One vs. multiple cards for spread positions

[omnislashed]

Hello! I'm a major Thoth-junkie, ergo I'm obviously partial to elemental dignities. Hence it's more productive for me to utilize a "blocky" spread approach, otherwise I'm sort of bereft of an "alternative" (blocked) card meaning for each position.

Having multiple cards (I normally use two) for each position not only assists in decoding the energies of the question -- are they positive, negative, or neutral? -- but it also helps me read intuitively. When I use single-card approaches, I have to "break up" the spread a bit, and it's difficult to scrutinize how the cards interact pictorially. However, when I'm examining pairs or triplets, it's personally easier for me to interpret what is being reinforced or suppressed in the situation. I believe this principle could even apply if you use a "reversal" approach instead of an elemental dignity approach, as well. But that's just what has been comfortable for me ... Mileage, of course, varies here.

I guess what I'm saying is that an advanced Tarot reader could probably get a lot out of this method, while it could make it easier for a beginner to "make" the cards say something they understand or want to hear.

Maybe. Then again, having multiple cards -- particularly if you're factoring in dignities -- can additionally make it harder for a neophyte to formulate into wishful thinking, I believe. (See: My topic from yesterday about the Knight of Wands alongside the Ten of Cups. Drove me nuts!) Actually, even if the beginner uses reversals, this can still be tricky in certain contexts. Because if you've got two contradictory cards, you're pretty much forced to interpret the components more painstakingly. You've either got rivalling energies in the same placement, or strengthening energies in the same placement.

You've got a point, though. To some degree, it could almost be tantamount to using multiple clarifiers for each position. That being said, I've found this approach to be particularly compatible with Thoth (or Thoth-inspired) decks; I believe they were even intentionally constructed with that objective in mind. I remember using a RWS-based deck with multiple pairs, however, and having great success in examing the vacillations or "transitions" within one placement, almost as though the figures were having internal dialog. In some scenarios, one card describes the surface aspect, while the other unfurls the "landscape". So we've got pairs/triplets with multiple layers. This can be helpful if the situation is particularly complex.

There's my disjointed ramble. Hope you can make sense of it.

 

[Tresha]

I generally use a sort of modified personalized celtic cross spread, drawing one card for each position. However, that spread is the basic framework of the reading. My readings tend to have an additional dozen or so cards pulled, usually in groups of three, at various points on the original spread. I cant remember the last time I did a reading that didn't include additional cards, 6 at the minimum.

 

[rainkins]

For me personally, I don't use spreads at all unless I am forced to in a reading exchange. Otherwise I don't use them. I do a series of interrelated questions and pull one to three cards for each question, depending on how detailed an answer I feel I need.

To me, that sounds basically the same as inventing a spread on the spot with unique positional meanings depending on the question and situation, and then using multiple cards for each position (or, as I suggested before, mini-readings within a meta-reading). I think it's interesting that you see it as different from using spreads -- can I then assume that your definition of a "spread" includes only predefined layouts with standard positions that a question is fit into rather than impromptu layouts with positions defined specifically to the question? I would call either a spread, but I can certainly see how they are different. Thanks very much for sharing your method!

 

[rainkins]

Having multiple cards (I normally use two) for each position not only assists in decoding the energies of the question -- are they positive, negative, or neutral? -- but it also helps me read intuitively. When I use single-card approaches, I have to "break up" the spread a bit, and it's difficult to scrutinize how the cards interact pictorially. However, when I'm examining pairs or triplets, it's personally easier for me to interpret what is being reinforced or suppressed in the situation. I believe this principle could even apply if you use a "reversal" approach instead of an elemental dignity approach, as well. But that's just what has been comfortable for me ... Mileage, of course, varies here.

How fascinating. I could sort of see initially how this could be beneficial (hence why I asked the question in the first place), but I really appreciate getting an explanation from someone who actually uses this method. You've convinced me: while I don't see making this my primary approach, I'm definitely going to try it out!

Maybe. Then again, having multiple cards -- particularly if you're factoring in dignities -- can additionally make it harder for a neophyte to formulate into wishful thinking, I believe. (See: My topic from yesterday about the Knight of Wands alongside the Ten of Cups. Drove me nuts!) Actually, even if the beginner uses reversals, this can still be tricky in certain contexts. Because if you've got two contradictory cards, you're pretty much forced to interpret the components more painstakingly. You've either got rivalling energies in the same placement, or strengthening energies in the same placement.

