Tag Archives: philosophy of divination

astrology, Cartomancy, Divination, Divination Master Post, Fortune-telling, Geomancy, I Ching / Yi Jing, Playing Cards, Tarot, Uncategorized, Vera Sibilla

The Ethical Limits of Prediction, Between Girly-Pops and Caring For Others

2 Comments

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.1 We 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

  1. 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. ↩︎
astrology, Cartomancy, Creativity, Divination, Divination Master Post, Fortune-telling, Geomancy, I Ching / Yi Jing, Occultism and Esoterism, Philosophy, Playing Cards, Spirituality and Psychology, Tarot, Vera Sibilla

Fantasy in Divination: A Double-Edged Sword

Leave a comment

I’m currently still doing readings in exchange for recommendations for when I  decide to start offering readings from this site. After a short reading with a querent we began chatting about the process of divination, and he asked me if fantasy is required to interpret the cards. I thought this was a really great question. I’m taking fantasy as a synonym with imagination, that is, the ability to conjure up images in one’s mind.

First off, we need to distinguish fantasy/imagination from (true) intuition. True intuition is relatively rare and it does not originate from the limited structure of the personality. It is, for all intents and purposes, otherworldly. Before being appropriated by boss babes on TikTok, intuition was rightfully considered a gift of the gods. It is hard to obtain and even harder to train, although the practice of divination, as it leads to the divine, does allow for the development of intuition.

Fantasy or imagination is mostly the product of neurons bouncing together, and it is at least in good part under our control (though whether imagination is also merely a personal power is up for debate. Many occultists think it isn’t, and I agree.)

Imagination plays a large role in modern magic, and, it could be argued, in the magic of all times (though with different implications and within different frameworks), but I’ll leave this discussion for another time. The point is that imagination is one among the many legitimate sources of understanding that we have at our disposal, including in the occult world.

Ordinarily, if someone asked me what’s the one thing that is required in order to become a diviner, I would answer that they need to understand the vocabulary, grammar and syntax of what is essentially a divine language.

Yet, in philosophy of language, and even more in philosophy of science, there is a concept called underdetermination. In its most frequent use, the principle of underdetermination states that, given a number of facts, there exist more than one theory that can explain those facts and account for them. How we then choose the most appropriate theory has sparked a debate that largely goes on to this day between scientists, philosophers, psychologists and anthropologists.

Something similar happens with divination: given a spread of cards, or a chart, it is often the case that more than one explanation might appear plausible at first. True, the more cards we string together, the fewer the possible interpretations are, just as a single word out of context might mean many things, but the more words there are, the more we understand the sentence.

But take a sentence like “we saw her duck“. Was she avoiding a bullet or does she live on a farm? This is a form of underdetermination, because the possible mental images evoked by the sentence cannot be reduced to the sentence itself.

Probably if we had a perfect understanding of the language of divination we would get unambiguous results, but we don’t. We must therefore use logic and context to weed out the less likely predictions, yet even so we might be left with more than one possible image of the future in mind. The word image here is key.

Can we predict a future we cannot imagine? That is, can we predict a future (or reveal a past) that we cannot put in the form of a picture or series of pictures? If one asks me: would you be able to understand a sentence you’ve never heard before? The answer is: if I know the language, yes. We hear sentences we’ve never heard before everyday and we rarely have problems. But going back to “we saw her duck”, if I didn’t know that duck can also be a verb, I would interpret the sentence univocally, as I wouldn’t be able to create a mental image corresponding to the interpretation of “duck” as verb instead of noun.

In real world languages the ambiguity is often removed by clear context. But in divination context is not always clear, meaning it is harder to exclude possible interpretations, and we need to be capable of creating mental images of all the most likely interpretations of an oracle before choosing which one is the most likely.

We need to be able to extrapolate the many possible meanings a spread can have before submitting them to inquiry. The ability to construct mental images or scenes from the divination tool we are using is consequently incredibly important. In other words, yes, imagination is key in divination.

But the imagination I am talking about is not the unbridled imagination that so many mistake for intuition, and which usually leads either to error or to unverifiable predictions. Imagination is the ability to create possible images derived from our (limited) understanding of the medium we are using, so that we can then see which one is more likely to be accurate by finding testimonies in the spread or by asking the querent.

Like all other occult arts, divination therefore requires the cooperation of both sides of the brain (to which we may add the importance of bodily grounding, but that’s a matter for another post).

