Really Obtuse Newbie Questions

Kingdubrock

Hi,
I've been reading through this section for a bit and honestly it's like having my brains scrambled by a weed whacker. I am impressed with peoples ability to juggle so many systems of correspondences, remembering hebrew words, letters and concepts, debating the minutiae. On one hand I am hugely attracted to this material. But I also have to confess that from the outside looking in, the mapping of tarot onto the tree of life seems fraught with so many issues, to the extent that swapping card orders around and so on seems almost unavoidable. As a result I am unable to proceed with grappling with the material due to a nagging feeling that the two systems are not, in essence, particularly related and might be an avoidable goose chase for me.

It reminds me a little of a business efficiency model called the Theory of Constraints, where, while initially startling and illuminating and appearing to work, becomes so complex, with so many caveats and revisions as more questions and circumstances arise, and/or when people try to harmonize or enhance it with something like systems theory, that it starts to become unmanageable. People seem to stick to TOC theory primarily because they have already invested so much energy into it.

So, at the risk of being tedious, or too newbie-ish to backtrack for, I was hoping I could ask a few questions, so I can get oriented at the most basic level. (I tried to read through the beginner thread but it had so many broken links as it was made in 2007). Please, also forgive me if my questions come up over and over. Im really smart in some ways but also really dense in others, especially if I am not presented with information in a certain order, with basic assumptions revealed up front.

So here goes:

1) Why do we believe that the meanings of the tarot cards are "esoterically" linked to Kabbalah? In other words, without immersing ourselves in the mindset of specific early occultists who said they were, would a solid and sensible correspondence likely have presented itself or made itself apparent in a different context? For example, would a medieval Jewish Kabbalist, in a syncretic mood, if handed a pack of cards recognize an informed kabbalistic viewpoint in the images?

2) Are the assertions of early occultists that the images of the Marseille tarot were "exoteric" (at best) or naive (at worst) and that their own attributions are the "true" ones, still assumed or accepted by GD/Thelema adherents, or is it more a case that while of uncertain historical veracity, the "hermetic" attributions and correspondences are deemed sufficiently meaningful, coherent and effective in their own right as to constitute a valid (if "new") spiritual system?

3) Did Path-working exist before the GD? Like, do Lurianic kabbalists do pathworking? Are there non-GD related books or teachings one can read that are not derivative of or traceable to GD teachings?

4) Has the proliferation of information about Jewish kabbalah, by Jewish kabbalists since the time of the GD forced any reconsideration or adaptation, or is it a case where if they are deemed to be inherently at odds, (if thats the case, i have no idea) the conflict would simply be ignored?

I ask this because as someone with a long-time grounding in Buddhism, the writings, systems, correspondences, speculations and fusions which were embedded by Theosophists and occultists in the early days of importing Buddhism to the West, have largely been abandoned as the original traditions have been increasingly made available and disseminated over time. There are still Theosophists who try to identify or reconcile the Book of Dzyan with, say, the kalachakra. But no one would, if they werent already heavily invested in Theosophy. But on the other hand, there are theosophists who dont feel particularly bound by the original teachings of the society and are in some cases highly credible scholars in their own right.

Is there a parallel to this in GD circles, or is the original system presented pretty much as-is, and absorbing and integrating new or conflicting information understood to be up to the discretion of the individual?

Last,
5) What is THE best way, or resource, for getting my head around this stuff (ideally one that at least to some extent contextualizes and traces the material to pre or non GD systems. I am always more comfortable learning spiritual subject matter in a "non-sectarian" fashion in order to be able to recognize and evaluate sectarian assertions and innovations).
 

Richard

The Kircher TOL, the SY, the Tarot, the GD mapping of Tarot onto the TOL. All this stuff may be total BS, theoretical constructs whose connection with the reality they purport to describe is tenuous at best. In a word, it may be trash. If I try to rationally analyze the trash, I can't even get to square one. The seven classical planets in their Ptolemaic order? Two of them aren't even planets; the most important planet is not on the list; and those that are on the list are in the wrong order anyhow. Does Strength come before Justice, or is it the other way? Agonizing over eight and eleven? Damned if I care, whatever 'works' best is all that matters.

