Further Thoughts on TdM Pips

Barleywine said:

Interesting. I found the section on the Trumps kind of half-baked (although I did find her explanation for the Emperor one of the more useful ones I've seen). I also liked her idea of the elements (figures, implements, etc.) of one card carrying over into subsequent cards, linking them together while also having developmental significance. I've already been using her ideas of embodiment, gesture and gaze with my non-TdM decks, just under different descriptive terms.

Click to expand...

I wasn't much taken with the section on the trumps, either, except in terms of her emphasis on following visual cues (as you say, gaze and implements, etc.) to arrive at a narrative.

She does lead the reader into thinking Jackson's website is defunct.

Click to expand...

I noticed that, too. But she might not be aware of the Wayback Machine.

Overall, I think Elias' book is worth having in the library. It needed a good editor and proofreader, as you noted in your initial review, but there are nice tidbits and some intriguing points of view in it.

Astraea said:

For the TdM pips, Elias places heavy reliance on Dawn Jackson's Hedgwitchery system of playing card reading (and I was pleased to see that Elias gives Jackson full credit).

Barleywine, my friend Lee turned me on to the Hedgwitchery system several years ago. A three-part Hedgwitchery manual/tutorial is available online at the Wayback Machine. Here is a link to the first part: http://web.archive.org/web/20080312032821/www.hedgewytchery.com/cartomancy.html . Links to the following parts are at the bottom of each tutorial. You can also search AT for threads on Hedwitchery, as there have been many of those in the past.

I have been eternally grateful to Lee for steering me in the direction of Hedgwitchery, which finally opened up the pips for me.

Click to expand...

Thanks for this. A quote from the very first page describes what I'm seeing with some methods of "deconstructing" the TdM pips to extract their meaning. It really does produce more of an alphabet than a true vocabulary.

"Many systems of card reading, both of regular playing cards and Tarot cards, are generally too rigid in their meanings and methods. This does not allow the reader to give full play to intuition, and consequently, detailed predictions, such as come only through the use of intuition, are lacking."

This discussion has helped me quite a bit already. I can see that "suggestibilty" is a cardinal virtue in trying to decipher the TdM pips, and that's as good a "can opener" as any. It seems like grabbing an elusive idea by the coat-tails, wrestling it to the ground and forcing it to yield up its meaning. More La Force opening the lion's mouth than La Temperence muddling things together, the nutcracker and not the tea diffuser as a way to extract meaning. The numerological and suit associations seem to come under the former, opening up a reliable kernel of truth. With the scenic pips I've gotten accustomed to weighing rather finely-parsed nuances of esoteric import, but, for me at least, the TdM is largely impervious to that approach. Not exactly "being hit over the head lessons," in Monty Python parlance, but the level of effort to derive useful content from the TdM pips certainly resembles tearing it off with your teeth more than than sipping it daintily from a spoon. I'm sure I'll gain subtlety as I work up my own style (I already have an inkling of where I'm going to take it) but for now I'll just go with broader swipes at it.

Thanks for the inspiration!

This morning I was taking a look at the pips section of Yoav Ben-Dov's book. He has the same general approach as mine - a general framework of numerology combined with creatively interpreting visual elements - but he uses some basic guidelines to come up with fixed meanings for the pips based on the visual elements, whereas I advocate for interpreting the visual elements by improvising during the reading.

I like his ideas for the fixed meanings for pips based on some basic visual principles, and I may try incorporating some of them in my own readings. His approach may be a good in-between point for anyone who wants to use the visual elements but without completely free-associating.

Lee said:

This morning I was taking a look at the pips section of Yoav Ben-Dov's book. He has the same general approach as mine - a general framework of numerology combined with creatively interpreting visual elements - but he uses some basic guidelines to come up with fixed meanings for the pips based on the visual elements, whereas I advocate for interpreting the visual elements by improvising during the reading.

I like his ideas for the fixed meanings for pips based on some basic visual principles, and I may try incorporating some of them in my own readings. His approach may be a good in-between point for anyone who wants to use the visual elements but without completely free-associating.

