…but ultimately most people feel like they’re in control of what goes on inside (whether that’s true or not) and their motivation for turning to a divination is to explore that which is out of their control.

I couldn’t have put it better myself

I think that the expectations that clients have when they come for a reading, in the sense of what a Tarot reading does, is the very thing that a Tarot reader has to understand and work with in order to deliver a quality reading. When I read for people, I like to read the Pips as both reflecting their ‘inner-state’ and external circumstances that the client can’t control. The way I structure this into my readings is to state what the external circumstances are first. I don’t even look at the inner-state of the client until I have explored the external. Usually, the client will open up and want to discuss how they feel, so I simply reinterpret the cards to accommodate.

The pips are often seen as trivial, often times in a deck they are clearly the cards over which the designer has spent the least time. In many ways they are the most mysterious and elusive elements of the deck – you can easily trace the evolution of the picture cards through many iterations but the tone and the action of the pips varies wildly even amongst the “daddy decks”. Is there more room for cultural and political bias in these everyday real world phenomena? or is it because the symbols themselves are so abstract that we can only be informed ultimately by a loose numerology which has so many culturally conditioned associations (eg – is the number 13 significant outside the western world?). This is why I rely on Kabbalistic interpretations to inform my reading of the pips. It’s a solid system that carries with it images and situations. I do however appreciate that there may be alternative perspectives, some of which are not strictly numerological at all….

Interesting

I think Chris, when he gets back from holiday, will certainly want to elaborate further .

The ideas that I now have on the Pips have changed since the start of the Christopher Healey Interview. At the time Chris and I spoke, we were discussing and reminiscing on the learning process we had both been on since we first studied the Tarot together. When we we’re learning, the information we studied was biased towards the ‘internalising’ of the Tarot, in the sense of the meaning to be understood was a subjective experience, relevant only to the person you were reading for. To be fair to the authors, that applied for both the Picture, Court and Pip cards.

This was at odds with our assumptions of what divination was – namely, the process of predicting the future. In that sense, the Pip cards, we felt, had to be objective, separate from the person you were reading for and the events depicted involved more than just that person.

This is no different to what you mentioned in the above comment:

I agree that pips are necessary for successful divination, as they are most representative of concrete events going on, not to mention the people in our lives.

The learning curve for both Chris and I began when we realised that the descriptions given for the Pip cards were a hindrance. We purposefully made every card an external event. It was part of our practice and it helped to remove the ‘person centered’ approach (useful in counselling but not so in a Tarot reading) that we were so crippled by.

The reason that they are misunderstood is that they, only in the sense of divination, are the most important section of the Tarot deck; much more important than the Picture cards. The Pip cards tell us more information than any other section of the Tarot. The reason they are misrepresented is that they are usually portrayed in a kind of ‘self-help’ or ‘Jungian’ way. Although this is useful, and to be honest, necessary, it is also inaccurate.

I would also say this: My experience of learning Tarot is not meant to be Universally applicable to everybody else. Everyone will have a slightly different introduction to the Tarot. There is no wrong way to represent the cards. However, for me personally, to Privilege the querents inner-psychology over an external event and to marginalise the ‘external’ in favour of the ‘internal’ is a mistake. It also subtly shapes ‘what is possible’ with Tarot. For me, much more is possible than the inner-state; or perhaps a new way needs to be talked about when thinking about this ‘internal’ consciousness that can be easily influenced by positive thinking?

I don’t separate the deck into distinct sections in order to perform a divination for other people. However, when I was first learning I did this quite a lot and I think it really helped me understand the dynamics that the parts have on the whole.

That’s an interesting point you make about Waite attributing three levels to a Tarot reading. I remember reading a great book by Lon Milo Duquette (forget the name ) that separated the picture cards into four distinct sections. I found that book really helpful in understanding the Tarot and incorporated that into my own practice.

Hmm, I see a lot of room for future posting and discussion, more than can fit in this comment!

LOL yes indeed!

“The theme of my quest through all of the decks I’ve explored is the pips. I know that Doug agrees with me when I say that they are often the most misunderstood and misrepresented aspect of the Tarot and yet they’re key to successful divination.”

That was the thought that spurred my previous comment.

The theme of my quest through all of the decks I’ve explored is the pips. I know that Doug agrees with me when I say that they are often the most misunderstood and misrepresented aspect of the Tarot and yet they’re key to successful divination.

I would like to hear more about this. In what way do you think they are misunderstood and misrepresented?

I agree that pips are necessary for successful divination, as they are most representative of concrete events going on, not to mention the people in our lives. I’m aware of the schools of thought both for and against using only pips, or only certain suits of pips pertaining to the divination.

This topic of pips could also spawn some discussion on the nature of divination using only the majors, which is also employed by some people, although I think that’s more common among Marseilles readers.

If I may digress: I’m aware of people attributing mundane matters to the majors; such as Chariot being related to one’s car. This puts me in mind of one of Waite’s lesser known essays on tarot, where he showed how to do a reading using all 21 majors, and said that every tarot reading occurs on three levels, from the most mundane to the most spiritual.

Hmm, I see a lot of room for future posting and discussion, more than can fit in this comment!