by Jean-Michel David

About the Award and how it came to be

The International Tarot Award originated as the Lifetime Achievement Award with the International Tarot Society (ITS). I remember at the beginning of 2003 looking forward to who was going to be the next recipient later that year, and how, perhaps, it it could be the case that the fitfth award, then due in 2005, may have been presented at the International Tarot Conference we were organising with Melbourne as host city. This was not to be, as the ITS unfortunately folded in 2003 – the year it would have awarded the fourth award. 2003 was also the year in which the Association for Tarot Studies (ATS), in preparing of the Conference, was formed.

Ever since then, I have tried to work out some way by which to not only continue the Award the ITS started, but to work with the broader international tarot community to make it broadly based. Janet Berres, the former president of the ITS, also saw that the continuation of the Award would be of benefit in duly recognising the ourstanding contributions of so many in our community – a recognition beyond names that may even be more popular than those selected.

Having ‘missed’ 2003 and 2005, it was time to engage our community in selecting the next awardee. Contact was therefore made with two of the three past award recipients, various tarot associations in different places, and tarot publishers and educational institutions and communities. I am sure I omitted some who could have been added to the list. In addition, a small number of individuals were directly invited to be part of the consultative group. I’ll give the list of these further, but what became really evident is how much talent and knowledge just this consultative group represented, most of whom could as easily have been listed as potential recipients for this year’s award – and some in fact were suggested for consideration to be nominated.

Not only the former ITS, but TABI in the UK, the ATA in the USA, and the TGAs of Australia and New Zealand, as well as a couple of other tarot associations were contacted for support. Aeclectic Tarot, US Games, LoScarabeo, Llewellyn and TarotGarden likewise lent their support and expertise in suggesting who, from their perspective, meritted to be awarded this exalted prize. In addition, the NewYork based Tarot School, and Tarot University (also US-based) added their voice. To these were added individual expert voices from France, Japan, South Africa, Denmark, Czechoslovakia and Australia. All in all, a consultative group that includes such a broad representation of the world’s tarot community that I hoped that whoever was chosen would be so with the broad support of all – this does not mean that yet others could not have broadened representation, and a few ‘glaring’ omissions will be added to the list should they decide to participate in any future selection.

Then came two other considerations: who were going to be nominees as potential recipients, and what was going to be the prize!?

Nominee list

Initially, I prepared a short-list of potential nominees and asked whether I had possibly missed people who should similarly be considered. What a pandora’s box I opened! The list soon grew to nearly fifty deserving indivuals from various parts of the world! The list was re-named as list of preliminary nominees, and from this responses were sought to limit it to something a little more manageable. I must admit that I felt pleased that the final list of nominees was very close indeed to my original one: at least there I had shown reasonable judgement. The nominees read like a textbook of the top seven who’s who (in addition to the past Award recipients) of Living Major Significant Contributors to the World of Tarot: Ronald Decker; Thierry Depaulis; Michael Dummett; Mary Greer; Robert O’Neill; Rachel Pollack; and Andrea Vitali. Interestingly, most of these individuals can be divided into two groups in terms of their public tarot personae: those with a predominant interest in the history and development of tarot; and those with a dominant influence in tarot usage.

In saying this, I do not in the least wish to imply that as contributors to the world of tarot, each individual has only made contributions to the specific camp mentioned. Quite the contrary, in fact! Each of these individuals has significantly altered the landscape of tarot and the manner it is perceived, understood, used, and accepted by the world at large. In some ways, these influences may even be rather difficult to ascertain. For example, how does one genuinely assess and determine the incredible re-appreciation of tarot interpretation by such works as some of Michael Dummett’s criticism of the ‘occult’ views on tarot?! Or how does one begin to appreciate the meticulous research and influence of Mary Greer’s suggestion that Waite’s views on the Grail may directly have influenced and been incorporated into Pamela Colman Smith’s art, re-opening a possible understanding of the meaning embedded in that deck’s design?

