Nothing is anything other than what you want it to be, whenever you want it to be that. Everything is relative.

Nothing is anything, until we make it something (see the essay The Totality of Reality elsewhere on this site). We are governed by a law of relativity. So, to make anything into something, we need to establish a frame of reference, or reference frame, i.e. a particular context, perspective, or point of view, from which other things are compared, contrasted, measured and judged; as in "this, not that," or "this compared to that" or "if this, then that." Without a reference frame, or frame of context, you cannot say anything definitive about anything. Things without context have no meaning. Things taken out of context loose their meaning, until placed into another context. Things viewed from one reference frame don't always jibe with the view of another reference frame: change the context and a terrorist becomes a freedom fighter... change the context and a liberator becomes an invader... change the context and one man's trash becomes another man's treasure... change the context and an aroma becomes an odor... change the context and the motion of me passing by stationary things becomes other things passing by a stationary me.

Every point radiates a sphere of influence, and every sphere of influence converges upon a point. Thus, any statement made by anyone about anything, inclusively produces a frame of reference, or context, or perspective, or point of view, to some degree or another, whether intended, or desired, or expressed or implied (see the essay The Totality of Reality elsewhere on this site). Any statement that anyone makes about anything necessitates this frame of reference or context to be understood at all, by anyone, on any level. Statements of fact, statements of opinion, all carry with them a frame of reference, or context.

Without a reference frame, or frame of context, you cannot say anything definitive about anything. Thus, the clearer the definition of context, the more definitive the statement. Likewise, the less clear the definition of context, the less definitive the statement. Some people want clarity, and so attempt to frame context as specifically as they can. Some people want ambiguity and so attempt to obfuscate context as much as possible. Some people want to understand what an author is saying, and so acknowledge their context. Some people don't care what an author is saying, and so ignore their context. Some people want Facts. Some people want Fiction. Some people want Reality. Some people want Fantasy. Some people use Signs. Some people use Symbols. It's a choice many people make, without even realizing... which makes any attempt to discuss the subtle differences between these two modes of communication difficult to address.

-----

Signs vs. Symbols

Context is important. Context is vital, whether communicating with signs or symbols. Context is vital, whether communicating with others or just oneself. Context is vital to the establishment of meaning.

Sign/Symbol + Context = Meaning.

It is important to acknowledge context, even if you have chosen to diminish it, alter it, arbitrarily change it, or obfuscate it, for the purposes of symbolic multivalence. It is important to acknowledge context, even if you have chosen to internalize it as part of the process of making tarot into something personal, just for yourself.

In the world of Tarot, there is a predominant preference toward the techniques of internalizing context. By internalizing context, rather than expressing it to others, it becomes less defined, more amorphous. The less defined the context, the more meanings a symbol can have. The more meanings a symbol can have the greater the possibility of finding a meaning that "fits" a personal situation. The greater the possibility of finding a meaning that "fits," the more we come to believe that tarot "works." Thus it is, that context is typically devalued, abandoned or ignored during the act of personalization. That's not a critical judgment. I believe that context has to be abandoned, in order to personalize a symbol and find personal meaning.

Internalized meaning is subjective. Externalized meaning is objective. But... realistically speaking, nothing is completely objective, once it becomes the "property" of the Mind of an individual. Still... I see an important difference between intended meanings, and personalized meanings. In my decks, I want the images to be used two ways. 1) Memory trigger to remind people of intended meanings that are based on structure, principal energy patterns, and philosophy of existence. 2) Flexible Association to mean whatever the heck anyone wants. One is comparatively objective (what I want you to see). The other is comparatively subjective (what you want to see). Traversing this objective/subjective field of thought is tricky.

To traverse this tricky terrain, I stand by the previous remark: Sign/Symbol + Context = Meaning, or to simplify that even further: Content + Context = Meaning. But what happens when someone alters the parts of this equation? I made up a chart to try and elaborate on this equation. I think it shows pretty clearly, the different approaches I'm talking about.

