jmd
It is rather difficult to enter a thread that has, effectively, the equivalent of over thirty printed pages, and do any of it justice in what one tries to keep succinct...
So let me first reply in a general sense to the thread as a whole, and then to some (and only some) of the more specific points raised (especially in the opening post).
The overall sense that I get when reading through the thread is that many aspects touch upon areas that many of us are sensitive to. After all, if I directly put into question whether what a reader (even an experienced one) takes for granted (that the reading has a way of always being meaningful, and that the cards are always there to be correctly read subject o the reader being receptive), then questioning the very process of a reading will surely touch that more sensitive part within each of us.
When the thread first opened, I tried to make a post, and simply did not know how to best add any personal reflections - I am very thankful that so many have contributed, thereby not only adding various views and insights, but also keeping this more important and difficult thread active.
In the opening post, firemaiden makes quite a number of statements - and one is also forced to reflect as to whether from whence are the readings seen that are 'completely off-the-mark'. Certainly some of my own in the Your Readings section could be seen as this (witness my total blunder in identifying who the current Pope was going to be - though I did get his adopted name right... it could be argued that if the current Pope lives until only 2008, and the person I identified is then Pope, the blunder is not totally 'off-the-mark', but then, I certainly do not wish Benedict the XVIth such short reign).
My mention above would probably be true for each of us that has either posted publicly, or that has contributed to a reading in a group discussion format.
Then, there is also the 'denial' aspect (by the readee) mentioned a number of times both within this thread and in others.
This is somewhat different to the rather derogatory assumption that the reader knows best. Rather, it undoubtedly needs to be recognised that, as when a dear friend sees clearly what may be going on in one's life that one simply prefers to either not see nor admit to oneself, there may indeed be times that the reading, though accurate and given in just the right manner for the person, will be claimed to be 'off-the-mark' and downright rude.
I realise that this too has been mentioned by a number of contributors hereon.
Of course, this doesn't take away from the also very important factor of effective, gentle, and sensible communication. Undoubtedly, when mis-communication occurs, the message is not heard. When a person reacts strongly, this may be a sign that the message is not heard... or a sign that the message has been clearly heard and either rejected as incorrect, or, even, rejected because deeply known to be true but not wanting it to be so.
How does one, then, assess any reading?
If each card is viewed, as suggested, as fresh seeds to allow for an unfolding narrative, could one not simply permit, as a reader, one's flights of fanciful story-telling from taking over and effectively stating as apparent fact what is perhaps the beginnings of a new novel they should perhaps pen?
Here also is where, in my view, broad reading about the symbolism of the individual cards becomes as a foundation upon which the seed may not only take root, but grow in a healthy fashion.
This last point is really the one that many who suggest certification are also advocating (though in my view in a very unhealthy way, for in a reading, the seed needs to be able to germinate and grow in its own manner, and the reading is analogous to the developed plant, not the ground upon which it takes root, nor the waters (feelings) or Sunlight (in-the-moment insight) that sustains it - each important).
Divination, or, if you like, a reading (rather than using the cards as a psycho-analytical or equivalent tool), certainly needs this seed-thought to take shape in the developing precise imaginative faculty of the reader. This 'precise imaginative faculty' is how I would characterise, as well, the experience elf mentioned earlier - and wonderful when it occurs!
As others have said, however, there is also (usually) the person for whom the reading is done. I say usually for one may also do a reading as to what vegetables one will put into a soup one is in the process of preparing (to paraphrase an example given many months ago by Diana).
This other person, as importantly noted, is not only human with all those common needs, feelings, and acts we can generally characterise as human, but also their individual and specific characteristic (hence the recoil from such boxes as the MBTI by many - and that irrespective as to its also useful aspects in furthering understanding of temperamental characteristics).
As individual, they also come for a reading really expecting to take with due care, consideration, reflection and truth what the reader will provide them with for further entertainment (and I am using the term here in its full sense of 'to entertain', 'to think through', 'to reflect upon'). It is this that is perhaps 'useful to the reader' (to paraphrase Helvetica).
This is where sometimes some have seen from this a similarity to counselling. Personally, I would suggest that unless one is a counsellor or has skills in those areas, that it not be a counselling session - for then the readee will walk away as though it was, without the benefit of, usually, a follow up session(s).
Rather, the reading needs to stand on its own, usually provide the person with snippets that they themselves may be allowed to take within and transform in freedom. For different individuals, different readings will likely be best (or even for the same individual at different times or in differing circumstance).
The wonderful discussion about Imagination and Intuition I shall leave for now, and simply comment that this raises, also, the need to take care, during a reading, of the other. And here tmgrl2 and Umbrae have so often brought this ever so important aspect.
How does one do this? with empathy, with love - that characteristic which is opening oneself to the good that is in the other.
It is also this empathy and love that requires that we also step back from the form, to the substance. In discussions, we often focus on the form, for it is through this that we may get closer to the substance (hence the ease with which discussion may head in analysis of words or analogies used). Only yesterday I was at an all-day meeting to work on a response to a federal government document, and each time someone used the term 'industry' or 'bench-marks' or 'standards' with respect to education, I would sense an aspect of myself recoiling: the words (really single-word analogies) nearly masked the important point otherwise being offered.
Certainly, as has long being also shown, the analogies we use also tend to make our very understanding of the topic take on shades or wings of intended metonymy (or any other figures of speech).
In a discussion, this can help further clarity. It also serves to remind us, however, that a reading is not simply an analytical discussion... at least not for most of us, and that analogies or various figures of speech used may indeed have quite different connotations for the person one is reading for.
But to return to the opening post for one small and final comment.
One could make a somewhat similar criticism of any endeavour in the human realm: does 'it' (whatever the 'it' is) always 'work'?
