Can You do a Tarot Reading for Yourself?

[katrinka]

5 hours ago, leroidetrèfle said:

Personally, I’ve never tarot less specific or literal than the Lenormand Oracle or the Belline. The vagueness of systems, or seeing one as more exploratory, et cetera, are products of readers’ own solipsism. The Lenormand Oracle can and will indicate emotions and motivation, discuss spiritual matters or be used for oracular communication - that is just a context. The problem is challenging one’s own assumptions what x deck is for and how certain systems work. 

Yes!
And I think it's important to consider where the assumptions came from. Sometimes an author will state that X deck/system is only good for certain questions, but not others, and people will repeat that statement endlessly, without even testing it, until it becomes Canon.

If you have just one deck, and you know it well and you can put the cards into various contexts, that's really all you need.

5 hours ago, leroidetrèfle said:

 

It is a shame if Malkiel has ceased teaching the Kipperkarten. He was the best. 

I hope he returns to youtube. There's so little quality content there on the subject.
It's a fun site, though. I like to watch the reaction videos, people reacting to other youtubers' videos: hairdressers reacting to botched dye jobs and cuts, people reacting to botched tattoos, that kind of thing.
I think Malkiel could make some amazing reaction videos to a lot of the stuff that passes for teaching there. 😈😆

[Starlight]

7 hours ago, leroidetrèfle said:

Personally, I’ve never tarot less specific or literal than the Lenormand Oracle or the Belline

Do you use the RWS @leroidetrèfle or the TdM? I've learned that the TdM is more like Kipper and Lenormand. When I look at RWS, it's like a jumping off point for something further, it never ends just at the card and cards interact with each other to create something new.

 

But how does that relate to solipsism?

 

Quote

solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind

 

I'll have to think about that!

Edited December 17, 2019 by Starlight

[Marigold]

4 minutes ago, Starlight said:

 I've learned that the TdM is more like Kipper and Lenormand.

I beg your pardon ? 😵 Would you be willing to elaborate a bit more `? This is a first for me. 

 

[Starlight]

6 minutes ago, Marigold said:

I beg your pardon ? 😵 Would you be willing to elaborate a bit more `? This is a first for me. 

 

I've been following the Learning the TdM thread and I have read that when you read the TdM cards you read them in a similar way to the way you'd read Kipper and Lenormand card combinations. I'm not saying they're THE SAME, but they're more similar than, say, the way you'd read cards together in the RWS system. Did I misunderstand?

 

BTW, I'm not having a go at anyone here. I question because I like to understand why someone holds the view they do. It's all about learning. 🙂

Edited December 17, 2019 by Starlight

[Marigold]

26 minutes ago, Starlight said:

I've been following the Learning the TdM thread and I have read that when you read the TdM cards you read them in a similar way to the way you'd read Kipper and Lenormand card combinations. I'm not saying they're THE SAME, but they're more similar than, say, the way you'd read cards together in the RWS system. Did I misunderstand?

 

BTW, I'm not having a go at anyone here. I question because I like to understand why someone holds the view they do. It's all about learning. 🙂

That's curious. I need to look into this. I only recently only even heard of the Kipper deck (it seems to have become popular only recently.)

 

I also don't know the Lenormand very well. But this sounds odd to me what you say. You're a very insightful and intelligent person so what you say never goes unnoticed by me. I think this would be making the thread go off-topic if we pursue this conversation here. Am still scratching my head though how this perception came to come into existence. And it bothers me somewhat., makes me disquieted.

Edited December 17, 2019 by Marigold

[Guest]

Hi @Starlight

 

The TdM is my preference but I do also use and teach the Smith-Waite tarot. Both can be read the same. 
 

There is a strong foundation of solipsism in the belief that tarot is for x or the Smith-Waite has to be read in y manner. There is no basis for such views outside of personal bias or beliefs. 
 

Smith and Waite created a tarot that comprises of 21 trumps, an excuse and 56 cards that contain images à la the Italian and French sibillas.  Do you go from pentacles to wands or wands to pentacles (colours)? How many twos or knights appears (multiples)? Is the Queen family (cups) or foe (swords)? Is the Devil feeling materialistic (pentacles), and if so, how intense (Ace to 10). 
 

