Blessing a deck of Tarot

[Jewel]

@DarkMogethank you so much for sharing, very elaborate and I can see where for purposes or magic or occult workings one might want to engage in such rituals and blessings, but as others have said how we use Tarot is personal, and comes down to our personal beliefs, culture, etc.  Personally I don't bless my decks, I connect with them by working with them and getting to know them as I would a friend.  What rituals can do is help us connect, put it is the mind-set so to speak, some of us do not feel the need for rituals or blessings to do that.  To each their own.  If it works for you then do it, if it doesn't then why do it.  I am sure your blessing technique will be helpful to some people, so thank you so much for sharing.  When I have personally felt the need to clear a deck I sort the deck back in order with the intention of cleansing it, and pass the deck through some incense smoke and voila I am done.

 

As for the spread being 90% and the interpretation 10% I have to respectfully disagree.  As others noted reading the cards is a skill and the interpretation is what pulls it all together.  You have to have a good question, a spread appropriate to the question, and the ability to interpret the cards and understand the relationships between the cards within a spread.  Reading interpretations from a book once you have done the spread will not give you the full picture because it cannot account for the relationships between the cards and how they affect each other, that comes with the reading skill which takes a time to really hone.  Like others have said I am of the belief that the energy comes from within and interpret that through the cards, the cards bring that energy into manifestation so we can interpret it via a combination of spread position, learned knowledge (esoteric and otherwise as applicable), intuition, and synthesis.  It allows our subconscious mind to come to the forefront.

 

I respect my cards, I do consider them tools and friends, but no major fan fare on my end.

 

[katrinka]

24 minutes ago, Jewel said:

As others noted reading the cards is a skill and the interpretation is what pulls it all together.  You have to have a good question, a spread appropriate to the question, and the ability to interpret the cards and understand the relationships between the cards within a spread.  Reading interpretations from a book once you have done the spread will not give you the full picture because it cannot account for the relationships between the cards and how they affect each other, that comes with the reading skill which takes a time to really hone.

This. And also what @Raggydoll said, especially the bit about the ravens. 🙂

A lot of reading cards is the ability to put them in context. It's an acquired skill, and there's a certain fluidity that only comes after many, many years of use. And we never completely master that, it's a process we have to keep working at, and some days we do better than others.

I personally don't even class card reading as magic. It's something that doesn't seem like it could work, but it does, and the reasons are poorly understood. So I can see where people get "magic" from that. But at one time, I'm sure people thought magnets were magic, too. Just my thoughts on the matter.

[katrinka]

It occurs to me that one reason a lot of this may be rubbing some of us the wrong way is that things like blessing decks, the astral, magic, etc. are items of faith.
And it's fine to talk about such things. All are welcome.
But it shouldn't be framed as given facts or something people need to do. That's really no different than telling someone they need Jesus and salvation. IMHO.
 

[gregory]

Which reminds me of all those infuriating threads on AT all those years ago, asking how we can force people to accept that tarot is something that they "should" believe in, and the ways we can make them accept it. Just because I do, doesn't mean anyone else has to. I'm never going to bless a deck. But anyone who wants to is more than welcome to do that, and I would never diss anyone for it - as long as no-one tries to tell me I "should".

 

A classic case of "you do you" but without the disrespect !

Edited October 7, 2021 by gregory

[DarkMoge]

1 hour ago, katrinka said:

It's something that doesn't seem like it could work, but it does, and the reasons are poorly understood. So I can see where people get "magic" from that. But at one time, I'm sure people thought magnets were magic, too. Just my thoughts on the matter.

I sort of agree, but I have completely different conclusions. My idea of what magic is, processes that are currently not understood. The world is much bigger than humans normally perceive. I see things that are called magic as a part of reality, but there is no good scientific method to study it. The only measurement that we can make is a subjective experience of the person that performs what is called as magic. Subjective experience does not qualify as reliable scientific data, but lack of qualification does not mean that it does not exist.

With those ideas, my mind comes to the conclusion that Tarot readings is magic. But I do not mean to say that someone else is wrong if they say that there is no magic and Tarot just works. It means that our perception of world is built very differently and I am curious to know how your worldview is built.

The idea of blessing a deck fits with my subjective experience of why Tarot works and how it works. I do not mean to preach that one must bless their deck. I can see why me saying that I am surprised makes you think that I am saying its something that everyone should do. I am surprised, because this forum has sub forums for spirituality and magic, but seem to be severely lacking magic related discussions concerning Tarot itself. In the past, I have seen several communities that were more dedicated to magic and threads like this one were very common there 

"A ritual using the tarot and the moon to work on personal boundaries" by Raggydoll

 

[katrinka]

2 minutes ago, DarkMoge said:

I am curious to know how your worldview is built.

