&#39Tarotic Relativism&#39

[Yarnie]

Well, its obvious that Mojo's mojo is missing, since he obviously can't identify sarcasm when he sees it. Heck, I was even agreeing with what content there was in his first post!

It all comes down to this: Guidelines? yes. Rigidity? no.

 

[Mojo]

Yarnie, I love sarcasm.

Things like "ridiculous sanctimony" and "obvious acrimony" aren't sarcasm. Those are personal attacks.

 

[nexyjo]

while many people search for absolutes in their life, i will say that i have not found even one in 45 years of searching. so i belong to the "everything is relative" school of thought.

marion contends that "murder is murder". if it were that simple, there'd be no judges and juries. the simple fact is murder is not always murder.

regarding the tarot, there are "standards" of sorts regarding meanings - the traditional rider-waite is one. if you need that sort of thing, it does exist. but i think the tarot is most effective when it involves interpretation by a qualified reader who will intuit meanings from each of the cards, which may or may not follow the traditional rider-waite, assuming one uses that style of deck.

regarding yarnie's contention that without "rules", people could very well start interpreting the three of swords as a blissfully happy card. what about that card in reverse? what about those people who are only happy when miserable? what about the woman looking for divorse from an obsessively loving husband who never gives her a moment of peace? i can imagine she'd be blissfully happy seeing that card in a spread for her husband. and in a big way, a broken heart can heal, making room for a newer and better love - certainly bliss.

as i've mentioned in many other posts, i see each card as having a wide range of meanings. certianly, those which are extreme, can swing from one extreme to the other. so in fact, the three of swords could very well mean bliss.

luv and light,
nexy

 

[MeeWah]

All of the comments have merit. Actually, they "prove" the issue at hand, of which Apona seems to have expressed it succinctly; as did Yarnie regarding "guidelines" & "rigidity".
Tarot appears to be subjective--subject to the individual's interpretation--but an objective view can serve well, as evidenced by someone other than self interpretating one's cards.
A reading is generally a process "of the moment", as if capturing a moment in time--like that of a photograph. It is unique, not likely to be duplicated as life is constantly evolving so conditions do not remain the same or stagnant but change over "time" (unless a situation remains static for some reason peculiar to the subject of the reading). The essence or the basic meanings of the cards in a reading are modified not only by cards in their proximity, but also according to the influences of the moment, so I do not see them as "absolute" except in the matter of principles only. The moment may determine the applications more appropriately as to the trend, likelihood or possibilities inherent within that moment.
Thus Tarot is not so rigid a science in that it is flexible, despite the existence of an order & a system to its concepts. It can be seen as a logical system with a natural cause & effect; however, though logic & reason can play a part in its method or understanding, it is not usually through those avenues that inspirational understanding occurs. The latter occurs when one makes the leap from the basic meanings to those nuances or associations appropriate to the moment, usually through intuition or tapping into the collective subconscious. Either means determine the range of understanding or the actual significances.
Learning the attributes or traditional meanings provide a basis of understanding & is a useful prerequisite. Delving further into the esoteric teachings or multi-faceted applications can provide an in-depth understanding, enhance the interpretations of the principles. The process can be compared to the student artist who needs to master the techniques of drawing & painting before venturing forth into expressionistic or impressionistic artistic forms.
How much one reads into Tarot may depend on the individual purpose or choice. Whether it is used as a means of knowledge, guidance, divination or spiritual development, the particular purpose of its use will largely have its effect in that way. The same cards may be read by different people & may result in as many interpretations as there are readers. This does not mean only one interpretation is valid or that none of them are; merely that different readers process the cards according to their particular view, understanding, life experience, etc, all factors which contribute to the interpretation. The proof of the pudding is in the accuracy or the timeliness of the material produced by a reader to the querent.
Marion: The subject of Christianity is a good example of the many interpretations that can occur of the same thing ("same" being used loosely here) so no need to apologize! It is gracious of you to do so. & the pool analogy is inspired!
Mojo: I do not find your comments offensive because I see you as taking up the thread of the discussion initiated by the subject; being passionate about Tarot. & I understand the discussion is not about Christianity per se.
Nexyjo: Good point about "reversals". 3-Swords & I are old acquaintances & its meaning is not always that of the usual heartbreak, disappointment, doom & gloom.
StarShine: Neat!! I've read Ace-Wands similarly, with the Robin Wood version & in a couple other decks. Ditto for The Fool; The World.

 

[MeeWah]

Oops. Have removed inadvertent duplicate post. The PC or Internet is slower than molasses lately; makes it difficult to post.

 

[Marion]

Very interesting and thoughtful reply MeeWah. Thank you.
I also find something, whether the Aeclectic Board, the Internet or my server painfully slow the last couple of days.

 

[Major Tom]

I can't really resist replying to this topic }> but don't really have anything new to add.

Think for yourself - question authority.

(especially mine) }>

Works for just about anything in life - even tarot.

 

[Kiama]

I agree with Major Tom: Always question everything you're told. Then question that question!

I believe that life, religion, and Tarot is like Pick 'n' Mix sweets: You only take what you want. I mean, can a religion, for instance, truly be true for you, if you don't believe it withyour whole heart? Tarot too, as a spiritual, healing, and personal undertaking for me is the same: I'm not gonna adhere to some guy's/gal's rules just cuz I'm told to... If I believe it, I will add that person's opinion and wisdom of the Tarot to mine, but if not, I will accept it as a valid point, just not one I personally find valid...

On Tarot interpretations. Many decks nowadays have basically the same symbols in them, so the subconscious will always work on those, so interpretations will not be too drastically different. However, for one person, the dog in the Fool card may mean loyalty, the other person may see that dog as pushing the Fool over the edeg: It depends on your expereince of dogs. This shows that much of what we see even in traditional interpretations depends largely on the interpreter's beliefs, and experiences. A good example of beliefs affecting this is with The Devil card: A reader brought up as Christian *may* see this card as sin, materialism, and wrongdoings. A person brought up as Pagan *may* see The Devil as letting your hair down, going out on a limb, and basically having a good time!


And Marion: I'm not having a go here, but in your original post you said "And, I will go on to say to anyone out there who is getting huffy and saying 'Well, of course not, Christianity is represiive and doesn't let you think and feel' that if you aren't thinking and feeling it ain't the Churches fault!" The Church and Christianity are two very different things. Christianity is the religion, and does not evangelise, or brainwash, or force money out of people (Not saying all churches do this, but many still do.) The Church is the institution set around that religion, and pretends it is the be all and end all of Christianity. There are many people in the world who are bitter about the Church, but not Christianity. Like me, and many other Pagans I know who were rasied Christian,we are bitter about the way the Church controls minds, not bitter about the religion of Christianity which is by far a more beautiful and fulfilling thing...

Kiama (Yes, you are reading clear guys of the old forum, Kiama has something good to say about Christianity!)

 

[Yarnie]

Quote:Mojo (20 Aug, 2001 02:54):
Yarnie, I love sarcasm.

Things like "ridiculous sanctimony" and "obvious acrimony" aren't sarcasm. Those are personal attacks.

Mojo, mojo, mojo...

You are correct. The sarcasm was in my examples (you remember, the things you specifically pointed out as being so ridiculous that the rest of my post could be discounted?). Thank you for making my point regarding the need for some kind of interpretational guideline.

As for the comments to which you refer in the quote above, those ARE attacks--on the bigotry you obviously have against Christianity with which you colored your first post. As I stated before, you spent more bandwidth addressing the tangential aspects of Marion's example than you did in addressing the specific question. Try seeing the forest instead of the trees....

 

[Mojo]

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.