And what of the support each of these individuals have given to those who perhaps came to tarot struggling to come to grips with its broad and at first quite inpenetrable symbols? Whether one looks at Rachel Pollack, Thierry Depaulis or Ronald Decker (as examples), we are faced with the often semi-invisible support their own enthusiasm and insights have lead others to yet further steps in appreciation, design, and indeed learning. Similarly, new questions, opening yet further interest, have opened with the incredible ground breaking works and contributions of Andrea Vitali and Robert O’Neill. Each of these individuals (and yet others!) deserve in their own right such recognition from our broad tarot community… and yet, we have set ourselves to a single contemporary individual being selected for this exhalted Award.

Of course, this does not take away from the achievements of yet others who may rightly have been considered for a tarot ‘Hall of Fame’, such as the various tarot designers and producers of the past centuries, those mentioned in so many texts over the past decades, and other significant contributors. There is, however, something rather special about being able to select from amongst our living peers a person who stands out as having made rather exceptional and outstanding contributions!

…and the ‘prize’?

Here I must admit that I did not hold back, and quite frankly worried those close to me who thought I was being rather extravagant (I suppose I should now acknowledge that I was, but I’ll do that in quiet whispering tones, lest it be used against me in future). What to do, and how to do it?

There is an artist – a rather exceptional sculptor – in Melbourne whose works I had seen, and who, fortunately, was known to me. Without at the time thinking too much of it, I brought up the concept and its possibility at a musical soiree at a mutual friend’s place. His enthusiasm for the possibility only re-ignited my own! We organised to meet and discuss the idea again, and brought with me a past Newsletter, whose cover design was painted by a young woman he also knew, Kat Black’s design for the 2005 International Tarot Conference card (Kat Black is the artist who put together the amazing Golden Tarot, and currently working on Tarot Cielo), and also some descriptions of ‘What is Tarot’ – descriptions from a number of people forming a past Newsletter (December 2003). From the various descriptions, he chose one in particular:

“Tarot is a wise being with a divine intelligence and universal proportions. Its symbols are like beautiful multifaceted gems. The discovery and contemplation of each one may reflect parts of our being previously hidden or lying dormant. So too, our life and world may be reflected back to us in richly woven symbols for our deeper consideration or action”.

Unbeknownst to him at that time, this comes from my wife’s meditative reflection on striving to come to a succinct description (as the others from that Newsletter similarly strove to achieve). For both of us, it certainly added another more personal element.

In addition, I briefly explained to him the origin behind the ATS seal and the basic designs of both Newsletter painting and Kat Black’s design on the book held by the Angel.

As surmised by an astute observer on the consultation group, there are indeed influences from Steiner in the Award Sculpture – and these are actually multifold. A number of Neil Barker’s sculptures arise out of meditations on Rudolf Steiner’s verses. Though Steiner never wrote on tarot (as far as I’m aware), he did refer to it at least a couple of times, one of these in a Christmas lecture in December 1906, for which he used symbols derived from and thus reminiscent of those used by Eliphas Levi (Cf my page on fourhares.com for some details). Rudolf Steiner was also indirectly and posthumously influential on Freida Harris’s paintings for Crowley’s ‘Thoth’ deck via the projective geometrical works of George Adams and Olive Whicher (the subject of Newsletter #15 from March 2004). The symbols he presented in December 1906 formed the basis for what became the ATS seal and logo, and expanded artistically to the Newsletter cover painting: they are consolidated into a single combined emblem as presented on the book held by the Angel on Kat Black’s card.

And so, using these, Neil Barker developed not one, but three successive and increasingly integrated clay models, the first of which was much closer to the ATS logo, the final and third allowing this to be transformed by the above quote as to what tarot is. From Eliphas Levi, through Steiner, to a sculpture that arises, then, out of tarot development, without reflecting specific preferences to any deck design.

