The Great Tarot Controversy

[Sophie]

Ssssorry, Sssssophie. I ssslipped.

That's OK, Scion. I suspect you can also live with being wrong as long as you are not guilty of the syllogistic or - God forbid! - the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy

I've actually been wondering for a while if we should not be replacing the singular tarot with the plural tarots, (not pronounced like carrots), unless we all agree to consider tarot a collective noun, like fruit - which has, as we all known, many varieties, and many ways of eating these varieties.

 

[SolSionnach]

So could someone please give me the approved meanings for the VIII Denari and the IX Bastoni here?

VII denari: there are Xmas tree lights in your future
IX bastoni: you will soon receive tickets to the phantom of the opera

there! that wasn't so hard, now was it?

 

[firemaiden]

You mean change "le tarot" to "les tarots" to be more in line with the Italian "i tarocchi" ???

 

[Umbrae]

"The danger comes when people start insisting that one system be 'wrong' in order to guarantee that their system be 'right'."
Mary K. Greer

“Take your pick - the worst approach is the fundamentalist one which dogmatically demands that we all accept that only one set of ascriptions is 'right' and all others must be 'wrong'.”
On Elemental associations – Nigel Jackson

 

[Alta]

Moderator Note:

Some, but probably not all, off topic and meta discussion posts removed. One post edited.

Marion
co-Moderator, Talking Tarot

 

[Baccus93]

WARNING!!! This is going to be very long. pt 1

I really have not noticed a controversy on this point. However, as regards the different decks -- if you were to ditch all the extraneous systems which have been tacked onto the tarot, like astrology and kaballah, or runes, or "bardic" somethingorother, or numerology, or i-ching, or bird entrails, or paint-by-numbers - and just stick to the actual image before you, you might discover that not only does the meaning of the ten of swords suddenly gain the freedom to differ from deck to deck, it can now differ from reading to reading within the same deck. Try it. One day you too may see a waffle iron in the Thoth Four of Disks, and in the Thoth Seven of Disks, a teddy bear buried under piles of leaves...

That is undeniably true. I doubt anyone would argue the contrary. For this reason, I follow the example of Umbrae, and invite you to burn all your little white books, forget all the meanings you learned in them, and look at your cards. Really look at them.

Well, you are talking to a assembled population of people, many of whom (but not all) view assigned interpretive meanings as material for the bonfire. So I guess the only possible response to this point is "whatever, dude".

Well it is true that these traditions have been applied to tarot in the modern era, but the tarot originated as a game, and as much as esoterists have been in love with relating the 22 cards to the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet, it does not make it any less artificial an imposition.

We are guilty of poor form. I apologize for my part in this. Please let me have my salmon back.

Okay, I'm looking at the cards. What? Have I never looked at them before? Oh, I must feel so foolish. Hmmm. Let me see.

Tarot of Ceremonial Magick: Four swords in two pairs, crossed over shields suggesting coats of arms to me. There's a keyword written: Rest From Strife. Darn it! They wrote a keyword on it, a title - oh how shall I ever forget my past and find rest with this querrel of keywords? There's a Libra symbol in white upon the blue background. There are also symbols of Enochian magick and Seals of Daemons and Angels. You know, I think we'll skip this one.

Thoth: Four swords uniformly pointed toward the center of the card overlaying a white rose of 49 pettels. This looks very peaceful. White roses are very calming to me. I'm thinking of the four muskateers for a minute, at the end of the three muskateers movie... finaly, we can all get along and work as a team. But outside these swords is some kind of electrical energy, some kind chaotic disorder.

I'm not sure... are my views of this card colored by my previous knowledge of "Peace From Strife?"

The Hanson-Roberts Tarot. This image seems very much based on the RWS version, with some differences in art work. Here the sleeping form doesn't really look alive at all. He seems like a marble statue to me. I guess that kind of suggests imortality to me. But here, in such a world-view, I guess it suggests that imortality comes after the stillness of life. That seems odd to me - but one I grasp that people do believe in. So it suggests peace... peace of mind (ah! Swords are symbols of mind! right? did i get it right?) He looks like he's praying or contemplating - meditation, yes. But it seems so cold... brrrrrrr... oh, but I'm starting to think my attributions again. About how cold and logical a sword would behave in the hands of Jupiter as demiurge of Chesed (the benign, merciful king, like Solomon dispensing peace in his land by threatening to cut a baby in half).

I don't know... maybe it's just too late for me. I keep seeing what I see.

