'Tarotic Relativism'

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 18 Aug 2001, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Marion	18 Aug 2001
(Yes, I just made that phrase up.) My thoughts only and I would glad to hear all comments and opposing views: I have been reading the Aeclectic Board for only a few months, but one viewpoint that I see very often is that if any meaning, interpretation, way of reading or working of a symbol seems right to the person, then it IS right, automatically. I find I have been calling this 'tarotic relativism', after the more famous 'moral relativism'. Surely there needs to be absolutes somewhere in this field, or as Carl Jung said (more or less) you just float from meaning to meaning, symbol to symbol and everything means everything. As an example, take Christianity. Now the Church has the Bible, plus numerous accepted writings, and accepted interpreations of those writings plus the odd bit of sanctified papal bluster. Now, I assure you, no one ever says, "well yes, we have this material, but you just follow Christianity in any way that seems right to you." It may be interesting, and it may 'feel right', but ladies and gents, it ain't Christianity! And, I will go on to say to anyone out there who is getting huffy and saying "well, of course not, Christianity is repressive and doesn't let you think and feel" that if you aren't thinking and feeling it isn't the Church's fault! The law for example is a reference point, within a society anyway. I bet those two boys who murdered James Bulgar thought that it felt just right. Okay, extreme example, but that's what examples are for. I think Tarot has reference points too, mainly in thw writings of those skilled in the field who have mastered its depths. Their teachings need (in my opinion) to be taken as reference points. For one thing, as an aside, it saves the llesser lights... and I count myself as one... from working everything out from scratch every time. I guess from this you can see that I am no fan of the 'if it feels right it is right' school of thought. On the other hand, it will be a strange day indeed if I was to put myself forward as a deep thinker in Tarot or anywhere else. Other thoughts?

Mojo	19 Aug 2001
Marion You don't think Christians interpret Christian theory in different ways to suit their own needs??? How then do you explain the difference between the Catholics and the Methodists? Between the Baptists and the Mormons? Between the Episcopalians and the Holy Rollers? The ONLY thing most of these agree on is Jesus himself. They have all provided wildly different interpretations of religious law and the gospels basically to suit their own needs. You claim that no one ever says, "well yes, we have this material, but you just follow Christianity in any way that seems right to you." What do you call the bible then? How many versions of that book have been printed and how many different "Christian" faiths follow each one? The only real criteria for being a Christian is that you believe in Christ as a Savior. Other than that, it's ALL interpretation. Same thing with your argument about laws. In the U.S., no two states have exactly the same law. Sure, murder is murder, but the penalties vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Lots of local interpretation going on here too. The writings of so-called experts (anyone can write a Tarot book) in Tarot are great reference points. But that's all they are - one individuals INTERPRETATION. I absolutely believe that in order to properly understand Tarot that you should at least be aware of the traditional meanings assigned to the cards. But Tarot, unlike Christianity or Society, is an individual pursuit. As such, it is vital that each person have their own understanding and their own appreciation of it. I enjoy reading other people's interpretations of the cards, and I enjoy sharing my own interpretations with other readers as well. But just because I've been reading for 30 years doesn't make my opinion any more valid than someone who has just been reading for a year. My approach works for me, but it probably wouldn't work for anybody else. THAT'S what I love about it!

Kimon	19 Aug 2001
Hello Marion, before all, as said before, there is never "the book of the books" (also not the bible), that is what humanity was and is always looking for; so there is no canon in any religion or belief which is followed always in the same way by different people. Some outstanding people though have had a deeper insight into the topics, and they marked directions (they themselves mostly thought they marked THE direction). For Tarot one of these persons was surely Aleister Crowley, and when you move within the system of the Book of the Law, the Kabbalah and his cards this will be a closed and all-compending universe. The question is whether you really want that and if it is not far more enlightening and more joyous to go beyond the borders set by certain systems, as bright as they might be. This is for me the main and supreme beauty of tarot and I dont want to have it smaller than it could and can be. Greetings, Kimon

Yarnie	19 Aug 2001
Personally, I think Marion is on to something and has voiced a question which I have had for some time, too. According to the paraphrased hippie philosophy ("if it feels good, do it"/"if it feels right, do it"), someone could decide to view 3 Swords as a blissfully happy card! (That would definitely call that person's sanity into question, but you get the point.) 13 Death? Aaaah...stability! 21 World? OH, NO! Catastrophe!!!! Every rule is meant to be broken under the right set of circumstances, but there have to be some kind of guidelines. I think that Mojo (his ridiculous sanctimony notwithstanding) hit upon the closest thing Tarot has--the traditional interpretations. The way one arrives at some semblance of those interpretations, and the nuances associated with them, is open for discussion; but straying too far from the traditional (and obvious to most people) interpretation makes little sense. As for Mojo's obvious acrimony toward Christianity (after all, he spent more bandwidth addressing an example, rather than the actual question/issue at hand!), take it for what its worth: "Two tears in a bucket....."

