The dreaded reversals question

[BlueStar]

I've never got to grips with using reversals. I haven't felt a need for them personally. I can get a range of meaning from a card, from light to dark, so I don't find them necessary. Once or twice they have come up even though I made a conscious effort to ensure all the cards were the right way up, and they did in fact make sense for the reading at the time. But that's rare.

Also, I have found it confusing in the past to know which way to interpret them - some readers seem to see them as amplifying the quality of the card in some way, others see them as opposite. I guess we just have to figure out what it means for us personally. I don't think there's a right or wrong about it.

[fire cat pickles]

A reversed meaning is most certainly not the opposite of its upright meaning, at least, not necessarily, that is to say, it isn't always the exact opposite. Although that's not to say that sometimes it can't be its opposite.

Is that clear enough?

(Lol)

[_R_]

The main trouble I have with reversals is how I would get the cards reversed in the first place.

Contrived operations aside, Paul Marteau, of TdM fame, advised against shuffling and recommended instead placing the cards on the table, face down, and making circular movements with one's hands placed over the cards until such a time as they were well mixed together.

[Merrick]

The main trouble I have with reversals is how I would get the cards reversed in the first place.

Contrived operations aside, Paul Marteau, of TdM fame, advised against shuffling and recommended instead placing the cards on the table, face down, and making circular movements with one's hands placed over the cards until such a time as they were well mixed together.

This has the added benefit of thoroughly randomizing the cards within one minute, versus 7-8 riffle shuffles or hundreds of thousands of overhand shuffles.

[fire cat pickles]

Either method just seems forced to me. I'm not a reversed kind of guy, I suppose. At one point I did, and it got to be too much.

[dodalisque]

The main trouble I have with reversals is how I would get the cards reversed in the first place.

Contrived operations aside, Paul Marteau, of TdM fame, advised against shuffling and recommended instead placing the cards on the table, face down, and making circular movements with one's hands placed over the cards until such a time as they were well mixed together.

I've always heard this described as "washing" the cards. I'm the clumsiest shuffler in the world so it's the only method I use. Plus it's a lot easier for the clients to shuffle the cards this way. They tend to feel shy about actual shuffling.

[EastTarot]

I may be off base about this, but I think it was Waite who popularized them more broadly and he did so because they were a substitute for elemental dignities, which he didn't want to talk about lest he violate his Golden Dawn oaths. As I said, that might be wildly wrong.

...
EDIT: And since TdM is "pre-occult" it would seem like reversals/elemental dignities would not apply.

I'm just spitballing here, trying to understand.

I always thought of the TdM as the true ORIGIN of the essoteric/occult tradition starting with Eliphas Levi's book "Dogme et Rituel de la Haute Magie", (Transcendental Magic, its Doctrine and Ritual), 1854–1856 which predates the Golden Dawn.

[Joan Marie]

I always thought of the TdM as the true ORIGIN of the essoteric/occult tradition starting with Eliphas Levi's book "Dogme et Rituel de la Haute Magie", (Transcendental Magic, its Doctrine and Ritual), 1854–1856 which predates the Golden Dawn.

I'm pretty sure the TdM goes back a lot further than that, to the 15th Century or so, long before occult influences on Tarot.

So I guess my question, about using reversals, brought up the idea that elemental dignities preceded the idea of reading reversals.

I don't know if Levi spoke of elemental dignities or not, but in either case, the TdM existed long before Levi or the Golden Dawn, so long before reversals were a "thing."

Again, I am just trying to understand. I claim zero expertise on any of this, but I am taking a shine to this idea that using reversals is probably not the traditional way to read TdM.

EDIT: I just got this information elsewhere, that reading reversals dates back to Etteilla, at least historically.

[Papageno]

Again, I am just trying to understand. I claim zero expertise on any of this, but I am taking a shine to this idea that using reversals is probably not the traditional way to read TdM.

EDIT: I just got this information elsewhere, that reading reversals dates back to Etteilla, at least historically.

I'm trying to remember where I read a passage that suggested that the reading of reversals with the TdM, a technique that is addressed and / or espoused in several books, is a practice that is being promoted to be more accommodative of modern reading styles, rather than being historically "accurate".

There is a sound rule of thumb that advises the reader to keep in mind that the "reversed" meaning is intrinsic to the nature of any given card (regardless of which school of thought you follow) and the preferred goal is to train oneself to interpret the layout of the cards with a well rounded objectivity that recognizes the importance of the context and subsequent narrative.

The "reversed" or "inverse" meaning is already "built in" so to speak, so it is for us to acknowledge this and re-wire our thinking so that we can eliminate this confusion and hand wringing when a card is physically reversed, because it really shouldn't matter.

This is not an easy goal, to be sure.

I increasingly favor this approach, and had another one of those "lightbulb" moments in the shower this morning thinking about the Gonzalo Æneas 2/Cups featured as the "Today's Card" here on the forum.

The well established (standardized) Pamela Colman Smith imagery on a typical RWS deck, can potentially be an impediment as much as having a deck with predetermined meanings on the cards. But I strongly suspect that is because most of us were first introduced to the Tarot by way of the standardized RWS deck and it's generally accepted meanings, it has been ingrained in many of us over many years, like a reading primer for a child.

I will add the disclaimer, that I do not disagree with nor criticize people who prefer to read in this manner, God only knows I do it myself, and frankly many respected readers provide great insights through these tried and true methods.

Other decks veer off into tangents that I don't agree with (speaking strictly for myself), but as Chas.Brown pointed out, everybody's approach to learning and understanding the Tarot is very personal and circuitous, to say the least, so we should not be judgemental.

While I have no problem with the RWS system, I am being increasingly enamored of the TdM cards for their straightforward simplicity and the fact that their (ancient) ancestry has no ties to 19th - 20th century esoteric systems.
I find this very liberating.
They are beautiful decks, and I admire the various artisans and publishers who have kept this tradition alive and well, each in their own way.

[mark lewis]

I respect anyone who wishes to use reversed card meanings. It just isn't for me. I don't believe it makes the blindest bit of difference to the effectiveness of the reading. Furthermore the client doesn't know neither cares whether you use reversed card interpretation. What he or she cares about is results. Whether what you say is helpful to him or her.

Even without reversed card meanings there are literally thousands of different combinations of cards that could come up in a spread. And even more than that if you use several spreads. You really don't need any more to burden your brain with. What clients want is the INTERPRETATION rather than
the mechanics behind the interpretation.

In my latest book I tell the beginner how to memorise the meanings of all 78 cards within one week. I think 78 meanings is more than enough to worry about. Twice 78 is 156. Too many meanings for my aged brain. Enough is enough.