AUTHOR’S NOTE: Those tarot readers who champion freestyle improvisation and dismiss matter-of-fact appraisal of the cards have an implacable “sword of truth” hanging over their heads and it doesn’t take much of a perturbation to bring it down on their necks. I find that the bar has been set rather low for credibility in soothsaying of late, with imaginative conjecture hogging the spotlight and sober investigation banished to the wings. It seems that Leslie Nielsen’s loopy detective “Frank Drebin” has taken over for Peter Falk’s meticulous “Columbo” in the hearts and minds of present-day mystical sleuths.

As I see it, there are two common forms of tarot divination, knowledge-based and faith-based (usually referred to as “literal” and “intuitive”). I don’t have direct experience with Byron Katie’s book Who Would You Be Without Your Story? but I picked up a quote from James Ricklef that I’m going to explore here: “There’s a lot of freedom in ‘I don’t know,'” the premise being that if we realize we don’t know something, we can approach it with an open mind that is unfettered by preconceptions in the form of subjective bias. In short, unsubstantiated belief will never trump unequivocal evidence, and if we think it can we are at risk of being taught a lesson by that uncompromising sword.

The four modes of awareness in the realm of information uptake are:

1) “I know that I know,” which gives us confidence that our actions will produce the anticipated results;
2) “I know that I don’t know,” which is a prudent admission of incomplete understanding that promotes caution;
3) “I don’t know that I know,” which underlies the “educated guess” that postulates the facts with no empirical proof to back it up;
4) “I don’t know that I don’t know,” a form of blind unknowing in which we might charge straight ahead with no recognition of our ignorance and are likely to blunder into error.

In tarot reading, the third of these comes into play when seekers are involved in prepping the deck for the reading by concentrating and shuffling the cards. I call this a “silent communion” that taps into their subconscious wisdom and induces the cards to express it. As Joseph Maxwell put it: “Coming events cast a shadow before them; each individual has a presentiment about his own destiny, which may remain latent: the normal processes of consciousness do not include such presentiments.” Maxwell also observed: “The sitter usually needs help to do this, and the best method is to inspect the spread of cards, and then, in the way taught by experience and inspiration, give a general outline of the probabilities. Specific orientation occurs when observation of the sitter shows some matter of importance has been touched.” By absorbing the insights presented in the reader’s narrative, the querent can often find the words to give voice to their latent knowledge.

Intuitive tarot readers have inherent faith in the purity of their intentions and the legitimacy of their sources such that they feel they are privy to the truth of the matter even though they have nothing to rely on beyond emotional conviction and visual cues. This is not so much the “I don’t know but I’ll find out” condition of the second premise as it is the indifference of the fourth one, a state of “I don’t know but I don’t care because the Universe is speaking through me and I can’t go wrong.” I sense the taint of hubris in this attitude even when humble circumspection accompanies its delivery. They “believe” they’re correct even when they can’t possibly “know” it with certainty, and this absence of assurance gives rise to the handy escape clause “The future is not carved in stone.” That “terrible swift sword” swings ever-lower.

In my own practice, when operating under the third premise I usually assume that querents know more about their probable future at the subconscious level (even though they may not realize it yet) than I could ever hope to learn by independently analyzing the cards. This is where Maxwell’s advice takes hold and I engage the seeker in sorting out the overall meaning of the cards as it applies to the individual’s view of his or her private reality, and we can then discuss any appearance of alignment between the two. I get them talking and am not surprised when something revealing comes out of their mouth.