Opening of the Key Spread

Grigori

Macavity said:
Given the right (ceremonial magick) treatment, might these unusual card sequences unlock some "Stargate" to... something? I have not yet gained the motivation / initiation to try... But who knows. ;)

Barlow uses this technique to work with the Mercurial Genii's of Liber 231 :)
 

thorhammer

Macavity said:
My belief is that the OOTK technique is designed to be "modular and extensible". (Before these modern buzz words arrived! LOL).
I love it! I hadn't thought of it this way but you make a very good point; and I love the very concept of "modular" anything (laughs at self).
But now, such problems are remedied by getting a computer to un-erringly do the hard work! With such possibilities, one can (I did!) quite easily explore the extensions mooted e.g. by Paul Hughes-Barlow: Frequently-counted or "un-aspected" cards etc.
I would be fascinated to see what you've done with this. Did you write a basic program? It seems to address in part the concerns guy bannik postulated above about combinations that would never result in a positive/dignified situation.
For another bit of fun, one might ponder the significance of these in-depth studies of OOTK card strings. Given the right (ceremonial magick) treatment, might these unusual card sequences unlock some "Stargate" to... something? I have not yet gained the motivation / initiation to try... But who knows. ;)
That's a really interesting question. Possibly a bit far down the track for me as well, but maybe others will have experiences to relate in this area.

\m/ Kat
 

Macavity

thorhammer said:
Did you write a basic program?
Yes - Although now (quite) a few years back. Worked rather well, it did, too tho'. Of course, sadly, as we know, the "technology" and software has moved on re. Browsers, "Windows" (or not!), various mobile devices etc. The programs didn't. :p

It is now notable that even the more circumspect (once hostile?) of Taroists look to the commercial [teasing!] possibilities of including automated readers etc. on their Websites etc. But, and positively, maybe there will now be more ENTHUSIASM for such ideas. I'm sure no software developer would object to "sponsorship", if it were to include an I-Pad (or I-whatever) to play with? LOL. I am though more tempted towards play, these days. But ya never know... :D
 

tarotreader2007

2 questions (at the moment anyway) for you all:

Do you use a significator and how do you choose it (specifically for this spread obviously). Do you use the elemental correlations? The astrological ones? etc.

How do you count the cards? Crowley doesn't say which way to spread the pack out which is really important if you only read in one direction. Or do you read both? Does the way a court card faces change/dictate the direction of a reading?

As a side note, I count the planetary trumps as 7 because most of this system is based off of ancient text, myth, lore, and magick so I find counting 7 for the planets to be more true to the system. So I guess three questions, this being obviously more general, but do you think such an intricate system as the Thoth should be tampered with to fit new scientific discoveries and the like? Or should we remain true in our execution of utilizing the cards the way it was laid out originally?

Peace and Love,

tarotreader2007
 

rif

Sorry, I didn't see this when you posted.

tarotreader2007 said:
2 questions (at the moment anyway) for you all:

Do you use a significator and how do you choose it (specifically for this spread obviously). Do you use the elemental correlations? The astrological ones? etc.

You can use whatever method is comfortable. If you want to stay true to the original spread, then yes, you should choose a significator. This is because when you are doing each stage you need to find which pile of cards the significator is in, and read that pile. You would choose a court card according to whatever method you are most comfortable with. You could even choose Magician or Highpriestess for a man or woman, if you wanted. (Paul Case gives this as an option, and it was commonly done in ye olden days of tarot reading in general.)

How do you count the cards? Crowley doesn't say which way to spread the pack out which is really important if you only read in one direction. Or do you read both? Does the way a court card faces change/dictate the direction of a reading?

Crowley's instructions are abbreviated compared to what you can find in Golden Dawn material, and slightly different. When you speak of spreading the pack, are you referring to the first operation? You spread in either direction. I don't think the Golden Dawn overlapped the cards like modern authors do. They used an arc; Paul Case used a circle. It doesn't really matter which way to spread, as long as the bottom card is on the left and the top card is on the right. I think however you spread it, it should still end up this way?

