Tips for reading with the Marseilles

stella01904 said:

Falling back on Joseph Campbell here:
When you think in historical terms: France, time period, the Church, etc. etc. you are reading the denotation.
When you think in terms of what these pictures allude to, the ideas that the makers used this set of available symbols to put across, you are reading the connotation.
The connotation is perennial and universal and not confined to the cultural and historical inflections. There are things, for instance, that dovetail nicely with Eastern ideas, whether the makers intended this or not. (Most likely not!)

Click to expand...

Falling back on René Guénon here:

"...it is necessary to stress from the outset one point of particular importance, in order to dispel certain confusions that are unhappily all too frequent today, namely the fundamental difference between 'synthesis' and 'syncretism'. Syncretism consists in assembling from the outside a number of more or less incongruous elements, which, when so regarded, can never be truly unified; in short, it is a kind of eclecticism, with all the fragmentariness and incoherence that this implies. Syncretism, then, is something purely outward and superficial; the elements taken from every quarter and put together in this way can never amount to anything more than borrowings that are incapable of being effectively integrated into a doctrine worthy of the name.

Synthesis on the other hand is carried out essentially from within, by which we mean that it properly consists in envisaging things in the unity of their principle, in seeing how they derived from and depend on that principle, and thus uniting them - or rather becoming aware of their real unity - by virtue of a wholly inward bond, inherent in what is most profound in their nature."1

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, a good deal of the "perennial and universal" new-age 'warm fuzzy feeling' ideas being hawked out there are of the syncretic variety, targeted more at people's hearts (and wallets) than their heads.

Real synthesis involves an in-depth understanding of all elements to be 'synthesized' and that's more scholarship than most folks care to undertake.



Again René Guénon:

"The fact is that people too often tend to think that if a symbolical meaning is admitted, the literal or historical sense must be rejected; such a view can only result from unawareness of the law of correspondence that is the very foundation of all symbolism."2

Click to expand...

I think we can also safely say that people, especially beginning tarot people, tend to think if a literal or historical meaning is admitted, the symbolical sense must be rejected; again, such a view can only result from unawareness of the law of correspondence that is the very foundation of all symbolism, and, of course, the craft and method of predictive divination and magic.




Cheers,



1. Guénon, René, The Symbolism of the Cross (1931), trans. by Angus Macnad. Sophia Perennis, Hillsdale NY, 2004. pp. 2

2. pp. 4.

Melanchollic said:

Unfortunately, a good deal of the "perennial and universal" new-age 'warm fuzzy feeling' ideas being hawked out there are of the syncretic variety, targeted more at people's hearts (and wallets) than their heads.

Real synthesis involves an in-depth understanding of all elements to be 'synthesized' and that's more scholarship than most folks care to undertake.

Click to expand...

There are all sorts of warm & fuzzy authors out there. I tend not to go for those authors.....

If a person is serious about a subject sooner or later you move away from the fluff bunny authors.....

mac22

Why can't we all get along?

Paul said:

Why can't we all get along?

Click to expand...

How interesting would that be?

-----------

I do take issue, philosophically, with the approach that Melancholic is so strongly proposing. Namely, the issue at hand seems to be that there is The Way To Read Tarot, or even more disturbing, the notion that The Cards somehow know how to speak a language and tell you what you need to know seems to be buried in the arguement. I know that I will be in the minority here when I say that the tarot reading is best used as a self-reflexive tool rather than a tool of "divination". You tarot deck doesn't know if he really loves you, but you probably do know this, somewhere within yourself. A tarot reading can help you to find that answer, if you open yourself up to it.

Here's the secret: Any collection of cards can help you arrive at the right answer. It doesn't matter if your spread includes XIII or XXI (or both, or neither) the cards you pull are merely starting points for your "meditation" on the issue at hand. No spirits, no pixie dust, no "bibbidi-bobbidi-boo".

