THE |
|
a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining
to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects. |
To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.tarot,alt.divination,alt.magick,alt.pagan.magick From: nagasivaSubject: Reading Tarot and General Divination Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 23:47:01 GMT 50030302 VII twoshoes: >>>> ...as one reads cards over the years, nagasiva: >> if I read a Stop sign and interpret it differently than >> the creators of the sign intended, is this really reading? >> or is it fantabulizing? are the cards being read or are >> they merely serving as a focus of discussion/reflection? Joseph : > is the above a trick question? not intended as such, no. it is intended to illustrate a particular problem with the phrase "reading cards" when speaking of tarot -- one that others (e.g. JK) could easily make here, and one I'm keen to continue making. I'm trying to expand heavily on it here, as well as on other trajectories of significance for 'reading' in order to flesh out some kind of agreement on terminology. > if one "reads" the sign and "interprets" it differently > than the maker of the sign intended it is reading > however the interpretation may be called into question. right, it could be called 'a poor reading' if someone came to the conclusion that the Stop sign meant "go". > Im reminded of the incident in the on going saga > of the fabulous furry freak brothers when where in > phenias is puzzled over the Mexican stop sign that > says "alto" and he cant decide whether to merely > stop or is the sign telling him to stop and get high? a wonderful consideration. it might be considered poor reading (and therefore be the substance of a jest) to infer that it meant "stop and get high", since the "alto" (should it be "halto"?) sign was intended to signify stopping, not ingestion/smoking of substances (inferred from language-confusion?). > as for the cards "merely" serving as a focus of > discussion/reflection they are then well used if > such is the case. that was never an argument I sought to oppose. I'd suggest that the quality of their use is completely beside the point of my inquiry, which was whether reading was happening, and, if so, what was being read in the case of misreading intended symbols in some quite possibly beneficial ways. > ...the cards reveal things they should have no > way of doing, unless you want to ascribe intelligence to the cards (which I have occasionally have done, or to some kind of being *beyond* the cards), then I'd suggest that what you're describing is an alternative use of the cards as tools to effect that revelation. I have no quarrel with that usage and my initial activities with tarot involved some bit of exploration glancing off of the intended meanings of the cards onto some personal revelation. I would not characterize this as 'reading the cards' in the sense I'm trying to underscore here, however, and I have in mind some even more vast concept in mind when we get to the idea of creating-and-reading tarot. we seem to be coming up with a kind of taxonomy of "card reading" which we might formalize for the use of those discussing the subject. I may take the rudiments of it into tarot-l and see what they say, then perhaps reflect that back here if possible. for my part I'll try to specify its differences as we go, because your arguments are very good ones -- ones I see few others sustain with rational and consistent discussion: 'Reading Cards' Taxonomy ------------------------ 1) 'read' means interpreting the intended meanings of the cards as rendered by the fashioners of the deck; this is the traditional Western Esoteric explanation, solidifying a motivation to accept their doctrines and to study, in trance and initiation, the particulars of the cards for the purposes of spiritual edification. it somewhat informs my 'crazy theory' you mention below. :> 2) 'read' means interpreting the symbols on the cards without regard for what was intended by the deck's designer(s), and may draw on the personal experience of the reader, the circumstance of the reading, and communication of any type between the querent-client and reader; this is the traditional Psychic Reader explanation, requiring absolutely no connection to an understanding of the deck's designer's intended significances for the cards or their symbols. in fact, the breadth of understanding of the reader merely makes possible a greater symbol-language-set that might be used to facilitate the reading proper. such a reader could use any deck, though one with which she was very familiar or which featured symbolism with which she had associations would probably serve hir better. whether the symbols on the cards induce a trance- state in the reader or not, they are not necessarily communicating some meaning provided by those who placed them on the cards as part of the design. more below, and some reserved for later. > it is even possible that a random combination of cards > could be accidentally accurate every now and then, sure, this begins to touch on configuration and array interpretation, as when throwing bones on the ground, or casting lots, or discerning the meaning of birds in flocks, or tea or coffee leavings in cups (see below for a beginning categorizaton of divinatory types). > but whether the cards enable psychic perception, > whether they facilitate e.s.p. or are truly > oracular is more a concern for the person who does > not use the cards for divination than it is those > of us who, through