The Cauldron: A Pagan Forum (Archive Board)
July 02, 2022, 06:30:41 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: This is our Read Only Archive Board (closed to posting July 2011). Join our new vBulletin board!
 
  Portal   Forum   Help Rules Search Chat (Mux) Articles Login Register   *

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 02, 2022, 06:30:41 am

Login with username, password and session length
Donate!
The Cauldron's server is expensive and requires monthly payments. Please become a Bronze, Silver or Gold Donor if you can. Donations are needed every month. Without member support, we can't afford the server.
TC Staff
Important Information about this Archive Board
This message board is The Cauldron: A Pagan Forum's SMF Archive Board. It is closed to new memberships and to posting, but there are over 250,000 messages here that you can still search and read -- many full of interesting and useful information. (This board was open from February 2007 through June 2011).

Our new vBulletin discussion board is located at http://www.ecauldron.com/forum/ -- if you would like to participate in discussions like those you see here, please visit our new vBulletin message board, register an account and join in our discussions. We hope you will find the information in this message archive useful and will consider joining us on our new board.
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
  Add bookmark  |  Print  
Author Topic: Does your tarot deck have a consciousness?  (Read 11334 times)
Odjn
Master Member
****
Last Login:March 09, 2011, 09:12:20 am
United States United States

Religion: Supreme Skeptic
Posts: 323


A dragon has come...

Blog entries (0)



Ignore
« Reply #15: December 12, 2009, 05:54:17 pm »

So my questions are of card ethics and this does the tarot deck have a consciousness of it's own?

..No. Objects are just objects. They have no will nor consciousness of their own.

It is remotely possible that some objects might absorb a minuscule amount of energy from its environment and/or user provided it is strong enough and is in contact with said energy for a long period of time and even at that the energy stored is quite dismal to the point of being non-existent.

As Randall stated, it is the user that provides the energy, the object is just a focal point.
Logged

Welcome, Guest!
You will need to register and/or login to participate in our discussions.

Read our Rules and Policies and the Quoting Guidelines.

Help Fund Our Server? Donate to Lyricfox's Cancer Fund?

Perzephone
Master Member
****
*
Last Login:February 26, 2010, 01:55:04 am
United States United States

Religion: Unorthodox Pagan
Posts: 670


Quantum Paganism for a New Millenium

Blog entries (0)

perzephone


Ignore
« Reply #16: December 12, 2009, 07:55:35 pm »

But most of you tend to agree that it does seem to have a personality of it's own.  Nehet even went as far as to say that the deck didn't like him which suggest personality.  And if you can admit that each deck (which I have found to be true) has it's own personality why not consciousness?

I'm fairly aware that when I say my Tarot decks develop 'personalities', it's me anthropomorphizing them, or projecting something onto them that is then reflected back to me when I do readings. The cards don't really have personalities - they're collections of pieces of paperboard with pretty pictures on them. They have no self-awareness. They are a tool I use to channel higher parts of my own consciousness, to unlock the mysterious abilities of psychism and super-intuition, nothing more - and nothing less. 
Logged

paintedbird
Senior Newbie
*
Last Login:June 20, 2010, 05:31:46 pm
United States United States

Religion: agnostic leaning toward Chaos...
Posts: 8


Blog entries (0)

paintedbird74 lisav74


Ignore
« Reply #17: January 15, 2010, 11:44:11 pm »

I feel that each deck has it's on style and personality as to how it answers you.  When I was asking about my ex situation all of the time alot of the answers I was getting from the deck was that IT didn't want the info to hurt me.  Which shows care and concern and a certain amount of consciousness on the decks part to make that sort of statement.

So my questions are of card ethics and this does the tarot deck have a consciousness of it's own?  And if it does would you care to share your experiences with it showing it's personality, or consciousness towards you in any way?

