Wanderer Posted January 1, 2021 Posted January 1, 2021 @ilweran Ah, yes - in terms of tracing influences, it can take you all sorts of places! 😎 This is particularly true of the GW/WW, I think, because of the range of inputs that have shaped the decks, from such a range different eras and perspectives. I never seem to find time for tarot-related reading... must make more of an effort! I suspect the WW is more easily understood from its own content, and from basic, common knowledge than the GW is - that needs a certain deeper insight into its foundation, it seems to me. Totally agree that the more we understand the meaning around a deck, whichever it is, the better we can read in general. Tarot is all based on universals of human nature and experience, and deepening one perspective can't help but deepen others at the same time, even if those insights aren't directly relevant to the symbolism of deck at hand. I believe it's called 'wisdom'.
Guest Posted January 1, 2021 Posted January 1, 2021 8 hours ago, katrinka said: Yes! One should definitely read Crowley (and DuQuette!) Otherwise the cards alone could lead to an Angeles Arrien style set of misconceived ideas about misapprehended images. If the background information is so easily available, why turn a blind eye? But the images stand on their own. Once you know that the pelican is NOT a swan, you're on your way. I do admire people who can run around the Qabalah. But it isn't needed. And if I was going to invest that much effort, I'd concentrate on authentic Jewish Kabbalah.. Over time, study has been seen as antithetical to intuition. Add to that the idea of a standard meanings and that a reader can read any deck, Crowley’s writings are too taxing. Same for Waite, and so on. Eden Gray or Jonathan Dee are far easier. Crowley occupies a strange place is the tarot landscape. That is why so many people try to rehabilitate his legacy and life. 8 hours ago, katrinka said: Caitlin does what's good for Caitlin. And I understand that writing isn't the most lucrative hustle these days. She's grasping at straws. I get that. But what I don't get is SO MANY prominent Tarot people who are backing Ryan. He's nobody, and they're throwing their credibility away. Are they ALL grasping at straws? Would it be the end of the world to get a day job? Both John and Caitlín have always used a 50/50 attribution with their commissioned artists. I suspect, from what has been said, Chesca Potter and Mr. Ryan did the same on paper. It nevertheless changes little; it (Greenwood) was quite different to the Arthurian, &c. I do believe that reading Chesca’s writings would be beneficial to the Wildwood. It lays the foundation for which the Wildwood has been constructed. It’s no different to reading Book T as part of one’s study of the GD Magickal or Harris-Crowley.
blue_crow_laura Posted January 1, 2021 Posted January 1, 2021 2 hours ago, timtoldrum said: Over time, study has been seen as antithetical to intuition. Add to that the idea of a standard meanings and that a reader can read any deck, Crowley’s writings are too taxing. Same for Waite, and so on. Eden Gray or Jonathan Dee are far easier. See, this is where I think folks diverge, and tend to set up camps of "my way is the one true way" when really, the Tarot (like any symbol set) is always filtered through our individual brains. And our individual brains have very different ways of processing information, different learning styles, different modes of filtering sensory perceptions, different ways of connecting up seemingly disparate elements, different ways of acting as a platform for intuition. I disagree with the bolded statement above, for myself at least, because my brain works first by devouring/learning everything related to the subject at hand, and then absorbing it into an ever-growing pool for my intuition/automatic reaction/intrinsically dexterous reactions. I'm still an intermediate Tarot student, but I've been an active astrologer and mythology student for years, so connecting up the symbol sets is the first thing I want to do. When I look at a card, I go first to the overlapping sets of astrology, number, and Qabalah, then outward into an interconnecting pool of symbolism (such as the mythologies and cosmologies I'm familiar with) that add connotation, not denotation. Denotation is learned. Connotation is intuited. I'm a Joseph Campbell-loving synchronist at heart. My silly overachieving brain could write a lengthy, pointless paper on the diverse correspondences of the cards but that's not the point. The point is to train the right brain thoroughly, with the best information you have at hand, to give the left brain a solid foundation for soaring. The point is, as Wallace Stevens once said, to "know all philosophy, but keep it out of your art." That's the tough part, I think. There's always a weird awkward stage when you're learning something technical or factual; you have to just power through that stage until the knowledge or technique becomes second nature. The larger your database, the better your data. 🙂 All that said, again, I'm not an expert. I've not studied much specific Tarot theory outside RWS and Crowley. You could probably make exactly the same case I've made for any solid, deep system outside the one that encompasses Golden Dawn, astrology, and general western mysticism. You might be able to base a system on, say, the I Ching (though Crowley, and the fact that even it is based on the root five elements and their transmutations...not all that different, really) or the Hindu cosmology. I'd actually love to see the latter!