personal experience are > convinced of the efficacy of them.... agreed. my point in arguing with the terminology here is that there are two discernable methods of use for tarot divination. these are outlined above in numbers 1) and 2). your response to them would be welcomed. >>>> one learns more and more that the information received, >>>> though definitely personalized to some extent through >>>> the reader-filter, does not come from the reader. >> >> it doesn't sound like it comes from the cards >> either. > > that's debatable, in my experience the cards have > informed me of things i would not have thought of > were it not for the reading in which the messages > appeared. in which case we're probably talking about 3) 'read' means interpreting the combination of the cards and their symbols with their particular configuration to infer something that the cards *themselves* (or some agent beyond them we cannot otherwise discern) are trying to convey to reader/querent. this is the explanation of the animist, the mystic (as one who has, in Hermetic parlance, taken the Oath of the Abyss), and the magician purporting some volition in the deck itself. one can compare this with intent ascribed to other divinatory devices such as Yijing ("I consulted Yijing and it informed me that...."), Norse Runes ("In consultation with the Runes, I was brought to an awareness that...."), and other *identified* divinatory tools (magical too). please offer your suggested modifications on any of the numbers above in the Card Reading Taxonomy. Joseph : >>> While i am quite willing to entertain the notion of >>> an "intelligence not my own" guiding my interpretation >> >> the GD and Crowley talk about some angel "H R U". >> is this an abbreviation? if so, for what? lemme guess: >> >> His Royal Unit? >> Hoor Ra Uit? >> Huti Ra Umma? >> Hamma Ramma Ungdong? >> >> what does it have to do with tarot and why is it being >> asked to help with the divination? > > i was under the impression its a corruption of Horus > (i think regardie suggests this somewhere in his > writings) in relation to the eye of horus and > Horus being somehow for whatever reason being a > patron of oracular or divinatory knowledge sensible. I pointed this direction in 'Hoor Ra Uit', rather jestingly. does the angel H R U somehow make communicating with Tahuti possible? is Horus therefore a kind of Hermes-like messenger here? > and yes i know the etymological difference > between divination and oracle. care to elaborate on it? I'm not sure I really understand why you mentioned it or that I have a firm grasp of it. not having looked it up in my Am Her Dic I am curious what you think. :> >>> i am not wholly convinced, that it, is that, or is it, >>> rather, just that self, that part of ones own being >>> nature is warped around and finds its understanding in, >>> the unique individual point of view from which emanates >>> the awareness we are referring to. >> >> nor am I. I'm more likely to conclude that the operation >> in question doesn't really involve the tools and is a >> kind of inductive conclusion facilitated by attention to >> interesting or entertaining media objects. one might use >> a planchette and a wiji board, for example, instead. > > i agree that the tool can be any thing, divination > by lit windows is something i have had occasion to > use at night when in large cities but with only > marginal results, then your 'reading cards' would seem closest to 2), or a bifurcation/alternation between 2) and 3). > however my experimentation with divinatory tools suggests > a difference in style as well as content with different > tools. agreed. divination must vary based on the tools and I think it may be described and examined in detail as we have begun to do with respect to cards. good text on the subject of divination touches on the subject of divination method and theory, but seldom approaches anything comprehensive or complete. the other day I was deriving a categorization of divination methods for precisely this purpose, and what follows is my best recall of my jotted ideas now lost in the few piles of reflections on tarot that I do not wish to sort through, proceeding from their most 'random' to their most constrained: * selection of observed phenomena interpreted in their present manifestation examples: bird-flocks, animal-intestines, haphazard leavings/stains object-space-relations (e.g. fung shway) * selection of observed phenomena surrounding a person (e.g. at their birth) or event (during or at the commencement of its occurrence) examples: astrology, palmistry, phrenology, gematria, numerology * a finite set of objects cast particularly for the divination examples: bones/dice, shells, dominos/cards, specially-brewed tea/coffee, sand divination/geomancy, coins/stalks other categories? criticism of my selections? >>>> I remember learning to read the cards and do psychic >>>> readings, that a lot of it was leaping into the void of >>>> trusting what seemed like "only imagination." >> >> so does the particular deck matter at all, then? or is it >> only a faculty of matching *with* the deck that allows >> the successful readings to take place? what is being read? >> it sounds like the client [is] being read using the tools. > > often times a highly archaic and symbolic image is > produced that on the surface seems ridiculously > obscure with no meaning to the person asking the > question, however it often times occurs that a > discussion of the problems facing the person > elicits an interpretation of the formerly