Objectivity in readings

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 14 Feb 2004, and now archived in the Forum Library.

jmd	14 Feb 2004
I realise this has come up in various threads - some of which I too have contributed to in the past - but my motivation for this thread comes from part of a sentence which MsPsychoMagnet posts in a Your Readings thread. In many ways, that thread is not really relevant to this discussion - I link it for the sake of acknowledgement. Specifically, MsPsychoMagnet states that '[...] there are some questions which one cannot intrepret objectively,' such as 'political questions, or questions where you have something to lose or gain from the situation'. This brings into focus so many important questions, that I thought I would begin by attempting to address some of the easiest first. I suppose that some of the comments hinge on there possibly being an emotive response to the possible outcome - though that is undoubtedly not all there is to it. With regards to political questions, I specifically posted a thread in your readings about the USA's Democratic Candidates Presidential nominations, and did the reading at the time only knowing the mere names of the candidates - I certainly had no emotive response to any of them, nor did I know their background (though I could surmise, for a couple, possible ancestry based on surnames). This was certainly an example of a political reading for which whichever candidate becomes selected would have been unimportant (from my remote position) - of course, having tried to follow (for the first time) that country's process as a result of my reading, I now also have some preference, and that preference is partly based on my own reading of both media coverage and the cards I drew - but shall say no more on the matter for this thread. I am certain that if I gave the names of possible future candidates to lead one of our country's main political parties, those of you living overseas and not normally following Australian politics would likewise not have the emotional response which those of us who will need to vote at a later election would feel. I suspect these are not the kinds of political readings intended in the quote I used above. Nonetheless, they point out that political readings may indeed be possible without the more personal engagement assumed of the reader. With regards as to having 'something to gain' from a situation, this would include doing a reading if, for example, one was to apply for a job or acceptance to a course. Personally, I cannot see why such could not be read objectively - even though one certainly has emotive attachments to possible outcomes. Of course, by writing this, I have taken the quote a little out of context, and have done so not to find fault in MsPsychoMagnet (for the 'fault' is then in my abstracted partial quote), but rather to highlight that which I sought to discuss. The above examples bring to mind the importance of objectivity. Without wanting to write a post which lasts longer than a reply, let me outline the single most important element which I see as essentially characterising the nature of objectivity: Objectivity occurs when one is able to properly penetrate the object under discussion, and reflect an understanding enriched by appropriate living concepts. ...let's see where this takes us :)

MSPSYCHOMAGNET	14 Feb 2004
I reread my post JMD. And upon reflection, let me rephrase how I feel about this. There are SOME questions which for MANY people are difficult to intrepret objectively. I have changed this to SOME and MANY, because it obviously is not an absolute truth in ALL situations. But, yes, this is how I feel about it.

Le_Corsair	14 Feb 2004
I found these definitions in Merriam-Webster Online: objective: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations. subjective: (1) : peculiar to a particular individual : (2) : modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background. editorialize: to introduce opinion into the reporting of facts. Of these three, objective is what the fair-minded person usually strives for, and is the hallmark of the scientist and, rarely, the journalist. Subjective is what you receive from the majority of humankind. Editorializing is what you get from the fanatic or the egotist who cannot entertain any truth other than his/her own. Many of the political threads at Aeclectic sink to this level on a regular basis. Bob :THERM

MSPSYCHOMAGNET	14 Feb 2004
Well then, if you want to take it literally and based on the dictionary definition, than it would logically follow that: 1. If objective means not to "interpret" 2. And tarot is understood via interpretation THEN 3. Tarot cannot be objective

firemaiden	14 Feb 2004
This is a question, my dear jmd, which raises quite a few other questions in palimpsest.... is it possible for human thought to ever be truly objective? Is tarot card reading an objective or a subjective process? Do you believe in spooks? I ask myself, in which cases might tarot reading be seen as an objective process? -- Perhaps, if I engage in "micro-blanco-bibliomancy" and simply restate the meanings in the little white book, the service I perform is absent of me ... therefore it is "objective." Similarly, if I do not speak my own thoughts, yet serve as a channel for the voice of an outside entity (aka "the Divine", or "spooks"...) then perhaps I am objective in the matter... (Such objectivity, however, assumes the existence of spooks...) Contrarywise, if we do not believe in spooks, (angels, spirits, a blue man standing on a cloud... ), and do not perform the time honored ritual of micro-blanco-bibliomancy, then our readings originate from our own analytic and imagistic associations, and our experiential extrapolation. So how objective can our readings ever be? Back to the drawing board... is it possible for human thought to ever be truly objective? I objectively don't know. :D ( well, Firemaiden, do you believe in spooks or don't you!!!? --- I don't KNOW!!!)

