Cult of Tarot Forum

I was reading this morning about how in the late 19th century a few very distinguished scientists began to engage in the study of what they called at the time, Psychophysics. They had taken an interest in seances and scrying and such things that were growing in popularity. They wanted to know if it was real, or how it worked or if it did work.

Most serious scientific types dismissed all that stuff as pure fraud or delusion, but these guys felt it was worthy of scientific study and attempted to apply some rigorous testing to it.

It's pretty interesting all what happened with this but I want to relate it to the idea of intuition.

The scientists who conducted these studies had zero background in this kind of thing. They were all traditionally trained and not only did they have no experience with this kind of otherworldly stuff, they also were naive to the tricks of fraudsters. They just had never hung out in those circles.

One of the critiques that came out later regarding their work, made this statement:

Scientists could only come to a correct judgement of an experiment after developing an intuition appropriate to the field of investigation. (italics mine)

I stopped on this and tried to understand what it meant and what it said about the role of intuition in scientific, or really any other, study.

Here is what I think it meant.

He felt that the studies they had made were not good ones because they were testing and observing things they had not taken the time to develop an intuition about first.

I think he was saying that when studying something that you have no understanding of or personal experience with, you must first familiarise yourself by observing. Not judging. Just observing and being present to allow your intuition to, later, guide your more "rational" or scientifically trained mind.

Think about when you get a new deck. Do you look through cards and decode all the symbols you know, card-by-card, putting each one through all your "tests", subjecting them to all your knowledge of tarot and correspondences etc, OR, do you just sort of thumb through them and let them sort of present themselves to you?

If you do the latter, the cards are kind of triggering your intuition, sub-consciously, which will allow you later to apply your "scientific methods" more accurately, more appropriately to the cards, to the individual deck.

I think what that quote meant was, before you can understand something, you have to expose yourself to it. Let it sort of wash over you and get you thinking or experiencing in a different way.

When you do a spread, do you immediately start decoding the symbols and cards, or do you let things wash over you to trigger your intuition first? And then start applying what you know?

Does anyone else think this applies to intuitive reading?

Joan Marie wrote: ↑13 May 2019, 17:36 When you do a spread, do you immediately start decoding the symbols and cards, or do you let things wash over you to trigger your intuition first? And then start applying what you know?

speaking for myself, i never decode symbols,, as i didn't do any study of the symbols aka the fish in the card means pisces.. or aquarius means water..
that which i just spoke is about the extent of my symbol knowledge picked up just from reading the books..
i was more focused on what the card meant in the grand scheme of things.

in live settings, i actally practice a mini psychic reading where i when i shuffle the cards i look for any insight.. it was about 80 percent accuracy rate so i kept it up..
when i lay the cards out in the reading i just start describing what the card means to the person.. i do use a lot of pop culture movie references in my reading.

on the forum, i strech out the card meaning i feell. then when i am done with that card flow i see it was just 2 sentances..
which is ok for doing a big 10 card reading that get more.

it isnt' inuition based but i dislike flowerly reading ,, i know when studying channelling i noticed a lot of channeling jargon was being passed around (the channels read other channels,, and the channel information come through the channel persoanltiy and knowledge )..
so it is hard to discern what is the channel message and what is the personality.
like did jane roberts really channel seth or was she accessing a second personaity.

in mediumship,, based on one of the lots of books i have on on the subject,, it is taught that unless you got the information from the spirit it was invalid.. one of the medium book describe adding in his psychic ability for he felt that to cut off pyschic ability can lessen spirit commnciation for the spirit can connect in all ways and not just through the crown center.

so going back to the tarot,, I pay attention to flow of energy, when it stops, i stop reading the card,, for i kept at the card,, it usually imo leads to inaccuracy ,, as it was just added on from knowledge sake,, and not inuition sake ,, if you get my drift.

Observation from a scientific point of view is not easy. You must gain sufficient distance from what you are observing to see it objectively. This is the essence of Crowley's six of swords and is implicit in the RWS six of swords, the journey can be a mental one.