obscure > rendering it intelligible to the person asking for > the information. often times with the tarot > readings occur that literally are about love and > romance while the persons question may have been > about jobs and finance and then the symbols like > the empress or emperor or the lovers or the 2 of > cups must be taken symbolically rather than > literally. understood. this still sounds like the client is being read using or by the tool -- however well that the tool may reflect upon the querent's issue. it begins to resemble 3) above. >>>> It felt almost as if I were making up the things I >>>> was saying, yet there was also a sense of "rightness" >>>> about them, a knowing. >> >> sounds like guessing based on minor perceptual data, which >> may be experienced in the game 'Induction' (a card game in >> which a player chooses a rule by which sequentially-played >> cards must adhere and, based on the rulings of experimental >> plays on the deck and their success or failure to qualify, >> the others attempt to guess the rule(s)). it was promited >> in Scientific American at one point as exemplary of the >> inductive quality of reason and scientific enterprise. > > it sounds like your arguing for an explanation of > something you have not directly experienced so > that your natural scepticism tends to downplay > that which you have not experienced first hand for > yourself. no portion of the above has been intended to downplay or dismiss. in fact I have had the experience you have described, usually in reading for myself but sometimes in reading for others. my point in bringing up the induction process was to provide a backdrop which makes no supernatural forces or special cosmic principles necessary. alternatives might of course be used to provide explanation, inclusive of the supernatural. >>> on more than one occasion been compared to "making >>> it look easy" the truly proficient at any thing, >>> make it "look easy," and in one way it is, for the >>> proficient, as they at some point come to a point >>> of awareness where instinct and intuition and mere >>> reflex take over and the conscious mind is so >>> caught up in being it has ceased to become. One >>> merely is in the moment. >> >> I think I know what you're pointing toward -- something >> Eugene Herrigel wrote about in "Zen and the Art of >> Archery", perhaps. fluidity of art. I'm not sure that >> this constitutes the best description of the art of >> reading tarot cards, (as the Sign example above may >> make more clear), but it is an indicator of expertise >> or facility with whatever *is* happening, yes. >> >>> The ceremonial approaches to this state of mind >>> are many, Tarot is one. >> >> my impression that tarot so applied is not reading tarot >> except in the most rudimentary of understandings, > > by this you seem to admit being a tyro with the > cards, if even that, "tarot reading" or fortune > telling is doing the best one can with the > understanding one has of any given card to create > a message that is hopefully helpful. I'd not focus so much on 'the best one can', but yes, if this makes me a tyro, so be it. :> I would instead suggest that one who uses the phrase "reading tarot" to suggest this process is a tyro at language (a charge I have had correctly levelled at me! ;>) and improperly subjects 'tarot' to a limited syntax, neglecting the fact that (at least occult) tarot was created by specific people in a specific time period and intended to have particular significance. > there are other uses of the tarot that do not belong > in this category but we are talking about fortune > telling not path working or old italian street fairs. I was trying to integrate it all, actually, and to use the term 'read' in its best sense (which my Am Her Dic indicates is an apprehension of "the meaning" of expressed language). we discussed this somewhat in the above as regards what constitutes reading and meaning, and may have to agree to disagree about it. :> >> because it is not the cards themselves which are serving >> to communicate the mysteries, but instead they are >> merely providing a backdrop upon which reflections are >> being projected by a sensitive medium. > > i have to disagree here, though i cant say with > absolute certainty that you are wrong but nevertheless > it seems to me the cards often produce information > *I* did not have, thus I created a category 3) above. the cards themselves have established themselves as communicants beyond the bounds of the designers of the deck and the reader is not inferring some meaning merely by virtue of the apparent chance fall of their configuration (i.e. the actually cards produce the information). perhaps this has addressed what you see I am overlooking here? > this may be simple e.s.p. or it may be that since > every thing can symbolize anything and that anything > can be a symbol for everything and the reverse also, > it is at least theoretically possible that divinatory > tools can alter ones ordinary awareness to the point > where the most trivial and mundane expression can > take on an importance there ordinary existence belies. now we've moved out of the realm of literal meanings of the term 'reading' and into a kind of trance-induction that the cards provide for their reader. I tried to incorporate this meaning in 2) above in part because of your paragraph to which I'm here responding. see if you like it. >> one might use a magical >> wand or a shewstone to achieve the same thing. whereas >> Tarot has an intent to the deck construction and