Method for Interpreting Decks With Scenic Minors

ravenest

firemaiden said:
Howdy pardner, I resemble that remark. It seems to me the six of cups thread in question was a bar-brawl in which I participated. "Them's fighting words", as we say in French. Furthermore, yes, concocting "random [but not ill-formed] meanings from mixing symbols" is fun. Fantastic fun, and sometimes produces powerful readings.

Key-words are "random" and "concocting", though I call it "free-associating" - and while it appears random, because we cannot trace the circuit of synapse sparks in the squiggles of brain, the throught-process is probably quite linear.

Even if deck creators embrace a long tradition of card meanings, I'm sure you'll agree that the inspiration of the moment, the influence of the surrounding cards, the spread positions, and the question all colour how we "read" the card.

The beauty of the method proposed by TarotVerbatim (even if we might be afraid of oversimplifying) is that it encourages reading a fistful of cards as one idea: each piece of painted cardboard offers up a word or phrase, contributing to a whole sentence (or paragraph).
Particularly with art-decks, which are sometimes spilling-over with self-conscious "I-am-a-Symbol" symbols, the method of looking for common elements between cards can help reduce the "noise". And I would not just bring up the common themes, but also the way the cards reflect, reverse, or answer each other.

Petit exemple : the Spiral Tarot offers on the Devil card: a coiled stripey-green snake, a hairy female goat-devil with horns standing amid flames, a trident, two pale-blue slave-people in chains holding up a mirror reflecting a screaming woman (growing horns) and a bunch of letters and symbols from various mystical alphabets (and the kitchen sink...). (I love the Spiral tarot, the colours are so pretty, but it is hyper-active) - what are you going to do with that in a reading ? [Youuuu will be seized by daaaaaaark forces .... you are loosing your miiiiiind .... bewaaaaaare the snaaaaake ... stay away from mirrors .....]

But ... okay, the NEXT card is the High Priestess -- serious symbolic overkill again: in another seething stew of biblical, Greek, Roman and Cabalistic clichés we have the three-headed hound-of-hell (Cerberus), the watery-robed dame amidst the temple pillars, one hand resting on the head of (Solomon? Caesar); the see-ers flaming cauldron; the word "tora" in a scroll on her lap, the inevitable pomegranate tapestry draped behind her, not to mention the magical alphabet letters, etc. What are you going to do with that ? ["Yoooou are a deeeeeep thinker .... beware the hound of hell ... ]

But if you put together the two cards however, there are some lovely coincidences and reflections: the HP shows entrances to other places (Cerberus is the guardian of the underworld, the HP guards the entrance (or the exit) to the temple of Solomon) while Devil shows a place where one is entrenched and enchained. The Devil stands on a red lawn of fire, the HP is clothed in water. The Devil holds up a mirror of a screaming women, while the HP shows a calm face, but her face glows as though lit by the flames of her cauldron. Is the mirror the Devil holds reflecting the reverse image of the HP ? Is the HP lit by the flames of hell ? She is the medium, unchained, exactly between wisdom and madness.

The interpretive possibilities are of course endless, however nothing will make sense unless you have a question to frame it : a.k.a. "why am I going mad ?" - possible answer: too much contemplation of self in mirror, too much scrying in fire, brings you into your own personal descent into Dante's inferno. Maybe try turning outward for a change).

On the other hand if the question was "why did my house burn down" you might read : because you left the oil-lamp burning while you were walking the dog.

Or, if the person asked : what's up for me next ? You might answer : where's Hercules* ? Watch out, kids, you are about to have your "head bitten off". Etc.
[*subduer of Cerberus]

Thanks for the idea that one card in a reading modifies another .... I would never have thought of that !

Teheuti

Yes, firemaiden's description of this approach is excellent. I wish we had LIKE buttons!

gregory

ravenest said:
Thanks for the idea that one card in a reading modifies another .... I would never have thought of that !

Seriously ? It never occurred to me that they didn't.

ravenest

Caution - non toxic material within.

aurafields said:
...
Criticising is not debating. It is attacking someones view, not questioning it. Who are we to critisize? And, what validates another to demean someones take on a reading in the first place. You would find if difficult to find anyone more interested than I am on hearing and seeing the views and opinions of others laid out for discussion.