In my first class in science we were asked to record what happened when we heated a glass container with water in it. We all said that the water expanded up the glass object. We new that water expanded when heated. However it was pointed out to us that initially the glass expanded faster so the water level dropped. No one recorded this because we did not expect it.

Douglas Adams said "In many ways, a scientist must be like a child. When he sees something, he must say that he sees it. Otherwise, he'll only sees what he's expecting."

inomminate wrote: ↑13 May 2019, 18:50 Douglas Adams said "In many ways, a scientist must be like a child. When he sees something, he must say that he sees it. Otherwise, he'll only sees what he's expecting."

And I can see how this statement also gives insight into intuitive reading.

You have to really let go and "say what you see" unafraid that it isn't what was expected.

I think it's important to define what each of us means by "intuition" for the purpose of this discussion.

I was visiting a lady once, and noticed a series of numbers penciled on the wall in her bathroom. I thought this was unusual because she kept everything so spotless, so I asked her about it. It turns out her boyfriend had dreamed of a deceased friend giving him a series of numbers. He got up and looked for a piece of paper to write them on, but couldn't find one, so he wrote them on the wall. He played these numbers the next day and all of them hit except one. So he didn't win the big jackpot, but he still won a substantial amount of money.

I would call that psychism rather than intuition. I'm not going to split hairs over whether his friend's spirit really came to visit, or if it was his subconscious using his friend's image symbolically - we have no way of knowing that, and it's beside the point. The point is, he dreamed the lottery numbers, all correctly except one.

On the other hand, to use a very common example, when a person is used to driving a car, they no longer have to consciously think: "Now I am going to step on the brakes" when they have to stop. They do it intuitively, i.e., as an instinctive reflex, grounded in their knowledge and experience.

Without that grounding, there's a good chance it won't work. Years ago, when I was still getting used to a standard shift, I was in a minor accident. There was a woman in front of me with her left turn signal on, and I assumed she was going to move into the left turn lane. As I got closer, I realized she had stopped. My foot reflexively went to the brake (I was habituated to an automatic transmission), then I remembered I was supposed to step on the clutch, too, there was a moment of confusion moving my feet around, and I rear ended her. I was not yet able to use the clutch intuitively.

Likewise, when you intuitively know that a person is going to try to harm you, you're basing it on things unconsciously observed - subtle cues in expression and body language. People who have been in abusive situations are much better at this than those who haven't, because their minds have a store of past experience related to abusers. This was a subject of much discussion when the Framingham 8 in Massachusetts (women who had been imprisoned for killing abusive partners) were being released in the 1990's. The events leading up to the killings didn't sound like justification for homicide to the courts (most of us don't have to kill anyone because they came home drunk, or looked a certain way), but nonetheless these women had no choice, when the larger picture was taken into account.

So I think of intuition as something that can't happen without knowledge, while psychism is kind of...miraculous, for want of a better word.
I know that in card reading, "intuition" is often used to mean "reading off the pictures" rather than using rote knowledge, but I don't think of it that way.

I can lay a Lenormand GT, and often - BAM, I know something, and it's backed up when I go through the spread card by card. But I couldn't always do that. It's something you get when you know a system like the back of your hand. So in that sense, I do read intuitively, I just don't look at the cards and take non-traditional meanings from the pictures.

Psychism is real - I've seen it - but I don't think anyone has it on tap, especially for random clients who call at odd hours. I don't think anyone can depend on it to be there. (I could certainly use a lottery win!)

As for the scientists, an "intuition appropriate to the field of investigation" would have to be knowledge based, but without preconceived assumptions that could prejudice the findings. A real razor's edge. And the same applies to cards. You have to know your system, but you can't assume that the guy your client is infatuated with is going to use her and dump her based on what she tells you, or your own experiences. You have to see what's in the cards themselves.

Just my proverbial two cents.