Now I'm all for snychronicity- I just don't think that it manifests in such obvious ways. I could be wrong, or I could just be too poor a reader to have experienced it often enough to convince me... But so far, I haven't seen enough to convince me that I'm wrong about this.

So when I hear someone suggesting that it is necessary to enter into the mindset of a 17th century card player in order to derive the correct meanings from a 17th century deck, I cry foul. Mind you- I wouldn't argue that learning more about the past culture that created these cards is going to hinder your reading. But I don't think that failing to learn this is necessarily going to hinder your readings either. To be clear, someone who is stagnant intellectually is thwarting their own abilities as a reader- but not nearly so much as someone who is stagnant spiritually or artistically.

Melancholic seems to be making a left brain argument for a right brain activity. Don't we all know the truth that a scholar of 17th century art may not make a better TdM reader than the guy who just thinks that the Hermit sort of resembles that one dude from Doonsbury? The real "meat" of reading, it seems to me, comes from a very different place than the sum of your knowledge about a particular era. The real meat of a reading comes from your ability to build a story (it's a creative process). Having more intellectual knowledge of the component pieces of the language (in this instance, the cards themselves) certainly gives the storyteller more tools to work with, but if you can't build a narrative, all the intellectual knowledge in the world is for naught.

-tb

Well spoken thinbuddha.

mac22

thinbuddha said:

I do take issue, philosophically, with the approach that Melancholic is so strongly proposing. Namely, the issue at hand seems to be that there is The Way To Read Tarot, or even more disturbing, the notion that The Cards somehow know how to speak a language and tell you what you need to know seems to be buried in the arguement. I know that I will be in the minority here when I say that the tarot reading is best used as a self-reflexive tool rather than a tool of "divination". You tarot deck doesn't know if he really loves you, but you probably do know this, somewhere within yourself. A tarot reading can help you to find that answer, if you open yourself up to it.

Click to expand...

This is essentially how I see it as well.

-- Lee

Paul said:

Why can't we all get along?

Click to expand...

Well, a little meaningful debate is sometime useful as a learning exercise, if only in inducing a logical examination of one's own position, as is practice in the Tibetan monastic tradition. As long as it is relevant to the topic, and doesn't get into subjective personal attacks, like making fun of my fondness for unusually shaped Italian footwear.

I'm certain we all have chosen the correct paths for ourselves, all are true from a given perspective, and we surely present our positions for the benefit of greater knowledge.. (No, I'm not going to make that analogy of the blind men and the elephant, again...)

As to addressing thinbuddha's philosophical concerns:

thinbudda said:

I do take issue, philosophically, with the approach that Melancholic is so strongly proposing. Namely, the issue at hand seems to be that there is The Way To Read Tarot, or even more disturbing, the notion that The Cards somehow know how to speak a language and tell you what you need to know seems to be buried in the arguement.

Click to expand...

As I wrote earlier in this thread, "I see this thread is developing an unhealthy imbalance toward the current trend in "just looking at the cards". I've seen the 'method' referred to as 'art reading', and Paul Williams calls it the 'Optical Analogy Method'. There is a general tone that this is somehow the right way to read tarot cards. Alas, it is but one way to read them."

I also apply this attitude to my own 'methods' and 'opinions'. I don't promote my personal methods as THE Way To Read Tarot, but merely as A Way To Read Tarot, and shared my opinions as an 'alternative' to what seemed to be becoming the 'party line'. My apologies to all if I came across otherwise, as I am sure thinbuddha as well doesn't mean to come across as dogmatic, despite that the tone of statements like, "...I say that tarot reading is best used as a self-reflexive tool rather than a tool of "divination", or "The real meat of a reading comes from your ability to build a story (it's a creative process)" or "Here's the secret...", could be mistakenly construed as sounding so. I am interested in his, and everyone's opinion.

thinbuddha said:

Any collection of cards can help you arrive at the right answer. It doesn't matter if your spread includes XIII or XXI (or both, or neither) the cards you pull are merely starting points for your "meditation" on the issue at hand. No spirits, no pixie dust, no "bibbidi-bobbidi-boo".