Again, counting depends on whose specific instructions you follow. If you use a significator, you will most likely count in the direction it faces. If it faces forwards, then choose whether you prefer to count left or right. Modern readers may count in either or both directions. As for changing directions, you can do that if you want, IF you land on a court card facing a different direction. I tend to count in one direction and not change; I don't recall what the original Golden Dawn instructions say for this one.

As a side note, I count the planetary trumps as 7 because most of this system is based off of ancient text, myth, lore, and magick so I find counting 7 for the planets to be more true to the system.
I count nine because the original instructions were for nine, the seven planets and including the two nodes of the moon. I'm not an astrology expert, but surely these were not a modern invention?

Crowley counts aces as 11, but the Golden Dawn material (and Paul Case again) count aces as 5. I stick with 5, I prefer the shorter count. :)

So I guess three questions, this being obviously more general, but do you think such an intricate system as the Thoth should be tampered with to fit new scientific discoveries and the like? Or should we remain true in our execution of utilizing the cards the way it was laid out originally?
When you say "system as the Thoth," are you referring to the Thoth tarot deck or the OOTK spread itself? This spread is not a Crowley invention and has nothing to do with the Thoth deck, although the Thoth is a good one for reading it. :)

I think it's good to understand the original rules and then change them if you wish. My advice in general is to be consistent with whatever method you learn with, and then determine if you want to modernize it. The OOTK has been modernized quite a bit by the author of the supertarot website, for example; but he has reasons for every change he made.

I hope this is helpful. Good luck in your exploration!
 

Eremita90

Hi guys :D Thread resurrection mode on. I hope it's not a problem.

I've been working quite a lot on the first operation of the OOTK in the last ten months or so, practicing it and reading about it, to the point that it has become the only actual spread I use, except for the 3 cards and, more rarely, my old tarot tableau spread. I thought I would share my experience with you and see how you do it.
I first became interested in it while reading Barlow's book, but as I went on to learn how to use it I ignored most of his elaborations. However, this does not mean that if I find it useful and intuitively applicable I won't make use of what I've learnt from him. The reason is that, compared to the original first operation, Barlow's variation is about 1000 times harder and overwhelming, especially if you don't give much about finding unaspected cards and seeing the Goetia.

I too was concerned with what Guy Bannik says:

in the past pile (fire) all water cards are always weakend. So there's no strong love in the past (cups two) possible at all. That's a bit odd. Next to that this problem obviously occurs always whan elements weaken eachother. Good ideas leading to productive work (ace of swords and eight of disks) is also not a strong combination. I asume my insight in some way flawed. can you point out my misperception?

In the example given in the Complete System of Magick the elemental quality of the pile is considered only during the first part of the first operation (when you have the four piles and read the bottom cards) to see if that particular card is strong of weak. When you fan out the pile with the significator, there appears to be no mention of the fact that the entire pile is ruled by a particular element. I think this is because in the first part of the operation, the only way to know if those standalone cards are strong or weak is to take an elemental basis into consideration, but after that it really becomes superfluous, as each card will be flanked by other two. Again, it seems to be one of Barlow's many elaborations (which does not mean it's bad, of course).

Also, in the analysis of the four bottom cards, there is no mention of their being related to different areas of the querent's life: they are all brought together in a single interpretation concerning the issue under consideration (in the example it is about work). This leads me to another thing worth noting: in the example there is no "guess the question right or shame on you and abandon divination". It seems that you know the question, and it doesn't really matter where the significator is found, since this only adds a shade of meaning. For example, it says that since the significator is found in the Heh primal pile, it is a good omen, but it doesn't mean that the querent has come for a question related to his relationship just because his Sign. is found in the water pile.

The other issue, that concerning the Ace of Swords + Eight of Disks really took me some time to work out, although the solution I found isn't really that complicated, since it is just about bridge combos. I'm not even sure this is the "right" way of addressing this problem, but as far as I understand the nature of Elemental Dignities, it is true that, taken alone, Ace of Swords and 8 of Disks don't get along well, but this does not mean that there can never be a good idea leading to material success. For example, if they were placed in a "Ace of Swords - Eight of Disks - Six of Wands" combo, the Six Wands would bridge the gap between the Ace and the Eight, allowing them to work together positively. When pairing, though, this cannot happen, but at the same time I generally skip mutually cancelled paired cards altogether, unless I think their clash is of some importance.