Well I dabbled quite a bit in Tarot in my teens, and I ABSOLUTELY believe that every deck has, shall we say, the capability of developing what certainly appears to be a personality. I started off learning the standard Waite tarot I bought new at a bookstore. I read all the instructions, worked on memorizing the various meanings, took care of them wrapped in a silk handkerchief, all that good stuff. But I wasn't really "into" it, it was just a lot of rote memorization at first. I would take them to school and do readings for my friends, which usually came out fairly bland, like the kind of stuff telephone psychics would say. Eventually it kind of bored me, and I put the deck away and it somehow vanished.
A few years later, I found another deck with artwork that really called to me, it was a fantasy deck based off the Waite style but all done with cat-themed artwork. I loved it like I never did my first deck and readings just seemed to flow. Yes I would ask the same question over and over (I was a teenager, after all  Wink ) and I would get patient variations of the same thing. I don't really know how to describe it, but I "got along" with that deck like a good friend and was rewarded with sensible and easy-to-understand readings.
Now here is where I feel that decks can develop a "personality". My grandmother saw I was interested in Tarot, and sent me something she had sitting around in a drawer for a long time- a deck unlike anything I've ever seen before or since, I believe it was a Eastern European gypsy training deck. The cards were very old, without a box, and printed in green rather than full color, with neatly typed definitions written on the cards themselves, both standard and reversed. I don't know if it was an incomplete deck or a different count, but it had no Minor Arcana- yet there were more cards than standard Major Arcana. Anyway, it was a very "nasty" deck. Maybe because of former use it had developed a psychic residue, or -as I really believe- the deck itself had a personality, and not a nice one, either. Every reading I ever did with it came up with warnings of death or tragedy, and it repeatedly told me I'd die before my 16th birthday (I am not kidding!). Readings I did for friends were the same- always death, despair, destruction to the point of silliness. I tried to "cleanse" the deck to no avail. It behaved like a crotchety old lady. So I gave up and gave them away to a friend who thought she might have more luck (I never heard her results, but I do know she no longer has the deck...).  

Edit: I should add that I really thought that deck was cool and unique, and was very disppointed that it never worked out for me. So I don't feel that it was me putting negativity into the deck,  got the thing with a bad attitude!
« Last Edit: January 15, 2010, 11:51:49 pm by paintedbird, Reason: additional comment » Logged

"When the perceived pain of staying where you are exceeds the perceived pain of change, then you will change."
Ellen M.
Adept Member
*****
*
Last Login:February 17, 2013, 08:34:24 pm
United States United States

Religion: ADF - UU - eclectic Wiccan - devotee of Brighid
Posts: 2479

Go, then - there are other worlds than these.

Blog entries (0)

Ellen MacInnis lellenator
WWW

Ignore
« Reply #18: January 16, 2010, 09:41:49 am »


Nope. I feel that tarot cards are tools, like any other device someone might use to work outside the normal limitation of five senses. It may be that tarot cards soak up the energy to which they're exposed, or that my mind reacts different to different symbols.

My first deck was Crowley's Thoth deck, which I absolutely hated, but it was all I had at the time. The cards were much larger than normal tarot cards, the pictures were uninspiring or downright unpleasant, and my ex (who was not my ex at the time) gave me the cards.

My current deck is Tarot of the Animals Lords, which I like a lot better. Smaller cards, happier picture, and the friend who gave them to me is still pretty much my friend (though we're working on some issues).

My favorite deck I've ever used was actually the Necronomicon deck. Cheesy Lovecraft symbolism ahoy! I got one of the most powerful readings ever from it, and I just connected with all the cards. I really really really want that deck for myself.

But I've never felt that the cards themselves had power, any more than I feel that an athame is what casts a circle. All magical tools are, to my mind, are extensions of my own will and ability.
Logged

Sage and Starshine: My new Pagan blog about Druidry, witchcraft, Brighid, and everything in between. -- 14th post 6/1/11
AmberHeart
Journeyman
***
Last Login:July 05, 2011, 07:38:17 am
Canada Canada

Religion: Dianic Pagan
Posts: 229

Blog entries (0)



Ignore
« Reply #19: January 16, 2010, 02:50:59 pm »

I know this sounds like it should be on the divination board but I'm going to turn it into a philosophical debate I hope.  So to all you tarot heads out there, here we go.  I went to go ask the question of the tarot, what do you really think of me and at first it just gave me overall advice on my current situation.  Then I asked it again and got a little bit more along the lines of my question but still offering advice as if it had occ and couldn't help but give advice. 

I feel that each deck has it's on style and personality as to how it answers you.  When I was asking about my ex situation all of the time alot of the answers I was getting from the deck was that IT didn't want the info to hurt me.  Which shows care and concern and a certain amount of consciousness on the decks part to make that sort of statement.

