Card imagery in alternative decks

[Alleah]

I find myself pondering whether the vision of the artist in different packs of cards based on RW actually changes the inherent meaning of the archetype, for example Knights are cards of action and movement, does the fact one person chooses to exhibit them as stationary mean they are actually stationary? it's a definite no in my book hence I consider studying imagery on different packs of cards to be a complete waste of time and really only relevant to the artist.  Seems to me it's what we pin on the card imagery that's important and the picture itself is simply meant to jolt the memory of all the associations we have pinned on it over the years from different resources.  The ace of cups for example cannot be changed simply by one artist choosing to illustrate it as a skeleton, its would still mean the same thing and the full spectrum of possible meanings would still apply, traditional tarot will always be traditional tarot.  I believe swapping cards to study different nuances is farcical when all of the spectrum applies to all cards.  If we were to lay out a spread for example Emperor, 6W, 3C  querying the outcome of a job interview, the pack we use will not change the meaning of the cards or the outcome, here the new job signified by the Emperor is likely in the bag with the 6W the victory card and 3C is indicative of a celebration around this.  The same answer would be reflected in any pack of cards with any alternative imagery, which is why alternative imagery and the swapping of decks is a waste of time on our way to mastery but that's simply my opinion. 

[MuninnMissinHuginn]

I too wonder how what or who brings the meaning to the cards.  Does a Visconti deck’s knight have a different meaning than a RWS deck’s knight? The Sola Busca deck seems to carry its own meanings and the imagery from the RWS indicates that Ms. Smith based some of the minor arcana images on the Sola Busca deck. 

 

So how does one decide.

[Rodney]

If one reads the same card across various decks within the Rider Waite/Golden Dawn system the same way regardless of imagery, one could just as easily bypass cards altogether, write the names of the cards on 78 file cards and just use those.

 

But there are a number of readers, of which I am one, who incorporate the imagery in the cards into our interpretations. Symbols have meanings and the appearance of a symbol can affect the interpretation of a card.  See this post on the symbolism study I did on the Fool in the Mythic Tarot for an example of how symbolism can affect a card's interpretation. Also, the appearance of the same/similar symbols on multiple cards in a reading can link cards in a way that they might otherwise not be linked in the Rider Waite. Whether or not the artist included the symbol with intent or by accident without understanding the underlying meaning doesn't matter.

 

Another point to consider is that archetypes don't have a single meaning. No one image is going to be able to convey the whole range of meanings that a particular archetype has. Different decks can (and do!) visually focus on different aspects of a given archetype.

 

I actually gave a talk once at a local metaphysical bookstore where I showed cards from various readings I had done (mostly from exchanges at Aecletic where I got feedback about the reading) with non-RWS decks and then placed the corresponding RWS cards under the selected cards from the reading and explained how the imagery in the deck I used led to the interpretation I provided where the RWS card wouldn't have led me to that same interpretation. One card that immediately comes to mind is the 5 Pentacles from the Bohemian Gothic, which shows a mother wearing a red dress walking past a church door with her head held high. The red dress labelled her as a "Scarlett Woman" and suggested that one or both of her children were born out of wedlock and therefore she wasn't welcomed in the church. Where the RWS card has a couple moving from left to right, the BG card had her moving from right to left. I don't remember my exact interpretation or the preceding card (but can look them up), but it involved the woman's proud stature and the fact that she was heading towards whatever was in the preceding card. I definitely wouldn't have come to that interpretation from the RWS card!

 

The great thing about reading tarot is that there is no one single method that is right. 10 different readers will likely interpret the same set of cards at least 7 different ways. And for those same readers to come to the same interpretation, some of them will need different cards from other readers. And that's OK. If however one reads provides results that they're happy with, then they are reading correctly even if they read differently from someone else!

 

[Grandma]

3 hours ago, Rodney said:

If one reads the same card across various decks within the Rider Waite/Golden Dawn system the same way regardless of imagery, one could just as easily bypass cards altogether, write the names of the cards on 78 file cards and just use those.

I have made this same argument countless times, only I refer to 78 scraps of paper.

 

Thank you, @Rodney, for every word of your post.  I follow your readings with great interest and always learn something.  My personal reading style incorporates traditional meanings, the artist's depiction, the artist's LWB explanation on the rare occasions that I read LWBs, the relationship of each card in a spread to the other cards, various other factors, and a lot of intuition.  I haven't read on TT&M for quite a while but when I did, my readings were well received.  You and I are certainly not the only ones here who feel this way.

