Another weird epiphany-like thing about magic

[johnpalmer]

I've always found divination to be suspect. I mean, I'm a skeptic and the thought that laying out tarot cards, casting runes, or whatever, and assuming they reflected reality, was something that went beyond the level of magic that I'd accept.

Then I was reading that book again; the one where I found the exercise "I have no head" (or whatever it was called), the one that points out that all of your perceptions come from a point that has no definition and that you never directly perceive.

That book was talking about divination, and it gave a fascinating reason to use it. You don't use it to tell you what the future must be. You use it to develop your intuition.

You could lay out the tarot cards the exact same way for similar situations and get two different answers, and the reason for that is that it's not the cards telling you the answer, it's *you* telling you the answer.

Now, I'd long felt that divination methods were good as places to start working, methods to stir up your thoughts and get yourself pushing towards an answer. Now, I recognize that there's even a reason to use them, and trust in them... and crazily enough, the reason to trust in them is so you can test them to see if your intuition is leading you correctly, and if not, try to figure out why not. One thing is certain: if you practice divinitory methods, you'll get better... not at knowing the random effects that may make up the future, but in discerning the possibilities in the way we all can, and in listening to your instincts about where things are and where they seem to be headed.

Comments

[nsingman.livejournal.com]

Fair enough. Perhaps the issue was my using a slightly different interpretation of the meaning of "intuition." If we use it in a purely rational, rather than mystical, sense, it simply means acquiring knowledge without a full understanding of the mechanism. That's very different from suggesting (as, to be fair, John certainly didn't) that there is no rational mechanism.

I still think the divination mumbo jumbo itself is silly, but I suppose that if your subjects believe in it, they may be more forthcoming with verbal and non-verbal cues than they otherwise might be, giving those black box mechanisms more data.

[kightp.livejournal.com]

Ah, I see the disconnect - you're thinking in terms of people who readTarot, etc. for other people.

While I know a few people who do that (with decidedly mixed results) most of those I know who work with divination tools do it alone, for their own purposes. Call it guided navel-gazing, if you like. That's the sort of practice John's talking about, unless I'm very much mistaken.