V

The Reasoned Response

Does the tarot have good and bad cards? Do people using tarot have a bias regarding this issue? Do you have a bias?

In my opinion (or bias), there is a difference between the way we view the images of tarot, depending on whether we are attempting to acknowledge an intended meaning being offered by an author/artist, vs. making up meanings to suit our own personal needs. When we make up our own meanings, and disregard the intended meaning that an artist is attempting to convey to us, we are turning tarot into something we want it to be. In turning tarot into whatever we want it to be, we are free to interpret any card to mean whatever we want. With enough symbolic multivalence, malleability and manipulative rationale, every card can ultimately be viewed any way we want. A LOT of people use this 'personal' approach to turn tarot into a tool for psychotherapeutic healing and psychological reassurance, where, in their mind, every card is seen as a life affirming, life lesson, no matter how evil, scary or menacing it might have looked to them initially. But what about the feelings that were put into each image by the author/artist? And what about our initial reaction to the card that comes before the manipulative rationale?

-----

Tarot NOT for Yourself

In my opinion, there is a difference between a person's initial reaction to something, vs. their reasoned response to something. An initial reaction is pure an unadulterated. A reasoned response is polluted with personal opinions and preferences. An initial reaction is honest. A reasoned response is crafted or developed to serve a purpose. And whereas an initial reaction to something might be viewed subjectively as bad, the subsequent reasoned response that follows can be crafted, over any length of time, to serve any purpose and express any personal philosophy of life with any kind of bias.

As an example: If I suddenly decide to slap someone across the face for no apparent reason, their initial reaction will probably be shock, pain, and maybe even fight-or-flight. All of the above will probably bring a frown to their expression and darken their mood - even if only for a split second of time. Subsequent to that, their reasoned response might develop over time into something completely different that might even include a smile, if they happen to choose to turn the other cheek. The initial reaction is immediate and without conscious thought. The reasoned response could take seconds to develop, or days. The point is, that it is a reasoned response, specific to each individual and their consciously thought through choices. The initial reaction is not. The initial reaction is primal. The reasoned response is rational.

An initial reaction is not chosen, it is instinctual. A reasoned response is chosen, it is personal. When faced with desireable or undesireable circumstances a LOT of people consciously and deliberately choose to see everything in a lopsided way - as all good. And, as part of their reasoned response, they will inevatibly and invariably spin every bad thing that crosses their path into something good. I do this too, with my own personal life. But in the construction of a wisdom system, I have tried to step away from my reasoned responses, and give equal time, equal weight and equal consideration to both sides of life, both the subjectively good and the subjectively bad... i.e. that which gives me a smile or frown (see Good and Bad, Wright and Wrong, Smile and Frown elsewhere on this site).

I believe that to really connect with archetypal influence, we need to have an unaffected mind - an unaffected mind that is not filled with reasoned responses that are based on personal bias and specific emotional needs. We need to have an unaffected mind that remains as close as possible in character to that of a mind experiencing the archetypal influence of each card for the first time. It is this initial, primal reaction, and not our reasoned responses that should be the basis for our archetypal understanding of each card. Everyone's personal, reasoned responses to the cards are all very interesting, but initial reactions tell much much more, especially about the design of any deck and its ability to describe as full, complete, and balanced a spectrum of human experience as possible.

Unfortunately, in the world of tarot, there are very few who are capable of stepping away from their reasoned responses. The majority of people using tarot appear incapable of offering anything other than stories of personal experience and opinions, and how those reasoned responses have enabled them to alter the tarot to suit their own personal needs or personal perspective. Too many people, it seems, have been taught that tarot is only for yourself, and that nothing else matters. In some ways, it seems a bit selfish to see such little interest in examining the capabilities of a wisdom system, as far as its ability to describe as full, complete, and balanced a spectrum of human experience as possible, and instead to see so many people focus only on their self. Thus, we observe an important distinction betwee acts of STUDYING tarot vs. acts of USING tarot. With a liberal dose of personal perspective and catering to the emotional needs of the self (i.e. "whatever works for you"), ANY wisdom system can be made to suit anyone's needs. In fact, in the act of USING a wisdom system, any thing could be made to suit, with criteria like that. While, on the other hand, in STUDYING wisdom systems, some find it beneficial to look for something more objective and detached. Thus it is that, in designing and creating a wisdom system, I have attempted to portray a balance between smile and frown, or good and bad, or light and dark, or positive and negative or yin and yang or whatever else, in the hopes that the initial reaction people have will coincide with my intent.