Guest Posted January 1, 2021 Posted January 1, 2021 (edited) 59 minutes ago, blue_crow_laura said: See, this is where I think folks diverge, and tend to set up camps of "my way is the one true way" when really, the Tarot (like any symbol set) is always filtered through our individual brains. And our individual brains have very different ways of processing information, different learning styles, different modes of filtering sensory perceptions, different ways of connecting up seemingly disparate elements, different ways of acting as a platform for intuition. I disagree with the bolded statement above, for myself at least, because my brain works first by devouring/learning everything related to the subject at hand, and then absorbing it into an ever-growing pool for my intuition/automatic reaction/intrinsically dexterous reactions. I'm still an intermediate Tarot student, but I've been an active astrologer and mythology student for years, so connecting up the symbol sets is the first thing I want to do. When I look at a card, I go first to the overlapping sets of astrology, number, and Qabalah, then outward into an interconnecting pool of symbolism (such as the mythologies and cosmologies I'm familiar with) that add connotation, not denotation. Denotation is learned. Connotation is intuited. I'm a Joseph Campbell-loving synchronist at heart. My silly overachieving brain could write a lengthy, pointless paper on the diverse correspondences of the cards but that's not the point. The point is to train the right brain thoroughly, with the best information you have at hand, to give the left brain a solid foundation for soaring. The point is, as Wallace Stevens once said, to "know all philosophy, but keep it out of your art." That's the tough part, I think. There's always a weird awkward stage when you're learning something technical or factual; you have to just power through that stage until the knowledge or technique becomes second nature. The larger your database, the better your data. 🙂 All that said, again, I'm not an expert. I've not studied much specific Tarot theory outside RWS and Crowley. You could probably make exactly the same case I've made for any solid, deep system outside the one that encompasses Golden Dawn, astrology, and general western mysticism. You might be able to base a system on, say, the I Ching (though Crowley, and the fact that even it is based on the root five elements and their transmutations...not all that different, really) or the Hindu cosmology. I'd actually love to see the latter! Dear @blue_crow_laura The sentence that you highlighted did not record one’s own viewpoint, but rather a pervasive rhetoric that developed through the so-called New Age. It has never been my belief that study and intuition are mutually exclusive. In fact intuition (which is an understanding without recourse to conscious reasoning), requires thorough study. I do, therefore, disagree with you on connotation being intuition. A connotation can be a guess. Intuition is a numinous awareness — a total awareness of what is. Intuition in its highest form is intellection. We do not intuit out of thin air but the stores of learning. As for experts, there is none. All readers are students — some longer than others, but still not masters or experts. I think Madeline Montalban said it best (just forgive her mention of Egypt): The Tarot cannot be learned easily, and one never stops learning about it, but nobody will claim to be master of it unless they are foolish for it is the book of wisdom and initiation, the Book of Thoth, the recorder-teacher, god of the ancient Egyptians. Edited January 1, 2021 by Guest
ilweran Posted January 1, 2021 Posted January 1, 2021 49 minutes ago, blue_crow_laura said: And our individual brains have very different ways of processing information, different learning styles, different modes of filtering sensory perceptions, different ways of connecting up seemingly disparate elements, different ways of acting as a platform for intuition. This totally. What works for me (reading, reading, reading mainly!) won't necessarily work for somebody else. I love to poke around in the roots of things, following whatever catches my eye!
