Layering and combining various approaches to interpreting the cards.

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 25 Jan 2004, and now archived in the Forum Library.

firemaiden	25 Jan 2004
Dear Friends, I am beginning to be very amazed by the variety of different approaches to intrepreting the cards, and finding it impressively rich to take one card, and see it through all the myriad approaches. It is interesting to "layer" each interpretation one on the other and see what evolves. Here is a summary of the various interpretive approaches I've come into contact with so far. 1) Image Therapy My favorite : free associating with the imagery, as discussed on threads: *Freedom of interpretation cards *When the Image says it all *The Magic of a Virgin Deck Allowing the image to speak, specifically without regard to the expected/accepted meanings. There may be visual puns. The image may be quite literal. Usually works best (for me) with a new, or relatively deck, of never-seen-before-images. 2) Non-scenic approach The non-illustrated-numerological-elemental-approach. This is the polar opposite. I don't know tons about this, but I'm learning from the threads begun by the New Marseille Renegades, (Diana et all) and I like it. 3) Micro-blanco-bibliomancy [aka, the "cookbook" approach] .HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH :P :P :P. [please someone shield umbrae's eyes] With very specialised, or unusual decks: --I like reading the LWB, especially Lo Scarabeo -- most of the time, the meanings listed are so different from what I would expect, especially in decks like the Spirit of Flowers, or the Tarot of Dante -- the meanings listed for the language of the flowers, seemingly have nothing to do with what I'm used to, or EVEN the image on the card, yet, they often have a very pointed relevance to the situation!! I liken this approach to bibliomancy -- the LWB is, after all, a book, so the card you pick refers to a passage in the book -- P.S. This approach is something new, quaint and fun, after so much free associating, but I wouldn't recommend it to learn with. [because otherwise i might find myself in the slammer again] 4) General Body of Knowledge Approach I can apply the known general meanings, [essentially rws based, but not entirely] , and the meanings I have learned from reading everything on this forum, as well as all the tarot books I own 5) The Chaos Approach As explained by Umbrae in Surfing on the Wave of Chaos and elsewhere -- Reading with the cards face down. [not saying i can do this myself] [but i'm not saying i can't either] 6) Sentence Approach By ascribing one key word or phrase to each of several cards in a spread, create a sentence. (as we have done on certain game threads) A recent example - Hermit (wintering) - 10 of swords (snowed under) - Tower (storm - electrical problems) = " Sorry, snow-day, stuck at home with no power." This approach might also be adapted somehow even to spelling out names, Ouija-like, if the cards are ascribed letters or sounds. (Asking myself, what in particular I might have to contribute, while others are working on the non-scenic approach, and the chaos approach, and while the LWB approach is self explanatory, and General Approach is mainstream, I though I might put myself to sharing some of the thoughts which have come up in the - image therapy, and sentence departments, in some new threads.) By which methods to the cards speak most strongly to you? I am wondering which approaches do you find yourself favouring, and which avoiding? Do you like to layer and combine various approaches? What other approaches do you use that I haven't come accross or thought of yet? edited to clarify : interpetation of cards

ros	25 Jan 2004
I like to layer & combine various approaches. When I study I do whatever I got to do to learn the card. Grab any book or ponder on meanings or symbols on the card. I think also now (which I couldn't understand before) if you layer the card with number, meaning, color, one word, body postion, etc. you also only need one card for a reading.If we learn to layer our learning we can "learn as we go" & imply it as part of the web to each card & each reading we do. Layering just keeps our knowledge growing. Just some ideas.

firemaiden	25 Jan 2004
Quote: Originally posted by ros I think also now (which I couldn't understand before) if you layer the card with number, meaning, color, one word, body postion, etc. you also only need one card for a reading. Exactly!! with all these approaches, who needs a 78 card spread? Now you've mentioned one further approach, which I hadn't thought of Ros, the reading of body position. 7) Figure, face and gesture goes along with Physiognomy - face reading -- if you have a human figure on the card, you can take into account the stance and posture, gesture, facial expression, eye direction. As explained in French book I have somewhere called the Psychology of Tarot, or something like that, there is much to be seen in the direction of the gaze, especially with the Tarot de Marseille, whose human figures are so alive with facial expresssion. When combining cards, if there are a lot of court cards, you can see who is looking at whom? and with what expression. Quite a lot can be revealed!!

Moonbow*	25 Jan 2004
I would say I favoured mainly the shshsh..... I'll say this very quietly in case Diana is listening.......... RWS approach..... before joining Aeclectic. Which was OK for me at the time but I now use all the layers I can think of when I look at a card. More recently I have been trying to 'play down' the RWS approach in order to bring into play some of the others. I am not knocking the RWS but I need to put that to the back of my mind a little to use other methods. I'm trying to use the element, numerology, colours and body language ones more. Who knows maybe one day I will be able to use Astrology, Quabala as well (not to mention chaos!) Its getting a Marseilles deck that I think has helped this along and now I find I am using layers with other decks, whereas I never used to. Its Aeclectic that has given me the ability to do this, I have learnt such a lot here. Moonbow*

firemaiden	25 Jan 2004
You are very very brave, Moonbow* (your secret is safe with me). I'm eager to hear from the underground micro-blanco-bibliomancers.