serves >> to facilitate the communication of cosmic truth thru time. > > and i thought i had some "crazy theories"! LOL! come on, there are lots of folks who argue it, inclusive of some for whom you've expressed distaste. am I just proposing it badly, or do you not see that this conforms to 1) above? :> I'm asking you to come out on the Plank where all of the possible "reading" significances are examined and compare and contrast them with me, regardless of your specific preferences or with what you have experience. I know that you are capable of it, and welcome your feedback and participation, hopefully inspiring others to do likewise with us and flesh out some kind of comprehensive divination theory here. > ...i would just expand the whole symbolism of the > cards to represent any idle epiphany on a moment to > moment basis as well as any grand rebirth a person > might suffer in their life. so you understand the whole trumpeting angel / bodies coming out of coffins thing to somehow symbolize inspiration and epiphany? could you elaborate as to why you understand the symbolism in this way? I'm not really very well-versed in Christian and Jewish symbolism (tarotic or no) and would like to come to a better understanding of it. thanks. > if a mythology is only mythological and serves no > purpose beyond its own symbolism, is not applicable > to an interpretation of or guidance for daily living, > it has then lost whatever value it might have > possessed. I think I see what you're getting at here. I used to portray mythology in a similar light, until I got wind of something more astrological and transcultural than Jungian or psychosocial. we occasionally explore this in the Sacred Landscape List (@yahoo.com) in our discussion of the text "Hamlet's Mill" and what these myths symbolize in archaeoastronomy. sometimes the same point has been made in alt.magick by Josh Geller (Sir IF!), sri catyananda, and others, much to my own edification (ask them about it if you get a chance! ;>). > the tarot still resonates with most people, the > symbols are more directly perceivable than say > those of the Egyptian pantheon in so far as the > mythological character of the major trumps may be > made relevant to ordinary day to day life. as well > as represent "cosmic truth thru time" but (in any > oracle or divinatory tool) if they don't do both > than their probly neither. this makes sense to me inasmuch as you're describing symbols as 'used/helpful'. this is really comparable to terms in Old English used in Shakespeare or the King James Bible which some Americans might have a great difficulty parsing. one might integrate the term inexpertly and fabricate one's own interpretation-set, substitute one's translation (in this case deck) for one comprised of completely-comprehensible symbols, or simply leave it undefined and use it as a kind of random factor in any particular reading as desired (some religious do this to support their preferred understanding of scripture for proof-texting :>). in the case of divination we might combine these ideas and look at bibliomancy using an Old English text like the King James Bible. say I don't really understand all its words (which I don't, btw). perhaps I flip to the middle of the book and read out a passage which is supposed to apply to my condition about which I'd focussed during the flipping. I might "read" that passage in a way never intended by the writers or translators of that text (a 2-step process which has already left me at potential odds with reading, but ignore that for now). by your assertions, this 'reading', facilitated by my faulty projection of meaning to something that I did not understand, is legitimate. I would AGREE, in the sense that I am 'taking a reading of circumstance or my condition' through my own peculiar interpretation of the text I'm consulting in biblimancy. this is a different claim than that I am "reading the Bible" as would category 1) above make clear is the objective for 'reading the (occult) tarot'. thanks for continuing this discussion. I really do appreciate your patience with me despite what may seem at times strong challenges to your expressions. :> nagasiva
The Arcane Archive is copyright by the authors cited.
Send comments to the Arcane Archivist: tyaginator@arcane-archive.org. |
Did you like what you read here? Find it useful?
Then please click on the Paypal Secure Server logo and make a small donation to the site maintainer for the creation and upkeep of this site. |
The ARCANE ARCHIVE is a large domain,
organized into a number of sub-directories, each dealing with a different branch of religion, mysticism, occultism, or esoteric knowledge. Here are the major ARCANE ARCHIVE directories you can visit: |
|
interdisciplinary:
geometry, natural proportion, ratio, archaeoastronomy
mysticism: enlightenment, self-realization, trance, meditation, consciousness occultism: divination, hermeticism, amulets, sigils, magick, witchcraft, spells religion: buddhism, christianity, hinduism, islam, judaism, taoism, wicca, voodoo societies and fraternal orders: freemasonry, golden dawn, rosicrucians, etc. |
SEARCH THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
There are thousands of web pages at the ARCANE ARCHIVE. You can use ATOMZ.COM
to search for a single word (like witchcraft, hoodoo, pagan, or magic) or an
exact phrase (like Kwan Yin, golden ratio, or book of shadows):
OTHER ESOTERIC AND OCCULT SITES OF INTEREST
Southern
Spirits: 19th and 20th century accounts of hoodoo,
including slave narratives & interviews
|