if we don't care about counting, then we are meant to view each entity as a complete 1-9 cycle, where the return to 1 is accomplished by way of the reciprocal nature of the two endpoints of any number line. I like to illustrate this return to 1 by way of a progression of geometric shapes that begin with a point and end with a sphere... in 9 steps (see The Geometric Progression elsewhere on this site). By observing this progression, we see how the return to one is accomplished by acknowledging that a sphere reduces a point, and a point radiates a sphere, and thus they are essentially the same. Thus the concluding sphere of a 9, becomes the point of the next repetition of shapes, without ever including a zero... or a 10... or a 20.
The cycle described by The Geometric Progression is the driving force behind the persistent illusion we call reality. So, to go back to the ship/boat analogy, let's say we pace back and forth from bow to stern, or stern to bow, learning all we can about the boat we are on. It takes many cycles, because there is a lot to learn, and we have to learn all we can in order to maintain a full and complete illusion of the boat. So around and around we go. Each time we make a circuit, our knowledge increases - just as a point increases to become a sphere. And with that accumulated knowledge, we begin again as a point, to learn more, because... by comparison to what we have yet to learn, that sphere of knowledge is but a puny point. So around we go again - ever augmenting, but at the same time, never being more than a boat. In the book All Things Are Numbers, I liken this endless ascent of sphere leading to point, leading to a sphere, leading to point etc. to the Penrose and Penrose optical illusion of the endlessly ascending staircase
 |
|
Endlessly ascending, and going nowhere. That's life!
|
As 1 through 9 cycles repeat, we are forever ascending (or descending) and never really going anywhere! Point leads to sphere, leads to point, leads to sphere, leads to point... But... whereas one might think of this cycle as linear - because of how it is laid out as a number line that (usually) reads left to right, from one end to another - the 9 steps that define an entity actually occur concentrically, and in unison. Which means that one way of looking at things is to acknowledge that these steps don't really "occur" at all! Which is appropriate, considering we aren't really going anywhere anyway!! It is only for the sake of analysis that the steps of these cosmic cycles are separated into a number line form. But... that is how a point to sphere progression describes a single entity. In describing a single entity, zero does not enter into the cycle. But... there are other types of cycles...
-----
Going Somewhere
In the essays A Significant Signature of Nature and The Cosmic Engine we see how, in addition to labeling parts, a number line can also be used to describe events in time that progress as endless cycles. With that in mind, let's shift to another analogy to explain a case where we might want to acknowledge the zero that lies between.
Zero is best used when considering things in a linear fashion, rather than a concentric fashion. Concentrically, zero contains things. Linearly, zero separates things. So a good analogy for zero might be the space that exists between train cars. In this analogy, we pace back and forth from one end of a railroad car to the other, endlessly augmenting. As described above, the steps of these cycles occur in unison, without regard for time - causing the railroad car to exist. But, if we introduce the concept of time, each moment in time becomes analogous to another railroad car, with zero being the space we leap across to get from one moment in time to another. This is where the use of numbers to count comes in, and where the idea of incrementing each zero-leap with a number makes sense. This is where acknowledging the existence of the number 10 makes sense. But... to me a 10 is still just a zero... a zero we leap across to get from one 1-9 manifest thing to another, or one manifest moment in time to another.
Now... if what someone is after is union with the unity of nothingness, then by all means consider the number line in a linear fashion... and run right off the end to linger in nothingness... for as long as possible. We will have to cease to exist in order to stay there permanently, because, being a manifest entity will eventually require a resumption of our cycles to maintain the persistent illusion of our existence. But... like swimming from one boat to the other, one can enjoy the void of nothingness for a while. We don't have to leap instantaneously like the train car analogy, we can swim leisurely, like the boat analogy! But as long as we are discussing manifest entities, their cycles are complete in 9, point-to-sphere-like, endlessly ascending or descending steps.
But... in my approach, these moments in time are endlessly recursive and fractal. Thus it is that we encounter a complete 1-9 number line between each number of any 1-9 number line... and also between each number of each recursive number line. So, if each moment in time is like a train car, each train becomes a complete 9-step entity, that is... inasmuch as events in time are considered entities with beginnings, middles and ends. Thus, as events in time become entities themselves, with beginnings, middles, and ends, each event becomes a 9-step entity, and we leap from one event to another across a zero-leap. We leap from one day, week, month, year, decade, century, era, epoch etc. as if leaping from one entity to another... across a zero. Thus, a century is a 1-9 entity with a series of 1-9 decades. Each decade is a 1-9 entity with a series of 1-9 years. Each year is a 1-9 entity with a series of 1-9 months. Each month is a 1-9 entity with a series of 1-9 days. Each day is a 1-9 entity with a series of 1-9 hours. Like I said before, you can use the zeros we leap across as a counting device, to monitor how many linear leaps or concentric cycles have passed, but to me these incremented zeroes are always zeroes, and not really part of the manifest entity or event being discussed with numbers.
