View Full Version : There was a wish: A new Forum
Inside the "Frege's riddle" thread appeared the wish, that the history section of the Tarotforum should get a new Forum, which would mean, that instead the 5 old groups 6 groups should exist.
It seems appropriate to make the suggestion clear:
1. What name?
2. What should be the range of the topics?
3. What should be the rules?
4. Is there opposition against a new Forum?
5. Is there any other personal remark?
************
I suggest to express your opinion, especially, if you really desire the new Forum, as it was discussed. It might help to realize this interest.
My own position:
I'm neutral beside the point, that the Forum essentially should really differ from the other 5 Forums.
I do not promise to use this new Forum.
I think, that the rules should be chosen by those, who really desire the new Forum (and somehow show a stronger interest to use it).
Perhaps the group of those, who promote this new forum idea, could setup a poll.
A too-long title might be:
"Speculation on History, Ideas and Philosophies"
I also propose a sticky "READ THIS FIRST" at the top of this section and the Historical Research section clarifying the topics and protocols. I'm willing to contribute, but I think the comments should be kept short and allow for some latitude.
Mary
cardlady22
27-03-2012, 05:59
I am in favor of creating a new forum area. I have always read threads here in History and Iconography, but have no knowledge to contribute to strict historical discussion. As I am unable to read other source languages, I have to take anyone's word that their translation is what a work means/says.
nemodomi
27-03-2012, 07:43
"Speculation on History, Ideas and Philosophies"
It seems to me that this is already subsumed under the word "theories" in the following.
"'Historical Research': Research, studies and theories on the origins and development of Tarot and playing cards."
But we aren't able to post and discuss theories in the historical area without someone demanding proof and saying if there isn't any evidence it shouldn't be in historical.
I liked a title Teheuti suggested - Flights of Fancy - and someone else had Rare Conceits. Both make it very clear that this would not - at least primarily - be an evidence based area.
Solandia has already been asked about this, as the original thread says - and only she can decide. But whatever it is, it needs to be explicitly stated that it would not be for serious historians to demand proof about everything. Because that precision has killed some delightfully speculative threads.
It need not even come under historical; it could be under talking tarot, as that would perhaps bother historians less - at the moment threads like that tend to be seen as OT for tarot, and not OK in historical.
Laura Borealis
27-03-2012, 08:09
It seems to me that this is already subsumed under the word "theories" in the following.
"'Historical Research': Research, studies and theories on the origins and development of Tarot and playing cards."
Theory and speculation are two different things. Theory needs to be grounded in the research of the topic. Speculation can be purely conjectural.
I'd like to see a separate forum for speculation.
But whatever it is, it needs to be explicitly stated that it would not be for serious historians to demand proof about everything. Because that precision has killed some delightfully speculative threads.
Agreed, and this is exactly why a separate forum is desirable.
closrapexa
27-03-2012, 08:57
Perhaps it should be called "Fairy Tales?" :)
But seriously, as I stated in the original thread, I am not in favor of another forum dedicated to speculation, and not because I am an intellectual snob, or live in an ivory tower of smug knowledge. On the contrary, I barely post in the Historical forum as I know almost nothing of what they discuss, and merely read the posts in order to learn, and I have. I am dwarfed time and time again by the knowledge the posters there display and share, and if it has its own rules, so be it, and I support those rules.
I'm fine with not knowing everything, and I see no need to "make up history" because I don't know the real one. Not everything in Tarot needs to be a gray area, intuitive, made up or subjective. If anyone were to show a desire to post in the Historical forum, I would recommend they do what everyone else there does and did, which is, namely, read.
I think that topics that cannot be proven, such as the connection of cave paintings to Tarot (as was suggested in the original thread, and I am impatient for that poster (hint, hint!) to post about it already) or the hidden esoteric development of it could find a place in Talking Tarot, which should perhaps have its guidelines changed in order to accommodate those kinds of topics.
If the majority wants a new forum, then I'm fine with that, and although I don't support it, I can't promise I won't post there, and I hope it is as good as people say it will be, and I hope it will make me change me mind. As it stands, though, I'm a little skeptical.
(ETA: I do think, however, as was suggested in the Frege thread, that Kabbalah is the odd one out there, and that it should be moved. But that's just an aside, and I'm meh about it)
Kosjitov
27-03-2012, 09:16
Calling it "Flights of Fancy" or "Fairy Tales" may look to possible users that the topics within aren't serious in nature, though I'm quite certain that those who wish to discuss the conjectures are serious about this. Just 2 cents, since if I saw that I would be expecting raw myth or old family stories rather than people who want to discuss mere ideas rather than totally made up stuff. Casual reader opinion. <skitters out before anyone throws books>
philebus
27-03-2012, 09:48
I suppose much rests on what the purpose of this speculation is intended to be. If it is to drive new directions of thought and investigation in learning the truth, ie history, then ultimately it must be subject to rigourous critique or it cannot begin to contribute to that goal.
However, if the speculations are not to be open to serious critique, then something like 'flights of fancy' would be right, as that is all it can amount to. However, if ithey are to be open to critique, then the existing forum should be sufficient. It is not that historians object to speculative threads, they object when such threads are poorly presented to look as if they are intended to be something more substantial. Let's be generous and call this a misunderstanding - something that can be dealt with by posting a clear guide for posters, one that goes so far as to suggest how best to present a post so that such errors won't happen again.
My Guardian Angel keeps telling me to get the hell out of this discussion. *swats Guardian Angel off right shoulder fondly*
eta: He's persistent. I'm taking his advice.
It seems to me that this is already subsumed under the word "theories" in the following.
"'Historical Research': Research, studies and theories on the origins and development of Tarot and playing cards."
We could take the word 'theories' out since historians understand the word differently than does the general public. Also, the existing section is not really the place for a more free-wheeling discussion of the history of ideas and philosophies, much less pet theories about the Tarot being a remnant of stone-age culture.
Is the Tarot part of an underground stream in which it was known to Jacob Boehme, Raymond Llull, Paracelsus, Swedenborg, etc.? Perhaps something will come to light.
cardlady22
27-03-2012, 11:05
Tarot Myth: Ideology, Mystery, & Possibility
Stormdancer
27-03-2012, 11:05
Wow. Y'all just need a playground...the lighter side of Tarot History & Iconography.
Luminosa
27-03-2012, 11:14
I like Cardlady 22's suggestion.
The crowned one
27-03-2012, 12:24
If it is speculation, it is not necessarily history. History is the study of past events. Speculations based on historic data and the events around the history of your topic make sense and we have a forum for it... but speculations based on personal idea's with a foundation only the one speculating can connect the dots to is likely not history, it is fantasy.
I think enough is known about tarot that many of the alternative branches can be decisively discounted. If there is a new forum I would not like to see it as a sub forum in history, but rather in talking tarot, since we are asking for opinions :) I at one time had a pet theory the cards (Mamluks) came originally from Persian carpet designs, the symbols in them were taken out and put onto paper... I no longer believe this and I was able to disprove it fairly well before talking about it ( until now) on a forum. ;)
Where should the History of ideas go? It's never really fit in the Historical Research section.
from Wikipedia:
"The history of ideas is a field of research in history that deals with the expression, preservation, and change of human ideas over time. The history of ideas is a sister-discipline to, or a particular approach within, intellectual history. Work in the history of ideas may involve interdisciplinary research in the history of philosophy, the history of science, or the history of literature."
Titadrupah
27-03-2012, 12:48
Talking Tarot forum is great, but in its scope you'll find things from "Why is one deck (not) enough?" to "Looking online for new decks " and "Printing your own decks? "
Maybe focusing on certain topics would do us good...