The Mythic Tarot: A young man is sitting in the lotus or half-lotus position while four swords sit in front of him, crossing eachother... making a wheel of eight spokes. He seems to be contemplating something far off... but not too far off. He sits in what looks like a drought stricken land... sun baked earth has cracked beneath him. A dry and treeless mountain range rises behind him. The sky is blue and weather fair. He seems unmoved by any troubles. I feel as if he's seen a lot and knows he has but one thing left to do, make the next move.

I seem to be saying the same thing, but in different words with just slightly different twists.

The RWS: The figure lies on his back, arm in the sign of prayer... three swords over him, one sword beneath. Windows of a church it seems to be... you know, not much unlike the Hanson-Roberts... so they're both basically the same idea. Nothing to add.

Tarot of the 78 Doors: Now here's a card that breaks the mold! A blind man is walking infront of a brown building with a single brown door. He's walking from my left toward my right. If I knew nothing about tarot, or didn't read its LWB, I'd say "blindness... but perhaps there's a confidence in this. He doesn't seem troubled at all. In fact, I'd imagine he's quite aware of his surroundings even though he doesn't have eyes to see." The LWB says "Through the doors of the Swords we enter into the dimmesion of thoughts, mental life as an aspect of our daily life. FOUR OF SWORDS Inner concentration that could be mistaken for indifference or emotional aridity." Hmm. Emotional aridity? Like the dry clay soil of the Mythic Tarot. This LWB is very thin compared to others. It has less to say about each card. But nothing it says is contrary to any of the other LWBs.

I guess I am rightly accused... these decks seem a biased sample if there are any that exist which don't seem to relate somewhat to Liber T. I'll have to look for those decks. I wonder if a book store would let me open the deck box and read a LWB to see that it is one which isn't like the others. Then I'd buy it for my study.

Actually, while the root and basis of the card meanings is generally the same regardless of which deck you use, I find that some decks do deviate somewhat, especially depending on how you read. In terms of LWB meanings, some decks give meanings that, while certainly in the same corner of the same ballpark, suggest a somewhat different tone and meaning than others, which can certainly color an interpretation. For instance, I just got the Gothic Tarot of Vampires, and I find some of the LWB interpretations as well as the images of the cards to be very different than most standard imagery and interpretations, though in a matter of being a different side to the same story, so to speak. Any given card can have several facets, and some decks will focus more on some than on others. And if you're a person who draws a lot from the image of a card, the image can have a major affect on how you interpret something. To use an extreme example, you're probably going to get a negative idea from a Death card that's very gory and brutal, even if the LWB meaning sounds positive.

I think this comes down to where the meanings of the Tarot come from. While I tend to be a book learner, I feel that people will see symbols the way that they can. If someone didn't know the 'real' meanings of the cards and developed their own interpretations, then I believe those could also be right, though I think it's good for people to study the Tarot and become aware of what the accepted interpretations are and what the cards generally evoke.

I think we're on the same page. There are variations in LWBs but they seem to me to stay in the same ballpark as you put it. There are a variety of ways to say "Peace From Strife." The contemplation of a thing after much to-do. The recharging of one's batteries. Peace of mind. Thoughtful awareness. Taking a break, time off. Letting go. Releasing tensions. Having no regrets or resentments. Or, and don't think I am avoiding this, the opposite of all of those things could be what the card is discussing... a need for those things. That is to say, being filled with resent, not finding rest, and so forth.

I don't know that I agree with the idea that not knowing the "real" meanings of the cards could still lead to an accurate interpretation. Now, don't get me wrong. I do not advocate learning by rote the "book meanings" and spitting out computer card readings. I advocate learning the root symbols and then using your own words to describe them. I bet that if this were practiced (as, in fact, it is by many), they'd read very much the same thing in the cards. And this is what I perceive the LWBs have done. And I also advocate reading as many as you can so you can see how many different words the same sentence has already been put into. That way you can develop your own words (meaning, "and then burn the books").

