What makes Tarot work?

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 11 May 2002, and now archived in the Forum Library.

AmounrA	11 May 2002
I am quite a scientifically minded person, yet I also completly believe that Tarot cards work. But I am not so sure that the tarot have any more power of divination than tossing coins. Theres a voudoun divination method that involves 4 coins [obi]. Whatever the force that makes tarot work, I would imagine also makes the coins work. If this same force works for the tarot and coins, then would it not mean than anything you asked a question about, baseing an answer on an outcome would also work? Taking this as not being true, why does the truth come some times with some methods? [for example if you where to do 4 self tarot readings in a row, you are very unlikely to get the same reading twice...let alone four times.........this is because the tarot does not in itself break the rules of chance. if i do one reading, am i being foolish in believing that i would get first time lucky?....perhaps the fourth one is correct? but then, how would i know which one was right...given 4 different choices? i am in no way a religous person, i don't even like the term spiritual, as i feel the hidden or deeper parts of self, are basic nature[ or what nature does]. So I guess I am asking how do tarot work?, By looking for meaning in them....do we project meaning into them? [and is that any less valid than spirits projecting meaning into them?]

Kaz	11 May 2002
you can divinate with anything i believe, coins, sticks, trafficlights, you name it. it all works. if you do 4 readings you don't get the same, but that does not imply that one is correct and 3 aren't. maybe they are all correct from a different point of view. i do think you get the cards that you need though, and yes i also think the laws of statistics do apply here. i guess that sums it up for me. just to add this, it's the reader that makes the reading. kaz

fairyhedgehog	11 May 2002
OK, this is just my 2p worth, and I have a feeling that it is a minority opinion. The cards are all archetypes and represent different personality aspects that are present in all of us. When I lay out a spread, the cards chosen are truly random. But I am able to make sense of them because some elements from all the cards are very likely to be present in any given time and situation, and because it is part of human psychology to make sense of things and to tell stories. The value for me is in seeing a story about my life at the moment that might not be the main one I had in my mind before I started. So I get a different view of my situation. Just my point of view, and I fully respect people that have a different view. After all, I may be mistaken :) All the best, FH

emily2otters	11 May 2002
FH, i'm in total agreement with you. i don't think the cards have any special spiritual power, but merely hold up a mirror to our lives. we see things that fit in ways we didn't expect, and it helps us get a grip on our experience. i like the way you put it, that it's "part of human psychology to make sense of things and to tell stories." plus, it's such a pleasant way to pass the time...

jmd	11 May 2002
Well AmounRa, again you begin a thread which will undoubtedly have as many responses as Sanctum Sanctorum had prior to its losses of posts in the move! Rather than re-iterate what some of us have already said, the thread What Drives Tarot may be worthwhile reading (as AmounRa and FairyHedgehog are undoubtedly already aware, as they also contributed there) I notice that you say that you 'don't even like the term spiritual, as I feel the hidden or deeper parts of self, are basic nature'. This of course makes an assumption somewhat different to the one I work from. If the spiritual is fundamentally the very essence of existence, then nature itself, and our own deeper essential parts, are spiritual. This of course has implications not only as to how reading cards works, but also how we explain natural laws and mathematically predictable norms.

fairyhedgehog	12 May 2002
Quote: Originally posted by emily2otters FH, i'm in total agreement with you. i like the way you put it, that it's "part of human psychology to make sense of things and to tell stories." plus, it's such a pleasant way to pass the time... So I'm not a lone voice after all :) And I agree - it is a very pleasant way to pass the time. Also an expensive one when you turn into a taroholic, as most of us here seem to do ...

WolfSpirit	12 May 2002
I don't have a conclusive theory, just a few thoughts: I think everyone will agree psychic powers exist (even police uses clairvoyants) I am sure we can all develop these powers (not in the same degree) if we are willing to learn If you are convinced tarot is 100 % psychology, then it will be like that for you because you will not use your psychic powers (or intuition, or how you would like to call it) I think drawing the cards is intuition and reading them is part psychology. BTW I don't know if you're familiar with this book: Tarotmania-or why only an Idiot would want to become a fool by Jan Woudhuysen I picked it up in a second-hand shop (read: cheap) and I haven't read it all as I am not really into this at the moment, but i believe he goes into the psychology as well.

AmounrA	12 May 2002
I should say that by 'basic nature' I do not mean to inply nature is not aware. I mean in in the sense that we are discovering new depths within nature, but I don't think of thenm as 'supernature', rather 'we' realising just how unbelievably marvelous 'basic' nature is. Clearly the natural world is connected at an extremely deep and unknown way. I have many friends who have studied or are interested in 'science', they all seem to be accepting that 'something weird' is going on in the sub atomic levels, and this manifests in all above levels [atomic, molecular, cellular..] I also completely agree about the extra dimension of stories contained within tarot , which is not present in the coins. I use my tarot more for pathworking and meta-physical ideas/meditations than I ever do for 'divination'. I don't think the tarot is 100% psychology , I have seen cards come up myself many times which almost cause you to laugh out loud, they fit and sum something/someone up so well. I guess my basic query is this...is there some external 'player' causing cards to come up, ........or......is it our own deeper self causing the synchronicities? [i will look out for that book] :-)

WolfSpirit	12 May 2002
Bringing it down to that basic question: I'm inclined it's coming from within yourself, rather than an outside force. I don't think cards act on their own, I see them as a tool rather than an independent force. For example: if I get a new deck of tarots and it is not "working", I think I have to become familiar with the deck, I don't think the deck has absorbed some funny things on the way (I know for sure some people don't agree with me). The psychology remark was more to do with fairyhedgehog's post who makes up her/his own story and thinks the cards are completely picked at random. I hope this connects with the points you were making. Don't you just love it, we all have our own opinion :)

Kiama	13 May 2002
I get aked this question a hell of alot when in college. People there have a tendency to read over your shoulder when you're browsing the Net, so they usually end up seeing me spend hours on here! Which leads to questions... And readings... And finally, conversion to Tarot-dom. }) Nah, just kidding! Altho, questions abound. This one, asked by AmounRa, is the most common. There are so many different theories! My favourite two are: a) The unconscious mind is an amazing thing: It actually knows all the answers to our questions before we ask them. So, when we are shuffling, we are actually drven by our unconsious mind to shuffle in such a way that we are shown the answers. BUT, this theory doesn't hold much water with most people, and I can see why. Its not even like we can prove any part of its claims! b) It is the reader that makes it work, not the cards. We merely stretch the cards' meanings to fit the question asked. For some reason, people then suddenly think that Tarot is pointless, cuz it isn't the cards themselves that do the work. So,I tell them that if they come to me with a problem, I could just as easily solve it with the Tarot as prompters, and then they'd think it wasn't useless! Of course, this theory doesn't explain how we can tell from Tarot things like pregancy, or sudden illness, or surprises that we don't even know about... Any comments? Kiama

Malachite	13 May 2002
I guess I feel mostly that Tarot works through interpretation...the unconcious mind picks out the relevant thoughts that the other parts of the mind will deny...any divination technique will do this, provided you accept the answers that your mind gives you... I guess wrong interpretations come when the subconcious gets too heavily involved, when you see what you WANT to see, rather than what you NEED to see... But that doesn't stop me thinking that my guides don't push me along the right way occasionally, either in choosing cards, or interpreting them...