Stormdancer
27-03-2012, 13:27
Talking Tarot forum is great, but in its scope you'll find things from "Why is one deck (not) enough?" to "Looking online for new decks " and "Printing your own decks? "And the problem is???
Where should the History of ideas go? It's never really fit in the Historical Research section.Perhaps not the "Historical Research"...why not Tarot History & Iconography"?"
Again. Why not just have a spot for random musings??? Why is this such an issue? I, for one, am fascinated by TCO's mention of rugs. I WILL be looking at what my feet are trodding upon....JUST FOR FUN....and maybe something else? ( And YES, I am AWARE that my grammar is wrong...or just awkward. Did you understand my post? Then I HAVE communicated)
Titadrupah
27-03-2012, 14:43
Talking Tarot forum is great, but in its scope you'll find things from "Why is one deck (not) enough?" to "Looking online for new decks " and "Printing your own decks? "
Maybe focusing on certain topics would do us good...
And the problem is???
There is no problem, the PROPOSAL is a forum/group with a relatively particular focus.
There is no problem, the PROPOSAL is a sub-Forum with a relatively particular focus.
Just to have it clear:
I think, the proposal is, that the meta-group "Tarot History & Iconography" get's a 6th group, independent from the 5 other groups of the mentioned meta-group, as there are:
"Marseilles & Other Early Decks
The symbolism of Marseilles, Visconti and other pre-1910 Tarot decks, and how to read with them.
Rider-Waite-Smith
Study of the symbolism and detail of the original Rider-Waite Tarot.
Thoth Tarot
Aleister Crowley's and Lady Frieda Harris's Thoth Tarot.
Historical Research
Research, studies and theories on the origins and development of Tarot and playing cards.
Kabbalah & Alphabets
Jewish mysticism and its esoteric use, alphabets, and their application to Tarot."
The Thoth-group has a sub-forum: Golden Dawn Traditions ... I didn't understand, that something like this was intended.
Titadrupah
27-03-2012, 17:30
I was referring to what you call a group, as a sub-forum. But yes, it would be a 6th group. I just corrected my post.
I was referring to what you call a group, as a sub-forum. But yes, it would be a 6th group. I just corrected my post.
Okay.
Actually I don't know about the procedere, how Aeclectic build new groups. One condition is, that enough persons express their interest in the project. Another might be, that Aeclectic is surely interested to have Forums with some content, and not Forums, which don't get their life.
So actually it might be, that the suggestion will be made from Aeclectic to start the new forum as a subforum of another already existing Forum, perhaps connected to the promise, that it will become a "full accepted forum", if a specific number of threads and post is reached.
As a comparison ... the Golden Dawn subforum has now 66 threads and about 1200 posts. And it is (still ?) a subforum.
I suppose much rests on what the purpose of this speculation is intended to be. If it is to drive new directions of thought and investigation in learning the truth, ie history, then ultimately it must be subject to rigourous critique or it cannot begin to contribute to that goal.
However, if the speculations are not to be open to serious critique, then something like 'flights of fancy' would be right, as that is all it can amount to. However, if they are to be open to critique, then the existing forum should be sufficient. It is not that historians object to speculative threads, they object when such threads are poorly presented to look as if they are intended to be something more substantial. Let's be generous and call this a misunderstanding - something that can be dealt with by posting a clear guide for posters, one that goes so far as to suggest how best to present a post so that such errors won't happen again.
The issue is that the self-defined REAL historians here - whenever a theory is posted for speculation on what might be true (see under Behenian stars where - for once - it didn't happen) leap upon the posters who want to discuss it (discussion is NOT the same as criticism, BTW: I happen to hate the word critique here; "criticism" is perfectly valid, meaning the same thing, and does NOT intrinsically mean negative feeling and finding fault) - and effectively say if you aren't a proper historian like us, and cannot adduce proof, go away - you don't belong here. This has been going on so long that I am not sure how it can be ended without a subforum for these discussions, where these people who pour cold water on speculative discussion of unsubtantiated theory can have it pointed out that speculative theories are allowed.
I would agree that there have been threads where someone has tried to state things as facts that are clearly shown not to be, and that it is very annoying when they keep saying "but I believe it so it is a fact." As one trained in music, I would be very annoyed if someone started a thread to argue that Beethoven lived before Mozart was born, and carried on saying but if you look at xyz, as Mozart used it and Beethoven didn't, he must have come later, or something. But that isn't how the killing of speculative discussion usually happens.
Tarot Myth: Ideology, Mystery, & Possibility
Not Myth - that immediately suggests it isn't "true" - and some speculations might turn out to be.
If it is speculation, it is not necessarily history. History is the study of past events. Speculations based on historic data and the events around the history of your topic make sense and we have a forum for it...
One in which those who say they know best stamp on such speculation with a mighty boot.
but speculations based on personal ideas with a foundation only the one speculating can connect the dots to is likely not history, it is fantasy.If you think you can connect the dots and want to get other people to try and help - being stamped on is unhelpful and unpleasant.
I think enough is known about tarot that many of the alternative branches can be decisively discounted. If there is a new forum I would not like to see it as a sub forum in history, but rather in talking tarot, since we are asking for opinions :) I at one time had a pet theory the cards (Mamluks) came originally from Persian carpet designs, the symbols in them were taken out and put onto paper... I no longer believe this and I was able to disprove it fairly well before talking about it ( until now) on a forum. ;)
I'd have liked to see that as a thread. Even if not true, the links with the designs would have been fascinating.
Titadrupah
27-03-2012, 19:15
Huck: A celebrity death match can always be organized if the numbers turn out to be low. Two or three mentions of pyramids and gypsies and bloodthirst would be aroused instantly, for the benefit of all audiences. Rating guaranteed. ; )
Yygdrasilian
27-03-2012, 21:36
Call it "Arcadia" -where myth & history intermingle, and truth may yet be traced from our shadows...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Et_in_Arcadia_ego#Interpretation
Huck: A celebrity death match can always be organized if the numbers turn out to be low. Two or three mentions of pyramids and gypsies and bloodthirst would be aroused instantly, for the benefit of all audiences. Rating guaranteed. ; )
That is EXACTLY what I would like to see an end to. Why SHOULDN'T people be allowed to talk about pyramids or gypsies without being constantly called out ? Just because it has been pretty ,much disproved doesn't mean it cannot be interesting as a springboard. But if that is going to be the attitude, that kind of makes my case about how the less pleasant among the self-titled SERIOUS HISTORIANS will always treat us lesser mortals who like to bandy about interesting ideas
DAMN that's sad.
cardlady22
27-03-2012, 23:39
Not Myth - that immediately suggests it isn't "true" - and some speculations might turn out to be.:grin: I suppose this terminology association goes back to my love of reading mythology in literature classes. We had the most interesting discussions, wondering about the factors in history (various nations & people being assimilated/conquered, etc.) that may have colored the stories.
ETA: In my mind, myth is not a bad thing.
It is only the terminology I mind - the idea that the whole area was imaginary, and there could not be any truth in it, like. Myths as related to tarot would be lovely :) I LOVE talking about the various mythologies !
I'm not clear why this thread has been left in Historical Research
cardlady22
28-03-2012, 00:52
I'm not clear why this thread has been left in Historical Research?? I know there is no dedicated Moderator listed for this forum.
The crowned one
28-03-2012, 01:13
It is only the terminology I mind - the idea that the whole area was imaginary, and there could not be any truth in it, like. Myths as related to tarot would be lovely :) I LOVE talking about the various mythologies !
