The Cone of Opportunity: A Lenormand Twist
AUTHOR’S NOTE: As part of the analysis for a recent Lenormand Grand Tableau, I examined an instance of dual “mirroring on the diagonal” between the Significator card (SC) at the very top of the spread and two other cards at the extreme bottom. I immediately noticed that this arrangement inscribed a triangle with the Significator at the pinnacle and 15 additional cards bounded by the two diagonals. Here is a diagrammatic presentation, which gives the appearance of the SC “casting a shadow” on the cards below it. It could also be characterized as a “widening flow” of influence that becomes shallower as it spreads.
In reading the Grand Tableau, there is a convention that any cards lying below the Significator are more-or-less under the control and direction of the querent (as opposed to those above, which summarily descend upon the individual). In a 9×4 GT where the Significator appears in the top row, this would mean that there are 27 cards in the “span of control” scenario, many of which are nowhere near the SC and therefore of limited import. Setting aside secondary considerations like knighting, intersection and horizontal/vertical mirroring, this can create an “information overload” condition that lacks focus; my impression is that most readers — if they choose to go beyond “near/far” considerations — just browse through it, picking out highlights.
Looking at the above pattern, I was struck by the notion that the cards that lie within the boundary of the triangle form a “cone of opportunity” for directed action. Using the Bjorn Meuris “Method of Distance,” half of them fall within the “Very Near” and “Near” categories, making them especially potent, while we could say that the other seven “fall under the shadow” of the SC, lending them the favor of its broader oversight.
This concept could be brought to bear every time the SC shows up above the bottom row and anywhere on or next to the central column in a 9×4 GT, or to either side of the middle in an 8×4+4 layout. Even if it isn’t near the vertical axis, if the SC is much closer to the bottom than the top, a triangle of fewer cards is possible. Of course, the closer the querent’s card appears to the top row, the more motivational latitude will be exhibited by the cards within the boundary.
If we take it from bottom-to-top instead, with the SC anywhere but in the top row, we might view the inverted triangle as a “funnel” focusing the affects of the nearest incoming influences sharply on the querent.* I haven’t considered the options of “lopsided” triangles or sideways expansion, but the former would defeat the pleasing conical symmetry of my model and the latter — while an intriguing notion — has no basis in “span of control” theory.
It was brought to my attention that the numerous smaller triangles appearing within the pattern might be interpreted as separate areas of influence to increase the level of detail; this is something that Lisa Young-Sutton does in the analysis of her ten-card triangle layout. Because I want to keep the Significator in direct control of the narrative, I would only read them when they are specifically emphasized by the SC landing closer to the bottom edge.
*I wrote a previous essay that presents a more detailed discussion of the “funnel” idea.
https://parsifalswheeldivination.wordpress.com/2018/04/24/the-funnel-and-the-hourglass/
Originally published at http://parsifalswheeldivination.wordpress.com on November 19, 2023.
