AUTHOR’S NOTE: It may seem that I’m constantly bashing intuitive guesswork when it is applied indiscriminately to interpretation of the tarot cards, but it’s not just a grumpy traditonalist’s private crusade. There is enough concern in the community over preferential bias in the form of subjective projection and speculative presumption to make it a worthwhile talking-point. While the principle of focused intention offers a viable alternative, my general view is that preconception, when it is more than an experimental theory, is the bane of comparative analysis; it can become an idee fixe that puts the reading on rails toward a desired destination.
To be honest, I love the inspired flash of insight as much as the next storyteller for the way it can enliven a narrative. Where I draw the line is at the unfocused fishing expedition that casts a wide net, hauling in as many “trash fish” as it does marketable ones, and the onerous task of sorting them out is not one I’m convinced every intuitive tarot reader accomplishes successfully.
During a face-to-face session they can be disabused of their errors in judgement by sitters who will most likely recognize BS when it is dumped on them (assuming I’m not giving them too much credit), but in a remote setting it can amount to unfiltered “spewing.” Ebeneezer Scrooge had pithy words for that, particularly when the client is paying for the privilege of being hornswoggled.
My usual response when I encounter the fantasies that mystical diviners often gin up is “Where’s the proof?” The tarot cards are supported by a wealth of established knowledge and wisdom that has accumulated over a couple of centuries of serious practice, but the hordes of novices who are currently swarming the landscape obviously don’t feel the need to absorb it and don’t seem to care. They are being told by more experienced practitioners to “Just do whatever you want, there is no ‘right way’ and it’s all good” (in other words, “join the free-for-all” as one of my online tarot correspondents, author Tony Willis, once dubbed it).
There is a definite prejudice among a broad swath of tarot readers that the cards should not be used to predict the future, which in their estimation is too fluid to sit still long enough for any such attempt to be reliable. When it isn’t based on lingering religious angst, it is typically delivered with the Jungian justification that the tarot is only good for promoting self-awareness and self-development. At this point in my long tarot journey, I’m not moved by either argument.
I have no problem with forecasting potential events and circumstances with the intent of helping a seeker come to grips with them via a timely “heads-up.” I see it as a reasonable approach to stimulating either the commitment to steer the likely future to a successful denouement if the augury is favorable, or the resolve to discourage it from materializing if it is unfavorable. Neither requires “buying the farm” in terms of unconditional belief, it’s simply a matter of “forewarned is forearmed” that should be taken under advisement along with more conventional forms of decision-making and problem-solving.
When predicting with the tarot cards, I mostly stay on my side of the fence in action-and-event-oriented territory, only occasionally crossing the line into the visionary realm of inspiration, imagination and ingenuity to steal a few morsels of unscripted discernment to buff up my analytical presentations. These are seldom the product of impressionistic supposition and I’m very careful to avoid projecting my own speculative guesses onto the reading no matter how educated I think they are.
I won’t presume to elevate these insights to the exalted level of intuition because they are grounded in the humble soil of human circumstance and I make no claims about their spiritual pedigree. I’ll leave that to the far-flung internet psychics who, after all, aren’t even reading the cards in the historical face-to-face manner, they are merely performing remote mind-reading with props. It may work well enough, but it ain’t tarot.
Your line between focused forecasting and unfocused fishing is real. One thing I would add: ‘forewarned is forearmed’ makes a forecast unfalsifiable. Event lands, you were right. Event does not, the sitter averted it. Both outcomes confirm the reading. Forer, 1949: students rated a stock personality sketch 4.26 out of 5 for accuracy, believing it had been written for them alone. That is not you lying, it is how a sitter reads a mirror. It is also why I stopped promising forecasts. What I put on the table: here is the spread, here is what it turns your attention toward, here is the next move. The structure is the honest part. I will take your humble soil over the visionary realm every time. – Ezra
LikeLike
I’m essentially on the same page. I’m not looking for unfalsifiable results, just potential outcomes. I intend to “hand them the ammunition and point them at the target.” Whether they choose to attempt hitting the bullseye or walk away is up to them. I stopped being a cheerleader a long time ago.
LikeLike
Ammunition is the right image, but I’d strike one clause: ‘or walk away.’ If walking away counts as a hit, nothing can count as a miss, and you’re back to unfalsifiable without the pom-poms. The test I hold myself to is narrower: a reading has to be able to come back and tell me I was wrong. If nothing could, it wasn’t a reading, it was a mirror with better lighting.
Your last line is the real one, though. The sitter isn’t buying information. They’re buying permission. Cheerleading is just permission with a deck in its hand. The reader who won’t sell it is the one they remember. – Ezra
LikeLiked by 1 person
But then I’m not strictly looking for hits that confirm the verdict since I’m not trying to prove anything to myself and tarot reading is a “best guess” affair anyway. I’m imparting information (hopefully wisdom) that I expect them to take away and do with as they please. They will have a chance to ask questions when they’re sitting across the table from me (I’m not a fan of remote reading) and I will do my best to enlighten them about what I think it all means. But I don’t “coach” and I don’t seek to “empower.” I “just read the cards.” I tell them it’s their reading, not mine, I’m just the translator.
“Permission” is a good way to put it, but it’s permission they could give themselves if they only had the insight to realize it. I don’t mind being the one to give them the “hall pass,” but I won’t let myself become a crutch.
LikeLike
In person is the part that earns it: across a table they get to ask, and a translator who can’t be questioned is a monologue with props. Remote, I have to build the check into the words, because the sitter gets one pass. Disclaiming coach and empower while keeping the hall pass still frames someone’s week. That isn’t clean, and I don’t think you want it clean.
LikeLike
I do like the riddles you build into your words. In remote readings I always offer one post-reading email Q&A at no extra charge to tie up any loose ends, and there is also a pre-reading email dialogue to set the stage. (I’m convinced I don’t charge enough for the TLC and the written output.) Sometimes I will even have them pull their own cards and give me the list to interpret. Engagement is always more potent than arms-length.
LikeLike