 

I don't denigrate anyone who reads strictly by traditional meanings and I expect the same respect from those who read differently than I do as I give to them.  And by the way, @Alleah, when one states 

5 hours ago, Alleah said:

that's simply my opinion. 

it might be wise to avoid saying things like 

5 hours ago, Alleah said:

swapping cards to study different nuances is farcical

 and

5 hours ago, Alleah said:

alternative imagery and the swapping of decks is a waste of time on our way to mastery

I will take your word, if you offer it, that you don't mean to insult, and I certainly don't want to argue with anyone, especially a newcomer - welcome to TT&M! - but I do feel a little offended reading those words.  This is a learning forum.  Regardless of  how long we have been reading, we are all open to learning something new, and it's easier to learn from people who use objective language.

[euripides]

I'm certainly one who will consider the subtleties of the artist's representation when I'm reading a given card. Some diverge quite a great deal. The Hidden Realm, for example, is one deck that while RWS-based in theory, really departs in terms of imagery, and focuses in on the characters it portrays, with very little external to them. So for a particular type of reading, its useful, but it really does depart from the archetypes and the dreamy quality of the portraits often does little to connect you to those. 

 

While I think a particular deck may be telling me something - sometimes I feel I was drawn to choose a particular deck for a reason, and sometimes I will choose a particular deck because it suits a question - I sometimes do look at a range of interpretations of a card when seeking a deeper understanding. In those cases, it's that the card was pointing me to that archetype and they all have something to say about it. Each card may bring out a particular aspect of the archetype, or help with telling a 'story' that I'm trying to grasp. 

 

We certainly all have our own ways of doing things, and it's always interesting to pick up ideas and approaches from others. 

[stephanelli]

11 hours ago, Alleah said:

I find myself pondering whether the vision of the artist in different packs of cards based on RW actually changes the inherent meaning of the archetype,

I believe it does and I'm okay with that.  I think it is good to have options of decks because some work better with different readings and for different purposes.  Decks I find great for reading for other people for general matters are not the decks I find great to user for my personal Spiritual readings most of the time.

11 hours ago, Alleah said:

 

for example Knights are cards of action and movement, does the fact one person chooses to exhibit them as stationary mean they are actually stationary?

Doesn't the RWS Knight of Pentacles look stationary?

I think that his actions are slower than the other Knights so this seems appropriate.  Especially compared to the Knight of Wands and Knight of Swords.

11 hours ago, Alleah said:

it's a definite no in my book hence I consider studying imagery on different packs of cards to be a complete waste of time and really only relevant to the artist.

 

  Seems to me it's what we pin on the card imagery that's important and the picture itself is simply meant to jolt the memory of all the associations we have pinned on it over the years from different resources.  The ace of cups for example cannot be changed simply by one artist choosing to illustrate it as a skeleton, its would still mean the same thing and the full spectrum of possible meanings would still apply, traditional tarot will always be traditional tarot.  I believe swapping cards to study different nuances is farcical when all of the spectrum applies to all cards.  If we were to lay out a spread for example Emperor, 6W, 3C  querying the outcome of a job interview, the pack we use will not change the meaning of the cards or the outcome, here the new job signified by the Emperor is likely in the bag with the 6W the victory card and 3C is indicative of a celebration around this.  The same answer would be reflected in any pack of cards with any alternative imagery, which is why alternative imagery and the swapping of decks is a waste of time on our way to mastery but that's simply my opinion. 

I am going to respectfully disagree with you here.  As well as traditional meanings, I use intuitive reading techniques.  This means that the actual picture is very important.  I look at what I'm drawn to in a card and if that's something that isn't on the traditional rws card despite being based on the rws it can really affect how I read the card!

 

But you know, there's no right or wrong way to read tarot - and as people up thread have said, if you're getting the results you want then that's what is most important!

[DanielJUK]

My take on the reading changes depending on the card imagery in the art and how I intuitively see it. Which deck I choose or get asked to use, seems to always have the perfect imagery for that reading. I am often amazed that that version of the card gives so much accuracy in the reading. I always put what I see in the cards first and then I think about the general idea of the cards and the commonly known meanings. But we all have different methods of reading and if it gives us good readings, it gives us good readings, like @stephanelli said about results. Learning tarot is about finding the best method that works for us.

 

By reading the picture that comes up to me, I think I get more of an individual and personal reading each time. But it is a balance with the traditional ideas of a card, how far do you stray from it? That goes for the artists as well 🙂 . I think about that a lot when doing readings.

