Does the tarot have good and bad cards? Does life have good and bad experiences? This is a very tricky area of inquiry that leads to endless debate. But as with most debates, there are two sides to every coin. What are those sides?

Personally, I try to not use the words good and bad when talking to people about tarot. Sometimes I've talked with people who tell me it's OK, go ahead, they do, and there are places on this site where I do go ahead and use the words good and bad. Other times people want to convince me that there is no such thing as good and bad. And while I'm on board with the infinite subjectivity of good and bad, I don't agree that good and bad don't exist. People who want to convince me that there is no such thing as good and bad are often somewhat comical, in the hypocritical way they portray the imposing of one's subjective sense of good and bad as a bad thing!

Others try to convince me that things like good and bad do exist, but see the acknowledgement of them as an obstacle to enlightenment. There is no good or bad, or right and wrong within the unity of oneness, where such oppositions are reduced to nothing. Enlightenment, they say, is in the unity of oneness, not the dualities of good and bad. I agree. This is at least not hypocritical. There is no good or bad in the unity of things, when we are Divine. But I believe there is good and bad in the diversity of things, when we are Human. In the world of unity, there is no rivalry between things because all are one, so... no values need be associated to anything. However, in the world of diversity, there is rivalry between things, because things tend to bump into each other and step on each others toes. So, to sort out one thing from another, values are applied, thus creating good and bad within the diversity of things, where values are present.

Others try to convince me that good and bad, and right and wrong only exist where the enlightenment of oneness has been lost, and that if we all were all enlightened, and shared our lives in the unity of oneness, we would never have any need for good and bad, or right and wrong. Again, I agree. This too is not hypocritical. But it is beginning to sound a bit utopian. The dream of utopia is a nice pillow to rest one's head upon, when overwhelmed by the complexities that life has to offer, but I personally don't endorse the possibility of utopia.. amongst manifest entities. And while I agree that connecting to the unity of oneness, is beneficial in many ways, I see it as a state of mind that no manifest being can sustain in perpetuity. As manifest things, living within a three dimensional world, we ultimately and eventually need to respond to our biological necessities, and other physical, conscious needs, and cannot remain in a state of unified oneness indefinitely 24/7/356 (see Why Only Nine elsewhere on this site).

Others might agree to the unsustainable state of oneness and unity, but point out that the polarities, dualities and complexities of existence are just an illusion of the mind, and that the simplicity and sameness of the unity of oneness is not. Thus, they claim that to be enlightened beings, we should focus our attention on the reality of nothingness, and not the illusion of everythingness. Once again, I agree (see The Totality of Reality elsewhere on this site). To become enlightened, oneness and unity can tell us a lot. To become enlightened, simplicity is Divine. Pray, meditate, jog, do whatever it takes, whenever the need is present, in order to center and calm ones spirit in the serenity of oneness and unity. Do it for as long as necessary, or as long as possible. Then... when the physical needs of being a manifest entity in a three dimensional world pull us out of that trance, rejoin the rest of the population in the illusory world of existence with all its polarities, dualities, sides, good and bad, and right and wrong, because these concepts, I believe, are inescapable to any manifest, conscious, living thing.

Yes, I agree, the more and the further we can remove ourself from the physical world, the less need we have for polarities and dualities, good and bad, and right and wrong. Likewise, the more we can remove ourself from society, the less need we will have for polarities and dualities. Likewise, the smaller we can make any given society, the less need we will have for polarities and dualities. In short, the closer we can get our society to embrace the utopian vision of sharing lives in the unity of oneness, the less need we will have for the polarities and dualities or things like good and bad, and right and wrong. But the harsh reality is, utopia does not exist, never has, and probably never will. The harsh reality is, that most of us live within imperfect societies with large numbers of people, always have, and probably always will. Thus, I see concepts like good and bad - not as evolutionary errors of society loosing its way from a former utopian ideal it once had in a more primitive era - but as necessary realities to be dealt with and discussed at any level of existence; solo, duo, or societal.