Rusty Neon	25 Jan 2004
I'd like to offer up some additional approaches (which overlap to some degree): (1) The RWS/Thoth "yes, they can be harmonized" approach (2) Reading the RWS pictures via the glasses of Waite's _Pictorial Key to the Tarot_ (3) Reading the RWS pictures via the glasses of the Golden Dawn's _Book T_

firemaiden	25 Jan 2004
LOL, Rusty Neon, tell us more about the "yes-they-can-be-harmonised" approach. :D ooo ooo and more about the Book T. (is it dangerous?)

Rusty Neon	25 Jan 2004
Oh, firemaiden, you beat me to it. I was just going to edit my post to say that they can be harmonized, except for some of the more Thelemically-coded major arcana cards.

Moonbow*	25 Jan 2004
Quote: Originally posted by firemaiden I'm eager to hear from the underground micro-blanco-bibliomancers. Sorry Firemaiden, I'm not going to admit to that (even if I am/was one) That is just toooooo dodgy! Walls have ears you know! M* PS.. RWS and LWB in one thread!!!! she's sure to hear about it. I wouldn't like to be in your shoes FM

Rusty Neon	25 Jan 2004
Quote: Originally posted by firemaiden LOL, Rusty Neon, tell us more about the "yes-they-can-be-harmonised" approach. :D ooo ooo and more about the Book T. (is it dangerous?) The Golden Dawn's manuscript _Book T_ is the single most useful book, apart from Waite's own book, to decoding the pictures of the RWS minor arcana. However, I don't adhere to or follow occult philosophy; it's strictly only to understand the RWS minor arcana pictures. The fact that you need to read GD manuscripts to understand the RWS deck from the creators' approach is turning me towards the Tarot de Marseille. It's too bad that the RWS deck, when it was created in 1910, didn't use: Tarot de Marseille patterned major arcana; and minor arcana pictures based on Number + Element meanings rather than pictures that illustrate GD card meanings.

Cerulean	25 Jan 2004
My original answer turns out to be confusing and the links too varied. I can be clear how I set the stage, but each reading involves too many different factors , depending on the question and the deck chosen. It's all too new to me right now. I have a variety of approaches that intermingle with setting the stage and closing the circle of the reading with feedback. And at the moment, I link the steps to closely together as a process to simply and separately focus on 'what happens on the stage' once the cards are on the table. I think it's partially because of my developing how to work on card readings, it's not as advanced or well-known to me as my writing and art process. Thanks for the question...

Macavity	25 Jan 2004
The comparative tarot method (qv) A specific (or explicit?) variation of [4] perhaps? i.e. "... after contemplating and working with so many different decks, over time, something amazing occurs: when you plunk down the Seven of Swords from the Rider-Waite, you'll also "see" the Seven of Swords from... [list of other decks] " And it works too... :D Also the various Correspondence Systems No? (a) (pre?) "Historical" i.e. Hebrew Alphabet? Sol in Sign and planets? (b) "Similar meanings" (e.g. Haindl/Pollack with Runes and I-Ching) (c) "End point matching" (Being REALLY disrespectful!) Crowley's Astrology? }) Finally, using the cards as simple bearers... suggesting exotic ideas e.g. meditation or evocation subjects - Goetic Daemons, Enochian Angels, Genii of Qliphoth etc. Macavity

firemaiden	25 Jan 2004
Correspondances. Hey Macavity, you beat me to it. I was remembering that I have forgotten about all the correspondances that I have neglected to learn. (Could it be selective memory?) My least favorite of all these as you all know by now (can we say "bandwagon?") is the astrological. Circular logic, I call it. (Lets look up what sign we are, then find out what card corresponds to that sign, and then read the card meaning according to the pre-packaged blurb on the sign, instead of according to the pre-packaged blurb on the tarot card)....

firemaiden	25 Jan 2004
LOL, Mari. It is not the preparation for reading (setting the stage ) which interests me in this thread, but the actual interpreting of the cards --Everything that happens AFTER all those things you have written about. You have led us up to the moment of interpretation -- you have your spread, your deck, etc. and now you are ready to begin reading your story from the cards. This is the part I want to hear about. The cards speak to you somehow. Do they speak to you through the images? Do they speak to you through numerology? Do they speak to you through verbal associations? Through mysterious channels that you cannot explain? You have helped me to understand what was not clear about my question, so I have gone back to edit it a bit. Thank you.

The Layering and combining various approaches to interpreting the cards. thread was originally posted on 25 Jan 2004 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.