Welcome, weary traveller, to my humble parlour shoppe, I’d been expecting you. Come, take a seat and rest your feet awhile. The weather is quite dreadful, enjoy a brief respite here. Perhaps I might divine your fate in the cards?
What on earth…
Oh this is nothing earthly, wayward soul!
Are those–
Tools, mere tools, that is all; these are but a spyglass through which we might discern tidings good or ill!
Okay, enough, drop the act. What’s going on? I severely doubt you’ve suddenly started reading tarot cards since we last spoke. Where’s my essay on Mesoamerican philosophy? Have you finished Anti-Oedipus yet? Called your mother back???
Okay, fine. Yes, those are all still in the pipeline, but I wanted to quickly put this out as well. I will set the scene; there is a very popular philosophy-and-critical-theory podcast called Acid Horizon. The podcast features four academics working in philosophy in various capacities, Craig (the host, a Deleuze devotee), Will (focusing on Foucault), Adam (a student of Stirner), and Matt (also Deleuze … couldn’t keep the alliteration going). In each episode, they explore a philosophical concept or work, with each host contributing with insights from their own background. They will sometimes bring on guests as well, such as their excellent episode on Guattari featuring a well-known translators of his work, Taylor Adkins.
But… what does any of this have to do with you suddenly having a set of tarot cards?
Alongside their podcast, they also run a merch store called Crit Drip where they sell merch featuring figures from the critical theory canon. Everything from a Marx tank top, to a Lacan mug, to Nietzsche drink coasters, if you can imagine it, they probably have it! Now, one of the more exciting things they’ve been working on is the Philosopher’s Tarot, which they’re releasing on November 7th, 2022. It is a set of tarot cards, but –
You should probably tell folks what a tarot deck actually is.
Oh, right! Okay, so tarot cards refer to sets of playing cards that were later adapted for fortune-telling. In the case of the Philosopher’s Tarot, they reproduce the most common set of tarot cards, a deck of 78 cards which are broken up into two different groups: the 56 cards of the minor arcana and the 22 cards of the major arcana. The minor arcana is most similar to traditional playing cards, containing four sets of cards (swords, cups, wands, and pentacles). Each set contains a card numbered one to ten, in addition to a page, knight, queen, and king. The major arcana doesn’t have a direct comparison to modern playing cards, but they were used as trump cards in the context of card games. Each card of the major arcana is unique and is named after a general concept (e.g. The Emperor, Strength, The Wheel of Fortune).
I’m sorry, maybe I’m not following. These are playing cards? And people use this to predict the future?
Well, yeah, that’s the history at least. Each card has a set of meanings, meanings that are altered when in combination with other cards, and these meanings can be used to make predictions about one’s future. Essentially a certain number of cards are selected (either by the fortune-teller or the person having their fortune told), the meanings of each card are interpreted (singularly and in combination with the other cards), and a prediction is made. Like reading tea-leaves or looking at palm lines, reading one’s tarot is seeing a pattern in a random data points and assigning meaning to it; basically the singular thing our brains evolved to do well.
Well, alright then, how about you get on with it then. Let’s do it then, let’s do a tarot reading with these cards. I want to see these cards! You … you can read these, right?
Ask and you shall receive! Fortunately, I read the little booklet included with the set as to how on can interpret the cards. So, yes, I can read the cards, not that there’s a right or wrong way to do so. Now, what we’ll do is what’s called a Celtic Cross reading. This is a popular form of reading done in response to a particular question. Essentially we will place all of the cards face down in a celtic cross design, like so:
Now, the way you interpret this is very specific. A question is posed to the fortune-teller, who then reveals the cards in a particular order. Each position refers to a particular part of the question, and each card represents an answer (or theme to the answer). The cards are revealed in the following order:
- The Situation: This card reveals the situation in which the querent (i.e the person who sought out the fortune-teller) finds themselves.
- The Challenge: This card reveals the challenge that the querent faces.
