Do you have to be clever to be good at tarot?
Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 09 Mar 2005, and now archived in the Forum Library.
| Aoife |
09 Mar 2005 |
|
To what extent [if any] is intellect necessary to the development of insight?
Is experience... life experience and tarot experience... more important than intellect?
Is intuition reliant on or connected in any way to insight?
What characteristics do you need to develop your intuition?
Is it possible to have limited intuitive ability but still be good at tarot?
Is it possible to have a well developed intellectual grasp of tarot but be a lousy reader?
|
| Grizabella |
09 Mar 2005 |
|
Maybe this might be better as a poll where the reader can choose multiple answers. Or maybe you should split the questions into smaller "chunks". This seems like a whole lot to try to answer all at once.
|
| Aoife |
09 Mar 2005 |
|
Lyric, I doubt such questions have any simple answers, if any answers at all. Its the exploration and discussion I'm interested in.
|
| snowy25 |
09 Mar 2005 |
|
In my opinion you don't have to be an Einstein to be good at tarot.
And when you study it with effort you will learn by experiance and make mistakes along the way.
There is no recommondation to have a sertain schooler level or degry you must have before you may study the tarot.
You just have to willingly spend a lot of time learning what it's about.
|
| Umbrae |
09 Mar 2005 |
|
Aoife: it all depends on HOW you read.
|
| snowy25 |
09 Mar 2005 |
|
Aoife: it all depends on HOW you read.
Shure it does but I think it has nothing to do with how clever the person is.
Just how you use your mind and intuition.
|
| psychic sue |
09 Mar 2005 |
|
You don't have to be clever Aoife, you have to be sympathetic, non judgmental and use your intuition. Life experience helps of course, but its not a pre-requisite. I believe everyone has a psychic ability and the cards are a wonderful tool to develop that. I think the more you read the more intuitive you become, and as Ive posted before, the cards history and symbology is very interesting, but its not necessary to know all that. Just concentrate on the reading, the general "atmosphere" of the card, and then let your mind wander. You will soon pick up on the "story" that is being told.
As with any subject there are people who will analyse it to death and look for all the "answers". I don't worry about all that. I just enjoy the cards for the wonderful thing they are.
|
| Aoife |
09 Mar 2005 |
|
Aoife: it all depends on HOW you read.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr..... don't you dare just say that and skip away!
I demand you come back and say more!
[i'm prepared to grovel.... perhaps we could negotiate something?]
|
| Eco74 |
09 Mar 2005 |
|
Intellect probably helps when it comes to finding the right wording to explain something to each querent. Also in understanding "the finer points" in readings related to certain areas of life or certain proffessions.
- For example being able to state the actual name of something rather than having to go the roundabout way of explaining what it looks like, feels like or smells like in order to get on with the reading.
It's not a "must-have" though at any rate.
Intuition is to me the main key to the cards.
Having one part of the card jump out in one reading and a different part lighten up in the next, only to have a completely unexpected turn in the one after..
Without this, it is still possible to be a good tarot-reader since I also belive that we "adjust" our communication with the cards to what we are able to perceve. (This is also one of the reasons there are so many decks out there, some of us just can't respond to a deck unless there's enough water in the images, or can't see anything in the cards at all if it's too stylised etc.)
An interesting question.. Maybe we could devide it a bit.
What do you use more when doing a reading, most used first, least used last;
a) Intuition (let's see what jumps out at me next.)
b) Experience (this card usually means the following...)
c) Intellect (reciting mentally from "the great book of the mind".)
d) Sensing the surroundings (ie bodylanguage, facial expressions etc.)
For me its a, c, b, e.
Any takers on this attempt at "rephrasing the question"? ;)
|
| closrapexa |
09 Mar 2005 |
|
Weel suga, ays a dumb blawnd Ah jus don't knoww ha ta reed this 'ere tayro... Ooohh, look at dem purty cards...
Seriously, I don't really understand the question. I mean, cleverness is something that is my opinion rather subjective and who is to decide who is clever and who is not. Is some one who has studied a lot clever, or some one that while he may not have a alot of formal education, has inherent wisdom?
|
| Keslynn |
09 Mar 2005 |
|
It sounds like we're talking about aspects of the 4 elements here.
Thinking/cleverness - air/swords
Experience - earth/pentacles
Intuition - water/cups
Passion/spirit - fire/wands
Really, I think they all need to be there to some degree for the reading to come together. I think of tarot reading as a major arcana activity. We're accessing big things. Thus, it breaks down into the 4 elements and it takes the 4 elements to make a major. That being said, I think that people emphasize one or more of these elements depending on their personal psychology. For example, I tend to lean more towards the air and fire end of the spectrum so my readings are going to have less intuitive information than another reader's.
I hope that all made sense... it's an interesting question, Aoife.
:) Kes
|
| Umbrae |
09 Mar 2005 |
|
Okay folks – for starters – what follows is opinion. My opinion. Nothing more, don’t get excited.
Styles of readings
Memorized Keywords: Much cleverness, cuz if you can’t remember your memorized speech, you’re sunk.
Out and Charlatan(cold-reading): Like the memorized keyword systems, this system relies entirely on glib cleverness.
School of scholarly stuph: Glibness is mandatory or your sitters will be snoring, “Gematia what? Golden what?”
Art interpretation: Discussing what you see in the picture and assigning images to context in the sitter’s life. Some cleverness needed.
Intuition: Using cards as Oracles. No cleverness needed. But you have to be able to communicate well.
Man…I gotta get back on my soapbox here…when you are reading, there’s another person there, if you cannot communicate on some level – there IS NO READING. All the cards, all the books, ain’t gonna make you a reader. You have to have some degree of communication skills.
It's why I hate books. Books don't teach you to care. Books don't teach to to 'talk gooder".
Now if you’re a charlatan (nothing wrong with that, one of the reasons I loved Mojo, he had the gumption to admit it – and his readings rocked), cleverness is more important than communicative skills. Same with keyword systems. Same-Same IMO.
But if you ‘read’ (use Tarot as an Oracle) for live sitters, you need empathetic communication skills. Caring about your sitter is more important than being glib.
All systems, used long enough, will provide experience, which accentuates a person’s innate cleverness quotient.
|
| Fudugazi |
09 Mar 2005 |
|
It all depends what kind of cleverness we are talking about, and what you mean by "good at tarot". Assuming you meant tarot reading - as most people have said, communication skills are necessary, as is "emotional intelligence". We are dealing with people, and often people in trouble.
This doesn't mean we forget the cards: good observation faculties, good lateral thinking, an inclusive and curious mind - these are necessary because we learn the cards by looking at them and thinking about them, and finding out about them, and seeing how they fit together and with other things in the world and our lives. Book learning? Necessary to build background to the cards, but will not replace good communication or observation skills. This is a re-run of the "learning vs intuition" debate, which is a false dichotomy in my view. Tarot's a personal journey and will involve many activities and attitudes to become practitioners who are in any way useful to those who come to us, or to develop our personal understanding of the Tarot as a spiritual initiation path.
One of the reasons I hate rote-learning of meanings is that it is just parrot-work: stupid and unintuitive.
As Umbrae wrote - practice is what makes us better readers, more intelligent readers.
Some forms of intellect - of the more left-brain type - can actually get in the way of a good reading - the reader's inner critic will be too strong, get in the way of intuition, the reading might be too directive, rigid or intellectual. A reading is not a university lecture. As a person brought up in a classic intellectual structure, I must make efforts to ditch much of the baggage when I sit down and read for someone. If I know their level of intellect and what interests them, I'll try and pitch my language and associations to that; but my first concern is to tune into my querents' emotional and spiritual needs. That's not found in any "how-to" books.
|
| Cerulean |
09 Mar 2005 |
|
I've seen with great pleasure over the years the development of ideas that an experimenter of guided meditative techniques has given with her use of different things for 'reading' tarot and oracles. She's more interested in the cultural anthropology aspects of Mongolian and Tibetian cultures and has visited the places, been a student and seeker for decades of what thinkers and people in the culture might do--and she's applied it to her meditive workshops for others seeking to build insights from cross cultural blends.
