The complexity of the subjective Tarot

[Bernice]

RiccardoLS: By the way, I'm fascinated by the idea of the "other way round". From knowledge to intuition (as Lillie, Aerin and many others said).
The square vs the circle. And the circle vs the square.

Count me in there too The tarot deck - and the playing cards - are clearly 'structured'. We can build whatever we like into this structure, as did the esoteric tarot-modifiers. But the structure, like the 'car journey' that you spoke of (brilliant!), is on the same road, going in the same direction. So I can only think of one reason as to why a purely intuitive or psychic person would choose to use a tarot deck, they like the pictures to focuss on.

So yes, I think it's probably wiser to get some system under your belt (even if you've created it yourself) before giving intuition full rein.

Just my thoughts.


Bee

 

[kakooii]

How frustrating that must be when they see others pull answers out of the air when replying to posts. They may be wondering if they will ever be able to do that themselves.

That's how I know I've had a good tarot reading, when I'm left thinking "I know NOTHING about tarot!" In a way it's sadness that brings me joy, or maybe just keeps me humble and onward in my learning because as much as I think "I've got it," I don't.

Maybe it doesn't matter to which camp you belong to anymore, perhaps the words 'intuitive' and 'knowledge' (or what have you) are more prohibitive than helpful now. Or do both describe the same thing? Format, which comes down to your chosen style and technique plus the grounding that is already there in the 78 pieces. Much like writing - you have to do some serious writing to find your voice - the dynamic that enables your flow - and then own it. Part of that has to come from the technique of examining/critiquing other work and the old adage of repetition being the mother of all learning. How you go about that examining/critiquing is different from person to person, but the more you do it, the more it makes you a better writer whether you go with what the piece inspires in you, or systematically pulling apart syntax and semantics or a mixture of both. Or something else entirely.

Now why can't knowledge and intuitive just love each other and get along? Maybe they need a celebrity couple name Knowtuitive or Intuledge. But which bit comes first in the name - argh! I sense this discussion will always be a chicken or the egg runaround - well, it will in my happy little world

 

[RiccardoLS]

There was a guy (unfortunately he doesn't post on AT) called Descartes who expressed his idea of dualism between res cogitans and rex extensa.
It's easy, it's simple.
We must wait for another guy called Damasio to challenge the idea that mind and body are actually detached one from the other.
We have given the responsability of our identity to the mind and neglected the body as an useful slave (Strength anyone?), so far that we can't think that the complexity of our being belong to the body as mush as to the mind.
Like we think that if we say that we are basically neurological patterns and chemical and electrical balance, we are demeaning our being. And can't it be that we are demeaning phisicity, not considering her able of magic.

Intuition and knowledge, then.
But how?
Because if I feel anything looking at the last years of Tarot, I feel like we are losing structure. Losing the abilty to work through structure.

 

[kakooii]

I don't know if this makes sense but how can structure be lost when there are 78 cards in tarot and not just two - one labelled yes, the other labelled no? To me, this is the structure.

Every time I get a new deck, I come up with what seems like a really cool way to study it, get in touch with it, and I usually spend quite some time thinking about how I'm going to do that and how long it will take and when I'll do it, researching how others have used it etc. etc. Then I get the deck and without fail the universe takes my 'schedule' of works away from me and I end up doing something else with it that probably works better than my original method.

Perhaps definition of structure needs to change?

I've not read Damasio's stuff, but I get it already. Mind body soul it's all as one, any body can tell you that, I am a system as a whole, not just component parts. So with regards to the deck/structure/learning process, all I am doing is introducing the logistics of the new deck to my system, so I can work with it. Now does it really matter how you go about doing that and what kind of labels you give that process? I'm sure it means more confusion at the beginning as you seek to find your way/try different things, but surely it pays off in the end when each person has assimilated the information on their system's terms. I guess the thing that comes closest for me is learning styles/preferences.