How are you learning?

Essence of Winter

This debate is one that's worth keeping alive. I've considered what a "purist" approach to TdM would amount to, and it seems that those who have set out to "decode" it without reference to other systems of thought are striving mightily to make something out of "whole cloth" that doesn't seem to have any kind of "first principles" philosophical basis. (If I understand the history correctly, the "pip" cards came from a game-playing paradigm, not a contemplative or divinational one.) I've come to call it the "deconstructionist" approach because every little nuance in the imagery appears to have been given interpretive significance of some sort.

It's a worthy debate but I am not convinced that a thread started by someone asking for assistance with learning was the appropriate place to initiate it as it is only likely to add to their confusion.

Personally, I take my cue from what Crowley and Frieda Harris did: take what are essentially "naked" pip cards and breathe life into them through use of various forms of symbolism (color, element, decan, number, etc.) along with a creative presentation of the "suit" emblems to achieve something more susceptible to interpretation that really doesn't fall all that far from the "TdM tree." These "semi-illustrated" pips definitely reveal their roots when you lay them out next to their TdM counterparts. I don't see that the RWS model came anywhere close to that remarkable achievement. Since there is no comprehensive historical foundation for pip card meanings, Crowley's approach seems as legitimate as any.

When it comes to the Tarot, it's difficult to say that anything is not legitimate as divination does not appear to have been the original intention behind the cards. I just don't see the point in doggedly pushing one system and making assumptions about why people might try something else. It really wasn't constructive.
 

Barleywine

It's a worthy debate but I am not convinced that a thread started by someone asking for assistance with learning was the appropriate place to initiate it as it is only likely to add to their confusion.

When it comes to the Tarot, it's difficult to say that anything is not legitimate as divination does not appear to have been the original intention behind the cards. I just don't see the point in doggedly pushing one system and making assumptions about why people might try something else. It really wasn't constructive.

On the other hand, comparative analysis of a system without an apparent interpretive tradition against one (or more) that has a very rich one seems like an excellent way to learn if what you want is more than an historical perspective. It wouldn't be perfect for the "purist," though.

And . . . didn't you open up this subject? I was playing off your last post.
 

Essence of Winter

On the other hand, comparative analysis of a system without an apparent interpretive tradition against one (or more) that has a very rich one seems like an excellent way to learn if what you want is more than an historical perspective. It wouldn't be perfect for the "purist," though.

And . . . didn't you open up this subject? I was playing off your last post.

My post was in response to a previous post that expressed disapproval of the intuitive method of reading and the AT members who use it.
 

Barleywine

My post was in response to a previous post that expressed disapproval of the intuitive method of reading and the AT members who use it.

Gotcha! I recognized that after I responded. I find "intuitive" reading with the TdM especially challenging since I'm used to a little more intelligible structure than just suit and number. Most of the attempts I've seen to build such a structure from "the ground up" seem more iterative than intuitively accessible. And with no intuitive (and imaginative) "spark," I would think reading in such a way would be bone-dry.

ETA: We should probably be clear about whether we're talking about "free association" or a more "guided" approach to intuitive reading using the symbolism inherent in the cards. The latter is what I mean here.
 

Essence of Winter

Gotcha! I recognized that after I responded. I find "intuitive" reading with the TdM especially challenging since I'm used to a little more intelligible structure than just suit and number. Most of the attempts I've seen to build such a structure from "the ground up" seem more iterative than intuitively accessible. And with no intuitive (and imaginative) "spark," I would think reading in such a way would be bone-dry.

I find it very insightful but it's just one method that I use. Most of my Tarot work is centred around the Golden Dawn tradition but I have found it valuable to develop a different approach that uses very different techniques separate from any organised structure.
 

Sherryl

To get back to the original question: what methods of learning have we found most useful?

Do a little spread, 2 or 3 cards every day, and keep a journal recording how the cards played out in your day. With the TdM I never read cards singly. They need another card to combine with, or play against, to get them singing.

Study the pip cards in their context. Lay out a suit from Ace to 10 and tell a story. See each pip as emerging from the preceding card and moving toward the next card in sequence. What does it have to do or experience to bridge the two cards on either side?

Stand or move in the manner of a card. How does it feel to stand like the 8 of Batons with arms and legs sticking straight out at angles and a tight corset around your center. How does it feel to be round and full like the 4 or 6 of Swords?

My website (which I dare not name) has oodles of ideas and exercises for learning the TdM. I hope you'll drop in and look for something you can use.
 

Essence of Winter

To get back to the original question: what methods of learning have we found most useful?

Do a little spread, 2 or 3 cards every day, and keep a journal recording how the cards played out in your day. With the TdM I never read cards singly. They need another card to combine with, or play against, to get them singing.

I've heard a lot of people say that about the Marseilles - that the cards work best when they tell a 'story'. I experimented with that but I have found that considering the individual meaning of the cards and their interaction in a spread works better for me than the story approach. I think I like having a structure to work with otherwise it would be a bit too open-ended an approach for me.
 

Barleywine

For me, the evolution of the numerical series coupled with the nature of each suit provides the underlying framework, which is basically an "energy model." The Ace is pure potential, no movement yet, while the Ten is the "last gasp" of the dynamic expression, fully developed and no longer fluid (which might be seen as either a "good" thing or a "bad" thing, depending on context).

I think of it in several ways: the unfolding and elaboration of the symbolic energy; the Idea of the suit manifesting into Form; the singularity evolving into multiplicity; opportunity becoming reality through solidification of purpose; "inspiration" condensing into "resolve;" more fancifully, perhaps a fast, deep channel opening up into a meandering "delta" as it flows "downstream." It really does help me to lay each suit out in sequence and contemplate these ideas in a philosophical way as opposed to a narrative "story-line." I guess you could say I need a coherent intellectual structure that "holds water."
 

Lee

For me, the evolution of the numerical series coupled with the nature of each suit provides the underlying framework, which is basically an "energy model." The Ace is pure potential, no movement yet, while the Ten is the "last gasp" of the dynamic expression, fully developed and no longer fluid (which might be seen as either a "good" thing or a "bad" thing, depending on context).

I think of it in several ways: the unfolding and elaboration of the symbolic energy; the Idea of the suit manifesting into Form; the singularity evolving into multiplicity; opportunity becoming reality through solidification of purpose; "inspiration" condensing into "resolve;" more fancifully, perhaps a fast, deep channel opening up into a meandering "delta" as it flows "downstream." It really does help me to lay each suit out in sequence and contemplate these ideas in a philosophical way as opposed to a narrative "story-line." I guess you could say I need a coherent intellectual structure that "holds water."
Very nice. I like it! :thumbsup: I'm printing out your post for further reference. Thanks Barleywine!
 

kevin.mason1

Hi

Who is JDM, and EE? And what Lee's book, please?


Kev