I definitely see your point. I still think it could be easier to "fudge" the answer by privileging positive or desired cards that arise -- almost like defining positional meanings after the fact (there's a specific term for this in linguistics but I can't for the life of me remember what it is), but if someone is willing to work for the answer I think it could certainly yield a deeper and more specific response.

So we've got pairs/triplets with multiple layers.

So it IS like mini-spreads in a meta-spread.

Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts; I feel very enlightened about a method I'd never thought much about before.

 

[rainkins]

I generally use a sort of modified personalized celtic cross spread, drawing one card for each position. However, that spread is the basic framework of the reading. My readings tend to have an additional dozen or so cards pulled, usually in groups of three, at various points on the original spread. I cant remember the last time I did a reading that didn't include additional cards, 6 at the minimum.

Do you pull additional cards as clarifiers, for additional insight, or something else? What determines where/when you use additional cards?

 

[SunChariot]

To me, that sounds basically the same as inventing a spread on the spot with unique positional meanings depending on the question and situation, and then using multiple cards for each position (or, as I suggested before, mini-readings within a meta-reading). I think it's interesting that you see it as different from using spreads -- can I then assume that your definition of a "spread" includes only predefined layouts with standard positions that a question is fit into rather than impromptu layouts with positions defined specifically to the question? I would call either a spread, but I can certainly see how they are different. Thanks very much for sharing your method!

Yes, to me a spread has positions and I don't use them (positions). Also a spread is something you do all at once to me. I do each question one at a time.

I don't do "layouts" at all. I just pull a few cards. There are no positions at all.

And of course you are very welcome to whatever I can share that might be helpful.

Babs

 

[Tresha]

"Do you pull additional cards as clarifiers, for additional insight, or something else? What determines where/when you use additional cards?"

It has pretty much evolved into just ... personal style, I suppose. It started years ago, pulling cards to clarify questions about certain cards/positions on a spread. I'd pull a card or cards on top of or next to that card/position. I especially liked to do it after a cold reading, when the querent would usually give feedback. Perhaps it was a way to turn cold readings into active ones?

Now, how it works is that as an active client talks during the reading, I find myself pulling 3 cards (It has been 3 for about 8 years now and feels settled) a couple to a few points along the reading. It feels natural and almost random to me, but I recognize some triggers that almost always make me itch to pull those cards. If the client asks for clarification (naturally), looks confused, seems to be trying to steer the reading towards what he wants to see or fears seeing (this is the most common by far), court cards appear, even if I am feeling particularly nosy at that point.

I have many clients who I would classify as cold clients. They don't talk at all during the framework (initial spread) and I lay it and read it without feedback. THEN, they want to discuss it and I find myself starting to pull 3 cards just like above. I don't think there are more cold clients here than anywhere, but I think my personal style of reading attracts cold clients to become repeat clients possibly. If a cold client never becomes verbal, I pull at least one set of 3 cards at the end, just because that's how I do it. I can't even remember the last time I did any reading (other than a single card pull) without pulling at least one set of three additionals.

 

[rainkins]

Yes, to me a spread has positions and I don't use them (positions). Also a spread is something you do all at once to me. I do each question one at a time.

I don't do "layouts" at all. I just pull a few cards. There are no positions at all.

Cool, thanks for clarifying. I always deal with each card, question, or position one at a time -- I know a lot of people recommend turning over the whole spread for an overview of the answer and then analyzing each card, but I feel that would be way too overwhelming, especially in large spreads. I actually blogged about this a while ago: to me, taking each card (or, in your case, set of cards) at a time is more of a linear progression or narrative, while starting with the whole spread and then working backward is more like a flash of insight (and one I personally would find somewhat blinding). I also don't put the cards in any special position when I do impromptu spreads -- just in a line or wherever there's room on my reading surface. So for me, there's not much difference. I can certainly understand your perspective, however, and will keep it in mind -- it's always good to remember that others may have different connotations for certain words and concepts than I do!

 

[rainkins]

Perhaps it was a way to turn cold readings into active ones?

I like this very much. It sounds like your three-card clarifiers/positional mini-spreads after the reading are like further dialogue or commentary to aid discussion -- kind of like an uninterrupted speech followed by a shorter Q & A session. I can see how that could work well.

 

[Tresha]

I like this very much. It sounds like your three-card clarifiers/positional mini-spreads after the reading are like further dialogue or commentary to aid discussion -- kind of like an uninterrupted speech followed by a shorter Q & A session. I can see how that could work well.

Yes, it is very much like a conversation in practice.