Marion	19 Aug 2001
Mojo, Kimon, Yarnie, Very interesting responses, thank you. Whichever of you said it, I agree that locking any system into completely rigid guidelines would be the kiss of death for that system. And I certainly agree that all systems need to grow and evolve to meet the needs of those who practice/follow them. Mojo, your reply definitely made me sorry that used Christianity as an example. In fact later, when I was thinking over what I wrote, I could in fact come up with numerous examples of people/sects and especially original thinkers who did indeed interpret Christianity in their own way. Some of these took it into new and fruitful directions, and some still send Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on our doors. I guess my comment was about boundaries, and Yarnie added to that part of what I said. I also withdraw the Christianity example... I guess that wa a poor one!

Marion	19 Aug 2001
Argh! I can't help it... I have to finish what I meant, at the risk of being seriously annoying. Mojo's comment was about interpretation of the law, and how it is different everywhere: quote> Same thing with your argument about laws. In the U.S., no two states have exactly the same law. Sure, murder is murder, but the penalties vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Lots of local interpretation going on here too. Well, it isn't different. As he himself said, murder is murder. Yes, the penalties vary somewhat, yes, sometimes rich folks buy it off etc. But behind all that, there are absolutes, boundaries, edges, whatever. Collective wisdom focussed by the insights of original thinkers have codified the laws. I guess what I am saying is that Tarot, and the understanding of collective unconscious, is not completely amenable to the idea that whatever you think it means is right. I think of it like a big swimming pool.... you are free to swim all over the pool, dive, do the back stroke or whatever, but in the end the walls of the pool are what hold in the water, and if you unheedingly break those down, you haven't got anything left.

Mojo	19 Aug 2001
Yarnie, your examples are so ridiculous that the rest of your post doesn't even deserve to be addressed. No one on these forums has been advocating changing the traditional meanings of the cards as drastically as you suggest. If you've managed to pay attention to any of my postings, I always advocate LOOKING AT THE CARD and letting what you see guide you in interpreting it. Marion, I actually like your pool analogy. Sure there are boundaries, but even those are subject to being redrawn based on what deck you're using (among other things). So some of the pools are rectangular, while others are oval, and yet others are kidney-shaped. Do you suggest eliminating any decks that don't follow the specific imagery set forth by some pre-determined "tarot master"? I have some decks with images that are so completely different from the Waite-Smith deck as to make one wonder if they belong in the Tarot classification at all. Does this make them any less valid? No. They are powerful and effective in their own right. Tarot has been practiced for at least 500 years and probably a lot longer than that. The roots of Tarot can be traced to the outer fringes of society - gypsies, gamblers, vagabonds and a whole host of metaphysical types. These aren't groups who traditionally place high value in rules or structure. Tarot belongs to the practitioner, not to some regulatory agency or some self-selected group of experts. There are too many Tarot "snobs" out there who, for some reason understood only by their own fragile ego, believe that Tarot needs to be something mystical and magical and understood only by them and a select "elite" of people who agree with them. What it all comes down to is what works and what doesn't work. If you limit your interpretations to something you read in a book, you are doing yourself and your querent a great disservice. Readings based on book definitions are usually pretty one-dimensional. On the other hand, if you let your intuition, compassion, and intellect guide you, you will have some really incredible readings. To me, Tarot is a passionate undertaking. Every time I pull out my cards, I am surprised, shocked and titillated by what I see in them, and it's different every time. And it keeps my clients coming back for more. Enough said.

Apona	19 Aug 2001
I think the symbols give people different feelings. So if it feels right...Prehaps there is no right or wrong way to read a card, its what the card means to the seeker, not to the analyzer. ??? Just a thought.

tarotbear	19 Aug 2001
I believe others have summed it up much better, but I'm going to add my 2 cents anyway.... If everyone was strictly obedient to what the Bible said, we would not be allowed to wear red, eat lobster, and women would be lumped in with cattle and property. If we all believed that tarot card X ONLY means X, then it would mean X for every single tarot reading now and forever into the future. Such a rigid belief system would destroy what we do...we are reading for the INDIVIDUAL...and all individuals are different. The American Tarot Association and it's related Tarot Certification Board are trying to set standards for READERS, but any concept of freezing tarot meanings or 'writing it in stone' forever and every and always...how boring!