 

That would be an extreme example of "TL;DR." 😁

Short version, as it relates to predictive card reading: Time is not something we have a deep understanding of. Einstein and Hawking have said some interesting things. It does seem to curve, and also be spherical in some ways. So I suspect being able to predict future events with cards could be something to do with the nature of time itself. I don't think anything is "supernatural". Everything is most likely subject to natural law, even things that seem unexplainable like spirits, etc. 

So I prefer to keep it open and say that we just don't know yet, rather than accept a particular belief system. 

But that's just me. You do you (and no disrespect intended.) 

[euripides]

23 minutes ago, katrinka said:

 

Short version, as it relates to predictive card reading: Time is not something we have a deep understanding of. Einstein and Hawking have said some interesting things. It does seem to curve, and also be spherical in some ways. So I suspect being able to predict future events with cards could be something to do with the nature of time itself. I don't think anything is "supernatural". Everything is most likely subject to natural law, even things that seem unexplainable like spirits, etc. 

 

 

This relates somewhat to my perspective, too. Everything that exists is within nature, by definition, therefore nothing is outside nature or 'supernatural'. Supernatural is  the name for things we can't yet explain. People seem to think that a scientific or rational explanation for things makes them somehow less spiritual or special, but I don't find them incompatible at all. 

 

Part of the way the cards work for me is to do with our inherent ability to sense currents through time and space, our awareness of deeper truths and of the realities of human behavior. We know a lot more on a non-conscious level, and the symbolism in the cards allows that understanding to emerge. That's part of the way I personally think of it, anyway. Not all of it, but part of it. 

 

Darkmoge, regarding the responses about not saying someone else is wrong - I think because people so easily misread intention these days, we're all very conscious of emphasizing non-judgement in our own discussion and responses, so don't worry. I don't think anyone read your process as 'definitive' in that way (though perhaps the wording of it as a guide could mean some misread it as such? but not really). We are a pretty divergent bunch here. 

 

But yeah, not a whole lot of magick-workers around. Hmm.

[DarkMoge]

I kind of lost half of the message that I was typing while trying to make quotes from different pages. meow 😧

I am going to type philosophical thought process. I am not trying to convince someone in my believes. For me, thoughts about spreading cards are fairly important. Even if one sees that reading cards is 100% of it, it might be still worth to ponder.

I am going to start with an assumption that we can read past, present, future with Tarot. I also believe that we can read ideas and concepts that are not related to person or time, but assuming that would make it more complicated. I have come across many ideas on how Tarot spreads work, not the reading itself. So, I am going to list some of them and my own pondering on those concepts.

First idea is sort of deterministic interconnection. This idea says that everything is already decided. This means that even the act of beginning a reading is an event that has been decided to happen and the results of card reading have been decided as well. This idea believes that there are no inconsistencies, because time is already mashed together. But following this idea, one would also have to believe that free will does not exist. Which in a way, disvalues any action, why bother doing any reading when the result is already determined? More over, does that mean that if you read about past/present and the reading does not match what is happening than to keep it consistent with the worldview of determinism, it means that it was determined that you would fail, which eventually leads that the entire idea of reading does not work, because it turns the action of reading into nonsense.

Second idea is that making a spread is energy imprinting of some sort. This idea usually does not believe in sensing, what it suggests is that when one does a reading about future they determine it. Sort of like quantum physics, where the future is not determined until its investigated with Tarot reading. Someone with this view can also suggest doing Tarot reading backwards, arrange the cards in a desired manner and than read them. If one does reading about future of their business, they should put something like Ten of Pentacles and than read what Ten of Pentacles means. For past and present, this idea suggests that one just needs to capture the right energies that already exist in the present, learning past from the present state of things. In a way, you sense present, but for future, you send energies to arrange themselves in a specific way. Except, it also means that doing any reading about future except the one with desired outcome is counterproductive, it means that if you want Ten of Pentacles for business future, do no bother drawing anything else.

Third idea is that card arrangement is entirely random and non essential. This suggest that either Tarot does not work or if it does work, you would get accurate result regardless of what you draw. What it means is that if you draw The Tower for future of business of 10 different people and each of them will have different future, you should be able to tell each one a different interpretation that would accurately predict their future. If the interpretation is no different for each person, that would suggest that the spread did indeed matter

Edit: an now I sent this message without finishing my thoughts... Still in process of writing.

Edit2: or if the spread did not matter and you gave different interpretations, that brings a question of why are you making spreads at all. It suggests that you should be able to go into a picture gallery and make accurate readings for any question. Which is in itself might be an interesting exercise. Lets think about celtic cross spread and make the first 10 pictures that you see on pixiv or devianart(sites with galleries of artists, pixiv is japanese, anime focused, devianart more fantasy focused) as ten cards in their positions.
 

