Intuitive messages

Teheuti

FLizarraga said:
Although there is undoubtedly an element of fear present, I personally think that it does not figure in the equation in any meaningful way.

I think it does because it sets limits on what we are willing to look at - especially when it is possible to examine our beliefs in light of things that are well-known in other fields than Tarot. It is all about the Devil card. Laughing something off as unimportant is part of what limits us.

I'm not saying that all Tarot readers need to study these things, but is it right to definitively write off what is known through science and inquiry as inconsequential without examining it?

Friedrich Kekulé, who dreamed the shape of the benzene ring, wrote:
"Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the truth. But let us beware of publishing our dreams till they have been tested by the waking understanding."
(quoted in an article by Richard Kaczynski in Neshamah: The Journal of the Psychology Guild of the OTO, 1:3).

I just don't find Tarot readers, including myself, to be infallible, even with things that can be known. How do we know what "mysteries" to trust and what ones not to, if we are unwilling to test or question them and where they come from?

Teheuti

I feel like a heretic for daring to speak up about recent psychological and neurological evidence that runs contrary to firmly-held and unquestioned beliefs. It is really scary to speak up. Some would like to throw me out for daring to suggest that our beliefs can be modified (for the good of our clientele and the field itself) by incorporating scientific evidence of how the mind actually works and how we interact with others. Part of me wants to shut up and part says that if people who have studied these things don't speak up, then we accept Tarot as a field dominated by beliefs that run contrary to really exciting discoveries about the operation of the human mind and social interactions - like the sound-bite, "intuitive messages" (when most don't have an idea what that even means).

I understand that the evidence I've barely mentioned creates cognitive dissonance (a principle well worth understanding).

I predict that once enough people speak up, a new paradigm for Tarot will emerge that will be more in keeping with a demonstrable understanding of the mind/psyche - just as previous generations of Tarotists took to Jung's ideas about synchronicity and a popularization of quantum physics.

I predict that eventually this knowledge will become more wide-spread and incorporated in a new generations's understanding of Tarot (just as an hello-centric universe was eventually accepted by the Church). There will still be Mystery, but what can be known will not be so strongly rejected as irrelevant or not applicable to Tarot.

Mary K. Greer

yogiman

Teheuti said:
I just don't find Tarot readers, including myself, to be infallible, even with things that can be known. How do we know what "mysteries" to trust and what ones not to, if we are unwilling to test or question them and where they come from?

You are much more experienced than me, but your reputation will carry a weight. I could imagine that from a scientific corner you have been invited to proof supernatural character of the tarot. And that puts a strain, and then it doesn't work. We have to wait till we are god(wo)man.

When we are really in harmony with the medium of divination there will be no doubt, and for some this happens occasionally. I can also imagine that a reading is confirmed by a synchronous happening. But I respect your critical approach.
The following is from another post:
In ancient Greece a general was allowed to have his doubt cleared. In the wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divination we read the following statement:
"Oracles could answer more generalized questions, and seers often had to perform several sacrifices in order to get the most consistent answer. For example, if a general wanted to know if the omens were proper for him to advance on the enemy, he would ask his seer both that question and if it were better for him to remain on the defensive. If the seer gave consistent answers, the advice was considered valid."

FLizarraga

Teheuti said:
I just don't find Tarot readers, including myself, to be infallible, even with things that can be known. How do we know what "mysteries" to trust and what ones not to, if we are unwilling to test or question them and where they come from?

Very well put.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for pushing boundaries, exploring new and exciting territory and boldly going blah-blah-blah. And maybe we will come to a better understanding of how these things work, the sooner the better. V.I. Lenin (a thinker we won't find quoted around here much, I gather) once said "Practice is the criterion of truth." In other words, if it works, then it must be right. We have to find what works.

What I meant was, I don't think we can ever get to the bottom of these things; that's just the nature of the beast. However, by trying to reach it with stubborn determination we CAN further our horizons exponentially and find some much needed certainties.

FLizarraga

Teheuti said:
I feel like a heretic for daring to speak up about recent psychological and neurological evidence that runs contrary to firmly-held and unquestioned beliefs. It is really scary to speak up. Some would like to throw me out for daring to suggest that our beliefs can be modified (for the good of our clientele and the field itself) by incorporating scientific evidence of how the mind actually works and how we interact with others. Part of me wants to shut up and part says that if people who have studied these things don't speak up, then we accept Tarot as a field dominated by beliefs that run contrary to really exciting discoveries about the operation of the human mind and social interactions - like the sound-bite, "intuitive messages" (when most don't have an idea what that even means).

I understand that the evidence I've barely mentioned creates cognitive dissonance (a principle well worth understanding).

I predict that once enough people speak up, a new paradigm for Tarot will emerge that will be more in keeping with a demonstrable understanding of the mind/psyche - just as previous generations of Tarotists took to Jung's ideas about synchronicity and a popularization of quantum physics.

