hey, tarotologists out there, something I'm wondering about -
so if I understand this right, the reading of a card depends on an interpretation of its image?
wouldn't that mean the same spread of cards might read very differently depending on which deck I use? as someone coming from Lenormand, this is mildly troubling
@typhlosion many people will say yes. I will say no. The pictures are meant to evoke the feeling that already exists in the way the suit interacts with the number. Original decks had no pictures for the minor arcana. Here's a quick and dirty guide. https://awoo.space/media/xxxhqOlc_Fmu2h5lYo8 https://awoo.space/media/KciIsEOdsZHX20klXdw
@Fuego @typhlosion I'm gonna differ here but from a somewhat oblique angle. Decks DO have their own opinions/flavors to them that should be taken into account (otherwise, why did you choose that deck, and not just use a random number generator?). Like, concretely, a Thoth deck is gonna present things in a different way from a stock Rider-Waite-Smith
That said, you'll get a lot farther knowing the numerology and letting the pictures 'color' that, rather than just looking at pictures (or words!)
@typhlosion @Fuego I went for a long time just looking at the pictures and then going back to the book descriptions, but it never clicked at all until I started digging into the numerology that @Fuego presented there (Though I feel like thoes two pages gloss over the 1/2/3 stuff way too much)
I think the single best tarot lesson I ever had was the parts of Alan Moore's Promethea that tour the Major Arcana and then the Tree of Life.
@indi @typhlosion hah yeah hose two pages are a little vague ;) I think likebthe rosicrucian cross explaination is the best? That book I showed is good though as is seventy eight degrees of wisdom.
But for sho its way easier to remember random cards when you have like an architecture of numbers to anchor the ideas too
