Calculating Quint Card (particularly reducing)

Michael Sternbach

Learning from Hajo Banzhaf, I used quints right from the start. But I don't necessarily see them as "the way to go" any longer. I appreciate the additional general information they provide though. I even calculate sub-quints from distinct parts of larger spreads.
 

Barleywine

Learning from Hajo Banzhaf, I used quints right from the start. But I don't necessarily see them as "the way to go" any longer. I appreciate the additional general information they provide though. I even calculate sub-quints from distinct parts of larger spreads.

I do the same thing; in fact the sub-quints sometimes provide more useful information than the general quint, especially where competing interests are being shown in a spread.
 

Krystophe

...I understand you are supposed to add up Ace-10 cards and majors, but leave out the courts... well, not necessarily leave out courts, but it makes sense.

But if you think about it, it really doesn't make sense. Consider: the quintessence card is commonly understood to represent the overall energy of the reading, summarizing the energy of the cards in the spread. But you really can't get a proper summary by ignoring a portion of the spread (in some cases quite a substantial portion... leaving out one court card in a three-card spread would mean your quintessence ignores a full third of the spread. Seems entirely counterintuitive to consider that a summary, doesn't it?)

I understand the questions this raises given the lack of numbers on court cards, but there are various ways of assigning numbers. The best solution to that (my opinion only, of course) is to decide which method to use and then be consistent with it.
 

Barleywine

But if you think about it, it really doesn't make sense. The quintessence card is commonly understood to represent the overall energy of the reading, summarizing the energy of the cards in the spread. But you really can't get a proper summary by ignoring a portion of the spread (in some cases quite a substantial portion... leaving out one court card in a three-card spread would mean your quintessence ignores a full third of the spread. Seems entirely counterintuitive to consider that a summary, doesn't it?)

I understand the questions this raises given the lack of numbers on court cards, but there are various ways of assigning numbers. The best solution to that (my opinion only, of course) is to decide which method to use and then be consistent with it.

Have you found any other ways beside Page-through-King as 11-through-14, 1-through-4, or 10-6-3-2 (Tree of Life correspondences)? I posted an alternative, more complex, method but haven't used it yet:

http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=272685

I normally just use 11-through-14 as an extension of the suit pips.
 

Krystophe

Have you found any other ways beside Page-through-King as 11-through-14, 1-through-4, or 10-6-3-2 (Tree of Life correspondences)? I posted an alternative, more complex, method but haven't used it yet:

http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=272685

I normally just use 11-through-14 as an extension of the suit pips.

Those methods seem to be the most obvious, and although I have experimented quite a bit recently with the Tree of Life correspondences, I still most often use 11-through-14 as that still best reflects my current understanding of the nature of the courts. (I think 1-through-4 would reflect that same understanding and the difference between that and 11-through-14 is probably insignificant...it simply expresses the hierarchical nature of the courts.)

Your link is something I think I may have encountered elsewhere at some point, but I never really engaged with it in any depth. Looking at it again, however, I think it's worthy of more substantial exploration than I have given it thus far.
 

devilkitty

I have been experimenting with using the Opening of the Key counts for the courts:

Knight, Queen, Prince: 4
Princess: 7

and occasionally for aces (11, per Crowley).

The jury is still out on how well this works, but I thought I'd throw it out there. ;)

To speak to the principal question in the thread: my math is different. I sum everything, divide by 22, and the remainder is the corresponding quintessence card. This allows for the full gamut of trumps without undue fuss.
 

quietly

But if you think about it, it really doesn't make sense. Consider: the quintessence card is commonly understood to represent the overall energy of the reading, summarizing the energy of the cards in the spread. But you really can't get a proper summary by ignoring a portion of the spread (in some cases quite a substantial portion... leaving out one court card in a three-card spread would mean your quintessence ignores a full third of the spread. Seems entirely counterintuitive to consider that a summary, doesn't it?)

I understand the questions this raises given the lack of numbers on court cards, but there are various ways of assigning numbers. The best solution to that (my opinion only, of course) is to decide which method to use and then be consistent with it.

To provide a bit of a counterpoint... Thinking about it, if a quint is supposed to be a summary of the natures of all the cards on the table, it's already ignoring a huge influence - that is, the suits. Suits can of course drastically change an idea of the overall energy, like the 10 of Cups vs the 10 of Wands. If you instead view the quint as a summation of the numerical information each card has, then it makes sense in a way to leave out the courts, rather than attributing extra numbers to them that are rather tacked-on. Or, perhaps to use the 10/6/3/2 idea, which stands out as a good option to me. (Although I wonder if you'd want to use the path numbers for the majors instead, to keep the method internally consistent?)

That said, Barleywine's linked thread is a good solution if I wanted to do the former task as opposed to the latter (and would work for the latter, too), since it gives every single card a unique designation.

It's all a bit of a moot point to me - I rarely use quints, unless I'm trying out someone else's method that specifically calls for its use. I'm more of a bottom card of the deck kind of person! But definitely interesting to think about.
 

Krystophe

To provide a bit of a counterpoint... Thinking about it, if a quint is supposed to be a summary of the natures of all the cards on the table, it's already ignoring a huge influence - that is, the suits. Suits can of course drastically change an idea of the overall energy, like the 10 of Cups vs the 10 of Wands.

This wouldn't really be a problem for me; reading as I do, the quintessence is only there to provide further enlightenment to the cards already on the table, which always take priority for me. I of course take into careful account the proportion of suits, as well as majors vs. minors, present in the spread, and that is an important factor in determining the interpretation of the quintessence card within the specific context of the reading.

I understand why you describe the quintessence card as providing a summation of the numerical energy of the cards in the spread, and I agree with that to a point. But I don't limit the card to only that significance. Not to mention that that can also lead to a whole set of additional questions about the numbering of the Major Arcana.
 

Sulis

I would reduce everything above 22 to 2 digits, and stop reducing at 22. The Fool is 22. But, that is just the way I do it....nothing official.

That's how I do it. It seems like a logical way to do it.
 

Krystophe

This is the way I do it as well. There is also a method of continuing to reduce until arriving at a single digit, but I've never seen the point of eliminating more than half of the majors as possible quintessence cards. I know some people consider both cards using that method...for example, 16 (Tower) reducing again as 1 + 6 = 7 to give an "additional" quintessence of the Chariot. Doing it that way doesn't seem to me to add any particular value to the idea, but I know many find it useful.