AUTHOR’S NOTE: Although I’m unimpressed by much that passes for tarot wisdom on the YouTube channels, I believe I’ve found a kindred spirit in “Balthazar” at the Balthazar’s Conjure site (https://www.balthazarconjure.com/). While most of his recent output is focused on practical magic and related occult disciplines rather than exclusively on divination, his historical content is of considerable value to the practicing diviner. Nearly every word out of his mouth is worth capturing for future reference (which for me says a lot about his credibility, even if I don’t buy into all of his ideas); there is little or no “filler” in his monologue, and not a gratuitous “umm” or “uhh” in sight. He is supremely organized and doesn’t “tap-dance” around his subjects due to lack of preparation; he also doesn’t come across as smitten with himself, which earns high marks in my regard.

In his presentation titled “Divination Delusion Syndrome” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDP2o4FSdP8&t=108s), he talks about the dangers of using readings of any kind to reinforce and justify our negative attitudes or self-defeating patterns of behavior. He believes that a good reading will always surprise us by bringing hidden issues to light that may be holding us back from self-realization and fulfillment. On the other hand, a bad reading will merely pander to our private delusions, keeping us confined to entrenched opinions that sabotage any hope of personal growth. A modern term for it is “confirmation bias,” in which we only see what we expect or want to see in a prediction; we are seeking validation for something we think we know or suspect about ourselves, another person or a situation, and we can be willfully blind to anything that doesn’t legitimize our assumptions.

It comes down to how we approach the act of reading. Are we entirely open to anything that comes, or do we have an agenda we are trying to advance by soliciting endorsement from the “powers that run the Universe?” My own practice when reading for others is to dodge this prejudice in the initial outlook by not asking to know the specifics of the client’s question or topic in advance, at most requesting a general “area of life” with which to begin the narrative. This not only avoids any preconceptions on my part about the querent’s circumstances but allows the cards complete freedom to “speak their piece” in any way deemed necessary by the individual’s subconscious awareness of his or here private reality. (Note that this only works to full advantage in face-to-face readings where the sitter shuffles the deck.) Once the groundwork has been laid through my preliminary observations, we can get down to the business of tailoring the insights to the client’s situation through the ensuing dialogue, at which time details of the matter will emerge as appropriate. (This is mainly a privacy consideration, since I don’t want to know anything the sitter is unwilling to divulge openly.)

Having used tarot and astrology for several decades to promote spiritual enlightenment and also to steer a thoughtful course through my personal affairs, I no longer read for myself in any psychological sense, preferring to approach divination in a more factually predictive way. I want to know the “what” of a future scenario, with perhaps a bit of the “how” and the “why” thrown in, without putting too fine a point on absolute accuracy in the projected outcome and its timing. This allows me to casually contemplate what may come to pass without placing excessive emphasis on the “empowerment” angle. The results of my speculation can offer an approximate “roadmap” to an action-and-event-oriented destination, with the objective of highlighting situational alignment and developmental progress. At this point my interest in the divinatory arts is primarily philosophical and scientific for the purpose of demonstrating to my own satisfaction whether there is any life-enhancing value in their pursuit. Although I can’t put an exact percentage to my success rate, I’m happy to say that a majority of the time I can answer in the affirmative as long as I apply a “soft focus” to my interpretive lens and a robust “bullshit filter” to my expectations for precision within what is typically an anecdotal frame of reference.