Learning Tdm (Resources And Discussions)

[Raggydoll]

Thank you both, I’m seriously considering showing him all the marseille majors and allowing him to describe them for me 😁 I am thinking we might gain some new and interesting angles and keywords that way 😊

[Flaxen]

23 minutes ago, Raggydoll said:

Thank you both, I’m seriously considering showing him all the marseille majors and allowing him to describe them for me 😁 I am thinking we might gain some new and interesting angles and keywords that way 😊

That would be fascinating! It’s interesting what children pick up on. My daughter loves looking at my cards - especially the Courts which she calls the ‘family’ cards. 

[Raggydoll]

1 hour ago, Flaxen said:

That would be fascinating! It’s interesting what children pick up on. My daughter loves looking at my cards - especially the Courts which she calls the ‘family’ cards. 

Aww! Wouldn’t it be interesting to hear what family members she recognize in the courts...  🤗

[Flaxen]

9 minutes ago, Raggydoll said:

Aww! Wouldn’t it be interesting to hear what family members she recognize in the courts...  🤗

It’s not actual members of our family she sees in them but more that she recognises each suit as a ‘family’. So there is a ‘Cup’ family, a ‘Coin’ family etc. If there is no obvious female ‘child’, she makes all the Pages girls. Knights are ‘big brothers’ and the King and Queen are ‘the Mum and Dad.’

[Raggydoll]

20 minutes ago, Flaxen said:

It’s not actual members of our family she sees in them but more that she recognises each suit as a ‘family’. So there is a ‘Cup’ family, a ‘Coin’ family etc. If there is no obvious female ‘child’, she makes all the Pages girls. Knights are ‘big brothers’ and the King and Queen are ‘the Mum and Dad.’

Yeah i figured that was the case 😊. I just entertained the thought that perhaps she would see some neighbors, distant relatives, great aunts etc among the cards. That would have been so fun! 

[Lee]

On 11/21/2019 at 2:11 PM, Marigold said:

Somewhere it was said (maybe it was gregory who posted this) that there was some kind of controversy about this book and she was wondering why. 

 

Now I haven't read the book, so please take what I'm saying with that in mind. IF Lee wrote this book based on his initial explorations into the subject that he posted on Aeclectic, then the controversy could very likely be that he took into account also the RWS meanings. I don't remember now to what extent, but it was obviously sufficient to make me react with great vehemence. I remember very acrid arguments that the two of us had. I regret them somewhat - not the fact that I defended my opinion so fiercely, I would do it again, but it did somehow colour our relationship with a bit of a dark cloud. And I like Lee. He's a good and honest person. 

 

On 11/21/2019 at 2:13 PM, gregory said:

It was indeed me. He is a lovely decent person, yes. I will dig the book out at some point, and see.

My ears were burning so I thought I would drop by to say hi.  🙂 

 

First, let me say a heartfelt thank-you to the several people on this forum who have posted positively about my book, it's very much appreciated.

 

To my friends gregory and Marigold, let me say that I truly appreciate your kind words about my character. I remember both of you fondly. I do recall having some contretemps with Marigold on AT but that was an awfully long time ago and frankly I don't remember much about what it was all about. I would much rather remember our much-more-frequent friendly exchanges.

 

I did want to clear up a misunderstanding about my published work and my position vis-a-vis reading pips. It is true that I once posted on AT a thread in which I proposed a scheme that would combine numerology and RWS meanings into one set of meanings that could be used for both TdM and RWS. 

 

It is also true that that post is at least 15 years old, if not more.  Throughout my time at AT, I posted a lot, I asked questions, I experimented with other people's methods, I experimented with making up my own methods. (By the way, asking and experimenting is a great way to learn tarot, I highly recommend it!). Some things I posted got lots of responses, some got none (deservedly so, I'm sure). The fact is that that post is only one of many, many, many posts I posted where I experimented in various ways. I don't regret at all posting that post, but since that time I have become much more interested in numerological methods of reading TdM pips.

 

I don't blame Marigold at all, she is going on her memory from years ago and she probably didn't read anything I posted after she left AT. But it leaves me in an awkward position; on the one hand I don't want to sound ultra-defensive, but on the other hand I don't want to let the misunderstanding remain, especially since Marigold has now posted twice here about my over-a-decade-old post on AT, suggesting that it may be my current position. 

 

When I wrote my book, I used a strictly numerological system. No RWS. Instead of laying out precise meanings for the pip cards I tried to lead the reader through a process of coming up with their own number meanings so that the meanings they used would be more truly theirs.  Here is an AT thread by another member there that I just found which talks a little bit about my approach in the book.