The Smith Waite is as versatile and mundane/literal as any tarot. It’s the culture around it and approach that isn’t . 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, katrinka said:

Yes!
And I think it's important to consider where the assumptions came from. Sometimes an author will state that X deck/system is only good for certain questions, but not others, and people will repeat that statement endlessly, without even testing it, until it becomes Canon.

If you have just one deck, and you know it well and you can put the cards into various contexts, that's really all you need.

I hope he returns to youtube. There's so little quality content there on the subject.
It's a fun site, though. I like to watch the reaction videos, people reacting to other youtubers' videos: hairdressers reacting to botched dye jobs and cuts, people reacting to botched tattoos, that kind of thing.
I think Malkiel could make some amazing reaction videos to a lot of the stuff that passes for teaching there. 😈😆

When I started working with the Belline it became clear that it was not a system to be learned on the side. So I worked with it alone for around eighteen months. At first it was hard to read certain topics (how does x feel about y) but that passes the longer you attune yourself to the cards’ voice.

 

I do have a tarot I reserve for spirit work. I do this not because I think it’s best for it - but because I’ve had to take it to houses or places with strong residual energies.  I use Kat Black’s deck. 
 

If I ever wanted to pursue the Kipperkarten, Malkiel or you would be my go to. I just cannot get into it with any depth. 

He should reupload his mystical video - all of us could do with that when we get too serious lol. 

[katrinka]

I need to knuckle down harder on the Belline. I've had it a few years now and I still feel like a dabbler. And yes, I'd love to see the Mystical video, and the "****ing whiteboard" one again! I may yet have them on my old hard drive...I just don't know how to get them.

34 minutes ago, leroidetrèfle said:

The Smith Waite is as versatile and mundane/literal as any tarot. It’s the culture around it and approach that isn’t . 

YES.
In cartomancy, cards are modified by near-lying cards, card order matters, readings are generally concerned with practical matters like love or money, and tend to be predictive. It's only in recent decades that people have declared the RWS to be an aid to navel gazing rather than a cartomantic deck.

[aur0ra]

I assume you can... Personally I don't have anyone to do them for me, so I do my own... but of course I always feel a tiny bit dubious... 

[Jimkost]

Of course you can. It is only natural that (in the beginning at least) you're gonna interpret the cards in the way you would want in general, but be honest with yourself and practice makes perfect.

[Starlight]

 

2 hours ago, leroidetrèfle said:

The Smith Waite is as versatile and mundane/literal as any tarot. It’s the culture around it and approach that isn’t . 

2 hours ago, leroidetrèfle said:

There is a strong foundation of solipsism in the belief that tarot is for x or the Smith-Waite has to be read in y manner. There is no basis for such views outside of personal bias or beliefs. 

 

Thanks, @leroidetrèfle. I don't have direct experience of that particular solopsism - placing limits on how to read with a particular type of deck - but I did learn to read Tarot in the very early 2000s when things moved from teaching straight-up divination/fortune-telling to considering psychological factors instead in an attempt to put power back into the querent's hands. Having said that, I don't believe the way I learned is the only way to use that system.

 

Do I believe the Smith-Waite can be used for pure divination? Absolutely.

 

Have I used it for divination? Yes, usually for friends. Because I'm not a professional reader, it doesn't happen often.

 

Being a newbie I can only learn from others who have the experience I don't, and one viewpoint I've taken to heart is that the TdM ought not to be read in the same way as the Smith-Waite, and that to do so is to short-change the TdM, which I don't want to do. I want to respect the system. (The reverse - reading the Smith-Waite the way one reads TdM - is valid as the TdM pre-dates the Smith-Waite.)

 

I've been doing some thinking since earlier this evening, (the following might also apply to @Marigold's question) and perhaps different readers use the TdM in their own way? Perhaps the TdM allows itself to be moulded to each reader's unique way of reading? Perhaps no two readers read it exactly the same way, and yet each gets superb results anyway?

 

I can see that everyone has their own stance on this topic and I respect everyone's point of view, and I'm not trying to step on any toes here. Rightly or wrongly, my thought at the moment is that TdM is going to be just great (and probably even easier) to use for clear-cut, no-nonsense divination, while all the images in the Smith-Waite are going to start explosions and rabbit-warrens of thought and correlations and synchronicities and all the other good stuff that intuition draws on. (A picture is worth 1000 words, etc.) For other readers, I'm well aware it is likely different. (Vive la différence!!) 🙂

 

I think we may be getting a little off-track for this topic - can one do a Tarot reading for oneself - but I did want to respond to you, @leroidetrèfle and I appreciate your response above. Thank you. 🙂

[Starlight]

2 hours ago, katrinka said:

In cartomancy, cards are modified by near-lying cards, card order matters, readings are generally concerned with practical matters like love or money, and tend to be predictive.

