As a diviner, I have no objection to making predictions about what is likely to happen. I see the current taboo about the future as a mix of delusion and ignorance. Our current culture comes at the tail-end of the myth of the self-made man that has animated much of our recent (and even not-so-recent) past. This myth has strongly influenced the Zeitgeist of the current occult wave, which started at the end of the XVIII century and continues, though declining–putrefying, even–to this day.
The occult developments have in turn trickled down into pop spirituality and have fostered the belief, now extremely popular, that all it takes to change one’s reality is to tune into the wavelength where one’s delusion corresponds to objective facts, and that nothing about one’s identity is more than a socially-conditioned self-identification that can be simply deconstructed and cast off like a cloak in favor of something else as the whim of the day dictates.
This implies the idea that the future is a completely blank slate and that therefore divination can only be used as a tool for self-reflection on the present to facilitate this process of self-making and self-remaking. Unfortunately, the self-reflection in question regularly resolves itself into simply telling the querent what they already think or would like to think of themselves, but packaged in empowering language within a context in which they assume they are communing with divinity. “Wow, the Gods think exactly the same as I do! How wise!”
Anyone who lives in actual reality and has spent five minutes reflecting on it know that this view of existence is demonstrably false (although, like many false things, it contains faint traces of truth). Each of us has a path in life that is unique, containing specific challenges and opportunities, possibilities and impossibilities. Divination is good at detecting these patterns and their likely outcome in the near future.
Still, I find that there is value in employing traditional divination in exploring the present. The language of traditional divination is frank, crisp and concrete, as it comes from a deep understanding of the fact that, if what is above is as what is below and what is within is as what is without, then what is above or within cannot be a metaphysical soup of saccarine inanities, but must correspond to the complex interplay of pleasure and sorrow of the below and without.
In other words, if a tiktok psychic might tell you that you always end up with the wrong guy because you have a soul contract that stipulates that you need to come into contact with your inner queen, traditional divination is more than happy to let you know that it’s because you are a basic harlot who chooses basic idiots.
This is not to say that there is a god or a spirit judging the querent through us or through the oracle: it is merely a dispassionate look at your life from a dispassionate observer on a simple example of causality. It also does not imply that we, as diviners, shouldn’t learn to speak with tact and diplomacy. However, the employment of actual divination techniques allows us to shed light on the querent’s present in terms that might actually be helpful to them.
We never leave a divination session unaltered. The knowledge we gain changes us necessarily: me knowing about X is not the same as me not knowing about it. If X is in my hands, then knowing about it can give me some power over it. If it isn’t in my hands, then knowing about it gives me awareness of the limits that define my unique path through life. That’s growth, too.
I had a quick but interesting exchange of emails with a reader of this blog, and they asked me my perspective on the ethical side of prediction. One of the questions was if I share the belief that we shouldn’t answer questions that don’t directly relate to the querent and their actions, especially if they involve reading other people’s mind (e.g., “Is he thinking about his ex?”)
The Three Types of Diviners
First off we must recognize that, nowadays, there are many diviners who do not even think that prediction is possible. Then there’s those who think it’s possible but not desirable. And then there’s those who think it’s both possible and perfectly legitimate. If you know me, you can guess which camp I belong to.
The one thing almost all diviners of almost all strands can agree on is that divination should leave the querent with more information than before the reading took place. It is the nature of the information that is controversial. Many (most, perhaps) contemporary diviners believe the information should be of a mystical/ethical nature and should guide the querent’s action rather than foretelling future events or things the querent has no control over, such as other people’s thoughts beliefs, which is seen as prying. The idea is that to do otherwise is to disempower the querent by putting the center of power outside of them.
To which I say: We are not discrete atoms living each in its own self-made, self-referential reality, no matter what the manifesting girly-pops on Tiktok say. The center of power is not within us, at least not in the sense that most people think.1We exist enmeshed in an infinitely complex chain of actions and reactions, and our degree of control over them is objectively limited.
