The Pictorial Key / LWB and Widely-Accepted Card Meanings

ravenest

Actually, I'd agree! I think the chaos magicians have it right, when they say any system will work if you believe in it.

That might be right for tarot, emotive or psychological magic but it wont work for technical magical subjects, like transferring the principles and correspondences of alchemy into agriculture. Belief is a PART of the operators mental state ... not the cause of all operations, it might create a better result but it wont turn water into wine (without the appropriate ingredients, apparatus and conditions).
Personally I just can't believe in the GD or Crowley, though.

But it isnt about 'believing' in THEM ... how did that enter into it :confused: ... its a about a system not a person or a group.
But really, I was just defending poor old Waite from the charge of having made a mess of things. I'll admit he did lead with his chin: that perpetual air of "Oh dear, what a lot of fools I do have to associate with!"

No .... thats not the issue .... regardless, I still havent seen how he didnt make a 'mess of things' ... I know most think he made Tarot 'better' ('easier' to read for the masses by putting little cameo scenes on the minors as well) but does not this very thread and the card used by you (and the comments attached) exhibit the typical 'confusion' that most come across when they try to look at the logic, structuring and reasons behind the card meanings, arrangements and variations (like in the courts) ?
 

ravenest

Actually, there is a third application as well, half way between the individual / emotive and the technical and that is the collective ... a reading of 777 appendix might help explain that.

Another way I have explained collective validity of symbol association was in a colour correspondence workshop I did; large sheet of white paper up on the board, splash bright red across it, people wince and recoil as if it was blood. Take it down and replace with a painted white damp sheet and paint a soft-blue water colour across the top that 'bleeds' down and everyone relaxes - physically and verbally an 'Ahhhh' fills the room.

Some correspondences are not that disputable - again , 777 Appendix will help here.
 

Teheuti

How influential is The Pictorial Key in how people conceptualize the cards in the divinatory context?
It depends on the person. In terms of books written about the deck, it's been very influential with a great many, and not so influential with others (which books I don't find as interesting). I think a writer about the deck who hasn't studied Waite tends to miss a great deal.

I guess what I'm asking is, if I ask 10 Rider-Waite-Smith users what a given card means, am I likely to get 10 of the same answer or 10 different answers? And where will those answers be coming from?
It depends on the ten people you ask. Just look at interpretations of individual cards in the "Using Tarot" section. Most are based on the RWS model (unless stated otherwise). A lot of interpretations are based on assumptions readers make about the picture or personal projections, rather than memorized meanings of the cards. These become solidified into personal stories about what is going on. For instance, some people see the person in the 7 of Pentacles as sad, others as contemplative or patient or weary or hopeful. Is he waiting for an assured harvest or unsure whether the effort is worth it? I'm not convinced there is one correct answer to these questions, but rather that a theme is present but the person's question, the spread position and other cards will make each reading of the card different. I think the supposed contradictions in Waite's text are meant to leave these openings for the intuitive reader to discern what is happening in the moment. It's the theme of the card that is indicated by both the text and the picture, not a fixed meaning.
 

Teheuti

The Five of Cups is a good example of a theme being played out. Waite says it is a card of loss. For the Golden Dawn it was "Loss in Pleasure" from Geburah/Mars in the suit of Cups/Relationships. Mathers (who based his early Tarot book on Etteilla) it was union, marriage, inheritance.

For Etteilla, fives were the number of marriage (based on earlier Pythagorean numerology). In the suit of Cups it was most specifically a dowry, bequest, inheritance, transmission - which Waite also acknowledges.

Papus saw it as the "opposition to the opposition" - a victory over obstacles after a struggle.

If we see the central theme as loss in relationship (some say disappointment), then the picture provides us with lots of possibilities: an appropriate time spent grieving over the loss (wrap yourself in a cloak of sorrow); the realization that something remains; the possibility of moving on - crossing the bridge; or something that needs to be carried over (to the house across the bridge or to the next generation?): continuity and loss.

Where each person is in the cycle and how they respond to the options is individual. There are no "shoulds" (despite the readers who try to convince their clients to "move on"). There are stages and possibilities - which I think is what Waite wanted to open us up to, and that Smith brilliantly portrayed.