Now I'm all for snychronicity- I just don't think that it manifests in such obvious ways. I could be wrong, or I could just be too poor a reader to have experienced it often enough to convince me... But so far, I haven't seen enough to convince me that I'm wrong about this.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I wouldn't have believed in "bibbidi-bobbidi-boo" either a few years ago. It may interest thinbudda to know that it was certain experiences I had studying Buddhism, Taoism, and Martial Arts in Tibet, China, and Japan that convinced me otherwise. And while my personal theories of how tarot divination works excludes, extra dimensional intelligences (angels, daemons, spirits, etc.), I'm sure there are some around the forum whose views do, and their worldview should be respected too!

thinbuddha said:

So when I hear someone suggesting that it is necessary to enter into the mindset of a 17th century card player in order to derive the correct meanings from a 17th century deck, I cry foul. Mind you- I wouldn't argue that learning more about the past culture that created these cards is going to hinder your reading. But I don't think that failing to learn this is necessarily going to hinder your readings either.

Click to expand...

I believe such an academic exercise is "necessary" only if one is interested in exploring the possible intended historical meanings of the trumps. Obviously not everyone is, and if you use the images as a self-help tool, or psychological springboards, then one need not worry about such things, and may study the cards in relation to 'Doonsbury' to your hearts content. I'm assuming at least some people reading and posting in the 'History' section must be interested in the topic. (The René Guénon is, of course, not optional! )

thinbuddha, I'm not sure I follow your logic that if the tarot is "best used as a self-reflexive tool", why one would bother developing creative storytelling skills for doing readings (presumedly for others)?

So, in summary, it looks like a lot of people have some great Tips for Reading With the Marseilles, which is the topic of this thread...not The Consummate Way for Reading With the Marseilles, which would be another thread if someone wanted to start...which would then likely lead to robust debate, and in fact might lead to further tangential debate about whether there is even such a consummate way in the first place...which might then be better addressed in a separate thread entitled Is There Even a Consummate Way of Reading With the Marseilles?

But, here we are looking for Tips, plural, many, multiple-- and such multiplicity is bound to find both consensus and contradiction.



ahem...sorry, had to speak up. I'll sit down now.

Melanchollic said:

Unfortunately, a good deal of the "perennial and universal" new-age 'warm fuzzy feeling' ideas being hawked out there are of the syncretic variety, targeted more at people's hearts (and wallets) than their heads.

Click to expand...

Moot. I'd hardly put Joe Campbell in the warm fuzzy bin, in spite of the nimrods out there with "follow your bliss" wall plaques in gen-u-wine resin.

I wasn't speaking of some New Age regurgitation like a Kundalini-Sweat-Lodge-Tarot-of-the-Fairies (gag) but rather the underlying philosophy in TdM, which IS "perennial and universal."
There is no foreign element grafted on from the outside, whatever René Guénon's semantics.
It's like Prego: it's in there.

Something else to keep in mind: It's a common man's deck. Not a stupid man's, but a common man's nonetheless. Pompousness doesn't fit.

Just sayin'.

What an excellent thread this is, and valuable to see how people approach reading with the Marseilles because each of us may approach Tarot itself differently, and have our own interests in the way we learn.

For me I was first struck by the people cards in the Marseilles and their body language, it was really something that simple which made me go out and buy my first Marseilles and start to work with it. It took me some time to find a way of reading which suited me and works as far as my understanding of a spread goes, but all the while I have never once stopped learning about the decks. My interest in the history of the them, the era and any related research came much later and is ongoing.

It is relevant when talking about tips that the very word suggests personal advice and this is what the newcomer to the Marseilles is seeking... a place to start and for someone to tell them that it is OK to pick up the deck, observe it closely and study it at their own pace and in their own way, just as I would expect someone to do with any other Tarot deck.