Court Cards (Shadow aspects - Personality types)

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 26 Nov 2003, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Rusty Neon	26 Nov 2003
We've heard of assigning Jungian/Myers-Briggs personality types to the court cards. We've read of Crowley's dysfunctional court family members. Now, I've found a list of "Court Cards and Personality Disorders - The Dysfunctional Families": http://thetarotist.crosswinds.net/writings/courtcards-personalitydisorders.html

jmd	26 Nov 2003
Thank you for this link, Rusty Neon... I have only perused the various parts of the site, and find that the author (Carmen Kehler) seems to focus much on certain especially 'darker' aspects of both the cards and the RWCS version's plausible connection with, again, some of the darker passages in the Bible. Makes, in terms of the Courts, certainly interesting reading and for further psychological reflections...

firemaiden	27 Nov 2003
Boy that was depressing!! Is there such thing as a normal person? Now every time I pull a court card to describe a person I love, I'm going to have to have him/her checked into a psycho ward?

firestorm	27 Nov 2003
Thanks Rusty! That was interesting and actually helped me in a few ways with court cards, which i hate! ;-) I like having "both" sides to the cards.

ros	27 Nov 2003
LOL very, very interesting. It works, but I think that's too nutty for me. I try not to learn those kind of things because some people would fit it exactly & then it takes too much energy to not focus on that when you're with them. Thanks for sharing!

Thirteen	28 Nov 2003
Quote: 2. Odd beliefs or magical thinking that influences behavior and is inconsistent with subcultural norms (e.g., superstitiousness, belief in clairvoyance, telepathy, or "sixth sense"). Shows that you can't trust psychatrity to be unbias. I'm not arguing that any of the above (telepathy, sixth sense, etc) are true, mind you; or even that I believe i them. Just that I can't see a belief in them as qualifying as a disorder IF other, equally odd beliefs are not also evidence of the same disorder. If those others are not included, then either the definition is bogus, or heavily bias and hypocritical. WHY after all is it a "disorder" to believe in clairvoyance, telepath or "sixth sense" but NOT a disorder to believe in Angels, the power of prayer, divine miracles or, for that matter, God? What's the difference between superstitiously holding tight to a rabbit foot and holding tight to a crucifix? What's the difference in believing in a "sixth sense" and beliving that God directed you here or there? And shouldn't a person be considered Schitzotpal if the believe every word or the Bible is true and reject all physical evidence (like dinosaurs) to the contrary? I'm presuming that religion is that "subcultural norm" but does that mean that if superstitiousness, belief in clairvoyance, telepathy, and "sixth sense" become that "subcultural norm" the person who believes in them is no longer suffering from a disorder? Once again, I've no problem seeing a person obsessed with such things as having a disorder--I just have a problem with the bias implicit in the above examples.

firemaiden	28 Nov 2003
LOL, that bothered me too, Thirteen. Actually the whole notion of naming "disorders" bothers me. -- as if personality quirks were something as nameable as those pinned butterflies in glass cases. Isn't the human psyche a free-flowing, constantly shifting product of our own choices and mistakes? I'd like to ask a psychologist, does it help anyone to have pre-drawn boxes to fit people into? Does it give any real insight? and does it hasten healing? or does it limit understanding and dehumanize? To have a label to attach to a human being -- they have bipolar II disorder, or narcissistic disorder, it makes us feel so much better, doesn't it... that person is a "thing" we can name...actually, a kind of monster -- that's why they are so impossible to deal with -- it gets us off the hook, from having to relate to them... and it also gets them off the hook for having to behave properly -- they don't need to be responsible any more for their own actions -- it's not them, it's their "disorder". And so what do we do with that information? Medicate? Call me an "existentialist", but I like to think we are constantly inventing and creating ourselves, who we are, and our reality, every second that we live, based on our choices.

jmd	29 Nov 2003
I agree that any typological categorisation of individuals has potential problems, and may take away responsibility from either that individual or his or her social contacts. It has, however, another aspect, which I would not want to negate. In the same way that a master artist may have clear names for certain tones, or colours, or surface smoothness, so too does medical terminology seek to make fine delineations between types of blood vessels, or corpuscles, ... or groups of behavioural dispositions. Even with the (healthy) application of the MBTI, for example, there is a certain categorisation which ensues... in that case, I would suggest that it assists one to not only maybe better understand how another human being addresses certain situations, but also on how to maybe better adjust oneself to the individual varieties which we all present to each other. Delineation of character may be as simple as: 's/he prefers to wait to see what others do, whereas that one over there jumps straight in and only afterwards sees the impact'. Already we can recognise delineation of generalised character traits. I suppose that I have the same concerns that many have that certain psychiatric illnesses, through description, only paint part of the picture, and we therefore see ourselves reflected in tendencies towards the extremes which are named, but, of necessity, not fully articulated - and how can they be fully articulated, given the vast differences as to how it may maniffest from individual to individual? But to return to the site - in many ways, it seems somewhat strange that someone wishes to spend so much time working out how illnesses may be applied to the Courts of the Tarot. But then again, it undoubtedly reflects the author's psychiatric interests - one hopes and trusts from an investigative or professional and healing perspective only.