So, does the trash somehow 'work', and if so, how? I'm not really a believer. However, I find the trash to be surprisingly efficacious. That's good enough for an old pragmatist like me. My motivation is personal. In fact, the trash itself is personal. The more I study it, the better I understand myself, in accordance with the dictum at the Temple of Apollo at Delphi: Know Thyself.

Good luck on your quest.
 

ravenest

The more I study it, the better I understand myself, in accordance with the dictum at the Temple of Apollo at Delphi: Know Thyself.

Good luck on your quest.

THIS! And 'strangely ' enough, at times, the complex discrepancies and avoidable goose chases seem to be part of 'myself' as well ;)
 

ravenest

Hi,
I've been reading through this section for a bit and honestly it's like having my brains scrambled by a weed whacker.

Great ! Now all you need is for the scrambled neuro-soup to reform into a butterfly :)

I am impressed with peoples ability to juggle so many systems of correspondences, remembering hebrew words, letters and concepts, debating the minutiae. On one hand I am hugely attracted to this material. But I also have to confess that from the outside looking in, the mapping of tarot onto the tree of life seems fraught with so many issues, to the extent that swapping card orders around and so on seems almost unavoidable. As a result I am unable to proceed with grappling with the material due to a nagging feeling that the two systems are not, in essence, particularly related and might be an avoidable goose chase for me.

It is avoidable and it is not necessary . It is more of a journey than destination, hence the destination (or system you decide on) isn't that important as long as it is A (not considered THE) system that helps get the job done ; Know Thyself.

It reminds me a little of a business efficiency model called the Theory of Constraints, where, while initially startling and illuminating and appearing to work, becomes so complex, with so many caveats and revisions as more questions and circumstances arise, and/or when people try to harmonize or enhance it with something like systems theory, that it starts to become unmanageable. People seem to stick to TOC theory primarily because they have already invested so much energy into it.

Fair enough, in that and Kabbalah, they seem just like 'real life' ;)

So, at the risk of being tedious, or too newbie-ish to backtrack for, I was hoping I could ask a few questions, so I can get oriented at the most basic level. (I tried to read through the beginner thread but it had so many broken links as it was made in 2007). Please, also forgive me if my questions come up over and over. Im really smart in some ways but also really dense in others, especially if I am not presented with information in a certain order, with basic assumptions revealed up front.

:laugh: just like 'real life' too :)

So here goes:

1) Why do we believe that the meanings of the tarot cards are "esoterically" linked to Kabbalah? In other words, without immersing ourselves in the mindset of specific early occultists who said they were, would a solid and sensible correspondence likely have presented itself or made itself apparent in a different context? For example, would a medieval Jewish Kabbalist, in a syncretic mood, if handed a pack of cards recognize an informed kabbalistic viewpoint in the images?

A basic Hermetic premise is that everything is linked. I TRY to find the links in things that seem separated ; it may have origins in the 'Theory of Signatures'. I doubt many would see the analogy I just passinglyposted in the RW thread on the fool , air, 'pnuema' , 10 sephiroth, 4 elements and the chemical formula for ether ... have a look ... is that interesting or am I mad ? Depends on ones point of view .

With the theory of signatures it is interesting to see a) it is an old silly and primitive believe and b) it was the beginning of some of those ideas that are still applicable today in things like medicine ... if it quacks like a duck .... it may well be LIKE a duck in other ways ;)
2) Are the assertions of early occultists that the images of the Marseille tarot were "exoteric" (at best) or naive (at worst) and that their own attributions are the "true" ones, still assumed or accepted by GD/Thelema adherents, or is it more a case that while of uncertain historical veracity, the "hermetic" attributions and correspondences are deemed sufficiently meaningful, coherent and effective in their own right as to constitute a valid (if "new") spiritual system?

History - pah! I am am Hermetic taroist so "that while of uncertain historical veracity, the "hermetic" attributions and correspondences are deemed sufficiently meaningful, coherent and effective in their own right as to constitute a valid (if "new") spiritual system?" is all important ... the other stuff I leave up to 'Historical tarotists' ... totally different field IMO. And combination just = confusion.

3) Did Path-working exist before the GD?
Generally; CERTAINLY.

Like, do Lurianic kabbalists do pathworking?

Cant answer that one.


Are there non-GD related books or teachings one can read that are not derivative of or traceable to GD teachings?

:confused: you must mean books on 'pathworking' on the ToL paths? Not that I know of.

