The Infinity Symbol: A Symbolic Study
One symbol. Many places. A continuing question.
1. A Small Shape, a Larger Question
The infinity symbol is one of those images we recognize almost immediately. Two connected loops, a line that crosses itself, and no obvious beginning or end. We encounter it in mathematics, jewelry, artwork, and spiritual imagery, often accompanied by words such as eternity, continuity, or limitless possibility. It’s so familiar that we may recognize it without giving much thought to what the shape actually communicates.
In the Rider-Waite-Smith Tarot, the symbol appears above the heads of The Magician and the woman in Strength. A related figure-eight form also appears in the Two of Pentacles, where an endless cord connects the two pentacles held by the central figure. At first glance, we might assume that the same recognizable shape communicates the same idea in all three cards. After all, if infinity represents something endless, shouldn’t that meaning remain consistent wherever we find it?
But the more closely I examine these illustrations, the less convinced I am that recognizing the symbol is enough to understand what it’s doing. Above The Magician, it occupies a space apart from the tools and gestures that define the scene. In Strength, it appears above a woman engaged with a lion. In the Two of Pentacles, the continuous line becomes part of the activity itself, surrounding and connecting two objects. The shape remains recognizable, but its relationship to the surrounding imagery changes.
That brings us to the question at the center of this study: When the same symbol appears in different places, does its meaning stay the same, or does the surrounding imagery change what it communicates?
To explore that question, we’ll examine the infinity symbol’s history, look closely at its appearances in the Rider-Waite-Smith deck, investigate what Arthur Edward Waite actually wrote about it, and consider how our observations might contribute to a Tarot reading. We’ll also distinguish documented historical associations from interpretations we develop ourselves. Both can be useful, but they aren’t the same kind of evidence.
I don’t expect us to finish with one universal definition of infinity that works in every card. I’m more interested in discovering what happens when we look beyond the familiar shape and begin paying attention to its surroundings.
2. Symbol at a Glance
The familiar infinity symbol, ∞, consists of a continuous line forming two connected loops that meet at a central crossing. In mathematics, it represents infinity, a concept that requires more precision than the everyday idea of something continuing forever. Outside mathematics, the shape has acquired a wide range of associations, including eternity, enduring relationships, recurring cycles, continuity, and possibilities that appear without limit.
Those associations provide useful starting points for symbolic exploration, but they don’t all have the same historical origin. Nor do they automatically belong to every appearance of the shape.
In the Rider-Waite-Smith Tarot, three cards give us particularly interesting opportunities for comparison: The Magician, Strength, and the Two of Pentacles. Arthur Edward Waite explicitly identifies the signs above The Magician and Strength as the same sign of life. In the Two of Pentacles, he describes an endless cord connecting the two pentacles in the form of a reversed figure eight. That gives us a documented reason to examine all three images together, although Waite does not explicitly assign the Two of Pentacles ribbon every spiritual association he gives to the signs in the Major Arcana.
The distinction matters because we can recognize a shared form without assuming it performs precisely the same symbolic function in every illustration. To understand what the symbol contributes, we need to examine not only its shape but also its placement and relationship to the surrounding imagery.
There are three basic visual features worth keeping in mind as we begin. The line is continuous, the loops remain connected, and the central crossing joins the two sides of the figure. Those are observations about the form itself. Whether those features suggest cooperation, repetition, spiritual continuity, competing responsibilities, or something entirely different is an interpretive question.
For now, I’d rather keep the observations separate from the conclusions. We’ll have plenty of opportunities to investigate what they might mean once we’ve spent some time looking at the cards.
3. Before Tarot: The History of Infinity
The idea of infinity is much older than the familiar symbol we use to represent it. Long before the horizontal figure-eight became mathematical notation, philosophers and mathematicians were considering questions about endlessness, limitless extension, and processes that might continue without reaching a final point. Ancient Greek philosophy provides one important part of that history. Aristotle, for example, distinguished between potential and actual infinity, treating endless continuation differently from an infinity understood as a completed totality.
These discussions remind us that a concept can have a long intellectual history without being represented by the same symbol throughout that history. The mathematical notation ∞ is generally traced to the English mathematician John Wallis, who used it in his 1655 work De Sectionibus Conicis. His publication provides a documented point in the symbol’s mathematical history, although the precise reason he selected that particular shape remains uncertain. That uncertainty becomes important when we encounter explanations that connect the symbol to earlier images, particularly the ouroboros, without establishing a historical relationship between them.
Several explanations for the shape have been suggested over time. Some involve earlier numerical notation, while others draw attention to images that resemble a continuous loop. Such proposals are worth examining, but a plausible resemblance is not the same as evidence of historical descent. If we’re going to investigate the infinity symbol as carefully as we investigate Tarot imagery, we need to apply the same standard of observation and evidence to its history.
The distinction between a concept and its written representation is particularly important when studying symbols. Human beings could consider eternity, endlessness, and recurring processes without drawing ∞. Likewise, an image that appears continuous or circular does not necessarily carry the mathematical meaning assigned to infinity today.
When investigating the age of a symbol, it helps to ask whether a source is discussing the history of the idea, the history of a particular visual form, or the history of the meaning later attached to that form. Those histories may overlap, but they should not be treated as interchangeable.
This distinction also helps us avoid assigning modern interpretations to older imagery simply because we recognize a resemblance. An ancient image may be meaningful in its own historical context without having been intended to communicate the same concept we associate with a familiar modern symbol.
Wallis’s use of ∞ in 1655 belongs to the history of mathematical notation. It is an identifiable written use of the symbol rather than evidence that Wallis invented the philosophical concept of infinity.
His notation became established within mathematics, but the uncertainty surrounding his choice of shape is worth preserving. We can identify the documented use without claiming to know exactly what inspired it.
This is one of those places where an unanswered historical question is preferable to a tidy explanation unsupported by the available evidence. It also reminds us that the meanings symbols acquire over time may extend far beyond the circumstances in which they were first documented.