AmounrA	13 May 2002
Thanks for replies:-) One of the biggest problems I have, and a reason I have a negative reaction to the word 'spiritual' is this- If the cards come up due to the self, through some type of deep mind manipulation/future knowledge of the physical world, why does this 'force' not do more to stop suffering in the world? Why for example doesn't this force/intuition mean soilders avoid bullets, and staving people can be lead to food. Why doesn't nature make more of such an ability? If it is an outside force that manipulates the cards, this force[god/goddess/spirit/etb..etc..] must have the ability to manipulate the physical world. Why then, instead of playing games with cards, doesn't this force manipulate the weather to rain in drought areas, cause all weopons to malfuntion, stop the mass murder of other species by humanity? If the 'universe is love' why is there so must brutality? I know many will think its free will, but someone who is murdered [i am sure] had there free will stomped upon, by anothers 'free will' to kill them. This all reads quite negative, but I do not mean to be so, these are tough questions which I am often asked, and to be honest, I have a hard time explaining . I really do believe that tarot cards work, but how? perhaps the force involved is 'blind', perhaps it doesn't care........perhaps theres a 'rule' it can't get involved directly,.....but perhaps I am full of false sentiment, projecting human expectations of 'good' into a larger force which does not think or act like us............

magicmadrigal	13 May 2002
[quote]Originally posted by AmounrA [b]Thanks for replies:-) snipped for brevity :) You asked: If the 'universe is love' why is there so must brutality? I know many will think its free will, but someone who is murdered [i am sure] had there free will stomped upon, by anothers 'free will' to kill them. But that is exactly it. Free Will - we all choose our time, and way of departure from the physical plane of existence. We are given many opportunities, and the choices we make or don't make and the paths we choose along the way bring us to various intersections. Call it what you will, karma, free will, destiny, kismet... it's all part of the big picture. There has to be brutality for there to be compassion, love for indifference, ying for yang, it maintains the balance. For nothing can be perfect, it's all just shades of grey. MagicMadrigal

Major Tom	14 May 2002
Quote: Originally posted by AmounrA Thanks for replies:-) If the 'universe is love' why is there so must brutality? I know many will think its free will, but someone who is murdered [i am sure] had there free will stomped upon, by anothers 'free will' to kill them. ,.....but perhaps I am full of false sentiment, projecting human expectations of 'good' into a larger force which does not think or act like us............ *sigh* The problem of evil. :) Magicmadrigal is right - it is free will. My wise friend Faunabay quotes "Your intentions create your experiences." My twist on it is that God is everything. Me, you, the murderer and the murdered. The chair I'm sitting on, the coffee I'm drinking and the mug I'm drinking it from. If you wish to live a life free from evil and brutality - be very sure of your intentions. })

Aerin	14 May 2002
I'm with several people here. I believe that the Tarot provides us with a mirror for our unconscious mind to look in and find the answers it already knows, but hasn't yet presented to our conscious mind. And that the cards work so well because they contain such rich symbolism. Looking at a card sets off several different connections. There is a non-Tarot exercise you can do where someone thinks of their problem and then someone else just starts telling a random fairytale they make up as they go along, it almost always the case that the person with the problem finds something to latch on to which helps them. I think this works in a similar way to Tarot: our minds are brilliant at making connections and working with metaphors. I would be very interested to do the same spread for several different people's questions: my guess is that they would all find something of relevance in the spread for them. I know a lot of people wouldn't agree with me, but as an ex-scientist I find this interpretation of Tarot works for me. I also think that as we are psychologically programmed to look for patterns, we notice things after a reading which link with the cards and don't necessarily notice everything which doesn't. There's a link with psychology schema theory here. I also agree that pretty much any divination system works, it is a case of finding a stimulus which helps you. I have a book called 'Dreaming Realities' by Overdorf and Silverthorn, which has a dream interpretation system in it. They say there that the same system could be used starting with a few rocks or anything and you would most likely get to the same understanding, it is just that dreams are symbols which are personal to you. I think that we are drawn to particular Tarot decks, and why as we work with them more and more we find them becoming more effective. Our unconscious minds symbolism is linking with the Tarot deck. Aerin

fairyhedgehog	14 May 2002
Hi Aerin, I was very interested in your post which made a lot of sense to me. I don't really know about pschology schema theory - are there any book you would recommend on that aspect of psychology? All the best, FH

Kiama	14 May 2002
Ah, the Problem Of Evil... I love this subject... So, let me say this, and it is in no way meant to be nasty to anybody... Why do we, as humans, expect to be living in a world where there is no suffering, no harm, no pain...? Why do we expect total comfort, and, basically, a hedonistic paradise to be given to us? If there is a spiritual force out there, which the Problem of Evil needs, to actually be a Problem in the first place, then that force is more like a parent to us... your parents, they didn't make you grow up in a perfect world, molly-coddled, and kept away from any form of danger, hurt, upset, etc, cuz its bad for our growth, both physically, emotionaly, mentally, and spiritually. In the same way, the spiritual force 'out there' has created for us a Universe where we can face challenegs of pain, suffering, etc, in order to grow. It is only when we do not see these things as challenges that we start asking questions like the Problem of Evil. It is man's nature to do this though: It all does seem unfair, and indeed, the theory I have purported here leads to more questions: How can a baby who dies within 2 weeks grow from its experience? Why go through all this suffeing and worldwide distress just so we can spiritually evolve? Nobody has thought of the answers yet, and the most anybody has done is to call these questions 'questioning the motives of God', which, IMO, is a cop-out answer. The Problem of Evil is a philosophical jackpot. The person who finally solves it, it will be heaven on Earth... Of course, that person would actually need to be Divine being themsleves to solve such a question. (Gimme a couple of years... ;) ) The Tarot, if there is such a spiritual force, is manipulated by that spiitual force (This isn't my opinion, but a speculation on if there is a spiritual force...) so that we can aid in our growth throughout these challenges. It makes us more aware of what we will go through, how to cope, and what to learn from it. It just makes everything much easier to learn, and prepares us for the challenges ahead. Kiama

fairyhedgehog	14 May 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Kiama If there is a spiritual force out there, which the Problem of Evil needs, to actually be a Problem in the first place I agree. So, for me as an atheist, there is no 'problem of evil' :) I don't like terrible things happening, but I don't have trouble explaining them ;) Regards, FH

Aerin	14 May 2002
Hi fairyhedgehog, here are a couple of weblinks which might help. They talk about how me have mental models of the world which we use to interpret it, and how sometimes these cause us to misremember things or to notice them differently in the first place. Kiama will know all about this from her eyewitness memory stuff! What you expect influences what you experience and remember. http://chd.gse.gmu.edu/immersion/knowledgebase/strategies/cognitivism/SchemaTheory.htm http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Modules/TF33120/schematv.html Aerin

Persha	14 May 2002
Quote: Originally posted by AmounrA If it is an outside force that manipulates the cards, this force [god/goddess/spirit/etb..etc..] must have the ability to manipulate the physical world. Why then, instead of playing games with cards, doesn't this force manipulate the weather to rain in drought areas, cause all weopons to malfuntion, stop the mass murder of other species by humanity? [/b] I think with this outside force you assume too much , mainly that it is a) intelligent b) benevolent and c) powerful enough to affect things larger/more important than playing cards. One idea I like is that an outside force affecting the cards would be exactly that, a natural force like gravity. A kind of 'truth' force that the cards respond to. :TAS

fairyhedgehog	14 May 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Aerin Hi fairyhedgehog, here are a couple of weblinks which might help. Thanks, Aerin, I'll check those out :) Regards, FH

Jewel	14 May 2002
Going back to the question of how does the Tarot work, IMHO it is the combination of intuituion and psychology described by many who responded before me. Our subconscious mind connects with those symbols or images that we are in need of recognizing at the time. That to me explains why sometimes I see things in cards I had never seen before. It is that connection and association we make, which as humans we are quite good at as pointed out in previous posts. Like you, AmounrA, I don't use the Tarot often for divination, thus what I see in the Tarot pertains to me and I believe it is my subconscious mind highlighting the message in symbols and imagery that I can relate to at a coscious level so I can make the connection. When I do, things usually start to unfold.

jmd	14 May 2002
It took me a while, but I finally remembered when we discussed this another time: At What Makes Tarot Work? Part 1 and Part 2. With regards to the spiritual world, making an assumption that a single being somehow is involved does lead a a particular view. Elemental beings, angelic beings, and the rest of the spiritual hierarchies may very well be involved in every part of the process, in different ways... including assistance in reading to the person open to their influences. Further, that there are beings of Light does not preclude that all spiritual beings are such... and we must not forget our own failings and selfish and cruel inclinations. So how does Tarot work? Cards are not just coloured pieces of cardboard... though they are composed of such. To say that they are just bits of cardboard is to assume that what you are reading here are 'just' luminous dots. This is the medium through which what I seek to convey is carried. Its meaning, however, transcends merely my own intentions... for there is a whole symbolic realm that these have to 'enter' in order for you to share my meaning. Also, in the creation of any symbolic and significant art, it is certainly possible that spiritual beings are 'summoned' by the activity itself, and engage in the very process of the creation. If this is the case, then it may very well be that each Tarot deck, though having similarities, has had various kinds of assistance from various beings... of course, any physicalist will reject all this. But on what grounds? As for a specific reading and its interpretation, in one the links above I mention my thoughts... and I've already probably made this post somewhat longer than I intended!

