The Virtue of Numbers: Contrast vs Polarity

AUTHOR’S NOTE: Esoteric number theory is an important part of divination with the tarot cards. Aleister Crowley wrote in the Book of Thoth: “Ultimate reality is best described by numbers and their interplay.” Since revealing objective truth through subjective engagement with the cards is one of the main goals of serious prognostication, number associations will typically supplement the more anecdotal aspects of a reading as surmised by Crowley. This is particularly true when using non-scenic “pip” decks like the Tarot de Marseille, and nearly as valuable with the semi-scenic “glorified pip” cards of the Crowley/Harris Thoth tarot.

I’ve written previously about Pythagorean and Qabalistic number theory in tarot, but the new wrinkle here is the discussion of the Hermetic principle of polarity versus the more flexible theory of contrast, and the idea that diametrically opposite forces of equal strength are static unless and until forcibly integrated (i.e. “mashed together” but not necessarily synthesized), while contrasting forces of the same potency will shift to adapt to one another in a more dynamic way, facilitating their seamless reconciliation.

For example, in diurnal terms the supposed opposites of “light” and “dark” are in constant flux, being roughly equal only at the equinoxes, but they must still fit into the ~24-hour envelope. A sociopolitical instance is the “unholy alliance” of Church and State to the detriment of the general populace. The Kybalion notes that the protagonists in this elastic dichotomy are “identical in nature but different in degree,” while the I Ching captures the fluid doctrine of contrasts in the taiji (or “yin/yang”) symbol with its two primary and two secondary components.

In terms of conventional arithmetic (as distinct from the higher mathematics used in science and technology), the standard sequence of integers is an undulating continuum of contrasting quantities and qualities that moves in serpentine fashion between the inferred polarities of odd-and-even; positive-and-negative; active-and-passive; male-and-female; etc, as one quantity expands beyond its integral state and is re-assimilated within the broader confines of the next one in the series, bringing with it the mystical implications of increased value and slightly refined quality. (To be honest, ascribing qualities to raw numbers can be difficult; for example, two eggs that are indistinguishable from a third of the same size, shape and color escape immediate differentiation, so quality comes down to subtle variables that are more “feel” than substance, like the assertion “I don’t know what it is, but I’ll know it when I see it” or the random “1=2” occurrence of an unexpected “double yolk.”)

It reminds me of a snowball rolling downhill, gaining volume as it goes. The array retains its fundamental structure while accumulating mass in two basic conceptual formats: unitary or indivisible (base-1) that is the root of the prime numbers 3, 5 and 7; and binary (base-2) that is the underlying principle for the evenly-divisible numbers 4, 6 and 8. The numbers 9 and 10 are special cases within this model (rather than being prime, 9 divides by 3, while 10 is a numerological counterpart of 1); everything beyond is just an elaboration of the core architecture. In his book The Tarot, French occultist Joseph Maxwell explains this for the first ten numbers in scholarly (although somewhat abstruse) detail, breaking them down into their constituent unitary and binary parts via isomorphs. (You can blame me later for pointing out that particular rabbit-hole.)

The foundation for this paradigm resides in the geometric number theory of Pythagoras: the Point; the Line; the Triangle (and, by its rotation, the Circle); the Square; the Pentagon; the Hexagon, and the more complicated polygons that deliver a decreasing level of esoteric inspiration to the tarot reader (a fact I discovered by reading Henry Cornelius Agrippa on the “spiritual” — as in “religious” — nature of the higher numbers). A more functionally complete design is provided by the Qabalistic Tree of Life with its ten numbered sephiroth running from top to bottom, offering a symbolic blueprint for occult interpretation.

There is a place for both in tarot divination: e.g. the Pythagorean “1” or monad is an abstract point-in-space that exhibits no magnitude, movement or direction, while the Qabalistic “1” represents the “first whirling” of the Idea of manifestation as it begins to coalesce in the realm of Spirit. These concepts underpin the meaning of the Ace as entirely potential energy that must be “triggered” before it will evince any of the above qualities. In Pythagorean theory the higher numbers become increasingly complex and profound, while in Qabalistic theory they become more concrete and less energetic, reaching exhaustion in the Tens.

There is a premise which holds that what appear to be polarities are in most cases contrasting qualities that are in fact complementary halves of a whole; they don’t perform well (if at all) independently. Rather than acting as polar opposites that clash, they cooperate with one another in the same way the astrological Sun and Moon function in a horoscope: one factor is defined and regulated by the other. We could say that each number in the “decad” series expands the reach of the one before it while only subtly altering its environment and still maintaining continuity of expression. There are aphorisms in popular culture that speak to this interaction, such as “if one is good, two are better;” “two’s company, three’s a crowd” and its extrapolation, the “fifth wheel” conundrum; and “there is strength in numbers.” The influence of “quantity” reaches its apex when it is tied to suit, element and rank definitions, which add an overarching “quality” emphasis.

In practice, I tend to use the Qabalistic approach more rigorously than the Pythagorean model (which I only apply up to “4”) because I like the idea of increasing density but also growing inertia as the series progresses down the Tree. These are qualities that are easy to ascribe to “pip” cards that don’t display “canned narrative vignettes” like the Waite-Smith deck. I find that Smith’s prosaic images often dilute the vigor of the numerical symbolism by hijacking the plot, whereas the TdM and Thoth decks concentrate and elevate it with their emblematic simplicity. This technique will obviously appeal more to the analytical/literal diviner than to the mystical/intuitive one who works primarily from free-association; in my own case I barely look at the cards in a spread after identifying them since extensive knowledge and experience almost always trump visual stimulation; I may appreciate the art, but I don’t need it except as a “prompt.”

Originally published at http://parsifalswheeldivination.wordpress.com on October 22, 2024.