Frege's Puzzle

Teheuti

This is the beauty of logical argument and rational presentaion of one's point of view. As in a court case, where each lawyer presents his case, with all the evidence he or she can come up with - however circumstantial it may be - and the interepretation of the facts of the case, the jury puts all the information together and decides what they feel is substantial evidence or whether they believe one side of the story or the other. . . .
Since most of this evidence will be secondary, speculation or simply an opinion, everyone can decide for themselves how reasonable it sounds.
You are basically speaking about history or science determined via persuasion and voted on by non-experts. Most legal cases no longer go to trial with only circumstantial evidence. Law arguments by analogy, although I believe still allowed, are admitted to be the most faulty way to get at the truth. Still, this is not a Court of Law and judgments based on rational presentations without evidence is not how history works. Furthermore, logical arguments in the sciences and philosophy need to follow the formal rules of logic—not just what sounds good.

I'm afraid we'll lose what few serious historian-types that we still have and be left entirely with those who don't know or understand anything about real historical research. You've certainly convinced me to go elsewhere for my tarot history if those are to be the standards here. There will be no one left who even knows who Ginerva Malatesta was or why she might have been significant.

BTW, I don't know why Michael (who is the primary person I believe you keep referring to) stoops to name-calling. He regularly gets chastised or kicked off the forum for a period of time for doing so. OTOH, he's made many extremely worthwhile and solidly-based contributions to the historical picture of both Tarot and cartomancy. I consider him a treasure, although a sometimes annoying one. And, when conversing with people who don't flaunt the methodologies you will rarely see him be anything but helpful and supportive. But I'm not here to answer for him or anyone else but myself.

I have to say that some of the most annoying people have been some of my best teachers both here and on TarotL, when they are the ones who've insisted on the highest standards and have pointed out my errors and questioned my facts or logic (as I tend to get carried away with ideas). We, in the Tarot world, deserve to have people who epitomize a world-class professional quality approach to the history of Tarot!

I am speaking as someone who would like to see the Historical Research section maintain a high level of scholarly historical standards, while still welcoming newcomers who want to ask questions or try out an idea but are then willing to learn.
 

Titadrupah

After Aeclectic's tarotforum opened, the historians started drifting over here and requested an area where historical standards and protocols could be deemed the basis for discourse—to allow for the serious discussion of historical evidence. As the right to hold to these standards was repeatedly questioned, an altogether separate site came into being: "The Tarot History Forum". Many of the same people drop in on both. The one here has more latitude and therefore regularly has discussions like the one we are having.

Newcomers can get a taste of what tarot history is all about. Anyone with a theory can present it, but their theory will get critiqued, and they'll be asked for evidence to support it. Theories that can't be shown to have any historical ground are pretty much dismissed because there is no research to be examined and therefore it falls outside of this category. A supposedly logical argument does not constitute historical research, evidence or proof. Acceptance of historical theories are not based on popularity contests. Ideas without a basis in historical evidence are fine, but don't belong here. Being willing to stay and do research (to the best of one's ability) can lead to learning a tremendous amount about history.

Spurred by a comment from the 15th century Italian author, Aretino, that "everything was used for fortune-telling," I was intrigued that contemporary historians insisted that the real case was that "everything except tarot cards were used for fortune-telling." So, I've been gathering evidence on tarot being more than simply a game. First, I broadened the concept to playing cards in order not to overlook something significant and then I started listing any evidence I came across. Ross Caldwell and Huck (among many others) have been great at finding stuff. Here's two lists:

http://marygreer.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/origins-of-divination-with-playing-cards/
http://marygreer.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/tarot-and-playing-cards-in-witchcraft/

A theory is something that should start to emerge after examining this kind of data.

Dear Teheuti, I will agree that if you are pretending to construct a theory of history and origins, a reasonable amount of evidence must support it. That is obvious, common sense. But even to build such a thing, it won’t hurt to go through a previous phase of feedback and interchange of ideas.
If you are not after a theory (or publishing a book) and you are only driven by curiosity, an open public forum like this one will certainly be attractive. Why should you go tiptoeing in fear of breaking the protocols of respectable research methodology? Findings do come from accidental, idle thoughts and carefree conversation. Besides, "Historical research" is a very wide field. The work of devoted scholars is unquestionably essential, that is not on debate, but even in keeping high standards you’ll find important differences in approach. Between Michael Dummett and Robert V. O’neill there is enough room for discussion, as in between the positions of the skeptic, the agnostic and the believer. Perhaps one of the reasons why flames go so high around these topics is because on one side you have those for whom Tarot is a hobby, no matter how passionately cultivated, and on the other you have those who find in Tarot their system of beliefs.
 

