I talked about manifestation, now let’s tackle karma. This is one of those things that grind my gears about the spiritual community, largely because it unveils how derivative, unoriginal and moralistic it often is.
To understand this we need to remind ourselves of one of Nietzsche’s criticisms of his philosophical predecessors, who, according to him, were trying to safeguard religious morality even after doing away (overtly or covertly) with the concept of God.
This exact same thing happened to the spiritual community, which often reacts allergically to Christianity, yet seeks to safeguard the moralistic notion of hell (“if you do X you will be metaphysically punished”) by transfering its role to a vaguely defined “universe” whose task is, somehow, to uphold the believer’s social, political and spiritual views and punishing those who contravene them by causing bad things to happen to them.
Let us grant that this is somewhat of a misunderstanding of the original concept of karma found in some Eastern philosophies, even though it is not THAT much of a misunderstanding. The fact remains that, as used by most Western “alternative” thinkers (who somehow always end up believing the exact same crap), karma is just a lazy excuse for maintaining the holier-than-thou attitude they accuse traditional religion of: hey, enough with the badly understood Christian superstition! Time for the badly understood Oriental superstition!
Except that at least traditional religion has something grandiose and awe-inspiring about it (some passages from the Bible could be turned into a cool metal opera). The alternative spirituality of many girlypops has a way of pettifying everything: wow you left your girlfriend via message? That’s bad karma! What? You acted like a douche your whole life and suffered no consequences for it? That’s for another life then! If this is not the epitome of bitchy passive aggression I don’t know what is.
As many silly beliefs, this, too, has its glimmer of truth hidden in it. The Platonic myth of the soul, according to which our soul chooses what to incarnate as, offers much food for thought and meditation on the nature of our choices and how we must then live with the traces that those choices invite into our soul. There is no need to add metaphysical burdens on top of it.
Often people associate meditation with the quest for aha-moments. There is more than one kind of meditation. While realizations can come from any kind, the one that tends to produce them is discursive meditation, where attention is fixed on a symbol, image, phrase, prayer or problem.
Meditation, understood as simply sitting somewhere, catching one’s attention in the act of wandering off and bringing it back, does not necessarily entail the reaching of any conclusion on any particular subject, although it can foster clarity, which is conducive of finding solutions.
Many occult schools and spiritual organizations recommend meditation, and even though I am no longer part of any of them at the current stage, I think it is for good reason. The stilling of the “monkey mind” before ritual work is only the most obvious of the benefits of meditating.
Deeper than that is the fact that meditation is not a state we get into. It is a state we get out of and must return to consciously. Our attention’s natural place is here, next to us. Our attention is like a blade: it belongs sheathed on our belt, ready for action when needed. Instead, we spend our time swinging it about maniacally, blunting it by hitting it against anything that crosses our path.
There is tremendous power in keeping our attention by ourselves, in the present moment. Here and now, being and changing coincide one with the other, and together they coincide the the state of initial void from which the power needed for magic comes.
All too often I hear phrases like “you are the magic” or “the power comes from you.” Although these are supposed to be empowering statements and they mean well, they are founded on an egocentric misunderstanding typical of our age, where old ideas that would otherwise be dismissed as superstitions, like magic, seek to survive by psychologizing themselves.1
But Magic is the art of creating vessels for spiritual forces to dwell in. We, too, are vessels. Magic comes through us, not from us. In meditation, with our attention sheathed by our side, we slowly make room from something other than our ego to incarnate through us.
MQS
This is not meant to discredit psychological work, which can and often is necessary in our line of work. But psychology is not spirituality or occultism. ↩︎
I was having one of my philosophical discussions with a friend, and she was venting about how she doesn’t believe in love anymore, and that, at the end of the day, love is just a chemical reaction of the brain.
I thought this was an interesting take, not because it hasn’t been done before (it’s a cliché for a reason), but because it is ripe with philosophical (and magical) presuppositions that are worth exploring.
Usually, by saying that love is only a chemical reaction, we are trying to decrease the power or importance of love. This in turn implies that we consider chemistry something inferior to feelings, since we are trying to reduce feelings to chemistry.