Having the model then required that it be cast in bronze, using a traditional and time-intense method of lost wax casting – something that appears to have been in use for perhaps 3000 years (for a description online, see, as an example, this description from ArtWorksFoundry.com). The patina was applied to enhance the finish to a rich and modulated tone, and then a cube base was cut and carved by a long experienced (and excusedly artistically slow) stone-mason, using that rich and gold-like speckled South Australian granite, only adding to the sculpture’s beauty and symbolic foundation.

From an idea, to an idea, to a model, to a casting, to an astounding artistic sculptural achievement, to be gifted to someone who similarly has achieved outstanding contributions to the world of tarot!

And the winner is…

It must be admitted that even of that shortlist, two individuals emerged clearly from the field – though every nominee was also acknowledged as deserving. And from the two, this year’s winner: Mary Greer!

If Mary’s contributions had to be described in but a brief inadequate paragraph, I would have to not only omit much of her contributions, but have to omit also most of her writings, her personal engagements in numerous and quite diverse undertakings, as well as her over thirty years of professional reading experience. Her scholarly approach to tarot’s development, combined with her travels directly associated with tarot, her support of various tarot educational presentations, her involvement in the development of decks, her personal encouragement of budding authors, tarot teachers and designers, her personal charm and generosity in making known the achievement of others, all add to the incredible contributions and achievements.

To give an overview of simply her publications, consider these important contributions:

21 Ways to Read A Tarot Card, Llewellyn, 2006;
Understanding the Tarot Court (with Tom Little), Llewellyn, 2004;
The Complete Book of Tarot Reversals, Llewellyn, 2002;
The T.A.R.O.T. Newsletter – an annual publication from 1986-2001;
The Chronology of the Golden Dawn (with Darcy Küntz), Holmes, 1999;
Women of the Golden Dawn: Rebels and Priestesses, Park Street Press, 1995;
The Essence of Magic: Tarot, Ritual and Aromatherapy, Newcastle Publishing, 1993;
New Thoughts on Tarot: An Anthology, Edited with Rachel Pollack, Newcastle Publishing, 1989;
Tarot Mirrors: Reflections of Personal Meaning, Newcastle Publishing, 1988;
Tarot Constellations: Patterns of Personal Destiny, Newcastle Publishing, 1987;
Tarot for Your Self: A Workbook for Personal Transformation, 1984, revised New Page Books, 2002.

Mary Greer’s pages on both Tarotpedia: the Online Encyclopedia of Tarot and Wikipedia give an indication as to her far more extensive engagements. For those of us in Melbourne, as also undoubtedly for those in other places, whether it be Brisbane, London, Toronto, New York or Los Angeles, Mary has brought undoubted deeper appreciation to tarot usage and understanding as to its history and its symbolism. Her psychological approach has also gained an important and significant place in the world of tarot, giving further credence to this aspect that still remains relatively under-developed.

Overall, a choice well made, and highly deserved! A warm thankyou to all who assisted, and Congratulations Mary!

[The following article is essentially one I wrote some years ago (here with only very minor editing) in response to a request for some clarification with regards to my views on tarot reading certification and the increased usage of so-called 'codes of ethics'. At that time, various discussion threads on aeclectic.net's tarotforum had been rather intense, with my own contributions included amongst these. The article that follows was also constrained to two A4 pages, due to its then printed version, making the whole rather condensed as well as presuming that this formed but part of an ongoing discussion, with most readers aware of both the 'certification' debacle that had previously taken place in the USA and the then online discussions.]

__________

The ‘codification of ethics’ on the one hand, and the ‘certification of practitioners’ on the other, are all too often, though not by necessity, linked. In our case, what is also of central consideration is how these relate to the reading of tarot: this last can certainly take its form as vatical or mantæic art or, instead, as something akin to a psychologically oriented counselling session.

I have at various times been asked to write in more detail then the posts I have contributed to Aeclectic’s TarotForum my views on both certification and the codification of ethics. Quite frankly, I find the task challenging, as much that forms the basis of a worldview that favours either reader certification or the promulgation of a ‘code of ethics’ must be fundamentally at odds with what seems for them to be an alternate way of understanding the world.