Truthfully, though, I usually don't need the cards to tell you that he ain't leaving his wife Especially when it's the third time you've asked. I guess it must be my sixth sense.

AMAZING. HOW DOES HE DO IT?????

As for the scientists, an "intuition appropriate to the field of investigation" would have to be knowledge based, but without preconceived assumptions that could prejudice the findings. A real razor's edge.

Katrinka

This is what Crowley means when he says of the six of swords:

The Six of Swords is called Science. Its ruler is Mercury, so that the element of success turns away from the idea of division and quarrel; it is intelligence which has won to the goal.

The perfect balance of all mental and moral faculties, hardly won, and almost impossible to hold in an ever-changing world, declares the idea of Science in its fullest interpretation.

katrinka wrote: ↑13 May 2019, 21:33 I think it's important to define what each of us means by "intuition" for the purpose of this discussion.

... her boyfriend had dreamed of a deceased friend giving him a series of numbers...I would call that psychism rather than intuition.

...On the other hand, to use a very common example, when a person is used to driving a car, they no longer have to consciously think: "Now I am going to step on the brakes" when they have to stop. They do it intuitively, i.e., as an instinctive reflex, grounded in their knowledge and experience...
So I think of intuition as something that can't happen without knowledge...

Yes, I think the definition is a good point to raise. Perhaps the word 'intuition' is often used when conversing about tarot etc. when 'clairvoyance', 'psychic ability' (or something similar which conveys that inner 'knowing' that is not based on rational thought or fact) is really more appropriate. I'm sure I've done that more than once.

I read something else this morning from the same book I quoted at the top of this thread.

The original quote was

Scientists could only come to a correct judgement of an experiment after developing an intuition appropriate to the field of investigation. (italics mine)

This morning I got to a part about C.G. Jung who while a medical student, became interested in the occult topics that were making waves at the time and influenced his work thereafter. As a student he started seeking out and attending spiritualist gatherings, Mediums, table-turnings, etc. etc. and reading voraciously all the current occult and esoteric literature and publications that were emerging everywhere. He actually wrote his 1902 PhD thesis on experimental "psychic sittings" he conducted.

He later wrote about his initial encounters with the occult:

All in all, this was the one great experience which...made it possible for me to achieve a psychological point of view. I had discovered some objective facts about the human psyche. (italics mine)

I see this observation as in agreement with the first statement. I think maybe, this "psychological point of view" Jung was referring to is the same as the "intuition appropriate to the field of investigation" mentioned earlier.

What I'm getting at, or more accurately, trying to understand, is the nature of intuition as being something we plant in our subconscious through our life experience, through observation and interest, through study. And what I am trying, very clumsily I'm afraid, to understand is how this may apply to tarot reading.

And as I write these words I realise that what I'm really trying to do is take some of the "woo-woo" out of intuitive reading and understand it as an observable, rational phenomena. I do think it's real but I can't escape the feelings of ambivalence I have at times about it. This is why I find these approaches to it and discussions about it very helpful. I'm not looking for an "answer", just something to hang my hat on so to speak.
☆☽☼☆☽☼☆☽☼☆☽☼

Joan Marie wrote: ↑15 May 2019, 07:37

All in all, this was the one great experience which...made it possible for me to achieve a psychological point of view. I had discovered some objective facts about the human psyche. (italics mine)

I see this observation as in agreement with the first statement. I think maybe, this "psychological point of view" Jung was referring to is the same as the "intuition appropriate to the field of investigation" mentioned earlier.

What I'm getting at, or more accurately, trying to understand, is the nature of intuition as being something we plant in our subconscious through our life experience, through observation and interest, through study. And what I am trying, very clumsily I'm afraid, to understand is how this may apply to tarot reading.