In my mind, sign and symbol are are THE SAME THING. The only difference between them being their relative definition. In the chart above, a person may choose to view an image on a tarot card to one extreme side or the other. Ultimately any image a person puts out there is simultaneously a sign and symbol, and, through relative definition, and acknowledgement of context, can be transposed back and forth, to be either sign or symbol.

A sign is more literal. A symbol is more lyrical. Context can be specific, or arbitrary. A literal sign with specific context equals objective recognition of meaning, or fewer meanings, i.e. ambiguity reduced. A lyrical symbol with arbitrary context equals subjective interpretation of meaning, or many meanings, i.e. ambiguity increased.

A literal sign with specific context and objectively recognized meaning can be used as a memory trigger for intentional communication. A lyrical symbol with arbitrary context and subjectively interpreted meaning is good for Flexible Association and intuitive understanding.

Intentional communication, with fewer meanings has the potential for broad, inclusive, public acceptance. Intuitive understanding, with many meanings has the potential for private, exclusive, personal acceptance. Signs with obvious purpose are good for public use. Symbols with obscure purpose are good for personal use.

I don't necessarily want the images on my deck to be viewed as public signs, but at the same time, I don't want my intended meanings completely ignored by someone with a preference for the personal, internal side of this chart. I want people to pull equally from both sides i.e. learn the intended meanings and make up intuitive meanings. And... understand the difference! Or, more importantly... understand that there IS a difference!! I think that the majority of people find the right side of this chart a preferred comfort zone, and hardly ever acknowledge that there is any other way of thinking... at least when using tarot. While at the same time, they may not realize that every time they open their mouth to explain something about their perceived meaning of a symbol, they are effectively turning it into a sign (relatively speaking... to some degree or another).

It's a sliding scale of relative definition. The more specific your context and purpose, the more relatively objective you make things. The more arbitrary your context and purpose, the more relatively subjective you make things. In a dream state, we are without context, or are jumping around between multiple ever-shifting, blending, amorphous contexts. In a conscious state, we are with context, or within a context, that is, if we choose to express anything about ourselves to anyone. A lot of the multivalence of symbols comes from our ability to imagine something in more than one context, where its meaning then changes. People like tarot for the way it exercises their imagination that way. But is that the only way to use tarot?

I don't care what people do with my deck while using it, but, when studying it, I do want it to be understood. So there are times when I will want to declare an obvious purpose, for the sake of intentional communication and public use. Someone looking at my system may say "so what" I prefer an obscure purpose, for the sake of intuitive understanding and personal use. That's fine, that appears to be what most people prefer. But if that person ever decides that they want to objectively understand the intentional meanings of my deck, they will have to move away from that comfort zone. Moving away from a comfort zone of Insular, Private, Internal and Personal meaning is how we build a collective reality of Broad, Public, External and Cultural meaning; it is how the reality that is exclusive to our individual minds become a reality that is inclusive to the collective minds of many (see The Totality of Reality elsewhere on this site.

-----

The Personal Approach to Tarot

Many people are amazed at how well tarot works... while at the same time... never realizing how well ANYTHING would work, when allowed to be anything we want it to be whenever we want it to be that... a product of the intuitive way of thinking (from the right side of The Semiotic Equation chart). People who firmly lock themselves into the "symbolic" side of the Semiotic Equation, shown above, often forget that there are other ways of thinking, even about tarot. People who internalize every image they see, for purposes of subjective interpretation, intuitive "knowing," or Flexible Association often forget just how personal this process is. In forgetting how personal this process is to their own personal context, they begin to forget how important the idea of context is to the world of meaning. A continued desire to see tarot "work" in this personal way, conditions them to reject any other context but their own. Thus, making tarot for yourself, is, as the phrase clearly states, "self"-ish. In many ways, that's what makes tarot "work."

