Tips for reading with the Marseilles

Melanchollic said:

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)?

Click to expand...

For me, "creative storytelling skills" is applicable to a reading for yourself. It's actually a mystery to me how anyone could succeed in making a good reading (for anyone) without employing these skills, though I suppose it's possible.

As for the presentation of my beliefs being somewhat dogmatic, I think that I neglected to communicate fully. I don't think that there is any One Way to read tarot. I do think that all the ways that seem to be successful employ creative storytelling skills, even if the reader doesn't realize that these skills are in use. But to say that you are using "storytelling skills" doesn't really describe a system of reading, does it? The system is the language you are using. People can tell stories in English, German, Japanese or any other language (including pictures and sound).

All this doesn't negate the systems that people use for tarot readings. To make an analogy between English and Tarot, these storytelling skills are akin to the ability to make sentences our of words, paragraphs out of sentences and stories out of paragraphs. But you still need language and grammar to build your story from, and this, in tarot, can include a number of different things.

As an example: I currently choose not to employ kaballa in my readings, but if I knew more about kaballa and used it in my readings, I bet it would improve my readings. It would give me a deeper "tarot vocabulary" to access while building stories. Astrological associations? Elemental dignities? Numerology? All of these are perfectly valid ways to approach readings, and I don't see any of them being "wrong". But I do think that the reason they work is because it gives readers who use these systems a deeper tarot vocabulary, and not because of any particular validity to any given system.

In an earlier post, you seemed to argue for the use of historical context as a necessary part of tarot vocabulary (as if it were a category of words like verbs or nouns, which could hardly be removed from a good story). To cary the language analogy forward, I would suggest that the historical context is more like a specialized part of language, as if it is made up the jargon of a particular trade (not necessary for storytelling, but possibly necessary to give greater depth to certain stories). Knowing more about the historical context is going to add to your readings, but might not be necessary to anyone else for building a good reading. I think you just said as much in your post, so I'm just echoing that this is my beliefe as well.

The one thing, to me, that seems to tie all successful methods for tarot readings together (someone correct me if I'm wrong) is that the reader needs to be able to improvise a narrative using the cards as input. Some will say that their readings come from somewhere else outside of themselves- I would suggest that there is nowhere else for them to come from. Creativity, in some ways, is an act of magic, and that is what I meant by "storytelling skills". I think that you need these skills as much when reading for yourself as you would reading for others. The only difference is that for others, you need the oral communication side, as well.

-tb

Those two quotes given by Melanchollic of Guénon show why he is not someone I would want to 'fall' (how appropriate a term!) back to.

His (and his "school's") appropriating of the terms 'perennial' and 'traditionalist' (which they tend to of course capitalise) smacks of narrow dogmatic eclectism to which its followers seem blinded (or hoodwinked) - instead considering that they are at foundation discarding the dross from an underlying common world view that is ultimately found in (according to Guénon) the relative purity of islam.

Certainly not what I personally hope influences "tips for reading with the Marseille".

Rather, a healthy syncretic approach, grounded in ever expansive eclectic interests and research (including its important historical setting), results in various ways in which the Marseille (and other decks, for that matter) can unveil themselves. Here it is not so much attempts at the synthetic, but rather the wealth and rich tapestry that the weavings of numerous strands brings to the ever increasing insights into the Marseille.

Syncretism, rather than the narrower forms sought by selective dogmatic views, is at the heart of both the richness of the development of (as example) Christianity and of Tarot - though of course each can also develop in a manner advocated by Guénon... something to which we need to remain alert, in my view, of not be guiled and fall to.

Well said JMD!

One of the things I like best about your course is it has spurred me & sent me in many directions I would not have thought of. IOW it has caused me to grow...

Mac22

Hi thinbuddha, thanks for explaining... Good stuff. Communication skills really make a difference in the reading experience.

I always love to sample the various methods of divination when I travel, and seek out "fortune-tellers" wherever I go. Some years ago a friend and I went to Fukui (Japan) to visit Eiheiji Temple. I inquired at the hotel desk about fortunetellers, and the girl enthusiastically recommended a woman who practiced 'forehead reading'. That evening we went to see this woman. Like most Japanese diviners, she sat at a small table on the sidewalk outside a temple or shrine. We sat at her table and paid about 3000 yen ($30). My friend wanted to know when she might expect to be wed. I translated for her. The old woman gave a knowing smile then took a small flashlight and aimed it at my friends face. My friend squinted uncomfortably from the brightness. The woman carefully examined my friend's forehead, making the customary Japanese "thinking sounds", "Oooooh! Emmmmm! Ah!" She revealed from under the table an archaic looking book, worn with age. The book was filled with charts with Chinese astrological symbols. The woman quickly searched for whatever she was trying to find, put the book back under the table, and then put the flashlight back in my friends eyes. She carefully examined her forehead again, made a few more sounds, "Eeeeeeeeh? Ah!! Hai!" Then IN ENGLISH she replied, "Your marriage.... FORGET ABOUT IT!"