StarShine	19 Aug 2001
To me, Tarot is like literature. I had a teacher in school who told us that we could interpret a piece however we wanted and it would be correct, as long as there were points in the story to back up our ideas. The only problem with her saying this was she had been teaching this class and it's assigned readings for so long, she thought that she had found and heard every valid interpretation. She used to get frustrated with me because I would see things that no one else had and be able to back it up. In Tarot, I feel that any interpretation is valid as long as it can be backed up by symbols, placement, etc. For example, I did a reading last week for a friend of mine and the Ace of Wands came up in the Immediate future position. I was using the Robin Wood Deck and in that deck, there is a band of what appears to be DNA in the wand. There are sunflowers behind it and a moon at the tip of the wand. I took these symbols to mean that there would be an addition to the family through birth. (Sunflowers=Growth, DNA=Bloodlines, Moon=Fertility) She called the next day, her daughter had announced her pregnancy the previous evening. In a different reading, it is possible to interpret the sunflowers as reaching for the sun or goals, the DNA to represent life itself and the moon to represent mystery. This card may be interpreted to mean that it is time to figure out what it is you want from life and go for it. I know that not every one will think that this is correct, but that is okay. They may see things that I don't in this card, but it in no way makes them wrong, it is just a new perspective.

Yarnie	19 Aug 2001
Well, its obvious that Mojo's mojo is missing, since he obviously can't identify sarcasm when he sees it. Heck, I was even agreeing with what content there was in his first post! It all comes down to this: Guidelines? yes. Rigidity? no.

Mojo	19 Aug 2001
Yarnie, I love sarcasm. Things like "ridiculous sanctimony" and "obvious acrimony" aren't sarcasm. Those are personal attacks.

nexyjo	19 Aug 2001
while many people search for absolutes in their life, i will say that i have not found even one in 45 years of searching. so i belong to the "everything is relative" school of thought. marion contends that "murder is murder". if it were that simple, there'd be no judges and juries. the simple fact is murder is not always murder. regarding the tarot, there are "standards" of sorts regarding meanings - the traditional rider-waite is one. if you need that sort of thing, it does exist. but i think the tarot is most effective when it involves interpretation by a qualified reader who will intuit meanings from each of the cards, which may or may not follow the traditional rider-waite, assuming one uses that style of deck. regarding yarnie's contention that without "rules", people could very well start interpreting the three of swords as a blissfully happy card. what about that card in reverse? what about those people who are only happy when miserable? what about the woman looking for divorse from an obsessively loving husband who never gives her a moment of peace? i can imagine she'd be blissfully happy seeing that card in a spread for her husband. and in a big way, a broken heart can heal, making room for a newer and better love - certainly bliss. as i've mentioned in many other posts, i see each card as having a wide range of meanings. certianly, those which are extreme, can swing from one extreme to the other. so in fact, the three of swords could very well mean bliss. luv and light, nexy

MeeWah	19 Aug 2001
All of the comments have merit. Actually, they "prove" the issue at hand, of which Apona seems to have expressed it succinctly; as did Yarnie regarding "guidelines" & "rigidity". Tarot appears to be subjective--subject to the individual's interpretation--but an objective view can serve well, as evidenced by someone other than self interpretating one's cards. A reading is generally a process "of the moment", as if capturing a moment in time--like that of a photograph. It is unique, not likely to be duplicated as life is constantly evolving so conditions do not remain the same or stagnant but change over "time" (unless a situation remains static for some reason peculiar to the subject of the reading). The essence or the basic meanings of the cards in a reading are modified not only by cards in their proximity, but also according to the influences of the moment, so I do not see them as "absolute" except in the matter of principles only. The moment may determine the applications more appropriately as to the trend, likelihood or possibilities inherent within that moment. Thus Tarot is not so rigid a science in that it is flexible, despite the existence of an order & a system to its concepts. It can be seen as a logical system with a natural cause & effect; however, though logic & reason can play a part in its method or understanding, it is not usually through those avenues that inspirational understanding occurs. The latter occurs when one makes the leap from the basic meanings to those nuances or associations appropriate to the moment, usually through intuition or tapping into the collective subconscious. Either means determine the range of understanding or the actual significances. Learning the attributes or traditional meanings provide a basis of understanding & is a useful prerequisite. Delving further into the esoteric teachings or multi-faceted applications can provide an in-depth understanding, enhance the interpretations of the principles. The process can be compared to the student artist who needs to master the techniques of drawing & painting before venturing forth into expressionistic or impressionistic artistic forms. How much one reads into Tarot may depend on the individual purpose or choice. Whether it is used as a means of knowledge, guidance, divination or spiritual development, the particular purpose of its use will largely have its effect in that way. The same cards may be read by different people & may result in as many interpretations as there are readers. This does not mean only one interpretation is valid or that none of them are; merely that different readers process the cards according to their particular view, understanding, life experience, etc, all factors which contribute to the interpretation. The proof of the pudding is in the accuracy or the timeliness of the material produced by a reader to the querent. Marion: The subject of Christianity is a good example of the many interpretations that can occur of the same thing ("same" being used loosely here) so no need to apologize! It is gracious of you to do so. & the pool analogy is inspired! Mojo: I do not find your comments offensive because I see you as taking up the thread of the discussion initiated by the subject; being passionate about Tarot. & I understand the discussion is not about Christianity per se. Nexyjo: Good point about "reversals". 3-Swords & I are old acquaintances & its meaning is not always that of the usual heartbreak, disappointment, doom & gloom. StarShine: Neat!! I've read Ace-Wands similarly, with the Robin Wood version & in a couple other decks. Ditto for The Fool; The World.