Using a reasoned response to attach our own personal meaning to a card is a perfectly fine thing to do when USING tarot for our own personal needs of healing and reassurance. But to put forth these personal meanings as the meanings that were intended by the author of an image is not always such a good thing to do. Unfortunately, lots and lots of books on tarot do this. Under the guise of scholarship and STUDY, they put forth their own reasoned responses to authored images in such a way as to suggest to the reader that these meanings are what the author of the image intended. This leads to book after book on tarot that are all designed with a common bias toward the watering down of all negativity in preference for the spinning of every bad, ugly, scary, evil looking image into something good. Again, this is a perfectly acceptable thing to do while USING the cards, but something I personallly find objectionable when STUDYING the capabilities of any wisdom system, and its ability to describe as full and complete a spectrum of human experience as possible. To STUDY tarot, and really understand the capabilities of a wisdom system to describe all of human nature, we need to step away from the biases of our reasoned responses and look at the images with an unaffected mind. For those who are capable of detaching from their reasoned responses, and are capable of acknowledging a deeper, primal, archetypal reaction to images - images that may have been created without any intent to heal and reassure - there might be some interest in a survey I did using the Rider/Waite/Smith tarot deck, where initial reactions to each card were plotted to see where the light vs. dark of balanced wisdom might be found (see A Few Minor Changes elsewhere on this site).

-----

A Valuation Equation

In the essay Good and Bad, Wright and Wrong, Smile and Frown our STUDY of tarot asks about the presence or absence of "Good" and/or "Bad" from wisdom systems used in the design of tarot. Thus, for those who are capable of detaching from their reasoned responses, and are capable of acknowledging a deeper, primal, archetypal reaction to images, this question of an author's good or bad intent matching that of a viewers initial reaction can lead us to another interesting notion concerning the subjective evaluation of "good" and "bad" in our lives (see the essay Good and Bad, Wright and Wrong, Smile and Frown elsewhere on this site, before you continue).

The way I see it, "good" and "bad" are infinitely subjective - no matter what. But, when one person's subjective view of good and bad MATCHES the subjective view of another person, the resulting agreement causes good and bad to become an objective truth between those two people. Likewise, within any society, or between various cultures... matches in subjective views can often lead to the establishment of defined morals with which to guide a society. Levels of agreement are not always an exact match, but how close they come to a match equals how close they come to objective truth concerning values of good and bad (not to mention reality in general). Here is a diagram that can be used to illustrate this concept.

You can't say anything about anything without context. Likewise, without context, you can say anything about anything.

The Valuation Equation chart illustrates how an author's infinitely subjective moral presentation can - and should - combine with a viewer's infinitely subjective moral perception, to produce a hybrid result between them of relative moral value. A persistently eternal optimist will always see something good, no matter how much an author wants them to see bad. A persistently eternal pessimist will always see something bad, no matter how much an author wants them to see good. People who are not extremely optimistic or pessimistic will fall somewhere in between.

To people who think that tarot is only for the self, this chart is probably absurd and meaningless. In the minds of those people, they and they alone decide what's good and what's bad, or if there even is such a thing as good and bad. But, to people who acknowledge that there also exists an author who, in creating an image, was trying to communicate an intended meaning or message, this chart might make some sense. A quantification of one's moral perceptions might also be offensive to some. And the knowing of an author's moral intent might also be elusive. That's alright, this Valuation Equation chart is only meant to suggest a formula that exists, whether we are aware of it, or capable of quantifying it, or not.

