TdM - why not read it as other decks?

Farzon

I was wondering if this old thread would help you all.

http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=112327

I've already seen that! It's fascinating, not to say ingenious, thank you. 😊 However, I find it more complicated than any GD instruction I've read so far... I am also intrigued by Ayumi's approach, even if it turns my whole Tarot-world upside down. I guess I'll take a closer look at Mel's Old Fashioned System over the holidays...

I agree with what others have said. One of the fun things about TdM decks is that they free you to explore other ways of deriving meaning for the pip cards. But you can read them any way you want.

And I think that's the thing I need to get used to... although I always interpreted illustrated minors with a theoretical concept rather than just by what I see.

I gravitate toward the same fall-back approach, and it's been said here before that there's really no good reason why we shouldn't use what we know if the result is satisfactory. That said, since there isn't a TdM "traditon" for purposes of divination, I try to stick with suit/element and number correspondences and downplay the astrological and qabala stuff. Since it's the pip cards that give me the most trouble, I've been considering the "pips-as-trumps" model as well, and my thinking on this has been enhanced by my study of the Voyager Tarot, which uses a similar concept (that is, the numbered suit cards share strong connections to the Major Arcana of the same number or that reduce to that number by numerology).

That's my approach as well so far.

The funny thing is, my numerological thoughts seem to be heavily influenced by what GD scriptures have said about the numbers.

I also try to take clues from the visuals. In the reading exchanges and other sources I stumbled across some interpretations that seem to have become common knowledge in interpreting the TdM.

For example the interpretation of the Ten of Staffs as something securing like a net. I rather see a firm stand of two against a crowd, which again brings me back to "too much for one to bear alone", "oppression" and all that. But the TdM card opens up this whole field of cooperation that is not part of the RWS or GD cards. So, in some way, my method starts to change already.
 

teomat

I agree with what others have said. One of the fun things about TdM decks is that they free you to explore other ways of deriving meaning for the pip cards. But you can read them any way you want. If you use RWS meanings for TdM pips, no one will tell you that you're "not reading TdM." Or if they do, they'll get some disagreement from me. :)

For TdM readings exchanges, we've established a convention that folks shouldn't use RWS-inspired pip meanings for those readings, in order to avoid frustration between RWS folks and non-RWS folks. But in general, by all means read them however you like, and however you choose to read them, enjoy them! Personally, I like to experiment, so I change things up every now and again.

I agree with Lee's comments too, particularly about experimenting with different methods.

The GD system is very comprehensive and well thought-out, and can be perfectly applied to the TdM. I've sometimes fall back on it in my TdM readings...but with reluctance, as I generally see the TdM as an opportunity to try something different for a change. Plus I like the idea of crafting my own personal meanings. The problem is that the GD meanings (and particularly the RWS illustrations) have become so ingrained in my mind, that it's difficult to shut them out. Not that you need or should do of course if its what helps you to read. But as I say, when I'm using the TdM I like to see it as an alternative to the establishment. And everyone likes to rebel against the 'norm' sometimes.

I've tried the 'pip-to-trump' method, but the emphasis on just the 1-10 trumps niggled me. So I came up with possible alternatives using reversed pip cards to represent cards 11-20 (I mentioned it in this post: http://tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=165645 ). But then I felt the trumps were adequately represented in 21 cards already, and you didn't need them repeated another 4 times in the deck.

So eventually I came up with another method, which I'm generally happy with now. But still, every now and then the GD meanings will automatically pop up in my mind when I read a pip - but that's OK as I take that to mean that it's relevant in the reading.
 

Barleywine

I came up with my own unorthodox method of tying in the higher-numbered trumps to the pips (post #31 here): http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=230251&page=4. It's a kind of "above-and-below" model that places Fortitude in a sensitive position as a "conductor" or "translator" via its number in the series, Eleven.

The other thing I've been doing is looking at Joseph Maxwell's and J.E. Cirlot's "ternary" and "quaternary" ideas within the suit emblem arrays and ornamental features, which makes more sense to me than counting up buds, flowers and leaves. Here's an example, and I've posted a few others here as well.

ETA: These pages from "A Dictionary of Symbols" might be helpful in understanding where I'm going.
 

Attachments

  • TdM 10 of Pentacles Inscribed.jpg
    TdM 10 of Pentacles Inscribed.jpg
    39.4 KB · Views: 232
  • Cirlot Page 1.jpg
    Cirlot Page 1.jpg
    39.6 KB · Views: 231
  • Cirlot Page 2.jpg
    Cirlot Page 2.jpg
    35.7 KB · Views: 238
  • Cirlot Page 3.jpg
    Cirlot Page 3.jpg
    39.1 KB · Views: 246

FLizarraga

It amazes me every time I find anyone here (or anywhere) who has studied Juan Eduardo Cirlot's book.I discovered when I was young and read it cover to cover, as if it weren't a dictionary.

It was one of two books that blew my mind back then and got me into Tarot. The other one was Matila Ghyka's monumental The Golden Number.

