78 days later (some thoughts after a return to the tarot)

6655321

Anyhow, this is kinda long and meandering but I mostly wrote it for my self. Recently, I marked the 78th day into continuing my study of the tarot after a long absence (and really little insight in the first place). Here goes some notes on my return to the tarot 78 days in.

So far, most of my Tarot influences are (in order of inspiration) coming from The Way of the Tarot (Jodorowsky / Costa) and Tarology (E.E.) . Both of these books use the terms tarology and tarologist. I like them and will incorporate this term into my own practice. Of these two works The Way of the Tarot has been much more practically useful but Tarology was a pleasure to read it compliments the other (every other) book by functioning as a sort of literary sand-blaster shredding away the barnacles of dogma attached from a lifetime of sailing on the occult seas by Jodorowsky (which can be helpful at times as well) revealing the beauty of the vessel for what it is. Besides these two works I've checked out (and checked out) a pretty large number of books from my public library. For any number of reasons most of these books have been mostly useless to me. The Tarot: History, Symbolism, and Divination (Place) is one exception, while I didn't find particularly useful the section on card meanings of the RW deck (I don't use RW) the sections on the history and symbolism of the cards were much more useful than what would be found in most other books and Meditations on the Tarot is something I plan on reading more thoroughly when I am working with the Jodorowski books less and work through some other stuff on my to read list. I just got Tarot the Open Reading in the mail and I'll be starting that soon.

As for decks, I have a Jodorowsky, a mini Conver-inspired majors only mini deck and a Dali deck. In the distant past, over a gulf of inactivity (about 17 years of not using the tarot) I used a RW deck and a ( Llewellyn) Witches tarot. In short, I'm not crazy about the RW style and the Witches tarot was pretty but I'm not into paganism or kabbalah so it had / has no real appeal to me. The mini-deck I have is nice enough but not very functional (someone gave it to me) as the backs are godawful and I don't read majors only. The Dali deck is very nice, nicer than I thought it would be. Honestly I would compare it more to a Thoth (while I don't own one I'm familiar with the images)deck than any of the various “art” decks out there and I would suggest it highly enough if you're looking for a new meditation deck. The major weakness of the deck (in my opinion) is that while each card can has a very deep and symbolic image related to concepts tied to each card they do not flow well together and the deck feels more like an obvious reflection of its creators psyche rather than a tool for every or most readers. I've also got a Flornoy Noblet on its way.

I can't speak highly enough about the Jodorowsky / Camoin deck in combination with the Way of the Tarot book but if I had a bit of criticism about these two things it would be that while they both posses a myriad of merits, they should both (for slightly different reasons) be taken with a grain of salt. In the case of the Jodorowsky cards; while beautiful, there is nothing really to substantiate the claim (except in the most abstract sense) that the deck is the secret, “true” Marseilles deck “uncovered” through “scientific” research. Rather, it seems pretty obvious to be a pretty masterful and well intentioned (at least I'd like to think so) amalgamation of various decks based around around a Conver core crafted in a well thought out way with a handful of well placed unique elements blended in. In short, the Jodorowsky / Camoin deck is “the” true tarot de Marseilles in the sense that it carries on the Marseilles tradition; this is the case for a multitude of decks from Noblet to the CBD. Jodorowsky kinda built himself a back door out of this claim with his talk in the book of “scientific” research regarding the deck. If they diligently researched the Marseilles why should we not do the same, holding their own pack to the same level of inquiry as we would any other? Still, even this slight, apparent skewing of the truth hides a great virtue in what it actually is; merging elements from various decks gives an individual a good foundation for exploring the various decks it borrows from and the Marseilles tradition in general. As for the book, I felt the section on the history of the Tarot bit was lacking but otherwise The Way of the Tarot provides an amazing groundwork for not just the mechanics of the Marseilles but also equips the student with a huge toolbox of methods to ready oneself for developing their own insightful tarot vocabulary. This is the real strength of the book (especially when used with the Jodorowsky deck ), it provides very solid methods for looking at the cards and finding your meaning there. As I've said, I think this probably works best when using the deck and book in conjunction but the lessons to be learned here translate well (especially because the Jodo deck is mostly a Frankenstein job of other Marseilles decks) for use with the tarot in general and Marseilles decks specifically. While I don't believe this book or deck to be the last word on the topic this is where I would suggest any serious new student of the tarot to start.

Generalizing, the two things that have turned me off of most tarot books that I've not mentioned is that they focus on decks I don't use (mostly RWS) and / or have such a cotton candy approach to the subject that they turn me off.

Too many tarot books are essentially the writers thoughts on meanings of the cards. While this sort of reading can be insightful to a degree, most of what I've found has not been much more than pretty obvious descriptions of the images presented on RWS cards.

