Inside the Box: Quaternary vs. Quinary Synthesis*
AUTHOR’S NOTE: I’ve been loosely using the term “quintessence” to describe the numerical conflation of any quantity of tarot cards in a spread, but traditionalists have criticized that assumption as being inconsistent with the historical meaning of the word as the symbolic fifth iteration (or “quinary essence”) of a four-card “tirage on croix” (French Cross) reading. Here I’m proposing another way to approach it that can be used with other common spreads like three-card and five-card lines.
Etymologically, I recognize that “quintessence” refers to the “fifth element” when used with the tarot, so I’ve been casting around for a different paradigm. For instance, I’m thinking that the numerical concatenation of a three-card sequence might be called the quaternary gist of the reading since it represents a composite “fourth expression” of its components. (It strikes me as an example of a “partial sum” — the sum of a finite number of terms in an infinite series — which in this case would exemplify “3+1”; my grasp of the mathematical principles is definitely shaky but I think the basic premise is sound). Doing the same for a two-card set could be considered a form of tie-breaking “ternary” while the sixth arithmetic offshoot of a five-card group might be called the “senary;” a fusion of six cards producing a seventh would be the “septenary;” and so forth. This language doesn’t really serve to precisely extend the idea of “quintessence” to other numerical contexts but I think the goal is worth pursuing.
As I use it, the objective of these formulaic gyrations is to come up with a single overarching trump card that provides a “big-picture” angle on the long-range consequences of events and circumstances revealed by the previous cards in the layout. It can be extremely useful when the nominal “outcome” card of a prediction is ambiguous or inconclusive. Massaging the numbers rather than simply drawing “clarifiers” or throwing another spread to seek a more coherent conclusion makes use of the cards already on the table to derive an alternate perspective, one that proceeds from the same baseline. (Regardless of what we choose to call it, the premise is identical in all cases.)
If, as Marcus Katz has observed, “the oracular moment is sacrosanct,” trying to arrive at a clearer understanding through relentless ramification rather than doing the hard work to puzzle out the one we already have seems like “sticking our thumb” in the eye of the tarot gods. Instead of casting a wider net, we should really be drilling down into the sub-strata of the layered implications that are invariably present in the original pull. All it takes is a little inspiration, imagination and ingenuity (oh, and of course a level of persistence that is foreign to the “instant gratification” mindset enamored of “clarifiers”).
*Quinary synthesis — the “quinitessence” — refers to the practice of calculating a single number from four cards pulled for a reading by summing the face values of the cards and then — if the result is 22 or greater — reducing it to a number that falls within the range of the 22 trump cards. (Certain accommodations must be made to include the Fool as either zero or twenty-two.) This produces a fifth “roll-up” card (always a Major Arcanum) that offers a summary outlook. See my previous posts on the subject.
Originally published at http://parsifalswheeldivination.wordpress.com on July 29, 2024.