Edited October 8, 2021 by DarkMoge

[DarkMoge]

I wanted to write more ideas, though, honestly, most of them can be described as mutations of those three ideas, where one believes in the idea partially and somehow justifies it. Its kind of what I am curious to hear. But I am too tired for today.

[starkeeper333]

Hi there,

 

I think that it boils down to whatever works for you spiritually speaking, and yes of course, your own spiritual beliefs and rituals are important. I personally cleanse a new tarot or oracle deck energetically before I use it, as well as each time I give a reading, so that the deck is cleared of any energies associated with the previous reading given.

 

I usually do this by passing the deck through incense smoke or using crystal such as clear quartz, or imagining a pure white light cleansing the deck using the power of my intentions.

 

However that said, I would be interested in reading about what other rituals people perform to protect. cleanse or connect with their tarot deck.

 

 

 

[gregory]

10 hours ago, DarkMoge said:

With those ideas, my mind comes to the conclusion that Tarot readings is magic. But I do not mean to say that someone else is wrong if they say that there is no magic and Tarot just works. It means that our perception of world is built very differently and I am curious to know how your worldview is built.

 

VERY differently....!

10 hours ago, katrinka said:

 

That would be an extreme example of "TL;DR." 😁

Short version, as it relates to predictive card reading: Time is not something we have a deep understanding of. Einstein and Hawking have said some interesting things. It does seem to curve, and also be spherical in some ways. So I suspect being able to predict future events with cards could be something to do with the nature of time itself. I don't think anything is "supernatural". Everything is most likely subject to natural law, even things that seem unexplainable like spirits, etc. 

So I prefer to keep it open and say that we just don't know yet, rather than accept a particular belief system. 

But that's just me. You do you (and no disrespect intended.) 

 

I'm partly with her, though I "feel" I know things (as fact) that others don't accept yet. See under "life after death...."

 

9 hours ago, euripides said:

This relates somewhat to my perspective, too. Everything that exists is within nature, by definition, therefore nothing is outside nature or 'supernatural'. Supernatural is  the name for things we can't yet explain. People seem to think that a scientific or rational explanation for things makes them somehow less spiritual or special, but I don't find them incompatible at all. 

 

This - for a start, is part of my view.

 

3 hours ago, starkeeper333 said:

I think that it boils down to whatever works for you spiritually speaking, and yes of course, your own spiritual beliefs and rituals are important. I personally cleanse a new tarot or oracle deck energetically before I use it, as well as each time I give a reading, so that the deck is cleared of any energies associated with the previous reading given.

 

I have no rituals even of any kind.

 

What I (feel I) know is that there are infinite realities (note: I say realities; I am sure - in my warped little mind - that they exist.) Every time there is any kind of choice to be made in this reality we are all in at this moment, every one of those roads is taken in one of these realities.  So I think perhaps (I haven't seen this as my "truth" yet !) what we get in a reading is how it pans out for sure, in one of them - and we can see and relate that to our sitters. If they then choose to act to avoid or facilitate what was seen - that all pans out every which way too. (And occasionally, nothing to do with the cards, I think we can get a glimpse of other realities, which can be very scary.)

 

And "life after death" pans out as a kind of alternative reality as well, but not on the same plane. But none of it is magic as I understand it.

 

And that's me and what it is so.

Edited October 8, 2021 by gregory

[devin]

I don't do any rituals re: Tarot reading. But if I may make one point on the term supernatural. For me, it is useful insomuch as it acknowledges there are likely to be aspects of existence forever out of the reach of our ability to know. After all, it is worth remembering that we are very parochial creatures, us humans, our minds evolved to survive and thrive in a tiny set of circumstances, in a tiny period of time, in a tiny corner of the cosmos (and perhaps multiverse!).

 

Now, despite our eternal ignorance of them, these obscure forces might still be able to interact or possibly even communicate with us in some way, affecting our lives.

 

I think it would not be unfair to call these potential forces supernatural. Maybe the same thinking could be applied to 'magic'.

[AlbaTross]

All I can say to the OP is that’s some serious dedication, but do what you need to do to conform with your beliefs. I guess you could call with a new deck a ritual, but it just amounts to my first spread being a deck interview.  

[katrinka]

22 hours ago, gregory said:

Which reminds me of all those infuriating threads on AT all those years ago, asking how we can force people to accept that tarot is something that they "should" believe in, and the ways we can make them accept it. Just because I do, doesn't mean anyone else has to. I'm never going to bless a deck. But anyone who wants to is more than welcome to do that, and I would never diss anyone for it - as long as no-one tries to tell me I "should".

 

Nonchristian evangelicals are worse in some ways than regular evangelicals, because they aren't even aware that they're evangelicals.
That probably reads like I'm joking, but I'm most assuredly not. They consider themselves superior to "those people", but they're doing the same thing.

