A question about divination

[tobiasosir]

Hello! I found Brian's podcast just last week, and have been enjoying it so far. I have to admit right off the bat--I'm a spiritual person, and some might define my ideas as new age. But I welcome a healthy dose of skepticism as well.

For some years, I've practised Tarot, and have recently become interested in Runes and the I Ching. All of these systems of divination have a bad rap in the scientific community, being connected with scam artists, so-called psychics, and so on. But I've found them helpful.

I want to make it clear from the top that I don't believe in divination as far as "being able to tell your future." I don't think we can know the future; it's not written yet. This is a solid idea in science; for example, quantum mechanics implies that we create the future, moment by moment.
Instead, i think that Divinatory tools are much better used in terms of giving advice. I always told people before reading their cards that the Tarot spread represents a "snapshot" of what their life is like at this moment; it doesn't tell you what *will* happen, but a possible path to follow if nothing is changed. I've read similar explanations in books about runes or the I Ching; divination isn't about telling the future as much as it is about telling the present.

So here's my question: is it possible that, in reading a tarot or rune spread, the querent is tapping into their unconscious somehow to reveal things they maybe haven't thought of as important before? That the cards or runes that come up are the subconscious coming to the fore? Or is it more that when I do a reading, the cards/runes can simply be applied to the situation in its own context? (i.e. if I'm asking about my job and the rune that comes up is Fehu, which relates to wealth, the obvious connection is that I'll find success in work)?

This begs the question of "cold reading." A lot of psychics use cold reading to allegedly tell something about a querent they couldn't possibly have known, while actually getting the querent to tell them everything without realizing it themselves. I'm sure Tarot/Rune casters do the same thing. When I do a reading, I ask the querent not to tell me about the situation at all; I simply have them draw the runes/cards, then interpret them as I've learned to. I also ask them not to agree with or elaborate on the reading, for fear of "leading" me in the right direction. The results are often uncanny--but it could simply be that when I explain the meaning of a card or rune, they make their own connections which, of course, make sense to them.

Anyway, I thought this would be a good place to explore a question that's been nagging me for some years. Part of me believes whole-heartedly in some higher power that guides my hand when I do a reading...but the skeptic in me says that's ridiculous. Then the Taoist in me says that what I'm telling them was already there to be told; I'm not creating it, nobody is, it simply Is, and I'm simply letting It work through me. Whatever the answer, I'm looking for some genuine--and serious--feedback. Any thoughts?

 

[leonAzul]

So here's my question: is it possible that, in reading a tarot or rune spread, the querent is tapping into their unconscious somehow to reveal things they maybe haven't thought of as important before? That the cards or runes that come up are the subconscious coming to the fore? Or is it more that when I do a reading, the cards/runes can simply be applied to the situation in its own context? (i.e. if I'm asking about my job and the rune that comes up is Fehu, which relates to wealth, the obvious connection is that I'll find success in work)?

This begs the question of "cold reading." A lot of psychics use cold reading to allegedly tell something about a querent they couldn't possibly have known, while actually getting the querent to tell them everything without realizing it themselves. I'm sure Tarot/Rune casters do the same thing. When I do a reading, I ask the querent not to tell me about the situation at all; I simply have them draw the runes/cards, then interpret them as I've learned to. I also ask them not to agree with or elaborate on the reading, for fear of "leading" me in the right direction. The results are often uncanny--but it could simply be that when I explain the meaning of a card or rune, they make their own connections which, of course, make sense to them.

Hello, and welcome.

You've pretty much answered your own question. The most that can said about such methods of inquiry is that they facilitate categorical thinking, and even arbitrary organization is more organized than random.

But here's the thing: If one is willing to spend the time training in occult mysteries, why not use that time to become adept at open, verifiable and reality-based systems and methods? The more critical the problems are, the more important it is to verify the soundness of the assumptions and methods that support the solutions.

 

[Tomtomkent]

When casting runes or reading tarot, it is all about psychology. No meaning is ever literal, and the reading is either oblique enough to be interpreted to fit what people already know, or are vague enough to be tailored to what the patron wants or needs to hear. Not always deliberate or intentional, but I am fairly sure that is the mechanism based on my experiences.

 

[Dragonrock]

So here's my question: is it possible that, in reading a tarot or rune spread, the querent is tapping into their unconscious somehow to reveal things they maybe haven't thought of as important before?

If true then this might be part of why tarot and the like became popular. But being taught to organize one's thoughts and think critically would be much more effective tools than the randomness of a deck of cards. It would be similar to how chewing some willow bark will probably cure your headache, but you'll get more reliable results with fewer side effects just from taking a couple of aspirin.