MQS

astrology, Cartomancy, Divination, Divination Master Post, Fortune-telling, Geomancy, I Ching / Yi Jing, Occultism and Esoterism, Philosophy, Playing Cards, Spirituality and Psychology, Tarot, Vera Sibilla

Do You Need To Believe In It For It To Work?

2 Comments

One of the questions that occupy way too many people in the esoteric community is whether divination or even magic require the person to believe in it in order for it to work. If you’ve ever watched the movie The Skeleton Key, you’ll know that this concept has seeped into the collective consciousness enough for it to find its way into mainstream products (I will not spoil the movie here, since it is actually a fun watch, but it depends heavily on its twist).

If you open most premodern books on magic, you’ll be stunned to discover that their content bears very little resemblance to the post-Golden Dawn landscape. This, by the way, is neither good nor bad. Things change. But we need to be aware of the change to avoid being unconsciously ruled by it. One clear difference is that the magician’s will1 or his imagining/manifesting faculties are barely taken into consideration in older sources, at least outwardly.

This is not to say that there aren’t sources that encourage the practitioner to be of firm mind and clear intent (after all, you’d want your doctor to focus, too, even though their focus is not what make their science work), but even those old sources do not consider, generally speaking, the magician’s mind to be the cause of the change. Broadly speaking, when dealing with sources that date back to before the invention of modern psychoanalysis and psychology, we must be extremely careful when interpreting their concept of mind, soul, psyche, etc.

An example will suffice. In his De Vita, Neoplatonic Renaissance philosopher and magus Marsilio Ficino encourages us, among other things, to “think solar thoughts”, or jovial, or venusian, depending on the aim. Similar remarks are found, in various form, in many old sources. A contemporary practitioner might be tempted to interpret Ficino’s invitation as saying that we must envision solar things in order for them to manifest. But neither the language nor the substance of this interpretation belong to his worldview.

Ficino’s view of the cosmos is essentially the same as Agrippa’s and that of many other premodern magi: we are surrounded by chains of sympathy and antipathy between universal powers (typified by the planets). When we think “solar thoughts” we are doing essentially nothing except stepping inside a current of power that has its own metaphysical reality regardless of our attitude toward it. This is because in Renaissance naturalism, the mind is essentially like the body, i.e., a part of the cosmos, and a movement of the mind is like a movement of the body, and just like the body can create a talisman or a concoction, so can the mind shape images that allow it to shower in certain currents of universal power.

Thus, the invitation to think certain thoughts found in Ficino (and others) is not a precursor to manifestation, attraction and other modern concepts, but a natural consequence of the old view of the mind and the world.

On the other hand, from a postmodern standpoint, reality is for us to create at will. Yes, I am exaggerating, but not too much. Therefore, there is the widespread idea, or at least the widespread implication, that what happens happens because we believe in it.

Let us leave magic alone for now and concentrate on divination. Does divination work because we believe in it? Well, no. Certainly divination doesn’t require the querent to believe in it in order for it to work. In fact, it is my belief that, considering how many frauds there are in this field, a querent should be borderline psychotic to blindly believe in divination without a healthy dose of scepticism.

What about diviners? Do they need to believe in divination in order for it to work? That’s complicated, in my view. On the surface of it I would argue that, again, no, we don’t need to believe in divination for it to work. Divination systems work because they have their own internal consistency. The most obvious is Natal Astrology, which presents us with an objective set of symbols that have nothing to do with the manipulation of counters on the part of the diviner.

On the other hand, we need to allow for the fact that divination is not a mechanic set of behaviors, especially with the overwhelming majority of divination systems that do require manipulation (cartomancy, geomancy, dice, etc.) As I often repeat on this blog, divination is and remains something extraordinary. The honest desire for an answer, or at least for a picture of the future, tends to guarantee a crisp and clear answer. This is because the honest desire for an answer allows us to honestly connect with the symbols in a way that makes them fall in the appropriate order.

The querent doesn’t need to be honest in his or her desire, unless they are also the diviner. But if the diviner does not have at least a degree of confidence in what he or she is doing, then the question they put to the system is not the surface question (e.g., “Does X love Y?”) but “Do you really work?” which is an impossible question for the system to answer (if the answer is no, then the system does work).