Well if there is any controversy- it is because we do not really know what these images were first portraying. For all we know the TdM Death card could have been a public warning (like on Cigarettes) for Inns and houses that spread the plague. The Tower might have been a Cathar/Crusader/Penis depiction as a joke in playing cards- we do not know. Was there 14 Majors? Where was the Devil? What happened to the lightening struck tree and all the sheep? Was Tarot a commentary on the Bible? Did the Phoenicians have Tarot- did Jewish mysticism get depicted in images? When we do not know but speculate, then there is going to be controversy. It does not mean, that reading these images is going to flow like a rebus. Each deck has it's flavour. I have found decks that their LWB is like no other, but the images show a difference as well- it is the card image I am reading, not the LWB. Yes Tarot has structure- but that is not controversial. I have decks that all the cards show happy happy even the 10 swords. So I am going to get a happy happy reading from it. That is not really life though and I might warn a querent it is all a bit artificial. It seems that the only controversial thing that happens over cards is when someone suggests that there is one way only. My deck is the only one in step. I just ignore that. Some people intimate that the only worthwhile decks are the 'deep' decks- whats a deep deck? I can ignore those people. Some people say RWS is crudely drawn or that Thoth is too heavy with sexual symbolic content- it all depends what images make the words flow out your mouth (or fingers) I can stand in front of a Picasso and I have no words- it all looks dumb to me- but stand in front of a Titian and I know exactly what the Artist was saying. They both were paintings of a female. They both had all the bits and a keyword called a title. Different takes on the same theme. Yes Tarot now has a theme for reading- it did not always it seems, but that is open to conjecture too. Not controversial but interpretative. Controversial will only happen when something is rammed down someones throat as the 'only' way. ~Rosanne

In a way, I think you "get it." The thing that I attacked in this thread is the existence of "only this interpretation is correct" where I have yet to see that "this interpretation" contradicted any other. When someone says "Crowley said it was different," I disagree. He didn't seem to changed the meaning of a card, not one, at all. To me, it appears he changed our point of view of how to react to receiving this card - not what it might mean when received.

As far as it goes that Tarot may be artificial and arbitrary, that's fine. Maybe it is. But even as an artificial and arbitrary system, it works... but only so far as the system is complete. And decks publised today, as far as I can tell, seem to agree. They seem to me to all be designed based on the same system. But maybe it's true... my sample is limited to what I have discovered so far and maybe they are all derived from Liber T. That Tarot of the 78 Doors though, maybe only sort of. But as I said, I haven't found its LWB to contradict any other.

It's an interesting point that some people can pick up any deck and read it by using the sytem that they are used to, and to be fair, if you are well adapt at one system and regularly work with, like it and it works for you then why not continue to use it with any deck out there. I've tried it and it doesn't work for me, there is too much hard work involved in picturing another deck and I would also question whether this is reading the cards... or memorising a system. But just as Lillie said about grafting Thoth meanings on to other decks.... it's the system she likes and is used to and doesn't prevent her from using other decks in one-off circumstances.

Personally I would prefer to be able to pick up any deck and read the depiction, taking in any knowledge of that system, the symbolism, and any other knowledge or flash which strikes the intuitive spot at the time.

The problem with LWBs is that they are mostly all the same and are not necessarily related to the deck they come with. Generally they seem to be mass-produced for 'any' deck which doesn't mean the deck itself should be read that way.

I'm not sure I agree that LWBs are mass produced and don't "necessarily relate" to the deck they come with. Maybe it's true in some cases... and I have wondered from time to time if there isn't something to said about that... but I do find variations of wordings, it's just that I have yet to find variations of meaning. Basically, I think you "get it."

Good grief! i knew there were a few, but not this many (i'm guessing these also subdivide?).

It would make sense that if kabbalah systems are so diverse there is no right way to read the cards in terms of attributes (ie planteary influences etc) any more than one deck is better than another.

when a planet is used in a card; surely it is the character of the card that dictates the planet used and not the other way around? (planet dictating the character, and nature of how we read the card). I thought such asignments were meant to aid our understanding rather than form the basis of tarot. (along with kabbalah, alphabets, numbers other than the cards). i'm not sure i undrstand how Baccus93 means we should use the kabbalah as a basic requirement. which kabbalah? why that one and not another?

seems down, as usual to personal choice and individual assertions that one way, one 'should' or 'must'

I really like this post. Right up my alley. I can't say I've answered to my satisfaction any of the questions you draw up though. Did the character of the card determine the planet or the planet determine the character of the card. From my understanding, The Golden Dawn tradition had in the minors only pip representations and the students where meant to learn Liber T's concepts. Waite broke this mold by drawing what Crowley called "static images" freezing into place one or other specific ideas about how these attributions would look in life. One way, for example, that I've come to learn the Five of Swords is "fatalistic point of view." Meaning... "I don't really have a choice." Kind of hard to read that into the RWS images I think (maybe I'm wrong though... maybe someone without tarot knowledge - a 'natural psychic' maybe - could have come up with it too). But to me, that's something that springs to mind when I contemplate the Geburah of Yetzirah.

