Is this an invasion of privacy?

[lightsofblue]

*****

 

[lightsofblue]

*****

 

[lightsofblue]

*****

 

[Debra]

And another thing.

Guilt for curiosity?
Like Adam and Eve?

 

[Holly doll]

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.

I'm in agreement here - I wouldn't take too kindly to someone poking & prying; my boundaries were constantly violated when I was young - so I'd be mighty p*ssed - if I want to share that's MY choice & the only place I choose to post is here.

With the advent of social media where sometimes waaayyyy too much is breathlessly shared & each little event can be magnified - perhaps the concept of privacy is shifting for some - where anything & everything is out there to be viewed or questioned by anyone. (sorry about the rant folks...)

 

[chaosbloom]

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.

Let's forget the non-action bearing thoughts for a while. An action-bearing thought, per your theory, will undergo development until it becomes action. If you believe that future actions can be predicted, then each specific action descends from a fixed chain of thought potentialities, there's a definite developmental stage behind the action after the action has come to be. If the last stage of the process can be predicted, I see no problem predicting the preceding stages.

However, it seems that you're saying that being asked "How does Mary feel about me?" will yield an answer that might not eventually translate into any actions because "Mary" might change her mind eventually. Granted, but the reading can still successfully show what "Mary" is feeling at that specific point in time, and the reader only has to inform the querent that thoughts and feelings can change in the future and will not necessarily translate into actions.

I was initially raising objections to your corollary, that without input from a querent, thoughts or emotions will be too hard to decipher from the cards. Since actions are the end stage of a chain of thoughts, if you can decipher someone else's final actions (who is not even present), then by the same interpretational framework, you should be able to interpret every step of the development. If not, then you can't interpret anything.

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.)

I'm not sure why you thought I was referring to an Abrahamic concept when I was talking about a supernatural intercessor. I didn't attribute sentience or omnipotence to it. In the case of Spinoza, the universe is deterministic and prediction of events (supernatural or not) is inherently problematic within that frame of reference. Inside a deterministic bubble, the event of predicting future events inside the bubble from within must necessarily have been preordained by the prima causa. If you are talking about a non-deterministic Spinozism (which is contradictory and not really Spinozan), this immanent God-substance permeates/is everything, including all kinds of thoughts no matter how half-formed or non-action bearing they might be. If you do have access to information regarding future actions, in Spinozan terms, that "mode" has absolutely no substantial difference with any kind of thought. Sure, they might not eventually become actions but metaphysically, there would be absolutely no blockage towards them. Otherwise, you'd need to presume partial immanence or some type of duality/pluralism. Both are antiaxiomatic in this frame of reference.

But to explain how some thoughts become actions and some thoughts just evaporate you don't need to go to metaphysics at all. I thought you meant that thoughts are inaccessible for Tarot whereas you only meant that they are hard to read in the cards.

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.

Would you say that there's any chance that your personal theoretical framework might be having a tangible effect on practical applications, ergo limiting them?

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.

I was pointing to the definition of the "sensible man". I firmly believe that the average "sensible man" would simply laugh at the suggestion that Tarot is anything more than superstition and therefore have a reaction akin to being "shot" with a toy-gun by a child. He won't consider it attempted murder.

To be even less wordy, we're still talking about Tarot. So why so serious?

 

[gregory]

To be even less wordy, we're still talking about Tarot. So why so serious?

ER - I take Tarot very seriously, myself...

 

[Barleywine]

ER - I take Tarot very seriously, myself...

Thanks for that, gregory. I do too, even if tarot is just a small part of a much larger edifice. Anyway, no amount of argument and rebuttal will convice me that trying to read a third party's thoughts and feelings is anything more than a "fishing expedition," and a fairly specious one at that. 'Nuff said, signing off from this thread.

 

[chaosbloom]

I'm a bit perplexed by the last two responses and there's no point in me trying to have the last word or something puerile like that. No offence was meant by my previous post although I do stand by my sentiment that I recognise no holy cows as subjects that should not be touched by intellectual curiosity and criticism.

 

[gregory]

I'm a bit perplexed by the last two responses and there's no point in me trying to have the last word or something puerile like that. No offence was meant by my previous post although I do stand by my sentiment that I recognise no holy cows as subjects that should not be touched by intellectual curiosity and criticism.

You said:

To be even less wordy, we're still talking about Tarot. So why so serious?

That didn't come over as a helpful comment, was all. I don't recognise holy cows, either, but nor do I denigrate something as not serious - when it is; whatever else, tarot is not all ha ha hee hee as Meera Syal would say.