Tarot apps or online

CrystalSeas

When you get to the atomic level of influence, computers aren't any different from cardboard

If you believe thoughts can influence cardboard, why could they not influence random number seeds? It's all just the same electrons and atoms that make up cards.
 

Callanish

One of the issues I had with printed Tarot, back in the days when I used my printed cards, was the lack of true randomness I felt I was getting with my printed decks.
In fact one problem I just couldn't overlook was the unintentional "marking" of my cards. The edges wear out very quickly if you shuffle them enough.
I found myself replacing my favourite deck very quickly. Expensive...
One or two cards had distinctive enough damage that I could spot them, face down, and this ruined it for me.
Let's not forget the inconvenience of carrying around printed decks and the social awkwardness of using them in the open. Hell, some countries will execute you for it.
The nice thing about Digital Tarot is that you can do Tarot anywhere, anytime you like - without damaging your cards or having to purchase them again.
(I'll bet the printing publishers love this)

You are obviously aren't a software engineer from what you've said about computers and randomness. I am.
I'm both a seasoned Tarot Reader and a professional software engineer with 25+ years of experience and a honours degree in Computer science.
The shuffling that software can do is excellent. Better than any person can do with a printed deck. It could be better but it's actually a moot point, IMHO. Arguing about how truely random any system is, is irrelevant as this isn't cryptography, it's divination. If I can't guess at any card and I'm using only my intuition then that's good enough for me.
A well written Tarot App should allow the user to re-shuffle as many times as they want to before picking the cards.
I'm not one for Tarot software that picks the cards for the user.
Tarot, for me, is about intuition and I like to pick my own cards, after they've been well shuffled and laid out face down in a nice uniform and balanced array.
Each to their own beliefs but I'm much happier with my Tarot software than I am with printed decks and I wouldn't go back.

You can evangelise printed Tarot until you are blue in the face but the fact that Digital Tarot is making Tarot accessible to the masses (My software is being used to create 1/2 million spreads a month and growing) means that you will be in an ever increasing minority.

Callanish

Consider that 'shuffling' or any other sort of presentation accomplished digitally has NOTHING to do with any personal state of an individual outside of clicking cards in a shuffle for selection. By its very nature--it cannot. Devices run and rely on very strict software and hardware instructions. Algorithms determine the count and use of other cards in the set and previously. Every element of what appears is accurately driven by what the components and instructions tell it to do. Otherwise, the stupid thing could not run--and would crash. We all know that digital devices do not tolerate randomness or outside influence. If that were possible, it is likely every computer I have owned for the past 30 years would have exploded in a silicon shower from the intensity of the thoughts and rage I have directed toward them... :laugh:

I do however see software driven Tarot and cartomancy programs as a useful tool in study, recordation, note taking, and report preparation. But as a tangible artifact, totem, or personal object upon which to build relationship meanings into the supranatural side of our existence? In my mind about as useful as Windows Solitaire or Pokemon Go... YMMV.

Thoughts?

PT
 

JasonLion

Consider that 'shuffling' or any other sort of presentation accomplished digitally has NOTHING to do with any personal state of an individual outside of clicking cards in a now static and mapped shuffle for selection. By its very nature--it cannot.
Ah, but it can. Computers are not normally programmed this way, but it is completely possible for them to take in various aspects of your mental/emotional state that are exposed to their sensors. The timing of your touches on the screen, the amount of pressure you use, and so on. Sensors get better every year, things like posture and heart rate are becoming accessible with new sensors. All of these things can be taken into account and influence the outcome of a shuffle.

It is perfectly fair to say that this is not the "same" as shuffling a physical deck, it is manifestly different. But to say that it can not have any connection is going way too far.

Personally, I believe that it is the readers mental state that is important. That mental state is established by the ritual of preparation: unpacking the deck, shuffling the cards, seeking inner calm, etc that the reader has personally developed. I believe that you can develop equivalent rituals around electronic decks and reach equivalent mental states. Readers who have worked with physical cards for decades are likely to have more trouble doing this, as the connection to the physical cards becomes deeply learned over decades. But that does not mean that physical cards are the only way to reach to necessary state of mind.

