Debate: The Ultimate Tarot Deck.............

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 04 Dec 2004, and now archived in the Forum Library.

IDN	04 Dec 2004
Just a thought for debate: Would the ultimate tarot deck not be just 78 plain cards with the titles written on one side? (so you know which is which) No borders No images No artwork of any kind No colours Every deck ever made has had some "willfullness" of its creator, put into it- in very varying degrees. This surely detracts from the concept of the "archetype", towards the "individual". ie, the archetypes are "tainted" Surely, once an experienced reader has "accumulated" (mentally) the "feeling / meaning" of each card- they do not "need" an image, just a "plain signal" to invoke the relevant "feeling / meaning". This would "force" the sub-conscious to have to work even harder! But it would give it infinite freedom to seek a relevant interpretation. I put it to the Forum that once the Reader has "stocked" their mental library with the "stock meanings" and then "adapted them" to relate to their own life / experiences; all they then need is the simplest of "random generators" to "guide" the unfolding of the reading? Your thoughts and contributions are most welcome. Take care Regards, Ian

shadowdancer	04 Dec 2004
It is an interesting point. I do tend to have a 'stock' supply of interpretations I use, which are always tweaked depending on the placement in the spread, surrounding cards etc. To that end when I do a reading sometimes the images of the cards do not register as I have gone somewhere else in my mind. (I suppose when I do readings I enter a sort of zone where I feel I am guided to elaborate on what I use as a stock meaning) Therefore what you say may have validity. I have 20 decks I use (for now!) and dowse for a deck for each reading. Each deck is different. Therefore would I achieve the same results if I just had a deck with the name of the card somewhere, and nothing else?? However.... I would not feel a warm link with something that did not have an image of sorts to enhance my senses. This is why we are all different, and have different tastes regarding artwork, imagery, theme etc. I still smile when I draw the Fey deck. I know my reading will be intense and direct if I use the Celtic deck. I know the reading will have an air of down to earth practicality if I use the Pagan deck. (I could go on, but this is the feel I have..it may well be different for us all!) I think it is a good discussion point though. Davina

Formicida	04 Dec 2004
I'm fascinated by the idea, but the immediate problem I see is that the titles aren't always the same. Would this deck include wands, staves or batons? Pentacles, coins, or disks? Are the court cards page-knight-queen-king or princess-prince-queen-knight? Would the majors be numbered, and if so, what about Stength and Justice? Any choice would necessarily bias it toward one existing deck, and thus one (set of) ideas about the Tarot. There's no way to completely dodge those issues, and once you've set one decision down, you're no longer in that "ultimate" area, are you?

Jeannette	04 Dec 2004
The following thread might have some relevance to your point: http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=30104 And also this post: http://www.tarotforum.net/showpost.php?p=136277&postcount=6 IDN wrote: Every deck ever made has had some "willfullness" of its creator, put into it- in very varying degrees. Oh, yes! Give me "willfullness"! I cannot learn anything from a blank page -- and learning is the fun part. Quote: This surely detracts from the concept of the "archetype", towards the "individual". ie, the archetypes are "tainted" There was a time in Western civilization when the "best minds of the day" believed that "everything worth inventing has already been invented." According to one of the definitions provided by dictionary.com, an archetype can be described as follows: In Jungian psychology, an inherited pattern of thought or symbolic imagery derived from the past collective experience and present in the individual unconscious. But I disagree with this definition. I would eliminate the word "past" from it. That is, unless we want to say that everything worth contributing to the collective unconscious has already been contributed. ;) Quote: Surely, once an experienced reader has "accumulated" (mentally) the "feeling / meaning" of each card- they do not "need" an image, just a "plain signal" to invoke the relevant "feeling / meaning". This would "force" the sub-conscious to have to work even harder! But it would give it infinite freedom to seek a relevant interpretation. Actually, I don't disagree with you, IDN - I'm being a bit curmudgeonly here. }) I understand that you're referring to tarot in the context of a reading tool, and my personal comments come from a broader perspective of tarot as a tool for reading + meditation + spiritual growth + etc. The link to Ravenswing's post above I think lends credence to the argument that even if imagery doesn't entirely "get in the way," then certainly at the least, an experienced reader doesn't need it. But as for me, well... if you need me, you'll find me hanging out with the "inventors"... -- Jeannette The Tarot Garden