We seek to steer our life through the chaos of existence by levereging the information we have, including our knowledge of what (we think) other people’s beliefs and motivations are. In so far as divination gives us information and knowledge, it helps us increase the degree of control we have on our life (though this control can never be absolute). As such, it is perfectly legitimate to want to know what other people think.
The idea that we can only tell the querent what to do as a discrete, atomized individual is faulty for a variety of reasons. As said, the first reason is that we are not atoms. Only first world people with first world problems can seriously believe such postmodern crap (try to go to a starving child in a war zone and tell him he just needs to manifest harder). In reality, how other people think and act has very much to do with how the querent will or can behave, and so the querent’s expectation of being told such information is understandable.
The Two Should’s
The second important reason is that the idea itself that there is an objective cosmic measure of how we should act which the diviner must relay to the querent is silly. How people should act is between them and their god, and diviners are well advised to stay out of it instead of trying to play the role of ruler-wielding metaphysical pep-talkers (whenever you find someone who acts like this, run! Those who can live their life, do. Those who can’t, become life coaches.)
The word “should” has two different meanings: technical (“you should take the bus now if you want to get there on time”) and moral (“you should think about those less fortunate than you”). In the first sense, divination has some use, but only in the sense that the diviner, after assessing the situation as it emerges from the cards or chart, and taking what the querent hopes to achieve into consideration, gives them advice (I’ve talked about this here). In this sense, knowing what someone else thinks can be valuable (“he is not thinking about you and he won’t for the foreseeable future. Maybe you should start thinking about putting yourself back on the market”).
From a moral standpoint, divination’s use is very limited and it can become a dangerous tool of delusion or deceit. Example: “Should I have an abortion?” there is absolutely no way of answering that question. Some quick research online will show that there are all kinds of stances on abortion, ranging from believing it should never be had even if it means the woman will lose her life to believing it’s a moral duty of every woman to have one to stick it to the system, with a variety of more moderate solutions in between.
Since there is no consensus, such question essentially translates to “what is your stance on abortion?” Why you should regulate your life based on the personal moral beliefs of someone shuffling pretty cards on the internet is a question the answer to which is probably found somewhere in California.
“But isn’t divination a form of communion with the divine? Shouldn’t the divine know what’s right?”
Divination is most definitely a form of communion with the divine, but the idea that God has any kind of moral preference is, as far as I am concerned, questionable. People tend to patch their idea of God together from their moral and political prejudices. Somehow the God of the reactionary is always a hillbilly and the God of the revolutionary is always a hippy.
Divination lets us partake of a small share knowledge that one would usually get only if he were God, but this knowledge is very practical and is a tight condensation of that which happens, has happened or will happen in real life: Dante, in describing God, imagines it almost as a compressed version of all that happens in the created world, apprehended in the single blink of an eye.
The above doesn’t mean that it is always wise to answer any question the querent puts to us. “Is he thinking about someone else?” can be two very different questions depending on whether it is being asked by a person looking for closure or by a crazed monomaniac bombarding the diviner with the same query over and over. That divination tends to attract a less conservative clientele is not an earth-shattering revelation, so we do need to exert caution in choosing the questions we are comfortable answering.
Caring For Others
My one guiding principle is that divination implies care for another human being. But what does ‘care’ mean here? Does it mean caring for their ‘evolution’?
Well, no. First off, I think it is very questionable that the concept of evolution should be applied to spirituality. It is generally brought up to make pseudospiritual gibberish sound scientific–it’s a trend that dates back to the XIX century–yet those who use it end up employing a concept of evolution that is more Lamarckian (the giraffe stretches its neck to reach the leaf, thus evolving) than Darwinian (the giraffe born with the shorter neck simply starves, thus ridding the gene pool of its inadequacy, and can do nothing about it), and therefore completely unscientific.