It should also first be mentioned that amongst the many who disagree with reader certification stand some who nonetheless support some form of ‘codified ethics’. As may be apparent, I stand clearly against each of these, for different reasons. That I am lead to include both in this brief discussion is partly because every instance of groups wanting to certify individuals – something that fortunately currently remains insignificantly small in the broader world of tarot and also solely internal to the organisations promulgating such – unfortunately also imposes that a ‘code of ethics’ be adopted.

There also needs to be recognition that since the broader adoption and codification of interpersonal relations in the medical profession since the end of the second world war (with its attendent atrocities), numerous other professions have increasingly followed what I would consider an erroneous train of thought: in a bid to protect, neither ethical conduct nor ethical considerations are carefully considered, but rather referenced to the regulatory codified document.

But let’s separate each for now.

Certification

At one level, ‘certification’ means no more than having obtained a certificate for something or other. Anyone offering a course or equivalent may want to issue what amounts to a paper memento of the course attended, for which satisfactory participation and completion of work required has been submitted. Though I generally do not see the value of such memento, as long as the recipient does not wave it as a flag that promotes one’s supposed proficiency in reading tarot, fine: mementos are personal items, not something that suggests some level of professionalism or that a tarot reading about to be undertaken will in any manner embody accuracy. Only the reading at hand embodies this, not the acquired certificate nor endorsement of the reader by some well known individual or some organisation.

To in any manner suggest that certification is legitimate further inadvertently gives the public the impression that only particular styles of readings are legitimate: the styles determined by the certifying agency.

So what are my qualms with certification? in the first instance, precisely the above.

In addition, unless one uses the setting of a tarot spread as a means to engage in a psychotherapeutic session – and in such a case within a particular type of psychology (whether behavioural, cognitive, experiential, Jungian, or any other) – then the ‘accuracy’ of a reading will be a combined reflection of the reader, reading at hand, and readee, and not whether the individual reader has in the past performed adequately.

Unlike other professions, divination is something that takes place afresh at each instance. A person who reads for the first time may provide a more accurate reading than someone with years of experience. Divination is, in this sense, unlike a profession, and no certification can, nor, I would suggest, should claim to, ever provide an indication for a reading that is about to take place.

Certification gives the public the false impression that the reader is somehow going to provide a ‘better’, ‘more accurate’, or more ‘legitimate’ reading than someone without the certification. In that sense, a lie is perpetrated. In our society, which is seemingly increasingly enamoured by certificates and other forms of accreditation, it becomes even more imperative to assist in an accurate perception with regards to reading tarot: no person can be ‘certified’ as reader.

Ethics and Reading

There are some who consider that the moral act is determined by whatever is deemed to bring the greatest amount of pleasure or ‘good’; others who view the moral act as that which can be generalised to a general rule or guideline; yet others who somehow see in morals no more than a reflection of personal feelings. The first of these is a corruption of utilitarianism, the basis of which, in any case, seems to me flawed. The second is examplified in various deontological ethical views, and seems in essence to be underpinning a view consistent with those who argue for ‘codes’ with regards to moral considerations. The third seems to assume a reductionist framework and relegates all behaviour to the psychological realm. These last two seem increasingly prominent in our modern world, and a diminishment of that which is essentially spiritual.

Let’s return to the deontological ethical position. I am perplexed by the pervasiveness of Kantian thought in many areas of life, and even more so in the area of ethics. In a nutshell, Kantian ethical views suggests that a moral act is one for which we can take the situation and universalise it. In other words, by looking at the situation at hand, and determining its ethical dimension, a prior reflection is invoked, generalised, and applied.
Either an individual is able to ascertain the ethical dimension of the situation at hand, or they are not. If they are, no rule will add insight. If they are not, the rule will simply be applied mechanically, without reference to ethical considerations inherent in what is actually presenting itself.

