In my latest reading, an interesting phenomenon happened: I had to partly go beyond the basic rules of the oracle (in this case the tarot) in order to interpret its message. Specifically, I had to get past the rule that only the Wand figures represent the querents and accept the Queen of Cups as an alternative version of the subject in question.
There is always a reason why something happens, and in this case I believe the possible reasons were 1) that I was asking about my mother, so the cards described her not only as the protagonist of the reading (Wand) but also as mother of the person asking the question (Cup) 2) the reading was, in part, about her still viewing herself as wife, even though she is widowed, so not only is she the protagonist (Wand) but also a wife (Cup).
I am pretty sure this sort of things (that is, the need to apply the ground rules with discretion) can happen in different respects with any deck. In fact, I think it can happen with any oracle. The late Robert Zoller often showed that good astrologers need to be guided by what the chart is saying, which often requires one to start from recorded knowledge and then stretch that knowledge to cover each individual case. William Lilly, possibly the most important horary astrologer in history, often repeated that one must “mix discretion with art”, that is, understand the rules and then apply them intelligently.
The thing is, divination is not an assembly line type of work: it’s a Hermetic art (where the word ‘Hermetic’ is understood in its classical sense, not the Kybalion-style crap). If even the rules of biology need to be interpreted smartly by doctors in order to cure the human body, then how much more flexible do we need to be to interpret a device whose permutations can give us the blueprint for anything that could happen?
Anything goes vs informed pragmatism
My understanding of divination is a never-ending journey. The way I currently see the rules of divination is as posts along the way in a thick snowstorm. If a post has been put somewhere, that means someone was there before and has figured out something. We do not discard such knowledge lightly, unless the contingent reality of our current situation makes us prefer another route.
This approach is very different from the ‘anything goes’ non-method used by so many, which is almost expected and even bragged about, largely due to the widespread rejection of rationality in our milieu. Too many people who dabble into esoteric subjects today seem to believe that throwing overboard logic is the first step on the journey. In part this is due to mistaken orientalist fantasies, in part to a post-modern Zeitgeist that sees all structures as dispensable, reactionary dead weight only good for restraining us– who wants to be restrained?
The way I currently see rules in the esoteric arts is neither reactionary nor revolutionary. It is an attempt at appraising reality through lenses as simple as possible and as complex as they need to be, a kind of pragmatism that is informed by the past but future-oriented in looking for concrete solutions to concrete issues.
As far as divination is concerned, it is a language, but it is a language with no native speakers, and for which no Rosetta stone exists, except the tentative hypotheses of those who have grappled with the language before. We don’t need to vest them with our superstitious awe, but we do owe them a serious, dispassionate look at the conclusions they have reached before either accepting them as they are, discarding them or expanding them with discretion.
MQS