 

[KingMerv00]

Hello! I found Brian's podcast just last week, and have been enjoying it so far. I have to admit right off the bat--I'm a spiritual person, and some might define my ideas as new age. But I welcome a healthy dose of skepticism as well.

For some years, I've practised Tarot, and have recently become interested in Runes and the I Ching. All of these systems of divination have a bad rap in the scientific community, being connected with scam artists, so-called psychics, and so on. But I've found them helpful.

I want to make it clear from the top that I don't believe in divination as far as "being able to tell your future." I don't think we can know the future; it's not written yet. This is a solid idea in science; for example, quantum mechanics implies that we create the future, moment by moment.
Instead, i think that Divinatory tools are much better used in terms of giving advice. I always told people before reading their cards that the Tarot spread represents a "snapshot" of what their life is like at this moment; it doesn't tell you what *will* happen, but a possible path to follow if nothing is changed. I've read similar explanations in books about runes or the I Ching; divination isn't about telling the future as much as it is about telling the present.

So here's my question: is it possible that, in reading a tarot or rune spread, the querent is tapping into their unconscious somehow to reveal things they maybe haven't thought of as important before? That the cards or runes that come up are the subconscious coming to the fore? Or is it more that when I do a reading, the cards/runes can simply be applied to the situation in its own context? (i.e. if I'm asking about my job and the rune that comes up is Fehu, which relates to wealth, the obvious connection is that I'll find success in work)?

This begs the question of "cold reading." A lot of psychics use cold reading to allegedly tell something about a querent they couldn't possibly have known, while actually getting the querent to tell them everything without realizing it themselves. I'm sure Tarot/Rune casters do the same thing. When I do a reading, I ask the querent not to tell me about the situation at all; I simply have them draw the runes/cards, then interpret them as I've learned to. I also ask them not to agree with or elaborate on the reading, for fear of "leading" me in the right direction. The results are often uncanny--but it could simply be that when I explain the meaning of a card or rune, they make their own connections which, of course, make sense to them.

Anyway, I thought this would be a good place to explore a question that's been nagging me for some years. Part of me believes whole-heartedly in some higher power that guides my hand when I do a reading...but the skeptic in me says that's ridiculous. Then the Taoist in me says that what I'm telling them was already there to be told; I'm not creating it, nobody is, it simply Is, and I'm simply letting It work through me. Whatever the answer, I'm looking for some genuine--and serious--feedback. Any thoughts?

First you must show that tarot works. Then we'll talk about mechanism.

 

[godless dave]

I don't think we can know the future; it's not written yet. This is a solid idea in science; for example, quantum mechanics implies that we create the future, moment by moment.

Quantum mechanics implies nothing of the kind.

So here's my question: is it possible that, in reading a tarot or rune spread, the querent is tapping into their unconscious somehow to reveal things they maybe haven't thought of as important before?

In any discussion, it's possible to bring up things that the person hasn't consciously thought of before, so it's certainly possible in a session with a tarot reader. And the images on the cards could remind someone of things they hadn't thought of in a while, or suggest ways to think about them differently.

That the cards or runes that come up are the subconscious coming to the fore?

No. There is no way that what's going on in someone's brain could influence what cards come up. That is solely determined by how you shuffled the cards.

 

[tobiasosir]

Quantum mechanics implies nothing of the kind.

I misspoke. What I'm referring to it the Many Worlds Theory, which (as I understand it--but I'm no physicist!) implies that the choices we make branch off into separate realities; thus the future isn't set, and can't be. Though I understand there are some who don't ascribe to this theory.

...And the images on the cards could remind someone of things they hadn't thought of in a while, or suggest ways to think about them differently.

Absolutely, and I think this is one of the reasons I'm drawn to Runes, which are defined symbols, and differences in interpretation come only in their esoteric meanings. One thing I dislike about Tarot is that each artist who creates a deck puts their own spin on it; which is great from an artistic viewpoint, but very leading if one is to use that deck for any kind of advice. Giving a reading with a deck that has heavy mythological overtones (like the Haindl) will give a different reading that something with more overtly occult symbols (like the Crowly-Thoth). A rune is just a rune.

There is no way that what's going on in someone's brain could influence what cards come up.

