“Fundamental” vs. “Derived” Divination
AUTHOR’S NOTE: These are just random thoughts prompted by my reaction to what I see as imprecise terminology. Take them for what they’re worth.
Recently I came across the notion (touted somewhat brashly as “divination for a new millennium”) that there are two main types of divinatory insight: an innate approach (often viewed by its proponents as spiritual, mystical and psychically “organic”) linked closely to intuition and a more pragmatic, literal “divination with props” (my own description) that relies on some kind of supplemental functionality (cards, horoscopes, yarrow stalks, etc). As I understand it, the promulgators of this idea assume that the former is “essential” in nature while the later is the domain of the “practitioner.” My initial impression of these categories was not favorable since it seemed that the first term denigrates the second as somehow being of lesser value. It was subsequently explained to me that “essential” was intended to mean “of the essence” and not “mandatory for success,” a concept with which I have no problem since divination, as was once mentioned by Enrique Enriquez, is an “irrational” act that typically defies logic in its performance. The “practitioner” — while still bound by the same logic-defying strictures — works within a pre-established format handed down by tradition.
However, not every diviner is a natural-born psychic (although I think we all have the potential to develop that sensitivity to some degree). For those people the “essence” does not encompass visionary leaps of inspiration; they need a “bridge” to the numinous source, some kind of coherent structure to frame their forays into the Unseen. This does not make their intentions any less pure, it just gives them an encoded pattern or network over which to project their exploratory “feelers.” The fluidity in this method is more a “channeled flow” than a free-form “flash” of intuitive intelligence. It is perhaps more labored, but if we are persistent and patient it ultimately takes us to the same place.
In casting about for a less outwardly biased way to phrase these assumptions, I decided that the “innate” form of inquiry would be better described as “fundamental” in that it springs from “first principles” in the art of prognostication: that there is a well of universal knowledge that can be tapped if we expand our consciousness sufficiently to receive it. The more structured approach I would define as “derived” in that it involves an intermediary step using some kind of observational lens (psychic “can-opener?”) that focuses the awareness and “primes the pump” so to speak, thereby inviting the individual subconscious (the immediate source of our sense of precognition) to chime in.
Originally published at http://parsifalswheeldivination.wordpress.com on September 2, 2022.