So my questions are of card ethics and this does the tarot deck have a consciousness of it's own?  And if it does would you care to share your experiences with it showing it's personality, or consciousness towards you in any way?  How many times should on ask the same question of the deck before they should stop?  And feel free to share like I said any experiences you've had with questions like what does the deck think of me or anything along the lines of asking the decks opinion of you, your life, or it's personal opinion of the universe.  I don't think too many people think to ask so if you haven't try it out and get back to me on it because I will be and am fascinated by the subject! Shocked


I’ve been working with Tarot since I was 14 and I will be 55 this year. I’ve collected decks for years and used most of them along the way. While these days I tend to use my own hand-painted deck, I still like to use another favourite, the Daughters of the Moon deck when occasions arise. I work with Tarot for mediation and as a trigger for past life healing trance-work but I do not read fortunes. I consider this to be unethical. In my experience, far too many people want only to project responsiblity for a situation onto something or somebody else and absolve themselves of having to step up to the plate. Karmic debt anyone?

The future is endlessly fluid, composed of what we can control and everything that lies outside our control or influence. When you tell someone what their future ‘will be’, you may cause them to narrow their focus and choices to only that possibility and in essence, the client then may literally cause that future to come to pass. Ego stroke for the reader but what other possibilities did the client then ignore or let slip away that might have been an even better future? What lead up to a situation, what underlies it, others involved, any information that will help a client make his or her own decisions, that is an ethical use of divination. 

Tarot for me, is simply a tool. The information doesn’t come from the cards or through the cards. These are painted pieces of paper. The information comes through the reader from the client or person being read for (who may be one and the same). If one is sitting face to face with a client, it will also flow from the client to an observant reader through body language, facial expressions, tone of voice and the questions asked.

What Tarot like any other divination tool does is provide a visual symbolic language for translating that intuitive flow of information through the reader into that which can then be articulated. Hence different decks that look different are going to provide ‘dialects’ of translation that is what I believe comes across as the flavour or personality of a deck. The uniqueness of a deck may also limit or expand the flow of information depending on how reader and/or client responds and resonates to the symbolic imagery.

The reader is the one who puts into words what the client already knows but can’t, won’t or isn’t able to articulate out loud. That's all. The client still may not listen, that isn’t the reader’s responsibility.  Such information is in itself a tool that the reader hands over the table and what the client does with it after that, is up to him or her. All the reader has to do is keep his or her ego out of the translation, which is infiintely much harder to do when one is both reader and client.

If one wants to project one’s self into such objects while ignoring being either the source (reading for one’s self) or the conduit for such information (reading for a client), it is a personal choice and perception. For me at least, the concept of asking a stack of paper pictures what is it’s opinion is rather like asking a hammer or a paint brush. Or perhaps a mirror….

If anyone finds this perception not to his or her liking, please remember that it is not about you or your choices. This is simply been my experiences over the decades using Tarot as a practical and useful tool.

Amber
Logged
Skytoucher
Apprentice
**
Last Login:February 08, 2010, 10:36:39 am
United States United States

Religion: pagan
Posts: 39


Blog entries (0)

BrianDRush


Ignore
« Reply #20: January 18, 2010, 12:21:48 am »


This is actually a better question than one might think at first, because it brings up the deeper question of what consciousness IS -- where it comes from -- what makes it be.

Consciousness is unique. It's the only thing in the universe that we know is there, but can never observe. It is always the thing doing the observing, never the thing being observed.

Does the brain give rise to consciousness? But if so, what is there about the brain that could do that? We can see how the brain gives rise to intelligence, but intelligence and consciousness aren't the same thing. Consciousness can exist without intelligence, or at least without much of it (e.g. that of an insect or a fish), and in theory intelligence could exist without consciousness (e.g. a sophisticated computer program). (IF computers aren't conscious -- more in a bit.)

We can use scientific method to study the brain and its behavior, and this can give us all kinds of information as to sensory processing, reasoning, emotion, problem-solving, self-awareness, and basically everything that the brain does that is of the nature of something going on that we can watch. The problem about consciousness is that it ISN'T something going on that we can watch, and so scientific method can't even touch it. Even self-awareness, which you might think to be consciousness (or perhaps a higher mode of consciousness not available to things like bugs and fish) is a form of behavior: we observe a chimpanzee primping itself in a mirror and we say, "Oh, the chimp has self-awareness." No, the chimp only BEHAVES the way WE do because we have self-awareness; it's theoretically possible (although I don't think it's true) that the chimp is only going through the motions without any subjective consciousness being home. For that matter, it's theoretically possible that the same thing is true about every human being except me. (Or, from your perspective, every human being except you.)