[katrinka]

I think of it like this: with a RWS-type deck, the traditional meanings are like a cake. Let's say it's a chocolate cake.
The variations in the art are like frosting. The frosting might also be chocolate, or it could be vanilla, or it could have coconut, or chopped walnuts, or something else.
The cake is identified by the fact that it's chocolate. It's a chocolate cake no matter what you put on it, but different frostings, ice cream, etc. will give you a different experience. That's what separates it from a lemon pound cake, a red velvet cake, or a birthday cake. Some decks are RWS inspired, but they stray too much to be called RWS types. Those are marble cakes: only partly chocolate. But for the purpose of explaining this, I'm going to talk about RWS types.

Now let's say you got the Sun. That one is about success, clarity, vitality and optimism. I always keep that in mind. But the deck is the Bohemian Gothic. (Great example - thanks, @Rodney )

 

It's still the Sun. You still have the light, the mounted child, and the sun's face (it appears twice on the archway.) But the sun faces have baleful expressions. The child looks creepy. And the sky is overcast. So this one has added elements of caution and carpe diem: even though the light looks noon-ish, those clouds are concerning and it could get really dark, really fast - and there's possible danger afoot. Act fast and be careful!

 

I wouldn't go so far as to riff on the kid's socks, for example, and try to make the card about some story they remind me of. The cake is still chocolate, the card is still the Sun. But using a different deck really does get you a different inflection.

Edited November 30, 2021 by katrinka

[gregory]

11 hours ago, Rodney said:

If one reads the same card across various decks within the Rider Waite/Golden Dawn system the same way regardless of imagery, one could just as easily bypass cards altogether, write the names of the cards on 78 file cards and just use those.

 

But there are a number of readers, of which I am one, who incorporate the imagery in the cards into our interpretations. Symbols have meanings and the appearance of a symbol can affect the interpretation of a card.  See this post on the symbolism study I did on the Fool in the Mythic Tarot for an example of how symbolism can affect a card's interpretation. Also, the appearance of the same/similar symbols on multiple cards in a reading can link cards in a way that they might otherwise not be linked in the Rider Waite. Whether or not the artist included the symbol with intent or by accident without understanding the underlying meaning doesn't matter.

 

Another point to consider is that archetypes don't have a single meaning. No one image is going to be able to convey the whole range of meanings that a particular archetype has. Different decks can (and do!) visually focus on different aspects of a given archetype.

 

I actually gave a talk once at a local metaphysical bookstore where I showed cards from various readings I had done (mostly from exchanges at Aecletic where I got feedback about the reading) with non-RWS decks and then placed the corresponding RWS cards under the selected cards from the reading and explained how the imagery in the deck I used led to the interpretation I provided where the RWS card wouldn't have led me to that same interpretation. One card that immediately comes to mind is the 5 Pentacles from the Bohemian Gothic, which shows a mother wearing a red dress walking past a church door with her head held high. The red dress labelled her as a "Scarlett Woman" and suggested that one or both of her children were born out of wedlock and therefore she wasn't welcomed in the church. Where the RWS card has a couple moving from left to right, the BG card had her moving from right to left. I don't remember my exact interpretation or the preceding card (but can look them up), but it involved the woman's proud stature and the fact that she was heading towards whatever was in the preceding card. I definitely wouldn't have come to that interpretation from the RWS card!

 

The great thing about reading tarot is that there is no one single method that is right. 10 different readers will likely interpret the same set of cards at least 7 different ways. And for those same readers to come to the same interpretation, some of them will need different cards from other readers. And that's OK. If however one reads provides results that they're happy with, then they are reading correctly even if they read differently from someone else!

 

 

 I am 100% with Rodney here. And like Grandma, I find parts of your post a little offensive I use intuitive techniques too, and your position makes no allowance for  that style of reading.

 

1 hour ago, DanielJUK said:

By reading the picture that comes up to me, I think I get more of an individual and personal reading each time. But it is a balance with the traditional ideas of a card, how far do you stray from it? That goes for the artists as well 🙂 . I think about that a lot when doing readings.

 

This is SO true.

By the way - going by the colouring of your post - I am guessing you asked the same question on another forum - what responses did you get there ?

[katrinka]

4 minutes ago, gregory said:

 I am 100% with Rodney here. And like Grandma, I find parts of your post a little offensive I use intuitive techniques too, and your position makes no allowance for  that style of reading.