I still dont see what the big deal is ? Take this example;

You: "It's always been, since the beginning of its use, a tool which uses visual symbols to help readers who practice to open "their" abilities to perceive archetypal meanings. "

Me; "Sorry, tarot decks haven't been like that 'since the beginning of their use'.

I cant see the great big problem with a comment like that .... I think the issue could be, I have been around here a long time, so have a lot of others here. We have seen and been involved in lots of discussions on the origin and history of tarot ... also, the same dynamic (been around a while) applies to peoples styles of reading and where they come from.

After a while it is quiet boring to say the same things over and over, to put up the references and have a handy list of links to other threads where the history of tarot has been thrashed out. Sorry , I'm not going to do that.... I will just say, sorry thats wrong, you could ask why .... then I might be blunt and say; because it used to be card game.

The same with my reading style ... and I will add here that I am a bit confused about all this

Dont most people here read a card in a reading in context and modulation with the other cards in a reading ? I am sure I have been reading about that for years here ... and writing it ... my first ever goes with a Tarot deck that seemed to make sense to do that, all of a sudden it seems as if some people think this is a new thing and some are explaining it to me in detail as if I dont get it

aurafields said:
I never said "Tarot is this and nothing else".

That was a response to you saying ; " The Tarot is always the subconscious working through conscious awareness at whatever level we are on. "

I answered that quiet clearly and untoxically on post 15.

I am not going to go through it all again, as it is clearly set out in my posts, the points I brought up you didnt answer did you ... you just went off on a long giant paragraph reacting to it instead of addressing the issues. anyway, I am not going to re-hash. Its up there for you to read again or ask me questions about any of it.

aurafields said:
I have stated time and again that Tarot cards in general hold many meanings for readers and querents alike, and that the subconsciouss mind of any reader will in fact adopt the archetypes as its own, making one meaning stand out as a personal reference more than others for that reader. It's okay if you don't agree with my view here, it really doesn't bother me at all.

I think this is misunderstood, I was responding to the statement you made that " The Tarot is always " .... it isnt always that, people read it differently in different ways. As you are saying in the same paragraph.

aurafields said:
I am not the least bit angry.

well, you are bit something ...

aurafields said:
But, the angry way you responded is the toxicicity of pen,that I am talking about.

aurafields said:
The more readings I see, even the ones that seem off the wall to me, offer me new perspectives I never imagined and give me a lot to add to the Tarot Files in my brain. But, I am seeing a lot of "this is wrong", and "this is the meaning",

Where are you seeing that, and where did I say that? I said you were wrong about tarot history; tarot always being used ... as I described above.

I think you are quonky because I just said simply ... no, you are wrong ...

is this better ; ' that was wrong ' ?

aurafields said:
as if the person writing these post insist their way is the exact and only way to interpret the cards, and implying that the poster is off the mark. By all means, lets "reasonably challenge" anything you feel a desire to, for that is part of the purpose of this forum in my opinion. Sometimes it just seems that some people have found this a forum to vent their frustrations, insecurities, and anger at unsuspecting readers who are just on here trying to share and find support while learning a skill to become better readers.

You seem to be seeing a lot of 'toxicity', anger, venting, frustrations and insecurities here? yet you say you have no anger about it.

aurafields said:
"I think all the posters above realize this", is a manipulative ploy

NO, it was a response to the line in your quote immediately above my comment. which was;

" Modifying cards can be read to mean many things by many people." - and yes, I believe the people refered to DO think that as well; that it does mean many things to many people. You seemed upset about things that I believe most of us know, they aren't the issues, of course I realise that, and that other cards in a reading change a cards meaning, and that there are many possible combinations and that different people come up with different views, sometimes they off the board when talking about 1 card that has a different meaning to them than it does to 99% of everyone else and what it says in the book about that particular deck .... other times I read a great new take on everything.

Some seem to think I am pounding my deck like a tarot preacher and saying my card meanings are the only ones that are right ! Am I really ? Like I say, some of this dialogue has been going on for years. perhaps I wrongly expect newer people to know where some of us 'oldies' are coming from.

Lets take Gregory for example

... sometimes people react about her, but I can see what she actually meant as I understand more of her context. And recently someone flew off at her a bit ... I could clearly see what she meant. She is forthright, blunt at times ...and often (dare I say it here ? ) right. I have never read her as toxic ... but I have seen people react to her as if they felt personally attacked.

aurafields said:
-"just calling it as ""I see it". I hear your comments about "examination and evaluation", and " hard challenging questions", but I fail to see where you contribute in that way to this post. Where are the hard challenging questions?

