Profound vs. “Disposable” Divination
AUTHOR’S NOTE: As I continue my study of the I Ching, I’m impressed by how utterly devoid of “fluff” it is; thus far I can detect no inanity or flippancy in it. My understanding is that in ancient China it was often used to manage the affairs of state, so there was no place in it for entertainment; the “sage” of the text was above such triviality. This stands in stark contrast to the way divination is frequently approached in modern Western culture.
Twenty-first-century society has been criticized for perpetuating or even exacerbating the “throw-away” mentality of the late 20th Century. We expect little durability from anything we purchase and cynically suppose that it won’t last (at one time this was called “planned obsolescence” and was blamed on marketing strategists). I see a similar paradigm at work in online tarot reading, which seems to be more about the “wrapping” (the flashy delivery) than about the “content;” the medium is entirely too facile to encourage contemplative engagement with the process, and those followers who trust its newfound “collective” focus may only be fooling themselves.
Personally, I seek a deep encounter with the subconscious (my own or my sitter’s) when I attempt a reading. I’m not going to skim the surface of any social implications it might convey, but rather try to penetrate into the heart of the matter from a more profound angle. For that reason I avoid “third-party” mind-reading with the cards since I’m more interested in the subject’s potential behavior and any actions that could contradict the perception of that person’s attitudes and beliefs as it is being weighed by the querent. (In my estimation, the reading should not be about what they “think or feel” but rather what they’re likely to “do” about it.) The inquirer may be asking (usually not explicitly) “Does Joe or Mary like me?” when all oracular signs are that the object of their interest is moving in an entirely different orbit. Rather than trying to explain this probability as gently as possible, I prefer to sidestep it in the first place.
I suppose it comes down to what the seeker wants out of a reading. My usual style is to speak with complete disregard for superficial impressions and by my demeanor strive to steer the session away from the frivolous goals of idle curiosity. This may seem too much like hitting them over the head when all they expected was a nudge of encouragement, but it does serve to forestall any wasted discourse (subliminal manipulation . . . oops, I mean “persuasion” . . . has its advantages). I’m not intentionally trying to be intimidating, but gravity does beget a comparable reaction. That’s not to say I won’t inject a little humor into my presentation, but it will always have the aim of promoting a more thorough appreciation for the cards on the table, in much the same way I bring metaphor and analogy into my narratives.
While I get a lot of mileage out of talking about the “theater of tarot” and the act of reading as “performance art,” at the professional level divination should be a “calling” and not merely a source of casual amusement. To paraphrase Benebell Wen, we should always be “strategizing how to inspire” our clients.
Originally published at http://parsifalswheeldivination.wordpress.com on July 28, 2024.
