Any system of divination should be alive and dynamic, able to take in new methods and insights. And these insights should make those who already know sit up and take stock. In truth if you are a true student of tarot you should be challenged constantly. A big part of my own studies on the tarot is deconstruction: taking apart what I already know and then re-assembling it to see new insights. I find this happening each time I put up a new video on youtube, which is why there are so many hiatuses on that front.
So here is a case in point regarding Elemental Dignities. The other day, James Ricklef contacted me about his idea for “contra-positive cards”; how to deal with difficult minor cards like the 9 Swords etc using a variation of Elemental Dignities. James uses the opposing element (disks in the case of 9 Swords), and a numerological technique to come up with the balancing card. There was a part of me that had problems with this, and it is not because I was being precious about my ‘baby’. People can and should come up with their own ways of interpreting the tarot using the simple rules of EDs – the more the better. It took me a while to realise what the problem was – for balance, it should be a universal law, not just for difficult cards, and a few days later, James second post addressed those issues and develops his ideas further.
What do you think? How can you develop your own ideas on interpreting the tarot that are universal and balanced?
I think it seems to work, from the examples James shared. Intuitively, it doesn’t sit quite right with me, but that’s a question of personal taste. Reading about it, it seems balanced, but it would take personal practice to say for sure.
There are plenty of techniques that utilize numerical calculations to add insight to a tarot reading, commonly adding “phantom” cards. For example, adding the numeric values of a three-card majors-only reading, and reducing to achieve the number of another major, which is then used to underlie or tie the reading together. I’m not a fan of those techniques either. They are intellectually interesting, but for some reason they don’t aesthetically appeal to me.
I suspect coming up with universal and balanced techniques involves adhering to three practices: simplicity, testing and refinement. (Not unlike software development!) I think James did this — he worked to keep his method simple (as evidenced by his thoughts on the majors), he tested by trying it out, and he refined his method over time, ensuring that it could be used across the deck.
An example that I believe is universal and balanced is the way that Paul Fenton-Smith approaches tarot reversals. He believes that a reversed card indicates that the client needs to learn the lesson of the previous card. Every card has a previous card in sequence: 5 to 4, Magician to Fool, Ace to King (low cards “loop” back to high ones). The way he teaches it, this method works well. It’s simple, he’s tested it thoroughly in his practice, and I imagine he’s refined it according to his understanding of the cards over time. I have used this technique sometimes when I want to provide advice, and it works will ill-dignified cards as well as reversed.
In my opinion there is a lot of unnecessary work in James’ technique, but I would still encourage people to explore and develop their own methods, as long as they are universal and are not aimed at ‘difficult’ cards.