Pos 15 ... you chose to ignore most of my points and not address them and went off in a giant long paragraph rave of IMO reaction, and not addressing them.

aurafields said:
They might be well worth examining. Ego driven statements "You're wrong", "The card means this", "As I've explained, the cards means this", imply one is more intelligent or better capable of understanding the cards than another, and the interpretation by these authors are often "off," "in my opinion", anyway. So where does that lead the person truly desiring to share and learn? And, unless a person has stated that to be the case about themselves, that they think they are in need of solid straightening up of their opinions and views, attempts at divining the meanings of the cards, I find it distracting to have to thwart angry criticism, (tearing down another opinion), rather than seeing an "intelligent" consideration of that offered by a fellow reader. I really didn't mean to offend. But, bullying is not an intelligent action. Intelligence is kindness, and the mark of unkindness towards another sinks deep into those trying to learn a new skill, often causing them to feel inferior and even give up.

I dint think either you or the OP were beginners and the charge of 'bullying' is a bit of an overreaction ... just like your toxicity comment, which you also seem to be ignoring the questions about this - even from Gregory, who didnt see it like that (who would probably love to dong me over the head with a frypan (and for those that dont know me yet ... thats a joke folks ! ... isnt it Gregory .... Gregory ..... ? )

aurafields said:
Like you, I also am, "just calling it as I see it". My statement about Tarot having always been a visual( aid of sorts) since the beginning of time, stands.

At risk of offending you again and being toxic I will patiently point out the issue.

You are reacting and not reading what I was actually on about, this could be my fault and the way I write, so I will try to clear this up again:

You just changed what you said previously and that was the point of my criticism and my blunt statement that you were wrong about what you said back then ... and not what you are turning it into above:

"It's always been, since the beginning of its use, a tool which uses visual symbols to help readers who practice to open "their" abilities *to perceive archetypal meanings* "

It started as a card game. There is no need * to perceive archetypal meanings* in a card game. But by changing it now to " Tarot having always been a visual( aid of sorts) since the beginning of time, stands " makes it fit in to the history as , one could say that a card game needs visual aids.

So by changing what you said you are trying to make my statement now take on a different light.

This happens quiet a bit here, and we can see how tedious and uninteresting it is to have to go back and sort out the thread of (supposed) connection and logic in a conversation ....

The only reason I am doing it now is I have sort of been portrayed as some type of tarot fascist that is toxic and spreads my toxicity to new people and beginners, a lot of stuff is assumed about me and my attitudes about cards and interpretation, and for once, I decided NOT to let my posts of the past explain my position ( with just as many good responses to my views and thanks as people being outraged (most of who seem sensitive and reactive about me )

aurafields said:
Any research at all will lead you to understand that Tarot has been used for centuries in order to assist those who desire to bring their unconscious awareness into consciouss states through the application of visual symbols.

Of course, but not always since the inception of what we would call a tarot deck

aurafields said:
Its simple. Everything we see becomes a symbol in some way to our unconsciouss mind, and for those who chose to become aware, to the consciouss mind as well. Dreaming while awake is in fact how I have come to experience psychic ability and most channeling. Tapping into the architypal symbols the cards present to the reader at any given time, allows for deep probing of ones life path and I have seen amazing things result from the spiritual growth of having done so for myself and thousands of others. Best wishes in the new year.

Yep, I do all that too ... you seem to think I dont know about it ?

Of course I do ... my issue is not with the peas on the plate but the whole style of dining.

A friend sent me this recently, it does some up the issue quiet well - the issue I am on about, and the issue that seems to annoy many;

http://www.iflscience.com/brain/no-youre-not-entitled-your-opinion

I realise this may not be in line with what many think.

Sorry for the long and boring 'defense post' ... I will shortly return to being brief and curt and expecting people that claim to have done years of research to be familiar with the background material.

ravenest

gregory said:
Seriously ? It never occurred to me that they didn't.

Of course I am not being serious ... It never occured to me that they didnt either - didnt you realise I thought that way ? I was being sarcastic. You never got that I think cards in a reading will modify the meaning of other cards ? After all the times I have written about this ?