This is equivalent to the shift that has occurred with regards to images of Law over the past few centuries. Fortunately, Tarot has on the whole maintained the earlier form of the image: that of Justitia or Themis. Justice faces us with her eyes open, able to see the situation at hand in order to determine what is required. From around the turn of the 16th century, the image increasingly became blindfolded. Though this supposedly indicates a move from the injustices of favouritism to the application of the law irrespective of social station, it also, more significantly, indicates a shift from Justice to Law – and that irrespective as to whether or not the law is just. A specified ‘rule’ can certainly reflect where one stands with regards to general arrangements. For example, I personally do not want to engage in readings for minors. I recognise this as simply a personal preference that, in any case, may in some areas of the world also have legal ramifications. It does not where I live, however, and even it it did, would reflect the law, not the ethical dimension of the situation.

If I were to ‘codify’ my preferences, they would become ‘codified personal preferences’, not a ‘code of ethics’. To seemingly justify a ‘list of personal preferences with regards to how I work with tarot’ as though this was a statement of ethical insight is at best disingenious, and at worst confuses on the one hand ethics and justice with, on the other, codes and law.

I am reminded of a relatively recent incident (2006 – there have been numerous other such examples since) of a Chinese official who applied for asylum in Australia, with the Chinese embassy responding that China is a country with a ‘rule of law’. My immediate thoughts were certainly that here was an instance of covert threat: ‘we catch you and you will be subjected to whatever instituted laws are in place, whether this be torture, incarceration, or death’. Of course, no claimed ‘codes of ethics’ are rules of such magnitude. The similarity is that whereas in this example there is an implied equivocated slippery slide from justice to law, in the ‘code of ethics’ there is a similar slide and equivocation between ethics and rules or ‘duty’ on the other.

Writing ‘duty’ reminds me of the manner in which Kant elevates this term to sublime heights advocating rules and law to which we must all submit, something his English contemporary, Bentham, also carried. I find the section expounding such in Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason one of the most dangerous statements and against the opposite impulse of love and freedom. And it is these qualities of Love and Freedom that are necessary when engaged in reading.

Love becomes the open-ness that accepts and sees into the cards at hand the pertinent reading – and that, no matter how some may try, cannot be codified.

From whence this rush to codes?

In the opening paragraphs I mention the apparent spread of a codification of claimed ethical considerations as a consequence of some of the atrocities of WWII, including those by, unfortunately, some in the established medical profession (one would like to think in only Nazi Germany, but unfortunately far more pervasive). It is also seemingly the medical establishment that consequently were the first to broadly adopt ‘codes’ as though they were in themselves ethical considerations.

Despite this, the waters of time quickly flowed, for it seems a major change only occured broadly over the past twenty or so years following the introduction of such publications as the Journal of Business Ethics. In fact, Mark Frankel’s ‘Professional Codes: how, why and with what impact’ in the Feb/March 1989 issue of that Journal seems to be a rather strong seed that made this plant virulent.

The proposal undoubtedly paved a path filled with good intentions: wanting to advocate positive aspirations; seeking to broaden understanding of the offerings and limits of a profession; and advocating the provision of some kind of regulatory framework within which its members are seen to operate. The problem is that the code is simply a set of rules, even if initially arising from reflections of the moral dimension of specific and individual situations, but, of course, these are not in itself ethics.

The Ethical dimension of the situation at hand

If Kant can be said to have presented the most pervasive form of deontological ethics, W. D. Ross can be viewed as having made them more forcefully common amongst those who draw from the philosophical body of published thought, with recourse to what he calls prima facie duties. Yet here, in cases where the situation at hand presents conflicting ‘duties’, he has recourse to the moral intuition of the individual. Truly, deontological ethics seems rather an unstable beast without the backbone of something far more sensible: that of the insight into the moral dimension of the situation at hand via the moral reflections of the concerned person at task on the individual situation at hand.

