6 of Wands: A Fake Horse?

Barleywine

You're welcomed! ^_^

Just thought I should add one more thing --> Okay, let's say the horse is real. How come the legs (esp. the left foreleg) and tail are covered? It doesn't make sense to cover up the horse like that and have it trot through a crowd with a rider on its back. It's dangerous because the legs could get tangled in the sheet and the animal could fall down and injure itself. Plus, the rider could also be seriously wounded from such a fall. If the animal is real, it could be the rider is taking a big safety risk as he parades around on the horse. Hmm...

Regarding the long "skirts" shown on the horses, they were known as caparisons, and they were worn over the "barding" (metal horse armor), probably as a way to display a knight's "colors" (heraldry). Below is a quote from wiki. Tip-to-tail and all the way to the ground was apparently not out-of-the-ordinary.

"Barding was often used in conjunction with cloth covers known as caparisons. These coverings sometimes covered the entire horse from nose to tail and extended to the ground. It is unclear from period illustrations how much metal defensive covering was used in conjunction. Textile covers may also be called barding."
 

ravenest

I tend to ask myself - what is the use of all these different perspectives? They aren't telling us the truth about what Smith or Waite intended. They aren't giving us the "real" meaning of the card (6 of Wands in all decks), since there isn't any. They show that humans perceive things differently, which are often linked to personal memories and emotions, and that they then make up stories and rationales to explain their perceptions.

If you ask a person to literally describe a card - just the pictures with no meanings or assumptions - the majority of people can't do it without adding their own assumptions. It's the difference among:
• "a man wearing a crown and sitting on a throne"
• "a king sitting on his throne"
• "a dictator who is setting laws"
• "my boss who is angry at me"

So the use of these different perspectives is to tell stories (which are all too often felt to be the truth).

As a reader, I compare these "stories" with the core meanings of the card, the question asked, and the other cards in a spread to see how a person reacts to the situation. Depending on the person, I may want them to see how their own perception influences an otherwise objective situation, etc.

If a reader is totally caught up in his or her own story, to the point of losing track of the objective situation (governments and authority figures are bad - for instance), then there is a danger that the reading will not be that helpful - like a "fake horse" and the querent either won't want to follow its advice or will follow it to his or her detriment.

Another theory is that the reader and querent were brought together by synchronicity and therefore whatever the reader's biases, they will be appropriate to the querent at that moment. But this is not the meaning of the term synchronicity.

:)

http://www.fontscape.com/pictures/delve-fonts/BlotTest.gif
 

Teheuti

LOL. But Tarot is so much more effective! The real work of interpretation comes from seeing the relationship between a person's story and the standard meaning of the card. For instance, what's a person relationship to "justice." It's shown by what justice means (it's definition and implications), the other cards in the reading, and by both the reader's and querent's perceptions. The degree of each depends on each individual reader.
 

ravenest

LOL. But Tarot is so much more effective! The real work of interpretation comes from seeing the relationship between a person's story and the standard meaning of the card.

For instance, what's a person relationship to "justice." It's shown by what justice means (it's definition and implications), the other cards in the reading, and by both the reader's and querent's perceptions. The degree of each depends on each individual reader.

:thumbsup:

I think that a 'standard' reference set is needed as a template to hold our own perceptions against. If a card has a title, or specific meaning and our perception is greatly at odds with that - without good justification from the rest of a reading - then holding up 'intuition' or 'my perception'* as a reason just doesn't cut it ... THAT is more in line with the inkblot test. ;)

* I find these often come from focusing on a small detail or part of a card design other than the overall card.
 

Teheuti

When I read "interactively" the best information comes from the dance between what the querent sees and what the meaning of the cards are - with in-the-moment insights from me thrown in.
 

rwcarter

Moderator Note

Can we pull this discussion back to the 6 Wands?