Tarot Class

After a long (several years) absence from the practice of tarot I was re-immersed (that’s right, I made that word up; just now) in the ancient and venerable practice on Wednesday night. My wife, Susie Joyce, teaches, or mentors people in, tarot reading at the JOY Center on the second floor of the strip mall at S. 48^th and Briarhurst. Since I’m on vacation and have a lot of time on my hands I decided to participate in a class.

Susie conducted the class by soliciting each of our own interpretations of the cards that we were studying that night. This proved to be interesting, since each of us was using a different deck. I was using what many consider to be a “traditional” tarot deck, the Rider-Waite, although even a cursory study of the history of tarot will belie this assumption. Let’s say instead that in 20^th century America, this deck enjoys widespread familiarity and its symbolism influences other decks. Susie used a Hanson-Roberts deck, very similar in its symbols, but with richer, more colorful illustrations. One other student used a dragon-themed deck, while our third student brought two decks – one a vampire tarot and the other a zombie-themed deck. The humor in the zombie deck kept things interesting.

The cards that we studied were the 22 cards called the major arcana, or greater secrets. The remaining 56 cards are divided into four suits and are called the minor arcana or lesser secrets. Through our own examination of the cards along with Susie’s explanation of areas of influence of each of the cards, we received a basic grounding in the cards’ meaning.

During the final part of the class we got the opportunity to practice giving each other readings. I remember when I first began to learn about the tarot – I wanted to refer to my notes and reference books every time I drew a card, but I was urged to let the cards be a guide to my own intuition and inspiration, rather than rely on a textbook description and meaning. I was asked to demonstrate the way that I do readings, which is without a spread. A spread is a particular arrangement of cards where each card position represents something. One position might stand for the past or the future; a position might refer to a specific person, but in each spread every position refers to something predetermined. The way that I set my cards down is by putting down one card and then surrounding it with four others, laying them down in no particular order. The central card outlines the main issue, while the other four amplify or give more detail on it. Each of those details can be expanded upon or further examined by laying down more cards.

After demonstrating how it worked I had the opportunity to do a “real” reading for a fellow student. I had forgotten what a rush I got from doing a reading that was flowing well. When I’m doing a reading, the cards help, but don’t determine what I am intuiting. They’re like a magnifying glass and a bright light that assist the physical eye – magnifying, illuminating and clarifying what the inner eye is seeing.

I’ll be participating in a class again next Wednesday, again at the JOY Center. 

Shit Happens

The phrase "shit happens" could, on certain days, describe my philosophy of life. "Shit happens" in many ways is the polar opposite of "everything happens for a reason". If you really look at it objectively, i.e. without any preconceived theology or philosophy, finding a pattern of cause for the many things that happen to us all each day is futile. Those of us who attribute everything to an omnipotent god or to "the universe" or even to karma are looking for patterns that aren't really there. People pray, but are not dissuaded from their belief in prayer when it doesn't produce the expected results; people look to karma, but as often as not, karma doesn't seem to provide the balance that we might expect, everything supposedly happens for a reason, but what is that reason and who is doing the reasoning?

Genetics, determined not only by Mendel's Law, but random mutations and unexpected combinations, as well as  natural and man-made  influences, makes the "decision" whether or not a child will be afflicted by a disease or disability, or die young, not any "sin" by the parents and certainly not some unknown plan by a deity or cosmic law of balance. We get sick not because some spirit is trying us, but because our bodies wear out and because we do not have immunity to every organism or malady out there. Folks get run over by cars or caught in natural disasters through any number of random factors, not because of some design.

Bad things happen, not because some god is mad at you, or because that god has some unknown purpose that you are unaware of, but because...of nothing. So if you lose your arm in a freak snowplow accident, don't blame your god and don't rationalize that your one-arm-ed-ness is the result of a greater, but just that shit happens.

Prayer

When I logged on to Facebook this morning I found a prayer request from someone who I don't know in person, but had interacted with on another site for several years. This person's mother was ill, but rather than just asking for people to pray for her mother, she requested only those who pray "in the name of Jesus Christ". She went on to specifically decline good intentions and positive thoughts. Fine. Do what you want. But this attitude does nothing to help her mother and just angers or irritates those may have sent "good intentions and positive thoughts". Are these thoughts and intentions harmful to her mother? Even if you believe that only prayer directed to the biblical god "in the name of Jesus Christ" is effective and legitimate, what is the purpose of pointing out to those who you have chosen to be Facebook friends with that any care and love that they may have for her and her mother is unwanted? Personally I don't pray, but have no problem with people praying for my health and well being to any god and in any form that they want. I have a problem with people who pointedly tell me how my spirituality is wrong or substandard or is sending me to Hell, but believe that there is plenty of room in this world for diversity of belief and don't presume to judge the validity of other people's faith or philosophy.

A while back I encountered a couple though Facebook whom I had lost track of about 20 years ago. They were the best man and maid of honor at my first marriage ceremony and they had been my roommates when I first lived in Lincoln. I thought it would be nice to stay in touch and catch up on the intervening years, as I do with other "long-lost" relatives, neighbors and friends who I reconnected with on Facebook. It didn't take long for them to begin to question my spiritual beliefs, which had changed quite a bit since we had last met. Theirs had as well, but while they viewed their own changes as "good change", my changes were viewed negatively. I was told very clearly that if I was not worshiping their god (in the manner that they did) then they wanted nothing to do with me.

It's a shame how people cut themselves off from others like this. I hope this person's mother comes through her illness well, and empathize with her and her request for prayer. I never would have commented on her post with a remark about how I don't pray - in fact I never use prayer requests to get on my soapbox. It's sad that this person has cut out the care and sympathy that others may have had, just because they do it a little differently than the approved method.

I was like, "I don't like this use of the word like".

Over the last few years an insidious speech pattern has emerged. Many people, when describing a conversation will not say "Frank said 'I'm going to punch you in the nose' and then he ran away" but instead will say "Frank was like 'I'm going to punch you in the nose' and then he ran away". Now, annoying as little verbal tic is, I could live with it if  "He was like" always meant "He said". But it doesn't. Sometimes it describes a generalizes impression. Sometimes "He was like 'I'm not going to do what you say'" just means that "he" was projecting an unspecific refusal to do what you're asking. So when I hear this particular grammatical usage, I can never tell whether someone is faithfully quoting or even coming close to an accurate reproduction of a conversation. Keep in mind that I'm not describing the usage that seems to have originated in the sixties and been perpetuated by episodes of "Scooby-Doo", when the word "like" was inserted in lieu of a pause: for example, "He was like, going to punch me in the nose", or "That band was like, groovy, dude". Nope, this is a new thing. Every once in a while I get exasperated at this usage and stop a person who is using it. I'll ask them if when they're saying "He was like" they really mean "He said" and are they accurately reporting what was said? Invariably I get a confused look, as if I am speaking Xhosa. I am almost ready to give up on this, but I must stand strong. I know the battle is almost lost when I see this usage in newspapers like (that was a correct use of "like" by the way) the New York Times, although usually they're just quoting someone verbatim who uses the word in that manner. Another version that doesn't confuse me as much, but is just as irritating is when it's used as shorthand for a mental or emotional state. For instance, if I am describing my amazement that a certain event had just transpired, I might say "I was like 'wow'", or even more perplexing, if  am relating that I am confused about something I would say "I was like 'what's going on here?'" - not at all suggesting that I actually said or thought "What's going on here?", but that the phrase basically represents my thoughts.

I'm like, "This is so ungrammatical".