By Wayne Limberger
As much as we encourage our sitters to frame their questions in a flexible manner that invites meaningful commentary from the cards rather than an open-and-shut, “yes-or-no” verdict, I would venture to say that the majority of people who request a reading from us aren’t seeking a panoramic view of their future circumstances. They want a straightforward “yes” or “no” about the likelihood of some occurrence and could not care less about all the fancy word-play. The main challenge in delivering this message is that there are 78 different “flavors” of probability, and the more flavors we bring into the recipe the more likely we are to wind up serving our sitters a mud-pie. Reducing our readings to a single card doesn’t help the situation much because we still have to attach a qualitative value to any card that comes up. If we subscribe to the theory that “there are no bad cards, only necessary ones,” it can be difficult to tamp down our urge to over-explain and embellish, which may only confuse the issue.
I’ve made a couple of efforts to simplify my approach to
fielding “yes-or-no” questions, but none of them has completely
satisfied my own criteria for economy and clarity, for the simple
reason that the cards have too many layers of meaning to pin them
down to one unconditional answer. Granted, some are easy to apply in
a narrow event-oriented way (Sun means “yes,” Death means “no,”
etc), but most aren’t if we’re trying to be as precise as
possible because they just have too much to say. Much of this has to
do with the visual complexity of the cards and our tendency to
free-associate in imaginative ways from the imagery. I decided to
have another go at creating a definitive single-card model.
Short of defaulting to Lenormand cards and their more explicit
positive and negative properties, my first move away from the usual
method of delineation was to choose a tarot deck such as the Tarot de
Marseille that doesn’t lend itself to “scripted”
interpretation. The next step was to strip the deck of any cards that
are too emphatically verbose. That meant removing all of the trump
cards, and I also dumped the court cards because they embody an
amalgam of characteristics that can yield shades of gray rather than
a clear black-or-white judgment; in other words, they aren’t
sufficiently binary for my purpose. That leaves the 40 minor cards,
Ace through Ten. I shuffle and cut the reduced deck in my normal way
and then pull one card from the pack to serve as my answer. From
there, I work with number theory first, and then shade my
determination with suit qualities.
My objective is to produce a single-pointed outcome from a sliding
scale of possibilities. In the elemental scheme of things the Aces
are clear-eyed and fresh, making them my choice for an unequivocal
“yes,” while the weary Tens, being nearly depleted of the
original motive force, occupy the opposite pole, a categorical “no.”
(Another pertinent analogy would be that when you “ace” something
you nail it perfectly.) The Fives and Sixes represent a “bridge”
or tipping point between the extremes, meaning that the situation
could go either way according to where they sit; Fives partake
slightly more of “yes” than of “no,” and vice-versa with the
Six, but I wouldn’t take either one to the bank. Similarly,
depending on which end of the spectrum they favor, the transitional
cards (Two through Four and Seven through Nine) represent a gamble,
the advice being to hedge one’s bet in one direction or the other,
with Two through Four moving between a probable “yes” and “maybe”
and Seven through Nine shifting between “maybe” and a likely
“no.” The answer will be more definitive the closer it comes to
either end of the series.
Another factor that could be examined is the odd or even quality
of the number. Odd numbers are regarded as active and even numbers as
passive; the former push to achieve the equilibrium they lack and the
latter strive to maintain their present state of balance. If the
question is about whether things will stay the same, an even-numbered
card would lean toward “yes,” while asking if they will change
would elicit a “yes” from an odd-numbered card. Regarding suit
influence, the positive, active suits of Wands and Swords reinforce
whatever verdict the numerical value generates, while the negative,
passive suits of Water and Earth erode the firmness of the judgment.
In all cases, though, the nature of the number will anchor the
conclusion and any other considerations will offer only minor
adjustments.
Only after a bare-bones statement is obtained as above will I
entertain trying to flesh out the reading with other cards, and only
if the sitter desires more information. This could be done by
shuffling the trump cards separately and drawing one of them to aid
in explaining “why” the answer came out the way it did and how
one might cope with it. Alternatively or in parallel, the court cards
could be brought to bear to show whether another person will have a
say in the outcome; according to their suit, Kings and Queens could
be more supportive and trustworthy while Knights and Pages come
across as more stimulating but less reliable. In either case, I pair
the supplemental card with the “answer” card to see how
cooperative they appear to be.
Here is an example reading.
I was asked to do a reading to determine whether the casual acquaintances between a couple and two others can be expected to blossom into real friendship. This “yes-or-no” question presented a perfect opportunity to test-drive my new approach to binary inquiries.
I selected the Conver Ben-Dov Tarot de Marseilles for this
reading, and used only the “pip” cards in the initial pull. I did
not apply reversals. After I got my answer, I shuffled the trump
cards and drew one of them to show how the querent might facilitate
the matter. Then I shuffled the court cards and pulled one to see
whether the men or the women would be instrumental in deciding the
outcome.
The Ace of Wands as the “answer” card is an unequivocal “Yes,”
with the active, positive suit of Wands reinforcing the certainty of
the Ace.
The Fool as the “facilitator” card suggests that the querent
doesn’t really need to do anything to force the issue. The
situation will play out naturally in due course if they let it. Since
the Ace and the Fool both symbolize a “beginning,” they are
sympathetically inclined. At worst, there could be a caution against
naive assumptions or expectations.
The Queen of Cups as the “affinity” card indicates that the
women will most likely forge an emotional bond. The mature wisdom of
the Queen will rein in the fecklessness of the Fool.
That’s it. Short, sweet and right to the point. Prospects look
good for the awakening of friendship as long as the gentlemen support
the emerging rapport between their ladies. (They aren’t represented by the Fool here, but the implication is plain.)