Tarot's Mind

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 13 Mar 2004, and now archived in the Forum Library.

SweetDreamer	13 Mar 2004
I believe the Tarot has a mind of it's own.Who here agrees?

Majecot	14 Mar 2004
Hi SweetDreamer Welcome to the community:D Yes it does sometimes seem like tarot has a mind of its own. Especially when it is giving me a message that seems like it has beaten me over the head to get me to understand.

Moonbow*	14 Mar 2004
Can't say I agree with this I'm afraid. It may feel as though it does because each card has a meaning, but that means nothing unless put together in a spread and then taken as a whole, together with a bit of intuition. It's the mind of the reader that produces the answers, the card just sparks the idea. IMO

Mojo	14 Mar 2004
Does your kitchen table also have a mind of its own? How about your car? Or your shoes? Why do you need to give the cards human traits? I have never understood this. At best, it's a way for you to avoid any responsibility associated with reading the Tarot ("the cards say so"). At worst, it's being delusional. Believe in the reader, not the cards.

thanatos	14 Mar 2004
the only power that is in the cards is the power that we the reader puts in to them when we shuffle cut and deal them .... the power comes from us not the cards

Diana	14 Mar 2004
SweetDreamer: I agree with you absolutely. The Tarot has a mind of its own. I also agree with those who said that the cards have no mind. The question here is: Are cards Tarot? Or is Tarot cards? To me, Tarot is wisdom from beyond. Wisdom from the past, the present and the future. The cards.... pffff! Just pieces of cardboard.

Ani	14 Mar 2004
In my opinion the mind of the tarot is of pure spirit. Working with tarot is another means of communicating with the spiritual essence of the universe, including our soul self, angels, spirit guides, etc. The cards are a physical manifestation of the universal mind, just as our bodies are a physical manifestation of spirit. What does "mind" mean anyway? Is it spiritual communication or is it this chemical reaction that just happens to take place in the brain at any given moment? Something to ponder on.

Imagemaker	14 Mar 2004
Yes they are just cards, and yes, Something is communicating through them to me . . . whether it's my Higher Self or the Creative Source or any guide/angel/energy in between . . . it's something beyond my Ego, something more aware than my everyday consciousness. I have had too many amazing messages beyond my ordinary Self to doubt that the Tarot speaks to me from another locus of Knowing. Maybe it's my big toe.

Phoenyx*	14 Mar 2004
I have to agree. The cards are just pretty pictures on cardstock, some big, some small, some teensytiny, some huge! But the pictures...somehow help us to connect with a Higher Power, a Universal Knowledge. And that is what Tarot is, its not the cards, its the connection that we get through the cards. How many of us have had flashes of understanding that had *nothing at all* to do with the pictures on the card? Now, do I believe that the cards themselves have feelings? *covers all her decks very carefully so they can't see her and shakes her head no*:D But each deck inspires different feelings from me.

Diana	14 Mar 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Imagemaker I have had too many amazing messages beyond my ordinary Self to doubt that the Tarot speaks to me from another locus of Knowing. Maybe it's my big toe. Left or right toe? That could make all the difference, you know.

Imagemaker	14 Mar 2004
Quote: Left or right toe? That could make all the difference, you know. Indeed it does. Left toe for all the news from the West, right toe for all the clues from the East. The smaller toes tend to be the source of static, interfering with the Signal.

firemaiden	14 Mar 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Mojo Does your kitchen table also have a mind of its own? How about your car? Or your shoes? My kitchen table, mojo, no... the car (when I had one) probably. My shoes? Oh most definitely!! (But only the red ones) Do the cards have a mind of their own? Damn right they do, and don't let em get away with it. When my cards start up with their wise-ass remarks, I turn them over and let em have it!

Astraea	14 Mar 2004
I think we give the cards a piece of our own minds. ;) It's usually a piece that is unconscious; so whether it comes from within, behind, beneath or beyond is hard to say -- but the cards seem to act as lenses/light collectors and transmitters of the signal. Mojo, I love your new avatar!