Even then, I would be cautious in overexaggerating the importance of the diviner’s attitude. As I believe I have mentioned, one of the ways my teacher trained me was by asking me to discover secrets about her past. Clearly, the exercise was not meant to discover something new that might benefit my querent or me, but rather to build my confidence and skill. Yet it worked, and it worked well. Maybe the diviner doesn’t need to believe in divination (I know I am always skeptical until proven right), but they do need to at least be open to the idea that this is a legitimate way of receiving information, just enough to enter into the system rather than operating it from the outside as a scientist would manipulate a bunch of molecules.

My general belief at this point is that the esoteric arts do not require our consent in order to work, but they are also not the product of the mechanistic application of abstract principles. It is indeed a fine balance.

MQS

  1. Let’s leave aside the fact that the concept of Will found in modern magic is actually more complex than what it appears to be on the surface ↩︎
astrology, Divination, Divination Master Post, Fortune-telling, Geomancy, I Ching / Yi Jing, Playing Cards, Spirituality and Psychology, Tarot, Vera Sibilla

The Downgrading of Intuition

2 Comments

Many people of the ‘spiritual but not religious’ milieu tend to believe they invented intuition, or that intuition came into existence when glossy oracle cards with gaudy images and inspirational quotes started being published–the kind that was especially en vogue before Doreen Virtue went from a fundamentalist with a deck of cards in her hands to a fundamentalist without a deck of cards in her hands.

But, believe it or not, intuition is a concept with a legitimate philosophical history. It is present, either implicitly or explicitly, in the epistemology (theory of how knowledge happens) of many great traditional Western and non Western philosophers.

If had to provide a generalization of what the tradition meant by intuition, I would say that it’s the immediate apprehension of universal principles and truths. It had nothing to do with the stream-of-consciousness-like association of ideas that many moderns mistake for psychic ability.

Old philosophers held that true intuition could only happen when someone had developed all their human faculties (including, and especially, reason) to their utmost degree, so that such faculties, having been tamed and trained, fell into place and were ready to receive truths otherwise reserved to the gods. In other words, intuition was the reward of the flourishing human.

Nowadays, “I’m intuitive” is usually synonymous with “I’m incapable of simple deduction but I am also deep up my ass and don’t take well to criticism.” Back in the day, intuition was regarded as the efflorescence of the rightly cultivated mind. Put simply, in the past intuition was considered suprarational. Now it is implicitly considered irrational.

So much so that intuition is today relegated to psychic exercise, whereas in days of yore prophecy through psychic means was regarded as a wholly separate matter: the famous prophetess of the Oracle of Delphi, for instance, entered a state of ‘enthusiasm’, that is, of literal divine possession, whereas intuition was, essentially, a gift of God to the philosopher who had educated himself to the point where his excelling human faculties grazed on the superior sphere of divine knowledge, allowing some of it to filter down to him.

This fact is especially clear when we consider the old conception of the cosmos as an onion-like set of emanated spheres, with humans in the middle, capable of either falling deeper or rising above. But the modern intuitive moves in a world that has no clear up or down and where over a century of psychologizing everything has planted in people’s minds the impression that everything is in their head and that, therefore, if it’s in their head it’s true. We could summarize this by saying that intuition in the older sense required people to get out of their ass and become bigger than they were, whereas by today’s standards it requires them to entangle themselves even further in their delusions.

MQS

astrology, Cartomancy, Divination, Divination Master Post, Fortune-telling, Geomancy, I Ching / Yi Jing, Playing Cards, Tarot, Vera Sibilla

On Readings Without Question

Leave a comment

The following is an attempt at reorganizing some old notes I have taken on the subject of divinations without a specific question, adding to them some new insights,

Divination Without Questions Is Possible (With Exceptions)

There is a relatively well-known tarot reader who says that a reading without a question is basically two people talking over a bunch of colored cardboards.

This is not true. It was customary, among old-time fortune-tellers, to have the querent sit in front of them and never have them speak anything that wasn’t their name at the beginning of the consultation. I know for a fact that this is a tradition in the Italian countryside, and I believe it is the case all over the world as soon as one leaves the hipster pseudointellectual tarot community bubble and seeks the real deal.

Let’s leave aside the fact that, technically speaking, there is always a question. Even if the querent sits with their arms crossed in front of you waiting to be astounded, the implicit question is “What’s going on in my life, now and in the near future?”

