Negatives cancelling each other out

[Guest]

The title says it: Did you come across them?

 

One which made itself known in a little circle is the mountain-coffin (in an otherwise positive 5 card reading, beeing located in the middle).

It is the end of a blockade, like a mountain crumbling.

It does not feel nice, yet enables to move on.

On the other hand, the mountain-mice never appeared with a heads up: The card following it is strongly impeded in its functionality.

 

Which ones did pop up/made themselves known in your readings?

Edited July 4, 2021 by Guest
clarification

[JudyReadsCards]

My gut feeling is that one negative does not cancel out another. It might weaken or lessen the effect of the other, but much like "two wrongs don't make a right", I'd want to see a solid positive card in play before I'd feel confident in saying all will be well.

 

As for the Mountain-Coffin example, does the obstacle end, or does the possibility of progress beyond the obstacle end? I suppose if the rest of the cards were positive with this pair was in the middle, the former would make the most sense. But if this pair ended the line I'd be inclined to assume the latter, despite the promising start. Of course, without the context of an actual question and an actual sequence of cards, I'm only ever guessing how I might interpret any given pair of cards.

[Decan]

Interesting, but there are probably different ways to interpret Mountain-Coffin according to a particular context; actually this combo could be an impasse or a dead end, an obstacle that leads to an end (the obstacle won't be overcome, it's what I mean).

There are negative situations which are blessings in disguise too, but it will depend on what follows this combo.

Just a few ideas here, no more.

Edited July 7, 2021 by Decan

[Guest]

1 hour ago, JudyReadsCards said:

I'd want to see a solid positive card in play before I'd feel confident in saying all will be well

Yes, that is the case, same here.

If you draw three cards, and they all are negative, things tend to go south.

 

1 hour ago, JudyReadsCards said:

As for the Mountain-Coffin example, does the obstacle end, or does the possibility of progress beyond the obstacle end?

Strangely enough, the obstacle is what ended.

 

1 hour ago, Decan said:

actually this combo could be an impasse or a dead end, an obstacle that leads to an end (the obstacle won't be overcome, it's what I mean

True. Especially, when the two end a line, it is uncomfortable, to say the least.

 

The example given in the opening post is one that dumbfounded some, and led towards paying that aspect some attention.

Treppner did mention the cancelling dynamic in her course, briefly, without further explanaition nor examples given (at least none I could find until now).

@katrinka also stated that, at times, such a cancelling happens; here is curiosity concerning the conditions.

@timtoldrum seems to have encountered said effect with the mice-snake, with the explanaition given that serpents eat mice.

 

Mice also are a staple food for foxes.

I have yet to come across those two cards applied as a cancelling.

 

I recon that "negatives cancelling each other out" is a sensitive area, especially if someone operates it as a "rule of thumb" (don't!), still, it does happen, hence this thread.

[Decan]

47 minutes ago, treppatey said:

Strangely enough, the obstacle is what ended.

It's something I have to deepen and think about more, but if I understand the logic here my first impression would have been to describe a negative situation, at least concerning a step.

I thought as well about the reverse Coffin + Mountain, but I think that I would tend to interpret this combo as a difficulty in mourning or turning the page, something like that.

Nevertheless, I understand what you mean and where you want to go.

A negative card before Cross can lose its strength, so Mountain + Cross is likely a combo I would think about twice, depending as well on what will follow Cross.

Great topic!

Edited July 7, 2021 by Decan

[JudyReadsCards]

55 minutes ago, treppatey said:

I recon that "negatives cancelling each other out" is a sensitive area, especially if someone operates it as a "rule of thumb" (don't!), still, it does happen, hence this thread.

 

I'm sure it does. 🙂  I don't advocate that "rules" are made to be broken, but neither should they be a straitjacket to intuition or insight.

 

[Guest]

The Mountain — Coffin appeared in a reading I did not too long ago. 

 

The two are in the the past area of the wheel spread (Mary Marco’s la roue). 


 

I read the two as follows: 

 

Dolores has faced a number of problems (Mountain) that proved nigh impossible to overcome (Coffin). Life stagnated and the client was forced to walk away (Coffin — Mountain). 
 

Sometimes the Mountain — Coffin can be like avalanche or mudslide. The problem collapses but you are left with debris.

Of course, as the Coffin is a card of sickness, it can be a significant health issue. 
 

Generally speaking, two positives or negatives reinforce each other. The Coffin can bring the Mountain down but it will still function according to its nature. 

 

The Serpent — Mice is not too different to the Serpent — Fox which is often considered favourable. The Serpent’s venom can kill a fox.
 