Also, while I don't think it should ever be a joyless act but too many books that I've skimmed through from the library have such a self congratulatory, blasé approach to the tarot and teaching it that it's a major turn off. I don't want or need a book telling me that the tarot is fun and easy. I feel that if there's a topic which I care enough about to read a book on the subject I don't need a bulk of a book which by page count could at least inform a beginner on the basics of tarot but wastes most of its pages on obvious descriptions of the images depicted on RWS cards and whole chapters which could be condensed into the words “Go for it!”. To be blunt, some books that I've found have turned out to be, what seem to me, full size book versions of books for children about various jobs adults do.

Alternatively, I have found some few books that were so full of formulas and tables that they feel like some kinda highschool math textbook if there were schools which taught a astrological / cabala / alchemical version of algebra II. This is even more of a turn off to me. Not only is it unwelcoming but it's based mostly on systems I don't care for.

At any rate, I'm sure these books are well enough for others but most of the ones I've checked from the library aren't for me.

It seems silly to me to even suggest that there was no more spiritual underpinning in the design of the tarot (particularly the Marseilles) than pretty pictures. While I don't think the cards were designed with divination foremost in mind I think, that for a few reasons a general study of the history and / or a specific separate method of divination can be vital to the study of the tarot. Various forms of divination have existed since before history and this sort of practice was more common in the world the Tarot was born into (especially in respect to games of chance). I don't think it's unrealistic to say that there existed connections between playing cards and divination before the introduction of tarot cards to Europe, though I am by no means suggesting that these traditions are directly related to modern usage of the tarot but that there was some reason for the Trumps being what they are and that's a useful field of inquiry if you intend to seriously study the cards.

When I was much younger I experimented with runes for a few years, I wasn't crazy about them though. I have also experimented with the yarrow stick method of the I Ching (much more recently) which I really like for a lot of reasons (but mostly because it's a nice little meditation that I may do a handful of times each year). While distinctly a different animal all together, I feel some connections can be seen between the I ching and tarot. While at the end of the day the tarot is something I take pretty seriously as a daily aspect of my life the I-Ching (to me) is an interesting meditation (honestly, if you haven't done this try it out, you can use bamboo skewers and find instructions and meanings on-line pretty easily) . Still, having some understanding of the yarrow stalk method of the I-Ching (to be fair, for me, this is only true for the yarrow stalk method, while I'm not suggesting the other methods of reading are “bad” if they're your thing but more than anything, it's the long ritual / meditation aspect of the sticks which holds most of the appeal of the I-Ching to me) and its historical role in the world which cards were invented and I feel that being familiar with it helps provide some insight into the nature of the tarot which can not be obtained by simply working with the cards.

One topic that I have a bit of a hard time with is the question “is it magic”. The short answer (for me) is “no” but the truth is a far more complicated (though resounding) “yes”. I don't think the cards posses any more attributes than the observable. Specifically, they are cards and they have things printed on them. I don't think reading tarot cards is a manifestation of supernatural abilities in any kind of conventional sense. In my study of the tarot I certainly find useful (vital even) sincere “academic” (historical, theological (especially in the context of history), philosophical...) studies of the cards and the world they were made in. I don't limit my study of the tarot to scientific (or even pseudo scientific, meta or 'petaphysical methods) I approach the cards with critical reason but that is not the only tool in my tool box. The actual reading of the cards, however, is a highly subjective art. I am just as likely to do a three card reading, meditate on the sentence formed by the cards and go dérive until I find that sentence manifested in the real world as I am to read some academic bit on the history of cards. I may not put any kinda (or at least very much) thought into astrological systems (though I don't really go for astrology per se' I do sometimes wonder if / how celestial mechanics (including time / space) interconnects with everything but at the end of the day I don't think we humans have the capability fully understanding any of this let alone that we are already in possession of this kinda knowledge) , the kabbalah, or any other “system” than the tarot… but I do shuffle the cards until it “feels right” and it's wrong to claim that what I do with the cards is any less “mystical” than anyone. While my approach to the cards is ultimately about reading what I see, it is no less spiritual than a zen monk and a bow.

Anyhow, seventy-eight days later I feel pretty confident using the Jodo deck (I tend to think of my skill level as “competent novice”) but I want to expand my experience with the study of other Marseilles decks and I am way receptive to well thought out systems / approaches to the tarot in general but with the most interest being with the Marseilles (I'm getting a good vibe from the scan over that I've given Tarot the Open Reading) and I realize that I've only really taken the first few steps on what is a never-ending journey with the tarot.


