Great song from Tarot, performed live Marco Hietala rocks in the bass and vocals, as good as in Nightwish! Enjoy =)
Tarot College Course 101 – Lesson 2
Video Rating: 3 / 5
Great song from Tarot, performed live Marco Hietala rocks in the bass and vocals, as good as in Nightwish! Enjoy =)
Tarot College Course 101 – Lesson 2
Video Rating: 3 / 5
5) One last note – if what you want to do is use tarot cards as a “way to gain a little perspective about yourself”, then that’s just fine by me. If you can find anywhere that I have attacked that use in principle or said that people shouldn’t use the cards that way, then please, do bring it to my attention. I have no recollection of saying such a thing.
4) Finally, I do have a good and sound understanding of what science is as a rigorous methodology for acquiring empirical knowledge. When people say that science makes claims, you must be aware that it is not intended literally! All they refer to is what the established body of scientific observation concludes to be the case.
And nobody is claiming to speak for science. They claim only to know about it.
3) Regarding such practices as divination, and even the use of tarot for psychology, there is good and fair reson to critically examine them – as much as we might examine any claims for any therapy or medicine. If these things work, then all is well and good – but if they don’t, then the claims have the potential to do much harm. There is therefore a moral imperative to pursue such claims and properly test them against observation and reason.
2) You suggest that I and others make generalizations about what tarot is – but this is far from the case. My principle interest is in the actual history of the cards and the use for which they were origially intended – games.
Regarding more recent uses of tarot, I have never made generalizations, recognizing the plethora of uses – including the meditative ones that you mention. You will find these and others mentioned in my films.
1) As TrionfiTarot has pointed out, I am far from a tarot hater – I take great pleasure from the cards both as a game and an artistic subject, with a growing collection of cards from both game play and the occult. Game play however, is the only practice that has any claim to tarot’s original purpose based upon the evidence.
I also care a great deal for truth and for ethics, perfectly legitimate concerns that motivate many of my posts.
@cmcclorey I know for a fact that ANIideas cares a lot for Tarot, as a family of card games. Tarot was initially created for game playing and it’s still used for gaming in European countries. There is a school of thought on the Tarot, that it’s time for game players to reclaim it. I share this thinking because I feel that the typecasting of Tarot as a divinatory art is harming the ability of these cards to become more fully a part of our culture. Tarot game players are not anti-Tarot.
veda = vedic?
Can you confirm
generalizations about what tarot is, as if you could ever tell anyone what they can or can’t do. Tarot is a bunch of archetypal images, and when people see them, or understand the symbolism behind what they see, it might make them think about themselves. this is little different that the kind of work a jungian psychologist does. It is not divine. it is not “messages” it is merely a beautiful way to gain a little perspective about yourself. but what can i do.
Haters Gonna Hate.
peace ya’ll
that you don’t believe in? are you do ego driven that you can’t separate out what i think from reality? as long as other people think differently then you about anything you must charge in with your facts and your magnanimous manner. You claim to speak for “science” as if “science” ever claimed anything. i think you are forgetting that “science” is not a thing, but a practice. you speak of science as if it is some all-knowing person. look up the word in a fucking dictionary. You also are making
a message to all you haters (particularly mr simmons8 and ANIideas) : why do you do this to yourselves? you obviously care nothing for tarot, yet you post comments on a tarot video. Don’t watch this if you don’t like it. why do you have to patronize and belittle other people for engaging in activities you don’t like? are you a bunch of fascists? do you have to have control over what other people think? i really think you should think about why you do things like get all worked up over something
@Genesimmons8 :
The cards won’t come exactly the same way, it is almost impossible. Although the interpretation of the new spread most likely would be different, if done skillfully it will be just as valid as the previous one.
I do not believe in divination nor the paranormal. Tarot taps into the mind of people. If done correctly, the mind will find links and relationships that the Tarot helped to achieve.
give insights to the ‘sitter’ that he/she may not have (even not been able to have) gleened on his/her own. Is this ‘treatment’? Of a sort i suppose. I tend to consider it more of a noetic critique. Which is much like art critique (which i’m sure you’d agree) isn’t a science, tho no one would dare say it is unsceintific. (by the by, are we now testing by reason?)