Yet why should such a statement make us believe that love is less than we think it is, instead of opening us to the idea that chemistry is more than we give it credit for? After all, if love = chemical reaction X, then saying ‘chemical reaction X’ instead of ‘love’ is just a rebranding excercise: we are merely giving a different name to the same experience. It doesn’t change one iota of how love works, its effects on us and on existence itself.
So love *is* a chemical reaction we experience. It isn’t *just* a chemical reaction we experience. And who does the experiencing anyway? Is it the same biological substance that is subject to the chemical reaction or is it something further beyond it, an observing consciousness which can become aware of it, as well as being aware of its own awareness?
Even if we choose the first route (i.e., it is the same biological substance) , we are still saying that the chemical reaction has awareness attached to itself. So we are saying that same substance subject to chemical reactions is capable of developing awareness of them. That’s no small fit. And yet again, we are still left with something that polarizes into two aspects: love and awareness of it. In this majestic self-aware process there is plenty of space for wonder, and love is once again restored to the status of powerful driving force.
The Greek philosopher and magus Empedocles considered love/friendship one of the two great powers setting existence in motion, together with hatred/enmity, because they fuse the four elements together and then disintegrate them. Magicians ever since have worked with the links of sympathy and antipathy (of love and hatred, of compatibility and incompatibility) that animate everything. Empedocles was, at heart, a naturalist, who didn’t try to introduce extra principles into his philosophy. Be he, too, saw that the fusion and disintegration of the elements (chemical reactions, one might say) is something so universal and so fundamental that without it nothing can get done.
There is a common myth that the West doesn’t have its own spiritual tradition. Although it is true that the West, in its history, is marked by a strong ideological unpredictability, there are important strands of the spiritual tradition intertwined in our history, especially if we look back at before Christianity took over (and this, by the way, is not an attempt at disparating Christianity, which actually added to the tradition).
I am planning a series of articles on Platonic spirituality. Aside from my study of philosophy, I’ve been lucky enough to find mentors and teachers throughout my life who were well within this tradition, which I consider to be part of my personal brand. It is not an easy task: Platonism is not merely a set of practices but it is, first and foremost, a philosophical tradition, so it becomes hard to write a “breviary” of Platonism, for the simple fact that the Platonic and Neoplatonic traditions were never meant to be reduced to a simple catechism (and this is part of the reason why Neoplatonism lost in its battle to Christianity and was assimilated within it).
Still, I think it has to be done, in light of the fact that we are slowly entering a post-Christian era in the West which has many similarities with the Hellenistic period in which Neoplatonism thrived as a spiritual and magical tradition. Post-Christianity can never be pre-Christianity, and history only moves on and never really goes back. Still, in the past we can often find seeds that may be planted again in new soil. In this sense, it is worth it to see which parts of Platonism are alive and which are dead.
Fludd discusses the mystical implications of using divination.
5. The Act of a True Geomancer Is Like a Movement of the Mind in Ecstasy, or Rather a Sort of Rapture, in Which There Is Prophecy
Rapture in general is called the abstraction, alienation, and illumination of the human mind, proceeding directly from God, through which prophecy is obtained.1
Thus also a certain kind of rapture and ecstasy is required for divination by Geomancy, which is not called the illumination of the mind directly emanating from God, but rather the act of gathering of the mind’s rays into a narrower place, that is to say, into the seat of the human body and its own home, so that through them the divining soul discerns the simple truth more clearly.2
As such, ecstasy is first of all required in this knowledge, that is, the abstraction of the rays of the mind from all external things or affairs, so that they are contracted within themselves: for in a great rapture of the mind and soul the rays are lifted up to the divine essence of God, or into the region of the mental world.3
Thus, even in this minor rapture of the human soul, the rays sent out from without, and scattered here and there, are recalled to their center, and are reflected in the mind, and thus man, who was formerly dark because of the diffusion of his own light, is now enlightened and glorious by the aggregation of the expanded rays.
In a similar manner, as we gather from the opinion of the learned men, on the third day of creation the rays created by the light scattered evenly throughout the sky, and all appeared in a dark manner, as if darkness were mixed equally with light, or night with day.4
But when, on the fourth day, all that light scattered everywhere was collected in the center of the solar body by a certain magnetic property, there was produced that glorious and worthy example of light, in which God himself is said to have had his tabernacle.5
We also see, for instance, that in a fortress equipped with a thousand soldiers, if the greater part of these soldiers, either for the purpose of preparing for defeat or for some other attempt, goes out and runs to and fro, then that fortification is rendered weak, and those who are left experience great fear.
