Frege's Puzzle

Yygdrasilian

The gap between the occultist and the serious historian is unbridgeable, because anyone committed to preserving an esoteric system of hidden knowledge will have avoided the explicit documentation of any such tradition into which one had been initiated. Thus, the documentary evidence upon which the historian relies would, in theory, always remain elusive. This poses a distinct problem for the Tarot historian in particular as claims regarding the cards' origins can never fully dispel this paradoxical curse, no matter how much invective is hurled at the proponents of such an occultist theory.

This is not to say that Trionfi were not used by 15th-century Italians for playing card games – that amusement is indeed well documented. Rather, this well-established use cannot sufficiently exclude the possibility of a meaningfully coherent design in tune with esoteric tradition. Though the claim regarding the cycle of triumphs as derived from an ancient source has been rejected by contemporary historians as a kind of “propaganda campaign” launched by 18th-century Freemasons, it should be noted that the veracity of this claim has persisted due to a rationale based upon Cabalist understanding of the symbolic attributions of the Hebrew alephbet.

Being derived from the hieroglyphs of ancient Egypt, these Letters are themselves the so-called Book of Thoth whose title is, by extension, conferred upon the Tarot. Whether this tradition was known to the architects of the Trionfi may be a matter of never-ending dispute between occultists and “serious historians”. Regardless, the rationale remains apparent to anyone versed in this application of Tarot as a cipher for revealing the hidden function of our Letters.

res ipsa loquitur
 

Ross G Caldwell

Can you prove to me that Santa Claus does not exist? It doesn't matter that mommy and daddy put out all the presents they claimed were from him - who's to say he isn't too busy to come to my house this year? It doesn't matter that they told me he doesn't exist - maybe they are lying, or just never really saw him. It doesn't matter that people have visited the North Pole and seen no trace of him - he's hiding, since he's smart enough to know that belief is more important than proof. It doesn't matter that it seems impossible that someone could visit every home on Earth in a single night - he obviously has helpers, millions of them, like mommy and daddy who put out presents from him.

Nope, you can't make me believe that Santa Claus does not exist.

Reasonable people, however, accept the arguments given above, along with the documented history of the figure of Santa Claus, as sufficient proof that he does not exist. They know there is sufficient proof of his non-existence, and that is sufficient reason not to believe in him.

So, to give a real-world example, if someone is informed of the modern science of geology, and yet still believes the Earth to be 6000 years old, that person may be described as "unreasonable". A better description might be "perverse". There are millions of such people. They persist in believing something for which there is no evidence, against something for which all the evidence is positive and there is no reason to doubt the interpretation. Like those who fought against heliocentrism in the 17th century, they fear that if the old story turns out to be false, they will be robbed of not only their power and authority, but their very faith in the order of the Universe. They were right - the geocentric cosmos was overturned, and the Church's authority in scientific matters was destroyed. A lot of faith in religion's claims to authority and knowledge in general was lost too. People are afraid of losing their faith, they don't care about truth or facts when faith is at stake.

Thus, if someone is informed of the true history of Tarot, and yet still believes the Tarot to be of untold antiquity, designed by ancient magi, an occult vademecum, etc., that person is being unreasonable, perverse for persisting in nonsense when the truth is known. An ostrich with its head in the sand is a famous metaphor for such people.

There is no point in arguing with unreasonable people, because they will perversely persist in believing whatever they want, against all evidence and sound argumentation to the contrary. They do not build a theory up from the facts, as scientists do, but make assertions and challenge rational people to disprove them. It is impossible to prove to unreasonable people that God does not exist, that the Earth is not 6000 years old, or that Tarot is not from ancient Egypt (or whatever fairy tale is preferred). Unreasonable people do not know what proof is, because unreasonable people do not know how to think.

The truth doesn't hurt, really. Let the fairy tales go. There is no Santa Claus.

Cognoscetis veritatem, et veritas liberabit vos.
 

Zephyros

I agree with Ross in principle, but I must be careful as I am treading on thin ice. Although the Tarot equalling Ancient Egypt may be a myth, I think that in the greater scheme of things, it matters little, since it is no more far-fetched than some pieces of paper telling your fortune. However, there are many "fairy tales" regarding Tarot. The Golden Dawn did not believe the Egyptian theory, but went with direct Kabbalistic descent, which is just as untrue historically. The fact that the images are seemingly universal in nature and again, seem to hail back to earlier times does not prove their antiquity, but does speak to the human nature of symbolism. One does not need a pedigree in order to see the cards` worth.

