well- or ill-dignified?

Being prejudiced by a dislike of ambiguity of card meanings, I discovered inconsistencies in Liber T concerning the minors. Restricting myself to the wands (p.89), we see that the 5 is ill-dignified, the 9 is well-dignified, and the other cards can be both, though in varying degrees.

How do you determine whether a card is well- or ill-dignified?

As for me (and my interpretation of the OOK, at any rate probably "incorrect", but don't mind) if the center card (principal) is surrounded by cards (the modifiers) that are completely opposite elementally, the modifiers well-dignify the principal.

7 of Cups ~ Ace of Wands ~ 9 of Wands

Ace is dignified

BUT if the 9 of Wands were a sword it would not be:
7 of Cups ~ Ace of Wands ~ 9 of Swords

Ace not dignified

[Now switching the Swords back to an Ace...]

I also chainlink them together, like this:
7 of Cups ~ Ace of Wands ~ 9 of Wands ~ 6 of Cups

and consider the Ace of Wands and the 9 of Wands dignified.

Now, if a Disk followed the 6 of Cups,
7 of Cups ~ Ace of Wands ~ 9 of Wands ~ 6 of Cups ~10 of Disks

then I would consider each card between opposite elements as dignified:

9 of Wands (between fire & water)

My tarot-reading buddy ("puckinfl" who helped me develop and with whom I regularly practiced this system/interpretation from the not-so-clear instructions from Mathers etal) used to take it a step further, using the masculine/feminie dichotomy to "slightly dignify" cards, but that was too tall an order for my feeble brain:

9 of Wands (masc.) and 10 of Disks (fem.) =
6 of Cups, "slightly dignified"

OR conversely

7 of Cups ~ Ace of Wands ~ 9 of Wands ~ 6 of Cups ~10 of Disks ~ 6 of Disks
6 of Cups (fem.) and 6 of Disks (fem.) =
10 of Disks NOT dignified at all, although he would say not "ill-dignifed" either: Neutral

Again, his method of taking the elemental dignities a step further always stymied me so I didn't use them this way; only considering the elemental opposites (i.e. "enemies") when dignifying.

I seem to remember his philosophy "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Again, too confusing so I stick to just the opposing elements when choosing.

Great topic! Thanks for sharing

Interesting. I hope it works.

At the bottom of page http://www.angelfire.com/ab6/imuhtuk/gdmans/tarot/TABULATED_RULES.htm is shown the Mathers examples.

Example 7:
10 C. 2 W. 6 C.
Weak, evil. Victory which is perverted by debauchery and evil living. But other cards may mitigate the judgment.

You would swear that it refers to something like -money equals power-. According to the rules water extinguishes the fire, so the 2W would have very little weight in the story. This example suggests that the side cards determine the dignity, instead of the significance. Maybe it implies that in general we can choose whether the dignity or the importance is modified with EDs????

Now I do recognize this pattern frequently. (Didn't want to throw out too much information all at once to confuse readers--not you personally as I know you have extensive background.)

But if a fire elemental is surrounded by it's enemy, then *to me* of course it would weaken it. Most people are confused with the "friendly/enemy" binary form that I detail in my last post.

So, a "yes" answer to your statement "it suggests that the side cards determine the dignity."

I just use the word "modifer" ala Barton-Hughes instead of "side cards". (Maybe because it sounds like "side-car", you know, as in a lil shot-of-whiskey with your coffee in the morning LOL)

But at any rate, I would definitely see a card weakened to the point of actually not using it as one of the cards in a reading---and most revolt against this idea.

My my argument is that, if there are cards that are empowered (ie dignified) in a reading, then those that are compeltely weakened by the side-cards aka modifiers, why use them at all?

I'm not saying I competely discount these ill-dignified or weakened cards entirely; and in fact in readings will frequently bering up a comparison using ill-dignified cards; what I'm saying is that I wouldn't use them in a spread for any positional meanings.

I need to clarify here that I will dignified cards (only) in a particular order (position 1,2, 3 etc.) as they lay in the wheel according to their proximity to the Significator. The number of dignities actually determines for me the type of spread I will use therefore. I find this a particularly effective way of choosing and reading cards, almost like it is another way to shuffle the deck. (Not only that, when a sitter doesn't have a particular question, finding their Significator in a particular Y-H-V-H stack will give theman area of concern that we can better analyze). All being said and done, it is more difficult to get an accurate reading on-line and much better to do readings like this in person. This way the sitter is an active part of all the operations, and for the most part, they find it fascinating, albeit a bit confusing for them.

Fire Cat said:

As for me (and my interpretation of the OOK, at any rate probably "incorrect", but don't mind) if the center card (principal) is surrounded by cards (the modifiers) that are completely opposite elementally, the modifiers well-dignify the principal.

7 of Cups ~ Ace of Wands ~ 9 of Wands

Ace is dignified

Click to expand...

How would you read

7 of Cups ~ 5 of Wands ~ 9 of Wands

?

yogiman said:

How would you read

7 of Cups ~ 5 of Wands ~ 9 of Wands

?

Click to expand...

Water and fire cancel each other out, but the double wands create a bridge, so the card's importance is neutral, not strengthened or weakened. As far as I know, EDs are used to determine a card's importance in the reading, not the interpretation. It isn't math, although EDs do bring an element of it into the reading, but it is difficult, I think, to accurately say what a 5 of wands plus or minus "importance points" actually means, but I suppose there is a limit to how mathematical one can be, even in the rigid rules of the GD. Even Crowley, when discussing the OOTK, after the EDs are discussed and over with, refers to the actual reading as "make up a story" with the cards, or something like that.

General overview with the Wands deals with employment, the 5 of Wands is dignified (as it falls between elemental opposites), so strife at the workplace is prominent.

7 of Cups ~ 5 of Wands ~ 9 of Wands

A person has to go through a lot of redtape (5W) at their place of emplyoment because of deficient performance due to disorganization, but it this only perceived not real (7C); the workforce candidate is actually a formidable opponent and too much of a competitor (9W).

In sum: Professional jealousy in the workplace.

Are those remarks inconsistent?

closrapexa said:

As far as I know, EDs are used to determine a card's importance in the reading, not the interpretation.

Click to expand...

and

closrapexa said:

if the center card (principal) is surrounded by cards (the modifiers) that are completely opposite elementally, the modifiers well-dignify the principal.

Click to expand...

Can anyone tell me why both Mathers and Crowley can't explain in a descent manner how to deal with ED's and reversals? If you can write about how to prepare a goat, there should be sufficient opportunity to write about more important things.

Fire Cat said:

General overview with the Wands deals with employment, the 5 of Wands is dignified (as it falls between elemental opposites), so strife at the workplace is prominent.

7 of Cups ~ 5 of Wands ~ 9 of Wands

A person has to go through a lot of redtape (5W) at their place of emplyoment because of deficient performance due to disorganization, but it this only perceived not real (7C); the workforce candidate is actually a formidable opponent and too much of a competitor (9W).

In sum: Professional jealousy in the workplace.

Click to expand...

There is a lot of corruption at the workplace (7C), which is counteracted through strength of character (9W), so that the competition gets fair (5W, modifiers well dignify principle).