Mhat is it?

We went along the rails of traces laid out by those mysterious sages of the past – or were they?

Yes, Oh! Holy men (why men?) packed their knowledge, which they saw would otherwise become lost (why are we so accustomed to the idea that „knowledge is lost“, like it is a base condition for knowledge to be lost or secret in the first place?), into mundane means, hence arriving at playing cards.

The story was told, believed, debunked, reanimated, sprayed over with the holy water of science, and did not die.

Oh, the story has not been told completely – replace men with man, add „Hermes“ (the universal delivery service for about anything, apparently), and stick the origin of the trump suit to the firmament, then the trumps predate the ordinary playing cards because those are like a lesser manifestation of their bigger origin up in the heavens, which needed more time to bring their form to life – or vice versa, the first principle was – of course – the numbers, hence, the first packs were numbered, and so forth.

We shall stop here, for good measure, it is up to everyone to figure out how ideas become matter, and, if time permits, make Somethingtarot out of it.

But wait, we have now dealt with the supermyth part, what about the Marseille Pack?

Isn't it strange, that one? That it has been transmitted over time from the middle ages until now? Still intact, in it's form? Was there not some intent at work, like, to tell something?

Might it not have been because copying is much faster than re-inventing from scratch, playing with details makes it it's own kind, and cardmakers, like everybody else, needed to secure a living?

If it was not invented for fortune-telling/divination/musing, what speaks against using it nonetheless?

Trivially spoken, the bones of various animals have surely not been intended for us to read them or make dice out of them (and then read those), we still went ahead and did it.

And mostly, we do not even use the animals for that any longer, but still use dice.

Even though animals have evidently been harmed in the process of the creation of dice, vegan people play with them.

I dare to say that something does not need to be invented for the purpose you use it for (like cucumbers – or is it only now, after the implementation of woo-tube, that they serve their divine purpose of scaring cats while filming them?), it is more a question of whether it does the job or not, and if our choice instrument is to our liking.

Now, this is problematic: I want to go on, but have to adress some.

Mainly on the line of implementation of ideas – which covers anything from a depiction of social classes, agendas of families who comissioned the production of decks, to esotericism, or supposedly hidden details used for an assumed definite end, f.e. the secret lore of the cardmakers no one knows of but some are convinced it exists, while others seem to have understood it – one bold remark:

It is impossible that the cards have been made without any sort of idea being implemented into their design, augmented and specified by generations to come which have now passed who added their own take or flair to it, and that is where we are now.

It is our time to contribute what we deem important. Creative contribution is what kept the whole thing going until now.

While easy to do at first glance, there is peril.

All too often, contribution is lost in criticism, mostly invoked by jealousy (not neccessarily towards the contributor but a group the contributing person assumedly represents), and the contributor sees his/her dear idea ripped to shreds – only to be sewed together by the very same people who then present it as some sort of common knowledge, about 9 to 16 months later.

One example would be the „third eye“ on VIII of Paul Marteaus TdM.

Someone had the notion to link it to the corresponding chakra.

And that someone did make a mistake: She spoke about that in a public space, which resulted in her having to deal with questions like: „Did linking anything in a reading to the third eye chakra ever result in something?“ and „This is based on christian-hermetic ideas, not the eastern concepts.“

The person was lucky enough not to abandon her ideas and confidence in her way of reading the cards, and pulled out.

Now, we will have a brief look at Marteaus lil' book he wrote concerning the TdM, specifically his writings on VIII, the card in question, remarks are to be found in brackets:

„Her head is completely covered by a yellow headdress. This spares her of the hotchpotch of thoughts she must pass judgement on, ... (The third eye chakra has to deal with clarity of thoughts and the ability to reign them in, if developed sanely, inner silence can be accessed at will, killing the „hotchpoch of thoughts“.) ...meaning, it is isolated from all influence and encroachment, and that her intelligence is not her own, … (The third eye chakra also has to do with the transcendence of personal thoughts to universal ones.) ...but form the intelligence of all those who come to the realization of what they are owed and what they owe. … (Yet another feature of the third eye is „intuition“, albeit, there is a condition in order for it to work at its full potential: The conscience must be clear. Which is amply described in the foregoing citation of Marteaus text. On to the cream:) ...Her sovereignty is affirmed further by the golden crown completing her headdress, where the central circle in the shape of an eye symbolizes her gaze, which man can not escape, along with the fairness of her judgement. (Which needs no further elaboration.)“

– p.70 „Tarot de Marseille by Paul Marteau“, translated by Marius Høgnesen

Add to that the dear roses of the christian hermeticists, seven in total, directly responding to the seven chakras, with an almost absolute focus on the heart (the center of the rose-cross), and it is easy to see that the third eye analogy is not as easily dismissable as some would like to have it.

Ideas and concepts of true universality have a habit of showing themselves, intended or not, and those feeling a need to tune in to them have a habit of paying them attention – or they struggle with the development of said habit.

Long story short, it is not so much the picture that counts, but that which is beyond yourselve and the picture you are looking at, thereby making the in-between a lively space.

Developing a feel for this liveliness in-between about anything can safely be referred to as true tuning in.