 

Later, in around 2011, I posted a thread on AT called "Reading pips: the Pips-as-Trumps method." As the title suggests, this one was about correlating the pip numbers 1-10 with the Triumphs 1-10. Again, no RWS. 

On 11/22/2019 at 6:08 PM, leroidetrèfle said:

Hi @mrpants. It’s Andy 🙂

 

It’s a while since I read Bursten. On the whole, the book is okay. I certainly would not say avoid it.
 

However I do remember something about the empress as being divine feminine, et cetera. Several symbolic associations were employed that are closer to the Smith-Waite pattern. That is the main issue and is likely more reflective of publishers 

For the record, here is the entire text for the Empress from my book The Universal Marseille Tarot Companion:

 

Quote

Just as many of the female figures on the trumps follow the Renaissance practice of illustrating allegorical concepts as women, the Empress represents the highest estate of womankind. As the Popess can be seen as representing the institution of the Church, the Empress likewise might represent the kingdom itself, while the Emperor is its leader. This would connect her to Sovereignty, the goddess who represents the land in the Arthurian legends.

In religious art she could often be seen as the enthroned Madonna, and as the "woman clothed with the sun" from Revelations.

The eagle and scepter represent victory and power, and the orb, throne and crown signify sovereignty. As a warrior, she would fiercely protect those she nurtures.

The Empress and the Emperor gaze at each other when laid side by side. They can be thought of as the first manifestation of a yin/yang duality which is pictured on several cards throughout the trumps, and which is finally reconciled on the World card.

Divinatory meanings:

An idealized feminine spirit. One's home, nation, or land. Nurturing. Protection.

I'll leave it to others to judge whether that passage is RWS-influenced or not, or otherwise problematic. I will say, as TT&M member _R_ has posted (and I enjoy _R_'s posts a lot), there are different ways to read TdM and no one "correct" way. I'll also note that the publisher of my book, Lo Scarabeo, exerted no influence whatever during my writing of the book. Since the book is out of print, this is probably all moot anyway!  🙂 

[Raggydoll]

@Lee What a treat to have you here!! Thank you so much for popping in and setting things straight. Your writing style is great and I much enjoyed your book! 

[gregory]

It was indeed gregory who said that she loved the book, but as there had been some posts saying it wasn't the best thing, and as she is no TdM expert, she hesitated to come out and say they were all WRONG. But now that you are HERE Lee (and how great that you are !) - well, I am in a minority here; I actually own it; I have read it, and it never struck me as incorporating RWS "meanings" at all. I like it a lot, and I wish you could get things sorted so that you could reprint.

 

I have had MANY arguments over the years with people who say it's bad and have never seen it, though. That really annoys me. "It's a bad book." "What is it that you don't like about it ?" "Well, so and so said it...." "But what do YOU think ?" "Oh I've never read it..."

 

That really annoys me. 

 

It's like people who diss - (and on one memorable occasion, actually post a blistering review on line of - and I hasten to add that this does not refer to anyone on this forum) an entire deck because they saw one card on line (or even, as in this case, because they HEARD that xyz....) and had never actually seen it. The same has applied to almost everyone I have discussed Lee's book with. (And bless Marigold for her most excellent proviso.

Quote

Now I haven't read the book, so please take what I'm saying with that in mind.

I wish more people would come out and say it like that !)

 

I very much hope to see it in print again, so that discussion of it can be based on fact rather than speculation based on historical posts about it or by Lee in general..

Edited January 3, 2020 by gregory

[PathWalker]

It's great to see you here Lee - I don't think we spoke on AT but I'm a big fan of your work on TdM and it was me who mentioned your book as being a great resource. I find it clear and encouraging, thank you very much! Will enjoy reading along here, but have little to contribute, not being much of a scholar

Best wishes

PathWalker

[Raggydoll]

27 minutes ago, PathWalker said:

It's great to see you here Lee - I don't think we spoke on AT but I'm a big fan of your work on TdM and it was me who mentioned your book as being a great resource. I find it clear and encouraging, thank you very much! Will enjoy reading along here, but have little to contribute, not being much of a scholar

Best wishes

PathWalker

I’m definitely no scholar either so you’re in good company. Please still contribute, it makes it less daunting for others like us to jump in. I think it’s important that we don’t make these discussions feel too inaccessible. A lot of people aren’t scholarly inclined and many of us also have a limited English vocabulary (like myself). But everyone can contribute, I truly think that! 