The ouroboros, traditionally depicted as a serpent or dragon consuming its own tail, is frequently compared with the infinity symbol. Both can suggest a form that returns to itself, and both have been associated with ideas involving eternity or recurrence. The ouroboros has a history in ancient Egyptian imagery and later esoteric and alchemical traditions, although its recognizable circular form is not identical to the two connected loops of the mathematical infinity sign.
There is an especially interesting connection within the Rider-Waite-Smith Tarot itself. In his description of The Magician, Waite identifies the serpent encircling the figure’s waist as a serpent consuming its own tail, associating it with eternity. Above the figure’s head, he separately describes the horizontal figure-eight as a sign of life. That places two different images associated with continuity or eternity within the same composition.
The relationship gives us something meaningful to investigate. It does not establish that the mathematical infinity sign historically developed from the ouroboros. We can compare the images and examine their associations without assuming a documented line of descent between them.
By the time the Rider-Waite-Smith deck appeared in 1909, the infinity symbol had an established mathematical history and a wider range of cultural and esoteric associations. Waite’s The Pictorial Key to the Tarot, published in 1911, provides particularly useful evidence for understanding how he presented the symbol within the deck.
His descriptions allow us to move from general historical background to specific Tarot imagery. We can identify the symbol in the illustrations, compare the language he uses for its appearances, and then examine how those appearances function within their individual scenes. The history doesn’t give us a single answer to every interpretive question, but it gives us a more reliable foundation from which to begin asking them.
4. Finding Infinity in the Tarot
Now that we’ve established something about the symbol’s history, let’s return to the cards. Place The Magician, Strength, and the Two of Pentacles beside one another. Before considering their traditional meanings, look at where the infinity form appears in each illustration and how it relates to the activity taking place.
In The Magician, the horizontal figure-eight floats above the central figure’s head. The figure stands behind a table holding the symbols of the four suits, with one arm raised and the other directed downward. The infinity symbol is visually distinct from the tools and gestures, although it contributes to the composition as a whole.
In Strength, the sign appears above the woman who interacts with the lion. Again, the symbol occupies a position above the figure rather than becoming an object she physically handles. The relationship between the woman and the animal provides the central activity of the scene, and the infinity symbol remains visually separate from that interaction.
The Two of Pentacles changes the arrangement. A person holds two pentacles, and an endless cord forms a figure-eight around them. Ships move across the waves in the background, contributing a sense of movement and changing conditions. Here, the continuous shape participates directly in the relationship between the objects, rather than occupying a position above the central figure.
Waite gives us an important documentary connection between these images. He explicitly identifies the infinity signs above The Magician and Strength as the same sign of life. He also describes the Two of Pentacles’ endless cord in terms of a reversed figure eight, although he does not explicitly give it the same sign-of-life explanation. We therefore have both a recognizable visual relationship and a historical reason to compare the illustrations.
That comparison becomes more useful when we resist treating resemblance as equivalence. The sign above a figure may contribute differently to a composition than a ribbon connecting objects. A symbol can retain recognizable associations while participating in different visual relationships, and those relationships deserve examination before we decide what they might communicate.
5. Above the Head: Strength and The Magician
The Magician and Strength provide the clearest documented connection in our study because Waite explicitly identifies their infinity signs with one another. Both appear above a central figure, yet the activities beneath them are strikingly different.
The Magician stands before a table containing the symbolic tools of the Tarot suits. His raised and lowered arms create a directional relationship within the image, while the garden and surrounding objects contribute to the scene’s larger symbolic framework. The infinity sign appears above him, separate from the objects he handles, and the composition directs our attention toward the relationship between the figure, his gestures, and the resources arranged before him.
Strength presents a woman interacting with a lion. The image directs our attention toward the relationship between the two figures, including the woman’s posture and the manner in which she approaches the animal. Waite’s discussion of Strength emphasizes spiritual fortitude rather than brute force, and he associates the lion with the passions in one aspect of his explanation. Those descriptions provide a historical basis for considering the relationship between the figures without requiring us to turn the scene into a simple contest between reason and instinct.
When we compare the cards, the shared sign gives us a point of connection, but the surrounding activities invite different questions. In The Magician, we might consider how intention, attention, and available resources are directed toward action. In Strength, we might consider the quality of an ongoing relationship with something powerful, whether an emotion, an impulse, or a difficult circumstance. These are contemporary interpretive possibilities developed through the images, not identical definitions supplied by Waite.
The Magician also contains another image associated with eternity: the serpent encircling his waist and consuming its own tail. Its presence makes the card particularly interesting because the figure-eight above his head is not the illustration’s only reference to continuity. The two images occupy different positions and take different forms, inviting us to consider how they contribute to the composition without assuming they are interchangeable.
The comparison between Strength and The Magician therefore gives us something more useful than a shared keyword. It shows how a documented symbolic relationship can remain meaningful even when the activities depicted beneath it differ. The same sign may provide common ground, while the individual scenes influence how we explore its significance.
6. The Loop in Motion: Two of Pentacles
The Two of Pentacles changes the conversation because its figure-eight is not positioned above the central figure. Instead, the endless cord becomes part of the activity itself, surrounding and connecting the two pentacles the person is holding.
There are exactly two pentacles, and that detail matters. The ribbon does not simply decorate the image. It establishes a visible relationship between the objects, crossing between them and creating a recognizable horizontal figure-eight. Behind the figure, ships travel across waves that rise and fall, adding a sense of movement and changing conditions to the scene.
Waite describes the cord as endless, but that description doesn’t require us to conclude that the figure possesses endless energy, time, or material resources. The distinction becomes particularly useful when considering the card in a reading. We might examine how two responsibilities remain connected, how attention moves between competing demands, or how ongoing adjustment allows a person to respond to changing circumstances. Yet adjustment and sustainability aren’t necessarily the same thing. Someone may continue managing two responsibilities effectively while another person, or even the same person under different circumstances, may discover that the arrangement needs reconsideration.
What makes the Two of Pentacles particularly interesting is that the endless cord participates directly in the activity. It isn’t simply positioned near the figure or above the scene. It establishes a visible relationship between the two pentacles, and removing it would change how those objects appear to relate to one another. Rather than asking only what infinity represents, we can investigate what the continuous line connects and what happens within that relationship.