Right here (http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=85841&highlight=myths). Any of these idea's could be expanded on in the thread.
That is EXACTLY what I would like to see an end to. Why SHOULDN'T people be allowed to talk about pyramids or gypsies without being constantly called out ? Just because it has been pretty ,much disproved doesn't mean it cannot be interesting as a springboard. But if that is going to be the attitude, that kind of makes my case about how the less pleasant among the self-titled SERIOUS HISTORIANS will always treat us lesser mortals who like to bandy about interesting ideas
DAMN that's sad.
I agree, but A historical section of a forum, where the basic history is known makes no sense to me for foundation type stuff, like pyramids and gypsies.It is like discussing Pre Copernican views of the sun with modern astronomers and telling them your fable is true. I am open to hypothetical conjectural, but if there is a foundation that is true, should we not at least work from there? This goes for any topic from knitting, pokemon cards, to maths.
Also maybe because it is about this area and so perhaps it is smart to let those who feel they will be affected by it see it and not have a nasty turn if it happens?
The crowned one
28-03-2012, 01:19
I'm not clear why this thread has been left in Historical Research
I thought about this the other day, I am not the mod here, but I did not report the thread because the discussion would and does effect the historic forum, those that use it most will see the original ( what to me started as tongue in cheek) post and have a chance to respond to it. Ironically it is also bring new blood to this underutilized section of the forum, I do my greatest learning on Aeclectic here... quietly.
Titadrupah
28-03-2012, 02:19
That is EXACTLY what I would like to see an end to. Why SHOULDN'T people be allowed to talk about pyramids or gypsies without being constantly called out ? Just because it has been pretty ,much disproved doesn't mean it cannot be interesting as a springboard. But if that is going to be the attitude, that kind of makes my case about how the less pleasant among the self-titled SERIOUS HISTORIANS will always treat us lesser mortals who like to bandy about interesting ideas
DAMN that's sad.
It was a joke, of course I agree with you.
philebus
28-03-2012, 02:21
I'm sorry Gregory, but I hope that I've misunderstood your use of the terms "self-defined REAL historians" and "self-titled SERIOUS HISTORIANS", they seem to imply that their only legitimacy as historians is from self proclamation and as such would be a little too much like poisoning the well. I am sorry if this was not your intent but that is how it reads to me. A real and perhaps serious historian is one that studies history and a good historian does so with the rigour and observance of good methods that make that study as fruitful as possible. These methods are not just plucked from the trees but have a strong philosophical foundation shared with other empirical studies. Clearly the people concerned study history, their adherence to good practice and observance in study and reasoning is the extent to which they are good historians - that has nothing to do with self proclamation but can be judged by all.
cardlady22
28-03-2012, 02:33
My disadvantage & dilemma is that I don't have the education, background, training to know what is being done. I do read . . . and read and read. :P
I admire and respect the Big Posters here in the Historical Research forum, but feel that there is too much to learn before I can even begin a conversation. My funds are limited and my local library a pathetic excuse.
TCO, a single "myth thread" is much too disjointed and rambly to keep track of the ideas and discussions.
The crowned one
28-03-2012, 02:52
TCO, a single "myth thread" is much too disjointed and rambly to keep track of the ideas and discussions.
Pull an idea out that tickles your fancy and start a thread :)
It was a joke, of course I agree with you.
Oh good :)
I'm sorry Gregory, but I hope that I've misunderstood your use of the terms "self-defined REAL historians" and "self-titled SERIOUS HISTORIANS", they seem to imply that their only legitimacy as historians is from self proclamation and as such would be a little too much like poisoning the well. I am sorry if this was not your intent but that is how it reads to me. A real and perhaps serious historian is one that studies history and a good historian does so with the rigour and observance of good methods that make that study as fruitful as possible. These methods are not just plucked from the trees but have a strong philosophical foundation shared with other empirical studies. Clearly the people concerned study history, their adherence to good practice and observance in study and reasoning is the extent to which they are good historians - that has nothing to do with self proclamation but can be judged by all.
What I meant was that there are quite often posts which effectively say to most of us "we know and you don't, so go away." And - well, that is people telling the rest of us - "styling themselves" - that they are somehow in charge of historical, as the only ones with any right to posit anything, as being better than others.
I don't choose to do the invidious and name names, but it is why MANY people here - however much they may actually be able to contribute - never post in historical and just lurk. Many of us are actually WELL aware of what constitutes good research - I know I certainly am - I have degrees coming out of my ears, which included much historical research - just not in tarot. I know what criteria should be applied to factual issues. I also know that more fanciful discussions do not need to meet the same criteria, and I am tired of seeing them being treated as if they did by those people.
Sure there are also people who have no idea - but who here has the right to tell them to b*gger off ? AT is an OPEN forum. If you post misinformation about neumes and the tropes of Kezia the nun, I will correct that information- but I will never say you have to right to post because you aren't trained in early and medieval music.
The crowned one
28-03-2012, 03:08
Ph good :)
What I meant was that there are quite often posts which effectively say to most of us "we know and you don't, so go away." And - well, that is people telling the rest of us - "styling themselves" - that they are somehow in charge of historical, as the only ones with any right to posit anything, as being better than others.
Sure there are also people who have no idea - but who here has the right to tell them to b*gger off ? AT is an OPEN forum. If you post misinformation about neumes and the tropes of Kezia the nun, I will correct that information- but I will never say you have to right to post because you aren't trained in early and medieval music.
Ah, Yes I agree to a degree, I have seen this happened but generally it is the fairly well informed vs the fairly well or better informed! We read these posts, banters, conflicts and decide we better not post as the slightly under informed due to fear of being ridiculed ?... So we need tighter moderation, politer experts, or more forgiving minds.. all these things and more.. not a new forum? Elitism and snobbery is a no no, and the new students must be made to feel welcomed.
Ah, Yes I agree to a degree, I have seen this happened but generally it is the fairly well informed vs the fairly well or better informed! We read these posts, banters, conflicts and decide we better not post as the slighter under informed due to fear of being ridiculed ?... So we need tighter moderation, politer experts, or more forgiving minds.. all these things and more.. not a new forum? Elitism and snobbery is a no no, and the new students must be made to feel welcomed.
Thank you. :)
A historical section of a forum, where the basic history is known makes no sense to me for foundation type stuff, like pyramids and gypsies.It is like discussing Pre Copernican views of the sun with modern astronomers and telling them your fable is true.
Pre-Copernican views of the sun are discussed by historians. That view is part of history - or are you suggesting that once the 'truth' is known then history has been rewritten so that Pre-Copernican views are no longer historically relevant?
It is historically true that people have entertained and/or believed and based artifacts (decks and books) on an origin of Tarot in ancient Egypt. It is historically true that gypsies in Europe have long been connected with divination. How these ideas affected the historical development of Tarot is history!
It is historically true that writers in the field of Western Esotericism from around 1600 started seeing a correspondence among numbers, letters and astrological signs, as in Kabbalah, as key to understanding God's plan of creation. The historical development of this idea can be followed to a place/time when Tarot was incorporated into it by someone.
While Historical Research sticks more closely to the actual facts themselves, it seems appropriate to have an area where these things can be discussed more broadly. Where we can speculate - WHAT IF Jacob Boehme had known and viewed the Tarot Trumps as another expression of letter-number-sign? Individuals could argue based on reason rather than on absolute fact. Historical Research could pick up at the point where someone turns up (if they did) more solid evidence.
WHAT IF the Mamluk cards were based on designs in Persian carpets? You have to entertain the idea and play with it a bit before you can see if it takes you anywhere.
