The things you possess eventually possess you
We enter into Arcane IIII, the Emperor
THE ILLUSION OF POSSESSION
In modern Western society, the individual tends to think that he or she owns objects, professions, pets, sometimes people. Everything has a price and money is perceived as the primary means of obtaining what is desired. Having grown up in this context myself, I have developed within myself the idea that without money one goes nowhere, imagining an unspecified correlation with the concept of happiness, understood in terms of fertility and productivity. This does not mean that money has no value or that it is - as Jacques Le Goff said - 'the devil's dung'.
Money, like everything that exists on this planet, is nothing but a tool, a method, a means. Translated into computer terms, it is a variable that, depending on the value it acquires at a given point in the code, will determine the execution of some conditions rather than others.
I can use my money by spending it completely on alcohol and cigarettes or I can make a long-term investment or buy a television. There are no better or worse choices. Rather, there can be stupid or smart choices depending on the context one finds oneself in. Regardless, the idea that money and possessions somehow go hand in hand is widespread. The logical consequence is that the value the Western individual tends to place on himself is directly proportional to what he possesses or rather, as I will explain in this article through the symbolic language of the Tarot, to what he believes he possesses.
Before moving on to the next part, it is necessary to analyse the meaning of the verb 'to possess'. The etymological dictionary traces this term to the Greek root 'pròs', meaning 'above' and 'sidere', meaning 'to sit'. We infer from this that the expression 'sitting on top of something' is equivalent to possessing it. The dictionary also juxtaposes the word 'pòsis' - 'master' - and 'posse' - 'powerful'. The etymon is therefore telling us that the meaning of 'possess' is equivalent to that of 'power'. I possess and therefore I am powerful. I dominate everything from the height of my possessions. All very clear, I hope also to the reader.
Starting from this etymological assumption, it is good to give some practical examples of what we in Western society tend to presume to possess. I will then try to analyse them one by one to make you understand how in reality everything we think we possess is the fruit of an illusion. A deception - surely induced - to which we voluntarily decide to submit and which inevitably leads us to avoid doing what nature has configured us for as human beings: living.
A very accessible example, already presented in some previous articles, is that of the automobile. In all my work experiences, including my current one, I have always noticed the same process. I myself have been part of it. One of the first things a new employee does a few months after being hired is to buy a car. I will obviously use it to go to work, where I will receive a monthly salary that will allow me to pay for it. The same reasoning can be made with anything. A house, a mortgage, the pram for the child, etc. I start accumulating things, some of them with long-term payments. Having reached this point of reasoning, the question I ask myself is: is it really all mine? I answer with a further practical example. The car I bought is stolen and I have no insurance to cover this eventuality. Result? I no longer have a car. Of course, some may argue that these situations are rare. However, the eventuality exists and this makes me think that I never actually owned that car. Let us now make the same argument with a house. I have a steady job, I go to the bank, apply for the mortgage - having all the papers in order to get it - and start paying the instalments with a monthly withdrawal from my current account. Let's assume that tomorrow the company I work for closes its doors and I am left 'in the lurch'. In most cases, banks establish what is called a mortgage, i.e. a security right that ensures the fulfilment of an obligation, in this case the payment of the loan.
At this point, the bank can foreclose on my house and I am forced to leave. Once again, the assumption that I never actually owned that house is confirmed. We can also extend the example to people. I think of a relationship and the thought that one's partner can be regarded as a kind of possession.
Already the fact of expressing oneself as 'MY girlfriend/my boyfriend' is a contradiction in terms. If tomorrow my girlfriend were to fall in love with someone else, which is far from impossible, she would not hesitate to leave me and go away. This means that the thought of being able to 'own' a partner or a person in general is nothing but an illusion, a lie that we deliberately choose to believe.
EXPERIENCE IS THE REAL POWER
As you may have noticed, I am making purely objective arguments. It is therefore not important how much these concepts may disturb or please/dislike. These are logical-deductive reconstructions relating to contexts in which everyone, bar none, has faced at least once in their lives. That sense of emptiness we feel when a relationship breaks down is nothing more than the fruit of an illusion. The idea that something or someone may have somehow been under our dominion or, taking the etymological meaning of the word possess, over which I may have somehow been sitting. Metaphorically it is a perfect image. Me sitting on top of a house, a car, a dog or a person. Isn't that ridiculous?
The next step is the answer to a further question. If everything I 'think' I possess, according to logic perfectly compatible with the social context in which I am placed, can potentially be taken away from me at any time, what can I possess in real terms? And helping me again with the meaning that the etymon has made available to me, what is it that really makes me powerful? We already have quite a baggage of objects to exclude from the list. Houses, cars, one's profession, etc.