Wanderer Posted January 1, 2021 Posted January 1, 2021 8 minutes ago, timtoldrum said: It has never been my belief that study and intuition are mutually exclusive. In fact intuition (which is an understanding without recourse to conscious reasoning), requires thorough study. I do, therefore, disagree with you on connotation being intuition. Intuition is a numinous awareness — a total awareness of what is. Intuition in its highest form is intellection. We do not intuit out of thin air but the stores of learning. As you know, Tim, I disagree that this is necessarily the case. I've seen remarkable feats of intuition by those with little or no background knowledge, both in Tarot and everyday life. Personally, I also do find that my intuition has developed best without book learning. Experience, yes, for me is always beneficial; knowledge, though... much less so. For others, I can totally accept that this is not the case, that a thorough grounding in the symbolism and accumulated knowledge is an effective way to develop one's skills in reading and intuition; but I do disagree that it's needed by everyone to reach the same stage. Likewise, Laura's multi-faceted approach (Qabbalah, astrology...) is not for me at all; it's just not how I work, no matter how much it is a key part of her practice. In short, I think @blue_crow_lauraand @ilweran have highlighted the critical point: we have different approaches, and can only see through our personal perspective... which is why, as Tim says, 'there are no experts' (in the sense of those who can apply their knowledge universally). There's no universal answer; just the answers we have for ourselves.
Guest Posted January 1, 2021 Posted January 1, 2021 4 minutes ago, Wanderer said: As you know, Tim, I disagree that this is necessarily the case. I've seen remarkable feats of intuition by those with little or no background knowledge, both in Tarot and everyday life. Personally, I also do find that my intuition has developed best without book learning. Experience, yes, for me is always beneficial; knowledge, though... much less so. Hello @Wanderer Yes; although I think it comes back (yet again) to definitions of what is intuition, is intuition the same as psychicism, precognition, et cetera. There is no one-way to study or read the tarot, just as there is no traditional meanings (really). I hope I never gave the impression that there was.
Wanderer Posted January 1, 2021 Posted January 1, 2021 1 hour ago, timtoldrum said: Hello @Wanderer Yes; although I think it comes back (yet again) to definitions of what is intuition, is intuition the same as psychicism, precognition, et cetera. Oh, I agree... that is indeed at the heart of it. Can't get away from it, can we? 😁 The strange thing is that aside from these interesting philosophical angles I'm not sure it matters what conclusions we come to, so long as they make sense to us. At some point, we have to accept our own beliefs (or comfortable lack of them) about what the process is, in order to maintain the conviction that allows the Tarot to work. If I start to question the process, I begin to doubt where the information comes from, and therefore whether I can trust it. Is this particular insight from my waking brain, playing tricks on me..? Etc. That uncertainty (or just distraction?) is enough to throw things off. 1 hour ago, timtoldrum said: There is no one-way to study or read the tarot, just as there is no traditional meanings (really). I hope I never gave the impression that there was. Don't worry, I think you've been quite clear, Tim... and if I was in any doubt, that certainly clears it up!
blue_crow_laura Posted January 1, 2021 Posted January 1, 2021 2 hours ago, timtoldrum said: As for experts, there is none. All readers are students — some longer than others, but still not masters or experts. I agree with this wholeheartedly! On the intuition issue, I'll use art as an example of how I look at it (I've made my actual day-job living as a sculptor, artist, and arts instructor for nearly thirty years, so this is my natural analogy.) At almost any point in the process of making art, an artist can have flashes of inspiration or intuition. It can happen at the ideation stage, during the roughout or mockup stage, in the painting or execution stage, whenever. I personally think those flashes of intuitive creation come from elsewhere; they are truly a gift to the world that ask the artist to be a conduit. I definitely see them as divine whispers. However. If the artist receiving the intuitive flash has no skills- no draftsmanship skills, no color theory skills, no actual studied, practiced ability to use a brush or chisel or Paint program or what have you- then that artist will have a limited ability to process the flash of inspiration, to channel it into its fullest form. Experience is of key importance, of course, since art is primarily a manual skill, but theory and knowledge and plain-old book learning are also very key. I'd say it's almost 50/50, if you want to hone yourself as a conduit for full artistic expression. In fact, most artists find that as their skill and knowledge range increases, they receive even more inspiration at every stage of the work. Their intuitive ability will increase, not decrease. You basically say to the gods, "I'm going to do my best to train myself to hear you on as many levels as possible, and then attempt to get those across in the work without making a jumbled mess." Of course, we're individuals, so we'll all be better at hearing certain levels of "god-voice" than others, but that just gives all of us something to admire in others, and almost limitless new avenues to explore if we get stale or bored. 🙂 Anyway, these are truly just my thoughts; I haven't read cards for anyone other than a few friends and family in years. I'm definitely here to learn! Tarot has been more of a source for personal development for me, and I think I approach it slightly more cerebrally and introspectively than I would if I were reading professionally; I see it as another language I'm exploring, another way of hearing the gods, if you will.