Others try to convince me that when one lives a life that embraces the unity of oneness, they cannot be harmed by the physical realities of existence. Fire doesn't burn them. Water doesn't drown them. A bed of nails will not hurt them. Again, I agree. A mind can transcend matter... for a time, and, like an anesthesia, avoid pain. But can these things be sustained indefinitely, 24/7/365 days for their entire life? I think that would be rare - something more akin to "God"-ly than mortal. Given time, most of these things will eventually be felt by common mortals, or even be seen as the cause of pulling someone back into a conscious mortal state capable of feeling the pain, or threat of death they potentially carry. In any case, those capable of maintaining such an anesthetized state in perpetuity, in the face of all physical onslaughts, would definitely be special cases, and not something seen throughout the entire population of most societies of today. Perhaps, when the utopian ideal of enlightened souls is achieved, it will be common for us all to be gods and goddesses. But it doesn't appear to be all that common today.

As an individual, within a society, one can live in denial of their existence and the subjective reactions they have to life, and the good and bad valuations that they instinctively put upon the things that assault their senses, and pretend that they live in serenity, simplicity, unity and oneness 24/7/365. But they don't. A profound assault upon their physical form will more than likely prove that... and draw them out of their blissful, unified state of oneness, and make them consider the good or bad of what is happening to them. It is for all these reasons that I acknowledge the concepts of good and bad, and right and wrong. If someone's ONLY interest is in utopia, and enlightenment, there are other essays and idea presented elsewhere on this site that might be of interest. However, for those who are interested in a tarot deck that addresses both enlightenment and the world of good and bad things that assault our physical form on a daily basis, then read on.

-----

Smile and Frown

Good and bad are infinitely subjective. But within a lot of imperfect, unenlightened societies of mortals throughout history, there are usually certain things that a huge majority of people agree on as good and bad. Those things usually focus on whether something is life affirming or life perpetuating vs life threatening, or life degrading. That may be an Earthbound, manifest, unenlightened, mortal perspective... but that is in fact where a huge majority of people are in this world. As much of a mistake as different spiritual philosophies might teach it to be, most people value life. Even when acknowledged as part of a cycle of life, death and reincarnation, and being told that to value life is to cling to it like an addiction rather than seeing it as a cycle, most people value life. As ridiculous as that might sound to the enlightened people of the world who think they know what happens to us outside of this Earthly existence (or claim to), these Earthbound people put great value on life. And in the process of imposing their values about life upon life itself, they end up deciding the good and bad of many things by how it affects life in general. Does it degrade or affirm? Does it negate or perpetuate? Does it make life easier, or harder? Does it give me what I want and/or need, or take away and deny? Does it lighten my mood, or darken my mood? Does it tickle the pleasure nerve, or yank on the pain nerve? Does it give me a smile or a frown?

People smile and frown on their own, independent of any imposed values given to them by a society or spiritual philosophy ... or a deck of cards! It's an instinctive reaction, born from an innate, inborn understanding of the value of staying alive. These are mechanisms of survival that appear to have been genetically hardwired into us. Why? To survive. Why? To be here... now. Why? Because that is what being here is about - being here. We can be here, or not be here. But if we're going to be here, then the hardwired message appears to be that we should actually be here... with every fiber of our being. And that we should put value on the things of diversity that, by not stepping on our toes, keep us here, and keep us wanting to be here. Thus, things that are life threatening or inhibiting elicit a frown, and things that are life affirming or liberating elicit a smile.

