I notice that Rana George has a new Lenormand deck (which I ordered) to go with the book she wrote on Lenormand decks (which I don’t have.)
I was tempted while browsing, but rather than buying another deck I decided to pull out all my Lenormand decks and pick a random card. Surprisingly, I already have nine Lenormand decks. How did that happen? My random pick was the Clouds card, number 6.
Ooooh, they just go on and on in this image. I always think of Clouds as good/bad or dark/light or even good luck/bad luck, but there are some subtleties to the card that haven’t entered my consciousness. Chloe McCracken in the book for the Celtic Lenormand refers to the ambiguity and polarity of this card; it’s so clear but if you think about clouds visually they do tend to blend together where there isn’t a clear delineation between light and dark. We are back to Pema Chodron’s “fundamental ambiguity of being human”.
The other aspect of this card that I never considered is the idea that you or another person might be showing two sides or that there are two sides to a situation and such. The way people hide things or misrepresent themselves or simply that you need to consider both sides could be part of this depending on the surrounding cards. One book I have mentions abuse, like an abuser presenting one face to the world and in private being dark and dangerous.
Speaking of surrounding cards, I find it astounding that people actually do the Grand Tableau with all the cards laid out. That would take me forever, and in some way I feel it is bypassing chance or randomness to have everything on the table, which is why I prefer a one-card or maybe a three-card maximum draw with these decks. Historically I am wrong, but personally I like it that way, yet there is something to be said for interaction with this card in particular, so when feeling expansive use as many cards as you like.
Oh, and most often the dark clouds are on the left, but in my own deck, The Illustrative Lenormand, I put them on the right, as does Lo Scarabeo in the Lenormand Oracle Cards, and in some of the cards it’s less clear where the light and dark are, it looks…ambiguous!
The other thing with these cards is the number itself, with 6 signifying the sixth month of June or six days or six weeks and whatever else you can throw at the meaning of numbers. I’ve never been too keen on that approach but others use it with success. My problem with numbers is how malleable they are, how you can bludgeon them to mean everything and anything. Ask yourself: “Who came up with this system of numerology?” Then think about how it could have been done differently, it could have been done 20 or 100 different ways. You could make up your own system, there are no archetypes with numbers, no root meanings, just what people have foisted on them.
Are words like that too? Maybe. There is some of that with words but “ambiguity” for instance has a Latin root of ambigere which means “to wander about”. It can be variously interpreted, as you meander through association and meaning, but you are always left wandering, uncertain, that is the base of what it means.
The number six is the smallest positive integer which is neither a square number nor a prime number. Six is the second smallest composite number; its proper divisors are 1, 2, and 3 and when you add those together you get 6. On it goes into mathematics, music and chemistry, biology, astronomy.
Numerology seems to have several associations tacked onto this number, like that it is feminine or nurturing and connected to service, responsibility, and thus connected to motherhood and caring. It has been connected to the Lovers card in Tarot which is also number six, and there are positive and negative energies, but generally this is a happy number. Who says? Where did this come from? Some human made it up and tacked it on. It’s a system, and it works because people make it work, but where did Big Mom come into the number 6? Humans. Read as you wish but don’t expect me to embrace a system that describes the number 6 as “nurturing”; it’s a fabrication.
Thus say the Clouds of ambiguity.