October Wrap-Up

[Charlie Brown]

So even though I still owe Dodalisque feedback, I'm going to post our monthly wrap-up thread for any observations, thoughts, ideas, etc. about our experiences over the month and/or with the spread.

For me, this month underscored how much more comfortable I am using the French Cross to answer very specific questions. While I'm not (usually) one of those 'custom spread for every question' type people, I do have my handful of go-to spreads and I generally pick which one I use based on the kind of question it is. This month, I had to pair a very open, general question with this spread. Although I think that Marigold thought the reading was strong, I didn't feel especially comfortable about it.

I tend to think that majors-only reading lends itself to more specific questions. The reason for this is that, with only 22 cards, each card has to have a wider range of potential significations. This of course assumes that a majors only reading is capable of the same fullness of expression as the whole tarot deck. I agree with that assumption but acknowledge that it requires a slightly different toolbox in order to get there. Because each card can mean much more than it would/should in a full-deck/RWS type method, the question needs to be more focused so as to allow the reader to properly pare down to card to it's correct reference.

What did you take away from the month?

[Diana]

Thanks for all the organisation you did for this exchange, Charlie Brown.

I was pleasantly surprised how effective this Tirage en Croix is. Works perfectly and with great logic and progression. I missed the minors however and I would like to try it out with the minors at some time. I think the only reason it's traditionally done with the Majors because the minors were not much considered for a long time in the French speaking world.

I can understand why you feel that your reading for me was not "strong", because it must have seemed to you that you couldn't get your teeth into it. But it gave me all I needed (a bit too much in fact !!! ) and I can assure you it will follow me the next few months closely.

So all in all, I'm very satisfied with this month's exchange.

[Charlie Brown]

One thing about the majors-only approach to the cross is that you're going to be guaranteed to get some visual interactions between the figures on the cards, and/or what I just happened to refer to as "sight lines" in your reading, and/or important visual rhymes. In the reading Dodalisque did for me, he picked up on the 'rhymes' between the lover and the moon to put forward an internal/external dynamic. Also—for me—I'm pretty opposed to calculating the quintessence using minors. Explaining why would be too much for this post. If I were using minors, then I'd absolutely draw the center card.

There's certainly no reason one couldn't or shouldn't use minors. I actually have a version of the cross with slightly different spread positions that I use with a full deck. I figure we'll probably do that in a month or two. But I think that if you are using the full deck then it's far more likely that the spread is going to read more like a modern-style 'this card in this spread position means this' type of reading and lose much of the visual richness.

[Charlie Brown]

I see that Andy B. has recently posted an article on the French Cross. He position description are very close to the Wirth version.

https://abfortuneteller.home.blog/2019/ ... l-crosses/

[Diana]

One thing about the majors-only approach to the cross is that you're going to be guaranteed to get some visual interactions between the figures on the cards, and/or what I just happened to refer to as "sight lines" in your reading, and/or important visual rhymes. In the reading Dodalisque did for me, he picked up on the 'rhymes' between the lover and the moon to put forward an internal/external dynamic.

I'd really like it if one day we could do a reading exchange just with the minors - the numerals only, courts would also be discarded. To see whether these rhythms, these rhymes would become more apparent, would stand out more when not being overshadowed by the majors and members and servants of the royal family. There are so many details on those minors that I believe we often overlook- I've been looking at a lot at the minors these days for some projects I'm doing, observing them closely, and they're really immensely rich.

Also—for me—I'm pretty opposed to calculating the quintessence using minors. Explaining why would be too much for this post. If I were using minors, then I'd absolutely draw the center card.

Well, maybe then in another post you'd explain ? I'm also not too keen, but never given much thought as to why so if you have, then there's no point in reinventing the wheel. So I'd be all ears.