For those who think that tarot is only for the self, and that it is acceptable, or even advisable to ignore the intent of an author, the value of the author will always be Zero. For those who acknowledge the intent of an author a little bit, but rely more on their own values, the value of the author might be low. For those interested in intended meanings given by an author, the author's value might be higher than their own. Such mixtures can be visualized in this chart, whether actually quantified or not. When this Valuation Equation chart is used to plot a person's (or a culture's) initial reaction to each card of a deck, it can effectively determine the intrinsic good or bad value of a card within a system designed to convey archetypal wisdom - before it is creatively manipulated by a reasoned response. In other words; if an author intended for us to see something scary, evil or bad, and our initial reaction was to frown, and see something scary, evil or bad, it could be said that the card in question might be intrinsically or even objectively a bad, scary or evil card. If an author of an image attempts a scary, evil or bad intent, and your initial reaction is to smile and see something good, then a hybrid result occurs, and the card in question might be said to fall somewhere in a gray area, perhaps with a slight leaning toward "bad" but not quite as "bad" as others that we might have agreed with more.

There are some cards in a standard tarot pack that look - to me - like they are intended to portray scary, or evil or "bad" things. Lots of people, devoted to USING tarot for healing and reassurance, attempt to spin the message of these cards into something good. Sometimes they will acknowledge that a particular card looks scary or evil, but if they are the type who have learned that tarot is for the self, they will always point out that the message doesn't necessarily have to coincide with the author's visual intent. I think that in any STUDY of tarot, it is vitally important to point out that this is in fact a personal choice or reasoned response. That the card looks scary, evil or bad, is an initial reaction. That a card doesn't necessarily have to be read that way, is a reasoned response. As mentioned above, some people are simply not capable of separating their reasoned response from their initial reaction, and as a result, will typically adopt whichever one works best to perpetuate a personal belief system. I point this out here and now, as an important part of this overall STUDY of tarot, because I believe that awareness is KEY! I believe that too many people, either lacking this awareness, or pushing it aside as an act of denial, have distorted tarot into something extremely lopsided and biased. And while - again - I think everyone should be allowed to have a lopsided perspective on life if they choose, I think the altering of authored intent to match a lopsided perspective should be acknowledged as a personal choice and not an intended design of a particular author. Such acts of distortion should be acknowledged for what they are - acts of distortion.

-----

Infinite Subjectivity

We can't know light without dark, and we can't know dark without light. They go hand in hand. In going hand in hand, we can easily see how contrast reveals the difference between things. The more contrast, the sharper the lines of distinction between anything and anything else, and the clearer and more obvious things become. Some people like clarity. Some prefer ambiguity. People who prefer to make up meanings of their own will probably derive more benefit from a tarot deck with low or no contrast. Lack of contrast equals lack of clarity. Lack of clarity in the authored intent of a deck, means a proportional increase in personal imput toward ultimate or conditional meaning. As decks are created to cater to this desire, books are written that offer explanations that reduce contrast, and increase ambiguity wherever possible. People looking for the maximun in their own interpretive malleability by way of increased ambiguity will appreciate a deck with low contrast. People interested in combining the intended meaning of an author with their own initial reactions and reasoned responses will appreciate contrast and clarity a bit more.

Light and dark convey mood. Light and dark are not necessarily moral concepts, they are just convenient words to use when trying to convey differences in mood. Musicians use tone, rhythm, volume, different instruments played different ways to convey a mood. Movie makers use that music to make obvious an intended mood in a scene. Set designers use colors, shapes and textures to reinforce that same mood. Writers carefully choose their words, using "emotional drivers" to elicit an intended reaction from the audience. Actors change their tone of voice and facial expressions to convey different moods and emotions in the scene. Why do all these people bother with all these carefully crafted manipulations? More importantly... why do their techniques work so well... so often? What do they know about conveying mood?

The techniques used by artist, musicians, authors, actors etc. are successful, because huge numbers of people understand them... archetypally (see What is an Archetype elsewhere on this site). We also understand them by way of cultural conventions, i.e. clichés and stereotypes, mythologies and cultural conditioning i.e. T.V., Movies, Literature, Theater etc (see Archetype or Stereotype elsewhere on this site). A well crafted movie can make a whole audience laugh and cry at all the specified, or predicted spots (as in: "not a dry eye in the house" or "rolling in the isles"). There is a message and it gets through... sometimes. Some audiences are more receptive to certain genres than others, so nothing is ever 100% successful across 100% of a population. But some movies come pretty close (see The Keys of Understanding elsewhere on this site).

