Frege's Puzzle

Teheuti

Foolish - In post #10 (very early in the discussion) of "Reconsidering a Cathar Connection," I wrote:

"Why create a very convoluted explanation (with nothing to historically substantiate it) when much simpler explanations abound with plenty of historical evidence?

"I'm not saying this to be mean, but because in the 'historical research' section of the forum, we reserve the right to ask that theories be backed up, at least to some degree, with facts."

As the discussion continued you were repeatedly told, as politely as possible, that your Cathar theory made for an interesting story but no connection could be found to tarot history, nor were your theory and arguments historically sound. Plenty of examples from your work were examined.
 

Debra

Wikipedia--anyone can contribute and edit there.
They've established a sensible if somewhat complex code of standards.

There's also Tarotpedia. What's the role of that?
 

Teheuti

Wikipedia--anyone can contribute and edit there.
They've established a sensible if somewhat complex code of standards.

There's also Tarotpedia. What's the role of that?
I don't believe either of those are discussion forums. They report the facts and sometimes theories held about them, but don't actively ask questions, discuss or critique ideas in an open forum.

Or did you mean that we should adopt their complex code of standards?

I'm not sure what you're getting at.
 

Teheuti

In Chopra's worldview he suggests that we "explain something by what it achieves, instead of what it can be broken down into." (See "War of the Worldviews" above.)

So, what does the Egyptian origin of Tarot achieve?

- great antiquity (4,000 years or more and a connection to Tep Zepi (Egypt's 'First Time'))
- hieroglyphic status (the sacredness of pictorial glyphs; pictures speak louder than words; Divine creation via Thoth)
- exotic and 'special' qualities (it rescues us from the mundane or everyday)

It gives those who work with the cards 'special' access to:
- wisdom (continuity with a Golden Age with a more direct (intuitive) connection to the Cosmos)
- magic and power (Egypt as the source of Western magic and alchemy, where Magicians performed miracles)
- mystery and secrets (we can't really know all that the Tarot means and can do; it's a clue/key to the universe)
- freedom (it frees us from normal social and physical constraints)

In essence, it guarantees supremacy of the imaginal (in the highest sense) over the mundane, and, ultimately, suggests that spirit transcends matter.

I think this explains why we are so attracted to this story. Please add more things that it achieves.

These attractions explain a lot about the human psyche (or at least the psyche of many tarotists). But, they don't explain where the notion of Egypt+Tarot came from. Once the notion was here it filled a perennial longing or need among certain groups of people.

We need one section that can explore the idea's development historically and theories about why, how and for what reason it emerged. We need another section that can focus on when and where the story first emerged (France in the 2nd half of the 18th century) and whether there is any evidence supporting its supposed historical origins (not so far & not likely).
 

Debra

Looks like we've hijacked Yyg's thread.

I'm saying that if people want to contribute to a repository of tarot history knowledge, apart from writing to Stuart Kaplan with suggestions for his Encyclopedia series, both Wikipedia and Tarotpedia are possibilities.

A friend suggests a comparison with the deck creation forum, where are threads by people with varying levels of talent, experience, and tarot knowledge. That forum has no division into "real deck creation" vs. "bogus deck creation." Readers make our own judgments.

I don't think the historical research forum needs rearranging. It's not a library, it's a community forum. And Teheuti--who is the "official we" you're referring to? Even if there were professional historians participating, that doesn't establish the right to call it peer review and demand recognition that their views must be superior.

Anyway, here's my modest proposal.

(1) No personal insults. This is the rule for the whole forum. The only difference here is that some people use insults in Latin.

(2) If the thesis of a thread seems unbearably stupid or misguided, lay out objections logically and politely. If the original poster persists, learn to bear it, or ignore it.

I love to be right, so for me, (2) is the challenge. I'm working on it.
I'm not tempted to make personal insults in Latin or even Yiddish.
 

Debra

Wouldn't this require its own thread? Well, anyway, I have a thought.

...what does the Egyptian origin of Tarot achieve?

- great antiquity (4,000 years or more and a connection to Tep Zepi (Egypt's 'First Time'))
- hieroglyphic status (the sacredness of pictorial glyphs; pictures speak louder than words; Divine creation via Thoth)
- exotic and 'special' qualities (it rescues us from the mundane or everyday)

It gives those who work with the cards 'special' access to:
- wisdom (continuity with a Golden Age with a more direct (intuitive) connection to the Cosmos)
- magic and power (Egypt as the source of Western magic and alchemy, where Magicians performed miracles)
- mystery and secrets (we can't really know all that the Tarot means and can do; it's a clue/key to the universe)
- freedom (it frees us from normal social and physical constraints)

In essence, it guarantees supremacy of the imaginal (in the highest sense) over the mundane, and, ultimately, suggests that spirit transcends matter.

