Opening of the Key Spread

thinbuddha

I still work with strings of cards- I only rarely do the full spread. I don't use any other kinds of spreads. Not many others use this kind of spread, I think- thus the lack of traffic on threads like this.
 

billv

Hiya Thinbudda,

Interesting that you've gravitated to only doing string spreads. You mentioned to me in another thread that we have some similarities in our studies and/or approach to the Tarot, and our feelings about it. Last week I really was about to throw it all out. Interestingly enough, right after that whole tantrum of mine around the cards I had one of the most moving, personal, and accurate readings I've ever had. I just laid out six cards and started reading. Pairing, left-to-right, several different ways, not all of which follows PHB's concept of OOTK, but definitely some. Elemental Dignities and pairings really can clarify readings, and really make them much more potent. It leaves no doubt as to the answer of your question.

I find it very liberating not to have to worry about absolute positioning or categories, too. With many of the OOTK ideas I can work with as many or as few cards as I choose, and do one elemental string or the entire spread if I want.

Bill
 

thinbuddha

Hi Billv-

I still find myself at a loss sometimes, but yes- it is very liberating not to have positional meanings to lock a card into. To me, the positional spreads always seemed much too restrictive. One card to represent, say, the future result of a decision? Seems like an imcomplete answer to me. The string reading method allows a single card to serve several purposes- everything from modifying the cards around it to playing part of a story about the subject of the spread.

It's been a while since I used the whole OOTK spread. I still find large strings a bit too much for my little brain to handle. I usually cut the deck and take a few cards (usually ends up being 7-10 cards, but I don't count until after grabbing them) and work with those. I guess that fewer cards gives less depth to a reading, but there is no sense going in the deep end if you're not a strong swimmer. I figure as I get more and more comfortable reading, I'll grab more and more cards at a time.
 

MikeTheAltarboy

Mary Greer to the rescue!! I've been reading her "Women of the Golden Dawn", and she describes a reading done by Annie Horniman for Yeats - The horseshoe is fanned from the left to the right. :) That is, the top card of the pile ends up on the right.

I've not used this spread much lately, because I've been busy. I've just been doing a "3 card" reading daily as per her other book, "Tarot for yourself." I'm thinking I may switch over to a "4 cards reading" - as per the 1st operation, and just work with that. Almost as short, more room for elemental dignities, and a significator. I'll just cut the 4 piles, read the top cards, and see which one has the sig.
 

volkerschendel

Thanks to all

This was very helpful.
Thanks all.
Volker
 

thorhammer

The subject of the OOTK has come up in the thread about Vibrating Gods' names; rather than hijack that thread, I thought to resurrect this one.

I use the OOTK with the Thoth (and only the Thoth - seems strange with any other deck); but I only use the first operation. This is mostly because I'm not familiar enough with the astrological houses and signs or Qabalistic Sephiroth to effectively conduct the subsequent operations without having at least ten books surrounding me . . . and it already takes long enough.

I like the modification upon Crowley's (seemingly truncated?) method as espoused on SuperTarot, where the four packs are turned over after the initial cut, and the bottom cards are read as the first part of the operation.

I'm getting better at reading with this deck (it's been, till now, an inner-type deck) and with this spread. Dignities are still a bit much for me, and to date no one has been able to explain counting and pairing to my satisfaction, but I'm getting there.

\m/ Kat
 

rif

thorhammer said:
I use the OOTK with the Thoth (and only the Thoth - seems strange with any other deck); but I only use the first operation. This is mostly because I'm not familiar enough with the astrological houses and signs or Qabalistic Sephiroth to effectively conduct the subsequent operations without having at least ten books surrounding me . . . and it already takes long enough.

Heh. That's all I've practiced with as well, and for similar reasons. Although learning the houses is coming up for me very soon, as I've finally decided to pick up more astrology. I gather Golden Dawn members commonly did just the first part of OOTK. And Paul Hughes Barlow (supertarot) has turned that part into an art form, I'm just amazed at what he pulls out of the example readings in his book.

I like the modification upon Crowley's (seemingly truncated?) method as espoused on SuperTarot, where the four packs are turned over after the initial cut, and the bottom cards are read as the first part of the operation.

That is actually a standard part of OOTK, at least as it appears in print. It may be missing in online versions of Book T.

I'm getting better at reading with this deck (it's been, till now, an inner-type deck) and with this spread. Dignities are still a bit much for me, and to date no one has been able to explain counting and pairing to my satisfaction, but I'm getting there.

By inner-type do you mean intuitive?

Counting is straightforward for me, because those are fixed rules. You have to know the rules, and you have to know the trump associations. Did you have a specific question on the counting operation?