But if those who had gone forth should return safe and sound, those who had been left in the stronghold recover their former confidence and their former hope, and putting aside all fear, they are in no way afraid of the invasions of the enemy, since that place is already well-furnished with warriors.
Here, therefore, things are in the same way with the bright rays of the human soul. For the human body is a stronghold or fortress, where the rays of the mind and the middle soul are likened to soldiers, of whom we may compare those who are sent out of the body to attend to foreign affairs, to soldiers running hither and thither outside the fortress, the absence of which renders the body less confident, and more insecure and timid, and weak in facilitating some noble and bright aim, such as divination, which is the best and highest thing.
We say, therefore, that the recollection of rays of this kind is the reduction of man’s internal nature from multitude to simplicity.6 As a result the soul, recalled from external meditations, and reflected and recollected within itself, renders a man, as it were, raptured and ecstatic, because he thinks of himself and within himself, he is only present to himself, oblivious of strangers, so that it appears to the ignorant that he is not aware of himself. when, in truth, he is now more than ever before.7
For he who neglects worldly things is sure to care for himself more, and he who withdraws himself from the multitude into himself seems to be most present to himself, since there will not be a great interval of distance between him and God.8
To such an attitude or disposition must he reduce himself, who endeavors to procure for himself the gift of future divination. For those thinking of externals divert the powers of the soul from the judgment of truth, so that the uncertainty of the geomancer is great in his judgment, or to be more precise, the truth in him will be as great as the variation of the soul from its unity.9 Indeed, in the multitude of things, tricks, vanities, and lies are concealed; in true unity and simplicity perfection, identity and unity [are found].
Let the soul therefore snatch from the Macrocosm that which is its own, given to it by the Creator in its creation, and internalize it into its own Microcosm, and let no one else enjoy what is its own.
By virtue, I say, of his own excellency, he is snatched from the world, and restored to himself and recollected, and clings to ecstasy, so that in his most refined mirror or spirit he may reflect not only worldly things, but also divine ones. For the more clarity he achieves, the more effective will be his visions and motions for prophesying the truth
6. About the Hidden Properties of Geomancy, and How the Soul or Mind Passes in Its Operation Through the Whole Nature of the Macrocosm
Nor is it right that those who are ignorant of geomancy should regard a series of points as mere lines, formed from the act of divination, since under these characters, the objects of the eye and the senses, many things, both spiritual and material, are concealed. Indeed, these series of lines comprise no less the idea of the universe than the human body itself.10
In fact, although in man his body can only be seen from the outside, yet with spiritual eyes we contemplate his spirit and soul and mind inwardly. Of course, in the body we see the elements invisibly mixed in composition;11 in the spirit and soul we observe the ethereal nature, in the intellect and mind we observe the empyrean nature.
the same can be observed also in Geomancy, since readings consist of four lines of points, and we perceive that the four elements are concealed in it, that is to say, the element of fire under the first line, of air under the second, of water under the third, and of earth under the fourth. 12
Furthermore, in the figures produced by those series of points, the seven planets and the twelve heavenly signs are included, which can only be perceived by the eyes of the spirit.
Thus the figure of Carcer is attributed to Saturn direct and Tristitia retrograde: the figure Laetitia signifies Jupiter direct, Acquisitio retrograde; Rubeus denotes Mars direct, and Puella retrograde; Major indicates the Sun in a certain direction, and the Minor in retrogradation; although the astrologers deny the retrogradation of the Sun, because of its epicycle; Puer is given to Venus direct, Amissio retrograde;13 Albus is attributed to Mercury direct, Conjunctio when retrograde; the direct Moon is symbolized by Populus, the retrograde by Via;14 Caput Draconis is represented by a figure bearing the same name, and Cauda Draconis is represented by a figure bearing the same name as well.
So also those figures contain in themselves the natures of the twelve signs. For Acquisitio is of Aries in an abstract manner; Laetitia and the Minor of Taurus, Rubeus and the Puer of Gemini; Albus and Populus of Cancer; Via of Leo; Caput and Conjunctio of Virgo; Puella of Libra; Tristitia and Amissio of Scorpio; Caput of Sagittarius; Cauda of Capricorn; Major of Aquarius; Carcer of Pisces.
