Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 10:55:15 +0800
From: Chris Gordan <egordan-AT-alpha1.curtin.edu.au>
Subject: Re: define my destiny?


Dear Inna and Daniel,

I don't know the reference to "the element of thirdness"
I don't have a problem with the idea, however, that a 'reader' brings with them an
interpretation (or maybe an anti-interpretation?).
But - I'm sorry, but I DO play with the Tarot (and it's my pack and I'll play if I want
to!)
(I'm not quite sure why an entry in a dictionary I'll never afford could/would or
should deny me my play on/with anything??)

To address Daniel, I have to say that I've actually come across a hell of a lot of
people who desire that the tarot and/or newspaper astrology define their destiny for
them.  The sort of people who desperately desire a god (one way or another). I tend to
think of this along the lines of desiring one's own repression?

o.k. - so, I'm thinking that mayble the reference to not playing with the tarot is an
assumption that 'play' is not serious - but it seems to me that playfullness is in the
semiosis (regardless of whether the attitude of the assemblage is serious or not) -
does that make sense? (probably not - sorry)  .  I'll try another direction:  I have a
friend, who continually asks me to give her tarot readings. She, being a desperately
seeking a god/an answer kind of person means that I take my reading of the cards very
seriously, because I know that what I 'interpret' from them will have an affect.  My
tactic against her desire to imbue the cards (the symbols) as predictive is to
deterritorialize through a playful reading:  I make up stories and I turn each spread
into a multiplicity of possibilities and I listen to what she says (how she interprets
it back into her mirrored self) and then I make up new spreads and throw down other
cards and tell (create) more stories and and and until no single meaning can be defined
(devined) from the game.  (does that make sense?)  But this person does have her own
pack, which she reads (religiously) via the interpretive text, and she does often get
despondent because she's turned up a card that has a negative interpretation - so I
can't agree that simply using the tarot deterritorializes the desiring your own
repression -  and I do agree that what gets brought to the read by the reader (and the
inquirer) is part of the assemblage (and this makes a serious difference to the
affect).

I was just reading over Deleuzes discussion of Foucauldian power and how he says;
"power is an affection of desire"
The way I'm thinking of this in terms of this discussion then, is that the power
(seriousness) given to the cards is related the desiring-machines of the particular
assemblage ( the random spread and the interpretation and the kinds of layout etc etc
and and and..)
Sometimes I just want to play - the seriousness of which is that play is seriously
healthy (at least for me!)

sorry to ramble

Chris

Inna Runova Semetsky wrote:

> On Tue, 8 Dec 1998, Daniel Haines wrote:
>
> Hey - you DON'T play with Tarot.
> Seriously, the element of thirdness (Peirce, Deleuze?) MUST be present in
> Tarot semiotics too - and it is brought in by a reader who interprets the
> stuff. Look for the entry on Cartomancy in Encyclopedic Dictionary of
> semiotics, ed. by Sebeok. Sorry cost $375 on amazon or barnes&nobles.
> Also "Frontier Perspectives".
> inna
>
>
> >
> > it's funny, but in my experience only people who have never used the
> > tarot/don't know much about it think that the people who have used
> > it/use it  view it in this way (as predictive/defining/a god)!!  nearly
> > everyone who ever says - i use the tarot then says - in one way or
> > another - its a tool. it's not my god. i'm not trying to tell the
> > future, but to develop my self.  the idea of the tarot tradition that
> > forces it to connect with the idea of "fortelling the future" is about
> > as profound as the idea of astrology that sees it exclusively in
> > relation to the daily horoscopes newspapers print; 4,000 years
> > tradition  encompassing all the "greatest" cultures in historical time
> > -judged in a few sentences... oh, we moderns are such masters of
> > knowledge...