So, taking her as a basis, I'd answer your questions:
1. To what extent [if any] is intellect necessary to the development of insight? Is experience... life experience and tarot experience... more important than intellect?
Answer
I think the starting point is she had the right attitude from the beginning- she
had emotional intelligence, tact and sensitivity and a joy in learning.
2. Is intuition reliant on or connected in any way to insight?
Answer
I've seen her develop insight and respect for others; I think she had trust in her process of keeping a quiet perspective, observing, being less about judging what she thinks is the right answers as opposed to 'reading' the oracle.
She has an intuitive sense of reading tools; but her behavior in sharing her personal opinions and developed insights is to be careful. She will be careful to let the seeker know that she as a reader might interject insightful opinion. She will also let the seeker know that she as a reader might interject her own learning, background, 'insight' opinion if asked to elaborate.
3. What characteristics do you need to develop your intuition?
Answer
That might be better for a thread on personality analysis and Rose Gwain's book on tarot and augmenting one's natural tendencies to develop or strengthen weaker tendencies in the seeker or reader.
4. Is it possible to have limited intuitive ability but still be good at tarot?
Answer
I'd say maybe. To some extent, a good reader might be a great entertainer or fun or novel in their approach, a very likeable experience for the short term, but not a great reader for every instance.
5.Is it possible to have a well developed intellectual grasp of tarot but be a lousy reader?
Answer.
Yes. I can be a lousy reader and sometimes I have a silly notion that I have a hold on something resembling tarot-reading.
Best wishes,
Cerulean
|
| Sinner |
09 Mar 2005 |
|
Does all insight stem from intellect?
How can you define insight?
Can you measure, for instance, the rate of growth of intuition in a person?
What really defines a successful reading?
What about technique?
Does the same card mean the same thing for everyone in the same position in the same situation?
Do I really have to ask all these questions?
Is it possible to be really loving person but a lousy parent?
|
| tmgrl2 |
09 Mar 2005 |
|
But if you ‘read’ (use Tarot as an Oracle) for live sitters, you need empathetic communication skills. Caring about your sitter is more important than being glib.
Cutting to the chase here, Umbrae.
If this "caring" isn't working for you, all the rest is
dross....
Can't hurt if you are able to "explain" things in such a fashion that the sitter "gets it." (Of course, we're never quite sure about this anyhow...since the sitter doesn't always know what they got....sometimes it hits them later)
Sometimes, I am surprised at what people come back to tell me much later....weeks ....they will talk about a particular card and about a piece of "advice" I gave...Sometimes, I don't remember what they do..until they start to talk more about the reading and then I may say..."Oh, yes...now I remember..."
Being able to weave it together as a narrative....give examples...doesn't hurt either.
Also, I can't help but feel that life experience plays a good role here as well.
Aoife!! So many questions to ponder...I shall have to back up and think about them again.
But I do feel that one must connect with the sitter, have empathy, and genuinely care about the process.
terri
Also, reading for people "live" as opposed to reading for people online, moves the whole event to a different level.
At least for me it has.
|
| Diana |
09 Mar 2005 |
|
Aoife: it all depends on HOW you read.
I would go one step further ;) (just to annoy Aoife) and say it all depends on WHAT you read.
Aoife: Without common sense, cleverness will soon show its limits. Most people know what two and two make ( = four). But what does one DO with that 4? A guy with great insight/intuition will end up by sending a space-ship to the moon with this basic piece of knowledge (well, once he's developed it a bit). A guy with no insight/intuition will say "Oh. Two and two make four. That's interesting" and then he'll go on to something else.
|
| Lillie |
09 Mar 2005 |
|
In my opinion, (and it is just my opinion) that you do not need to be clever to read tarot cards.
In fact I have sometimes thought that you are better off not being clever.
Why?
Well, I think that the more 'intellectually' clever a person is, the less they use their instinct. They tend to over intellectualise things.
Reading tarot is, or so I have found, best done instinctivley, or intuitivly. Just talk and keep talking, let the words flow.
The more you actually think the less easily does it flow. It's all to do with letting go.
So, take your brain out of gear and let your mouth do the work.
Just my opinion...:)
|
| M-Press |
09 Mar 2005 |
|
I would go one step further ;) (just to annoy Aoife) and say it all depends on WHAT you read.
Well, well, well ...
what a nice little topic just before my bedtime!!!
Diana dearest-when I read this line, I honestly thought, that you were referring to THE ONE AND ONLY DECK, that REALLY deserves to be read...
or maybe it's my tired eyes and brain...
I agree that you need a bit of everything...
otherwise it's like asking, what is more important in making bread? the flour, the water or the salt?
intellect is good for synthesis i find, and synthesis has no limits in tarot...
Intuition, is something that tarot can not do without...
Spirit, communication, observation skills, life experience, tarot experience, it's all in the cake...
and you can add raisins or almonds, and/or hazelnuts, and sometimes maybe a bit extra sugar, and sometimes no chocolate at all...
hm...maybe I do need a little supper, before bedtime, after all... ;)
|
| The Dreamer |
09 Mar 2005 |
|
Does all insight stem from intellect?
No. I think some has to do with being able to pick up the cues to the emotional states of other people. "Emotional intelligence", as Helvetica mentioned.
I think some does stem from intellect. Putting the pieces of things together.
Some psychic phenomena in my opinion can also fall under the definition of insight. I don't think intellect has much to do with those.
How can you define insight?
Seeing beyond what is obvious.
Can you measure, for instance, the rate of growth of intuition in a person?
I think so. By getting evidence of how often their intuition has been correct. If they are getting more correct intuitive insights than they used to in the past, then it would be increasing. (Depends on how you define intuition, though.)
What really defines a successful reading?
In my opinion, one which reflects accurately the situation of the querent.
What about technique?
I don't know. I don't read for others. As many mentioned before, being able to communicate well seems to be useful. Caring about the other person is probably important.
Umbrae mentioned Mojo, some of whose old posts I've read. I agree that it's good when a charlatan admits he is a charlatan- but I still think that being one is morally wrong. What's really disturbing is that people think "his readings rocked." It's obvious that one can do a seemingly accurate reading having set out with the intent of fooling the sitter. (Unless the cards and/or his intuition were giving him true information in spite of himself. In a few of his posts, he mentioned having some intuitive experiences.)
Does the same card mean the same thing for everyone in the same position in the same situation?
That seems to be discussed here a lot. The answer appears to be, loosely, no.
I'm super big on not fooling myself, though, and for me in my own divination I don't allow for any fudge factor. That's why I use the much disdained "parroting of stupid book meanings." I am not stupid (neither are parrots, by the way- they are unusually intelligent) - but because it would be so easy for me to fool myself, I don't want to allow myself to do it by allowing more leeway in interpretation.
I'm assuming that if I ever read for others, my intuition (which has been increasing) would probably come into play quite a bit.
Do I really have to ask all these questions?
No. But I'm glad you did.
Is it possible to be really loving person but a lousy parent?
Yes. Sadly.
|
| Lillie |
09 Mar 2005 |
|
However, it is better than being a lousy person and a lousy parent.
|
| rainwolf |
09 Mar 2005 |
|
I think a post would be a good idea, asking what you feel is most important of what you listed. If you dont post it i think i will ;)
|
| Sinner |
09 Mar 2005 |
|
lol, dreamer I really didn't expect those questions to be answered, I just put them in to provoke thought, but thanks for the effort.
also, the last question was designed to be compared to the last two questions from the first post.
|
| The Dreamer |
09 Mar 2005 |
|
Yes, I know.