- The Basis: This card reveals the more primordial factors (generally psychological) that lead to the situation (i.e. the first card).
- The Past: This card reveals the recent past of how the querent has addressed the challenge (i.e. the second card).
- The Present: This card reveals how the querent is currently addressing the challenge.
- The Near Future: This card reveals how the querent is going to address the challenge in the near future (somewhat vaguely defined)
- Your Power: This card reveals the capacities the querent can (not necessarily ought!) draw on in addressing the challenge.
- Effects on Others: This card reveals the impacts the querent has on others, and others on the querent, in addressing the challenge.
- Hopes and Fears: This card reveals the hopes and fears that the querent has in addressing the challenge.
- The Outcome: This card, the most important, reveals how the current challenge is going to be resolved.
So, all we need now is a question and I can lay out the cards. Fortunately, I had one in mind: “What should the future direction of the On Second Glance project be?”
Uh, more essays presumably, isn’t that your thing? Explaining theory through essays on popular media?
Well, yes, that is what I’ve been doing. But is that all I could, or should, be doing? Do I get more involved in contemporary discourse through our twitter? Maybe we should start writing brief reviews of works I’ve read, after all we already have a GoodReads. The possibilities are endless, potentially!
So, that question in mind, let me arrange the cards:
Now, could you draw the first card?
Okay, so card one, the situation, is the five of pentacles, as represented by Diogenes’ Barrel.
Ah Diogenes, beloved figure of the Western philosophical canon. He was a philosopher from the Cynic tradition and committed himself to a simple lifestyle. And by simple lifestyle, I mean he lived in a barrel and spent his days giving Socrates a hard time. Genuinely.
While the historicity of the stories about him is questionable, those that exist are well-known and frankly hilarious. It’s hard to beat this banger from Diogenes: “In a rich man’s house, there is no place to spit but his face.” There’s also the story of him trolling Socrates. During one of his lectures, Socrates declared “A man is a featherless biped”. At this, Diogenes went to the market, found a plucked chicken, returned and chucked it on the ground before Socrates’ feet, declaring “Behold, a man”. And while funny on its own, this declaration was actually an incisive critique of Socrates’ form-vs-substance ontology (as we’ve discussed before). But the classic Diogenes story would be his interaction with Alexander the Great. We all know Alexander the Great, right? Famous conqueror of everything from Greece to Egypt to Persia? Well, he had heard of Diogenes and made a trip to visit him. Upon reaching Diogenes’ barrel, Alexander spoke with him briefly before telling Diogenes that if he desired anything in life, Alexander would make it happen. Diogenes, in classic fashion, responds that he does have a wish: that Alexander step out of his sunlight.
Ha, amazing!
Completely agree. But what does this way card mean for our reading, considering it is in the position of “The Situation”? Well, the way I interpret it, Diogenes’ Barrel is a metaphor for a self-contented, unambitious situation. Was Diogenes wise and insightful? Almost certainly. But we have almost no record of his thought beyond scraps. And that is because Diogenes was content in his barrel, happy to philosophize to his audience of one (himself). There is, perhaps, an analogy to what On Second Glance currently is. We obviously take pride in our work, and those that have given feedback on it have been generally positive. But unfortunately, the reach isn’t what we’d hope! So the situation is this: how do we reach a greater audience, how do we break out of Diogenes’ barrel?
Well, that feels like an appropriate segue. Let’s look at card two, which stands for the challenge to the situation or question … it is the Two of Swords, Undecidability.