Pairing is straightforward too, I think, at least in terms of the mechanics. Turning the paired cards into a coherent story... that's the hard part. :)

If you want to come vent about dignities and the GD rules in Book T, please check out this thread too, hiding in the GD subforum:
http://tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=113657

There is a book from Paul Foster Case which basically teaches the OOTK through a series of lessons. You may find it a helpful resource. If you go to http://tarotinstitute.com/free/bota/oracle.html, there is a link to the copyright-free PDF at the bottom of the page. Frankly, I wish I'd come across this book sooner in my tarot studies!
 

thorhammer

rif said:
That is actually a standard part of OOTK, at least as it appears in print.
I thought as much. As I explained in my PM, I came up to this all ass-backwards :D - started with the Thoth deck, then read BoT, then I'm working backwards towards GD stuff. Slowly. Unhappily, at times.
By inner-type do you mean intuitive?
Most emphatically, NO!!!! I mean that I can use the deck to help me sort out my own thoughts, and card-by-card it makes some sort of sense to me, but a full-blown reading, with a question and all, throws me into a tailspin.
Counting is straightforward for me, because those are fixed rules. You have to know the rules, and you have to know the trump associations. Did you have a specific question on the counting operation?
Direction changes??? To date, I've bailed up at them and gleaned that basically, they're a later development and not in the "original" intent of the spread. Also, when I get the end of my horseshoe I behave as though it's a big circle and start back at the beginning, in the absence of any explicit direction (that I've found). Is this right?
Pairing is straightforward too, I think, at least in terms of the mechanics. Turning the paired cards into a coherent story... that's the hard part. :)
Heh, I hear ya! Although I find it easier than reading the sequence of cards you get from counting! I've been pairing the cards on either side of the significator - if we nominate the sig. as 0, then 1 pairs with -1, 2 with -2 et cetera. Is this right? What happens when you get to the end of the horseshoe? Circle again? (I've been stopping there) What if the sig is the first card in the horseshoe (or the last, for that matter)?
rif said:
There is a book from Paul Foster Case which basically teaches the OOTK through a series of lessons. You may find it a helpful resource. If you go to http://tarotinstitute.com/free/bota/oracle.html, there is a link to the copyright-free PDF at the bottom of the page. Frankly, I wish I'd come across this book sooner in my tarot studies!
V. helpful. Thanks for that - when I have time I'll be onto it!

\m/ kat
 

rif

thorhammer said:
I mean that I can use the deck to help me sort out my own thoughts, and card-by-card it makes some sort of sense to me, but a full-blown reading, with a question and all, throws me into a tailspin.

That's the art of the reading, and something I'm still working at too. I bet most people on this forum, regardless of experience, would say the same thing.

Direction changes??? To date, I've bailed up at them and gleaned that basically, they're a later development and not in the "original" intent of the spread.

I don't do that either. I'm trying to stay true to the original GD; which means I'm trying to set aside some of PHB's work, as insightful as it is.

Also, when I get the end of my horseshoe I behave as though it's a big circle and start back at the beginning, in the absence of any explicit direction (that I've found). Is this right?

Yes, that is correct. When counting, you loop from one end to the other. Some people even lay the spread out as a circle rather than an arc; I've seen that KK does this.

Although I find it easier than reading the sequence of cards you get from counting! I've been pairing the cards on either side of the significator - if we nominate the sig. as 0, then 1 pairs with -1, 2 with -2 et cetera. Is this right? What happens when you get to the end of the horseshoe? Circle again? (I've been stopping there)

In Book T, the pairing is starts from the outer edges of the horseshoe and moves towards the center. PHB on supertarot does the pairing from the significator (or other cards) and he does it as you describe. In that circumstance, I would treat the horseshoe as a circle. Unless I'm mis-remembering, that is how PHB does it.

Sounds to me like you've got a good grasp of counting and pairing already.
 

thorhammer

I have a question regarding this post:
MikeTheAltarboy said:
Also, the court cards (according the GD) *do* have dates associated - but not sun signs:
Queen of Wands: 20d Pisces - 20d Aries (Mar. 11 - April 11)
Seated-guy of Coins: 20d Aries - 20d Taurus. (April 11-May 11)
Guy-on-a-horse of Swords: 20d Taurus- 20d Gemini (May 11-June 11)
Queen of Cups: 20d Gemini to 20d Cancer (June 11-July 11)
Seated-guy of Wands: 20d Cancer - 20d Leo (July 11-August 11)
Guy-on-a-horse of Coins: 20d Leo - 20d Virgo (August 11 - Sep. 11)
Queen of Swords: 20d Virgo to 20 Libra (Sep. 11- Oct. 11)
Seated-guy of Cups: 20d of Libra to 20d Scorpio (Oct. 11 - Nov 11)
Guy-on-a-horse of Wands: 20d Scorpio - 20d Sagattarius (Nov 11- Dec 11)
Queen of Coins: 20d Sagittarius to 20d Capricorn (Dec 11 - Jan 11)
Seated-guy of Swords: 20d Capricorn - 20d Aquarius (Jan 11- Feb 11)
Guy-on-a-hourse of Cups: 20d Aquarius-20d Pisces (Feb 11 - March 11)
Now, I really like the system in principle, but since I use the Thoth deck for this method (it's the only time I really use a sig), I have a problem. In the Thoth, the seated guy is the Prince, the Airy part of Whatever. In mainstream GD-based decks, the seated guy is the King, the Fiery part of Whatever. But the Thoth deck has the horse-guy as the Fiery part of Whatever . . . eep, this is confusing even me :rolleyes: Can someone clarify?

Should I replace the above list with "Airy part of x" and "Watery part of y" to make it clearer for me? Because it seems to me that this is really the crux of the system and is actually really important.

This hurts my head . . . :confused: :(

\m/ Kat