“Voodoo Metaphysics” or “Too Fine a Point?”
AUTHOR’S NOTE: Many years ago, when President Ronald Reagan was floating his “trickle-down” theory of economic prosperity, his ideas were dismissed as “voodoo economics.” Here (although it’s not my main point) I’m proposing that the way we read the tarot cards can sometimes resemble “voodoo metaphysics.” I won’t go so far as to equate tarot reading with Reagan’s famous pronouncement about government overreach as the “nine most terrifying words in the English language” (“I’m from the government and I’m here to help”), but the thought has crossed my mind that we might paraphrase our least auspicious efforts as “I’m your tarot reader and I’m here to help,” as we blunder around trampling our own credibility underfoot.
I frequently encounter people online who are in a quandary over the perception that tarot readings (either those they perform or those they receive from “professionals”) are so often incorrect when compared to the observable facts of the matter. This is particularly true when the presentation is completely at odds with either the spoken or unspoken question. It’s fine to say “The reading is just addressing some other important subject that you didn’t ask about,” but this supposed revelation can be unhelpful when its nature is not even remotely connected to the current situation or to the individual’s life-circumstances in general. Sometimes what we don’t know (and don’t need to know) won’t hurt us.
I think readers who fall back on this recovery tactic (if they aren’t merely too lazy or too inept to find meaningful links to the topic of interest) are just making assumptions and drawing conclusions from what they think they know about the cards, fabricating a context from their previous experience or their subjective “navel-gazing” (ahem, “intuition”). This can be a “slippery slope” for the reader and a big waste of the querent’s time and money. We can smile sagely and say “The Universe knows things you don’t, and I’m here to tell you what that is,” and it may be the case on occasion. But making a habit of it comes to too close to “voodoo metaphysics” for my taste. I “just read the cards” (or, more precisely, the transcript of their interaction with the querent’s subconscious) and don’t pretend to have a hotline to the Divine; if that happens, it’s between the seeker and their “inner guide” during the shuffle.
But, assuming that the reader is making a reasonable stab at accuracy, attempts to be overly rigorous can amount to “putting too fine a point” on the outcome of the reading and may in fact be counterproductive to the attainment of useful insights. Rather than advising “You’re going to get a job,” I would be more likely to say “Some kind of opportunity could be coming your way” (unless that was your specific question, in which case I would try for more depth in my answer). It creates a little “wiggle room” for judgment by opening the door to all kinds of unnamed offers. As I see it, the forte of divination is its fluidity in the identification of possibilities, tendencies and trends; trying to pin down absolutes can be an exercise in futility. Quite often I will suggest to my sitter “This is what the cards mean in a broad sense, how do you think that relates to your particular circumstances?” I will then take direction from that exchange to narrow the focus of the reading along lines that make the most sense to the querent. I don’t view this as “cheating” but rather as a joint effort to make the most valuable use of the time.
As an inveterate storyteller, I love the impressionistic style of prognostication because it lets my clients fill in the pertinent details from their own understanding and experience of the situation. While they may choose not to divulge the specifics, I can usually see a hint of awareness and appreciation percolating behind their thoughtful expression. This underlies my premise that every reading is a mutual “voyage of discovery” in which we both learn something. It also supports the liberal use of metaphors and analogies that can add so much color to the narrative, and that can produce the “Aha!” reaction when a more literal analysis of the cards fails to deliver enlightenment. This “failure to connect” can happen more often than we like to admit, and it is the cause of much scrambling for relevance as we try to dial in the reading to match our querent’s ability to comprehend and process its observations. A lighter, less prescriptive touch with our approach to interpretation is often the best policy.
Originally published at http://parsifalswheeldivination.wordpress.com on October 16, 2022.
