thorhammer
I like the Name Intense (or Intensive?) Deck Study, too. That might possibly placate the traditionalists, I hope. I think it's fair to say that this exercise is an evolved form of the original ODW, possibly so far evolved as to be another species, so distinct nomenclature would be polite and progressive.
Also, it seems that my intention for this exercise is more deck-focused, in that I want to concentrate on one deck for a period of time in the hope that yes, I will learn it upside down, inside out and sideways. To that end, I will be using the companion book. I also intend to source material that I see as being likely to add to my understanding of the deck. For instance, the companion book references many other works from varied subject matter, including one that I already own, "The White Goddess" by Robert Graves. In my quest to deepen my understanding of this deck, I see this as putting out feeler-roots so that my base for understanding is broader and draws on a wider worldview.
As to another thread - yes, that is probably a good idea. This one has served a useful purpose - that of helping us to "nut" out our intentions and the differences between those and the original exercise as engendered by Umbrae et al., as well as being somewhat of a filter. But if we were to start another with a title that reflects the evolution, we could possibly (hopefully) avoid the contention that has occurred here.
Another couple of days here wouldn't hurt, though . Folks seem to be finding it almost fun.
\m/ Kat
Also, it seems that my intention for this exercise is more deck-focused, in that I want to concentrate on one deck for a period of time in the hope that yes, I will learn it upside down, inside out and sideways. To that end, I will be using the companion book. I also intend to source material that I see as being likely to add to my understanding of the deck. For instance, the companion book references many other works from varied subject matter, including one that I already own, "The White Goddess" by Robert Graves. In my quest to deepen my understanding of this deck, I see this as putting out feeler-roots so that my base for understanding is broader and draws on a wider worldview.
As to another thread - yes, that is probably a good idea. This one has served a useful purpose - that of helping us to "nut" out our intentions and the differences between those and the original exercise as engendered by Umbrae et al., as well as being somewhat of a filter. But if we were to start another with a title that reflects the evolution, we could possibly (hopefully) avoid the contention that has occurred here.
Another couple of days here wouldn't hurt, though . Folks seem to be finding it almost fun.
\m/ Kat