So are cats represented by the FOX card or DOG?

[katrinka]

9 minutes ago, timtoldrum said:

From his post, he hasn’t even read my book or work.  

 

From what I've seen, he hasn't read ANY books but Rana's.
Yes, it's advisable for beginners to stick with one source, but he's "teaching." A person who teaches or tutors needs to be familiar with much more than one person's work.
 

15 minutes ago, timtoldrum said:

Perhaps I am naïve in still believing that people can discuss and disagree in a polite manner that encourages debate.

We do it here all the time.

 

19 minutes ago, timtoldrum said:

I do not expect him to agree with me, but I find it rude to belittle my understanding and work with the cards.

 

Profound agreement.
 

27 minutes ago, timtoldrum said:

In addition, I’m not German lol. 

 

He probably defines "German" as "anyone who does not agree with me."

[gregory]

But the Dark Ages are where the ur-Lenormand comes from  It's these New Age people who have tried to reinvent it.

 

Ooh look a re- verb  The whip is here !

[katrinka]

5 hours ago, VanEssa said:

I reckon Crish Bruder was still a toddler when A B was reading cards. Hubris

Yes. I'm guessing about this age:
 

 

5 hours ago, VanEssa said:

(Bruder:) Some use the Lilies as the sex card, I and many others use the Whip as the sex card. Here is why. What I learned about the Lilies when I began with the Lenormand system is that the Lilies card talks about virginity and purity, two things that sex is NOT.

 

Sex cards, virginity, and purity. Well, that's proof positive he never read Andy. Or the PL sheet. Or anything other than Rana's book. As for his other little screed where he says "there is no man related to the context" of finding a job, where does he think he lives? Wonder Woman's home island, where everyone is female? Looking for work means talking to people. Some of the people are men. And one might be key to landing the job, so he's important at the time of the reading, so: Man card.

 

There is so much wrong with virtually everything he says in those two posts, it would be a day's work to break it all down. And I won't bother, since you guys know already.

Edited June 26, 2021 by katrinka

[fire cat pickles]

There really is no arguing with some people so why bother? especially on Facebook:

 

 

It took a very long time for me to get past the keyword trap in Lenormand, and by long time I mean years. It is still a challenge. 

[katrinka]

Facebook groups: Where intelligence goes to die.

[gregory]

And there you have it in a nutshell. Why even GROUPS are not enough to persuade me to sign up.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, katrinka said:

From what I've seen, he hasn't read ANY books but Rana's.
Yes, it's advisable for beginners to stick with one source, but he's "teaching." A person who teaches or tutors needs to be familiar with much more than one person's work.

Very much so. As a teacher, you have a duty to be aware of different schools of thought and backgrounds. You cannot just dismiss these as flawed.

 

With regards to Rana I found her book far more nuanced than these posts. He seems to have taken conventions and turned them into commandments

1 hour ago, katrinka said:

Sex cards, virginity, and purity. Well, that's proof positive he never read Andy. Or the PL sheet. Or anything other than Rana's book. As for his other little screed where he says "there is no man related to the context" of finding a job, where does he think he lives? Wonder Woman's home island, where everyone is female? Looking for work means talking to people. Some of the people are men. And one might be key to landing the job, so he's important at the time of the reading, so: Man card.

Generation Z = see virtue = virginity.
 

The early modern period had a far wider interpretation of virtue. At no point does the Lilies card ever reference virginity. 

 

[katrinka]

6 hours ago, timtoldrum said:

Very much so. As a teacher, you have a duty to be aware of different schools of thought and backgrounds. You cannot just dismiss these as flawed.

 

With regards to Rana I found her book far more nuanced than these posts. He seems to have taken conventions and turned them into commandments

 

He doesn't seem to have any awareness of the fact that all he's doing is advertising his ignorance.

If he doesn't want to relate Lilies to sex, he's free to do that. It's illogical and ill-informed, but that's his decision. When you take a meaning off of a card, it still has to go someplace and he's decided that the Whips/Birchrods are "the sex card." One problem here is that the decks don't show soft sex toy type floggers. They show actual whips and birchrod bundles that will not only raise huge welts, they will cut a person. They're punishment - severe punishment, pure and simple. But he probably thinks card essence is "flawed." And then he pushes this stuff on people and credits Rana, who is probably appalled.