Secondly, again, who am I to tell the querent what the next step in their evolution is supposed to be, especially since there is no consensus on objective standards? Divination can point out shortcomings in the querent’s behavior, but not in a moralistic sense. The cards, for instance, can say, “he left you because you tend to spread your legs more than a ballet dancer” but that’s a mere explanation of the causality behind an objective situation: Y derives from X. The cards are no bead-clutching confessor and I don’t aspire to be one either.
For me caring for another human being means seeing them in their struggle to reach their goals and offering them a bit of additional information that they are at liberty of using or leaving. The main question I ask myself when asked to do a spread is: am I offering information? In the example above of “Is he thinking about someone else?” the person looking for closure is asking for information, while the monomaniac isn’t. It is that simple.
I will certainly talk more about the issue in the future, but I think so far the main point is that divination is a tool for intelligence-gathering. As long as it offers intelligence it is a form of communion with the divine. If it doesn’t, it reinforces destructive trends and is best avoided, but this depends less on the question and more on the querent’s attitude.
MQS
From a philosophical standpoint I can accept the idea that the ultimate reality resides wholly within me, but if we accept this, then it is present just as much inside everything else, including in the people and situations that make my life miserable. ↩︎
I had a short but interesting conversation with a visitor of this site. He quite liked many of my articles but was somewhat perplexed by my iconoclastic attitude toward the spiritual side of divination. I think this is a good time to clarify my views further, since the reason I am so scathing is not that I hate spiritual work, but that I take it seriously.
First off, let us distinguish inspired divination from technical divination. Inspired divination is the downloading of information, as it were, from a spirit, a deity, an inner contact or some such. This depends wholly on either the inborn talent or the level of initiation of the diviner.
Technical divination works for the same reason that stones fall: because that’s how things are. One learns it the same way one learns math: they must be predisposed to it and must put in the work. Of course, one can mix the two types of divination, but they are essentially different.
Either type can be used to obtain concrete information. Either type can be used to fool yourself or others (but especially yourself). The difference is that inspired divination, especially as a consequence of initiation, has the perk that the diviner must have somewhat balanced themselves out of many of the delusions typical of the spiritual community at large. Technical divination may be just as hard for other reasons, but the counters used in the prediction are available to everyone.
From here come the hordes of tarot readers and astrologers that (believe they) are using divination for spiritual aims, or inner work, when in fact they are sinking more and more into Delululand, as most of the time they aren’t really speaking to gods or angels or ancestors but rather to their own ego (have you ever heard any tarot reader or astrologer that uses this approach say something that goes against their convictions? How come their gods or ancestors always have their same values, their same political bias, their same preferences?)
The preconception here is that divination, in order to be spiritual, must be about spiritual topics. This is as a result of two widespread phenomena: 1) most people in our society see spirituality as something separate from concrete life, something that takes place in a bubble of white light 2) most people who become interested in divination are initially interested in concrete answers, but finding that getting these is hard and not immediately rewarding, they reframe divination as ‘not really to know the future but to improve yourself’. This is at the heart of the deadly divination/fortune-telling distinction that plagues our art.
In reality, divination is an inherently spiritual practice: 1) by the mere fact of working it deflates the modern ego 2) by its ability to pinpoint how the future is likely to pan out it puts a stop to the marketable but untrue ‘you are the master of your own destiny’ nonsense 3) by showing how the intricacies of real life can be mirrored in a microcosmic mirror it teaches the diviner to rise above himself and his preconceptions and adopt a more universal standpoint 4) by proving that some things are fated it teaches the practitioner to have compassion for themselves and others and to reevaluate their priorities.
Once again, a geographic analogy could help. A traditional diviner who seeks to understand life is like one using a map of a territory to find his way around. By studying it closely the traveler can eventually form a good understanding of the land he is in. A (pseudo)spiritual approach to divination though is like that same traveler painting the map with a uniform white paint because, at the end of the day, everything is one divine unity. That may very well be, but now the traveler is lost without the map and can only sink deeper in his preconceptions in trying to picture the route.