Could a European viper also eat one? No. When snakes eats it can takes days to digest. So, if the Serpent eats the Mice card she is immobile/resting. 
 

The Mice are sometimes said to neutralise negative cards. But I’ve found Scythe — Mice and Coffin — Mice rather unpleasant. The former no longer cuts cleanly. 

Edited July 7, 2021 by Guest
Typo

[katrinka]

@timtoldrum I remember a few years ago, you were explaining Coffin - Cross as opposed to Cross  - Coffin.  IIRC, you said that with Coffin - Cross can talk about an illness ending since Cross stops the Coffin. But it's a difficult ending. (One example that occurred to me is chemo.) It was a good explanation and it stuck with me.

Edited July 7, 2021 by katrinka

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Decan said:

I thought as well about the reverse Coffin + Mountain, but I think that I would tend to interpret this combo as a difficulty in mourning or turning the page, something like that.

Yes, or depression due to (insurmountable) challenges/ a blockade.

 

2 hours ago, timtoldrum said:

The problem collapses but you are left with debris

Yes, as stated, "it does not feel nice".

 

Now, this is interesting: I have experienced the mice - serpent as the cancelling tendency, same with mice - scythe, that one becomes blunt (having the mice as gnawing to the left, sh**ing to the right, and we actually use a scythe to tend to parts of the lawn - no mouse will bite in that one, yet their feces can accelerate oxidation if around the blade).

 

Agreement on coffin - mice. It is nasty.

 

3 hours ago, Decan said:

A negative card before Cross can lose its strength, so Mountain + Cross is likely a combo I would think about twice, depending as well on what will follow Cross.

The cross as canceler is indeed the most used, and I guess we have to blame @timtoldrum for that: It is all because of his book! (seriously, thanks for the effort of writing it).

 

23 minutes ago, katrinka said:

But it's a difficult ending. (One example that occurred to me is chemo.) It was a good explanation and it stuck with me.

The thing with the difficulty seems to be involved in all of the cancelings...

 

2 hours ago, timtoldrum said:

The Mice are sometimes said to neutralise negative cards.

Hm. No general neutralisation amongst negatives for me - I wonder if that idea came from someone who has mice as pets.

Anyway, does someone know the origin of that idea?

 

[Guest]

Yes. Over time I have found that the cards behave (as it were) according to function. We often see Key — Serpent around for chemo (often with the Cross) because you’re administering chemicals. It hurts (Cross). 
 

Often polarity is confused with benefic/malefic but the reality is positive v. negative is more to do with facilitation. The Coffin will decompose, the Scythe sever and the Cross will extinguish. It’s often the context that determines how beneficial.

[katrinka]

8 minutes ago, treppatey said:

The thing with the difficulty seems to be involved in all of the cancelings...

Yes, since they all involve two negative cards. Cross is difficult because it's burdens and suffering. As stated earlier:

 

2 hours ago, timtoldrum said:

Generally speaking, two positives or negatives reinforce each other. The Coffin can bring the Mountain down but it will still function according to its nature.

 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, treppatey said:

Now, this is interesting: I have experienced the mice - serpent as the cancelling tendency, same with mice - scythe, that one becomes blunt (having the mice as gnawing to the left, sh**ing to the right, and we actually use a scythe to tend to parts of the lawn - no mouse will bite in that one, yet their feces can accelerate oxidation if around the blade).

 

Agreement on coffin - mice. It is nasty.

Yes. The blade becomes rusty. It can indicate a dirty needle.  
 

13 minutes ago, treppatey said:

Hm. No general neutralisation amongst negatives for me - I wonder if that idea came from someone who has mice as pets.

Anyway, does someone know the origin of that idea?

Most people cite either Iris Treppner or Sylvie Steinbach.  I had never heard of it until around 2011.  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, timtoldrum said:

Most people cite either Iris Treppner or Sylvie Steinbach.  I had never heard of it until around 2011.  

Okay, I went and had a look at Treppners course and it (mice eating mountains) is there, in the very first part of it. Copyright states 2007.

Rather than putting out flac, it seems more beneficial for me to note that it actually can be used as such.

Perhaps it depends on how deep the idea sinks in / how appealing the "concept" is to a person?

 

Now, here is something on the mice - fox. Taken from nature: https://www.abchomeandcommercial.com/blog/what-eats-rats/ (scroll down to fox picture).

On foxes behaviour towards mice, the following is stated: "...In fact, they’ll even kill more than they can eat and save the leftovers for later."

 

Has that dynamic been applied in readings yet?

