Tarot in the Abstract
Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 13 Nov 2003, and now archived in the Forum Library.
| punchinella |
13 Nov 2003 |
|
Hi everybody. In an experimental thread in the reading exchange ('to be or not to be') a question was just brought up which I've been thinking about lately. When I draw a card: am I drawing precisely that particular card from that particular deck & no other, or am I drawing, say, Judgment or Death or 5 of Pentacles in the 'abstract' . . . Is the physical card itself, with its own distinctive symbolism, merely one manifestation of a central, as Diana terms it (see below) 'immutable'? Does Tarot with a capital T exist beyond the deck of the moment, &/or the moment itself? Well, not to turn this into an angels on the head of a pin sort of thing, I guess my real question is practical in nature: how to read. --The Judgment card in front of me, or a mental conglomerate of all the different Judgment cards, in all the decks I've ever seen?
Here are Diana's words (from 'to be or not to be'):
"Tarot is Tarot. How can it change and alter according to a deck? It seems to me that Tarot is more of an immutable nature."
--Hmmn, I'm wondering if this view might explain her incredible/(in)famous preference for unillustrated pips :eek: !!! --She's just got all those cards lined up & organized, in perfect immutability, in her mind, hasn't she!
Well, seriously, it is occuring to me as I write this that right/left brain dominance issues might explain a variety of responses to the question.
:D:
P.
|
| Rusty Neon |
13 Nov 2003 |
|
I'd say that if you draw a card, say the 7 of Cups, with tarot deck X, you have drawn a deck X 7 of Cups, rather than an abstract 7 of Cups. However, you are certainly free to use 7 of Cups meanings based on your mental deck, the images of the X deck card, the images of corresponding cards from other decks, etc. From such analysis, you may (and it's not unreasonable) begin to visualize what appears to be an abstract 7 of Cups. At the same time, you might also visualize abstract Concepts or Archetypes corresponding to various of the keywords represented by the 7 of Cups, e.g., Deception, Illusion, Confusion, etc. Personally, I see those Concepts or Archetypes more strongly than I see an abstract card.
I see the drawn 7 of Cups as a deck X 7 of Cups rather than an abstract 7 of Cups, because, to my mind, it's extremely unlikely that, if you had decided to use a different deck for that particular throw and position, you would have got precisely a 7 of Cups with that deck.
|
| Alex |
13 Nov 2003 |
|
It's not the card drawn, but the reader's interpretation of the card drawn, that constitutes the "reading".
Illustrated pips are usefull insofar as they are used as adds to start associations. Nothing more. Nothing less.
The pictures do limit the reading mostly for the ones who only see pictures in them. But decks such as the Waite-based ones have a complex symbology printed "within the lines" if you study them carefully. Triangles, squares, circles, spirals, symbols for male and female, astrological associations etc. If you are acquainted with such symbolism, you have several layers of meanings from which you can start on your interpretation. These, I think, I meant to widen the range of possibilities, rather than restrict them. And the more you widen the range of meanings of each card, the less it will matter, which deck you're using.
Hope I've been precise, yet it's almost midnight and I'm sleepy.
Alex.
|
| jmd |
13 Nov 2003 |
|
Firstly, to resolve the question as to the number of angels which can dance on a pin-head. The answer is clear, and will depend on the size of the pin - for a standard small pin, it will be Alef null, larger surface areas will be proportional multiples of this :)).
Now for the more difficult question.
There is an obvious sense in which the card that is drawn is drawn at a specific time, by a specific individual, from a specific deck, in specific circumstances. In this sense, the card will be seen, understood and interpreted according to the individual, the situation and the deck. Similarly, the ripples upon the surface of water may awaken one's divinatory senses.
There is another question, however, which is also part of this. In that, the seven of cups, to re-use the example, is the seven of cups. It may be depicted in ways which deviate in various ways from the archetypal Seven Cups - but it remains an expression or manifestation of it.
The differences, then, are whether one is discussing what happens in a specific reading; or whether the Ür-form of the Seven Cups is being discussed. Whether, in other words, specific depictions, whether these be leaf growth, vine, cloud of person depicted upon a specific deck unveils the meaning at the time; or whether the card, as a specific card irrespective of the deck is being investigated, explained or narrated. In each case, I would nonetheless suggest, the archetypal Seven Cups is also present.
