Humor me: Indian philosophy has provided us with as many words that can be used to answer our questions, and Zen points to where words are not. Whether you surround the inarticulable space on either side or sit within it, it is the space that does not change, the constant. It's tempting to point to an answer as 'question's fruit of conclusion,' but is that accurate?

Using the word 'fruit' gave the space a different image. Didn't it? We were very close to picturing emptiness until I undid it by naming it. Naming something makes it a target. That initially seems helpful because we are good at aiming for targets. They give us a direction to proceed toward, but a problem arises when we find no strawberries in the inarticulate space.

All philosophies deal with the inarticulable space at some point. One tradition tells a very famous story that illustrates how eating a particular fruit leads us away from the divine. Perhaps you have heard of it. We will notice, however, that eating it isn't where the problem starts. It begins, for humans, in the naming.

Did you spot the other problematic word? Conclusion. Is there such a thing? At what point is something concluded, when it stands before you finished? Is it then 'done'? We could, on the contrary, make a strong case that, at that point, it has only begun.

Where is a conclusion to be found? If something is consummated, what about the resulting birth is conclusive? If relentless perpetuity is the answer we can articulate, its mirror is the one we cannot. If a singular answer that-can-make, the image and its reflection combined is the approximation of it.

The querent (one who seeks) will ask the cards to name something within what is invariably a paradox. Seeking and naming are two edges of the same razor and, unless we are diligent and discerning, we lose track of the deeper yin to cut through that duality even though to do so was the basis of our endeavor from the onset. Do we want questions answered, or do we want to cut through the bullshit?

What do we desire when seek-we-do? Satisfaction. Naming is satisfaction. Read the cards and name it. That is the tarot contract I often observe in the field. The initial satisfaction does allow us to walk away from the table, but a querent will soon realize that it has freed them only to recognize the next name they need. A ladder formed in a circle is a wheel.

We are left to deduce that we should, then, find the answer by not naming it. Yet our logic just concluded that naming was the thing that leads to satisfaction. Does it follow, then, that not-naming leads to dissatisfaction? If that is the case, given the fleeting nature of satisfaction, dissatisfaction starts to sound like what we are stuck with if we achieve even the best naming. So, it must be seeking that precedes dissatisfaction in either case.

If we neither name nor aim, it's because we have no question. Have we arrived? Is this the place to be?

—the space of no-question—

If dissatisfaction is the inevitable aftermath of conclusion, perhaps the best readings don't answer questions. They get rid of them.