Times change, and sensibilities change with the times. Many querents nowadays wish to take a more active part in the reading. Furthermore, readings without a question are obviously more difficult, and the modern diviner who doesn’t have time to waste is certainly happy to get more cooperation. I know I do. But this doesn’t mean that a reading without a question isn’t possible.

There are exceptions to this, of course. Some oracles do require a question. Horary Astrology, for instance, usually needs one, and the more specific and focused it is, the better. True, some old authorities give rules for judging “Universal Questions“, but these universal questions were asked back when many people didn’t know their birth time and often had to travel for days to see the astrologer for probably the one and only time in their life, so instead they asked the astrologer to tell them about their future in general in more than one sector of life.

Confronted with the impossibility of looking at the person’s birth chart, the astrologer erected a horary chart for the time the consultation took place, a moment that was probably significant, since the querent had gone to great trouble to visit him. Today, the astrologer is one Zoom call away, so this hardly justifies vague Horary questions.

The peculiarity that makes Horary more sensitive than other oracles is that there is no manipulation of physical counters involved: you don’t reshuffle the planets whenever the querent’s whim settles on a new fancy. Therefore, the question put to the heavens must be meaningful and at least relatively important to the person asking it. In a way, this limitation of Horary is due to Astrology’s nobility, seeking as it does answers from the heavens themselves.

Cartomancy is not noble. It spreaded like wildfire among the lower classes exactly because you didn’t need to have studied trigonometry in order to deal out a spread. Cartomancy is therefore as sturdy as the beasts of burden that the lower classes used in the fields. Like all beasts of burden, of course, cartomancy too has its limits: you can ask random questions (“Tell me about my life. Now tell me about my sweatheart. Now tell me about my job. Now about my neighbor”) but if you abuse it, it collapses to the ground exhausted.

But the fact remains that cartomancy (and tarot reading is a form of cartomancy) is a trusty, resistant beast.

Vague Questions Don’t Necessarily Yield Vague Answers

Another common myth is that if one asks a general question the reader is entitled to give them a general answer. Even worse, some readers say that, in the absence of a question, they can read “the general energies surrounding your life.” The problem is that there is no such thing as a (meaningful) general answer. “Tell me about myself.” Well, you seem to be a featherless biped with one heart, two lungs, etc.

The thing is that when the cards have been shuffled and dealt, they always tell a specific story. Sometimes this story is not what the querent secretly wishes us to talk about, but that’s not our fault–we are merely reading what’s there. Furthermore, we as readers may sometimes not be able to decipher the story in the cards, but it’s there. We may, as a result of our confusion, try to string together the cards in a looser way than usual (“There seems to be a woman next to you whom you love dearly and is going through a rough patch in life. It could be health-related, but I may be wrong. Can you help me with this?”). The cards, however, are always specific, never vague.

As a matter of fact, our life is never vague. It is always made up of details. These details may be mundane, but they are specific. In our life there is never “the general energy of the moment”. You don’t go the supermarket and find the general energy of the moment on sale. There is no such thing.

There is the coffee I’m brewing, the floor I’m sweeping, the feeling of dread I’ve been struggling with for some months, the mom I just talked to on the phone, etc. And the mom I talked to is my mom, not a general mom floating in the world of Platonic ideas. No energy. No universals. Universals are always embodied in our limited existence. I don’t talk to “momness in itself”. I talk to my mom. Therefore, the fact that our querent asks us a general question cannot embolden us to give a general answer, though it CAN justify us in being more cautious and loose in the interpretation.

Again, if we don’t have a specific question, it may be harder to interpret the cards, especially because certain cards together may appear to be open to more than one interpretation if we don’t have enough context.

And here we come to an important point. Some diviners think they need to be able to awe the querent with incredible details without missing a beat and think they should never ask them for clarification. I say that the querent exists in order to be tortured until every last bit of useful information that I need in order to interpret his damn spread has been wrung out of his writhing body, because at the end of the day it’s him who wants to know about his future, not I.

This authoritarianism is all the more justified in case of a general question. I am not going to talk for ten minutes straight without catching my breath only to be told “no that’s not me.” I’d much rather proceed cautiously and ask the querent for clarification step by step (and, if nothing makes sense, start anew).

BUT, the point remains that when we lay out the cards, the cards are going to talk about specific situations in the querent’s past, present or future. They are not going to give us “the general energy”.

