Reading intuitively = the norm?

[Fianic]

Whenever I go to the exchanges forum I always see that people read "intuitively". i've never seen anyone mention they read "systematically", which is the camp I happen to fall into since my intuition sucks (maybe partly because I'm a man if stereotypes are to be believed).

Why is the intuitive style the overwhelming majority in the tarot world? A lot of readers seem to regard the act of taking the time to learn a system with utmost dread, like having to go back to school.

Most decks have their own unique systems as defined by each deck's creator, outlined in each deck's guidebooks. Yet a lot of tarot readers treat those books like men treat instruction booklets, saying "oh I'll just figure it out". To which "reading intuitively" seems like the Tarot equivalent.

Mind I have had great readings from intuitive readers, with my reaction usually being "oh I've never thought about that". But there's also readings I've had where I though "what the hell are you talking about?".

I've never received "systematic readings" from others so I can't quite compare.

Some readers sort of treat systems of book meanings as training wheels when starting to learn Tarot, but then discard them once they're confident with their intuition. I say "some" because not all readers go through this process. Maybe I'm still in the middle of this process. How does one actually transition from one to the other?

Maybe I'm wrong in my perception, but it seems to me that a lot of readers view intuitive readings as "better". Why is that? From a certain perspective it seems almost a sign of laziness (not trying to be disrespectful), unless it really is the "better" way to read for that individual.

 

[Nachtigall]

Why is the intuitive style the overwhelming majority in the tarot world?

Is it really?
Most readers I know insist on both learning the system AND developing intuition. You can go with one of these approaches only, and it may work in some cases (i.e. a "psychic" may not need the cards at all, and a non-intuitive person may do accurate readings by learning all the correspondences of the system), but it's the combination of both learning and intuition (and also experience) that works the best.

 

[Fianic]

Is it really?

That's the question I'm wondering. This is just the impression I get of people's opinions from reading threads on this forum. My question "is this really what you guys think?".

 

[Zephyros]

In my opinion, the two aren't really that separate. I consider myself a humble student of the different systems, and base my readings on everything from color tables to Kabbalah to astrology to who knows what else. However, what makes them all fit together is me and my own... well, you could call it intuition or anything else you want, but that personal touch is essential.

You haven't told us what system you use, but I'm guessing, no offense, that it is a modified system that incorporates the two approaches. The Golden Dawn system of reading is both time-consuming and horribly impractical (it is called The Opening of the Key, worth a read) and I know of no one who practices it on a regular basis. The readings it gives are amazingly deep, but it takes several hours, if you manage to see it through, as there are several steps in which the reading is declared void.

Ultimately I think the confusion is with the fuzziness of the very definition of the word "intuition" which, like most things in Tarot, each makes up their own meaning for it.

Also, the idea of "book meanings" is misleading. Take the GD decks, for example. Each has an LWB with "book meanings" and they may very well be correct, but it's never enough. The meanings aren't arbitrary, each card flows from all others and has it's place which is important. In other words, the 5 of Cups is what it is because of the 4 and 6, and also because of the Devil and Magician. Learning what makes the cards into what they are is far more important than merely memorizing the meanings. With some cards, having learned all the Kabbalah, astrology etc. that make it up I reached full circle, and found out that what I thought was the card, really was. Others forced me to think about them, and develop my own meanings for them, based on the different components that make them up. Ultimately Tarot, I think, should develop independent thought, even when reading systematically, otherwise a reader is merely a book, and that's dull.

Just so I'm not making any false assumptions, how do you read?

 

[gregory]

No. I do generally read without using traditional or generic meanings - but the enormous majority here don't.

That said - ANY good reader uses their intuition alongside the meanings they know - or you could just look up the meanings in a book ! I don't think anyone discards the meanings once they have them in their repertory, though - I think they just expand on them - the happy family 10 cups, for instance, traditionally means x, y and z, but if drawn with - say - 10 Swords afterwards it may not be that positive all of a sudden. So even the generic meanings fluctuate.

There does tend to be more discussion of other methods, I guess. That doesn't necessarily mean that those methods are used more. I know I feel out of place in most exchange circles here...

 

[MandMaud]

Maybe it's more a case that more of the intuitive readers 'declare themselves', thinking most other readers aren't intuitive??

[That's my whole contribution, the following is all waffle. ]

My personal story: I started (seriously) studying Tarot only this year, and assumed the systematic way was all there was - from a pre-knowledge that was nothing but LWB type, y'know, set of cards that was very obviously structured, lists of meanings... It was a surprise to me that I can incorporate my intuition. Since I'm a healer, that was great! (I tend to say 'intuitive healer' though beginning to think 'empathic healer' could be more accurate.)

While I'm a beginner in tarot 'grammar', my intuition is more support to me than I may get when in future I'm better able to read systematically.

Did you guess I'm a linguist? And one good simile for Tarot is that it's akin to learning a language.* Now, a language has the vocabulary and grammar etc, which native speakers get right even though most can't explain them ('Is you does liking strawberried?' isn't natural - I avoid 'correct'! - but how many can talk about agreement of the subject and auxiliary, nouns not taking verbal endings, etc? yet every native English speaker knows that's not how you construct that sentence, even though we all understand its sense. it's like explaining jokes)

Among linguists I am very unusual in having a 'sciency' mind, more at home with the grammar than the 'arty' side. It's the same with intuition, I start with the Swords in me and that gives the Cups something to work with... I have seen others here describe their intuitive way of working something like that, too. To stick with language, speaking in a conversation is more a Cups thing while getting to grips with the grammar is a Swords thing. Hence most linguists aren't comfortable around computer languages but know what they're doing with literary criticism; I'm the opposite.

