"Set" is a game played with a deck of 81 cards no two of which are identical. The pips on each card are differentiated by four variables: color, number, shade, and shape. Each of these have three options:
color: red, green, purple
number: 1, 2, 3
shade: empty, hashed, filled
shape: oval, diamond, squiggle
Thus, because all possibilities are present, there is a card with one filled red oval, and another with one filled red diamond, as well as cards with two or three filled red ovals.
This deck, I would like to note, is only very slightly more numerous than the Tarot deck, and far more regularly organized. Now, I am not saying that a regular system of organization would necessarily help the Tarot better do whatever it is doing (it might only be able to do its job using magically significant numbers like 22 and 10 which are not encoded into the Set deck), but perhaps we could begin with the Set deck and see if these cards could serve one _possible_ function of a deck of legible cards.
Let's say that we want to use the Set cards to represent 81 distinct ideas, covering as much of reality as possible. Of course, this is a quite limited vocabulary (though, again, less so than is the Tarot deck), but it might prove a though-provoking exercise.
Please use comments to propose four variables with three options each describing as much as possible. If this is stupid, another fun comment might be an explanation of why the Tarot deck's system is much better than this one.
Filled- absent/unimportant/false
ReplyDeleteHashed- possible
Empty- present/critical/true
Red- verb/action
Green- noun/thing
Purple- modifier/state
Oval- constructive
Diamond- destructive
Squiggle- criteria changing
One- Here
Two- Nearby
Three- Far off
Also, I agree that the above attempt is a dismal failure, but I am not sure how to define the problem in any way that does not amount to a complete dismissal of the Tarot as well.
ReplyDeleteFill: Purpose
ReplyDeleteFilled = Yours
Hashed = Mixed
Empty = Others'
Color: Reception
Red = Conflict
Green = Accepted
Purple = Mediated
Shape: Influence
Oval = Eros
Diamond = Philos
Squiggle = Agape
Number: Conviction
1 = Half-hearted
2 = Moderate
3 = Self-sacrificing
AWUTI, I think you have created a schema for any computable interpersonal encounter.
ReplyDeleteI must confess that I've half sold myself on this schema, Pacmanides. In a fit of aimless productivity, I nearly created a set of these cards a couple nights ago.
ReplyDeleteThis is very interesting to me; I love the game Set, and this articulates something about it that was on the tip of my brain every time I played it.
ReplyDeleteWhat you've created out of it is a potentially very useful divination tool, But I don't believe it's a Tarot per se. In fact, this is much closer in concept to the way in which the I Ching's hexagrams are cast.
Even when used for divination, the Set illustrations are figurative, but not symbolic. Therefore the relationship between a querent and the cards that develops during a Tarot reading doesn't occur in a Set reading. Whereas in a Tarot reading the querent can be called upon by the reader to make independent observations based on their reaction to cards, a Set reading would force the querent to be completely reliant on the reader's perspective.
It's not easy to arrive at a consensus as to what counts as a Tarot and what doesn't, but based on the earliest decks (which the majority of new decks emulate structurally), the system of hierarchy they contain is a fundamental trait. I would even argue that modern decks sold as Tarots that don't have this trait aren't really Tarots at all, they are just divination cards.
I'm not one to say whether the Tarot is ultimately a better divination tool than dice or entrails, but the way the Tarot reveals information is certainly completely distinct from those other forms.
"the Set illustrations are figurative, but not symbolic."
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting notion, and whether or not I think these two terms best designate the distinction you are pointing towards ultimately does not matter.
So, what is "symbolic" and what is "figurative?"
You seem to be saying that within a figurative system there is only one possible reading, whereas in a symbolic system multiple are possible. Of course, I could retort that within the Set Deck there may be only one set of adjectives which emerge from a particular card, but that these still retain great flexibility (which was actually my original complaint).
So, consider "two-green-solid-squiggles" under AWUTI's schema. This would be "your accepted moderate agape." Now, I would argue that while, yes, the reader would have memorized those coordinates and could give them to the querent, no matter which of them tried to flesh out what that meant, it would always have multiple possible referents. You can imagine them trying to figure out (assuming "you" is always the querent herself) whether this is a highschool friend who also remembers one fondly, or perhaps a old flame still burning gently from both ends, not to mention the dozens of equally likely readings. And even were these the only two options, this would still leave dozens of possible referents (given a happy, satisfied youth).
So, the difference between the decks cannot be simply that in one the querent has more options than in the other. That said, I think you are pointing (if I know you) toward a great point. Are you saying that that a symbolic system can/must include a hierarchy, and is not merely a grid of variables? I think this is a good point, but I would like you to say clearly what you mean.
With reference to reading in particular, wha is the difference between a high card and a low one?
Are you saying that that a symbolic system can/must include a hierarchy, and is not merely a grid of variables?
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm saying that a TAROT, by definition, must include a hierarchy. The major arcana, or "trumps," are a hierarchical series where each card triumphs over the one that preceded it. The court cards' hierarchical system speaks for itself; even if one discounts the hierarchy of the suits themselves, the minor arcana's numbering system presents one of its own that bears directly on how the cards are interpreted. This may not be an aspect of the tarot that people commonly see or use, but ultimately it's what holds the entire game together.
The Set divination explored here incorporates hierarchy in the numbering of shapes per card, but it's not a fundamental part of its structure, which is why I think it's not a Tarot.
As for the meaning of "symbolic," I may have spoken misleadingly. The oval, the diamond, and the squiggle could be read symbolically, but here they are presented as merely signs, not symbols. The same way that a logo is a sign and not necessarily a symbol. For our purposes here, we have assigned meanings to those signs, not interpreted them as symbols. That is why a Set reading would be a more lop-sided experience than a Tarot reading -- how much of it would resonate with the querent on a symbolic level? To what degree would he or she be able to participate in the interpretation of the cards?
With reference to reading in particular, wha is the difference between a high card and a low one?
In the major arcana, a card's number indicates whether it describes the world of appetites, the world of will, or the world or reason, and hints at what the querent has already overcome, or what is still capable of thwarting their progress.