Ilithiya	14 Mar 2004
Yeah, my cards have personalities. And big friggin' stinky attitudes. :) But I don't think that they have a mind in that they are the ones deciding which cards come up. They're mirrors: reflective, incapable of their own input and opinions, and yet sort of like that friend that you bounce ideas off of but never says anything. Of course, my two computers (Seether & Azrael) and my fiance's car (Alissa) have personalities and attitudes too. At least I don't name my decks... yet! :) Illy

Logiatrix	14 Mar 2004
Quote: Originally posted by SweetDreamer I believe the Tarot has a mind of it's own.Who here agrees? Not me--so sorry. The "mind" is me. They are only cards, until I give them meaning. And, as a concept, it is still only a concept until I interact with it and give it meaning. It's all about ME! :D

Red Emma	14 Mar 2004
Of course Tarot has a mind of its own. 2,000 years ago the mystics of India understood that everything in the Universe is connected with everything else. The West finally came to the same conclusion, but through Quantum Physics. Mojo and I have had this discussion before -- likely neither of us will ever change our opinion. The cards are indeed pasteboard and ink. But pasteboard and ink are composed of millions and millions of atoms. The center of each atom is pure energy. Which convinced the quantum physicists that all matter is basically energy. Further all this energy is connected everywhere to everything. It goes backward and forward in time, which is why we can ask the Tarot 'what will happen (in the future) if (I) take such and such an action'. Or, 'what do I need to know about X.' A good book to learn more on the subject is, "The Tao of Physics," by Fritjof Capra. Joseph Campbell said about it, "I have been reading this book with amazement......recommending it to everyone I meet, and as often as possible, in my lectures." Another is "The Holographic Universe" which is upstairs, and I can't remember its author. If my memory isn't letting me down, Albert Einstein was among the first to think that our lives are lived in a hologram. I find it immeasureably exciting to live in such a Universe. To me, life would be unbearably dull if I were to exist in a world that's "only pasteboard and ink."

EminemsAngelBaby	14 Mar 2004
I feel the same way as Red Emma which is what interests me about quantum physics. The science behind the spirit.....makes me all tingly inside:). I think Rachel Pollack touches on this subject too in her book "Forest of Souls". I was reading the thread on this book the other day and that make me really want to read it!

fairyhedgehog	14 Mar 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Mojo Does your kitchen table also have a mind of its own? How about your car? Or your shoes? I think it's a human trait to assign personality to inanimate objects. Come on, have you never talked to your car, or referred to it as 'she'? The problem is when we believe in it. But as a way of talking about the cards it is, in my view, unparalleled. After all, we are looking at things in a mythological way when using the cards, it's only natural for many of us to personify them. And I prefer the phrase 'my cards are angry with me' to 'I'm having problems with the cards, you'd almost think they are angry with me'. But that's just a personal preference.

lunakasha	14 Mar 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Triquetra I have to agree. The cards are just pretty pictures on cardstock, some big, some small, some teensytiny, some huge! But the pictures...somehow help us to connect with a Higher Power, a Universal Knowledge. And that is what Tarot is, its not the cards, its the connection that we get through the cards. How many of us have had flashes of understanding that had *nothing at all* to do with the pictures on the card? Now, do I believe that the cards themselves have feelings? *covers all her decks very carefully so they can't see her and shakes her head no*:D But each deck inspires different feelings from me. Well said, Triquetra! I couldn't agree more....as much as I love my cards and respect them as spiritual tools....they are more like the catalyst to the guidance and understanding we seek. But they do not have the ability to make that connection--we do. :) Luna