Kiama	15 May 2002
Quote: Originally posted by jmd Also, in the creation of any symbolic and significant art, it is certainly possible that spiritual beings are 'summoned' by the activity itself, and engage in the very process of the creation. If this is the case, then it may very well be that each Tarot deck, though having similarities, has had various kinds of assistance from various beings... of course, any physicalist will reject all this. But on what grounds? Not that I'm a Physicalist, but... How would you actually defend that view? How would you prove it? If a physicalist can't deny it on any grounds, on what grounds could the non-physicalist prove it? Kiama

magicmadrigal	15 May 2002
Someone asked about a book regarding Tarot and psychology. One that I've enjoyed is "Jung and the Tarot" by Sallie Nichols. It isn't a light read though :) Now.. back to our discussion, I do not believe that there is pure evil or pure good, everything is a shade of grey so to speak. I prefer to use light and dark in these discussions rather than good and evil. We all have aspects of light and dark within ourselves. It's just part of human nature. I also think that we do ourselves a big disservice if we don't take the time to explore our dark sides to see what makes those human traits in each of us tick. If we don't know the dark how can we ever understand let alone attain the light? Now normally I would say, I could never kill another human being, and that would be a true statement, however... and here comes the tricky part... what if my life was endangered? what if my child's life was endangered? what if my killing a single person prevented the next Hitler? There are million questions and exceptions that I can think of to that one question... would I kill another human being? You can imagine the tapestry of all the other hard questions in life. There are just too many factors, exceptions, contingencies, circumstances, perceptions, etc... the list goes on and on. This isn't to say that I don't understand what you are saying about evil, I do. My problem is with who defines exactly what is evil and what isn't. I think there are some parameters and guidelines that make us a civilized society, but there are times that I have to wonder exactly how far have we advanced beyond neanderthals? I once thought tolerance was a goal, but that seems so little. Do we just wish to be tolerated? I think we deserve better than that. I don't think we need to be accepting of all, but there has to be some mutual ground where we can at the very least coexist in if not in harmony at least with less acrimony. Magicmadrigal

AmounrA	15 May 2002
Thanks for replies[again:-)] Magicmadrigil, [orion?] . I understand what you are saying about killing for example a person who would become a new hitler . This is one of the key 'laws' of buddism. The tibetians did not fight back against the invading chinese, because they would not condon killing a person for any reason.......even when it was an invading army. A few years ago I met an sanga[buddist monk] who had escaped tibet, and had killed a chinese solider in doing so. He was 'excomunicated', but was still allowed to live in the temple and carry out 'full duties'. It was understood but not condoned, even though he had been badly abused by the chinese, the killing was still viewed as a mistake.......the reason being his[the monks life] was not worth anothers. There views about a new hitler would be the same, as they believe in reincarnation, death is not seen as bad or to be feared. Projecting this onto the 'good evil' battle, it would perhaps show that the evil in the world is not 'really' harmful, as death brings release. Perhaps the forces in operation are not being 'callas', perhaps from the other side of the fence , there is no real harm being done....and the murderer gets condems themselves , by missing out so much life has to offer. jmd, I did write a reply to you also, but for some reason it has not appeared....I will re-write it tommorrow, when I recover from the dissappointment:-(

jmd	16 May 2002
Regarding Kiama's earlier question to my post, about 'How would you prove it?'... I do not seek to prove it to others. I suppose that in that post, I sought to somewhat explain my own views on some of the factors which may be involved. Any views expressed will be embedded within a conceptual framework which somehow seeks and attempts to understand the world. What physicalists often do is to ask for a proof which presupposes their own framework... and yet, that very framework (of the physicalist) cannot, for example, explain the qualic properties of the perception of colour... yet, and of course, they do not thereby abandon the foundation of their worldview, but rather trust (ie, have faith) that at some stage of in the future, such will be able to be explained within a framework they suppose to be somewhat correct. What I attempted to do was to firstly broadly outline some of the framework I work from in order to make sense of any answer to the question posted by AmounRa. As a Renaissance scientist would reject any explanation which indicated 'action at a distance', so will any materialists reject any explanation which uses the spiritual realm as part of its explanation... this does not, of course, make this realm non-existent. I would say that, for each of us, the increased ability to answer the question will be partly dependant on our increased ability to carefully perceive each aspect of what is really going on in every aspect of a reading. Such careful observation must, of course, be undertaken with an open mind, without presuming that some things are impossible. ______ With regards to AmounRa's missing post, I'm looking forward to reading it... (and isn't it a nuisance when one takes the time to respond... only to have something go wrong and lose one's work!) _______ With the problems of Hitler, rather than the proposed killing, part of the problem isn't his own 'evilness', but also, presumably, the evil deeds performed by so many others. This is possibly where the provision and encouragement of a healthy life for each of us and those around us becomes such an important factor for a healthy social order.

Kiama	16 May 2002
Hi JMD! I was kinda trying to lead into a bit of a sideline regarding communication with other beings... There seems to be quite alot of research out there somewhere to do wh this, and I thought it might be useful to assess whether or not these other beings could have an affect on the cards we draw... Kiama

magicmadrigal	16 May 2002
I had a revelation last night (or maybe it was the vicodin I'm taking for a root canal :)) So, I'm just gonna throw this out there to see what other's think. To me the tarot is an illustration of the circle of life and the circles with in the big circle. The Major Arcana is the archetypal journey of our lives from birth (the Fool) to the point you reach total unity with the universe (The World). The minors or pips are are the details or idiosyncracies that affect us in the smaller cycles of our lives emotionally (cups), our conflicts and decisions (swords), our worldly possessions (pentacles) and our activities and enterprises (wands). The court cards are the people and/or human traits. These aspects are all part of human nature and how we interact with each other and the universe. The spreads are just away to look at the story of our lives as it unfolds, giving us insights to where we are and where we need to be. As to how it all actually works - I think it's our energy and how our minds decipher the story at any given time. And maybe it's even a little magickal :) MagicMadrigal

jmd	16 May 2002
With that, magicmadrigal, you have certainly lived up to your name... if only we could have heard it ourselves in multi-voiced harmonies. I would like to therefore echo your own work here: Life's circle's epicycles symbol'd upon Tarot: To the Fool we strive as integrated spirit's World, 'midst life's peculiar moments, epicycling our soul's feeling life, and judgements made, and deeds done thus, within this world of Earth... And all the while, others do we behold, and they and us, weave onwards far. The Tarot spreads, reveals for us, such moments... as books open'd can do. But whence, do we still ask, comes such guidance divine?

jmd	17 May 2002
Kiama, thanks for your posts... and as always, they make me reflect more on my own possible answers... even if they are never to the satisfaction of others! You mention that there might be quite a lot of research out there to do with communication with other beings. I would think that, on the one hand, much of that 'research' would not be acceptable to those whose basic beliefs precludes the existence of spiritual beings. On the other hand, I suspect that this research would also be quite unacceptable to many of us who do strive to work with the spiritual realm and the inhabitants therein. For myself, much of the 'acceptable' research is in striving to understand how the various spiritual beings affect and play through incarnated ones such as ourselves, and others whose levels of incarnation may not be to the same extant (such as the zoological and botanical world). Though not exclusively, but the works of R. Steiner, R Lully, Trithemius, Trismegistus, Dionysius the Aeropagite, Agrippa, F. Barrett and the like form as much part of the research.... or in fact even more so, than any so-called experiment which may be deemed more acceptable to the scientific community. Having said this, I am eager to read comments from others who may take on your lead...

MeeWah	17 May 2002
JMD: Many thanks for posting links to those earlier discussions! & thank you for your poem. MagicMadrigal: Tarot in a nutshell. Very succinctly expressed!