4) Has the proliferation of information about Jewish kabbalah, by Jewish kabbalists since the time of the GD forced any reconsideration or adaptation, or is it a case where if they are deemed to be inherently at odds, (if thats the case, i have no idea) the conflict would simply be ignored?

I think mainstream Jewish kabbalah is V.diff from western hermetic kabbalah and always has been. A bit like real Chinese food and what I would get at the local, small country town Aussie style Chinese take away .
I ask this because as someone with a long-time grounding in Buddhism, the writings, systems, correspondences, speculations and fusions which were embedded by Theosophists and occultists in the early days of importing Buddhism to the West, have largely been abandoned as the original traditions have been increasingly made available and disseminated over time. There are still Theosophists who try to identify or reconcile the Book of Dzyan with, say, the kalachakra. But no one would, if they werent already heavily invested in Theosophy. But on the other hand, there are theosophists who dont feel particularly bound by the original teachings of the society and are in some cases highly credible scholars in their own right.

Perhaps if we had a proliferation of Rabbis coming to the west it would .... I think this is starting a bit ? I think that Theosophy was westerners going to east and brining their concepts back to west, now with Buddhism we have easterners coming to the west and a greater stream of info or 'direct transmission' ?

Is there a parallel to this in GD circles, or is the original system presented pretty much as-is, and absorbing and integrating new or conflicting information understood to be up to the discretion of the individual?

Maybe ... I have little idea what they get up to, my system was OTO and the part of it adapted by Crowley may have had some or a lot of GD influence in it ... I know for sure that he did incorporate some slightly adapted GD Libers for instruction (especially in OTO II* ).

The process you outline IMO is essential in Hermetics ... it must be applied relevantly to present socio/cultural environment or its just out-dated or armchair. (the roots should be understood as a base of the pyramid but not applied to un relevant current situations.)

Last,
5) What is THE best way, or resource, for getting my head around this stuff (ideally one that at least to some extent contextualizes and traces the material to pre or non GD systems. I am always more comfortable learning spiritual subject matter in a "non-sectarian" fashion in order to be able to recognize and evaluate sectarian assertions and innovations).

Choose a system, stick with that system and start with the basics ... beware of too wide a field at the beginning and realise that pre and non GD systems (trad Hebrew ones) are not the same as, and may not be a good starting point for comprehending GD systems. You follow the original Kabbalh and you end up out on a different branch ... or tree.

If that is what you want fine. If it relates to tarot though, forget it, start at GD or if you want tarot- pre GD I would suggest you start at the beginning of the early Euro hermetic kabbalists and trace that into GD..

Its complex ... I would just suggest starting at early GD stuff
with a bit of a cross-over into authors like ... damn! just forgot it ... it will come back and I will add it later ... someone Halevi ... ???

In any case, I am just raving off the top of my head and I would take this as being "oriented at the most basic level" . .... Just try to keep it simple and not swallow too big a bite at once ... the system is full of 'discepancies' and , like life, we cant really expect not to find them.

Right! I'm off to have a Christmas beer ..... ginger beer that is.

edit: Simeon ben Halevi ???
 

Kingdubrock

The Kircher TOL, the SY, the Tarot, the GD mapping of Tarot onto the TOL. All this stuff may be total BS, theoretical constructs whose connection with the reality they purport to describe is tenuous at best. In a word, it may be trash. If I try to rationally analyze the trash, I can't even get to square one. The seven classical planets in their Ptolemaic order? Two of them aren't even planets; the most important planet is not on the list; and those that are on the list are in the wrong order anyhow. Does Strength come before Justice, or is it the other way? Agonizing over eight and eleven? Damned if I care, whatever 'works' best is all that matters.

So, does the trash somehow 'work', and if so, how? I'm not really a believer. However, I find the trash to be surprisingly efficacious. That's good enough for an old pragmatist like me. My motivation is personal. In fact, the trash itself is personal. The more I study it, the better I understand myself, in accordance with the dictum at the Temple of Apollo at Delphi: Know Thyself.

Good luck on your quest.