Mojo	14 Mar 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Red Emma The West finally came to the same conclusion, but through Quantum Physics. Ah, Red Emma and her Quantum Physics explanation again! When in doubt, quote pseudo-science to explain the unexplainable. Quantum Physics, while a lovely and intriguing area of study, is nothing but theory. Even Quantum Physicists will admit to you that they are unlikely to prove most quantum theories in their own lifetimes, if ever. It hasn't "convinced" anyone as Emma claims, not even its own practitioners. And even if these theories were found to be true, it still doesn't give "pasteboard and ink" the ability to have a mind. Simple biology - a true and provable science - tells us this. Having a mind indicates conscious thought. To have conscious thought requires a conscience, which requires a brain. There isn't a quantum theory out there that could possibly grant a brain to a piece of cardboard. QP as an explanation the "mystical" arts is a ridiculous argument used by those who just absolutely must have an explanation to validate their feelings. Tarot is an art, and art generally defies science. Art is about suspending the logical and being able to believe in the unbelievable. That should be enough. Quote: Originally posted by Red Emma Further all this energy is connected everywhere to everything. It goes backward and forward in time, which is why we can ask the Tarot 'what will happen (in the future) if (I) take such and such an action'. Or, 'what do I need to know about X.'. No. We can ask Tarot what will happen in the future because we as a species are a curious lot. Whether Tarot answers truthfully, one cannot say. My guess would be probably not. I'm a very talented and successful Tarot reader. Yet, I have no special knowledge of the future. I give what one of my physicist friends likes to call a SWAG (Scientific Wild-Ass Guess). Do I care if it's accurate? No. Because it really doesn't matter. My reading is good for an hour's worth of entertainment and perhaps (for the more esoteric of my clients) some soul-searching or perhaps self-reflection. Period. The memory banks of atoms haven't provided me with a map of their future. Quote: Originally posted by Red Emma To me, life would be unbearably dull if I were to exist in a world that's "only pasteboard and ink." No one ever said the world was made of pasteboard and ink. The world is a rich tapestry of colors, textures, smells, tastes and experiences and is populated with living, breathing beings, which make the experience worthwhile. One can certainly enjoy such a world without worrying about vibrating atoms.

Red Emma	14 Mar 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Mojo Ah, Red Emma and her Quantum Physics explanation again! When in doubt, quote pseudo-science to explain the unexplainable. Mojo, in addition to being an especially gifted reader, you never disappoint. This is about the fourth or fifth, maybe fifth or sixth, time we've agreed to disagree. Still, I think ATF members need to hear both sides of this fascinating discussion. And when I'm in the company of F. Capra, Albert Einstein, and Joseph Campbell, I count myself very lucky. They're good guys to hang out with. Goddess Bless.

Umbrae	14 Mar 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Mojo Does your kitchen table also have a mind of its own? …Or your shoes? By gum Mojo…I’m sitting here looking at “The Fantastic Shoes” 22 Arcana by Osvaldo Menegazzi…oh yeah baby, they gots minds of their own, yeah babeeeeee… Seriously, I read with cards. I read with runes. I read with raindrops on the windshield at 130 kmh (and they can have ‘tudes man…). Tools. Tarot is a tool, composed of 78 or so pieces. A spokeshave is a tool composed of 2 prices (if you have a new fangled adjustable blade one – one if not). With it you can create, shape wood into wondrous things…begin with a tree and end up with cool place settings for who knows how many. But as you uncover it’s hidden uses, your world expands…some days you are all thumbs, ruining piece after piece of wood. The next day you’re in the zone and can do no wrong. Same gig with tarot. Different tool…same operator…same wonder…

Phoenyx*	15 Mar 2004
As much as a serious explanation is that the cards connect us with a Higher Power, I would still like to point out that I do on occasion give the cards personalities. I wouldn't name my decks, they already have names. But there are times when my car is running rough, when I'll stroke the steering wheel and say "Come on sweety, you can do it, atta girl..." and eventually she'll respond.... With the same token, as I'm shuffling and cutting a deck for a reading, especially an online reading, I'll talk to them, explain the problem, then ask them to tell me about it. I haven't gone as far as firemaiden with talking to the characters in there, I wish I could. I tried once...and ended up in hopeless confusion. It was in the Hanson-Roberts especially, with the King of Pentacles. Ever since then I haven't been able to read properly with that deck.

thanatos	15 Mar 2004
the tarot cards ae inamanent obgect ... saying that the cards have a mind of there own is like claiming that your computer mouse has a mind of its own

Diana	15 Mar 2004
Quote: Originally posted by thanatos the tarot cards ae inamanent obgect ... saying that the cards have a mind of there own is like claiming that your computer mouse has a mind of its own SweetDreamer never said the cards have a mind of their own. You're not the only one to have misread her post. The majority (but not all) of the posters misread it. She said, and I quote: "I believe the Tarot has a mind of it's own." Like I said in my previous post, there is a huge difference between Tarot... and tarot cards. The two meet at some point, I agree there. But they are not the same.