Early electronic decks were far from supportive of the appropriate experiences/mental states. But over time we have learned to adapt the electronic experience to be more conducive of the appropriate state of mind.

New readers given well designed electronic decks report much the same experiences in much the same proportions as new readers given physical decks. And while testing with experienced readers is far more variable and not as positive overall, some experienced reads report that they have the exact same experience with physical cards and electronic cards.
 

Papa Tango

Some interesting and well thought out responses, and basis for a nice discussion!

Callanish, you have found me out! I am indeed a “Sophisticated Luddite” in many respects—although a great deal of my professional and personal life has been structured around understanding and implementing technology. And you are correct—aside from a moderate skill with PHP development for Wordpress/Joomla, I am not a programmer.

One could make the argument that neither a physical or a virtual deck is truly random—but rather, and at best pseudorandom—and a mathematician would likely posit that due to the limited number of non-repeating points that is contained in the set (78), and that the ultimate selection of a subset of those has resulted from the mapped cumulative subtraction of cards (points) creating a low-discrepancy subset (the number of cards in a particular spread), this actually represents deterministic sequences. If one is truly bored, this can be quantitatively demonstrated by running simulations in SPSS and noting the consistency of several thousand trials of cumulative distributions using one of the Monte Carlo probability methods.

But my point was not to argue maths nor software design—and perhaps I did the discussion a disservice by introducing that thought. It would have been much better to have opened my “obvious” bias toward the tangible with the concept of simulacrum. It does a disservice to the discussion to jump over the top of the philosophical arguments surrounding the concept—ranging from the classic Platonian dialectic, through Kant, Nietzsche, finally Baudrillard and in the matter of technology—Lakoff & Johnson. For anyone that cares to delve to this level of critical thinking, “Small Tech: The Culture of Digital Tools”, edited by Hawk, Rieder, and Oviedo makes for considered reading. (2008, University of Missesota Press.)

But back to the concept of simulacrum and its relation to technology. A qualifier first—both physical cards and their digital counterparts (including the delivery system) are forms of technology. A useful analogy follows. A stick is not a tool or technology in its own right—rather a thing in itself that we can later ascribe meaning or use to. If we poke a hole in the ground and use that to plant seeds in a row for a garden—then it has become a tool, and a primitive form of technology. In using the stick as a planting auger, the “farmer” is in close relationship to his work, and its natural environment. He is in contact with the soil and the seed, and the rhythms of the physical world which will hopefully result in a crop of something. This sort of relationship is termed animistic—as this is where the sui generis and ontology of the creation of mythopoetic “knowledge” has historically originated in many spheres for mankind.

At the other end of the spectrum would be the latest type of tractor towing along a complex planter that takes care of all the tasks of setting the crop. We have now really detached the ‘farmer’ from his manual relationship—and placed him in a possibly air conditioned, GPS navigated instrument of mass production. The technology has simplified and made available the ability to “create” on a humongous scale. Yet, this individual has been somewhat alienated from the course and product of his work.

If we consider the Tarot as a tool—and take a study of its content and progress prior to the populist and consumer driven influence of Stuart Kaplan—we find a remarkable dichotomy and schism between what historically formed the body of Tarot ‘occultism’ and the readily digested and often populist simplifications that have occurred due to mass market through whatever means. As humans, we have a powerful need and directive to establish relationships and meanings to physical metaphors and totems—frankly, such things as religion and moralistic ascription cannot exist without that…

Whatever the ultimate source, a root of our spirituality from whatever philosophy does indeed emerge from physical relationships. Whether some psychic force exists that can allow an individual to imbue a mass of cardboard and ink with some special dispensation is open for discussion. But the relationship with the means of communication to objects and environment not so much so. Some might even believe—such as with the Catholic catechism—that such a physical object (like the host and chalice) actually transmogrify themselves into something else through the belief, ritual, and action.

Circling back to the relationships of simulacrum and technology, cognitive linguists Lakoff & Johnson (Metaphors We Live By. 1980, University of Chicago Press) suggest that digital technology increasingly places a 'pane' between users and their activities, imposing a physical distance between the seer and the seen. In such, we arrive at a mediated reality--something always seen through a window or pane--and the distance increases as the effectiveness of the simulation appears more 'real' and is seperated from its underlying schemas.