I predict that eventually this knowledge will become more wide-spread and incorporated in a new generations's understanding of Tarot (just as an hello-centric universe was eventually accepted by the Church). There will still be Mystery, but what can be known will not be so strongly rejected as irrelevant or not applicable to Tarot.

Mary K. Greer

Yes! I salute you.

And why should you feel as a heretic? Whoever is afraid of science needs a reality check. And Tarot thinkers would do a disservice to everybody by recreating the Medieval Church model.

Teheuti

yogiman said:
I could imagine that from a scientific corner you have been invited to proof supernatural character of the tarot. And that puts a strain, and then it doesn't work. We have to wait till we are god(wo)man.

It might put a strain if I was trying to to prove the supernatural character of Tarot, which I'm not. Neither am I trying to disprove it. I'm trying to incorporate helpful knowledge about how the mind and human interactions function.

When we are really in harmony with the medium of divination there will be no doubt, and for some this happens occasionally.

You are talking about religio/spiritual beliefs. Such beliefs held by people who have no doubts have led to the burning of books and slaughter of millions. Religious groups (who have no doubts) from the United States are currently working in parts of Africa to obtain the murder or imprisonment of homosexuals and witches, as being against the will of God.

There is no reason why a spiritual perspective has to ignore and negate physical world facts. For instance, many religious people now believe and incorporate evolution into their spiritual world view.

Teheuti

FLizarraga said:
Yes! I salute you.

And why should you feel as a heretic? Whoever is afraid of science needs a reality check. And Tarot thinkers would do a disservice to everybody by recreating the Medieval Church model.

Thank you so much for those words of support.

To present these ideas I really need to know how best to talk about them - so I'm getting a sense of the objections here.

ravenest

I like this approach ... it is needed. It is a type of 'scientific illuminism', as Crowley put it: 'The method of Science and the aim of religion'.

It is close to the hermetic outlook and that outlook has lifted civilisation in the past , many times ... it bought Europe out of the Dark Ages of religious ignorance, superstition and oppression, yet it honoured and developed the spiritual sciences.

Its all about WHAT works and the dynamics and method of why it works, regardless of any religious philosophy or belief system - it is 'spiritual or mystical technology' and is behind a variety of outlooks, moral systems and religious belief systems ... but the dynamics are seperate from them....they are a vehicle to carry the dynamics ... and at times can work against the dynamics being explored further and understood better.

What is belief anyway ? .... It is SO important and valid to us ... we think OUR beliefs are based on reality , yet our beliefs can change radically from a blow to the head or other trauma - they are mostly self referential .

yogiman

Teheuti said:
You are talking about religio/spiritual beliefs. Such beliefs held by people who have no doubts have led to the burning of books and slaughter of millions. Religious groups (who have no doubts) from the United States are currently working in parts of Africa to obtain the murder or imprisonment of homosexuals and witches, as being against the will of God.

Again, I respect your sense of reality and straightforwardness. But to me it seems that peace of mind, broadmindedness and tolerance are the criterion for the difference between a feeling of resonance and a foolhardy religious belief. But I can imagine that you have seen quite a few aberrations in your long career.

Teheuti

ravenest said:
I like this approach ... it is needed. It is a type of 'scientific illuminism', as Crowley put it: 'The method of Science and the aim of religion'.

It is close to the hermetic outlook and that outlook has lifted civilisation in the past , many times ... it bought Europe out of the Dark Ages of religious ignorance, superstition and oppression, yet it honoured and developed the spiritual sciences.

Its all about WHAT works and the dynamics and method of why it works, regardless of any religious philosophy or belief system - it is 'spiritual or mystical technology' and is behind a variety of outlooks, moral systems and religious belief systems ... but the dynamics are seperate from them....they are a vehicle to carry the dynamics ... and at times can work against the dynamics being explored further and understood better.

What is belief anyway ? .... It is SO important and valid to us ... we think OUR beliefs are based on reality , yet our beliefs can change radically from a blow to the head or other trauma - they are mostly self referential .

Wow, thank you, ravenest. That was so beautifully said. Techno-magic is something I always find interesting. I've also watched many of the leaders in the Pagan world go from rumor-based history to a deep respect for and understanding of historical evidence and methodology. Pagan leaders in the Council of World Religions are called on regularly for their moderation skills - based on studies of what works, combined with what they learned from deep work in pagan circles and feminism (we can thank Starhawk for much of the basis of this).

I've been going to PantheaCon every year for around 20 years (a gathering of around 3,000 pagans for 4 days) and have seen the incorporation of scholars and scholarship take place with more and more respect and understanding on both sides.

I would like to see some more of this brought to the Tarot world. I'm hoping it is the right time for it.