reading without using elemental dignities

[SA12]

Originally Posted by LRichard

Naive use of elements, such as "water puts out fire" strikes me as silly. Neither should the elements be disdained, in my opinion. They are often misunderstood. Fire represents the attributes of the human spirit. Water is feelings, emotions. (Obviously, tears of emotion do not extinguish the fire of the human spirit!) Air pertains to reason, the intellect. Earth is the physical body. While I don't usually consider elemental dignities explicitly in reading, they are there there anyhow, always interacting with one another. Trash the term "elements" as you wish; it's only a word; but that doesn't do away with the undeniable reality which it symbolizes.

Considerations of spiritual alchemy are for the convenience of the reader, not the querent. I am still in the process of learning the hard way that some things should not be mentioned in certain environments, lest the hearers "trample them them under their feet, and turn again and rend you" [Matthew 7:6]. Disdaining that which one does not understand is a universal defense mechanism.

I don't think anyone here is meaning to come across as disdainful -- although ultimately opinions on reading style are going to vary. However, I hear what you are saying -- I started a thread awhile back called 'is it ever good to be ill-dignified' to try and encourage dialogue, learning and sharing reading experiences about the very thing you describe -- the often complicated interactions of the mind/body/spirit that do force elemental readers towards a kind of mental alchemy (which is the very challenge that keeps me coming back to learn more!)

[Carla]

Originally Posted by Trogon

Oh. Well, I certainly don't put all of what goes through my mind when doing a reading into what I tell the client. I definitely wouldn't be telling them about the elements associated with the cards as that could be (as others mentioned) quite confusing to the client. In fact, I've been getting away from talking about what parts of a card image are saying what to me. Saying it more like "well, I see that this happened to you in the past and it is now affecting you in this way --." It's easier for the client to understand I think. Then, if they need some clarification or ask how I read that, I'll get into a little explanation of the cards & what they mean in the context of that reading. Such an explanation might include something like "swords are about conflict", or "cups are about 'love'", just real basic stuff. I mean, it's a reading, not a Tarot class.

Precisely! I have pretty much stopped reading on here because I want to get out of the habit of the learning/teaching style reading. I did a few readings for TABI to become one of their endorsed readers (I thought it might be an interesting learning experience) but I dropped out because I felt so uncomfortable with the oblique suggestion/tarot lesson approach. I've been trying to practice reading using straightforward language without referencing the cards themselves much at all, just answering the question. After years on a teaching/learning forum, it's a tough skill, at least for me!

Perhaps the greatest skill of the reader is to have all this unspoken background information in your heart and mind, and to be able to distill it into the message your querent can process and relate to. I love what Tarotbear said about someone asking about work and being told, 'Wow, there's a lot of water in your reading and not much fire.' Har

[arclight]

Originally Posted by Carla

Perhaps the greatest skill of the reader is to have all this unspoken background information in your heart and mind, and to be able to distill it into the message your querent can process and relate to.

As I was reading all the post in this thread I was thinking about this, and how exactly this has been also a theme for me personally over the past year or so. You expressed perfectly in my view what I was feeling - Its not a simple step to make though, at least it wasnt for me, and it still happens frequently that I find myself talking too much esoteric stuff about a card here and there.
Having said that, I think elemental dignities are an integral part of the tarot, and inseparable from the deeper and conventional meanings of the cards and as such its impossible to read without them - consciously or not. As for having to express that to the querent, yeah, Im trying to learn how to read without using any technical jargon.

[Mellifluous]

Originally Posted by MR GREEN

HI,I find it better not to get into dignities,as they can confuse,wands/fire swords/air,debate and so on.for me the cards speak clearly from the pictures on them and the symbolism within each card.What do you all think?...

I agree with you. It's not something I like to see. I don't think there would be much point to having a card (or more than one - in each spread you do) show itself, only to be dismissed.

Also, I think it's a fad. I don't know where people come across all the theories, techniques, and 'rules of thumb' (for lack of a better term) that are discussed and repeated so much here. I imagine it's either in books or on the internet - like a meme, that spreads from one user to another - but most of them don't appeal to me, or even seem relevant or useful. Most of it is either over-complication of a subject that's already pretty complicated, or these little catchphrases or whatever that make one more close-minded than open to intuition.

[LRichard]

Originally Posted by Mellifluous

......Also, I think it's a fad.......

The method of elemental dignities has been a fad since the early twentieth century among a certain class of readers. It has long been a rather popular alternative to reversals but has encountered misunderstanding and groundless rejection by those who have little or no interest in the true significance of Elements. However, it also has found acceptance by many readers who find it to be a useful adjunct to interpretation. Indeed, it appears to have become an oxymoronic "permanent fad."

ETA. I still don't believe that Water puts out Fire. The fact that ordinary H2O may extinguish certain types of combustion is irrelevant.