And as I write these words I realise that what I'm really trying to do is take some of the "woo-woo" out of intuitive reading and understand it as an observable, rational phenomena. I do think it's real but I can't escape the feelings of ambivalence I have at times about it. This is why I find these approaches to it and discussions about it very helpful. I'm not looking for an "answer", just something to hang my hat on so to speak.
☆☽☼☆☽☼☆☽☼☆☽☼

There is something in our brains, and I don't know the scientific term for it, but I think of it as a metaphorical clerk we send to a metaphorical file room. It certainly seems to behave that way. This "clerk" knows exactly where the files you use a lot are, and he brings them promptly. People of sound mind generally have no trouble remembering their childrens' names, or how they like their coffee. He can not only bring the files you've accessed a lot in no time flat, he can anticipate your need for them. That's intuition, instinct, reflex, and muscle memory activities like typing.

Other files that you don't use so much are kind of jumbled together and the clerk has to dig in the piles. It might take him an unspecified amount of time. Maybe you were telling someone about a movie, but couldn't recall the name of the actress in the starring role, even though you could picture her clearly in your mind. Then, one night when that conversation is long over, you remember her name "out of the blue". It's like the poor clerk kept looking for days until he found it and brought it to you...

If any of that sounds like Hermes, well, no. The clerk is no god. He's very eager to please, but he's not that bright. He can't always tell where a file came from. Experience, or a dream? A reliable news source, or the National Enquirer? If you request a file, he'll definitely bring *something*, but it might be a false memory, or at least a substitution of some kind.

So with readings, IME the instantaneous flashes have a much better chance of being truly intuitive.
If you've used a certain deck a lot, your clerk has a massive number of files at the ready. 7 of Swords in the upper left corner, followed by Justice? No problem, he's got files for that...

But a lot of what's called "intuitive reading" calls for the reader to trust the first thing that comes to mind. And that "first thing" might be the clerk dishing up something that isn't helpful at all. For instance, the RWS Wheel of Fortune has the approximate color and shape of a McDonald's hamburger bun, but I would not classify "Big Mac" as a Wheel of Fortune meaning.

"Separate thou the earth from the fire, the subtle from the gross sweetly with great industry"

What I'm getting at, or more accurately, trying to understand, is the nature of intuition as being something we plant in our subconscious through our life experience, through observation and interest, through study. And what I am trying, very clumsily I'm afraid, to understand is how this may apply to tarot reading.

Joan Marie

The idea of messages from the unconscious makes me think of the RWS page of cups with the fish jumping out of his cup. This leads me to wonder if there is emotional intuition which comes into tarot reading.

[quote]There is something in our brains, and I don't know the scientific term for it, but I think of it as a metaphorical clerk we send to a metaphorical file room. It certainly seems to behave that way. This "clerk" knows exactly where the files you use a lot are, and he brings them promptly. People of sound mind generally have no trouble remembering their childrens' names, or how they like their coffee. He can not only bring the files you've accessed a lot in no time flat, he can anticipate your need for them. That's intuition, instinct, reflex, and muscle memory activities like typing.

Other files that you don't use so much are kind of jumbled together and the clerk has to dig in the piles. It might take him an unspecified amount of time. Maybe you were telling someone about a movie, but couldn't recall the name of the actress in the starring role, even though you could picture her clearly in your mind. Then, one night when that conversation is long over, you remember her name "out of the blue". It's like the poor clerk kept looking for days until he found it and brought it to you...

If any of that sounds like Hermes, well, no. The clerk is no god. He's very eager to please, but he's not that bright. He can't always tell where a file came from. Experience, or a dream? A reliable news source, or the National Enquirer? If you request a file, he'll definitely bring *something*, but it might be a false memory, or at least a substitution of some kind.
/quote] Katrinka

There are ways of improving the clerks performance. The clerk is what was called natural memory and improvements are made by a system of artificial memory. These systems were developed in classical times as part of oratory. They went on to become part of hermetic and occult systems.

A good book on them is The Art Of Memory by Frances A Yates.

While checking that The Art Of Memory by Frances A Yates was still available, I have seen another book which is coming out soon:
Memory Palaces and Masonic Lodges: Esoteric Secrets of the Art of Memory by Charles B. Jameux.

