Tarot

Polymorphia wrote: See, all I see tarot card reading as doing is generating narratives through controlled chance. It gives meaning to subsequent experiences by offering a framework of interpretation. But I don't see tarot's archetypes as a conceptual scheme that has any privileged access to reality and their application through chance makes them even less connected to reality. On the subjective side, I certainly think it's possible that one might derive self-knowledge from the act somehow, but on the other hand, it might not be pre-existing self-knowledge but a created one. Just like it has no privileged access to reality, I don't think it has any privileged access to your unconscious. Whatever you interpret as a result would have to be put in conversation with what you already know, in order for it to be a gain in knowledge and not just jumping from one state of self-knowledge to another, attaining new knowledge from entertaining a novel narrative perspective, but losing old knowledge. I guess what I'm saying is that I can see it having a useful place, but not an epistemologically exalted one. Jeff Tweedy recently recommended a book called What It Is, which contains surreal drawings and collages and seemingly nonsensical questions about the pictures as prompts for creative work. I feel this has a similar structure. It subjects you to chance generated experiences that can serve as a new narrative perspective from which to analyze your life. But what if it were more entropic? What if there were more archetypes and variables? What if you just used a random word generator? It may lose the mystique and its intelligibility to traditional occult interpretations, but would likely be far more useful in the way I describe, though lacking the badass art nouveau style.

See, all I see tarot card reading as doing is generating narratives through controlled chance. It gives meaning to subsequent experiences by offering a framework of interpretation. But I don't see tarot's archetypes as a conceptual scheme that has any privileged access to reality and their application through chance makes them even less connected to reality. On the subjective side, I certainly think it's possible that one might derive self-knowledge from the act somehow, but on the other hand, it might not be pre-existing self-knowledge but a created one. Just like it has no privileged access to reality, I don't think it has any privileged access to your unconscious. Whatever you interpret as a result would have to be put in conversation with what you already know, in order for it to be a gain in knowledge and not just jumping from one state of self-knowledge to another, attaining new knowledge from entertaining a novel narrative perspective, but losing old knowledge. I guess what I'm saying is that I can see it having a useful place, but not an epistemologically exalted one. Jeff Tweedy recently recommended a book called What It Is, which contains surreal drawings and collages and seemingly nonsensical questions about the pictures as prompts for creative work. I feel this has a similar structure. It subjects you to chance generated experiences that can serve as a new narrative perspective from which to analyze your life. But what if it were more entropic? What if there were more archetypes and variables? What if you just used a random word generator? It may lose the mystique and its intelligibility to traditional occult interpretations, but would likely be far more useful in the way I describe, though lacking the badass art nouveau style. 

Edited by Polymorphia - May 25 2020 at 20:29

Returning to the topic.

siLLy puPPy wrote: NOM is hilarious! I've been on a former USSR exploration in the last year or so. Love Scald (doom metal), Regnat Horrendum (symphonic black metal), Grazhdanskaya Oborona (punk rock), Yegor i Opizdenvshie (psychedelic rock), Sergey Kuryokhin (avant-prog, avant-garde-jazz) and many more from Ukraine, Kazakhstan and other former republics. Shocking how much quality material came from that part of the world and still does!

 

Edited by Woon Deadn - May 25 2020 at 09:52

SuperVoc7 wrote:   siLLy puPPy wrote: If this is all rubbish maybe you need to visit the other threads then. You're like someone who protests something just because you can't fathom the idea that someone actually gives credence to it. Move on! Go visit a music poll where the subject matter isn't too difficult to grasp. Nobody here is failing to grasp what you’re claiming.  Likewise I’m sure nobody has missed that you’ve been asked repeatedly to substantiate your extraordinary claims, and instead replied first with obfuscation, then evasion, and now insults.  It’s not even original; you’ve resorted to the same lines to which every peddler of nonsense retreats when challenged. Does it not maybe reveal something to you about these things you have chosen to believe that you simply cannot engage with sceptics by providing evidence to substantiate your claims?  This is how real science works; you literally make my point for me when you fail to do this. Seriously.  You’re an adult human being who is pretending on the internet that the future can be predicted with magic playing cards, and that you possess secret knowledge somehow too complicated for the wider world to comprehend.  Is this really what you want to be doing with your life?

