The Four Corners: A Post-Hegelian Dynamic
When I read the four corners of a Lenormand 3×3 spread as a sequence, I often see each turning point as a “plot shift” in the story-line. The upper-left corner states the premise of the reading and initiates a narrative flow; the upper-right corner builds on that projection while perhaps offering a counter-thrust; the lower-right corner seeks traction in reconciling any extremes between the two to find a third way; and the lower-left corner “brings it all home.” In an old Monty Python sketch, a cross-dressed Terry Jones and Graham Chapman greeted each other with “‘ello, Mrs. Premise” and “‘ello, Mrs. Conclusion.” Missing from the “family portrait” were a son and daughter, “Mr. Exception” and “Ms. Epiphany.”
The “Hegelian Dialectic” is often used to describe the relationship between three factors in an argument; the original model applied the philosophical terms “thesis, antithesis and synthesis” but in divination this is often reconfigured as “action, reaction and resolution.” However, when there are four components to the equation, a new paradigm is needed, and I’m proposing “action, reaction, redirection and resolution;” action and reaction depict the double-ended relationship between the Point and the Line; redirection implies the additional dimension of the triangular Plane; and resolution is summed up in the stability of the Square. The theoretical push-back of the second phase against the original premise morphs into an alternate line of attack that transcends the duality of the previous face-off and brings fresh insight to the table (think of it as a form of “third-party arbitration,” although it may more closely resemble an “off-kilter tripod”). When the dust has settled, the fourth leg of the structure ideally provides an encompassing perspective that can serve as the denouement of the tale.
Most readers won’t go to this analytical depth in deconstructing the significance of the four corners, nor do I in practice since I cast a more elastic interpretive net. But it can be instructive to define the playing field in a more principled way that suggests what we are really up against in fashioning a four-part scenario from the cards. (I see the dynamic hand-off at each juncture as being key to the interpretation.) Hegel (or more properly Johann Gottlieb Fichte) takes us part-way there, but I would argue that — at least in divination space — there is a missing piece to his vision of the dialectical progression that can help paint a more representative picture of the landscape, primarily by going beyond simple contradiction of the “point/counterpoint” kind and into compensatory postulates. (No doubt Hegel would have considered this “hair-splitting.”)
Originally published at http://parsifalswheeldivination.wordpress.com on July 4, 2023.
