We speak in Tarot of pairs, trios, the One, the Everything, the Zero, and so on. However, if we must think of numerical degrees and hierarchy in Tarot, it may be quite useful to think of what cards are the most significant. As far as I’m concerned, there are these three: the Zero: the Fool, The One: The Magician, and the Two: The High Priestess. The Fool being nothing, amounting to nothing, and being useful only to the extent that it functions as a catalyst for all the other cards it comes in touch with, reminds us of how absolute freedom from constraints enters into play, not only with the world of concrete action, but also with vastness, space, and abstract choice. In the world of concrete realization, the Fool is bad news. For, if it’s concrete solutions we are looking for, then nothingness and vastness are the last elements that we want to see as part of our equations and calculations. The artist and painter Wilhelm de Kooning was once asked: “what do you think of space?” He answered: “fuck space.” So, the Fool floats in space, is not conscious of anything, and is beyond hope and fear. It is also for this reason that it is rather silly to think of the Fool as undergoing a journey at the end of which he will come out enlightened. The Fool learns nothing because he is not supposed to ‘learn’ anything. Nor can the Fool make a good partner. When women clients identify the men they live with as the Fool, I say to them one thing only: “Fuck the Fool.”

After space – which may or may not mess with our heads, depending on how we see it – we have contraction. In the Kabbalistic tradition, in order for God to be able to create the world, he needed to turn himself into a point. We talk of the Monad in geometry and Tarot. The One is the one (monad) and nothing else. If the Fool floats in space aimlessly and suggests all things potential, The One is the sudden realization of this potential. It is raw beauty, untouched by experience, but with a flame in its eye. The Magician winks charmingly, but you can’t expect finesse from him. He’s good with his fingers, to be sure, but you still have to remember that what he shows you may not be what he actually gives you. What you see is not what you get. The Magician is undivided power. We stand in its awe, we are seduced by it, and we find it inspiring, insofar as it can put us on new tracks. We may think of the Magician forming a propitious pair with another Trump – the High Priestess is often referred to in this context – but a trick is still a trick. The Magician is no more interested in the High Priestess than she is in him. And why is this so? Because Trump Two has enough going for itself. After space and the contracted, yet undivided power, something mysterious happens. The One is obviously so smart that he can manage to even trick himself into seeing multiple facets of himself. Thus, by the sole power of suggestion, the Magician’s force creates a form that divides itself. The One power becomes Two. As such, it manifests itself as the grandest esoteric secret. The secret of how we get from one to two. How we get a sense of what it means to share a form.

The High Priestess is this form. She is not only a reflection of the monad, but a power in herself. And her secret is division. She knows how to divide, how to differentiate, and what all that means for the One. Once the monad divides itself into 2, and thus resides in the dual state of 2, what comes after is the increasing complex manifestation of what took place in the ‘ur’ experience, in the 2. The High Priestess knows ‘how to,’ she is the epitome of dualism, yet unlike the Empress, who repeats her act by creating a variation on division, 2+1=3, the High Priestess knows what it was like to experience the primal division. The Empress has already forgotten it. Consequently, she has no idea why things are as they are. She just embraces everything, and welcomes more divisions. That’s why she is pregnant all the time. In other words, everything that happens between numbers 3 and 9 is a process of creating variations of the interplay between 0, 1, and 2.

On this note, it may also be useful to think of how all the other cards associated with number 2 behave. If Zero doesn’t count, and the One is beyond settlement and negotiation, the number 2 emphasizes the original dividing power. As such, it is always dualistic, ambivalent, and conflicting. It never aims at reintegration, as things can never be settled. Least of all as in the 2 of cups – as represented symbolically, rather than geometrically in some decks. There is nothing more disconcerting than seeing 2 lovers depicted on most fantasy cards consecrating their supposed love and loyalty to one another, and thus doing the ‘right’ thing. The 2 can never work out. It is not in the nature of things to unite, but to divide. You come into this world alone, as One, and you die alone, as many. Meanwhile, we all pretend – in love and life.

Culturally speaking, I can never understand why, if we accept the 1+1, we are most suspicious of accepting the 2+1. Sure, in a religious context, some are happy with the Trinity, and others are happy for this order of things: 2 get married and have a third, a child. And yet, by the same token, and as we obviously like to add to make sure that we recreate ‘unity’, why can we not have 2 women and a man in the house? We are more prone to accepting 2 women and 2 men, but somehow we still need to think of them as divided. 3 women and 3 men is also kosher. It’s a small community. Not only can they mirror each other, but they can also compete. 6 is the number of rivalry and sacrifice. Isn’t this what they do in the Lovers card, to some extent, for it’s clear that the 2 are not on the same page. The woman desires the Angel’s gaze, and the man desires her. The Angel goes with Zero. So, it’s better to stick to the Marseille tradition on this one. Not only is the L’Amoureux (The Lover, not Lovers) card the card of hesitance, immaturity, and supreme indecision, but it is also the card that has least to do with love. It’s the 2+2+2 card. Now, that’s a whole trinity of conflicting emotions. To my clients who get excited when I draw the Lover card, I have this to say: “good luck.”