As a side note, I used it once for myself, as disregarding sorrows (eat away) in order to move on (survive). The disregard was inspired by the diet of the fox.

[vulprix]

Hi @treppatey,

 

I have been working through this very thing recently after working with Treppner’s course to help give definition to my style of reading Lenormand.

 

https://www.thetarotforum.com/forums/topic/11533-how-far-to-take-it-with-the-mice/?do=getNewComment

 

I am not super experienced with the Lenormand as of yet, but personally I see nothing wrong with applying negative “cancelling” when intuition (or context) strikes. But personally, I will probably be avoiding such interpretations.

 

Beginners are generally advised to stick to certain keyword sets alone for some time to hone their consistency in divining. But if keywords and associations can vary from person-to-person and reading-to-reading, I see no reason why negative cancelling might not find a place with one’s particular style. (Supported by Treppner’s course being held in high esteem.)

 

I thought the way you put it here:

5 hours ago, treppatey said:

Rather than putting out flac, it seems more beneficial for me to note that it actually can be used as such.

...this part resonated 🙂 thank you for your thread.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, vulprix said:

...this part resonated 🙂 thank you for your thread.

The funny part beeing: Mountain - Mice (Treppners prime example) does not work with me.

My reason beeing that a mountain is prone to having these little cracks around, where rodents can hide away, such it is a challenge within a challenge (scaling the mountains while catching mice).

 

On the other hand, that mountain - coffin example IS somewhat avalanchy, yet, until now, the relief over the problem disappearing trumped the depression of the field filled with debris, at least around here.

To be honest, I have not yet encountered those two ending a line - I would be careful to say "No prob, dude, just get a move on, rely on your higher self, 'tis gonna work out nice 'n dandy" in such a case, to say the least.

 

9 hours ago, vulprix said:

to hone their consistency in divining.

That seems to me what refines the craft. Finding out what works for you and what does not is necessarily part of it, at least to my understanding, which is where this comes in:

19 hours ago, JudyReadsCards said:

I don't advocate that "rules" are made to be broken, but neither should they be a straitjacket to intuition or insight.

This insight, again, to my belief, seems to contain the element of how (and which) rules apply to each reader specifically - especially in nuances, or how your deck of choice speaks.

 

The takeaway until now is: Negatives can (as in: "they are able to", at times, when context and dynamics align) inflict their negativity on other negatives, thus weakening them. Beeing negatives, it does not go without difficulties.

 

Another thing was detected: To confuse "ones own way" with "the only way" seems to have been an issue - imagine a video going like "this IS that, YOU read them as such" instead of "to me, this often describes that, thus I am inclined to read them as such - if it does work for you, feel free to incorporate it".

The underlined part seems to get lost at times (see Katz&Goldwin on Lenormand).

[Guest]

16 hours ago, treppatey said:

Okay, I went and had a look at Treppners course and it (mice eating mountains) is there, in the very first part of it. Copyright states 2007.

2007 was a busy year: Treppner published the English translation of her course, and Mario dos Ventos (February 2007) and Steinbach (August 2007). Steinbach often claims to have published the first English book but it was preceded by Droesbeke (1989&1998) and Ventos.  
 

However, Steinbach and Treppner certainly cast a long shadow in terms of influence and the idea of “schools” and other misconceptions.
 

16 hours ago, treppatey said:

Now, here is something on the mice - fox. Taken from nature: https://www.abchomeandcommercial.com/blog/what-eats-rats/ (scroll down to fox picture).

On foxes behaviour towards mice, the following is stated: "...In fact, they’ll even kill more than they can eat and save the leftovers for later."

 

I cannot say I have seen the Fox neutralise the Mice.  I will watch out.  Often Fox - Mice (for me) points to an incorrect account or attributing a loss to the wrong source. 

 

The card the Fox seems to neutralise, for me, is the Birds. Remember he is traditionally shown with goose or chicken.  Birds — Fox is often a lot of noise and worries over nothing.

 

However, unlike a snake, a fox doesn’t necessarily become less problematic after feeding. 
 

It’s like the Clouds and the Sun. I was taught that if the Sun crowns the Clouds, it can reduce the storms.  But I found this only true if the Sun is above the Querent’s card. 

[Guest]

On 7/8/2021 at 4:04 PM, timtoldrum said:

Birds — Fox is often a lot of noise and worries over nothing.

A play comes to mind, attributed to William Shakespeare (whoever that might have been) - Much Ado about Nothing.

I find it remarkable how fitting it is considering fox - birds. Guised (fox) people in thrilly (feathers) clothes, going high pressure (birds) on wrong trails (fox).