Here is where I need to be more skeptical; a case in point why I'm asking this question here. Reading this, you're perfectly right; it's absurd to believe that my concentrating on a certain question would affect a completely random event. If such a process could take place, how would it work? Telepathy? "Brain waves?" Any excuse I can think of (besides perhaps the Hand of God, which is a different question entirely) seems more ridiculous as the last.
And yet I do believe that somehow my participation in drawing cards or casting runes can influence how they're interpreted. I can't explain how, or where I even got that idea. But when I sit down to do a reading, I meditate on the question thinking that it will somehow affect the cards that come up. I think of a particular question, and time and again the same card or rune will come up, giving me a clear answer. How does that work? It is that it just seems "prophetic?"
Or maybe it's the other way around; that by concentrating on a particular question, I've already biased myself, and will apply that bias to any card/rune that comes up. See below...

First you must show that tarot works. Then we'll talk about mechanism.

Do you mean to ask for a demonstration that Tarot or runes can provide accurate advice? I'm not sure that I can--which, thinking about it now, is a red flag in itself. I think this kind of thing is subjective in a way; some people are going to swear by it and attest that it's incredibly accurate, others will say it's clearly bunk. I'm trying to walk between them and investigate not so much why/how/that is works as why it seems to work for me.
I like to think of it this way: the person reading tarot or runes is the tool through which they operate, much like I can use a hammer to hit a nail. The hammer is doing the work, but I'm guiding the hammer. The tarot/runes provide insight as far as the defined meanings of the cards and symbols go, but it's the reader who interprets them to make them make sense of the situation. And maybe this is all that divination is: interpreting symbols.

Dragonrock: are you saying that the supposed effectiveness of divination is a sort of placebo effect? That when someone does a reading and believes that such a reading will be accurate, they have already set themselves up for a successful reading? You see what you want to see, as it were. This makes sense, I think, and could explain the popularity of such tools. Does it explain why it seems to be so accurate? I'm not sure, it's difficult for me to be objective because I've seen it work for me. But maybe I'm a victim of my own placebo...

Tomtomkent, leonAzul: I think this is the crux of it. Knowing the symbols can help put one's thoughts or questions into nicely packed and clearly defined boxes which are then easily addressed by those same symbols. The symbol helps frame the question so the question is easier to address or understand, but it also answers the question. If Fehu means wealth and my question is about my financial situation, when Fehu comes up the answer is obvious because it fits into its own context. Berkana is growth; also obvious in this situation. Tiewaz is sacrifice, etc. I'm not sure I phrased that too well, sorry if it's confusing!
The question then is whether defined symbolism has a place. These symbols are vague enough that they can be applied to almost anything--and I suppose that the job of the experienced reader is to be able to apply any symbol to a situation whether it seems obvious or not. But does this vagueness mean the symbol is meaningless? If not, then tarot and runes may just have a validity to them after all, if only because the symbols involved can be related to situations in a meaningful way. If they are meaningless, then such systems are useless because symbols only arbitrarily connect to the situation.

As for why I don't study other systems that have more scientific basis...I couldn't say. I'm the kind of person who thrives on learning new things, so if a more scientific suggestion caught my eye, I'd try to learn what I could form it and apply what I've learned. Psychology is an example, though honestly some of it is beyond my grasp. This is a question I haven't asked myself too often; I suppose I'm drawn to more esoteric/less definable systems because there's room for interpretation, and because it involves me as a person more than cold static facts would. But if you have suggestions on other systems to look at, I'd be happy to explore!

 

[patchbunny]

Ray Hymen used to read palms and his subjects reported very accurate results. One day he decided to tell his subjects the exact opposite of what he read, and got the same comments about accuracy. James Randi (and I'm sure others have done this) passed out personalized horoscopes to every student in a classroom and the students responded positively that the horoscopes were accurate. The problem was every student received the exact same horoscope.

People make their own connections.

Next time you do a reading, tell them something other than what the cards say you should. See what happens.

 

[leonAzul]

Here is where I need to be more skeptical; a case in point why I'm asking this question here. Reading this, you're perfectly right; it's absurd to believe that my concentrating on a certain question would affect a completely random event. If such a process could take place, how would it work? Telepathy? "Brain waves?" Any excuse I can think of (besides perhaps the Hand of God, which is a different question entirely) seems more ridiculous as the last.

The excuse that seems nearly unassailable is "synchronicity" -- not that I want to encourage that line of thinking. IOW, the trick is to convince the querent that the talisman is significant because of its temporal relationship with the query, thus (?) affording a more "objective" view into the matter than a "subjective" examination. It only takes one counterexample to understand that this is utter nonsense.

Or maybe it's the other way around; that by concentrating on a particular question, I've already biased myself, and will apply that bias to any card/rune that comes up.