While Historical Research sticks more closely to the actual facts themselves, it seems appropriate to have an area where these things can be discussed more broadly. Where we can speculate - WHAT IF Jacob Boehme had known and viewed the Tarot Trumps as another expression of letter-number-sign? Individuals could argue based on reason rather than on absolute fact. Historical Research could pick up at the point where someone turns up (if they did) more solid evidence.
WHAT IF the Mamluk cards were based on designs in Persian carpets? You have to entertain the idea and play with it a bit before you can see if it takes you anywhere.
Exactly.
So we need tighter moderation, politer experts, or more forgiving minds.. all these things and more.. not a new forum? Elitism and snobbery is a no no, and the new students must be made to feel welcomed.
Personally, I think Tarot needs a place that holds to high standards of research. If that's elitism, then so be it. Many people are unaware that such standards exist or what they involve. Newcomers are always welcome but should also recognize that it's a place to learn and explore historical methods as well as the history itself.
To accept all ideas as equally valid, and to suggest that faulty reasoning is just as valuable as an analysis of facts invalidates the very purpose and meaning of historical research. This doesn't help to advance Tarot history in any way. Instead, it encourages people to think that the best ideas about Tarot's past are those backed by the most persistent presenter or the one with the best sounding reasons or most interesting story. Tarot history is not served by reducing the discussion to the lowest common denominator or deciding historical questions by popular vote.
There will be no "politer experts" because the experts will go elsewhere.
The Tarotforum can only benefit from having one section out of dozens of others that upholds high standards in historical research. There are no universities or think-tanks that offer such a place to Tarot historians. Why can't we do that for ourselves?
But we also need an historical sandbox to play in more wildly and without constraints (except politeness).
I see this as a 6th forum.
cardlady22
28-03-2012, 04:08
So, there really isn't an answer? *sigh*
So, there really isn't an answer? *sigh*
Sounds that way :(
The crowned one
28-03-2012, 04:34
Pre-Copernican views of the sun are discussed by historians. That view is part of history - or are you suggesting that once the 'truth' is known then history has been rewritten so that Pre-Copernican views are no longer historically relevant?
It is historically true that people have entertained and/or believed and based artifacts (decks and books) on an origin of Tarot in ancient Egypt. It is historically true that gypsies in Europe have long been connected with divination. How these ideas affected the historical development of Tarot is history!
It is historically true that writers in the field of Western Esotericism from around 1600 started seeing a correspondence among numbers, letters and astrological signs, as in Kabbalah, as key to understanding God's plan of creation. The historical development of this idea can be followed to a place/time when Tarot was incorporated into it by someone.
While Historical Research sticks more closely to the actual facts themselves, it seems appropriate to have an area where these things can be discussed more broadly. Where we can speculate - WHAT IF Jacob Boehme had known and viewed the Tarot Trumps as another expression of letter-number-sign? Individuals could argue based on reason rather than on absolute fact. Historical Research could pick up at the point where someone turns up (if they did) more solid evidence.
WHAT IF the Mamluk cards were based on designs in Persian carpets? You have to entertain the idea and play with it a bit before you can see if it takes you anywhere.
I DID entertain the idea quite seriously.
To be clear to others who think you are talking about the same thing as I was... you missed my point I said telling them it is "true". I love the discussion of why it was thought as true. History is fascinating, but to tell a Astronomer that Aristotle was right and they are wrong is silly, that was my point. Not the history of the old belief. I am sure many of our beliefs in physics and the brain will be laughed at 200 years from now. Sorry I worded my first post so poorly. :)
Laura Borealis
28-03-2012, 04:36
So, there really isn't an answer? *sigh*
Sounds that way :(
I think there IS an answer, and it's a separate forum for Speculation, within Tarot History and Iconography, but separate from Historical Research. A sandbox, as Teheuti puts it.
And it should be clear from the start that the disrespect and dog-piling that goes on in H.R. (in the name of high research standards) will not be tolerated in the sandbox.
To be clear, I am NOT saying that H.R. should not be held to high standards -- I think it should. I am saying that the crap that goes along with that should not spill out of H.R. Because frankly it is annoying and dreary for the rest of us to read.
The crowned one
28-03-2012, 04:45
I think there IS an answer, and it's a separate forum for Speculation, within Tarot History and Iconography, but separate from Historical Research. A sandbox, as Teheuti puts it.
And it should be clear from the start that the disrespect and dog-piling that goes on in H.R. (in the name of high research standards) will not be tolerated in the sandbox.
To be clear, I am NOT saying that H.R. should not be held to high standards -- I think it should. I am saying that the crap that goes along with that should not spill out of H.R. Because frankly it is annoying and dreary for the rest of us to read.
I like what you have said.
I've set up a poll. That should make it more clear what people want.
Please vote.
http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=174043
cardlady22
28-03-2012, 04:58
A large concern still remains- how & where can we find history experts/teachers (in addition to Teheuti) who are willing to engage on our "flights of fancy" threads? I understand their concerns and resolutions to not support falsehood. But both sides need an interaction for it to work. I'm not trying to further the chasm between us, but in a way it is similar to the difference between playing a sport for a few weeks in Physical Education class vs being on a state competition level or even a professional team.
I think there IS an answer, and it's a separate forum for Speculation, within Tarot History and Iconography, but separate from Historical Research. A sandbox, as Teheuti puts it.
And it should be clear from the start that the disrespect and dog-piling that goes on in H.R. (in the name of high research standards) will not be tolerated in the sandbox.
To be clear, I am NOT saying that H.R. should not be held to high standards -- I think it should. I am saying that the crap that goes along with that should not spill out of H.R. Because frankly it is annoying and dreary for the rest of us to read.
I like it too.
le pendu
28-03-2012, 05:09
Unlike Huck, I think the new forum would be wildly popular, and suspect it would be the Historical Research forum which would have even fewer visitors. This type of forum is exactly what people have been asking for for many years now, a place where "historical" ideas can be discussed without the need for actual historical facts and evidence, fabulous! Sort of like "Talking Tarot", only "Talking Historical Tarot", only without the "Historical" part of it. It's unicorn hunting season, hurrah!
Hi you !
I don't know. Very few people post in historical now because of the level of shooting down. I don't think the people who want to play in the sandbox are the type of people Huck wants in here anyway. It isn't exactly "historical" ideas as such - did you see TCO on the subject of the Mamluk cards and Persian carpets ? From past experience that would have been marked up as OT in Talking Tarot, and disallowed here because it "couldn't possibly be so"....
What's wrong with having somewhere that it IS allowed ? Unicorns can be fun., and they don't need to be shot to extinction.
Titadrupah
28-03-2012, 05:35
Unlike Huck, I think the new forum would be wildly popular, and suspect it would be the Historical Research forum which would have even fewer visitors. This type of forum is exactly what people have been asking for for many years now, a place where "historical" ideas can be discussed without the need for actual historical facts and evidence, fabulous! Sort of like "Talking Tarot", only "Talking Historical Tarot", only without the "Historical" part of it. It's unicorn hunting season, hurrah!
I definetely like your attitude.
http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=109091&highlight=sandbox
While Historical Research sticks more closely to the actual facts themselves, it seems appropriate to have an area where these things can be discussed more broadly. Where we can speculate
That seems simple enough - and fair enough.
People who want to maintain the high standards of historical research should be allowed to have their own forum, and not have to be bothered with speculative ideas that can't be proven.
And others, who may want to discuss speculative ideas, should have their own forum without fear of being intimidated or insulted for not being able to offer proof of these ideas.