The intended meaning of certain archetypally rooted moods can be understood by a wide majority of people. However... at the same time... all this mutual understanding of meaning can go right out the window, with the simple introduction of infinite subjectivity. The introduction of infinite subjectivity can immediately negate and nullify any and all agreement of meaning in one fell swoop, if one chooses. In other words... ultimately... nothing means anything other than what someone wants it to mean, if they choose to impose infinite subjectivity. But, as already mentioned, that is a choice. My choice is to acknowledge things outside my personal subjective view, and combine them together with things within my subjective view. To me, this seems a bit less selfish. I think it is important for people of all kinds - whether reading tarot or doing anything else - to not be so selfish in their actions. Here is another fun chart to explain what I mean!!!!

In the Perceptual Equation chart shown above, the horizontal axis represents the relatively objective, while the vertical axis represents the relatively subjective. The horizontal axis is "not you." The vertical axis is "you." Thus, the horizontal axis asks us to acknowledge the intent of an author (not you) and the cultural conventions and cultural conditioning of a majority of people within a culture (not you). We are then asked to combine that information with our initial reaction (you), and the reasoned response that either supplants or supplements that initial reaction (you). The point, in the center, where these four forms of perception meet and overlap is where we are to find ultimate meaning for anything in life. The mixture of perceptions may not always be equal in measure... bias will always tempt us to be lopsided in our thinking. But it is being suggested in this particular STUDY of tarot, and subsequent USE of tarot, that we maintain an awareness of just how lopsided we are at any given moment in time. But wait, there's more...

In addition to combining these four forms of perception as one, there is also a sequential aspect to this chart that can be used to describe a very typical path of perception that many people take as an idea is presented and percieved: 1) An author creates something. 2) We have an initial reaction to it. 3) We either replace, or supplement our initial reaction with a reasoned response. 4) We make our opinions public, and contribute to a bell curve of statistical results within a culture attempting, collectively to understand an ultimate reality (confirming or putting in question the idea of a collective unconscious and/or objective reality). Thus, at EACH stage of this Perceptual Equation chart, there is an opportunity to agree or not agree (and thereby establish with relative objectivity) whether something is (by majority rule... within the collective conscious of a culture) one thing or another. At EACH stage, there is an opportunity to agree or not agree (and thereby establish) whether anything is what anyone says it is. In my opinion, these things are not and should not be decided only by the "you" axis. That, in my opinion, would be grotesquely and obscenely selfish. In my opinion, "truth" and "reality" - about the meaning of a tarot card or the meaning of life - are only to be found at the center, where all four of these influences converge.

In my opinion... meanings for cards that are contributed to the bell curve of statistical results of a group seeking to establish a social reality (step 4), that come from a heavily personalized realm (step 3), where an author's intent has been abandoned or minimized (step 1), and where one's initial reaction to an author's intent has been supplanted by a reasoned response full of personal bias and emotional needs (step 2)... are not as valuable to me as the contributions that are made by people who give as close to equal emphasis as possible to each stage of The Perceptual Equation chart: i.e. author's intent, initial reaction, reasoned response and the public perception... of people who have acknowledged an author's intent, their initial reaction, their reasoned response and the public opinion of others who have done the same. Sharing personal meanings that ignore or minimize all but the carefully crafted and emotionally biased thoughts of a reasoned resoponse may be interesting to listen to... especially if I were a psychotherapist. But if such analysis of one personal perspective is not the goal, personal meanings are of limited interest and limited use to the public at large. They can still be used, but where they diverge to great degrees from the other three forms of perception, they become less and less useful in contributing to a greater social reality (see the essay The Not-You Factor elsewhere on this site).