As a pragmatist, here is one thing that I know. Long after all of us reading or writing here have gone from this world and our actions and accomplishments forever forgotten—and the smartphones, computers, and programs common to us have become little more than vague recollections and dusty curios snickered at by our grandchildren—people will still be valuing and selling notable and early Tarot decks for many thousands of dollars. Cheap cardboard representations will still be available somewhere. I am sure that some blue faced future Luddite will appreciate all of this… :cool2:
 

JasonLion

Isn't life it's self lived through the "pane" of our senses? We experience the world through a model in our mind. That model is informed by our senses, but is not the same thing as our direct perception nor the same as the world.

Likewise, all Tarot decks are simulacrums of some platonic ideal of what a "real" tarot might be. Be they expressed in one technology (printing) or another (computer screen) there is no fundamental difference in kind. Each possible technology for conveying the ideal of the Tarot to our internal mental model of Tarot has advantages, and disadvantages, going right back to the ability of the decks creator to capture the ideals of the Tarot in words and illustrations.

At it's root, if this discussion is about anything, it is about the pros and cons of some of the prominent technological choices in their ability to relate the ideal of Tarot through history, artists, writers, printing, pixels, our senses, and ultimately into the internal model we build in our mind to represent the world.

Pros and cons there are aplenty, but no where is there a fundamental distinction in kind. Computers convey text and images of higher quality than all but the very best printing, certainly better than the great majority of paper decks. They also take less space to carry around. I can easily have hundreds of decks on my phone in my pocket, and would be challenged to even pick up the equivalent pile of paper decks at one time. Meanwhile, paper decks have significant advantages in tactile sensation.

We each have preferences for the various forms. I prefer the 1910 printing over the 1909 printing, electronic for some uses, paper for other uses, RWS sometimes, Marseilles decks for other occasions. That does not mean that any of the formats will go away, or that they will stay around forever.
 

Callanish

I would counter the same with the parallel of money and tarot cards.
Money, I find, is a fascinating concept as it's totally fabricated and only exists due to a system of mass delusion.
Probably the greatest feat of mass delusion humanity has, or ever will, create.

Why should a man eat or starve for the want of a bit of printed paper?

Bitcoin has proven that the abstract concept of money and value can very successfully move from the tangible to the intangible.
That progress had already begun some time ago with credit and charge cards replacing coins and notes.
Many people disliked and distrusted that new form of cashless commerce but it's now the norm.
Technology replacing the tangible is nothing new.
Bitcoin has proven that you don't even need money to be state endorsed for it to carry the illusion of value.

If you want to talk philosophy then lets focus on human conscious.
What's real and what's not?
For me the tools are largely irrelevant.
If there's any "magic" in tarot then it's not imbedded within the tools but it's something within me that the tools allow me to tune into.
After all if I value a bit of paper and I can feed myself with it then that's because I have chosen (or not?) to share in the belief of the monetary system and I assume that whoever I had it over to for food also shares that belief. It's not because that paper has anything of true value in it.
The world we perceive, both tangible and in-tangible, is entirely a construct of our conscious mind.
Lying somewhere under the surface of the conscious self is the intuitive self which, I believe, is our true self, the divine within all of us.
Divination is bringing into the conscious world the divine.
All tangible things have the divine within, I'm not arguing you are wrong, only that you seem to be missing the point of the exercise of Tarot and divination. It doesn't necessarily require the tangible.
If I have ambitions for myself it is to eventually throw away Tarot and open that communication channel to my higher self without the need for any divinatory tools.

Callanish

But back to the concept of simulacrum and its relation to technology. A qualifier first—both physical cards and their digital counterparts (including the delivery system) are forms of technology. A useful analogy follows. A stick is not a tool or technology in its own right—rather a thing in itself that we can later ascribe meaning or use to. If we poke a hole in the ground and use that to plant seeds in a row for a garden—then it has become a tool, and a primitive form of technology. In using the stick as a planting auger, the “farmer” is in close relationship to his work, and its natural environment. He is in contact with the soil and the seed, and the rhythms of the physical world which will hopefully result in a crop of something. This sort of relationship is termed animistic—as this is where the sui generis and ontology of the creation of mythopoetic “knowledge” has historically originated in many spheres for mankind.
 