Some of this reminds me of something I was recently reading about that neuroscientists call implicit memory. That's when things are so deeply engrained that we can remember them without consciously thinking about them. The most obvious examples are motor skills like driving or touch typing. You don't actually think about pushing down on the gas pedal, for example. But it can also apply to more conceptual things. I'd venture a guess that there's some aspect of this at play in the kind of intuitive reading that relies heavily on visual symbolism.

Charlie Brown wrote: ↑18 May 2019, 19:29 Some of this reminds me of something I was recently reading about that neuroscientists call implicit memory. That's when things are so deeply engrained that we can remember them without consciously thinking about them. The most obvious examples are motor skills like driving or touch typing. You don't actually think about pushing down on the gas pedal, for example. But it can also apply to more conceptual things. I'd venture a guess that there's some aspect of this at play in the kind of intuitive reading that relies heavily on visual symbolism.

I like "implicit memory" better than "clerk".
And I think it's also involved in using rote meanings, if they're burned into your brain sufficiently.

Saying that a metaphorical memory clerk retrieves the memory is really no better than saying a literal memory fairy flies up from the nearest clover and finds the thought for you. For example, for the clerk to find the memory, it would have to have a memory itself, and the memory clerk's memory's memory would itself have to have a memory. You dig? My basic point is that our current understanding of the mechanics of memory is way shakier than is often presented, eg. rats with up to three quarters of their brains cut away (I don't condone this) can still perform their memorised tasks.... weirdness and woo.

devin wrote: ↑20 May 2019, 15:10 Saying that a metaphorical memory clerk retrieves the memory is really no better than saying a literal memory fairy flies up from the nearest clover and finds the thought for you.

Interesting take but I'm pretty sure the "clerk" was not meant as a literal outside entity. It was just a device for explaining how memories are unconsciously retrieved. ☯

But since you brought up weirdness and woo, that's kind of what this whole thread started out as, my personal ambivalence about reading tarot intuitively. To work on that, I am trying to look at the topic from different angles. I am also ambivalent about explanations that that ignore the occult, the unknown, whatever you want to call it.

I think all of us (maybe) are seeking to live transcendental lifestyles, looking for answers within ourselves to deal with the questions and issues raised by modern life. Some of us use Tarot for that. And there are other practices as well that maybe don't meet certain scientific muster but offer direction and solutions nonetheless.

In any case I think it's all worth exploring, but I do agree that as tricky as it is sometimes, you gotta be careful but don't throw the baby out with the woo-water.

What do you think about intuition devin? Do you read intuitively, strictly by the book, or a combination?

Joan Marie wrote: ↑20 May 2019, 15:44

devin wrote: ↑20 May 2019, 15:10 Saying that a metaphorical memory clerk retrieves the memory is really no better than saying a literal memory fairy flies up from the nearest clover and finds the thought for you.

Interesting take but I'm pretty sure the "clerk" was not meant as a literal outside entity. It was just a device for explaining how memories are unconsciously retrieved. ☯

Yes. Metaphors are, by definition, not literal. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphor
So, speaking of rats - if I say "Terry is a rat", that's a metaphor. People know that it means Terry is a snitch, there's no splitting hairs over Terry requiring a tail or buck teeth in order to be a rat. It's understood that Terry is rat-like in the sense of being undesirable.
Likewise, implicit memory is clerk-like in the sense that you request something, and it's retrieved.

Well, that obviously came across a lot more pedantic than I intended!

And, yes, I know what a metaphor is. My point was that invoking a metaphor of a memory clerk has a lot of logical problems in it and is essentially no better than claiming a literal memory fairy does it. With the clerk only serving to make something still sketchily understood (memory) seem easily explainable.

This is a great topic, one begging for interesting speculation (speculation being a hobby of mine), but I can't help but feel that attempting to overlay a observable, rational framework over something that is inherently irrational (card reading) is a big ask.

And that's not a snipe at card reading.... just and acknowledgement of the probable limits of rationality.