Why does this have to be more complicated than that?
Perhaps people are getting caught up in the fact that the term "history" is used differently by historians than it generally is by others. Should someone post a discussion in the "history" section if it has to do with talking ABOUT history - or only if it contains certain levels of proof?
In addition, the term "theory" means something different to historians than it may to others, who might use the term to refer to ideas that, by their nature, are NOT proven - in other words, it's just a theory.
The other issue which needs to be handled in forming another forum is the use of a moderator. The way I see it, the moderator's main job is not to decide on whose arguments are right or wrong, but to maintain the rules of engagement. This is the only way people will be able to feel comfortable in participating. And the current rules don't sound unreasonable - they just have to be strictly enforced.
Please vote on your preferences:
http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=174043
Laura Borealis
28-03-2012, 07:42
I like what you have said.
Thank you. I had to re-write it several times :P
A large concern still remains- how & where can we find history experts/teachers (in addition to Teheuti) who are willing to engage on our "flights of fancy" threads? I understand their concerns and resolutions to not support falsehood. But both sides need an interaction for it to work. I'm not trying to further the chasm between us, but in a way it is similar to the difference between playing a sport for a few weeks in Physical Education class vs being on a state competition level or even a professional team.
I think there are plenty of us who aren't "real historians" but ARE interested in real topics -- not in hunting unicorns, as mockingly suggested. For instance, I might be interested in exploring possible connections between the methods of Ars Memoria and the iconography of the tarot. TCO's interest in Persian carpet patterns is another example. I don't think we need "real historians" as teachers, and we certainly don't need them to shoot down every random theory for us. I can make up my own mind what notions I want to entertain.
cardlady22
28-03-2012, 07:49
:grin: My favorite teachers were the ones who were there for us to ask questions, but willing to let us circle things on our own. Gentle prods brought on by open-ended questions helped us explore directions we didn't know existed.
I don't mind being told I'm wrong or mistaken, but I have little respect for being told, "Because this is the way it's done" with no explanation.
For instance, I might be interested in exploring possible connections between the methods of Ars Memoria and the iconography of the tarot.
Yes - definitely! This is the kind of thing I've been missing here.
Laura Borealis
28-03-2012, 08:14
Yes - definitely! This is the kind of thing I've been missing here.
I hope this happens; I think some really interesting discussions will be free to happen, finally.
For the record, I wouldn't be disappointed if the decision is to allow history-ish topics in Talking Tarot, instead of starting a new forum. As long as such threads can take place, I'll be happy. But I think they'd make more sense in the Tarot History and Iconography forum, and that's where forum participants will look for them (rather than Talking Tarot).
The thread "There was a wish: A new Forum" was set up with the intention to realize practically the manifested wish inside the "Frege's Puzzle" thread to build a new forum (with still unknown title) in the History section.
Inside the thread appeared a lot of comments with critique at the earlier use of Historical Research.
I would suggest to make the critique in another thread to keep it a little bit sorted. I've set up the thread "A place for critique on the old Historical Research Forum" ...
http://tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=174063
... where you (hopefully) have a better chance to get an answer. It's difficult to address such problems in a very quick developing thread like this one.
If the wish for the new Forum shall be realized, it's of some importance, that the interest is documented by enough persons in an easy understandable manner and in a common polite form.
So those, who haven't expressed their intention to use this new Forum, please contribute to this thread. Please also use the Poll, set up by Mary.
http://tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=174043
I think such a forum/sub-forum probably more appropriate under talking tarot, but if under history then a d'Agato type fabulist sandbox could be called 'factless fun and games'? Or 'Story Town', in which a good story has precedence over historical veracity, a critical free place to play in which any facts other than those that support or maintain the good story are to be strictly disapproved.
closrapexa
28-03-2012, 19:47
Perhaps Tarot Mythology?
LRichard
28-03-2012, 19:51
I think such a forum/sub-forum probably more appropriate under talking tarot, but if under history then a d'Agato type fabulist sandbox could be called 'factless fun and games'? Or 'Story Town', in which a good story has precedence over historical veracity, a critical free place to play in which any facts other than those that support or maintain the good story are to be strictly disapproved.I really don't think it should be like that, and if such a forum were to become a reality, I doubt that I would contribute to it. Hard facts should always override conjecture, but conjecture might be tolerated to the extent that it could lead to other fruitful areas of investigation. Besides, historical research is not the only avenue to ultimate truth. For example, the Golden Dawn occult overlay upon the historical Tarot may have been artificially imposed, but it is a historical fact and should not necessarily be rejected merely because it is not justified on the basis of earlier history. History evolves, does it not?
I really don't think it should be like that, and if such a forum were to become a reality, I doubt that I would contribute to it. Hard facts should always override conjecture, but conjecture might be tolerated to the extent that it could lead to other fruitful areas of investigation. Besides, historical research is not the only avenue to ultimate truth. For example, the Golden Dawn occult overlay upon the historical Tarot may have been artificially imposed, but it is a historical fact and should not necessarily be rejected merely because it is not justified on the basis of earlier history. History evolves, does it not?
I like you :) This is SO how how I feel !
For example, the Golden Dawn occult overlay upon the historical Tarot may have been artificially imposed, but it is a historical fact and should not necessarily be rejected merely because it is not justified on the basis of earlier history. History evolves, does it not?
Indeed it does, it is not just about origins, a point I have often made myself. The occultists et al, and the conjectures and speculations are a part of tarot's history, and contributed to its development. I have never been one to reject or ridicule their contribution, but rather relish it.
closrapexa
28-03-2012, 21:32
But the Golden Dawn wasn't Aeclectic, they certainly didn't take the stand that it was their opinion, and that others were entitled to their own. As far as they were concerned they were right, it was "meant to be" and all others were wrong. The historian does not deal with whether the Secret Chiefs really did give the GD its attributions, only that they used them, anbd that it had implications on future generations of decks.
You don't have to be religious to be a Bible scholar; it is even preferable if you aren't, but the very nature of the spiritual realm, be it occult or religion invites historical revisionism. This is not to say that discussion of this is a bad thing, but the forum will have to deal with this sort of "tarot mythology" in its own context, and on its own terms.
By that token, I am more than willing to entertain thoughts that Etteilla was a "first" prophet, the Golden Dawn the evil Saracens and Crowley is the prophet of the New Aeon.
But the Golden Dawn wasn't Aeclectic, they certainly didn't take the stand that it was their opinion, and that others were entitled to their own. As far as they were concerned they were right, it was "meant to be" and all others were wrong.
That is exactly how some people have taken the stand on AT actually....
closrapexa
28-03-2012, 22:41
That is exactly how some people have taken the stand on AT actually....
Perhaps, but with a difference. In the History forum, one can't say the Scret Chiefs initiated them into the "true" origins of Tarot, and that that is the truth and nothing but. If I say the sun is now shining outside my window, that's a fact, and I can prove it; it would be factually innacurate to say that Aiwass says it's not (but it would perhaps be "spiritually" correct). Science, and as an extension history, is not dogmatic, and if people barricade themselves in fact in that section alone it does not mean they are doing so because of their own beliefs, but because of the scope of that forum. The sun did come up this morning, saying otherwise would be absurd, because it is factually correct, not a philosophical position, and as a fact, it goes beyond debate. It is true, anyone who says otherwise is wrong, because I have proof, I can demonstrate that it did.