MQS

astrology, Cartomancy, Divination, Divination Master Post, Fortune-telling, Geomancy, I Ching / Yi Jing, Occultism and Esoterism, Philosophy, Playing Cards, Spirituality and Psychology, Tarot

Divination vs Fortune-Telling: History of a False Dichotomy

2 Comments

The founder of BOTA, Paul Foster Case, proudly started his short book “Oracle of the Tarot” with the assertion that Tarot divination is not fortune-telling. The reason, he explains, is that fortune-telling is grounded in the belief in luck, chance or fate, while divination understands that everything is about our personality. The same statement is found at the beginning of the advanced BOTA course on tarot divination (Oracle of Tarot, without the ‘the’). Ann Davies clearly had a hand in rewriting it, considering how verbose the course is, but the substance was similar.

Paul Case was tapping into the spirit of the times when he made that statement. Since Tarot had the (mis)fortune of attracting the attention of XVIII and XIX century occultists, it hasn’t enjoyed a moment of peace: everyone wants to believe it to be not an obvious masterpiece of Renaissance art and Medieval philosophy, but an occult device made to transmit mystical knowledge unknown to most people (even though most people prior to the Enlightenment and the French revolution would have been able to tell you what the Tarot was about).

The same has happened to Astrology. Once a practical art for foretelling the ups and downs of actual life, it became the victim of the occult intelligentsia of the last couple of centuries and was turned into a hodgepodge of pseudomysticism, ill-digested psychoanalytic concepts and “it’s true if you believe it” New Thought crap.1

But this is not the whole story. If one takes the time to study, say, the Golden Dawn system, one quickly finds out that their traditional way of reading the Tarot is grounded in fortune-telling (just read MacGregor Mathers’ example of the Opening of the Key spread). Even the BOTA system, which derives from it, preserves very concrete meanings to be strung together into sentences, despite Ann Davies’ attempt to turn divination into a form of Kabbalistic meditation.

In other words, the occultist attempt at reappropriating the Tarot and Astrology (which in part continues to this day with some bogus theories about the so-called Tarot of Marseille, but more on this in another post) is only partly responsible for the divination/fortune-telling dichotomy. Much of contemporary occultism is grounded in the psychoanalyzation of magic and spirituality, which, in turn, is a defense mechanism against the death of the classical spiritual worldview. Yet, for all its shortcomings, it at least preserves some core tenets of the magical worldview.

But the problem with this is that while it does preseve in some ways the roots of the worldview in which divination can flourish, it has lost the intellectual basis for defending it. Intellectually speaking, even today occultism is largely stuck in the pre-WWII era, with its myths of scientific positivism, of constant historical progress and of magic as misunderstood technology (while I would argue the opposite, namely that technology is misunderstood magic).

Essentially, what has gone lost is the philosophical framework that allows us to keep together divination as spiritual practice and divination as uttering of concrete, verifiable truths.2 That’s largely because spirituality, in the post-XVIII-century Western world, was only allowed to survive as private indulgence in irrational behavior, a weakness to be tolerated.

Thus the split was born: 1) on one hand divination: a ‘serious’, and therefore unverifiable endeavor, a tool for vague self-reflection, cheap catharsis and shallow instagrammable aha moments. In other words, something that the small judgmental scientist constantly perched on most people’s shoulder could smile upon as at least benign, if not really true; 2) on the other hand fortune-telling: a crass or quaint superstition that is just a scam when it gets things wrong and just a coincidence when it gets them right. The little scientist can be free to frown on it. In other words, the distinction was born out of the guilty conscience of “spiritual” people, i.e., out of their subconscious scientism, as a way of telling themselves and society “I indulge in this silliness, but I am just quirky, not stupid.”

The occultists of yore were at least intelligent men and women who actually had something to say. They may have worked in an intellectually hostile environment, but they at least gave it their best shot, and for this they deserve leniency. What happened next is worse: that the already battered art of divination fell into the hands of stoned hippies and people with degrees in the most useless branches of socially acceptable knowledge. Then along came the Liz Greene’s and the Rachel Pollack’s (to make just two examples) who destroyed Astrology and Tarot even further. From then on it could only go in one direction: past life readings, divine feminine, empty motivationalism and strategizing, healing of generational traumas and all the attendant nonsense.3

Interestingly, the more contemporary divination’s fake husk rots, the more one needs to be intellectually dead to practice it, the more it becomes reintegrated in the higher spheres of society. I believe I already talked about a friend of mine who works for Google and has to endure meaningless meetings with tarot readers and astrologers because her boss is the manifestation-obsessed boss babe type. Nor are tarot readers a rarity in corporate America. This probably says something about how brain-damaged this kind of environments is. The nicest thing we can say about this part of society and this strand of divination is that they deserve each other.

