Checkpoint Charlie

Not too long ago, it was lively around the Tarot, very much so.

The whole thing was unknown to many, the history unclear, its use, a mystery, its users hidden, and what you could do and to which lengths one could take it – unexplored.

The egyptian hypothesis rose and fell, as did the revival of the Golden Dawn, and numerous packs appeared on the market, mostly clones of the Rider-Waite-Smith or Thoth packs, some in line with „la Marseillaise“, some daring to explore whole new areas, while others are done in alignment with the insights of their creators.

The cartomantic endeavour rose into to the limelight, fortunetellers were en voque for some time, then a new notion appeared: Telling fortunes was not the way to go, rather, to read for insights into the psyche. To discover ones fate was still amongst it, but soon left out, as it became a trend to say that fate is in the hands of the individual.

„I do not read your future“ is a perfectly fine thing to say nowadays as a reader.

It would have been a sign of incompetence some decades earlier. Now, it is akin to an honour.

The use of significators for the questioner and other people or areas of life was a staple, now it is mostly frowned upon. So much so, that some seem to be on the brink of forging a new readers-ethics-standart out of it. All in all, it is hilarious.

There seems to be an issue with taking the Tarot as a whole, no need to digress into separating aspects of it – the „This, not That“ in regards to Tarot seems a strong contestant for Count Dracula, considering how undying it represents itself.

I do get that it does not come that easily, for example, if predicting by cards is a skill, so is reading the psyche, but when you have a skill, there is a degree of capability, hence, „skill“ is not the way to go, literally „for better or worse“, it would just open up the next barrel of separating gunpowder.

Also, it would not be quite fitting, as the only skill involved - whether you predict, psyche around, assess possibilities or go for another point of view - is reading itself.

Which is, as we all know by now, enhanced by our familiarity with the language we decipher, here represented by our choice pack of cards.

Methods seem to fit the bill.

There are methods of reading the cards, and they are blended by each readers personal preference in style, their leaning, given by their affinity (Paul Marteau, for example, had an affinity for numbers, Mr. Mathers went astro, and Wirth&Co had a thing for the hebrew alphabet).

From methods, principles can be glanced, and those may help others in developing their own methods.

Something you feel right at home with, that is what is desired for each individual.

And if you feel right at home with reading the future, then by all means, do give it a go and time to develop, for it is a challenge well worth the effort.