Significator cards. Why and how?

nisaba

JylliM said:
Hello all. I've been trying to get my head around the use of significator cards. I did some googling, trying to find out how they are actually used in a reading, and I haven't found anything really helpful in my books.
I know there are various ways of choosing them, and that they are optional. I just don't really understand how they relate to the reading itself. Are they something to focus on while shuffling, do they influence how the cards are read, or is there something else?
If you use them, how do you incorporate significators into your readings?
Click to expand...

I think it's based on the notion that readers are flaky people: if you don't have a card on the table to remind yourself who your client is, you're supposedly likely to forget.

To me, it takes a potential message out of the mix. I've never seen a spread that calls for one, so ... <shrug>
 

nisaba

Grizabella said:
Instead of a card significator I've sometimes used an item the sitter had on them. Like a ring or a coin or something small and meaningful like that. Having something the sitter had been close to for a long time that could be put on the table while I did the reading was a way of adding more of their energy into the reading.
Click to expand...

I'd never remember to do that <smile>. Instead, I get them to shuffle and to cut. That puts their energy right into the reading, front-and-centre.
 

Herodotus

I've seen lots of spreads that use significators. And I usually like those spreads.

I also see a lot of people saying they don't like using them because it takes a potential card away that might otherwise show up with an important message in the spread. I suppose I understand this line of thought, but there are 77 other cards to choose from. The likelihood that taking one out will really mess up the result isn't very high, in my opinion. I mean, the Tarot, to me, is a very fluid system, and I think if a message absolutely had to be delivered in a spread, it'll still come across with or without a significator having been removed.

However, there is a solution to this dilemma, and that is to have the querent select a significator ahead of time, and then have them shuffle it back into the deck. This way it can still show up in the reading, and if it does, it will draw special attention to that spot.

Or, if you don't like significators, but wish to use a spread that requires one, just draw a random card for that spot, and whichever card comes up can maybe tell you about the state of mind of the querent.

One interesting method of divination that uses significators is that described by Crowley in his Book of Thoth. In that method, the significator is selected, shuffled back into the deck, the deck is cut into several piles, and then the reader must divine the location of the significator based on the querent's question and the predetermined nature of each pile, and using the remaining cards in the pile that it's found to formulate a conclusion. These and similar steps are repeated several times. (I've simplified this a great deal, but I think you all get the general point, that there are creative ways to use significators for Tarot readings).

I've probably repeated somethings that have already been touched on; hopefully I'm not being too redundant.

I suppose it boils down to personal preference, but I do believe that significators can be very useful, if for no other reason, than for gaining a deeper understanding of your personal relationship with your deck. As I've said before, I'm always aware of what my significators are, regardless of whether or not I'm using a spread that requires me to set one aside.
 

Ruby Jewel

Herodotus said:
I've seen lots of spreads that use significators. And I usually like those spreads.

I also see a lot of people saying they don't like using them because it takes a potential card away that might otherwise show up with an important message in the spread. I suppose I understand this line of thought, but there are 77 other cards to choose from. The likelihood that taking one out will really mess up the result isn't very high, in my opinion. I mean, the Tarot, to me, is a very fluid system, and I think if a message absolutely had to be delivered in a spread, it'll still come across with or without a significator having been removed.

However, there is a solution to this dilemma, and that is to have the querent select a significator ahead of time, and then have them shuffle it back into the deck. This way it can still show up in the reading, and if it does, it will draw special attention to that spot.

Or, if you don't like significators, but wish to use a spread that requires one, just draw a random card for that spot, and whichever card comes up can maybe tell you about the state of mind of the querent.

One interesting method of divination that uses significators is that described by Crowley in his Book of Thoth. In that method, the significator is selected, shuffled back into the deck, the deck is cut into several piles, and then the reader must divine the location of the significator based on the querent's question and the predetermined nature of each pile, and using the remaining cards in the pile that it's found to formulate a conclusion. These and similar steps are repeated several times. (I've simplified this a great deal, but I think you all get the general point, that there are creative ways to use significators for Tarot readings).

I've probably repeated somethings that have already been touched on; hopefully I'm not being too redundant.

I suppose it boils down to personal preference, but I do believe that significators can be very useful, if for no other reason, than for gaining a deeper understanding of your personal relationship with your deck. As I've said before, I'm always aware of what my significators are, regardless of whether or not I'm using a spread that requires me to set one aside.
Click to expand...

I don't use a significator, but I ask the client when their birthday is and mentally choose the appropriate King or Queen as determined by the elements of fire, air, earth and water. I explain to the client which suit represents their particular sign and if the court card turns up I let them know it is them....and it usually does show up. I also tell them a little about themselves according to their astrological sign. I use 11 cards in the Celtic Cross. the first card is placed above the center cross and it represents the person. Then I lay the first card down as the situation and the crossing card third....and go as normal from there.
 

JylliM

nisaba said:
I think it's based on the notion that readers are flaky people: if you don't have a card on the table to remind yourself who your client is, you're supposedly likely to forget.

To me, it takes a potential message out of the mix. I've never seen a spread that calls for one, so ... <shrug>
Click to expand...

Aha! So that's it! ;)

Most spreads I've seen don't have a designated spot for a significator, but it seems to be a relatively common practice (maybe less nowadays?) to choose a significator before shuffling and laying out whatever spread you're using. It's mentioned in every tarot book I have, I think, and often on the Internet.

I like the idea that a couple of people in this thread have mentioned, of either shuffling the significator back into the deck or of taking one from another deck, thereby keeping all 78 cards available for the spread.

Thanks to everyone who has responded so far, it's very interesting getting your perspectives.
 

Barleywine

One thing I didn't mention: you know those "extra" cards that sometimes come with decks? In past printing practices (not sure about now), I've read that they were the result of a printer's sheet accomodating 40 cards, so a 78-card deck left two spare cards that were used for advertising (most decks) or sometimes left blank. For a couple of the decks I use most, I took one of those spares and created my own personal significator card by producing and gluing on my own artwork. (You can see it in my forum avatar, to the left of my posts; it's based on a qabalistic reduction of my name using gematria.) Since I don't shuffle the card into the pack, just place it in advance, the extra thickness makes no difference. If you have the talent and the inclination, this is a creative (and unconventional) way to approach significators.

ETA: As an aside, if you're interested in what I did, I see that there are several on-line "gematria calculators" that allow convenient conversion of words to numerical values. I haven't tried them since I did mine manually, but I notice that some of them have caveats about their reliability.
 

JylliM

I love that idea, Barleywine! Thanks for sharing.
 

gregory

I'm with nisaba. I want all the cards available to deliver the message. I know who my sitter is - what is gained by having a card to - what - look like them ?
 

Barleywine

gregory said:
I'm with nisaba. I want all the cards available to deliver the message. I know who my sitter is - what is gained by having a card to - what - look like them ?
Click to expand...

Good point. I've always thought it was more for the querent than the reader, to kind of focus or "anchor" their involvement in the process. But when you examine it closely, it does seem rather pointless and slightly silly. When reading for oneself, I can see a kind of personal investment being made in identifying with an "avatar" card. But again, hardly necessary to a successful reading, more "window dressing" than substance. I tend to see it as part of the "showmanship" or "theatrics" of conducting a reading for another person, a lead-in flourish, so to speak. I doubt many sitters would even notice its absence.
 
Course of Action to be taken- Four of Wands and Ace of Swords Strength as no contact?