This is a very good point. In a self-reading, what are we reading for? Because we could be reading strictly for divination purposes and what the future holds, which lends itself to a more cartomantic approach. (Although I've not used cartomancy for divination, never having learned it.) Or we could be reading for self-development (navel-gazing sounds a bit condescending ) which I think is also a valid use of the Tarot. 🙂

 

And thank you for the feedback on Toni Puhle's book and copyright and fair use.  I'll think a bit more about journalling my Kipper study here on the forum.

Edited December 17, 2019 by Starlight
syntax

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, Starlight said:

 

 

Thanks, @leroidetrèfle. I don't have direct experience of that particular solopsism - placing limits on how to read with a particular type of deck - but I did learn to read Tarot in the very early 2000s when things moved from teaching straight-up divination/fortune-telling to considering psychological factors instead in an attempt to put power back into the querent's hands. Having said that, I don't believe the way I learned is the only way to use that system.

 

Do I believe the Smith-Waite can be used for pure divination? Absolutely.

 

Have I used it for divination? Yes, usually for friends. Because I'm not a professional reader, it doesn't happen often.

 

Being a newbie I can only learn from others who have the experience I don't, and one viewpoint I've taken to heart is that the TdM ought not to be read in the same way as the Smith-Waite, and that to do so is to short-change the TdM, which I don't want to do. I want to respect the system. (The reverse - reading the Smith-Waite the way one reads TdM - is valid as the TdM pre-dates the Smith-Waite.)

 

I've been doing some thinking since earlier this evening, (the following might also apply to @Marigold's question) and perhaps different readers use the TdM in their own way? Perhaps the TdM allows itself to be moulded to each reader's unique way of reading? Perhaps no two readers read it exactly the same way, and yet each gets superb results anyway?

 

I can see that everyone has their own stance on this topic and I respect everyone's point of view, and I'm not trying to step on any toes here. Rightly or wrongly, my thought at the moment is that TdM is going to be just great (and probably even easier) to use for clear-cut, no-nonsense divination, while all the images in the Smith-Waite are going to start explosions and rabbit-warrens of thought and correlations and synchronicities and all the other good stuff that intuition draws on. (A picture is worth 1000 words, etc.) For other readers, I'm well aware it is likely different. (Vive la différence!!) 🙂

 

I think we may be getting a little off-track for this topic - can one do a Tarot reading for oneself - but I did want to respond to you, @leroidetrèfle and I appreciate your response above. Thank you. 🙂

Hi Starlight 

 

It is quite clear from your posts throughout the forum - I enjoy reading them - that you are far from solipsistic. I was not specifically referring to one person. 
 

When I teach the Smith-Waite I never ask a student to abandon their beliefs or learning. The courses were designed more to supplement what people learn from organisations and literature. It is just adding new skills.
 

During the initial Lenormand craze there was much discussion on whether one reads it like the tarot. When a well-known tarot author asked me I said no. However, my response was derived from the way that the author and others (in the thread) read. You can use the same draws and techniques. 

[Marigold]

4 hours ago, Starlight said:

Rightly or wrongly, my thought at the moment is that TdM is going to be just great (and probably even easier) to use for clear-cut, no-nonsense divination, while all the images in the Smith-Waite are going to start explosions and rabbit-warrens of thought and correlations and synchronicities and all the other good stuff that intuition draws on. (A picture is worth 1000 words, etc.) 

The pips on the TdM speak also a thousand words, and even more. They are pictures too. They're not so in the face as the RWS decks and clones of course. But they are striking and rich in meaning. The most striking ones for newcomers to the Tarot would probably be the 2 of Cups. The Ace of Cups is so rich that one could write a short book on this card itself. And that 9 of Batons - it is so descriptive that I don't know how it could get better than that.

 

The pictures on the RWS and the myriad of clones are more obvious that's all. Even a five year old can understand what's going on. Which is not bad in itself. And why not. ? Art doesn't have to be complicated to appreciate and understand and carry deep meaning. 