A tiny little baby who knows nothing of the world will smile when his diaper is dry and comfortable and cry when it gets soiled and uncomfortable. There is something right about a soft dry diaper. There is something wrong about a squishy, smelly, wet diaper, especially if it involves a rash. How does a baby know that? How does a baby know to be content with a dry diaper, but complain about a messy one? Why doesn't he just accept either one as "the way it is?" A baby will smile when embraced and cry when struck. Why? How does any difference between the two ever occur to them? Is it an instinctual reaction with no reasoned response to alter it? Or is it just the adults, with minds that are hung up on differentiating good from bad that see the smiles and frowns of a baby as signals that one thing they have is better than another? Are we saying that in actuality, a baby doesn't really care about the condition of its diaper, or whether it is cuddled or struck? Laughing and crying means nothing? Smile and frown means nothing? I don't think so. Getting what we want and/or need to fulfill the biological imperative to live, is universally good.

In a lot of societies, majority rules. So whatever makes the most people smile is often considered good, and whatever makes the most people frown is considered bad. From there, we give birth to the concepts of right and wrong. From there we establish laws that officially declare what the majority believes, so that people know the difference, and can use that information in the development of their own reasoned responses and choices. Some things, however, sit right on the line and are eternally debated as good or bad, others are obviously placed to one side or another. Between societies, things that a majority of societies place in the same obvious locations, again and again, without fail, are considered archetypal. A wisdom system that is attempting to embrace as full and complete a spectrum of human experience as possible should find out what those obvious, archetypal things are and feel safe that in illustrating them on cards in a tarot deck, they are presenting a picture of life that a great majority of people will recognize. In other words, a wisdom system that draws equally from both "smile" and "frown" will be illustrating a picture of life that makes sense to the widest possible audience.

-----

A Theory of Relativity

A wisdom system that draws equally from both "smile" and "frown" will be illustrating a picture of life that makes sense to the widest possible audience. Or will it? Indeed, the central question of good and bad is how something like good and bad can be so bleeding obvious to an individual, and at the same time, be so hopelessly undefinable to the rest of the world. Good and bad are obvious to each individual - ask anyone. As mentioned above, good and bad can also be established by groups of people through consensus of opinion. And the subsequent establishment of laws can bring order to a society in need of defining what is right and wrong. But the larger a group becomes, the harder it is to achieve the utopian ideal of 100% consensus. Thus, the further from the isolated perspective of an individual we go, the less objective, or more subjective, good and bad become.

With this idea of diminishing returns in mind, we could theorize that good and bad are governed by a pattern similar (or perhaps even identical) to that of relativity and its equally valid viewpoints, from which meaning can only be derived by the establishment of a reference frame, or context, that is assigned to an observer. Everyone's point of view will be unique. But that does not mean that what is happening is not happening. Just because we can't achieve a utopian consensus of what is good and what is bad, doesn't mean that good and bad don't exist, it just means that they are eternally relative to the context, or reference frame, of an observer.

We can, if we choose, retreat to the comfort of unity, where good and bad don't exist, when we are overwhelmed by the pains of being a conscious, physical, mortal human, or when we are confused by the relativistic nature of conflicting values. There is indeed no such thing as good and bad when we live like a god or goddess in the utopia of unity. But... as mentioned above, for most of us, that is an unsustainable state for any physical, manifest entity to maintain over a complete lifetime 24/7/365. It can be a valuable and useful form of anesthesia, that can temporarily eliminate all notions of pleasure or pain, but in that state, we are not really being human. When our mind and body exist as a lifeless corpse that does not interact in a conscious or physical way with the conscious and physical world around it we are not really human. Thus, the needs of our physical, conscious, human nature will always pull us out of that utopian state of anesthesia, and demand that we deal with the needs of our place amid other physical entities, interacting in various life perpetuating and life threatening ways.

Unfortunately, as soon as we emerge from the anesthetizing utopia of unity... shit happens! In the realm of diversity, someone, somewhere, sometime, is going to step on someone else's toe, and that person who is having his or her toe stepped on is not going to be as indifferent to it as they would in their anesthetized state, they are going to react. They will let their body feel the pain, and their consciousness will more than likely interpret that pain as an alert (however slight) against something life threatening or injurious. That will make having a toe stepped on less than desirable. As soon as that person establishes a value of not liking something, we enter the realm of relative values - or good and bad. If they remain indifferent to the idea of having their toe stepped on, we can wait for something more extreme to happen. To test this, we might explore whether they are as ambivalent to the idea of being disemboweled. If we try that, we might get a different reaction along the lines of not liking that. They may even ask us to stop, once their body starts sending signals of pain to their brain. If they registers an objection of any kind to being disemboweled, we enter the realm of relative values - or good and bad.