 

21 hours ago, DarkMoge said:

I sort of agree, but I have completely different conclusions. My idea of what magic is, processes that are currently not understood.

 

And that is what I meant by "But at one time, I'm sure people thought magnets were magic, too."
Magic is what people call things they don't understand yet.
 

21 hours ago, DarkMoge said:

The world is much bigger than humans normally perceive.

 

Of course. As long as we occupy these meatsacks, we are perceiving with our meat brains and senses.
 

21 hours ago, DarkMoge said:

I see things that are called magic as a part of reality, but there is no good scientific method to study it.

 

How do you know?
Scientific methods can be applied to anything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

They're a kind of applied critical thinking. A lot of the mess we're in now is due to people who refuse to use critical thinking, who deny science. Look at how this COVID pandemic has spread. Think about why. Think about all the quack cures that are killing people because they believe them, because a man on TV or the internet told them everything is "Big Pharma" and evil, and they believe and promote their misinformation no matter how absurd and how much easily accessed information there is on the evidence against them. Think about climate change and all the other things a large faction of people are doing to hasten a return to the Dark Ages and our own collective demise. Think about economics and how the top 1% taking everything for themselves and making a serf class of the rest of the population - you, me, the whole world - will end up. Critical thinking is vital in ALL things.

Critical thinking is not about being the Amazing Randi and going into everything with the intent of debunking it. That's expectation bias. Critical thinking is impartial and logical. Those are GOOD, BENEFICIAL things. True, sometimes peoples' pet ideas are debunked, like Right and Left Brain Theory. It doesn't always feel good, So they decide science is "bad" and throw away everything rational so they can follow nutjob TV preachers, new age hucksters and/or conspiracy theorists. This not only damages them, it often damages ALL of us.

 

Scientific methods can even be applied to "magic." ESPECIALLY "magic." Crowley wrote "We place no reliance On virgin or pigeon; Our Method is Science, Our Aim is Religion.”

Apparently, Crowley believed that the genuine powers of the magician can be objectively tested. This idea has been taken on by later practitioners of Thelema, chaos magic and magick in general. It's things like that single, brilliant line of doggerel that keep me coming back to his writings, in spite of knowing what an a-hole he was.

 

Science would simply have to follow their own methods: assemble a large number of readers, and be sure to differentiate between categories like those who use a system or tradition, those who simply claim to be psychic. etc. LEARN about us, don't just grab some high profile readers who are doing a jumped-up carnival act. Mentalists like John Edward and Sylvia Browne may be good at what they do, but they do not represent me or most of the others here. Note who uses book meanings and WHICH ones, who uses Qabala, who uses number and suit, who "reads off the pictures", etc. This is imortant. It might work something like this: Track the percentage of predictions that hit. Of the accurate predictions, note which statements are general enough to be considered cold reading, and which seem to be "unexplainable" and for what reasons. Note the method or methods the reader used. Now you have a data set to work with.

Develop theories as to how and why the unexplainable predictions worked. Test said theories. Again and again. Develop new theories and repeat as many times as needed.

Scientific experiments have tended to be about things like remote viewing. But most of us are not using things like that, or even claiming to be psychic.
In other words, they haven't really tried yet. But the methods exist, and they're reliable. From the wikipedia article:

 

I mentioned my suspicions that card reading will probably be explained at some point (if humanity lasts long enough) by scientific insights into the nature of time. Scientific methods were solid enough for Einstein, and he made some mind-blowing discoveries. 100 years ago in my own grandparents' time, airplanes had only existed for 18 years and a lot of people still had outdoor toilets. Even the telephone was a rather recent invention. So were movies and recorded music. Now smallpox has been eradicated, polio is easily preventable and we're sitting here sending and accessing words, sounds and images - often "moving pictures" - from all over the globe almost instantly. Science is starting to look into things like string theory and other subjects that bump into other dimensional ideas like the existence of a multiverse. All of this, given enough time, could actually explain and even prove things that seem woo and kind of sketchy to us now. It's all starting to read a bit like Buddhism, which, in spite of being a religion, is logical, rational, contains much critical thinking and doesn't require accepting ideas on faith: "Be ye lamps unto thyselves" is essentially the same thing as the Discordian "Think for yourself, schmuck." 😁 Don't just take my word for it. See for yourself. TEST things.

 

Again, "We place no reliance On virgin or pigeon; Our Method is Science, Our Aim is Religion.” I think it would be lovely to know things that people have only been able to believe up to now, at best. To have actual proof that there are things beyond birth, school, work and death, that we may even see the loved dead again. That there may be something we can't see that actually CARES about us, not necessarily a supreme being or what "created" the universe, but  SOMETHING, that all of our suffering is not for nothing. And if the research into time, string theory, and poorly understood things like card reading and other subjects is done diligently, it might all converge at some point. Some brilliant minds will have "Aha!" moments and we'll know things like that, or at least some of those things. Our options will be much better than the choice between blind, often wilfully ignorant faith and existential dread that plagues so much of humanity now.
 