Put another way: all the things that the brain does that we can observe are functions of information. Stimulus goes in, processing takes place, response comes out. All very mechanistic. Where in all of that is the indication of someone experiencing it from the inside? Because that is what consciousness is. And the answer is that objectively speaking, there is no such indication. The same thing could, as far as we know, be done by a sophisticated automaton.

Put yet another way: When you perform an action, say reading this post, I can (or could if I had you wired to the correct instruments) observe light going into your eye, nerve impulses going to your brain, your cognitive centers processing the words and thoughts, and perhaps composing a response. All from the outside looking in. But that's not how YOU experience it. You experience it from the inside looking out. That from-the-inside-looking-outness is what consciousness is. And since all the world that we observe is from the outside looking in, we can see no evidence (from the outside) that from-the-inside-looking-outness even happens. The only reason we know it does, is because it does for us. That is, for me. (And I assume it does for you, because we are similar in certain other ways. But I could be wrong about that! There's really no way to tell.)

SO: since we can find no evidence that consciousness -- i.e., from-the-inside-looking-outness -- even happens; since we take this on what amounts to faith -- we can't tell anything about where it comes from, either. Is it something that rises from the brain like bubbles from a sudsy bathtub? Or is it, rather, something is always present and that the brain merely gives a way to focus, like sunlight through a lens?

I incline to the latter view. The reason I do, is because when I look at someone else, even employing telepathic perception I can't see their consciousness, their from-the-inside-looking-outness. I can see (or rather feel) their emotions, but it's as if I were looking at those emotions from the outside, like warming myself (or burning myself) at a fire. So I know the emotions are there (and there are objective, non-magical ways to verify this as well), but I can't tell that anyone is inside feeling those emotions. But here's the thing: if consciousness were individual and part of the observed world, I should be able to see it. Since I can't, it must either not be part of the observed world, or else it must not be individual, and so I can't see someone else's consciousness because it's the same as my own consciousness (just focused through a different brain), and when I look at another person, whether with senses, scientific instruments, or magical perception, there's only one of us (in terms of consciousness) and it's doing the looking, not being looked at.

Even if what we had was an individual, supernatural "soul" that occupies a different world than this one, as long as it's interacting with this world we ought to be able to see that interaction. And we can't.

So what I believe is that consciousness is all One, the universe looking out through whatever lenses are available, simultaneously. Through my brain, through your brain, through the brains of animals and extraterrestrials, through computer programs and information processing instruments, through anything capable of informing consciousness -- the one and only consciousness -- in any way. And so, to the extent that a deck of tarot cards constitutes a means of processing information (which obviously it does), it is conscious. Or rather, the universe is conscious and the cards focus that consciousness, not so well as a human brain does, but in certain limited ways.
Logged

"For it's the paying that's the gift, and it's the gift that pays."

-- Hymn to the Dragon Spirit

My blog: http://thedragontalking.blogspot.com/

My author profile: http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/BrianRush
Adare
Master Member
****
Last Login:April 22, 2012, 07:10:16 pm
United States United States

Religion: Pagan
Posts: 330


Blog entries (0)



Ignore
« Reply #21: January 24, 2010, 05:17:23 pm »


Hm, very interesting train(s) of thought. So, then, would tarot cards have different personalities, or just the ability to have a personality due to the universe (as it were) having the ability to interface through the deck?
Logged

Sometimes your joy is the source of your smile,
but sometimes your smile can be the source of your joy.
 -Thich Nhat Hahn

www.walkofthefallen.com
AmberHeart
Journeyman
***
Last Login:July 05, 2011, 07:38:17 am
Canada Canada

Religion: Dianic Pagan
Posts: 229

Blog entries (0)



Ignore
« Reply #22: January 25, 2010, 06:59:11 am »


This is actually a better question than one might think at first, because it brings up the deeper question of what consciousness IS -- where it comes from -- what makes it be.

Consciousness is unique. It's the only thing in the universe that we know is there, but can never observe. It is always the thing doing the observing, never the thing being observed.

