Umbrae said:
Somebody said something about not just energy being left on cards (and I suppose the term energy may have caused some concern for a few) but mentioned Fingerprints…DNA.
And I pulled up short.
***
Fingerprints are said to be unique to each of us, as is our DNA. And we leave a bit of ourselves on whatever we come in contact with. The lead pipe, the candlestick, the rope, the Tarot deck…we touch it…and leave something unique behind.
A fingerprint within a fingerprint.
***
So do our bodies contain micro-electricity; small charges of electrical current? Could it be different for each of us? Is it in our DNA or cellular material?
I think so, yes...
***
But if we leave a physical, cellular piece of ourselves behind – logic tells me that a micro-electrical charge may be imparted also.
Yes, it's a lot easier to accept the concept of the idea that energy may be left behind when people physically touch things by comparing that theoretical energy to fingerprints or DNA.
However, I don't think that "logic tells" us that the one phenomenon must follow because the other exists. We have evidence of fingerprints and DNA, and evidence of some kinds of energy, but not of other kinds. To extrapolate from what is known to what is unknown is not logic, but theorizing. And basically, we really can't know what is unknown until we get evidence of it.
I myself do know that some generally unrecognized forms of energy do exist and can be transmitted, but I don't expect anyone else to believe that. I only believe it because I can sense it. I talked about that here in this thread:
feeling human energy fields based on sun sign
Quantum physics tells us the universe, as we know it does not exist. But we make it so. An electron here exchanges with an electron there. A few neutrinos shoot through (Swiiiiiiiiiiiiiing)…
Quantum physics also tells us about quantum entanglement and "spooky action at a distance" which allows for all sorts of possibilties of things interacting which have nothing to do with physically touching anything, fingerprints, or energy transmission at a close range.
Myths, legends... Each myth, each legend had a basis for beginning. To simply say, “Ah it’s a legend, don’t believe it” is a knee-jerk reaction.
It’s a mythtake in my opinion. A blind knee-jerk in the name of rationale.
Stating something is not true because it’s a legend, or a myth, is as heinous as blindly accepting a myth or legend as fact.
In fact it may be worse.
Debunking myths blindly (“Hey I bought my first deck and it didn’t affect me!”) does few any favors; students find no wisdom in such lessons. You may very well obstruct growth by imposing your worldview upon them as opposed to allowing students to find their own view.
For instance, why SHOULD someone be given his or her first deck? Does it make a difference? Will they be a better reader? Will the deck work better?
***
I really want to see folks stop simply stating, “It’s a myth! Don’t believe it!”
I used to be one of those folks. And I now know that my prior stance was wrong. I no longer hold those beliefs.
Myths have a root.
Fables and myths are what we use to describe what we don’t comprehend. They are our attempts to make the impossible possible.
Wisdom often lies in the undertones. That’s where we find truth.
Undertones are also where we find falsehood. They are also the domain of misunderstanding and prejudice and misinterpretation and unexamined assumptions.
Depending upon what one means by undertones.
But yes, myths have a root. Some myths are obviously false. Some are not so obviously false, but still false.
Some are true, more or less obviously so. Some are only true on a large scale, and not a small scale.
I think the problem comes in when people try to apply universality to myths that are not universal, or to claim literal truth for myths which are allegorical.
Telling anyone "don't believe it" or "believe it" is really equally absurd. I don't see how one is worse than the other. A person can take any theory or story on board provisionally, can consider it, use it in their thinking, play with it in their mind- but to believe or not to believe without some evidence which is not story or theory based is an invitation to self destruction- to the denial of one's own experience, and to the failure to live one's own personal life.
And really, if any myth is really true, really has basis- won't a person discover it on their own? Does it need to be indoctrinated? If a myth really applies to all humans, then it is contained in all humans. If archetypes are really archetypes, then they are a part of real living people. If a fools' journey or hero/ine's journey is true, and has a real root, then people will live that out whether they have ever heard of such stories or not.
Stating that one bought one's own deck and that one had no bad luck from it is not a blind debunking. It is a statement based upon experience, and falsifiabilty. Things can be disproven, but they cannot be proven with certainty. It only takes one person who does not have bad luck from an action to disprove that bad luck always follows from an action. Does that prove that no one will ever have bad luck from said action? No. But, it does prove that bad luck will not always follow from it.
Aside from the debunking of falsehood is the idea of why a myth arises, what purpose it may serve to those who believe it, and what psychological reasons people have for creating or transmitting it.
I have no use for fable as a way to "describe what we don't comprehend". I prefer just to admit that I don't comprehend what I don't comprehend. I can describe such, but that doesn't make it a myth. Myth is when the fable tries to
explain what we don't comprehend. And that is the wrong way to get there, in my opinion, if one really is trying to comprehend. Experience is what allows one to truly comprehend.
