Is this an invasion of privacy?

Barleywine

Makes excellent sense to me, including an "explanation" of where it can be iffy reading about people's feelings etc without their consent/knowledge.

Thanks, gregory. It's been a while since I've had to dust off my Mensa credentials and put them to work :).
 

Bridget

LeFou said:
Nothing really wrong with that, although I wouldn't want to mislead people into thinking it was "psychic portal" if it's more like talk therapy with a Rorschach twist and a witchy vibe.
Just wanted to say that I love how this sentence is worded. No sarcasm. That is all.
I feel the same way. :)
 

delinfrey

I would definitely say that for me, reading for someone else without their permission or knowledge is a breach of privacy. I mean, that is just a fact - what is left is to discuss whether it breaches your moral standards or not.

Let me imagine a scenario - I'm still aching for my ex, I know that he is in a new relationship, is engaged and maybe also expecting a child. But I'm so hung up that I want to read for them, to see that mayyyy-beeeee their relationship is not going so well, mayyy-beeeeee they will break up. Then it is not only an invasion of privacy, but I am manifesting ill thoughts towards someone. Another problem altogether.

And let's move away from Tarot, say you are a therapeut. Would you be okay discussing mental issues of other people? As a doctor, would you be okay discussing someone else's medical records?

Are you generally okay with people talking about others behind their backs? I know I'm not.
 

EyeAmEye

I have no qualms with it because I believe if you aren't meant to know, it won't give you anything meaningful anyway.
 

Barleywine

As in the past, this debate is starting to diverge into different camps: one is "It's patently unethical to 'spy' on anyone in any way, regardless of intent;" another is "My own personal sense of morality is outraged by the idea;" and a third one is "It's like a 'victimless crime' that hurts nobody so it's an acceptable practice." I apply the legal concept of "reasonable man:" Would a "reasonable man" take umbrage at someone prying into his affairs without his knowledge or consent? My guess is the answer would be "Yes." While the "victimless crime" idea has its appeal (as long as that is really true), I don't think it's at all fair to the unwitting target of the scrutiny, so - among other reasons I gave earlier - I take this to heart when reading.
 

chaosbloom

I'll try. To my way of thinking, likely actions/events have (or will have) an objective presence on the formative plane of existence (foreshadowing) that purely subjective mental/emotional constructs lack unless and until formalized and actualized. More elastic conceptual reality is less coherent and often turns out to be illusory when we attempt to pin it down. Human actions imply intentions, which presuppose value judgments based on thoughts and feelings, and the farther removed from where "the rubber meets the road," the more provisional the picture becomes. Hypothetically at least (and the way tarot works is entirely hypothetical in my book), the emerging manifestation of something can prefigure its arrival via the cards in a way that a thought or feeling rattling around in someone's head about what they might like to see happen cannot. If that stray thought ultimately hardens into an intention and then a resolve, it would begin to make its presence felt in a way that the cards can make sense of. At that point, I'm comfortable examining what that individual might actually do regarding my querent. (That's why I encourage querents to ask how a third-party individual might act toward them, not how he or she might feel.) Until then, the outlook is clouded, entirely too amorphous and kaleidoscopic to leave a convincing impression that I can present to the querent with confidence. And I refuse to try reading something in the cards that I don't think is there.

I hope this isn't too rambling. I haven't put these thoughts into words since my days of intensive qabala studies back in the 1980s.

Nicely argued. Your theory is difinitely intriguing but I wonder about some of its axioms. For example, you clearly differentiate between non-action bearing thoughts and action-bearing thoughts that down the chain of potentialities become actions. Somehow you make one to be too amorphous and chaotic (is that your point?) to be predictable but the other one the exact opposite.

I don't know if your overall theory of future prediction includes this, but if we assume a supernatural hyperintelligent intercessor that gives you information through Tarot, why would a force that is capable of mapping and unraveling such a practically unknownable chain of events to reach final potential future actions stop at that level and not go beyond and reach intentions behind actions, value judgements behind intents and thoughts behind value judgements. In very few words, since your theory more or less needs to assume an omniscient intercessor, how can that omniscient intercessor be partially omniscient?

At this point I wonder if you came to this conclusion after practical results that suggested something like that and it's not just a purely conceptual model.

I apply the legal concept of "reasonable man:" Would a "reasonable man" take umbrage at someone prying into his affairs without his knowledge or consent? My guess is the answer would be "Yes." While the "victimless crime" idea has its appeal (as long as that is really true), I don't think it's at all fair to the unwitting target of the scrutiny, so - among other reasons I gave earlier - I take this to heart when reading.

I don't really mean to play the devil's advocate again since I agree that it is more or less a breach of privacy but to put the matter in the proper context it should look like this:

Would a "reasonable man" take umbrage at someone because he spread out a few painted cards by himself in his bedroom, without the prior's knowledge or consent?

Even if you still say the answer is yes, it would look a little odd to call that person just an average "reasonable man".
 

earthair

In itself, it's no better or worse than having thoughts and observations about someone's relationship. Everyone has thoughts from time to time. So I don't think it matters if you do a reading yourself for your own interest as it's just an extension of thoughts which are occurring anyway. Just don't let cards justify changing your behaviour towards them.

But....
... if you get a querent who wants you to do this then I would need to know their intentions are towards the couple before carefully considering reading or not.

Invasion of privacy? There is no such thing as privacy any more for anyone with internet or a phone or who steps outside. Surveillance is everywhere. :bugeyed:
 

crystalrose

I also read third party questions here at AT even though I know I can't get accurate feedback, because I think that for the querent, getting answers about a third party makes a difference and can help them to move on in their life, or help make an important decision or a realisation concerning the querent him/herself.