Teheuti

Dear Teheuti, I will agree that if you are pretending to construct a theory of history and origins, a reasonable amount of evidence must support it. That is obvious, common sense. But even to build such a thing, it won’t hurt to go through a previous phase of feedback and interchange of ideas.
I think you'll find most of the time, that when someone new presents their idea or theory, there is a pretty decent and supportive response to their interest. If it is an idea that most of us have entertained repeatedly and in depth without finding anything to support it, then we'll usually say so and point to a couple of threads in which it has been examined exhaustively.

The problem is that some people will have invested a lot in their theory and want, even demand, the approbation of the historians here who just can't give it. If there is then silence, they want to know why no one is paying attention to what they have to say. On occasion I have seen a willingness to revisit claims. However, when there is no new evidence to evaluate, there is really no where to go.

I just got a book from the library - "How the Hippies Saved Physics" by David Kaiser. I've only skimmed it, but I got it because in the late 70s I attended a great many lectures and classes from several of the physicists and other scientists that Kaiser talks about—Jack Sarfatti, Fred Allen Wolf, Saul-Paul Sirag, Arthur Bell. One of the things I remember is that while they could be incredibly generous with our wacky theories and naïveté, that we listened when they spoke and we tried to understand and learn from them. However, they reserved some sessions and discussions for deep theorizing and mathematical explanations that most of us couldn't begin to understand - and we were told that during these sessions they weren't going to stop and try to explain things to us or even answer questions. I didn't go to most of those as they were way over my head! I'm not saying this is the same thing, but I do see a few parallels.

I propose a History section called "Historical Speculations and Ideas" that is separate from Historical Research. It can be a place to bounce ideas around and determine if they seem reasonable or believable to others. I agree that there should always be a place for the fresh and new. I think that anyone who wants should be able to post in Historical Research, but that we should also have the right to ask for evidence and to critique their reasoning based on scholarly historical standards.
 

Titadrupah

I propose a History section called "Historical Speculations and Ideas" that is separate from Historical Research. It can be a place to bounce ideas around and determine if they seem reasonable or believable to others.

I was just about to ask you for a suggestion like this. : )
 

Richard

......I propose a History section called "Historical Speculations and Ideas" that is separate from Historical Research. It can be a place to bounce ideas around and determine if they seem reasonable or believable to others.......
That would be a great idea. Foolish could post about his interesting theory of Catharism and Tarot without serious threat from the "hard core" historians, whose "feathers might be ruffled" (his terms, not mine). Perhaps even my own more subjective notions, which, I have discovered, are not too distant from those of Lon Milo DuQuette (and, at times, Crowley himself), could also find a home there. It might also provide a fertile ground for Gnostic speculation about Tarot (which very indirectly ties in with foolish's Cathar connection). Perhaps "Tarot: Historical and Philosphical Speculation" might work as a forum title.
 

Teheuti

Perhaps "Tarot: Historical and Philosphical Speculation" might work as a forum title.
I really like the Philosophical addition. It makes the topic much more intriguing and fills in another apparent gap.

Moderators, where are you?
 

Huck

Teheuti said:
I propose a History section called "Historical Speculations and Ideas" that is separate from Historical Research. It can be a place to bounce ideas around and determine if they seem reasonable or believable to others.)

I'm not a moderator.
I don't mind a new forum for specific interests, but I oppose a partly name copy of "Historical Research" like "Historical Speculations and Ideas".

Who has this interest? I think, it's Foolish, Venicebard and perhaps this occasionally appearing "Tarot Card".

Foolish (about 500 posts) connects Marseille Tarot hypotheses with iconographic interpretation and Cathars (pre-1300).
We have a Forum with Marseille in the headline.

Similar Venicebard (about 900 posts) has a focus on the Tarot des Marseilles and connects it to early bardic interpretations and things, which might be classified also as pre-1300.
We have a Forum with Marseille in the headline.

What Tarot Card (7 posts) really wants, it's a mystery, cause he doesn't answer questions. But it seems, that he aims at Pre-Christian elements.

Well, one shouldn't forget Yygdrasilian (about 500 posts), who started this thread and who occasionally appears with mathematical spotlights, which he mostly forgets to explain.

What's the common line between these different interests? ... I personally would see "Tarot similar objects before 1300", but from all mentioned authors ALL seem to be eager to declare, that their definition of "Tarot" (which is a word, which appeared in the context of playing cards around 1500, and the really first "Tarot" for the moment was a dog with the name "Tarot" in the possession of Agrippa of Nettesheim; the first used playing card name of similar sound was "Taroch" in 1505) would be the "real one and only famous Tarot". Which is naturally a rather big contradiction to that, hat we in the historical research forum are working on.

Well it's this phenomenon ...
Huck said:
When I ask Google, what it thinks about Frege and Tarot, it understands "free reading".
It believes, I made a typo. Google thinks, everybody wants "free reading".

Such things happen, when somebody claims a word, although it doesn't belong to him. The "free reading" agents have made "Frege" to a writing error.
I for my part very seldom address "15th century cards similar to Tarot cards" with "Tarot cards", but with "Trionfi cards", just to make clear, that there was another name use during 15th century.