 

It kind of is offensive. And I've spoken against intuitive reading myself - not the way you do it, gregs, but the "Studying meanings is bad and they might make me less psychic!" school of thought. But the idea that one should ignore visuals when reading a visual language is just as bad as the idea that one should ignore traditional meanings.

[Alleah]

11 hours ago, Rodney said:

If one reads the same card across various decks within the Rider Waite/Golden Dawn system the same way regardless of imagery, one could just as easily bypass cards altogether, write the names of the cards on 78 file cards and just use those.

 

 

Thanks for your response Rodney I most definitely agree with you here, very similar to using ordinary playing cards.  What puzzles me is if you can see this then why do you still study imagery.  Seems to me it's impossible to read the same card in different spreads as the same as no two spreads are identical and the dynamics of the other cards will always be different hence the reading will always be different.  However in getting there for any one card the full spectrum of possible meanings are pondered for consideration, some books home in on different aspects of the archetype but I think we'd be foolish to do the same, the aspects we home in on are illustrated in the surrounding cards in a spread not in a book.

 

11 hours ago, Rodney said:

Another point to consider is that archetypes don't have a single meaning. No one image is going to be able to convey the whole range of meanings that a particular archetype has. Different decks can (and do!) visually focus on different aspects of a given archetype

My point exactly, and we need to be aware of this to enable the full spectrum of possible meanings, not just what an author has chosen to home in on, an authors perception does not and should not eradicate the full spectrum.

 

 

[fire cat pickles]

48 minutes ago, Alleah said:

However in getting there for any one card the full spectrum of possible meanings are pondered for consideration, some books home in on different aspects of the archetype but I think we'd be foolish to do the same, the aspects we home in on are illustrated in the surrounding cards in a spread not in a book.

 

I don't use "archetypes" in my readings. I'm not really sure what one is. I never really bothered to study Jung and such. I read cards, a mixture of meanings and images. And I rarely read "authors" and the LWBs that come with the decks, so you've lost me there, too. The statement above seems to me to be what you were saying earlier about artists and their illustrations, but you say "some books". Which ones exactly?

 

15 hours ago, Alleah said:

The ace of cups for example cannot be changed simply by one artist choosing to illustrate it as a skeleton

I'm a bit confused as to where you're going in your conversation...

48 minutes ago, Alleah said:

....we need to be aware of this to enable the full spectrum of possible meanings, not just what an author has chosen to home in on, an authors perception does not and should not eradicate the full spectrum.

 

I have yet to see an RWS-based deck (a widely well-received one anyway) that completely eschews the system and "eradicates" the full spectrum of RWS meaning. This seems to be a solution in search of a problem here.  Do you have a particular deck in mind?

 

 

 

Edited November 30, 2021 by fire cat pickles

[katrinka]

23 minutes ago, Alleah said:

Thanks for your response Rodney I most definitely agree with you here, very similar to using ordinary playing cards. 

 

Reading playing cards is quite different from reading titles written on file cards. Part of playing card reading is visual. The patterns of the spots, the colors - these are incorporated in the meanings.
 

23 minutes ago, Alleah said:

What puzzles me is if you can see this then why do you still study imagery. 

 

Moving the goalposts. Rodney's post explained in detail why he studies imagery. You might want to read it again.

[katrinka]

And I don't subscribe to archetypes in cartomancy, either. I keep my technique as traditional as possible, and archetypes are something that's been shoehorned in only recently, part of the whole new age/self help/pop psychology model. Jung didn't even publish his first book until 1912. People were reading cards long before that. But visuals have always been incorporated. You can find old books on playing card reading with references to things like "two Queens facing each other: gossip." And the Tarot IS a deck of playing cards. Even RWS was partly inspired by playing card meanings. And then you have other systems that have come down to us with the old cartomantic methods preserved: Lenormand, Kippers, Vera Sibilla, etc. All of these incorporate visuals and direction to some extent. None of them bother with "archetypes."

[gregory]

2 hours ago, katrinka said:

 

It kind of is offensive. And I've spoken against intuitive reading myself - not the way you do it, gregs, but the "Studying meanings is bad and they might make me less psychic!" school of thought. But the idea that one should ignore visuals when reading a visual language is just as bad as the idea that one should ignore traditional meanings.

 

This is true. I have studied the meanings in detail (in the Waite system and Thoth, GD and TdM) - and I used the Waite ones when designing my own deck. I too avoid "archetypes." I had a major row over those with someone once....

 

56 minutes ago, katrinka said:

Moving the goalposts. Rodney's post explained in detail why he studies imagery. You might want to read it again.

