I don't think I could go back to Rider Waite

prudence

Well, of course there are systems, no one is disputing that. However, the question related to a consensus of meaning, that strictly speaking, does not exist. In modern decks such a consensus exists by default, simply because the RWS is the most popular. The same kind of default is absent among TdMs.

Well, yes, sorry I did not express that, there is no consensus regarding the TdM or historical decks. There are some fairly decent systems or structures for these decks that are fairly recent, and they have been mentioned here in this thread, whether in derision or in all seriousness. They are not ancient and they may have some faults (like Waite, Crowley), but some of them are very well thought out systems that make sense when you are reading the cards. They should all be given some attention.

This is what I took as Leo's main query, but maybe I am going way off track.
 

Miss Woo

I've recently purchased two different TdM decks. I love them and they are very, very nice but the whole system seems very "large" to me. So I'm just dipping my toe in for now. If you don't mind a newbie question:

I looked up the Soprafino online and it looks like deck with non-scenic minors (in fact, most of the TdM decks I've seen are like that). So, if you don't mind my asking, what "style" or "source" do you use for interpretion, especially for non-scenic cards? Is there a sort of definitive text on the meanings of a TdM general/Soprafino specific deck that gives you such a clarity in your readings?

Unfortunately, both my decks have companion books in French and my French (I studied only for six years) is rustier than I thought! Is there an English translation of basic TdM card meanings or even just the Soprafino?

If I may butt in, there are no definitive meanings of the pips. Most people new to such decks pick and choose slick gimmicks popularized by modern commentators such as Jodorowsky, Ben-Dov, and Enriquez. It seems that anything goes, except that you go to hell if you dare use any pips meanings remotely related to Golden Dawn influenced decks, such as Rider-Waite or Thoth. For example, among new
TdM converts there is an almost fanatical obsession with avoiding even the slightest hint of Rider-Waite influence. I liken this to the deadly allergies to tobacco smoke which appear suddenly and mysteriously in ex smokers who have self righteously abandoned the habit. (As an ex pipe and cigar afficionado, I never developed an aversion to tobacco, just sincere regret that it is so toxic.)

Aaahahahaha, it's true. I am like that about Rider Waite. But I am getting better :D

In fact, now that I'm over my hang-up about my strict Catholic upbringing, I have been using my Rider Waite deck almost exclusively, and I have plans to even buy a pocket Thoth!

Yes, that's right; there is no system with the TdM and that is why it appealed to me and my Libertarian nature :)

@Leo77

You might want to check out this thread here, which I started, about the best TdM books to begin with:

http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=226602

eta

And I just wanted to say that Leos rule :cool3:
 

Leo77

This system is incredibly well thought out, if you want to invest the time in reading the whole (very long) thread and practicing with it to see how it suits you. http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=112327&highlight=melancholic&page=42 "Mel's Old fashioned Pips & Courts and Homemade Baked Goods". I would not consider it an "anything goes" approach. It is definitely a true "system" with a lot of structure and I found it to be a lot of fun to use. Complex, for sure, but worth the time spent learning and practicing it. Don't let the silly title fool you, Mel is a very intelligent man, with a lot of knowledge of the history of tarot, and what makes his perspective even more "out of the norm" for a tarot "scholar" (if you will) is that he actually does use the cards for readings! Predictive ones no less!

Thankfully, I have a lot of free time, so I'll take the time to read it. Thanks so much!
 

Leo77

ETA: I am partial to "Pips as Trumps", which, although intrinsic, I use surrepticiously, for reasons which would be unacceptable to 99.99% of TdM readers. })

Interesting. Could you elaborate? Or will the pitchforks come out?
 

Leo77

Well, yes, sorry I did not express that, there is no consensus regarding the TdM or historical decks. There are some fairly decent systems or structures for these decks that are fairly recent, and they have been mentioned here in this thread, whether in derision or in all seriousness. They are not ancient and they may have some faults (like Waite, Crowley), but some of them are very well thought out systems that make sense when you are reading the cards. They should all be given some attention.

This is what I took as Leo's main query, but maybe I am going way off track.

