Lenormand Practices You Don't Use

Barleywine said:

One question, though: isn't there something slightly askew with the idea that you are in control of something you're unaware of? (Unless of course we posit that we each create our own reality at the subconscious level.)

Click to expand...

Hi Barleywine,

If I understand you correctly, I'm saying we're in control not of the entire reading process, much of which does indeed elude our conscious grasp, but of the particular tools we choose to use to access that process. So we might think if it as all going on behind a bunch of doors. We can't have complete control over what goes on behind the doors, but we can decide which doors to open, how far to open them, etc.

Lee said:

Hi Barleywine,

If I understand you correctly, I'm saying we're in control not of the entire reading process, much of which does indeed elude our conscious grasp, but of the particular tools we choose to use to access that process. So we might think if it as all going on behind a bunch of doors. We can't have complete control over what goes on behind the doors, but we can decide which doors to open, how far to open them, etc.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply. I see what you're saying, but I wasn't trying to be quite that precise. I was just pointing out that the two ideas seem to be at odds with one another when applied to the same area of the spread: the "below" area can be what we're unaware of, but also what we're in control of. I couldn't see them as comfortably coexisting, but in your context it makes sense. We can gain control of what's behind the doors we open, but the unopened doors are still an unknown. I use Andy's idea of "influence" as opposed to "control" or "awareness."

Barleywine said:

Thanks for the reply. I see what you're saying, but I wasn't trying to be quite that precise. I was just pointing out that the two ideas seem to be at odds with one another when applied to the same area of the spread: the "below" area can be what we're unaware of, but also what we're in control of. I couldn't see them as comfortably coexisting, but in your context it makes sense. We can gain control of what's behind the doors we open, but the unopened doors are still an unknown. I use Andy's idea of "influence" as opposed to "control" or "awareness."

Click to expand...

LOL, my apologies, I completely misunderstood.

Yes, you're quite right, I didn't mean I would use both those meanings at the same time. I meant in some readings I might see the "below" as what we're unaware of, and in other readings I might see it as what we have control over. Of course I would decide in advance which I wanted it to be. Perhaps if I wanted to have a more psychological perspective I might do the "unaware of," and for a more event-oriented reading it would be "control over."

I don't do GTs often (although that's probably going to change now that I have a mini deck ;-) ) but I don't generally use knighting or mirroring or the technique where you add up card values (can't remember what that's called). I do use near/far.

I'm on the fence about houses. Sometimes it just seems like so much noise, other times it seems to yield useful info. I'm actually more interested in using the houses with other divination techniques. As soon as I manage to make a spread cloth that shows the houses, I want to try it as a casting cloth for ogham.

I agree with the person upthread who noted that the info from all the various techniques gets redundant. Which makes sense, given that you're using the same cards over and over. But sometimes it's really helpful to confirm what you see one way by looking at it differently.

No card inserts.
No knighting unless it's a situation I can't figure out about a particular card.
No near and far. I read the liky over a person card once as virtue and it was the complete opposite. Ah! The cards have enough to say... They don't need to fight for space near my card.
No 8x4x4 GT. (this is a new ban)

Lee said:

For me, no mirroring, no knighting, no houses, no four corners, no counting, no near/far.

Click to expand...

I am to much of a newbie to know what counting refers to (though I've seen it mentioned a few times) but I suspect I don't do that either ;-)

I use the four corners in a nine card spread but not a GT.

I should also say, while I don't currently use houses, of all the "extra" techniques, houses is the one I can most easily imagine myself using one day.

No knighting in GTs except if two important focus cards knight to the same card; but I sometimes use knighting when reading a square of 9 (3x3) for some reason.

No mirroring in GTs; but I'll very occasionally use it in a line of 7 or 9 cards.

No houses in GTs unless I have thrown the tableau with the purpose of reading the story told by linking the chain of houses starting with a focus card, which is fun to do. (Heart in the house of Birds, which is in the house of Mountain, etc., until you come full circle to reach the house of the first card.)

No counting techniques in GTs.

No center line in a 9x4.

I wrestled with houses when I first started using them; 36 additional bits of information were a bit daunting, even without counting. What I settled on doing is looking at the house meanings for supporting detail whenever I have a set of cards that stand out from the "background noise" for whatever reason (combinations, location, etc.) This is the same way I use knighting and mirroring: only for amplification in certain higher-focus areas of the spread. I may eventually expand on this when I get more experienced, but for now I have to keep it within reason.

I've been reading the cards for half a year. I appreciate knighting and mirroring very much - do it every time i can and think it ads much to a reading. Also use playing card inserts.
The GT. Is not for me and I don't think it will ever be. I prefere 3 - 5 and 9 card readings and that keeps it simple to me. If I need more information i just ask the cards a new question.