This whole thread was meant to provoke thought.
I like to take questions meant to provoke thought seriously. The questions didn't provoke much new thought for me, but they did have to do with things I've already thought a lot about.
|
| Aoife |
09 Mar 2005 |
|
It sounds like we're talking about aspects of the 4 elements here.
Thinking/cleverness - air/swords
Experience - earth/pentacles
Intuition - water/cups
Passion/spirit - fire/wands
Really, I think they all need to be there to some degree for the reading to come together. I think of tarot reading as a major arcana activity. We're accessing big things. Thus, it breaks down into the 4 elements and it takes the 4 elements to make a major. That being said, I think that people emphasize one or more of these elements depending on their personal psychology. For example, I tend to lean more towards the air and fire end of the spectrum so my readings are going to have less intuitive information than another reader's.
Yesss!
I'd add creativity to 'fire'... the ability to think outside of the lines, Helvetica's right-brain processing.
|
| Aoife |
09 Mar 2005 |
|
The importance of connection, empathy and communication... yes, absolutely.
|
| judylea1 |
09 Mar 2005 |
|
Don't forget that intelect is something one develops over time, no one is born with intelectual ability. In this way intelect and experience are linked.
|
| tarotbear |
10 Mar 2005 |
|
I don't understand 'clever' in a tarot reading context.
Cole Porter wrote 'clever' lyrics full of rhymes and double entendres ...
Female impersonators have 'clever' costumes to disguise the male underneath ...
Someone answers a conundrum and we say they are 'clever' ...
IMHO, to say you need to be 'clever' to be 'good at' tarot implies within the statement that you are making it up, faking it, or otherwise really don't have a working knowledge that you are using your 'cleverness' to cover your inability with - a 'baffle them with bullshit' type of approach.
|
| FaeryGodmother |
10 Mar 2005 |
|
As I have been reading this thread one thing in particular is bothering me. There's seems to be an assumption that being clever is a bad thing. By dictionary definition clever is mentally quick and resourceful; intelligent; characterized by intelligence or ingenuity; skillful or adroit with the hands or body.
Now I would think being mentally quick is a necessary trait when reading tarot cards. For one, when reading for a sitter you have to be able to adjust your ideas and intuitions based on feedback you are getting. At least when reading live for someone else. For example you may get a card that you immediatly think is a love interest or partner and the sitter says well no I'm not interested in or with anyone, you have to be mentally quick to readjust. Otherwise you run the risk of sitting there stumped for ten minutes.
Secondly I think mental quickness allows you to know how to 'pitch' the reading to the sitter so that they can get the most out of the message or advice you are trying to give. Everybody is different. How you say something to your seventy year old Aunt Gladys is vastly different to how you say something to someone the same age as you who loves the same things and you feel a connection to and different again to someone several years older (or younger) that you don't feel anything in common with.
In short, I think a certain amount of cleverness is necessary. But then I don't see being clever as a bad thing. I also happen to think everybody is clever at something. Juggling is clever but that doesn't make the juggler a mathematician. Of course, I agree with all the things said about emotional intelligence, empathy and caring about your sitter. These qualities are important but IMO so is cleverness.
Also, I think I work off the assumption that if you are intelligent enough to be interested in Tarot then you are intelligent enough to work out how to read.
Lastly, for what its worth (while I had the dictionary out) Is intuition reliant on or connected in any way to insight?
Insight is defined as the ability to discern the true or underlying nature of something; an explaination or understanding that displays this ability. And Intuition is defined as quick and ready insight; the power of attaining direct knowledge without evident rational thought or the drawing of conculsions from evidence available; knowledge gained by this this power So by the book, yes, intuition is reliant on insight. ;)
FGM
|
| psychic sue |
10 Mar 2005 |
|
No. I think some has to do with being able to pick up the cues to the emotional states of other people. "Emotional intelligence", as Helvetica mentioned.
Seeing beyond what is obvious.
Another interpretation of Intuition?
|
| jmd |
10 Mar 2005 |
|
For a most wonderful book on insight, I would suggest Bernard Lonergan's appropriately titled Insight (and I believe it is back in print).
In many ways, I agree so much with Umbrae's first post: it depends how one reads, and, further, as Diana said, what one reads.
But I shall also expand on these a little in mildly different ways to how these have been expanded.
In the opening post, there is perhaps a presupposition that insight is somehow required by the reader in a reading. I personally do not necessarilly agree with this. I have read spreads in which the narrative spoken was, it seems, inspired, but certainly I had no insight at all to the situation at hand, and yet provided insights (which have as a characteristic that these be meaningful) to the readee (querent).
I realise that the thread has already taken many simultaneous directions in answering the questions Aoife opens, yet for myself, it is not insight, nor intuition, nor empathy, that are of greatest importance in the act of reading, but rather imagination and inspiration - with the first allowing for transformations of presented imagery, and the second enabling that still small voice within to permit a narrative to develop.
|
| Diana |
10 Mar 2005 |
|
Diana dearest-when I read this line, I honestly thought, that you were referring to THE ONE AND ONLY DECK, that REALLY deserves to be read...
or maybe it's my tired eyes and brain...
Sweet Empress III: Do you know that for once I was NOT referring to any deck in particular?
*Placing a hand on a Tarot of Marseilles, Diana repeats solemnly: "What I just wrote is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me tarot gods"*.
I was just saying "What one reads is important" and that is all.
|
| Aoife |
10 Mar 2005 |
|
I should perhaps have embedded my original questions in a prose style which might have made clear that they were a series of musings, but I wanted to retain the pithiness of the thread heading.
Its interesting that discussion of the value of intellect often reactivates sore points. Perhaps, other than physical development, it is the one area that we have all been measured in and found wanting. It evokes iffy feelings about ‘failing to reach potential’... or worse still, ‘working to the best of her limited ability’....
Whereas assessment of our intuitive and empathic abilities, and degree of insight is largely subjective. “You are so intuitive” we’re told, and we preen with pleasure. Whether or not we possess the necessary degree of insight to look beyond the words is a whole other matter.
Part of the problem that I have in unravelling this stuff is the woolliness of language and concepts... another reason why I wanted to use the notion of ‘clever’ and being ‘good at’ something, in this case tarot.
But to answer my own question... yes, I believe it is vital to be clever to be good at tarot. But I think we have got hung up on equating ‘cleverness’ with intellect [as posters on this thread have said]. And yes, I think insight... by my definition, the ability to access the inner Self... is very important too. The closest I have come to defining the cleverness to which I refer is, facility with right-brain processing... whatever the heck that might mean.
As I said earlier, I doubt there are any answers... or rather, there are as many valid answers as there are people... but its the exploration of these concepts that fascinates.
|
| M-Press |
10 Mar 2005 |
|
By reading all this, one thing came to my mind: aren't all tarot people-clever?????
In my circle of friends & family, there are no tarot people. So, when I tell them that I spend significant time on these boards, not just to "take a look at my fate" but to actually have interesting discussions with very intelligent people: I feel I have to say that, to justify what I say...
What i mean is, that maybe tarot "outside the tarot world" is seen less as something that needs cleverness (people lower what they are afraid of), but inside our world, we are all aware about how many of our senses and our brains use.
So, and this is really just a thought, maybe all people drawn to tarot, are, well, beyond average... ready to explore things beyond them, to learn and to experience...
besides, I think it's quite clear, that in general, "our world" is filled with smart, beautiful people with very high ethics. Maybe it's not just coincidence...
