The Take-Over of Historical Research into Tarot

gregory

What constitutes 'historical speculation'? Would the following be acceptable?
"Tarot originated in Atlantis. I know this to be true because my Spirit Guide told me so."

I would have to say no.

Not because of the "theory" as such, but because this one is stated as a fact. When a fact is that bald, there is no room for discussion - it would just go:

"I don't agree."
"My guide says you are wrong."
"But I don't believe Atlantis even existed."
"My guide says I am right."
"There is no evidence of tarot before the 15th century, so it can't be right."
"My guide says not to worry about that because it is the truth that it came from Atlantis."

It isn't a speculation at all, when set up like that. (And there have been threads that went exactly that way, I am sorry to say.)

I too am a language fanatic. :D
 

Richard

.........I too am a language fanatic. :D
That's delightfully refreshing! :D

Your example is like what happens when one tries to have an intelligent discussion with an 'intelligent' bible pounder. You can't falsify what they say, because of the way they word it.

Anthony Flew thought of a way to have the last word in a similar discussion in The Parable of the Gardener. You probably know about this, but not everyone does.
 

Debra

Yeah except I don't recall anyone recently claiming that their very private guides have assured them that tarot comes from Atlantis and insisting that we should believe this to be true.

It's a straw man. Or maybe a witch hunt.

No small irony.
 

gregory

Yeah except I don't recall anyone recently claiming that their very private guides have assured them that tarot comes from Atlantis and insisting that we should believe this to be true.

It's a straw man. Or maybe a witch hunt.

No small irony.
No indeed. But LRichard just asked if that would be an OK theory to post - and I just said no, because... :D

There ARE similar threads in the not too distant past where someone has refused to accept anything but their own theory and insisting that it is true, no matter what genuine evidence can be adduced to PROVE them wrong (and I well recall during one of those getting a PM saying "thank you for agreeing with me" when I very much hadn't - that level of denial !) This begs the question of why the thread was started, though. Because if you KNOW the answer, and are just TELLING everyone, there is no research and study involved. Proselytising is for the pulpit. I have no quarrel with threads where such things as Atlantis are DISCUSSED, as in:

I think tarot came from Atlantis.
Why?
Because the first recorded cards were all muddy with strange lights coming out of them.
Can you prove that ?
Not prove, but there are these tablets showing images that look like the shining cards in one of the pyramids... what does anyone else think ?
I dunno but I saw images of the cards on some cave paintings - which was first - cavemen or Atlantis ?
Wow that's interesting - but I don't think cavemen had popes...

and so on....

Mad, sure - but at least it is discussion.

But wait - about those cavemen..... })
 

Zephyros

The same old syndrome that since reading Tarot is seen as being intuitive, anything having to do with it must be as well.

"Tarot comes from Atlantis because it feels like it did, and in Tarot there are no right or wrong answers, so it must be also true"
 

momentarylight

Early morning reflections, not necessarily well organised

I don't think that identification of the subjective and objective is a shortcoming in anyone, but it can be pathetic in a culture in which a dualistic mindset is predominant. When in Rome it is advisable at least to pay a certain degree of lip service to Roman cultural distinctives. Not to do so may get you thrown to the lions, and a martyr complex is usually pathological. Let's suppose that I am a mystic who identifies above and below, inside and outside, spiritual and material. If I refuse to recognize that this is incompatible with the "rules", then I have not learned how to play the game and might as well expect rejection and failure. It is foolhardy to expect the majority to understand my mindset; and for me to trample on the majority's distinction between internal and external is an offense which is just as objectionable as their refusal to understand my mystical monism. Is it asking too much for a monist to temporarily suspend the blatant expression of their perspective long enough to compose a post to a dualistic forum? I think not. If I can do it, anyone can.

The Monistic Illiminatus and Crackpot

ETA. Based on my acquaintance with the New Age movement, wherein 'spirit guide' was probably popularized, I would hazard the guess that most people who use the term are fairly conventional dualists, certainly capable of distinguishing between what is generally regarded as material and what is spiritual.

It seems to me that people are trying to direct the traffic and that is really hard in a forum like this where participants come from all kinds of social, educational and cultural backgrounds.

The diversity of people's backgrounds is fascinating. Also, many people do not understand the difference between fact and opinion and the more you press the point, the more entrenched positions become. It is how you make your point that matters but no matter how articulate, educated and kind you are, people may not be persuaded.