The background adds another layer to the investigation. The ships and waves suggest movement beyond the central figure’s immediate activity, reminding us that the two pentacles are being handled within a larger environment. We can consider how that changing environment contributes to our understanding without assuming the card promises unlimited capacity to manage whatever comes along.
In this image, the recognizable form remains, but its placement changes the questions we can reasonably ask. That is precisely why the Two of Pentacles belongs in our study alongside The Magician and Strength.
7. One Shape, Different Relationships
Having examined the cards individually, we can now compare how the infinity symbol participates in each image. The first distinction is placement. In The Magician and Strength, the sign appears above the central figure, while in the Two of Pentacles, the endless cord surrounds two objects and becomes part of the figure’s activity.
The second distinction is physical relationship. Neither The Magician nor the woman in Strength appears to handle the sign above the head. In the Two of Pentacles, the figure-eight is visibly integrated into what the person is holding. That changes how the symbol relates to the action, even though its recognizable form remains.
The third distinction concerns the surrounding activity. The Magician’s tools and gestures, the woman’s interaction with the lion, and the movement of the Two of Pentacles all provide different contexts for interpreting the continuous form. Waite’s descriptions add another layer, giving us an explicit connection between the two Major Arcana signs and a separately documented endless cord in the Minor Arcana.
These observations don’t require us to abandon the idea of continuity. They invite us to become more specific about what may be continuing and how the image communicates that possibility. A repeated symbol can create a meaningful connection between cards without requiring the cards to tell the same story.
Three-Card Comparison
| Card | Placement | Relationship | Reading inquiry |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Magician | Above the figure | Separate from the tools and gestures | What connects intention with continued action? |
| Strength | Above the woman | Separate from the interaction with the lion | What kind of response needs to be sustained? |
| Two of Pentacles | Around the two pentacles | Physically connects the objects | What am I maintaining, and is it sustainable? |
The questions in the final column are possibilities for investigation rather than fixed meanings. They illustrate how a recognizable symbol may direct our attention toward different relationships depending on where it appears.
The Scholar’s Question: If we removed the infinity symbol from each card, which image would change most significantly for you, and why?
8. Historical and Esoteric Correspondences
The Rider-Waite-Smith Tarot emerged within a particular historical and esoteric environment. Its imagery reflects relationships with traditions that include astrology, Hebrew-letter correspondences, ceremonial symbolism, and the teachings associated with the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn.
Those systems can enrich our understanding of the cards, but we need to distinguish an established correspondence from an explanation of why a particular visual detail was included. A card may have an astrological attribution without that attribution accounting for every object, gesture, or symbol in the illustration.
The Golden Dawn developed a structured system of Tarot correspondences linking the cards with astrology, Hebrew letters, and other esoteric classifications. Waite and Pamela Colman Smith were associated with that wider esoteric environment, although the completed Rider-Waite-Smith illustrations should not be treated as a straightforward reproduction of every Golden Dawn teaching.
The correspondences provide historical context and may help explain why certain relationships became important within the deck’s interpretive tradition. They do not eliminate the need to examine Waite’s own descriptions or Smith’s completed artwork, particularly when we’re investigating a specific visual detail.
Within the Golden Dawn-derived system, The Magician is associated with Mercury and the Hebrew letter Beth. Strength is associated with Leo and the Hebrew letter Teth.
Those correspondences introduce additional symbolic frameworks through which readers may examine the cards. Mercury may direct attention toward communication, skill, and mediation within that tradition, while Leo introduces associations with the lion and the astrological framework surrounding Strength.
These relationships can be useful when comparing systems, but they should not be presented as proof that the infinity signs above the figures were included for one specific astrological reason. Waite’s explicit identification of the sign of life remains our strongest direct textual evidence for the relationship between these two cards.
The Two of Pentacles belongs to the Earth suit and carries the Golden Dawn-derived astrological attribution of Jupiter in Capricorn. That correspondence offers another way to examine the relationship between expansion, structure, practical conditions, and ongoing responsibilities within a particular interpretive tradition.
However, the astrological attribution does not prove that the endless cord was intended to communicate a specific psychological or spiritual meaning. We can consider the correspondence alongside the image while keeping the two kinds of evidence distinct.
The resemblance between the numeral 8 and the horizontal infinity sign is familiar enough that it can be tempting to treat them as variations of the same symbol. Historically and mathematically, however, they are not interchangeable. The numeral represents a number, while ∞ is used to express infinity in mathematical contexts.
Within Waite’s Tarot commentary, the relationship becomes more interesting. In his description of The Magician, Waite explicitly discusses the sign of life in connection with the number eight, drawing on religious and esoteric associations. We therefore have a documented numerical association within his own interpretation rather than a connection invented entirely by later readers.
Strength’s position at VIII introduces a separate historical question. The Rider-Waite-Smith deck follows the Golden Dawn-associated arrangement in which Strength occupies VIII and Justice XI, reversing their positions in many earlier Tarot sequences. Waite acknowledges this change but does not disclose his reasoning for it.
Consequently, although we can investigate the relationship between the number eight, the sign of life, and Strength’s placement, we cannot confidently claim that the card was assigned VIII specifically because the numeral resembles the infinity symbol. This distinction allows us to appreciate the numerical symbolism Waite actually discusses without turning an appealing visual relationship into an unsupported historical explanation.
Using Correspondences Without Losing the Image
Historical and esoteric correspondences can deepen a Tarot study, particularly when we understand the system from which they come. But they should not replace the act of looking at the card.
A correspondence may provide context, while Waite’s writing may document a particular association. The illustration itself still presents relationships that deserve examination on their own terms. I find the most useful approach is to allow those different sources to inform one another without insisting that they must always produce a single explanation.
9. Infinity in a Tarot Reading
Recognizing a symbol and understanding its historical associations are useful parts of Tarot study. But when a card appears in an actual reading, another question emerges: Does that knowledge help us understand the situation we’re examining?