Remember those listicles that were much in demand about ten years ago, before people grew tired of the rage-bait? Yea, they still do them, but they have somewhat fallen out of favor, especially since they are so basic even AI can do them better than the poorly paid saps who wrote them back then. Anyway, here’s a short one, hopefully more interesting than the average listicle, on what generally hinders good divination, plus a bonus entry for what helps.
Mechanic Behavior
Divination eschews mechanic repetition. Asking the same question one or two times is fine because there is still enough emotion behind it to put the system into motion. In fact, it is fine to ask the same question many times as long as the querent is truly invested in it, but the more the querent asks the same question with the same emotional drive as the first time, the more you know the querent is cuckoo and is best avoided. In general, it is best to wait a little between divinations.
This point is one that skeptics seem unable to wrap their heads around, because it seems to run against the principle that experiments can be repeated ad libitum, but it is really quite simple: divination is not an experiment, and the more you mechanically ask the same question, the more the real question changes to whatever it was at the beginning to “does divination really work?” and this question cannot be answered by divination itself.
All in all, a balanced relationship to divination as a means of intelligence gathering, together with the understanding that we are attempting something more exceptional than cleaning the cat’s litterbox, is in order.
Shallow Understanding of the System You Work With
If you asked your doctor how he knows his diagnosis is right and he told you it was just his intuition, you’d feel justified in seeking a second opinion. Yet among ‘spiritual seekers’ anything that reeks of effort and study is frowned upon and people go to extraordinary lengths in order to avoid the simple fact that both knowledge and experience are needed to perform satisfactorily in any sector of life. So they come up with anything from intuitive advice (which essentially means “don’t ask me how I know”) to the great angel HRU to fairies to ‘kickass schools of non-duality.’
The reality is that divination is a method for the acquisition of knowledge. If we don’t make the effort of studying the method we don’t get much knowledge. I believe the current distrust of study comes in part from the distrust of intellectual knowledge (see the bonus entry in this list) and in part from the fact that many people who become interested in divination do it to create a little bubble of mystery and mysticism away from the golden cage that is modernity.
Either way, it is a misguided attitude. Divination requires study. Lots of it. In fact, the study will never end. The good news is that we can start practicing much sooner. As for intuition, it does have a place in divination, and I’ll talk about it in the future, but unbridled intuition is just a badly behaved kid.
Bias and Preconceptions
I’ve already talked at length about this, and I will probably still talk about it in the future. It bears repeating: the more we think we know, the less we’re open to discovery.
Aside from ideological forms of bias, which are always bad regardless of the ideology, there are also other forms. One of the most deadly forms of bias is, for instance, the belief that the querent knows what they are talking about. A querent doesn’t need to be malicious in order to confuse us: they can just be confused themselves, or they can have built a whole scenario inside their heads before sitting in front of us.
On the other hand, talking over our querent and treating them like a special needs child won’t do either. There needs to be a balance between our ability to see the truth of the matter in a dispassionate way (thanks to the divination system we are employing) and open-heartedness toward the querent. As a matter of fact, an open heart can go a long way.
Querents can also be biased against us, but we can do nothing about it. People sometimes ask me what happens when someone asks false questions maliciously. What happens is that if I’m lucky, I’ll understand it from the cards, while if I’m not lucky I’ll make a fool of myself. Either way, the person won’t change their mind about divination or about me, so why bother getting worked up about it? Stuff happens.
Your Brain, Your Best Friend
Ever since Madame Blavatsky disgracefully started peddling poorly understood principles of oriental philosophy, the Western esoteric world has become convinced that the “mind is the enemy”. People generally think so (isn’t it ironic? The mind thinking that the mind is the enemy) because they are incapable of using it but want to sound deep in their incompetence.
In reality, if there is such a thing as overthinking, there is also such a thing as underthinking. The idea that everything must come immediately and instinctively to us in a space of pure knowing and that everything resembling logic is the work of the devil is patently wrong.