Ugh, a concept from Derrida, lord have mercy! But at least, it’s a concept from Derrida I have some experience with. This concept of undecidability is part of his larger project of deconstruction. Basically, one way of deconstructing concepts (i.e. rendering visible their contradictions) is to point to examples that defy categorization under a binary. The example I am familiar with is the idea of gift-giving, which Derrida argues is neither possible nor impossible (i.e. defying the possible-impossible binary) because the conditions that make gift-giving possible also render it impossible. In short, for a gift to be a gift, per Derrida, there cannot be any expectation of recompense for the gift, otherwise that is just exchange! There cannot be expectation of recompense in goods, in services, in appreciation from the receiving party, or even in self-satisfaction from the giving party. In order for such a thing to occur, a gift would have to be unrecognizable as a gift to both the giving and receiving party; a condition that makes gift-giving impossible. Thus, gift-giving is a concept that is undecidable, one cannot designate gift-giving as possible or impossible (a binary to which apparently all concepts can be categorized) because the conditions that make it possible also make it impossible.
What I interpret this to mean for On Second Glance is not the Derridean understanding of undecidability. “What should the future direction of On Second Glance be?” Well, the “should” implies a choice in what values or goals On Second Glance should pursue. And each value or goal uses different logics of justification for why it should be pursued. “Should we focus on reaching a wider audience? Or developing a strong program to which we encourage readers? Something else entirely?” And the answer is, all of these things we want for different reasons, reasons that cannot simply be ranked hierarchically. It feels like there is a cloud of goals to which we aspire, a cloud of goals that are different, but perhaps in the same general direction. It is hard to tell.
Hmm, well, onwards I suppose. The basis, or the third card, is the Ten of Cups, The Love of Wisdom.
This is fairly straight-forward. What is the etymology of “philosophy”? “Philo-” = “Love”, “-sophy” = “Wisdom”, thus philosophy is the love of wisdom. That is a definition that goes all the way back to the founding of Western philosophy, pre-dating even Socrates.
There’s philosophy before Socrates?
Of course my guy, there’s a whole class of philosophers termed the pre-Socratics (which doesn’t even include non-Western thinkers we might today call philosophers). It would be the pre-Socratic Thales who would be the first recorded person to use this wording for philosophy, philosophy as love-of-wisdom.
This card being the basis makes a great deal of sense. The “love of wisdom” is very much the origin of On Second Glance. Years ago, I was working in a STEM lab that required me to do hours of mindless labour. To pass the time, I would listen to free lectures on Youtube that I found interesting. Of particular note was this series of lectures offered by Yale. While it focused on European history, I can remember very well the episode focusing on French radicals, particularly the anarchists. This happened at the same time I was taking a course on totalitarianism; also the same semester in which Trump was elected. Needless to say, it was a ferment in which political theory would have particular attraction. To spoil the story, this lecture series prompted me to do more reading into anarchism, ending with me listening to an audiobook of Emma Goldman’s Anarchism and Other Essays. From then on, I was hooked on anarchist theory, an interest that would morph into an interest in critical theory writ-large. And that, dear friend, is the origin of the On Second Glance project! Anyways, enough about me, next card!
Alright, let’s see … Oh interesting, your first card from the major arcana. For your forth card, the recent past, you’ve picked The Tower, represented by Deconstructionism.
Lordy, what’s with all the D*rr*d* today? Okay, deconstructionism is a theoretical approach to text that seeks to highlight the contradictions in seemingly static concepts in order to break them down. The easiest example, which I explored briefly here as well, is the binary of natural and artificial. We have a sense of what is natural, like rocks, bugs, dogs, people, and we also have a sense of what is artificial, like medicine, computers, and Styrofoam. But all that artificial stuff is made of seemingly “natural” components; a computer is basically a collection of metals arranged in a particular manner. That is, every component of the “artificial” computer originates from “natural” sources. Even the process that arranges those components, human labour, is perceived as natural. This destabilizes the concept of “artificial”, which in turn destabilizes the concept of natural. If there is no contrasting term “artificial”, then “natural” loses all meaning. Thus, the natural-artificial binary is deconstructed.