MQS

  1. This is not to say that Astrology or divination were unanimously accepted, but the debate was much more complex. ↩︎
  2. This, by the way, is not a call to “go back” to some long lost good old times. I am no reactionary. Nor am I a progressive. I am a realist. ↩︎
  3. By which, of course, I do not mean that there is not a feminine side of the divine, nor that trauma cannot be a real thing. I only mean that these words correspond to nothing but the most vapid pseudointellectual nonsense when coming out of most people’s mouths nowadays. ↩︎
astrology, Cartomancy, Divination, Divination Master Post, Fortune-telling, Geomancy, I Ching / Yi Jing, Occultism and Esoterism, Tarot, Uncategorized, Vera Sibilla

The Spiritual Aim of Divination

Leave a comment

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.

MQS

astrology, Cartomancy, Divination, Divination Master Post, Fortune-telling, Geomancy, I Ching / Yi Jing, Philosophy, Tarot, Vera Sibilla

Three Enemies of Good Divination (and One Ally)

Leave a comment

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.

MQS

astrology, Cartomancy, Divination, Divination Master Post, Fortune-telling, Geomancy, I Ching / Yi Jing, Philosophy, Playing Cards, Tarot, Vera Sibilla

Should Diviners Give Advice? Yes, But…

Leave a comment

I come from a rather traditionalist school of divination. One of the ways I learned was that my teacher often told me to do a spread on an aspect of her past I knew nothing about to see if I managed to discover what happened. Another way was when she told me to do a spread to see what would be the problem of the next person going to her for a reading. Interestingly, I have met other people, who have taught me other techniques, who used the same method.

As can be expected, there was little room for anything other than the literal interpretation of the cards. This has helped me a lot to remain  with my feet on the ground as I forged my path, which is very good, considering how littered with nonsense the esoteric landscape is.

On the other side of the spectrum you have a sizeable chunk of diviners today, though the situation now is slightly more balanced than it was just twenty years ago. These readers simply interpret the cards (or the planets, or whatever) as if they were benevolent tips from the universe about some inner issue that the person needs to work through to progress.

The problem I have with this approach, aside from the fact that it leads to unverifiable predicitions, is that it presupposes a superstitious view of the universe as some kind of benevolent nanny that teaches you how you ought to behave. These people, I should remind you, are the ones who often loathe Christianity as a bundle of silly dogmas and think they are the reasonable ones.

If there is one thing that my study of philosophy as well as my experience as fortune-teller has taught me is that there is no such thing as an ‘ought’. There’s what is and what isn’t, what was and what wasn’t, what will be and what won’t be, as well as what can be, or is more or less likely to be. For instance, there is no way you ‘ought’ to eat. You either eat well or you don’t. Eating well only becomes an ought when your current diet is checked against your desire to minimize health risks. It’s your desires that create oughts, not the universe.

I already discussed how I believe that divination tools are essentially something that gives us a bird-eye view of existence, affording us a glance at a number of considerations about our situation that we might not otherwise have. To use my old analogy, it is like being in a crowded city center and talking to a person on a walkie talkie, this person looking at your position from the top of a skyscraper and therefore seeing things you cannot see.

It goes without saying that I believe divination tools never give advice.* As maps, they simply tell you what is. Advice is contingent on what either someone wants to do or what they believe a superior authority wants them to do. My view of the superior authority is that it is too occupied exploring all its potential through us to pick and choose what’s best for us.

Does it therefore mean that a diviner should not give advice? I actually believe advice is a perfectly fine thing, as long as it is not delusional advice. I think a good divination session should always be of help to the querent in living their own life better. This is done by checking the querent’s wishes (sometimes implied, sometimes stated outright) against the wider situation as portrayed by the oracle, with its potentials, its risks, its possibilities and impossibilities, its certainties and its uncertainties.