Thanks LRichard.
Well, it never occurred to me that it might be trash, and on the off chance such an opinion seemed embedded in my post, it really wasnt. In truth my assumption was that while back in the day GD people took oaths to keep details a secret, by now the origins and sources or "genealogy" of the GD material would have been opened up and scrutinized from within the scene and/or in dialog with other schools. Like in order for Waite or someone to depart from or dispute, say, Papus, it must have to some extent been based on a different or more nuanced understanding of the same or similar source material. But mostly, until I started looking into this, i wasn't under the impression that a rigorous "hermetic" tradition, and/or "hermetic kabbalah" sort begins and ends with the GD, Crowley and Fortune. Its just hard to find information that doesnt lead back to or draw directly from the GD, so it got me wondering.
Like, there was Agrippa, Pico, Boehme, Kircher etc, but I have no idea if a lineage was transmitted from these early guys, or if the GD pieced a system together from reading, these or other works, and what, if anything, was entirely the innovation of the GD.
In other words, a genuine, want-to-know question.

As far as my personal motivation, its admittedly somewhat academic. I have spent way too long on my spiritual path (mostly in Buddhism - Zen & Vajrayana) with enough transformation, revelations, detours and dead ends, ups and downs, major highs and lows, long periods of drudgery and so on (what Raven repeatedly described as "life") that studying Western Esotericism, at this point, is not necessarily "quest" oriented as just something I haven't done, and really want to know more about. The thing is Having already spent ages groping my way through Sanskrit, Pali, Chinese, Japanese and Korean vocabularies, parsing out the different doctrinal factions, "apocryphal" texts, teasing through the minutiae that can take hold of someone who is consumed by spiritual search, bumping up against full-on cults, dysfunctional and wonderful sanghas etc, etc, getting my head around astrology, numerology, kabbalah, hermeticism, alchemy and so on is a daunting prospect most days. Yet my interest persists...
 

Kingdubrock

Raven, thank you for your replies. Unfortunately I had actual, non-ginger beer tonight and im kinda wiped. Will write more tomorrow.

Merry Christmas everyone.
 

Zephyros

I've been reading through this section for a bit and honestly it's like having my brains scrambled by a weed whacker. I am impressed with peoples ability to juggle so many systems of correspondences, remembering hebrew words, letters and concepts, debating the minutiae. On one hand I am hugely attracted to this material. But I also have to confess that from the outside looking in, the mapping of tarot onto the tree of life seems fraught with so many issues, to the extent that swapping card orders around and so on seems almost unavoidable. As a result I am unable to proceed with grappling with the material due to a nagging feeling that the two systems are not, in essence, particularly related and might be an avoidable goose chase for me.

Kabbalah is a language, but the ideas conveyed in that language are not unrelated to real life. There is a certain learning curve, but once you get the basics down, it becomes easier and easier. Discussions may sound like technical minutiae, but they are really about love and sex and violence and war and pencils and chicken and juice. In other words, about Life itself, which is what Kabbalah concerns itself with. To me Kabbalistic terms sound like poetry and I'm moved by a simple description of a Sephira. :) Whether there are inconsistencies or not is, to me, immaterial, since it is in resolving those issues that one progresses. Tarot is a great Kabbalistic study tool, but I don't think "inconsistency" automatically leads to "incompatibility."

1) Why do we believe that the meanings of the tarot cards are "esoterically" linked to Kabbalah? In other words, without immersing ourselves in the mindset of specific early occultists who said they were, would a solid and sensible correspondence likely have presented itself or made itself apparent in a different context? For example, would a medieval Jewish Kabbalist, in a syncretic mood, if handed a pack of cards recognize an informed kabbalistic viewpoint in the images?

Like anything else occult, it depends on your viewpoint. The basic structure of a Tarot deck seems to conform to the Tree of Life, but then four, ten and twenty-two are recurring numbers in many things anyway. "Belief" in this, isn't necessary, since just as the Tree is an excellent diagram for projecting ideas onto, the Tarot is another such model. Whether a medieval Kabbalist would recognize the same pattern is debatable. It isn't impossible, but given the mindset of traditional Kabbalah, I doubt he would be so inclined.

2) Are the assertions of early occultists that the images of the Marseille tarot were "exoteric" (at best) or naive (at worst) and that their own attributions are the "true" ones, still assumed or accepted by GD/Thelema adherents, or is it more a case that while of uncertain historical veracity, the "hermetic" attributions and correspondences are deemed sufficiently meaningful, coherent and effective in their own right as to constitute a valid (if "new") spiritual system?

