Hi guys
Thread resurrection mode on. I hope it's not a problem.
I've been working quite a lot on the first operation of the OOTK in the last ten months or so, practicing it and reading about it, to the point that it has become the only actual spread I use, except for the 3 cards and, more rarely, my old tarot tableau spread. I thought I would share my experience with you and see how you do it.
I first became interested in it while reading Barlow's book, but as I went on to learn how to use it I ignored most of his elaborations. However, this does not mean that if I find it useful and intuitively applicable I won't make use of what I've learnt from him. The reason is that, compared to the original first operation, Barlow's variation is about 1000 times harder and overwhelming, especially if you don't give much about finding unaspected cards and seeing the Goetia.
I too was concerned with what Guy Bannik says:
in the past pile (fire) all water cards are always weakend. So there's no strong love in the past (cups two) possible at all. That's a bit odd. Next to that this problem obviously occurs always whan elements weaken eachother. Good ideas leading to productive work (ace of swords and eight of disks) is also not a strong combination. I asume my insight in some way flawed. can you point out my misperception?
In the example given in the Complete System of Magick the elemental quality of the pile is considered only during the first part of the first operation (when you have the four piles and read the bottom cards) to see if that particular card is strong of weak. When you fan out the pile with the significator, there appears to be no mention of the fact that the entire pile is ruled by a particular element. I think this is because in the first part of the operation, the only way to know if those standalone cards are strong or weak is to take an elemental basis into consideration, but after that it really becomes superfluous, as each card will be flanked by other two. Again, it seems to be one of Barlow's many elaborations (which does not mean it's bad, of course).
Also, in the analysis of the four bottom cards, there is no mention of their being related to different areas of the querent's life: they are all brought together in a single interpretation concerning the issue under consideration (in the example it is about work). This leads me to another thing worth noting: in the example there is no "guess the question right or shame on you and abandon divination". It seems that you know the question, and it doesn't really matter where the significator is found, since this only adds a shade of meaning. For example, it says that since the significator is found in the Heh primal pile, it is a good omen, but it doesn't mean that the querent has come for a question related to his relationship just because his Sign. is found in the water pile.
The other issue, that concerning the Ace of Swords + Eight of Disks really took me some time to work out, although the solution I found isn't really that complicated, since it is just about bridge combos. I'm not even sure this is the "right" way of addressing this problem, but as far as I understand the nature of Elemental Dignities, it is true that, taken alone, Ace of Swords and 8 of Disks don't get along well, but this does not mean that there can never be a good idea leading to material success. For example, if they were placed in a "Ace of Swords - Eight of Disks - Six of Wands" combo, the Six Wands would bridge the gap between the Ace and the Eight, allowing them to work together positively. When pairing, though, this cannot happen, but at the same time I generally skip mutually cancelled paired cards altogether, unless I think their clash is of some importance.
Speaking about pairing, there is one thing mentioned by Barlow which greatly helped me, i.e. that not everytime you come across the same card in the same spread you have to use the same interpretation. Essentially, it just has to fit the story. Now, I'm not saying that this makes things much easier, and I often find myself quite at a loss, but at the same time it kind of comforts me and frees my mind of all my "Ok, this card again. What did I say about it when I counted on it?" fears.
As for significators, I don't look at astrology or physical appearance: I just consider the nature of the question and the querent's age and gender (which is the only time, in my way of reading, when the Court Cards' gender and age actually counts in determining if someone is a man or a woman and if s/he is old or young).
Finally, one last thought. I think the example given in the Complete System is rather weird, but this is not meant in a mean way (it is even written there that it is a trivial example). Reading it it is clear how tarot readings for the general public where much rarer at the time: today there are many more people visiting their trusted tarot reader at least once a month, but back then the avarage person probably did not have more than one or two tarot readings in their entire lifetime. In the example, the interpretation goes from the guy's job to his love life, back to his job and so on and so forth, and in such detail that it looks like the parody of a soap opera. Today most of us would concentrate on one issue, and if we see that another problem is getting in the way, we analyze it separately with a new spread. Don't get me wrong: when I perform a first operation, it may well happen that even though the question is about a new job, the querent's love life pops up, but at that point I just tell the querent, and if s/he is interested I spare the topic for another round, instead of telling them "look, you asked me about that promotion, but my amazing Thoth tarot would love to tell you a little bit more about that girl you met the other day". Especially because it seems that the GD's (and partly Crowley's) definition for each minor card is almost entirely related to a particular area (Six of Disks is usually material success, regardless of the querent's question being about love), while my interpretation, even though it is based on the GD and Crowley, is much more loose and adaptable to all areas of one's life, unless I have strong evidence that they actually relate to their original area.
What is your opinion on all this? Has your view of the OOTK evolved since 2010?