Does the brain give rise to consciousness? But if so, what is there about the brain that could do that? We can see how the brain gives rise to intelligence, but intelligence and consciousness aren't the same thing. Consciousness can exist without intelligence, or at least without much of it (e.g. that of an insect or a fish), and in theory intelligence could exist without consciousness (e.g. a sophisticated computer program). (IF computers aren't conscious -- more in a bit.)

We can use scientific method to study the brain and its behavior, and this can give us all kinds of information as to sensory processing, reasoning, emotion, problem-solving, self-awareness, and basically everything that the brain does that is of the nature of something going on that we can watch. The problem about consciousness is that it ISN'T something going on that we can watch, and so scientific method can't even touch it. Even self-awareness, which you might think to be consciousness (or perhaps a higher mode of consciousness not available to things like bugs and fish) is a form of behavior: we observe a chimpanzee primping itself in a mirror and we say, "Oh, the chimp has self-awareness." No, the chimp only BEHAVES the way WE do because we have self-awareness; it's theoretically possible (although I don't think it's true) that the chimp is only going through the motions without any subjective consciousness being home. For that matter, it's theoretically possible that the same thing is true about every human being except me. (Or, from your perspective, every human being except you.)

Put another way: all the things that the brain does that we can observe are functions of information. Stimulus goes in, processing takes place, response comes out. All very mechanistic. Where in all of that is the indication of someone experiencing it from the inside? Because that is what consciousness is. And the answer is that objectively speaking, there is no such indication. The same thing could, as far as we know, be done by a sophisticated automaton.

Put yet another way: When you perform an action, say reading this post, I can (or could if I had you wired to the correct instruments) observe light going into your eye, nerve impulses going to your brain, your cognitive centers processing the words and thoughts, and perhaps composing a response. All from the outside looking in. But that's not how YOU experience it. You experience it from the inside looking out. That from-the-inside-looking-outness is what consciousness is. And since all the world that we observe is from the outside looking in, we can see no evidence (from the outside) that from-the-inside-looking-outness even happens. The only reason we know it does, is because it does for us. That is, for me. (And I assume it does for you, because we are similar in certain other ways. But I could be wrong about that! There's really no way to tell.)

SO: since we can find no evidence that consciousness -- i.e., from-the-inside-looking-outness -- even happens; since we take this on what amounts to faith -- we can't tell anything about where it comes from, either. Is it something that rises from the brain like bubbles from a sudsy bathtub? Or is it, rather, something is always present and that the brain merely gives a way to focus, like sunlight through a lens?

I incline to the latter view. The reason I do, is because when I look at someone else, even employing telepathic perception I can't see their consciousness, their from-the-inside-looking-outness. I can see (or rather feel) their emotions, but it's as if I were looking at those emotions from the outside, like warming myself (or burning myself) at a fire. So I know the emotions are there (and there are objective, non-magical ways to verify this as well), but I can't tell that anyone is inside feeling those emotions. But here's the thing: if consciousness were individual and part of the observed world, I should be able to see it. Since I can't, it must either not be part of the observed world, or else it must not be individual, and so I can't see someone else's consciousness because it's the same as my own consciousness (just focused through a different brain), and when I look at another person, whether with senses, scientific instruments, or magical perception, there's only one of us (in terms of consciousness) and it's doing the looking, not being looked at.

Even if what we had was an individual, supernatural "soul" that occupies a different world than this one, as long as it's interacting with this world we ought to be able to see that interaction. And we can't.

So what I believe is that consciousness is all One, the universe looking out through whatever lenses are available, simultaneously. Through my brain, through your brain, through the brains of animals and extraterrestrials, through computer programs and information processing instruments, through anything capable of informing consciousness -- the one and only consciousness -- in any way. And so, to the extent that a deck of tarot cards constitutes a means of processing information (which obviously it does), it is conscious. Or rather, the universe is conscious and the cards focus that consciousness, not so well as a human brain does, but in certain limited ways.

Are you familiar with the differences between the right hemisphere functionality and the left hemisphere?

Amber
« Last Edit: January 25, 2010, 08:02:02 am by Star, Reason: Fixing quote code » Logged
Soul Fire
Journeyman
***
Last Login:February 07, 2011, 01:16:39 am
United States United States

Posts: 110

Blog entries (0)



Ignore
« Reply #23: January 25, 2010, 03:04:12 pm »

So my questions are of card ethics and this does the tarot deck have a consciousness of it's own?