Re: lonely hearts club. I think that us people have a massive amount if intuitive knowledge tarot can trigger and if I as a reader present 'no chance' cards to someone who's querying about love interest, they usually have some hunch about whether or not this is the truth, or am I wrong. Same goes for the other way around: if I give green light to someone to apporach their love interest, that might actually help them muster courage and make a relationship happen.
Agreed & this is my perspective. A reading on what a third party feels may trigger some insight or change on the querent's part that is beneficial. Plus the querents themselves should be able to relate if the reading is likely given what they know of a person. It's not like someone's thoughts & feelings come out of thin air. I like to keep an open mind about what my cards can tell me.


At that point, I'm comfortable examining what that individual might actually do regarding my querent. (That's why I encourage querents to ask how a third-party individual might act toward them, not how he or she might feel.) Until then, the outlook is clouded, entirely too amorphous and kaleidoscopic to leave a convincing impression that I can present to the querent with confidence. And I refuse to try reading something in the cards that I don't think is there.

I hope this isn't too rambling. I haven't put these thoughts into words since my days of intensive qabala studies back in the 1980s.

Although I believe you can see a third party's thoughts & feelings in the cards, I like what you wrote here about the limitations. I've noticed even if I am able to accurately describe what someone is feeling, what that person will DO may be entirely different. And it renders the thoughts & feelings moot in a practical sense.

To answer the original question, I don't think it's a gross invasion of privacy. People speculate about other people's lives even without cards, and I don't think it's a big deal. Without validation or feedback, then speculation is all it is. If you were to use the information for some nefarious end, then that would be a problem.
 

chaosbloom

I might need to reposition myself regarding this topic since the subject has broadened up a lot. I only find it a mild invasion of privacy when it's about third parties that you don't have any direct reason to snoop about e.g. how a friendly couple is getting on with their marriage, the OP's original example.

But if it's about third parties without their consent in general e.g. a new potential collaborator, employers, clients, new friends or acquaintances, lovers, whatever, hell yeah I'll use Tarot to check if they might trouble. I see absolutely no issue with taking precautions and doing some cartomantic "background check" to avoid drama. Unapologetically so.
 

Barleywine

Nicely argued. Your theory is difinitely intriguing but I wonder about some of its axioms. For example, you clearly differentiate between non-action bearing thoughts and action-bearing thoughts that down the chain of potentialities become actions. Somehow you make one to be too amorphous and chaotic (is that your point?) to be predictable but the other one the exact opposite.

I see non-action-bearing thoughts as the precursors of action-bearing ones, not a different species altogether. Some of them reach fruition and drive actions, some are simply stillborn and fall by the wayside. The idea that "the Universe is Mental" is deeply ingrained in Western esotericism, so I think all action is ultimately rooted in Spirit. Its a developmental continuum, and at some point in the chain the picture snaps into focus to the point that it can be interpreted with a degree of confidence. Earlier than that, the situation is not so much chaotic as vestigial, potentially leading to malformed conclusions that I certainly don't trust. Someone who may be idly daydreaming about another person in a romantic but unrealistic way doesn't give me much grist for my mill.

I don't know if your overall theory of future prediction includes this, but if we assume a supernatural hyperintelligent intercessor that gives you information through Tarot, why would a force that is capable of mapping and unraveling such a practically unknownable chain of events to reach final potential future actions stop at that level and not go beyond and reach intentions behind actions, value judgements behind intents and thoughts behind value judgements. In very few words, since your theory more or less needs to assume an omniscient intercessor, how can that omniscient intercessor be partially omniscient?

After reading Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion, I decided that "Spinozan pantheist" fits me best. The idea of a paternalistic, anthropomorphic God falls away and is replaced by a universal, creative intelligence or urge that permeates all existence, animate and inanimate (this isn't the academic version, just my personal take on it). The nature of this immanent and indwelling consciousness isn't as approachable as the Abrahamic version for the average human mind, but it nicely supports the idea of incremental "becoming" - Spinoza's concepts of thought and extension? - that I propose as the basis of my model. So the "omniscient intercessor" hasn't stopped short as you describe, it just hasn't fully begun to unfold in some instances. Thus, some thoughts can be "half-baked" while others are "nicely browned." (This is probably grossly flawed and bastardized metaphysics, but it''s only a working model at this point.)

At this point I wonder if you came to this conclusion after practical results that suggested something like that and it's not just a purely conceptual model.

I got an inkling of this when I was practicing and teaching tarot in Connecticut back in the mid-to-late 1970s, and my later qabalistic studies fleshed it out with a much fuller vocabulary. That said, I haven't had much chance to validate it in my present circumstances. I mainly dusted off my earlier thoughts for the purpose of this discussion.

I don't really mean to play the devil's advocate again since I agree that it is more or less a breach of privacy but to put the matter in the proper context it should look like this:

Would a "reasonable man" take umbrage at someone because he spread out a few painted cards by himself in his bedroom, without the prior's knowledge or consent?

Even if you still say the answer is yes, it would look a little odd to call that person just an average "reasonable man".

That may be putting too simplistic a face on it. There would obviously be no issues with a completely private practice of this sort that never sees the light of day. It's when it emerges into a social context (as in imparting the conclusions to an interested querent who may or may not honor privacy expectations) that it can become problematic. In the first case, the "reasonable man" might just be uncomfortable that someone is using him as a guinea pig, in the second case he may well feel violated by the lack of discretion, especially if potentially harmful impressions are disseminated to his circle of friends, colleagues and acquaintances.