-----
Analytical vs. Synthetical
In the system of analysis being offered here, zeroes come and go, depending on how we want to describe things. Within the confines of a single entity, there is no zero - because we would only be talking about that single entity. It is the point at which we consider the containment of the entity, or the end of the event, that we would want to acknowledge zero as the container of the entity or the pause between events. Dissecting the entity/event itself, will reveal no zeroes. Moving to another entity/event will reveal a zero.
Each entity is complete in 9 steps. Each part of an entity is complete in 9 steps. Thus, if we break apart an entity, each part becomes its own entity. In the book All Things Are Numbers, I compare this to breaking a mirror, where each part of a mirror will reflect an entire image, rather than a piece of the whole mirror it came from. And, if it were possible to re-attach the pieces of a broken mirror perfectly, all those parts would again reflect a single image. So, if we want to discuss parts of a whole as individual parts, then yes zeroes appear between parts of entities and cycles. But once we talk of the whole entity/event, as a whole, there are no zeroes, except the one that contains the entity/event as a whole.
Thus it is, that zeroes appear or disappear depending on the method of perception being utilized at any given moment. If thinking about something analytically, with individual segments, zeroes will divide segments. If thinking about something synthetically, as a wholistic unit, the segmentation is still there, but the segments run one into the other as a continuous, contiguous entity. In the book All Things Are Numbers, I use the train car analogy to show how the analytical mind is like a train with all its car doors closed - creating segmentation, and the synthetical mind is like a train with all its car doors open, allowing the infinite track to visually run right through the train. There are still cars, but in synthetical mode, they all run together as a unit. Until we begin to think of them as individual cars, then, all the doors slam shut and zeroes appear between them. If our mind shifts back again, they open again. Just as seamlessly our eyes adjusts to light, our mind shifts between analytical and synthetical methods of perception.
When perception tells us that we are all the same, all connected, all one, there are no zeroes between us. When our perception tells us that we are all different, all separate, all unique individuals, there are zeroes between us. Is one of these points of view more right than the other? Is one of these views more divinely inspired than the other? Should we always strive to only think one way and never the other? No. Each way of thinking has a purpose.
The 48 contiguous states of The United States of America is another good analogy. We can use our synthetical mind, and think of The United States as united, and only draw a map of the outer borderline with Canada, Mexico and the oceans. The states are all still there, but we have not drawn them as segments.
 |
|
Is one of these points of view more right than the other? Is one of these views more divinely inspired than the other? Should we always strive to only think one way and never the other? If yes... then only one of these is a representation of the United States? What is the other one? Is one real and the other an illusion?
|
Then, with no effort at all, we can shift our mode of perception to something more analytical, and think of The United States as individual states with a zero-leap between each state. Have you ever crossed a state line? Unless that state line is defined by a river, there is often no evidence of there being any line at all. That is the extent of the zero-leap. Each state is a 1-9 entity, within the larger 1-9 entity of The United States as a whole. Between each 1-9 state is a zero. Did you notice it... as you whizzed by in your car along the highway? That was it. That's zero. Zero is thinner than the "Welcome to..." sign that marks the borderline. In that way, zero... like its partner the 5, is an inbetween and thus, like its partner the 5, is a custodian of The Absentia.
In my schema, zeroes always define the outside. They define the outside of the entire entity, or, the outside of each of its parts - if and when they are being considered as individual entities unto themselves. Thus, a 10 is just a counted zero. How many state lines did we cross? Who cares, it's all one country.
-----
Nine, not ten. Nine not eight... or seven!
Sepher Yetzirah says to put one hand over the other and draw from finger to finger a 10 pointed polygon, making 10 an important number. I say put your hands out in front of you. Cross your thumbs to symbolize the unity of opposites at a midpoint of confluence. Four on one side, four on the other. Like angel's wings, with the crossed thumbs as the unifying body of Temperance. (4) + (4) + a unifying middle (1) = 9.
OK, that's not the best analogy ever. I was just trying to rework the Sepher Yetzirah idea to make a point. Maybe instead of putting your hands together, you should keep them apart! Each finger is an odd number. Each space between is an even number. The space between two hands is the infinite continuum of nothingness that surrounds, defines and separates all manifest entities. One hand faces you and is positive. One hand faces away and is negative. Two sides to everything. Each hand has a side that is seen and a side that is not seen. Two sides to each number. Two hands means two rows of nine in the Major Trumps of The Numerical Tarot. Two sides to each hand means four suits in the Minor Suits of The Numerical Tarot.
