Sorry, but I think you took this quote a bit out of context. The full quote is as follows:
I'm not sure that (for my readings; I'm not trying to cast aspersions on your reading style whatsoever, so please forgive me and let me know if it comes across that way) I would agree
(Emphasis added). Anyways, I think it's important for the two of us to be clear on this point, because while I understand your perspective and think it's a good one, it's very different from my own. I do not see the meaning as in any way inherent to the cards; in my mind, it's all on me.
This is a pretty serious point of divergence. If the images in Tarot were created by throwing inky sand on paper on a windy day, I'd believe you. But the images are *not* devoid of meaning. In the earliest decks they had to do with human power (expressed in politics), social problems and rather churchy spirituality. Over the centuries they were developed to reflect many of the archetypes that drive human life, psychology and society even more accurately.
Okay, this is an interesting point. Yes, I understand that the cards are painted with images that connote specific meanings--the Hanged Man has a very clear image and message, and would have even more so in the political context of pre-Renaissance northern Italy. Furthermore, I'm very much a traditional (rather than intuitive) reader; I rely on those established symbolic meanings in order to interpret the cards.
However, I differ with you on a couple of points. First off is the rather ugly (but in this case, I think valid) question of historical relativism. Like you said, a lot of the established card meanings (specifically in the Major Arcana) relate to politics and social problems, but both of those issues have changed drastically since the advent of the Tarot. I don't think we can still apply the original meanings of those cards--let's come back to the Hanged Man, which originally dealt quite literally with capital punishment for those who had offended the nobility in some way--or at least not without some heavy qualifications.
You talk about the cards having worked their way into "archetypes" of the collective unconscious. I'm actually totally on board with you on this front, because I have a strong background in Jung. But the thing about archetypes* is that they
aren't actually inherently meaningful. They present
form without
content, thematic patterns that exist through the history of human thoughts and myth but that can manifest into radically different symbols depending on the cultural context of specific societies. The
meaning comes from the way an archetype is applied in a particular culture.
*Archetypes are a problematic, ill-defined concept. This is just one of many interpretations and, like most of them, is probably not exactly what Jung originally meant when he came up with the theory, but it's the one that makes the most sense to me.
So when we talk about Tarot cards as archetypes, to me that means that they present thematic patterns that can apply to almost any human life (general and universal enough that you can call them archetypes, although a skeptic would just as easily call them a form of cold-reading), but that do not possess any inherent, specific meaning of their own until they're interpreted and supplemented with specific situational knowledge about a querent. I hope I'm explaining my view adequately; let me know if I'm not.
In a way, I suppose I can offer you the concession that Tarot cards do have their own (
high-level) meanings, and when I refer to them as "devoid of meaning", I mean they lack
specific meaning for the querent--that, in my opinion, has to come from the reader. I think the example I gave in my original post on the New Members' forum was the Six of Cups; depending on context, the Six of Cups can suggest that a querent should pursue childhood dreams, or can mean that they're emotionally immature and need to start living in the real world. To me, the ability to distinguish between two potential antithetical meanings (derived from the same theme) for the same card is more a question of the reader knowing the querent and being able to apply that knowledge skillfully, rather than of there being a specific "message" that the cards are trying to get across.
I suppose part of why I'm so leery of seeing the cards as having inherent meaning is that, in my understanding, Tarot is largely an "invented" tradition. Yes, you have the historical evolution of the playing-card pack and even the Marseilles deck, but all other traditions are heavily dependent on the personal interpretations of one or two people (Aleister Crowley and Pamela Coleman-Smith come to mind specifically for the way they
defined the way the Minors are read to this day). It's hard for me personally to connect that to something larger than a personal, individual consciousness, although I'm sure there are people who would argue that the influential figures in the history of Tarot were able to "tap in" to said larger force.