However, in the scope of a story, and by extension subjective occult beliefs, it is important to take a certain leap of faith. In order for the story to work, you have to believe frogs can become princes, and that princesses really can sleep for a hundred years. That is a matter of course when dealing with mythology. What isn't is inferring that because the mythology exists, then the fact must be wed to it, such as "I like the Golden Dawn attributions, so they really did come from higher up."
Ross G Caldwell
28-03-2012, 23:02
That is exactly how some people have taken the stand on AT actually....
In the Historical Research forum? I don't recall anyone taking such a position about their opinions, whether so-called, self-proclaimed historians or otherwise.
In the Historical Research forum? I don't recall anyone taking such a position about their opinions, whether so-called, self-proclaimed historians or otherwise.
I refer you to TCO - posting as a dispassionate observer - above:
http://www.tarotforum.net/showpost.php?p=3097904&postcount=39
Yes. And as I said - I am NOT about to name names. But it HAS happened to me, and to others.
Ross G Caldwell
29-03-2012, 00:18
I refer you to TCO - posting as a dispassionate observer - above:
http://www.tarotforum.net/showpost.php?p=3097904&postcount=39
Yes. And as I said - I am NOT about to name names. But it HAS happened to me, and to others.
I'm really sorry, but I can't make much sense out of that post in any case, and it doesn't shed any light at all on what you mean. It's all pretty obscure.
Why not name some names, give some examples of people not taking "the stand that it was their opinion, and that others were entitled to their own. As far as they were concerned they were right, it was "meant to be" and all others were wrong."
As far as I remember, neither the self-defined historians nor the so-called crackpots ever got so dogmatic as to say that their opinions were "meant to be" and to call all others wrong.
Isn't it an exaggeration to say that some people have taken that stand?
Please, let's not name names.. We really don't want to get into a 'he said, she said' slanging match. For one thing that would really breach the 'respect our members' rule and could be considered inflammatory.
Sulis - moderator
Ross G Caldwell
29-03-2012, 00:28
Please, let's not name names.. We really don't want to get into a 'he said, she said' slanging match.
Then it is fair to call Gregory's complaint about "some" to be a baseless accusation.
I say it is not so, there is nobody in Historical Research who has ever stated their opinion to be "the way it was meant to be" and that "all others are wrong."
If they have, they must have been so quickly booed off the stage that it explains why I don't remember it.
However, it appears Gregory meant something more recent. It doesn't matter to me, but if we are allowed to complain that specific individuals have done something to hurt my feelings, but I'm not going to name them, then I have to say that some people here have hurt my feelings very badly as well.
Can we just get on with learning, or sharing information as the case may be, now?
Thank you Sulis - this is exactly why I didn't.
TCO agreed that he has seen it happen. Is all.
The crowned one
29-03-2012, 00:39
Again to be clear, I can see how the perception of it having taken place exists. Working at different levels of intensity in different forms leads to different perceptions of interaction and levels of comfort. If you are used to "chat" or "talking tarot", then then interaction of some of the posters in "history" will seem intimidating and blunt when they get passionate. There is a sense of humorous mild disdain in the history forum for "stupid comments" in my opinion, there is also a lot of tolerance.
A few good idea's are being tossed about, I look forward to the outcome.
Ross G Caldwell
29-03-2012, 00:44
I should add that defending one's arguments, as well as, sometimes, one's reputation, is a long-standing tradition of scholarly discourse.
I try not to accidentally offend anyone, but if I have, I'm happy to be named, since the offense was presumably public, so should the defence or apology, as the case may be. It's no different than admitting you were wrong about facts, made a flawed argument, or were being absurd.
closrapexa
29-03-2012, 03:02
What I meant by the Golden Dawn statement was that they claimed to be inspired by divine sources, I doubt that such a thing has happened in the forum. From an occult standpoint, like I said, I am willing to take a leap of faith that such things happened, like my princess and the frog analogy, otherwise it doesn't work, and it makes for really dull reading, but I would never use that claim in an academic discussion. I don't think someone saying that if something was empirically proven to be true, it is true and saying otherwise is wrong the same thing.
I have been wrong before, especially in the Historical forum, and people did point me to relevant sources of information. Ignorance is a bad thing only when it goes unremedied. It is only when people "believe" what they are saying that flame wars can erupt. Myself, I don't "believe" in history, I either know it or I don't. I know something, until I am proven wrong, and then I know something else.
Ross G Caldwell
29-03-2012, 03:14
Myself, I don't "believe" in history, I either know it or I don't. I know something, until I am proven wrong, and then I know something else.
Very true. The problem is with deeply held beliefs, that many times they cannot be proven wrong, so the believer always "knows" them.
It is the "will to believe" that is so deeply set, that it is only when one gets hit upside the head so hard with proof that it can be shaken. This was the case with heliocentrism.
I doubt there is any way for any one of us to prove, by argument alone, that the Earth is rotating on its axis, and revolving around the Sun. To all appearance, the Earth is fixed, it doesn't move, and everything in the sky goes around it.
Prove to me otherwise.
It is only by the sheer force of evidence that there is probably not a single person on Earth today, who understands the question, who thinks that the Earth is fixed at the center of the Universe and everything revolves around it.
Even Biblical literalists, who believe just about everything else, don't claim this, although the Bible clearly envisions a geocentric cosmos.
Then it is fair to call Gregory's complaint about "some" to be a baseless accusation.
I say it is not so, there is nobody in Historical Research who has ever stated their opinion to be "the way it was meant to be" and that "all others are wrong."
If they have, they must have been so quickly booed off the stage that it explains why I don't remember it.
However, it appears Gregory meant something more recent. It doesn't matter to me, but if we are allowed to complain that specific individuals have done something to hurt my feelings, but I'm not going to name them, then I have to say that some people here have hurt my feelings very badly as well.
Can we just get on with learning, or sharing information as the case may be, now?
I did not say recent (where does that "appear" to you ?) and I did not say my "feelings were hurt". People don't abandon attempts at discussion over hurt feelings (well, I don't. I bite. :D)
Nor did I complain that a specific individual did anything. I was very careful NOT to complain about a specific individual. And those people I know of who got fed up with being dismissed as worthless posters pretty much gave up posting in H&R.
I'm not trying to rake stuff up or flame, merely saying that people simply being told they were wrong, so go away, in effect, has happened, to me and to others, and it is one reason that H&R gets few visitors. So at this time of a potential change, it needs to be said and heard. And there is a feeling of them and us. Both among the regular contributors to H&R and the ones who (now) only stand and watch.
But I'm bored with all this now, you will be glad to hear. :D
le pendu
29-03-2012, 04:56
Mary, I'd like to know more about the rules for the different forums, especially what can be discussed, what can and can't be asked, and by whom?
In the Speculation forum, shall people just discuss their ideas, but no one is allowed to question whether there is any sort of evidence to lead to this speculation? Or are only certain people not allowed to ask questions? Which questions are okay, and which ones aren't? Is factual evidence allowed in the Speculation forum? Or should discussions occur in the Speculation forum until a fact is needed, and then switch to the Historical forum for an answer, and then perhaps back to Speculation again?
Since we are voting on another forum, I think it would be helpful if we were clearer on what the rules and differences between the forums would be.
Thanks!
I think we are all in agreement that name-calling is not allowed in this privately-owned forum. It is one reason why people can feel relatively comfortable about posting here. Sometimes people step over the line and need to be reminded or even told to take a time-out.
Because belief-based ideas and proof-via-reasoning or analogy (but without proof) don't mix well with evidence-based facts, it seems appropriate to separate the two. Also, the two sections will hopefully have a "Read This First" explanation at the top of each section that will clarify matters like "what is an historical theory" and "what is evidence" in the HR section.