[Charlie Brown]

Maybe this would interest you re: using the pips.

https://parsifalswheeldivination.com/20 ... o_1VZXXrlU

[dodalisque]

I totally agree with what you say about this spread and the need for a specific, detailed question. The figures in the majors don't have the same sense of movement that the courts do, so it's difficult to get narratives going until the minors are added in. What you did with the sight lines for Marigold's reading is one solution. BTW I really liked that reading, even though you were not too sure about it. It seemed a perfect example of the way Enrique Enriquez reads cards - making observations about the images without adding interpretations. That encourages the client to impose their own specific meanings onto the reading, drawing on very detailed personal scenarios that we could never know about. And in fact that's exactly what happened with Marigold. The reading seemed passionless to you but it carried intensely personal significance for her. I wish I could do all my readings like that but I can never seem to resist trying to "intuitively" guess what's happening.

I do seem to like spreads where one of the cards suggests the "likely outcome". It's nice to be forced to consider an actual old-fashioned prediction rather than endlessly weigh alternatives. The French Cross is a nice size for quick reading. My only quibble is that with the numeric reduction we use to get the quintessence card there is no mathematical possibility of ever arriving at Le Bateleur (I) or La Papesse (II). The reduction I did for my reading came to 55 = 10 = Wheel of Fortune. I thought of reducing again to have Le Bateleur connected in some way to the Wheel of Fortune (X), but that didn't feel right either.

[Charlie Brown]

My only quibble is that with the numeric reduction we use to get the quintessence card there is no mathematical possibility of ever arriving at Le Bateleur (I) or La Papesse (II)

I think that's more of a feature than a bug.

[dodalisque]

My only quibble is that with the numeric reduction we use to get the quintessence card there is no mathematical possibility of ever arriving at Le Bateleur (I) or La Papesse (II)

I think that's more of a feature than a bug.

Yes, I suppose so. In the same way that the Emperor showed up twice is your reading. That would have been enough to get me to shuffle the cards again, but you did make the repetition make sense. Maybe I'm too tidy-minded to like these quirky features. If I used the French Cross regularly I would probably just draw the central 5th card to avoid distractions, for me and for the client, but it's a shame to miss out on the drama of the mathematical logic of the numerical reduction.

[Diana]

My only quibble is that with the numeric reduction we use to get the quintessence card there is no mathematical possibility of ever arriving at Le Bateleur (I) or La Papesse (II)

I think that's more of a feature than a bug.

I've never liked this quintessence concept. Have never felt comfortable with it. It makes me feel awkward, sort of like a gawky scarecrow. And actually, I've always felt it has a whiff of charlatanism and/or wishful thinking about it. Now that it's been revealed to me that one cannot arrive at Le Batelelur or La Papesse, it will be banished from my life forever. Get thee behind me Quintessence.

Seriously, this is one MAJOR flaw.

[Charlie Brown]

It's only a flaw if you were to assume that each and every card should properly have an equal chance of appearing. If that were the case, there would be no point to calculating the quintessence rather than just drawing an extra card. Instead, what does it suggest about those cards that they aren't capable of filling that role?

[Diana]

How can any other card fill the role of Le Bateleur or the Papesse ? They're fundamental and essential. Without them it's a bit like cutting off some bodily limbs. And it ends up like this :

[Charlie Brown]

Their role is something other than the quintessence

[Diana]

I don't know Charlie Brown. Why would this be so ? Because we make it so ? Sounds a bit like that, and then it reminds me of that wishful thinking I was talking about. Where does this quintessence concept come from ? Its origin I mean.

It still sounds suspicious to me.

[Charlie Brown]

I"m not sure, but it's definitely pre-20th century. If the quintessence is a synthesis based on the structure of the 22 majors, then it suggests that cards I and II are more elemental rather than molecular. This is one reason I prefer Wirth's understanding of the quintessence as a lens through which to view the reading. That aligns nicely with the statistical fact that you're more likely to get the higher numbered, more conceptual cards.

It's old, very commonly used and seems to work. It doesn't seem like it should, but it definitely seems to. This is one reason I roll my eyes when I see people doing this with minors or a number other than four cards: to the extent that it works it works in large part because of its rooting in the numeric structure of the triumphs.

[Charlie Brown]

I think this is germane to all Oct. participants.