MeeWah	19 Aug 2001
Oops. Have removed inadvertent duplicate post. The PC or Internet is slower than molasses lately; makes it difficult to post.

Marion	20 Aug 2001
Very interesting and thoughtful reply MeeWah. Thank you. I also find something, whether the Aeclectic Board, the Internet or my server painfully slow the last couple of days.

Major Tom	20 Aug 2001
I can't really resist replying to this topic }> but don't really have anything new to add. Think for yourself - question authority. (especially mine) }> Works for just about anything in life - even tarot.

Kiama	20 Aug 2001
I agree with Major Tom: Always question everything you're told. Then question that question! I believe that life, religion, and Tarot is like Pick 'n' Mix sweets: You only take what you want. I mean, can a religion, for instance, truly be true for you, if you don't believe it withyour whole heart? Tarot too, as a spiritual, healing, and personal undertaking for me is the same: I'm not gonna adhere to some guy's/gal's rules just cuz I'm told to... If I believe it, I will add that person's opinion and wisdom of the Tarot to mine, but if not, I will accept it as a valid point, just not one I personally find valid... On Tarot interpretations. Many decks nowadays have basically the same symbols in them, so the subconscious will always work on those, so interpretations will not be too drastically different. However, for one person, the dog in the Fool card may mean loyalty, the other person may see that dog as pushing the Fool over the edeg: It depends on your expereince of dogs. This shows that much of what we see even in traditional interpretations depends largely on the interpreter's beliefs, and experiences. A good example of beliefs affecting this is with The Devil card: A reader brought up as Christian *may* see this card as sin, materialism, and wrongdoings. A person brought up as Pagan *may* see The Devil as letting your hair down, going out on a limb, and basically having a good time! And Marion: I'm not having a go here, but in your original post you said "And, I will go on to say to anyone out there who is getting huffy and saying 'Well, of course not, Christianity is represiive and doesn't let you think and feel' that if you aren't thinking and feeling it ain't the Churches fault!" The Church and Christianity are two very different things. Christianity is the religion, and does not evangelise, or brainwash, or force money out of people (Not saying all churches do this, but many still do.) The Church is the institution set around that religion, and pretends it is the be all and end all of Christianity. There are many people in the world who are bitter about the Church, but not Christianity. Like me, and many other Pagans I know who were rasied Christian,we are bitter about the way the Church controls minds, not bitter about the religion of Christianity which is by far a more beautiful and fulfilling thing... Kiama (Yes, you are reading clear guys of the old forum, Kiama has something good to say about Christianity!)

Yarnie	22 Aug 2001
Quote: Mojo (20 Aug, 2001 02:54): Yarnie, I love sarcasm. Things like "ridiculous sanctimony" and "obvious acrimony" aren't sarcasm. Those are personal attacks. Mojo, mojo, mojo... You are correct. The sarcasm was in my examples (you remember, the things you specifically pointed out as being so ridiculous that the rest of my post could be discounted?). Thank you for making my point regarding the need for some kind of interpretational guideline. As for the comments to which you refer in the quote above, those ARE attacks--on the bigotry you obviously have against Christianity with which you colored your first post. As I stated before, you spent more bandwidth addressing the tangential aspects of Marion's example than you did in addressing the specific question. Try seeing the forest instead of the trees....

Mojo	22 Aug 2001
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Yarnie	22 Aug 2001
Lady? Which lady? Mojo, your cards must be off. LOL!

The 'Tarotic Relativism' thread was originally posted on 18 Aug 2001 in the Talking Tarot board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Talking Tarot, or read more archived threads.