Speaking about pairing, there is one thing mentioned by Barlow which greatly helped me, i.e. that not everytime you come across the same card in the same spread you have to use the same interpretation. Essentially, it just has to fit the story. Now, I'm not saying that this makes things much easier, and I often find myself quite at a loss, but at the same time it kind of comforts me and frees my mind of all my "Ok, this card again. What did I say about it when I counted on it?" fears.

As for significators, I don't look at astrology or physical appearance: I just consider the nature of the question and the querent's age and gender (which is the only time, in my way of reading, when the Court Cards' gender and age actually counts in determining if someone is a man or a woman and if s/he is old or young).

Finally, one last thought. I think the example given in the Complete System is rather weird, but this is not meant in a mean way (it is even written there that it is a trivial example). Reading it it is clear how tarot readings for the general public where much rarer at the time: today there are many more people visiting their trusted tarot reader at least once a month, but back then the avarage person probably did not have more than one or two tarot readings in their entire lifetime. In the example, the interpretation goes from the guy's job to his love life, back to his job and so on and so forth, and in such detail that it looks like the parody of a soap opera. Today most of us would concentrate on one issue, and if we see that another problem is getting in the way, we analyze it separately with a new spread. Don't get me wrong: when I perform a first operation, it may well happen that even though the question is about a new job, the querent's love life pops up, but at that point I just tell the querent, and if s/he is interested I spare the topic for another round, instead of telling them "look, you asked me about that promotion, but my amazing Thoth tarot would love to tell you a little bit more about that girl you met the other day". Especially because it seems that the GD's (and partly Crowley's) definition for each minor card is almost entirely related to a particular area (Six of Disks is usually material success, regardless of the querent's question being about love), while my interpretation, even though it is based on the GD and Crowley, is much more loose and adaptable to all areas of one's life, unless I have strong evidence that they actually relate to their original area.

What is your opinion on all this? Has your view of the OOTK evolved since 2010? :D
 

earthair

It seems that OOTK has not been formally included or written down in the spreads sub-forum!
:bugeyed:
Does anyone have a written down 'core' method they could send to Hemera?
Is it already somewhere here on AT?

Or are we using our own individual versions with not much common ground?
 

foolMoon

I feel the OOTK spread is especially good for readings relating to emotional state of someone. As emotional state is never black and white - it usually has positive, negative and in-between energies. The OOTK spread seems ideal in revealing more prominent, obscured, or hidden answers in the spectrum of energies emanating or hidden in the situation reflected by the cards lined up in the spread, rather than focusing on the detailed meanings of each cards of other spreads in the readings.

The latter methods definitely has problems in parts where they disagree on whether the meanings of each cards have to come from the traditional book or readers' intuition. The OOTK spread does away with that problem.

I have been using the OOTK spread with good success earlier this year from heard-it-through the grapevine knowledge added with my own ways, but these days I am not doing too much readings or studies due to spending most time outdoors. I will get back to it when the dark & cold weather returns towards the end of this year:D

I think the details of the OOTK including card counting and matching methods can be found in The Book of Thoth by Crowley, also in The Golden Dawn by Regardie as well as various web sites on the internet.
 

garfield585

Questions

I know OOTK is too much for a newbie like me but I'm still eager to try and see what it is. The 1st operation was good, I could find the significator immediately and count without any problems but the 2nd operation was frustrating, I had to to abandon the divination many times because cannot find the sig in the right House. So please helpppp, I have a few questions:

1. How should I count the card like the Universe? I should consider it an element or planetary card?
2. How should I pair the cards? by suit, court or placement or just randomly?
3. If I have to abandon the divination multiples times? what should I do? Just keep trying until I can find the sig. in the right place or try later at another day, another tim?
4. In case, I have to abandon the divination at the 2nd operation, do I have to start again from the beginning, doing the 1st operation all over again?