A non-esoteric view of tarot

[Aerin]

Just to say that there are a lot of different opinions about how tarot works here, not just one - and you can't always tell someone's theory from the way they talk about cards. I will say "this deck reads brilliantly for me" and "the Deviant Moon overdramatises everything" while believing that it is just 78 pieces of paper and does no such thing by itself .

Here's a thread about tarot being random for example

http://tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=123014&highlight=random

(And by the way there are quite a few scientists/ statisticians/ mathematicians around on the forum as you will find out )

 

[moderndayruth]

Yeah, I've started recently, yet as I see tarot is basically very very simple. Of course you can say: "Hey, it's complex as hell! People write books on only a single aspect of it." That's true, but on a basic level it's just about assigning information to cards based on a very limited set of rules.

As i said before, in my view , and in the view of most of the older posters here - its not simple, not at all. Of course, there are people - to whom everything is simple, but that's rather indicative of their own self , as well as of their level of (related to Tarot and other) education.

Not knowing anything about engineering, one would say - its simple, what's all the fuss; and why the hack you'd study 3 or 4 years to gain your BA; you don't need to be a pro, you don't even need to be that smart to build structures/devices /systems and whatever it is that engineers do (and of course, one can be merely a technician falsely claiming to be an engineer, and someone as un-informed in the field as me wouldn't really see the difference.)

On the other side, a connoisseur would say that Engineering is an art and a discipline too, and that as a profession it requires acquiring and applying scientific, mathematical, economic and social knowledge.
Of course, to me personally, engineering still might seem as a quite simple of a task - as i know nothing of it... at this point, i would understand if an engineer - not you of course, but some hypothetical engineer - would get rightfully enraged and even claim that its actually about mine being a simpleton, and not the engineering itself being simple.

(Of course, i would probably think twice before posting such a claim on a forum for engineers - as i'd be afraid of their considering my participation as intentionally inflammatory and aiming to provoke the engineers in question into an emotional response - but that's all another topic i think. )

 

[Cerulean]

When not esoteric, then...

Before I knew tarot I knew playing cards with French pips as a gambling game with diamonds, clubs/trefoil, hearts and spades.

I also knew of decorative floral and poetic symbols in Asian card games. Not esoteric,, allegory and symbolic and historical. If you had a family crest with a motto/saying. The meaning might be pretty, wise, a curioisity.

If you asked me in those days about psychology and symbols, I would say artistic constructs came with cultural perceptions, generational context of the viewer.

My grandmothers read a symbolic writing, language touched with hints of feeling and yes, predefined patterns. The ideal was one thing, the scarcity and local situations were another. A delicate pretense and example - cannot always have fresh flowers on an alter for my grandfather's spirit. His photo, silk flowers or evergreen plant near his image, his body ashes under a pine tree that symbolllically bridges heaven and earth.
My grandmothers were not e andsoterically attached to the old culture, but they followed generational ways and context, had their own spirituality, honored the forms of thei predefined and figured out how to communicate and translate the old forms to others using what they are or appreciating...

I believe there are readers who do that in their own ways here.

They have varying degrees of learning, attachment or feeling how they read.

You will, as well, if reading tarot appeals to you. To some, it is just game, that is fine.

 

[GryffinSong]

In the simple vs. complex argument, I'm reminded of the game of "Go." My ex husband used to play it brilliantly. It was said that "Go" is a game that takes minutes to learn and a lifetime to master. I tried playing him. I understood the moves, but I couldn't even begin to understand how he was slaughtering me left right and center!!!

Many, many of us here came to tarot through psychological routes. And one needs to be careful of assumptions about what any of us believe. I find, when talking about things like this, that it's got so much right brain influence, that left brain words don't even begin to express the experience. So, language becomes poetic, metaphorical, flowery. Like a poem, like art, like dreams. That is how tarot can speak in a powerful voice. But don't mistake that right brain speak for magic or assume that all we're engaged in is superstition. Everytime I cautiously stick my logical, left brain toes in the water, I'm surprised at the number of people who do not use tarot predictively, and who study Jungian archetypes and other psychological approaches. I've been told that I'm an oddity. I have degrees in computer engineering and fine art, and I can hop back and forth between hard logic and soft poetry at a moment's notice. But, ultimately, all they are is words. And when attempting to describe something deeply meaningful, whether its psychological growth or spiritual seeking, words simply can't properly express what's really happening for the person.

 

[Mnemonica]

Hello Novbert, if you haven't already, you may want to look into the work of Enrique Enriquez. His approach to tarot is completely void of anything mystical or esoteric, his only focus is the images, how they interact with each other and how they interact with us. His reading method is very unique and interesting, I think you'll enjoy his take on tarot.

