Significators from a different deck? non-person significators?

I don't usually use significators. I don't want to fall into the trap of simplifying the querent or any other person, and we're all more than one court card. So I started reading without significator and it has worked fine for me in all those years.

I do take note of court cards that appear in the reading as potential significators. It would be a pity, I feel, to take them out beforehand and thus rob them of the chance to appear on their own.

Now I've been thinking lately that I'd like to experiment with significators from a different deck. Significators in a wider sense then just a set of court cards from a different deck, although that's also something I'll try, and if you have an idea which decks are especially good for use as significators, tell me. I'll make my first try with the Touchstone; it has such expressive, strong court cards.

But do any of you use oracle cards with strong archetypical pictures without a person as significators? for example, images of the sea, the universe, a flower or a child's foot? Is there a deck that calls out to be used that way? I'd love to try what the focus on a non-personal significator does to a reading.

I'm curious whether any of you have experimented with the use of significators, and what you can tell me about it (and I hope there are NOT already 20 threads like that in existence! I didn't find one when I looked)

On the rare occasions when I use a significator now (it was something I did for decades), I solved the conundrum of having to remove a card from the reading deck by simply selecting one from a different deck. But I've also used a personal object or photograph as a focus, along the lines of "psychometey-with-cards" (aka "token-object reading"). I see no reason why a representative card from an oracle deck wouldn't serve the purpose of "setting the stage" for the reading.

I've never gained any insight at all from using them so I don't bother, seems like a lengthy process just for the sake of it but you may find them helpful.

When I do a spread that uses a significator, I consider that card as the first card of the spread and draw it as normal. This always provides some insight into the querant that has some relevance to the question.

Thank you for these very interesting answers! I have now quite a number of options for significators: traditionally from the same deck, from another deck, a photograph or oracle card, a token object, the first card drawn - or not at all. Great! I'll try it all over the next time.

I don't use significators except sometimes I use one in the rare instance that I use a Celtic Cross. There are a few other times where I've let the deck choose the significator, but I've forgotten what the details were now when I've done that. What I mean by letting the deck choose is that I just draw a card and whatever it turns out to be, that's the significator but it doesn't have to be one of the court cards. It's more like the focus of the spread or the sitter's frame of mind at the time of the reading.

I pull a signifier from the deck. It doesn't have to be a court card. Each card has human/archetypical qualities to it.

Laurelle said:

I pull a signifier from the deck. It doesn't have to be a court card. Each card has human/archetypical qualities to it.

Click to expand...

I've considered doing this since I first encountered the idea here, but decided it really could be any card in a spread that stands out for this purpose (maybe one for which position and card make a particularly sensitive pair), not necessarily one earmarked for it. My idea of a traditional significator/signifier is that it's a pre-selected card that kind of "draws" the reading to it (or maybe "emanates the reading" is a better way to put it). I've never found "court-cards-as-querent" very effective for this (I consider them more a part of the "theater of tarot," mainly for the sitter's benefit), but situation-specific cards are often quite valuable.

Only time when I have read significators, it has been part of a custom spread. Half the time it was a court.

I believe them to some degree, but more as a facade than a designation. I don't give them too much weight in practice, only because I think we're all a little jaded in life and are forced to wear masks/roles in our lives... so some parts we play are more for show than saying much for who we are on our deepest level... in many cases, I think of them more as personal facades than significators.

I have come up as a court as a significator over the course of years worth of personal readings and work on myself, but in this respect, this trait is more of a message to me about who I am and what I am about, the level I am working at currently in life... so definitely not boxed in thinking. I show up in many cards actually... but I think that a significator could closely represent a prominent voice in your head/in your life... it just doesn't define all your character and as such I take it with a grain of salt... the extent of the possible interpretation anyway.

energyPipes said:

I believe them to some degree, but more as a facade than a designation. I don't give them too much weight in practice, only because I think we're all a little jaded in life and are forced to wear masks/roles in our lives... so some parts we play are more for show than saying much for who we are on our deepest level... in many cases, I think of them more as personal facades than significators.

Click to expand...

This is a actually a strong argument for using the "rising sign" approach, if we know it with any confidence.