Impressive as it is, is human knowledge not a tiny raft heaving on a gigantic sea of woo?

P.S. Personally, I read with a system, but I always start a reading by looking at the visual picture as a whole for affinities and clues.... and, yes, I agree with Katrinka, this probably comes experience with reading visual languages and isn't psychism.

P.P.S. Than again, I might speculate that the line between psychism and mundane memory could be a lot blurrier than previously imagined. As I mentioned earlier, current views of memory have a lot of problems with them.

Peace.

devin wrote: ↑21 May 2019, 07:17 Well, that obviously came across a lot more pedantic than I intended!

It happens to the best of us.

devin wrote: ↑21 May 2019, 07:17 This is a great topic, one begging for interesting speculation (speculation being a hobby of mine), but I can't help but feel that attempting to overlay a observable, rational framework over something that is inherently irrational (card reading) is a big ask.

And that's not a snipe at card reading.... just and acknowledgement of the probable limits of rationality.

I know, right? That's to a large extent the idea behind the book I'm reading that I started this thread about. It's called, "A Science for the Soul" by Corinna Treitel. It's a very very well researched book about the rise of occultism in the late 19th and early 20th century, how it started, what fuelled it etc.

Many very eminent scientists and scholars sought in those days to get behind all these things that were growing massively in popularity. They tried to apply rigorous scientific methods to things like seances, scrying, fortune telling and such.

One of the things that became clearer and clearer was that people were using the occult as a way to understand themselves better and to help them deal with the often kind of soul-stealing realities of modern life.

I think this is still true. (Much of these scientific studies later paved the way for modern ideas of psychoanalysis, see Freud and C.J. Jung for famous examples, but there were many very prestigious individuals seriously studying these phenomena.)

Occult was (and still is) for people seeking a transcendent lifestyle, self-enlightenment. It was initially a backlash against modernism which was ignoring the fate of the human spirit. (Later after WW1, occultism served other purposes.) In those days there were huge efforts to gather together people who were into the occult practices. And there were, as now, all kinds of books and magazines and retreats and conferences etc. etc. (forums, anyone?) Some of the numbers are really nuts. And here we are 100 years later, seeing the same rise in these practices. I find the parallels really interesting.

devin wrote: ↑21 May 2019, 07:17 Impressive as it is, is human knowledge not a tiny raft heaving on a gigantic sea of woo?

I'm thinking about this one.

If it's true though that most people pursue practices like Tarot for self-enlightenment (or to assist others with theirs) is that woo?

Here is a quote from a guy called Zillman who ran a kind of occult retreat in the 1920's

The occult sciences are not just unknown science but above all teach how the individual can strengthen the power of his soul and thereby penetrate regions that would otherwise be closed to him....The occult sciences teach us to use our whole being...therefore they deploy a method that is foreign to other sciences...From the occult sciences you can expect nothing less than the empowerment (Potenzierung) of your soul.

and here is another quote from the book, a short definition of an Occultist:

Occultists are people who through developing the fullest possible command of their physical and mental powers, approach the ideal of human perfection or divinity.

So what does any of this have to do with intuition?

Firstly, I think it starts to remove it from the realm of "woo" and brings it into something relevant to everyday life. A striving for improvement, for empowerment in a chaotic world. Removing mental barriers and blocks that hinder our perception of the world as it is.

I think there is a tendency (I know i have it, hence the ambivalence I spoke of earlier), to dismiss intuition because it can't be measured and studied "properly." But this is what early (and even modern) psychotherapists struggle with also. The human Psyche was not even a term, much less recognised and understood until relatively recently. And it is still debated.

By the way, I hope some of you might join us for a little intuitive experimental reading I'm trying to set up.
Have a look here.

It's just in fun, a little experiment. I'd like to get it going in the next few days and the more people in the better. ☆

devin wrote: ↑21 May 2019, 07:17 My point was that invoking a metaphor of a memory clerk has a lot of logical problems in it and is essentially no better than claiming a literal memory fairy does it.