Kiama	17 May 2002
JMD: 'Research'... I didn't mean experiments and what have you into this subject, because I very much doubt there are, like you said, any experiments into such a topic that could be accepted! What I was referring to is mediums, and Near Death Expereinces... Near Death Experiences kinda indicate that there is a spiritual world. Much of what happens in these NDE's can be argued against by science, exept for some of the major points, such as: How come, when the experiencer wakes up, they can report back to the doctors who treated them for say, Cardiac Arrest, exactly what they said, what they did, etc, without being wrong? Science hasn't managed to work this out yet... And another thing that cannot be qorked out by science is when there are family accidents, and each family member is seperated for treatment... Cases where a family member wh ohas an NDE sees a family member who has just died, which they didn't know about, have been reported... They didn't know that the person they just saw in their NDE had died... Most people say that this indicates the existence of the spritual world, or at least a world beyond this plane of existence. I think I saw something about an experiment into, called the Scole Experiment, whcih looked into whether or not there were beings who lived in another plane... Does anyone know about this at all? We can also look at the experiences of people who have seen angels, ghosts, spirits, etc... But then we need to ask just how accurate these experiences really are, and if they are valid at all. (This isn't my opinion: I'm just saying what some scholars might say...) Hmm.. Lots to think about. I guess what I'm mainly asking is, Can we really prove he existence of spiritual beings? And if we wanted to, is there any evidence? Kiama

AmounrA	17 May 2002
Although I said I have problems with the term 'spiritual', I am in many ways being a devils advocate and a stiffler about word play. I have no doubt they the earth has highly evolved beings which are undectable by our senses. [in some sense i believe water is concious and aware]. I also have no doubt that there are beings from other worlds who are skilled in the art of channelling meditations and ideas into beings instantly. To me this is not outside science or nature. No rules of nature are broken to allow such highly evolved/more ancient ways of being. Theres a great scientist Dr John Lilly who has done some excellent work in this area...he invented isolation tanks, and during many experiments reported contacts from beings outside our realities/experience. I feel strongly that these beings can suggest ideas and nudge people into connecting ideas[einstien for one]. I certainly agree with you about this area jmd, its just a question of you calling them spiritual, and me calling them higher evolved beings, basically though, the names don't matter:-) With regards as to how the tarot work, I have a theory its works in the same manner as 'schrodingers cat'. By this I mean that until a card is turned and observed...it could be any card, as such I feel 'higher evolutionary beings/ deeper self can cause the cards they want to appear, as until observed no laws of nature would be 'openly broken'. I think these deeper aspects of the self/outside beings can get into the very fabric of energy, an can cause changes that are not observed happening. The reason the same cards would not come out time after time is because that would break the laws of chance, which could be mesured and observed. [have to stop as short for time:-)]

MeeWah	17 May 2002
Amounra: Regarding your comment that Water is conscious & aware--check this: www.wellnessgoods.com/art_wat_messages.html Please let me know if this link works. I am convinced that there are levels of being on this plane that man has not begun to know.

MeeWah	17 May 2002
Regarding the experiencing of non-corporeal beings, I can refer to one experience when I was 16, after surgery. This may be a wee off-topic but I remember being in a gray place with shadow people. They did not seem aware of me, but I was aware of them & of myself, although not in a physical sense. I awoke to discover I had been in a coma for 3 days; nearly given up for dead (at one point, a priest & my parents had been called to hospital). Nurses told me the young intern at my bedside had stayed with me, calling me back. The lead surgeon warned me there would probably be some memory loss; however, I remember my mother & a man dressed in black & others near before I awoke.

Diana	17 May 2002
edited

Kiama	17 May 2002
Quote: Originally posted by AmounrA Theres a great scientist Dr John Lilly who has done some excellent work in this area...he invented isolation tanks, and during many experiments reported contacts from beings outside our realities/experience. This sound highly interesting... Would you be kind enough to enlighten me as to what the experiences he reported were like... Was it him himself that had them, or was it other subjects? And, more importantly, what did the beings say?! :P ;) Kiama

AmounrA	17 May 2002
I have just looked again at dr lillys website and am saddened to discovered he died last year. His experiences where with what he discribed as a earth coincidence control office [ecco]. try this link - http://www.deoxy.org/lilly.htm Regarding water as concious and aware, I will seek out that book :-). Its often struck me , that as water makes up most body weight , and brain weight, if it was a lifeform, which was concious of all parts of itself, despite local seperation, then water would be aware of every living thing on the planet, it could connect with every living thing on the planet. Its a very simple moleculer structure, and I do personally think of it as living. [ did someone win a noble prize some years back for showing you could programme information into water?] A big problem I have with the word 'spiritual' is its connections with religious dogma. I have myself had some strange encounters and a powerful o.b.e experence, which left me thinking that life after death was possible...probable?.....but I would not see it as a spiritual experience or spiritual realm, I would see it as an extra dimension to life. Theres a well known institute in Edinburgh, the koestler institute, which carrys out genuine research into esp and remote viewing. All there tests are carried out under the strictest conditions. There results are trustworthy and clearly show, way above chance results, and they acknowledge 'something' is clearly going on. heres a link- http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/ It shows this area can be experimented with scientifically. The institute is locacted inside the university of edinburgh, a well respected uni.

jmd	20 May 2002
Regarding 'research', I thought I would add another comment... it's my excuse to keep this great thread alive! Possibly the greatest amount of research which has been undertaken lies within various esoteric traditions... whether this be Buddhist, Christian, Jewish or otherwise. In this sense, one can see how the Mystic, from whichever tradition, walks a razer's edge between orthodoxy and heresy... this walking, in turn, becomes with time part of the tradition and the expanded body of knowledge. To do research, then, involves, in my opinion, primarily familiarising oneself with the various esoteric traditions. From there, the personal experimental aspect will lead to objective deepened knowledge, understanding and wisdom (in the ancient Greek sense of knowing how to use or apply this understanding).

AmounrA	20 May 2002
I completely agree jmd. the tight rope between Orthodoxy and heresy is a fine one. It applies not only to the esoteric seeker, but also to the scientist. I feel this whole area has been neglegted by scientists, and infact scientists looking into this area are frowned upon [look what happened to timothy leary and wilhiem riech]. I think this comes about because when 'modern science practice' was started, the catholic church almost declared war on it, as a result it seems [to me] that science decided to go hell for leather in proving there was no god. That the universe was rational and blind chance. This model held up to sum degree, but it really is nonsense...........universe and lifeforms are not rational or normal, and chance is not a player. saying this, I think all the sciences are now making discoveries every day, which really only go to add to the mystery....not take away. A beautiful example of this is the dna spiral, to me this is more 'magick' than the foolish beliefs that went before. The discovery of natures code only goes to underline we are dealing with a major intelligence ......and spirals of life?..show to me that the esoteric students of the past where on the ball. Indeed much of the tibetian beliefs and teachings about the unreality of 'reality' are being proven today by modern 'scientists/psycologists'. Esoteric schools have been aware of relativity for hundreds [if not thousands] of years. Science is certainly not looking directly for evidence of a 'universal mind', but because they are studying the fabric and methods of matter/nature, they are findingevidence anyway. I really believe in the next few years science will openly accept that matter is intelligent.....not god though, this is way smarter than that:-). I firmly believe that the conciousness we are aware of in our heads goes out limitlessly from 'us', that our ego/personality are localised and our brains are a very smart mechanism which opens portals to the outside,much like the deep sea subs, our bodies are the tools for interacting. This conciousness is not us though, we are not real in any tangable sense. I think this idea is also found in buddist doctrines and is where the tree of life leads.......this is where my research is leading me. out there from us in this limitless conciousness realms, are many [limitless] other beings, some with there own portals on other worlds. To me the constant string of 'same' characters different names spread out throughout the great and small religons and esoteric students show interaction with the same beings. Its well know for example that the highpriestess is not human, and only appears in human guise for the benifit of design and human interaction. [no buddist for example would say that tara was a real human woman]. But whatever 'tara' is ,[she] it is real. I think any one seeking esoteric understanding and wisdom only has to close there eyes and call..............the universe will come visiting [with its bag of tricks ]

jmd	27 May 2002
Just another excuse to add to this thread! 'Orthodoxy' means 'true opinion', and 'heresy' means 'choice'. And I of course agree with AmounRa that walking this tight-rope isn't restricted to the traveller on the esoteric path. With regards to Tarot, and 'how it works', we are all travelling on the path, hopefully, towards ortho-doxia, through our own hairesios made in personal Freedom. Also as AmounRa suggested, new insights or discoveries are made each day, which truly add to the mysterium, and hence renders us speechless and blind to the inner realities, awakening in us awe and reverence for our world. The question is, if these new discoveries do indeed 'close' (from the Greek etymological root of 'mysterium') us from certain openings, then what renders this veil?

Kiama	27 May 2002
Y'know, if JMD and AmounRa collaborated, and wrote a book on this, I reckon it'd become a classic and must-read within months! :D I wish I had something intelligent to add to what AmounRa had to say in his/her last post, cuz that was pretty amazing stuff... All I can say is that science in itself has much contradiction as to what can and cannot be researched or theorised about: Lovelock, when he purported his famous Gaia theory, was practically shunned by much of the scientific world! His theories were debased, and he was accused of primal superstition... Some things, even for science, are 'too far'... Anyway, keep this up guys! You're doing great! Kiama

All Is One	28 May 2002
I finally stumbled across this thread... I really enjoyed the many ideas posted, and so well- by so many: just one thing~ I was raised by an athiest father who is also a Professor of Biochemistry, and a mother who is a Unitarian Minister (and prof. musician) so I had a split world view anyway~ The issue of trying to "prove" something becomes a non-issue when you consider how completely our minds control our perceptions. How could I convince my father that Tarot, or the concept of divine conciousness at any level, was "valid" ?? I could summon up a lightning bolt of blazing neon pink to strike the chair where he sat, adding full thunder and Wagner opera special audio effects~ (as if I could~~ha) He is a cynic and the bolt and thunder and setting planets on fire would never faze his belief system. I admire the original question, it is a fascinating subject all around.