Furthermore, Rubeus, Minor, Amissio and Cauda denote the element of Fire and the Southern part of the world; Laetitia, Acquisitio, Puella and Conjunctio denote Air and the Eastern part of the world; Populus, Via, Puer and Albus denote Water and the Northern corner of the world; Major, Caput, Carcer and Tristitia denote Earth and the Western part of the world.
Even deeper towards the center of the sky lies the empyrean spirit,15 which is the revealer of the future and the present, that is to say, the rational or intellectual collection of these figures and the worldly things contained in them.
From all this it is evident how purely and sincerely the intellectual spirit must be preserved from the inconveniences and harms of the flesh and filth, when from it the movement to produce the Geomantic points first arises, taking with it in a secret manner the natures of the heavenly signs, the planets, and the elements, and finally hiding all these under the number and in proportion to the points, like a certain treasure in a chest.16
If, therefore, we wish to open that chest, first to the elements, then to the planets and celestial signs, and finally to the boundary from which these movements originally flowed, we shall penetrate in the sanctuary of the mind, its will, in the mythotheque of the intellect, of the will, of the signs and planets; in the closet of the ether we shall find the act or execution of the mind; and in the storehouse of the elements, we shall find the effect of the mind’s will, reason, and act (all of which are contained and hidden under figures, as if in a chest).
From the aforesaid, therefore, it is evidently clear that, just as the prophecy of the inspired is the union of the divine mind with the human mind (whence it is the most complete and greatest, this species of prophecy), so also the prophecy of the uninspired sometimes happens, when the soul is united, with its rays drawn back to itself from the multitude toward its summit, that is, with the human mind, which, without doubt, if united with the soul and collected, can perform enormous things by itself, and can lead to the summit and a happy outcome.
MQS
Footnotes
The words ‘abstraction’ and ‘alienation’ must not be understood in their usually negative sense. In Neoplatonism (and mostly in Plato himself as well), the dialectical method allows the spiritual seeker to climb up the ladder of being through a process that leads from the particulars of the material world upward and inward to unity with the divine. Ecstasy, which is the goal of Neoplatonic spirituality, literally means “going out of oneself”. This is the process of abstraction and alienation. ↩︎
That is, prophecy stems from direct union with the divine and is harder to control, while divination (such as Geomancy) happens by focusing inward. ↩︎
See Note 1. Fludd describes the Neoplatonic method of retreating inward and upward. ↩︎
If the light is evenly distributed, no difference appears and everything is as equally dark as it is equally radiant. ↩︎
In the Hermetic interpretation of Astrology, the Sun is a symbol of divinity. ↩︎
Broadly speaking, the path of magic in all its branches (and divination is one of these branches) require an endless attempt at simplifying one’s life and one’s external nature. ↩︎
This is a common theme in mystical and occult literature, and one of the great truths of our art. As we reach what some have called ‘superconsciousness’ we appear to be less aware, while in fact we exceed regular awareness. ↩︎
The phrasing here is clearly very careful to avoid scandal. As for the words “caring for himself”, this is not to be understood as being egoistic. ↩︎
that is, we are capable of seing the truth in the measure that our soul is unified. This is probably part of the reason why divining for oneself is especially difficult, since divination implies doubt about an external topic. ↩︎
Here lies a great and central secret about all functional systems of divination: that their symbolic vocabulary is complete in itself, so as to be able to reflect within its permutations the truth of things to come. Here, Fludd compares the language of Geomancy to the human body, which is a symbol of the completeness of the universe. ↩︎
He means the four elements, which were thought to be mixed to form the material bodies. ↩︎
This is a reference to the fact that in Geomancy each figure is made up of four series of points, and each series is assigned to one of the elements. ↩︎
compared to the usual attributions, Fludd switches Puer and Puella ↩︎
The Moon cannot go into retrogradation. Usually, Populus is assigned to the waxing Moon and Via to the waning Moon. ↩︎
with reference to the Aristotelean and Ptolemaic view of the cosmos. ↩︎
This comparison is very much a consequence of Fludd’s Renaissance worldview, according to which Nature is replete with symbols. ↩︎
Not every question is fit for divination, and as diviners who get approached by people, discernment and, if necessary, gate-keeping is among our rights and duties. I say this not because I want to feel part of a superior caste of priests, but because our practice should be informed by two great principles: the well-being of our querents and the honor of our art.