Cerulean	04 Dec 2004
To, me the archetype is as dynamic as the individual imagination of the reader. I believe while an individual is alive, their unconscious mind has a constant stream of sensory impressions being fed, their soul is in a constant state of dreaming and evolving, and their mind-heart is moving in feeling from the past-to-the-present in the past collective experience and present in the individual unconscious. I believe every individual's choice, moment by moment, is how their awareness focuses them. This being the case for me...I believe that the title alone would not be sufficient for me just to evoke the idea or signal. To me, the combination of word and picture is essential when I look at a card deck...but that is my choice right now. I'm only stating my belief and choice, of course. Others can point out how wrong I can be to choose this...I decided to only go by what was posted here to form my opinion right now. At the moment I am going through an anime tarot and finding out about the Japanese series that spawned the card set...I found a way to assign the title and number appropriately and am learning about the symbolic image in context with the storyline. If I went by my own blinders of image-symbol association and what I've collected so far in my thoughts, I might completely reject the image-symbol to tarot assignment as appropriate. At the moment, I'm learning a different worldview and a different 'collective' idea-symbol context and so I am in a curious, exploring mind-set. Just to explain that I'm approaching things in such a different way than I normally see things, I may also be missing your point--and only coming from my 'have to keep my my filters open' mood! Regards, Cerulean P.S. I think if we were going by live debate rules, you could say I wandered far from the original point, from a funny tangent. Excuse this (perhaps circular reasoning?) then, and let me thank the contributors for helping me articulate my thoughts! I'm impressed with what I've read so far and wanted to contribute a small series of thoughts.

HudsonGray	04 Dec 2004
I think the art is integral to the reading, in many ways. One of the first things done when checking out a new deck on the market is to see how the art looks, after all. If the art doesn't appeal, the deck doesn't get bought. While having named cards as a deck WOULD work, I think it's a little too clinical for most people to fully utilize, no matter what the training/experience.

northsea	04 Dec 2004
78 blank cards seems extreme, but perhaps 78 cards with pips would appeal to some.

cirom	04 Dec 2004
If one took this anaology and applied it to other fields, we could simply eat the blandest of food and still be sustained. Dress with the plainest of clothing and be warm, live in the most basic of shelters and be protected from the elements. Of course we could, but who given the choice would want to. I as a "creative" person, and creator of tarot decks am obviously bias. If required to do so I could rely on my imagination and simply work with plain title only deck.....but given a choice why would I. The images don't have to overwhelm the reading experience as some suggest, but provide a platform for it and enrichen it instead.

tmgrl2	04 Dec 2004
IDN....you would probably like that painting entitled "Ghost in a Snow Storm" ....all white Give me the pretty pictures...lots of them on lots of different decks. terri I'm no saying that one can't read without the images ... Probably could use Umbrae's toothpicks. I think the pictures bring "magic" to the sitter as well. terri

Fudugazi	04 Dec 2004
IDN wrote: Just a thought for debate: Would the ultimate tarot deck not be just 78 plain cards with the titles written on one side? (so you know which is which) No borders No images No artwork of any kind No colours This surely detracts from the concept of the "archetype", towards the "individual". ie, the archetypes are "tainted" Surely, once an experienced reader has "accumulated" (mentally) the "feeling / meaning" of each card- they do not "need" an image, just a "plain signal" to invoke the relevant "feeling / meaning". This theory posits that the tarot is a word-, or meaning-only system (title on blank card, knowledge of meaning by reader). But there are reasons why there are pictures and pips, as well as words, and numbers, on the cards. It is because the tarot is a system of symbols, words and numbers - a cross-fertilising system of signs that reinforce each other. You could have just numbers, and have a numerology system; or just words, and have a word-as-sign, or verbal only system. Or you could have just symbols - pictures and pips. But the tarot has all three. Not as mnemotechnic aids, not because we are too dumb to remember meanings and feel the right one at the right time, but because all three elements are essential: it is the synergy of these three signs - words, numbers, symbols - that create the range of meanings; and the combination of each of those signs on one card with other signs on another card give you a huge range of different and subtle readings every time you pull cards. That's where the real mystery (and difficulty) lies. And that's also why you get people spending fifty years studying tarot and still finding out new things!