If we continue a bit with the numbering, it is also interesting that 4 men desiring a woman is also a kind of unity, albeit one that emphasizes a brighter idea. In the 7 we have 2 sets of tri(bal) power celebrating the ego at work in the world, and in the 8 we are back to conflict. Major conflict: 2+2+2+2 is also 2 sets of 4. Here come the Emperors of the world trying to force concrete knowledge out of the High Priestess. But she knows what she knows. If they draw anything out of her, it’s a blank they draw. Good luck to them too. That’s why all the eights are marked by an ‘emptying-of-the-mind’ kind of moment. Things are aloof. The Emperors are depressed and pessimistic. The stability that they try to seduce the High Priestess with doesn’t work. She is not for fixing. She’s not into fixing. When finally the One gets divided in 9 parts, a sense of discernment emerges. The Emperor raised at the power of 2 plus 1 realizes here what power really is. It is not in the square, but in the circle. The big O. Being in the circle is not the same as understanding the circle. Being in the circle means orbiting around the point and seeing it divide itself.

The best way of going about it in Tarot is still to count. Look at numbers, their value, and their significance over and above the sentimental imposition of clichés and metaphors on them. What we must love is the geometry of form but only as it allows us to dream of infinity.


Note on the deck: Jean-Claude Flornoy: restoration of Jean Noblet’s Tarot de Marseille, 1650.


For words of power and other unexpected offers, sign up for a cool monthly newsletter.

5 thoughts on “TAROT AD INFINITUM

  1. cameliaelias says:

    Here are some comments left on Facebook:




    Camelia, your post was thought provoking: the whole pick up sticks aspect of the zero, the one and the two. Back to Genesis: the void, the one, the ten.Was the void pregnant with evil and good and does that make it ugly? Undifferentiated potential. What is the ten actually? Is it in sequence, the void, the word and the word plus zero again? What does this mean actually? Is the ten the world as total creation then, after all was delivered by Hashem?


    If the void is pregnant, it’s not pregnant with either good or evil. The whole point of the void is to contain nothing. Hence, such either/or situations are not very useful. Nor are they very interesting. The void is potential. If we situate all our acts there, in the potential, we are all free. As nothing is ever realized, we are all free. Free, free, free. Especially free from crap. I think that this is what happens in the 10. The realization that we need NOT think of ambivalence. We have 2 elements in 1+0, but one of them is the great reminder that if we must sink, we can sink into the circle. There is no rule, morality, or principle that’s valid there. Thank God.


    Is the ten a kind of trap then? No more creation available to humans because Hashem already built the world? What can we do then? We can try to enter the Merkavah but it has already been assembled. The fact that so much has already been built and completed makes our task difficult.


    The 10 is not a trap, as 1 is attached to 0. So 1 orbits around, and in potential all the time. This gives 1 a lot of work to do, so we are basically free from doing it all ourselves. What we think we’re all doing is just an illusion. We are doing nothing. We need to do NOTHING.


    Aryeh Kaplan: “Three Mothers: Aleph Mem Shin/A great mystical secret/covered and sealed with three rings/And from them emanated air, fire, water and fire/And from them are born Fathers/and from the Fathers, descendents. […]When a person enters into the mysteries, he must parallel the sequence of creation. First he enters the Universe of Chaos…The initiated can then enter the Universe of Rectification, where the Sefirot are connected and assume the form of Partzufim. Each partzuf is a human-like form, very closely related to the conceptual Golem.” Anyway, Kaplan sheds light on your point, Camelia. The three “Mothers”: Alef, Vav, Yud “represent the reconciliation of opposites”, “Logically there is no way in which opposites can be reconciled.” Your point about the Lovers card, the two of cups: They are pulling things apart, after they have been created. This is an ugly dismembering: dissonant. I have also been pondering why the Merkavah is entered from the bottom. The top of it, the goal cannot be accessed except through going through the base. I think it has to do with the magical process of mirroring. If one wants to access the light one must first mirror its opposite. Just some thoughts.


    Maralyn, great stuff. About the dissonance in the 2 of cups or the Lover card. Of course there’s dissonance, by Jove. As there should be. If soul-mates meet, then they do it on a whole different plane than the ‘I do’ sort of thing, depicted on most decks after Pamela-Colman Smith. Love is not in the 2, nor in the 2+2+2. For the kind of mirroring you refer to, we have the Sun card, the 19. That is the only card in the Tarot which alludes to what most of us mortals like to think of as love. 1+9, so there we have it again.


    Camelia, thanks. Yes perhaps soul-mates might be a 1 plus 2. Thanks.

  2. alexh says:

    Interesting. I’m a percussionist and in folklore music the 6 hardly ever 2+2+2 it’s mostly 3+3. To me this means the dance of 2 individuals. And this dance is about meeting-opposition-metting-opposition-meeting-opposition…tension and release… human interaction. Powerful, strong movement, drive. 6 beat rhythms in folklore reflect this quite nicely, I think.

    To me connecting the 6th trump with “only” love on the one hand (waite) or (in-)decision falls a little short. Pretty serious stuff. Where is the party aspect?
    Best, Alex

    1. Camelia Elias says:

      Alex, thanks for this. I once met Carlo Rizzo and he played a tarantella for me on the tambourine that made me swoon. You are right in your observation that we go from contraction to expansion, and vice versa, or from tension to release. But I’d also say this: in any dance for two, the most successful is the one that’s thoroughly calculated (2+2=4, The Emperor), so that the decision making involves a minimized risk (2+2+2=6, a calculated chance). All games of seduction, while seemingly and successfully operating with a 3×3 beat, their premise is still the 2+2+2 structure.

      1. alexh says:

        Cool, thanks, I think I got it.
        2+2+2 calls us for determination to a subjects (constricting) premises. Sober, cleared up, tidy. What a challenge…
        Well Carlo Rizzo is great! Imagining him playing for you gives me a smile 🙂

Leave a Reply to cameliaelias Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.