Swords as air element discussion? Plz

[Jobilee]

Hi all, I'm a newbie here and quite new to tarot as well.
I've been doing a load of reading and am loving it all so far. I started with oracle cards but found that in spreads a couple of the cards wouldn't work so well in the specific positions so I looked into tarot, to see what the diff is and have been blown away by the Indepthness of it all.
I havnt picked up a oracle deck in a while now, I am so fascinated with the tarot. I am Loving learning about each of the majors and the minors, their suits, numerology and their elements (have yet to look further into the court cards)
However my pickle is this, I have read quite a few posts here reading how ppl Interpret their cards as I love to see how diff people read the same card, only to come across a post that explains how someone came across a reading, or research of how the swords element should be fire, as a suit cannot hold its own seed of destruction. Which makes perfect sense, how can a wand, a wooden object have fire as it's element and not be destroyed by it in the process? And then to add more credibility to it, mentions that swords are actually made/rendered in the fire Nd heat. So having fire as the swords element actually make perfect sense.
So now I've read this I can't seem to undo it in my mind. Which now is confusing me. So much to learn and its all such a "sigular" Concept, what works for one is not necessarily how it works for another.
But now, do I swap the elements fire and air around?? And then if I do, do I then swap what the meaning of the wands and swords represent???
Hmmm so much to think about, I wanted to know what others thought about this??
plz help
Cheers.

[Ciderwell]

But now, do I swap the elements fire and air around?? And then if I do, do I then swap what the meaning of the wands and swords represent???.

I think you should do what you have a mind to. Although, wouldn't that create problems communicating with others who use a standard system. Alternative interpretations might be best kept as a secondary device, somewhat like reversals. After all there was a fiery sword mentioned in Genesis, at the gates of Eden after the banishment of Adam and Eve. Also, isn't it said that To Coin is to turn metal into money coins - pentacles!!!

[Charlie Brown]

This is an interesting topic and I have some other thoughts that I might have time to share later. For the moment, I'll say that IF you were going to swap the elemental associations, that it isn't as simple as merely saying "OK, the 10 of Wands definition is now the 20 of Swords definition." Card definitions come from the combination of number, suit, and element. There are still things that swords and wands will signify even if they are associated with Fire and Air.

Beyond that is the question of cards as a graphical language. Most readers use the images to guide there interpretations, even if they do so at different levels. I read mostly Marseille, and, even for me, I'm influenced by the graphic factors of an all pips reading. If the images on your cards are influenced by a certain set of interpretations, then you're working against your deck anytime you read graphically.

One deck that switches the air and fire elements in a very provocative way is the PoMo Tarot. It's long out of print but isn't usually too too expensive on the open market.

I concur with Ciderwell, however, that when you switch the associations, you're removing yourself from the shared language of tarot. That can make learning very difficult if you aren't at a fairly advanced level.

[Who'sthis?]

Over the years I have many debates on this subject and not just in tarot ( eg, elemental association in ritual 'quarters' ), various 'levels of association ' ( eg celestial , global, local ) . Being in the Southern hemisphere makes it interesting . But, sticking to Tarot :

Of course, depending on what depth you want to get into your cards , you are free to change what you want . But there are reasons why it is set up the way it is . ( See my post on 'elemental progression' I made the other day in the Thoth forum ) .

The order and progression of elements is set out the way it is so as to teach us things . Fire is first in that progression. But as you point out, some say it should be air . I believe that goes back to some misconceptions .

Things manifest subtly in unity , then, their energy or their 'dynamics' come into the world as duality . The world ( and us ) can only perceive in duality, but within, above, mediating between or as a pendant to , a third force is generated . This is the first triad of 'ideal' - the ideal world or 'a concept ' . This three fold ideal energy manifests a forth ; 'creation ' .... a more 'concrete' thing . This four fold world is represented as the elements in the created world . The three fold world or model is an ideal model of the energies behind things and is an ideal model .

The four fold model looks at fire as initial energy ' tempered' (if you like ) by water , bought into creation by air (mind) and manifested ( created ) on the 'earth plane '.

The 3 fold model looks at the primary polarity of fire and water (as obvious opposites ) and mediates that with ( or 'apex's' that base line polarity ) with Air. So Air is at the top of this triangle and initial . But it is a different type of air to elemental air (like we have different 'waters' as well ; below and above heaven ) . In this case, going back to some founding ideas helps. 'Air' (or breath ) - Pneuma , air also means 'spirit .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneuma#Cl ... _antiquity

And of course 'Spirit' comes before any fire , water , air or earth .

So I think the idea of air coming first as an element relates to this concept .

But what about the 'magical weapons' ? Why should a wand be air or fire and why should a sword be air or fire ? The thing is , here , to get technical , a sword is neither . A ritual sword, as a magical weapon or tool, is not an elemental weapon , it is a planetary one relating to Mars , and more ascribed to the 'element' of metal .

Yes, I have heard both sides of why one should be the other - they make 'interesting' conclusions from surface examinations . Here is my one of those : In a 'Blacksmith's Circle ' his main weapon is fire , fed by air (bellows) , he heats the metal and through cycles he quenches it in the water font and hammers it on the anvil of earth - the sword is the end product .

The elemental weapon of air is the dagger .

(Then there is that old , 'put the dagger in the cup instead of the wand ' thing ! - better not go there today . )

Have fun with the discovery of your new 'in-depthness' Jobilee

[Jobilee]

So much to think about I think I will just keep it as I learnt it, the basic structure. Keeps things from getting too confusing lol
Thx for your ideas and opinions ppl, some very interesting reading.

[Thelder]

So now I've read this I can't seem to undo it in my mind. Which now is confusing me. So much to learn and its all such a "sigular" Concept, what works for one is not necessarily how it works for another.

You are not alone in your confusion. People have been pondering these questions for hundreds of years. At least you are asking the right questions. Best wishes on your journey!