Complementary Opposites: “Neutral and Supportive” Elemental Dignities
AUTHOR’S NOTE: According to the Golden Dawn’s esoteric worldview, the classical elements of Empedocles (Fire, Water, Air and Earth) as used in the tarot are distinguished by four unique degrees of compatibility that dictate how potent a card will be in performing its role when bracketed by certain other cards in a spread. This is a technique known as “Elemental Dignities,” and it typically involves a triple array of one central — or “principal” — card joined by two peripheral “modifiers.”
In this paradigm, cards of the same element are the most cooperative with one another, each reinforcing its partners; those of similarly active or passive elements are next in tripartite collaboration; and those that are of a dissimilar elemental nature are collectively hostile or at best unsympathetic. Within the system of Elemental Dignities, a card bordered by companions that are harmonious to its temperament will exhibit increased intensity, while a card that is adjoined by others inimical to its spirit will be reduced in vigor.* The appended phrase “for good or ill, according to its nature” makes it clear that the card’s inherent disposition will not take a turn for the better or worse due solely to this augmentation or degradation, it will just be empowered or enfeebled according to its intrinsic character. Negative qualities can be exaggerated or diminished as readily as positive traits, so the card becomes either more or less of its unmodified self but not different in any important way (except as indicated by other unrelated factors of standard multi-card synthesis, something that Jim Eshelman made an argument for in Liber Theta, his Thoth-based rewrite, and Macgregor Mathers nodded to in the original Liber T but didn’t adequately explicate). Within the elemental sphere, think of taking a performance enhancing or inhibiting drug.
This brings me to the curious category of “neutral and supportive” cards. If Mathers and company had left well enough alone and employed the concept of neutrality without qualifying it, those cards would merely have zero impact on the function of any mutually-indifferent cards with which they are associated, and would not be assumed to add any complexity to the picture. It’s beyond me why they had to throw “supportive” into the mix, particularly after they determined that abutting cards of “mixed dignity” (for example, harmonious and discordant; harmonious and neutral or discordant and neutral) will have no effect on the strength or weakness of those “principal” cards they accompany as “modifiers.” The implication of the term “supportive” is that a card so affected would be favorably enhanced by their presence even if its overall demeanor is pessimistic (although in fairness, it’s likely that with an unfavorable card a “neutral and supportive” card would exacerbate its condition [make it worse] through benign neglect rather than ameliorate its negativity [make it better]). Talk about muddying the water!
I decided to throw the whole thing out and create the concept of “complementary opposites” to replace it. Here’s how it works. Fire cards with other Fire cards are natural allies; Fire and Air are “friendly” because both are volatile and expansive; Fire and Water are “unfriendly” because Fire vaporizes Water and Water extinguishes Fire, so they can’t coexist without being separated by a metal or ceramic barrier; Fire and Earth are opposites because one is a subtle energy form and the other a dense solid — one radiates and the other aggregates but they cooperate because Fire needs Earth for fuel and Earth needs Fire for the warmth that promotes growth; ergo, “complementary opposites” in which one supplies what the other lacks. The other elementally-neutral pairs have similar correlations, although perhaps not as clear-cut. Anyway, a case can be made for this tweak because “supportive” is such a “squishy” premise and “neutral” conveys a sense of apathy that makes me wonder “Who cares? Why bother? It’s not going to make a difference anyway.”
*Full Disclosure: In the Golden Dawn’s Liber T, this assumed engagement with the “principal” card was inferred but never plainly stated since the focus was on the relationship between the two “modifiers:” if they were friendly to one another, the principal card was automatically energized for its purpose, either “for good” or “for ill” according to its nature; if they were mutually unfriendly, the principal was diluted in its expression; and if they were of “mixed dignity,” there was no discernible effect from elemental impingement. In keeping with Liber Theta, I’ve always seen it as a three-way integration of elements, which allows for a “2-on-1” shift of emphasis.
Originally published at http://parsifalswheeldivination.wordpress.com on July 10, 2024.