The personal approach to tarot gets us what we want, when using tarot for ourselves only. But what purpose does a tarot deck serve outside the context of our personal, subjective needs? Why are there so many cards in a tarot deck? What purpose is served by having so many cards, if we are to only find meaning after turning things into whatever we want them to be whenever we want them to be that? With an approach like that, we don't really need more than one card in a deck... do we? Because, as soon as we introduce more than one card, we are differentiating one thing from another. That introduces the idea that one card might objectively "mean" something that is not the same as the other, otherwise... if the second card does mean the same thing as the other, why introduce it? Why not stick with a one card deck?

I think that people make decks with more than one card, because they have more than one thing to say. And someone saying something is what the deck is all about - it is why decks are made, it is why art in general is made. So, for people to ignore what is being said, and make each card into whatever they want it to be whenever they want it to be that, is a choice or preference. It is how they choose to USE the cards, to fulfill their own personal, often psychotherapeutic, needs. Things being whatever someone wants them to be whenever they want them to be that, is not how decks get drawn, it's how they are used. Things being as close to the way someone wants them, in order to make an intended statement, is how decks get created. Things being whatever someone wants them to be whenever they want them to be that, is a moving target that can't be captured with even one image.

People who don't want anything to be anything other that what they want it to be whenever they want it to be that, or don't want anything to mean anything other than what they want it to mean whenever they want it to mean that, will typically resist the notion of analyzing the intent and context of an author. They will typically resist making any kind of definitive statement of opinion, and resist the acknowledgment of the specific intent and context of authors in ways that could be construed as objective or definitive, because they know that, later on, they will want to change their mind and change whatever that statement was into something else that they will want it to be whenever they might want it to be that. People pursuing the personal, internalized, subjective approach do NOT want to be pinned down in any way whatsoever. So they walk a fine line between discussing what an author objectively says, and, not forming any solid opinions that might commit them to seeing a card in any one particular way.

The High Priestess card is different than any other. What are those differences? What makes the High Priestess card unique? What defines the High Priestess card? If one is of the mind that prefers that each card remain undefined, so that it can mean whatever we want it to mean whenever we want it to mean that, then, we shouldn't ask that question. We can't ask that question. The majority of people will not allow it. They will typically not allow the definition of anything in any way whatsoever. Because to define anything, or to even form committed opinions, is to undermine their ability to say that something means whatever they want it to mean whenever they want it to mean that. And that, to most people, is the single most precious gift that tarot gives to us all. Even if an author steps forward and tells us exactly what it is they were trying to say, with the specific context, and assemblage of symbols, signs and hieroglyphs that they used, and exactly what mood and message they hoped each viewer would draw from the image, the people who want every card to mean whatever they want it to mean whenever they want it to mean that, will not acknowledge the card to mean what the author has told us it was meant to mean... because that would take from them the precious gift of subjective malleability.

But is that really the most precious gift tarot has to offer?

-----

The Public Approach to Tarot

Often learning to read the Tarot or even to simply study it as a system of some sort, requires examining our emotional responses to the cards. By that I mean that someone's response to a card may not accurately reflect what's being portrayed in the card. i.e. the "true message" in the card. In those cases, a person always has the option of exercising a choice as to whether to acknowledge the "true message" of what is being portrayed in the card, by the author of the image... or not. Opinions of any kind are subjective. So, the greater the disregard for the "true message" put forth by the author of the image, the greater the diversity of interpretation. Ultimately, given the maximum degree of disregard for intended meaning (the extreme right of The Semiotic Equation chart), any card in the deck, can mean anything anyone wants it to mean at any time that they want it to mean that. Which effectively makes each card intrinsically meaningless, except to each individual - much like psychological ink blot tests. If one's only interest is in using the deck in this "Rorschachian" way, as a tool for psychotherapy, I suppose subjective malleability would be the most precious gift tarot has to offer. But... is that the only way to use tarot? Is there a less personal way to look at and/or use tarot... a way that acknowledges the intended meaning of an elaborately crafted statement by an author trying to say something specific, in very specific, contrived and public ways? Do we really think that the authors of tarot decks assemble all these symbols, signs and hieroglyphs in an attempt to capture the moving target of whatever someone else wants a card to mean whenever they want it to mean that? Or are they assembling all these symbols, signs and hieroglyphs to say something specific that they want to say? What benefit can be derived by acknowledging what those intended statements are? Is anything really lost by doing that? Can't we still freely associate, casually connect or liberally liken any image into whatever we want it to be, regardless of how definitive and unequivocal its statement might be? Can't we forever manipulate any image into saying whatever we want it to say whenever we want it to say that?

