AUTHOR’S NOTE: Some time ago I added a sub-category titled “Practical Mysticism” to the “Categories” drop-down menu on the sidebar. This feature was inspired by my reading of Lon Milo DuQuette’s Tarot Architect and it was solidified by the observations of Dr. Dean Radin in Real Magic.

I’ve written extensively in the past on the use of both analytical and intuitive methods of interpretation when performing a tarot reading. My “hard right turn” into a more literal approach to divination was driven by my introduction to the Lenormand cards in 2014, and it appealed strongly to my rational mind while also leaving room for speculative extemporizing (even though I was ostracized by purists for being even slightly creative). Although I had been pursuing a pragmatic, action-and-event-oriented trajectory in my tarot work since 2011 after de-emphasizing its psychological and spiritual aspects, I brought the practical lessons I learned from the Lenormand system back to my tarot practice.

Perhaps the most valuable insight obtained from that experience was the concept of a limited number of essential definitions for each card. The most persistent complaint I hear from novice diviners is that there is simply too much information to absorb and retain at a level that will ensure instant recall in the middle of a reading. This has led to the expedient notion that we don’t need to memorize anything, we can just make it up as we go using visual clues and attribute it to psychic sagacity. Unfortunately, I suspect that much of this intuitive content arises from the reader’s fertile imagination rather than from a valid mystical vision of reality. My concern is that it is overly biased by subjective impressions; it may not be entirely wrong but it still “ain’t butter” as the old Parkay margarine commercial would have us forget.

Although I agree with the view that every card has many layers of meaning that can be summoned as needed to address the specific context of a seeker’s question, I’ve shaped my own strategy around the premise that a card has only a couple of key descriptions that lie at the heart of its testimony. These are easy to internalize and present as opening statements in any divination, after which more imaginative ideas can be presented that will flesh out the narrative for the querent’s consideration.

I employ a condensed portfolio of “best practices” gleaned from the many thousands of hours of tarot study under my belt and the thousands of readings I’ve done, a distillation that I’ve captured in my Tarot 101 teaching material and my small “fundamentals” ebook, Tarot Principles and Practices. (Hint: it’s a deep dive into both basic and advanced techniques, tactics, strategies and resources, and not really a beginner’s book.)

Mine is a graduated approach to intuitive perception that doesn’t encourage promptly swallowing “the whole hog” as gospel truth. I’m too much of a realist to believe that artful conjecture can entirely supplant more substantial evidence just because it feels right to the mystical sensibilities. If I aim to advise clients about how they can triumph in confronting their problems, I’m certainly not going to guess even in a provisional way, I will look for obvious “signposts” in the cards that point to a plausible success path as suggested by the traditional wisdom found in the “knowledge-base.” I will offer this roadmap for discussion and then go from there into improvisation to the extent necessary.

This doesn’t mean that less-logical insights must be discounted, just that they should be kept in perspective and not allowed to run away with the prediction. As I see it, every stray epiphany can benefit from an anchor that moors it in charted waters until the “oracular moment” is right to venture beyond. I like an unexpected revelation as much as the next reader, but I’m not going to “put all my eggs in one basket” when there is much more to the scenario that warrants intelligent investigation.

Effective divination is a not-so-simple matter of isolating the legitimate “signals” (identifiable precursors) from the distracting “static” (fanciful suppositions). Our first goal should be to make sense from a practical standpoint. We don’t want to wind up gaping open-mouthed across the table with nothing to say when the sitter challenges us on what our intuitive flights of fancy mean in everyday terms. I’ve been in that position and had to “step lively” to get myself out of it. If nothing else, a profound understanding of the lore provides a safety-net in the event of an unrecoverable percipient* stumble. I know how it sounds, but my style is more quirky (as you can tell from my writing) than stuffy, with deep roots in the tradition and branches loaded with the fruits of imagination. Just don’t call it “intuition.”

*According to Dr. Radin and Princeton University, “percipience” describes attempts to perceive the future. There appear to be two types: presentiment (or feeling) and precognition (or discernment). My interaction with the online tarot community reveals that intuitive reading is grounded in presentiment while analytical interpretation seeks foreknowledge within a reasonable margin of error.