In other words, advice must come from the diviner on the backdrop of the oracle, and not be projected onto the oracle, which just pictures reality as it is, not as it should be (because there is no way reality should be, from an objective standpoint). Sure, sometimes I tell my querents “the cards are advising you to do X”, but this is short for “I am advising you to do X based on what the cards are telling me about your situation.”

Sometimes the right bit of advice at the right time can help the querent make a turn for the better in life. These are the readings I love the most. Sometimes it can improve a situation. Sometimes, though, the advice is not enough to change an objectively difficult situation. The more heroic and nietzschean reaction to these slings and arrows that life throws at us is that of amor fati: in knowing what’s coming, one can learn to love it, thus overcoming it, making it part of oneself instead it being an alien destiny. But this is not always possible. Sometimes, all the querent can get from a difficult reading is peace of mind. And peace of mind is a great thing, all too often undervalued until it’s no longer there.

MQS

* In this, divination tools are very different from inspired divinations caused by spirits or deities, since these actually do have their own particular views and preferences.

astrology, Card Reading, Cartomancy, Divination, Divination Master Post, Fortune-telling, Geomancy, I Ching / Yi Jing, Philosophy, Tarot, Vera Sibilla

The Height of Science is to Know Nothing

Leave a comment

or “Summa Scientiae Nihil Scire” in Latin. This motto is very useful in practical fortune-telling. One of the greatest risks we run is of assuming. “She’s 85, how is she gonna find love?” “He’s a 23-year-old jock, he’s probably not a priest.” “She looks so prim and proper, she’s unlikely to have seven lovers.”

All these preconceptions and more cloud our mind as we try to read the oracle’s answer, regardless of the oracle, whether it be the Tarot, playing cards, astrology, the I Ching, etc. All these preconceptions are poison to the art of divination. They are not of service to us, nor to our querent. Let’s delve into why.

Let us start from the fact that bias is a natural and necessary phenomenon, as politically incorrect as this may sound. Bias comes to us from our experience, but also from the experience of others, especially family members, friends, teachers and people we trust. Bias orients our life, and this cannot be otherwise. The attempt to forcibly eliminate bias from people’s minds only causes suffering, and is its own kind of irrational crusade.

You know who is NOT biased? God. You know what God does? Everything. But you can’t do everything. You can only do something. And in order to do something, you must be biased against something else. That’s life.

This is not to say that all bias is good. For instance, I may have accepted some preconceptions from my parents, who got them from their grandparents, who got them from the priest, who got them from a crazy lady next door, etc. This kind of bias is the worst because it can needlessly limit our options and create likewise needless suffering in those around us. The best kind of bias is the critically examined one that you accept based on your actual life experience and keep open to revision.

Yet even this kind of “good” bias is harmful to divination. When someone comes to us for a reading, or when we read for ourselves, what we are doing is trying to look at reality from the point of view of a symbolic system that reflects life from an objective, or at least less subjective standpoint.

Divination is a language with no native speakers, except maybe the guy upstairs, which means that our understanding of it is always going to be imperfect and faulty. But this is a technical kind of difficulty, and in its own way it’s excusable. What is less excusable is the additional confusion we create by reading our biases into the divination. This is not just about politics, philosophy, morality or religion. It’s everything.

“A 85-year-old is not going to find love again” is one sort of bias. “An attractive young guy is probably not a priest” is another. The aim of divination is to read the truth, not ourselves. That’s why the height of science is to know nothing. If we start with a clean slate we can receive much more information from the tool we are using, simply because we are not randomly blocking out information we consciously or subconsciously deem unlikely.

The unlikely happens everyday. Think about it. Almost everyday something unlikely happens in the world. That’s not to say we must feel the urge to make our predictions as unlikely as possible in order to impress the querent. Most of the time, what’s likely is what ends up happening. Still the unlikely is not the impossible.

I am big on comparing divination with language, as those reading this blog know. And as you know, I am not a native speaker. Around fifteen years ago, I was trying to improve my English by watching youtube videos. Yet this was very hard, because the language people use on youtube is very inconsistent, erratic at times, filled as it is with memes, asides, jokes, ancdotes, interruptions… I was trying to project the artificial English I had learned in school onto this truer, more lived English.

“Surely he can’t have said what he has just said. It doesn’t make any sense,” I constantly thought. It was when I stopped projecting my presuppositions and started just taking in what was objectively being said that my English truly improved. That’s the same with divination. The height of science is to know nothing. Only if we know nothing we can take in what is being said.

MQS