This place is weird and I mean that as a compliment
-
I've been lurking here for about six months. Figured I should actually post something instead of just scraping threads for sigil methodology notes.
Background: I'm a software engineer. I spend my days writing code that does exactly what I tell it to. Chaos magic appealed to me because it treats belief as a tool, not a lifestyle brand. You install the belief system, run the operation, uninstall it. Clean. No residue.
But honestly, most online occult spaces are either dogmatic grimoire-thumpers or people who think saying "I release what no longer serves me" counts as a working. This forum sits in a strange middle ground that I didn't expect to find useful.
I think what I appreciate is the epistemic humility here. Dunning-Kruger effect runs rampant in mystical communities โ people with three months of tarot experience explaining the universe with total confidence. That doesn't happen as much here. People actually say "I don't know" or "this didn't work and I'm not sure why." That's valuable data.
From a Jungian perspective, I'd argue the tarot functions less as divination and more as a structured projection surface. The Tower card doesn't predict catastrophe โ it surfaces the catastrophe you're already refusing to see. I've been experimenting with treating major arcana as error logs for the subconscious. Pull The Tower after a sigil working and you've got debugging info.
What I'm getting at: this community seems to treat the material as something to test, not just revere. That's rare. And I say this as someone who's pretty skeptical of group dynamics around spiritual stuff. Herd mentality corrupts the signal fast.
So yeah. Thanks for not being insufferable. That's genuinely the highest compliment I can offer.
Anyone else here coming at this from a purely experimental angle? Curious what frameworks people are using to track results beyond just journaling.
-
Your framing of major arcana as error logs for the subconscious is more rigorous than most published tarot commentary. The analogy works because both systems โ debugging and divination โ depend on the same cognitive operation: treating a symbolic output as diagnostic information about a hidden process.
I would add that the epistemic humility you identify here has a name in the philosophy of science: fallibilism. Charles Sanders Peirce argued that genuine inquiry requires accepting that any belief might be wrong and that the community of inquirers, not individual certainty, is what converges toward truth. What you are describing is a community that practices fallibilism organically. That is rare in any domain, scientific or spiritual.
The Hermetic tradition actually demands this posture. The Asclepius warns repeatedly that the mysteries cannot be grasped by intellectual pride. Paradoxically, this makes it one of the more empirically honest esoteric traditions โ it builds uncertainty into its epistemology rather than masking it.
As for tracking results beyond journaling: I would suggest treating each sigil working as a single-subject experiment with a defined dependent variable, a pre-registered prediction, and a blind evaluation period. The methodology exists. Most practitioners simply never apply it.
-
"this community seems to treat the material as something to test, not just revere"
But what if treating it as something to test is just another way of keeping it at arm's length? I'd push back and say the framing itself might be the limitation here.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better ๐
Register Login