Personally, I find that it's when I get upset by an attack or a demand for proof (that I have been too lazy to provide), that I do the necessary work to support my pov. I do a lot of research that I wouldn't otherwise have done. It's why I can spout off facts (I've built a Tarot timeline in my computer that I keep updating). Defending my perspective against a****s and a determination to prove them wrong or misguided has been the impetus to some of my most important work here and in my books. And, sometimes, I'm proved wrong - which only benefits me in the long run as I can then get rid of false impressions that only hurt my work.
When you get publically called to account for your mistakes, then you no longer have the luxury of spouting whatever nonsense you wish - or you can get used to standing up for your pov.
le pendu
29-03-2012, 05:30
When you get publically called to account for your mistakes, then you no longer have the luxury of spouting whatever nonsense you wish - or you can get used to standing up for your pov.
Exactly.
Unless you have the protection of a forum where the rules forbid you from being put in a position where you would have to.
The crowned one
29-03-2012, 05:36
:) Alternative time lines, the other histories.
Penthasilia
29-03-2012, 05:58
I have debated on whether to post- but I did vote for the additional forum, so I figured I would give my views on what I hope will be covered/included.
I love the historical forum. Though it may represent a small percentage of posts on ATF, for me it represents at least 90% of the knowledge that I have accrued while being here. I love having it available, and in no way would want the high standards that are kept in that forum decreased or diminished.
So what could a new forum add? I do like the idea of a soundboard, an area to pose the philosophical or esoteric questions in regard to the historical tarot decks. I think it would be lovely to have those active participants in the historical section participate as well- and this could only enrich the experience.
Another topic that I would love to see: the actual usage of the historical tarot decks that stands within the construct of both the historical and esoteric background of tarot. While not all historians may read/use tarot, it would be lovely to have an area where that gap could be bridged. An example for me would be the Etteilla decks; I have learned an extraordinary amount of information regarding this deck and its variants from the historical forum. Where there is a relative lack is in the actual usage of the cards- while keeping in thought and spirit the historical perspective from which it came. Having an area that could bridge the gap of usage for historical decks within this context would be lovely. I am thinking of Mel's old fashioned pips thread- which was fabulous!
I am very pleased that some of the individuals from the historical forum have been participating in this discussion and truly hope to see their fabulous work continue both in the historical forum, and in the new one if opened.
These are just my thoughts, but hopefully a sound resolution can be worked out that can expand participation while maintaining the high standard that has been set in the historical forum. I have recently grown to love and study the historical tarot- and appreciate the efforts of all who have contributed to AT and spent their own time and energy in improving the education of others.
:)
Mi-Shell
29-03-2012, 07:01
I have debated on whether to post- but I did vote for the additional forum, so I figured I would give my views on what I hope will be covered/included.
I love the historical forum. Though it may represent a small percentage of posts on ATF, for me it represents at least 90% of the knowledge that I have accrued while being here. I love having it available, and in no way would want the high standards that are kept in that forum decreased or diminished.
So what could a new forum add? I do like the idea of a soundboard, an area to pose the philosophical or esoteric questions in regard to the historical tarot decks. I think it would be lovely to have those active participants in the historical section participate as well- and this could only enrich the experience.
Another topic that I would love to see: the actual usage of the historical tarot decks that stands within the construct of both the historical and esoteric background of tarot. While not all historians may read/use tarot, it would be lovely to have an area where that gap could be bridged. An example for me would be the Etteilla decks; I have learned an extraordinary amount of information regarding this deck and its variants from the historical forum. Where there is a relative lack is in the actual usage of the cards- while keeping in thought and spirit the historical perspective from which it came. Having an area that could bridge the gap of usage for historical decks within this context would be lovely. I am thinking of Mel's old fashioned pips thread- which was fabulous!
I am very pleased that some of the individuals from the historical forum have been participating in this discussion and truly hope to see their fabulous work continue both in the historical forum, and in the new one if opened.
These are just my thoughts, but hopefully a sound resolution can be worked out that can expand participation while maintaining the high standard that has been set in the historical forum. I have recently grown to love and study the historical tarot- and appreciate the efforts of all who have contributed to AT and spent their own time and energy in improving the education of others.
:)
Yes, I second your thoughts. accidentally i have just posted a spread, that my gran and her people used with the original Soprafino cards. I feel things like this is, what is missing .
I think such a forum/sub-forum probably more appropriate under talking tarot, but if under history then a d'Agato type fabulist sandbox could be called 'factless fun and games'? Or 'Story Town', in which a good story has precedence over historical veracity, a critical free place to play in which any facts other than those that support or maintain the good story are to be strictly disapproved.
Why does this thread seem to be devolving back into a battle between the strict historians who don't seem to place any value in discussing anything other than dry facts, and those who do? Using terms like "factless" and "story town" are just attempts to demean and make fun of the people want to have other kinds of conversations. It's the exact reason that some people here have expressed an interest in having a forum separate from the current history section.
I thought that point was already established - which is why we're actually voting on it.
This isn't about the idea that "a good story has precedence over historical veracity." It's not a contest where one type of discussion is more valid than another. It's about allowing people the right to engage in a forum without being constricted by the limited set of rules that historians have set for themselves. Not that there's anything wrong with those rules - as we have been told, they are essential for historical research. It's just that not everyone wants to be a historian.
I get the feeling that some of those who so desperately want to defend the principles of the current history section are doing so because they're afraid that they'll lose all their powers of "criticism" if this other section, in which people want to talk ABOUT historical events, is ever established.
We should have come to the understanding by now that there are some people who don't want to limit their discussions about the tarot to known facts. I think we should get back to the question of whether AT should encourage or support these people to engage in these discussions by setting up a "strict historian-rules-free" section.
philebus
29-03-2012, 07:36
Foolish, I think that you might be missing the point of some of the concerns over this. A 'history' forum that is a rules of history free zone is probably not best described as history, no? Also, in what way are the offerings there to be discussed? Is there to be no room for critique of any kind? Or just critique that somehow doesn't match that of the empirical disciplines? For speculations about what are essentially empirical matters, that's going to leave very little for it to be beyond flights of fancy. Placing such restrictions on a forum that it, as it is called to be, in the history section, will do nothing to bridge the gap between the different points of view here and may work to keep them from ever having to meet.
Perhaps I have misunderstood you, if so, can you explain exactly how you think it should work - what rules to set, and what critiques to allow.
I think such a forum/sub-forum probably more appropriate under talking tarot, but if under history then a d'Agato type fabulist sandbox could be called 'factless fun and games'? Or 'Story Town', in which a good story has precedence over historical veracity, a critical free place to play in which any facts other than those that support or maintain the good story are to be strictly disapproved.
Why does this thread seem to be devolving back into a battle between the strict historians who don't seem to place any value in discussing anything other than dry facts, and those who do? Using terms like "factless" and "story town" are just attempts to demean and make fun of the people want to have other kinds of conversations. It's the exact reason that some people here have expressed an interest in having a forum separate from the current history section.
I thought that point was already established - which is why we're actually voting on it.
Inside the start article of this thread it was definitely also requested:
4. Is there opposition against a new Forum?
The start article had been written "2 days ago" according the Aeclectic clock. I would think, that it is appropriate to give everybody some time to respond to it. I would suggest a week, if nobody minds. In the case ... as it was suggested to ask similar questions in other forums ... that other forums were also taken in the discussion (which at least would be logical for the other historical Forums) it might become longer.
Solandia has said that she was reading this and would make a decision.
