This essay is a continuation of a very important idea presented in another essay entitled The Reasoned Response. That essay examined the split in preference that many people have between acknowledging the authored intent of an image, vs. making up meanings for an image that suit personal, sometimes therapeutic needs. In that essay a diagram was presented to describe the way we either do, or do not, combine the influence of authors, and others, when deciding on the meaning of a particular card in our study, or use, of tarot. The diagram (repeated below) establishes two realms of thought about any given card that we might be inclined to examine.
 |
| Tarot is not all about you. But through denial, you can make it all about you, if that is what you want. For an analysis of this chart, consult the essay entitled The Reasoned Response. |
In the Perceptual Equation chart, one axis, the vertical axis, represents thoughts and ideas about a card that come from an individual ("you"). The other axis, the horizontal axis, represents thoughts and ideas about a card that come from others ("not you"). It is suggested, in the Reasoned Response essay, that we at least acknowledge where we are on this map of influences, at any given time, when discussing tarot with others. A balanced perspective is thought to be ideal, but if a lopsided perspective is prefered, the nature of how that preference isolates us toward one axis or another should always be acknowledged... if not to others, then at least to ourselves.
-----
To Debate or to Not Debate
In conversations with other people this split between the "you" axis and the "not you" axis comes into play often, whether people acknowledge it or not. Sometimes... when it is acknowledged, this split can even lead to heated debates about which axis should be respected the most or utilized to the greatest effect. As an example of this conflict, let's consider the intended meaning and accompanying imagery of a card from the Rider/Waite/Smith deck that has a healthy measure of ambiguity to it - the 4 of Cups. In the 4 of Cups, we see a man sitting at the base of a tree. On the ground before him are three cups, with a hand issuing forth from a nearby cloud to offer a fourth cup. To many, this man looks dejected or bored, in spite of the seemingly beneficial fortune of receiving a fourth cup. Others, however, have suggested that this image might have been inspired by other images from other artists illustrating the story of The Holy Grail. To many, the chalices seen in the tarot represent The Holy Grail, with the suit of Cups telling the Grail story. Thus, to some this image looks very similar to that of Sir Lancelot asleep and dreaming of The Holy Grail. So... in examining the remarkable similarity of these two images, one might consider it reasonable to speculate as to whether Pamela Colman Smith might have had such imagery in mind when drawing her 4 of Cups... especially given the notion, presented by many, that the suit of Cups might have been meant to represent one version or another of the Grail story.
In the Grail story with Lancelot, he is apparently asleep and dreaming. He is dreaming about The Holy Grail. So... if we speculate that Ms. Smith might have had this image in mind, it should not be considered too outrageous for us to speculate that the person in the RWS 4 of Cups might also be dreaming... and that he might even be dreaming about The Holy Grail! If we do follow such speculations we get a very different outcome, as far as how we might interpret such meaning into a reading. In viewing the 4 of Cups as someone dreaming about The Holy Grail, we could speculate that such a dream might be symbolic of great empowerment, and that the usual interpretation for this card of boredom or disgust might be misguided. We might also speculate that any offering of a Grail, especially if interpreted as coming from The Hand of God in a cloud, must include a notion of empowerment. Those adhering to traditional notions might counter by pointing to the posture of the person in the RWS 4 of Cups and how he appears disinterested or oblivious to that empowerment. Thus, in proposing that we re-examine traditional views of this card, we should not be surprised if we happen to generate a heated debate. For those who enjoy such debates, it is being suggested here that such a debate would clearly point out to us the nature of the "you/not you" split.
-----
To Believe or to Not Believe
We don't know, with absolute unequivocal certainty, what Pamela Colman Smith used as a guide for determining what to draw for each Minor Arcana card. But many have speculated that the titles and meanings crafted by the members of The Golden Dawn occult society must have been high on that list. If we believe that to be true, then the influences of Kabbalah and Astrology that combine to dictate the intended meaning behind the 4 of Cups would more than likely lead any reasonable person to agree that an illustration of boredom, disgust, or empowerment-not-acknowledged, to be entirely appropriate. Thus... we can see how an argument that defends the more popular notions of boredom, disgust or empowerment-refused, are in fact originating from the vantage point of the "not you" axis of the Perceptual Equation chart shown above. While someone with unbridled imagination and complete disregard for authored intent, would be seen as arguing from the "you" axis. The conflict of opinion is thus a result of one person suggesting that thier own personal interpretation lead to a re-examination of what that card should mean... to everyone. By suggesting that we re-examine the intended meaning of this card, that person is asking everyone to partake of the same disregard for authored intent as themself - something that is still a legitimate request, given that we don't know with absolute certainty that the Golden Dawn structure was in mind at the time this illustration was created. But the relative certainty of that knowledge, makes any request to ignore such influence misguided in all cases except personal belief along an exclusively "you only" axis.
