This post is part of my Notes on Divination series. This gets somewhat philosophical and is rough and not organized, so bear with me.

I have been playing with the idea of writing a book on the philosophy of divination. In fact, I have been playing with ideas for a lot of books on occultism, but I need to start somewhere. This is the first in a series of articles on such topics. Don’t take the following as an organized treatise–it is more like a random gathering of thoughts.

It’s impossible to be self-aware diviners without sooner or later stumbling upon the question of free will, the two most simplistic options being that we have complete free will and therefore divination is not about the future or that we have no free will at all and everything is predestined. I will argue in another article that both options actually prevent meaningful prediction.

Often people talk about “compatibilism” that is, the idea that prediction and free will can be seen as compatible. This is all very well, but it means nothing unless one explains how. Inevitably, explaining it requires one to clearly define the space alloted to both. Here I talk about all things that limit our choice, while in a future article I will talk about the limits of prediction.

Firstly, we need to acknowledge that when it comes to divination, it is not at all clear that we talk about prediction. After decades of New Age nonsense, divination has largely been relegated to the uttering of ‘inspired wisdom’, wisdom apparently being the consolation prize for those that can’t look at reality for what it is.

People who usually manage to compose their faces in a mask of sanity abandon all commonsense as soon as they pick up a tarot deck: you create your own destiny, you can do whatever you want. Well, you don’t. This is provably so. We cannot treat people as if they were bundles of free will floating in empty space. People come from specific backgrounds and have specific problems, idiosyncrasies and preferences that dictate their course.

You may be free, for instance, to choose between vanilla and chocolate, but if you hate chocolate you’ll probably pick vanilla. This is often seen as part of people’s free choice, but if we think about it for a second, it is actually a limit to personal freedom: an inner disgust toward something leads you toward something else without you being able to control it.

In other words, your choice, which is theoretically open to everything, is already limited by a number of psychological hangups that push you around like a sock puppet. That is a limit to free will in my book. Divination may very well be used to delve into these issues and to widen your options. In fact, it is a very good use of divination. But we cannot use divination to do so if we don’t first acknowledge that our options are limited, sometimes severely so.

But preferences are just one kind of limit. Another one comes in the form of ( the much reviled in spiritual circles) objective reality. If you are in a blind alley, know no martial arts, have no means of self-defense and an armed thug is walking toward you, that’s a pickle you can’t meditate or visualize your way out of.

This is not to say that you’ll inevitably lose. Maybe the dude is drunk and collapses to the ground as soon as he stumbles on that banana peel; maybe you are very good at talking and you persuade him to let you go by striking the right note; maybe a falling bit of debris from a ramshackle building takes care of him.

All this (and more) is possible. But the objective fact that you are in the blind alley in a less-than-desirable situation instead of sucking on a Capri Sun on your way to Hawaii imposes certain limits (just as this latter scenario imposes other limits)

The example above is situational, but our whole life is a series of determining factors that limit our trajectory. Look back on your personal history and you’ll probably be able to see traces of many, many past situations that still accompany you to this day, for better or worse. Even past choices become hard, unchangeable facts once enough time passes. You cannot, for instance, ungraduate from that useless gender studies degree in order to pursue a STEM subject. Although you can divorce, you cannot unmarry the person you married. Although you can abandon your child, you cannot unbirth it.

We could go on, but this point is clear enough: at any given moment in time we find ourselves shaped by a series of objective, subjective and intersubjective factors that limit us and our possible trajectory.

The delusional New Age view that we are the product of our current decisions does happen to stumble upon a little bit of truth, though it mischaracterizes it. It is true that, in so far as we abstract from ourselves and we move toward the universal, we peel backs layers of individual conditioning and we move toward the unconditional, however you may choose to call it (God, Being, One, Reality, Ensoph, etc.)

But there is a catch: moving toward the unconditional means not just letting go of our limits, but also of the aims that would lead us to want to overcome those limits as, however we may understand the unconditional, it is not conditioned by this or that choice. The fact of the matter is that free will may very well be the substance of reality, but in so far as it is the substance of reality it is not the substance of my limited whims.

In practice, therefore, the idea of unconditional free will is untenable from the standpoint of a diviner, as abiding by it renders the divination process futile, however we may understand it. This is not to say that complete determinism fares much better, as I shall show in the next article.

MQS