Even her holiness, Diana proved that.... ;)
|
| snowy25 |
10 Mar 2005 |
|
By reading all this, one thing came to my mind: aren't all tarot people-clever?????
In my circle of friends & family, there are no tarot people. So, when I tell them that I spend significant time on these boards, not just to "take a look at my fate" but to actually have interesting discussions with very intelligent people: I feel I have to say that, to justify what I say...
What i mean is, that maybe tarot "outside the tarot world" is seen less as something that needs cleverness (people lower what they are afraid of), but inside our world, we are all aware about how many of our senses and our brains use.
I agree with most of the things you say.
Most people are very steriotypical about tarot readers.
This with an attitude of "If someone looks at a stupid cardgame trying to tell the future for money just ripping people off".
Once I really hated this.
Now I know they don't know better.
And I've learned you do so much more with your brains, giving and recieving respect (or so all readers should for I've come across people who would totally run over you if you read tarot differently, it not being "The way it should") You can do a lot for others and learn a lot about life itself.
|
| Sinner |
10 Mar 2005 |
|
using that line of thinking, you'd end up with the conclusion that either:
All people are clever so the aspect of "cleverness" becomes indistinguishable and therefore loses meaning
Or that everyone who does not read tarot must be an idiot because they do not understand how everyone else thinks.
personally I don't think its as simple as this...
|
| snowy25 |
10 Mar 2005 |
|
Sorry Sinner but this is not what I meant.
It gave me a big laugh thinking about if the world would look like this.
What a big bunge we would be LOL
Thinking all readers smart and those who don't stupid is not what I meant.
I was talking about steriotypes and how often people misunderstand them.
We ( as readers) do use our brains on a level that expand our scills.
That would make us mure clever doing readings but I believe a reader doesn't have to be 'clever' per se.
Someone who doesn't have the slightest clue of tarot looks at it differently.
What I did mean was when we use the tarot as a tool and study it very hard we do this at more levels within our intelect and our inner most feelings.
This combined with intuition that also grows when you let it.
Just like when you would drive a car.
First you wouldn't know how to use it.
But after some practice and lessons any one can drive a car.
Then you become an experianced driver and you don't have to be clever for that.
Just watch the sighns, the rode and you'll have to know where you are going.
It's a differend thing but I hope this gives more insight in what I meant.
|
| Sinner |
10 Mar 2005 |
|
Sorry Sinner but this is not what I meant.
It gave me a big laugh thinking about if the world would look like this.
What a big bunge we would be LOL
Thinking all readers smart and those who don't stupid is not what I meant.
I was talking about steriotypes and how often people misunderstand them.
We ( as readers) do use our brains on a level that expand our scills.
That would make us mure clever doing readings but I believe a reader doesn't have to be 'clever' per se.
Someone who doesn't have the slightest clue of tarot looks at it differently.
What I did mean was when we use the tarot as a tool and study it very hard we do this at more levels within our intelect and our inner most feelings.
This combined with intuition that also grows when you let it.
Just like when you would drive a car.
First you wouldn't know how to use it.
But after some practice and lessons any one can drive a car.
Then you become an experianced driver and you don't have to be clever for that.
Just watch the sighns, the rode and you'll have to know where you are going.
It's a differend thing but I hope this gives more insight in what I meant.
omg.. with all those spelling mistakes the message almost seems to lose comprehension
argh.
|
| snowy25 |
10 Mar 2005 |
|
omg.. with all those spelling mistakes the message almost seems to lose comprehension
argh.
Well excuse me Sinner, as you might know I'm not English (see my profile).
But if you still can understand what I've posted there would be no problem for you to READ a post as you do cards.
|
| Diana |
10 Mar 2005 |
|
(Pointing out people's spelling mistakes is not so cool. Even English native speakers can spell badly. There are a number of people on these boards who are dyslexic for instance and who spell words in a most delightful way. :) Also, non-native English speakers don't necessarily have English spell-checks on their computers.)
|
| stella01904 |
10 Mar 2005 |
|
MM ~ Agreed. Remember the "Roseanne" epidode where D.J. won a spelling bee and Roseanne said, "That's what you can do! You can spell." And Darlene said, "THAT'S where the money is". As far as whether intelligence is needed in a reader, I would say yes. Not necessarily a complete Tarot nerd (though I do enjoy the company of Tarot nerds) but at least the person should be perceptive and able to translate a set of pictures that could mean multiple things into a coherent and accurate reading. Cartomancy requires intelligence. Theoretically, there could be a "Rain Man" of Tarot, but I haven't met him yet, and even Rain Man was intelligent, it was just concentrated in one little area. BB, Stella
|
| Sinner |
10 Mar 2005 |
|
lol, sorry,
I guess that wasn't very polite, we all make mistakes afterall...
I was just distracted by the irony.
no offence meant to you snowy
|
| stella01904 |
10 Mar 2005 |
|
MM ~ It's okay, you're not excommunicated or any of that! ;) BB, Stella
|
| Fudugazi |
10 Mar 2005 |
|
IMHO, to say you need to be 'clever' to be 'good at' tarot implies within the statement that you are making it up, faking it, or otherwise really don't have a working knowledge that you are using your 'cleverness' to cover your inability with - a 'baffle them with bullshit' type of approach.
I think this might be a case of people being divided by a common language. To me (in British English) - clever means intelligent and well-versed in a variety of skills. A good definition was given above by Fairy godmother: "By dictionary definition clever is mentally quick and resourceful; intelligent; characterized by intelligence or ingenuity; skillful or adroit with the hands or body."
Clever, in that sense, in no way implies bullshit (in British English) although it can mean being sharp or intellectual ("too clever by half"). In the same way, to me, smart means well-dressed ;)
I am going to come out of the woods on this one.
Yes, I do think it is necessary to be clever to be "good at tarot". Not an Einstein, nor a bullshitter, not deeply knowledgeable (though it helps), not a fantastic memoriser nor an A-Grade speller (apart from internet consultations). But in order to convey common-sense, intuition, imagination, inspiration, empathy, right-brain activities of all kinds that have all been mentioned, in order to avoid Aoife's "woolly language" and key into the querent's intellectual level, whatever it might be, in order to cut to the chase and also get some depth and perspective out of the cards - then one must be clever.
You can't have a tarot pack without the swords, my dears...
Of course, that's only one of the qualities we geniuses need to be good at tarot ;)
|
| Fudugazi |
10 Mar 2005 |
|
for myself, it is not insight, nor intuition, nor empathy, that are of greatest importance in the act of reading, but rather imagination and inspiration - with the first allowing for transformations of presented imagery, and the second enabling that still small voice within to permit a narrative to develop.
I really like that, Jean-Michel. But I would put intuition inside these two, and I also think empathy is informed by them. They are the basis of all human endeavour. Does one need to be clever to be imaginative and inspired? Again, it depends on which kind of cleverness we are talking about...
|
| psychic sue |
11 Mar 2005 |
|
MM ~ Theoretically, there could be a "Rain Man" of Tarot, but I haven't met him yet, and even Rain Man was intelligent, it was just concentrated in one little area. BB, Stella
Its me. But instead of saying "42 42 42" I say "78 78 78".
|
| snowy25 |
11 Mar 2005 |
|
lol, sorry,
I guess that wasn't very polite, we all make mistakes afterall...
I was just distracted by the irony.
no offence meant to you snowy
I can understand what you mean with the errors in my writing now I've read the post by Helvetica
I think this might be a case of people being divided by a common language. To me (in British English) - clever means intelligent and well-versed in a variety of skills. A good definition was given above by Fairy godmother: "By dictionary definition clever is mentally quick and resourceful; intelligent; characterized by intelligence or ingenuity; skillful or adroit with the hands or body."
