Simple Yes/No Oracle Idea

Hi everybody,

Yeah, I’ve been trying out various Y/N spreads, including this variation of the very popular string of odd number of cards in a row, center counts for double, and finally I’ve found out many other Tarot users have done same way, and many of us are getting poor results with these. Yes/No answers sometimes are very tricky, for they lean to a very narrow view and divinatory meanings of the cards often seem to add more confusion.

So I come to think that something must be wrong with these spreads, or the approach is in some way incorrect. Maybe the use of the Tarot to make it provides these Y/N/M answer isn’t really the same way the things behave, so it could be more suitable to see the things differently than this simplistic manner alone. This is my reason to devise some other way with distinct a approach, that in we could see more how different forces involved with the questioned event are giving the various scenarios. EDs seems to be far more dynamic than reversals and it could be used to get a better answer Y/N/M type with more traits and scope than simple look at certain rule to use the cards to indicate a Y/N possibility and then try to guess what the divinatory meanings are trying telling us in each case.

So, in the beginning I put it “Simple,” because elemental dignities rules are few and simple, but I see now that the implications of these rules are far more than just simple.

Rodney,

I see no objection in relocate 1 at the bottom of the spread. Let me tell you I actually found the rotation of the whole spread you suggest very useful as I’ve tested. Also, I really can see how it you may be right at giving the 5/1 pair more prominence than 5/2 pair as I say, since 1 is determining the whole spread. Can you summarize your thoughts on your own approach about this idea? It can be useful since it can be say you may know more others concepts that I couldn’t.

OperaPhantom u_u said:

Also, I really can see how it you may be right at giving the 5/1 pair more prominence than 5/2 pair as I say, since 1 is determining the whole spread. Can you summarize your thoughts on your own approach about this idea? It can be useful since it can be say you may know more others concepts that I couldn’t.

Click to expand...

I thought I had, unless I'm not understanding you.

rwcarter said:

RE comparing 5 to 2 or 5 to 1, it's true that 2 is the central card to the spread, but 1 is the elemental base to which 3, 2, and 4 are all compared. As the central card, 2 is more important, but I think that 1 is stronger than 2 because it determines the strength of three other cards (four if you compare 5 to it) while two other cards determine the strength of 2 (three if you compare 5 to it). So I would compare 5 to 1. But I can understand comparing 5 to 2.

Click to expand...

2 is the central card and arguably the most important card, but it's not the strongest card. The elemental base (1) is the strongest card. So it makes more sense to me to determine the Y/N/M by comparing position 5 to the strongest card in the spread instead of to the central card in the spread. The strength of the elemental base never changes in the spread. The strength of 2 can change based on its interaction with the elemental base and by its interactions with the two cards that flank it.

Say you had a Fire card in position 1, a Water card in 2 and Fire cards in positions 3 and 4. The Water card in 2 is the most important card in the spread, but it's incredibly weak. So to get a Y/N/M answer would you rather compare card 5 to card 2 or to the elemental base? In some cases 2 might be both most important and incredibly strong. But as shown above, in other cases it could be most important and incredibly weak. The base is always strong because the other three cards are compared to it and therefore it determines how strong the other cards are.

I'm glad you've been playing with rotating the positions like a wheel to get at alternate answers.

Rodney

I’ve tested this idea for a while, and I’ve come to a more definite form of this. Think I should begin a new thread for the proper presentation of this as a finished spread, but I’d like to settle a certain conclusion here: The title of the thread is certainly not appropriate for such spread like this one, but I have no desire of change it since it really comes from a simple ideas as it can be the rules of elemental dignities that say, ‘friendly elements strengthen each other (i.e. says yes, for stand for a positive manifestation) and adversaries cancels each other (says no, for it denies manifestation).

Little has been changed regarding the layout of the spread since the original idea presented here, but there are more insights on how it can be read according to my own experience with it.

Here is the link for the thread:

http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?p=1933750&posted=1#post1933750

In _21 Ways to Read a Tarot Card_ Appendix D, you'll find the ten possibilities for triad combinations. I suppose you could use these patterns to determine ten different variations on a Yes-No answer.

For instance, given that the center card is primary:

3 cards same element = Absolute, screaming yes.

2 cards same element, plus 1 friendly flanking card = Almost perfect yes.

2 cards same element, plus one neutral flanking card = Yes, but with some factor that is neither for or against the overall yes.

2 cards same element, plus one contrary flanking card = While yes, there is one disturbing factor or thing working against you. Or a yes that will ultimately work against you.

Both flanking cards are contrary to the center card = Absolute No. Everything is going against your intent.

1 flanking card is contrary and one is neutral = A strong Probably Not. Nothing actively supports the intent.

Both flanking cards are neutral to the center = Maybe. The situation tends to stagnate or fizzle out.

1 flanking card is friendly and one is neutral = A weak probable, or a suggestion that something related may work out but not as you'd expect.

If you wanted you could possibly work some notion of delays or "work needed" into the interps.

If you determined beforehand what suit was most aligned with your question, then if that suit were missing it might indicate that whatever the result, your real intent/need is not being met. For instance if you ask "Does he love me?" and three Swords come up it could be that he loves you in a way that could bring more pain and sorrow than love.

The possibilities are endless, but it's a neat idea.

I’ve read the Appendix of Greer’s book you mention and it helps me a lot to understand these readings in triads device. It’s a very good book, though I haven’t read it entirely.

These ideas you mention here are very good ideas. I suppose this ED thing does a lot for making new ways of reading tarot such as these.

Thanks for the suggestions.

Oh gosh! You are Mary G.! I didn’t notice. Nice to meet you, and nice book too.

OperaPhantom u_u said:

Oh gosh! You are Mary G.! I didn’t notice. Nice to meet you, and nice book too.

Click to expand...

Glad you like the book.

I had never before thought of getting simple Yes/No/Probably/Maybe etc. answers from the triads. Thanks for the spread you created and described in the other thread and for opening the door to other possibilities.

Teheuti said:

Glad you like the book.

I had never before thought of getting simple Yes/No/Probably/Maybe etc. answers from the triads. Thanks for the spread you created and described in the other thread and for opening the door to other possibilities.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I hope it helps. I was beginning to believe it was a ‘not-so-good idea,’ as it is a ‘not-so-simple Y/N oracle.’