Further Thoughts on TdM Pips

Barleywine

I'm sure this has been debated to death, but a new contender has entered the ring (Camelia Elias' "cunning-folk" method) and I wanted to open this topic up again. I'm still searching for an epiphany on reading the TdM pip cards. Because they're non-scenic and have far fewer (or perhaps just "less varied") visual cues than even the Thoth, reading them seems a bit like wandering in the wilderness.

I can't really warm up to the iterative "stacking up the bits-and-pieces" approach (3 lines here, two dots there, 4 folds in the fabric, etc.); it makes even less sense to me than all the esoteric correspondences of the Thoth minor arcana. The "pips-as-Trumps" (or is it "Trumps-as-pips?") idea seems similarly forced to me, although numerical connections make some sense coupled with the nature of each suit. What I'm really after is a fluid and reliable anecdotal way to read them.

Elias' ideas of "agency/embodiment," "gesture/functionality" and "gaze/intention" help some, but mainly for the Trumps and Courts, and also for contacts between those and the pips (to be fair, I'm only two-thirds through her book). Apart from the occult symbolism, the Thoth minors have color, movement, mood, tension and sparsely suggestive imagery going for them. Other than the main artifacts of the suit (Batons, Cups, Swords and Coins) the Tdm has careful arrangements of peripheral features like flowers, leaves and branches along with their relative number, size, orientation and distribution. It is possible to make a story from these decorative features in conjunction with the suit emblems, but the background "landscapes" tend not to be a whole lot different from one another, at least in my practice. I'm also trying to avoid simply transferring all of the "hermetic" devices like astrology, numerology, elemental correspondences and qabalistic associations - as well as any overtly psychological nuances - onto my use of the TdM.

All of this adds up to a rather daunting learning curve. My imagination is probably as "well-oiled" as anyone else's who reads tarot intuitively, so I could just make stuff up, but I don't think that's doing justice to the traditon. It's just kind of hard to pin down what the tradition is trying to tell me. Has anyone made great strides toward an anecdotal style of reading the TdM pips (apart from those rather literalist ones I mentioned)?
 

Lee

I've had a lot to say on this topic over the years, so I thought I'd hang back and see what others have to say. Since no one's responded yet, I'll stick my nose out of my burrow. :)

It seems to me there's basically four possibilities for reading with pip cards:

1) Numerology (in which I include any esoteric correspondence including astrology, GD, pips-as-trumps, etc., which when you boil them down are really simply different ways to assign meanings to numbers and suits)

2) Mentally linking the cards with the corresponding illustrations in scenic-pip decks (could be RWS or other-than-RWS)

3) Memorizing non-numerical meanings for the cards (for example, as in the Personal Prophesy/The Message playing-card system by Deborah Leigh, or as in Etteilla), in which meanings are assigned to cards seemingly at random, without regard to card number)

4) Interpreting the images and parts of images like a Rorschach test, with no regard for predetermined meanings, a la Enrique

Or any combination of the above.

As someone who has been searching for the "perfect" method for many years, I can attest that none of these approaches is perfect and each has their positives and negatives.

Numerology (of any kind) is logical, consistent, and easy to memorize, but can seem mechanistic and, as you say, "forced."

Using scenic-pip-deck images has the advantage of familiarity, but many of us come to TdM for the express purpose of getting away from those images.

Non-numerical meanings have more "character," but are hard to memorize. And I can tell you from personal experience that it's difficult to find the subtlety and nuance you can get from the other methods, unless you memorize long, intricate meanings for each card, which can be quite a feat. Also, it reduces the reading process to a routine of mentally reciting a long list of meanings every time you turn a card over.

Free association with no fixed meanings can be a cathartic and creative experience, but it can feel to me sometimes as if I'm simply "making stuff up."

I like to use numerologically-derived meanings as an overall structure and then use free association within that structure to fill in the details.

If you're looking for a method that's different from those four, I haven't found one, and it's hard to imagine that one exists, although of course it's always possible that someone can come up with something new. If you're looking for some combination or variation of the above in which the method of combination or recipe is just right, I can only pass along to you my own experience, which is that I haven't found one yet that's hit me over the head with its perfection. The most satisfying reading systems I've come across have been the ones I've put together for myself, although I'm always open to trying other people's if they look good to me.
Barleywine said:
Has anyone made great strides toward an anecdotal style of reading the TdM pips
Can you explain a little more what you mean by "anecdotal"? In my book I suggest coming up with our own stories to match a numerological progression from one to ten, and assigning each suit with such a story, perhaps a story from our own life histories, to arrive at a "scene" or mental image for each suit which derives from a personally meaningful event or image (sort of like the Mythic Tarot approach of assigning a story to each suit). Does that fit in with what you mean by "anectodal"?
It's just kind of hard to pin down what the tradition is trying to tell me.
Completely befuddled as to what you mean. To what tradition do you refer? :confused:

Here is a thread which discusses many different aspects of reading with TdM pips. It's a long thread but there's lots of interesting stuff in it. I started the thread myself, actually -- fourteen years ago! :bugeyed:
 

Barleywine

Thanks, Lee! I understand exactly what you're talking about with the "mix-and-match" method of interpretation. I figured the numerological approach - working from the simple to the complex - coupled with elemental associations would be workable for me but I don't see it as the final answer to what I'm after since it's not all that imaginitive.