I think the Tarot as a whole, much like the I Ching, may have a consciousness, but not like you may be thinking. It may tap into the collective consciousness rather.

Quote
How many times should on ask the same question of the deck before they should stop?

Once. Why ask repeatedly? If you do that with the I Ching, sometimes it will tell you to knock it off. I like the analogy someone gave of going to different Web sites for the weather report because you didn't like what you read, despite the overwhelming evidence.

I don't mean any disrespect toward you personally, but asking the same question repeatedly of an oracle has always seemed disrespectful and immature to me--like a child asking, "Mommy, can I have/go do such-and-such? Can I, can I, can I? And the parent either says "no" repeatedly or gives in in order to pacify the child, who asks "why (or why not)? Why? Why? Why?"

And if you ask again and get the answer you want/were hoping for, what have you learned? Nothing. Plus, you'll know in the back of your mind that that wasn't the original answer.

Quote
And feel free to share like I said any experiences you've had with questions like what does the deck think of me or anything along the lines of asking the decks opinion of you, your life, or it's personal opinion of the universe.  I don't think too many people think to ask so if you haven't try it out and get back to me on it because I will be and am fascinated by the subject! Shocked

To me, each deck does have a sort of "personality," but that personality may be more of a reflection of the artist than of the deck itself. I've only encountered one deck that seemed to have its own personality and consciousness--Motherpeace. And, as I mentioned, the I Ching, though that is a book not a deck. Wiccan author Marion Weinstein wrote a good introduction to Tarot and I Ching in her classic book Positive Magic, and she talks about the consciousness of I Ching, but says nothing of the kind about Tarot. I've had experiences with the I Ching in which it seemed to "talk" to me directly. Very strange. I've had similar experiences with Motherpeace, though it didn't speak as directly, but often in puns or metaphor.
Logged
Skytoucher
Apprentice
**
Last Login:February 08, 2010, 10:36:39 am
United States United States

Religion: pagan
Posts: 39


Blog entries (0)

BrianDRush


Ignore
« Reply #24: January 27, 2010, 11:05:58 pm »

Are you familiar with the differences between the right hemisphere functionality and the left hemisphere?

Amber

Yes. Why do you ask?
Logged

"For it's the paying that's the gift, and it's the gift that pays."

-- Hymn to the Dragon Spirit

My blog: http://thedragontalking.blogspot.com/

My author profile: http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/BrianRush
AmberHeart
Journeyman
***
Last Login:July 05, 2011, 07:38:17 am
Canada Canada

Religion: Dianic Pagan
Posts: 229

Blog entries (0)



Ignore
« Reply #25: January 28, 2010, 08:15:07 am »

Yes. Why do you ask?

Because this has direct implications when one is discussing consciousness, how that consciousness works through humans and especially the concept of a single universal consciousness.

Amber
Logged
Skytoucher
Apprentice
**
Last Login:February 08, 2010, 10:36:39 am
United States United States

Religion: pagan
Posts: 39


Blog entries (0)

BrianDRush


Ignore
« Reply #26: January 28, 2010, 09:17:00 am »

Because this has direct implications when one is discussing consciousness, how that consciousness works through humans and especially the concept of a single universal consciousness.

Amber

I don't believe it does, actually. All characteristics of the brain that we can study are still in that category of from-the-outside-looking-in, and don't imply from-the-inside-looking-outness. The hemispheric nature of the brain may have some things to say about how we think, or how information processing functions for human beings, or how personality evolves or functions. This in turn may say something about how we experience the world, IF we make the assumption that a person experiences the world at all, i.e. that there is such a thing as from-the-inside-looking-outness. But it can't tell us either that from-the-inside-looking-outness is happening, or how it's happening if it is.
Logged

"For it's the paying that's the gift, and it's the gift that pays."