I don't know, what name they shall use for a new forum ... but I don't agree with a solution, which includes the word "historical".
And actually, if they want a new Forum, there should have been some guarantee, that they really have some chance to get some posters.
 

gregory

I propose a History section called "Historical Speculations and Ideas" that is separate from Historical Research. It can be a place to bounce ideas around and determine if they seem reasonable or believable to others. I agree that there should always be a place for the fresh and new. I think that anyone who wants should be able to post in Historical Research, but that we should also have the right to ask for evidence and to critique their reasoning based on scholarly historical standards.

debra has been asking for this for AGES but has always been shot down... I think it's a GREAT idea.
 

Ross G Caldwell

Debra's and Mary's question about the addition of the Queen to the card pack (the "why" part at least) is really a very interesting one. It's one of those areas of playing card history where informed speculation is fun, desirable, and actually necessary, since there is nothing written on this specific question (that I know of), and it seems to indicate something broader about European culture.

Only European cards have her, and then only some kinds of European cards. The Mamluk cards - the structure of which is presumed to be the immediate ancestor of European cards - have only a King with two lieutenants.

In playing cards there is also the phenomenon where the Jacks, Valets or Unters - usually two of them - are portrayed as women. I don't think there are any current kinds of playing cards with female Jacks (I could easily be mistaken), but they are observable now and again in historical cards (The most extreme example is the Cary Yale Tarot, which has female knights and valets in each suit, so that the sexes are exactly balanced).

The latter question seems easily answerable: Jacks are typically portayed as youths, where the sex appears indeterminate, so occaisionally a card designer will make the sex differences clear through physical attributes and clothing.

The Queen, on the other hand, is an addition to the pack, not implicit in the ambiguity of depictions of Kings, and so not the reification of implicit ambiguity, unlike what appears to be the case for female Jacks. Cards either have a set of Queens, or don't (I'm also not aware of any packs with two Kings with his ministers and two Queens with hers).

John of Rheinfelden already knows Queens in some kinds of German packs in 1377. Bernardino of Siena mentions them in a sermon given in Siena in 1424, along with Kings and higher and lower soldiers (like the Ober and Unter of German packs, and the Knight and Valet of Tarots). Bernardino never mentions the trumps, so it appears that he is describing what would be for his listeners the standard kind of playing cards, including four court cards (not called "courts", but "figures", to distinguish them from the figure-less number cards). Therefore there was, for a time, a standard 56-card pack in Italy. It lasted long enough to become the same pack and number of court cards used when the trumps were added to invent Tarot.

My answer for "why?" the Queen was added to playing cards is that it reflects European society, where women have always played a much more public role than in Moslem society. In fact women were completely effaced from public life in Moslem society, so that they didn't think "A King with his Queen", but "A King with his ministers", when they thought about the top level of society. The "King" in Moslem society has consorts, not a Queen, and they are never seen in a public capacity anyway. In European society, by contrast, a King must have a Queen, and she always appears with him in public, and is quite frequently the ruler in her own right. The higher status and power of women in European society is indigenous, despite the patriarchalism of Greek and Roman society, which was superficial compared to Moslem society (and others).

So, the original cards' "King with his ministers" suggested a court to European cardmakers, when they came to put images on the highest cards, and to a European, a King's court cannot be complete without a Queen.

A real, living court simultaneously suggests romance, intrigue, and instantly makes playing cards a metaphor for society. The same thing happened to the Chess pieces, when the original, Eastern vizier, the King's counsellor, was transformed in Europe instead into his consort, his Queen (already by the 10th century). It seems that the European imagination - at least in France and in parts of Germany and Italy - can hardly imagine a story (which a game is) where a King does not have a Queen. It is a kind of "ludic logic", where the story forms around the name or image, and then takes on a life of its own.

However, her fortune in the 56-card pack and in playing cards is sporadic. The national patterns of playing cards in Italy and Spain (the "Latin suited packs") removed the Queen (or never had her, like perhaps in Spain) and have three males, King, Knight and Valet. In Italy, only in Tarot packs do the four court cards, including the Queen, survive.

By contrast, in France the Queen was saved and the Knight kicked out. It was French cards that were adopted into a standard pattern in England, so that by the influence of the British Empire, the most common cards in the world today have a King, Queen and Jack.
 

Huck

debra has been asking for this for AGES but has always been shot down... I think it's a GREAT idea.

We have in the History section a Forum "Kabbalah & Alphabets - Jewish mysticism and its esoteric use, alphabets, and their application to Tarot."
This runs not very well in comparison to the other History Forums ...
.. in its character these themes have their relations to Venicebard's bardic alphabets and Foolish's Pre-1300 assumption about Cathars.
Actually it would be perhaps only necessary to adapt the title a little bit more to a broader interest as just "Kabbalah and Alphabets".

The Aeclectic Forum would have then a weaker theme, which becomes stronger, instead two weak themes, which stumble about their "missing activity".