Well, given that the Marseilles was originally a game, exotericism isn't such a bad thing. I think those occultists were a bit unfair in their judgments, since they were judging something according to a scale it wasn't meant to be on in the first place. A game of Monopoly doesn't have the literary stature of War and Peace, but the comparison is in itself absurd. Were one to look for the "truth," then I would counsel them to stay away from the GD, since it's all basically a forgery (the most important occult papers of our times found on a hansom cab by the one person who could do something with them? I hope the Secret Chiefs are paid overtime). On the other hand, I do find that, as you said, the system is still meaningful, coherent and effective. I don't know if I would call it a "new" system, as I see Kabbalah as a language in which to convey ideas, not an end in itself. It's saying new things for modern times, but it's still the same language, syntax and grammar. I think it is valid in and of itself.

But then, what's a forgery anyway? Can I really judge a system that seems to work based on whether or not I believe it came from invisible people? I can't really do that, it isn't in me, and so I'm left with judging efficacy and how much I enjoy it. I can't claim any higher pretensions than that. So someone came along and democratized the occult. Everyone creates their own Kabbalah, and whatever system you use, it is always up to you to resolve both attributions and issues within yourself, which is the end goal. It isn't like religion in which you receive a book, are told to follow its instructions and then you will be assured spiritual experience. Kabbalah isn't a body of knowledge you learn by heart, it's a method of thinking and if you manage to use what you learn and live a good and fulfilled life, who's gonna tell you're living your life wrong? You just have to wing it. If you're looking for answers, Kabbalah doesn't have them; it is a tool like a fork or knife that you use to interact with your world. No answers, only questions. Attributions are secondary to this and do not constitute the root of what Kabbalah is.

3) Did Path-working exist before the GD? Like, do Lurianic kabbalists do pathworking? Are there non-GD related books or teachings one can read that are not derivative of or traceable to GD teachings?

I don't know how Jewish Kabbalah is used in practical terms, but I'll start finding out. I should have done so a long time ago anyway. But, if to use Thelemic metaphor, to the traditional Jewish Kabbalist the Torah is one's True Will, having an exoteric layer (which is pretty complex on its own) and an esoteric layer. Kabbalah is a method of studying the Torah esoterically and experientially. How this is done in practical terms... I'll get back to you on that.

4) Has the proliferation of information about Jewish kabbalah, by Jewish kabbalists since the time of the GD forced any reconsideration or adaptation, or is it a case where if they are deemed to be inherently at odds, (if thats the case, i have no idea) the conflict would simply be ignored?

Well, yes and no. The Golden Dawn had, unfortunately but understandably, a decidedly British imperialistic view, and assumed that if they "rediscovered hidden knowledge," so to speak, that they were the first. However, the fact is, Kabbalah has never been lost or hidden. A constant tradition of it has existed for a long, long time. It was studied in the Middle Ages by Christians who sought either to understand it for their own benefits (hence we have Christian Kabbalah) or to find yet more reasons to burn Jews. They were successful on both counts. I'm guessing this goes to the second question, and I would say that the GD system need not be revised since it doesn't try to be anything it isn't, especially now. It exists as a standalone magickal system; anyone who wants to study the more traditional systems can do so, especially in this day and age.

I ask this because as someone with a long-time grounding in Buddhism, the writings, systems, correspondences, speculations and fusions which were embedded by Theosophists and occultists in the early days of importing Buddhism to the West, have largely been abandoned as the original traditions have been increasingly made available and disseminated over time. There are still Theosophists who try to identify or reconcile the Book of Dzyan with, say, the kalachakra. But no one would, if they werent already heavily invested in Theosophy. But on the other hand, there are theosophists who dont feel particularly bound by the original teachings of the society and are in some cases highly credible scholars in their own right.

This goes to usage and practicality. There are those, even on this forum, who would say that the GD got it all wrong, and that only this or that system is correct. It's like dying and finding out that you got the wrong religion all this time, turning the other cheek when you should have given an eye for an eye. You're ultimately screwed anyway, since you're in Hell, but you have no choice but go by the seat of your pants. I think this is what everyone does (it is certainly what I do). I believe that the real benefits come from actually doing the work, attributions are secondary and serve only as a conduit for what is essentially you. I don't know if he coined the term himself, but Lon Milo DuQuette wrote that through Kabbalah you understand Everything, and realize it is Nothing. That's the ultimate purpose, and I haven't seen anything in any system to counter that statement. I spoke a while ago in another thread about "Matrix vision" in which you see the whole world through numbers, through them find a connection between things and then see it all amounts to One. There is a certain point in which intellectualism must be eschewed, and I don't concern myself with the different debates about a "truth" no one actually knows.