blue_crow_laura Posted January 1, 2021 Posted January 1, 2021 2 hours ago, ilweran said: This totally. What works for me (reading, reading, reading mainly!) won't necessarily work for somebody else. I love to poke around in the roots of things, following whatever catches my eye! Me too! I read almost constantly. It's all grist for the mill. 🙂 2 hours ago, Wanderer said: we have different approaches, and can only see through our personal perspective... which is why, as Tim says, 'there are no experts' (in the sense of those who can apply their knowledge universally). There's no universal answer; just the answers we have for ourselves. Yes indeed. I like the feeling that I'm in a group of folks who are actively working out those answers even now. 🙂
katrinka Posted January 1, 2021 Posted January 1, 2021 (edited) 8 hours ago, timtoldrum said: Over time, study has been seen as antithetical to intuition. Add to that the idea of a standard meanings and that a reader can read any deck, Crowley’s writings are too taxing. Same for Waite, and so on. Eden Gray or Jonathan Dee are far easier. I strongly suspect a lot of that came from the thoroughly debunked right brain vs. left brain idea.https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130814190513.htm For awhile, it was thought that the left side of the brain was analytical and the right side was creative and intuitive, and that one side or the other "dominates." Then people got the idea that if they just ignored left brained things, let all of that atrophy, they'd be amazingly psychic, lol. But the thing is, even if right and left brain theory were true (which it isn't) we need to use our whole brain - even for reading cards. Analysis, logic and critical thinking skills are as necessary as intuition and creativity. It's not just aspiring readers who do this. We've come to a point in time where this kind of thinking poses an actual threat. Willful ignorance in the face of a pandemic, for instance, is hastening our descent into Dark Ages v2. So is racism - science itself tells us that race is a construct. But to mention science is to be dismissed by people who don't want to know things. 8 hours ago, timtoldrum said: Crowley occupies a strange place is the tarot landscape. That is why so many people try to rehabilitate his legacy and life. Yes. It's a mistake to try to do that. Crowley was what he was - brilliant, but also a major a-hole. On Quora, I'm involved with one of those comment threads that won't die. It's not about Crowley, it's about Pitbulls, lol. I mentioned that they're generally very loving dogs, but they've been selectively bred for dog aggression, and it's a bad idea to leave them unsupervised with other dogs, cats, ferrets, etc. I backed it up with a link to the American Pit Bull Foundation, who say the same. So I'm catching a lot of flak from the "Pibble nanny dogs would never ever hurt a fly" faction, lol. I understand why people want to rehabilitate the breed's image, with all the BSL legislation and virtually every dog attack that makes the news being attributed to "Pitbulls." But you have to be realistic. If a Pitbull kills the neighbor's dog, it's more grist for the BSL faction. The talk around Crowley is similar, I think. They're trying to rebrand him into a big ol' teddy bear. It's crazy. 8 hours ago, timtoldrum said: I do believe that reading Chesca’s writings would be beneficial to the Wildwood. It lays the foundation for which the Wildwood has been constructed. It’s no different to reading Book T as part of one’s study of the GD Magickal or Harris-Crowley. Exactly! Even if the decks don't match card-for-card, the Greenwood is the source of the Wildwood. And Chesca is a better writer, anyway. 😉 5 hours ago, blue_crow_laura said: I disagree with the bolded statement above, for myself at least, because my brain works first by devouring/learning everything related to the subject at hand, and then absorbing it into an ever-growing pool for my intuition/automatic reaction/intrinsically dexterous reactions I would say that your statement indicates that you actually agree. "Devouring/learning everything related to the subject at hand" is study. 5 hours ago, blue_crow_laura said: The point is to train the right brain thoroughly, with the best information you have at hand, to give the left brain a solid foundation for soaring. I do hope you meant that metaphorically. 🤣 But yes - there can be no cartomantic intuition without learning and practice: 5 hours ago, timtoldrum said: It has never been my belief that study and intuition are mutually exclusive. In fact intuition (which is an understanding without recourse to conscious reasoning), requires thorough study. 5 hours ago, timtoldrum said: As for experts, there is none. All readers are students — some longer than others, but still not masters or experts. Yes. There is ALWAYS more to be learned, it never ends. I think that's why it's held my interest for so long. If I could exhaust the subject, I'd have walked away years ago. We have to keep the momentum going. Edited January 2, 2021 by katrinka
SilverLeaf Posted January 1, 2021 Author Posted January 1, 2021 This discussion is so rich, polite, and diverse (compared to my experiences with standard social media platforms which I frequented prior to finding TT&M), thank you for sharing your perspectives!
