Does the Hermit have a sense of humour?

[Parasphere]

Okay, here I am again with yet another odd question about Tarot characters! And I can assure you, this won't be the last


I DO understand the Hermit's purpose, what he/ she stands for and such.

But, is he "antisocial"? Does he prefer being alone, or is it solely in pursuit of a higher purpose and further ascending? I know what he's doing (I'm a Sufi and can relate to that), but if we put that aside for a minute and look at him as an "ordinary man", would he be perceived as private, not friendly, hard to communicate with etc? If someone approached him to say hello, would he snap at them?

Any thoughts? I'm just trying to understand the psychology of this person (and NOT the card itself)... Make sense?

Cheers!

 

[Sulis]

I don't think hermits are anti-social, I think that they have isolated themselves as part of their own spiritual journey.

I've met a couple of hermit-types and they certainly had a sense of humour. I think a sense of humour often does comes with wisdom and a search for a higher spiritual purpose. Hermits are teachers and guides too so I think a sense of humour helps there.

 

[nisaba]

But, is he "antisocial"?

No.

Does he prefer being alone,

Yes. But that isn't being anti-social. There is *nothing* about the card that is anti-social. Someone who drinks a lot and swears in public and gets into fistfights over nothing is antisocial, but may not be able to bear even an hour on their own without mental discomfort.

or is it solely in pursuit of a higher purpose and further ascending?

*All* time spent thoughtfully alone and communing with your gods (whatever they may be) is "in pursuit of higher purpose and further ascending". For me, that's anywhere between two hours a day as a bare minimum and about eight to ten hours a day as a comfort-zone. Not all of that time will I spend in formal prayer, magic or meditation. Some of it I will spend on the computer, cutting my toenails, cooking, doing laundry or catnapping. But it's all spent, as I like to say, "in the palm of the Goddess' hand". Higher purpose and furhter ascending does not exclude other activities that are solitary in nature. After all, a different faith tells us: before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. During enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. The older I get, the less patient I am with people (like you, if the implications of your question are to be believed), who force an artificial separation between spirituality and everything else.

I know what he's doing (I'm a Sufi and can relate to that),

Then you'll know that he could be a complete talk-your-ear-off-chatterbox who loves doof-doof music and city crowds, while still communing with his gods, whatever form they take.

but if we put that aside for a minute and look at him as an "ordinary man", would he be perceived as private, not friendly, hard to communicate with, etc?

<a bit surprised> If you "know what he's doing" because of your Sufism, then you will know that as an "ordinary man" he could be any and all kinds of ordinary man, with any and all kinds of personality, any and all kinds of interests, and any and all kinds of activities and community involvements. After all, I know that amongst people of my religion, there are people I see eye to eye with, then there are others I don't understand at all. There are people who like similar music to me and others who like mindless noise (to my ears). There are people with my skill-sets, and others who can do impossible things like design aircraft or make exquisite things out of scraps of wood. You'll find the same in Sufism. So why should the Hermit be any more limited than any other archetype when you specifically exclude everything about him that makes him him? After all, all the Majors are archetypes, not portraits of individual human beings, and as archetypes, they embody a given energy. Once you strip that away (as you have in the terms of reference of your question) there is nothing left. A blank canvas.

If someone approaches him to say hello, would he snap at them?

Some people doing the archetypal Hermit-stuff might, others might not. The card does not describe a person, but something bigger, an archetype. If you peel that away by saying, as you did, that you want to excluse all of the archetype and look at the person, well, there's no person there. It's the first, second and fifteen-hundredth person you see when you look out your window. IT could be anyone, if you take away everything that is Hermitish. Perhaps George Bush or Eminem, Princess Mary or your local "mad cat-woman".

Any thoughts? I'm just trying to understand the psychology of this person (and NOT the card itself)...

You're trying to look at the psychology of emptiness, or no-person and every-person?

 

[Fostha]

I don't think hermits are anti-social, I think that they have isolated themselves as part of their own spiritual journey.

I've met a couple of hermit-types and they certainly had a sense of humour. I think a sense of humour often does comes with wisdom and a search for a higher spiritual purpose. Hermits are teachers and guides too so I think a sense of humour helps there.

