4 of swords as fears?

Barleywine said:

I've always liked Aleister Crowley's title for this card: Truce; "a refuge from mental chaos, chosen in an arbitrary manner."

Click to expand...

This becomes even more interesting if we consider the influence of WWI, where long "sorta-truces" were the norm as neither side could leave their trenches, and so spent weeks at a time stuck in place. There's really no way to heal or restore mental equilibrium during such pauses because the war isn't over. This pause is, at best, a respite from shelling and gas and machine guns, but the person knows that all that is going to resume eventually. So, like boxers going to their corners, a true isn't the end to the fight, just a moment for both sides to rest and regroup. And compare this to 2/Swords "compromise" where there, the Thoth deck says, there *is* peace.

Did creating his deck post WWI and in the shadow of WWII affected Crowley's views of the sword suit? (I have to say, maybe not, as we are talking Crowley here and he did live in his own unique universe).

Thirteen said:

And if I were to do such a reading, I probably wouldn't use a spread with the position of "Person B's" fears in it. After all, what Person A really wants to know is how Person B sees them, what Person B thinks and feels for them. And that's really all that Person A is after, so why bother with Person B's "fears" position.

Click to expand...

You would know better, I'm sure, as would other experienced readers, but not necessarily everyone who does Tarot readings -- especially on topics close to the heart. One-sided/fantasy relationships can feel very real to those who maintain them, including made-up but seemingly valid "concerns". (Until the OP returns to provide feedback, though, I'm unfortunately defending an impression which may not even apply.)

Super confused....

IndigoWaves said:

but not necessarily everyone who does Tarot readings -- especially if the topic is close to his/her heart... One-sided/fantasy relationships can feel very real to the people who maintain them, including made-up but seemingly valid "concerns"

Click to expand...

Well, now I'm really confused. I can be dense sometimes and miss the whole point. If so, I apologize. Let me lay out what I'm hearing here and please explain where I'm going wrong: If a tarot reader (or their sitter), wants to have a one-sided/fantasy relationship with someone ("What does Daniel Radcliffe think of our relationship?")--if that is what you mean by one-sided/fantasy relationship that feels very real to someone...then I'm confused as to what it matters whether or not you include Daniel Radcliffe's "fears" in the reading.

Putting it another way, from my pov, if the relationship is between two real people, and both are in that relationship, then it seems to me that both's fears matter. If both people know each other, but it's not yet a relationship (as the sitter wishes it to be) the fears of the other person don't matter. Because to them there is no relationship with anything to fear. And if the relationship is a total fantasy (however real it may seem to the sitter) then I don't see why it would matter whether the reader included "fears" It's all hypothetical anyway. Isn't it?

Thirteen said:

If both people know each other, but it's not yet a relationship (as the sitter wishes it to be) the fears of the other person don't matter. Because to them there is no relationship with anything to fear. And if the relationship is a total fantasy (however real it may seem to the sitter) then I don't see why it would matter whether the reader included "fears" It's all hypothetical anyway. Isn't it?

Click to expand...

Exactly. In reality, with such a scenario in effect, the "fears" position wouldn't matter... But a querent who mistakenly/over-optimistically believes that it does or could matter (and who is doing his/her own reading, or doesn't disclose to a reader that there is in fact no "relationship" to speak of) may still try to read the fears, etc., of this person with whom they feel so involved.

Sorry for any confusion; I seem to have made a mess here, heh.

I dodged the whole issue of "someone else's fears" by marrying Eden Gray's title of "Fears" for the seventh position of the Celtic Cross with Wait's title of "Self" and just consider it "self-limiting behavior" in relation to the question: self-doubts, self-defeating attitudes, etc. The Self being at the bottom of the staff (which in one old system is about the querent's response to the situation shown in the cross section) has me calling it the "psychic basement." So "someone else's fears" would just be a projection of the querent's insecurity. I don't use a "fears" position in any other spreads, and it took me a while to come to grips with it in the CC.

ETA: Oops, not quite true, I did just create this entire "hopes and fears" spread:

http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=271040

IndigoWaves said:

Exactly. In reality, with such a scenario in effect, the "fears" position wouldn't matter... But a querent who mistakenly/over-optimistically believes that it does or could matter (and who is doing his/her own reading, or doesn't disclose to a reader that there is in fact no "relationship" to speak of) may still try to read the fears, etc., of this person with whom they feel so involved.

Click to expand...

Ah, I see. Thank you. That clears it up....

Well, but the tarot, presumably, will answer honestly even if the reader doesn't want to be honest. So the reader can keep up the presence that there is a relationship between me and Daniel Radcliffe. But when the reader lays out cards for how Daniel feels about me, or thinks of me, or what fears he has for our relationship....The tarot's going to give the reader cards that say "You know Daniel doesn't even know this person exists and has no thoughts, feelings or fears about their non-existent relationship.'

Right? Which puts the issue right back into the reader's lap as to whether they're going to disclose that there is, in fact, no relationship to speak of. They can lie all they like, but I'm guessing the cards won't. So, again, it really doesn't matter what positions they put down in a spread about this relationship. Excepting that, in my experience, readers who don't faithfully translate what the cards are saying to their sitters (i.e. they outright lie to them) often lose the trust of their deck. And then come here saying, "Why is it that every reading I do, I get the Fool card? What is my deck trying to tell me?"

Thirteen said:

Did creating his deck post WWI and in the shadow of WWII affected Crowley's views of the sword suit? (I have to say, maybe not, as we are talking Crowley here and he did live in his own unique universe).

Click to expand...

When I compare Crowley's 1912 release of Liber T in his Equinox publication to the one in Regardie's "brick," it's clear that Crowley didn't stray far from his Golden Dawn origins with the Minor Arcana, the roots of which were carried over into the Book of Thoth, although with quite a bit of elaboration.

Liber T (1912) 4 of Swords, "Lord of Rest from Strife:" "Rest from sorrow, yet after and through it. Peace from and after war. Relaxation of anxiety. Quietness, rest, ease, plenty, yet after struggle. Goods of this life; abundance; modified by dignity as usual. Convalescence, recovery from sickness."

Book of Thoth (1944) 4 of Swords, "Truce:" "Authority in the intellectual world; establishment of dogma and law concerning it; a refuge from mental chaos, chosen in an arbitrary manner. It argues for convention. Compromise;" indolence and cowardice welcoming "this policy of appeasement; no true justification for repose."

In retrospect, he does seem much more fatalistic in the BoT, so you could be right.

Thirteen said:

The tarot's going to give the reader cards that say "You know Daniel doesn't even know this person exists and has no thoughts, feelings or fears about their non-existent relationship.'

Click to expand...

Right... And the 4 of Swords could be one such card. That's the feeling that I was getting in this case, anyway, rightly or wrongly; I wasn't actually questioning the use of a 'Fears' position in general, but rather its application here, based upon that feeling/intuition. (Though I did a confounding job of saying so... )

Thank you to everyone for all your wonderful interpretations - it is really appreciated !

Edit: I think you've all summed it up (a lot better than I ever could haha) - I do believe now that it is just my own fears i'm reading. It makes a lot of sense now. Thank you again. And yes, it isn't exactly a "relationship" per se. It's kinda hard to explain

IndigoWaves said:

I wasn't actually questioning the use of a 'Fears' position in general, but rather its application here, based upon that feeling/intuition. (Though I did a confounding job of saying so... )

Click to expand...

All good and I take half the blame for not getting it. But detours like that can be useful. A lot of times we get into a habit of laying out the same spreads for all questions, and it's good to have someone in a thread like this asking "was this position necessary for this question?" Because the key to what it means could lie in the answer.