 

Indeed - it was a very well thought out and pertinent explanation. I've actually saved it.

Edited November 30, 2021 by gregory

[ilweran]

This is interesting.

 

As others have said, you could just use playing cards, or pick a deck with unillustrated pips. Though there is still something visual there - the chosen arrangement could influence you without you even being aware.

 

Appearances can have such a huge impact on interpretation of anything - we are visual creatures. There's a videogame - some may have heard of it as the latest version was quite big last year - called Animal Crossing. I played it many years ago. You have animal neighbours and there is a very limited number of 'personalities' for those neighbours.  One of my neighbours was a dog and I really liked her. Another neighbour was a pony and I found her intensely annoying. I realised after a while that they were both the same personality type, they said the same phrases and so on. So the difference in my reaction to them was down to appearance - of them, of their clothes, the way their houses were decorated. Essentially the dog had the bookshelf wallpaper so the house looked lined with books and the pony had all the nursery decorations.

 

Even if you don't actively study the image on 'non-standard' cards, if you look at them I think you can't help but pick things up subconsciously that may sway you to a particular interpretation over another.

 

I use a non-standard deck and mix the intended meanings with my own interpretation depending on context etc.

[katrinka]

Rodney knows his stuff.

I do have one thing to add:
 

16 hours ago, Alleah said:

The same answer would be reflected in any pack of cards with any alternative imagery, which is why alternative imagery and the swapping of decks is a waste of time on our way to mastery but that's simply my opinion. 

 

There is no "mastery." I've been reading cards since Won't Get Fooled Again was charting. I haven't "mastered" it. I will probably die reading cards, or talking about reading them, or thinking about it. And I still won't have "mastered" it. I do know that the answer is always there on the table, but there's always a chance we could miscall it. And this no matter whether we're using traditional meanings, images, or both. Sometimes we're not "meant" to know until later.
I once had very nice cards predict a death. It was only obvious in retrospect. The lady was suffering, so death was welcome.
This is through no fault or lack of ability of my own. "Mastery" implies perfect obedience, like a dog that sits when you say "sit" even if he's about to be hit by a truck.
Cards don't work like that. We don't get to be omniscient gods. Occasionally, we're wrong.
When you put yourself on a pedestal, you get humbled. HARD.
You can study and practice, and get something like a 90% hit rate. I think that's pretty damn good. But it's not "mastery."
NONE of the great readers I know claim to have "mastered" the cards. It's generally agreed that it's an ongoing, lifetime learning process. Speaking in terms of "mastery" is a mark of naivety.
 

[MuninnMissinHuginn]

15 hours ago, Rodney said:

The great thing about reading tarot is that there is no one single method that is right. 10 different readers will likely interpret the same set of cards at least 7 different ways. And for those same readers to come to the same interpretation, some of them will need different cards from other readers. And that's OK. If however one reads provides results that they're happy with, then they are reading correctly even if they read differently from someone else!

 

 

Thank you Rodney, I read your explanation of the symbols for the fool and found it very helpful. 

[Rodney]

4 hours ago, Alleah said:

Thanks for your response Rodney I most definitely agree with you here, very similar to using ordinary playing cards.  What puzzles me is if you can see this then why do you still study imagery.  Seems to me it's impossible to read the same card in different spreads as the same as no two spreads are identical and the dynamics of the other cards will always be different hence the reading will always be different.  However in getting there for any one card the full spectrum of possible meanings are pondered for consideration, some books home in on different aspects of the archetype but I think we'd be foolish to do the same, the aspects we home in on are illustrated in the surrounding cards in a spread not in a book.

 

My point exactly, and we need to be aware of this to enable the full spectrum of possible meanings, not just what an author has chosen to home in on, an authors perception does not and should not eradicate the full spectrum.

 

 

You appear to be saying that the way you read is the only "correct" way to read and anyone who reads differently is "foolish" and completely wasting their time? Curious why how other people read matters to you? Why/how does someone doing it differently from you detract from you? There is no one size fits all way to read tarot cards. If other people use methods that appear foolish to you, but they get valid results, why isn't that enough? Different strokes for different folks. I don't know how long you've been on your tarot journey, but mine started in 1991. How I read the cards has evolved over that time. I understand and appreciate that others use different methods than I do to interpret the cards. I find that to be part of the beauty of tarot. You appear to be of the "my way or the highway" mindset though.

 

And you can consider all of the questions above to be rhetorical.