 

[Guest]

Hi Lee

 

As I stated above, I was going on memory. I’m sorry if you feel I have misrepresented you. It was not my intention.

 

At no point have I said not to read the book or that it is wrong. What I remember was a comment or two that I felt were closer (as in being more visually explicit) in the later tarots. 
 

It has been noted throughout this and other threads that there is diverse perspective and schools of thought. For myself I prefer Colette Silvestre who others don’t. 
 

Once again I apologise if I have caused offence. 

[Raggydoll]

@leroidetrèfle Am I correct that there are no English translations of the books by Colette Silvestre? It’s a bummer that I don’t speak French! Do you think you could give a short description of the style that Colette has? Just so I can get an idea of how those books/methods differ from what’s available in English 🙂

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Raggydoll said:

@leroidetrèfle Am I correct that there are no English translations of the books by Colette Silvestre? It’s a bummer that I don’t speak French! Do you think you could give a short description of the style that Colette has? Just so I can get an idea of how those books/methods differ from what’s available in English 🙂

Unfortunately, you’re correct. Silvestre’s work has never been translated into English and is unlikely to be in the future (I have asked). It’s worth stressing her books are not all brilliant. You don’t publish that amount with the same consistency. 
 

When I get home I will post some of her observations. 

[Raggydoll]

6 minutes ago, leroidetrèfle said:

 

When I get home I will post some of her observations. 

Thank you!!!

[Marigold]

10 hours ago, Lee said:

 

I don't blame Marigold at all, she is going on her memory from years ago and she probably didn't read anything I posted after she left AT. But it leaves me in an awkward position; on the one hand I don't want to sound ultra-defensive, but on the other hand I don't want to let the misunderstanding remain, especially since Marigold has now posted twice here about my over-a-decade-old post on AT, suggesting that it may be my current position. 

 

Hello Lee, lovely to see you again.

 

Thanks a lot for clearing all that up. Indeed, I didn't go back to AT once I was banned. So all that followed is a mystery for me. The only thread I read was when someone wrote to tell me that Jess Karlin had killed his persona so I was interested to read what people were saying about that surprising fact. Apart from that, it was a dead zone for me. I didn't even lurk.

 

It's anyway just great that you wrote a book. Don't we all long to write one but never do ? You did it - from the beginning to the end - and I have great respect for that.

 

And again, it's wonderful to see your name again - you are very much a part of tableau of all the great people I met at Aeclectic. You're sort just above the middle, slightly to the right. The tableau is a bit like the one of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart Club Band. 

 

Diana

 

[Lee]

Thanks so much for the kind words, Raggydoll, gregory, PathWalker, and Marigold/Diana. Andy, I appreciate your post, and if you would like me to post the book's text for any of the other Triumphs, just let me know and I would be happy to do that. I would post the entire book, but I don't think Lo Scarabeo would appreciate that.

 

Not addressing this next thought to anyone in particular but just in general, I think there's an interesting discussion to be had about the move by some authors toward treating the TdM as a playing card deck and thus focusing on mundane concerns, and whether that means all religious/mystical/spiritual/psychological influences to the Triumphs (which I think people in the 14th-18th centuries would have taken for granted) should be ignored.

[gregory]

I would like to think Lo Scarabeo would let you have it back to do up as a POD or a Kindle....? since they no longer have it in print.

[Raggydoll]

23 minutes ago, gregory said:

I would like to think Lo Scarabeo would let you have it back to do up as a POD or a Kindle....? since they no longer have it in print.

This. Absolutely worth exploring!

[Lee]

23 minutes ago, gregory said:

I would like to think Lo Scarabeo would let you have it back to do up as a POD or a Kindle....? since they no longer have it in print.

I have tried contacting them, no response. 🙂 I do have other projects in the works though.

[Flaxen]

33 minutes ago, Lee said:

Not addressing this next thought to anyone in particular but just in general, I think there's an interesting discussion to be had about the move by some authors toward treating the TdM as a playing card deck and thus focusing on mundane concerns, and whether that means all religious/mystical/spiritual/psychological influences to the Triumphs (which I think people in the 14th-18th centuries would have taken for granted) should be ignored.

That’s a really good question. Personally, I do take into account the religious iconography and philosophical streams which were around at that time. It’s one of the things which makes it such a rich reading deck - there are so many layers to unpick. I absolutely can use it for more ‘mundane’ issues but it’s also interesting to contemplate the deeper aspects. 

[gregory]

29 minutes ago, Lee said:

I have tried contacting them, no response. 🙂 I do have other projects in the works though.

