If we don't monitor our information diets carefully, our cerebral lives quickly become bloated. Attention gets diverted; conversations and trains-of-thought interrupted; skepticism short-circuited; stillness and silence all but eliminated.—David Shenk
Proof, or at least some interesting data suggesting, that some "norms" are pathological, has been reported recently. Note also this prophecy.
Now, there are all kinds of norms in our various cultures and subcultures. There are even anti-norm norms, which are alleged to demonstrate the specialness of a group by establishing its difference from some dominant or larger group.
Thus, the anti-norm establishment in Tarot these days favors a very female-oriented, emotionalized Tarot versus the astringently intellectualized (thus male) occult Tarot of the secret orders. The norms of the Femrot group have generally been described as postmodern, emphasizing the anti-authoritarian aspect of that aesthetic.
The irony in Tarot is that the anti-authoritarian aspect of that aesthetic is highly dependent upon occult authority and tradition nevertheless. Few original ideas of any value have seeped off the cards of the pomo decks to establish the authority of a new tradition. The very term pomo-Tarot suggests there is something lacking (or something unnecessarily added) in these decks, which because of the norm of inclusiveness professed by pomos, is OK. After all, the Tarot subculture is a pretty lackluster pack of—cards. It needs that inclusion norm or rule to survive.
Again, ironically, much that is of a critical nature towards the new norm is often censored as an act of protecting the group from disturbing or transgressive messages. The idea there is of course to bolster the now dominant image, both of Tarot and of the majority of its modern practitioners, by protecting the group from true inclusivity, and its potentially detrimental effects.
Now, we have evidence in the form of a study on obesity, an affliction well represented in the Tarot communes, that "the spread of norms from person to person" can be absolutely pathological. It deals with "the spread of obesity through a social network" and is suggested to be one plausible explanation for the current obesity epidemic in the United States.
Bravely upbeat thin token shunned by table of typical Tarot-tubbies.
According to the New England Journal of Medicine, the poor girl will
soon be fat-bombed into obesity (note ominous Nine of Swords in her
spread) by hanging with these friends. Look, even their Tarot cards
We are told that already grotesquely fat Americans (66% of adults are overweight!!) may manage in the next few years to reach a 40% obesity level in the population. Obesity isn't just overweight, it is "grossly fat", usually defined as being at least 20% heavier than one's "ideal weight" or a BMI ≥30. Of course, the "ideal" is what is being argued here, since the perception of that has gotten so obese in the minds of so many Americans that fat hulking monstrosities of blubber are now considered normal. Chairs have had to be widened, cars and even homes increased in size so that fat people will feel as if they fit. The surviving thin people of America are being strangled by the increasing—really increasing—ranks of the land whales.
And now, we are being told that fat is in fact not only dangerous to the health of the obese people, but to the decreasing numbers of thin people as well. In fact, the more fat people that are in the population, and particularly allowed into "social networks", the more fat people will continue to increase in the population. Therefore, as a health precaution, fat people should be rejected from any social network that does not itself wish to become obese.
On the flip side, thin people can allegedly induce weight loss in fat people isolated from their leviathan social networks. In other words, if a gaunt group adopts a pet blubberball for a token fat friend, they may be able to shame him into losing some fucking weight! But the question is, given the demonstrably unfortunate effects of the obese on any social network in which they are involved, why should the thin people wish to afflict their networks in this obviously dangerous manner?
In short, having a fat friend is no different than having a friend that smokes, except the latter can be asked not to poison you while you're in his presence (and if he wants you as a friend, he'll snuff the cancerstick); whereas if you ask your fat friend not to afflict your healthy norms with his pathological pork, you'll be called insensitive or perhaps a blubber bigot.
Bottom line, we are seriously affected, even to the point of wrecking our health, by the people with whom we choose to associate. If we hang with fat people, we are likely to get fat ourselves. If we hang with fatheaded people, promoting stupid notions about Tarot and all kinds of things, we are likely to think their fatuousness normal, and shall sloth into mental obesity—no doubt compounded by the physical sort as well.
The most important lesson in occult Tarot has always been that a person should stand up for and by his true self. Thus, he must learn what that is and then learn what he is supposed to do about it when he obtains this understanding. This is clearly a call to rise above the madding, fattening, herd, and to seek out a truth that is not merely the received groupthink of the gobbling hoi polloi.
Tarot should take us higher and deeper, and those places are naturally inimical to the establishment of communes. They are hermetic, austere, and not aimed at coddling one's needy, bloat-seeking, self esteem. On the contrary, they are Tower-shattering Works of spiritual refinement, aiming to produce as much (perfection) with as little (you) as possible.
Today's health chant (good for Tarotic and more worldly applications):
less, little, small, thin—GOOD!!
more, big, super-sized, fat stupid American!!—BAD!!
Now stop fucking eating you fat fuck!!!!!
And if that hurt your feelings, good! Your feelings are killing you, and other people too.