"Intuition" versus "book learned"

[Little Baron]

Umbrae, can I just ask what might seem a very obvious question?

Can you just explain how you came to your own meanings?

Are these meanings that have any bearing on what many call the standards, and if they are, did you arrive there yourself? in other words, thinking of the RWS as a standard, it would not be that difficult for you to find yourself thinking of loss when looking at the '5 of Cups', regardless of whether you had read Pollack, Waite and Bunning or not.

Or are your meanings developed in some other way?

I know this may sound like a silly question to many, but we so often talk about our 'own meanings' and 'intuition' but rarely actually describe what these words mean to us.

LB

Edited to add: I have taken most my LWBs out as well. The only one I absolutely loved was for the Phantasmagoric Theatre.

 

[gregory]

Can I have a go at this one LB? Because for me that doesn't sort of work. I don't have "a meaning" for any given card - but I do get Umbrae's BANG moment. It isn't necessarily the same the next time I draw the same card - even from the same deck. That's what is so surprising about it all, for me - and also why I can't cope with books, even though I read them and learn from them.

What I see in the card, in some way in combination with the person I am reading for, tells me what it all means. Very often aspects of this meaning that comes out will correspond with what some book or other says (though not all books agree anyway) but that isn't strictly relevant; the card, in effect, tells me what is there to see. It knows what it means and it isn't shy about saying so. Does that make any sense to you ?

 

[kisou]

^

Hmph... if I'm following along correctly why this tangent, I would imagine it's a somewhat like how when you do one spread and in any particular card, a certain color or object in the card catches your eye more than anything else in it. Like "FOCUS ON ME!" And you focus on that and what that means for the reading----- and then later on in a different reading the same card comes up, but you notice something else that pertains to the reading in a completly different way. Keeping the card constantly changing and transforming and using intuition to tell you want to look for in that card that pertains to what you're supposed to see.

 

[Little Baron]

Kind of.

I know that this is a pretty lame example, but do you mean like this -

At the moment, I am looking at the '10 of Wands' from the Prague.

Generally, we all know that some commentators regard this to be some kind of oppression or over-taxing, yes.

But when I look at the face in one reading, I might see some sort of loneliness that I relate to the querant. The eyes seem so small and sad. And the darkness in the face, like shadows might tell me that it has been a long time since the true light of love has shone for this person.

On another time I look, in another reading, the wands look fierce and hot. The person holds them carefully. Concentrating on them, I might consider that the querant has some very hot gossip or info that they are holding onto.

Looking back to the face in another reading, the eyes, still small, look peeky and harsh. Some kind of argument or conflict has gone on here and this person's piercing gaze shows that they are not ready to forgive, even if they have said so to another.

Is that how you mean? If so, it is a very interesting way of reading.

Is that what we call using our intuition?

Thanks for your help Gregory.

LB

 

[gregory]

^

Hmph... if I'm following along correctly why this tangent, I would imagine it's a somewhat like how when you do one spread and in any particular card, a certain color or object in the card catches your eye more than anything else in it. Like "FOCUS ON ME!" And you focus on that and what that means for the reading----- and then later on in a different reading the same card comes up, but you notice something else that pertains to the reading in a completly different way. Keeping the card constantly changing and transforming and using intuition to tell you want to look for in that card that pertains to what you're supposed to see.

Yes, that is a pretty good way of saying it.

I don't call it anything any more, LB - so I can't say it is using intuition - but yes, that too is the kind of thing I mean - and also some days you have a card with a pentacle - say - on the floor, and it feels really important - the hub of the card; the next time you see that card, a mug on the table (which I just invented) is more significant.

 

[kisou]

LittleBhudda and Gregory: Yes, that's exactly what I was talking about. Thank you for giving such good examples!

I don't know how much it counts in the general intuitive landscape, but I think it gives so much possibility. Mostly in being able to compare what a specific image in the card relates to the sitter on its own, or how the image relates to the traditional meaning or how the image may not relate to anything at all. "The feeling" you might get where it doesn't make sense to other cards, but the hunch.

ie "I don't know how it pertains, but I'm getting a strong sense that..."

