Hi Northwind,
Thanks for responding. I hear what you're saying and it's good to see that this time you are giving criticism without being ill-mannered.
If you felt statements were categorical then that is because the statements were made in a particular category, called, 'Sexuality and the Major Arcana', so that may be to be expected. As a previous poster has already pointed out, I am not implying that if I was to turn over the Priestess as someone's significator, that I would say, 'this card indicates that you are a lesbian.'. lol. Of course not. I was simply responding, I say again, to a very specific question in which we have been asked to express our ideas as to how sexuality
might be seen in the cards of the Major Arcana. I note you have not yet expressed your own.
To be honest I was shocked by your post and my response was merely incredulous.
I don't know why my post was considered shocking, but, none the less, I respect your opinion. Your response was not merely incredulous, had it only have been that, then I wouldn't have been offended. It was rude, because you were rather condescending and casting aspersions about a person you don't know, and who, as far as I'm aware you have not corresponded with before. It's possible to offer criticism without addressing a person as if they are an ignorant idiot.
I don’t apologise for that at all.
Being incredulous is nothing to apologise for. Perhaps being rude is, but I didn't expect an apology.
Perhaps you consider this comment as a serious criticism.
I would have taken your original post more seriously as decent criticism had you not been so rude.
My own approach is that every major card can reflect aspects of who we are at any time.
As do I, and again I say that I never said that they don't. I think that this is the approach of all of us, I can't see how anyone could even begin with Tarot otherwise, because that's what it's all about. So at least we agree on something.
I’m one who does not believe in labeling particular cards as corresponding to sexual preference or other particular choices or types of behaviour.
Which is puzzling, because in the previous quote you said that you 'believe that every Major card can
reflect aspects of who we are at any time'. So if we 'label' The Fool with behaviours such as folly and innocence, is this wrong?
For me, the cards have meaning only in the context of a particular situation (such as in a daily reading) or in the context of a whole reading.
I find that suprising for a person who is a stated experienced reader and who has more Tarot decks than they would care to list.
Can a card really not be given correspondences to things such as types of behaviour on it's own, outside the context of a reading alongside other cards? If this is the case, how is one meant to learn Tarot in the first place if they can't assemble a constellation of corresponding ideas around the cards individually before reading them in groups? If this is the case, then why are there so many Tarot books that list each card individually, and explore the meanings of what that card expresses, in terms of things such as types of behaviour, outside of a context?
I believe that a card does indeed and of course have a constellation of correspondences swirling around it by way of symbolic association. I could associate any card with particular types of behaviour, or a thing, or an animal, or a colour, or a verb, anything actually, including sexuality, absolutely anything at all. Of course, opinions may differ, which is why it is so enriching to correspond with other Tarot enthsiasts. If we all possessed the same opinions, that would be very uninspiring.
A card does not have to be layed out in the context of a spread in relation to a particular question in order to inspire associations. For example, The Devil might be associated with types of behaviour such as greed, lust or hatred perhaps. The Chariot could be associated with types of behaviour such as competitiveness or determination. The cards do not have to be layed in a spread or in the context of a question to arouse these correspondences. In terms of sexuality, perhaps The Devil would be sexual depravity, or The Chariot the sex drive itself?
Of course, I understand that in the context of a question, or through the influence of other cards in a spread, any card's interpretation would be adjusted and adapted appropriately. This does not mean that symbolic associations, which can be anything, such as types of behaviour or sexual inclinations, or absolutely anything else at all, cannot be explored on it's own, outside of context.
If a card can not be associated with things such as sex, or choices or behaviours or anything else for that matter, in it's own right, outside of context of inquiry, then what then is the point of having forums here in which individual cards can be discussed outside of a particular context, in order to explore them in their own right?
Clearly we might have some differences there as well
Clearly.
No apologies for that either.
I wouldn't expect you to apologise for your approach that the individual cards cannot be associated with types of behaviour. Why would I? I'm polite enough to respect your opinion even if I cannot understand it.
xXx.