In the realm of the conscious physical human, good and bad are inevitable and unavoidable. Conversely, if you allow someone enough time to anesthetize themself by establishing their transcendent connection with unity, where there is no pleasure or pain, where they are essentially a lifeless corps, they might not object at all, and you will be able to disembowel them, and take their life without any complications. In their anesthetized state, they will feel no pleasure or pain, they will not value life, and not fear death, they will, essentially, be a corpse that lives as if dead. But... if drawn back into the realm of being a conscious, physical human, they will probably object to the pain, and the idea of death. If they do, we enter the realm of relative values - or good and bad.

Living as if dead... is this kind of withdrawal from life really living? It might, temporarily, lead to spiritual connections to the Divine (which is great), but, clearly, at some cost to Humanity. What is the point of being here, if not really here? To those who live a life of indulgence and excesses, such detachment and stillness of mind and body might serve well as a course correction technique. But in many ways it all too often becomes a technique that just replaces one extreme with another. It's what some call clinging to non-clinging. It's considered to be just as unhealthy as clinging to dualities like good and bad. By not clinging to either extreme, or the Divinity between, we can see how our sense of good and bad is in fact utilized every second of every day as a course correction device. Every moment is both good and bad. And we use that knowledge every second to resolve an infinite and endless stream of decisions about how the flow of Cosmic Flux passes through us. It's one of many ways in which we balance our energy lifeforce, or Qi. So... even if the person being assaulted by life, living and humanity only frowns for a split second while they compose themeselves enough to craft a resoned response to whatever is happening, in order to view it as a blessing in disguise - that split second is enough. That split second is what "bad" is - acknowledgement that something is wrong, relative to life affirmation, and needs to be put right. Thus, anyone who bothers to put anything right, by way of a smile or anything else, is also acknowedging the everpresent nature of good and bad to every single moment of life.

So, given this relativistic nature of good and bad, how do we determine what is good and what is bad?

Answer:

You can't, for everyone
but...
You can, for anyone.

You can't, for everything
but...
You can, for anything.

You can't, for every moment
but...
You can, for any moment.

Just because we can't define what good and bad is for everyone and everything in every moment, doesn't mean that we shouldn't define what good and bad is for anyone, or anything in any moment. We simply need to acknowledge the context of things like who, what, where, why and when... and how.

-----

The Grand Scheme of Things Mandala

People will often talk about how something doesn't matter... in the grand scheme of things. By contemplating the meaning of something within the grand scheme of things, we are effectively expanding the context of a situation to an nth degree. By contemplating the meaning of something within a much smaller context, we are effectively focusing the context to an nth degree. Thus, the larger the context, the less meaning given to consequences - the smaller the context, the more meaning given to consequences. By expanding context to the degree defined by The Absentia, we can fix it so that nothing ever matters. By expanding context only as far as our knowledge of Self, we will declare that only things that happen to the Self matter. In this way we can see how conflicting contexts are not due entirely to overlapping disagreements, but are also relative to concentric degrees of departure or detachment.

For example: Take any situation, and expand the scope of the context, and the good and bad of it all might change. Expand it again, and the good and bad of it all might change again. Expand it again, and it might change again. This is what people are doing when they try to convince someone that something that seems bad might not be considered bad in the future i.e. a blessing in disguise, or if included as part of a past, where something might have been worse before. They are expanding the scope of the context, to change the meaning, by including an infinite number of cause and effect links. Taken far enough... to the point of Absentia... nothing will ever matter. So a good question would be:

Should we ALWAYS consider EVERYTHING... in the grand scheme of things... so that nothing ever matters?