-----

Head in the Clouds, Feet on the Ground

Some people do not see any appreciable difference between the illustrated mood of any one card or another, because, to them, the only thing that really matters is what goes on in the mind of the individual. In the mind of the person USING the cards, any card can mean whatever they want it to mean, whenever they want it to mean that, allowing any card to fit any mood they have at any time they have it. In this world, the cards have no author. The person USING the cards becomes the author. They decide. By ignoring whatever intent might have been expressed by an author, the cards have no more mood or meaning than a randomly produced ink blot that that same person could interpret 1,000 different ways, depending on their mood at any given time. I see this as a perfectly acceptable point of view... IF, someone's sole purpose is a psychotherapeutic approach, where the context and authored intent of an image truly would not matter. And where - likewise - using images other than tarot would also not matter. In this world of amorphous inferential meaning, and intuitive, subjective interpretation, devoted EXCLUSIVELY to private, internal, personal expression, NOTHING matters beyond the needs of the self. Making tarot into something EXCLUSIVELY for the self is all well and good, but... one should always consider how balanced their perspective is at any given moment. Awareness is KEY!

Head in the Clouds, Feet on the Ground. That is the motto for the particular STUDY of tarot being offered on this site. Many of the tarot enthusiasts I've met seem to have a motto that says; Head in the Clouds as far as it can go... the further the better! Or, alternatively; Nothing in life ever means anything other than what each individual wants it to mean, whenever they want it to mean that. Personally, I advocate in favor of balance. Like a kite... fly as high into the clouds as possible, but not to the point of breaking the string to the ground that keeps the kite from flying out of control. We need BOTH the string on the ground AND the kite in the clouds to form a complete picture of our world. A ball of string alone is pointless. A kite without string goes nowhere. We need opposites. Music is made up of notes, and the silence between the notes. Things work best when opposites work together, rather than banishing one for another (see Stuck in the Mudaphor elsewhere on this site).

I can understand the resistance that some people, who treasure the multivalence of symbols and the malleability of subjective, personal interpretation, have toward defining anything in any way (i.e. USE). But, I believe there is a lot to be said about the defined form of tarot, as works of art conveying a specific message to a public audience (i.e. STUDY). As art goes, tarot cards are often not that spontaneously crafted, and usually much more contrived than most art. The people who create them might claim that they were spontaneously inspired by archetypal truths, but the way they express that inspiration is often extremely contrived, with very specific intent to communicate specific ideas to a public audience outside their self. The author of a deck might be delighted to see us Flexibly Associate, from their images, without regard for any intended meaning. Or, they might wish that we understood their intent. Either way, the images they've created are hardly random acts of art. In fact, the more occult influence that is forced upon them, the more contrived the images seem to get, and the more involved and complex the explanations get regarding the intended meaning of each icon, symbol, emblem, hieroglyph, alphabet letter or sign (see The Keys of Understanding elsewhere on this site).

This desire to communicate intended meaning, in fact, as I see it, is the real challenge in drawing any tarot deck, especially today - given the eyes of the occultists out there, counting every leaf on every branch of every plant, looking for some numerically significant coincidence! In drawing an image for a tarot deck an artist can't just spontaneously draw a bunch of leaves on a tree, and stop when they artistically or aesthetically feel it is enough. They have to go back and count how many leaves they drew, knowing that some obsessive occultist out there will be doing the same thing, and drawing "meaning" from whatever total they find. So every time they draw something, they have to ask, what am I saying by having drawn 22 leaves on that tree? Will everyone think that I intended for it to be some kind of statement about the 22 trumps in the deck? Is that what I want them to think, or will that detract from the message that I WANT them to get? What message will I be sending if I add one more?

Occultists have added a LOT of extra "stuff" to the the original images of tarot. Very little of it is spontaneous or accidental. Most of it is there for very specific reasons. We can ignore all those reasons, and impose our own desire to not see anything defined in any way. Or, we can "read" the symbolically constructed "words" that each card has. It's a choice; learn the language of signs, or live in the made up world of symbols. If we are dedicated to the idea that nothing means anything other than what we want it to mean whenever we want it to mean that, we would only need one card. The theory being put forth in this STUDY of tarot is to suggest that he cards of tarot are different for a reason. Each one, like words on a page, says something. Each one, like words on a page, has a context to consider. Each one, like words on a page, had an author behind it, trying to say something. The theory being put forth in this STUDY of tarot is to suggest that ignoring all that is extremely selfish.