I think at its best, fable is a way to describe what we
do comprehend, but in a way which is more concise, emotionally effective, and memorable than less poetic descriptions.
Remember, I did say in the thesis post that knee jerking might be a mythtake. I’d prefer folks to ask me why I say something, rather than flat out tell me I’m wrong, or use a hypothetical example, or an example from a thread not referenced.
So let’s examine another myth; that You should be given your first Tarot deck (as a gift).
Never have I seen a post where anybody has even attempted to explore or explain this one. What we get are posts stating, “It’s not true!” “It’s a stupid harmful legend!”
Yeah perhaps it is. Perhaps it’s not. Anybody ever look at it? Examine it for signs of life?
Never seen a post attempting to explore or explain it? I made such a post, and so did a few others, in this thread:
myth or fact? Though those posts may not be of the finding "signs of life" variety.
Knee jerking is in the eye of the beholder. Labeling a statement as a "knee jerk" reaction presumes that the speaker has not thought about the statement. Clearly most here have thought quite a bit about tarot myths.
Take a look at the Major Arcana as a Whole System (It’s all inter-related as opposed to static unrelated pieces – Geeze I wish Stewart Brand was a Tarot aficionado…) and you will observe how folks get the ‘Hero’s Journey” thing (or the Heroine’s Journey, or the Fool’s Journey, or…). The twenty-two cards can make a storyboard of infinite complexity… Books and books have been written about this very thing.
In any of the Journey Myths of Tarot, lies the act of Initiation.
And gifting a deck IS an act of initiation…
It tells the recipient that their gift is recognized. This is radically different than going out and purchasing your first deck, which is ego-centric (“I’m special, I have the gift, I’m gonna be a fortune-teller”), a stance not embraced by much of humanity.
And if Granny gives you her deck! Oh my GAWD!!! What a gift! What an initiation! What power!
Okay…so…do you have to wait to get your first deck?
No.
But do you understand the power of receiving your first deck as a gift? Do you understand the power that you can become a part of by gifting a deck?
Just a thought…
So according to the hypothetical examples there, buying one's own deck is correlated with "feeling special" and recieving one is correlated with "having power".
But of course, it depends upon the view of the person getting the deck.
Really, I think that assuming one has "the gift" or believing that one has been initiated into something powerful by family lineage or by a mentor are both blind alleys when it comes to the idea of the power of tarot or anything else.
One is ego centric (or can be viewed that way) and the other is structure or history centric. History without evidence is a hypothetical structure that only exists insofar as people keep recreating it by telling stories.
The power of tarot doesn't exist in its history traditions or in the self image of its users. It exists seperately from those. It just exists. It rises up again and again in the now. Outside of the ego and the traditions. That's my view at this point, anyway, mainly because I see no reason to believe otherwise, and because I see many reasons not to believe the personal and collective myths.
(A digression about the power of grandmothers and myths/fantasies: I have often imagined how magical it would have been to have met my other grandmother, who died in Cuba before I was born. I've written songs about it. I've had dreams about it. The idea of her has power to me, has become part of my personal mythology. The idea that she would have been the person who would "know" and "understand" me. Now, I have another grandmother here in Indiana, but she's not nearly as exotic and mysterious as the one I couldn't know. We don't have as many things in common as I think I would with the one I can't know. But, the one I can't know- I can never know. I can project all my ideas and desires onto her image. She would see how "special" I am. She would make me feel part of a lineage. [She was related to a famous german composer, and was a piano teacher and singer]. Would my life have been different if I had known her? I have no idea and never can know. Maybe it's all just fantasy.)
Here's how I'm viewing myths of all varieties at this point. They are stories that aim at universality and grandiosity and allegorical poetic truth. Stories that groups disseminate, and that individuals tell themselves. There are personal myths, and collective myths.
I think the problem comes in when we do try to "make the impossible possible". Yes- "manifesting"- blah blah blah- but some things really are impossible. Some things really are not true. That is where myths and fairy tales are a problem. That's where they increase the misery factor. It's the difference between expectation and reality that causes so much despair. "Happily ever after"- that's a myth. Fairy tales are myths.
So why do we tell them. To provide hope- to provide a map- to infuse with meaning- to feel connected. But is the connection real? Is the meaning true? Is the map reliable? Is the hope warranted?
(An interesting book about stories in general which tries to get to the heart and essentials of all storytelling is The Seven Basic Plots- Why We Tell Stories by Christopher Booker [no Stewart Brand
but it is sort of a 'whole stories catalog'.
] I talked a bit about the book in
this thread.)
Do our individual experiences really fit into the myths?
Maybe for some more than others.
