Non-scenic RWS pips (split from Impact pf PCS on the RWS deck)

ravenest

I am becoming increasingly more interested in the subtle division between ; symbol interpretation and symbol association.

IMO unillustrated / non-scenic seems to help interpretation / meaning / collective 'unconscious' (but the essential 'bare nature' of them seems to prerequisite learnt tarot knowledge - at least suit X number ). Illustrated / scenic, seems to suggest a 'psychological association' - IMO more personal / individual.

And if isnt clear by now, my position is; associations are no one's business, except the person making them (which they may choose to share ), a reader should not project their own associations into a reading for another, but the meaning / interpretation is the job of the reader and then, perhaps, to work with the clients OWN associations ... I cant agree with putting the readers own associations onto the client.
 

prudence

This almost seems like it would be perfect for anyone who teaches about tarot, or Golden Dawn or Kabbalah, Tree of Life. I think it would help immensely in making things very clear and straight forward for the student.
 

Laura Borealis

I think strip it down mostly, but leave a few tantalizing elements. I like the idea of keeping the wreath in the six of wands, but maybe not keeping all the flowers in the cups. Maybe try it with just the flowers in the two upper cups to see?

Interesting... of course the upper one would be the easiest to remove the flowers from... the others will all need touching up. :)

Ah, but do you leave the face of the skull on the 7 of Cups?

:bugeyed: Good question! I think leave it, as it's subtle. But I'll have to wait and see how it looks. It might leap out without all the dragons and floating heads.

I would strip it all down except for a few choice things. For example the shrouded figure in the center or the lion on the Two of Cups. "Special" symbols that transcend the others in importance. Perhaps that lion shows the essential energy of the suit (Love) and there is another such symbol in one card of every suit. In the Pentacles perhaps it is that Tree of Life on the Ten. Maybe in the Wands it is those two wreaths.

In any case, in the suit of Wands the placement of the rods seem to hint at their placement and degree of stability on the Tree of Life. Same thing with the Swords, where straight swords imply a certain stability while angled ones imply the opposite. The other two suits don't seem to use this technique, but I could be wrong.

In any case I will be extremely interested in seeing the whole thing. This experiment has really made me look at the cards in a completely new light!

Me too. It really seems to open them up, if that makes sense.

I'm leaning toward the bare pips idea, for a number of reasons.

I am too, I think that's a more pure expression of the original idea.

Ah, there could be several decks (and alternate cards) here.

Now that's a thought... especially considering Game Crafter's tarot boxes hold 90 cards.

I'd like to see both, though I find the idea of leaving in some choice elements very intriguing.

Yes, it would make the deck more Golden Dawn-ish or Thoth-ish :) In the best of all possible worlds I would want both a completely unillustrated version and one with some key elements. However, if I had to choose only one, I would go for one with no illustration except the pips

Alternate cards for some of them would give us both. :)
 

Laura Borealis

I am becoming increasingly more interested in the subtle division between ; symbol interpretation and symbol association.

IMO unillustrated / non-scenic seems to help interpretation / meaning / collective 'unconscious' (but the essential 'bare nature' of them seems to prerequisite learnt tarot knowledge - at least suit X number ). Illustrated / scenic, seems to suggest a 'psychological association' - IMO more personal / individual.

And if isnt clear by now, my position is; associations are no one's business, except the person making them (which they may choose to share ), a reader should not project their own associations into a reading for another, but the meaning / interpretation is the job of the reader and then, perhaps, to work with the clients OWN associations ... I cant agree with putting the readers own associations onto the client.

I'm not sure I really follow... what you're calling associations, do you mean purely personal, idiosyncratic ones? Like I look at the 6 coins dropping in Six of Pentacles and I associate them with oh... let's say, Tater Tots, because I did a reading once where that card figured in an important way and I was eating Tater Tots at the same time, and noticed there were six of them? The example is silly but illustrates an association that would be purely personal.

