Oh THAT John guy... John EatsBread
Okay, Umbrae. For some reason I thought I understood this post when it first went up. Now I'm going "what's a ticker?" "What's a chart?" "What's the right hand edge of the chart?"
Now do I understand correctly (Patience, please! I'm the gal who watches the news about Wall Street on TV and says, "why is that guy banging that thing?") the ticker is what happens after you fall off the edge of the chart? The Chart is the past performance expressed in a nice graphic that makes you think "this stock will go up for ever, where's the catch, let me get rich now?" and the ticker shows what's happening right now as the sales are being made? Each sale is a tick? It's a fluid live picture, whereas the chart is the dead static one?
Hoping I got that right, now I'll try to understand the analogy with the cards: I guess the challenge is to read the cards as though they were tickers, not charts? or - as the "right edge" of the chart where you fall off the chart into ticker-land?
Okay, now I'm thinking about how turning over the cards one by one as they come up, instead of laying them out face up in a line, is like falling off the right edge of the chart.
It's a bit of a paradox you know, because if we look at each card one at a time, you might suppose it would make you just focus on that one card, in a static way, but, you say it will bring a flow, so it makes me pause. I think you are right, though saying why is a bit difficult to put into words.
Well, you know I like to read this way - one card at a time, as it comes up. You said it was "The Artichoke Spred" - you know, you peel one card at a time off the deck, like tearing the leaves off an artichoke, savouring one leaf at a time, dipping it in butter, and scraping all the meat off with your front teeth.
What happens when I turn over one card at a time, is that of necessity the first card leads perfectly into the second. All the meat you can get is scraped off card number one, (with butter) and when the leaf is nothing but a skeleton, then the next question reveals itself, and we turn over the next card.
So the next card answers the question that arose from card number one, and very often, at the same time, was also predicted by the first card. (I find everything is usually all there in the first card). In this method, each card is related back to the preceding card, and also predicts/gives birth to the next one. It's a little bit like a spiral curling inward, where each card contains the next - It's that kind of flow.
Also when you turn the card over, and you have no idea what it is going to be, the potentiality of the whole deck is still there in the card until you turn it over. (the chaotic fluidity of the ticker).
Am I understanding you?