Positive/Negative Interpretations (split from 'Red Flag' relationship warning cards)

headincloud

I try to give my interpretations in an even-handed way that offers the client something to chew on, and I agree that context is important to the client, if not always to me. Since I never ask for a question or topic of interest in advance, I leave it up to my clients to fit my observations into their own understanding of their personal reality, and then I entertain questions that aid them in doing that. I approach a challenging card as both a potential obstacle and an opportunity, usually by starting with "This card often means . . ." and then shifting the perspective to other possibilities that are more constructive and hopefully more empowering. If a client is adamant that something isn't what the cards insist it is, I will find a way to bring the incompatible viewpoints to some kind of middle ground that acknowledges both. There is almost always a layer of meaning that fits the situation, and I find most of my clients willing to work with me to find it. After all, they're paying for the privilege.

mm..I just tend to tell the truth as I see it.
 

Barleywine

mm..I just tend to tell the truth as I see it.

In an ideal world, so would I. But my main goal is to connect with my client, and sometimes the simple truth is indigestible in that form and must be parsed. I'm not trying to be an oracle, just a facilitator and a motivator, but above all a pragmatist who will do whatever it takes to get the right message across unambiguously. That would be the message that gives my client the most valuable insights under the circumstances.
 

zhadee

mm..I just tend to tell the truth as I see it.
Exactly - the way you see it might not be helpful for your sitter. The issue you're aware of might not be your sitters main concern.
Do you wish to speak the truth for the sake of your dogma that you're always saying the truth, or do you wish to help your sitter?

 

headincloud

In an ideal world, so would I. But my main goal is to connect with my client, and sometimes the simple truth is indigestible in that form and must be parsed. I'm not trying to be an oracle, just a facilitator and a motivator, but above all a pragmatist who will do whatever it takes to get the right message across unambiguously. That would be the message that gives my client the most valuable insights under the circumstances.

I don't see myself as a facilitator or motivator, I'm not a life coach, I think you're way out of line giving advice as you're not a counsellor, I leave that to the professionals and concentrate on tarot reading, my aim is to act as an oracle. You like to give your clients something to chew on and the way I see it the truth is something to chew on. How do you know what's digestible to the client or must be parsed, and what makes you think the truth is any more digestible once you change the grammar or point out the syntax??

How do you know the message is the right one and why would you choose to put that across unambiguously and dance around the rest.

Exactly - the way you see it might not be helpful for your sitter. The issue you're aware of might not be your sitters main concern.
Do you wish to speak the truth for the sake of your dogma that you're always saying the truth, or do you wish to help your sitter?


How many different ways of seeing the truth are there then? Usually what comes up comes up for a reason, and the client is free to explore any area they wish anyway. I took a vow on initiation to speak the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It's not dogma it's respect and trust in spiritual guidance and the choice is not between helping your client or practising dogma, you can be respectful of spiritual law and help your client simultaneously.

There are obviously instances where I won't read certain things like miscarriage, death etc,etc there's nothing dogmatic about my approach imho.
 

headincloud

Could you give an example of what you mean by this? I think the two of you may be saying the same thing, but not quite seeing it without a specific example.

See where you're coming from Rod, what I'm saying is we're not looking to twist a cards energy in a spread, it's inherent and doesn't change from spread to spread or deck to deck so it's down to us to spot dynamics in cards so if the sun came up with 7C rx (head in the shed, on a false high) and star rx (false hope) then the sun is likely to be a very short lived energy because it's based on false optimism and there may be a fall up ahead depending on surrounding cards.

The energy of the sun is no different in a spread that reads Sun, 9C, 6W - success,wish, victory, but here it's strongly supported and likely to be a long term influence depending on other surrounding cards.

At the end of the day we're both taking about dynamics.
 

greatdane

You posted you just tend to tell the truth as you see it. I think that is what most readers do.

You talk about dynamics, but who is defining those dynamics?