As to the connection of Tarot to the letters, that link is tenuous at best, and I don't see it as "apparent" (although I do use these connections, and they do "work"). Also, I have a problem with attributing too much "wisdom" to Ancient Egypt. Advanced a civilization it was of course, but it seems everything from Tarot to UFOs have been attributed to it, not always with just cause. A Bronze Age society, these people slept with their goats and married their sisters. The UFOs at least could have politely mentioned something about that.

So, I hope I don't sound too harsh, but I think both the staunch historian who debunks Tarot creation myths but does allow for divinatory use, and also the believers of such myths who seek "scientific" affirmation could both use a view from the other side. :)
 

Richard

......Unreasonable people do not know what proof is, because unreasonable people do not know how to think.
Very true, but they can be masters of unfalsifiability. Anthony Flew's concept of "death by a thousand qualifications" may not faze them in the least.
 

Ross G Caldwell

Very true, but they can be masters of unfalsifiability. Anthony Flew's concept of "death by a thousand qualifications" may not faze them in the least.

Yep, any refuge that is not logically impossible will be found and defended.

But if the strongest defence of your position is that your critics cannot disprove it - "You can't prove it isn't true!" - then the basis of your belief is laughable.
 

Richard

.......But if the strongest defence of your position is that your critics cannot disprove it - "You can't prove it isn't true!" - then the basis of your belief is laughable.
Indeed, the strange thing is that they take the "impossibility" of disproof as proof of their position. Very weird. However, as you have said, they don't know how to think.
 

mjhurst

Hi, Ross,

There is no point in arguing with unreasonable people, because they will perversely persist in believing whatever they want, against all evidence and sound argumentation to the contrary. They do not build a theory up from the facts, as scientists do, but make assertions and challenge rational people to disprove them. It is impossible to prove to unreasonable people that God does not exist, that the Earth is not 6000 years old, or that Tarot is not from ancient Egypt (or whatever fairy tale is preferred). Unreasonable people do not know what proof is, because unreasonable people do not know how to think.

The truth doesn't hurt, really. Let the fairy tales go. There is no Santa Claus.

Cognoscetis veritatem, et veritas liberabit vos.
Well said, but... margaritas vestras ante porcos. To argue that the absence of evidence is itself evidence of a massive, cross-cultural, millennia-long conspiracy of silence is to reject the basis of both the experimental and historical sciences -- skepticism, empiricism, and logic. It demands faith over fact, and yet it begs to be taken as fact, as demonstrated by the name of the forum in which this nonsensical claim is presented.

Perhaps the most remarkable curiosity in the entire perverse world of pop-culture Tarot is the insistence that esoteric bunk is historical fact, and the demand to be taken seriously in terms of historical debate, combined with the admission that the prerequisites for such discussion are absent. At some point, perhaps after 230 years of devoted "research", the absence of evidence should probably be taken as evidence of absence.

To say that the rationale for occultist fiction "is apparent" is to state the obvious: The "happy coincidence" of twenty-two trumps which are completely baffling to occultists is the entirety of that rationale. Twenty-two = 22, and since occultists understand nothing about the actual meaning of the trump subjects they can make up any false interpretation they wish. However, to say that the rationale is apparent as if it transmuted the modern fiction into historical fact is to admit that one has no interest in either evidence or reason. As you say so gently, it is unreasonable, and yet the pretense of "historical research" continues -- why?

Rather than framing the problem in the esoteric aether of Frege's Puzzle, it is more clearly and appropriately understood in terms of equivocation, the Fallacy of the Ambiguous Middle Term. In setting the rhetorical trap, fact-based "history" is first acknowledged and sham concessions to fact are paraded for the audience: Of course Tarot was a card game; no one disputes such historical facts. Then the meaning of "history" is changed from that which we know, based on contemporaneous facts, to that which we imagine, desire, suspect, or simply wish to pretend, based on modern folklore. The "veracity" of an entire world of fantasy and make-believe is thereby established by the mere coincidence of the number 22.

Is Santa Claus really that absurd? BTW, I love the phrase "death by a thousand qualifications", closely related to the God of the Gaps. Admit what absolutely must be admitted, but cling to as much of the myth as possible.