AmounrA	28 May 2002
hello all is one, I agree that each of us sees a slightly different world view, and there is no single world view which is correct. But if the question is ...is there an intelligence within matter, then that can be proved [much the same as it can be 'proved'[with due respect to relativity] that a chimpanze is intelligent]. If we are asking could such an intelligence interact with our reality tunnels, causing say, certain cards to appear in a tarot reading, then I agree, we become hopelessy subjective, and go beyond the realms where scientific proof can be obtained. A s for you beng able to prove to your father the existence of a divine conciousness, I would find that difficult...........in the sense that I believe it can be proved there is a 'bigger' player /larger intelligence 'out there[in there?], but 'divine'? That is where the question becomes flawed. As I said earlier, I have a dislike for the word 'spiritual', very much on these grounds. The lighting bolt could happen, chance allows it [perhaps not neon pink:-)] ....but to me magick is not about levitating tables, its about exploring nature and conciousness. [ it strikes me that as science studies nature, it is really a friend of magick......and so it has proved, i think you will agree that the more advanced we become, the more refined our measurements become ...the more truley marvelous the whole universe appears to be. some things can be proved , for example, water exists [although i know its not called water, and the image i have of it are born of my sensory limitations ] And as the monty python song says 'nothing can come from nothing', an that simple 'fact?' would seem to imply that rational logic of the scientist is not mirroring the [real] universe. [for something to come from nothing, would imply that nothing had 'potential' and therefore was not truely nothing..........which leaves us with the mindbending concept that nothing can not exist , or ever have existed, if, something happens ever..............and say what you will about the subjectivity of concious viewpoints, you can not deny that its something. is it really concievable that in a limitless history of this something [matter/energy/in 'space/abyss] , that this something has never obtained a greater 'intellect' and awareness than us mere specks on this little ball ?............. as jmd says, it a mystery.......and like all good mysteries, 'some one did it' thanks kiama;-)

All Is One	29 May 2002
Well~ I think you may have taken my very basic point in a more serious context than I intended. I was speaking, and thinking, metaphorically. I do not much relate to the idea that we (OK~I) ever need to discuss or dissect the concepts of 'spirituality' or the idea that a higher plane of conciousness does exist; and I can't imagine what I would say if my beliefs were called out to battle~ I would be as silent as a tree that did NOT fall in the forest with no one to hear. But I sincerely respect your effort to discover the forces ~ and your desire to quantify the ~IMHO~ unquantifiable. I spent more than a few years as a Philosophy major, with a minor in Ancient Greek, at the Univ of New Mexico. (While living with my father- president of the Philosophy Club - no joke-) This is why I can't explain my Path~ it took me at least 20 years to find my way to Poetry that does not DECONSTRUCT itself: To learn how to see tarot my own way~ see- Florinda Donner in "Being in Dreaming"~ To become one with my flock of birds and my entirely annoying (?) peace with all things wild and illogical. ***side note: My best subject in my Philosophy studies- Symbolic Logic! Now I pay my respects to Loki and leave the symbolic and other forms of logic to those who are happy doing the formulas. AmounrA~ I respect everything you have said, and I really intend no dissent at all. I just wanted to present the idea that perception is all we have and that the individual's perception is too complex to actually prove anything it does not want to accept. The neon pink lightning bolt (heehee) was a figure of speech~ but it would NOT persuade my father and it did not work for you. . . My methaphorical tangle~ Alison

jmd	30 May 2002
Glad to see All Is One has added to this discussion... and thanks for what I'll have to take as a wonderful compliment, Kiama! As you are both interested in Philosophy and in Poetry (now, how would one express this wonderful double ambiguity in symbolic Logic!?!), it is probably worth mentioning again that wonderful philosopher Bachelard (which I have before paraphrased in Sanctum Sanctorum). My main reason for adding to this thread is to add a comment to all-is-one's 'perception is all we have and that the individual's perception is too complex to actually prove anything it does not want to accept'. Perception is not, after all, all we have, for it is supplemented by thinking. Perception provides for us a window through which the world can reveal itself, but unless it is enriched with thinking, it remains very much meaningless. In a Tarot reading, something of a similar nature also happens, for it is not just the perception of the cards which are at hand, but also our thinking which enriches and makes meaning of them, both individually and collectively. This act of thinking as very much part of the complete process remains, often, unacknowledged by even those of us with philosophical interests.

Kiama	30 May 2002
Quote: Originally posted by All Is One The neon pink lightning bolt (heehee) was a figure of speech~ but it would NOT persuade my father and it did not work for you. . . My methaphorical tangle~ Alison In fact, you could say that nothing can be proved to some people. Good ole David Hume couldn't acept even that you could actually prove anything exists at all.. He wouldn't accept that we have any proof for the Earth existing, or even that we exist.. (And if you think about his half-hearted Philosophy, he does have a point, although it doesn't serve a purpose...) I agree that for some people, you cannot prove certain things. People who have already convinced themselves that, say, Tarot doesn't work, I don't think can be effectively shown otherwise.... This is the case with most of my family. With this thead, there are no answers or theories about how Tarot works that would convince a sceptic. Its a bit like St Anlem's and Aquinas' attempts to prove God exists... They weren't actually set out to prove God to non-believers, but they were set out to help believers grow in their understanding of God. I think the same is true o the questions asked in this thread: Whilst theories about how Tarot works are not set out to convince the sceptic, they are set out to help us Tarot-ers to grow in our understanding and love of Tarot. Kiama

purplelady	30 May 2002
Quote: Originally posted by AmounrA Thanks for replies:-) One of the biggest problems I have, and a reason I have a negative reaction to the word 'spiritual' is this- If the cards come up due to the self, through some type of deep mind manipulation/future knowledge of the physical world, why does this 'force' not do more to stop suffering in the world? Why for example doesn't this force/intuition mean soilders avoid bullets, and staving people can be lead to food. Why doesn't nature make more of such an ability? If it is an outside force that manipulates the cards, this force [god/goddess/spirit/etb..etc..] must have the ability to manipulate the physical world. Why then, instead of playing games with cards, doesn't this force manipulate the weather to rain in drought areas, cause all weopons to malfuntion, stop the mass murder of other species by humanity? If the 'universe is love' why is there so must brutality? I know many will think its free will, but someone who is murdered [i am sure] had there free will stomped upon, by anothers 'free will' to kill them. This all reads quite negative, but I do not mean to be so, these are tough questions which I am often asked, and to be honest, I have a hard time explaining . I really do believe that tarot cards work, but how? perhaps the force involved is 'blind', perhaps it doesn't care........perhaps theres a 'rule' it can't get involved directly,.....but perhaps I am full of false sentiment, projecting human expectations of 'good' into a larger force which does not think or act like us............ "If there is an outside force that manipulates the cards..........this force must have the ability to manipulate the physical world" There is no outside force, it is all YOU ( though Maybe a "higher" you , or a superconscious part of you). "You" simply haven't yet learned to masterfully manipulate the physical world, but we ARE learning! Maybe that is why we are here?! Maybe our thoughts and beliefs that will things to happen , that I believe create the world and make things happen , simply haven't developed to the masterful stage. For instance, do you ever Have a Negative Thought? But maybe the next moment you have a positive thought . Maybe your thoughts are confusing the great big master of reality?! Can you hold a totally positive thought and belief about reality every minute of every day? Some claim that is exactly what jesus and buddha and other great masters did................ A 2 year old may be learning to write the alphabet, but it just comes out indecipherable scribbles. However, it doesn't at all mean the 2 year old should give up, or not believe in writing. There's my belief of the moment , in a nutshell!

