THEFT

I often say that I find all the questions about relationships fascinating. I like the passion, the love and the hate, and the energy and dynamics in the playing of love games. But on occasions I come across questions from people that are of a metaphysical order.

Recently a woman wanted to know something about theft. Some 20 years back she had a brief affair that ended abruptly, but as the love was intense and of the kind you never forget, she has kept returning to it, spinning new narratives around it every time. And now to the interesting part: for all the pleasure in discovering new facets to the old love, one thing has always escaped her.

‘I have the feeling that this man stole something from me, and I from him. Though I can never quite get a clear picture as to what that is.’

‘Quite’, and ‘excellent,’ I thought. ‘Finally a question that goes somewhere.’ I’m a lover myself of such metaphysics of love and everything that it entails: obsession, passion, denial, and resistance. In other words: true love. The other kind bores me.

I did a reading of a three-card sequence side by side – one for her and one for him – and then this is how it went:

What the man stole from the woman:

The Empress, The Fool, The Charioteer

FullSizeRender_3

‘What he stole from you is your ‘virginity’. Look at how you keep that shield close to your belly, while almost stabbing yourself with the pointy end of that stick you’re holding in your hand. You resisted for a while, and then what? The man came along, dangled his dick on you, and moved on.’

‘Oh, he would brag about his conquest, would he not?’

‘I’ve no idea. I don’t know this man. But I suspect he wouldn’t be the first or the last to think that if he wins THAT, he’s a winner. Oh, dear.’

What the woman stole from the man:

Temperance, Judgment, The Pope

FullSizeRender_1

‘What you stole from him is far more serious than your own reputation. You stole his peace and balance, his sense of purpose and higher calling, and his ability to be a role model for his children. He may have fucked you, dear, and then play the idiot conquistador, but you fucked him harder.’

‘… … … … Ok, I know what my face looks like right now, but believe me, I think I know that. OMG, yes. I knew it. I absolutely knew this. I mean, this man, he thinks he’s so clever. Well, I’m not so clever myself still thinking about the schmuck, but believe me, there’s a reason. OMG, I’m so going to drink to myself tonight. I’ll be dammed. I needed this. I so needed this, believe me.’

‘I believe you.’

CONTRETEMPS

Now, the beauty of reading the cards consists precisely in being able to follow people’s experiences and then seeing how exuberantly they are ready for the next step – though sometimes they resist. But sometimes a woman simply needs to have it confirmed all over again, not that the man she loved was a bastard, but rather, that there’s retribution in the world. Poetic justice. As with the world of rationality, what proof could we possibly find for that which we know in our hearts, but cannot demonstrate? Rationality is of no good to us when what we need is to demonstrate to ourselves that our minds are in synch with our hearts, or simply the fact that if we can imagine it, it exists. Love, for example.

I told this woman what I thought of her situation, and why we ended up with what looks like a major imbalance. Unless a woman’s sexuality is everything to her, and her life depended on it, then ‘losing’ it to her own pleasure is not the worst that can happen to her. But for someone to lose his judgment, life force, and identity as payment for his foolish behavior discloses a serious breach with the universe.

The French would call this contretemps – in their romance novels, that is. I grew up with these novels, and I’ve always been fascinated with this concept of being off-beat that here clearly indicates the following: whereas there’s equally high passion in the relationship, there’s also a highly imbalanced recognition of it. That is, while the woman would have no qualms going full throttle on all levels, the man would do the same, but not in every aspect. He would, in fact, lie about the intensity of his own emotions and pretend to be indifferent. He would insist on telling himself that, beyond sex, there’d be nothing else. Eh, voilà, the next thing that would happen would be for him to experience irrevocable loss of his very self, of the forever kind. Of the kind that would have you do all sorts of other things to fill the void and kill the inner pain of the soul, but to no avail, of course. Without a self, there’s little you can do for yourself. That’s logical.

So my theory was that the reason why this woman got to steal so much from her man, while the man got to steal so little from her, has to do with this imbalance, or the situation of being in contretemps, or at odds with having said ‘yes’, when ‘yes’ was all that was needed. An affirmation of the power that each had on the other.

