Luce wrote:Are the titles given by the GD and the titles given by AC wholly logical with regard to the astrological correspondences of each card?
Not if you mean purely and exclusively. Many different factors compose the nature of a card, and the decanate of the zodiac to which it corresponds is just one of these. Nonetheless, it is a contributor to the mix. - I think I previously referred you to my free book, Liber Theta,
which breaks these contributions down fairly minutely.
For example, does Jupiter in Gemini logically result in Oppression and Interference? Or is it just one possible interpretation?
Do not expect astrological interpretations
(if based on real observation) on astrological correspondences to Tarot
(which are theoretical-conceptual) Rather, act as if astrology doesn't exist at all, and apply your knowledge of Qabbalah to understanding the symbols. In this particular case, we see the symbol of Jupiter in its detriment, so we would expect one of the less desirable expressions of Jupiter ideas. (The dignity-debility issue works pretty consistently through Tarot, e.g., the best quality of malefics being Mars and Saturn combined with a Capricorn decanate in the 3 of Disks.) The 8 of Swords is not only attributed to the Jupiter decanate of Gemini, but also to Hod in Air.
So, Hod in Air basically means that the air component is especially bound up in the Root of Form - disciplined, constrained, leading to other common traits of the card such as indecision, lack of energy, in intellect, mental constraint, “over-trained and underqualified,” “misses the forest for the trees,” and anything else that can arise from disciplining or over-disciplining a flowing aspect of consciousness in form.
With this, we have a Jupiter decanate of Gemini. Jupiter and Gemini are of anthetical natures, so we don't expect the best of it. I think the simplest explanation is that there is a lack of proportion and overly weighing down the intellect that should be light and flitting and adaptive, e.g., through too much academic formalism.
As a bonus question, does the ToL information make logical sense with each card? Does it make sense that the watery aspect of Netzach is debauch? Is Briatic Netzaxh jusr logically debauch? Or there a bit of hammering a square peg into a round hole to make the system work?
Again, I recommend you consult Liber Theta
where each card is worked out explicitly in these terms.
Also, remember that the one-word code names are just that: an effort to reduce the most common expressions of a card to a single word. (When traditional titles had two or more words, Crowley made a point of reducing this to one word.) At root, I would express Netzach in Water as representing whatever principle is required, on the plane of Water, to attain Victory.
That pretty much means Imagination / Visualization (which is the term I . The usual expressions of the card historically seems to come from the idea of degrading this, taking only the degenerate ideas of imagination, like a Victorian attitude toward "touching oneself" and having prurient thoughts. So that's a matter not so much of whether the principle is understood correctly, as of how that principle is expressed in language.
In particular, a residual sexism in Crowley had him regard any appearance of Venus symbolism as showing moral weakness, since (obviously) women are inherently morally weak.
Therefore, he wasn't going to redeem this card - he discussed it primarily in terms of weakness.