If having a deck full of images that say whatever we want them to say whenever we want them to say that, is the true gift of tarot, then why bother making such highly contrived images with esoteric symbols, and subliminal patterns that need to be learned to be understood? Why do artists bother to respect the traditions of what people say each card should illustrate and what symbols are important to preserve? Why not have every deck be different... each one a random assortment of randomly and spontaneously created works of art to be interpreted any way we want? Why stick so strictly to traditional, defined imagery and structure? Seriously, what is the point of faithfully carrying over established symbolism and crafting elaborate images, if such precision, and faithful adherence to definition of form, content and context is unwelcome, and is only going to be ignored, so that we can preserve our personal right to turn each card into whatever we want it to be whenever we want it to be that?

After I drew The Isomorphic Tarot, I showed it to someone. She didn't like it, because it departed from tradition too much. She kept trying to convince me that the images of tarot are the way they are for a reason, and kept suggesting alterations that were in keeping with that tradition; suggestions that would make my images look more like traditional images from a traditional deck. Why? What does it matter? Why was she trying to make me conform to what she believed tarot images should look like? Why can't I draw any damn thing I want, and call it tarot, since so many people in the world of tarot don't want anything in life to be defined in any way anyway? Really, if defining things is so offensive to the mythos of the tarot community, then why be so strict about what a tarot deck should look like? If the true gift of tarot is lack of definition, personalized context, and the malleability of interpretation that goes with it, then why have tarot be so strictly and narrowly defined? It makes no sense. It's hypocritical.

I don't view definition as evil. True objective reality might be illusive, but I don't see any evil in the commitment of opinions, and the acknowledgement of a context other than my own. Deciding, either through speculative means, or from the actual words of an author, that an author intended for a particular card to be abundantly more one way than another (whatever "way" that might be, using whatever context) does not stifle my imagination. If I choose to use that card in a Rorschachian/psychotherapeutic way, I can still do that. I don't see any need to banish or vilify one form of thought for another as so many do.

-----

Explain It and You Drain It

Some of the resistance that we see towards definition comes from a desire to preserve personal meanings; the feeling being, that if you explain it, you drain it. In other words, personal meanings derived from a personal context are often tenuous, elusive, and based on intuition and emotional responses that can't easily be put into words. So... those who cherish this approach to tarot have a couple of problems:

1) If you speak, it is no longer personal... it becomes public. If it becomes public, the context follows with it. So you are faced with the problem of explaining the personal context in a way that will accurately reveal the meaning in a way that other people can understand. People who are not so articulate often share without explanation; they leave context unexplained, they don't define their terms and they use ambiguous vocabulary. Like sharing the bizarre happenings of a dream, this type of sharing is often of limited appeal, and limited use to others. It is self indulgent; a kind of stumbling over the threshold that divides their unspoken experience from the rest of the world. But... the need to share is strong.

2) When people attempt to share their personal experiences of subjective meaning with other people... worlds collide! Or... to put it another way... CONTEXTS collide! This, then, becomes the source of ongoing debates about the possibility of objective meanings. Which is why the concept of context is SO important to any public discussion of meaning. People who clearly define a context, and clearly define their terms, and use precise language, present a more convincing picture of reality. We have to share, or speak (through one medium or another) in order to plant one person's reality into the head of others. In other words: You can never achieve 100% public objectivity, no matter how much you speak. And if you never speak, you can only achieve 100% personal subjectivity. Do anything in between those two extremes, and you will get results that are somewhere in between. So be clear and approach objectivity. Or be ambiguous and approach subjectivity. Do it intentionally, or do it unintentionally. Be ambiguous, and let an image suggest something subliminally, and intuit meaning for the individual. Be clear, and use an image to invent a language specific to a select group or culture that has had meaning explained to them. Either way, context is inescapable however vague or clear.

