Majors only

Skysteel

willowfox said:
You need the full 78 card deck for the full life experience.

Does one also need 78 Runes for 'the full-life experience', even though most sets contain 24, and at most, about 33?
 

jmd

One needs only observe a single rain-drop for divination. That does not make a partial tarot deck complete.
 

Skysteel

jmd said:
One needs only observe a single rain-drop for divination. That does not make a partial tarot deck complete.

That doesn't make a partial Tarot deck a complete Tarot deck.
 

jmd

We seem to agree, Skysteel.

And of course one may use only 1 card for divinatory purposes, or 10, or 22, or 16, or 56... or indeed any other number, including adding additional cards!

There is still, however, a separate question that is quite independent of its usage for divinatory purposes. As a deck of 78 cards, does it have broader reflections on life's myriad and rich experiences, or does it somehow 'lack' something by removing some (or indeed a large chunk) of its set?

Life's experiences can of course be differently configured in representation (such as with 24 Runes, or the combinatorics offered by astrological charts, etc.). For each such set, however, a similar comment can be made: is the reduced set as rich of life's myriad possibilities (not in the act of divination, but in these being reflected in the set)? I would suggest that removing Berkana and Perth (for example) diminishes the set, even though for divinatory purposes, a single rune may well lead to divinatory insights - and similar comments can be made by removing considerations of the 'inner' planets of Mercury and Venus in astrology.
 

Skysteel

jmd said:
There is still, however, a separate question that is quite independent of its usage for divinatory purposes. As a deck of 78 cards, does it have broader reflections on life's myriad and rich experiences, or does it somehow 'lack' something by removing some (or indeed a large chunk) of its set?

A larger deck has more labels, granted.
- ;)

jmd said:
Life's experiences can of course be differently configured in representation (such as with 24 Runes, or the combinatorics offered by astrological charts, etc.). For each such set, however, a similar comment can be made: is the reduced set as rich of life's myriad possibilities (not in the act of divination, but in these being reflected in the set)? I would suggest that removing Berkana and Perth (for example) diminishes the set, even though for divinatory purposes, a single rune may well lead to divinatory insights - and similar comments can be made by removing considerations of the 'inner' planets of Mercury and Venus in astrology.

I think the key factor is the internal consistency of the set in question, as opposed to the total number of elements.
 

willowfox

Skysteel said:
Does one also need 78 Runes for 'the full-life experience', even though most sets contain 24, and at most, about 33?

You know as well as I do that the Elder Futhark is only 24 runes but are limited in their meanings, they were great for hunter/gathers/farmers of that time 500 B.C. but life has become enormously more complicated since those days.

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

Skysteel

willowfox said:
You know as well as I do that the Elder Futhark is only 24 runes but are limited in their meanings, they were great for hunter/gathers/farmers of that time 500 B.C. but life has become enormously more complicated since those days.

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

Sorry, I don't believe life has become fundamentally more complex since the time the Elder Futhark was invented, nor do I accept a ' reasonably full life experience' necessitates 78 elements.
 

willowfox

valeria said:
Everyone should use what they feel comfortable with, but regardless of what they use, that doesn't make a reading any less viable.

Yes, use how many cards you like but do not call the majors a tarot deck because they are not, a tarot deck is 78 cards of enlightenment and not a stunted 22 card deck.
 

jmd

It is not a matter of 'elements' as meaning no more than 'number', it is more a matter as to how the system carves up and reflects the world.

As an example, even with only the traditional seven planets in twelve zodiacal signs (never mind houses for now), there are a total of 12^7 charts that can be drawn (35 831 808 charts). Removing a planet does not remove an 'element', but rather reflects an incomplete way in which situations are delineated in astrology.

To give another example - perhaps more apt - imagine two different world maps cut up into jigsaw puzzles, one in 24 parts, the other in 78. Even if the 78 are such that the major world continents are covered by precisely 22 pieces, the puzzle is not a complete picture if the other 56 are discarded. Contrarywise, the jigsaw of 24 parts does not need any more than 24... for where would those pieces be placed if the whole map is completed in 24 larger pieces?
 

jmd

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.

Of course the runes, or astrology, or another set of whatevers can reflect the world in differing ways, and do so in ways that mask details due to their approximations. This is why one must transcend the individual card and enter a divinatory space when using either cards or runes for divinatory purposes. This does not mean that 78 are required for that purpose - but it does mean that less than precisely specific 78 cards are required for it to be a complete (tarot - not minchiate, for example) deck.