I think this explains why we are so attracted to this story. Please add more things that it achieves.

These attractions explain a lot about the human psyche (or at least the psyche of many tarotists). But, they don't explain where the notion of Egypt+Tarot came from. Once the notion was here it filled a perennial longing or need among certain groups of people.
...

I'm focusing on this:
"These attractions explain a lot about the human psyche (or at least the psyche of many tarotists)."

You may be right. I think it's interesting. It'd be nice to discuss it here. But.

Look what happens if we apply the same standards that you prescribe for other contributors to the History forum.

Your exploration of why people like the Egyptian Origin story attributes a complex set of conscious and unconscious desires to others, lying on the border between psychology and social psychology. Psychology and social psych are real sciences.

Without evidence and a description and explanation of how the idea of Egyptian origins "achieves" these things, it's purely speculative.

To make this rigorous, at the outset it's necessary to address the following.

** What is the definition of the "Egyptian Origin of Tarot" theory relevant to this hypothesis? Is it a single story? How developed must the story be, to serve the functions you're describing and to fit within the confines of the hypothesis? (For example, insofar as the Mamluk cards are the oldest known relatives to tarot, it is in fact historically accurate to tie Tarot origin to Egypt.)

** What is the evidence that Egyptian origin is believed widely enough by "those who work with the cards" to be worth such exploration? (For example, it may be a throwaway line in the lwb believed by very few, and not necessarily those who work with cards, however "working with cards" is defined.)

** What is the proposed method for gathering unbiased evidence that belief in Egyptian origins serves these functions, consciously or unconsciously, for individuals or for groups?


In short: Prove it.
 

Teheuti

Without evidence and a description and explanation of how the idea of Egyptian origins "achieves" these things, it's purely speculative.
Exactly. You get it! The point I made at the bottom of my post (and I may not have been clear) was that the subject of what the Egyptian Origin of Tarot achieved could best be addressed speculatively—if a new section was added to discuss speculative material. I don't think this approach should be addressed by Historical Research as it isn't really provable.

At the end I also mentioned the kinds of approach that Historical Research was more likely to address. We might look, for instance, to see if anyone before Abbé Rive suggested an Egyptian source for Tarot (i.e., the Trumps). In Historical Reserch we look for early documents mentioning this idea.

Even given the Muslim Mamluk cards (probably from a Persian model) there is no indication of a set of Trumps in Egypt, which is what distinguishes Tarot—so, no, I don't consider Tarot as originating in Egypt.

I don't know if anyone here is equipped or has the resources to handle full-scale psychological research, therefore we have our limitations.
 

Titadrupah

What's interesting in this kind of forum is precisely how the collectivity can provide with the different parts of a -puzzle-, that otherwise a single individual wouldn't have.
 

foolish

You have made clear all the ways in which we failed you... by not immediately realizing that you were not interested in actual historical connections (or not) between Tarot and the Cathars
Nice try. Please don't put words in my mouth. I started the thread specifically to encourage a discussion about my ideas and to get some feedback. If I wasn't interested in that, I wouldn't have bothered.

I tried to establish a theory by making connections - both historically (in a specific time frame) and culturally, through an analysis of similar artwork of the time - a method you have proposed in order to make interpretive associations. I'm sorry if those connections did not rise to the level of evidence you demand for historical purposes. There were other items surrounding this topic which could have been the subject of discussion, such as the O'Neill arguments regarding the very same connection - which I have brought up. Other facts emerged, such as the translation of the Cathar bible, which painted a quite different impression of the Judgment card. However, that piece of evidence was also dismissed.

"Why create a very convoluted explanation (with nothing to historically substantiate it) when much simpler explanations abound with plenty of historical evidence?
A simpler explanation does not always outweigh a more convoluted one simply because it is simpler. There are also reasons why the more convoluted one - in this case - makes sense. It also does not dismiss the possibility that both explanations could be valid (i.e. the tarot had more than one purpose or use). But if this theory was in fact true (which we can't seem to prove or disprove), there would be obvious reasons why it was more convoluted.

We are trying to address your concerns as well as those of other people. Clearly we are not perfect and the denizens of this section clearly failed to meet your needs. I think we get it now. In fact, I don't know why you are here except to keep letting us know how inadequate we were for you.

We are trying to address the issue and hopefully will be allowed to officially set some standards and make them known to everyone.
Terrific. Would you have gotten to this point, where these problems are being taken seriously, if people like myself didn't speak up? (Believe me, it's an unpleasant and thankless job). Apart from the last few responses to these concerns, the initial reaction of your ("we", "our") forum in the earlier posts seemed to be defending these actions. It was unclear what direction you were going.