There's a name for that: confirmation bias.

Do you mean to ask for a demonstration that Tarot or runes can provide accurate advice? I'm not sure that I can--which, thinking about it now, is a red flag in itself. I think this kind of thing is subjective in a way; some people are going to swear by it and attest that it's incredibly accurate, others will say it's clearly bunk. I'm trying to walk between them and investigate not so much why/how/that is works as why it seems to work for me.

OTOH, such methods can have value as a so-called brainstorming technique, a brute force review of all conceivable solutions to a query, in order to separate the deft from the daft and the plausible from the possible. Some sort of criterion for selection is still needed, though; some sort of critical evaluation needs to take place.

 

[godless dave]

I misspoke. What I'm referring to it the Many Worlds Theory, which (as I understand it--but I'm no physicist!) implies that the choices we make branch off into separate realities; thus the future isn't set, and can't be. Though I understand there are some who don't ascribe to this theory.

In the Many Worlds hypothesis, separate realities branch off based on the unpredictable states of certain subatomic particles - it has nothing to do with the choices humans or any other animals make.

 

[tobiasosir]

Confirmation bias. It seems an obvious answer, though I've never thought of it...thinking of it now, it makes sense. For example, many times I've been doing a reading for someone and draw a card that doesn't seem to relate to the others, and I have a difficult time bringing it into the equation, as it were. In those instances, I normally tell the querent that it seems out of place, but we'll come back to it once the other cards are revealed; and every time, I'm able to associate that card with the larger spread once they're all revealed.

Unless I misundsertand the concept, this seems a clear definition of confirmation bias. I find a card that doesn't fit the expected pattern, but rather than flying that red flag, i ignore it--until I *can* fit it into the picture. I've always thought that process was about simply not understanding the whole picture yet because it wasn't fully revealed; that the card does fit, i just didn't see how until after the rest of the spread was apparent. Writing about it now, that seems ridiculous.

So if confirmation bias and symbolism and psychology play such large parts in what we'd call divination, is there any substance to it at all? I continue to cast runes, and I'm learning to consult the I Ching now; none of this critical thinking has done much to sway my belief that it somehow works, though I'm trying to look at it through a skeptical lens.

Okay, so I can admit that divination doesn't "tell the future," "read my mind" or "allow the universe/god/what have you work through me." But I still think there's validity to the process. Maybe it's as simple as drawing a card, recognizing the symbol, and associating it somehow with the question at hand. A random card could relate to any situation somehow given enough thought. And because I'm the one drawing the associations between the symbol and my own question, there's nothing supernatural involved; it's just my mind drawing on my knowledge and making a connection. This brings it fully into the world of mundane ordinary mankind; but does that make it less valid a means of getting advice?


As for the Many Worlds Theory, I'll have to do some more reading on it. I guess I'm thinking more of the popular conception of it, but from what little I know of quantum mechanics and atomic science, your explanation makes sense. In any event, we reach the same end: the future isn't something that can be accurately predicted because of the randomness involved.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Not only confirmation bias, but also "mistaking correlation for causation".

You see a card, and you think of something that correlates to the card.

"Wow, that card really said something about me"

In fact, the card simply made you think of the thing, and since the time between seeing the card and thinking of the thing is usually very brief, it's even harder to see where it really came from.

Cheers

 

[Tomtomkent]

Add a healthy dose of cold reading techniques too. Quite often the "expert" will just use which ever random cards are drawn to tell you what they think you want to hear.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Add a healthy dose of cold reading techniques too. Quite often the "expert" will just use which ever random cards are drawn to tell you what they think you want to hear.

They aren't always aware that they do a cold reading. They simply say that they "look at how someone is clothed, to suit the advise to ther situation".

Of course that is the very definition of a cold reading, but they don't know that it affects the resulting reading drastically.

Penn & Teller's bulls-hit did an experiment where they clothed a man as a business man, a slob and an overworked stay-at-home dad. Each tarot reader gave advise that was obviously solely based on the clothes and attitude of the man in front of them.

(The man really was none of the three, so each of the readings was wrong)

 

[tobiasosir]

The correlation makes sense too, and I think it lends credence to my idea that divination is more about intuition than telling the future. If it's the card making me think about the situation rather than the situation affecting which card appears, then I'm using more of my personal knowledge to "divine" the situation that any sort of prop. I'm beginning to think that this is the true benefit to this kind of 'divination' (though I'm starting to hesitate in using that word): it helps draw you to things you already know.