Busby

I Vote For The Physical Cards, But I've Tried Both!

I think that this comes down to a similar question of "would you rather have an ebook or a hard copy?" Some technology gurus would rather have the digital version of something vs the old school hard copy. Me personally, i would rather have the physical cards. The cards may be expensive, but i feel like the experience is unmatched vs the apps and digital counterparts.

I tried some of the apps before i bought my first physical deck a few weeks back. I noticed that most of the time the apps weren't as on point as the physical deck is. The best tarot app that i used was call "tarotq" or "qtarot." I didn't try the paid version of the app though.

I like to feel the cards and get that physical connection that i felt like i wasn't getting with the digital apps. I would download one of the apps like the one i mentioned if i didn't have a physical deck though.
 

Papa Tango

I guess that what it comes down to is this. For me, apps which allow me to select cards reproducing a physical spread--and then make notes on my observations a bit later after considering them fully are wonderful.

The deck itself is little more than an interface--a tool to arrive at a psychological space. If little glowing screens do that for some, so be it. I have no use for fake LED candles, artificial fires, or other such. A set of cards in hand is like a well loved fountain pen, an old watch, or a century old smoking pipe. Each is a special artifact--and one I have built an elemental relationship with. I never have intent to get cozy with my cellphone...

Each to their own!
 

teomat

I run a website, offering a free to use Digital Tarot deck, called phuture.me
It's been on the go for 4 years now and has evolved a lot in that time.

I also wrote a Tarot App based on that website which is iOS only called "Tarot & Numerology".
The App is 100% free.
I'd love to get some feedback from the AT members on it so please try it out if you are an iPhone or iPad user.

Callanish
Happy to oblige! I discovered your app a few months ago and think its fantastic for the following reasons:

- Its FREE.
- You can upload scans of your physical decks.
- Rather than buy loads of separate apps, you can have them all in one app.
- You can input the card meanings for each separate deck you've uploaded.
- The card selection process is much more personalised - rather than the app selecting the cards, YOU select them (all 78 cards appear face down and you select the cards).

Basically it has all the same functionality of the Fools Dog apps, however all the decks can be stored in one app. To be fair though there are a couple of limitations:

- You can't zoom into the cards (not an issue for me though).
- You'd obviously have to input the companion book text yourself.
- Its perhaps not as 'sleek' looking as other apps (but it doesn't bother me - it does the job perfectly).

I love it. It's customisation features makes it the most practical and user-friendly tarot app out there. And it's FREE!
 

Callanish

Thanks for the lovely endorsement!

- You can zoom into the cards.
When you tap on a card in any spread you are taken to the card guide page.
If you tap on the card image on this page you get the card full screen. Did you want to zoom in further?
In addition to zoom you can also "card compare" between decks. Just swipe left or right either on the full screen card image or on the card image on the card guide page. If you swipe to the same card in the next deck in the card guide it also swaps to that decks card interpretation.
For a demo see this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9cGDLQTigo

- I've purposely made it fiddly to enter your own deck. When I was courting Ciro Marchetti to publish his decks in my App Ciro raised a valid concern about deck piracy with an App into which any deck could be loaded by a user. Yes you can load your own deck but I don't want my App to become a "Tarot MP3 player" kick starting a digital piracy revolution that ripping CD's did with music.

- I've totally forgone the "game" look of all the other Apps and kept it clean and simple, using only the smart phones native user interface. That way it's more intuitively recognisable and easy to use for the majority. I also believe that a good Tarot app should be in the background and the art work and symbolism at the fore front. Too many Tarot apps are graphically overloaded and gimmicky looking. I also wanted to create a digital tarot application - not a tarot emulator. Digital Tarot should be a beast of it's own and not a digitally attempted virtual reality of printed tarot (ie no shuffling cards animations etc. After a few days of use these becoming an annoying distraction I find).

Callanish

- You can't zoom into the cards (not an issue for me though).
- You'd obviously have to input the companion book text yourself.
- Its perhaps not as 'sleek' looking as other apps (but it doesn't bother me - it does the job perfectly).

I love it. It's customisation features makes it the most practical and user-friendly tarot app out there. And it's FREE!