Personally I don't believe it's anything to do with being a man... I tend to think that's an excuse just as it's an excuse if a woman blames womanhood for being baffled by maths. (Don't get me onto the ins n outs of maths education! )

Great question, made me think, thanx!
mm

* I also like the cooking-from-a-recipe comparison.

 

[Fianic]

In my opinion, the two aren't really that separate. I consider myself a humble student of the different systems, and base my readings on everything from color tables to Kabbalah to astrology to who knows what else. However, what makes them all fit together is me and my own... well, you could call it intuition or anything else you want, but that personal touch is essential.

You haven't told us what system you use, but I'm guessing, no offense, that it is a modified system that incorporates the two approaches. The Golden Dawn system of reading is both time-consuming and horribly impractical (it is called The Opening of the Key, worth a read) and I know of no one who practices it on a regular basis. The readings it gives are amazingly deep, but it takes several hours, if you manage to see it through, as there are several steps in which the reading is declared void.

Ultimately I think the confusion is with the fuzziness of the very definition of the word "intuition" which, like most things in Tarot, each makes up their own meaning for it.

Also, the idea of "book meanings" is misleading. Take the GD decks, for example. Each has an LWB with "book meanings" and they may very well be correct, but it's never enough. The meanings aren't arbitrary, each card flows from all others and has it's place which is important. In other words, the 5 of Cups is what it is because of the 4 and 6, and also because of the Devil and Magician. Learning what makes the cards into what they are is far more important than merely memorizing the meanings. With some cards, having learned all the Kabbalah, astrology etc. that make it up I reached full circle, and found out that what I thought was the card, really was. Others forced me to think about them, and develop my own meanings for them, based on the different components that make them up. Ultimately Tarot, I think, should develop independent thought, even when reading systematically, otherwise a reader is merely a book, and that's dull.

Just so I'm not making any false assumptions, how do you read?

I use the Golden Dawn system. And I DO read the OOTK on a regular basis . I have to agree with you, despite the juicy detail it gives you, it does go overboard, and it is VERY time consuming -_-.

The reason I used "systems" generally rather than referring to the GD is that whilst profound, I don't feel it's necessarily "more legitimate" than other systems. As they didn't create the Tarot with those meanings, they just used the Tarot as an already existing vessel to attach their teachings onto it, although it fits very well. Thus I believe other systems are just as legitimate and the GD by no means have the monopoly on Tarot.

Different systems have different reasons as to "why" each card have particular meanings. But I find some readers are content with knowing for example the Empress represents Love without going into the "why".

In some respects "reading intuitively" falls into this. Although I agree, there are readers who both learn AND read intuitively. My question is sort of directed to readers who read purely intuitively.

As Natchtigall said there are readers who do both. However there are a lot of readers who are aware of systems like the Qabalah, Astrology etc. yet have no interest in learning them. Some find it "hard". Others i've encountered have a very negative view on anything that can be seen as "dogmatic". So anything other people say about meanings becomes irrelevant.

Edit: but back on topic. My questions is why seem people favor reading intuitively rather than systematically. Or is that just my misperception? (sorry for my little rant btw).

 

[Zephyros]

Wow, hats off, the OOTK is... wow... I generally don't have time to read the whole deck

I feel a little uncomfortable criticizing modern society in this post, but, there it is. Today, everything is made to be as easy as possible, to great detriment. Perhaps the bottom of the barrel is the Doreen Virtue deck, which is said to be completely safe and easy to read. For me at least, Tarot isn't an association game. However, the best intuitive readers I've seen have done other work, that wasn't necessarily "book work." They did self work with the cards, making them mean something to them. With others, intuition is an excuse (I'm speaking very generally here) and a shortcut that leads nowhere.

I especially hate those who say that since the [GD] decks were made by white male Europeans, whatever they said can be safely discarded, since we "know better." News flash, most people don't. Once you tell people they are all stars and that there is a fabulous way of knowing the future which demands nothing of them, they will flock in droves (I don't know if she lives in a castle, but I'd storm Angeles Arrien's with a mob of angry peasants any day).

I've rambled and lost my point, but take an analogy. I think that reading Tarot isn't very different from Moses's walk in the desert, Muhammed's sitting in his cave, or Jesus's temptations, again in the desert. Enlightenment and self work take time and aren't always pleasant, but the "mysteries" don't reveal themselves to casual interest. I do think that after several lifetimes of intuitive reading one could recreate the entire school of Kabbalah, but nobody wants to do that much work.

 

[MandMaud]

the word "intuition" which, like most things in Tarot, each makes up their own meaning for it.

Like most things in life, methinx...

 

[Fianic]

To Mandmaud, gregory and Nachtigall:

It seems you guys interpret "intuitive" to mean that "One has the basics down and can read Tarot like a second nature".

Using Mandmaud's analogy: fluent linguists speak a language "intuitively" whilst beginning students have to deconstruct grammer to "build" sentences.

Interesting, I didn't think of intuition in this way. Maybe as you said, it's the way intuitive readers declare themselves which makes me think they're implying that they're using a completely separate way of reading entirely rather than hinting at a level of fluency.