AUTHOR’S NOTE: A recent r/occult sub-reddit thread explored whether divination is only superficial fortune-telling or whether it can take on a deeper, sturdier and more intense ritual form. Tarot and the I Ching were the main focal points.

When I began pursuing Golden-Dawn-based study and practice in the late ’70s after having worked with predictive astrology and tarot for most of the decade, I took note of the fact that the Order treated divination as the “gateway” assignment for neophytes (specifically tarot, and it went as far as having them create [or, more accurately, copy from Moina Mathers’ original] their own personal deck). It was obviously not a throw-away abstraction for them, and I’ve never approached it from that angle. My favorite definition of its purpose is “getting under the skin of objective reality to see what makes the Universe tick.”

I’m not big on adopting ritual formality as part of my professional skill-set, except to the extent that I think of the minor ceremonial trappings of a card reading as part of the “theater of tarot.” It carts along too much stylized liturgical baggage for my taste; there are less burdensome tactics for schooling the mind in the ways of the mystic, all under the umbrella of philosophical contemplation and its lieutenant, discursive meditation, with divination as its practical outlet.

When it comes to the I Ching, I find it more profound than any of the other systems I’ve used. The Wilhelm/Baynes translation I’ve been applying to my work for decades is a bit linguistically “stiff” (probably because it comes from the German) but I recently discovered Benebell Wen’s much-more-nimble colloquial translation that opens it up to enhanced anecdotal interpretation (as well as highlighting a good deal of its history).

I picked up the “three-coin” technique from Israel Regardie right at the beginning and have never experimented with yarrow stalks. Since the hexagram caster is looking for binary distinctions in solid “yang” or broken “yin” lines, I don’t believe that the method employed makes a lot of difference except perhaps in enhancing the “oracular” atmosphere. I get a a lot of mileage out of an observation by Marcus Katz that “the oracular moment is sacrosanct,” and throwing a single die, flipping a random domino or tossing a coin can partake of this instantaneous odd-or-even duality as effectively as any other routine.

Current tarot culture as exhibited by the online community has much in common with the “parlor-game” society that amused itself with divination in fashionable 19^th Century European salons and British drawing-rooms. Its direction is far more social than metaphysical, which leaves me unimpressed and uninspired. I recently called it “child’s play” and I’ve had no reason to change my opinion even though I thought I had found a more thoughtful peer-group in the r/tarot sub-reddit demographic. But the callow “What do these cards mean?” queries keep popping up far too often, with no serious effort by the poster to make a stab at interpretation. Like many such platforms, it’s a den of idle curiosity and instant gratification with only an occasional foray into meatier topics..

At least the untrained participants have the good sense not to preface every post with “I’m a total beginner, but . . . ” since that status is self-evident. Nothing will drive away experienced practitioners (who are only seeking intelligent discourse and not a “learning” environment) any faster than such inane content. I still bemoan the loss of the wide-and-deep erudition found in the Aeclectic Tarot forum, where I was a moderator for a while. There have been a few mediocre spin-offs run by Aeclectic alumni, but we may never see its like again. When it folded I chose the blog format as my personal podium for carrying on the tradition.