Clever, in that sense, in no way implies bullshit (in British English) although it can mean being sharp or intellectual ("too clever by half"). In the same way, to me, smart means well-dressed
I didn't know this so no offence taken.
I don't have a spellchek only a computer with internet, no extra's exept a firewall.
Love and light
Snowy25
|
| tmgrl2 |
11 Mar 2005 |
|
I can understand what you mean with the errors in my writing now I've read the post by Helvetica
I didn't know this so no offence taken.
I don't have a spellchek only a computer with internet, no extra's exept a firewall.
Love and light
Snowy25
Snowy....please....as Diana said....no need to apologize...Many here wish they could speak and read and write more than one language....it helps, too, when we know this....
I think Helvetica made excellent points about differences in usages for certain words (in English, re the discussions at hand).
When I think of the word "clever," I tend to think more along the terms of "slyness" ...as opposed to "clever" meaning a good deal of intelligence or as meaning one has excellent written or verbal communication skills.
I remember when I was first getting used to my sister-in-law's use of certain words in various situations (she is from England)...This was years ago.
We had many discussions...fun ones about her intended meaning, versus my assumptions as to what she meant.
But...there is never a need to apologize...Hopefully, you wlil see that once someone here is made aware of any differences (English as second language, e.g.) or difficulties with spelling or grammar...people at AT are most accommodating and understanding.
I feel that some of our "misunderstandings" also, may indeed happen, between and among speakers of English who are simply from different parts of the world. Hence our efforts here to clarify and re-explain.
Love and Light and Blessings to you...
And..
Keep on posting!!
The questions Aoife has posed certainly suggest that a number of variables are at play and the more variables there are, the more difficult it becomes to single out any attribute and discuss its relevance or importance without looking at the total picture.
I remember reading somewhere that sometimes we (people, in general) tend towards looking for simple or concise answers to the workings of complex processes.
terri
|
| stella01904 |
11 Mar 2005 |
|
I think this might be a case of people being divided by a common language. To me (in British English) - clever means intelligent and well-versed in a variety of skills. A good definition was given above by Fairy godmother: "By dictionary definition clever is mentally quick and resourceful; intelligent; characterized by intelligence or ingenuity; skillful or adroit with the hands or body."
Clever, in that sense, in no way implies bullshit (in British English) although it can mean being sharp or intellectual ("too clever by half"). In the same way, to me, smart means well-dressed ;)
MM ~ Well, I've lived in the U.S. all my life and I think of "clever" the same way! And as far as I am concerned, it is dangerous to put negative connotations on words like "clever" or "cunning" - this kind of thing stems from people who don't want you to think for yourself! BB, Stella
|
| tmgrl2 |
11 Mar 2005 |
|
MM ~ Well, I've lived in the U.S. all my life and I think of "clever" the same way! And as far as I am concerned, it is dangerous to put negative connotations on words like "clever" or "cunning" - this kind of thing stems from people who don't want you to think for yourself! BB, Stella
Oh dear, Stella, I hope you don't think I am either being "dangerous" or that I don't think for myself....
I do see the definition that Helvetica quoted as being the primary one in the American Heritage Dictionary...
However...of interest, regarding word history...from the same Dictionary:
Being too clever is thought to be unwise, and support for this popular notion may be afforded by the fact that the devil seems to have been the first "clever" one in English.
The source of the word clever is probably the Middle English word cliver , (found in work) in which it is said that the devil is cliver on sinnes. This means something like skillful in respect to sins.
Anyhow, semantics aside....being mentally quick, intelligent...are characteristics that I feel can be helpful in the dialogue of a reading, whether done in person or in writing, since good communication skills may help reduce misunderstandings....
terri
|
| stella01904 |
11 Mar 2005 |
|
Oh dear, Stella, I hope you don't think I am either being "dangerous" or that I don't think for myself.... MM ~ Nothing is personal here! It's just a message board, we're brainstorming...;)
However...of interest, regarding word history...from the same Dictionary: "...support for this popular notion may be afforded by the fact that the devil seems to have been the first "clever" one in English".
Are they saying that the first use of the english word "clever" is in reference to the devil? How would they know that? Maybe it's the oldest written reference they can find, but I'm sure the word was used long before...I smell an agenda...".. the devil is cliver on sinnes . This means something like the devil is skillful in respect to sins ." Aha! Just as I thought, tying cleverness in with a mythological embodment of pure evil! What better way to make people behave? "We don't hold with no fancy book learnin'. Now git to work. Idle hands is the devils workshop.". Got to keep the riffraff in line. ;)
Anyhow, semantics aside....being mentally quick, intelligent...are characteristics that I feel can be helpful in the dialogue of a reading, whether done in person or in writing, since good communication skills may help reduce misunderstandings....
Yes, unless you have Forrest Gump knack for things turning out well, you do need the old grey matter. Now I'm trying to picture a reading with Forrest... BB, Stella
|
| tmgrl2 |
11 Mar 2005 |
|
Yes, unless you have Forrest Gump knack for things turning out well, you do need the old grey matter. Now I'm trying to picture a reading with Forrest... BB, Stella
Sometimes, I think Forrest sits on my shoulders and helps me out while I am changing feet in my mouth...LOL...
terri
|
| Nevada |
11 Mar 2005 |
|
There are so many ways of defining intelligence, this simple question of Aoife's becomes complex to answer.
Intelligence is thought by some to be a single ability, and by others to be a combination of several abilities. In IQ tests, one of these is the ability to recognize patterns. Yes, I think you have to be able to do that in Tarot. But it can be done by more than one means. Some people are more analytical. Some people are good at remembering. Others make quantum leaps and don't know how they know. Others create new paths altogether.
So it's not an easy question to answer. I also think each Tarot reader is unique in the combination of abilities, and indeed in their readings and interactions with those they read for.
It does seem that some form of intelligence, however measured, wherever it comes from or how it's used, is necessary to read Tarot well. But I'm not convinced it's the same sort of intelligence that makes one a good math student, or good at building a rocket ship.
Learning to use one's intuition requires, I think, an ability to find the patterns in experience, to be aware and recognize where the answers are coming from, so you know which answers to trust. To some degree I think a variety of life experience is also helpful. The ability to understand people and their motivations. The ability to be compassionate and to communicate.
Nevada
|
| Fudugazi |
12 Mar 2005 |
|
MM ~ Well, I've lived in the U.S. all my life and I think of "clever" the same way! And as far as I am concerned, it is dangerous to put negative connotations on words like "clever" or "cunning" - this kind of thing stems from people who don't want you to think for yourself!
Great! And I quite agree - there are all too many people who don't want us to think for ourselves, particualry those in positions of power. And then meanings can drift, following the desire of those people to keep us happy unthinking consumers. Before we know it, we are caught up in Orwellian newspeak, where free does not mean free anymore....
But you can see how confusing it can be in ordinary conversation when people do put different meanings on words :)
|
| Fudugazi |
12 Mar 2005 |
|
It does seem that some form of intelligence, however measured, wherever it comes from or how it's used, is necessary to read Tarot well. But I'm not convinced it's the same sort of intelligence that makes one a good math student, or good at building a rocket ship.
Funny you should mention just that, Nevada. The person who introduced me to Tarot nearly 8 years ago was my then boyfriend in Israel, a very gifted mathematician...he used Tarot in an interesting way, trying to find patterns and discover if it worked mathematically at all. He also wanted to increase his intuitive powers, which were already quite strong, and he had emotional intelligence. As a consequence of all these qualities put together, he was quite a gifted reader.
(makes it sound like I was a mad person to let him go ;) - and sometimes I think I was)
|
| The Dreamer |
12 Mar 2005 |
|
Theoretically, there could be a "Rain Man" of Tarot, but I haven't met him yet, and even Rain Man was intelligent, it was just concentrated in one little area.