[gregory]

Could someone persuade Rana to go comment ?

[fire cat pickles]

She is far too nice to start up anything negative would be my guess. Besides, out of thousands (tens of thousands?) of Facebook users, he's managed to garner, what, at the most twelve Likes on one of his posts? There are 2 or 3 Likes on some of his other posts? Those posts were made back in March (I will visit his Page once my dinner settles here in a few minutes) so it doesn't look as if it's updated too often. Is anyone really taking him seriously is the question.

[katrinka]

Rana has never been one for confrontation under the best of circumstances, and she's still grieving her husband, obviously. As much as I'd love to see her pop over there and tell him to put a sock in it, I'd feel wrong asking her to do that.

[Guest]

I cannot see engaging Mr. Bruer in a debate achieving much and Rana is not the sort to do so. 

 

Although I found his comments rude and patronising (and I do doubt he would have said that about Caitlín or Björn), it’s done. Water off a duck’s back. 
 

Most Facebook groups ignore my work and I’m quite content with that. I have no interest in being an influencer. I certainly do not want any trouble right now. 

 

Edited June 26, 2021 by Guest

[katrinka]

Having your work ignored by facebook groups is a badge of honor.  As I said earlier:

 

9 hours ago, katrinka said:

Facebook groups: Where intelligence goes to die.

 

[WizardintheWoods]

I have read every post on this thread and all I can say is, I have come to the right place.  I just joined today and this is like a breathing fresh air.  Points taken and intelligently looked at from various points of view first and then commented on.  I follow the work of Andy B and Bjorn Meuris and use those as my main base to work from,  and of course I have read Rana and Caitlin as well, those were my start off points. The last sentence I say just so you know where I am coming from in my Lenormand background.  To see so many of you comment and do so as kindly as possible - again I joined the right forum online.  

 

I left Facebook a few years ago, about the time the entire political world exploded in America.  I have missed having a group to discuss Lenormand with but don’t miss all of the finger pointing, shaming and name dropping they do on FB.  

 

I end where I started, I have come to the right place!

[Guest]

Welcome @WizardintheWoods. Glad to have you, here.  

[malvina]

You guys have discussed the Fox’s folkloric ties with falsehood, but I have a question about the Dog’s loyalty. We know dogs as “the man’s best friend,” Lassie and Hachiko are commonly used to describe the very idea of loyalty. La Vera Sibilla also uses a dog for its Fidelta (fidelity) card. Traditional Lenormand decks portray a working dog guarding its master’s residence. But I’ve also read that dogs come in all shapes and forms and don’t necessarily have to be loyal. If gathered in packs, they demand loyalty to the group and only then reciprocate. Can someone clarify which approach is more historically accurate?

[katrinka]

 

18 hours ago, WizardintheWoods said:

I end where I started, I have come to the right place!

 

And we're happy to have you here. 🙂
 

1 hour ago, malvina said:

You guys have discussed the Fox’s folkloric ties with falsehood, but I have a question about the Dog’s loyalty. We know dogs as “the man’s best friend,” Lassie and Hachiko are commonly used to describe the very idea of loyalty. La Vera Sibilla also uses a dog for its Fidelta (fidelity) card. Traditional Lenormand decks portray a working dog guarding its master’s residence. But I’ve also read that dogs come in all shapes and forms and don’t necessarily have to be loyal. If gathered in packs, they demand loyalty to the group and only then reciprocate. Can someone clarify which approach is more historically accurate?

 

 

The cards depict a lone dog that belongs to someone. It doesn't appear feral and it isn't running in a pack. In the older decks, I've seen hounds, setters, lurchers, etc.  Andy has written here about how the Dog helps put food on the table and can represent employees. Newer decks might show toy breeds, etc., but it's a mistake to do so. It should be a hunting breed of some kind.

 

As for Hachiko and Lassie, Collies are traditionally herders and livestock guardians, they could be key to their owners' livelihoods. I might be tempted to make an exception for the Collie. https://www.thesouthernreporter.co.uk/news/collie-statue-overdue-says-joan-745607#gsc.tab=0

Akitas, though, are more purely guard dogs. As much as I'd love to have a dog like Hachiko, he wouldn't really fit the Dog card. It's a card of loyalty, yes, but it's more than that. The cards come to us from an era when returning from the woods with no meat could mean no dinner, or maybe a pot of turnips for dinner at best. Dogs weren't just loyal pets - they were needed.