Moonbow*	15 Mar 2004
Diana Are you saying that Sweetdreamer did not mean the cards then? I haven't felt a difference between Tarot and Tarot cards (other than one is a 'solid') My understanding is that Tarot is Tarot cards which is how I think most people have answered the question. Another way round to put it is 'What are the cards, if they're not Tarot?' You could say they are a means of using Tarot but that leads me to think that Tarot could be done without cards. Can it? These are my thoughts, and I would like to know what you and any others consider Tarot. (or should this be another thread?) To me, there are many types of divination but I thought Tarot was 'always' done with cards. Moonbow*

firemaiden	15 Mar 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Triquetra I haven't gone as far as firemaiden with talking to the characters in there, I wish I could. I tried once...and ended up in hopeless confusion. It was in the Hanson-Roberts especially, with the King of Pentacles. Ever since then I haven't been able to read properly with that deck. I'm so sorry, Triquetra! Send him over here, I'll straighten him out... or, better, yet, have him spend the night next to the Queen of Swords. :D

Jewel-ry	15 Mar 2004
I thought the definition of tarot was a set of cards! From dictionary.com - any of a set of (usually 78) cards that include 22 cards representing virtues and vices and death and fortune etc.; used by fortunetellers Anyway, I think the cards are just a springboard to trigger our unconscious mind. So they don't have a mind of their own. All the 'magic' comes from the reader. J :)

Imagemaker	15 Mar 2004
Like Tao (that which can be spoken of is not Tao), I think of Tarot as the higher energy that is available to us through the tool--the cards. Sometimes people will say that they can't read with a particular deck--in those cases the cards don't have the Tarot energy for them. But other decks do.

TemperanceAngel	15 Mar 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Moonbow* I haven't felt a difference between Tarot and Tarot cards (other than one is a 'solid') My understanding is that Tarot is Tarot cards which is how I think most people have answered the question. Another way round to put it is 'What are the cards, if they're not Tarot?' You could say they are a means of using Tarot but that leads me to think that Tarot could be done without cards. Can it? These are my thoughts, and I would like to know what you and any others consider Tarot. (or should this be another thread?) Moonbow*, wonderful thinking, start another thread!! Go on, go on it will be really exciting :D :D :D XTAX

Theia	15 Mar 2004
Oh yes it defiantly dose.

TemperanceAngel	15 Mar 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Theia Oh yes it defiantly dose. Theia, sorry for my silliness, but can you please explain to me what you mean or what you are relating to? Thanks so much :D XTAX

Diana	16 Mar 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Moonbow* Diana Are you saying that Sweetdreamer did not mean the cards then? Moonbow*: I don't know whether SweetDreamer was talking about the cards or not. However, she didn't mention them. She said "Tarot". Only she can tell us what she actually meant. But I can only go along with the words she wrote, and not with those I think she may or may not have implied. As to whether Tarot is cards or if Cards are tarot, that is something that each and everyone of us has to decide on individually - after having gone deep into our hearts and after having journeyed for some time on the Tarot Road. When I lie with my loved one, I do not confuse him with Love. However, I realise that he expresses Love.

Astraea	16 Mar 2004
In reference to earlier posts, I think that Red Emma's point is that the atom is a responsive participant in a greater body or sentient matrix. Our cells do not have separate and discrete brains, yet they carry and transmit information and signals within the organic milieu; similarly, the solar system and (beyond that) the cosmos are considered by kabbalists, theosophists and others to be vast entities embodying and encompassing specialized units of consciousness. In our limited human perception, every theory and worldview must be considered provisional. Identical data can be interpreted in many ways, and ultimately we gravitate to those theories and philosophies that correlate most closely with our individual makeups, experiences and mindsets -- this state of partial understanding can simultaneously humble and encourages us as we shuffle along the human path.