We’ve already seen that the infinity symbol occupies different positions and relationships in The Magician, Strength, and the Two of Pentacles. Rather than repeating those comparisons, we can now consider how they might influence the questions we ask.
The symbol doesn’t need to become a fixed keyword. It can instead draw our attention toward something continuing, recurring, or remaining connected, provided that possibility makes sense within the card and the reading itself.
Suppose I’m examining a project that has required considerable time and attention. The Magician appears. I might notice the tools arranged before the figure, the deliberate gestures, and the infinity symbol above his head. Rather than interpreting the symbol as a promise of unlimited ability, I might ask what needs to remain consistent between my intentions and my actions. Do I have the necessary resources? Am I using them deliberately? Is there something I keep intending to do without following through?
Now imagine Strength appearing in response to a question about a difficult personal situation. The scene has changed, and the woman is engaged with the lion rather than directing tools or performing a deliberate gesture between heaven and earth. Here, I might consider whether the situation calls for an ongoing quality of response rather than one decisive action. What am I trying to manage? How am I responding to something powerful or uncomfortable? Am I confusing strength with the need to force an immediate result?
The Two of Pentacles introduces another possibility. If I’m examining competing responsibilities, the figure-eight cord connecting the pentacles might draw my attention toward the relationship between those demands. What am I trying to maintain simultaneously? Is the arrangement sustainable, or am I repeatedly adjusting without reconsidering it?
These examples aren’t universal meanings assigned to the infinity symbol. They’re possibilities that emerge when we examine the symbol alongside the rest of the illustration and the question being asked. In The Magician, continuity might draw our attention toward the relationship between intention and follow-through. In Strength, it might encourage reflection on the quality of an ongoing response. In the Two of Pentacles, it may lead us to consider what we’re maintaining and whether the arrangement remains workable. None of those possibilities should override the context of the reading.
We also need to remember that continuity isn’t automatically beneficial simply because something lasts. A pattern may continue because it is useful, meaningful, or necessary, but it may also persist because we haven’t recognized it or reconsidered the circumstances that keep producing it. The infinity symbol doesn’t tell us which interpretation applies. It gives us another way to investigate the situation, including the possibility that the most useful question isn’t how to keep something going, but whether it should continue in its present form.
That distinction becomes especially important when we’re examining responsibilities, relationships, or situations involving limited time and energy. An endless symbol should never be treated as a promise of unlimited personal capacity, and it certainly shouldn’t become an argument that someone must continue indefinitely. We can recognize the imagery’s association with continuity while remaining attentive to the practical conditions of the question.
When a Tarot card is physically reversed, its entire illustration is turned upside down. Because a horizontal figure-eight is approximately symmetrical under a half-turn, its basic shape remains recognizable. That observation is interesting, but it doesn’t establish a special historical rule for interpreting reversed infinity symbols.
I wouldn’t automatically conclude that infinity has become blocked, broken, or negative simply because the card is reversed. The symbol is still present, and its continuous form hasn’t disappeared. Instead, I would begin with my usual approach to reversals and then consider whether the symbol adds something to the inquiry.
A reversed Magician might prompt questions about the relationship between intention and action. A reversed Strength might lead me to examine the quality of my response to pressure. A reversed Two of Pentacles might raise questions about the sustainability of continuing adjustments. Those are possible avenues of reflection, not predetermined reversed meanings, and another reader or another question could support a different interpretation.
Reversal changes how we approach the card within our chosen reading method. It does not require us to invent a completely new meaning for every individual symbol.
Suppose The Magician and Strength appear together. We already know Waite explicitly connects their infinity signs, so rather than treating both cards as separate collections of keywords, we might investigate the relationship between their different activities. Together, they could invite a question about the difference between directing an effort and sustaining a thoughtful response when that effort encounters difficulty.
The Magician alongside the Two of Pentacles might lead us to examine the relationship between intention and practical management. What am I trying to accomplish, and what ongoing arrangements are necessary to support it? Strength and the Two of Pentacles offer another comparison, potentially encouraging reflection on how we respond internally while managing demands externally.
These relationships remain possibilities rather than predetermined messages. Repeated symbols are worth noticing, especially when the cards themselves support a meaningful connection, but they should not override the spread positions, the original question, or other imagery that may be more relevant.
The more I investigate Tarot symbolism, the less interested I become in turning every visual detail into another definition to memorize. There is value in knowing traditional associations, and Waite’s identification of the sign of life provides an important historical foundation. But neither the historical explanation nor the familiar mathematical association removes the need to look carefully at the particular card.
In a reading, I would rather use the infinity symbol as an invitation to investigate continuity than as a shortcut to an answer. What is continuing? What is connected? What keeps returning? Is something being sustained deliberately, or simply repeated out of habit? And perhaps most importantly, is that line of inquiry actually relevant to the question being asked?
If it isn’t, I can leave the symbol where it belongs: as one detail within a larger image.
10. The Symbol Lab: Following the Endless Line
We’ve spent quite a bit of time examining the infinity symbol, tracing its history, and considering how it appears in The Magician, Strength, and the Two of Pentacles. Now it’s time to put some of that research aside for a moment and return to the images themselves.
One of the most useful things we can do when studying Tarot symbolism is deliberately interrupt our usual way of looking at a card. Once we’ve learned that a particular image represents something, we tend to recognize it and move along. But recognizing something isn’t necessarily the same as understanding it.
The following experiments are designed to help us look again. You don’t need to arrive at a particular interpretation, and you certainly don’t need to agree with mine. Discovering that an earlier association doesn’t hold up under closer examination is a useful result. If you have a Rider-Waite-Smith deck, bring out The Magician, Strength, and the Two of Pentacles. A notebook may also be helpful.
The only rule for our Symbol Lab is to begin with what you can actually see.
For our first experiment, we’re going to remove the Tarot cards from the investigation entirely. Draw a large infinity symbol on a sheet of paper. It doesn’t need to be perfectly symmetrical, and you don’t need any particular artistic ability.
Follow the line from one loop through the central crossing, around the second loop, and back again. Notice how your attention moves. Does one side appear more prominent? Does the crossing point draw your attention? Does the shape feel like two separate parts joined together, or one continuous movement?