One of the most astute criticism of Kant’s deontology, and by implication on ‘codes of ethics’ in general, is from Rudolf Steiner’s most important book Philosophy of Freedom. Of course, he there provides not simply a critique of the thinking involved in Kant, but also makes a positive contribution…

…and shall close on a quote from that work:

[...] On closer inspection it will at once be seen that at this level of morality driving force and motive coincide; that is, neither a predetermined characterological disposition nor the external authority of an accepted moral principle influences our conduct. The action is therefore neither a stereotyped one which merely follows certain rules, nor is it one which we automatically perform in response to an external impulse, but it is an action determined purely and simply by its own ideal content. [...]

Such an action presupposes the capacity for moral intuitions. Whoever lacks the capacity to experience for himself the particular moral principle for each single situation, will never achieve truly individual willing.

Kant’s principle of morality — Act so that the basis of your action may be valid for all men — is the exact opposite of ours. His principle means death to all individual impulses of action. The standard [must] be what, for me, is to be done in each individual case. [...]

People vary in their capacity for intuition. Situations in which men live are varied. Conduct will depend on the manner in which his faculty of intuition works in a given situation. The sum of ideas which are effective in us, the concrete content of our intuitions, constitutes what is individual in each of us, notwithstanding the universality of the world of ideas. In so far as this intuitive content applies to action, it constitutes the moral content of the individual. To let this content express itself in life is both the highest moral driving force and the highest motive a man can have. We may call this point of view ethical individualism.

The decisive factor of an intuitively determined action in any concrete instance is the discovery of the corresponding purely individual intuition.

R. Steiner, Philosophy of Freedom (1894)

Some expected frequently asked questions…

Where is the Conference held?

 Victoria University Conference Centre, 12th Floor,
 300 Flinders Street, Melbourne

Where is Melbourne?

For our overseas visitors other than our South African and New Zealand guests (who are already aware of the same) Melbourne is located near the centre and top of the world, as the following map clearly shows, viewable online at flourish’s upside down map:

Whereabouts in Melbourne?

an important question… especially for visitors. So here is a map that I trust will be of use throughout the Conference:

Can I park close by?

Adjacent the Conference Centre is a Car Park. Please note that weekend parking rates are fixed, and that during the week (Mon-Wed), a discount rate of nearly 50% applies to Conference participants – approximate car parking fee per day will therefore be AU$15. You will need to purchase a ticket from the Conference centre each day to pay this rate (otherwise, the charge may be up to AU$29).

Do I need to bring my own deck to participate?

Not at all… we’ll have decks there for you to buy!

But seriously, no, though some workshops may have this specified. Note that most workshops will cater for a range of participants, from the total novice to the quite experienced.

What if I wanted to do a workshop that is now full?

Part of the reason for the unscheduled afternoon session is to also allow for more informal participation amongst participants. It may therefore also be possible to catch those presenters during that time, though please be sensitive to the gifts each is bringing by their participation in this event.

Will I be able to get a reading?

It is expected that some readings will be available during the afternoons during the Conference. Please check the information desk for further details. Some presenters have indicated that some time will be available for this, and other professionals may offer the same.

In addition, impromptu readings may be made amongst participants.

Please be sensitive to both the venue, and Victorian laws.

Victorian Laws???

Apart from the more expected and sensible laws in place to protect general citizenship, Victoria still has what many of us consider not only an outdated law, but one that really needs to be repealed: section 13 of the Vagrancy Act states that ‘Fortune telling and pretending to exercise witchcraft etc.: Any person who pretends or professes to tell fortunes or uses any subtle craft means or device by palmistry or otherwise to defraud or impose on any other person or pretends to exercise or use any kind of witchcraft sorcery enchantment or conjuration or pretends from his skill or knowledge in any occult or crafty science to discover where or in what manner any goods or chattels stolen or lost may be found shall be guilty of an offence.’ (my emphasis)

Last time someone charged under this section of the Act? difficult to believe, but in the 1999-2000 period!

For the record, Victoria is not the only state with such laws still on the books.