Going back to the topic, I find sort of counterproductive to "forget" everything else when confronted with pips. As an exercise, definitely. I think we all need to forget all that once in a while in order to look at those images with fresh eyes -- I mean REALLY look at them. But for an actual reading I end up mixing everything, including Lee's two approaches (the book's and the thread's).

But of course that's what works for me. YMMV.
 

Lee

Barleywine said:
Someday someone will write an approximation of a semblance of a definitive book on the subject, and will earn my undying gratitude.
But how definitive could it be? If you go down one road, by definition you're not going down the others. There just aren't that many possibilities, at least not that I can think of. Either you match the pip cards with corresponding elements from another symbol system (numerology, astrology, Qabalah, etc), or you read them entirely intuitively like Enrique, or you use the corresponding pip cards from decks like RWS or Thoth. One could write a book about any of those possibilities, or all of them, but how definitive could it be? I just don't think there's enough of a "there" there to write definitively. One person, like Jodorowsky or Ben-Doav, can and have written big books explaining how they do it, but I think the capacity for any one person's approach to win over other readers is limited.
 

FLizarraga

The "mind's eye" can be a treacherous thing. I find it can easily default me right to the Thoth image (not the RWS, those don't do a lot for me). Not necessarily a bad thing, because the Thoth minors are basically "glorified pip" cards that in some cases are exact replicas of the TdM pips, same layout with fancier colors. But I'm trying to get more mileage out of the actual pictures on the TdM cards. Crowley's rather pointed remarks have a way of insinuating themselves into my though processes every time. Someday someone will write an approximation of a semblance of a definitive book on the subject, and will earn my undying gratitude.

Amen to that.

Looking at Marseille pips a la Enríquez or Ben-Dov has made me come up with my own visual ideas --like reading the coin pips as table settings, and the swords as lattice or trellis, or whatnot. But paradoxically that has also changed the way I read scenic RWS pips. Now all my Waite and Gray and Pollack tend to go to the background, and instead I start looking at stuff like the way those two children look at each other in the 6 of Cups, or whatever is in front of me.
 

Barleywine

Amen to that.

Looking at Marseille pips a la Enríquez or Ben-Dov has made me come up with my own visual ideas --like reading the coin pips as table settings, and the swords as lattice or trellis, or whatnot. But paradoxically that has also changed the way I read scenic RWS pips. Now all my Waite and Gray and Pollack tend to go to the background, and instead I start looking at stuff like the way those two children look at each other in the 6 of Cups, or whatever is in front of me.

That's interesting, because, in thinking about it, I don't key off the images so much any more as respond to the cues they invoke in my memory. That seems to be the next step with the TdM pips; getting my head around meanings that I can internalize in the same way, without having to depend entirely on correspondences.
 

Barleywine

But how definitive could it be? If you go down one road, by definition you're not going down the others. There just aren't that many possibilities, at least not that I can think of. Either you match the pip cards with corresponding elements from another symbol system (numerology, astrology, Qabalah, etc), or you read them entirely intuitively like Enrique, or you use the corresponding pip cards from decks like RWS or Thoth. One could write a book about any of those possibilities, or all of them, but how definitive could it be? I just don't think there's enough of a "there" there to write definitively. One person, like Jodorowsky or Ben-Doav, can and have written big books explaining how they do it, but I think the capacity for any one person's approach to win over other readers is limited.

This was from my post. That's why I hedged the way I did. Any such tome would obviously have to be a synthesis, but hopefully a well-reasoned one that takes all of your arguments into account. It obviously couldn't be a "cookbook," more a philosophical exploration with some suggested mingling of ideas for interpretation.
 

FLizarraga

That's interesting, because, in thinking about it, I don't key off the images so much any more as respond to the cues they invoke in my memory. That seems to be the next step with the TdM pips; getting my head around meanings that I can internalize in the same way, without having to depend entirely on correspondences.

Yes, Barleywine, but you have dedicated a lifetime to study a lot of these things in depth, and have also been reading Tarot all those years, and developing very involved ways to read it. Every time you post a spread, I marvel at the complexity of it; they are like blueprints of bridges, magnificent works of engineering, but very hard to work with if one lacks the theoretical tools.

Letting go of all that, or at least setting it temporarily aside, has to be VERY hard.
 

Barleywine

Yes, Barleywine, but you have dedicated a lifetime to study a lot of these things in depth, and have also been reading Tarot all those years, and developing very involved ways to read it. Every time you post a spread, I marvel at the complexity of it; they are like blueprints of bridges, magnificent works of engineering, but very hard to work with if one lacks the theoretical tools.

Letting go of all that, or at least setting it temporarily aside, has to be VERY hard.

I think a lot depends on how your mental machinery works. When I took on Lenormand, I started from scratch and brought over nothing of the tarot sensibilities I've spent so long honing. It isn't such an extreme departure for the TdM pips, but it has similarities. For me, it starts with what seeps out of the images: symmetry, asymmetry, color and design sympathies or dissonances among the various features, offsets of any kind between the elements of a card that suggest possible subtleties of meaning. This is the sort of conjecture I thrive on.