Try drawing the symbol again, this time slowly and without lifting your pencil. Notice whether the experience of drawing it changes how you understand its form. Before assigning a symbolic meaning, write down three things you can observe about the shape itself.
Then consider what associations arise. You might think about continuity, repetition, connection, or something else entirely. The important distinction is recognizing which observations come directly from the drawing and which meanings you are bringing to it.
Questions to explore: What can I observe without interpreting? Which associations arise from the shape? Which come from things I’ve previously learned? Does drawing the symbol change how I understand it?
What we’re testing: Whether our understanding begins with visual structure or with meanings we’ve already attached to it.
Place The Magician and Strength beside one another. Examine each card as a complete image, noticing the figures, gestures, surrounding objects, and activities.
Now imagine that the infinity symbol above each figure has been removed. You don’t need to alter your cards. Simply cover the symbol temporarily with a small piece of paper or imagine the image without it.
Look at The Magician again. The figure still raises one arm and points downward with the other. The tools remain on the table, and the garden is still present. What, if anything, feels different?
Repeat the process with Strength. The woman remains beside the lion, and their interaction is unchanged, yet the sign of life that Waite explicitly identifies is no longer visible. Does removing the symbol change how you understand either image, or do the cards communicate much the same ideas without it?
There isn’t a correct answer waiting to be discovered. We’re testing how much interpretive weight the symbol carries within each composition.
Questions to explore: What remains meaningful without the symbol? Does its absence alter the mood or interpretation? Is it central to my reading, or does it reinforce something already present?
What we’re testing: Whether the symbol introduces a distinct layer of meaning or primarily supports the larger visual narrative.
Begin with the Two of Pentacles. Look carefully at the ribbon connecting the two pentacles, noticing where it crosses, how it surrounds the objects, and how it relates to the figure’s hands.
Imagine removing the ribbon and placing a small infinity symbol above the figure’s head instead. The two pentacles remain, but the visible connection between them has disappeared. The infinity symbol is still present, although it now occupies a position more like the one in Strength and The Magician.
What changes? Does the image still communicate the same relationship between the objects? Does the symbol seem to describe something about the person rather than the activity?
Next, reverse the experiment. Imagine taking the infinity symbol from above The Magician and incorporating its continuous line into the arrangement of tools on the table. Would that change which objects or relationships receive your attention?
This experiment is deliberately hypothetical. We aren’t attempting to reconstruct the artist’s intentions or suggest that the original images should have been designed differently.
Questions to explore: What changes when the symbol moves? Does meaning seem to follow its shape, its position, or both? Which relationships become more noticeable?
What we’re testing: Whether the symbol’s meaning depends only on its recognizable form or also on its relationship to other elements.
Choose something you’re currently considering. It doesn’t need to be a major decision or an emotionally complicated situation. A question about a project, recurring responsibility, or something you’ve been trying to understand will work just fine.
Write the question down before drawing any cards. Shuffle your deck and draw one card using your usual method, beginning by examining the card as a whole without looking specifically for the infinity symbol. Record your first observations and the interpretation you would ordinarily consider.
If your card is The Magician, Strength, or the Two of Pentacles, examine the infinity symbol or endless cord and consider whether it adds anything useful to your reading. If you draw another card, that’s useful too. Don’t force an infinity connection into an image that doesn’t contain one. Instead, you can deliberately choose one of our three study cards as a comparison and ask whether its treatment of continuity offers a relevant perspective.
A symbol can suggest an interesting question without necessarily providing the most useful interpretation. Once you’ve finished, return to your original notes. Did the infinity symbol deepen your understanding, change your interpretation, or simply confirm something you had already noticed?
And if it contributed nothing useful, record that as well.
Questions to explore: What did I notice before considering the symbol? Did it introduce a useful question? Was my interpretation supported by the image and the original question?
What we’re testing: Whether focused symbolic study improves the quality of a reading without encouraging us to impose meaning where it doesn’t belong.
After completing the experiments, return to your notes and look for differences between what you expected and what you observed. Perhaps the infinity symbol feels more significant above The Magician than above Strength. Perhaps the Two of Pentacles became more interesting once you examined the ribbon as a connection between objects rather than simply a sign of endlessness. You might also find that some proposed relationships don’t hold up when you examine the cards closely.
All of those are useful observations because the purpose of the Symbol Lab isn’t to prove that the infinity symbol means continuity, balance, eternity, or anything else in every situation. It’s to develop a more deliberate way of investigating symbols, distinguishing what the image contains from what we believe it communicates.
The Scholar’s Question: After examining the infinity symbol in several different ways, which of your original assumptions became stronger, and which ones deserve another look?
11. A Psychological Lens: What Continues, and Why?
Our reading examples introduced an important distinction: something can continue because we deliberately sustain it, or it can repeat because we’ve developed a familiar way of responding. That distinction is worth exploring beyond any particular Tarot reading.
The infinity symbol doesn’t explain how habits form or why people repeat certain behaviors. But its continuous shape offers a useful visual metaphor for examining what we maintain, what we revisit, and what might change when we become more attentive to our responses.
The Magician: Intention Is Not the Same as Action
It’s possible to have a clear intention without following through. We can make plans, gather resources, develop strategies, and imagine the results we hope to achieve. None of those activities necessarily guarantees that the intended action will occur.
Sometimes planning is part of meaningful progress. Other times, it becomes an activity we repeat because taking the next step involves uncertainty. That raises an interesting question about continuity: What exactly are we sustaining? Are we maintaining our attention long enough to move an intention into action, or are we continually returning to the beginning of the process, preparing to do something we’ve never quite started?
The infinity symbol doesn’t distinguish between those possibilities. The surrounding imagery and the question we’re exploring must help us do that. For me, this is where The Magician becomes more interesting than a simple statement about unlimited potential. The card invites an examination of how intention, available resources, and deliberate activity relate to one another.
Strength: The Patterns Within Our Responses
Strength offers a useful opportunity to reflect on how we respond to powerful experiences, particularly those involving emotion, instinct, frustration, or uncertainty. We all develop familiar ways of responding to situations, and those responses may be influenced by earlier experiences, repeated circumstances, or habits of attention.
