Tarot readers??

[PaliRichard 10]

If you're genuinely interested in this, it would be a good idea to consider posting some of those questions here.

 

I find that, certainly when such questions are posed by 'rationalists' (not saying you're necessarily one) they show a clear lack of understanding of the subject they're supposed to be about.

 

I suspect Robina wouldn't consider herself to be a 'rationalist' or a logic-based person, and, would therefore likely find it difficult to relate to the kind of approach used by rationalists.

 

I, however, am very familiar with that approach, and, though I would dissassociate myself from 'the rationalists', I am very rational, and, simultaneously, very familiar with, and, supportive of, those 'spiritual' fields which the 'rationalists' seem to love attacking.

 

So I may be able to point out certain aspects of your questions which could be the cause of the lack of engagement you seem to be getting from the people you're directing them to.

 

No I'm not a rationalist, in fact I agree with many of your statements regarding them.

 

I have posted my questions on this forum many times with an open invite to those who believe they can communicate with the dead (that is who they are for). No one has tried answering them (On this forum) who makes those claims. robina hasn't avoided them because they are rationalist, the only reason she has given for avoiding them is that she 'doesn't have to defend herself', I never asked her to, they are, as I stress every time I have posted them to provide me, personally, with proof as to whether 'spirit' exists. I do this by looking at the answers given and asking follow up questions which become subtler and subtler depending on the answers given. Those who have tried answering (external to this forum) trip themselves up when the subtleties 'kick in'. The first set of questions are a bit 'child like', but they are simple on purpose.

 

They are not designed to call the person answering 'fraudulant', in fact they can't detect whether the person answering is lying or genuinely believes what they are saying, what they can ascertain (if followed up) is whether the person is genuinely 'speaking to spirit' or whether they are in some way mistaken. The method I'm afraid will remain 'secret', as explaining it would allow those who take the test to defraud it.

 

Alas unless you claim to be able to communicate with the dead it would be pointless trying to answer them, they are however lurking around this forum somewhere, although I'm not entirely sure where!

[janie48 95]

:.

 

Alas unless you claim to be able to communicate with the dead it would be pointless trying to answer them, they are however lurking around this forum somewhere, although I'm not entirely sure where!

 

What dead bodies?

[PaliRichard 10]

What dead bodies?

 

No the questions silly

[flamingjimmy 10]

Interesting...

 

Generally I find it quite common that when 'rationalists' debate these issues, they tend to be heavily critical if the other side uses emotive language when trying to make their posts.

 

You're dead right that most people are better swayed by emotive language than straight rational argument, hence the success of propaganda etc.

 

Nevertheless, when it comes to rationalists in debates, the focus shouldn't purely on swaying peoples opinions by any means necessary, but on aspiring to the truth of the matter. And, in that, overly emotive language has no place other than to obscure the truth.

Why can't they focus be on both? Aspiring to the truth of the matter, and then trying to convince others of the truth of the matter.

 

If there's a point to be made in a rational debate, it can, and should, be made with a rational argument- using emotive language (while it may indeed sway the easily swayed) is invariably a substitue brought in when the arguer has no rational argument.

No that's not true, it is variably that, yes, in fact probably more often than not. But it is also a substitute brought in when people won't listen to/can't understand a rational argument.

 

 

 

A strange phrase there- impossible to know what you mean by it.

I'm pretty sure that you know exactly what I mean by it, and that you are being deliberately obtuse, in order to make your little point about how you and Carl Jung think that people deluding themselves is totally cool.

 

In any case I'll clarify exactly what I meant for you: People who believe that Tarot cards/tarot card readers have supernatural powers.

[flamingjimmy 10]

<snipped for brevity>

 

My apologies, I did not see that post from Bloomdido.

[onewheeldave 22]

Why can't they focus be on both? Aspiring to the truth of the matter, and then trying to convince others of the truth of the matter.

 

 

Aspiring to the truth, and, convincing others, are 2 very different things.

 

I know above you say "then trying to convince others of the truth of the matter", but, of course that's only possible after the truth has been found, which in many of these issues, has not yet occured.

 

Aspiring to the truth is the business of science, maths, philosophy etc, and requires a great deal of honesty, integrity and relentless attacks on one's own hypotheses.

 

Convincing others, in contrast, is more the business of politics, marketing, sophistry etc, and, in those fields, integrity and honesty are not high on the list of priorities

 

Indeed, when it comes to convincing others, deception, propaganda, vagueness and charisma are the tools of choice.

 

Given that aspiring to the truth is so very difficult to start with, it is counter productive to be mixing in the techniques of 'convincing others' while it is being done.

 

Once the truth has been found, then yes, maybe it's time to think about convincing others- even then, I'd consider a lot more honest to stick to rationality, rather than the traditional deceit based techniques.

 

But, that's only relevant once the truth has been found- prior to that, it's best to stay away from 'convincing others'.

 

This is why scientific method has such a focus on cutting out any possible extraneous influence on experiments by people, including, and especially, influence by the scientists conducting the experiments.