Aside from the fact that this is philosophically delusional, most people who think only the mind lies never stop to consider how many times their instincts or their heart actually let them down on a day-to-day basis. The reality is that our mind, our body and our heart are ways for us to acquaint ourselves with the world, and all three can lead us astray depending on the context, just as much as they can guide us to profound insight.
Therefore, if it is not correct to let the other two dry up, it is also not correct to become mindless pseudomystics, sacrificing our understanding on the altar of an ill-digested and rather offensive orientalism (“Counterfeit Asian philosophy 101 says the mind is poo poo, therefore it’s true. See how smart I am? I misquote exotic people!”)
The funny thing is that most Eastern forms of divination are not at all intuitive, and in fact verge on the overly technical (see Da Liu Ren, Qi Men Dun Jia, Wen Wang Gua, Vedic Astrology, Purple Emperor Astrology, etc.) They are also incredibly accurate exactly because of how majestically brainy they are, though they may not have the glamour of the latest useless set of empowering witchy cards. Traditional Western divination systems, of course, can be just as accurate, but people usually have the expectation that they need to unplug their brains on the way in. Let’s not do this. Our mind can sometimes lead us astray. It can also help a great deal.
This post is part of my Notes on Divination series.This gets somewhat philosophical and is rough and not organized, so bear with me.
In the previous post in this series, I started discussing some general ideas on why fatalism is an inherently flawed view, while in the one before I had shown why pure free will makes just as little sense. To summarize, pure free will simply doesn’t take into account the fact that we don’t live and move within a blank space that we can change at whim.
On the other hand, pure fatalism cannot even be articulated as a view without contradicting itself: if fatalism is real, then my fatalism is not due to me assessing reality and forming a fatalistic worldview that corresponds to how reality factually is, but it’s due to destiny forcing me to be a fatalist. This implies that when I say I am a fatalist, I don’t really mean it. I *cannot* really mean it – It is conceptually impossible. In order to be a fatalist, I must have the freedom to develop a fatalistic worldview. This is a contradiction.
My view of the universe is consequently inherently libertarian, though it is a reasonable and limited libertarianism.* No matter how small our personal freedom is, it exists and is the place we our soul inhabits. Freedom is the consequence of consciousness. When I become aware of something, I posit it as the object of my awareness, outside of myself, and therefore incapable of completely determining my whole being.
Now let us ask: what happens during a (serious) divination session? What does divination do, at heart? At the very least, divination must either make us aware of unknown facts about the past, present or future, or it must shed new light on known facts, thus revealing them from a different, previously unknown point of view. A divination session that does not do this is not a divination session. It may or may not be helpful in other regards, but it is not divination.
The Moment of Divination
It is clear, therefore, that divination is inherently connected to consciousness and to increasing our conscious awareness of (our) reality. This is another reason why a (mildly) libertarian view of divination makes more sense. Suppose you cross the fortune-teller’s palm with silver and then you get told you will win over your crush: is the fortune-teller right because she actually sees this in the crystal ball or is she doomed to say this to you? If she is doomed to say it, then the fact that she is saying it has nothing to do with the statement being true and everything to do with destiny forcing her to say it.
Furthermore, in revealing your future to you, the fortune-teller cannot help but modify it. This has nothing to do with some odd theories I’ve read on the internet, about the fact that if you predict something you make it happen. If that were true, I could predict myself into a billionaire. Besides, even if the fortune-teller saw your future and didn’t tell you, she would still be modifying your future.
Reality is much more subtle. Suppose that X is going to happen to you. If the fortune-teller tells you, then you are aware of X happening. X happening with your awareness is different from X happening without your awareness. The fabric of the fact itself changes with your awareness of it, for the simple fact that something that happens with your knowledge is not something that happens without your knowledge.
The moment of divination, therefore, has a very important place in our life, because it is part of our life, but it is also a part of our life wherein our awareness of reality increases, thereby changing our reality. This does not automatically mean that divination can make us realize every whim that crosses our mind, nor that it can always save our butt. Sometimes the only choice possible is between accepting a fact and not accepting it.