augursWell	30 May 2002
If one can accept the idea of an Infinite "Something" that pervades everything, inside me inside you all the way out there all the way deep down everywhere, then everything in existence, past present future, is part of one "whole". The concept of "I" does not exist except in the sense of how each living thing goes about its business in life. Living things are all autonymous in the way that they think and function. To me this is the source of "Good" and "Evil". That divine spark is in us all, even atheists(I'm not equating atheists with evil), but we all choose whether or not to listen to that spark, or even believe that it exists, and we choose our own actions which may be good or evil as a result of everything that we are. The fact that any one of us is even *alive* is the proof of a divine spark, in my thinking. The fact that I can even think or speak or talk or say "my thinking" is proof of a spark. The fact that anyone was able to create the Web, this website, this forum software, and all of the posts on it, is proof of a "divine spark". Where does the soul come from when we are conceived? Where does it go when we die? The soul is a divine spark that must quest through an entire life, clothed in whatever body it was given, to find some purpose and resolution. I would like to know what an atheist says is that "soul" or whatever it is that makes them alive if it is not "God". Focusing on "I" is the problem. Tarot cards are "chance". They present you with a set of ideas symbolized by the cards that are outside of your "I"-ness. *You* may be focusing on something because of the constant chatter of I, I, I. But the cards say "wait a second, think about this". As to how the cards come up the way they do in a spread... I think that's another post as I really should go and make and eat my dinner right now. :)

jmd	31 May 2002
Kiama, you make a wonderful point worth reparaphrasing: descriptions which attempt to explain aspects as to how Tarot works help us in our love for, and our deepening understanding of, this wonderful 'book'. I think it was either Russell or Quine who, effectively agreeing with Hume, said that the Humean condition is the human condition. Personally, I do not agree, but maybe I'll leave that for another time. ________ augursWell, glad to also read your input! Your post reminds me of, in some respect, with views held by members of Lectorium Rosicrucianum... (I'm not suggesting that you would agree with all their views, by the way - rather, I find your choice of words interesting and quite in line with theirs). However, is the relationship between the cards and the reader, merely 'chance' for the former, and too much egotistic reflection of the latter, or is there something else at play? I would personally agree with a view which acknowledges the pervasiveness of the spiritual dimension of all that is around (and inside!), but would question the reductionist view (effectively, another cut from Ockham's razor) which would 'limit' the existence of non-incarnated beings as solely 'sparks from the Divine'. With purplelady (wonderful to also see your participation!), I would agree that 'we ARE learning' - and growing and developing - as Spiritual beings - in the process.

AmounrA	31 May 2002
I often attack my own beliefs in order to locate weaknesses and strengths in them, so in many ways some of what I have wriitten has been to do that. purlpe lady , 'you' say "there is no outside force..its all YOU".....I have to say my beliefs are very different from this. I believe in many ways the opposite, in that this 'you' does not exist......I believe we are a tributary of an outside/inside force...in the sense that we are like small branches on a tree, if we follow back, we get to bigger branches and then to the main support, the trunk. This simple model shows that we are part of the tree, but not the main part of it. If you snap a branch off a tree it does not die....cut the trunk though...........to me this means that the 'you/ego' is not real in any other sense than it being a tool, but with theory and practice...it is possible to go along the branch and get closer to the 'source'......not strictly an outside force, but outside in the sense it has an indepentant intelligence which exists regardless of our existance. JMD, I have also long been facinated by 'thinking' [thinking about thinking:-)], and on this that I find most interesting is that we think in language, I for example think in english....but also images and sound......in fact I would say that thinking tends be done in a senory way [if that makes sense]. I have often wondered what types and format, a person who has had no sensory information in there life would experiance......would a sense of self develop? [ and of course balancing the thoughts of a person is the equally facinating 'emotions'] I agree Kiama, this thread is not about convincing the sceptics, but for us tarot users, it is great to be able to take ideas out and play with them.........and what quality people aeclectic has!:-) augurs well, I agree with you , to me also the fact that we are alive is the only 'proof' I need to know something is 'afoot'.......and something 'I' certainly did not set in motion:-)

augursWell	31 May 2002
First of all, being new to the forum, I would just like to say that I certainly appreciate all of the thoughts and ideas that everyone is contributing to this discussion. It's very interesting. Thanks for letting me join in. :) As to this from jmd: Quote: However, is the relationship between the cards and the reader, merely 'chance' for the former, and too much egotistic reflection of the latter, or is there something else at play? I used "chance" as the simplest way to point to the mystery of what goes on with Tarot cards or any oracle system in general. It seems to me that whatever "causes" tarot cards to speak to us, whether it be simple probability, God, Goddess, the Devil, Faeries, our own subconscious, or Angels or whatever, it is still in a sense a type of chance. Chance in the sense that it is beyond our individual control and comes from elsewhere than our own conscious mind. A case could be made that the human mind on a subconscious level is able to keep track of every card in the deck even after infinite shuffles of the cards. Psychologists are supposed to be able to hypnotize subjects and make it possible for them to remember extensive details of something like a crime scene. The idea being that the conscious mind must block out complexity in order to function even though it takes note of everything going on. A typical tarot deck is 78 cards, perhaps not a lot to keep track of for the human mind. If what I just said is true then one is simply "talking to oneself" whenever you shuffle the cards, placing specific "known" cards into a spread because your subconscious mind has kept track of them all from day one. Still, cards in a spread will *always* tell a story, it can't be avoided. So, to me, it comes down to what a person interprets the meaning of those images in a spread to be, what story it is that they tell. At that point one has to rely on one's own perceptions, beliefs, and understandings. Then you are left with your own decisions about what to believe about the message there, if there is one. The idea that some sort of entity is moving the cards around at some sort of hyperspeed that we can't even see or using some kind of magic in order to manipulate which cards come up in a spread is something that I personally have a hard time accepting. It would be nice to know where those messages are coming from, which of course is the point of this discussion...

augursWell	31 May 2002
Quote: Originally posted by jmd augursWell, glad to also read your input! Your post reminds me of, in some respect, with views held by members of Lectorium Rosicrucianum... I am not familiar with their writings or views. Any sources you can refer me to? Quote: Originally posted by jmd I would personally agree with a view which acknowledges the pervasiveness of the spiritual dimension of all that is around (and inside!), but would question the reductionist view (effectively, another cut from Ockham's razor) which would 'limit' the existence of non-incarnated beings as solely 'sparks from the Divine'. Sorry, I don't quite follow you here. Are you saying that non-incarnated beings, for instance an Angel, are more that 'sparks from the Divine'? In that sense I would agree with you that if Angels exist, I've no personal proof of that, that they must indeed be more than 'sparks from the Divine'. My use of the term divine spark can be equated roughly with the idea of a "soul".

Diana	01 Jun 2002
edited

AmounrA	01 Jun 2002
try: http://www.goldenrosycross.org/ http://www.lectoriumrosicrucianum.org/

augursWell	01 Jun 2002
Quote: Originally posted by AmounrA augurs well, I agree with you , to me also the fact that we are alive is the only 'proof' I need to know something is 'afoot'.......and something 'I' certainly did not set in motion:-) My sentiments exactly, it certainly wasn't "me". :D

jmd	03 Jun 2002
AmounRa, thank you for posting those links. The Lec. Ros. took its foundation from Heindel's Rosicrucian Fellowship (which remains totally indepenent of Lewis's AMORC). Heindel's work was in turn, it is claimed by some, supposedly grounded in some comments made by Rudolf Steiner. ---------- I suppose that the difference between AmounRa's metaphor of the branch-and-tree and us is that the branch is more like a part of our hair than our independent individual incarnation. The metaphor works well, however, as an image for meditation and our own connection to the Spiritual realm. I suppose that where AmounRa and I may be at variance is with regards to our view of the individualised independence of spiritual beings. I tend to see us as clearly separately incarnated individuals, on a path of ongoing development. With regards to thinking about thinking, perceptions and sense-free thinking, I agree that by the time we have made sense of our sense impressions, they are already embedded richly with thinking. The converse, however, need not be the case. To describe what sense-free thinking may be like may require that the explanation gives an example which uses sense experience, which the person is then encouraged to abandon (eg, imagine a cross upon which is a rose - now hold on to its significance/meaning, and drop the image). It could very well be, as AmounRa suggests, that our sense of self - our sense of individuality - is best served through the faculties of sense experience. ---------- With AugursWell, I agree that a person will always be able to tell a story given any spread, and that such will be partly dependent on one's state, beliefs, understanding, open-ness and love. As each of us is likely to perceive a bird in flight quite differently given our interests, knowledge and current thoughts, so too with a reading at hand. I'm also sure we've also experienced the same even with posts which have been posted here and re-read at different times. I suppose another area worthy of discussion is whether the Soul and the Spirit are one and the same, or whether they are distinct. With regards with the 'spark from the Divine', I would personally see this as more reminiscent of our individual I/ego (in its original sense, not in the sense of 'egotistic'), and the Soul as something which is 'worn', along with the body, by the individual Spirit-Spark (not a term I would usually use). ---------- With regards to how Tarot works, then, I would venture that there is a combination of 'weaving' influence by various spiritual beings in both the very act of shuffling and in the very act of inspired interpretation. This will be, of course, mitigated by the individual reader's background knowledge, understanding, wisdom, and openness to hearing that still-small-voice-within.