Check this out: http://www.conniptions.com/autism-library.html
|
| psychic sue |
12 Mar 2005 |
|
Someone has mentioned IQ tests. These are not really of any use to anyone unless you are trying to determine (most usefully in children) if someone has a learning disability or at the other end of the spectrum, needs special education because they are gifted.
Everyone has their own area of "intelligence" and an IQ test can tell you which area this lies. But that's about it.
I know someone who has a very high IQ (160) and his life is not entirely happy. He doesn't feel he can communicate with anyone properly, and was pushed and pushed by his parents when he was a child to excell. He ended up dropping out of University and now works in a factory - he is happy. He doesn't want a job where he has to think about anything.
Also, when he was a child he used to worry about things like asteroids hitting the earth - his intelligence was way ahead of his maturity.
So, back to the subject, if you are talking about intelligence as IQ - you obviously have to be the "average" of IQ (90 - 110) to read the cards, but that's as far as it goes.
Sue
|
| Adjustment |
12 Mar 2005 |
|
omg.. with all those spelling mistakes the message almost seems to lose comprehension
argh.
Hi Sinner, as you know here in aeclectic there is people from many different countries and i'm one of them so it is very normal to see spelling mistakes, just imagine trying to write in a different language, is no very easy. I'm sure people form different places feel that your spelling mistakes complain was also directed to them.
|
| psychic sue |
12 Mar 2005 |
|
Hi Sinner, as you know here in aeclectic there is people from many different countries and i'm one of them so it is very normal to see spelling mistakes, just imagine trying to write in a different language, is no very easy. I'm sure people form different places feel that your spelling mistakes complain was also directed to them.
Tara, just wanted to say I have nothing but admiration for people who take the time to learn English - we English are very lazy when it comes to languages, and expect everyone else in the world to speak our language.
I would not have a hope in hell of writing what you have just posted in another language!
Regards,
Sue
|
| Sinner |
12 Mar 2005 |
|
I guess I've caused quite a stir,
accept my apologies, I realise mistakes are normal, perhaps even common, but if the quality of comminication is compromised as a result it makes things much harder to interpret.
|
| Fulgour |
12 Mar 2005 |
|
Is it possible to have a well developed intellectual
grasp of tarot but be a lousy reader?
Not wishing to give any offence, but "lousy"?
That's an odd word, and reminds me of an old
saying... ah but let's not go there ~ eh?
|
| Aoife |
12 Mar 2005 |
|
Not wishing to give any offence, but "lousy"?
That's an odd word, and reminds me of an old
saying... ah but let's not go there ~ eh?
Lousy... colloquial term for 'worse than useless'.
Offence... not go where?
Another instance of cultural difference?
Always better to presume the best of others, eh? ;)
|
| Fulgour |
13 Mar 2005 |
|
Hi Aoife,
Here is my reply, given in the spirit of friendship:
You asked: Is it possible to have a well developed
intellectual grasp of tarot but be a lousy reader?
My response: If you lie down with dogs,
you will get up with fleas. ( lousy :rolleyes: fleas )
And in some ways I think this old saying can apply.
Developing an "intellectual grasp" based upon poor
information or imposed presumptions has dangers.
When I began to dig deeper and deeper into the many
underlying aspects of the Tarot, my main goal was to
be able to know enough to confidently move forward,
and not have to keep looking back over my shoulder.
Basically, to be "smart" enough to be able to trust my
intuition, confident in the authority of my experience.
Intuition is best when unhindered by second-guessing.
Anyway, that's my fleabitten 2 cents worth of wit. :)
~Fulgour
|
| WalesWoman |
14 Mar 2005 |
|
This is my two cents and worth absolutely nothing...
People can know everything that's been written on the subject and wow you with all their knowledge, but that isn't going to make them a great reader.
Some people may barely be literate to write their own name and be amazing readers.
I think it's learning to understand your cards and what they say to you and trusting your instincts, not how cleaver or smart you are...
I think learning to use your empathy, having some sort of empathy is much more important than cleaverness.
|
| Rosanne |
14 Mar 2005 |
|
Intelligence is what intelligence does- Love and enjoy The Tarot and try to be the best you can be- thats being clever.
|
| Nevada |
14 Mar 2005 |
|
I was reminded, while reading a favorite blog today, that Einstein said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
This in turn reminded me of a book I read many years ago on self-esteem. It was Revolution from Within, by Gloria Steinem. She mentioned how in school a particular kind of intelligence is typically rewarded and encouraged. Kids who aren't strongest in that type of intelligence are often made to feel less sure of themselves, in spite of being perfectly capable of learning and figuring things out. So some kids grow up thinking they're not very "clever" even though they are.
This was true in the school system my cohorts and I grew up with. Hopefully by now we've learned to not make kids feel marginalized by education? Hopefully.
We also all express ourselves differently as Tarot readers. Some of us tell stories, some are wonderful at entertaining. Others go deep into symbolism. Some are better at drawing clients out, getting them to interact.
Each reader has to find his or her own style. We all have our strengths and weaknesses, and that is just a way of saying some have curly hair and some straight. There's no right way to be, in order to be a good Tarot reader, except wanting to be a good Tarot reader. :)
Barbara
P.S. I couldn't recall the title of Steinem's book. When I went to Amazon to search for it by her name, my welcome page showed, at the very top, a book about Einstein. Talk about synchronicity.
|
| Fudugazi |
14 Mar 2005 |
|
People can know everything that's been written on the subject and wow you with all their knowledge, but that isn't going to make them a great reader.
[...] I think it's learning to understand your cards and what they say to you and trusting your instincts, not how cleaver or smart you are...
I think learning to use your empathy, having some sort of empathy is much more important than cleaverness.
You are confusing cleverness with knowledge and book-learning. Some of the cleverest people I have met in my life have been illiterate village folk in rural Africa. They had a radio to tell them how the world went on, that's all - but they were bright and could make sense of their lives, and of the world. If you are not clever, you can have huge book-learning, you'll not be able to make much sense of it or of the world. But when you are both clever and literate, then you can stretch yourself beyond anything. Those village folk know that, that's why they will go hungry to pay an education for their children.
As for empathy - is it an either/or? I would say cleverness and empathy and imagination and communication skills are all important.
|
| tmgrl2 |
14 Mar 2005 |
|
Nevada...so true....we are probably so different in some ways, yet alike in others when we read.....
I just finished a live reading....ending in tears (as does happen with many of my sitters)....not tears of anger, but of..."release" I guess I would say.
The process shapes itself as I go. Today, I first set out the spread, then turned up each card and read the position and then as I went I would weave the story together....
As I reflected...I thought of what jmd said about imagination and inspiration...I prayed for them a bit before I started....
I saw things today in some of the cards that I have never noticed before...Toward the end I pulled out Le Tarot Mystique...simply because I felt as though we needed more...(22 majors only) and did the two-card what do I need to see with new eyes spread....
We talked in between, J shared how things I said were touching her deeply...we moved forward....at the end, J told me the story...of what she heard and of what she knew she needed to do...
So, now more than ever, I feel ....
the event is a dance, one that we create together, one that involves different elements depending upon the cards and the sitter...sometimes more cards, sometimes fewer...
Sometimes, more of a spiritual focus, sometimes long range...at other times asking for more short-term focus and more specific day-to-day changes...
It's never the same. So...as I reflect on today's reading,
again, I say...I don't think it is a downside to have good communication skills, but it is truly the dance between inspiration and imagination as we move to the music of the unfolding images.
terri
|
| maks |
14 Mar 2005 |
|
So, now more than ever, I feel ....
the event is a dance, one that we create together, one that involves different elements depending upon the cards and the sitter...sometimes more cards, sometimes fewer...