Part of being a reader is defining the cards, and what they mean, in a reading. Different readers will do that differently.

I don't think you are suggesting all readers must read just as you do or the reading isn't valid, or maybe I am missing something.

From your posts, it seems you are saying this is always this no matter the spread, the question, it is NOT up to any interpretation.

Again, if that is NOT what you are saying, my apologies. I am just trying to understand.
 

Thirteen

Well, I'm confused!

See where you're coming from Rod, what I'm saying is we're not looking to twist a cards energy in a spread, it's inherent and doesn't change from spread to spread or deck to deck so it's down to us to spot dynamics in cards so if the sun came up with 7C rx (head in the shed, on a false high) and star rx (false hope) then the sun is likely to be a very short lived energy because it's based on false optimism and there may be a fall up ahead depending on surrounding cards.

The energy of the sun is no different in a spread that reads Sun, 9C, 6W - success,wish, victory, but here it's strongly supported and likely to be a long term influence depending on other surrounding cards.
What if the reader doesn't use reversals? So, Sun, 7C and Star...reader NOT using reversals. Are you saying that a reader *must* use reversals to know if the Sun is false optimism in that configuration rather than real optimism? Or Star is false hope rather than real hope? I don't use reversals, so giving me reversal examples doesn't help me understand your argument. And what about positions in a spread? What if a position in a spread is "This is bad for you," and it's the Sun. Wouldn't that suggest false optimism even if the reader wasn't using reversals?

In the end, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. In fact, you've completely confused me. Please take a moment to tell me...in very small and simple words, with UPRIGHT ONLY examples (give me two readers who get the same two cards and what one does that you think right and one does that you think wrong and why). What you object to readers doing? and what you see as the way it ought to be done?

That would help me (and I think the readers of this thread) a great deal. Because I'm not understanding what you object to or why.
 

Grizabella

I just have a couple of comments.

For one, I often use positions in a spread that show both the positives and negatives about whatever the sitter has asked. Therefore, in the negative positions if a spread, then one of these meanings could absolutely apply.

For two, reading the cards as indicated in Rodney's list isn't twisting meanings to fit. It's reading one of the aspects of the cards as having sort of a reversed meaning. That isn't at all twisting meanings any more than using one of the many other meanings of cards is.

Thirdly, there's nobody suggesting that the meanings Rodney has listed are the whole meaning of the cards. They're just added meanings to tuck into our knowledge of card meanings. :)
 

Barleywine

I don't see myself as a facilitator or motivator, I'm not a life coach, I think you're way out of line giving advice as you're not a counsellor, I leave that to the professionals and concentrate on tarot reading, my aim is to act as an oracle. You like to give your clients something to chew on and the way I see it the truth is something to chew on. How do you know what's digestible to the client or must be parsed, and what makes you think the truth is any more digestible once you change the grammar or point out the syntax??

How do you know the message is the right one and why would you choose to put that across unambiguously and dance around the rest.

I never said I give advice, I don't. I give information (and hopefully insights) for querents to choose their own path. As far as knowing whether I'm on the right track, I do it the easy way: I simply ask the person sitting across the table. I never read remotely, so there's no shooting in the dark. I take exception to being told I'm out of line when you have no clue how I've been working with the tarot for the last four decades.
 

headincloud

It seems to me that reading the upright interpretations of the cards and looking to the question to cast a negative or positive shadow is ineffective. Reading a card in the position of 'red flag' in a spread doesn't require a shift to a negative perspective and prescription in order to read it, what if there is no red flag in the relationship and we've forced a negative interpretation into the spread. The card itself tells me whether there's a red card or not and the sun upright wouldn't signal one for me.

Similarly someone asks for 3 things his girlfriend likes about him, we're immediately looking for 3 positive qualities so we shift our perspective to draw out the positive from every card, by doing so we've negated all other possible interpretations and missed the fact she's running him ragged, because it doesn't fit with our preconceived notions, but first we need to be aware that we are operating under them.