The Post-Rational Diviner
I’ve always felt that the Enlightenment (or “Age of Reason”), which spanned the 17th and 18th Centuries, was the single most devastating blow to mysticism in general, and to the practice of divination in particular. To this day, causal determinism trumps the more allusive modes of cogitation in the dim view of the average intellect. although modern physics does seem to be straying slightly from that rigorous hyper-rationalism. While this mechanistic mindset doesn’t necessarily sound a “death knell” for the divinatory arts, many hostile critics see it that way. On the other hand, unquestioning faith in an unschooled or entirely intuitive approach to prediction seems like a charming fantasy for which the mind can’t produce a bulletproof argument.
As a longtime student of esoteric subjects and a practitioner of “occult” disciplines, I get the impression that the current surge of interest in the tarot is a “post-rational” phenomenon. Tarot master Enrique Enriquez once said that reading the cards is an “irrational act,” and I concur that in essence it usually is, even though getting our heads around the wealth of traditional “core knowledge” and fashioning it into meaningful observations that illuminate the topic of a reading requires a good deal of dedication and intellectual horsepower. The process of vaticination taps into a perception of reality that is not measurable except by the evidence of its results, and too often the matter is left open-ended when the sitter walks out the door after a session. Therefore, the conclusions reached by the diviner are typically more anecdotal than empirical unless some kind of “feedback loop” is established. In my experience, this only happens consistently if we have an ongoing relationship with a regular client. While we may come up with a plausible narrative, in the end only the querent knows for sure whether there is any truth in it. We might congratulate ourselves on making our sitters feel “empowered,” but we may never learn how it all worked out. Although I don’t mind taking their money, I would love to know if I made a positive difference in their lives.
Unlike natal astrology, which offers conclusive proof of its accuracy in the observable characteristics of the subject, tarot at the individual level is much more conjectural and employs the storyteller’s shrewd craft rather than the colorless methods of factual accounting. I sometimes wonder whether those who sit for a reading are seeking practical wisdom to guide them or are simply intrigued by the idea of receiving a “thumbnail sketch” of their personality, or perhaps that of someone they have their eye on. There is a fine line between “fortune-telling” and “mind-reading,” one that I’m careful not to cross; similarly, “idle curiosity” is an itch I have no desire to scratch on anyone’s behalf. Regarding the distinction between “fortune-telling” and “divination,” I honestly don’t think there is one, we just flatter ourselves by dignifying the act with a supposed link to the “Divine.”
It could be — and has been — asserted that there is nothing more illogical than an unshakable belief in the existence of an exalted (and traditionally patriarchal) “Supreme Being” with an abiding interest in human affairs. From a purely metaphysical rather than devotional perspective, I can more readily accept the fanciful notion that the impersonal Universe forms abstract currents and eddies of mystic influence (sounds like arcane electromagnetism or gravity, doesn’t it?), behavioral and attitudinal patterns that imprint themselves upon our consciousness and guide our evolution in predictable ways (in fact, it has been said that individual personality is a set of innate qualities but character must be learned). This phenomenon is something that the much more pragmatic Lenormand Grand Tableau with its “topical” format demonstrates to good effect. (I once called the divinatory approach to unraveling this web of apparent coincidences and contradictions “running one’s mental fingers through the warp-and-woof of the fabric of inner space, seeking to pull consequential threads of meaning.”) As I’ve often said, I’m more inclined to believe that what we’re dealing with is a form of “mentation” (or cognitive physics) that we still don’t have the ability to quantify, although the subconscious does appear to enjoy direct communication with a higher source that can be tapped by the cards.
At some point in the future, the “rational” and the “irrational” that were congenial companions in the pre-Enlightenment era may once again merge in a renewed paradigm that supports reliable prognostication at the personal level, with no taint of superstition. But I think that most of us who aren’t psychically endowed to a considerable degree are nowhere near reaching that confluence. I know I’m not, since at best I can claim barely a 30% reliance on intuitive insights in my own practice; most of my observations are analytical in nature and grounded in scholarship when I would prefer to see a 50/50 split. Although my brother cheekily calls me “the Witch Doctor,” I’m an esoteric thinker and spiritual diagnostician, neither a shaman nor a secular purveyor of “feel-good” nostrums. (I think you know what I’m talking about: the “It’s all good . . . until it isn’t “ postulate.) In this “post-rational” world I’m something of an anachronism, although I’m perfectly content with that label.
Originally published at http://parsifalswheeldivination.wordpress.com on November 5, 2022.