Shalott	04 Dec 2004
Helvetica wrote: This theory posits that the tarot is a word-, or meaning-only system (title on blank card, knowledge of meaning by reader). But there are reasons why there are pictures and pips, as well as words, and numbers, on the cards. It is because the tarot is a system of symbols, words and numbers - a cross-fertilising system of signs that reinforce each other. You could have just numbers, and have a numerology system; or just words, and have a word-as-sign, or verbal only system. Or you could have just symbols - pictures and pips. But the tarot has all three. Not as mnemotechnic aids, not because we are too dumb to remember meanings and feel the right one at the right time, but because all three elements are essential: it is the synergy of these three signs - words, numbers, symbols - that create the range of meanings; and the combination of each of those signs on one card with other signs on another card give you a huge range of different and subtle readings every time you pull cards. That's where the real mystery (and difficulty) lies. And that's also why you get people spending fifty years studying tarot and still finding out new things! Helvetica, very well said and I agree completely. This is "Tarot," there are other things out there, like crystal balls perhaps, that rely solely on one's intuition. But all of these things, numbers, images, words, traditional DMs, come together to give us Tarot readings. Take these things away and you may have a perfectly valid system, but it's no longer Tarot. Perhaps if someone is finding the images of Tarot to be inhibiting your intuition rather than helping it, perhaps they shouldn't use it. Perhaps there are oracle decks that suit someone's need, or other systems that aren't so pre-structured. Or maybe someone who feels this way doesn't need ANY tools for their intuitive gifts.

Diana	05 Dec 2004
Helvetica wrote: But there are reasons why there are pictures and pips, as well as words, and numbers, on the cards. It is because the tarot is a system of symbols, words and numbers - a cross-fertilising system of signs that reinforce each other. Of course, it is not to be forgotten that in the Middle Ages people did not KNOW how to read. Words written on cards would have been useless to them. But I agree entirely that the iconography on the cards is essential in understanding the meanings behind them. However, if some dictatorial authoritian world government decided to forbid tarot decks (hypothetical hypothesis here), then reading scraps of paper with hastily written words on them would probably be sufficient to do a decent reading.

Fudugazi	05 Dec 2004
Diana wrote: However, if some dictatorial authoritian world government decided to forbid tarot decks (hypothetical hypothesis here), then reading scraps of paper with hastily written words on them would probably be sufficient to do a decent reading. I did that once, because I had no tarot with me after being evacuated, and, to say the least, I needed a bit of outside guidance. It works, but it's not tarot;-)

IDN	05 Dec 2004
Many thanks for all your thoughts so far. Don't get me wrong- I love the images on Tarot decks, I just thought it would interesting to discuss other possibilities. Regards, Ian

Ravenswing	05 Dec 2004
hi guys-- I've told this story once long ago, and I can't find the original in archives. So I'll tell the tale once more. There was this little cafe in Center City Philadelphia called the Last Drop. I had some paintings hung there for a while, so I dropped in more than usual. I came in one night near one in the morning and found a strange sight. There was a rather youngish woman with long frizzy brown hair and big clear blue eyes sitting at a table by the window. I watched her for a moment from the doorway. She was throwing sugar packets up into the air and peering at the ones that landed on the table. Then she would talk, with a serious look to someone near the table. She picked up the ones that landed on the floor, gathering them all up. Someone else would come up to the table and the whole process started over again. I made my way over to her, with enough curiousity for all nine lives. I filled the empty chair at her table and asked her what she was doing. "Tarot", she said. She cocked her head and smirked at me. "But I don't have anything to tell you..." "What do you mean?" I asked, thrown off guard. "You can do it yourself," the smirk warmed up and her eyes widened. "Can't you?" "Umm," was all i could say. She laughed and put a hand on mine. "But not this way..." She tossed the sugar packets into the air. Some hit the table, some landed on the floor, one slid off my head. She looked at the packets and began telling me about myself. I must have had the strangest look on my face right then, 'cause she stopped short. She took a deep breath and explained her method. She said she read majors only. There were 22 sugar packets, numbered from 1 to 21-- with one un-numbered. Her method was simple. She threw them up into the air, reading only the ones that fell on the table. if the number didn't show, the Trump was reversed-- the Fool always fell on his feet. There was no definitive layout; she read the patterning something like one might read tea leaves. I watched her throwing packets til dawn. I think she may have been the best-- or at least the most dramatic-- reader I have ever come across. My paintings haven't hung there in a while-- and none sold. But every so often I go back there. I've been lucky enough to catch her a few times since the first. One of these days I'll give her method a try. fly well Raven