Of course, many may disagree...
[ps - i wrote this prior to alex's and rusty neon's second post, but left the computer without posting... i thought i wouldn't change it]
|
| Cerulean |
14 Nov 2003 |
|
Rusty Neon, I'm trying to grasp your question so I can answer from my perspective.
I believe there is a difference between viewing the Major Archana and Minors in abstract meanings and specific meanings.
In terms of Judgment, I start my definition of Judgment as card twenty of the 22 Trumps. In my eyes, this is stage 20 in an allegorical walk with a certain card set in mind--from the Major Arcana that evolved from the game of Trumps in early Renaissance times. If I fast forward, I believe Judgment in most decks that I would call 'standard tarot' today is card twenty.
As stage 20 of the Major Arcana, I find in the abstract it does have a similar meaning to what I call traditional. The meaning that came over time that I seem to see in my mind is a kind of Christianized Resurrection, a last judgment when souls will take on a semblance of a physical body when the Angel sounds his celestial horn.
But modern tarots from the early 1910 Rider Waite did a renumbering of the majors, so the ordering and meanings of decks related to Rider Waite, I think changed the abstract meaning of some cards. The traditional ordering for position eight of the Majors before 1910 to me is Justice, not Strength/Fortitude. Strength and Fortitude are 11 in traditional decks.
And for me, the art that illustrates the major arcana concept may affect my interpretation--back to card 20. My interpretion of Judgment might be more joyful as a welcome awakening or an awe-filled blast of a powerful resurrection. The quiet modern Hudes is quite different than the traditional decks say, Convers Marseilles, or Italian Di Gumppenberg or Dotti Tarocco.
I don't know if I'm explaining myself well and I think I better close for now. Sorry if I don't make sense or I misread your question.
Mari H.
|
| Star Spirit |
14 Nov 2003 |
|
Interesting question. It really depends on how you choose to look at it. On one hand, tarot is tarot. On the other hand...with different decks you sometimes explore different realms and therefore it is in a constant transformation.
P.S. The theory Plato talks about there is something that goes through my head a lot. It's interesting to see that someone wondered the same things I do. I really should read more :>
|
| Jenny-Li |
14 Nov 2003 |
|
Does it really matter?
In my case, every deck I've ever worked with - heck, every deck I've ever seen! - has helped me to evolve and gain insight of the depth of the archetypes inherit in the cards. Because they all show things from different perspectives, which means they deepen the understanding. Regardless of what card you use, if you can't see beneath the cardboard - it's just flat. You will need to use everything you've ever learned to get a nuanced view.
Edited to clarify: So what I'm saying is - every deck I've ever worked with/seen is present in every reading I ever do, regardless of what deck I'm actually using. The best deck for me to use is the one that makes it easier for me to make the connections. So well, I guess that means I'm saying you draw the universal meaning of the Judgement, because once you've started learning from several sources (be it different decks, books, discussions, or just different ways of working/playing with the cards), there's not really any way back to the one-sided perspective. Even if you wanted to.
Just my 2 cents.
Jenny :)
|
| Umbrae |
14 Nov 2003 |
|
Originally posted by Ravenswing
In a cafe, I saw a woman who took 22 packets of sweet n low, wrote numbers from 0 to 21 on them and spent the night doing readings. She wouldgrab them in her left hand and throw them high up into the air, sometimes even hitting the ceiling.
She used the ones that landed on the table for the reading-- reading them where they landed. If they landed with the number down, she read it as reversed; but other than flipping those over, she never moved them.
it was incredible. and accurate-- dead on.
never saw her again, but it was something that you'd never forget
fly well
Raven
Reading is not about the deck. Reading is not about memorization. Reading is not about pips, illustrated or not. Reading is not about cardboard.
Reading is about communicating with the divine, for the aid of another. We use Tarot as a tool, as a conduit.
So when I pick up a tool – if I’m in the zone…I may look at Justice and talk about tree frogs…
|
The Tarot in the Abstract thread was originally posted on 13 Nov 2003 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.
|