I wonder what kind of champagne our woman had once home, and after her epiphany. Though, as she said: she knew it. And who knows what her man is doing now? My guess is, plodding along like a fool, pretending that none of it has ever happened.

§

Note on the deck: Jean Noblet, 1650, as reconstructed by Jean-Claude Flornoy.

Advertisements

2 Comments

Add yours →

  1. rohinibabe@aol.com December 18, 2014 — 9:20 pm

    Marvelous!!!! I loved this…..!

  2. SOME COMMENTS LEFT ON FB:

    Edlira Vezelaj: Weird, I wrote the comment on the site, but something happened and it disappeared. See if I remember and rewrite it here . With the disclaimer that I am no relationship guru or in anyway associated with knowing how to tap into divine wisdom in any other medium than my reasoning skills, I would have to say, the man has actually stolen a lot more from the woman, that we know of anyway, as his account on the matter is and will remain obscure. He has stolen her peace of mind, either because he was a total schmuck, whose sense of achievement equalled conquering a pair of panties, or because he refused to play the role she cast him in, in order to solve some inner drama. Having said this, I hope her epiphany lasts and she gets to move on, in the view of the insight gained…though, I don’t know why, I doubt that.
    Unlike · Reply · 1 · 4 hours ago · Edited

    Camelia Elias’ Taroflexions: You raise a significant point, and yes, that is also a scenario. But what the cards clearly say beyond speculation is that whatever he stole from her, that memory, is now biting him in the butt. He looks back at her, while she is impassive. So, looking at the cards and working with them, we cannot say that she is disturbed in any way. In another context I’d even advance the argument that the creature following the Fool is her own ‘fetch’, the same image and familiar that embellishes her coat of arms. In other words, while he may have left – yet living with a biting memory, in a way thus still with her – she has more power over him, as yet. I’ll stick to my guns and pity him more than I do her. This latter suggestion, of the woman sending something off to haunt the man, presupposes, of course, that she’s interested in maintaining some power over him, still. The only question that remains here, then, is why? Ah, well, I have a hunch, but that would be another post.
    Like · Reply · 1 · 2 hours ago

    Edlira Vezelaj: I love your way of thinking and deductive reasoning, and taking the truth of the cards, I agree he might be haunted by her memory, or his own choices, but the very fact she feels compelled to inquire about him, witnesses, in my book, that he exercises the same power on her. His might be a pain of regret, hers just that of a grieving never gotten over.
    Unlike · Reply · 1 · 2 hours ago · Edited

    Camelia Elias’ Taroflexions: Yes, but look at the images. She is an Empress, he a Fool. She knows her worth, he doesn’t. That makes all the difference. If she inquires about him, then it is from this position of power, not miserable predicament.
    Like · Reply · 2 hours ago

    Edlira Vezelaj: Could be I am mistanken, but the Empress seems to need some closure, regardless of her ‘title and position’. And in my view the one who knows most, suffers most…the fool knows only as much…and can feel only as much…Thus, he is not aware of the power he exercises or perhaps the extent of the ‘damage’ caused, regardless of what nature. The Empress, does not seem to be reflecting on her past…she seems to be stuck there, giving this way, her power away.
    Unlike · Reply · 1 · 2 hours ago · Edited

    Camelia Elias’ Taroflexions: Excellent analysis. And yes. The Fool is not a fool for nothing. He who knows little suffers little. But here we have the Fool turn into a Charioteer. Why the need for the shining armor? What’s he trying to prove? Why the need to impress her with his image, as he looks back at her? So the Fool is not the merely unconscious here, but more. Perhaps that’s why she still has her power engaged, because she needs to fend off the Fool’s entitlement. Look at the horses. They seem to turn the wagon around, back to her. I think she’s waiting for him. Unfinished business.

    Dana Bê: …howl } ^..^___~
    5 hrs · Unlike · 1

    Steph Engert: Amazing!
    4 hrs · Unlike · 1

    Camelia Elias: What’s amazing is how the cards fall. Perfect.

    Paul H Richard: absolutely fascinating… I have never seen any one read cards as you do.
    4 mins · Unlike · 1

    Camelia Elias: Ha, ha, thanks. I absolutely breathe the cards. They fill my brain with a lot of power. I’m very grateful for them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: