Hi @Barleywine!  Since the Empress and the Hanged Man each showed up more than once, it would seem that, after laying out each row, you reshuffled and used the whole deck again for the next one.  Doing that, therefore, means one wouldn't wind up with a layout of 12 cards like this in the end.  So, would you give three separate readings in one session?  Would you do this spread without reshuffling after each row? Or use two decks? 

3 hours ago, geoxena said:

Hi @Barleywine!  Since the Empress and the Hanged Man each showed up more than once, it would seem that, after laying out each row, you reshuffled and used the whole deck again for the next one.  Doing that, therefore, means one wouldn't wind up with a layout of 12 cards like this in the end.  So, would you give three separate readings in one session?  Would you do this spread without reshuffling after each row? Or use two decks? 

No, the second appearance of those cards was due to the "numerical essence" calculation from the three preceding cards in their rows. If you're familiar with the tirage en croix (French Cross) spread, it's done the same way as the quintessence-card calculation. (I did put the numerical addition and reduction numbers with each one as a clue.) I would have had to take the "essence" cards from a second deck but I did some visual magic with PhotoScape. By the way, because the Empress and the Hanged Man are numerological counterparts (1+2=3), I could have used "casting out nines" instead of Theosophical reduction and got the Hanged Man once again, but I also could have stopped at the World instead, another counterpart to the Empress (2+1=3).

Deleted as probably not relevant

Decisions arise as analytical (conscious) or intuitive (subconscious).  Emotional decisions are a subset of analytical because the decision maker is consciously aware of how their emotional state is affecting them.  Not my opinion, based on scholarly research.  Seems logical to me that a Tarot spread should directly reflect these two sources of decision making.  Of course, any creative person can form a Tarot spread in any manner they choose, but if decision making is the focus it seems alignment with how decisions are made should prevail.  Just sayin...

I like the ideas in this spread, and think it could prove very useful in many scenarios, especially when decision-making is a complex issue.

However, when it comes to numerical shenanigans, you lost me!  Instead, what I would do, is use three different decks ...one deck for each 'line' of the spread.  That way cards can appear more than once, but will be random, not a result of mathematical calculation.

I'm not saying that using number calculations in tarot doesn't work ...obviously it does.  It can certainly be 'neater' and quicker than faffing around with three different decks. But for me? No.  I'm just not oriented like that.  Confronted with calculations, I slowly back away, while 'appeasement grinning' like the monkeys I'm distantly related to. 😬

I do like your three different levels of analysis ...a lot.  I also would choose 'advice' over 'consequences' for the 4th card in each row.  Advice gives the querent a way to achieve what they need...it doesn't tell them what will happen if they do the wrong thing. Without 'advice' they might well do the wrong thing!  🙂

8 hours ago, Croat said:

Decisions arise as analytical (conscious) or intuitive (subconscious).  Emotional decisions are a subset of analytical because the decision maker is consciously aware of how their emotional state is affecting them.  Not my opinion, based on scholarly research.  Seems logical to me that a Tarot spread should directly reflect these two sources of decision making.  Of course, any creative person can form a Tarot spread in any manner they choose, but if decision making is the focus it seems alignment with how decisions are made should prevail.  Just sayin...

Perhaps the language needs work. What I was after was "inputs to choice" and not process controls or variables, since not all decisions are (or can be) planned. Gut-level "snap judgments" come on us suddenly, and resemble problem-solving more than decision-making, so emotions can trump analytical or rational input. It may be realistic to use only the "dimension" of this spread that applies to the nature of the choice and not treat it as a three-fold pattern..

2 hours ago, Chariot said:

I like the ideas in this spread, and think it could prove very useful in many scenarios, especially when decision-making is a complex issue.

However, when it comes to numerical shenanigans, you lost me!  Instead, what I would do, is use three different decks ...one deck for each 'line' of the spread.  That way cards can appear more than once, but will be random, not a result of mathematical calculation.

I'm not saying that using number calculations in tarot doesn't work ...obviously it does.  It can certainly be 'neater' and quicker than faffing around with three different decks. But for me? No.  I'm just not oriented like that.  Confronted with calculations, I slowly back away, while 'appeasement grinning' like the monkeys I'm distantly related to. 😬

 

I do like your three different levels of analysis ...a lot.  I also would choose 'advice' over 'consequences' for the 4th card in each row.  Advice gives the querent a way to achieve what they need...it doesn't tell them what will happen if they do the wrong thing. Without 'advice' they might well do the wrong thing!  🙂

As "half mad-scientist, half mystic," I've always been fascinated by the "quintessence calculation" of the French Cross spread because it rolls up all of the influences on the table into a high-level overview that I often treat as longer-range insights of the "rest-of-the-story" kind. In that sense, advice relies on the "long view" rather than on the near-term perspective of the first three cards, which on their own can satisfy the goal of making a choice in the matter.

21 hours ago, Barleywine said:

No, the second appearance of those cards was due to the "numerical essence" calculation from the three preceding cards in their rows. If you're familiar with the tirage en croix (French Cross) spread, it's done the same way as the quintessence-card calculation. (I did put the numerical addition and reduction numbers with each one as a clue.) I would have had to take the "essence" cards from a second deck but I did some visual magic with PhotoScape. By the way, because the Empress and the Hanged Man are numerological counterparts (1+2=3), I could have used "casting out nines" instead of Theosophical reduction and got the Hanged Man once again, but I also could have stopped at the World instead, another counterpart to the Empress (2+1=3).

Ok, but I am wondering how you would do this spread with three rows in front of a querent, without adding from a second deck or being able to manipulate the image.

1 hour ago, geoxena said:

 

Ok, but I am wondering how you would do this spread with three rows in front of a querent, without adding from a second deck or being able to manipulate the image.

I always bring a few decks to a reading session so that's what I would have to do. As Chariot suggested, I might even use a different deck for each row. I have several compatible RWS decks and three identical pocket-size Thoth decks for that purpose.