Sometimes, more of a spiritual focus, sometimes long range...at other times asking for more short-term focus and more specific day-to-day changes...
It's never the same. So...as I reflect on today's reading,
again, I say...I don't think it is a downside to have good communication skills, but it is truly the dance between inspiration and imagination as the move to the music of the unfolding images.
terri
The answer... beautiful, simple and whole.
|
| peridot |
14 Mar 2005 |
|
I think that if I can combine the attributes of the High Priestess, The King of Swords and The Page of Wands, I would be a pretty great tarot reader. Right now I’m sort of like The Hermit and the Fool.
|
| The Hierophant |
14 Mar 2005 |
|
The Hierophant commands you to stop asking yourself so many questions which is amounting to self-torture, and STUDY. All that you ask remains to be seen. You have no control over it. Listen to yourself. Don't ask yourself questions. The Hierophant has spoken.
Regards!
|
| Keslynn |
14 Mar 2005 |
|
Hierophant,
Don't you know that asking questions is part of the process of studying? If we do not ask and think, then we become stagnant in our practice. That's what this thread is all about, incorporating all aspects, learning AND doing.
:) Kes
|
| Aoife |
15 Mar 2005 |
|
My response: If you lie down with dogs, you will get up with fleas. ( lousy fleas )
Oh Fulgour, dog-oracle is indeed offended! The wise canine, he says... if you lie down with dogs you can rest easy, safe in the knowledge that the canine early warning system will protect you from danger. :)
When I began to dig deeper and deeper into the many underlying aspects of the Tarot, my main goal was to be .... "smart" enough to be able to trust my intuition, confident in the authority of my experience.
I like the use of the word ‘smart’. I think it might have been a better word than ‘clever’... although its interesting to explore our gut responses to words... and how words can be appropriated. I have a particular affection for the words ‘cunning’ and ‘crafty’ and their original connections with wise wo/men. Its interesting how words acquire negative connotations.
|
| Aoife |
15 Mar 2005 |
|
The Hierophant commands you to stop asking yourself so many questions which is amounting to self-torture, and STUDY. All that you ask remains to be seen. You have no control over it. Listen to yourself. Don't ask yourself questions. The Hierophant has spoken.
Phew... what a relief...! Oh to switch off the drive for personal understanding...
But methinks you are a crafty old hierophant, and your intent is a paradoxical intervention.... Ha! A pretty ruse indeed...!
|
| The Hierophant |
15 Mar 2005 |
|
Old???? gees, you really know how to hurt a guy!!!
|
| Fulgour |
15 Mar 2005 |
|
I like the use of the word ‘smart’. I think it might have been a better word than ‘clever’... although its interesting to explore our gut responses to words... and how words can be appropriated. I have a particular affection for the words ‘cunning’ and ‘crafty’ and their original connections with wise wo/men. Its interesting how words acquire negative connotations. Miracle Mongers and Their Methods
"All wonder," said Samuel Johnson, "is the effect of novelty on ignorance." Yet we are so created that without something to wonder at we should find life scarcely worth living. That fact does not make ignorance bliss, or make it "folly to be wise." For the wisest man never gets beyond the reach of novelty, nor can ever make it his boast that there is nothing he is ignorant of; on the contrary, the wiser he becomes the more clearly he sees how much there is of which he remains in ignorance. The more he knows, the more he will find to wonder at.
Harry Houdini
crafty, cunning, and clever
1920
|
| stella01904 |
16 Mar 2005 |
|
You have no control over it. MM ~ Ahem! While I don't claim to run the Universe, the Muses, or any of that, they do respond to the investment or effort we make. That implies that we DO have some degree of control, and it is up to us. Telling someone to study is telling them to make an investment, and in time they will get the Response. But in the end, it is up to that person whether or not they study, practice, whatever, and to what degree, etc. BB, Stella
|
| stella01904 |
16 Mar 2005 |
|
Oh Fulgour, dog-oracle is indeed offended! The wise canine, he says... if you lie down with dogs you can rest easy, safe in the knowledge that the canine early warning system will protect you from danger. :) MM ~ Not to mention the fact that fleas are easily enough banished! My dogs are MUCH cleaner than my boss.
I like the use of the word ‘smart’. I think it might have been a better word than ‘clever’... although its interesting to explore our gut responses to words... and how words can be appropriated. I have a particular affection for the words ‘cunning’ and ‘crafty’ and their original connections with wise wo/men. Its interesting how words acquire negative connotations.
Applause! Although "smart" is sometimes used in an ugly way: "Don't get smart with me" "You've got a smart mouth" (Don't you just loathe people who talk like that? I knew someone once who used to answer "That's what I went to school for!" ;) ) ANY word that implies intelligence and/or independent thought has probably been demonised at some time, no doubt by someone with a room temperature IQ trying to rule over someone else. BB, Stella
|
| tmgrl2 |
16 Mar 2005 |
|
Applause! Although "smart" is sometimes used in an ugly way: "Don't get smart with me" "You've got a smart mouth" (Don't you just loathe people who talk like that? I knew someone once who used to answer "That's what I went to school for!" ;) ) ANY word that implies intelligence and/or independent thought has probably been demonised at some time
You gotta love it! Great post, Stella...
terri
|
| The Hierophant |
17 Mar 2005 |
|
You're right. I was being rash which for me means I was reacting to something ---probably feeling worked by the question and truthfully I shouldn't have responded to it---have to watch that in the future and stick to learning what I need to learn.
|
| stella01904 |
19 Mar 2005 |
|
I shouldn't have responded to it---have to watch that in the future and stick to learning what I need to learn.
MM ~ You didn't DO anything wrong! How does one "learn what one needs to learn" with no discussion? ;) BB, Stella
|
| Satori |
19 Mar 2005 |
|
To what extent [if any] is intellect necessary to the development of insight?
Is experience... life experience and tarot experience... more important than intellect?
Is intuition reliant on or connected in any way to insight?
What characteristics do you need to develop your intuition?
Is it possible to have limited intuitive ability but still be good at tarot?
Is it possible to have a well developed intellectual grasp of tarot but be a lousy reader?
Wow, what a list.
I just did the Evelyn Wood version of reading all the posts. Cursory would be a better way to say, I glanced at most of them.
I love the question that asks is life experience and Tarot experience more important than intellect.
How did you come up with that question??? :)
You are thinking like a profiler, it seems to me.
These questions seem to be hinting at another purpose. I did read that the discussion was what you wanted you to see blossoming, but I think that you haven't really asked the question you want to ask.
When I first read the list of questions, I thought, what about those math problems we used to do years ago.
"Rose and Johnny want to go to see the Easter Bunny. Rose takes the high road. Johnny takes the low road. Who ges to the Easter Bunny first?"
And I thought, well, what if there were Tarot questions like this.
Tarot Problems...that test aptitude, intelligence, intuiton and the like.
And it is funny, but your list is like this. Trying to get at what makes a reader a reader.
I think we answer the questions in much the same way as we are the kind of readers we are....
|
| Aoife |
20 Mar 2005 |
|
These questions seem to be hinting at another purpose. I did read that the discussion was what you wanted you to see blossoming, but I think that you haven't really asked the question you want to ask.
I'm intrigued!
I had thought my motives to be those I mention in post #34... but its possible there are subconscious motives of which I am less aware.
I'm fascinated to know what you think that question might be?!
|
| Sinner |
20 Mar 2005 |
|
After reading a lot of these posts, here’s my opinion on this.
First of all, me introduce a definition of a tarot reading
A tarot reading is one where the reader uses tarot cards to find information and insights pertaining to the querent’s past, present or future and communicating the insights to the querent according to their current situation.
