Frege's Puzzle

But the number of times we have been in threads which were shot down for being speculation with no historical evidence (like the Cathars one - sorry foolish, but...) and there is apparently no place for that kind of discussion anywhere. That is SUCH a shame. In a climate like that, Galileo would never have been able to discuss the solar system until he was almost dead.... (oops, that WAS what happened to him - but you know what I mean ! Many of the greatest discoveries ever started with no demonstrable evidence, just a theory and a gut feeling - and it seems we cannot do that here, anywhere .)

gregory said:

But the number of times we have been in threads which were shot down for being speculation with no historical evidence (like the Cathars one - sorry foolish, but...) and there is apparently no place for that kind of discussion anywhere. That is SUCH a shame. In a climate like that, Galileo would never have been able to discuss the solar system until he was almost dead.... (oops, that WAS what happened to him - but you know what I mean ! Many of the greatest discoveries ever started with no demonstrable evidence, just a theory and a gut feeling - and it seems we cannot do that here, anywhere .)

Click to expand...

... ... well, there are a few points.

a. Foolish is by far not comparable to Galileo.

b. The decision to stop this thread was due to the wisdom of earlier moderators.

c. Indeed I think, that I personally worked inside this thread more about Cathars then Foolish.

d. Indeed Foolish very seldom talked about Cathars there. He also doesn't tell much in his book (just my opinion).

e. Foolish is very strong in the presentation of communicative contexts, which are NOT the theme in Historical Research usually.

f. Actually I would suggest, that in Historical Research 90% is about facts of researched objects, and maybe 10% should be communicative aspects, which naturally may be and shall be and are good to keep the soul intact.

g. I think, Foolish easily turns the relations to 10% about the facts and to 90% for communicative aspects.

h. Human character is different, that is so and isn't the debate. But ... imagine, you build a house and you've 10 men and 9 of the 10 men are discussing all the day, what has to be done, and one single man does all the work. This house isn't build very quick, naturally.

i. In the Historical Research we've found ways to cooperate with each other and help us with our interests. This works and this is very practical. The result is, that a lot of persons profit from it and a lot of persons become very competent in the theme.
And this has meaning far outside of this Forum, as it is just simply qualitative good work, and it is that, what has to be done to improve the theme.

j. These 90%-full-of-words characters don't fit well in the scheme. If they additionally have a "marketing idea with an own written book in the background" with rather obscure hypotheses, this also complicates matters. In other words: Foolish doesn't fit well.
There are other Forums here with much more communicative aspects.

k. Well, everybody can change and everybody can learn. For the moment I don't see, that Foolish has changed very much.
Just a lot of words around nothing of real relevance. Just a BIG EGO with no real object. For the moment he has reached, that this Frege thread talks about his problems ... and that's actually not the point here.

Well, just for the communicative 10% ... I never asked you, but what's your interest in Historical Research ?

Very nice post, Huck.

I agree entirely, as well as Mary's defence of historical methods and conclusions.

I also don't think another sub-forum will be of any use.

Mary wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

This is what it always has been, and always will be. Someone with a beloved theory comes to announce it, gets rejected, and starts complaining about being rejected, without even trying to understand why the theory is not sound... or completely ridiculous.

BTW, I think in point (h) of your post, you mean to write "what have to be done"
(better English is "what has to be done", but I'm just correcting the typos)

Ross

Huck said:

Well, just for the communicative 10% ... I never asked you, but what's your interest in Historical Research ?

Click to expand...

My interest - study. I read threads, but have little to contribute - I would be the first to admit that.

I totally agree about foolish's thread; I read and even reviewed his book, and I was not impressed with it AS RESEARCH - sadly, as I do like the Cathars. But as something to play with - it was at times - interesting. And there is no place for that here. As Rosanne once said - we could use a sandbox for these occasions. So that there is a place for this stuff that doesn't clutter genuine historical RESEARCH.

