There was a wish: A new Forum

Huck

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.
 

Teheuti

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

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

"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."
 

gregory

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

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.
 

Zephyros

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

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

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.
 

Debra

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.