No, you're not off track at all, although perhaps "Consensus" was not as accurate a word as, say, "Majority."

RWS and Thoth, generally speaking, seem to have majority agreement on what the cards mean. There are, of course, groups and individuals that use RWS/Thoth and apply their own meanings to the cards and the system still works for them.

I even do it myself. There's a card in RWS that I have assigned a particular meaning to that has nothing to do with the card itself. It just consistently kept popping up in a specific context in almost every reading and across all my decks. So eventually I started just assigning that meaning to it regardless of the majority agreed upon meaning.

I was just wondering if there was a majority belief on the TdM card meanings.

It does make sense, though, that it would be largely regional as well as personal.

As far as attempting to create a pre-occult significance where there wasn't one, as an earlier poster wrote, I don't see how that can be true. It's well-known that people used playing cards (and other things) for divination long before Golden Dawn/Court de Gebelin came along, and surely the TdM wasn't spared this use by some people. But I agree that their assigned meanings were likely specific to themselves. There was always an occult significance to cards, just less organized and widely known before GD.
 

Leo77

Yes, that's right; there is no system with the TdM and that is why it appealed to me and my Libertarian nature :)

What's your theory on why people (anyone) can successfully read with a TdM deck if there's no system? Innate psychic/predictive ability?

And yes, Leos definitely rule. :) I don't know what my rising sign is. Sadly, I will never know. So sometimes I just pretend I'm a Leo Leo to make it easy.
 

Barleywine

I personally know someone here who uses animal cracker cookies to read with, and damned if she isn't as accurate as all get-out! :bugeyed:

I liike that! If you don't like the way things are shaping up, you just bite off the offending bits until the pattern starts making more sense :D
 

Barleywine

"Mel's Old fashioned Pips & Courts and Homemade Baked Goods" indeed! Mel would make a splendid used car salesman. His system is quite intricate and individualistic. Superficially, it looks super cool, and its name is irresistible: a down home traditional recipe for reading the TdM (add butter, eggs, sugar, and flour, etc.). However, for me it really seems too complex, inflexible, and systematic (in a paradoxically arbitrary way): a system for the sake of having a system. However, perhaps others may find it to their liking.

I suppose I admire the "idea" of it more than the "execution." Working with non-scenic pips for over 40 years has drawn me far away from the realm of "visual suggestibility" (ala RWS) and into a more iterative "stacking" of fragments of meaning drawn from astrological, numerological, elemental, arithmetical, qabalistic, colorimetric* (wow, I had to learn a new word to write this!), etc. sources. I'm not as widely read in all of these areas as I'd like to be, but there are at least faint glimmerings of logic in all of them that have convinced me of their validity. That said, I'm really more of a mystic, visionary and poet than a mathematical literalist. I still try to take my meaning intuitively, in the largest holistic "bites" I can manage, without chasing the "Devil in the details" any more than absolutely necessary. The more I work with this paradigm, the less I have to collate all of the fragments in a mechanical way. They emerge from the interpretive stew largely on their own.

*By which I mean, of course, the application of "occult color theory" (so-called), not the scientific metrics of color, in the same way that "arithmetical" refers to esoteric number theory (Pythagoras, Iamblichus, et al).
 

Lee

Over the years I've tried three different very complex and layered systems for non-scenic pips, and I've found that I prefer very simple and direct methods. The complex systems are great for when you want to give your brain something to chew on, but for actually reading the cards, I find I prefer the more basic methods.

The complexity and subtlety comes, for me, in the combination of and relationship between the simple factors. The simplicity of the building blocks allows for more subtlety and nuance in the reading -- at least for me.
 

Barleywine

Over the years I've tried three different very complex and layered systems for non-scenic pips, and I've found that I prefer very simple and direct methods. The complex systems are great for when you want to give your brain something to chew on, but for actually reading the cards, I find I prefer the more basic methods.

The complexity and subtlety comes, for me, in the combination of and relationship between the simple factors. The simplicity of the building blocks allows for more subtlety and nuance in the reading -- at least for me.

Well said, Lee (and with far fewer words than I managed :))