I can see this making sense in the card’s place in the recent past position. Though this isn’t the Derridean sense of the word, a lot of my recent readings have had the effect of helping me deconstruct a lot of my preconceived notions of the world. This is the natural consequence of all learning, in my opinion, but I do feel there is something particular to critical theory that has increased this effect. The first is that because critical theory is more of an approach (rather than a strictly delineated theory), it can be applied to a very wide variety of subjects. There are critical approaches to economics, to psychology, to history, to the sciences, and others. And more than this, I’ve always sought out works that have the possibility of radically reconfiguring how I think. To quote a less sober form of myself, I’m always looking for works that have the potential to “blow my brains out of my ears”.
Wha– What does that even mean?
I’m not sure, buy me [several] drinks and I’m sure we’ll find out. Anyways, next card, chop chop!
Alright then, this card, which stands in for the present, is the Eight of Wands. It features Accelerationism, but the card appears to be upside down …. Is that a mistake?
No, it’s not a mistake. Basically there’s a convention in tarot that if a card is drawn upside down, the meaning is supposed to be inverted, which is what we’ll do.
As to the concept itself, accelerationism is an idea I’ve heard a lot about, but have not had the chance to engage with the literature on it. Accelerationism is a particular approach to anti-capitalism that has both far-left and far-right interpretations. Accelerationists, left or right, hold that capitalism has a collection of inherent contradictions that, in the long-run, will lead to its end. For example, the capitalist wants to pay the least possible for labour while the proletariat wants to do the least possible labour in return for pay. This is an inherent, irresolvable conflict, and the driving force behind class struggle. So far, so standard. But what differs is the conclusion that is reached. The accelerationists hold that if it is the contradictions of capitalism that will lead to its end, then the best way to end capitalism is to intensify those contradictions, hastening the end of capitalism. So where a traditional leftist might cheer a union winning higher wages, an accelerationist might hope for the union’s failure, believing this failure would lead to more radical anti-capitalist action by the workers.
Oh, huh, I’m not sure how I feel about that…
You and me both. I readily acknowledge that I’ve not engaged with the literature on it directly, but my broad strokes understanding leaves me concerned. First off, whenever someone explains how practically they intend to intensify the contradictions of capitalism (and thus, accelerate its demise), it seems to always be by causing people to suffer. And I know this isn’t much of a hot take, but I’m generally against people suffering, crazy as that sounds. Moreover, even if left accelerationists aspire to a communistic world, there’s a lot of ways that capitalism-in-crisis can shake out. Need I cite Lenin and remind everyone that “fascism is capitalism in decay”? What’s not to say that we don’t accelerate ourselves into a fascistic nightmare? After all, that’s what the far-right accelerationists aspire to. And we obviously all know the story of Nick Land.
As to the card itself, there’s a number of ways to read it. I could imagine reading the card in its upright position as advocating an intensification of one’s efforts, both in quantity and quality. However, the card is in reverse, suggesting the opposite. And I think, as I write this self-referential essay on where On Second Glance goes next, that this is fitting. I am in no way claiming that I’ve somehow Read All I Need Read™, far from it. While I’ve done my metaphorical homework, I entirely recognize that this autodidactism will never end. I will always be reading some new feminist interpretation of Nietzsche, the philosophy of an under-engaged-with tradition, or another critique of anthropology’s ontological turn. But a lack of refinement is not what’s keeping On Second Glance from becoming what I hope it becomes. I need to slow down so that I can think, consider, and re-evaluate What Is To Be Done.
Alright, and now for the near future. You received the Six of Pentacles, or The Alms of Augustine.
Saint Augustine is one of the most important figures in the development of Christian theology, right up there with Thomas Aquinas and Paul the Apostle! He was the bishop of a city called Hippo in what is now Algeria and was considered a Doctor of the Church, an extremely prestigious title. Born to a pagan father and Christian mother in Roman North Africa, Augustine converted to Christianity at 31 and soon began writing extensively. Most of his works were critiques of the numerous other religions that were vying for supremacy in the region; various paganisms, Arian Christianity, Manichaeism, and others. His contributions to Christian theology (and by extension, Western philosophy) are manifold, but the two works that get the most attention are his The City of God and Confessions. The latter, which I’ve read, mostly follows his conversion to Christianity, but it does get a few digs at the Manichaeans here and there for good measure.
