Methods and Tendencies

 As an introductory post, an overview will serve.

In the whole cartomantic endeavor, there are several methods on how to approach the cards, what to do with them and so forth, as well as, obviously, tendencies.

The methods are as follows: 1: Learning what was before you (or before you heard of it), by study of books, in groups, or mentorship; this does include whatever is seen as a „traditional set of meanings“, where, again, we have several, whether we deal with the Tarot de Marseille, the Smith-Waite, or what is known as playing cards.

Also, the various methods to incorporate a kabbala (= „a secret teaching“, 'secret' for the sole reason that it is not openly communicated; in modern terms: a meta), mostly fall into this category, same as "My ma/grandma/etc. did it like that, so do I"; obviously, this is 'mentorship'.

2: By experiencing how the cards work for you when putting them on the table to answer a question/shed light on whatever.

3: „Diving into the card“ by a blend of imagination and meditation, at times paired with cold reason, to encounter what you thereby experience as the core of it.

Onwards to the Tendencies, where it becomes tricky.

One is to see the cards as plain cardboard, triggering the process of conceptual blending, to arrive at a new perspective towards something, for example: „How could the story proceed from here?“ or „How can I earn a higher income?“.

Anotherone is to see them as a means for psychological exploration, to look at what is in the depths of ones subconcious, a term coined by C.G.Jung in the early 19hundreds.

Anotherone is to use them as a means for self-indulgence, that is: To proceed from the base that whatever you do or think about so./sth. is right and the cards serve as a tool to counter doubts.

Another tendency is to see one way of reading the cards, arrived at by methods 1,2 and/or 3, as the sole way everyone has to adhere to, and the counterweight of it, to see your way, arrived at by methods 1,2 and/or 3, as your way only, encouraging others to find their own.

Then, the tendency to „foretell the future“: This is a double-edged sword (actually, the whole cartomantic endeavor is), for it touches on believe and dogma: Determinism and free-will, and the synthesis of the two. On this, I can only offer my honest opinion: Cards do work well to answer questions. From the moment where one phrased her question like this: „What will happen if.../on.../in...“, the answer will „(fore)tell the future“, by virtue of the focus established by the question. If working without a question, it is the intention of the reader which sets the baseline of the reading. This intention can be to impress, to aid, to gain insight, to see what will happen if the questioner does not change his behaviour, or how she could change her behaviour to steer her life in a different direction, or that the cards "shall show what the client has to know", etc.

Then, in working, there is the option to either have the client shuffle/touch the deck or to never ever let someone else touch your reading deck. Both are tendencies, and do work. The same goes for reversals - incorporating them or not, both have their precedents, and both do work. Including them depends entirely on your preference.

Lastly, I want to adress the whole of cartomantic literature: There is a tendency to present ones own findings as unviersal. This either stems from pride, from an expected gain, from the authors believe,

or naïvety.

Additionally, there is yet another reason, which is the amount of words needed: Instead of saying „This cards means this“, one would have to say „This card, from that and that deck, in my own readings, most of the time, appears as this, for these reasons, the probability to appear as something similar to this again is heigthened, hence I do say it can stand for this.“

And the issue continues in the section where the author explains why the card stands for this ("... these reasons..."), see: „It is the link between the 2^nd and 3^rd center on the sephiroth's tree, in short: ...“ becomes: „As I am linking my cards to the variation of the sephiroth tree communicated in the (f.e.) 19^th century by [insert name of either order or author here], and align the suits to this and that order (elemental, numerical, functional, fictional...), for me, I do place it on the link between the 2^nd and 3^rd center of that specific variation of the sephiroth's tree, which I and others adhere to, which then would have to do with this and that, therefor, the meaning I asign to the card is that and that.“

So, the tone of most cartomantic literature is somewhat strange, for you have to deal with you approaching the absolute. Tendencies, here: Either from a point of already knowing the absolute and from there bringing the absolutes (whatever that may be) teaching to the unknowing (again, whoever that may be), or from drawing closer towards the absolute and showing where one arrived in doing so. 2^nd set: either from a crafts perspective, illustrating the workings without the underlying influences, or from illustrating the influences, thereby arriving at the craft.

All of the above are here illustrated somewhat extreme, they are best understood as a „leaning towards“.

Now, that an overview is provided, I will give you my coordinates, so you now what you may expect when re-visiting this blog: In methods, I practice all three, but have found that what I had learned by method 1 became sculpted and defined, or fine-tuned, to no small amount, by methods 2 and 3.

As such, please deal with this blog as beeing first and foremost an illustration of „Tune Seasons 2^nd and 3^rd register“.

My tendencies are: Cards as a tool to shed light on whatever is inside the scope of my enquiry, in short: to answer questions, whatever they may be.

Past, present, future honestly does not matter to me.

Concerning the deck, I do the shuffling myself and read without reversals.

Lastly, I do see my approach to cartomancy as the one I chose, and do not believe it to be universally applicable. The same card can well have different meanings to others, which mine won't ever incorporate.

To give you a brief example: Having grown up in germany, the first pack of cards getting my attention was the „Schafkopf Tarock“ of the Württemberg variation, and I grew fond of the suit of leaves – what I believe to be the reason for spades beeing positv/neutral to me, whereas the clubs mostly have a negative connotation.

I did try to assign the negatives to spades, but my readings were off, so I let the clubs do the clubing. They do not let me down in that regard.