gregory
No offence taken, no worries ! But I do feel very strongly that because of the very nature of the beast, there CAN be no objective standard to certify against. there can be no objective standard - nor even any "quasi-objective"one.Hi Gregory,
First off, I want to say outright that I don't mean to be inflammatory. I'm not saying at all that your readings are somehow less good because you use non-traditional card meanings, and if you got that impression from me, I would like to apologize.
Tarot is a big, messy, subjective subject, and of course there are going to be problems whenever you try to introduce any kind of quasi-objective standards into a practice of this kind. You say, "WHOSE RWS tradition? WHOSE Thoth? There are SO many opinions even within those allegedly set traditions," and I think that to an extent, that's true. However, it's also true that as a general rule, there are certain interpretations for the cards (as is evidenced by the presence of 78 card meaning pages on the Aeclectic website). Of course, there's room for interpretation within the general meanings of those cards--I agree with you that context is king, and that the same card can mean almost antithetical things in different circumstances--but there are still thematic threads that are commonly accepted.
Sure there are Thirteen's excellent meanings on this site - as an aid, as much as anything - and note that they actually differ from MANY allegedly "standard" texts.
I am the one who drew 10 Swords for happy marriage - and it made sense to my traditionally minded sitter ! I'd use that to rest my case - but....