I would never throw away this opportunity with the assumption that there is "no good scientific method to study it." We need as many good data sets as we can get.

But that's me.

Edited October 8, 2021 by katrinka

[Jewel]

17 hours ago, DarkMoge said:

I am going to type philosophical thought process. I am not trying to convince someone in my believes. For me, thoughts about spreading cards are fairly important. Even if one sees that reading cards is 100% of it, it might be still worth to ponder.

@DarkMoge here at TT&M you will find a wide variety of belief systems, and I agree there are not a lot of magic discussions but one thing we all have in common is we all respect Tarot in our own personal ways, and some include it in a belief system and others do not.  All good, different strokes for different folks.  This forum is about Tarot in general not magic, and in magic Tarot can be or not part of magic.  Your insights, experiences, and beliefs are welcome, never doubt that 🙂.  Just know that you have a lot of tarot readers and enthusiasts here that are not into magic, just as you will find some that do.  We like to dialog so we do not hesitate to jump in with our own worldviews on the topics 😉

 

I agree with you that spreading the cards is important, I just do not consider it to be 90% of the effort.  Having a well formulated question, with a spread that will address that type of question is very important to a good reading.  But it is critical to be able to interpret the cards in the spread and how they relate to one another to get the most out of the answer.  They are all intertwined.   As one's reading skill increases the more depth we get, so ultimately the interpretation of the spread becomes more detailed and at times profound.  Sometimes you do not even need a spread, you can have a great question, lay out an intuitively selected number of cards, and interpret the cards and get an answer.  Personally I like spreads because they give me guide posts in the reading to address, but there are readers who do not use spreads with determined positions.  It all comes down to personal preference and personal belief.

 

I also do not believe in pre-determined outcomes - barring @gregory's hospice scenario and scenarios similar to that - so to me a reading is a snap shot in time with the outcome card being a potential outcome to think about if I continue on my current path or choices.  I can always change those, and by that change the outcome.  The reading is still accurate at the time, but if I change something the outcome will shift.

[gregory]

1 hour ago, katrinka said:

Nonchristian evangelicals are worse in some ways than regular evangelicals, because they aren't even aware that they're evangelicals.
That probably reads like I'm joking, but I'm most assuredly not. They consider themselves superior to "those people", but they're doing the same thing.

Yes yes yes. I wish you had still been on AT when it kicked in so badly.

 

1 hour ago, katrinka said:

I mentioned my suspicions that card reading will probably be explained at some point (if humanity lasts long enough) by scientific insights into the nature of time. Scientific methods were solid enough for Einstein, and he made some mind-blowing discoveries. 100 years ago in my own grandparents' time, airplanes had only existed for 18 years and a lot of people still had outdoor toilets. Even the telephone was a rather recent invention. So were movies and recorded music. Now smallpox has been eradicated, polio is easily preventable and we're sitting here sending and accessing words, sounds and images - often "moving pictures" - from all over the globe almost instantly. Science is starting to look into things like string theory and other subjects that bump into other dimensional ideas like the existence of a multiverse. All of this, given enough time, could actually explain and even prove things that seem woo and kind of sketchy to us now. It's all starting to read a bit like Buddhism, which, in spite of being a religion, is logical, rational, contains much critical thinking and doesn't require accepting ideas on faith: "Be ye lamps unto thyselves" is essentially the same thing as the Discordian "Think for yourself, schmuck." 😁 Don't just take my word for it. See for yourself. TEST things.

Yeah to most of this.

 

1 hour ago, katrinka said:

 

Again, "We place no reliance On virgin or pigeon; Our Method is Science, Our Aim is Religion.” I think it would be lovely to know things that people have only been able to believe up to now, at best. To have actual proof that there are things beyond birth, school, work and death, that we may even see the loved dead again. That there may be something we can't see that actually CARES about us, not necessarily a supreme being or what "created" the universe, but  SOMETHING, that all of our suffering is not for nothing. And if the research into time, string theory, and poorly understood things like card reading and other subjects is done diligently, it might all converge at some point. Some brilliant minds will have "Aha!" moments and we'll know things like that, or at least some of those things. Our options will be much better than the choice between blind, often wilfully ignorant faith and existential dread that plagues so much of humanity now.
 

I would never throw away this opportunity with the assumption that there is "no good scientific method to study it." We need as many good data sets as we can get.

But that's me.

 

I must say - I am quite happy to accept (if that's the best word) that these things will never be scientifically proven. It's once to have some mysteries in life. A bit of the inscrutable, ineffable. But that's ME !