 

On 7/8/2021 at 4:04 PM, timtoldrum said:

I cannot say I have seen the Fox neutralise the Mice.  I will watch out

Do not let it spoil your readings.

In the example given, the fox did end the line, preceded by the mice.

That gave of the impression of the fox beeing on the trail of the mice, via the "fragrance" of the ... the mice, so to speak.

 

Fox -mice, same here, wrong losses / watch out for theft.

I must admit I had quiet a lot of trouble with the fox (him beeing him, I guess), until a streak of events led me to go straight with the direction in wich the cards have been put on the table - what is behind him, watch out for.

I now disregard the direction the actual fox depicted on the card is facing completly. It did help.

 

On the other hand, it has yet to happen (in my case) that the fox ending a line does spoil the preceding cards.

And no, the fox does not become less problematic after feeding. Trusting the article, I deem it safe to assume that he goes for more, making me want to still be on the lookout towards the card thereafter.

 

On 7/8/2021 at 4:04 PM, timtoldrum said:

It’s like the Clouds and the Sun. I was taught that if the Sun crowns the Clouds, it can reduce the storms.  But I found this only true if the Sun is above the Querent’s card. 

Interesting and noted. I look for the "play" between the two and what kind of sky it represents to me (sun far off somewhere down below, clouds towering atop - not good. Take cover.), which tends to give me a sort of "hue" cast upon the table.

Edited July 9, 2021 by Guest
typo

[katrinka]

1 hour ago, treppatey said:

On the other hand, it has yet to happen (in my case) that the fox ending a line does spoil the preceding cards.

I get it all the time. Fox will describe the preceeding near-lying cards (not the entire line, of course) as false or wrong, and that's how it plays out.

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, katrinka said:

I get it all the time. Fox will describe the preceeding near-lying cards (not the entire line, of course) as false or wrong, and that's how it plays out.

 

That made me smile, thank you!

For me, it is the cards following the fox I have to watch out for.

Yesterday, when looking up Treppners course, I saw her posts named "Lenormand Series" (on spirisfeed), where she utilises the fox much the same way you do.

Does your base incorporate parts of hers or is it plain coincidence?

[katrinka]

My big introduction was Treppner. I was using the cards before that, but my instruction was limited to a German reader I found on a forum who wasn't very good, TBH. Then Treppner became available and I was using that course, and talking with Chanah a lot. Chanah learned from Treppner's mother Kathe, so we were doing the same thing. I do have a Treppner foundation, I guess you'd call it. Later Andy came along and I was able to refine that. What I'm doing now mainly comes from those two sources and an odd experience here and there.

Treppner's course is very basic. She doesn't cover card order. I asked her about that once and she said it "doesn't matter", she interprets A+B the same as she would B+A. Naturally, that wasn't enough, so I was happy to find Andy. (There were more people around by then, but like now, most of them weren't very good.)

I still recommend her course, I think it's a great introductory text.

The Fox coming after a card generally isn't as severe as if it had come before it, but it still engages with it and taints it. Much less actual damage may ensue, but the person or situation indicated by the card falling before the Fox is capable of causing discomfort and uneasiness. ( @timtoldrum, I think you mentioned that on your blog recently?) One example might be working with someone who is looking for an excuse to throw you under the bus. It might not be happening right now, but you can never be comfortable working with someone like that. Bjorn Meuris considers the Fox to be part of the "gang of misery", which also includes the Snake, Mountain, and Mice. They're cards of dishonesty and/or opposition, and not negated simply because they fall after a card.

 

Edited July 8, 2021 by katrinka

[Guest]

 

18 hours ago, katrinka said:

Treppner's course is very basic. She doesn't cover card order. I asked her about that once and she said it "doesn't matter", she interprets A+B the same as she would B+A. Naturally, that wasn't enough

Still, she used her cards to predict stock prices and managed to aquire a profit.

Something to be recognised, I think.

It needs guts to do that.

Perhaps her degree of intimacy with her cards exceeds her capability/willingness of putting it into words.

 

17 hours ago, katrinka said:

Bjorn Meuris considers the Fox to be part of the "gang of misery", which also includes the Snake, Mountain, and Mice. They're cards of dishonesty and/or opposition, and not negated simply because they fall after a card.

Certainly not, especially not in general - if we were to talk rules of thumb here, then it would be "to be wary of negative cards". They are tricky, some more so than others. Again, hence this thread.

 

23 hours ago, timtoldrum said:

The card the Fox seems to neutralise, for me, is the Birds. Remember he is traditionally shown with goose or chicken.  Birds — Fox is often a lot of noise and worries over nothing.