Moongold	29 Nov 2003
Quote: Original sources unknown Magical thinking is a person’s belief that what he or she wishes or expects can affect what really happens. For example, if the person wants very much for something to happen, and it does, the person may believe he or she caused it to happen. Magical thinking can be indicative of delusional disorders. I agree with JMD that diagnoses is a tool that psychiatrists use to help understand, explain and treat mental illnesses, and they often use it with sensitivity and care. I haven’t got access to my books at the moment but in some ways the Americans particularly went overboard with the some of the earlier editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – which is the kind of bible of American clinical psychiatry. The DSM’s have been notoriously reflective of moral and social values at times. Remember when they classified homosexuality as a disorder, later to be repealed? They have also classified various aspects of “female” and “ethic” cultural and social expression as disorders from time to time. It is when this kind of classification goes off the rails that we have real problems. Psychiatric diagnosis came with the beginnings of major changes in the treatment of serious mental illnesses (by Western definitions) in the 19th Century but now, beginning with the influence of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy, just about encompasses all kinds of human behaviour :D. So watch out all you Magickal people! They used to lock gays up for treatment and they could do the same to you! However that is unlikely as the mental health system is so over crowded now you have to be really, really mad or desperate to get in. And being locked up is probably preferable to being burnt at the stake which is what used to happen. Quote: Originally written by Robert Assagioli In our ordinary life we are limited and bound in a thousand ways – the prey of illusions and phantasms, the slaves of unrecognized complexes, tossed hither and thither by external influences, blinded and hypnotized by deceiving appearances. Give us an explanation we often cry :D. I was interested in JMD’s allusion to the MBTI which is, of course, based on Jungian typology. Jung developed a particular map of the psyche or personality based on four functions which are correlations to Tarot suits as follows: Thinking (Swords); Feeling (Cups); Intuition (Wands) and Sensation (Pentacles). So it has always been just a matter of time before someone took it much further. This has been discussed a number of times here, I think. I remember such a discussion with Laurel when I first joined Aeclectic. Moongold

firemaiden	29 Nov 2003
Actually, the whole Meyers-Briggs thing pisses me off-- But the fact that it pisses me off, makes it possible for me to be put into the box called--"People Who Do Not Think They Fit into a Box." --I think that psychology has falsely seen itself as a hard science and falsely compares itself to medicine—to isolate a disease of the body gives you the power to medicate and cure, but to name diseases of the personality gives the false security of Science where there is none. Yes, okay, MB is based on Jung, but what is wonderful about Jung (Aoife says), is that he at least exploded the myth of the medical model -- finally putting to rest the notion that feeling one's head bumps could diagnose. (phrenology) By bringing Spirit into Psychology, Jung introduces a respect for that which in us will ultimately remain unknowable. In a similar vein, in tarot, we can stick to reading the cards as boxes, or we we can read between the cards, and outside the lines, which introduces infinity, and therefore, I think, humanity. ______ Edited to add: Aoife says: the trouble with all these 'systems' is that people will tend to use them to box in rather than as a starting off point to explore self and interaction with others. What she found interesting - when MB was done with the team she works with was how everyone liked their 'box' - herself included and it took time to move beyond it.

Moongold	29 Nov 2003
Y'know, firemaiden .............there were political factors behind the diagnostic stuff - psychiatry trying to establish itself as a profession. This particularly happened in the US. There was a huge battle between psychoanalysis and psychiatry and the DSMs were one of the later weapons in that battle. I think that the MBTI (built on Jungian typology) can actually be quite a useful tool in understanding preferences and differences. In some ways classification exists everywhere - astrology, tarot - as well. It is a characteristic of western culture. Ah........sorry....I'm stating the obvious now.

Moongold	29 Nov 2003
I agree with you though that we need to see people as not in boxes. We are more than that :)

firemaiden	29 Nov 2003
Ah Moongold, you say many interesting things. I also very much liked your previous post. That there is politics, and history, and culture driving the discipline of psychology -- and the history of psychology is something I know little of, and find fascinating. The essense of what upsets me about this MB, (and also of astrology, can you hear that sound? *Firemaiden grinds her axe*...) resides in this very argument which lives in the world -- that such systems ought to be (as you've stated it) " a useful tool in understanding preferences and differences." This is where my axe grinding grows louder.... as I see it, explaining our preferences and differences by anything other than a free personal choice, is a kind of cop out... we seek to get ourselves off the hook... so to speak.