zorya	14 Feb 2004
i believe that objectivity can be achieved in readings if one can detach themselves from the outcome. i think detaching oneself from an outcome becomes easier when one realizes that what may seem undesirable at first, may lead to something much better in the long run. it's like the japanese parable about the son who breaks his leg. when the neighbor says "bad luck", the father says, "we shall see". later the son is saved from going to war by the broken leg. when the neigbor says "good luck", the father says, "we shall see"... understanding that i am only capable of seeing a part of a picture, and that each picture has many sides and views helps.

MSPSYCHOMAGNET	14 Feb 2004
I tend to think that the level of objectivity relates to several other factors, not yet mentioned, these are IMO: 1. Whether it is in a WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, or WHY position, AND 2. Whether you draw a major arcana, minor arcana, or court card I think that the minor arcana, tend to be more precise in their meanings than the major arcana, and the court cards are some where in between.

full deck	16 Feb 2004
This is why I contemplate the Tarot more than I do readings. It helps me to maintain that kind of undirected ruthlessness needed to read well, where "I" don't care one way or another. I am often reminded that in certain physics experiments, just the act of observation an experiment influences the observed results!

crystal cove	16 Feb 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Le_Corsair Editorializing is what you get from the fanatic or the egotist who cannot entertain any truth other than his/her own. Many of the political threads at Aeclectic sink to this level on a regular basis. Bob :THERM I think some people forget that zealotry comes from the left as well as the right. jmd: I read your post on the Democratic candidates, and I didn't have a problem with it at all.

firemaiden	16 Feb 2004
Editorialising is simply introducing an opinion. It is not going to bring the downfall of mankind. It would be foolishness to think we can provide fact completely devoid of opinions. Even the manner in which facts are gathered, can be political. In my opinion ... objectivity is a matter of opinion :D :D :D ....unless of course you are dealing with hard sciences...

jmd	06 Mar 2004
To pick up this thread again, part of my own reflections are on how objectivity may be achieved. In many ways, two complementary approaches to the question come to mind. The first is using a phenomenological approach, the second based on semiotic considerations. In the phenomenological approach, what is carefully observed is precisely what is presented, maintaining, of sorts, a proper antipathic clarity of mind. Of course, it may be argued that by the mere involvement of the observer, what is phenomenally observed is already built-up from what is presented to a meaningful whole - a Vorstellen. Yet, is not this Vorstellen - this 'mental picturing' or 'representation' - given as the very being of what is carefully observed unveils its own cover ? Semiotic considerations likewise speak of a close connection between that to which is indicated and the image-pointer (I personally do not really want to engage in polemics about whether Lockean, Saussurean, Peircian, or other semiotic view is best or more useful - and each of course has its own way of determining the relationship between symbol, sign and signified, hence my avoidance of those terms). Though we may have a construct which shoves the world into its carved regions by our own social/cultural and individual semiotic categories, nonetheless, these shift as we allow the beings themselves to better carve the world via our senses. In readings, then, certainly we may bring not only our own psychological dispositions and inclinations of the moment, and certainly we may to various extant be restricted to the ways in which our 'currrently unquestioned' epistemological considerations plays into the very way our Tarot world - our tarot understanding - is framed. This does not imply, however, that the readings therefore lack objectivity. My observation of a Rose has an objective element, as does the more acute objective observation of the same rose via the eyes of a botanist, as it does again via the eyes of a commercial grower...

mj07	06 Mar 2004
I'm so new, I feel a little lost, but I'll jump right in anyway! In terms of objectivity... when I do a reading for myself, I sometimes wonder "am I just 'reading into it' what I want to see?" Which of course provides me with oportunity to question my own deepest motives and desires, food for meditation, so it's not a bad thing. Should I second guess myself. When a friend does a reading for me, since s/he know what's going on in my life, it's easy for them to say "oh, this means you should go back to school". I wonder if a more objective reader, say, someone who doesn't know me, might come up with a less SUBjective reading, perhaps leaving me room to figure out on my own what it means to me. ??? and not to derail the topic, but what makes for a good tarot reader? if I don't find another thread along those lines I may start one because it's a serious question I have!