I could see this interpreted in two ways in the near future position. This card could suggest that I may be soon receiving alms (or, generalized, good fortune) from others, or that I ought bestow that on others. I am trending towards the latter, seeing as the impetus for writing this was the kind gift I received from the folks at Acid Horizon. What form this will take is not super clear to me, especially as someone with a small audience, but we shall see! At the very least, I can once again encourage you to check out the Acid Horizon Podcast and its merch store Crit Drip.
I will definitely be checking them out, but we still have content to finish. For your seventh card, which stands for your power in the situation, you received the Strength card. It features–
Emma Goldman, the OG, arguably the most famous anarchist in US history! Goldman was born to a Jewish family in Russia before moving to the United States, where she did much of her activism. It was in the US where she received her famous epithet from the first director of the FBI, Edgar Hoover: Emma “The Most Dangerous Woman in America” Goldman. Why was she considered so dangerous? In short, her oratory ability was legendary, Goldman could move a crowd like no other. Her writing is interesting, though not ground-breaking, but it was her live speeches that made her such an asset. The left is infamous for being overly wordy, but Emma Goldman could articulate her beliefs succinctly and forcefully. It’s a testament to her rhetorical skill that I am constantly coming back to this quote from her; “Ask for work. If they do not give you work, ask for bread. If they do not give you work or bread, take bread.”
Emma Goldman was actually the first leftist whose work I’d read front-to-back, her work Anarchism and Other Essays. Some parts of it, especially the essays on the suffragist movement (which require a bit of historical context to fully appreciate), are dated. But the first essay, Anarchism: What it Really Stands for is just so solid, especially for those unfamiliar with anarchism. If the card and its position suggest, as I think it does, that I am in a position to act with the strength of Emma Goldman, then that is a good omen indeed!
Definitely a good sign! Okay, and for your effect on others, you’ve received the Two of Cups, or Solidarity.
Solidarity, advocating for and supporting struggles that are not necessarily your own, it’s what makes the left strong! When the labour leader, the environmentalist, the indigenous activist, and the prison reformer link arms, they are force to contend with and mutually strengthening. Moreover, because these goals are consistent with each other, it is not just a marriage of convenience. And this is unique to the left! While rightist groups may form temporary alliances, they are just that, temporary. While fascists, theocrats, and other far-right ideologies may all loathe democracy and the left, their goals are fundamentally incompatible to each other. The core of rightist ideology is that of hierarchy, of dominance by their particular demographic (racial, ethnic, religious, etc) group; thus any sort of power-sharing agreement is seen as a tacit loss. And so it shouldn’t shock that when the right takes power, it almost always precedes a Night of the Long Knives.
I think this card also bears good omens. If my work, in whatever form it may take, can serve as solidarity to the people I care about and movements I support, that would make this entire project worthwhile.
This card represents your hopes and fears, in this case, the Four of Swords in reverse … Lenin’s Tomb?
A fittingly creepy bit of leftist history for an essay coming out on Halloween. After a series of strokes ultimately ended Lenin’s life, his body was embalmed (despite his wife Krupskaya’s plea) and put on display in Red Square. The justification for this move was so that Soviet citizens could show respect to their former leader as well as to serve as a symbol for the people to rally around. I’ve not read anything about whether this was effective, but at least it gave us a great Simpsons bit.