What is the point of doing a tarot reading, if nothing matters?

In a world where everything is just another link in a never ending chain of causes and effects... the past doesn't matter, it's gone. The future doesn't matter either, it's not here yet. The only thing that matters is now. Thus, we should only judge good and bad by the moment - not by how far we can extent that context to include as many possible contributors to "now" as we can. Inclusion of an extensive context of causes and effects shows how no moment can be defined... in the grand scheme of things. But, in the small scheme of things, each moment carries untold importance to each individual experiencing that moment. Thus the small scheme of things is where "shit" actually "happens." In the small scheme of things... things matter.

Here is a mandala you can use to meditate on this idea of defining good and bad for anyone, or anything or any moment. The black outer ring is infinite black space. The wavy lines inside the black ring are the sea of possibilities converging upon a moment in spacetime. The triangles are arrows of time... showing how an infinite possibility of futures and an infinite possibility of pasts are in essence the same thing, resulting in the theory that spacetime, like cosmic energy, is not wasted but only caused to change form as it passes through the "event" being experienced by an individual - symbolized here by the planetary model that this study uses to visualize the theoretical model of existence being defined everywhere on this site.

The Vesica Piscis symbolizes a fish swimming through the ocean of possibilities, passing water through its gills the way time passes through us. Like a fish in the ocean, the sea of possibilities enter and exit our sphere of influence, symbolized by the planet at the center. The overlapping rings in the border symbolize successive events in time removed from this one, where something good might later be seen as bad, and something bad might later be seen as good.

Some spiritual philosophies propose that living in the moment is all we should ever do. Some might argue that it is all we can do. But what is that moment? What is the character of that moment, relative to the life that is experiencing that moment? As the infinite vibrations, alternations and undulations of cosmic flux flow through that moment, the moment is ever changing... from what to what? Relative to what... Life? Does life matter? Do the changes in cosmic flux mean anything?

For a more detailed explanation of these ideas, read the book All Things Are Numbers seen elsewhere in this site.

In a world where everything is just another link in a never ending chain of causes and effects... the past doesn't matter, it's gone. The future doesn't matter either, it's not here yet. The only thing that matters is now. We should only judge good and bad by the moment - not by how far we can extent that context to include as many possible contributors to "now" as we can. Inclusion of an extensive context of causes and effects shows how no moment can be defined... in the grand scheme of things. But in the small scheme of things, each moment carries untold importance to each individual experiencing that moment. In the small scheme of things... things matter. In this mandala, we don't move through life, life moves through us... like wet clothes through an antique ringer. Or... if turned 90 degrees, like an endless supply of sand through an hourglass. Or... like water being endlessly recirculated through a fountain. The past and the future are in essence the same - cosmic flux waiting to be consumed by a cosmic engine that is seen by humans as a manifest entity like a human body - i.e. life happening. Past doesn't matter, future doesn't matter. But, at the same time, without a past and a future, there is no "now" to be found between... just as there is no gray without light and dark.

NOTE: For more on this idea context, and a tool that could be utilized to assist in determining context, try reading the essay Numbers in Space or playing the game Shake the Trees! or using the Dream Analysis Calculator!

-----

Context, Reference Frames and Extremes and Means

Given the above mentioned theory of relativity, we can see how determining good and bad is truly a matter of context. As stated in the essay Content + Context = Meaning, we can't say much about anything without knowing the context at hand. Indeed, all is relative. In the essay The Reasoned Response a thought chart is used to describe a theorized equation for determining the good and bad of any... one... thing... or moment.

We can't say much about anything without knowing context.

