The Take-Over of Historical Research into Tarot

Rosanne

Nudge from ravenest LRichard...sorry I did not realize how rude that sounded at the end of my post....

We are not stupid really as a group of posters. Or do you think we are?
~Rosanne

Perhaps better said..."I think we and yourself can mostly sort the wheat from the chaff (like Dante).
You see I did not realize you were directing that post at ravenest, and I thought you were something of an iconclast or at least thought spirituality was overated, so therefore your post was tongue in cheek........sort of Devil's Advocate type of post.
I see I speculated far too much upon your views. (read big grin in here)
~Rosanne

Richard

I was just asking for opinions. Apparently some topics may be appropriate for both Historical Research and Talking Tarot.

ETA. No problem, Rosanne. As you seem to have surmised, my post was both a gentle poke in the direction of certain posters

as well as an innocent question :angel:

. Are you interested in semiotics?

conversus

Historical Importance!!!!

Rosanne said:
is Tarot Historically important?
ummmmm, not like the Life of Abraham Lincoln, or Barbie, but importance is lost on me everytime I get out my cards.
~Rosanne

It seems to me, speaking as an Historian, that if one is ready or able to recognize the "historical" importance of Barbie then one should be equally equipt to recognize the importance to humanity for reliable "History of the Tarots".

Not quite 1200 words, but you could read between the lines and get to the same place at the end of the day.

just a thought

CED

Rosanne

conversus said:
It seems to me, speaking as an Historian, that if one is ready or able to recognize the "historical" importance of Barbie then one should be equally equipt to recognize the importance to humanity for reliable "History of the Tarots".
CED

You are quite right conversus..I was been glib.
Anyone who knows me, knows my passion for Tarot History. I also agree there are other views, which I am ready to read.
~Rosanne

Rosanne

LRichard said:
Are you interested in semiotics?

Yes, I guess Tarot users are.
Medically NO! I cannot tell a wart from a verruca, unlike the rest of my family.
I like Umberto Eco; and Augustine of Hippo.The Printed word, the painted sign, signs of weather to come...fireworks....
Are you serious?
~Rosanne

Richard

Rosanne said:
Yes, I guess Tarot users are.
Medically NO! I cannot tell a wart from a verruca, unlike the rest of my family.
I like Umberto Eco; and Augustine of Hippo.The Printed word, the painted sign, signs of weather to come...fireworks....
Are you serious?
~Rosanne

Yes, I'm serious. I used to be interested in linguistics, especially syntax and semantics. Still am, but don't actively pursue it any more. Recently finished reading Foucault's Pendulum.

magpie9

Not my forum at all, but it seems to me the thing about crackpots is that they really believe they are right, and their feeling of rightness or the "spirit guide" the are listening to is authentic and needs no further proof. There is no getting rid of these people or getting them to supply any actual foundation for their beliefs. They don't realize they are the crackpots. I hope Tehuti stays with the forum, since the crackpots are not going to either be cleared out our clear out of their own accord. Perhaps she could learn to ignore them?

Richard

magpie9 said:
Not my forum at all, but it seems to me the thing about crackpots is that they really believe they are right, and their feeling of rightness or the "spirit guide" the are listening to is authentic and needs no further proof. There is no getting rid of these people or getting them to supply any actual foundation for their beliefs. They don't realize they are the crackpots. I hope Tehuti stays with the forum, since the crackpots are not going to either be cleared out our clear out of their own accord. Perhaps she could learn to ignore them?

You are correct, but it is appalling that the so-called 'crackpots' can't discern the inappropriateness of appealing to the supernatural in a historical forum. It is like someone preaching the value of theistic religion in a forum dedicated to humanistic ethics. The point is not that their views are necessarily incorrect, but that they are being expressed in an environment in which they are flagrantly off topic, and for that reason pathetic (and thereby somewhat disturbing) if not downright offensive.

Debra

Listen I don't know who you all are talking about specifically but I really object to calling people crackpots.

Also you may or may not know that some of the people considered tarot scholars have spiritual and religous views outside the "mainstream," are initiates in secret societies, etc., but that's their business not mine.

If someone's in the O.T.O. or a goddess devotee or an occultist or an occult camp follower, so what. The point is what can we learn here and what do we want to share.

Richard

Debra said:
Listen I don't know who you all are talking about specifically but I really object to calling people crackpots.

Also you may or may not know that some of the people considered tarot scholars have spiritual and religous views outside the "mainstream," are initiates in secret societies, etc., but that's their business not mine.

If someone's in the O.T.O. or a goddess devotee or an occultist or an occult camp follower, so what. The point is what can we learn here and what do we want to share.

Duly noted. I have amended the "crackpots" reference to "so-called 'crackpots'". I happen to be one whose "spiritual and religious views [are] outside the mainstream". Moreover, I am an occultist and an initiate of an society dedicated to the Western Mystery Tradition. However, it is but common decency not to get in people's faces about my 'crackpotism'.

ETA. Please read my post once more, and note that I remarked that the problem is not with the truth or error of people's beliefs, but the appropriateness of expressing those beliefs in certain environments.

A 'crackpot' is not someone who believes in the supernatural, it is someone who cannot distinguish between objectivity and subjectivity.