View Single Post
Maru  Maru is offline
Join Date: 05 Jun 2016
Location: null
Posts: 455

Originally Posted by obeygravity View Post
If we throw out a sitters receptivity to a reading then whether or not we use by the book meanings is irrelevant as the issue isn't how we interpret but rather how the sitter receives the message.

It's our job as a reader to give people the clearest message that we can. It's not, however, our job to convince them that the reading is the end all, be all of everything. Personally when I do professional readings, I rather actively insist that my sitters take my message with a grain of salt and openly ask them to question things because readings should only be seen as a tool for guidance and advice and not a definitive absolute.

When we sit and say that there's a right and wrong way to read the cards, we're in many ways putting ourselves in a position of authority which I think is both dangerous and irresponsible. It's cool if some people are okay with it but I'm not comfortable standing and saying that I know the definitive answer of every question and every reading that I provide will stand in absolute truth. I'm still a human being and while I'd like to think both my intuitive skills and my deduction skills are flawless, that's not the case.

Allowing for flexibility relieves a lot of tension and pressure on both the reader AND the sitter, and I don't see why that's a bad thing.

Totally agree.

That's part of the "snafu" with doing readings in general that I run into. With text, I'm not even trusting of my own text and it being written well or clear enough of the time to come across the way I intend.. because I see so much feedback in the cards, it's a lot of text... moreover, at least with body language and voice, I can tell if I'm coming off correctly. So that's part of the reason why I tend to prefer face-to-face or voice (I pick up a lot more from that anyway than the cards) for readings... I'm OK to advocate and help others to figure out how to do it on their own with their readings, but don't really like reading online.

I'm a believer we should try to listen to our own intuition, and while we can do still this for ourselves, I have seen it taken too far with reader<->querent relationships where these things are taken for granted and it can seriously mislead (and is sometimes dangerous) if we're not measured in how we deliver a message to the querent...

There are some querents though, you can put as many disclaimers as you'd like. They're going to still take what you tell them further than you intended... and that is frightening, how much some of these querents will give up control. At least with AT, the community is self-policing (kinda like this thread). Since technically, as members we're all "students" in a sense.

I'm a very skeptical person by nature, and having seen a lot of what goes on (on unethical side), it's a red flag for me when a reader doesn't have these considerations you mentioned ... I'm all for trying to find the "hard edges" to the energies of the cards, more closely trying to represent what a card is often about... as long as it is honest (not trying to "contort" a card's meaning)... AT is a "collaborative" encyclopedia in that sense, that that deep study into individual cards that has gone on, we can at least study the interpretive "outliers". So I think we have (or in this case, had) that platform to support an honest and earnest study.

Some people really latch onto black and white thinking as some sort of life-preserver. It obviously doesn't "protect" us from objectivity issues... but it's a false sense of security.

It also doesn't "validate", like a certificate of authenticity of sorts, readings to remain focused on staying fixed. You need some flexibility to see more "out of the box" meanings and even then, there's no one-size-fits-all because of the relative nature of perception. To be honest, all readings, even things channeled or considered "out of the ether" or whatever... it should ALL be treated with a huge grain of salt. Even when querents tell me I'm on point, I'm still skeptical... it can be true, but I still question. It's because again--I've seen so much self-deception. But again, because I think reading is about viewing things relatively... it is very hard to pin people in the absolutes with the cards, much less their actions and motives and how that will develop in the grand scheme... (Edit: And like you said, the truth is, it's about what more good can be done with that information... by the querent)

I think also it disorients future students when we try to fixate on "right" and "wrong". It's almost like... yeah, /don't/ trust that feeling in the pit of your stomach. Because it didn't come out of a book someone wrote many years ago.

Though I can understand why someone might want to master that method of reading first. That is a necessary foundation.. but as they tell us in design, learn all your fundamentals first, then you will learn when you can and can't break/bend those rules...

Edit: Sorry, edited some things
Top   #49