 

Because, if such influence is possible, then it will happen, even if it's completely subconscious, and, if it does, the experiment will be ruined and any conclusions worthless.

[onewheeldave 22]

 

 

I'm pretty sure that you know exactly what I mean by it, and that you are being deliberately obtuse, in order to make your little point about how you and Carl Jung think that people deluding themselves is totally cool.

 

In any case I'll clarify exactly what I meant for you: People who believe that Tarot cards/tarot card readers have supernatural powers.

 

OK. To be honest, I don't believe that tarot cards/readers have supernatural powers.

 

I can't say 100% they don't, and, I can't prove they don't, but, on balance, I operate on the belief that Tarot card reading doesn't 'work' by relying on the existence of such things as 'psychic powers' or 'reading the future' etc.

 

Nevertheless, I do believe that Tarot, I-ching and the various other systems, do work. (As did Jung, who also came up with some interesting theories concerning possible mechanisms as to how they worked).

 

And, more importantly, I believe that people have an absolute right to use such systems and, if they choose, to pay readers for a service using them.

[onewheeldave 22]

My apologies, I did not see that post from Bloomdido.

 

Fair enough, it's easy to miss posts, apology accepted.

[RootsBooster 24]

I find that, certainly when such questions are posed by 'rationalists' (not saying you're necessarily one) they show a clear lack of understanding of the subject they're supposed to be about.

 

I suspect Robina wouldn't consider herself to be a 'rationalist' or a logic-based person, and, would therefore likely find it difficult to relate to the kind of approach used by rationalists.

 

How do you see my questions in post #94 ?

 

I made them simple enough for her to understand and she should be able to answer if her ability is real. I'm not asking for any measured scientific evidence or anything. Just an explanation of

a) what she experiences

and

b) how tarot cards can possibly be any easier for the customer to understand than just telling them straight from the horse's mouth.

[Bloomdido 10]

My apologies, I did not see that post from Bloomdido.

 

What have I done now?

[onewheeldave 22]

How do you see my questions in post #94 ?

 

I made them simple enough for her to understand and she should be able to answer if her ability is real. I'm not asking for any measured scientific evidence or anything. Just an explanation of

a) what she experiences

and

b) how tarot cards can possibly be any easier for the customer to understand than just telling them straight from the horse's mouth.

 

Obviously, I've little idea of how she works or what she experiences, but...

 

a) is obviously asking about her internal experience and so it's quite understandable (to me anyway) why she may not want to get into it. I think mediums in general tend to be quite 'internal' people and such people may well not be that interested in answering questions about their internal (personal) experiences.

 

b) traditionally, each tarot card has a set of meanings (which are affected by other factors, such as their position in the layout, the meaning of the particular layout, and, the clients original question). Obviously, the client wil likely not have the knowledge the reader does, but, the reader can give some indication of that cards meaning.

 

For example, 'The Tower' has meanings which include a profound transformation, often experienced in life as some form of catastrophe.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tower_%28Tarot_card%29

 

So, if that card came up in a reading (depending on the many other factors mentioned above), and, the client was currently experiencing some deeply unpleasant life experience, the reader could explain the meaning of the card, as being, not necessarily a bad thing, but a deep transformation.

 

To the client, what was being perceived as a hopeless situation with no meaning or redeeming factors, is now seen as possibly, in the long run, simply a deep transformation in their life, which could well be positive.

 

Why not just explain it in words?

 

Several possible reasons, including the fact that the client has obviously chosen to come to a tarot card reader, and thus, for whatever reason, feels some affinity for tarot.

 

Also, some people just don't get along that well with words and rationality when it comes to the deep meanings of their life- they find imagery much more powerful and meaningful.

 

Some people just find a resonance with the powerful imagery and symbology of the tarot.

 

Again, I can only stress that, IMO, people have an absolute right to visit mediums, tarot readers etc, and, mediums/tarot readers have a right to offer their service: regardless of whether other people find the whole thing incomprehensible or irrational (although I hope my attempts at explaining above do make some kind of sense).

 

Obviously, that's only the case if the client is of sound mind- cases of serious exploitation should be addressed as they would with any other form of abuse of power: however, IMO, those cases are very much the minority.

 

Certainly, it is not right, as some 'rationalists' continue to do, to categorise any use of tarot etc, as exploitation- the majority are not.

[onewheeldave 22]

What have I done now?

 

It was in connection with your post-

 

Some people need protecting from themselves. Banks get called to heel for selling the wrong kind of insurance but charlatans can peddle this rubbish with no penalty. Part of me thinks that anyone who is stupid enough to fall for it deserves all they get but why should these ghouls be allowed to feed off of grief?

 

to which you later put straight with -

 

Thanks for taking the time to point out where I am going wrong. I would call it descriptive prose rather than emotive illicitation. Perhaps I am not as rational as I like to think I am.

 

Which was good of you and I considered it resolved.

 

However, jimmy later posted saying that no-one had said anything of the kind, so I pulled up the quote as proof that someone had, whilst also taking care to quote your second post.

Edited July 4, 2012 by onewheeldave