Moongold	29 Nov 2003
Greetings firemaiden, I think the critical issue here is to see things like MBTI as tools for understanding but not the complete explanation. For example as an introvert I think and process things very differently from my boss who is extremely extroverted and talks all the time. As an extrovert I know she draws her stimulus from the external world whereas I come from some other place altogether. She thinks as she speaks, on the run, whereas I think things through at a deep level constantly. My stimulation is usually internal. Sometimes I am ahead of her, sometimes I simply cannot keep up with her. If I didn’t understand that difference, I’d go mad. She is an ESTJ in MBTI jargon. I am an INFP. We are direct opposites. This simply indicates preferences and differences, and helps me understand her and how to work with her. I know that is not all she is, and I am very fond of her. I first came across MBTI in graduate management school and it has helped me immensely in the work context. I see it as exercising great personal responsibility to firstly know myself really well, and secondly to understand as much about others as I can, particularly those close to me and those with whom I work. Frameworks like MBTI can be non-threatening way of understanding others. However, I would never give my partner the MBTI :D. I have other ways of loving and knowing her and they are very much based on other less tangible things. The key is to use these frameworks as tools and aids only, and never to see them as encompassing the whole person. My brother-in law has schizophrenia but I know very well indeed that he is much more than his illness. I have had MS for more than 30 years but I am much more than this illness. I was reluctant to tell people for many years because I knew they would put me in a box or project all their own fears on to me. Now I no longer care. Now as regards personal responsibility, yes I believe in it absolutely. There are some important considerations here though. Firstly, as individuals we have the right to decide what is our personal responsibility according to our own consciences. Some of us might think we have the right to tell others what to do but we need to be very careful here. Groupthink does not always mean moral right. Secondly, when we talk about personal responsibility it is easy to get into blaming . Sometimes systems fail and things go wrong. It is not always possible to blame individuals, though it often suits human beings to do this because it is easier. For example, it is easy to judge people who are unemployed as slackers but sometimes there is genuinely no work. If there is an accident on the factory floor it might be easy to blame the machine operator without taking into consideration his fact that his machine was not maintained in a safe way. What I am saying is that situations are often quite simple and quite complex at the same time. But to get back to psychology and psychiatry! Yes a whole range of political, sociological and cultural interests drives these professions and the history is fascinating. Do you know that American phamaceutical companies delayed the production of lithium in the 60's and 70's because there was no profit in it for them. Many psychiatrists colluded with this. Psychiatry has often preferred to use drugs than other modalities of treatment because it is easier. There are, as one would expect, many similar anecdotes to be recounted. In terms of personal responsibility, sometimes these professions do create dependency. Labeling can create not only prejudice but also dependency. I remember working with a client who had schizophrenia and she used it as an excuse for every thing. She even amassed $12,000 worth of parking fines which she tried to avoid on the basis of her illness (and succeeded too, I’m sorry to say.) If only I could get out of mine so easily. :) Like many others, I have quite happily used different frameworks to understand and know myself but rarely use these as excuses for anything. They are simply ways of understanding. In a similar way I listen to music and poetry to see beauty and to give pleasure. I use Tarot as a way of gaining spiritual insight. I have found astrology as the most complete way of understanding the past. I have very great respect for you, firemaiden, and I do not think we are very different at all in this. If I may pay a tribute to you: you are the most generous of spirits and rarely rush to judgment. Your views are always directed by intelligence and spiced with humour. This kind of discussion with you is always a pleasure. Many blessings ~ Moongold

firemaiden	29 Nov 2003
Very beautifully thought out and cogent post, Moongold, I have learned much from this. Thank you.

Marion	30 Nov 2003
Moongold, firemaiden, may I thank you both for a fascinating discussion. I have been the less than willing subject of some of these tests lately, and found the experience jarring. The results conflicted with my personal worldview and I cannot assimilate them. The MBTI I had many years ago and I consider it a valuable tool possibly because it seems to work, and because I have taken the views of CG Jung to heart. firemaiden, you bring up a point that has also irritated me many times over the years. People developing some system or other and then putting everything and everyone into anywhere from 4 to 12 boxes. The implication is that these are all the possibilities. One of the men at work introduced me to the idea of fuzzy logic. That mathematical system attaches probability functions to every point. What it means is that the mathematical point exists, but it's placement always has a degree of uncertainty. For example it is 84% probable that it is 'here' but 8% of the time it might be 'there' and another 6% of the time it might be 'over there' (depending on circumstances etc) and that leaves a certain percentage of time for the angels to do their work. The 'fuzzy' part refers to the uncertainty in the positions, also that boxes do not have hard boundaries. Now the application I saw referred to meteorology and weather forecasting. For example, when the wind is southeast in St. John's Newfoundland, the harbour is 84% likely to be fogged in, but with the same wind it could also be misty or even sometimes clear. The 'point' is southwest winds, the 'outcome' is shown in the probability function. I think that mathematics is the closest we ever get to the mind of God. I read that somewhere and believe it strongly. Try reading Gribbon's popularized quantum theory if you want to feel the world shift beneath your feet! I think there are very real tendencies that we individuals have, and it is helpful to use them as a step in the understanding process. But there is great danger in categorizing too sharply and agree with Moongold that the medical system has used these systems against vulerable people and to forward their own agendas.

The Court Cards (Shadow aspects - Personality types) thread was originally posted on 26 Nov 2003 in the Using Tarot Cards board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Using Tarot Cards, or read more archived threads.