[Alleah]

4 hours ago, fire cat pickles said:

 

I don't use "archetypes" in my readings. I'm not really sure what one is. I never really bothered to study Jung and such. I read cards, a mixture of meanings and images. And I rarely read "authors" and the LWBs that come with the decks, so you've lost me there, too. The statement above seems to me to be what you were saying earlier about artists and their illustrations, but you say "some books". Which ones exactly?

 

I'm a bit confused as to where you're going in your conversation...

I have yet to see an RWS-based deck (a widely well-received one anyway) that completely eschews the system and "eradicates" the full spectrum of RWS meaning. This seems to be a solution in search of a problem here.  Do you have a particular deck in mind?

 

 

 

I'm curious as to where and how you learnt and memorised the meanings for the cards and the symbology if you don't read and you don't use archetypes, you explained you use a mixture of meanings and images but where did the meaning for the images emerge from?   

[gregory]

The meanings I know for the Waite deck (and most clones) are very thoroughly outlined in Waite's own book. He and Colman Smith created the images as a pictorial language,

 

Archetypes are something people following Jung attached to tarot. I pay no attention to them; they are NOT a part of the tarot system.

Edited November 30, 2021 by gregory

[Grandma]

@gregory- I’m curious.  Do you think that the Tarot system does or should evolve!

[fire cat pickles]

1 hour ago, Alleah said:

I'm curious as to where and how you learnt and memorised the meanings for the cards and the symbology if you don't read and you don't use archetypes, you explained you use a mixture of meanings and images but where did the meaning for the images emerge from?   

You are conflating archetypes,  symbols, and images. They are not the same. For instance,  The Empress may be the Earth Goddess archetype but planet Venus is the symbol associated with card. The image of a benevolent female ruler has nothing to do with either of these...

 

I never memorized meanings.  The closest I ever got to that was to learn the keywords for the Thoth, of which many I've forgotten.  I do practice committing the tarot decans to memory however. My method is more holistic and came from several years of study and practice ( I won't say how many because most people know  😉 ). 

 

I can't pin down how I learned tarot meanings or where they "emerge from" because for me tarot is a language.  That would be like asking me how I learned English or Music. I can't explain how I talk or make music either. Like reading tarot, it just happens.

 

 

Edited November 30, 2021 by fire cat pickles

[gregory]

35 minutes ago, Grandma said:

@gregory- I’m curious.  Do you think that the Tarot system does or should evolve!

 

That's a tough one. Expected from you, I suppose !

 

Up to a point, I suppose. I would never EVER say there's a should, but up to a point there's a does. Waite and GD were a massive evolution from TdM, for instance. But what I do object to is people adding things and then saying that that is how tarot IS and must be and the like. Archetypes are a classic example. They really REALLY aren't a part of tarot. Taking away too - like DV taking the bad cards out because tarot should only deliver GOOD, happy, positive messages. New words enter language all the time - but they never take away from the old words.

 

I would also say that when I am reading with the Waite/Smith deck, it is common courtesy to pay close attention to how he defined each card.

 

33 minutes ago, fire cat pickles said:

You are conflating archetypes,  symbols, and images. They are not the same. For instance,  The Empress may be the Earth Goddess archetype but planet Venus is the symbol associated with card. The image of a benevolent female ruler has nothing to do with either of these...

Very much agree.

 

33 minutes ago, fire cat pickles said:

 

I never memorized meanings.  The closest I ever got to that was to learn the keywords for the Thoth, of which many I've forgotten.  I do practice committing the tarot decans to memory however. My method is more holistic and came from several years of study and practice ( I won't say how many because most people know  😉 ). 

 

I can't pin down how I learned tarot meanings or where they "emerge from" because for me tarot is a language.  That would be like asking me how I learned English or Music. I can't explain how I talk or make music either. Like reading tarot, it just happens.

 

This is spot on. It's a language. The cards are words in that language.

 

Edited November 30, 2021 by gregory

[katrinka]

1 hour ago, gregory said:

The meanings I know for the Waite deck (and most clones) are very thoroughly outlined in Waite's own book. He and Colman Smith created the images as a pictorial language,

 

Archetypes are something people following Jung attached to tarot. I pay no attention to them; they are NOT a part of the tarot system.

So much THIS.

 

Anyway, the mishmash of a wheel, a sphinx, and Anubis with Ezekiel's four creatures can hardly be termed an "archetype." Rather, it's an emblem:

http://emblematica.grainger.illinois.edu/

 

The whole concept of the Tarot as "archetypes" strikes me as a bill of goods sold to the rubes.