Best regards,
Michael
 

Teheuti

Part of the problem is that thought and events are categorized around only a couple of options: fact, fiction and ideas (philosophy, etc). Let's leave 'ideas' out of the discussion for the time being. Myth is categorized as fiction. History is categorized as fact (and has to struggle hard to maintain it in a world of historical fiction and film where anything goes).

Those who advocate tarot's origins in the esoteric don't see it as fiction and, therefore, that leaves fact as the only alternative. So, they have to try and establish their perspective as fact since they know it is not fiction.

Henri Corbin, among others, advocated an additional area that he called the "Mundus Imaginalis," which people like Carl Jung also explored in his Red Book, for instance. This 'imaginal realm' is not that of fantasy or fiction but is an otherworld with its own reality (for instance, the upper and lower worlds of shamanism). It is not a fiction, nor is it fantasy. Travelers in those realms have experiences that are felt to be just as 'real' as mundane (consensus reality) events. Books, such as those by Carlos Castaneda, are hard to categorize because to the writer and their readers they are experienced and felt to be more-real-than-real. I call this Imaginography (instead of Autobiography), and I consider it to be a very real genre, which, should not be considered fiction.

The problem is that when you are given only the choice of 'fact or fiction' there is no place for the reality of the "Mundus Imaginalis." (It is also hampered because one person's Mundus Imaginalis is often not the same as another person's.)

Just as many are not trained to be able to tell the difference between pure fiction/fantasy and the Mundus Imaginalis, so also most people are not trained in the discipline and critical faculties of mundane world history. Most people also don't know how to tell the difference between tangible evidence and the kind of "must have" reasoning that follows from an experience of the Mundus Imaginalis where those "must haves" provoked a real 'knowing' or even more tangible experience.

There is a difference between Mundane Reality History (based on tangible evidence, peer review and critique, etc.) and Mundus Imaginalis History (which has a different set of rules entirely).

One thing I have noticed is that Mundane Reality History changes as new evidence emerges.

Mundus Imaginalis History tends to be unchanged no matter what evidence is brought forth because it has been experienced as real and that doesn't change without a major break in worldview).
 

Yygdrasilian

If-by-whiskey...

It would be the reverse of wisdom to claim ad ignorantiam as proof of Santa Claus. Likewise for Tarot's origins as a form of Qabalah. The point made above is that an unbridgeable gap exists between occultists and serious historians so long as the former keeps hidden what the latter must see in order to believe. Both may refer to the same deck of cards, but each possesses a different sense for what those cards mean. And no amount of ad hominem will ever succeed in bridging that gap. Yet, if Tarot can be utilized to reveal a hidden rationale underpinning both the symbolism of Freemasonry and the sequence of Hebrew Letters, it would benefit the serious historian to learn how that methodology works considerably more than arguing from incredulity.

It can be demonstrated that distinct mathematical & geometrical properties arise from the Hebrew alephbet when the Tarot de Marseilles is applied as a “cypher” [aleph=0]. Properties which are reflected in the iconography of the cards themselves, and which have a direct bearing on the Great Pyramid at Giza. While this does not prove that Tarot cards have existed since the time of the Old Dynasty pharaohs, it does offer a reasonable explanation for why certain notable occultists have maintained that they represent a kind of Book written by the mythological inventor of Letters & Numbers.

non haec sine numine divum eveniunt
 

Teheuti

Yet, if Tarot can be utilized to reveal a hidden rationale underpinning both the symbolism of Freemasonry and the sequence of Hebrew Letters, it would benefit the serious historian to learn how that methodology works considerably more than arguing from incredulity.
But this is not the terrain of scholarly history. Your "rationale' is irrelevant to scholarly history except as a list of beliefs that occur at certain historical periods and among certain historical persons. It is not the place of historians to learn how a methodology like the one above works.

While this does not prove that Tarot cards have existed since the time of the Old Dynasty pharaohs, it does offer a reasonable explanation for why certain notable occultists have maintained that they represent a kind of Book written by the mythological inventor of Letters & Numbers.
History is not a discipline that operates according to "reasonable explanations" that are supported only by analogies and by beliefs held historically. Those are not the methods used by historians of events.

Someone examining the "History of Ideas" will investigate the development of such ideas, but not as proof of historical events.