Unfortunately, the less an author says about what they put into each card, the more some view that as an invitation to impose their own selfish desires, as if they had drawn the deck to mean what they want to say. I think that if one's only interest is USE of tarot and Flexibly Associating multivalent symbols for psychotherapeutic readings, then by all means, they shouldn't attempt to define anything... ever, and thereby make the deck their own, to say what ever they want it to say whenever they want it to say that. The problem, as I see it, is when people project that bias of USE into a supposed STUDY of tarot, and thereby alter an author's published intent, making that author say things that they never intended to say. Some authors don't care what we make of their work. Others are trying to communicate a specific message, or convey a specific mood - especially when we are talking about a wisdom system like tarot. A person's ability to tune into what an author wants them to see can fluctuate. Ignoring the author's intent altogether is the easy way to go. Much less effort, to just make up meanings on the fly. No reading or studying required. No author but the self. Is that really fair? Is it really only about you? (see the essay The Not-You Factor elsewhere on this site).

-----

STUDY vs. USE

People who prefer to USE tarot will always claim that too many of us spend far too much time STUDYING tarot. People who prefer to STUDY tarot will always claim that too many of us spend far too much time USING tarot. Is the person focused on STUDY really missing the most important aspect of tarot by their minimal exposure to USE? Is the person focused on USE really missing the most important aspect of tarot by their minimal exposure to STUDY? It would be great if every single person exposed to tarot gave equal emphasis to study and use. But that doesn't happen. People with different personality types will typically gravitate in different directions with their experience of tarot. Elsewhere on this site, a description of personality types can be found that could be used to suggest the motivations behind one person's preference toward USE and another person's preference toward STUDY (see Personality Type Analysis elsewhere on this site... also see the essay Consider the Source elsewhere on this site).

People who think that USE of tarot is the most important thing, will typically come from the 4/6 Visceral, or maybe the 3/7 Sensorial range of personality types. These are people who come from the core of the theoretical model of existence being presented everywhere on this site, and so, are usually extremely social, and would view the service to others that they provide through their readings as a noble use of the cards, superior to anything else. People who think that STUDY of tarot is the most important thing, will typically come from the 1/9 Cerebral, or maybe the 2/8 Perceptual range of personality types. These are people who come from the periphery of the theoretical model of existence being presented everywhere on this site, and so, are usually much less social, and would view intellectual, or observational insights about the cards and the higher ideals of abstract conceptual or even spiritual thought they point to as superior to anything else. The 4/6 and 3/7 social types will typically view STUDY of tarot as a necessary evil to go through, but will not be comfortable staying there too long, and will see it as over-indulgent theory calling out for practice. They would say that all the theory behind the design of the deck is pointless if it isn't put to practical use. The 1/9 and 2/8 detached types will typically view USE of tarot as a helpful tool for assisting in the psychotherapeutic needs of the masses, but will not be comfortable staying there too long, and will see it as a self-indulgent practice calling out for explanation. They would say that without the theory behind the design of the deck, there wouldn't be anything to use. We need to have something to use, before we can use it.

To only USE, and never study tarot would be a sin. To only STUDY, and never use tarot would be a sin. To STUDY tarot for the purposes of use is less of a sin. To USE tarot for the purposes study is less of a sin. A perfect balance would be ideal, however, few ever achieve that. Most will have - and at times passionately or vehemently express - a preference, no matter how much time they have devoted to the other. Thus, most people will be found to be deficient in some area or another. We should all be allowed to be who we are.

-----

EXTRA CREDIT

Nothing is anything other than what you want it to be, whenever you want it to be that. Everything is relative. For more on this idea, read the essay Content + Context = Meaning elsewhere on this site. For more on the idea of explained meanings, read the essay The Keys of Understanding elsewhere on this site.