 

 

 

[malvina]

1 hour ago, katrinka said:

The cards depict a lone dog that belongs to someone. It doesn't appear feral and it isn't running in a pack. In the older decks, I've seen hounds, setters, lurchers, etc.  Andy has written here about how the Dog helps put food on the table and can represent employees. Newer decks might show toy breeds, etc., but it's a mistake to do so. It should be a hunting breed of some kind.

 

As for Hachiko and Lassie, Collies are traditionally herders and livestock guardians, they could be key to their owners' livelihoods. I might be tempted to make an exception for the Collie.

Akitas, though, are more purely guard dogs. As much as I'd love to have a dog like Hachiko, he wouldn't really fit the Dog card. It's a card of loyalty, yes, but it's more than that. The cards come to us from an era when returning from the woods with no meat could mean no dinner, or maybe a pot of turnips for dinner at best. Dogs weren't just loyal pets - they were needed.

 

It sounds to me like the Dog is more of a life companion, almost a physical part of its master, rather than just an assistant? I guess what I’m trying to understand is where the boundaries of the Dog’s loyalty lie, if they exist at all. The “pack mentality” argument seems to suggest that the Dog is somewhat akin to the Bouquet, i.e. requires reciprocity and connects on equal grounds. On the other end of the spectrum, we have blind followership and 100% devotion to the master. Where would you put the Dog in your practice?

Edited June 27, 2021 by malvina

[katrinka]

Literal dogs have thrown their lives away rather than let a hair of their masters' heads be harmed, but in a reading you'd adjust for context, of course. One can hardly expect an employee to have anything approaching that level of devotion. 😉

[malvina]

7 minutes ago, katrinka said:

Literal dogs have thrown their lives away rather than let a hair of their masters' heads be harmed, but in a reading you'd adjust for context, of course. One can hardly expect an employee to have anything approaching that level of devotion. 😉

Got it! Your explanation was very helpful, thanks a lot 🙂

[VanEssa]

Interesting about the Dog card.

 

My thoughts…in a love reading: 
is it always a trustworthy or faithful party? 
Is it THE 3rd party card in a love reading, the male equivalent to the presence of Snake? 

 

Again, prestenting another post by Chris Bruder. 

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Chris’s explanation of “The Dog” as the “3rd party”

Because the Dog is the 3rd party card, it can talk about different characters depending on what context it is showing up under. Sometimes it is good, other times it is bad.
The Dog can be your
• partner
• friend
• sibling
• lover
• colleague
• confidant
• doctor
• therapist
etc.
The Dog is the person who is there to help you, protect you, care for you, and watch over you.

BUT
Again, the Dog is the 3rd party card, which means that under the right context it can come as "the other person" in a situation like a relationship or a marriage. Because it is naturally a descriptive/character card, 8/10 times it is going to be a physical person having an influence on a context. What that influence is and who they are will be extracted from the cards around the Dog.
Some people may find confusion in this: "If the Dog is both loyalty and another person, then how do I know what it is in any given reading???"
Simpler than you might think.
"How does he feel about me romantically?"
Dog + Heart + Ring = He likes you a lot and wants to make things official. Here the Dog becomes positive because it is followed by the Heart and Ring.
Birds + Dog + Garden = He is already dating other people. In this reading the Dog becomes another person (or people) in the mix because of the Garden.
"Is he faithful to me?"
Dog + Anchor = Yes, there is no one else.
Dog + Crossroads = No, there is someone else.
A good rule of thumb with the Dog card is that, if there are no positive cards around that Dog, then it is almost always talking about another person in the mix. It is not a cheating card, but it can be the gateway for cheating depending on your context, if you're picking up what I'm putting down...”

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

 

Mind you  I do take whatever is posted in those FB-groups with a teaspoon of salt. But there aren’t many other places to meet to exchange ideas and thoughts about Lenormand (but now I found this place).

FB is definately not the place. I simply hang out there as I like to interpret peoples spreads. But your opinions are not always that welcome.

People post their spreads and say they want your point of view, but when you give it and its not what they want to hear…

Like in love reading with 4 bad cards out of 5, the poster have in their own interpretation found a way to get around the grim message (usually Snake and Whip turning sex-related) And then when you add your discrepant opinion, nicely and not in a correcting way, you get your head bitten off hell. Because thats not how they “see it/read it”. Usually they feel like you are attacking their intuition, that seem to come before cards core meanings. 