As you say, Mary wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

Nowhere to go. But the kind of area she suggested would be a place to send them, so that serious historical, evidence based threads could continue without being invaded by speculation and theory with no basis in fact. Because I agree - that is VERY annoying, and I support those who don't want to see it in a thread where it is well OT.

But should someone like foolish not be able to post about his unsubstantiated theories at all on AT ? That is effectively the alternative.

Off Topic: The Addition of Queens

Hi, Ross,

Ross G Caldwell said:

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. ...

John of Rheinfelden already knows Queens in some kinds of German packs in 1377....

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.

Click to expand...

Excellent on all points.

One additional detail about the earliest moralization of cards. Not only did Brother John mention Queens, he explained why his preferred deck (w/60 cards) was the best. Timothy Betts included this passage, and I posted it in a footnote to my review of your book.

Also there are some who make the game with four kings, eight marschalli and the other common cards, and add besides four queens with four attendants; so that... the number of cards will then be sixty. This manner of distributing the cards and this number pleases me most, for three reasons: first, because of its greater authority; second, because of its royal fitness; and third, because of its more becoming courteousness.

Click to expand...

John's arguments seem to parallel your own, as well as being emphatically period appropriate.

Renaissance Tarot: Two XVI Italian Essays
http://pre-gebelin.blogspot.com/2010/06/renaissance-tarot-two-xvi-italian.html

LOL -- regarding the main topic of this thread, (i.e., eliminating historical arguments from the Historical Research forum), it is hilarious to see people insist that the Historical Research forum is the ONLY place in Aeclectic, perhaps the only place on the internet, where modern fiction can be posted. If they don't post their latest imaginings to this forum then they are silenced. The rejoinders by you, Mary, and Huck in particular (excellent posts) mean nothing to them, even when Huck explicitly lists alternatives. Very funny stuff.

Best regards,
Michael

mjhurst said:

One additional detail about the earliest moralization of cards. Not only did Brother John mention Queens, he explained why his preferred deck (w/60 cards) was the best. Timothy Betts included this passage, and I posted it in a footnote to my review of your book.

Also there are some who make the game with four kings, eight marschalli and the other common cards, and add besides four queens with four attendants; so that... the number of cards will then be sixty. This manner of distributing the cards and this number pleases me most, for three reasons: first, because of its greater authority; second, because of its royal fitness; and third, because of its more becoming courteousness.

Click to expand...

John's arguments seem to parallel your own, as well as being emphatically period appropriate.

Renaissance Tarot: Two XVI Italian Essays
http://pre-gebelin.blogspot.com/2010/06/renaissance-tarot-two-xvi-italian.html

Click to expand...

Thanks for reminding me of that! Yes, that's perfect as an example of what I'm arguing.

"Royal fitness" and "courteousness" I understand, but I'm not sure about "greater authority".

In any case, that's exactly what I mean.

Off Topic: The Addition of Queens

Hi, Ross,

Ross G Caldwell said:

Thanks for reminding me of that! Yes, that's perfect as an example of what I'm arguing.

"Royal fitness" and "courteousness" I understand, but I'm not sure about "greater authority".

In any case, that's exactly what I mean.

Click to expand...

The phrase might mean nothing more than "more nobles". The first thing you would want to do is check the original, rather than relying on Betts' translation. Given the particular context of this question, there might be a more revealing interpretation of the words.

The key point of posting it in this thread is that it may be the first time some of these posters have ever seen historical evidence used to support a speculative hypothesis. Your analysis was unquestionably explanatory and period-appropriate to begin with -- nothing gratuitous or the least bit far-fetched -- and with the addition of substantiation of the most direct sort imaginable, your answer becomes the "right" answer. It is conceivable that there might be another answer, or even more than one, which could seem equally convincing, and other evidence yet to be discovered or brought up which would be as directly on point. However, until that evidence is adduced and that argument is made, your answer will remain the historically correct answer.

It is speculative, as it must be, and provisional, as all empirical conclusions are, but it is perfectly reasonable and historically substantiated. It is not mere speculation.