That is, of course, as long as you treat it that way. For those who make a living off of reading tarot or casting runes or what have you--even if they sincerely believe that it's genuine--all they see is that some mystical force is guiding their hand. I don't think there's any harm in that until the reader starts to take advantage of the querent, except for the fact that they querent could have done the same thing themselves through self introspection, meditation, or some careful thought.

I'm not sure about the cold reading idea, though. When I do a reading for someone, I consciously try to be objective; I ask the querent not to tell me what situation they're asking about, and we generally don't discuss anything beyond which cards come up and what they mean. I also rely more on the connections between the cards than their individual meanings.
I do admit that most of the people I do readings for are friends or family, and I have prior knowledge of their personalities and such, which would enable me to infer their situation, even if it's not given to me. This, I suppose, would be a cold reading, even if I'm not doing it intentionally. But it's not something I do with an aim of bending the meaning of the cards to their particular situation; I have a rudimentary knowledge of tarot, and when I draw a card I often give a couple keywords I've learned for that card, then expand on the meaning in relation to the other cards--for example, this card means transition, this other card means wealth, and together they imply that money is changing hands, or that the querent may be coming into a period of financial success. It would seem to me that keeping the meanings of the cards simple and codified like this would lend more objectivity to the reading.

At any rate, I appreciate the insight; these are things I haven't thought of, and even if there's nothing mystical at all involved, I'm starting to see that there are other processes at work which I hadn't considered. It's not turning me away from these systems, just putting them in a different light as to their purpose, and how much faith to put into them.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

I'm not sure about the cold reading idea, though. When I do a reading for someone, I consciously try to be objective; I ask the querent not to tell me what situation they're asking about, and we generally don't discuss anything beyond which cards come up and what they mean. I also rely more on the connections between the cards than their individual meanings.
I do admit that most of the people I do readings for are friends or family, and I have prior knowledge of their personalities and such, which would enable me to infer their situation, even if it's not given to me. This, I suppose, would be a cold reading, even if I'm not doing it intentionally. But it's not something I do with an aim of bending the meaning of the cards to their particular situation; I have a rudimentary knowledge of tarot, and when I draw a card I often give a couple keywords I've learned for that card, then expand on the meaning in relation to the other cards--for example, this card means transition, this other card means wealth, and together they imply that money is changing hands, or that the querent may be coming into a period of financial success. It would seem to me that keeping the meanings of the cards simple and codified like this would lend more objectivity to the reading.

When I say "cold reading", I don't mean "having prior knowledge". That would be a "hot reading" (and I know the extremely negative stigma associated with the phrase. It is not meant in a negative way).

A cold reading would be if you would look at someone's appearance, the way they react to questions and other things.

It's a way to anticipate someone's answer by reading their body language, and giving appropriate answers based on their clothing, to name but a few.

Does anyone here find it plausible that someone could be unaware of their own ability to do a "cold reading", and then attributing it to some higher source?

 

[I Ratant]

...
At any rate, I appreciate the insight; these are things I haven't thought of, and even if there's nothing mystical at all involved, I'm starting to see that there are other processes at work which I hadn't considered. It's not turning me away from these systems, just putting them in a different light as to their purpose, and how much faith to put into them.

.
I found long ago that my flashes of insight came from me and my experiences, not any higher (or lower) powers.
Just my headbone fingering out solutions to problems,
Gives one self-confidence, when knowing their direction in life is guided by themselves.
The cards and sticks may open a different direction for the thoughts to go, but
aren't anything more than memory joggers at best.

 

[tobiasosir]

.
I found long ago that my flashes of insight came from me and my experiences, not any higher (or lower) powers.
Just my headbone fingering out solutions to problems,
Gives one self-confidence, when knowing their direction in life is guided by themselves.
The cards and sticks may open a different direction for the thoughts to go, but
aren't anything more than memory joggers at best.

Yes, I think I'm looking at it in the same way. Particularly as I read/learn more of the I Ching. It's not a book of divination so much as a book of wisdom, and although you could probably put each trigram toward almost any situation, I think in this case it's more because it's solid Taoist wisdom.

When I say "cold reading", I don't mean "having prior knowledge". That would be a "hot reading" (and I know the extremely negative stigma associated with the phrase. It is not meant in a negative way).

Ah. I don't think I'm doing that. Given that definition, I'm not sure if someone could perform a cold reading while unaware. Although I suppose having a certain unwitting prejudice about a person one was doing a reading for could have an affect on how the reading is performed--for example if you think that tattered clothing equals poverty, even if you weren't making a conscious connection, you might have a different reading than if the person was wearing nice clothes.

