rif
Every time I think I've got it with GD style of reading, I trip over some nuance or change my mind. Grrr! I've been working through a variety of sources including Book T with its examples, and I could use some input on this.
Have at you!*
Cup Wand Sword
I'll buy that; the Sword strengthens the Wand so the Wand (and Sword together?) overcomes the cup. This (Wand) would be a somewhat strong card.
If the middle card was a Pentacle, would the Cup act as a connecting card and have a similar effect, in that the Pentacle would end up as a moderately strong card?
Sword Wand Pentacle
Opposing elements in the modifier positions cancel each other out. I get that too (although as worded in the Golden Dawn book, link reads as connection).
I'm a little confused because in the first example, the Sword on the outside is a connecting card. In this second example, the Wand card in the middle is referred to as not being a connecting card. Is there some specific rule that I'm missing that determines WHICH card can be connector, or does it not matter, because the idea of all three in a connection is what counts? (I'd guess the latter).
Moving on to permutations...
Cup Wand Sword -> somewhat strong, per above.
Cup Wand Wand -> I could read this two ways. Going by what I've learned from supertarot and phb's book, I would read the Wands as overwhelming the weakened water card. Now that I've studied Book T, I would have to say the Cup and outer Wand cancel out for pure GD rules, leaving the middle Wand with its default meaning (not stronger or weaker). Thoughts?
Cup Wand Cup -> Wand is definitely weakened, per Book T. No problems here.
Cup Wand Earth -> This is the one that's given me the most confusion. Via supertarot and phb, the Wand is weakened because it's surrounded by passive elements. Going by Book T, I don't know what rule would apply here, if any. Chris Monnastre (Golden Dawn Journal 1) says that "two cards negative in suit to the center card weaken the center card's interpretation". This supports phb, and suggests the Wand is weak here. This approach does make sense, but it bugs me that I can't piece it out of Book T. Can anyone clarify this for me?
Hmm, writing this out here really helped clarify my thoughts.
One more thing: how much of the cards meaning do you blend in with the main card? Going by supertarot and phb book lessons, all three cards in the triad are blended in. When I study the Book T examples, blending seems fairly arbitrary to me. Sometimes all three cards give to the meaning, sometimes it seems that only the center card is used, and sometimes it seems the surrounding suit is used without meaning. An example of the latter is the 5 of cups negative meaning not mattering, because there are three Cup (or water element) cards in a row that suggest happiness or pleasure per the center card. Forgive me for not referring to the exact example as laid out.
Perhaps this is where the dictum comes in: "Analyze rigidly and interpret flexibly."
Disclaimer: I started out learning with phb's material before going to the Book T source.
* Bonus points if you can identify the 32-bit era videogame this quote is from.
Have at you!*
Book T said:If a card of the suit of Wands falls between a Cup and a Sword, the Sword modifies and connects the Wand with the Cup, so that it is not weakened by its vicinity, but is modified by the influence of both cards; therefore fairly strong.
Cup Wand Sword
I'll buy that; the Sword strengthens the Wand so the Wand (and Sword together?) overcomes the cup. This (Wand) would be a somewhat strong card.
If the middle card was a Pentacle, would the Cup act as a connecting card and have a similar effect, in that the Pentacle would end up as a moderately strong card?
Book T said:But if a card pass between two which are naturally contrary, it is not affected by either much, as a Wand between a Sword and a Pentacle which latter, being Air and Earth, are contrary and therefore weaken each other.
Sword Wand Pentacle
Opposing elements in the modifier positions cancel each other out. I get that too (although as worded in the Golden Dawn book, link reads as connection).
Book T said:Here the question being of the Wand, this card is not to be noticed as forming a link between the Sword and Pentacle.
I'm a little confused because in the first example, the Sword on the outside is a connecting card. In this second example, the Wand card in the middle is referred to as not being a connecting card. Is there some specific rule that I'm missing that determines WHICH card can be connector, or does it not matter, because the idea of all three in a connection is what counts? (I'd guess the latter).
Moving on to permutations...
Cup Wand Sword -> somewhat strong, per above.
Cup Wand Wand -> I could read this two ways. Going by what I've learned from supertarot and phb's book, I would read the Wands as overwhelming the weakened water card. Now that I've studied Book T, I would have to say the Cup and outer Wand cancel out for pure GD rules, leaving the middle Wand with its default meaning (not stronger or weaker). Thoughts?
Cup Wand Cup -> Wand is definitely weakened, per Book T. No problems here.
Cup Wand Earth -> This is the one that's given me the most confusion. Via supertarot and phb, the Wand is weakened because it's surrounded by passive elements. Going by Book T, I don't know what rule would apply here, if any. Chris Monnastre (Golden Dawn Journal 1) says that "two cards negative in suit to the center card weaken the center card's interpretation". This supports phb, and suggests the Wand is weak here. This approach does make sense, but it bugs me that I can't piece it out of Book T. Can anyone clarify this for me?
Hmm, writing this out here really helped clarify my thoughts.
One more thing: how much of the cards meaning do you blend in with the main card? Going by supertarot and phb book lessons, all three cards in the triad are blended in. When I study the Book T examples, blending seems fairly arbitrary to me. Sometimes all three cards give to the meaning, sometimes it seems that only the center card is used, and sometimes it seems the surrounding suit is used without meaning. An example of the latter is the 5 of cups negative meaning not mattering, because there are three Cup (or water element) cards in a row that suggest happiness or pleasure per the center card. Forgive me for not referring to the exact example as laid out.
Perhaps this is where the dictum comes in: "Analyze rigidly and interpret flexibly."
Disclaimer: I started out learning with phb's material before going to the Book T source.
* Bonus points if you can identify the 32-bit era videogame this quote is from.