most of it we ignore, or cannot make sense of. Also, ‘knowledge’ as opposed to ‘information’ (i meant info above, mb)can be acquired even when no new information is recieved, can ti not? So even if it were _entirely_ introspection it wouldn’t necessarily need be a passive kind of practice. regardless, i don’t so much mind the tarot being likened to ‘treatment’ so long as it is understood it’s not to treat any mental ailments, or afflictions, neither to simply give hope (as some say) but to
@ANIideas- Close. i certainly don’t like that definition of divination, mostly because i don’t believe in the ‘supernatural’. at least none that we can interact with on any level. There are certain meditative excercizes one can do with the tarot, but i assume we were discussing readings and the likes. But there is some truth to it being a kind of introspection. The theory, is that we know more than we think we do, new knowledge is acquired every nano second, by the billions of bits… but
…you mention your ‘analysis of the current situation’ and so I am wondering if what you mean by divination is perhaps some kind of meditative introspection. In which case, knowledge is not being acquired and the only role of the tarot cards is a focus for that meditation. Such a claim would be far from supernatural, but rather mundane and uncontroversial.
…Divination is the acquisition of knowledge of either the past, present, or future, from the divine – or in modern parlance, the ‘supernatural’. The product of the practice then is knowledge about the world – and that is empirical and the proper subject of science. If a truth claim is not testable, either by reason or observation, then it is specious. Given your new statements about emotions, perhaps you are using the word ‘divination’ in a differently to the common sense…
Psychoanalysis is not, as you seem to suggest, a science because most of its claims are not testable – and it is worth noting that in terms of efficacy, it does not do better than alternatives, such as Jungian treatments. There have been moves to redefine it as a philosophy but there again it is attacked for being a closed system with some dubious practices. Again, I see no analogy here. The product of psychoanalysis is intended to be treatment, that of divination is rather different…
…. this doesn’t mean, howevr, that a scientifically minded individual can’t objectively say: this is accurate to this degree, this to another degree, etc. The reason i say it’s not a science, is that it _doesn’t_ predict anything (not really) to say a certain situation might be around the bend is not in the cards, it’s in my analysis of the current situation (made clearer by the cards). perhaps my disagreement, is only in terminology. i ask, can emotions be gauged empirically? scientifically?
i don’t know about empirical. the claims that can be made with tarot (i don’t know about other divinatory means) are as empirical as those can be made by psychoanalysis. how ‘testable’ are these things? My point about it ‘not being a science’ is exactly that it cannot be put under any kind of scientific examination, because experiments liken simple situations to complex ones. you can’t have a scientific experiment, because you can’t simplify the situation. tarot deals with ‘Big Picture’.
Perhaps I have failed to understand your meaning at some point because your position seems no longer clear or consistent.
You seem to be accepting that tarot does make empirical claims and that they are therefore the subject of scientific examination.
The point that some of us are making is that tarot reading, along with other divinatory methods, despite considerable attention, have failed to be demonstrated under scientific conditions – to the point that is unreasonable to accept them.
“persons, their feelings, beliefs, and behaviours, are not the sole product of genes….” that was sort of my point.
“there is a limit to what our understanding […can…] predict” very true. also applicable to the tarot.
“…predictions that are subject to scientific scrutiny and testing.” tarot is actually not so different. It’s only the method of testing that changes. but one need not be ‘unscientific’ in doing so….
I see no analogy with the science of genetics. Persons, their feelings, beliefs, and behaviours, are not the sole product of genes and so, in principle there is a limit to what our understanding of them can be used to predict. But we can and do make predictions based upon them, predictions that are subject to scientific scrutiny and testing.
I am not claiming that divination is itself a science (though that claim has often been made by its practitioners).
Whatever you wish to call the practice of divination, its products are empirical claims, be they about the past, present, or future – as such, it is the proper subject of empirical study and evaluation, of science!
It’s worse than that… it’s not unreliable, because there is no such ‘data’. Because it’s subjective, it’s not objectively ‘verifiable’! What i’m saying, is that it’s not a science… it never claimed to be. at best, it’s an art, a craft of sorts. But this doesn’t mean it can’t have its value. the closest science to which it can be likened, is genetics. You can’t predict what the child of two people will look/act/feel like, but you can describe (post hoc) why they look/act a certain way.
The problem is that the subjective evaluation of such data is demonstrably unreliable, which is why science cannot accept it as a foundation for knowledge and why scientific experiment is based upon objectivity.
I know that it sounds harsh, but any truth claim, be it rational or empirical, must be testable against the claim that it is false, through reason or observation. If it is not – and we can all formulate any number of such claims – then it is specious.