 

[leonAzul]

Yes, I think I'm looking at it in the same way. Particularly as I read/learn more of the I Ching. It's not a book of divination so much as a book of wisdom, and although you could probably put each trigram toward almost any situation, I think in this case it's more because it's solid Taoist wisdom.

To this day it amazes me how anyone can miss the sarcasm of the Tao Te Ching. It is, at its core, a scathing critique of dogmatic thinking. The very first chapter has to be the most effective mockery of all things wooish I have ever read, IMHO. In chapter 38 it clearly states:
"Knowledge of the future is only a flowery trapping of Tao.
"It is the beginning of folly."

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Yes, I think I'm looking at it in the same way. Particularly as I read/learn more of the I Ching. It's not a book of divination so much as a book of wisdom, and although you could probably put each trigram toward almost any situation, I think in this case it's more because it's solid Taoist wisdom.



Ah. I don't think I'm doing that. Given that definition, I'm not sure if someone could perform a cold reading while unaware. Although I suppose having a certain unwitting prejudice about a person one was doing a reading for could have an affect on how the reading is performed--for example if you think that tattered clothing equals poverty, even if you weren't making a conscious connection, you might have a different reading than if the person was wearing nice clothes.

Even something like you describe is cold reading.

To be absolutely sure you have no personal bias, you should be in a different room, and not know the person's name.

However, since I have understood that the reader has to have met the person he/she reads for, this is impossible, hence Tarot/divination in general can not be scientifically proven (to work).

Some people I know from forums on witchcraft and the occult think that "since it can not be scientifically proven, it is not scientific in any way, thus it can not be disproved either".

In short: "not proven by science" means "a different type of knowledge".

Totally bogus reasoning of course, but it is entertaining to see them wiggle their way out of an argument.

Cheers

 

[tobiasosir]

To this day it amazes me how anyone can miss the sarcasm of the Tao Te Ching. It is, at its core, a scathing critique of dogmatic thinking. The very first chapter has to be the most effective mockery of all things wooish I have ever read, IMHO. In chapter 38 it clearly states:
"Knowledge of the future is only a flowery trapping of Tao.
"It is the beginning of folly."

That's exactly the point. Taoism teaches "non-doing," which involves allowing things to take their course and not working against Nature. Adding names and dogma and rules and laws is largely against Nature, because it can cause complications that are in the human best interest.
I hadn't caught that verse in the Tao te Ching, though, thanks for pointing it out. My translation is a bit different; it says:
"Ritual is the husk of true faith,
the beginning of Chaos."

The idea is the same; try to impose structure on something that isn't supposed to be structured--like the future, I would think--and you'll only end up with confusion and misinformation.

In short: "not proven by science" means "a different type of knowledge".

An interesting point; actually, I've seen the same argument at work in the evolution/creationism thread on this site, where the Bible. not being a scientific text, is described as not needing to be validated. It's true because it says it's true; in contradicts evolution; therefore evolution is a lie. Specious indeed!

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

... try to impose structure on something that isn't supposed to be structured--like the future, I would think--and you'll only end up with confusion and misinformation.

I would argue that there is a way to find structure in the future (forcefully imposing any kind of anything onto anything is seldom a good thing), namely via observation of the past and present, and calculating ahead.

Not an easy task, I grant you, but I don't think it's impossible to come up with possible "images" of the future. Just look at what people are doing in meteorology for instance.

Cheers

 

[leonAzul]

That's exactly the point. Taoism teaches "non-doing," which involves allowing things to take their course and not working against Nature. Adding names and dogma and rules and laws is largely against Nature, because it can cause complications that are in the human best interest.

Self referentially [Chapter 30]:

"That which goes against the Tao comes to an early end."

IOW, anything contrary to "how it goes" does not survive for long.

Perhaps an argument that anticipates Darwinism? I'd prefer not to argue that rigorously.

I hadn't caught that verse in the Tao te Ching, though, thanks for pointing it out. My translation is a bit different; it says:
"Ritual is the husk of true faith,
the beginning of Chaos."

One-bit-off; though to be fair, there are are differing sources. Your citation is the previous phrase before mine.

The idea is the same; try to impose structure on something that isn't supposed to be structured--like the future, I would think--and you'll only end up with confusion and misinformation.

With all due respect, I would strongly disagree with that conclusion.

To paraphrase: A program of conditioned responses that is not properly based on evidentially supported axioms results in failure.