Yes, what firemadien wrote is how I see it, how you see it, how Teuhuti sees it (and I already knew you guys would see that, as I read and remember your posts and opinions ), its great for beginners and others who are trying to grasp that ... but she directed it directly at me and my sarcasm isnt about the content, its about firemaiden sending me back to kindergarden.

Maybe I should be clearer? I see a card as having a wide range of meanings, within the 'field' of that card's meanings , the cards meanings dont 'change' as such, but other cards 'bring out' some of the card in question's meanings, and cause others to 'retreat into the background' . This means I see a wide range of meanings for each card (yes, connected to the astrology and Kabbalah and mythology and .... so it actually has a very wide field of meanings.

I dont know .... maybe people dont read others posts in context of their views from other posts and read posts just as one off units that relate only to perceived meanings in that one post ?

Maybe I should take that on board ... but what to do ... explain my whole ' tarot thesis' every post? I just assumed you knew where I would be coming from in regard to this ... I am actually surprised that you might think I DONT think a card can change its meaning in a reading compared to other cards in the reading.

Maybe some confusion is around my view on a card itself and a card in context with a reading.

IMO an individual card - like the 6 of cups, can mean a LOT of things on its own (its field of meanings) but it doesnt mean things out of its field ... like death and disaster. That might change IN CONTEXT with a reading (maybe the disaster is in the area of what the 6 of cups represents ?) but I wouldnt give it that meaning on its own.

Perhaps that is the source of some confusion and why some seem to think I have an insistence on a meaning of a card? I just get confused when I have had a similar conversation with some many times, and generally on the site for a long time and someone asks 'Oh you use hello Kitty Deck', or states 'You realise cards can have various meanings .'

gregory

ravenest said:
Of course I am not being serious ... It never occured to me that they didnt either - didnt you realise I thought that way ? I was being sarcastic. You never got that I think cards in a reading will modify the meaning of other cards ? After all the times I have written about this ?

In the context of this thread - I had to wonder... You didn't sound to be playing devil's advocate today.

But I am offended. I am, TOO, toxic

Don't take my evil side away from me.

firemaiden

ravenest said:
Thanks for the idea that one card in a reading modifies another .... I would never have thought of that !

Clearly you never would have, as demonstrated by your inflexible, dogmatic approach, and dismissive and bullying attitude.

ravenest

Well hopefully the posts after that explained what I DO think? Clearly I DO, actually, there are a heap of posts I have written about a meaning being modified by another card.

If someone thinks I am inflexible, and have a dogmatic approach, and am dismissive and have a bullying attitude for declaring that the 6 of cups being a demonstration of paedophilia is way out of the ball park ... whatever. Dogmatic ??? Wouldnt the person saying that it represents paedophilia (also against much protests in that thread and others pointing out the flawed view) be the dogmatic one due to their insistence of their opinion and the validity of their 'intuition' , when they were the odd one out ?

Unless post 37 is not about that and just a general insult to me without specifics ?

prudence

Has anyone posted a link to the older discussion about the 6 of cups and pedophilia? I would like to have a look at it to understand what is being discussed in this thread. (I did attempt a few searches, but came up with nothing, and a couple of "fatal errors")

ravenest

Its just an example ... I only used it as it the most extreme example I could think of off the top of my head.

I didnt try to find or link to it as I was on about the dynamic involved and not that particular discussion or the people associated with the discussion. I was finding the idea hard to express without an example.

..... and dont really want to dredge that discussion up again ... just the dynamics as an example

what I am trying to discuss IS the dynamic involved, that I saw as similar in that thread, I hoped what was being discussed above , is clear ..... from the discussion.

Its an old issue that relates to the interpretation of 'visual clues' in the RW deck and their associations with our collective (that others can relate to) and our individual ( that only one might relate to) associations with the visual images in the RW minors and other similar decks.

One side seems to think any association ( via intuition ... or from intuition if you prefer) or even consciously (i think more so in that case of the 6 cups) is valid , even in a reading for another. The other camp seems to think that it isnt valid in a reading generally or for another as it is a wholly personal association and may corrupt the meaning for the orther person getting the reading.

But hey ! .... other might not see the issue as that ... thats just how I see it ... and I thought some others were seeing it the same way as me , esp in the issue I used as an example <hands up ... backs away slowly >

Method for Interpreting Decks With Scenic Minors

ravenest

Teheuti

gregory

ravenest

ravenest

gregory

firemaiden

ravenest

prudence

ravenest