Ilithiya	16 Mar 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Astraea In reference to earlier posts, I think that Red Emma's point is that the atom is a responsive participant in a greater body or sentient matrix. Our cells do not have separate and discrete brains, yet they carry and transmit information and signals within the organic milieu; similarly, the solar system and (beyond that) the cosmos are considered by kabbalists, theosophists and others to be vast entities embodying and encompassing specialized units of consciousness. Yay! I hadn't thought about phrasing it that way. That's an excellent summation... thanks! Illy

Mojo	16 Mar 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Astraea In reference to earlier posts, I think that Red Emma's point is that the atom is a responsive participant in a greater body or sentient matrix. Our cells do not have separate and discrete brains, yet they carry and transmit information and signals within the organic milieu The problem is that you guys seem to be confusing cells with atoms. The "organic milieu" as you put it is vastly different than the cellular makeup of cardboard. When scientists and quantum theoriticians refer to the concept of cellular memory, it is in the arena of this "organic milieu" and not outside of a living being. I'd love to see a quote where Einstein ever said he thought a chair could remember who sat in it or a mailbox could predict when the next Publisher's Clearinghouse contest letter would arrive. On the other hand, do I believe that humans or animals can retain ancient memories of their ancestors and call upon them when necessary? Sure. It makes sense because there is a living and continuous chain of cells passed down from one generation to another. Quote: Originally posted by Astraea similarly, the solar system and (beyond that) the cosmos are considered by kabbalists, theosophists and others to be vast entities embodying and encompassing specialized units of consciousness. Yes, and the homeless guy who lives outside of the convenience store on the corner believes that the little wrinkled red men are going to come back any day and bring him the riches he earned on their planet. He's absolutely 100% convinced. Anybody can have a theory. However, some of them are more believable than others because some of them are based on fact. I'm happy to grant concession to any theory that has at least one toe touching the ground.

Red Emma	16 Mar 2004
Astraea, You're right, of course. Probably my background in this field is too limited for me to visualize, and phrase so elegantly. My visualization ends with a mind picture of billions of atoms/cells tightly woven together with billions upon billions of some kind of threads.......kind of like a spider web. Thanks, very much.

Astraea	16 Mar 2004
The theosophical hypothesis is that the atom -- like the cell -- is sentient in some way, regardless of whether it resides in a body, a card or a point in space. Obviously, one can argue until the cows come home about whether or not that position is true in a concrete sense. As I stated earlier, in our limited human perception, every theory and worldview must be considered provisional; we have a great deal to learn about the nature of being.

Astraea	16 Mar 2004
Red Emma -- we were posting (or at least writing) at the same time. I share your vision, and I think we both understand the difficulties it poses for perception in a polarized world.

Mojo	16 Mar 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Astraea The theosophical hypothesis is that the atom -- like the cell -- is sentient in some way , regardless of whether it resides in a body, a card or a point in space. The only "theosophical hypothesis" I'm familiar with was put forth by Maurice Maeterlinck in a work that was highly thought of as satirical, concerning hallucinations, haunted houses, and maudlin thoughts of death. Most of Compte Maeterlinck's works need to be taken with a grain of salt as he freely mixed fiction, philosophy and total fancy together into the same works (actually, he's great to read if you're into trying to decipher symbology, as he weaves a lot of it into his work). A quick Google search failed to bring up any other such hypothesis. Surely you're not going to base your position on a 100-year-old satire?

Astraea	17 Mar 2004
Alice A. Bailey was a leading 20th century theosophist and author of over 25 theosophical treatises, one of which is entitled The Consciousness of the Atom. Before Alice Bailey, discussion of the subject was carried out by the founder of the Theosophical Society (of which Bailey was a member prior to establishing her own group), Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. Other theosophists who have written widely on the subject include Rudolf Steiner (later the founder of Anthroposophy and a contemporary of Blavatsky), A. E. Powell, Annie Besant, Roberto Assagioli (founder of the Psychosynthesis movement in psychology and a student of Alice Bailey), and more recently the noted British physician and esotericist, Douglas Baker. Consciousness as a characteristic of all planes of existence, each after its own manner, is a staple of theosophical thought; consciousness as we humans know it is but one aspect of a very wide bandwidth, according to this line of reasoning. In any case, I have no wish to debate or belabor discussion about a subject which can neither be proven nor disproven at this stage of our human understanding; my intention has been to delineate one position among many, and this has been accomplished.