It is perfectly fine to ask questions out of mere curiosity or for fun, but the ultimate decision on whether a question shall be put to the cards rests with us. I, for one, have dodged more questions about controversial politicians in the last couple of weeks than in the last couple of years altogether, largely because the question, when boiled down to its essential meaning, was “Is it true this politician I hate is a spawn of Satan?”
Such questions are unanswerable not merely because they are idle, but because they are ultimately unverifiable: unless you are that politician’s cleaning lady you have few ways of verifying my answer. Furthermore, consider this: if my answer is anything except “yes, you’re absolutely justified in your hatred,” the person is going to be inclined to dismiss my answer as superstitious nonsense. Why, then, whould a positive answer be of any value?
But unanswerable questions are not just those that belong to the “is it true that my particular preferences are absolutely valid and I don’t ever need to question them?” category. Some are more tragic. Recently I got asked something heart-breaking: “Is my life still worth living?”
No matter how we slice it, THIS is an unanswerable question, which doesn’t make it a meaningless string of sounds. On the contrary, it is a clearly formulated cry for help. As someone who has been struggling with depression since my teen years and has gone dangerously close to the edge on more than one occasion, I resonate strongly with it. But the fact remains that divination is not the tool to solve this issue.
I refused to open the cards on this question, obviously, but suppose I had, and suppose that, predictably, the cards had shown me the absolute mess that is this person’s life: does this make their life less worth living?
There is no answer. In this case, not because we cannot verify the details (I could easily point at the cards and say “your career is in shambles and your family life is a museum of red flags”) but because the reality of the situation has no bearing on the answer. Worth is subjective. The exact same set of circumstances that might drive someone to walk into a lake with stones in their pockets would be taken by someone else as life throwing a little challenge their way.
Therefore, in this case the question would translate as “What is your personal opinion on what makes life worth living and do you think I still meet those criteria?” I don’t think anyone would be foolish enough to even consider taking such a responsibility for themselves.1 It is much wiser to talk to the person, encourage them to open up and direct them to an appropriate source of (medical) help.
Again, though, the fact that the question cannot be answered does not imply that there isn’t a deep, real, visceral experience behind it. It is just that divination is not the way to go. It is like asking a pair of scales to measure whether you are pretty.
MQS
Furthermore, people in a seriously distressed state are especially prone to esoteric influences, and would to better to avoid them, even if it’s just a simple card reading ↩︎
A couple of weeks ago I received a message about the question of whether we, as readers, risk causing self-fulfilling prophecies with our predictions. For instance, if I tell a querent that the relationship she is in is going to end, I may end up causing the break-up. What follows is a slight elaboration on my response.
First off, we need to recognize that some things we can change or at least improve, others we can’t and they will happen regardless of what we do and what a reader tells us. Most people who go about their life with their brain switched on can recognize this. It is only when we get into delulu territory and body-mind-spirit-section pseudomysticism that we encounter people who deny the existence of unavoidable happenings.
On the other hand, sheer fatalism is also a gross misunderstanding. Consider simply this fact: if two people X and Y are exactly the same and go exactly through the same life experience, except that X also uses divination or consults a diviner, this is enough to tell them apart.
The fact that X knows about what is going to happen in advance is enough to make him a different individual, which in turn is enough to change the nature of his fate, because our ability to change a situation is contingent on our knowledge of what the situation truly is. Even if X cannot change a certain fact in any meaningful way, but knows about it enough in advance that he can make his peace with it, the same event Z won’t be the same if X’s attitude toward it changes, because X is part of the event that takes place in his life, and so if X change, the event changes. Even if X cannot bring himself to accept Z, his knowledge of Z is enough to change Z, because X with knowledge of Z is not equal to X without knowledge of Z.
Fate patterns are a difficult topic to tackle without a previous sound philosophical and occult discussion, and I plan on starting that discussion at some point, once I’ve organized my notes. For now, it suffices to say that we, as readers, can play a rather important role in the querent’s life if we are consulted at the right moment.