An interesting point; actually, I've seen the same argument at work in the evolution/creationism thread on this site, where the Bible. not being a scientific text, is described as not needing to be validated. It's true because it says it's true; in contradicts evolution; therefore evolution is a lie. Specious indeed!

QED

 

[tobiasosir]

I would argue that there is a way to find structure in the future (forcefully imposing any kind of anything onto anything is seldom a good thing), namely via observation of the past and present, and calculating ahead.

Hmm...true. I suppose there is something to prediction of the future in a scientific situation; although science has evolved a great deal since the idea was first brought up, this reminds me of the Clockwork Universe Theory. If we know how things have transpired in the past, and we understand the mechanics of how they operate, we can predict how they will continue. I'll concede that, though I think it's still a very inexact science; not impossible, as you point out, but difficult.

In terms of divination, though, I still think it's more or less impossible--or maybe improbable. If I ask a tarot reader if I should leave my job for a better one, I doubt that the Cards Themselves are giving me that answer. Rather, what comes up would be a word of advice. I think this would even bring it back to "mistaking correlation for causation." It's not so much the card that comes up that gives the advice, but the response the meaning of that cards sparks in myself; reminding me of something, or pointing out that I already know the answer, or at least have the wisdom to find it on my own.

Self referentially [Chapter 30]:
With all due respect, I would strongly disagree with that conclusion.
To paraphrase: A program of conditioned responses that is not properly based on evidentially supported axioms results in failure.

Maybe I should rephrase that statement. I don't mean to imply that that which isn't structured results in failure; that leaves no room for growth or discovery.
What I meant is that by forcing an idea or a thing into a pre-determined paradigm--which may or may not be appropriate--can have a negative effect on that idea or thing. Fitting a square peg into a round hole won't work without first changing the square peg, in a manner of speaking.
An example: I believe that the true nature of God is ineffable. That's not to say it can't be explored, only that it is indescribable. If I give a name to God, the concept of God becomes tied to that name, and this dilutes the essence of God. A clear example of this is the literal interpretation of the Bible; the Bible holds great wisdom, but by insisting that the world was literally created in seven days by a supreme being a little over six thousand years ago, the point of that wisdom is lost. The wisdom is still there for those who wish to discover it, but they must first remove the limitations they've placed on that wisdom.

In the context of this discussion, I mean to say that divination is probably not something that is cut and dried. I can't do a reading and absolutely believe that what comes up is the truth--because another reading a few minutes later will be different. If this is the case, what is the use of divination?

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Hmm...true. I suppose there is something to prediction of the future in a scientific situation; although science has evolved a great deal since the idea was first brought up, this reminds me of the Clockwork Universe Theory. If we know how things have transpired in the past, and we understand the mechanics of how they operate, we can predict how they will continue. I'll concede that, though I think it's still a very inexact science; not impossible, as you point out, but difficult.

In terms of divination, though, I still think it's more or less impossible--or maybe improbable. If I ask a tarot reader if I should leave my job for a better one, I doubt that the Cards Themselves are giving me that answer. Rather, what comes up would be a word of advice. I think this would even bring it back to "mistaking correlation for causation." It's not so much the card that comes up that gives the advice, but the response the meaning of that cards sparks in myself; reminding me of something, or pointing out that I already know the answer, or at least have the wisdom to find it on my own.


Maybe I should rephrase that statement. I don't mean to imply that that which isn't structured results in failure; that leaves no room for growth or discovery.
What I meant is that by forcing an idea or a thing into a pre-determined paradigm--which may or may not be appropriate--can have a negative effect on that idea or thing. Fitting a square peg into a round hole won't work without first changing the square peg, in a manner of speaking.
An example: I believe that the true nature of God is ineffable. That's not to say it can't be explored, only that it is indescribable. If I give a name to God, the concept of God becomes tied to that name, and this dilutes the essence of God. A clear example of this is the literal interpretation of the Bible; the Bible holds great wisdom, but by insisting that the world was literally created in seven days by a supreme being a little over six thousand years ago, the point of that wisdom is lost. The wisdom is still there for those who wish to discover it, but they must first remove the limitations they've placed on that wisdom.

In the context of this discussion, I mean to say that divination is probably not something that is cut and dried. I can't do a reading and absolutely believe that what comes up is the truth--because another reading a few minutes later will be different. If this is the case, what is the use of divination?

What, indeed, is the use of divination, if it can't come to a conclusive answer every time, and if the results differ from reader to reader?

That is the core of why I don't think divination is in any way "tapping into the unconscious", as some people might suggest. (an idea mostly postulated by people who concede that "yes, divination can not see into the future", but they are still looking for ways to justify divination, because they have had some good experiences, which they don't want to agree are merely coincidences).