When something difficult happens, we may recognize that we’re reacting in a familiar way. Perhaps we become defensive, withdraw, try to control the situation, or rush toward a solution before we’ve fully understood the problem. Those responses may have developed through earlier experiences, repeated circumstances, or habits of attention. Recognizing them doesn’t necessarily mean we’re destined to repeat them, but it does give us an opportunity to consider whether our usual response is appropriate to the situation we’re facing.
This is where I find the image of Strength particularly useful for reflection. The woman is engaged with the lion rather than simply ignoring it, and the scene allows us to consider what it might mean to acknowledge a powerful response without automatically acting upon it. That doesn’t mean every difficult emotion should be subdued or that thoughtful responding must always look gentle and quiet. Sometimes an appropriate response involves setting a firm boundary, taking decisive action, or removing ourselves from a situation. The more interesting question is whether we’re responding deliberately or simply repeating what feels familiar.
Seen this way, the infinity symbol might invite reflection on the ongoing nature of that practice. Awareness isn’t necessarily something we achieve once and possess permanently. We may need to return to it repeatedly, especially when circumstances change.
Two of Pentacles: When Adjustment Becomes a Pattern
There are times when adapting is exactly what a situation requires. Responsibilities change, priorities shift, and unexpected demands interrupt our plans. Being able to respond flexibly can be useful, but there’s a difference between adapting to changing circumstances and continually maintaining an arrangement that no longer works.
We might find ourselves moving responsibilities around, rearranging schedules, or trying to keep several competing commitments functioning. Each adjustment may solve an immediate problem without addressing the larger situation. The infinity symbol offers an interesting visual comparison because the cord continues around both pentacles, keeping their relationship connected even as the figure moves.
That might prompt us to ask whether we’re maintaining something deliberately or simply keeping it in motion because we’ve become accustomed to doing so. It’s important not to turn that question into a judgment. People often operate within circumstances they cannot easily change, and ongoing adjustment may be necessary rather than avoidable. The image doesn’t tell us that we should stop juggling responsibilities. It gives us a way to examine what we’re maintaining, why we’re maintaining it, and whether another response is possible.
Repetition Is Not Always Stagnation
One assumption worth challenging is that returning to something means we’ve failed to move forward. Learning frequently involves repetition. We practice a skill, revisit an idea, encounter a familiar difficulty, and discover that our understanding has changed. The circumstances may resemble something we’ve experienced before, but we aren’t necessarily approaching them with exactly the same knowledge or perspective.
When a familiar situation returns, we might ask whether we’re repeating an established response or approaching it with something we’ve learned. Are we noticing details that previously escaped our attention? Are we making different choices? Or are we discovering that a familiar strategy continues to be appropriate? Change doesn’t always require abandoning a pattern. Sometimes it involves understanding why we repeat it and choosing whether to continue.
The Difference Between Continuity and Being Stuck
Continuity can be valuable. We depend on it when developing relationships, practicing skills, pursuing long-term goals, and maintaining commitments. But continuity isn’t automatically beneficial simply because it lasts.
An ongoing project may reflect dedication, or it may need a different approach. A familiar emotional response may be protective in one situation and unhelpful in another. A recurring responsibility may be meaningful, exhausting, necessary, or some combination of all three. The infinity symbol cannot make those distinctions for us, and we shouldn’t automatically interpret endlessness as a promise that something will continue forever or treat repetition as evidence that someone is trapped.
Instead, we can examine the particular circumstances and ask what kind of continuity we’re observing. These possibilities develop from the cards’ imagery and our reflective questions. They aren’t diagnoses, predictions, or universal psychological definitions.
Perhaps the most valuable question isn’t whether the line ever ends. It’s whether we understand what keeps us following it.
12. The Scholar’s Notes: What We Know, What We Infer, and What Remains Open
One of the challenges of studying Tarot symbolism is that the more connections we discover, the easier it becomes to assume they must all belong to the same explanation. A mathematical symbol resembles an ancient image. A Tarot card carries a number that looks like the symbol when turned sideways. Two cards share a visual detail, while a third contains a similar shape in an entirely different arrangement. Before long, we can construct a rather impressive collection of relationships, but a collection of relationships isn’t necessarily a history.
Throughout this study, we’ve worked with several kinds of evidence. We’ve examined what appears in the Rider-Waite-Smith illustrations, consulted Waite’s written descriptions, considered established esoteric correspondences, and developed our own interpretations through observation. Each approach has something to contribute, and the important thing is knowing which one we’re using.
People were considering endlessness, eternity, and infinite processes long before the horizontal figure-eight became a familiar mathematical sign. Ancient philosophical discussions provide historical context, but they do not establish that the modern symbol was already being used with the same meaning.
Wallis’s documented use in 1655 provides a more specific point in the development of the notation, although the precise reason for his choice remains uncertain. When someone claims that a symbol is thousands of years old, we should ask whether they mean the particular image, the idea it represents, or an older image that happens to resemble it. Those are different historical claims, and distinguishing them allows us to investigate the symbol without assigning a history it may not possess.
The ouroboros is frequently discussed alongside the infinity symbol because both images can suggest continuity or recurrence. The comparison becomes especially interesting in The Magician, where Waite describes a serpent consuming its own tail around the figure’s waist while separately discussing the sign of life above the head.
The two images coexist in the same Tarot composition, and Waite gives us reason to examine their associations with eternity and continuity. However, their coexistence does not establish that one historically developed into the other. Nor should we assume that their different visual forms communicate precisely the same thing.
Comparing the images may help us investigate ideas about cycles and endlessness. It does not require us to invent a shared origin.
Waite’s The Pictorial Key to the Tarot provides some of our most valuable evidence. In The Magician, he identifies the horizontal figure-eight above the figure as a sign of life. In Strength, he explicitly identifies the corresponding symbol as the same sign of life, establishing a direct textual connection between the two Major Arcana cards.