My thoughts exactly,course it depends on exactly WHO you're looking at here as the hermit in life too,even if they're seen by some as an anti-social recluse,they worry not,as anyone who "really" know the person would know just what their sense of humour is like most times anyway...anyone in hermit mode is usually there through their own choice.

 

[Parasphere]

Thanks for your replies.

Nisaba- yep, it's much clearer now, thank you. Like you said, it's the archetype as opposed to an individual. I always viewed him as this "loner" who seemed very... alone. Hence my questions about what kind of 'person' he is. I looked at him as a person, not the archetype that he is. Thanks for clearing that up. I'm still learning!

 

[Parasphere]

Sulis + Fostha, thanks for that! The picture is clearer now The Hermit resides in everyone, no? But like Nisaba said, he's the archetype, not the PERSON. My bad

 

[nisaba]

<grin> That being said, it *is* possible to look at a human that you know - perhaps a family member or someone you work with, and say something like "This person is just the perfect Hermit" - and you'd be right. It works in reverse, because we all process archetypes in our lives from time to time, which are separate from our personalities. But you can't look at it the other way around.

 

[Herzog]

The word "hermit" has received a somewhat negative meaning in modern culture. This is probably because movies and books refer to old, cranky loners as "Hermits".

The title of this card, as well as others like "Death", should be changed, in my opinion. These titles unfortunately have negative connotations for the sitter. They distract from a reading because now the reader must spend time explaining unnecessary things.

"Mourning" is a softer, more appropriate title for "Death". How about "Shaman", or "The Seeker" for Hermit?

 

[Jaqueline]

I start this post with an apology, cause I can't remember what book I read this in, but I thought it an interesting take on the Hermit - that he is "child-like" in his wonder & fascination with the world, & that is what makes him be so much in his own head as to separate himself from the rest of society. I'm probably wording this badly, but I try to keep this in mind when the Hermit comes up - it helps dispell that "cranky old man" negative image. Anyone else heard the "child-like" thing?

 

[Thirteen]

I start this post with an apology, cause I can't remember what book I read this in, but I thought it an interesting take on the Hermit - that he is "child-like" in his wonder & fascination with the world, & that is what makes him be so much in his own head as to separate himself from the rest of society.

No and yes. The problem with this definition is that it comes close to that of the Fool. The Fool is, by definition, the one with child-like wonder and fascination with the world, dancing along in his own world, right? So, that definition is describing the Fool. BUT, the Hermit is a lot like the Fool, so the definition isn't entirely wrong either.

Which makes me wonder, what other definitions could stand for both, and what's different? For example: Both Fool and Hermit are explorers, yes. But the Fool explores the world in the day time--seeing all that everyone else sees, but seeing them through innocent eyes; so while alone in his head, he's still there on the road with others; the Hermit explores the world at night--seeing what is usually missed by the rest of the world. He goes where he goes very much alone. Both are usually shown with Staffs, but one has his staff over his shoulder carrying all his stuff behind him, while the other uses it to hold his lantern, aiming it ahead of himself so that he can really examine what he's seeing.

Both wanderers, yes. But the Fool wanders with no purpose, the Hermit does have a purpose. Both child-like. Yes. But the Fool may really be a child, as foolish and as innocent. The Hermit is not--he can be an elder and a teacher however "child-like" his wonder. Both filled with fascination and wonder for the world, yes, but the Fool doesn't discern--he may miss what is important to go after something frivolous. The Hermit is all about discerning. He may have to sift through the useless stuff, but he knows how to pick out what matters and what doesn't.

The Fool flits from thing to thing like a butterfly. He doesn't want to discover it's meaning, or how it works, or why it is. He doesn't want to stare at just one thing for hours on end. He just wants to experience all of life, as much as he can. His child-like aspect is excitement: "Look at that! Look at that! Look at that!"

The Hermit, on the other hand, is motivated by the need to understand. His child-like aspect is always asking "Why?" Why is the grass green? Why are we here? Why don't we fly off the Earth if it's spinning? His great joy is learning and knowing. Which is all to say, your definition is charming and correct, but imprecise. As it is, it can apply to either of these two. I think it needs something more to clarify the difference.