 

[Barleywine]

Many, many of us here came to tarot through psychological routes. And one needs to be careful of assumptions about what any of us believe. I find, when talking about things like this, that it's got so much right brain influence, that left brain words don't even begin to express the experience. So, language becomes poetic, metaphorical, flowery. Like a poem, like art, like dreams. That is how tarot can speak in a powerful voice. But don't mistake that right brain speak for magic or assume that all we're engaged in is superstition. Everytime I cautiously stick my logical, left brain toes in the water, I'm surprised at the number of people who do not use tarot predictively, and who study Jungian archetypes and other psychological approaches. I've been told that I'm an oddity. I have degrees in computer engineering and fine art, and I can hop back and forth between hard logic and soft poetry at a moment's notice. But, ultimately, all they are is words. And when attempting to describe something deeply meaningful, whether its psychological growth or spiritual seeking, words simply can't properly express what's really happening for the person.

One word (though a thousand are beating on my tonsils to get out ): Bravo!

(Even if poetry's a stretch, I always have metaphor . . .)

 

[Teheuti]

Hello Novbert, if you haven't already, you may want to look into the work of Enrique Enriquez. His approach to tarot is completely void of anything mystical or esoteric, his only focus is the images, how they interact with each other and how they interact with us. His reading method is very unique and interesting, I think you'll enjoy his take on tarot.

Excellent interview by Paul Nagy in which Enrique gives concrete examples of his approach:
http://tarology.wordpress.com/2011/...rot-a-collaborative-interview-with-paul-nagy/

 

[MareSaturni]

Welcome to AT Novbert!

Thank you for this thread, it gave me ample food for thought.

I disagree with you in a few points, and below I give you my own ideas. While I think you are right in some aspects, I also think that you 'assume' many things, and relies heavily on psychology to explain tarot. While tarot and psychology may mingle, they are two distinctive animals, and I think that these boundaries should be respected.

To be honest I'm pretty new to tarot and these forums, yet I'm just surprised that many folks here actually use tarot cards for "telling the future", or to "get answers". Some even say that "the cards were wrong" and "they didn't predict the future correctly so they don't work". Of course there are others who say that cards are only tools and the reading is the reader herself.

Hum... why the surprise?
Tarot, and other divination tools much more ancient than it, have been used for centuries to foretell the future. The who 'psychologization' of the tarot and divination is something very recent. I read the cards for many reasons - one of them is to tell the future. And whenever that failed, I never blamed them, only myself. The cards are tool, and I would not use them if I didn't trust that they work. But I know I can fail.

Think about it: If you remove all the esoteric mumbo-jumbo from tarot reading, what remains? As I see, this is the case: The reader sees a random set of images in a predefined pattern and she tries to find a meaning for this random stimulus based on her assumpions, knowledge and impressions of those images and their position in the big picture. Unconsciously - or semi consciously - she projects her own biases, thoughts, fears and hopes into those images - basically that's what makes them relevant for her situation and understandable for her.

This phenomenon is known by psychologists for decades - it is used in projective tests like in Rorschach test and such. In those tests random and unstructured images are presented to the viewer and she is asked to find meaning in those images, to describe them. The theory is that the viewer will project the current state of her psyche onto those unstructured images, thus her response on the image tells more about herself than about the image.

What is exactly the esoteric mumbo-jumbo you talk about? Is that the symbolism of the cards? The simbology? The metaphorical imagery? The archetypes?

While there are a lot of esoteric mumbo-jumbo associated with all forms of divination, I think we have to be careful before stripping tarot naked and claiming "it's all psychology and projection". Sorry to say, but some symbolism was there when the formal psychological theories were wearing diappers. Of course... the unknown mind that created tarot cards as we know it, and all minds that helped to develop it, were human minds so there is indeed a lot of the human psyche in tarot. But I think that limiting tarot to psychology makes it poor.

Besides, the idea that you offer somehow implies that one would not need to study tarot in order to learn it. Since all associations are made inside the person, and what she sees in the cards is mainly what is inside of her, there would be no need to learn any of the tarot symbolism, or study its history. Each reader would come up with her meanings and structure, based on their own psychological responses.

And not only that - the person would not be able to read for others. How can you read for someone else if the cards are simply a mirror of your own psyche? Because all cards would be associated to your own inner world, you'd only be able to read yourself in them.

As I see tarot works very similarly. What you get in a spread is pretty much random - even if you're convinced that it's not.

I am not particularly religious, but I know a lot of people would would disagree with this idea of 'randomness'.