Very Entertaining thread....fun.. but.... obviously the quantification of "Kabbalah" into two (2) systems is under-researched... and the gloss over the meaning of the various spellings is a symptom of that, but that's easy to reseach on the Inet. understanding evolves..

would you enumerate these please ...thread would then be more educational, and with some specifics we could get into a deeper discussion...

The Western Qabalah, for example, teaches us by way of Correspondence the similarities between Hindu and Graeco pantheons - at least in the Golden Dawn and in Crowley's 777 we find these things studied. The Western Qabalah is designed as a method for the magician to attain to something "magickal" whereas the Hebrew Qabalah is a method of understanding the divinity of JHVH and the Torah. Nothing to do with "any other god before me."

There are great similarities... but the two should never be confused as my friendly neighborhood Rabi warns me. I don't study Hebrew Qabalism nor do I care how it is spelled. But I do know that the Hebrew does not consider what I study to be Qabalah at all. But a stolen something.

It is hard not to respond to ridiculous posts, by the way.

And I love you too. Thanks for calling my post a name. I think it really needed one. People don't seem to like its title.

I still want to know - if (big IF) the theory holds up that the deck doesn't matter - why not just write the card names on 78 pieces of paper and use those ? Think how much money would be saved, and how many artists would go out of business....

(I do know someone who did that once actually - but it was an emergency !)

I also think that sometimes when we go to read, choosing the deck to use is part of the whole process. Then again - I read weirdly anyway.....

I agree, I agree, I agree. I think you get it. And yes, I did do this once... I made my own deck on index cards... I simply drew the planets, signs, tatwas, and the numbers. And it worked!!! But I much like the cards that are visual so much. I agree, the images with forms and colors, be they pips or depictions, do add to the available insight.

(And I swore I wouldn't post anymore!!!!)

I gots to say it: You just talked yourself out of your own argument; ergo, if "any" tarot deck's LWB has an "inerpretation the same," well, slap me & call me Susan, aren't you saying in effect that there isn't a controversy at all?

Confused,

Reece

Exactly!!! I didn't say I was creating a controversy, but that there shouldn't be one. Without knowing it, you got it. (but now you'll probably fall in with the crowd that says the controversy didn't exist in the first place... I made it all up or something.)

 

[Baccus93]

WARNING!!! This is going to be very long. pt 2

Well, gang, you knew Old Loudmouth was gonna pop in here sooner or later, but I wanted a chance to read the whole thread from the top.

The initial post was baiting, but frankly, I don't mind that because I have no fear of debate and I love the discussion that's ensued. Still, the essential core of the "controversy" is rooted in a mistaken assumption. I'm gonna deal with that first.

The only thing I can say to this is that you haven't made a very good sampling of the decks available (a little like claiming that no one speaks anything but English because you grew up in rural Montana). Out of the 100s of decks I own I can think of 3 distinct, popular deck "strains" that often directly contradict each other: Golden Dawn, Levi-based, Spanish... Moreover, I can think of literally 30 decks that have one-off systems that buck the GD hegemony. So I think you're making your case on a biased sample.

To put your argument another way... GD decks are all Tarot, GD decks share meaning, all Tarot decks share meaning: that is what we call a syllogistic fallacy.
No question: if you go to an apple orchard you are going to find apples. What you are proposing is what is known as a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy because you've equated sequence with causality. Many decks ARE GD-based, but that is because the Waite-Smith is the most popular deck in the United States (though not in Europe). Since it is popular, people know it and seek its brethren, and since publishers know this they produce decks that reflect its structure. That isn't a conspiracy or a secret society, that's capitalism.

Trouble is, even a casual survey of deck reviews will turn up decks that don't follow the Book T meanings. Folks grumble about these "anomalies" on AT all the time, because many folks expect the WS meanings to be universal, which they are not, categorically. To claim that they are says more about where and how you've been looking than establishing the existence any kind of controversy. If you poke your head into the Marseilles groups or almost any part of the Historical section, you might broaden your perspective.

I do think there are "great" controversies in esoterica, some of which have larger implications, but frankly the "dastardly LWB Agreement sham" is not one of them. To say so was baiting, pure and simple, and uninformed baiting at that. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. With 10 minutes of research you could have demolished your own line of reasoning.