full deck	06 Mar 2004
Quote: "...Long before this stage of conscious manipulation has begun, faking has already set in. In the very beginning, when the operator controls and regulates his time of exposure, when in the dark-room the developer is fixed for detail, breadth, flatness or contrast, faking has been resorted to. In fact, every photograph is a fake from start to finish, a purely impersonal unmanipulated photograph being practically impossible. When all is said, it still remains entirely a matter of degree and ability." - Eduard J. Steichen in the very first issue of Camera Work (1903) Maybe Firemaiden has a good point about objectivity. Speaking from personal experience, there are times when the "I" is really not in the work I'm doing and the experience is so foreign an experience to me that I take it as something that is far removed from my own concerns and subjective nature. I always have doubts about everything though and I do take that as a healthy thing.

firemaiden	06 Mar 2004
Jmd, knowing that what you say is always very interesting, and deeply thought out, I have spent some time trying to decipher your post... Here are some of the terms I have had to think about: Is this it? -Phenomenological approach: to look at the phenomenae – observe actual things that happen.. -Semiotic considerations: to observe signs, and structure of language, and how things designate what they mean.. Quote: In the phenomenological approach, what is carefully observed is precisely what is presented, maintaining, of sorts, a proper antipathic clarity of mind. So you are saying that the phenomenological approach assumes that if you keep cool enough, your mind will remain clear enough for you to see exactly what is there... I think you are reminding us that having an observer present, can sometimes disturb the natural setting in such a way as to falsify the data -- an example inspired by farside cartoons: elephants in the wild standing on all four legs, and swinging their tales in the savanna while the PBS Nature Special camera is rolling, but as soon as the camera leaves, sitting back down to play cards and read the New York times) So, I think you are saying: You are avoiding using the linguistic terms “symbol, sign and signified” so that you do not start a flame war about whose terms to use: those of John Locke, (1632-1704) who seems to have coined the term, "semiology", Charles Sanders Peirce (1839 -1914) or Ferdinand de Saussure (1857 -1913 ), the "father" of modern linguistics…) I cannot make out this sentence at all. I’m sorry. What do you mean by construct? What construct? What is it that shifts? what do you mean by “carve the world” :confused: For “epistemological considerations ” do you mean, the ways in which we know what we know? Quote: This does not imply, however, that the readings therefore lack objectivity. My observation of a Rose has an objective element, as does the more acute objective observation of the same rose via the eyes of a botanist, as it does again via the eyes of a commercial grower... Now, to respond to this last part… I agree that it is possible to be objective, when you have a certain kind of scientific task, i.e. to observe the structure of a rose, however, honestly, with regards to reading tarot, I think that “having an objective element” is not the same as being objective. Also, I do not think reading tarot is entirely the same as observing a rose. To what degree does our task involve “observing” ? I think mostly what we do is “interpreting”. A rose is a rose, you can look at it, and unfold its petals, describe its structure… but as for the tarot card... Each time I pull a card, it is a different animal than the last time I pulled it, in function with the question I am asking and the person asking the question…. I had the experience of doing a reading with seven questions using only one card. For each question, I saw something different in the card….

Diana	06 Mar 2004
Can one not read phemonologically and semiotically at the same time? Also, I am wondering if objectivity is always necessary.... but I have not answered my question yet.

Never_Mind	07 Mar 2004
jmd it is not clear to me, from your post, what question you are trying to answer.

