More teaching or more writing?
I often perform cartomantic marathons. Like the one concerning the reading of the 6-card draw for choices and comparisons. This means that I can find myself delivering 10 strong cartomancy readings in one sitting and without a break. This also means putting a lot of words on paper, or as the case is, in a beautifully laid out document. At high speed. And precision. ‘Boom,’ one of the people I read the cards for said instantly, and then declared: ‘I’m clear now.’ I liked that a lot, especially since that was the idea, namely to make things clear.
As I wanted to celebrate the revamping of my personal website here, I made a special offer for the 6-card draw. While at it, I thought to myself: every single reading of mine is also a lesson in cartomancy of the first caliber. I say this because I know exactly how strong my readings are. Others say it too.
Then I thought: why not cast the cards for it? Consequently, I posed this question: do I teach more or do I write more? I thought about what would be best to focus on, given that my writing already contains teaching, as I strive to both enchant and educate at the same time. This thought had deeper implications for me, as I found that what I really wanted from the cards was, in fact, an answer for the long term perspective. What was more urgent and significant?
Six cards fell on the table, and I marvelled.
For teaching more I got the Moon, the Emperor, and the Lovers.
For writing more I got the Devil, the Hermit, and the Sun.
A quick glance at the two sets of cards disclosed that there was no contest here. The second option won. The six cards suggested the following: while I teach with a strong presence (Emperor), some don’t get it (Moon). Others vacillate (Lovers), asking their peeps and peers about a power that is plain already. Who has time for this (Hermit), for the ones in the dark attached to their ambivalence (Devil)? Things are different with the option to write more. I can sit with my philosophy, Hermit style, draw on the Devil’s presence, and then share the brilliant Sun.
When that is said, there is more we can observe at the advanced level, the level that takes into account the symmetry we find in these two draws. While the Hermit is right below the Emperor, he creates a rhyme with the Emperor’s power, yet in a ‘give and take’ relation. Where the Emperor expands, the Hermit contracts. One gives, the other one takes, or, if the world order is observed, we note that where the Emperor takes through conquest and command, the Hermit gives away through retreat and abandonment, though it’s worth mentioning that Emperors also grow old and retire.
If we put an X over the two sets of cards, we note the following concatenation. ∏he two dogs in the Moon card are the same two people in the Sun card. Night and day; day and night. The three people in the Lovers card are the three in Devil’s card. Who is to be master? What master will be served? The implications of seeing such relations for the context of my question led to further thinking: if the Moon darkens the choice that the Lovers must make – as the rhyming cards are on the same plane – and the Hermit reveals the Devil’s motivations quite brilliantly, then what is preferable? The trios here perform a dance. Yet in my case, I saw already what the deal was as soon as the cards hit the table. However, as there is always more we can unpack, it’s a good idea to keep observing: What is happening? Who does what to whom? Which is the better story? Nuances arise from making such reflective observations that can enhance the strength of the argument for the choice: this one or that one?
When looking at these cards I thought of running with the Devil, since reading like the Devil is my actual trade. The cards here not only supported this choice, but also told me something about who I prefer to work with and address: I prefer devoted students and readers. The ones who need reviews, who indiscriminately rely on shady rumors about my work – before they actually give the work a chance to speak for itself – are not the people I want to work with. As I’m quite attached to my own curiosity, I expect others to meet me in theirs. Only on this premise of mutual curiosity free of judgmental errors can we enchant one another. I know this, as I’ve had the privilege in my long teaching career to know the significance of such encounters. I also know already the meaning of being fully appreciated for my work and my position.
In the context of the option that prioritizes writing more than just teaching, I also thought of how positioning informs the writing of my books, as my writing starts with a consideration of my place in relation to that occupied by others. My writing starts with the philosophy of ‘not this, not that.’ I observe what makes people tick, and then I go, ‘not this, not that.’ I made a whole career out of deconstructing language and beliefs. As soon as I encounter any belief, I get the urge to smash it. I use my discernment though, as I also position myself against the merely perverse rhetoric of negation currently in vogue. While most people love the energy of the negative – just look at the social public space – it’s not enough to negate a popular idea without replacing it with something new, solid, and more useful.
Look at how trendy marketers are engaged in ‘writing’ their own pervert’s guide to the rhetoric of negation. They all signal virtues by heralding one negation after the other: if growth of anything was good yesterday, today it’s no good, as this very idea is ruining our nervous system – except, of course, when growth is measured in figures. If we paid attention, however, we’d notice how the popular 7-figure in your bank account is also negated already, as it’s yesterday’s news. ‘Let’s go for the 8-figure,’ the righteous propose, as this new figure participates in re-configuring not only our entire nervous system, but also our understanding of the spirit of money, our new godmother. How about control and productivity? ‘Not good either,’ the false deconstructivits claim. Except, of course, when control is measured by an imaginal X-factor and productivity by the power to influence. How about listening to others who are not our own glorious genius? Not good at all. Except when it’s about the influencer’s demand for attention: ‘Come to momma, for I love you more than your parents ever did. I don’t know you, but I validate you; I appreciate you; I see you; I understand you; I feel you; I feel for you. I’m not here to dictate. I’m just being honest with you.’ I think you get the idea. Validation as an attachment trick followed by shallow negation is seductive, but without a solid argument that justifies its existence, the validating act is just deceitful, as it negates a person’s possibility to make a real choice.
As a matter of emotional inclination, people tend to go with the ones that will make them feel good about themselves. But such following has no resolve. Sometimes choosing to get a proper education than a quick fix is essential, though never to the ones invested in the lucrative business of validating the ambivalent Lovers of the world. What gives, then? We cast the cards for a choice, and let them surprise us. Unlike in the world of consulting through a disingenuous con, what the cards have to say is not a con. You see images depicting your two options, sometimes more, and then think about it. If you make a decision based on what you see in the cards that relates precisely to your concern, you will not be the victim of gullibility making you buy every stranger’s words that claim unconditional love and belief in you and your super power. Hell, if you follow such words, you need to make no choices anymore, the dictum goes, as you’re safe. It stands to reason that when you follow con men, there’s nothing you can do to disappoint them. But where they’ll pet you on your back, like the ‘loving’ people that they are, assuring you of your greatness in spite of not knowing a thing about you, the cards will ‘know’ better. They will put your reality in your face, or a reality that you can think about, and then give you a chance to make up your mind about it.
But where was I? I’m digressing. Or maybe not, for this comparison has a point related to our need to find inspiration for our choices that is external to our predicaments. When we’re confronted with a choice, sometimes we want a second opinion. Who or where do we go for it? What channel of inspiration would be the most disinterested? Desiring to be seen, understood, and appreciated is a common desire, and there’s nothing in it to be judgmental about. But it serves us well to think about what motivates others to give advice. I find the cards in this respect as our safest bet. Taking my own question here as an example, one could argue that I might as well have asked people about it, not the cards, but given what the cards had to say precisely about people, I’m happy with my choice. Teach more or write more? I think I’ve just done both by revisiting these cards. I’ve just taught a lesson in discernment by writing about choices. The book that focuses on six-card draws is taking shape already, and you can begin to see what form I want to give it in terms of aesthetics and direction: just read the damn cards and think. I’m grateful to the ones who took part in my reading marathon, as that experience brought me to this place here, the place of more writing.
Stay tuned for Choices, a book in which I will dive straight into the core of choices, in order to see to what extent we can come out of the act of choosing with an art, namely the art that not only gives us a sense of what a strong resolve looks like, but also enables us to practice staking our lives on our choices without doubts and regrets.