Chronata	17 Mar 2004
(Chronata muses about the days events...) Does tarot have a mind of it's own? OOh Ooh! I have an answer to this one! I would have to say...um...yes. I base this answer not on Quantum Physics nor my foreys into Theosophy, nor even my Associates Degree in SWAG... But I would have to say that Tarot has a mind of it's own...because it was so heartily disagreeing with me today! Here I am...painting a new card for my tarot deck, when suddenly, there's this voice in my head...telling me that the color I have choses is ALL wrong for them, and why have I put that over there, and changed the nature of that symbol there.... It was a bit annoying, to have these images tell me what to do! Yeah...I know, It's probably just my own higher voice...but I hate when my own higher voice argues with me all the time. Then again...you probably shouldn't listen to me. I might be certifiable...

Phoenix Rising	17 Mar 2004
I don't think the cards have it's own mind. Remember we're the ones shuffling it and cutting it and putting it into where it should be and placed. So our own intuition or whatever says to stop shuffling and cut it here. the poor old cards are getting a real run around "Go here, go there, stop, standstill" When they think it's getting a rest, "oh here we go again" I would like to know how the ancients came up with the particular cards, majors and minors. And assigned to them it's particular numbers and suits etc. Alot of the universes answers are all put in those pretty pictures, and our universal minds come in and juggle it up, and lay it out for us to dicipher. Some better than others. I said to my aunty "I've been interested in the tarot lately, don't know why" she said "Because you're wanting to understand yourself and the universe" But I ask myself "why is it difficult to interpret our own" well for me anyway. Does it come from a lack of knowing our own mind? or am I in denial? Probably both.

Mojo	17 Mar 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Astraea Alice A. Bailey was a leading 20th century theosophist and author of over 25 theosophical treatises, one of which is entitled The Consciousness of the Atom . Hmmmm.... let's see.... Alice Bailey - No formal education, so I guess she's an appropriate "expert" for such a field of study. She was the founder of Lucis Trust - named for Lucifer - which published countless works based on the "new world order" and most of which had a decidedly anti-semitic point of view. Not a good first reference. Helena Petrovna Blavatsky - A total charlatan and an opportunist (hey, I kinda like her already!). Again, no education at all to speak of, so not a good witness to support such pseudo-scientific claims. Rudolf Steiner - studied Kant and Goethe and decided that he knew better than they did what they were thinking. Most serious Goethe scholars dismiss Steiner's interpretations of Goethe's works as pure fantasy. Roberto Assagioli - ah! finally a scientist to support your point. But wait, while Assagioli provided a bridge between Freud and Jung and expanded on the concept of the collective unconscious (which I can buy into since it is ORGANIC in nature), I think we'd be hard pressed to find anywhere where he delved into any arguments about the sentient nature of atoms. If you're going to put forth an argument in favor of an extreme position, you should make sure your references are good ones. Anyone can write a book and create a school of thought (think: "compassionate conservatism"). And it's not all that difficult to find a group of dedicated followers for just about any wild idea. It's not even all that unusual for those followers to organize, such as with Alice Bailey's Arcane School. They're called cults. So unless one is willing to turn off the left side of their brains completely, the argument for sentient atoms so far leaves lots of room for doubt. I have never understood the need some people have to legitimize the Tarot by quoting crackpot theories. Tarot is what it is, period. It's not a serious form of study. It's not a science. It's not a discipline. It's not mystical or magical. It's not even real. It's an art. Why can't that be enough?

MeeWah	17 Mar 2004
We can agree to disagree, as 'tis evident that from whatever standpoint & despite the various perceptions, beliefs, etc, Tarot still appeals to a broad humanity & "works" for the individual. That Tarot expresses concepts that cross boundaries real & otherwise speaks for itself.

The Tarot's Mind thread was originally posted on 13 Mar 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.