The good and bad of anything can't be known without knowing (or at least speculating about) the intent of the cause. The good and bad of anything can't be known without knowing the result of the effect. Together, these two become the "Content" part of the Content + Context = Meaning equation. But, beyond the mere acknowledgment of a specific context or reference frame, determining the good and bad of things is also a matter of defining the thresholds of extremes and means within that reference frame, or context, as it pertains to the tolerance level of each physical, conscious entity utilizing The Valuation Equation. From that we learn two important things: 1) To value life... but not to the point where we begin to fear death. And 2) To not swing the pendulum to the other extreme, and devalue life to the point where we do nothing to defend and preserve it. Some are so invested in life that the death of others devastates them to unhealthy degrees, and when their time comes, they go kicking and screaming. Some are so accepting of death that they become fatalistic, suicidal or murderous. The trick is to strike a mean between the extremes. Fight the good fight and hang on for life. Go gracefully, when it's our time.

The problem is, that everyone doesn't have the same levels of tolerance, when it comes to defining what is extreme in the swinging of a pendulum. Additionally, there may also be times when being extreme is necessary or even desirable. That is why, the underlying structure of The Numerical Tarot comes equipped with a pattern we can use to sort out the relative subjectivity of any person's relative levels of tolerance for any given moment in time, or any defined reference frame. The pattern involves the idea of a spectrum of possibilities that run from one extreme to another and everything between. The essay A Spectrum of Possibilities (seen elsewhere on this site) describes this pattern in detail. Elsewhere, I give numerous examples that reflect my own personal reference frame of perception and values of good and bad and how I organize those ideas into a matrix of numbers that also embody a spectrum of possibilities. But, as I often, emphatically point out, any user of the Numerical Tarot system is free to trash all the words I use and fill in the matrix of numbers with their own words... either before, or during each moment of life experience. So, in other words, when a card appears in a reading, a reader can observe that it is indicating an extreme, but leave open the possibility of whether that is a good or bad thing, given the CONTEXT of the subject of the reading and the diverse elements of experience that are seen to be interacting, and whether they are stepping on toes in any life threatening way or not.

Everyone has a different threshold, beyond which an extreme becomes undesirable. The underlying structure of my system is not there to tell anyone what or where their threshold is or what and where the threshold of any given society of people might be, it is there for the purpose of asking you to tell me where your threshold is by asking you to place the words you use in conversation along this numerologically divided spectrum-based structure, so that we can better understand each other (see The Dream Analysis Calculator elsewhere on this site). Some words may take up permanent residence to one part of the spectrum or another, others might change with each experience, or with the 20/20 hindsight that we are given beyond each moment in time. The point is to speak in comparative terms, that make it clear to the other person exactly when we are being extreme or when we are being something in between, and when we intend to express something as good or bad.

Each moment in time is infinitely undefinable as anything other than an infinitely undefinable moment in time. If good and bad are no more definable than that, they are still as worthy of consideration with regards to the life affirming vs. life threatening potential of any given moment in time. In that sense, they exist. My system asks us to live in that moment and tell each other about it in conscious, human terms of life perpetuating or life threatening experience.

-----

Wants and Needs

Why is the concept of ultimate good and bad such a moving target? Answer - shared context. But there's more...

Ultimate good and bad is a moving target, because of the myriad of variables involved in any attempt made to define it. Relative good and bad is another thing entirely. Lots of people have put forth definitions of relative of good and bad. Toward that end... I'll offer my definition of "Good." Similar to others of the past that focus on things like happiness and pleasure, mine goes like this:

Short version: Good = Satisfaction.

Medium version: Good = Satisfaction in the resolution of consequences, regarding wants and needs.

Longer version: Good = Satisfaction in the resolution of consequences, regarding wants and needs... relative to a context of life affirming criteria.