Deus Ex Machina	05 Dec 2004
If you believe that the ultimate tarot deck is one without images IDN, then I would suggest switching to the I - Ching; a tool as plain and decisive as the 1's and 0's of digital code. Just lines, broken lines, and spaces. To me, the whole purpose for tarot is the pictures. From a divination standpoint, I think that the pictures help to suggest meaning - they give the mind more to work with than a simple straightforward word. I believe that the archetypical meanings would be much harder to grasp without the images. I think that because of our human nature, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible to directly link to higher concepts or powers without going through the filter of human consciousness. Tarot is one such filter, and the great diversity seen in tarot art gives the reader a wide selection of filters to choose from - each with its own strengths and weaknesses. A tarot deck like the one you are describing certainly would have its strengths, but it would undoubtedly have weaknesses that a normal deck does not. The deck you are describing, in my opinion, simply wouldn't be a tarot deck - it would be something else, a different tool with a different purpose.

SunChariot	05 Dec 2004
Deus Ex Machina wrote: If you believe that the ultimate tarot deck is one without images IDN, then I would suggest switching to the I - Ching; a tool as plain and decisive as the 1's and 0's of digital code. Just lines, broken lines, and spaces. To me, the whole purpose for tarot is the pictures. From a divination standpoint, I think that the pictures help to suggest meaning - they give the mind more to work with than a simple straightforward word. I believe that the archetypical meanings would be much harder to grasp without the images. I think that because of our human nature, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible to directly link to higher concepts or powers without going through the filter of human consciousness. Tarot is one such filter, and the great diversity seen in tarot art gives the reader a wide selection of filters to choose from - each with its own strengths and weaknesses. A tarot deck like the one you are describing certainly would have its strengths, but it would undoubtedly have weaknesses that a normal deck does not. The deck you are describing, in my opinion, simply wouldn't be a tarot deck - it would be something else, a different tool with a different purpose. I would have to agree with this. If there were a deck with no pictures that would make it unusable for me. The card images are the most important part of the reading to me. And it's not about remembering what they mean. What the image means to me one day may not be what it means the next. I find that the meanings of the images changes greatly each time I use a card, based on the question, the spread, my mood...and many many factors. There are subtle nuances in the artwork that can be taken differently at different times. I need to see the image iand all its details to feel what it means to me on that day. Bar

rachelcat	06 Dec 2004
I also actually did this. I am creating a theme deck and don't have all the images yet, but I have the attributions/keywords set, so I wrote them on index cards and shuffled and dealt to see how they would hold up in an actual reading situation. This experiment did lead to some modifications in the attributions, so I consider it a success. As to doing this on a regular basis, the images are in my mind, so it would work. But I guess it would be more convenient/helpful to have the images actually before me. I think it would be essential when reading for someone else. When I do readings (even on-line!), I find myself pointing to the cards and details in the images to explain the points I am making. So yes, pictures are pretty essential, but it can be done without them. And even without pictures, it IS still tarot!

The Debate: The Ultimate Tarot Deck............. thread was originally posted on 04 Dec 2004 in the Tarot Decks board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Tarot Decks, or read more archived threads.