Communication skills indeed!


Hi jmd,

I see you're not a fan of Guénon. Well like most "spiritual" thinkers of that general era (Steiner, Gurdjieff, Corbin, Ouspensky, Schuon, Blavatsky earlier) a lot of what they had to say should be taken with a grain of salt, and considered in relation to the era it was produced, though I'm not prepared to simply wave my hand and dismiss them without listening to what they have to say. Each brings a piece of the puzzle to the table. I've taken away a lot of good ideas from Guénon, and I have yet to have been "hoodwinked" into believing in the "purity of Islam". As for dogmatism, it is sometimes useful to remember that the early 20th century was a time of real ideological and intellectual turmoil, and many a deep thinker - Eliade, Evola, and even Jung, flirted with ideas which we currently do not approve, namely fascism.

I could not read with the Noblet until just recently. All the stuff from how I learned just kept getting in the way. I used to read publicly and I did not believe it was very predictive- just more like counseling or Tarot therapy; and for myself reflective. The common thread for me was that it was an art of memory- it drew what I already knew out my mouth when I saw the pattern. Since I have participated in jmd's course (still doing it) and applying a method of Mary Greer's, and deciding how I wanted to read- for what purpose- it has all fallen into place. I have always noted question and answer in a notebook with date- that has always helped. The key tip is to decide 'how' you want to read. I do not any longer want to counsel people- so I have had to re- look at the cards. Not so much as predictive but as directive- so a completely different deck has assisted.

My tip after having decided 'How' and 'for What purpose' I do not lay the cards in a line, it is more a circle or like filling in a jigsaw puzzle- so all the cards become one picture. It is a bit like one would do for a traditional Le Normand spread of the fortune telling oracle. The first card down is the center and the rest (usually 10- but I ignore some) Then I widen my eyes- like I am looking at those magiceye drawings, and usually four or so cards will stand out- this is what I call a pattern- and then my brain coughs up what is underneath in the jumble of images and I know what the answer is to the Question. I do not self moralise as to what my front brain thinks should be the answer- I just go with the pattern. I do not say 'you might consider this' or make any psychological statement- I just talk the pattern. It has been hard to leave the 'counselling' behind. On the other hand I have years of 'what card seems to be what' meaning for me.
My best example is that looking back at notes the Card called the Lovers has never meant love in the reading- it has always seemed to say Not this way! depending what was around it.
So I guess the purpose for you doing a reading has to be clear.
~Rosanne

Thanks Melanchollic - I would not imply that you have personally fallen to being blinded by his works. Neither would I, however, put him in the same bag as Steiner, Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, or Blavatsky (though with Corbin and Schuon is another matter, of course).

My central point was more that his views against the syncretic impulse are ill-founded, and that he (and his followers) appear to be blinded by his narrow eclecticism. Similarly, his understanding of symbolism would, to use the example you gave, perhaps best be left beyond together with the possible flirtings that Jung may have had with aspects of Nazism. Neither yields healthy engagement, it seems to me.

thanks jmd

Now before Moonbow decides to "split the thread", it seems like a great time to actually suggest a tip for reading with the Marseille!!

If one is completely new to Tarot, it might be useful to spend a few months with just the 22 Trumps, and really get a feel for them. I've found the pips are really easy to use once you 'get' them, the courts a bit more challenging, but the Trumps seem to be endlessly deep.

Of course, many a modern Marseilleist - including Hadar and Jodorowsky, usually use just the Trumps. Paul Huson, on the hand, recommends just reading with the pips/courts. I personally like the feel of the whole heavy 'brick', the smooth, cool cards slipping through my hands as I shuffle.


Cheers,

R
a
H

Moderator Note

Wow you are good Mel!

I will leave it as is, (at least for now), as I think it gives a good example of how each of us use the Marseilles and that new Marseilles users do not have to take someone else's approach, but to find their own based on their own interests and beliefs.

Of course if you and jmd, and anyone else, wants to have a 'battle of the spiritual thinkers' thread then go ahead. Not sure where it would be best placed though.

Talking about tips, and following on Thinbuddha's language metaphor in his extraordinaire post, something I find useful at a personal level is to see the Trumps as nouns, the Pips as adjectives, and the Honors as verbs.

Best,

EE

There's more meaning in TdM than is needed by any one interpreter, or generation of interpreters.
That's what makes it a classic. Many approaches work. None are complete.