Perhaps I can explain myself better on the other points:

By "anecdotal" I mean fashioning a fluid, imaginitive - perhaps "visionary" in its best sense - narrative out of the discrete "story" elements of the spread, rather than just factually ennumerating its components. I want to tell a compelling story, not just recite the alphabet. I want as much "juice" as I can get out of my readings. Getting caught up in the kind of "deconstructionist" mentality implied in some methods of interpretation strikes me as more than a little anemic.

By talking about "what the tradition is trying to tell me," I was getting a little fanciful since I know there's really no treasure-trove of historical knowledge to be mined in this regard. The traditional images in the TdM pips don't "talk" in the same way those in the more scenic decks do. There's a story in their somewhere, it just has to be let out. So I guess I'm looking for a kind of "TdM-to-GD" phrase book to help me with the translation. I am getting some hints on how to move forward from Camelia Elais' new book - the "cunning-folk" method of story-telling resonates but I still haven't nailed down exactly what she means by it; I don't have your book for comparison.
 

Lee

I can't really comment on the Elias book as I haven't seen it - I'd be curious to know what her general approach for the pips is (not the details, of course).

Still having a little trouble understanding what it is you're looking for, but that may simply be my own obtuseness.

It seems to me that the richness of a reading comes from the reading process itself and not from the meanings we assign to the cards, which can be rather simple (in fact I find it works better for me when the meanings are simple).

Not to make this all about me, but in my opinion, this reading exchange is a good example of how high a reading can fly with relatively simple methods. Le charior and I use somewhat different methods but our readings I think were equally rich and creative. It's not my abilities as a reader that I'm trying to highlight, rather the potential efficacy of a system of meanings that may look simple and mechanical when listed on paper but which fully come to life only when you read with them.
 

Astraea

For the TdM pips, Elias places heavy reliance on Dawn Jackson's Hedgewytchery 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 Hedgewytchery system several years ago. A three-part Hedgewytchery 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 Hedgewytchery, as there have been many of those in the past.

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

Lee

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).
Ah, very interesting. Thanks Astraea! :) I may actually buy the book now, to see what she's done with it.
 

Barleywine

It seems to me that the richness of a reading comes from the reading process itself and not from the meanings we assign to the cards, which can be rather simple (in fact I find it works better for me when the meanings are simple).

I see the associations that have grown up around the scenic decks as triggers that incite the imagination and the intuition. They're like a runner's starting blocks, something to push off against. I don't necessarily agree with or use all of them since the "pictures" don't always convey the "meanings" in a convincing way. I appreciate the Thoth pips far more than the RWS pips since they have what I've been calling "sparsely suggestive imagery;" it's closer in spirit to the TdM than to the RWS. I'm trying to get to the same sense of connection with the TdM as I have with the Thoth; I just need a sufficiently robust vocabulary. It's a truly mind-stretching endeavor.
 

Barleywine

Ah, very interesting. Thanks Astraea! :) I may actually buy the book now, to see what she's done with it.

I had a few observations in the thread for the book. It gets better as you work through it. I'm at the last part now where she puts her ideas into practice for the Courts and pips, and I'm starting to get it.
 

Astraea

I may actually buy the book now, to see what she's done with it.
It doesn't take up a large portion of the book, but it does add some flesh to the bones of the pips (mixing my metaphors). Jackson's tutorials remain bedrock for me in terms of sheer detail and completeness of information; Elias references her several times, and states that she (Elias) uses playing card reading skills to unravel the TdM pips. For me, Elias' discussion of the pips was not the strongest part of her book - but I was very glad to see that she referenced Jackson, especially because it is still possible to find her work online.

I think Elias' book is worthwhile, especially in terms of her visual storytelling approach - an approach she shares with Enrique Enriquez and others. I find it freeing to observe and follow the visual characteristics of a card wherever they lead, as opposed to remaining locked into hard-and-fast meanings that might or might not apply in specific readings.
 

Barleywine

It doesn't take up a large portion of the book, but it does add some flesh to the bones of the pips (mixing my metaphors). Jackson's tutorials remain bedrock for me in terms of sheer detail and completeness of information; Elias references her several times, and states that she (Elias) uses playing card reading skills to unravel the TdM pips. For me, Elias' discussion of the pips was not the strongest part of her book - but I was very glad to see that she referenced Jackson, especially because it is still possible to find her work online.

I think Elias' book is worthwhile, especially in terms of her visual storytelling approach - an approach she shares with Enrique Enriquez and others. I find it freeing to observe and follow the visual characteristics of a card wherever they lead, as opposed to remaining locked into hard-and-fast meanings that might or might not apply in specific readings.

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

ETA: I thought her "Council of 13" spread and the method of reading it was remarkably like reading a Lenormand 9-card square, but both could have been derived from playing-card technique.