-- Hymn to the Dragon Spirit

My blog: http://thedragontalking.blogspot.com/

My author profile: http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/BrianRush
AmberHeart
Journeyman
***
Last Login:July 05, 2011, 07:38:17 am
Canada Canada

Religion: Dianic Pagan
Posts: 229

Blog entries (0)



Ignore
« Reply #27: January 29, 2010, 07:27:45 am »

I don't believe it does, actually. All characteristics of the brain that we can study are still in that category of from-the-outside-looking-in, and don't imply from-the-inside-looking-outness. The hemispheric nature of the brain may have some things to say about how we think, or how information processing functions for human beings, or how personality evolves or functions. This in turn may say something about how we experience the world, IF we make the assumption that a person experiences the world at all, i.e. that there is such a thing as from-the-inside-looking-outness. But it can't tell us either that from-the-inside-looking-outness is happening, or how it's happening if it is.

It is through the right-brain hemisphere that we may connect to and become aware of our experience of universal consciousness. When one connects via this right-brain hemisphere, concepts or questions such as ‘the assumption that a person experiences the world at all’, ‘it can’t tell us either that from the inside-looking-outward is happening or how its happening if it is’ do in my experience become rather redundant.

All the characteristics of the brain that we can study from the outside are from a left-brain hemisphere perspective. This is going to limit one’s understanding to only half of what the human brain is literally hard-wired to experience as well as enshrining logos once more within the sanctity of scientism.

Our mileage obviously differs here but may I respectfully suggest that perhaps the scientific scepticism or objectivity which I am interpreting from your current approach might have eliminated from consideration the already existing means by which human beings may even approach such questions.   

Amber
Logged
Skytoucher
Apprentice
**
Last Login:February 08, 2010, 10:36:39 am
United States United States

Religion: pagan
Posts: 39


Blog entries (0)

BrianDRush


Ignore
« Reply #28: January 29, 2010, 09:45:15 am »

It is through the right-brain hemisphere that we may connect to and become aware of our experience of universal consciousness.

Actually, that's not correct, but pretend for the moment that it is. (If you want to explore the functions of the hemispheres of the brain, this might be a good place to start: http://www.neuroskills.com/edu/ceufunction7.shtml. The idea that the right brain is connected with cosmic consciousness is a common misunderstanding. It's connected with spatial awareness, certain kinds of memory, holistic and intuitive thinking, and physical control of the left side of the body. There is no clear connection of either hemisphere with cosmic consciousness. However, that's not really the point I want to make.)

Even if the right brain were somehow connected to the experience of universal consciousness, which we have no reason to believe it is, all that would tell us is something about what happens in the brain when a certain kind of subjective experience is reported by a test subject. We have absolutely no way of verifying that the test subject is really having that (or any other) subjective experience. We take their word for it. There is no test, no way to verify by looking at anything going on in the body that anybody is at home to experience any of it from the inside. We can verify that IF there is someone home, THEN the fact that the brain is doing X means they are experiencing Y -- but that's all. And even that much requires taking people's word for subjective experiences that can't be independently verified.

Quote
When one connects via this right-brain hemisphere, concepts or questions such as ‘the assumption that a person experiences the world at all’, ‘it can’t tell us either that from the inside-looking-outward is happening or how its happening if it is’ do in my experience become rather redundant.

In the state of cosmic consciousness, pretty much everything in my experience becomes rather redundant, since all is one and all questions vanish. However, one must come back, and the questions remain unanswered. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water.

Quote
All the characteristics of the brain that we can study from the outside are from a left-brain hemisphere perspective.

I think you mean that the study of them is from a left-brain perspective. We are certainly capable of studying the functions of the right brain.

I don't deny that, but I don't think it invalidates what I'm saying here, either. Objective study of anything is properly a left-brain function. You know, that aspect of cognition DOES have its legitimate applications.

Quote
Our mileage obviously differs here but may I respectfully suggest that perhaps the scientific scepticism or objectivity which I am interpreting from your current approach might have eliminated from consideration the already existing means by which human beings may even approach such questions.   

I am actually playing some intellectual tricks here. Pointing out the limitations of the scientific method in regard to consciousness is EXACTLY what I'm doing. The fact that we cannot verify from-the-inside-looking-outness does NOT, in my opinion, imply that from-the-inside-looking-outness doesn't happen. What it DOES imply is that, assuming consciousness is real, its source and functionality are not going to be found in the operations of any discrete observable bodily organ such as the brain.

And this leads as I said back to the question of whether a tarot deck (or a computer) can be considered conscious. If the brain is only articulating consciousness rather than generating it, then there is no reason to suppose some other thing capable of processing information, even an inorganic object such as a deck of cards, might do the same thing.
Logged

"For it's the paying that's the gift, and it's the gift that pays."