Random tarot bit post-script:

During the years I wasn't reading the tarot I had a dream about a house that was in different locations. I resumed my tarot study after I realized that this was symbolic of the Tower. In the 78 days since my girlfriend and I have (well, we are but there's a process) kinda unexpectedly getting a house.
 

JylliM

Wow, what a great read! Thanks for posting your thoughts. One reader/teacher you might be interested in checking out is Camelia Elias. She has a blog, Taroflexions. Her book, Marseille Tarot, Towards the Art of Reading, is excellent.
 

mrpants

Anyhow, seventy-eight days later I feel pretty confident using the Jodo deck (I tend to think of my skill level as “competent novice”) but I want to expand my experience with the study of other Marseilles decks and I am way receptive to well thought out systems / approaches to the tarot in general but with the most interest being with the Marseilles (I'm getting a good vibe from the scan over that I've given Tarot the Open Reading) and I realize that I've only really taken the first few steps on what is a never-ending journey with the tarot.

Well, it sounds like you're well on your way toward the next step, with the Noblet on the way, and Ben Dov's book in your hands. I think they make fine companions. Also you should read Reading the Marseille Tarot by Jean Michel-David. You will go BANANAS for it, and it is specifically tuned to the Noblet pattern.

Other decks of interest:
Vendenborre Bachus (Flemish)
Anything by Yves Reynaud
Keep an eye on the Tarot Sheet Revival website (Sullivan from TSR and Yves both post here on the Forum)
Il Meneghello is one of the finest card makers in the world.

Have fun!
 

JylliM

mrpants, are you trying to bankrupt our friend with those very good shopping suggestions? ;)
Well, it sounds like you're well on your way toward the next step, with the Noblet on the way, and Ben Dov's book in your hands. I think they make fine companions. Also you should read Reading the Marseille Tarot by Jean Michel-David. You will go BANANAS for it, and it is specifically tuned to the Noblet pattern.

Other decks of interest:
Vendenborre Bachus (Flemish)
Anything by Yves Reynaud
Keep an eye on the Tarot Sheet Revival website (Sullivan from TSR and Yves both post here on the Forum)
Il Meneghello is one of the finest card makers in the world.

Have fun!
 

_R_

Thanks for an interesting and thought-provoking post. I think your assessment of Messrs Jodorowsky and Camoin’s works hit the nail on the head, something few of the previous reviews online managed to do. I’m not sure if it stems from a translation issue or an unfamiliarity with Jodorowsky’s style in general, leading, perhaps, to mistaken expectations, but most folks seemed to miss the implicit humour behind the grandiose claims and took them at face value, to their inevitable disillusionment.

A look at the videos of Jodorowsky’s Tarot psychomagic in action shows a deep understanding of the tarot, on the one hand, and a deep understanding of the human psyche on the other, the whole thing wrapped up in humour and humaneness. (There are a few recordings on Youtube, and there was one documentary as an extra on a DVD of one of his movies.)

J & C’s work dates from 20 years ago now, and marks the beginning of tarot enthusiasts researching and attempting to recreate this legendary UR Tarot, or publishing facsimiles. Research and print technology have moved on a bit since, so what are we to make of this legacy?

My own thoughts on the matter are that a lot of the criticisms levelled at Jodorowsky are unjustified, and come from a sort of “guilt-by-association” for having allowed his act of psychomagic to assume rather mythical proportions to say the least. But that’s water under the bridge, and there’s no need to go into details.

Deck aside, both did kickstart the entire renewal of interest in the Marseilles Tarot by engaging in research, publishing decks and books, and holding workshops, readings, etc.

I don’t care much for the J.-C. deck, but I did enjoy Jodo’s book very much, even if I don’t agree with more than a few of his interpretations, or overly psychologising views.

Some members of this forum have attended Camoin’s workshops just to learn his style of reading, rather than absorb his entire mythology-philosophy wholesale.

At the end of the day, what remains is a technique: does it resonate with you, have you been able to apply it successfully, adapt it if necessary, and so on?

The only book or interpretation that you’ll fully (or mostly) agree with is the one you write yourself - and even then, that’s an ongoing process of study, contemplation, understanding and refining.
 

VGimlet

Very good post 6655321.

You might also be interested in books more on symbolism in art, a subject I find almost as interesting as tarot sometimes. One of my favorites is Cirlot's Dictionary of Symbols. I am not sure if it's in print or out of print right now, but there are copies to be had.

My person favorite answer to the "how does it work" question came from my highly logical, nearly atheist husband, who was talking to an acquaintance about my card reading.
"I don't know how it works," he said, "But I have seen over and over that it does."

My husband was skeptical of tarot when we got together, because of the "woo-woo". I myself still take it with a grain of salt and an open mind.