 

siLLy puPPy wrote: If this is all rubbish maybe you need to visit the other threads then. You're like someone who protests something just because you can't fathom the idea that someone actually gives credence to it. Move on! Go visit a music poll where the subject matter isn't too difficult to grasp.

Edited by SuperVoc7 - May 24 2020 at 16:30

siLLy puPPy wrote: What gets me about Russian are all those particle words. Terms like Мне некогда бы́ло об э́том ду́мать. I didn't have time to think about it. Literally translates into something like "To me nowhen was about this to think." Russian is filled with these awkward constructs which sound stilted to English speakers. That's just one of many examples. I find Russian more difficult in that department than almost any other language i've encountered.

 

SuperVoc7 wrote: siLLy puPPy wrote: This isn't a convention. I'm simply sharing my conclusions based on my own research and many years of digging into the nitty gritty. I'm not here to convince you or anyone else of anything. To lay out years of research in a silly music forum thread is ludicrous. If you are really interested in learning about these things, all the info is out there awaiting your attention otherwise i really don't care what you think about any of this to be honest! Funny how ‘a silly music forum’ was just the place for two and a half pages of outlandish and implausible claims, but suddenly ceased to be as soon you were asked to substantiate them. Personalising the issue by affecting to be insulted by scepticism is another all too typical charlatan’s reply to scrutiny. You don’t, in scientific discourse, hear shrieks of ‘nonbeliever’ in response to requests for evidence, because the scientific worldview follows the evidence. It’s the pseudoscientific one that distorts or dismisses the evidence to support whatever fakery or superstition is being peddled. This is of course why real science requires hard work. To uncritically repeat long-discredited nonsense like orgone energy or medieval superstitions like cartomancy is an easy way pretend there are simple solutions to complex questions, and to make yourself feel clever and special, but don’t expect not to be called out when you claim a load of ridiculous b*ll*cks in a public forum.

siLLy puPPy wrote: This isn't a convention. I'm simply sharing my conclusions based on my own research and many years of digging into the nitty gritty. I'm not here to convince you or anyone else of anything. To lay out years of research in a silly music forum thread is ludicrous. If you are really interested in learning about these things, all the info is out there awaiting your attention otherwise i really don't care what you think about any of this to be honest!

Funny how ‘a silly music forum’ was just the place for two and a half pages of outlandish and implausible claims, but suddenly ceased to be as soon you were asked to substantiate them. Personalising the issue by affecting to be insulted by scepticism is another all too typical charlatan’s reply to scrutiny.

You don’t, in scientific discourse, hear shrieks of ‘nonbeliever’ in response to requests for evidence, because the scientific worldview follows the evidence. It’s the pseudoscientific one that distorts or dismisses the evidence to support whatever fakery or superstition is being peddled.

This is of course why real science requires hard work. To uncritically repeat long-discredited nonsense like orgone energy or medieval superstitions like cartomancy is an easy way pretend there are simple solutions to complex questions, and to make yourself feel clever and special, but don’t expect not to be called out when you claim a load of ridiculous b*ll*cks in a public forum.

Edited by SuperVoc7 - May 24 2020 at 11:04

ExittheLemming wrote: ^ Such shrill indifference but a perfectly acceptable and justified position to take given the flimsy context of the discussion at hand. It is uncanny however how the flow of didactic erudition dries up when substance and demonstrable evidence cannot be summoned from the dark hidey holes of the paranormal. There are lots of things I too wish were true but no amount of willing or confirmation of uncertainty will change that. The old adage has it: sunlight is the best disinfectant and electric light the most efficient policeman. I'm just a 'sniffer rodent' with a keen nose for obfuscation, solipsism, bewilderedness (had to look that up ) and snake oil charlatanary (had to look that up also ). I'm not suggesting you guilty of any of these things but I know loads of people who share your outlook who certainly are.