Is there a parallel to this in GD circles, or is the original system presented pretty much as-is, and absorbing and integrating new or conflicting information understood to be up to the discretion of the individual?

I would say up to the individual, but I'm that kind of person. There are those (especially within the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community) who would say I'm getting it all wrong. There are GD die-hards who would say I'm still getting it wrong, even though I'm using the GD Tree, because I don't do this or that. Whether you're a Jewish Rabbi or a British magician, there hasn't been an occultist yet who hasn't said, in some form or another "I'm right." But like religion (which hermeticism is not) everyone is wrong, and maybe we should be sacrificing humans to Ashtoreth or Nanabozho, who's to say they aren't the true gods?

5) What is THE best way, or resource, for getting my head around this stuff (ideally one that at least to some extent contextualizes and traces the material to pre or non GD systems. I am always more comfortable learning spiritual subject matter in a "non-sectarian" fashion in order to be able to recognize and evaluate sectarian assertions and innovations).

On that, I disagree. The GD system has gained enough traction to be thought of as a system on par with any other. I don't actually think of it as sectarian, since all anybody actually does in the end is go to the Sefer Yetzirah, interpret it and draw up a diagram. This is what the GD did, and the authors of the Zohar itself. The advantage of the traditional approach is perhaps cultural compatibility. A medieval Jew writing commentary on the works of another will perhaps be better at it than an English gentleman. I still recommend Lon Milo DuQuette's "Chicken Qabalah" or Robert Wang's "The Qabalistic Tarot" or Celine Dion's "Mystical Qabalah." All three are excellent primers on the basic Kabbalistic definitions.

ETA: Not to pluck my own harp, I wrote an introduction myself a while ago. It is decidedly GD based, no doubt about that, and since I never continued it it is severely limited, and I have also revised my own views about parts of it, but maybe you'll find some use for it.
 

Ross G Caldwell

Celine Dion's "Mystical Qabalah."

An exceedingly rare work, but well worth the effort to seek out.

(it made me chuckle, sorry ... happy holidays, closrapexa! And kingdubrock, great questions)
 

Zephyros

An exceedingly rare work, but well worth the effort to seek out.

(it made me chuckle, sorry ... happy holidays, closrapexa! And kingdubrock, great questions)

LOL

I didn't even notice that. Well, must be all the Christmas songs. I'll just leave that there. :D
 

Richard

........On one hand I am hugely attracted to this material. But I also have to confess that from the outside looking in, the mapping of tarot onto the tree of life seems fraught with so many issues, to the extent that swapping card orders around and so on seems almost unavoidable. As a result I am unable to proceed with grappling with the material due to a nagging feeling that the two systems are not, in essence, particularly related and might be an avoidable goose chase for me.
What card orders were swapped around? The numerical structure of the Thoth is identical to that of the Marseille. While it is true that the mapping of the Thoth onto the TOL is not strictly order-preserving, there are at most two instances in which there are apparent interchanges, one which involves trumps 8 and 11, and another with 4 and 17, and not everyone observes the latter. The GD and Waite decks renumber trumps 8 and 11 and are pre-Thelemic, so this is the only interchange, and thereby the mapping becomes strictly order-preserving.

The only other apparent difficulty is with the planetary attributions of the double letters of the Hebrew alphabet, and since different versions of the SY are not necessarily in agreement on this matter, the GD used attributions which seemed to best fit the corresponding trumps.

Thus, for me, the only real modification needed for a valid mapping is the matter of associating Strength and Justice with paths 19 and 22, respectively. It seems remarkable that only this single interchange is absolutely essential. The other matter with 4 and 17 is a Thelemic, not GD, issue, although there are mathematical considerations involved. I keep changing my mind about it.

The mapping has, for the most part, a logical, follow your nose, structure; and it is not particularly difficult to reconstruct from scratch without cheating. The very naturalness of it is what makes it such a convenient interpretive tool for tarot divination (or introspection).