In the Two of Pentacles, Waite describes the ribbon connecting the pentacles as an endless cord resembling a reversed figure eight. The relationship is therefore more substantial than a resemblance noticed by modern readers, because Waite himself recognizes and describes the endless form.
But his description does not explicitly identify the Two of Pentacles ribbon as the same sign of life discussed in The Magician and Strength. We have three relevant appearances and a direct identification between two of them. That is already a substantial foundation for inquiry without assigning identical meanings where the historical source does not do so.
The resemblance between the Arabic numeral 8 and the horizontal infinity sign invites comparison, particularly because Strength occupies position VIII in the Rider-Waite-Smith deck. Waite himself discusses a connection between the sign of life and the number eight in his description of The Magician, so we have a documented numerical association within his commentary.
However, the question of why Strength occupies VIII is separate. Waite acknowledges the exchanged positions of Strength and Justice without disclosing his reasons. We can investigate the numerical relationship as part of the deck’s esoteric context, but we should not claim that Strength was assigned VIII specifically because of the symbol’s shape.
The Rider-Waite-Smith Tarot was created through the collaboration of Arthur Edward Waite and Pamela Colman Smith. Waite supplied the project’s esoteric direction, while Smith created the illustrations that give the deck much of its distinctive visual character.
When studying an individual symbol, it can be tempting to describe every detail as something Waite deliberately instructed Smith to include. It can be equally tempting to attribute every artistic choice entirely to Smith. The historical record does not always allow us to make either claim confidently.
Waite’s published explanations help establish how he presented certain symbols to readers. Smith’s illustrations show how those symbols appear within the completed compositions. But neither source necessarily reveals the full decision-making process behind every detail, and we can examine the resulting imagery without pretending to know precisely how every design choice was made.
The purpose of these distinctions isn’t to make Tarot symbolism less imaginative. Careful research makes the exploration more interesting because it gives us a clearer understanding of where the evidence ends and our questions begin.
We can appreciate the infinity symbol’s mathematical history without treating it as the source of every spiritual interpretation. We can examine its resemblance to the ouroboros without claiming a direct historical lineage. We can recognize Waite’s explicit connection between Strength and The Magician while remaining curious about the endless cord in the Two of Pentacles.
And we can develop our own interpretations, provided we’re clear that they are interpretations. A thoughtful symbolic study doesn’t require certainty about everything. Sometimes the most useful conclusion is that a relationship deserves further investigation.
The Scholar’s Question: When you discover an appealing symbolic connection, what would you need to find before treating it as historical evidence rather than an interpretation?
13. Your Symbol Journal: Following What Changed
By this point, we’ve done quite a bit of investigating. We’ve examined the infinity symbol on its own, compared its appearances across three cards, consulted historical sources, and tested whether our observations contribute anything useful to a reading.
Now I’d like to consider what changed during that process.
This isn’t another exercise in finding the symbol or developing an interpretation. The Symbol Lab gave us space to experiment with the imagery. Our journal gives us somewhere to preserve what we discovered, what we questioned, and what we may want to investigate later.
You don’t need to record everything. Sometimes one observation that changed your understanding is more valuable than several pages of notes that simply repeat what you’ve already read.
What I Noticed
Begin by returning to the three cards: The Magician, Strength, and the Two of Pentacles. Look at them together, preferably without reviewing the interpretations we’ve developed throughout this article. Give yourself a moment to notice which image attracts your attention and which details now seem more significant than they did at the beginning.
Perhaps you’re more aware of the infinity symbol’s position above The Magician and Strength. Perhaps the Two of Pentacles ribbon stands out because it physically connects two separate objects. You may even notice something we haven’t discussed. Record those observations before explaining what you think they mean, allowing yourself to distinguish what you’re seeing from the associations that arise.
What I Learned
Next, consider whether any of the historical research changed your understanding. You may have been familiar with the mathematical infinity symbol without knowing about Wallis’s documented use of it in 1655. You may have recognized the sign above Strength and The Magician without knowing that Waite explicitly connects them. Or perhaps the description of the Two of Pentacles ribbon as an endless cord provided a historical connection you hadn’t previously considered.
Which discoveries made a difference? There’s no need to summarize everything we’ve covered. Choose one or two things that genuinely changed how you look at the symbol, including any distinction between documented evidence and interpretation that now feels more important to you.
What I Questioned
During a symbolism study, we’re likely to encounter ideas that sound convincing but don’t quite satisfy our curiosity. We might recognize a relationship without understanding its origin, or notice a visual similarity that seems significant even though we cannot establish what the artist intended.
Those uncertainties don’t need to be resolved immediately. Perhaps you’re still wondering whether the two loops suggest a relationship between opposing forces. Maybe you’re curious about the visual resemblance between Strength’s VIII and the infinity sign. Or perhaps you’re questioning whether the symbol’s association with endlessness is actually useful in every reading.
Write down the questions without feeling obligated to answer them. A good research question can remain open for quite some time.
What I Want to Explore Next
Finally, consider where your curiosity wants to go. You might want to compare these three cards in another Tarot deck and see whether the infinity symbols are retained, modified, or omitted. Perhaps you’d like to examine how another artist depicts continuity without using a figure-eight at all.
You may also want to return to one of the cards during an actual reading and observe whether the symbol contributes something different when the question changes. Or perhaps this study has drawn your attention toward another recurring Tarot image entirely.
The purpose isn’t to create a long research assignment. It’s simply to recognize which questions are worth carrying forward.
Leave Room for Another Understanding
The infinity symbol gives us an appropriate image for that possibility. We can return to a familiar subject without necessarily returning to the same understanding. I wouldn’t claim that the symbol itself promises growth or transformation, but it does offer a useful reminder that our investigation doesn’t have to end simply because we’ve reached the final pages of an article.
The Scholar’s Question: If you returned to these three cards six months from now, what would you want to remember about how you understood the infinity symbol today?
14. Returning to the Question: What Does Infinity Mean in Tarot?
We began this study with a familiar shape and what seemed like a fairly simple question. The infinity symbol represents something endless, but what happens when that same recognizable form appears in different places throughout the Tarot? Initially, I thought the answer might be a matter of identifying what infinity represents and applying that meaning to each card. Yet the closer we examined The Magician, Strength, and the Two of Pentacles, the more interesting their differences became.