The key phrase I hear a lot is "but I don't experience it that way".

However, given how easily the mind can be manipulated, it's not hard to see the flaw in that kind of statement.

Cheers

 

[leonAzul]

Maybe I should rephrase that statement. I don't mean to imply that that which isn't structured results in failure; that leaves no room for growth or discovery.
What I meant is that by forcing an idea or a thing into a pre-determined paradigm--which may or may not be appropriate--can have a negative effect on that idea or thing.

Sort of like reading the word "structure" where it is neither explicit nor implied.

 

[tobiasosir]

Sort of like reading the word "structure" where it is neither explicit nor implied.

Indeed! Point taken.

That is the core of why I don't think divination is in any way "tapping into the unconscious", as some people might suggest. (an idea mostly postulated by people who concede that "yes, divination can not see into the future", but they are still looking for ways to justify divination, because they have had some good experiences, which they don't want to agree are merely coincidences).

So we're in agreement that divination, as it's normally defined, is not effective. One can't "tell the future."
But, to play Devil's Advocate, I'll be one of those people you reference above; why is the possibility of 'tapping into the unconscious' not an appropriate explanation?

Of course, drawing a connection between what cards may come up and how your mind may or may not have influenced them is a bit far fetched, so in that sense, no, divination has less to do with the unconscious than magic.

But isn't the unconscious a valid influence on our lives? The things we know but have forgotten, instinct or intuition; these things could affect the way we approach a situation. It's not so much that we can tell the future and therefore know how to deal with it, but more that our unconscious can guide us without our overtly being aware of it. If we read a tarot spread and our unconscious guides us in a certain direction in interpreting that spread, the cards might appear to be giving advice, when it's really ourselves. Could it be that divination in this sense is a real phenomenon? (I know almost nothing about neurology, so I'm asking in all honesty).

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

I think this is a language thing.

"Unconscious" in this case, for me, is "that which we don't know consciously through experience".

I know that it's an unconventional definition, but it seems to be what the people who use that explanation really mean.

And that is where the problem lies. How can you know something without having "gotten the knowledge through experience"?

This is where it gets irritating (for me). There seems to be a consensus among neopagans and new-agers thatthere is some kind of "universal knowledge" we can all tap into through any method varying from meditation to some sort of drugs (though the drug method is not so widely supported arond here).

And that is what I meant when I said that I don't think that someone is "tapping into the unconscious" when using divination.

I think I should have used the word "universal knowledge" instead, but there you go.

Cheers

 

[tobiasosir]

And that is where the problem lies. How can you know something without having "gotten the knowledge through experience"?

Cheers

Ah, I see what you're getting at. I can see the tenuous link between what we know because we've learned it, and what some may think we know because it's "universal knowledge."
I can see that the idea of universal knowledge is controversial. I believe Brian did an episode on the idea of a universal conscience, though I haven't heard it yet and can't speak to it. But I'm not so sure that it doesn't exist--in a manner, anyway.
What about things like instinct? There are things we know without having learned them. Of course, things like that are smaller in scope, and I don't think they relate to divination. And when I speak of divination being more like remembering wisdom you once knew, I'm referring to things you have learned, and perhaps just need to be reminded of. I don't think that drawing completely new information from some 'higher source' or 'global consciousness' is tenable, and can't think of a mechanism through which that might work.

 

[dafydd]

Next time you do a reading, tell them something other than what the cards say you should. See what happens.

They will lap it up.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Ah, I see what you're getting at. I can see the tenuous link between what we know because we've learned it, and what some may think we know because it's "universal knowledge."
I can see that the idea of universal knowledge is controversial. I believe Brian did an episode on the idea of a universal conscience, though I haven't heard it yet and can't speak to it. But I'm not so sure that it doesn't exist--in a manner, anyway.
What about things like instinct? There are things we know without having learned them. Of course, things like that are smaller in scope, and I don't think they relate to divination. And when I speak of divination being more like remembering wisdom you once knew, I'm referring to things you have learned, and perhaps just need to be reminded of. I don't think that drawing completely new information from some 'higher source' or 'global consciousness' is tenable, and can't think of a mechanism through which that might work.

Experience is more than just "learning" in the school sense.

Instinct is innate, as far as I know it is genetics at work. It can be perfected (flying in birds), but it is mostly already there.(can someone elucidate?)

And yes, I do also think that people are simply being reminded of things they already know. That is exactly how it "works", as far as I can gather.

Cheers