The reality, the only possible one, is that the one thing that no one and nothing can ever take away from me is the sum of my experiences. What I personally have experienced and perceived in the course of my existence. Which means that a bank can take the roof off my head, but it can never take away everything I have experienced under that roof and the emotions I have felt. The same applies to the car. No thief will ever be able to take away from me the experience of the journeys that that vehicle has allowed me to make and the feelings I have had driving all those kilometres on the motorway. No one will be able to take away from me the emotion of laying a hand on my girlfriend's leg as I drove towards Rome. And if my company were to fire me tomorrow, no one could ever deprive me of the know-how that I have acquired over the years and that will surely be useful in future experiences. Everything that I 'think' I possess is actually granted to me by proxy.
The real power lies in the experience that is generated when using certain tools. Matter represents one of the four fundamental centres around which the existence of every soul on the journey revolves, but without experience it is an end in itself, leading to no result.
THE EMPEROR
Arcane IIII, the Emperor, is the number that helps to better understand this aspect of reality. When the figure of an emperor is evoked to mind, one famously thinks of a throne, a sceptre, a crown, vassals and probably walls to protect. The Arcanum depicts a bearded man facing to his right. He is holding a sceptre and a crown, connotations that evoke the concept of power. The eagle drawn on the throne is a symbol of intellect and is on a blue background, almost as if to emphasise its nature declined towards the heavens. The wisdom of the Emperor finds its complete form in the Hermit, Arcane IX, already mentioned in a previous article. Although it cannot be seen, the reason why he turns his gaze to his right is because that is where the Empress, Arcanum III, is to be found, always at his side to complete the man-woman form, the archetype of unity, perfection and maximum (pro)creative power.
The Emperor speaks to us of 'government' and not 'possession'. He decides who will be the most competent personalities to carry out certain roles within the kingdom, in which he gains experience, without deluding himself that he possesses it.
On the other hand, should there be an invasion by an army antagonistic to him, there would be the possibility that that fief could pass into the hands of others. An eventuality that is always possible, at every stage of his rule. This is precisely why he guarantees peace and prosperity, so that the moment that situation should arise, the fief is ready to act - and not react. The Emperor places trust in his collaborators, who will always do their utmost to fulfil the community's welfare. The defence of the territory for the emperor is essential. Boundaries must be established, that is for sure, but one must always consider that these are arbitrary boundaries. Nevertheless, they must be respected and this must be made clear through diplomacy and eloquence, typical characters of the guarantor of a kingdom.
An Arcanum IIII in the 'big' numbers of the map speaks to us of leadership skills, typically masculine attitudes and inclined towards testosterone (or progesterone in women). He tends towards orientation and does not dwell on problems, but on solutions. He is inclined to make decisions, sometimes too hasty, if the Arcanum is experienced in conflict. He may confuse command with management and consequently identify with his own territory. Precisely for this reason, from a biological point of view, an IIII Arcane may suffer more from conflicts of threat, attack or invasion in the territory. These are emotional resentments which, however, find little room in an Emperor who is fully aware of his own limits and of the fact that a possible loss of territory would not put a damper on his right to exist. Command therefore I exist? No, I rule therefore I exist. There is a subtle but fundamental difference.
We must also remember that the Emperor closes the first 'arc' of the Major Arcana, that which from the point of view of the soul's experience in the material world is regarded as a phase with an incomplete, immature form. As such, it is not defective, but is nevertheless bent on expansion and understanding reality. The emperor turns towards the pope, who will ferry the soul into the world of the emotions. The water and the angel. The doubt and the non-choice.
Whenever I need to enforce the boundaries I have set for survival or whenever I need to coordinate projects and manage the work of others, I will enter Arcanum IIII, acquiring 'management' skills. I will be able to be authoritative and not authoritarian. I will lead my collaborators to trust me totally, as my well-being will also be theirs. When I have the perception that I am losing the reins of what I feel is my territory, I will be able to look at it from another point of view, experiencing the hormonal frustration that nature has arranged for me in these eventualities. I will enter a more climatic and welcoming condition, so that in the future I will be able to accept situations like these with a more mature and considered attitude.
THE THINGS YOU OWN EVENTUALLY OWN YOU
Fight Club is a 1999 David Fincher film, based on the book of the same name by Chuck Palaniuk. In this film, the protagonist finds himself with a flat on fire due to an electrical fault. This will lead him to get in touch with his alter-ego, Tyler Durden, who will lead him to realise that it is not what has been lost that gives him the right to exist. He will understand that his existence actually depends on other variables, such as detachment from matter for its own sake and love for a woman, Marla Singer, who is certainly not the archetype of the classic family wife. A woman without possessions who, like him, finds relief in observing the pain of others, experienced in attending support groups among the terminally ill, former alcoholics and drug addicts. It is a story that in my opinion renders very well the concept that, as Tyler Durden says in a well-known scene in the film, 'the things you own eventually own you'. I close this article with a link to the entire dialogue between the protagonist, played by Edward Norton, and his alter-ego Tyler, played by Brad Pitt. Rarely have I heard such a wealth of real and irrefutable information in just a few minutes of film. Make yourselves comfortable.