Maybe painful, not so certain. If this read "Western Kabbalah and Tarot are NOW related" I would agree with you. But again post hoc ergo propter hoc which doesn't leave much room for discussion. The simple fact is, if you study a little history and a little religion, that statement will seem patently uninformed. For the record, I'm sure you know that Judaism is not big on depictions of the supernal... "graven images" and all. Although cases have been made for QBLH's relation to Tarot, they are tenuous and speculative at best. And the vast brangle of different QBLH is too complicated and polyvalent to even approach in this thread. So too, what we know of Tarot history brings the minors through Islamic North Africa (hardly jewish-friendly) into medieval Europe, with the Trumps popping up mysteriously in the 15th century in northern Italy. Not so much with "painful obviousness" of the Jewish mystical connection. But again, I think a little research is indicated.
This IS interesting to me, and it's something that many people have discussed many times in many threads: the idea that the reader and not the reading system is the source of the reading. But again, not especially controversial. If someone is a crappy reader, no deck will be "great" in their hands, and if someone is great, gregory's 78 index cards will work wonders. Still, not so controversial a statement.

I half agree with you here. I don't agree that you MUST know the astrological, Qabalistic structures to get a good read, but I do think (as I've said in any number of other threads on this topic) you will give a better read if you aren't just spitting back someone else's prechewed astrology or QBLH without knowing why. Not all astrology or QBLH comes from reading books; frankly lots of people pick up a lot of both from the cards directly because most modern decks are self-conciously designed to be used in studying both esoteric branches.

Mastery arises from effort, the more the better. This is one of the reasons I suggested above that you look into history and religion a little more before stating "painfully obvious" assumptions. Knowledge is good. But people come to life with different passions and abilities, so I'm certainly not going to assume everyone will learn the same material the same way at the same juncture. We are not insects! Anyone who picks up a Book-T-based deck is studying Book T whether they like it or not. And some people don't want to read Book T. Gnosis is critical and subjective and hard-won.

Certainly not mine, though I'm still not sure what I was supposed to be "wrong" about. And to be frank, I don't know where you've decided you're "right." I went back over your posts, but there isn't an argument per se, more a series of narrow observations... Golden Dawn decks are based on the Golden Dawn: Ummm, okay... no disagreements there. Golden Dawn decks are popular, yep and Stuart Kaplan has the fortune to prove it. Golden Dawn decks are the original and only Tarot, the best, most coherent, most accurate, most historically sound, most direct path to divine communication ever invented and they predate the solar system: Nope. But, Baccus, that isn't a controvery either, because it is literally foolish to suggest that anyone would make claims like that for something invented less than a century ago.

I love the discussion you've inspired, but the baiting does have a way of inciting ire. From the good humor and intelligence, you've shown in the thread, I'm hoping your ego won't be bruised either if I suggest you do a little more investigating before making claims. Not because baiting hurts anyone, but because it puts people in the position of calling you uninformed.

Scion

I think Scion is great. Everything he's ever written I have appreciated. I think I've answered to this post will all my answers here above. If not, let me know.

By heck, I go and rub noses with the elephants for a couple of days, and what do I find???

But aren't we? We all know (or should know) that the One True Tarot is the Tarot of Marseille (without a final S: and please don't speak to me of the many variants of said TdM); and the One True Interpretation of the Tarot of Marseille is the one given to us, as a Revelation, by the late great Paul Marteau. He showed us the Tarot in its unadulterated form, before it was infected by all these Quabalahs and Kabbalahs and QBLHs and astrologies, and Levi vs the Golden Dawn, and Shamanistic overlays (or is that underwear?), and feminist, cat-loving, Prague-loving, mythologised, baroque Rock n'Roll. Unfortunately for those who don't read French, translation of his work is not readily available (and unfortunately for me, I left his book in Europe, and neglected to memorize it). That leaves a handful of French-speaking At'ers who own the Marteau along with a copy of the original 1930s Grimaud. They are right. I can't think of many who qualify. Ergo, we are "all" (or nearly all) wrong. But that's OK. I can live with being wrong. I would hate to be called narrow or syllogistic

Let's remember that Bacchus is the god of wine - maybe our Bacchus was having a Bacchanalia, and it would be inexcusable for us to hold against him anything that he said or did during one of those .

You are so sweet. Thank you. But, no... I'm pretty sure I was sober at the time. I will admit though, I did do it because I came here looking for my idea of fun. As I tell people all the time, I'm Taurus Sun in the 12th House with my Mercury rising, Gemini rising, and sometimes I just love to stir up sh** and build from there as a form of entertainment. But don't ever imagine I'm ingenuine or just looking for trouble for trouble's sake.