The only reason that you find a spread meaningful for yourself and your situation is because you project your situation onto those cards. (another person would probably interpret the very same set of cards in the very same spread totally differently - and you both would be right!) Of course believing that the cards aren't random, but relevant for the situation because of the <random esoteric expalantion> actually helps the process of projection because it makes the reader unaware of the fact that she's actually projecting.

I do not deny the whole idea of projecting, but for the reasons I stated above, I disagree that this is the explanation of how tarot works. The problem I see is trying to insert logical science in an area that is not particularly logic or scientific (at least not in the way we usually use these words).

The RITE method described in Mary K. Greer's book relies heavily on the querent's responses and I don't think anyone could read without such direct and immediate feedback. As I see online reading is an interesting game at its best - pure charlatanism at its worst.

On the other hand, considering all the aforementioned things, I still don't think tarot would be useless or not worthy to learn. It can be used for good and it can be even helpful and a fulfilling experience for both the reader and the querent. It's a great psychological tool, but thinking it's more that that is plain stupid - at least as much as thinking that it doesn't have anything to do with psychology.

Not everyone reads like Mary Greer does, although she is a fantastic reader and author and I very much respect her. That is the method she developed, and I do not think it's right for you assume that it is the only true method for tarot. Like you stated in the beginning of the thread, you are pretty new to tarot, so I believe you should research some more, and experiment with the cards in different ways before making any conclusions -- specially ones that blatantly call other practices 'stupid'.

Also, limiting tarot to a ' psychological tool' because it is the only way you can explain why it works, is like going to Louvre Museum to only see the Mona Lisa. While La Gioconda is really a masterpiece, you have thousand of other masterpieces equally beautiful there. She is simply the one that is more popular, and if you focus solely on her you'll miss all of them. Like the 'psychological' explanation for tarot - it is simply the explanation that suits those who cannot believe any anything out of the ordinary, and thus it is more acceptable.

However, you'll be missing a lot of the tarot's beauty and potential. You'll already begin your study of the tarot seeing everything through a tube, which is limiting. Of course it works too, but much of the interesting stuff is lost in the process.

Divination was here before the Projective Tachnique was around. Do they have a relation? Probably - both things were created by the human mind. But Tarot was not created be used as a projective tool, and it would be interesting if you could look into the other possible usages for it without judging them so harshly. They too are part of the tarot.

 

[Barleywine]

Excellent interview by Paul Nagy in which Enrique gives concrete examples of his approach:
http://tarology.wordpress.com/2011/...rot-a-collaborative-interview-with-paul-nagy/

It would have been nice to have this as a video. Long on-screen text articles tend to lose me after a while. Before I started to glaze over, a couple of things stood out for me:

His "process of elimination," by which he "erases" certain symbolic elements of cards in a group once he "locks in" the core commonalities between them. I find that it works the same way in modern decks, just that they have more symbolic "baggage" to dispense with. If this doesn't happen organically and fairly promptly, I find the reading tends to bog down.

The idea of "recontextualizing" the meaning of a card in light of the other cards it relates to; this strikes me as the way of all dynamic synthesis regardless of which deck you're using.

The idea that the client is responsible for the interpretive aspects, based on what the reader gives them to chew on. If they want clarification or more information, they'll ask for it. Sometimes we talk far beyond the need to say anything more, and should just move along.

The use of active verbs in the narrative. It seems to me, at the simplest level, clients seek a reading to find out what to "do" or how to "be" in a given circumstance. Pretty basic stuff. Although we can paint them pretty word-pictures, if we don't describe concrete ideas that they can latch onto and run with, we're just tying them up in verbal knots. (Unless, of course, they're after a psychological perspective from the start, or discover it's what they really wanted as the reading progresses.)

Some of his punning word-play with the Trumps seems positively Shakespearean. I can see it as part of a dialogue built around comically misheard statements in one of the more farcical passages in a comedy. (Not, of course, that Enrique is farcical, just that the idea of it tickles me )

Thanks for posting this link. I'll have to go back and finish reading it later.

 

[Le Fanu]

Hello Novbert, if you haven't already, you may want to look into the work of Enrique Enriquez. His approach to tarot is completely void of anything mystical or esoteric, his only focus is the images, how they interact with each other and how they interact with us. His reading method is very unique and interesting, I think you'll enjoy his take on tarot.

When I think of tarot stripped of esoterica and all that hermetic learning (which I sometimes feel I ought to know more about), Enriquez' way of reading is what I think of. So crisp, so sharp and - best of all - we need only look hard. Rhythms, patterns, echoes, the direction of energies. It's all there if we simply look.