Kiama	03 Jun 2002
Quote: Originally posted by jmd I suppose another area worthy of discussion is whether the Soul and the Spirit are one and the same, or whether they are distinct. With regards with the 'spark from the Divine', I would personally see this as more reminiscent of our individual I/ego (in its original sense, not in the sense of 'egotistic'), and the Soul as something which is 'worn', along with the body, by the individual Spirit-Spark (not a term I would usually use). He he... This thread is turning into a really headache inducing deep discussion! :P Wonderfl! Anyway, I think you're right, JMD: It would be useful to try and distinguish whether or not the Soul and Spirit are one and the same... Personally, I think it is merely wordplay which distinguishes the two... Since we really have to evidence of what a Soul and a Spirit, (or whatever they are if they are both the same) is like, we canot really truly distinguish between them. All we have to go on is religious theories... Although what we do know is that those who claim it is Spirit, and those who claim it is Soul, all have pretty similar ideas of what theSoul/Spirit actually are, and what they do... A 'spark of the Divine' is a beautiful way of describing things.. (Although Aquinas used it pretty badly when he argued for the existence of God! })) If we are to go along with the idea that everything comes from the same place, everything is 'One', etc, then we logically should be seeing ourselves as 'Sparks of the Divine' too... This is esp. true if we are to prescribe to the Judaeo-Christian theory of the Divine's Omnipresence... (If the Divine is everywhere-Ominpresent- It must also be within ourselves... Come to think of it, this could be a great argument against Christians who say Tarot reading is Satanic, etc... If God is everywhere, and thus within us, He must be the one doing the reading with us too! YEEHAA! })) I suppose it all depends on one's subjective viewpoint as to whether or not Soul and Spirit are the same. I think they are, merely because I have realised that wordplay gets people into a helluva lot of pointless arguments! Kiama

purplelady	03 Jun 2002
Quote: Originally posted by AmounrA purlpe lady , 'you' say "there is no outside force..its all YOU".....I have to say my beliefs are very different from this. I believe in many ways the opposite, in that this 'you' does not exist......I believe we are a tributary of an outside/inside force...in the sense that we are like small branches on a tree, if we follow back, we get to bigger branches and then to the main support, the trunk. This simple model shows that we are part of the tree, but not the main part of it. If you snap a branch off a tree it does not die....cut the trunk though...........to me this means that the 'you/ego' is not real in any other sense than it being a tool, but with theory and practice...it is possible to go along the branch and get closer to the 'source'......not strictly an outside force, but outside in the sense it has an indepentant intelligence which exists regardless of our existance. I don't really disagree with this at all. However, I believe that all of the small branches are connected to the trunk , or the whole (or the source) . And any one of those tiny branches can tap into , or channel , or connect with the power of the whole , and Call itself the whole . And it can use and access much of the information, abilities, power etc of the source. Especially if it believes it can! It may be a paradox. It's all "other" And it's all "you". "You" exist just as much as "You" do not exist.

augursWell	04 Jun 2002
Spirit, Soul, Divine Spark, You, I, Whatever... Let's call it Divine Essence even. :) The point is that there is a difference between "Raw", undifferentiated, spiritual energy and something that we all think of as "me" or "I". We all put a barrier there, outside that is not me, inside that is me. We cling to it, "I" must be here for a reason, we cannot be something that is undifferentiated so we are this body, this mind, this soul(okay jmd "soul" is not as pure energy-ish as I meant, I guess we're splitting tree branches now :) ). That undifferentiated, spiritual energy is the Infinite and is why many faiths refuse to give it a name. A "spark" of that exists in us all, from the smallest amoeba to the largest whale. As to interpreting a card spread, I personally put more stock in the mind of the reader as being the source of any inspired understanding. The mind of a human being seems more able to communicate with "whatever" than any inanimate pieces of paper are. Basically, I don't see a way to prove that cards, runes, coins, bones, etc. are being manipulated by anything other than the person casting them. Convince me. :P

jmd	04 Jun 2002
I wonder if this is one of the ways new expressions begin, and their word-play then becomes lost in the midst of time: I like your 'splitting tree branches', augursWell! The point, however, is more than 'splitting hair'. Kiama writes 'I suppose it all depends on one's subjective viewpoint as to whether or not Soul and Spirit are the same'. A table is clearly distinct from the hearth of a fire-place, irrespective of our subjective viewpoints. When we begin to discuss supersensory reality, part of the problem is certainly being able to clearly 'perceive' what is at play, carefully distinguishing what may often be quite blurry. If, however, the Soul and the Spirit are distinct, then our incapacity to distinguish them renders this an epistemological problem, not a semantic one - nor an ontological one. The Spiritual 'spark', I would venture, is not something we have in us, but is us. This does make a difference to the very way we see our world and our makeup. If we accept that we are essentially spiritual beings, then it may also follow (given a number of unstated premises) that we utilise our minds and brain as 'tools' in rendering thoughts 'visible'. If that is the case, then what prevents me, as Spiritual spark, from being in direct communion with other spiritual beings, and being inspired in understanding by them, which I then make visible through the activity of thought? This is the part I meant by possibly having assistance in the interpretation aspect of reading a spread. With regards to the shuffling process, this is merely a manipulation of the physical through the agency of control of the body (my hands) by me as essential spiritual being. Again, I may be in direct communion with other spiritual beings, which may again aid in the intuitive act. I do not attempt to convice anyone, but if the above is rejected, on what grounds?

Kiama	04 Jun 2002
Quote: Originally posted by augursWell Basically, I don't see a way to prove that cards, runes, coins, bones, etc. are being manipulated by anything other than the person casting them. Convince me. :P This would all depend on how you view this 'anything other than the person casting them' in relation to 'the person casting them', and the things being cast.... If we are to accept the premise that everything is one, and that we are Divine Sparks, or have a soul/Spirit, whatever, then surely we should logically be drawn to conclude that, because we have the Divine thing within us, it is not only us that is manipulating the things being cast, but the Divine thing is manipulating them aswell... And, of course, the Divine thing is in the things being cast themselves.... But if we are to reject the premise given,then we can give way to epistemological distance, and then aswell as you, I would say that I seriously doubt there is any Divine thing manipulating the things being cast.... To my mind, if this Divine thing is distant from us instead of inside us all, why bother to come closer just to manipulate some cards? JMD: Table and hearth fire are distinct? And thus Soul and Spirit may be to? Can we really liken a soul/Spirit to a table/Hearth fire? And how do we know that subjective views of the table and hearth fire would not exist? There may be some other culture that has boats shaped exactly like tables, and thus may say that our table is a boat... They may have hearth fires made in the shape of tables and thus when they visit us, all our tables are burned! :P Kiama

augursWell	05 Jun 2002
By the way, I think the branches of a tree analogy that appeared in earlier posts by others is also quite good but I don't really think that way myself... Much as I love Kiama's spiel about burning tables, I have to accept that jmd was simply using tables and hearths as examples of distinct objects which will not change their innate nature(by the way, this doesn't exist either, now we're getting into Buddhism) simply due to differences in definition by any of us. Epistemology, Semantics, Ontology -- I'm afraid I'll have to look those up in the dictionary and get back to you. :) jmd: "being in direct communion with other spiritual beings". Now that seems a likely possibility to me as to how all of this may happen. Waves on a beach start way out beyond the shore. kiama: "it is not only us that is manipulating the things being cast, but the Divine thing is manipulating them as well... And, of course, the Divine thing is in the things being cast themselves...." To that I would have to say that it would be more productive for a Divine "thing" to influence the human mind to some end than to influence a set of cards. But then the cards act as some sort of proof or validation to the mind, right?...