By using The Semiotic Equation chart, shown above, we can see how and why worlds of differing context can collide. To establish a relatively objective context, many look to the history and culture and stories that are associated with a particular symbol, all of which influence how we perceive it and how we react to it. With this approach, we see how the more explicit the context, the more intentional the meaning. But those same people also acknowledge that those things often mean somewhat different things in different places and times. Revealing how variable context, or arbitrary, unknown purpose increases multivalence and ambiguity.

We often don't really know what symbols mean unless the culture that invented them leaves behind something specific to tell us. When reading a book, or watching a movie, we often miss the symbolic meaning of things presented to us... until someone who gets it, or is "in the know" as to the historical or cultural background, offers to explain it to us. In other words, explanation reduces ambiguity and increases the likelihood of objective recognition by a broader inclusive public. Many symbols serve a deliberate purpose among the people who use them as memory triggers. They have specific intentional meanings, and are thereby accepted by a broad majority of people for that purpose (see The KEYS of Understanding elsewhere on this site).

Many admit that they might be missing out, by not knowing the history and cultural background of various symbols, revealing an admission as to how symbols can have a deliberate purpose outside of their own personal needs. And yet, they proclaim, they still get a lot out of tarot. Obviously, the reason they still get a lot out of tarot is because they are free to ignore deliberate purpose, obvious context and specific intentional meaning, and casually connect a subjective interpretation that is amorphous, inferential, ambiguous and multivalent - making any literal sign into a lyrical symbol for private internal expression. That's great... for them. But, if not shared, or if shared in inarticulate ways, personal meanings don't do the public at large much good. If you want others to know what you think a symbol means, you will have to explain. The more you explain, the more you shift over, on the Semiotic Equation chart, toward a sign, with intentional meaning.

Thus, with the help of The Semiotic Equation chart, we can see how the more explanation given, i.e. Explicit Context and purpose, the less Private a symbol becomes, and the more Public it becomes. Amorphous Inferential Meaning becomes Specific Intentional Meaning. Insular Exclusive Acceptance becomes Broad Inclusive Acceptance. Subjective Interpretation becomes Objective Recognition. Deliberate Purpose leads to Lucidity in Communication. Contrary to what many tarot enthusiasts preach; I don't think the left hand side of the Semiotic Equation chart is an unholy place to be avoided at all costs. It can at times help and aid in understanding.

Many people greatly underestimate how much of their understanding of symbols includes explanation of meaning or explanation of context (see The KEYS of Understanding elsewhere on this site). As a form of communication, esoteric symbols are often vague an easily misunderstood. The more esoteric, the greater the potential for misunderstanding by the exoteric public. In a lot of ways it's like talking to a passive/aggressive person who won't say what they really mean, but instead just drops hints that you are supposed to notice, and then figure out on your own. Some of those hints might be glaringly obvious, some might be so obscure that no one would ever understand them without some explanation.

The multivalence of symbols can be good for communicating multiple meanings - within the context of a single book or movie or work of art. But what most people forget... is CONTEXT itself. In the world of tarot, there is a HUGE majority of people who CHOOSE to take symbols OUT of their original context, and make them say whatever THEY want them to say... forgetting that there is another way of looking at symbols that suggests that each meaning derived from a symbol should be appropriate to the CONTEXT in which is is found and being used by its author.