I like to liken an oracle to a friend on top of a high building, who has a wider view of our surroundings than us as we move in a busy intersection of streets, and who texts us hints that increase our understanding of our reality and can help us make better choices, though sometimes the choices we can make are so severely limited as to border on predestination.
MQS
* I mean ‘libertarian’ from a metaphysical standpoint.
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 already talked about the limitations of free will in divination. Undoubtedly I will need to talk a lot more about it in the future. For now, though, I want to discuss the other side of the coin, namely predestination.
Predesination is the idea that the future is predetermined. This is already vague, because the way in which the future is supposed to be predetermined changes based on the particular view: the way in which a flower necessarily follows from a seed is not the same way as the ending of a movie necessarily follows its beginning. No matter how many times you rewind, Baby Jane always snaps. She cannot do otherwise, for her life has been scripted and it plays out from beginning to end according to the script.
In the case of the seed, although there are contingent factors at play (for instance, the quality of the soil or the amount of water it receives) we are talking about a form of internal necessity. Baby Jane’s life, though, is determined by external factors: she is nothing more than what the author of the book and those of the movie wanted her to be.
The question is: could Baby Jane understand that her life is so predetermined, if someone told her? Let us suppose that the writers had added a scene where she consults a diviner and has her fortunes told to her. The diviner is a good one, and correctly tells her what is going to happen to her, her sister, etc.
Does this change things? The answer, in this case, is no. It doesn’t change anything, because the fortune teller’s scene has also been scripted and plays out for the same reason every other scene in the movie plays out. From an external standpoint, the meeting with the diviner would be no different than any other part of the movie. It would be just another link in the chain.
The Fatalist
But this is not how divination works in real life. In real life, we don’t have the privilege of an external poit of view from which to witness our existence in the same way as when we watch a movie. We can watch a movie because we are not in any meaningful sense part of it.
But we are part of life. We are part of the flow of existence. More specifically, we are that section of existence that is capable of reflecting on existence itself, or, if we want to get trippy, we are the section of existence through which existence reflects on itself: we are existence’s self-consciousness.
This has enormous consequences on our freedom. Let us suppose someone tried to argue that our life is predetermined by a kind of external destiny that uses us like sockpuppets in the same way a character is written by a writer.
The first and most important consequence is that the very fact that they are saying that we are predetermined would itself be predetermined. That is to say, the person does not believe that we are predetermined because it is true that we are predetermined, but because he or she has been written as a fatalist.
Of course, the person in question would like to argue back that they are a fatalist because it is true that we are predetermined. But in defending this view, what they are truly saying is “everything is predetermined, except me when I argue that everything is predetermined.” This is obviously inconsistent: a theory–any theory–must be consistent with its own uttering. But fatalism cannot be truly uttered without incurring self-contradiction. The moment one says “Everything is predetermined,” they place themselves outside of the destiny they try to describe.
This happens for a subtle reason. Consciousness is inherently the place of freedom. It would take me a whole treatise to discuss this (and maybe I will write one at some point) but to be concise, we cannot be conscious of something without placing ourselves outside of it and beyond it. If I am conscious of this pen or this flower, this pen or this flower are the object of my attention, and I am the subject. No matter how strictly connected subject and object are, they are not the same, and when they are, there is no consciousness.*
If you read a few paragraphs back, I said that we are essentially existence’s self-consciousness. This means that through us existence perceives itself as its own object. Furthermore, in being conscious of itself, existence moves beyond necessity, exactly in the same way that any person (even a fatalist) places themselves outside of their own fatalism by being conscious of it.
In the next blog post I will discuss more closely how the ideas I just presented impact divination.
MQS
* I know that mystics like to argue that the subject-object distinction is artificial, but I’ll leave this for another post. My short answer is that without duality, unity is barren, while without unity, duality is inconsistent and inconceivable.
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.
Free Will and Destiny
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.
