When I was in my early teens, well before becoming a chemical engineer, I developed a bit of an interest in alchemy and the occult. The history and preoccupations of Bacon, Flamel, Newton and Crowley sparked a curiosity in medieval chemistry and the rituals of the ancient quest for truth. At some point, I became aware of the card game of Tarocchi, believed to have originated in Italy in the early to mid-15th century, and more recently known as TAROT.
Later, my older brother, who was studying chemical engineering at university, explained what that discipline involved and I had an epiphany moment that altered my future career direction. It transpires that all chemical engineers are, in some way, alchemists in search of their own philosopher’s stone.
Anyway, like modern playing cards, Tarot cards originated as a game device that evolved into a deck of four suits (or pips) with vivid illustrations. Tarot decks also featured a special trump suit, called the Major Arcana, containing unique, allegorical pictures with single word titles. Cards like “The Hanged Man”, “The Wheel of Fortune”, “The Tower” and “Death”, took on strangely prophetic meanings. But this was a card game.
It was only in the late 19th century that adoptees in Europe purportedly began to use the cards for divinatory purposes, in part because the illustrations on the cards and their associated descriptions were thought to have powerful, personally predictive meanings. The association of supernatural powers to Tarot and the rise of new-age counter-culture became and remain intensely popular. The cards acquired a paranormal mystique.
Today, I don’t buy the phenomena of psychic prediction. Images of old, scarf-turbaned women in velvet robes, leaning over a small table to candlelight and foretelling impending doom or imminent romance with the turn of a card is merely quaint. But I remain fascinated that a simple, pretty set of cards with word pictures can be so evocative? Why do so many people claim Tarot can provide such profound insight?
As a chemical engineer who has spent more than my fair share of time facilitating hazard and risk workshops, and particularly Hazard and Operability Studies – HAZOP – I can’t help but see some simple similarities with TAROT.
We use a series of guidewords [cards] with defined meanings to attempt to prompt, identify and understand [divine] possible hazards [futures] within a process design [aspects of a querent’s life]. The skill of the facilitator [the card reader] lies in the robust and universal application of guidewords and process deviations [interpretation of card meanings] to design and operating parameters [the querent’s personal circumstances and stated questions] to illicit key information and to challenge the design’s robustness [foretell the future]. Good facilitators [card readers] usually exhibit significant design and operating experience [are sage old women with insight!]. The output of this technique is aimed at helping the client [querent] optimise the design [inform or alter their future]. The similarities are there. The end goals are somewhat the same (e.g. to prevent a hazardous event or promote a desired outcome). Even the execution bares some similarity. I do, however, draw a line at the coincidence of both words being abbreviations, sharing identical vowel placement and 5 letter lexicology! Thankfully, HAZOP workshops are rarely held in dimly lit rooms with crystal balls and warty facilitators!
There is of course one fundamental difference between HAZOP and TAROT. HAZOP is based on deliberate, methodical science applied by trained, experienced facilitators. It relies on team-based, factual, Socratic enquiry and there is genuine determination to prevent accidents, incidents and operational mishap. The focus in HAZOP is on causes of hazards and the opportunity to eliminate consequences and safeguards through careful design. There is solid psychology in its implementation, and the results must be transparent and defensible.
Tarot card readings, however sincerely delivered and historically traceable, always involve a large element of randomness, intuition and guesswork. There is a notable fixation upon consequences and determinism and less emphasis upon design. It more often exists for prompted introspection and entertainment. It is after all based on a game.
Each has its place.
If you want your HAZOPs delivered with less mystical foreboding and more factual pragmatism give OW&L a call.