I might have a bash.... Especially the next time I am over there.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Raggydoll said:

Thank you!!!

Hi @Raggydoll

 

What I admire with Colette Silvestre is her directness. She is concise and focused.  However some of her critics find this pedestrian and on her books can be a mixed bag. 

Le Soleil in Relationships:

 

This card is an indication of happiness, joie de vivre, fulfillment and shared love. All relationships and connections are bursting with spontaneity and radiance.

 

Her example readings are done in a similar direct manner.  Short and sweet.  That can be problematic as sometimes you wonder “why”. But overall I enjoy the focus. 

Edited January 3, 2020 by Guest

[katrinka]

3 hours ago, Lee said:

Not addressing this next thought to anyone in particular but just in general, I think there's an interesting discussion to be had about the move by some authors toward treating the TdM as a playing card deck and thus focusing on mundane concerns, and whether that means all religious/mystical/spiritual/psychological influences to the Triumphs (which I think people in the 14th-18th centuries would have taken for granted) should be ignored.

It's not really about sticking one's head in the sand and ignoring anything. I'd certainly suggest everyone read JMD, etc. But when doing a reading on questions people actually ask, it has to be put in context.

The "mundane concerns" have been ignored too long. For a long time the books (in english, at least) would talk about Jung and whatnot, or rhapsodize about spirituality, but there was nothing practical that addressed answering common questions (something to do with the client's love life or finances, more often than not) and we had to muddle through on our own. So what's happening now is a breath of fresh air.

TdM essentially is a playing card deck. And I, for one, welcome this.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Lee said:

Not addressing this next thought to anyone in particular but just in general, I think there's an interesting discussion to be had about the move by some authors toward treating the TdM as a playing card deck and thus focusing on mundane concerns, and whether that means all religious/mystical/spiritual/psychological influences to the Triumphs (which I think people in the 14th-18th centuries would have taken for granted) should be ignored.

Seeing the different viewpoints would make for fascinating reading.  Generally, it’s an issue of emphasis and can be compared the differing interpretations over time: from Egyptology to Qabalah to Jung and so on. The pendulum swings and the cards are reinterpreted.
 

If we approach from the perspective of the mundane, we are just recognising another facet of the cards. We are interpreting the same essential nature but just a different function. The same process occurs when we read on at a spiritual or psychological level. It’s just the context is different. Should the emperor be the animus, virile power we can similarly say he is a powerful man or micromanaging.

 

Context tells us which interpretation is appropriate. 

 

Over the last couple of years I’ve been using the Smith-Waite. When working with the cards I use a lot of techniques readers employ with the French and Italian Sibilla cards. I don’t ignore Waite or the esoteric/mystical context - it’s just I adjust to the specific subject and refraction. Sometimes the Five of Pentacles is the heating breaking down and other times it’s the feeling of being rejected or out in the cold. 

Edited January 4, 2020 by Guest

[katrinka]

35 minutes ago, leroidetrèfle said:

Seeing the different viewpoints would make for fascinating reading.  Generally, it’s an issue of emphasis and can be compared the differing interpretations over time: from Egyptology to Qabalah to Jung and so on. The pendulum swings and the cards are reinterpreted.

Yes. The older books go on about occult matters A LOT. But generally, with the Dawn, Wirth, Crowley, whoever, the emphasis seems to be on meditation, mystic experiences and the like. They talk about fortune telling grudgingly, if at all.
Books about reading the cards in an everyday, mundane context are too few, and way overdue.

Quote

If we approach from the perspective of the mundane, we are just recognising another facet of the cards. We are interpreting the same essential nature but just a different function. The same process occurs when we read on at a spiritual or psychological level. It’s just the context is different. Should the emperor be the animus, virile power we can similarly say he is a powerful man or micromanaging.

The card image, the correspondences, etc. should all be different ways of conveying the same essence, and said essence can likewise be put into different contexts and applied as needed.

Quote

Context tells us which interpretation is appropriate. 

 

Over the last couple of years I’ve been using the Smith-Waite. When working with the cards I use a lot of techniques readers employ with the French and Italian Sibilla cards. I don’t ignore Waite or the esoteric/mystical context - it’s just I adjust to the specific subject and refraction. Sometimes the Five of Pentacles is the heating breaking down and other times it’s the feeling of being rejected or out in the cold. 

Exactly this.
At its core, the card is about worry and material crisis. That can certainly be fitted to a mundane context.

Edited January 4, 2020 by katrinka