“Who’s Zoomin’ Who?”
AUTHOR’S NOTE: The more I read The Tarot of the Bohemians by Gerard Encausse (“Papus”), the more respect I have for his wisdom (at least until he wanders off into Theosophy and loses me). When — in his discussion of science — he says that “observation and experience are only instruments” of intuition (the cognitive function behind scientific theories and, ultimately, axioms), it strikes me as a perfect description of the relationship between the subjective nature of intuition (which I believe to be primarily a “delivery system” for internalized knowledge) and the objective scope of the tarot.
However, he goes on to remark: “But still, in this realm of transcendental faculties the perception is not always so reliable” because it can “vary between the fancies of a disordered imagination and the sublime revelations of healthy, inspired genius.” To which I respond: “Precisely!” Subconscious bias- though it may not resort to “disordered imagination” — can easily obscure the simple truth of a matter even when the cards are telling a very different story, and even when there is no conscious intent to deceive.
As for my curious title, in 1985, Aretha Frankilin released a song titled “Who’s Zoomin’ Who?” in which she celebrated putting one over on a predatory guy who was trying to work his wiles on her. Recently I came across a notion on one of the tarot forums that brought the tune to mind: the idea that we can maneuver the cards into yielding the answers that we intuitively know to be true (or so we assume).
An overzealous forum contributor seemed to think that the stylistic nuances of the tarot can be “trained” in our personal style in the same way that we can “train” an online search-bot (aka “web-crawler”) to give us results that meet our expectations. This idea seems absurd to me; the tarot is a towering metaphysical structure that must be ascended tier-by-tier as we learn its intricacies. It’s not going to bow to our command every time we say “Jump!” — particularly if we’re just winging it and don’t know what we’re talking about (after all, not every hint we receive through the cards is going to be a direct, untainted message from the Universe no matter how much we would like to believe it). The assumption seems to be that, if we can get the tarot to conform to our suppositions, we will have shaped it to our own preconceptions about the legitimacy of our methods.
As I see it, this is a misguided abuse of the tarot because it represents what is known as a “closed loop” system. We spiral round-and-round in a circular descent into an ever-deepening vacuum of self-justification, in which we receive subliminal impressions from who-knows-where via an internal channel that is self-propagated, with no discernible point-of-contact with observable reality. We then take these unsubstantiated visions and attach them to the tarot cards that we purport to be “reading,” often in the form of vague, noncommittal language that sounds convincing to those who are anxious to believe it. There are times when saying to a client “I may not know exactly what it looks right now, but you’ll recognize it when you see it” just isn’t good enough when we’re pronouncing judgments that a seeker intends to rely on in making life-altering decisions. We should be able to point to some detail in the cards and assert “This is where I’m getting my information,” then explain ourselves
Ideally, intuition should be employed as an adjunct to knowledge when interpreting the cards in a spread rather than as a substitute for the archetypal principles themselves. We should really be using the cards we draw (the “instruments” of Papus) as a “proof-test” for our psychic insights rather than merely as a vehicle for their delivery. If a card’s usual meaning doesn’t support our subconscious perceptions, we should seek interpretive clues by which our inspiration can be brought into at least general alignment with the symbolic baseline in a way that builds on its testimony rather than leaping over that hurdle on the road to presumed enlightenment. (As tarot author James Rickleff once advised, we must “let them simmer in our consciousness” until we see the connection.)
I would venture to say that the traditional canon need not be viewed as the enemy of more mystical diviners when it may in fact be their salvation should intuition falter. There is certainly no causal link between the specifics of a reading and predicted events or circumstances (we aren’t programmed and neither are the cards “hard-wired” to our destiny), but I’m fairly sure there is a sympathetic or synchronistic one. All it takes is a little dedicated study, contemplation and practice to find the key, and it is time well-spent.
Originally published at http://parsifalswheeldivination.wordpress.com on February 1, 2024.
