by EnriqueEnriquez on 11 Apr 2009, 15:42
In medicine, it is said that when there are several treatments for a symptom that means no one is totally effective. I think the same thing can be said about tarot readings and methods of interpreting the cards. Methods are aesthetic preferences. We like ones more than others just as we like some decks more than others. (Or perhaps they are erotic preferences: “whatever turns you on, baby!”) There is some research concluding that the success of any alternative therapy depends of the belief the practitioner has in his methods. (The reasons for this aren’t quite clear but they may have to do with what actors and magicians call a “silent script”: a coherent frame of mind translates into a coherence between what we say and all the non-verbal clues we also send while we say it). I also thing this applies to our work with the tarot. Those of us who are convinced about our methodologies (or about our ‘gifts’) tend to be more assertive that those who are trying out a method and aren’t still convinced if it will work for them. But by focusing in methods we take our attention away from the real mechanics of the process of a reading, which is a cognitive one. As Ross pointed out, when it comes to a reading it is all about the person who seeks insight. I would add that it is the person that seeks insight the one doing most of the work.
There are three things I have researched in order to inform my work with the tarot: cold reading, hypnosis and African magic. I don’t practice any of those, and I think many people misunderstand what they are, but they have been very useful for me to understand both the limits and possibilities of working with metaphors. I researched cold reading because I believe no one can understand perception without understanding deception. I was told that readings could be faked. From cold reading I learned that “faking it” is the same thing, if not more difficult, as doing it for real. I studied African magic after looking into the Western Esoteric tradition and concluding that it was purely theoretical, and lacking of tangible results. African magic, in the other hand, possess no theoretical frame (“somo o no somo” say the practitioners of Congo Based Palo Mayombe: “we are or we aren’t”) but they seem to get results. From African magic I arrived at my current working definition of magic as “the purposeful use of symbols to induce in the mind a process of transformation”. I am still far from being convinced that magic ritual can affect anything but our perception of the external world. But in the right context, and divination is 90% context, 10% content, our perception of reality can be affected so we change the way we relate to the world. Finally I studied hypnosis after I noticed the cards are convincers, elements we use to pace and lead a person into a certain conclusion. From hypnosis I learned that -as so it happens with the tarot- its public image has been shaped by conmen; but also that trance-states vary in deep and nature, and that the mechanics of a tarot reading match the mechanics of a hypnotic session, so, what psychics and fortunetellers call “predictions” may very well be post-hypnotic suggestions.
I am way off topic here, just responding at some things that popped up in the discussion. Let me just round this up saying that my current understanding of readings is based in three postulates:
- It is not what you say but how it is perceived by your interlocutor.
- The process of analogy is more important that the symbol itself.
- Context is more important than content.
(To what I could add a forth postulate: rapport is more important than knowledge)
All this to say that these days we know enough about perception, psychology, cognition, brain chemistry, etc... to find more elegant and sober ways to explain what a reading is, along with more responsible expectations about what a reading can accomplish. We should know better than confuse symbols with concepts.
I kind of share Eugim’s frustration in that the idea of the tarot being some sort of back bone for a Western Esoteric tradition seems to be at odds with any solid finding related to the tarot’s historical origin, but in truth, a reader using the Serendipity Puky-Puky tarot in a reading will get the same results as another one using the Conver.
Back on topic, does anybody have any evidence pointing to anybody but Paul Marteau as the one who -in the XX Century- re-introduced the Marseille into the tarot market and proposed it as a valid divination tool?
Thanks,
EE
What’s honeymoon salad? Lettuce alone
Don’t look now, mayonnaise is dressing!