Releasing The “Daemon*”
* Daemon (n): originally a lesser divinity or spirit; the word is derived from the Proto-Indo-European daimon, meaning “provider, divider (of fortunes or destinies).
AUTHOR’S NOTE: I vaguely remember an old animated cartoon that portrays one of the genre’s iconic characters (I think it was Daffy Duck but it could have been Donald; others may recall it differently) as having a “split personality,” one side “good” and the other “evil.” In that episode, an “angelic” mini-version of the character materializes at his left shoulder and whispers in his ear, gently urging him toward virtue, while a “demonic” personification appears at his right shoulder, gleefully advocating a life of vice. These two spirits — one harmonious and the other discordant — wrestle for the character’s conscience (in a sanitized “kid-friendly” way), presenting the kind of “warring archetypes” that we often see in a tarot reading.
There is a convention in modern tarot practice called the “shadow” — or “base” — card that involves examining the bottom card of the deck after the shuffle and cut have been performed. This is assumed to reveal hidden aspects of the situation that supplement the details openly described by the cards pulled from the top of the deck. I’ve never been satisfied with this notion because, if we’ve cut the deck a couple of times, the bottom card would very nearly have been the top card of one of the adjacent sub-packs, in my opinion diluting its import since it could have just as easily wound up elsewhere in the deck. (It also provokes my general dislike for using “clarifiers” since, like “jumper” cards, it takes serendipity just a bit too far for my taste.)
But I do like the idea of having a card to capture the subtle, incorporeal “ daímōn “ — “guiding spirit” or, in more prosaic terms, “native intelligence” or “survival instinct” — that, given the dual character of both “good” and “ill” in this concept, can indicate either an alternate opportunity or a collateral vulnerability when compared to the original “outcome” card. Consider it a potentially risky “side-trip” into the less-visible dimensions of the subject or the personality that can impinge upon and shape its development. As I see it, the range of fortunate and unfortunate qualities evident in the tarot make it ideally suited for this purpose. (For clarification, “daemon” is Hellenistic in origin and doesn’t partake of the Judaeo-Christian accretions attesting to its “demonic” nature; with a little non-historical imagination it could even be understood as the “creative genius.”)
In his book The Way of Tarot, Alejandro Jodorowsky proposes treating the bottom half of the deck after the reading cards have been dealt as displaying the “dark depths” of the querent’s unconscious that are unreachable via the subconscious-induction approach of standard “top-down” cartomancy, and he views the very bottom card as being symbolic of its essence (sounds suspiciously like the “trickle-down” theory to me). Instead, I’m suggesting a slightly more flexible method that arrives at the same destination. After shuffling and cutting the deck and dealing cards from the top of the pile to populate the layout, make a rough cut at separating the bottom half of the unused cards into a sub-pack (I might ask the querent to do this step and the next one), then spread the segregated cards into a “fan” array and randomly pull one of them from the splayed population to “release the daemon” into the querent’s experience of the matter. Thus, it becomes a “guided” event and not merely a quirk of fate or chance, possibly offering a glimpse of “divided fortune” in the process.
There are a couple of ways to read this card: one would be to pair it with the last card pulled from the top as an oblique or veiled (and perhaps contradictory) commentary on the end of the matter, suggesting the “two sides to every story” dichotomy and inviting absorption into the narrative to emphasize its contribution as either an opportunity or a vulnerability, perhaps in the bargain showing a different way to “skin the cat.” In this paradigm the outcome becomes less narrowly prescriptive and more choice-driven — at least in a two-pronged sense — although in ways that may demand some contemplation to find its pulse and trajectory.
Another idea would be to place it in advance with the “question” or “situation-as-it-stands” card — usually the first card pulled or intentionally chosen for the reading — to convey less-evident options the querent has available to work with right from the beginning. It could therefore represent an alternate point-of-departure that might be integrated with or substituted for the querent’s original assumptions about the matter if it provides a more accurate assessment of current status. This could offer “shading” to the projection that arises more from what is guessed than what is deduced from analysis and direct observation.
In both cases this card serves as a “silent partner” to the active card that was drawn from the top of the deck, adding a fresh (although potentially sobering) perspective to the outlook. In practice, assuming that time permits and the divination seems to warrant it, I think I would take the “alternate outcome” approach and read the top-down scenario first, then do the “dark side” pull to amplify the original narrative with a deep dive into “the rest of the story.” This could be particularly useful when the initial conclusion was ambiguous or out-of-sync with the balance of the reading. (Yes, I know, it’s a “clarifier,” but one I can live with because it presents an intriguing layered structure with which to open or close the reading.)
Originally published at http://parsifalswheeldivination.wordpress.com on March 27, 2023.
