Responses to my post
The instability is in the tossing ships. They are very much in the illustration. Also the back and forth swing, similar to a hand gesture that expresses 'this way and that' bring up 'either this way or that.' That meaning appears when the issue is about a choice, or two things being considered.
The system works not just for me but for many people who access the archives of the blog for their own readings, and report that. It arose as the result of lectures on the Consistent Violators of the Laws of Random Distribution. Tarot (when people think of a particular thing) is one of five known consistent violators at the time of that lecture.
The either/or comes from the field, and would involve other cards' or the question's elements.
I didn't say anything about what position the card would be in in Celtic cross. In the blog, only three cards are used because the analysis of the interaction among and between the cards is detailed and intense, resulting in around 2200 words a day for three cards.
As to my delusional and juvenile approach, the meanings derive from writing down what that card said, among other cards, in thousands of spreads, and organizing that information, and using it. I began in 1980. The blog began as an experiment to demonstrate, one, whether Tarot were a better group reading tool than astrology. It obviously is, from comments of visitors. Two, whether, from the first time a visitor experienced the blog, they felt it related to their current reality. They report it does. Great tool for group readings.
There are more ways to read Tarot than there are Tarot readers. I consider Tarot a tool to access your own subconscious. I explain that concept in a brief article on the blog, and have written articles on it. Tarot is trying to talk to you, whoever you are and whatever you believe or don't believe, and whatever your level of education and experience is ... because Tarot is your subconscious - as I see it.
So I'm not arguing with anyone's system, and not inviting anyone's putdowns because they disagree with some part, or all, of what I present. This is a forum, which means an open discussion, a come-together parlor experience.
And by the way, my post was in response to another person's on another part of this site. I did not land here on this part to say anything. That means I did not read the material here. Had I done so, I probably would not have any reason to post what I did. (And I still have not read anything from this section of this site. As a computer naif, I find navigating this site very confusing - not a criticism.)
Relating to the folks who said 'This is an interesting way to read,' yes, it is. It can be learned and applied by anyone who sees patterns and thinks in themes. I even taught it to lawyers when I was a court reporter. It is standalone.
Relating to whoever said someone else could use another part of the illustration, from their experience, and come up with a different meaning in a particular spread for that card ... well, DUH, yes, that's what we do. Every day, all of us.
Relating to whoever said it was not totally unique ... did I say it was? Tarot is Tarot. Much of what appears in my system is in other systems. A few of the cards in Tarot Verbatim have very different meanings from the standard, and many of them contain a few meanings that are nonstandard. If it were all standard, there would be nothing to talk about. And we are here talking, aren't we?
I didn't create or make up any of the meanings. They are a compilation of thousands of spreads over, initially, eleven years of notebooks, using the entire deck for each question - and each of the questions was a 'known.' In other words, the 'unknown' would be the the meaning of the card or cards: You can't solve an unknown with an unknown. When I did the experiment, a hobby, I knew nothing at all about Tarot, and was totally not interested in anything New Age, esoteric or occult. It was still a sort of science experiment.
After the eleven years, I continued the encyclopedia of meanings on index cards. Until today, going on 35 years.