One of the most important parts of the definition of "good" just given is the critical difference between "wants" and "needs." Many people propose definitions of good that focus on happiness, desire and getting what we want. This short sighted view of getting what we want is what makes most people's ideas about good and bad infinitely subjective. What we want can change on a whim. What we want is usually specific to us, and not even close to being universal. However... what we need is often a bit more stable, and a bit more universal. If we procede with the aforementioned assumption of things that are life affirming being universally good, then our most basic human needs would represent universal objective goods. We may not always want what we need, but when it comes to these basic needs of human dignity, we always need what we need. For example:

Universally, we all need food. We may not want the particular meal that is before us at any given time, and thus we might declare it to be bad, while someone next to us might think it is good. Thus it is that what we want from food is subjective, while the fact that we need food at all, to stay alive, is universal. We may not all want food at the same times. But we all eventually need food to continue being who we are in this life. It is a universal good. Same with water. We all need life affirming, life perpetuating water. We may not like the taste of the water we get, but as long as it is not poisonous or life threatening, it is a universal good. The fulfilling of basic human needs is what we see being used by the tiny baby, mentioned above, who knows nothing of the greater good of others, but does have a hardwired sense of life preserving instinct - i.e. needs.

This theory fits well with the ideas presented elsewhere on this site about extremes and in betweens, and defining spectrums of possibilities (see A Spectrum of Possibilities elsewhere on this site). With this sense in mind, it becomes obvious that too much of something, whether a want or a need, presents us with more than we need. Too little presents us with not enough of what we need. Thus, as we only need what we need, satisfaction with the correctly proportioned fulfilment of a basic human need becomes a universal good. Thus, we begin to see how it is that the problem with defining good and bad rests mostly in our own denial of life perpetuating needs that are universal to the dignity of humankind, vs. our own permissiveness in consistently letting what we want overrule what we need. By giving our hedonistic desires the final word on everything, good and bad remain infinitely subjective. But... by focusing on properly proportioned, universal, life affirming needs of human dignity, good and bad become a LOT less subjective... if not completely objective.

But... unfortunately, the world does not move forward on these universal goods alone. Thus it is that our wants come to overrule our needs on a regular basis. Thus it is that relative good is so frequently determined by the invented rules of society concerning the satisfactory resolution of conflicting wants that are, in the minds of many, more important than universal needs.

Needs sustain life. Wants add to, and advance life. This is where the notion of "doing by not doing" comes in. By only doing what is needed, when it is needed, and being free of all wants, we do without doing. But... as wants are seen as a force of evolution, some might argue that tending only to needs creates a static existence. Is the evolution of our species beyond that of needs intrinsically bad? Or is it acceptable to have wants, as long as we keep things under control and don't allow ourselves to be convinced that our wants are in fact needs, when they are not? If one believes it is not possible to avoid addictions that result from wants, then by all means they should tend only to needs and nothing more, and be all good and all right. However... for those who choose to deal with the evolutionary instincts of wants, the ultimate subjectivity of these good and bad wants, results in a relative "Good." I believe - as a human - it is important to acknowledge and deal with this relative "Good" and its partner, the relative "Bad."

-----

Virtues

For the unenlightened majority who have choosen to deal with the conflicts of life and the illusions of good and bad that go with it, many point to the idea of virtues as a guide for good living. There are many virtues to choose from. In the essay Consider the Source, I point out how certain numerological types adopt certain theories of philosophy based on how they satisfactorily express the dominant number of that type. Thus, while many might define virtue as...

Long term thinking
Dynamic thinking
Forward moment thinking
Broad context thinking
Many thinking

... and vice as...

Short term thinking
Static thinking
Now moment thinking
Narrow context thinking
Self thinking

... others might simply view these two descriptions as characteristic of the disparate personality types of 4/6 and 1/9. The 4/6 personality (residing at the core of the theoretical model of existence being put forth everywhere on this site) is much more social, and would therefore be more interested in attacking good and bad variables in a way that brings satisfaction to the largest group of people. While, the 1/9 personality (residing at the periphery of the theoretical model of existence being put forth everywhere on this site), is more solitary, and so, might focus more on the the satisfaction of the Self.