Click to expand...

I have the book and have read it. I need to re-read it in light of my current thinking. It seems to fit somewhat into my "deconstructionist" bin - the "stacking up of bits-and-pieces" model - but I'll reconsider it with a view to your comments. I don't have anything by David (a bit pricey for me) or Enriquez (never read much good about it, and the little I've seen wasn't impressive), but it might be time for a reappraisal.

Barleywine said:

I don't have anything by David (a bit pricey for me) or Enriquez (never read much good about it, and the little I've seen wasn't impressive), but it might be time for a reappraisal.

Click to expand...

If you have the time, you might try looking through their posts here on AT to get a feel for their approaches (EnriqueEnriquez and jmd are their user names).

Astraea said:

Here is a link to the first part: http://web.archive.org/web/20080312032821/www.hedgewytchery.com/cartomancy.html . Links to the following parts are at the bottom of each tutorial. You can also search AT for threads on Hedgewytchery, as there have been many of those in the past.

Click to expand...

And I think I will be eternally grateful to you for linking this! I'm working through the material now. I very much like the way she works from the "gross to the fine," slowly dialing in the more involved techniques. I'm on the "middling memory" material now. I'm strongly reminded of the way I work with the playing card inserts in Lenormand, but this is much more fully realized as a system than I've encountered there. The reading of the 9-card square is also familiar territory but a little more stripped-down here. I think I can see where many of the people who comment in the Your Readings forum get there associations; coming from a Golden Dawn background, I've never seen the Sixes as alternative "paths" per se, more as a brief resting place on the main route.

About the only quibble I have so far is with the assignment of the suits to the elements. I think a spade resembles a sword more than a garden implement; I also see no reason why a mattock can't be just as good an image for "digging in the earth," and it resembles a club more than a spade. So I would leave spades with Air and clubs with Earth. Clubs are more "blunt instruments" while swords/spades are more abrupt and incisive. I'm in perfect agreement with diamonds and hearts.

I'm so glad you're enjoying the material, Barleywine! Adjusting the suits as you see fit will pose no problem, you just make the swap in your mind. I think Hedgewytchery is genius.

I think all of us are fascinated with Marseille live this conflict with the minor arcana numbered from the deck. I quite worried because I have to decide if it's worth fighting this problem or make a deck visually coded. If you choose to Marseille for whatever reason, does not seem a good way to project on the cards external coding systems. It can be done, of course, but no sense because before I choose a deck and encoded.

From these considerations I believe that the best way would be to start from scratch and let the deck is expressed and then try to understand what each letter. With the passage of time each card it is loaded with multiple meanings in terms of itself and grammar harness.

This path is not for everyone but it is very productive. Either way if someone wanted to start with the card reading and I asked for advice on how to start deck never recommend Marseille. Tomo Marseille and personal way of research, but would never say to someone who would be guided by the cards to understand, because it is a way too complicated.

(I must say that my language is Spanish and I should help Google Translator to assemble this message)

Byron said:

I think all of us are fascinated with Marseille live this conflict with the minor arcana numbered from the deck. I quite worried because I have to decide if it's worth fighting this problem or make a deck visually coded. If you choose to Marseille for whatever reason, does not seem a good way to project on the cards external coding systems. It can be done, of course, but no sense because before I choose a deck and encoded.

From these considerations I believe that the best way would be to start from scratch and let the deck is expressed and then try to understand what each letter. With the passage of time each card it is loaded with multiple meanings in terms of itself and grammar harness.

This path is not for everyone but it is very productive. Either way if someone wanted to start with the card reading and I asked for advice on how to start deck never recommend Marseille. Tomo Marseille and personal way of research, but would never say to someone who would be guided by the cards to understand, because it is a way too complicated.

(I must say that my language is Spanish and I should help Google Translator to assemble this message)

Click to expand...

I like the idea of "progressive loading" through use and contemplation, kind of like the way a pearl grows from a grain of sand (although that does seem kind of irritating for the oyster . . .). I'm trying to avoid the "esoteric wrapper" idea with it's freight of ready-made symbolism.