katrinka Posted January 1, 2021 Posted January 1, 2021 1 hour ago, blue_crow_laura said: However. If the artist receiving the intuitive flash has no skills- no draftsmanship skills, no color theory skills, no actual studied, practiced ability to use a brush or chisel or Paint program or what have you- then that artist will have a limited ability to process the flash of inspiration, to channel it into its fullest form. Experience is of key importance, of course, since art is primarily a manual skill, but theory and knowledge and plain-old book learning are also very key. I'd say it's almost 50/50, if you want to hone yourself as a conduit for full artistic expression. In fact, most artists find that as their skill and knowledge range increases, they receive even more inspiration at every stage of the work. Their intuitive ability will increase, not decrease. https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/when-keith-richards-wrote-i-cant-get-no-satisfaction-in-his-sleep-236461/ https://medium.com/getting-art-done/yesterday-came-to-paul-mccartney-in-a-dream-was-it-a-creative-miracle-79839cb303fe There are many such stories.
AlbaTross Posted January 5, 2021 Posted January 5, 2021 I still consider myself a relative beginner, so take what I say with a grain of salt. But, based on my observation decks within the same tradition (such as RWS) are at least loosely based on the 78 cards found in a more traditional deck, as that is what makes them a Tarot deck. Sometimes suit names are changed to better reflect the deck's theme, but they're still the same suits. Heck, even among decks with a more traditional theme, it's not uncommon for there to be some minor name changes that are so semantically equivalent it's barely worth mentioning. I see chalices in place of cups quite a lot, for example. In some rare cases it can be a bit more challenging to determine what suits are, as the names are so theme-based that it may not be immediately apparent which of the four traditional suits some, if not all of them are supposed to be. If there's a guidebook, it helps to consult that, and the imagery of the cards can also help. In a lot of those cases however, you may be looking at a novelty deck that is more about the theme than the Tarot. If it's a novelty product, it may not come with much of a guidebook, if any, and the imagery of the cards is often not much help either, since that especially reflects the theme more than anything. I'm normally quite open to themes being a part of Tarot decks, but there does come a point where even I have to say that it's probably not recommended as an ideal deck for everyday reading. The previous paragraph denotes extreme cases, in which I'd recommend making a decision for yourself as to which suits to read those cards as, and being open to changing that as more information becomes available to you. In most other cases, it's quite obvious what suit a card is, so that's really not an issue you should come across very often, if ever. For all intents and purposes, if you know what a suit is, it shouldn't matter exactly what it's called. A rose by any other name is still a rose. Actually, in my observation, I find what's a bigger deal than suit names is both the imagery on the cards, and what the guidebook says about them. A card can have the exact same name as a corresponding card in the RWS set, but in my experience, if the imagery is different, and the guidebook says something different than the general meaning, that really affects the message you're going to get from the cards. Of course, if I want to stick to the RWS imagery and meanings, I'll just use my RWS set, because even decks that try to closely adhere to RWS will inevitably provide at least a slightly different experience. The point of reading with different decks is because they speak to you in ways that other decks don't. That said, something like Prisma Visions can seem like a bigger departure than usual. TL:DR If you want a general rule of thumb that I stick to, it's to familiarize myself with both the general meanings of cards, and to consult the guidebook for the deck I'm using if one is available. I generally read from both the guidebook and the source I use for the general meaning to give me a full picture. Definitely look at the imagery of the cards and try to ascertain what they make you feel too. I actually find that more often than not, it's the guidebook meaning that comes across as being more applicable to the situation I'm reading into. It's a big part of why I own multiple decks, as I think they each have something different to tell me, and there's meaning in consulting a particular deck that transcends the general meaning. So, don't feel that you need to 100% reconcile a card with its general meaning. That said, it's still good to have that general foundation.
Recommended Posts