If appropriate, yes, is the easy answer.
So let me first reply in a general sense to the thread as a whole, and then to some (and only some) of the more specific points raised (especially in the opening post).
The overall sense that I get when reading through the thread is that many aspects touch upon areas that many of us are sensitive to. After all, if I directly put into question whether what a reader (even an experienced one) takes for granted (that the reading has a way of always being meaningful, and that the cards are always there to be correctly read subject o the reader being receptive), then questioning the very process of a reading will surely touch that more sensitive part within each of us.
When the thread first opened, I tried to make a post, and simply did not know how to best add any personal reflections - I am very thankful that so many have contributed, thereby not only adding various views and insights, but also keeping this more important and difficult thread active.
In the opening post, firemaiden makes quite a number of statements - and one is also forced to reflect as to whether from whence are the readings seen that are 'completely off-the-mark'. Certainly some of my own in the Your Readings section could be seen as this (witness my total blunder in identifying who the current Pope was going to be - though I did get his adopted name right... it could be argued that if the current Pope lives until only 2008, and the person I identified is then Pope, the blunder is not totally 'off-the-mark', but then, I certainly do not wish Benedict the XVIth such short reign).
My mention above would probably be true for each of us that has either posted publicly, or that has contributed to a reading in a group discussion format.
Then, there is also the 'denial' aspect (by the readee) mentioned a number of times both within this thread and in others.
This is somewhat different to the rather derogatory assumption that the reader knows best. Rather, it undoubtedly needs to be recognised that, as when a dear friend sees clearly what may be going on in one's life that one simply prefers to either not see nor admit to oneself, there may indeed be times that the reading, though accurate and given in just the right manner for the person, will be claimed to be 'off-the-mark' and downright rude.
I realise that this too has been mentioned by a number of contributors hereon.
Of course, this doesn't take away from the also very important factor of effective, gentle, and sensible communication. Undoubtedly, when mis-communication occurs, the message is not heard. When a person reacts strongly, this may be a sign that the message is not heard... or a sign that the message has been clearly heard and either rejected as incorrect, or, even, rejected because deeply known to be true but not wanting it to be so.
How does one, then, assess any reading?
If each card is viewed, as suggested, as fresh seeds to allow for an unfolding narrative, could one not simply permit, as a reader, one's flights of fanciful story-telling from taking over and effectively stating as apparent fact what is perhaps the beginnings of a new novel they should perhaps pen?
Here also is where, in my view, broad reading about the symbolism of the individual cards becomes as a foundation upon which the seed may not only take root, but grow in a healthy fashion.
This last point is really the one that many who suggest certification are also advocating (though in my view in a very unhealthy way, for in a reading, the seed needs to be able to germinate and grow in its own manner, and the reading is analogous to the developed plant, not the ground upon which it takes root, nor the waters (feelings) or Sunlight (in-the-moment insight) that sustains it - each important).
Divination, or, if you like, a reading (rather than using the cards as a psycho-analytical or equivalent tool), certainly needs this seed-thought to take shape in the developing precise imaginative faculty of the reader. This 'precise imaginative faculty' is how I would characterise, as well, the experience elf mentioned earlier - and wonderful when it occurs!
As others have said, however, there is also (usually) the person for whom the reading is done. I say usually for one may also do a reading as to what vegetables one will put into a soup one is in the process of preparing (to paraphrase an example given many months ago by Diana).
This other person, as importantly noted, is not only human with all those common needs, feelings, and acts we can generally characterise as human, but also their individual and specific characteristic (hence the recoil from such boxes as the MBTI by many - and that irrespective as to its also useful aspects in furthering understanding of temperamental characteristics).
As individual, they also come for a reading really expecting to take with due care, consideration, reflection and truth what the reader will provide them with for further entertainment (and I am using the term here in its full sense of 'to entertain', 'to think through', 'to reflect upon'). It is this that is perhaps 'useful to the reader' (to paraphrase Helvetica).
This is where sometimes some have seen from this a similarity to counselling. Personally, I would suggest that unless one is a counsellor or has skills in those areas, that it not be a counselling session - for then the readee will walk away as though it was, without the benefit of, usually, a follow up session(s).
Rather, the reading needs to stand on its own, usually provide the person with snippets that they themselves may be allowed to take within and transform in freedom. For different individuals, different readings will likely be best (or even for the same individual at different times or in differing circumstance).
The wonderful discussion about Imagination and Intuition I shall leave for now, and simply comment that this raises, also, the need to take care, during a reading, of the other. And here tmgrl2 and Umbrae have so often brought this ever so important aspect.
How does one do this? with empathy, with love - that characteristic which is opening oneself to the good that is in the other.
It is also this empathy and love that requires that we also step back from the form, to the substance. In discussions, we often focus on the form, for it is through this that we may get closer to the substance (hence the ease with which discussion may head in analysis of words or analogies used). Only yesterday I was at an all-day meeting to work on a response to a federal government document, and each time someone used the term 'industry' or 'bench-marks' or 'standards' with respect to education, I would sense an aspect of myself recoiling: the words (really single-word analogies) nearly masked the important point otherwise being offered.
Certainly, as has long being also shown, the analogies we use also tend to make our very understanding of the topic take on shades or wings of intended metonymy (or any other figures of speech).
In a discussion, this can help further clarity. It also serves to remind us, however, that a reading is not simply an analytical discussion... at least not for most of us, and that analogies or various figures of speech used may indeed have quite different connotations for the person one is reading for.
But to return to the opening post for one small and final comment.
One could make a somewhat similar criticism of any endeavour in the human realm: does 'it' (whatever the 'it' is) always 'work'?
If appropriate, yes, is the easy answer.