Sometimes people enter discussions because they simply want to belong . Or they might have an embryonic interest and don't know quite how to pursue it. They should not be treated with disdain because of that. We are not all good teachers and responding to questions or tentative posts with a lot intellectualism may not be a helpful way to respond. Wisdom is always kinder than that.

Incidentally, I think the notion of "spirit guide" has manifestations in Western urbanised culture that predate the predominantly American new age era. But I guess we would have to put some boundaries around such a discussion were it to occur and it certainly doesn't belong here. And spirit guides don't usually make pronouncements on historical matters, at least in my experience, which admittedly is pretty undeveloped in this area. :).

However, to my bemusement, my own teacher said last week that once one of her own guides had predicted the beginning of the breakdown of the Catholic Church as it has been for centuries would begin in her lifetime. The exposure of failures in the institutional Church in many western societies in recent times makes me wonder whether the guide was right. Sometimes there are signs in other social, political and economic institutions which make one wonder about their ultimate survival. That is speculation or prediction perhaps and we all do that :).

I think it is permissible to speculate about history as well. The history and anthropology of Australia was written by white Caucasians and has been factually challenged, as it should be, because many issues were blatantly ignored or misinterpreted due to cultural bias and lack of real engagement with aboriginal culture. The original historians and anthropologists did not have the tools or the knowledge to engage with such a different metaphysical culture.

I am not all that interested in much of the detail about tarot history which is discussed here but I might be at some future stage. I read Mary Greer and Robert M. Place with interest. but at the moment a broad brush view is enough for me. I don't believe that tarot cards originated in Egypt but I believe that tarot is symbolic language and that was certainly a part of Egyptian history and mythology.

Sometimes people argue at cross purposes because they don't take the time to understand what the other person might be saying or where they are coming from. Sometimes reaching mutual ground is really hard and we just have to let go but we may have sown a seed which will make sense to someone later on.

I am not sure whether this is meta discussion but if it is, moderators please feel all right to remove it.

.
 

ravenest

Well, I sorta agree with all of that BUT I think the complaints (re the starting of this thread and some of the posters views in it) thought the Historical Forum would be the ONE PRESERVE away from all of that ... I mean the WHOLE FIELD of tarot and this whole site(other than historical) is open for those sort of dynamics you describe.

Cant we have one little preserve where the 'nutters haven't cut down all the trees'?

That's what I think this thread is about ... sometimes one has to put up a fence to keep the people out that are going to wreck a preserve ... of course, then they will complain they cant get in ... or just go in and start a campfire , throw their garbage about and leave.

Again ... I agree with your post but I think the issue is there is the whole restt of the forum for that.
 

ravenest

...I think it is permissible to speculate about history as well. The history and anthropology of Australia was written by white Caucasians and has been factually challenged, as it should be, because many issues were blatantly ignored or misinterpreted due to cultural bias and lack of real engagement with aboriginal culture. The original historians and anthropologists did not have the tools or the knowledge to engage with such a different metaphysical culture.

True, and I feel strongly about that, however I feel that the way to counter that is NOT through further historical speculation but must be , as you point out; " factually challenged ... because many issues were blatantly ignored or misinterpreted due to cultural bias and lack of real engagement with aboriginal culture".

I believe the same applies here.
 

momentarylight

Ravenest, to be honest I don't know enough about what has been difficult to fully understand the problem.

People can not respond to posts or deflect them but you don't want to have to be doing that all the time and maybe it is, as Teheuti suggests, about creating a culture within the thread.

I tend to read books and blogs for more strictly measured history discussions but sometimes something here has caught my eye.
 

Rosanne

Well I always enjoy MomentaryLight and Ravenest and of course Debra and Gregory.
Here's the rub....
However, to my bemusement, my own teacher said last week that once one of her own guides had predicted the beginning of the breakdown of the Catholic Church as it has been for centuries would begin in her lifetime. The exposure of failures in the institutional Church in many western societies in recent times makes me wonder whether the guide was right. Sometimes there are signs in other social, political and economic institutions which make one wonder about their ultimate survival. That is speculation or prediction perhaps and we all do that .
You do not need a guide to realise this is true. You need an understanding of History.
What people do not seem to realise, is that gentle persuasion and politeness can deviate someone away from extreme ideas in an historical context. ( I speak English see my s'sss)
I have had extreme ideas....not of the Atlantis genre, but not accurate historically.
I do not mind a polite correction, or a pointing toward another area on the forum. Some are excellent at that....some are dreadful. Dreadful makes me stay on the wrong track, even if it is detrimental to what I am trying to prove or believe.
So I ban "Crackpot" "delusional" and all put downs.
~Rosanne