 

 

Now just to mention something else :

 

The two systems, RWS and TdM do not correspond with each other. When I hear people saying the TdM can be read like an RWS or another oracle, well so be it. Read them like that. But why bother with a TdM then. 9/10ths of the richness of the TdM is lost. 

 

I say "so be it" but it makes me mad. Always has. Frustrated too. Let's render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to the TdM the things that are the TdM's.

 

Edited to say : This last part of my post is not addressed to Starlight nor does it relate to what I quoted. It's of a more general nature and something that I see being more and more spoken about. And it makes me uneasy. This was already a bit apparent on Aeclectic right from the start, but I thought the tide had been stemmed or at least to a great extent, and had hoped it was just a few misconceptions that needed to be cleared up. There were quite a few of us over there trying to do this. Some much more knowledgeable than me also. This was one of the biggest issues Lee Bursten and I had when it came to the TdM. We could really end up at loggerheads (otherwise we appreciated each other - it was just this issue that came between us I think.) I was really thrilled to see on return from my hiatus that the TdM was at last being considered so much in the Anglo Saxon world. But I'm disquieted to see that the Uniqueness of the TdM is being diluted and therefore being devalued. I wonder if it's maybe not too late to correct this - the train has possibly left the station. And also I wonder if it wasn't inevitable. And that makes me a bit sad. 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 17, 2019 by Marigold

[Marigold]

I went just now to edit my post above quite extensively. Just wanted to point this out. I sort of make a statement I notice, unintended to start out with. 

Edited December 17, 2019 by Marigold

[katrinka]

4 hours ago, Starlight said:

This is a very good point. In a self-reading, what are we reading for? Because we could be reading strictly for divination purposes and what the future holds, which lends itself to a more cartomantic approach. (Although I've not used cartomancy for divination, never having learned it.)

Yes. The future, and things that may be taking place in the present, or have already taken place, but are hidden from view. Locating lost objects, things taking place at a distance...
I meant "cartomancy" in the looser sense of reading cards, BTW. Not just playing cards.

Quote

Or we could be reading for self-development (navel-gazing sounds a bit condescending ) which I think is also a valid use of the Tarot. 🙂

It IS valid - virtually any kind of question is valid. But I did intend the statement to be barbed: "It's only in recent decades that people have declared the RWS to be an aid to navel gazing rather than a cartomantic deck." Note the "declared" and the "rather than". Whoever started this idea succeeded in convincing A LOT of people that RWS can't be used for predictive readings. This, in tandem with a severe lack of Tarot literature talking about things like proximity/combos, card order, positive, negative and neutral cards, etc., has come dangerously close to obliterating standard folk cartomancy techniques, at least in the Anglo world. So much so, that when Caitlin Matthews released her TdM book, someone commented on facebook that she was "reading it like Lenormand". They didn't even recognize the techniques as basic elements of reading any kind of cards, including Tarot. (Until fairly recently, the only post1980 Tarot book I can recall that explained these things in any detail was Sasha Fenton's Super Tarot.)

And so we have this "Can you read for yourself?" thread. Of course we can. It's just that people have made Tarot SO subjective that a lot of people don't know how to get a clear answer out of it anymore. It becomes ambiguous. So they pushed nonpredictive reading, because it's harder to be demonstrably wrong with those. I'm not saying that's the only reason anybody does them, I'm saying that's the motive for pushing them and disparaging predictive readers.

So yes, by all means, do the introspective readings, the shadow work, the "What's holding me back?" and "How can I improve...?" readings all you like. I'm not casting aspersions on that. I'm casting them on people who spread the misinformation that this is the ONLY correct way.

 

Edited December 17, 2019 by katrinka

[devin]

12 hours ago, Marigold said:

But I'm disquieted to see that the Uniqueness of the TdM is being diluted and therefore being devalued. I wonder if it's maybe not too late to correct this - the train has possibly left the station. And also I wonder if it wasn't inevitable. And that makes me a bit sad. 

Ms. D. (rhymes with mystery), I think you're worrying yourself unnecessarily here. Is the TdM's power and depth not down to its imagery and structure? No matter what techniques or orientation one uses, this remains. This remains. 