Our historical research gave us a foundation that was more specific than the general associations we often encounter in modern Tarot discussions. We traced the documented mathematical use of ∞ to John Wallis in 1655, while recognizing that the precise inspiration for his choice of shape remains uncertain. We also examined Waite’s descriptions in The Pictorial Key to the Tarot, where he explicitly identifies the infinity signs above The Magician and Strength as the same sign of life and separately describes the endless cord connecting the Two of Pentacles. Those sources establish meaningful relationships between the images, but they don’t require us to assign precisely the same spiritual or psychological meaning to every appearance.
What I found most interesting was how much the symbol’s placement contributes to the conversation. Above The Magician and Strength, the sign occupies a space apart from the immediate activity. In the Two of Pentacles, the endless cord becomes part of the relationship between the objects being handled. We can recognize continuity in the shape itself, but the illustrations offer different ways to examine what that continuity might involve. Another reader may notice different relationships or find that the symbol contributes very little to a particular reading. That doesn’t invalidate the investigation. It reminds us that symbolism belongs to a larger visual and interpretive process.
If I encountered the infinity symbol in a Tarot card tomorrow, I don’t think I would begin by assigning it the word eternityand moving on. I’d probably begin by examining where it appears, what surrounds it, and how it relates to the activity taking place. Then I would consider the historical associations and traditional interpretations that might help me understand the image. That doesn’t mean abandoning familiar meanings. Infinity, eternity, and continuity remain relevant associations, but I would treat them as starting points rather than complete explanations.
So, does the infinity symbol mean the same thing everywhere it appears in the Rider-Waite-Smith Tarot? I don’t think the evidence supports such a simple answer. Our investigation revealed something more useful than three additional definitions to memorize. We found a recognizable symbol whose relationship to the surrounding imagery changes from card to card, alongside historical evidence that establishes some connections more clearly than others. We can begin with what we recognize, examine what the image actually contains, consult the historical sources, and remain open to interpretations without insisting that every question has been settled.
The infinity symbol hasn’t changed shape during our investigation. What has changed is how carefully we’re looking at it. We began with something we recognized and leave with something we understand a little more thoughtfully, along with a few questions that remain open. For a symbol associated with something that continues, that seems an appropriate place to finish.
The Scholar’s Question: The next time you recognize a familiar symbol in a Tarot card, will you stop at what you know it represents, or will you look a little longer to see what it’s doing?
15. Continue the Study: One Symbol Leads to Another
One of the things I’ve discovered while studying Tarot symbolism is that examining one detail often draws my attention toward something else in the same image. We began with the infinity symbol above the woman in Strength, but that symbol doesn’t exist in isolation. Beneath it, the woman interacts with a lion, and their relationship contributes to how we understand the entire scene. That gives us another question worth investigating: What happens when we follow the lion into other Tarot cards?
The lion appears in different visual and symbolic relationships throughout the Rider-Waite-Smith deck. Sometimes it is an animal within a scene. Elsewhere, it appears as part of a throne’s decoration or within the symbolic imagery associated with the fixed signs of the zodiac. Recognizing the lion is relatively easy, but understanding what its presence contributes to each card requires us to examine its placement, surrounding imagery, and historical associations. It’s the same approach we’ve practiced with the infinity symbol.
If you’d like to continue that investigation, our Lion Symbolism Deep Dive examines the lion across the Tarot, beginning with the animal itself rather than treating Strength as the definition of every lion that follows. You can also explore our growing Symbolism Deep Dives collection, where we examine recurring Tarot imagery through observation, historical research, comparison, and practical reading questions.
The next time a familiar symbol catches your attention, consider following it into another card before deciding what it means. You may find that the most interesting discovery isn’t a new definition, but a relationship you hadn’t noticed before.
16. References & Further Study
The following sources provide the historical and esoteric foundations for this study. They are organized to help readers distinguish original materials from later research and supplementary reading.
Our principal Tarot source is Arthur Edward Waite’s The Pictorial Key to the Tarot, particularly his descriptions of The Magician, Strength, and the Two of Pentacles. For the mathematical history of ∞, John Wallis’s 1655 publication provides an important primary reference.
The Golden Dawn materials offer context for the esoteric correspondences discussed earlier in the article. These sources belong to a particular historical tradition and should not be treated as proof of every artistic decision in the Rider-Waite-Smith deck.
Primary Sources
Waite, Arthur Edward. The Pictorial Key to the Tarot. Illustrations from designs by Pamela Colman Smith. London: William Rider & Son, 1911.
Our principal source for Waite’s descriptions of the sign of life, the endless cord, and the relevant Tarot imagery.
Wallis, John. De Sectionibus Conicis, Nova Methodo Expositis, Tractatus. 1655.
A primary mathematical source documenting Wallis’s use of ∞.
Historical and Mathematical Research
O’Connor, J. J., and E. F. Robertson. “John Wallis.” MacTutor History of Mathematics Archive, University of St Andrews.
Historical and biographical context for Wallis and his mathematical contributions.
O’Connor, J. J., and E. F. Robertson. “Infinity.” MacTutor History of Mathematics Archive, University of St Andrews.
Supplementary context for the history of infinity as a mathematical and philosophical concept.
Tarot and Esoteric Sources
Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. “Book T.” Published in The Equinox, Volume I, Number 8, 1912.
A historical source for Golden Dawn Tarot attributions and their interpretive framework.
Regardie, Israel. The Golden Dawn: A Complete Course in Practical Ceremonial Magic. Sixth edition. Llewellyn Publications, 1989.
Supplementary reading on Golden Dawn teachings and their system of correspondences.
A Note About Interpretation
The sources above provide historical context for the infinity symbol and its Tarot associations. Our discussions of recurring personal patterns, conscious response, and practical adjustment are contemporary interpretive explorations rather than documented historical meanings or established psychological conclusions.
Readers are encouraged to consult the original materials, compare the illustrations for themselves, and remain curious about questions the sources do not conclusively answer.