As to how to interpret this, I am not so sure. I am reminded of a reading of Lenin’s mummification as an aspiration to place a socialist Russia in stasis until the global situation made a vigorous Russian socialism a possibility. After all, Lenin and the crew were not attempting a Russian revolution, but a world revolution, and the Soviet Union was an attempt to preserve it until revolution came to the advanced capitalist countries (especially Germany). Tragically, I do not know who had this reading, which makes attribution difficult (something I always try to do), so anyone who can place this idea can and should let me know. But with this understanding of Lenin’s tomb, I can see a reading of it in the reverse position. I can see this as suggesting that actions I take in order to make On Second Glance a long term project are making it a Waiting for Godot-situation. That is, my fears that make me try to make On Second Glance a timeless, blemish-less project, without a single mistake or ill-informed take, will only relegate it forever to obscurity. There will always be more context to a situation, more theoretical pieces one could read, but you have to strike a balance between being timely and being thorough. The safest option is to be overly thorough, but that means I often don’t strike while the iron’s hot. And it is this side of the spectrum that I need to try and steer away from.
Last but not least, this final card represents the outcome of your situation. And for this you’ve received the Three of Wands, or Lines of Flight.
Well it’s finally happened, I’m finally talking about a concept from Deleuze and Guattarri. Let me be really clear at the outset, I am still working on Deleuze and Guattari. I am almost finished with my first read-through Anti-Oedipus, while Difference and Repetition rests menacingly atop my “To Read” pile. Nonetheless, I will attempt to explain the line of flight as I understand it so far. The analogy I’ve find useful is that of an electrical circuit (which is very fitting, considering Deleuze and Guattarri’s concept of “desiring-machines”). You can think of various regimes of our social space (e.g. gender, nationality, religion, race, etc) as circuits. Like, take the example of how men and women are traditionally expected to interact. The man might do things that are coded as masculine, like working out, in order to win her over. Similarly, the woman might do things that are coded as feminine, like putting more effort into makeup or their outfit, in order to win him over. The man would be expected to take the initiative in the relationship, the woman to react. Should the relationship get very serious, the man would traditionally be expected to get permission to marry her from her parents (and particularly, her father). So you can imagine all of these connections to be something like to a complex circuit, where things like batteries and transistors and whatnot are replaced with social groups or structures.
But this is not the only way that social regime, or circuit, could be organized. Sometimes men win over women in ways other than being physically fit, sometimes women are the initiative-taking party in the relationship, and sometimes it is the man who gets proposed to. These are all different ways of reorganizing that circuit, of rearranging that social regime, but these are not lines of flight. The line of flight refers to anything that moves away from a particular social regime, something that opens up ways of being outside of a social regime. The line of flight is then liberatory, at least ideally. The most tangible example I’m aware of are the communes that popped up during the counter-cultural movements of the 1960s, like the hippie movement. These were very explicit attempts to create a way of living that existed outside of the social regime of capitalism (and often other regimes as well; gender, race, etc.), making these communes an example of a line of flight. If we wanted to return to the example of gender, one could probably argue that various queer identities (or perhaps, the idea of queerness itself) represents a line of flight. But I’d want to be more familiar with Deleuze and Guattari before I make that claim.
And what does this mean for On Second Glance, given that this is in the “The Outcome” position? I think there’s a fairly intuitive interpretation here. The outcome, the future of the On Second Glance project, is to discover a line of flight. Or maybe it is to become one, I could see either as a valid interpretation. And in a way, seeking out lines of flight has been a major aim of On Second Glance, whether I realized it or not. When I say I’m seeking out works or ideas that will “blow my brains out my ears”, I’m seeking out works and concepts that allow me (and others) to carve out existence in a fundamentally different way. Is that not the description of a line of flight? Because ideas are not just ideas, they have consequences for how we carry out our existence. Perhaps it’s a cliché to cite the OG, but here it feels fitting: “The philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.”
Author’s Note:
I again thank the whole Acid Horizon team for the early access to the Philosopher’s Tarot. In my attempt to give back and show solidarity, however small it may be, I encourage my readers to check out all the stuff by the Acid Horizon team. Podcasts, merchandise, blogs, all of their stuff is worth checking out!