Dwaas said:
I believe that THE key concept does not excist. Of course when we look at what we have written a certain kind of meaning will be visible.
I think it is not a matter of if it does exist or not...
What we call (or call not) Key concept is just part of the way we look at a card... or maybe even of the way we communicate among each other regarding the card.
What I want to say is that it exist as long as it is useful ^_^
As I said, I think the main use for the key concept is an exercize in synthesis. Forcing myself to express a card in one simple concept I gain clarity in the many nuances and in the priorities of the card.
I don't want to see the key concept as a limit, rather as a cornerstone (and probably I will forget about it, once I will have reached a greater level of complexity).
This is the next exercize I'm proposing.
Start from the Key concept you have found (it was one sentence, wasn't it?)... then add 5 subsidiary concept. They will start developing the card.
(once when studying Kung Fu my instructor said: to learn you first have to learn a movement in a square, chiseled, way. The more you practice, the more you feel that movement, you will learn to smooth it. Will the first movement you have learnt wrong? No, and yet yes. It will be a part of what the movement has become, but you will no longer use it).
Just two rules:
- the 5 subsidiary meanings should be one sentence each, like the key concept.
- they should be stand alone. They don't have to need the others to have sense or to express what they are.
As before, I think... the journey to decide and to sinthetize those meaning will be useful more than the result.