For those who don't like that analogy, maybe a better one might be to imaging the number line as a boat in the water, with 5 people on board. Four of them rowing, with oars on either side, and one working the tiller.
Outside the boat is the infinite sea of possibilities - labeled Zero. The four rowers provide power (4/6), agility (3/7), navigation (2/8) and intellect (1/9). But the one who controls the rudder, controls the boat (power and control are not the same thing). And the Zero of a 10 exists on both sides of the rowers. Actually, all around when considered as a spherical model. But as a number line - at each end.
I don't know if that analogy is any better. But take it from me, just forget the tens, O.K.? I know that this is one of the many things that traditional tarot enthusiasts, who are totally devoted to the equivalence of tarot and Qabalah, or to mathematical ideas that embrace the idea of 10, might find hard to let go of. But this system demands it. Sorry. If you are not convinced, and would like to read another essay that argues in favor of nine numbers and a zero, rather than 10, read the essay A Tetractic Twist.
-----
The Wreath Mandala
Here is a mandala we can use to meditate on the idea of nine numbers and a zero. Notice how the wreath is symmetrical, and how all the numbers converge upon the nexus of the 5, and how, if we unwrap the wreath and lay the branches flat we recreate a number line. Notice how the wreath has a gap at the top to symbolize the concept of zero, and a knot at the bottom to symbolize the confluence of matter and manifestation that occurs at the core of any entity that emerges from the nothingness of zero. The number line is a cycle, the zero is where we count how many times we "pass GO."
This mandala also describes many other important concepts, put forth elsewhere on this site. Notice how the two points of absentia (discussed elsewhere on this site) lie outside the universe of numbers, and how one absentia yields to the universe between, and how the other gathers together, just like the harry ball analogy used in the book All Things Are Numbers (seen elsewhere on this site). Notice how, half way between those two points of absentia is a line of demarcation where the negative outsides of our model (seen elsewhere on this site) are transformed into positive insides. Notice how the path between the points of absentia resembles the lines of a bar magnet or the poles of a planet with its magnetic field, one feeding the other and passing invisibly through the entire substance of manifestation that lies between.
 |
|
Those who choose to anthropomorphize the transcendental say that "God" made us in "His" own image.
We have two eyes, not one! Unity is Binary!!
|
-----
Icons of Tarot
A planetary analogy is simple and obvious. For those familiar with traditional icons, the significant stages of a planetary model can easily be used to describe archetypal influences from what is inarguably a primordial pattern if there ever was one! For those who believe (as I do) that the icons of tarot are derived from archetypes, and that archetypes are derived from the transcendental influence of primordial patterns, then a planetary allegory might be a good pattern to learn about (see What is an Archetype? elsewhere on this site).
Tarot icons that are easy to see as the embodiment or personification of planetary parameters might be The Empress. Known for sensitivity, The Empress carries the number 3, which associates her with the surface or theoretical skin of the planetary model. The surface of things is where they touch, making sensitivity an important concept for a 3. The Emperor, known for integrity, power and influence. He carries the number 4, which associates him with the mass or guts of the planetary model. The Lovers, known for marriage, hold the number 6, also associated with the mass of the model, where coagulating lines of force converge, mix and blend together. Temperance carries the number 14, which when theosophically reduced becomes a 5. Temperance tosses water from one goblet to the other, to symbolize the alternation that takes place at an infinite middle that cannot belong to any one side, but must exists between, alternating its influence back and forth.
Temperance has two wings (left and right), two cups (one emptying and one filling), two feet (one in water and one on land) all saying the same thing - this is the midpoint of the numberline where opposites butt together symmetrically like wings, or exchange sides and flow back and forth like water between cups, or remain segregated like water (symbol of the unconscious or subconscious) and land (symbol of the conscious). The midpoint of the number line is the ultimate in-between, between any of these two pairs. Thus its nature is that of alternation - back and forthing.
In the Temperance example, ultimate inbetweenness is the conceptual, principle, primordial pattern (infinitely drawn nowhere). Alternation is the archetypal influence (observed and acknowledged by a human). The icon called Temperance is the symbolic, anthropomorphized representation or personification ... of the archetypal influence ... of the conceptual pattern ... of inbetweenness ... or middle, or center, or axis.
Iconic representations of archetypal influences are not archetypal because of repetition within or across cultures. They are archetypal because they are the embodiment of universal, transcendental, primordial patterns that do not belong to any one culture, but can be found everywhere in the universe. People talk of a collective unconscious as the source of archetypes. I propose universal, transcendental patterns as a source of archetypes. A collective unconscious collects evidence from humanity. Universal, transcendental patterns exist with or without humanity. Thus I prefer to use a phrase like Universal Consciousness to describe this source. The Numerical Tarot asks you to LOOK DEEPER.
|