Best regards,
Michael

gregory said:

My interest - study. I read threads, but have little to contribute - I would be the first to admit that.

I totally agree about foolish's thread; I read and even reviewed his book, and I was not impressed with it AS RESEARCH - sadly, as I do like the Cathars. But as something to play with - it was at times - interesting. And there is no place for that here. As Rosanne once said - we could use a sandbox for these occasions. So that there is a place for this stuff that doesn't clutter genuine historical RESEARCH.

Click to expand...

As suggested, considering the topics of Foolish and Venicebard, a logical place for their themes would be the Kabbalah&Alphabet forum. The Historical Research forum ranges from c. 1300 - 1850 usually.

Nowhere to go. But the kind of area she suggested would be a place to send them, so that serious historical, evidence based threads could continue without being invaded by speculation and theory with no basis in fact. Because I agree - that is VERY annoying, and I support those who don't want to see it in a thread where it is well OT.

But should someone like foolish not be able to post about his unsubstantiated theories at all on AT ? That is effectively the alternative.

Click to expand...

The decision to stop the thread about Cathars was done by the moderators of the time. Actually I personally was never a friend of "closed threads" ... I personally would prefer "open and clear words" at the right time between the participants of a Forum, but occasionally this might be at the border of the rules of politeness.
But Aeclectic is a big Forum and its difficult to make rules for all groups. In the Historical Research Forum we clearly have very special interests.

... ... The decision of Salomon would likely suggest, that they take their home place at Kabbalah&Alphabet. Perhaps the name could be modified a little bit.

Ross - Thank you for the serious consideration of the Queens origin.

A friend just brought me back a 40-card Moroccan playing card deck of the type she saw being used for fortune-telling on the streets. The pips are numbered 1 through 7 and the courts 10 through 12 - so there are no cards numbered 8 or 9.

The courts (three per suit) are: Page, Knight and _?_. The _?_ cards certainly look like Queens rather than Kings to me. Although the deck is new, the design is clearly an old one.

Off Topic: The Addition of Queens

Hi, Ross,

mjhurst said:

One additional detail about the earliest moralization of cards. Not only did Brother John mention Queens, he explained why his preferred deck (w/60 cards) was the best. Timothy Betts included this passage, and I posted it in a footnote to my review of your book.

John's arguments seem to parallel your own, as well as being emphatically period appropriate.

Renaissance Tarot: Two XVI Italian Essays
http://pre-gebelin.blogspot.com/2010/06/renaissance-tarot-two-xvi-italian.html

Click to expand...

A couple years ago I posted an 1878 article discussing the British Museum's acquisition of one manuscript of Brother John's Tractatus, (as a postscript to a discussion of Theodore Low De Vinne's interpretation of Tarot). The article, by Sir Edward Augustus Bond, translates two substantial passages. The second passage includes the topic at hand, and indicates that Brother John explained the meaning of these terms. Unfortunately, the translation ends before finishing the explanation, and his explanation of the "greater authority" term compares the deck to two passages from Daniel in a way that is not immediately clear.

Also, there are some who make the game with four kings and eight ' marschalli' and the other common cards, and add besides four queens with four attendants, so that each of those four kings, with all the family of the whole kingdom, speaking of the chief persons, is there, and the number of the cards will then be sixty. And this manner of making the cards and in this number the most pleases me, and for three reasons: first, because of its greater authority; second, because of its royal fitness; third, because of its more becoming courteousness. First, I say, because of its greater authority, for we have its express figure in Holy Scripture, Daniel iii.; and again in that statue which King Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, saw in his dream, and which Daniel interpreted to him, the which statue had a golden head, a silver breast, a brazen belly, and legs of iron.

Click to expand...

It is a shame that the long-rumored critical edition of the Tractatus has not materialized, nor even an English translation.

Tarot and the Dance of Death
http://pre-gebelin.blogspot.com/2009/01/tarot-and-dance-of-death.html

Best regards,
Michael