 

Also, the TdM is resilient by nature, otherwise the Egyptian Magi would not have chosen/designed it as a vehicle of preservation for their esoteric secrets. Fact.

Edited December 18, 2019 by devin

[devin]

19 hours ago, Starlight said:

I've learned that the TdM is more like Kipper and Lenormand. When I look at RWS, it's like a jumping off point for something further, it never ends just at the card and cards interact with each other to create something new.

Just to clarify, many people do use the TdM for psychological flavored readings or 'navel gazing'. There's also more than a few who think the way to read TdM is in a trance, or by tapping into Jungian collective realms, or by invoking a card's archetype within you, or by using astrology, or....

 

It's a varied practice.

 

Oh, and you're far too nice (in the best possible way) to step on anyone's toes!

Edited December 18, 2019 by devin

[Raggydoll]

15 minutes ago, devin said:

Just to clarify, many people do use the TdM for psychological flavored readings or 'navel gazing'. There's also more than a few who think the way to read TdM is in a trance, or by tapping into Jungian collective realms, or by invoking a card's archetype within you, or by using astrology, or....

 

I agree! (And I giggled so hard at the “navel gazing” because it reminded me of when I heard someone accidentally call it “nasal gazing” 😁😁😁 I think nasal gazing has real potential - you get to see the brain from a whole new angle 😛)

[devin]

6 minutes ago, Raggydoll said:

I agree! (And I giggled so hard at the “navel gazing” because it reminded me of when I heard someone accidentally call it “nasal gazing” 😁😁😁 I think nasal gazing has real potential - you get to see the brain from a whole new angle 😛)

Nasal gazing! You might be onto something here! Patent it!

 

So maybe, as far as TdM practice goes, we could say you get the fortune-tellers, the esoterics, the psychologists, the historians, and the psychic travelers (plus those mysterious nasal gazers, of course!).

Edited December 18, 2019 by devin

[Raggydoll]

20 minutes ago, devin said:

Nasal gazing! You might be onto something here! Patent it!

 

So maybe, as far as TdM practice goes, we could say you get the fortune-tellers, the esoterics, the psychologists, the historians, and the psychic travelers (plus those mysterious nasal gazers, of course!).

Yes - we mysterious nasal gazers resist all clear definitions!!! 😜

[Raggydoll]

But to answer the actual question- yes you certainly can! However, I feel that there are times and circumstances when you are probably better off asking someone else to read for you. 

[jupiter]

13 hours ago, katrinka said:

(...)This, in tandem with a severe lack of Tarot literature talking about things like proximity/combos, card order, positive, negative and neutral cards, etc., has come dangerously close to obliterating standard folk cartomancy techniques, at least in the Anglo world. (...)

 

Sorry to interrupt – this discussion has been so interesting to read – but @katrinka can you perhaps recommend a good read on this topic? It seems that if there is anything concise written, you surely must know about it 💐

Edited December 18, 2019 by jupiter
clarification

[katrinka]

11 hours ago, jupiter said:

Sorry to interrupt – this discussion has been so interesting to read – but @katrinka can you perhaps recommend a good read on this topic? It seems that if there is anything concise written, you surely must know about it 💐

I haven't seen any Tarot books in english that address this at all, other than the one I mentioned by Sasha Fenton, Super Tarot, and some bits in Caitlin Matthews' Untold Tarot. But you can learn the techniques from materials on reading playing cards, Lenormand, Vera Sibilla, etc. and then just apply them to your Tarot reading. A lot of books and blogs will have combo lists like this one https://artofcartomancy.blogspot.com/p/cartomancy-card-combinations.html

(Combo lists are intended as examples, they aren't meant to be memorized. But they're beneficial because you can see the logic behind the various combined meanings.)

 

The clearest and most comprehensive explanation I've seen is in @leroidetrèfle's book: https://smile.amazon.com/Lenormand-Thirty-Six-Cards-Introduction/dp/1500582484
 

There may well be more out there that I'm not aware of.

Edited December 18, 2019 by katrinka

[Starlight]

10 hours ago, katrinka said:

The clearest and most comprehensive explanation I've seen is in @leroidetrèfle's book: https://smile.amazon.com/Lenormand-Thirty-Six-Cards-Introduction/dp/1500582484

OMG 

Leroidetrefle is ...?

(Faints dead away)

(Revives to whisper, "I have this book", and loses consciousness again)