 

53 minutes ago, Jewel said:

I also do not believe in pre-determined outcomes - barring @gregory's hospice scenario and scenarios similar to that - so to me a reading is a snap shot in time with the outcome card being a potential outcome to think about if I continue on my current path or choices.  I can always change those, and by that change the outcome.  The reading is still accurate at the time, but if I change something the outcome will shift.

 ?

That wasn't in this thread, I think.... But yeah. There are some things that genuinely cannot be other than already determined.

[DarkMoge]

3 hours ago, katrinka said:

Track the percentage of predictions that hit. Of the accurate predictions, note which statements are general enough to be considered cold reading, and which seem to be "unexplainable" and for what reasons. Now you have a data set to work with.

 

 

3 hours ago, katrinka said:

I would never throw away this opportunity with the assumption that there is "no good scientific method to study it." We need as many good data sets as we can get.

But that's me.

I agree that critical thinking should be attempted to be applied by pretty much anyone who studies anything, including occult. Even though there are occultists like Crowley, occult studies are not accepted as scientific. But do know, that not accepted does not say when ever they are true or false. Its not accepted, because there is a lack of empiric data on the topic related to occult. Why? First of all, there are several problems with gathering empiric data in the first place. Allow me to supplement my explanation with references from wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment#Contrast_with_observational_study
 

3 hours ago, katrinka said:

Science would simply have to follow their own methods: assemble a large number of readers, and be sure to differentiate between categories like those who use a system or tradition, those who simply claim to be psychic. etc. LEARN about us, don't just grab some high profile readers who are doing a jumped-up carnival act. Mentalists like John Edward and Sylvia Browne may be good at what they do, but they do not represent me or most of the others here. Note who uses Qabala, who uses number and suit, who "reads off the pictures", etc. This could be important at some point. It might work something like this: Track the percentage of predictions that hit. Of the accurate predictions, note which statements are general enough to be considered cold reading, and which seem to be "unexplainable" and for what reasons. Now you have a data set to work with.

First of all, as in picture provided by you, experiment is an important part of it. In fact, experiment is foundation of science. I will limit scope of occult to just Tarot. Designing a proper experiment in relation to Tarot is difficult. What you suggest would be classified as observational study which is quote "Fundamentally, however, observational studies are not experiments. By definition, observational studies lack the manipulation required for Baconian experiments. In addition, observational studies (e.g., in biological or social systems) often involve variables that are difficult to quantify or control." However, I do not say that the data from observational study is useless, it should be used to formulate a hypothesis. You should be recording your readings, what you actually felt from it, what were your predictions during the reading and compare it with the reality. But to make an empiric data from it, you need an experiment.

What could be an experiment in regards to Tarot? You need some form of controlled environment. So, you could begin by writing a schedule for yourself filled with things that you will do over an upcoming period time no matter what, you need to be confident that you have enough will to resist any distractions and just do it. Than, ask the Tarot deck about what will you do in that upcoming period of time. And then, as you try to conduct this experiment, you will face a problem, reading of Tarot will create subjective data rather than objective data for the experiment. You will be influenced by just wanting to say that the cards that you have drawn saying that you will do what you have already decided, giving you a bias, you might begin thinking that the cards do not actually talk about what will you do, but rather the distractions that you will be brushing away, or maybe, they could be explaining your experience with this experiment on some metaphysical level. And on top of that, I do not suggest that you are, I say that it is a possibility, you could be not skilled enough reader for the experiment. Also, you might be actually experimenting on when ever you are a psychic rather than trying to find truths about Tarot.

The problem that I have tried to describe in relation to Tarot occurs in pretty much all things that I consider occult. There are a lot of subjective experiences and its hard to say things objectively.

I will claim myself to be a witch. I will also claim that I am someone with scientific background. I do not have title of doctor of philosopy(PhD) in field of computer science and engineering, but it is among things that I work on. Those things are pretty much only connected through my religious pursuit of knowledge. More scientifically speaking, the three ideas that I have described so far are theories. Its better to have subjective experiences and theories rather than have nothing at all.

I am sorry that the experiment in regards to Tarot that I have described is bad, if I had an idea for a good experiment, I would likely be trying to conduct it. For the sake of example, I tried to compose something rather than have nothing.

Edited October 8, 2021 by DarkMoge

[katrinka]

1 hour ago, Jewel said:

I just do not consider it to be 90% of the effort. 

 

I agree. If a spread is sucking up 90% of the effort and only 10% is going into interpretation, it really sounds like being stuck in the mud and spinning wheels.
I'd suggest scrapping whatever techniques are being used, going back and getting some good beginner books, and starting again from scratch.
 

1 hour ago, Jewel said:

Sometimes you do not even need a spread, you can have a great question, lay out an intuitively selected number of cards, and interpret the cards and get an answer. 