 

These groups are filled with readers coming from Tarot, like the “newage-Tarot-and-fluffy-oracle” readers.  I am not a “Tarotperson” (not saying this to offend Tarot readers though) I just dont agree with the modern psychologized/selfhelp/self discovery/fluffy-newagey-tarot.I am more of a prangmatic person, tell it like it is kind of sort. Thats why I love Lenormand.

I remember Stella writing: “Lenormand is a very no-bull****, to-the-point German concept and this is something to keep in mind”, and that sentence has stuck with me since 

 

Edited June 28, 2021 by VanEssa

[katrinka]

UM. The Rider is the main male rival card. The Dog is usually platonic, and it's trustworthy. I haven't seen such off-the-rails BS in a LONG time. 

 

And yes...people at fb groups aren't interested in learning to read, or getting any kind of honest answer. At all. 

[Guest]

For me, the essence of the Hound or Dog card is entourage. It is the people around us in general. So yes, most of us have described it as a third-party card or catch-all at some point.

 

As @katrinkasaid, dogs and work is an association that, for me, is de rigueur. I grew up with it, yes, but I also saw it living in a rural area 

 

But it is supported in the card:

 

The traditional eikōn is a working dog or sighthound (such as a Deutscher, Brittany Spaniel or Braque Saint-Germain). The dog is seen outside with its dog-house, sometimes looking up as if it had heard or sensed something. It is, therefore, quite evident that this dog is not just a family pet. It has a role and fulfils a service.

 

When read as a person, the Hound is someone known to you in some capacity (colleague, neighbour, employee, the plumber you hire). It can add that familiarity as a description, when paired with another person-card or topic to indicate they/it are known. 

 

The Hound’s “loyalty” is dependent upon its placement in the game. The original instructions themselves warn of the Hound being clouded or at a distance. 

 

Cards such as the Fox, the Serpent or the Clouds do not indicate “man’s best friend.” 

 

I found this interesting: 

 

5 hours ago, VanEssa said:

Birds + Dog + Garden = He is already dating other people. In this reading the Dog becomes another person (or people) in the mix because of the Garden.
"Is he faithful to me?"

 

He is using the social cards, but forgets that the Hound card itself is one.  It is the Birds, by being next to the Hound card, that are the couple.
 

The Park says it’s open or it’s causal “**** buddies”(Park). 

 

One of the questions I got over-and-over in 2010-12 was how do you know when the Serpent, the Lilies or the Birds, &c, is a person. The answer is when connected with a social card: the House, the Hound, the Park, the Lilies and the Moon. 

 

So I often had to give examples on FB, AT, Cartomancy forum, the Cabinet &c.

 

Similarly, the Hound + Paths is split loyalty because of the Paths. The Paths infer different directions, so it is a classic separation card. 

 

I find his examples interesting. He knows the conventions but applies it without discernment or nuance. 

 

 

Edited June 28, 2021 by Guest

[Guest]

4 hours ago, katrinka said:

UM. The Rider is the main male rival card. The Dog is usually platonic, and it's trustworthy. I haven't seen such off-the-rails BS in a LONG time. 

 

What I have noticed is that there is a disconnect when it comes to the Cavalier as a person. 

The Hound can be a cat or a person, but the Cavalier cannot be a person.  The concept of a chevalier servant also seems to be completely unknown. 

[katrinka]

44 minutes ago, timtoldrum said:

The Hound’s “loyalty” is dependent upon its placement in the game. The original instructions themselves warn of the Hound being clouded or at a distance. 

 

Cards such as the Fox, the Serpent or the Clouds do not indicate “man’s best friend.”

 

Yes. Loyalty can be false, it can end, etc. 

See how he starts off by naming "a rival" as an inherent Dog attribute? Then he backtracks and says there needs to be other cards supporting that. True enough, but saying the Dog itself is a rival is like saying the Bouquet is unpleasant or the Sun is failure. Any card can be spoiled by Clouds, Fox, etc.

 

53 minutes ago, timtoldrum said:

He is using the social cards but forgets that the Hound itself is one.  The Birds, not the Hound,

are the couple and it's causal “**** buddies”(Park). 

 

Exactly. It's all muddy and ill thought out.