jmd	07 Mar 2004
Probably as with many posts, it is not a question which is precisely answered, but reflections on some of the contents of the thread. One of the considerations for starting this thread was based on some reflections as to objectivity in readings (hence the title). As expected, and also reflecting other views, 'objectivity' is considered, to a large extent, not really attainable - with that, I tend to disagree. My last post, which firemaiden has carefully begun to deconstruct in order to bring more sense into it, sought to address some ways in which the concept of objectivity may be tackled. My point was probably, however, simpler than may appear by the language used (and who was it (Whannel ?) who said that 'semiotics tells us things we already know in a language we will never understand'?) So what is the point: Of course we have our psycho-physiological limitations (our senses, our personal biography, our dispositions, our abilities). Do these, however, prevent objectivity in readings? Some will undoubtedly reply that this is indeed the case. Personally, however, I do not sense this to be the case. In the phenomenological approach, as has also been used in various disciplines, what one does is to enter a particular state of active observation, allowing the cards (in this instance, the plant in a botanical example, or the ritual, in a cultural/religious example) to unveil their narrative, without placing value judgements on what they have to 'say'. To use an example, if one sees a person eating pork intestines sautéed with garlic and pidgeon brain, then it is observed, in a detached manner. It does not mean that one may not also have particular kinds of reactions (for myself, it would one approximating disgust), but that these are also observed, but not included in the commentary or narrative. Using a semiotic approach to explain objectivity may see, to some, to be doomed to failure, for many will include the subjective quality in the explanation of the semiotic construct. This is, however, not necessary. The card, in a reading situation, stands for, and points towards (ie, indicates), something. It is this which is brought out into the narrative. How one values or not what is being presented is not part of the reading, but would rather reflect one's peculiar physio-psychological dispositions - these latter may, of course, be undoubtedly viewed as semiosis, but that is a further question. Even if each time one draws the same card something different is unveiled, the question may legitimitely be asked as to whether this implies non-objectivity. Presumably, one of the aspects which an ojective reading will have is context. Hence, to give another example, 'pain' or 'chair' have objective meanings, and as we know, may refer to two different items one may eat ('bread' and 'flesh') - in the context of another language. Objectivity in readings is, to my reflections, possible. Though I have no doubts that those with an interest in, for example, the philosophy of science may bring forth examples which presumes to show otherwise.

miss_apples	08 Mar 2004
In my opinion, If all of our readings were 100% objective then our readings would be very inpersonal and boring, and not very meaningful. I try to be objective as I can but offer my inobjectivity when something tells me it is ok or it is time to do so.

firemaiden	08 Mar 2004
Quote: Originally posted by jmd Objectivity in readings is, to my reflections, possible. Though I have no doubts that those with an interest in, for example, the philosophy of science may bring forth examples which presumes to show otherwise. jmd, I would love to know why/how you think it is possible.

baba-prague	08 Mar 2004
Perhaps there is a difference between subjectivity and prejudice? I think you do bring your own experiences to a reading - there isn't a totally "objective" meaning to the cards. They are interpretable and as we all know, different people will interpret in very different ways. So you inevitably bring yourself to the reading - in some ways both reader and querent have to be subjective (remember the querent will also selectively hear what is said - very few querents are totally objective in what they choose to take from a reading). However, what I do think is important is to try to leave your prejudices out of your interpretation. I did a reading recently in which the cards emphatically gave advice that I personally would not have given. I made that clear to the querent, basically "look this is not what I personally would say, and it may not be what you want to hear, but the cards say..." - I actually had to read against my own strongly held opinions (perhaps not really a prejudice, but certainly an opinion based on emotion as well as logic). I think in those sorts of situations it's important to be able to stand aside from the reading and simply report what you see, as you see it. Is that objectivity? Not sure. A semiotician would say that it isn't, and I'd agree, but it iIS someone like detachment, or trying to supress your own ego in the reading.

cartarum	12 Mar 2004
i personally think that one would use the cards for spiritual growth or maybe personal gratification, and not to "guess" the winner of a race. i think that the creators of the tarot would be laughing or shaking their heads. true prophecy comes from letting go of all inclinations toward one outcome over another. this is the only way to receive the light of truth. it is not completely under our control to decide what we want to see, but only what the cards want to show us. to receive true prophecy, we must not really have a question in mind, but only a yearning to know what we want to know. when the question then arrives in our minds, we should go back to the earlier spread, that we did "to know" and then find our answer there. if that fails, then you are not psychic or schizophrenic, or both. objectivity is an illusion put up by overthinking a very simple issue that is hard to describe.