-- Hymn to the Dragon Spirit

My blog: http://thedragontalking.blogspot.com/

My author profile: http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/BrianRush
AmberHeart
Journeyman
***
Last Login:July 05, 2011, 07:38:17 am
Canada Canada

Religion: Dianic Pagan
Posts: 229

Blog entries (0)



Ignore
« Reply #29: January 30, 2010, 10:59:51 am »

(removed for spacing reasons)
And this leads as I said back to the question of whether a tarot deck (or a computer) can be considered conscious. If the brain is only articulating consciousness rather than generating it, then there is no reason to suppose some other thing capable of processing information, even an inorganic object such as a deck of cards, might do the same thing.


Since I am new around here Skytoucher, is your last post indicative of your usual style?

Curious. I am getting the distinct impression that you do not believe in experiential validation. Given that I have found this to be an almost universal tenet within the modern Paganism Movement and if my impression is accurate, how do you reconcile that with being Pagan?

The most illuminating aspect about scientific knowledge for me is that it has always been re-written, revised and in many cases overturned by newer evidence. A process that clearly demonstrates for me that we do not know all the answers and those that we do have at best should be considered as theories still being tested. Perhaps that is why, again for me, interacting with science is like working with ‘pagan’ correspondences. The various cobbled together lists of correspondences that one finds floating in books and online may be starting points for a Witch and/or Pagan but I don’t elevate any list to the sanctity of unquestioned scripture. Until you test a correspondence -  experience it first-hand and do so often over time – that correspondence remains nothing more than a static second- or third-hand description of someone else’s experience and mainly useful untested for filling up pages in shiny new BOS by fledgling Witches.

Returning to science, here is a video presentation by a trained brain scientist who underwent a massive haemorrhage in her left hemisphere a decade ago and survived to relate exactly what she experienced. 
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html 

You may choose to dismiss such evidence even given her scientific credentials as obviously her conclusions cannot be objectively quantified. However since I don’t believe that science itself is ever objectively pure or consider the scientific method as an unquestionable faith, I can consider such an experience to be potentially valid. While my spiritual experiences over the decades have only tested the outer limits of such conclusions, I would still regard such as a viable theory that needs further exploration.

Here is a thought. You yourself pointed out that the scientific method is limited with regard to consciousness. When I find a correspondence that doesn’t work during testing, I go looking for a correspondence that does work. Perhaps in order to ‘prove’ consciousness even exists, one needs to look elsewhere for something less limited than the scientific method? Of course that would then require a different definition of proof most likely and not one limited to scientific parlance.

In summary, I am not suggesting that the hemispheres would provide in themselves proof of consciousness. Yet is it not intriguing that we evolved two such distinct hemispheres that work only tangibly together? That both provide us with an apprehension of consciousness in such differing ways? Might that not be relevant to discovering a less limited methodology of proof as well as a definition of the latter?

Amber
Logged

Donor Ad: Become a Silver or Gold Donor to get your ad here.

Tags:
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
  Add bookmark  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  
  Portal   Forum   Help Rules Search Chat (Mux) Articles Login Register   *

* Share this topic...
In a forum
(BBCode)
In a site/blog
(HTML)


Related Topics
Subject Started by Replies Views Last post
Creating my own Tarot deck? « 1 2 »
Divination SIG
Waldfrau 23 7840 Last post November 04, 2009, 10:31:20 pm
by SunflowerP
Should I design my own Tarot deck?
Divination SIG
Unmutual 6 2381 Last post April 30, 2009, 08:01:15 am
by Unmutual
Reviving An Old Tarot Deck?
Divination SIG
Catdaddy 8 2297 Last post June 25, 2009, 04:54:32 pm
by Garnet
Making Your Own Tarot Deck
Divination SIG
ItstheK 14 8020 Last post October 10, 2009, 10:38:41 am
by ItstheK
Defining what's tarot, and what's a non-tarot cartomancy deck/system
Divination SIG
Balakirev 10 6825 Last post November 08, 2009, 05:19:56 pm
by SunflowerP
EU Cookie Notice: This site uses cookies. By using this site you consent to their use.


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines
TinyPortal v0.9.8 © Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.167 seconds with 51 queries.