This almost seems like it would be perfect for anyone who teaches about tarot, or Golden Dawn or Kabbalah, Tree of Life. I think it would help immensely in making things very clear and straight forward for the student.

I hope that is true :) and that people share their experiences. I really am going to do my best to put this together and get it printed. You all might need to keep me honest - I sometimes drop the ball on projects. :p
 

Richard

Not blatantly dishonest, but it would reduce the work if you just isolate just one of the pip symbols in the card you are working on, fix it up, and then copy and paste it in place of each of the others, as I did for the 3 of Cups. You could then diddle a little to make them all slightly different if you wish. Since you might need to do some reconstruction anyhow, I think this is legitimate. Of course, this wouldn't work when there are size or perspective differences involved.

......I really am going to do my best to put this together and get it printed. You all might need to keep me honest - I sometimes drop the ball on projects. :p
 

ravenest

I'm not sure I really follow... what you're calling associations, do you mean purely personal, idiosyncratic ones? Like I look at the 6 coins dropping in Six of Pentacles and I associate them with oh... let's say, Tater Tots, because I did a reading once where that card figured in an important way and I was eating Tater Tots at the same time, and noticed there were six of them? The example is silly but illustrates an association that would be purely personal.
yeah ... sort of. (Not for a self reading of course)

EG. ( a really simple one) Death comes up, I have a fear of death and the unknown. I start projecting those ideas into what the Death trump means. IMO that is an association. Now I am projecting fear into the reading interpretation and into the client.

If I give the meaning of the Death card and the client then associates that with fear of the unknown themselves, then fine, it's their reading and it came up for them, then we can work with that in the reading FOR them . It's their reading , not mine. My stuff should be kept out of it.
 

Richard

Some books instruct the reader to say what first comes to mind when a card comes up in a reading. There is absolutely no way to insure that this doesn't just reflect the personal reaction of the reader to the card itself, rather than the question the client asked. If this is a legitimate way to tell fortunes, it involves some pretty far-out hocus-pocus.
 

Laura Borealis

yeah ... sort of. (Not for a self reading of course)

EG. ( a really simple one) Death comes up, I have a fear of death and the unknown. I start projecting those ideas into what the Death trump means. IMO that is an association. Now I am projecting fear into the reading interpretation and into the client.

If I give the meaning of the Death card and the client then associates that with fear of the unknown themselves, then fine, it's their reading and it came up for them, then we can work with that in the reading FOR them . It's their reading , not mine. My stuff should be kept out of it.

Thanks for explaining, that makes sense.

Not blatantly dishonest, but it would reduce the work if you just isolate just one of the pip symbols in the card you are working on, fix it up, and then copy and paste it in place of each of the others, as I did for the 3 of Cups. You could then diddle a little to make them all slightly different if you wish. Since you might need to do some reconstruction anyhow, I think this is legitimate. Of course, this wouldn't work when there are size or perspective differences involved.

I probably will do that to some extent. I don't want to go too far off what Pixie drew, but I have my limits :p
 

Laura Borealis

Some books instruct the reader to say what first comes to mind when a card comes up in a reading. There is absolutely no way to insure that this doesn't just reflect the personal reaction of the reader to the card itself, rather than the question the client asked. If this is a legitimate way to tell fortunes, it involves some pretty far-out hocus-pocus.

I could see this as an exercise when one is learning, but for a professional it seems like an irresponsible way to read. :neutral:
 

ravenest

I think it is a dynamic not restricted to cards. I have heard people say the first thing that pops into their head and do the first thing that popped into their head ... without thinking about it at all, or thinking it through.

For some 'types', and in some situations it works. Often it is disastrous or reckless. I would never recommend it as a practice for all!

My neighbour once got the thought in her head to check by feeling with her hand, if the lawn mower blades were still going around after she shut the motor down. She said that at the last moment a part of her realised how stupid it was and she jerked her hand back ... but to late :(