Yet, this doesn’t mean that we are capable of empowering querents to always turn their life around, and I don’t even think empowering is our mission: our mission is to provide information. On a number of occasions, especially when I was less experienced, I gave querents the wrong prediction on purpose because I didn’t want to disappoint them, even though the cards were clearly negative: Yes, you’ll get the job, yes the relationship is going to last and be wonderful. But it didn’t happen.
On some of those occasions you may even think that because I didn’t bring up the negative aspects, the querent wasn’t prepared to tackle them, so my not bringing them up may have been just as bad as another diviner handing out negative predictions willy-nilly. That’s because I wasn’t able to give accurate information.
It is nice that some things can be changed even if some things can’t, but unfortunately we don’t always know which is which. Therefore, we must also recognize that we have a degree of power over our querent just by virtue of using odd, mysterious counters to give our predictions, and we must not abuse this power.
Whenever possible, we should either frame our predictions as potentials and/or accompany them with positive suggestions. These suggestions, though, must ALWAYS be based on what the oracle describes, never on vague self-help platitudes. Sometimes (many times) it is best to highlight critical points so that the querent can become conscious of them (e.g., “you know, this relationship is headed down a pumpy road. You should address x, y and z if you want to try to make it work”) while avoiding drastic predictions unless necessary.
Furthermore, we must never frame our predictions in such way as to take away all hope. It is not our right to do so. Deluding and disillusioning are the two capital sins that we must avoid, even though striking the right balance is sometimes hard. There is plenty of space between being a pushover to our querent’s wishes and being an insufferable sassy tough-love prick.
If there are positive aspects to a situation, we should emphasize those and try to put them at the center of the querent’s life so that they can address the negative points more positively.
Finally, we ought to always remind our querent that diviners are people and are therefore fallible. In a world where doctors, lawyers, judges, scientists and bakers can get things wrong it would be absurd to expect diviners to always be right. Always encourage the querent to take your predictions as an additional input.
One of my favorite books of all times is Ursula Le Guin’s second Earthsea novel, The Tombs of Atuan. Actually, I adore the whole first trilogy. It is one of the few fantasy cycles that can actually inform one’s magical practice quite a lot, if one is observant enough. But The Tombs of Atuan is my absolute favorite, and I find myself rereading it every now and then as a sort of comfort book.
In The Tombs of Atuan, the protagonist Tenar, a young priestess in a remote and almost forgotten place of worship, is tasked with guarding the dark subterranean labyrinth of the Tombs and with worshipping the Old Powers of the Earth that seem to reside there (the Old Powers are never clearly defined in the other Earthsea novels and material, as far as I know, but they seem to be a sort of mix between natural powers, pre-divine titans and incomprehensible amoral entities).
Over the course of the book Tenar comes into contact with Ged, the protagonist of the first Earthsea novel and gradually realizes, thanks to him, not only that there is no point in worshipping the Old Powers, but that her worship of them has actually made her worse. There is a lot more to the novel, but this one key point is worth thinking about.
It is one of the tenets of my devotional, philosophical and magical practice that no power comes from me as an individual. It can, at most, come through me. The way we as individuals become channels for powers greater than us is through our worship of them (whether it be devotional, theurgic or of a different kind.)
We all worship something, whether it be mystical, philosophical or mundane. And the more we worship it, the more we make space for it in our life and in the world. This has nothing to do with the manifestation or attraction nonsense that is practiced by people online and is to magic what McDonalds is to food. It is, actually, a simple, almost physical fact.
Most, if not all, magical traditions recognize this. For instance, the reciting of the rosary in certain strands of Italian witchcraft, in addition to accomplishing certain magical goals, is also meant to empty the devotee of themselves to make space for the divine. In many so-called High Magic traditions, the aim of initiation is to balance the components of the personal vessel so as to make it a better tool for something much greater than it: “Now be assured that no one can be enlightened unless he be first cleansed or purified and stripped. So also, no one can be united with God unless he be first enlightened.” (Theologia Germanica, Ch. XIV)
(similarly, in many strands of Chinese magic, Qi Gong and other practices are used to the same effect).