Now let’s try imagining for a moment, the Perfect Tarot reader. What would he have?
He would: have full knowledge of Tarot and all the card meanings memorised
Have full knowledge on many other aspects such as Cartology, Astrology, general divination, Numerology, universal symbolism, myths, Religions, Quaballa, Philosophy of tarot, philosophy of religion and ethics, psychology etc.
Have incredible intuition: be able to accurately sense all influences around him and use all of his knowledge to produce advanced insights
Be extremely intelligent: able to link cards to each other using complex methods and so adding to the insights. Also be able to communicate insights in a clear and profound way
Be extremely receptive to subconscious signals such as tone of voice and body language in querent
Have studied and observed thousands of different tarot decks in the past
Have excellent eye sight and attention to detail
Have unlimited experience of life and of the tarot
Be extremely empathetic – able to connect with any querent to give helpful advice.
And more…
We can all imagine what a perfect reader would be like, even if its existence is impossible in reality.
Now let’s look at the other end of the spectrum: the most useless tarot reader. What would he have?
He would: Have no knowledge of tarot or of any type of divination
Have no intuition at all
Be retarded (minimal intelligence/insight)
Be blind (unable to look at the cards)
Be deaf (unable to hear querent)
Be mute (unable to talk to querent)
Be chained to a wall… (Unable to communicate through body language)
…in a cave (no life experience or tarot experience)
Have no hands (unable to shuffle deck)
Hate all forms of life (no empathy)
Etc…
Now imagine a line going from this, most useless tarot reader, up to the most perfect tarot reader. Where an average person would be, subjectively, about in the middle. A good tarot reader would be one who can be closely comparable to the image of the most perfect tarot reader and incomparable to the most useless tarot reader. The closer a person is to the perfect reader ‘form’ the better that person is as a reader.
Well, that’s just my personal opinion, just to put things into perspective.
In conclusion, it’s possible only to have one single trait that is necessary for a good reader and till be able to make accurate predictions. However, even if that trait is perfected, the level of reading can always be improved by improving all the other necessary traits.
I hope that makes sense
|
| psychic sue |
20 Mar 2005 |
|
Very nicely put, and this shows everyone that we are always learning about tarot. There is always something new to learn.
Sue x
|
| Dark Inquisitor |
20 Mar 2005 |
|
Now let’s look at the other end of the spectrum: the most useless tarot reader. What would he have?
He would: Have no knowledge of tarot or of any type of divination
Have no intuition at all
Be retarded (minimal intelligence/insight)
Be blind (unable to look at the cards)
Be deaf (unable to hear querent)
Be mute (unable to talk to querent)
Be chained to a wall… (Unable to communicate through body language)
…in a cave (no life experience or tarot experience)
Have no hands (unable to shuffle deck)
Hate all forms of life (no empathy)
Etc…
This probably has nothing to do with the question, but if you leave having no intuition off the above list, that person might be the one whom I would be most interested in getting a reading from.
|
| firemaiden |
20 Mar 2005 |
|
I should perhaps have embedded my original questions in a prose style which might have made clear that they were a series of musings, but I wanted to retain the pithiness of the thread heading.
Its interesting that discussion of the value of intellect often reactivates sore points. Perhaps, other than physical development, it is the one area that we have all been measured in and found wanting. It evokes iffy feelings about ‘failing to reach potential’... or worse still, ‘working to the best of her limited ability’....
Whereas assessment of our intuitive and empathic abilities, and degree of insight is largely subjective. “You are so intuitive” we’re told, and we preen with pleasure. Whether or not we possess the necessary degree of insight to look beyond the words is a whole other matter.
Part of the problem that I have in unravelling this stuff is the woolliness of language and concepts... another reason why I wanted to use the notion of ‘clever’ and being ‘good at’ something, in this case tarot.
But to answer my own question... yes, I believe it is vital to be clever to be good at tarot. But I think we have got hung up on equating ‘cleverness’ with intellect [as posters on this thread have said] . And yes, I think insight... by my definition, the ability to access the inner Self... is very important too. The closest I have come to defining the cleverness to which I refer is, facility with right-brain processing... whatever the heck that might mean.
As I said earlier, I doubt there are any answers... or rather, there are as many valid answers as there are people... but its the exploration of these concepts that fascinates.
I hereby quote the famous aforementioned post 34, in which the true intentions of our fearless leader have been explicated.
So " cleverness" is right-brained thinking? How about cleverness being a conversation between left and right brain halves, where pictures are turned into words, and the coincidences between the cards are noticed, and woven into a story.
As Umbrae has said, the cleverest reading can be dangerous without grounding in a deep heart connection, and risks wounding.
|
| Hazelsdottir |
05 Apr 2005 |
|
So "cleverness" is right-brained thinking? How about cleverness being a conversation between left and right brain halves, where pictures are turned into words, and the coincidences between the cards are noticed, and woven into a story.
As Umbrae has said, the cleverest reading can be dangerous without grounding in a deep heart connection, and risks wounding.
Well said, firemaiden! Or as my meditation teacher once commented: "I had to give up some of my 'intelligence' to gain in wisdom." She described how, when she was young, she used to wield her considerable intellect like a sword, believing that she should speak only the cold hard truth - and that it didn't matter how brutally cutting she was with it, because Truth was Paramount. Luckily, she came to understand how mistaken that was.
In Vajrayana Buddhism, the meditational figure Manjushri holds in his right hand a sword that represents discriminating wisdom. This is the quality that some of us think as "intellect" - the ability to see very precisely the specific qualities of an object, to see how it differs from others, and so forth. However, his left hand holds a lotus on which rests a wrapped text. This book is called the Heart Sutra, or the Sutra of Wisdom Gone Beyond. This represents intuitive, or unitive, wisdom - that which sees commonality, the patterns that knit things together, and perceives the underlying unity of all.
When people see the figure of Manjushri, they often focus on the sword. But, while that discriminating-wisdom sword is important, it's still only half the story.
So firemaiden, I agree with you 100%. If "cleverness [is] a conversation between left and right brain halves," then I think cleverness is 100% necessary. The problem is when we imagine that the conversation should be one-sided... that you need only one speaker. Both wisdoms (the discriminating and the intuitive/unitive) are necessary, I feel - or, if you prefer, both the right and left brains should be fully engaged - for a really successful reading. (Or maybe even a really successful anything!)
Hazelsdottir
|
| stella01904 |
06 Apr 2005 |
|
MM ~ Excellent! BB, Stella
|
| tmgrl2 |
06 Apr 2005 |
|
Firemaiden ...I agree with what you said about "cleverness" without the "grounding in deep heart connection."
So, could we perhaps keep the intuition/deep heart connection and think rather of "clarity" of presentation/communication as opposed to "cleverness" or "intelligence?
terri
|
| stella01904 |
06 Apr 2005 |
|
MM ~ I would think "clarity" comes from "cleverness" pulling in tandem with "compassion"! Don't throw it out! BB, Stella
|
| Emeraldgirl |
06 Apr 2005 |
|
"Book smarts doesn't equal street smarts" my dad always says and he is right to an extent. For some people the best way to learn is through experience to others it's through books and some need a mixture of both. I think that as everyone learns differently and reads differently that for some people the ability to memorise the meanings would be essential. For others who are in touch with and confident with listening to their intuition they may prefer to rely on that and rarely refer to the traditional meanings.
|
| stella01904 |
06 Apr 2005 |
|
MM ~ Just to confuse things further, the psychic, Witchy types were referred to in the old days as "The Cunning Folk"....;) BB, Stella
|
The Do you have to be clever to be good at tarot? thread was originally posted on 09 Mar 2005 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.
|