[please note that the Act was repealed in September 2005 - two months after the Conference - jmd]

Do people just use Tarot for divination?

no… I merely give the above to bring to attention something pertinent to the use some of us do value.

Other uses include using it as inspiration for creative tasks (such as writing novels or musical compositions), as a psychological tool of self-discovery, as images useful for the development of spiritual faculties, and as pictures that tell a thousand words!

I’m not staying long in Melbourne – where do you suggest I visit?

Ah! what a question. Depends on tastes, of course, and where one is from. If from New Zealand, you may want to compare how cold it can get by visiting our snow fields about 1.5 hours out of Melbourne (not sure there’s snow yet!).

If coming from Queensland, check out our National Gallery and Museum… it contains stuff from there! Or check our beaches along Great Ocean Road: beautiful and with a chill that will surprise you!

If coming from North America, you may be interested in seeing drop-bears and other real native animals at Healesville Sanctuary… or in the wild around Marysville (if you get lucky!)

Wanting more Tarot? visit Ma Deva Padma’s gallery, or Kay Steventon’s studio, or Bruno’s Gallery, each within 1.5 hours of Melbourne… in opposite directions!

For night life, you’ll have to ask the younger ones.

I’ve heard Melbourne’s famous for its esoteric culture?

Perhaps, but it’s all secret stuff.

If interested in either Co or Freemasonry, there’ll be people at the Conference (I have been told!). Likewise, there will be some with Rosicrucian interests (again, I have been told).

‘Ask’, they say, ‘and the door shall open’… the first step is to therefore find the door.

It perhaps should also be noted that Melbourne has a very diverse community, with many of the world’s religions having a presence… it may be worth visiting some of the centres if interested.

What about esoteric bookshops and such?

Sure… there’s a few around the place, and some list will be made available at the Conference. Also note that Tarot Garden, which ships worldwide, will have one of its owners present. So if don’t have an item locally available, take the opportunity to see how to go about ordering via the internet.

May I buy books at the Conference?

There will be some books on Tarot and some decks available (haven’t I already written that earlier?). Of especial note are decks and books by Docters van Leeuwen and by Michael Owens (two of our presenters). Mary Greer’s books available from the local wholsalers will also be available, but stock there was very low at time of writing.

Do I have to have cash to buy stuff?

No. Most places tend to have EFTPOS facilities (and we shall too, by the way). If coming from overseas, your Visa or MasterCard will be acceptable in most places for purchases over AU$10. Some other credit or charge cards are accepted in some places… but only some.

Teller machines to obtain cash from (subject to your account, of course!) are readily located in numerous places.

Can I drive in Victoria?

If you can drive in other places, you’ll be able to drive here. However, you’ll need to have a license to legally do so. Remember as well (for those coming from various strange far away places) that we drive on the right side. Ie, we drive on the left-hand side of the road… unless overtaking.

Will there be any evening festivities?

Apart from the opening? depends. I have heard that some people are organising various things, for example, Kat Black will have a very very very late night on Saturday night. You’ll have to ask her why… something to do with lights and things.

It is also suggested that participants use the opportunity to get together for dinners at variously priced restaurants. One suggestion is that a cheap restaurant is organised one evening (that’ll be my turn to pay!), and a different one another evening (someone else’s turn!!)

errr… when do I have to get there?

The frontpage of the [printed version of the] newsletter already answered that!

Friday, 5pm onwards, music around 5:30 +, opening at 6pm, with nice finger foods (no, we don’t eat fingers!).

Other days, please arrive by 9 am (ouch, Kat, you’ll have little sleep for the Sunday!)

The original Newsletter included working updates intended for the July 2005 International Tarot Conference, Melbourne

Final Conference details have been retained on the 2005 Int. Conference page.

The original Newsletter included working updates intended for the July 2005 International Tarot Conference, Melbourne

Final Conference details have been retained on the 2005 Int. Conference page.

As this is periodically updated, please refer to the Association’s membership page.