A lot of people, including a lot of magicians, worship God, but this is not enough. What does God mean? How do you define the God that you worship? I feel this sort of clarification is extremely important, not because your definition changes the substance of God in a postmodern fashion, but because there are plenty of powers, objective and real, in the world that are capable of fitting the mold of your definition and seeping through the cracks of your practice, just like the Old Powers in Le Guin’s novel. Clarity, therefore, is extremely important.
Way too often do we see people who think of themselves (and are thought of) as spiritually “evolved”, whatever that means, or magically powerful who, at a second glance, have merely turned themselves into a walking collection of metaphysical parasites.
This process of clarification starts with a rational and philosophical assessment, and rationality is incredibly important (I’ve written a whole article about the importance of reason in occultism). However, keeping the lights on in your head is just the first step. What is needed is a broader cultivation of our vessel.
Can this all be taught? It is a tricky question. It is my belief that few things in life can truly be taught, or rather, most things can be taught, but the ability to be taught is harder to teach than all the rest. When I say that most branches of the occult path are for the few I do not mean to sound elitist. I mean it in the same way that I mean that math is really for few people. Not everything is for everyone.
Yet I believe that at least this one process of clarifying what we worship is important to everyone, whether they be on an occult magical path or not, simply because, as said, everyone worships something.
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. ↩︎
In scrolling on youtube I must have passed the third or fourth pompous video essay on the loneliness epidemic and theatomization of society. Then I had to laugh as I looked at myself from the outside, lonely in my office, my eyes glued to a stupid screen, which is usually what these videos complain about. I don’t like complaining, but I do like observing.
From an astrological standpoint, loneliness is ruled by Saturn, the greater malefic. Let me stress the word ‘malefic’. Generations of people better than us had no problem calling Saturn and Mars malefic and acknowledging the presence of evil in the world, yet the Becky’s and LaRhonda’s of the world who spend their time deluding themseves manifesting on social media think the concept of evil is beneath them.
It is, by the way, no moralistic notion of evil. Evil is simply that which is contrary to life (life being understood not vitalistically, but as outward expression of the metaphysical process of emanation).
Saturn is evil, greatly so. Even the few gifts it has for us are laced with poison: its deep wisdom, discernment and secret philosophy are often accompanied by illness, depression, poverty, general gloominess of circumstances. Saturn is not the cantankerous but loveable teacher that it is made out to be in pop astrology.
This doesn’t mean that Saturn is an unaccountable Satan like that of the exoteric tradition of many religions: Saturn does actively take part in the process of creation, but it usually does so by fulfilling the destructive and separative part of the equation. For instance, in some old hermetic and astrological texts Saturn is said to rule the first part of the pregnancy. This is the part where the soul becomes bound to the biological process of an individual body.
Through Saturn we become ‘this thing here’, before the other planets add their traits. Because we become ‘this thing here’ we also become subject to death, also ruled by Saturn, who is thus the first Planet we encounter descending and the last one we encounter ascending. Our being one thing, one individual, is the result of Saturn’s work.
As such, our existence as individual, ‘saturnian’ beings is also the basis of our loneliness, which is the presupposition of all we can do and achieve in life, all the social, political, cultural and economic structures we can weave together with other people.
It is not casual that all totalitarian ideologies seek to break down the ties that bind us to other people. All ideologies aim to push a certain image of humanity that corresponds to that ideology’s idea of good, but this image is usually the product of the ideologue’s deep delusion and would never occur by itself. The ideologue’s push becomes therefore a push for the reconstruction of humanity from the ground up.
And what is the ground? Saturn! The isolated individual, the one who has been torn from his or her social, moral, spiritual fabric is an individual who has been reduced to the Saturn phase of his conception, the phase where all we can say about them is that they are one thing, but before the other planets (let alone life experience) have added their specifications. The ideology then seeks to add its own imprint on this amorphous thing.
We do not live in times of totalitarian rule (anyone who argues the contrary has likely never experienced the horrors of totalitarianism). But we do live in times where there are people who profit from our isolation in a similar way.
So what is the conclusion? There is no conclusion. This is just a collection of notes as I observe the world around me. I am not suggesting any conspiracy or any evil master plan. I am merely observing who profits and who doesn’t from the current state of affairs. It is a simple reflection on what it means, from a magical standpoint, to isolate people.