 

Et tu, Jewel? LOL.
A spread is an array. Think of a Thanksgiving "spread" on the table, or a spread in a newspaper or magazine. It's things laid out. That's how the word is defined. No named positions needed. The cards are spread on the table.

I don't know how this idea that "spreads without named positions are not spreads" got started, but I wish it would stop. Words mean things, and we need clear definitions in order to communicate, especially when we're writing and can't gesticulate or pantomime.

 

[katrinka]

56 minutes ago, gregory said:

I must say - I am quite happy to accept (if that's the best word) that these things will never be scientifically proven. It's once to have some mysteries in life. A bit of the inscrutable, ineffable. But that's ME !

LOL, I know what you mean. I remember being kind of annoyed by the first moon landing when I was a child, even though everyone else seemed amazed by it and they were right to be. I was one of those kids who could stare at the moon for literally hours on long rides or out in the yard, and just wonder about it. I didn't WANT to see guys in puffy suits bouncing around planting flags on a fugly-as-west-Texas barren landscape. They were killing the beauty and mystery, as far as I was concerned.

I like to think I've matured some over this last half century and I DO comprehend the wonder of the moon landing now, but that up-close view still looks fugly as west Texas, and planting flags at places you just arrived is just creepy and arrogant in my book, even if it's the moon and nobody lives there. We don't own the moon. It belongs to all.

The view of the earth from there was gorgeous and eloquent, though, and more than makes up for it to me. All blue and swirling clouds, and no borders at all. 💙

 

I think there will always be some mysteries. We're not omniscient, and as we learn more, we'll keep bumping into more mysteries, too.

 

[katrinka]

1 hour ago, DarkMoge said:

 

I agree that critical thinking should be attempted to be applied by pretty much anyone who studies anything, including occult. Even though there are occultists like Crowley, occult studies are not accepted as scientific.

 

And it's irrelevant whether it's "accepted" or not, since, as I described, they have not even attempted proper research.
The bulk of the "research" has been profoundly stupid things like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Men_Who_Stare_at_Goats

 

1 hour ago, DarkMoge said:

But do know, that not accepted does not say when ever they are true or false. Its not accepted, because there is a lack of empiric data on the topic related to occult. Why? First of all, there are several problems with gathering empiric data in the first place. Allow me to supplement my explanation with references from wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment#Contrast_with_observational_study

 

I get the distinct impression that you're not even reading anything I wrote. Again:

"Science would simply have to follow their own methods: assemble a large number of readers, and be sure to differentiate between categories like those who use a system or tradition, those who simply claim to be psychic. etc. LEARN about us, don't just grab some high profile readers who are doing a jumped-up carnival act. Mentalists like John Edward and Sylvia Browne may be good at what they do, but they do not represent me or most of the others here. Note who uses book meanings and WHICH ones, who uses Qabala, who uses number and suit, who "reads off the pictures", etc. This is important. It might work something like this: Track the percentage of predictions that hit. Of the accurate predictions, note which statements are general enough to be considered cold reading, and which seem to be "unexplainable" and for what reasons. Note the method or methods the reader used. Now you have a data set to work with."

 

And I was talking about observational, peer-reviewed studies, not "Baconian experiments." That was the whole point, that observational studies are badly needed.
 

1 hour ago, DarkMoge said:

First of all, as in picture provided by you, experiment is an important part of it. In fact, experiment is foundation of science. I will limit scope of occult to just Tarot. Designing a proper experiment in relation to Tarot is difficult. What you suggest would be classified as observational study which is quote "Fundamentally, however, observational studies are not experiments. By definition, observational studies lack the manipulation required for Baconian experiments. In addition, observational studies (e.g., in biological or social systems) often involve variables that are difficult to quantify or control." However, I do not say that the data from observational study is useless, it should be used to formulate a hypothesis. You should be recording your readings, what you actually felt from it, what were your predictions during the reading and compare it with the reality. But to make an empiric data from it, you need an experiment <snip>

Just a note: I'm using dark mode here, and when someone posts copypaste, it looks like this if they don't click "post as plain text."

 

Etc.

As for your "experiment in regards to Tarot" (which appears to be your own writing even though you left that bit of code in that highlights everything in white) that is not research in a scientific sense. It's something an individual can do, like journaling their daily draws. Not the same thing.

 

Oh hey, what's this? I was just talking about Popper in another thread!

https://wheatandtares.org/2011/01/27/francis-bacon-vs-karl-popper-the-fallacy-of-observationalism/

 

[katrinka]

1 hour ago, DarkMoge said:

What could be an experiment in regards to Tarot? You need some form of controlled environment. So, you could begin by writing a schedule for yourself filled with things that you will do over an upcoming period time no matter what, you need to be confident that you have enough will to resist any distractions and just do it.

