Pip Card Interpretations (And Suits)

[Guest]

On 7/6/2019 at 11:31 AM, Barleywine said:

And I'm still hoping Andy Boroveshengra is going to put out the TdM book he mentioned some time ago. While I'm waiting for the ultimate book on the subject, I put together my own take on the TdM pip cards; here's an example:

 

https://parsifalswheeldivination.com/2019/06/02/a-tarot-de-marseille-pips-overview-the-ambitious-and-combative-batons/

Unfortunately I must disappoint you, Barleywine. Although the manuscript is finished (it has not, however, been edited), pursuing publication is just not something that appeals right now. 

 

For me, the pip cards are best seen through the lens of function.

 

We can then see the numbers as increments - five is less than eight, but more than three, and two, four, six shows graduated increase, but six, eight, two shows a sharp decline. 

 

The numerical signification is primarily common sense, one is singular, two brings the other, et cetera. Colette Silvestre’s numbers are fairly close to mine but we disagree on a few fine details. 

[Charlie Brown]

On 7/8/2019 at 3:56 AM, Barleywine said:

I've read The Open Reading twice now and will most likely read it again. If I recall, it's a little too anal in dealing with the minutiae in the decorative embellishments (that is, the flowers, leaves and branches) on the pip cards, but overall I think he added a lot to my understanding.

One thing to keep in mind is that Ben-Dov is specifically writing about the Conver (or his Conver at any rate) not historical/pip decks in general. Of course, almost all of it is applicable, but it does put a little different spin on his embellishment fixation. In truth, I find that they do generally give a good visual clue as to whether the card is basically positive or negative by default. On top of that, it seemed too like he uses reversals with the reverseable pips, generally flipping the pos-neg polarity as his reversal approach. So the embellishments are important to his reading method. Most people, of course, are more interested in his book for its general applicability to the deck and similar decks. At least that's what I recall without looking. 

[Barleywine]

3 hours ago, Charlie Brown said:

One thing to keep in mind is that Ben-Dov is specifically writing about the Conver (or his Conver at any rate) not historical/pip decks in general. Of course, almost all of it is applicable, but it does put a little different spin on his embellishment fixation. In truth, I find that they do generally give a good visual clue as to whether the card is basically positive or negative by default. On top of that, it seemed too like he uses reversals with the reverseable pips, generally flipping the pos-neg polarity as his reversal approach. So the embellishments are important to his reading method. Most people, of course, are more interested in his book for its general applicability to the deck and similar decks. At least that's what I recall without looking. 

Thanks for your insights! (Seems like a while since I've heard from you.) Do you think Ben-Dov's writing about his own deck is as pronounced as Jodorowsky writing about his somewhat . . . umm, "unique" deck? I didn't notice it to be remarkably so.

Edited July 17, 2019 by Barleywine

[Charlie Brown]

No, it isn't as pronounced, imo. Part of that is that Ben-Dov more or less seems to present his deck as just another edition of the Conver. I do recall something in the introduction about the Conver being the most perfected of the Marseille versions. Jodo is trumpeting the alleged revelation of buried secrets and long-lost orange colorings. 

 

In a way, BD is more sneaky (I'm sure it's not coming from a bad place though) because by minimizing/effacing the amount of personal changes he made in his own deck, he's allowing people to think they're historical and have always been there. It works too. No one ever thinks of the Ben-Dov book as being a deck companion.