LRichard
29-03-2012, 08:54
But the Golden Dawn wasn't Aeclectic, they certainly didn't take the stand that it was their opinion, and that others were entitled to their own. As far as they were concerned they were right, it was "meant to be" and all others were wrong........That is certainly true. What I meant was that it is a historical fact that the Golden Dawn made such claims, not that those claims necessarily had any validity. It is also a historical fact that Antoine Court de Gébelin claimed an Egyptian origin for Tarot. There is no rational reason for believing any of these claims, only that they are firmly within the category of Tarot history.
Laura Borealis
29-03-2012, 08:59
?? I know there is no dedicated Moderator listed for this forum.
Is there a dedicated mod for this forum, but they just aren't listed currently?
Solandia has said that she was reading this and would make a decision.
Thanks for letting us know this, Alta.
Originally Posted by closrapexa
But the Golden Dawn wasn't Aeclectic, they certainly didn't take the stand that it was their opinion, and that others were entitled to their own. As far as they were concerned they were right, it was "meant to be" and all others were wrong........
LRichard: That is certainly true. What I meant was that it is a historical fact that the Golden Dawn made such claims, not that those claims necessarily had any validity.
And there is another part of the GD history story. When it was revealed that the GD founding myth was a lie, it caused a major schism, leave-taking, and restructuring of the GD, plus years of research by Felkin, Waite and others who tried to determine what was true and what wasn't.
Magical organizations are often founded on a lie in order to convince others that they are worth joining. In fact, it is almost a required tradition.
I was taught that there are are three levels of unacknowledged and unofficial initiation:
1) You are introduced to a teaching or system - learning a myth of origin, a 'secret,' or basic teachings that you are told are true. You have to choose to follow that path or go elsewhere. This is the first initiation.
2) At some point you discover that what you learned is a lie. Many leave at this point in great disappointment and disgust. Choosing to stay, knowing it is a lie, is the 2nd initiation.
3) You realize that the lie is actually a truth at another level. It reveals something you wouldn't have understood otherwise and gives you a glimpse behind the workings of magic or nature. If you stay you're at the third initiation.
There is, of course, an unspoken 4th level of initiation, known only to those who have 'been there, done that.'
BTW, consider a person going from high school physics, into college and then graduate school physics. In a sense, they have to go through the exact same thing, as they learn that "proofs" they learned at one level are not true at another. Some mathematicians committed suicide when mathematics was proven to be a self-referential system. They chose to leave.
A 'history' forum that is a rules of history free zone is probably not best described as history, no?
As I have tried to explain, the term "history" can be used several ways. I understand that strict historians use it in a specific context. However, should this prevent speculative discussions ABOUT history, or which revolve around historical events? If so, then these conversations do belong elsewhere. I guess we need to come to some agreement as to what should be allowed to exist under the umbrella of "history."
Also, in what way are the offerings there to be discussed? Is there to be no room for critique of any kind?
Just like any other conversation about someone's unproven ideas (i.e. a trial where all sorts of "evidence" and arguments are presented), reasoning, speculation, circumstantial evidence and rational arguments will probably be tossed around and, in the end, people will make up their minds - or remain undecided - as to whether they were convinced, or to what level of possibility the theory or idea seems to merit.
Why should all disucussion around these kinds of ideas be dismissed entirely because of their inability to stand up to levels of expectations placed on scientific analysis? Why should they even have to be evaluated according to the same standards?
We have no proof of the existence of UFO's, but I'm still open to the possibility and enjoy watching the "Ancient Aliens" series on T.V. - they created an entire series which revolves around presenting an central argument with "evidence" which doesn't stand up to primary source criteria. Nevertheless, it's an interesting show.
Critique might INCLUDE pertinent historical facts - some of which may appear to disprove the theory alltogether - but the critique would not revolve around the concept of "because you LACK the evidence needed to prove your case, this idea is no longer appropriate for discussion."
Obviously, if someone presents an idea that is completely fanciful, that can't be supported with reasonable arguments, that others can't add to or are not interested in, it will soon go away. End of story.
The real question is WHERE do these coversations belong. In the history section - as an adjunct to the "real stuff," or elsewhere, where those rules of engagement don't prevent discussions about "interesting flights of the immagination?"
Just like any other conversation about someone's unproven ideas (i.e. a trial where all sorts of "evidence" and arguments are presented), reasoning, speculation, circumstantial evidence and rational arguments will probably be tossed around and, in the end, people will make up their minds - or remain undecided - as to whether they were convinced, or to what level of possibility the theory or idea seems to merit.
Ah, history via popular vote, where the best 'sound bite' or most entertaining or persistent participant wins. Yes, that will probably happen to some degree. But Historians can always shift through the debris (the rather dull and not-so-glittery castoffs) to occasionally find a diamond in the rough.
I'm all for speculation. We periodically discover that what we thought was a myth has fact behind it. Pausanias used to be thought of as a fanciful story-teller of old Greece. But several archeological finds were made by following his data. So, the truth of his tales is constantly being re-evaluated.
Obviously, if someone presents an idea that is completely fanciful, that can't be supported with reasonable arguments, that others can't add to or are not interested in, it will soon go away. End of story.
Yes, I would imagine that if the ideas all end up being things like, "Tarot came from Mars" or other entertaining fictions that aren't relevant to actual history, that the section will either die a natural death or Solandia will move it under a different topic called something like 'entertaining fictions and flights of fancy.'
I don't think we'll know how it will go until we give it a try.
Ah, history via popular vote
Well, sort of. It's not that we're trying to recreate history as much as entertaining the possibilities which never came to their historical reality. It dosn't make it so, it's just food for thought.
Call me wacky, but I've always found it more stimulating to be IN discovery than in having discovered.
by the way, can anyone tell me how to get the "originally posted by" statement in these quotes? thanks.
Laura Borealis
29-03-2012, 11:37
by the way, can anyone tell me how to get the "originally posted by" statement in these quotes? thanks.
Click the quote button, and it will fill in automatically.
LRichard
29-03-2012, 11:48
......3) You realize that the lie is actually a truth at another level. It reveals something you wouldn't have understood otherwise and gives you a glimpse behind the workings of magic or nature. If you stay you're at the third initiation......Nicely put. I fancy myself at the third level. I think that your post indicates how truth may (at least subjectively) transcend the liimits imposed by historical research, even as metaphysics lies beyond the domain of physics.
Click the quote button, and it will fill in automatically.
Ah.... thanks!
Then delete anything you don't want to quote.
Is there a dedicated mod for this forum, but they just aren't listed currently?
At the moment the global moderators look after the Historical Research so that's Alta, Sulis and Grigori.
closrapexa
29-03-2012, 17:32
Mary, I really liked your post about the three stages, and it really is true. On the one hand, I study the Golden Dawn eagerly, and want to know everything about what they did, and on the other hand, I know it is a lie, and that the manuscripts were forged. However, the attributions do "work" insofar as they do what they were meant to do, provide food for thought, so I'm willing to practice a little Doublethink and ignore the forgery, taking the substance instead.
Just as Moses may or may not have received the tablets on Mount Sinai, it is still perferable if we don't go around killing people.
Laura Borealis
29-03-2012, 19:59
At the moment the global moderators look after the Historical Research so that's Alta, Sulis and Grigori.
Thank you Sulis.
Solandia is preparing to make changes, more or less along the lines suggested.
The discussions themselves seem to make members more and more angry, by both the posts themselves and PMs to moderators.
Would you all be prepared to wait a day or two until Solandia makes the changes as the topic of the change seems exhausted and until then go back to normal topics of discussion.
Alta
Senior Moderator