"The danger comes when people start insisting that one system be 'wrong' in order to guarantee that their system be 'right'."
Mary K. Greer

“Take your pick - the worst approach is the fundamentalist one which dogmatically demands that we all accept that only one set of ascriptions is 'right' and all others must be 'wrong'.”
On Elemental associations – Nigel Jackson

Perhaps this could hold water, so long as it is a "system" that is being used and not just some random notion. I prefer the system I've described - sephira, element, planet, sign (and all that goes with this system) and find that to me it appears so do the designers of the decks (at least the sample of decks I've had so far).

if it were said "The danger comes when people start insisting that one person's meaning be 'wrong' in order to guarantee that their meaning be 'right'," I'd have said "you get it."

I perceive that Tarot is a system. It starts with 78. Becomes 22 and 56. The 56 become 10 and 4. The 22 become 12, 7, and 3. That's the root of the system for me. Show me another system of Tarot, for I haven't seen it yet.

 

[frelkins]

Show me another system of Tarot, for I haven't seen it yet.

You haven't spent much time with lo scarabeo, have you? But do me a favor, will you? Please buy a Florentine Minchiate from Brian Williams and a Mantegna Tarot.

I would be especially happy to have you give me a reading on the same question with both.

 

[Baccus93]

Look at the two quotes above. do you see the contradiction yet? No? for the last sentence check out what firemaiden said. look again. see the contradiction yet?

i have already posted on this inconsistency. first you make a claim in your first post about the problem with making claims about decks, the proceed to do just that about systems.

Now it is you who is baiting. I never said anything about decks other than to clarify that I was not talking about decks. Get it? I said it was about people who claim that authors have re-invented tarot meanings (such as the supposed conclusion that Crowley's meanings show different than others, where I saw they don't). This is not about *decks*. I won't repeat that, nor deal with any comments regarding it.

so far you have not addressed in any way the arguements that firemaiden, Scion, i or anyone else has made with a consistent and well explained reasoning behind what you say. in all earnestness i am eager to hear it. not to bat it down (i have no knowledge to bat it down with anyway) but out of curiosity.

I'll let Scion decide if I was inaccurate when I said that I believe I answered to his post in my answers to the other posts. Hmm. Inconsistent? You quoted the very post that answers with my rationals yet claim I did not answer.

i realise my tone may be a little off, but i feel that i have been very polite and even jovial so far, and have eagerly awaited your responses that you earlier told us were forth coming to address our remarks and questions. so far you have quite rudely not addressed any, particularly Scions. Are you going at any point to back up your claims i wonder?

Have you not been reading my posts?

i have no problem with being abrupt now because i do belive your ego to be Impenetrable. i think it is quite rude to start a 'controversial' debate and then not back up your claims adequately; particularly when participants have put effort into their posts for your and everyone eslse's benefit, and then blatantly disregard them with statements along the lines of 'i think i've covered this' when you clearly havent.

Please; explain.

lol. Shall I repeat myself?

1) I'm not talking about decks. I'm talking about tarot enthusiasts who claim that certain decks have changed the meanings of various cards. It has been agreed with that the various LWBs are in fact very similar, if not sometimes the same. Remember, the original post was about LWBs that it seems to have been allowed by many that the statement that they all say basically the same is evident.

2) My idea is that the reason these LWBs all give the same meanings for each card (I used the Four of Swords as a sample) is that the cards themselves all stem from the same root "system" and the authors are giving "keywords" based on their interpretations of this system or the symbols within this system.

3) I have agreed that imagery plays a very important role. But I've also stated that these images are drawings based on the interpretations of this symbolic system I've alluded to.

I don't know why you insist on saying that you don't see what I've written.

{EDIT: To give it a simpler flavor for you to understand - I can't back up claims I didn't make, look only for the claims I make.}

 

[tieduptinkerbell]

is it...

the deck or the reader that is required to be more accurate?

i have several decks that i seem to translate easier...or"hear" better...but i can read with a deck of playing cards so i am sure its not always about the deck...

There are some decks that you just KNOW who ever created them KNOWs. For instance i resonate with The Tarot de Paris. I love it...its not traditional persay...in fact very individual...and soooo deep... And for what ever reason ...finding a deck like that can put you right over the top with a reading that would otherwise be good...not fantastic...

my oppinion...as always

back to my tinkerbong

bell