And I already mentioned that my earlier example of a metaphor ("Terry is a rat") contains the logical problems of Terry not possessing a tail or buck teeth. But those are irrelevant since a metaphor is a figure of speech. A figure of speech is always used in a non-literal sense

Claiming a literal memory fairy would be a delusion, or a lie at the very least.

It's prudent not to eat the menu.

With the clerk only serving to make something still sketchily understood (memory) seem easily explainable.

While we don't know everything, there is a large body of research on memory. It's not "sketchily understood". And the clearest method of explaining something abstract, like memory, is with metaphors.

The point was not to imply that everything having to do with memory is easily explainable. The point was to illustrate the workings of a particular function of memory.

This is a great topic, one begging for interesting speculation (speculation being a hobby of mine), but I can't help but feel that attempting to overlay a observable, rational framework over something that is inherently irrational (card reading) is a big ask.

How do you know that it's "inherently irrational"?
You're using a physical medium (cards) and a physical organ (brain) to predict the future. Physical things are subject to observable laws. Just because we don't yet understand how it works doesn't mean it's irrational, woo, or "turtles all the way down".

And that's not a snipe at card reading.... just and acknowledgement of the probable limits of rationality.

Impressive as it is, is human knowledge not a tiny raft heaving on a gigantic sea of woo?

No.
The gigantic sea is things we don't know yet. Woo is used to blind or distract an audience from a real explanation, or to discourage people from delving deeper into the subject to find a more realistic explanation.

Peace.

Peace.

Joan Marie wrote: ↑21 May 2019, 11:33If it's true though that most people pursue practices like Tarot for self-enlightenment (or to assist others with theirs) is that woo?

A lot of people classify Tarot, and card reading in general, as woo.
I really don't think it is. I've seen it work too many times (and I am talking about predictive, fortunetelling-type readings.)

Here is a quote from a guy called Zillman who ran a kind of occult retreat in the 1920's

The occult sciences are not just unknown science but above all teach how the individual can strengthen the power of his soul and thereby penetrate regions that would otherwise be closed to him....

People do that even without occult, Tarot, etc.
I have a friend who is amazing at predicting world events. No mystical angle - he just pay exceptionally close attention to history, politics, and human nature.

@Katrinka

On metaphor and memory: Yes, sure, but the clerk is a very good and apt metaphor for the reigning view of memory: Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are retrieved via a physical retrieval system within said brain. So it's a very well and precisely chosen metaphor. Good. But it is a metaphor based on an axiom (physical memory traces and physical retrieval system) that is not established (despite a hundred years of trying) and is severely undermined by things like the poor little rats with three quarters of their brains cut away and functioning memories (there are other examples, too). So, to my mind, the logical problems within the clerk metaphor (it being such a good one) are very relevant to the underlying assumptions which it represents. Other theories of memory (such as memories being contained in the electrical fields our brains emit) open the door to a potential blurring between the boundaries of down-to-earth intuition and psychism.

Rationality and tarot/cards: Yes, fair point. Still, discerning the future from a set of images printed on cards by applying a system of meanings contradicts basic assumptions on cause and effect and is a good contender for counting as irrational. I think it's actually easier to make a 'rational' case for the cards by taking the psychic route! (Which, just to clarify, is not the way I read.)

My point is that the gigantic sea is things we will, for a number of reasons having to do with our tools, probably never know. For now, I think we have to be content with applying the 'does it work' test.... so, if psychic tarot reading works, I go, OK, whatever. If it doesn't....

P.S. One generation's woo can turn out (and has) to be a future generation's orthodoxy.

I've often wondered if a scientific explanation will one day be offered via the understanding of quantum physics, string theory, or some other future theory involving time and space. There is still much we don't know or have yet to explain satisfactorily about our universe and how we function within it, and I'm sure in the future, with new discoveries and understanding, some of the current scientific theories will be dismissed and new ones embraced. I'd like to see things like intuition and divining fall in there somewhere