Why Healing?
AUTHOR’S NOTE: Once again, while reading the tarot literature I’ve encountered the opinion that the Temperance card relates to “healing.” I’ve unloaded on this notion in the past, but I’ve had a few more insights since then.
The premise that there must be a “healing” card among the tarot trumps presumes that the other cards with which it interacts in a reading will somehow reflect an “illness,” usually a psychological imbalance of some kind. My belief is that every archetype is “perfect” in its own way, and any perception that one of them is defective and requires remediation amounts to situational conjecture, possibly due to the obligation for paid consultants to say something incisive about any matter that crosses their path. Although Aleister Crowley did surmise (in another context) that “the fact of consultation implies anxiety or discontent,” it shouldn’t be inferred that every reading will expose a “fatal flaw” that will succumb to the restorative virtues of a temperate attitude.
It strikes me that the “healing” assertion arises from the esoteric correspondence of Temperance to the astrological sign of Sagittarius, which has been linked to the mythological centaur Chiron, the “Wounded Healer.” As an astrologer — originally “New Age” and now traditional — I’ve always felt that this is a stretch, and trying to graft it onto the tarot is even more irrational. Waite never directly mentions common healing, nor do Crowley and Mathers; for these authorities the exalted “reconciliation of opposites” is paramount. I can only assume that the healing paradigm derives from the folkloric fancies that have grown up around the tarot over the last century, along with the advent of holistic medicine and its emphasis on all wellness sub-systems being brought into balance. But Sagittarius is not inherently a health-related sign (that distinction belongs to Virgo), and Temperance has metaphysical, philosophical and alchemical implications that cut deeper than mere symmetry; all shallower interpretations misconstrue their significance.
My own utilitarian view is that Temperance is mainly about achieving harmony between countervailing forces. If this results in the “healing” of the less-tractable one to bring it into line, so much the better, but I don’t think that is the prime directive and may only amount to excusing the “greater of two evils” while leaving it unresolved. Calling it “healing” is putting too benevolent a face on the situation; I would only accede to “an enforced normalizing of relations” if it comes to that. The operative principle seems to be that “everybody loves harmony,” but there is also the concept of “positive crisis” to consider (and sometimes a little “saber-rattling” is all it takes to restore peace). While I like to say that the aphorism “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” only applies in works of fiction, there is practical value in becoming hardened to the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” without supposing that there must always be a cure that will magically reverse the consequences. Confronting this existential dilemma is part of maturing as an individual, and constantly seeking a “soft landing” is not conducive to growth despite all the modern hand-wringing about the fragile psyche of our youth. I used to tell my kids something like “Adversity breeds character “ and I stand by it.
I recognize that the goal of “empowering” our sitters involves presenting them with attractive options for dealing with their problems, but proposing that they moderate their response by backing down in the presence of hostile incursions is not always the ideal solution. Sometimes they should simply grit their teeth and tough it out, particularly if they seem to be in the right. Being “temperate” may only exacerbate their distress by encouraging a more aggressive comeback from the other party (outside the abstract world of occult philosophy, the strong will habitually devour the weak even as they deny it’s what they’re doing). When Temperance appears in a conflict scenario, I would be more inclined to suggest that querents who are “under fire” should adjust their stance to match the tone of any perceived antagonism, always in the interest of finding concordance, rather than immediately making conciliatory gestures. (For what it’s worth, to “temper” something at one time meant to toughen it and make it more resilient, not dilute and weaken it.) At the very least they will gain the respect of the adversary by countering “strength with strength,” if not actually arriving at consensus. It may not be the “Christian thing to do,” but it offers a pragmatic outlook and that is almost always my goal when reading the cards.
Originally published at http://parsifalswheeldivination.wordpress.com on March 30, 2023.