Exactly when we decide to honor authored intent, versus when we choose to ignore it, are usually pretty arbitrary and random. People want to believe whatever they want to believe, and will usually be pretty flexible in altering things to achieve whatever belief they want. If pointing to established meanings derived from an organized structure of influences presented by the author of a deck reinforces a belief, we will use it. If the free and uninhibited interpretation of surface imagery, with a complete disregard for authored intent reinforces a different belief, we will use that. Even further than that...! Some might still believe that the coincidence between the idea of Lancelot dreaming of The Holy Grail, and the illustration executed by Pamela Colman Smith is remarkable. Thus, like many, those people might very well CHOOSE to disregard the facts that stare them in the face regarding authored intent of meaning (the "not you" axis) and continue to "interpret" their own meaning for this card as empowerment (the "you" axis). Denial is a vital ingredient of belief. Thus we can see how sticking exclusively or stubbornly to the "you" axis results in frequent acts of denial (see The Reasoned Response elsewhere on this site). And... how trying to impose personal beliefs (from the "you" axis) upon others, and asking them to accept those beliefs as intended meanings (from the "not you" axis) will often result in arguments (see also Imagine A Reason to Believe elsewhere on this site).
Is continuing to believe, in the face of contrary facts, a good way to go?
-----
To Acknowledge or to Not Acknowlege
We can ignore authored intent, and interpret cards visually to mean whatever we want. But should we always do that? What if I do a reading for myself... will a bias of wanting to see the RWS 4 of Cups as symbolic of empowerment cause it to appear as a representation of empowerment? Or will it still only appear as a representation of boredom, disgust or empowerment-not-acknowledged, as the argument against this notion has suggested? Does my own psychology play no part whatsoever in the magical arrangement of cards before a reading? Will my Binary Buddy (the one who arranges the cards for me) continue to view this card as symbolic of boredom and disgust (the authored meanings from the "not me" axis), even after I've convinced myself, through denial of authored intent, that it means empowerment (my imagination from the "me" axis)? Will it always and only appear, for me and everyone else, as a representation of boredom and disgust... no matter what? (see A Binary Buddy elsewhere on this site).
What if I use a deck that was created using a system other than that of The Golden Dawn? What about my own decks seen here on this site? In my system of established meanings, the 4 of Cups is definitely intended to represent empowerment. If used by someone born and raised on the meanings dictated by The Golden Dawn, will my 4 of Cups appear as a representation of boredom and disgust? I think that, in the minds of those who have convinced themselves that the 4 of Cups only means what they have decided it means, they will either make it so, or they will get what we call a muddled reading. They will get a muddled reading, because they - and their Binary Buddy - will be struggling between worlds, unsure as to which intended meaning to use, unable to let go of learned truths from one world, and adopt a new truth from a different world. However, if capable of adopting my meanings for my cards, the learned truths about my intended meanings might eventually influence the magic of arrangement committed by their Binary Buddy, thus allowing my 4 of Cups to appear in a reading as a representation of empowerment. Thus we establish the importance of acknowledging the authored intent of any deck being used.
Because so many tarot decks are just clones of the Rider/Waite/Smith deck, this shift in our knowledge of intended meaning is often not necessary at all. Because so many books publish interpretive meanings derived from the same Golden Dawn source, considering other possibilities is almost a non-issue. Thus, many students of tarot are completely unaware that any such bias of meaning exist within them. But... in analyzing how we think about things, I think it is a good idea to ask, what happens when we step away from the more popular forms of structure that have given each card intended meaning to so many? What happens when we step away from what so many have taught us to believe a card to mean? What does a card then mean?