People who are only interested in personalizing symbols, without regard for context, tend to forget how important context is, because a context of the Self requires no explanation to the self. In living in this kind of world, some come to think that all understanding of meaning is intuitive to the self, and... if explained is drained of its value to the self. By ignoring explanation of context and internalizing everything, people come to believe that whatever meaning they personally derive from a symbol is legitimate... i.e. legitimate to the original context in which is was found, and something the author of the symbol would fully endorse. But, of course, this is not always the case... a fact that many choose to ignore.

To a balanced perspective there is more to meaning than that which we internalize for our own personal needs. I fact, to some, taking symbols out of context and making them mean whatever someone wants them to mean whenever they want them to mean that, is a self-indulgent use of symbols, one might even argue it to be an abuse of symbols and symbolism. We don't NEED a tarot deck to commit this kind of abuse of symbolism, we only need to close our eyes and dream, we'll get all the out-of-context symbols we could ever need. Others will argue that taking things out of context is a legitimate technique related to the idea of Flexible Association, or techniques of Free Association, which can be extremely therapeutic to the Mind and Soul of a psychotherapeutic patient. Can these worlds be balanced?

-----

Another Spectrum of Possibilities

It is important to remember that The Semiotic Equation chart represents a spectrum of possibilities, not a black or white, either/or choice. One could argue that there is no such thing as an objective sign with only one meaning, because the idea of universal acceptance of a universal context is not realistic. That is probably true. Thus we see how the two sides of The Semiotic Equation chart represent divergent tendencies, not absolute states that anyone is locked into. There are varying degrees of multivalence. An image with little or no multivalence is a sign. The more explicit and obvious the context, the clearer the meaning, and the more an ambiguous inferential symbol becomes a lucid intentional sign. Our job is to determine where along a spectrum of possibilities an image lies, given to what degree its author has fulfilled the criteria listed above in The Semiotic Equation chart.

The Semiotic Equation chart represents a spectrum of possibilities. Thus, an image can have a somewhat explicit context, have some intentional meaning communicated, be somewhat objectively recognized for holding that intended meaning, have some popular acceptance and still be considered a symbol and not a sign. Likewise, a person can take any sign and personalize it and internalize it, and casually connect meaning from it, and in doing so, turn it into a symbol. All is relative. If you want to be ambiguous, be ambiguous. If you want to be precise, be precise.

People tend to go to extremes. I, however, am more interested in those percentages of perception that are felt from the middle of The Semiotic Equation chart, when someone allows perceived notions of intended meaning, or known intent expressed by an author, to pollute, dilute or otherwise mix with their own personal needs and expectations. For more on this, see the essay The Reasoned Response elsewhere on this site.

Content + Context = Meaning. You can't say anything about anything without context. Likewise...Without context, you can say anything about anything! Sign and symbol are the same thing to different degrees of definition. Be clear and get clear meaning. Be ambiguous and get ambiguous meaning. Pull the two together as one. These are choices we make.

There will always be exceptions, as one allows for the disregard for the "true message" of any card. But there will also be a bell curve of statistical probability, for each person, and for people collectively, when contemplating certain ideas. In fact, to many, frequency of agreement among people and cultures is what defines something as an archetype! Focusing on one's ability to diverge to the fringe of that bell curve of archetypality, should not nullify or invalidate attempts to determine where the bulge of the curve lies. So I say, use tarot both ways; study it... use it - but most importantly... understand that there is a difference!! Many, many arguments about tarot derive from the conflicts between those who want to discuss the study of tarot, vs. those who want to discuss the use of tarot. The All Things Are Numbers approach to tarot argues in favor of a balanced perspective that embraces both and does not vilify either.

-----

EXTRA CREDIT

The theoretical model of existence being presented on this site is an attempt to establish a universal reference frame of context, from which primordial, archetypal patterns may be perceived, or conceived. It is a theoretically possible description of reality that might very well be beyond our ability to directly perceive or even conceive. To see another descriptive diagram that illustrates the gap between sign and symbol, and the idea of specificity vs. generality, try reading the essay The Totality of Reality... and look for the diagram about One Reality.