Kiama	05 Jun 2002
Quote: Originally posted by augursWell To that I would have to say that it would be more productive for a Divine "thing" to influence the human mind to some end than to influence a set of cards. But then the cards act as some sort of proof or validation to the mind, right?... I would say (If I believed the theory I am purpoting!) that the Divine manipulates the cards, but in the same way, is manipulating our minds, because really it is [i]us/i] that gives the final say on what each card means. If the Divine did manipulate our minds in such a way though, would we still have free will? Kiama

AmounrA	05 Jun 2002
The question of if the 'divine' does manipulate our minds, would we still have free will reminds me of the invisable college. I think the term manipulate is a little harsh, perhaps its more co-operate, in the sense of the tarot user is a 'seeker', and with time and practice can make allies within/out.........almost find teachers inside the mind [non-local]. The idea of invisable college is that the seeker becomes a pupil [initiation is into this inner college[initials 'i.c' hoho:-)], and the 'teacher' can definatley cause synchronicities in order to pass on 'information'/pull people together. I don't think free will is affected as its up to the student how much energy/time they invest in there studies[pursuit of the great work?].....I feel that the student does definatly go through levels['grades']....and in many ways the tarot trumps could be seen a reflecting these different steps /levels/grades [ the tarot is an ideal teaching tool for 'divine' manipulaters:-)] This I think would help understanding of the many connections throughout world cultures spiritual ideas/figures.........if all 'seekers' where sent through to the same college.

jmd	08 Jun 2002
Well AmounrA, you've done it again, I C! The original question has become shortened: it is now a quest! The original question, and the title of this thread, is What Makes Tarot Work?, and I find it so heartening that such an important question currently has 66 posts from eighteen different contributors: AmounrA, Kaz, fairyhedgehog, emily2otters, WolfSpirit, Kiama, Malachite, magicmadrigal, Major Tom, Aerin, Persha, Jewel, MeeWah, Diana, All Is One, purplelady, augursWell and myself! I thought I would attempt a summary so far, skipping the various side-issues which we have posted and which have significantly contributed to the wonderful breadth and depth of this thread. There appears to be a number of views already expressed regarding card selection and interpretation: A: Card Selection 1. The cards are randomly selected; 2. The person is able to (unconsciously) know the position of each card in a deck, 'selecting' each, therefore, with some 'knowledge'; 3. The person shuffling is 'assisted' by higher or inner spiritual beings; 4. The unity and hence total inter-connectedness of the world manifests in both the shuffling/card selection (and 'interpretation'). B: Reading/Interpretation 1. Any story which is 'read' into the cards will be able to be interpreted in a meaningful way by the person for whom the reading is done (hereafter: 'readee'), without thereby implying that the reading is intrinsically either correct or incorrect; 2. The interpretation of the cards, based on general archetypal iconographies, will always be meaningful and provide the readee with a focus in order to begin to address a situation currently presenting itself; 3. The cards provide a mechanism through which the inherently psychic mind of the reader may hone in on a specific 'message' for the readee; 4. The reader is assisted in his or her interpretation through spiritual guidance; 5. The cards, reader, readee and interpretation/story are all one with various illusions of separation. I hope I've covered the various views expressed reasonably accurately and also covered everyone's views... It is also in reviewing this thread that I only realised that your appelation, AmounrA, is not AmounRa (my apologies after all these months), and that All Is One is an expansion of 'Alison'! With careful observation, how much more would I perceive in and from Tarot!

augursWell	09 Jun 2002
Thanks jmd for the very excellent recap. :) Quote: Originally posted by Kiama I would say (If I believed the theory I am purpoting!) that the Divine manipulates the cards, but in the same way, is manipulating our minds, because really it is us that gives the final say on what each card means. If the Divine did manipulate our minds in such a way though, would we still have free will? Kiama I should add an unspoken assumption that I have that may not have come through in my other posts. I see a difference between animate and inanimate things. Cards *are* part of everything in existance but I don't see them as having a "spark" of life in the same way that a living thing does. It would follow that any "manipulation" would be different for inanimate and animate things. When I refer to the "influencing" of the mind by other spiritual beings I personally assume that everything that makes up "me" as a mind, personality, etc. is something that actually requires influencing. In other words, the physical nature of my existance is part and parcel with my mental existance so if I'm hungry, for instance, I will still eventually starve even if some spiritual being convinces me that I am not hungry. I think it follows that simply being born into this world requires that I have free will. I do believe that each of us individually have the final say on what the meaning of a card spread is. By the way Kiama, you seem to imply that you don't believe this whole "tree branch" of the discussion. If so, what is your theory on this?

Kiama	10 Jun 2002
Quote: Originally posted by augursWell By the way Kiama, you seem to imply that you don't believe this whole "tree branch" of the discussion. If so, what is your theory on this? I don't know if I agree with it or not... I am pretty tired today, so need that theory explained a little better... But, just in case I do agree with it, here's what I thihnk... (Which is probably the branch theory but in different words!) I think there is a Divine Being of some sort, whether or not we call it God, Goddess, Allah, whatever... Its there. I also believe that we were created from that Divine Being, by that Divine Being, and thus have part of that Divinity within us. I believe that everything is created by that Divine Being, and thus everything else also has Divinity within it. I believe that there is no distinction between where Divinity is and where it isn't, nor between what is more Divine... Obviously, we areles Divine than the Divine Being that created us, and one of our life purposes is to try and reach towards that Divine Being and become like It... To evolve towards It through what we learn in life/our lives... I suppose this is kinda like the branch theory, cuz I believe we are all attached to the Divine, like a branch is to the tree, but I think all the branches are the same in size and shape, etc... None are bigger or more leafy than the others... Hmmm... I'm not explaining this very well... Sorry... :( Kiama

MeeWah	10 Jun 2002
JMD: Thank you very much for distilling the ideas to an organized package (not sure that phrase really fits but it will have to do). Of your A: Card Selection categories, I ascribe to point 4, or that of referring to Cosmic Order (which in my view can encompass any of the other 3 aspects): "4. The unity and hence total inter-connectedness of the world manifests in both the shuffling/card selection (and 'interpretation')." Of your B: Reading/Interpretation, point 5 most handily expresses my view. (It too, can encompass any or all of the other 4 points. At any one time, they would be indicative of "one of the various illusions...".) "5. The cards, reader, readee and interpretation/story are all one with various illusions of separation."

jmd	18 Jun 2002
MeeWah, thanks... this also provides me another opportunity for adding to the wonderful contributions already made! AugursWell and Kiama, I find what you are doing one of those most difficult of tasks: to be open to developing a clear understanding of the nature of the world, and then proceed to articulate it in a form which is coherent, clear and succinct. In a sense, what I have written in some of my above posts indicates that our understanding of the world affects our understanding as to how Tarot works. The opposite, to be sure, is also the case. Our own developing understanding of Tarot affects how we view and understand the world. A deepening understanding of the Tarot, then, affects not only its efficacy, but also affects our general understanding.

Kiama	19 Jun 2002
Quote: Originally posted by jmd A deepening understanding of the Tarot, then, affects not only its efficacy, but also affects our general understanding. What a perfect reason that is to use and study Tarot! I found it to be very true... When I began studying Tarot, my outlook hanged considerably... How I view the future, life itself, and our position in it, became more evolved and matre... I found a place I could happily think in, and thenchalleneg, and move on... I learned alot fom the cards themselevs too... There is so much classical symbolism in the cards, and refeences to many interesting cultures, practices, beliefs, religions... The common deck of Tarot cards (Tartus Communus :P) which can be found littering my bedroom and holding up my ceiling in huge pillars, holds a wealth of knowledge and new possibilities... What more can I say? Long live Tarot! :D Kiama

AmounrA	19 Jun 2002
[i learned alot fom the cards themselevs too... there is so much classical symbolism in the cards, and refeences to many interesting cultures, practices, beliefs, religions... ] -kiama I agree whole heartedly, my interest in tarot is in the stories buried within them........the ideas and systems of belief....to me this angle of the tarot is far important than 'divinity', which steals far to much limelight in my mind as to what tarot are.........a good deck studied well will certainly culture the mind in a progressive manner:-)

firemaiden	22 Mar 2003
Quote: Originally posted by AmounrA as a result it seems [to me] that science decided to go hell for leather in proving there was no god. That the universe was rational and blind chance. On the contrary, science began as and remains an attempt to prove God, not the other way around. Science seeks to understand God in all her facets. But rationality and chance is also God, Tom would say. Especially chance. Though I have a feeling chance is never really blind. One of the mechanisms of tarot is to introduce chance, by shuffling and picking random cards. How does it work when the cards are random?. They are random. That is for sure. But in the randomness lies the magic.

The What makes Tarot work? thread was originally posted on 11 May 2002 in the Talking Tarot board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Talking Tarot, or read more archived threads.