If we remain exclusively along the "you" axis of the Perceptual Equation, any card can mean whatever we want... including the 4 of Cups meaning empowerment. But, if we adop a new structure... what then? Has our Binary Buddy somehow - through its supposedly universal connectivity to everything - been able to read every book on tarot ever written, in order to know the intended meanings of every deck ever made, even those that don't use the Golden Dawn structure? Does the Binary Buddy of someone with no interest in tarot know all those meanings too? Just how much of what we have learned a card to mean enters into how it gets selected in the magic of card arrangement? And how much of what we want a card to mean enters into how it gets selected in the magic of card arrangement? How much of our learned and believed meaning enters into the selection of a card on behalf of a quarent who knows nothing about intended meaning, or believed meaning? Is their Binary Buddy going on the visual information alone? Or is their Binary Buddy being psychically influenced by the knowledge of the reader across from them? If someone with no interest in tarot lays out a spread, all by them self, and then takes it to someone to "read it" for them, without telling them what deck they have used, will the 4 of Cups always mean boredom and disgust etc. regardless of the illustration of the deck used at the time? Or... will the Binary Buddy of the person who shuffled the cards know all the intended meanings for every deck, and transmit that knowledge to the Reader, so that they will know to interpret empowerment if the person was using my deck, but to interpret boredom or disgust if they were using the RWS deck?
The only way to declare to other people that the 4 of Cups means boredom, disgust or empowerment-not-acknowledged is to anchor it to something established and outside that of any one person's particular bias (the "not you" axis). Otherwise, each individual is free to make it mean whatever they want (the "you" axis)... no matter how amazed we might all be at how oblivious they seem to be to the obvious visual cues that we think speak so clearly to the intended meaning prescribed by the underlying structure we know to have been used in illustrating the card. Remember, denial is a vital component of belief (see Imagine A Reason to Believe elsewhere on this site). I've heard some people come up with some interpretations for cards that seem quite off-the-wall when contrasted against my own visual interpretation, and even more bizarre when contrasted against the intended meaning of an author. So... if I say the 4 of Cups looks like someone being empowered, and that their posture is not one of refusal or disgust, but simply that of Lancelot-like sleep at the base of a tree, it can mean that. With the use of denial, and sticking exclusively to the "me" axis of our Perceptual Equation, it can mean that. I may not be able to convince anyone else that it could ever mean that... unless I am able to connect it to an established meaning from its author. But it can mean that to me, no matter what. Thus we establish the importance of not acknowledging the authored intent of any deck being used.
-----
To Share or to Not Share
Lots of people don't like my decks. One reason is because of the balance, symmetry, contrast and consistency of its design and how that leads to an increase of "scary" images for them to have to spin into something less scary (see Fluffy Bunny vs. Blind Oracle elsewhere on this site). The other reason is the fact that the intended meanings - and therefore the illustrations of my decks - are not based upon any structure they are familiar with. My 4 of Cups - being about empowerment - means that they can't read my deck in ways familiar to them already - i.e. using believed meanings that have come to them from the use of cards designed around different intended meanings. Thus, they either consciously or unconsciously acknowledge that they will have to unlearn one way of thinking and learn another way of thinking in order to use my decks. As a road less traveled, it is therefore not surprising to see many people pass by my decks and take the more traveled route of tradition. It's definitely easier (see the section entitled Don't Ever Change in the essay A Few Minor Changes elsewhere on this site). In making that choice, some have declared that my decks "don't work." Is that true? Is it really my decks that don't work, or is it those who choose the well worn path who won't work... at learning something new?
I believe ANY deck will work - ANY visually interpretive device will work, IF... we remain exclusively along the "you" or "me" axis of the Perceptual Equation shown above. Like Rorschachian ink blots, anything visual can be interpreted, one way or another, by the simple application of imagination. The problem is when we share what we see, by way of interpretation, and offer each other our results as meanings that we think should be seen as valid meanings for everyone. As soon as we do this, we are asking so much from so many, that we should not be surprised when we encounter resistance to acceptance. As soon as we share a personal belief, and present it with even the slightest hint of wanting others to accept it as relevant to any particular underlying structure - like the Kabbalah/Astrology scheme used by The Golden Dawn and possibly Pamela Colman Smith - we invite others to agree or disagree with our assessment of its relevance to that structure. On the other hand, if we share personal beliefs, and present them clearly as personal interpretations with no intent to imply relevance to any given structure, then we are not asking for agreement or disagreement... we are just sharing for the sake of sharing. Personal "you axis" meanings are just that - personal, and as such ought to remain clearly personal, or at least be presented with the utmost clarity to everyone that they are not meant to be taken as public meanings for all to accept as relevant to some author's intent or any socially constructed reality. Tell them to a confidant. Tell them to a therapist. But take care to not offer them to the public without first considering the existence of the "not you" axis. Because tarot is not always about you and you alone.
|
