Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Kathe, sorry it’s taken me so long to reply! I’ve been traveling, but I’m back at my desk now.
It’s a great question and the short answer is, this can be interpreted in multiple ways. I link to think of the first four cards as representing foundational influences: mother, father, spiritual mothers and fathers, the earth, heaven, God/Goddess, and so forth. And just like we always carry our earliest formative influences with us throughout our lives, naturally we could say the fool does the same. After all, *we* are The Fool, and each of the 22 archetypes found in the Major Arcana represent dimensions of our common archetypal experience: signposts to what Carl Jung called “the collective unconscious.”
So yes, I do think each archetype invites us into new/more creative ways of engaging with all the other archetypes, but especially with those foundational energies that have been with us from the beginning. It’s just like how psychotherapy often will invite us into sustained/deep reflection on our relationship(s) with our parents — not because the parents are necessarily at fault, but because no relationship is perfect and our imperfect relationships with Mom and Dad will naturally color and shape all the rest of our lifelong interactions!
So I love your question, it’s not something I have specifically thought a lot about, but I think it would bear fruit to reflect on this question: how does the Fool’s “Team” support (or challenge) his/her/their way of relating to all the subsequent relationships/connections/callings that life offers? And how do all those “other” relationships/encounters offer ways of growth and healing for those most primal relationships? Lots to reflect on here!
Years ago I knew an Episcopal priest who was commissioned as the exorcist for his diocese. He told me that 95% of the cases that he consulted on were psychological in nature; i.e., to so-called “demonic possession” could be easily explained (and treated) in terms of ordinary mental illness. Of course, that does leave the other 5%! I’m not an exorcist nor a psychologist, so I hesitate to offer what can only be my own subjective speculation, but I will say that I suspect your idea is right — at least 95% of the time, Biblical and other ancient writings about demonic possession probably could be explained in purely naturalistic ways, given our understading of the human psyche. As for that other 5% — is that just the frontier of human knowledge (what we don’t know or can’t explain yet) or perhaps evidence of demonic forces? I’ll trust everyone to form their opinion here!
Isn’t this the crux of discernment: weighing the merits and liabilities of two or more alternatives? There’s always the third option, that somehow both Tomberg and Cupitt are right, that somehow Platonism and postmodern skepticism can paradoxically coexist. Don’t ask me how that would work: to paraphrase Star Trek’s Dr. McCoy, I’m a contemplative, not a philosopher!
I think for me postmodernism ironically gives me the freedom to accept Platonism/Neo-platonism (and therefore the cosmology of our dear author) as imaginative possibilities. If there’s no ultimate overarching narrative anyway, why couldn’t the Platonists be just as accurate or believable in their worldview as the anti-transcendentalists? I think the key here is approaching any/all worldviews as hypotheses that we are free to investigate and even believe in, but we are never forced to accept (as if they are dogmatically true). In the freedom to weigh all worldviews as *possible truths* I can weigh the merits of any one worldview by how reasonable it is, how morally/ethically liberating it is, and so forth. I don’t have to have all the answers. After all — if we let the Buddhists chime in — it’s all impermanent anyway! Surely worldviews are just as impermanent as anything else, and in that impermanence, we are free to wonder, to consider, to discern.
Don’t know if this is helpful — or merely so much sophistry! But these thoughts at least can help you to understand how I am able to hold paradoxical views lightly.
I don’t know that it’s necessary to refer to Divine Grace as “magic,” but I think our author is showing us that magic (in its best and most sacred sense) is all about Divine Grace. So it’s an interesting insight to hold!
No worries! Thanks for checking in and letting us know that this is what has spoken to you. That, alone, is a gift. I agree with both of your insights here.
“No doubt other tarot interpreters have their own ideas of what the Emperor represents.”
Indeed. One important lesson about exploring the Tarot is learning to interpret the cards on the basis of our own inner story, rather than simply trying to conform them to some immutable external standard. I think it’s a mistake to think that each card has only one static, unchangeable meaning. The richness of what a card “means” — or even what a book like “Meditations on the Tarot” means — has so much to do with the unique perspective that each of us brings to the interpretation.
“To the more conventional Christians reading the book, who wonder how “magic” has any relevance to them, I would suggest that our churches could really use some sacred magic. Why are so many folks leaving them? Because many churches are dry and lifeless!”
I agree, Morgan. My sense is that magic offers a sense of wonder and possibility to those who explore it. Christianity, by contrast, has become so focussed on duty and obedience and “doing the right thing” that few people experience any real wonder — let alone joy — within the institutional church. And then Christians wonder why so few young people stick around!
Jack, I agree that our author is not above a certain amount of poetic license when it comes to defining words or concepts to suit his own vision. I also agree that this is something many authors do! And I certainly understand why the concept of “magic” can be challenging for those of us with a Christian center of gravity.
An interesting thought experiment: how would this book read differently if we substituted something like “Sacred activism” or “contemplation-in-action” for his terminology “sacred magic”? Perhaps it really just a matter of semantics? Or not… would be curious to get your take on this.
Renee, your post makes me think of my own journey with Wicca and Neopaganism. The slippery ethics was an issue for me as well — I needed a more robust faith in which I felt as if I were being called on my bullsh*t! Clearly, I can still kid myself as a Christian, but hopefully I’m slowly learning to let go of my narcissism.
I feel almost no tug toward “magic” in the way I understood it as a Neopagan (i.e., spell-craft, energy raising, that sort of thing). But I do think the idea of sacred magic can be a helpful reminder that we are called to more than just an inner-directed mysticism. Our spirituality ought to make a difference out there “in the world.” Magic is a handy category for the question of how that “difference” is made manifest.
Morgan, thank you for your thoughts!
“To understand that God not only governs by authority rather than force, but also considers human freedom fundamental to any authentic spiritual life, is incredibly empowering and liberating”
I agree 100%!!!
Renee, I’ve been embedding the videos in the course units. Here are the units with available videos so far:
Introduction: Welcome Video
Letter 1: Background of the Tarot
Letter 2: February 10 Meeting
Letter 3: No Video
Letter 4: March 10 Meeting
Letter 5: No Video
(Click on the links to take you to the unit’s page, on there you will find the video embedded).So the videos you are looking for are found in the units for Letter 2 and Letter 4 (our next meeting will be on Thursday, April 7, if you can make it!)
Cheers,
Carl“So I trust that what goes over my head is not meant for me at this time but my spiritual journey might bring it back to me at a moment I am ready. However there are some gems that I just underline and let them wash over me and inform my spiritual practices.”
I really appreciate this advice, Berto! Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
