Majors only

Skysteel

jmd said:
Tell you what, Skysteel - YOU decide on a picture (or world map - makes no difference to the point), and suggest the following experiment:
step 1 - take two copies of the image, and have ready two boxes, named respectively A and B;

step 2 - cut one of those into 24 pieces and place in box A - decide on whatever method preferred, but for ease of experiment, I would suggest that each piece be more or less of apparent equal surface area;

step 3 - cut the other image into 78 pieces and place in box B - again, for the purposes of the experiment, each of those pieces be approximately equal to each other, but of course, and of necessity, smaller than the 24 pieces that have jigsawed the other image;

step 4 - from box A, join all pieces together until the original image is formed, and then in addition perform a imaginative exercise (or draw on an additional small piece of paper) as to what segment could be added to reclaim the original image (I would not suggest spending too much time on this, as it should be apparent that no additional part is needed);

step 5 - from box B, discard 56 jigsaw pieces, and see if the whole original image can be reconstructed. Repeat by discarding a different set of 56 pieces, and continue until satisfied that no twenty-two pieces from that set (even if they look prettier) can in fact re-construct the original picture
That was the point I was trying to make earlier.

The point I was trying to make is that a different image is selected when the intention is to cut it into 78 pieces than when the intention is to cut it into 22 pieces, and I consider the 56 extra pieces unnecessary.

kwaw

willowfox said:
So, to restrict yourself to 22 cards is doing yourself a disservice because the tarot is 78 cards for a reasonably "full life experience".

Reading with the 21 trumps and fool alone is quite common, many french books on fortune telling don't even bother with meanings for the four suits.

Many people read with ordinary playing cards or even jusst a reduced pack of such.

Each can be used to give as full a reading as the other.

I often restrict myself to the four suits alone for reading; what aspects of a 'full life experience' would you say my readings will thus lack?

Kwaw

Rosanne

Rotfl jmd! My 22 just gave me the edge pieces- the whole middle of the jigsaw was missing. The edges were really important bits though- gave me the size I was working within; like a piece of bread a mouse had eaten- looks like a slice but the substance was gone- just a crust left for dinner. ~Rosanne

willowfox

Skysteel said:
and I consider the 56 extra pieces unnecessary.

That's 56 pieces of valuable information that he's missing out on. I suppose you could apply this way of thinking to DNA, why bother with the millions of bits of information that make up a DNA strand when you can stay tucked up in bed with just 22 bits of information to explain life and the universe.

Skysteel

willowfox said:
That's 56 pieces of valuable information that he's missing out on.

I don't consider it valuable; I don't think it exists.

willowfox said:
I suppose you could apply this way of thinking to DNA, why bother with the millions of bits of information that make up a DNA strand when you can stay tucked up in bed with just 22 bits of information to explain life and the universe.

DNA is real; interpretations of reality are not.

PS. Hello again!
-

kwaw

jmd said:
step 5 - from box B, discard 56 jigsaw pieces, and see if the whole original image can be reconstructed. Repeat by discarding a different set of 56 pieces, and continue until satisfied that no twenty-two pieces from that set (even if they look prettier) can in fact re-construct the original picture[/indent]That was the point I was trying to make earlier.

Trumps are likely a later additon to the four suits; another way of seeing it is that the addition of 22 trumps is not added to divide the 56/56ths of the map into smaller pieces of 78/78ths; but as a sort of transparent overlay of the map divided into 22 segments. Each cover the same map but in brushs strokes of different sizes and colours or 'lenses'. Also the same terrain can be mapped in different ways, we use the type of map best suited to our purpose.

Kwaw

Rosanne

Now that is a good way of looking at it. I just realised I was been disingenuous, I do use 22 Majors as a set sometimes for myself. I have never read for others with the Majors. ~Rosanne

Sar

This is interesting...
Perhaps I should by a majors only deck.

Kenny

I'm interested in lots of forms of divination methods and ways of looking at the world.

Runes have 18, 24, or 32 marks
Ogham has 20 or 24 marks
Qabalah has 32 paths
Tarot has 78 cards

Does this make tarot more detailed than the other methods? I would say no.

It breaks down the picture into smaller chunks so details are easier to view.

As an aside I would not say the Norse had a more limited world view than we do. Their world view was different than ours.

To answer the question about Major Only readings I did at one time just use major only but after a while I found the readings to be lacking in a manner that using my runes with less marks had never felt like.

As another aside my own oracle I designed with only 3 dice gives complete readings though I have eighteen elements spread over three dice.

frelkins

I love Majors only decks. I often do Majors only readings, and the best readings I have ever received were Majors only.

I think from now on my collection will skewed to only historical decks, which often have a varying number of cards, and to Majors only. Jes' my 2 pence.

In many places in Europe it's still quite accepted to do only Majors. I think only in the USA and the UK is it not -- a bias we see reflected here because the language is English. imvho.

Majors only

Skysteel

kwaw

Rosanne

willowfox

Skysteel

kwaw

Rosanne

Sar

Kenny

frelkins