 

There is no reason to read on things that, barring accident, will almost surely take place.
 

1 hour ago, DarkMoge said:

Than, ask the Tarot deck about what will you do in that upcoming period of time. And then, as you try to conduct this experiment, you will face a problem, reading of Tarot will create subjective data rather than objective data for the experiment. You will be influenced by just wanting to say that the cards that you have drawn saying that you will do what you have already decided, giving you a bias, you might begin thinking that the cards do not actually talk about what will you do, but rather the distractions that you will be brushing away, or maybe, they could be explaining your experience with this experiment on some metaphysical level.

 

The cards will answer the specific question asked, not start talking about other things. That's Cartomancy 101.
We do occasionally have to explain that to beginners. How long have you been doing this?
 

1 hour ago, DarkMoge said:

And on top of that, I do not suggest that you are, I say that it is a possibility, you could be not skilled enough reader for the experiment. Also, you might be actually experimenting on when ever you are a psychic rather than trying to find truths about Tarot.

 

Um, no. Not to be arrogant, but my skills are far beyond asking about things like whether I will do the dishes and struggling to apply the cards to the question. If, after fifty years, I was that bad at it, I certainly wouldn't continue to pursue cartomancy. I'd have probably quit in 1973 or so.
And I'm quite aware of my "levels of psychism" (for the record, I'm not impressive at all in that area. It's not what I do,) I have no need to experiment to discover that.

[DarkMoge]

6 minutes ago, katrinka said:

Just a note: I'm using dark mode here, and when someone posts copypaste, it looks like this if they don't click "post as plain text."

Thank you for bringing that to my attention, I hope that it is fixed now. Since it wasn't visible to me in Light mode.

1 hour ago, katrinka said:

I agree. If a spread is sucking up 90% of the effort and only 10% is going into interpretation, it really sounds like being stuck in the mud and spinning wheels.

Let me give a different, more mundane comparison. This days, everyone probably knows basic arithmetic's such as 2+2=4, but mathematics on higher levels does not deal with those things. An expression x+x=2x would be more useful. But that is just preambular introduction to what I am about to explain. When you actually want to apply math to actual problem solving, knowing arithmetic is important to actually get final answer, but useless when actually trying to solve a problem. For the sake of example, I will explain a problem that I saw somewhere. There are 4 bags of marbles each having differently colored marbles. First bag has red marbles, second bag has green marbles, third bag has blue marbles, fourth bag has black marbles. People come into room one by one and can take either 1 or 2 marbles, if they take 2, they must of different color. Question: how many people will it take to guarantee that there are 3 people with same colored marbles?

I compare interpretation of the cards as saying that the answer is 21, but that is not where you did all the work, is it? Before you even come up with that solution, your brain is working on how to even approach the problem. I compare that making the spread and arranging cards is like knowing how to arrange the numbers given in a way that will provide a correct answer.

[DarkMoge]

Also, this is going way off topic, so lets stop.

[katrinka]

2 minutes ago, DarkMoge said:

Also, this is going way off topic, so lets stop.

 

True. Just one More thing I feel the need to address:

 

4 minutes ago, DarkMoge said:

Let me give a different, more mundane comparison. This days, everyone probably knows basic arithmetic's such as 2+2=4, but mathematics on higher levels does not deal with those things. An expression x+x=2x would be more useful.

 

Higher levels? That looks like the introductory algebra we had in 9th grade.
 

4 minutes ago, DarkMoge said:

But that is just preambular introduction to what I am about to explain. When you actually want to apply math to actual problem solving, knowing arithmetic is important to actually get final answer, but useless when actually trying to solve a problem. For the sake of example, I will explain a problem that I saw somewhere. There are 4 bags of marbles each having differently colored marbles. First bag has red marbles, second bag has green marbles, third bag has blue marbles, fourth bag has black marbles. People come into room one by one and can take either 1 or 2 marbles, if they take 2, they must of different color. Question: how many people will it take to guarantee that there are 3 people with same colored marbles?

I compare interpretation of the cards as saying that the answer is 21, but that is not where you did all the work, is it? Before you even come up with that solution, your brain is working on how to even approach the problem. I compare that making the spread and arranging cards is like knowing how to arrange the numbers given in a way that will provide a correct answer.

 

And you can completely bypass all of that unnecessary effort (spinning wheels) by just laying a line of cards. In many cases, you won't even need more than three and that will answer most questions.

[DarkMoge]

15 minutes ago, katrinka said:

Higher levels? That looks like the introductory algebra we had in 9th grade.

Yes, and you learn what 2+2 is way earlier, I would expect one to be able to solve that before they even go to school. So, by definition, that is higher levels. Though, it goes beyond that, when you learn math in college/university or work with it on more scientific level, you pretty much discard numbers and work with letters substitution.