jmd	12 Mar 2004
Baba-prague brings into the discussion the important distinction between subjectivity and prejudice - which may very well also remain somewhat closely or intimately connected, yet undoubtedly distinct. In her second paragraph, however, the example brought demonstrates an aspect of the reading which shows how objective a reading may be: the cards are read as they unveil themselves. Certainly, in any reading (even of this text), there is interpretation occuring. For those who think in ways rather similar to myself, the 'interpretation' will seem easy and natural. For others, it will only be able to be answered after some streneous (or how about ' straineous ') effort probably not really worth making. Interpretation, as shown also by translation (and coincidentally, there are two, by firemaiden and myself, made of a text posted by Namadev in the thread Language of the birds) also has its objective aspect: not any translation will do. In readings, one may argue that this is a little different, for the same card may give such different and varied indication as to rule out 'objectivity'. Yet, not so. The cards in the context of the specific reading at hand (which includes the reader and 'readee') have specific meaning. I suppose that my earlier post, which probably was worded in one of the most obtuse manner, also sought to bring out what full deck earlier stated: that objectivity is vital, hence the reason to also contemplate the Tarot - for only then, to add to the point, will a sequence of cards be able to better unveil their pertinent meaning. Hence also my point about the contemplation of a Rose by various persons with varying degrees of interest and background knowledge. The background knowledge forms not, I would argue, subjective pressures on the reading (of card or rose), but rather provides for clearer means by which to permit further unveiling of the object in question (again, whether card or rose). This contemplation-revelation is what I referred when I mentioned the world carving out its own semiotic categories via the means of our senses, and that these forever shift as we permit the world (or Tarot deck) itself to further reveal its secrets. I agree with cartarum that one must let go of what is referred to in some traditions as 'lust of outcomes' when seeking the prophetic state. Objectivity is obviously viewed by some as an illusion. There is a self-referential problem here, however... Also, to carefully begin to penetrate with thought by carefully thinking through issues or states which have the illusion of being very simple may, in fact, lead to objectivity.

firemaiden	12 Mar 2004
Quote: Originally posted by jmd In [baba's] second paragraph, however, the example brought demonstrates an aspect of the reading which shows how objective a reading may be: the cards are read as they unveil themselves. To me, Baba's example demonstrates the capacity of tarot cards to stimulate thought, and bring to the forefront of our mind, ideas which may have been pushed to the back. In the case of cards advising something Baba herself would not, I must answer -- "but Baba still said it, and she saw it... the cards have no mouth." Quote: Objectivity is obviously viewed by some as an illusion. There is a self-referential problem here, however... I find that my thoughts on the illusion are nicely summed up by a paragraph I found today in Wilson's book Cosmic Trigger, which Umbrae has pointed me to. Quote: It became clear as vodka that whatever "reality" means philosophically, our everyday experience (the common-sense definition of "reality") is almost entirely self-programmed. This cinematic editing occurs so rapidly that we are normally not aware of doing it; thus we add many things that aren't there at all (Freud's projection) and leave out millions of things that are there (Freud's censorship). Confusing the finished product with an accurate reflection of externality is exactly what Buhddha meant when he said normal consciousness is delusion (maya) This cinematic editing process, which our consciousness plays on the external world, is obvious to anyone who has experimented with photography, or dabbled in drawing. The first question I have is: how is my photograph of a rose in the shadows in any way my creation? -- I have merely borrowed its image from the Universe, with the aid of a machine! Instead of signing my photograph, "A Rose in the Shadows, by the Great Firemaiden" I should sign it, "A photographic copy of a Rose in the Shadows, reproduced by permission of his lordship, God." But no, what belongs to the artist, is how you see it. -- the angle of the rose, how it is illuminated -- what you notice is also what you create. The artist's perception, is the creation. Wilson goes on to record a conversation with Alan Watts, who said Quote: "But my dear man, reality is only a Roschach ink-blot, you know." Robert Anton Wilson says he came to his conclusions with the aid of Maria Juana. To me, who do not consort with this creature, it is still obvious, that what makes it onto to my radar screen, particularly when observing tarot cards, is like the rose surging up in the shadows -- it's what I *notice*... it's what my filters allow to penetrate to thought -- therefore it would be an illusion to call this purely objective. Next, the idea that cards can merely speak for themselves demands a nine page post...but I'll merely say, that unless you are a fundamentalist micro-blanco-bibliomancer regurgitating meanings 100% tel-quel from one source only, there is no way the cards are speaking "for themselves"... Sorry.

The Objectivity in readings thread was originally posted on 14 Feb 2004 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.