 

[Little Baron]

Thank you both.

Glad that I asked those questions, because often I am not completely sure how it is that people work. And even that little example was interesting for me, because there was so much in just those little areas that I found to interpret. Like using a magnifying glass.

LB

 

[Keigh]

I think it's both as well. I believe that the "booklearning" we do forms a foundation from which we can read intuitively. I'm not going to try and analyze how these things are different or how they connect, I'm just stating that it works for me.

As for the original point in the thread, I think it has to do with being able to admit when you don't know what the cards are saying or when your interpretation is way off base. This thread is about taking responsibility for giving a bad reading and not passing it off to the querent by saying....well, the querent didn't follow through like they should have...and that's why the reading didn't turn out to fit the reality. That is and will always be a serious cop out - readers who do this should turn in their cards.

 

[Keigh]

LB & Gregory - that's what I do exactly! The same card will tell different stories in different readings. I remember one day I did three one card readings and drew the SAME card for each (which was very strange). I did not give three identical readings, but rather three very different ones as different aspects of the card seemed more pronounced for one reading than for another.

Thanks for being so clear and speaking my mind for me .

 

[Umbrae]

Umbrae, can I just ask what might seem a very obvious question?

Can you just explain how you came to your own meanings?

Are these meanings that have any bearing on what many call the standards, and if they are, did you arrive there yourself? in other words, thinking of the RWS as a standard, it would not be that difficult for you to find yourself thinking of loss when looking at the '5 of Cups', regardless of whether you had read Pollack, Waite and Bunning or not.

Or are your meanings developed in some other way?

That’s a good question! I wonder why nobody’s asked me before…?

I took what is called (over here) a steno pad. A 6x9 spiral topped notbook. Pages turn up. When you fill out one side you flip it over and write on the other side of the pages.

Then I took my WCS.

Then I started with the Aces. Why are they alike? Why are they different? What one thing makes them all make sense?

Then I did that with the Two’s and Three’s all the way through. Sure the 5 of Cups guy has them spilt cups…but what about that bridge?

I don’t see the Four of Swords as necessarily following the Three of Swords. I see the Fours as Fours. The way I see the Four of Swords is that it’s morning. It’s wake-up time. We are on the cusp of moving from a four to a five, it’s very movement oriented. Where as the Three of Cups is very directional oriented, it’s not that he’s taking or ignoring, or waiting on taking the cup, it’s where the cup is – it describes a Z axis! And a Z axis comes in handy when you describe motion without directional movement…which means…just about the same as traditional meanings, but a circuitous route.

Sure the guy is carrying 10 staves…but what he’s going to do with them is far more interesting than what we see on the surface, good golly – we see him ‘going’, in a state of movement! So when I later pick up a book and see “burden” I’m left feeling empty. Burden does not express what the guy is doing.

So I wrote. I listened.

Stories from others help…

Times change. Concepts, language and ideas that once were thought as being so, have been altered by time.

Back in ’93, my wife and I were in Israel, visiting her relatives. Her cousin Menya’s family had left Russia around 1918 or so, and moved to Harbin, China. Menya was raised in a Russian-Jewish community there, until he moved to Israel in 1948.


I asked Menya what the Russian word for Adventurer was. He thought for a bit and said there was not one. The concept of leaving your family, your village, and your duty to your family and village was shameful. This affected how I view both Le Bateleur and the Six of Swords, I think I mentioned this before…

Take the Six of Swords…why would a journey be a shameful act? Because your actions forced you to do what is now called a “Geographical.” Forced you to leave your family and village! The Shame! This is difficult to grasp in today’s culture. But we blithely repeat the Victorian meaning…history in the cards… I always thought of the Six of Swords as a changing of perspective…then my perspective changed.

Make sense?

Flexability and context - that's the key...