Richard
Why on earth paste divinatory meanings onto a deck designed for playing a card game?
switching from RWS -TdM.
Zephyros
I think the apparent neutrality of the TdM affords it the ability to be read in any which way. There was a post here once I wholly endorsed, called "pips for peeps," if I remember correctly. It basically said that instead of resisting what you know, just throw everything you've got at it, with the hope that something sticks. And why not, after all? Esoterically, the fact that the GD method didn't exist when TdMs were made, doesn't mean they don't follow it.
I'm usually a stickler for esoteric detail, but when it comes to the TdM, that's when I find I can let my hair down and associate freely. I can't ignore everything I know, it is assimilated to deeply, but I can readily incorporate all of it.
I'm usually a stickler for esoteric detail, but when it comes to the TdM, that's when I find I can let my hair down and associate freely. I can't ignore everything I know, it is assimilated to deeply, but I can readily incorporate all of it.
Rose Lalonde
I started learning to read with the TdM, because the book Mystical Origins of the Tarot: From Ancient Roots to Modern Usage by Paul Huson sparked my interest in early decks.
No. I wanted to look at tarot pre- Etteilla/Waite/Mathers/Golden Dawn/etc., to read what I see in 3 cards laid out with no additional system of meanings. (For that I've been reading with the eye-rhymes method and practicing in the current eye-rhymes study group.)
I feel comfortable. The way I read TdM is so different from the way I read Etteilla or RWS that it hasn't been a problem.
Yep, depending on my mood.
Bertrand
probably because there's a centuries old usage of reading playing cards or other items "designed for something else" for divination, while the need of decks "designed for divination" (although Waite himself didn't saw this as the principal purpose of his deck) is barely a century and a few years old.
Coming from a culture where the RWS and the GD are exotic artifacts I naturally lean towards other ways.
Bertrand
ETA : note that the idea is definitely not to "paste meanings" but to use images, geometry, created in a context where those signs and constructions made sense (or didn't, your mileage may vary), to actualize their meanings/potentials in a divinatory context.
ivanna
Ok, you dont paste meanings. But if you interpret the number of the card and the suit, in some way or another you are pasting thoae meanings, isnt it?
And I think, maybe wrong, that once you are proficient using the 3 methods, Rws, Tdm, and Thoth, you may be applying knowledges from one or methods from others, and in some degree mixing methods?
And thank you all for this thread, is very interesting
And I think, maybe wrong, that once you are proficient using the 3 methods, Rws, Tdm, and Thoth, you may be applying knowledges from one or methods from others, and in some degree mixing methods?
And thank you all for this thread, is very interesting
3ill.yazi
I started learning to read with the TdM, because the book Mystical Origins of the Tarot: From Ancient Roots to Modern Usage by Paul Huson sparked my interest in early decks.
No. I wanted to look at tarot pre- Etteilla/Waite/Mathers/Golden Dawn/etc., to read what I see in 3 cards laid out with no additional system of meanings. (For that I've been reading with the eye-rhymes method and practicing in the current eye-rhymes study group.)
I feel comfortable. The way I read TdM is so different from the way I read Etteilla or RWS that it hasn't been a problem.
Yep, depending on my mood.
interesting stuff. A lot to swallow, if I am truly to use both systems, but thanks for the eye rhyme link. I will have to digest this stuff. I am just up to comfort speed with RWS, so I may do it my way for a while, but thanks.
Lee
I agree, ivanna.
It's certainly possible to read the pip cards by only looking at what's actually on the card. As people have mentioned, Enrique's method does this. Personally I like to combine that with a loose framework of number meanings, whether derived from numerology or from the pips-as-trumps method. But to me it seems like the leap from simple numerology or trumps correlations to GD-inspired meanings is only a matter of degree.
I agree with LRichard that since the deck was created to play games with and not for divination, then no method of meaning can be seen as "better" than any other. So it really just comes down to how any particular person prefers to do it.
I don't have my copy of "History of the Occult Tarot" handy, but I think I recall they include a photograph of a turn-of-the-century TdM deck with GD meanings written on each card. My understanding of GD history is that while members created their own decks as a pathworking exercise, those handmade decks weren't what they actually performed readings with; the decks they read with would have been TdMs. So there's clearly a long tradition of reading TdMs with GD meanings.
I think we need to be aware that trends and fads in tarot reading come and go. At one point in history, it would have seemed obvious to most people that TdMs should be read with GD meanings/methods. At another point, it would have seemed obvious that TdMs should be read with meanings derived from superficial visual interpretations of Pamela Smith's pictures. Today, for many it seems obvious that some combination of simple numerology/pips-as-trumps and intuitive interpretations of pictorial elements should be used.
Personally, I don't think it makes one bit of difference how someone reads TdM decks. As long as it results in a creative and enjoyable reading experience, any method is as good as another.
Richard
The standard Golden Dawn deck has no decans, zodiac sign, or other symbols on the cards. It is plain and rather Spartan, like the TdM, which I like much better.
Attachments