Virtuous people will usually try to cover as wide a field as possible, attempting to make laws that are applicable to everyone universally. They are typically extroverted, like a 4/6 type... whether they actually are one or not. Individuals assessing the good and bad of things for themself are not necessarily lacking virtue, but by making laws that are only meant for themself, they are being typically introverted, like a 1/9 type... whether they actually are one or not. Neither of these approaches is more right or wrong than the other. Neither one is good or bad. They simply represent two inverted perspectives on a single issue. The 4/6 type represents someone at the core of our model of existence, facing out. And the 1/9 represents someone at the outer perimeter of our model, facing in.

The 4/6 type might be seen by some as more virtuous, but... because of the diminishing returns of our model's form, their laws typically do NOT apply universally, or... very few of them apply universally. The 1/9 type might be seen as less virtuous and more "self" -ish, but... because of things like convergence upon a core or center (the opposite of diminishing returns), their laws typically DO apply universally... to themselves. The 1/9 approach is the one used by me (and any other author of a tarot system), when brainstorming possible interpretations for each number of numerology within a defined grid of extremes and inbetween, where extremes are meant to portray my own subjective sense of bad, and inbetweens are meant to portray my own subjective sense of good.

There is nothing intrinsically good or bad about focusing on the self, rather than the many. But intrinsically, most people consider the most virtuous people to be those who do focus on the many in sacrifice to the self. People talk about "the ultimate sacrifice"... but at the same time, some consider total denial of the self to be an undesirable extreme - especially when it leads to things like an absentee workaholic spouse or parent. Ultimately... you gotta do what you gotta do. However, it might be noted that because humans are fundamentally lazy, most tend to follow the selfish path, regardless of their numerological type. It's much easier to determine what is good and bad on a self centered level - even with variables that are in constant flux with infinite scope. On the other hand... if someone has the energy to be virtuous to the greater majority, there are many virtues to look at, as well as rules for good behavior and good living to utilize. For an analysis of how virtues and vices can be mapped onto the form of our theoretical model of existence, consult the essay Sins and Virtues elsewhere on this site. For rules of living, there are many maxims and aphorisms that can help. There are several for each number of our number line, within The Interpretation Pages on this site.

-----

EXTRA CREDIT

Call me a pessimist if you must. I call myself a realist. I smile and frown. All the people I know smile and frown. All the illustrations, paintings, and photographs I see of people from societies gone by have smiles and frowns. Some people fly to the sun (extreme smile) and crash back to Earth (extreme frown). Some just smile and frown. Some, while meditating their way to the transcendent utopian unity of oneness neither smile nor frown. Let's talk about the whole dynamic, the full spectrum of human experience.

That's where (one of) my interests lies, in exploring the capabilities and limitations of any wisdom system (like the Rider/Waite/Smith tarot deck for example), and asking; is it a pure and unadulterated portrayal of instinctively born, and archetypally based smiles and frowns? Or does it portray a reasoned response to life, developed over time, to express a lopsided perspective with a personal bias? Does it give equal representation to both smile and frown and everything in between? Or is it a one sided representation of smiles? If I should happen to choose frowns, will I find as many of them as I find of smiles? Or will I encounter a bias? For whatever concept I choose, be it smile or frown, will I find something to balance it? Or will I find a deficit?

In most tarot decks, I see a bias. In the way most people use tarot, I see a bias. By putting a positive spin on every bad thing, they think they are being neutral, when in fact they are presenting an all-good bias. By only presenting ONE point of view, they think they are presenting a NEUTRAL point of view. Is this what tarot was meant to be? Or can it be something else? The All Things Are Numbers approach is an alternative, for those who appreciate balance, symmetry, contrast and consistency...

For more on bias, read the essay The Reasoned Response elsewhere on this site.

For more on how a deck might portray an equal proportion of smiles and frowns with balance, symmetry, contrast and consistency, read the essay A Few Minor Changes eleswhere on this site.

For more about "Good " vs. "Bad" and "Smile" vs. "Frown" continue on to the essay "Stop Being So Human!"