I guess this shows that indeed, there is diversity in dealing with the cards, especially when negatives canceling is involved.

 

@timtoldrum has made it a habbit to provide very sound reasoning as to why he reads the cards the way he does.

In the misconceptions debunked thread here, he stated (forgive the third person, it is for the sake of readability) that he learned from a Dondorf, where the fox already captured "some bird".

In the blue owl, it is different.

Possibly, the influence of one's first deck affects a lot more than just "beeing drawn to scenic decks/more iconic ones".

 

18 hours ago, katrinka said:

What I'm doing now mainly comes from those two sources and an odd experience here and there.

This, I find interesting. Do you recall any of those (I am sure you do, what I meant is, like, in detail) or the kind of nuance they added to your way of reading?

[katrinka]

32 minutes ago, treppatey said:

This, I find interesting. Do you recall any of those (I am sure you do, what I meant is, like, in detail) or the kind of nuance they added to your way of reading?

 

Talking about what happened in a reading "in detail" would be violating confidentiality. It's something I don't do, and there's a forum rule against it as well.

I don't read for myself frequently enough to catch these things, that would be obsessive. It's only during the times I do a lot of client readings.
 

Edited July 9, 2021 by katrinka

[Guest]

22 hours ago, treppatey said:

A play comes to mind, attributed to William Shakespeare (whoever that might have been) - Much Ado about Nothing.

I find it remarkable how fitting it is considering fox - birds. Guised (fox) people in thrilly (feathers) clothes, going high pressure (birds) on wrong trails (fox).

The Fox is the card I associate with costumes and masquerade — including CosPlay, et cetera.  The Birds — Fox has often appeared for clients who are stressed and worried about something that is often a bagatelle.  
 

22 hours ago, treppatey said:

Do not let it spoil your readings.

 
No. But I will observe. 
 

22 hours ago, treppatey said:

On the other hand, it has yet to happen (in my case) that the fox ending a line does spoil the preceding cards.

And no, the fox does not become less problematic after feeding. Trusting the article, I deem it safe to assume that he goes for more, making me want to still be on the lookout towards the card thereafter.

 

No; not spoil.  Nevertheless there is often a mercurial flavour or unease. It is like the farmer who has lost two chickens and is checking his fence or coup. 

 

For me, the Fox — like most of the cards — cannot affect every card in the reading. His energy is concentrated on the attending cards.  Of these, it is the is the cards in red that are most affected. The are all red-flagged because the Fox is the dominant (a) card in the pair or trios.  

 

 

Those he describes take his mercurial flavour.  A person card with the Fox describing her can be rather unlikeable but is not a threat. The Fox + Person will be charming but a swindler. 

 

[Guest]

20 hours ago, katrinka said:

The Fox coming after a card generally isn't as severe as if it had come before it, but it still engages with it and taints it. Much less actual damage may ensue, but the person or situation indicated by the card falling before the Fox is capable of causing discomfort and uneasiness. ( @timtoldrum, I think you mentioned that on your blog recently?) One example might be working with someone who is looking for an excuse to throw you under the bus. It might not be happening right now, but you can never be comfortable working with someone like that. Bjorn Meuris considers the Fox to be part of the "gang of misery", which also includes the Snake, Mountain, and Mice. They're cards of dishonesty and/or opposition, and not negated simply because they fall after a card.

Yep. The blog is locked at the moment due to a copyright violation. But yes. The cards will have his mercurial and quicksilver nature.  They are not on the Fox’s radar but he is describing them. 
 

Björn’s gang of misery are the warning cards.  Each of these cards are pictures which require some form of caution. They mark the areas where the Querent needs to really think. 

 

[Guest]

20 hours ago, katrinka said:

I still recommend her course, I think it's a great introductory text.

I’ve never heard anything bad about Iris. 
 

1 hour ago, treppatey said:

@timtoldrum has made it a habbit to provide very sound reasoning as to why he reads the cards the way he does.

In the misconceptions debunked thread here, he stated (forgive the third person, it is for the sake of readability) that he learned from a Dondorf, where the fox already captured "some bird".

In the blue owl, it is different.

Possibly, the influence of one's first deck affects a lot more than just "beeing drawn to scenic decks/more iconic ones".

Yes. It started with the Dondorf and then came the Carta Mundi which is the main deck for me. Both show goose. So, there is that.

 

I do believe that our first or main deck colours a lot. It’s why it is so important.  
 

We discussed the Book card a few weeks back. 
 

The Dondorf, used by my Aunt, had a Sun breaking through the clouds at sunrise. I believe that is why she saw the Sun as able to mitigate the Clouds.