Are you a Flat World Society Member?

Rosanne

jmd said:
This thread is quite something...

In many ways, it shows the diversity and the various levels of difficulties on this side of the boards.
snip...
By all means let's further investigate the numerous wonderful possibilities. When these 'stray' to what at first appears to be quite distant from what is taken as 'core' evidence, let's not, however, neglect to put up a question as to why something is posited.

This allows both for difficult questions, but also for further clarifications!
If I had to choose out of all the forums, one that I could keep on my screen, it would be this small section on History and iconology. That been said, it is also rather intimidating to post to it. So I, like others who dream of other connections,and have ideas and thoughts which might lead to theorys, post elsewhere on the board. That is a shame, I think. So I agree wholeheartedly with the above quote from jmd.
jmd- I was just putting the record straight for myself as I have been called misguided with my Phoenician interests hehe. I have lived long enough to cope with the label :D
Thank you Le Pendu for your post- I, as always, enjoyed how you write and the content. I do not find you pompous; even though you are very definite in your feild of interest and expertise.
I guess at this point I should say what I meant by the 'Flat Earth Society'
I meant there are people who take things so literally that they think the world is flat. They rely only on knowledge that has been provable to that point- to the exclusion of every imagining.
I do not think History is only made up of dry facts. A fact had at the time of its creation- clothing of some sort or another. Thanks for your replys. ~Rosanne
 

kwaw

Huck said:
Actually I've also read from Ifrah, that they appeared much earlier in Europa, as signs on imported Arabian abaci, but it is a difference between small distribution and a broad distribution of an idea ...


Also according to Ifrah (2000), "in thirteenth-century Paris, a 'worthless fellow' was called a... cifre en algorisme, i.e., an 'arithmetical nothing.'

{From Wikepeodia encyclopedia}

Kwaw
 

Umbrae

in the ensuing confusion over my post (#14), where I was bombastic to make a point, replies tended towards the ‘off topic’. I apologise for creating confusion.

Rosanne said:
… when faced with another History viewpoint… …If you patronise me with this is the 'facts' and nothing else will be considered type vehement argument- I will assign you to the 'flat earth society membership' remember my History lessons at school, chuckle cynically,and dream on...

and that was the impetus for my posting.

Umbrae said:
I’ve found that many over on this side of the forum are not hungry for knowledge – they have forgotten more than I shall ever learn, and as long as I’m not supporting their pet theory, than I’m worthy of denigration.

Such remains my point. There is no room for discussion. No room for learning. A chosen few spout. The rest are left to sit quietly on our hands.

What about that Viking helmet?

When I was in seventh grade, my teacher asked the class, “Does the earth rotate clockwise or counter-clockwise?”

I raised my hand and answered, “Both.”

I was told to shut up.

I stood up, walked to the front of the room, spun the globe, and pointed, “Clockwise.” I then raised the still spinning globe above my head and pointed, “Counter-Clockwise.” I set the globe down and walked back to my seat where I withstood the wrath of yet another poor teacher for another year.

Pompousness does not allow for dialogue. So don’t pick my posts apart line by line proving me an imbecile, engage me – make me use my brain.

By the way…100% of all murderers in the USA drank milk and ate candy bars as children. That’s a fact.

it does not indicate "Causality".

:smoker:
 

Rosanne

Umbrae said:
Such remains my point. There is no room for discussion. No room for learning. A chosen few spout. The rest are left to sit quietly on our hands.

Pompousness does not allow for dialogue. So don’t pick my posts apart line by line proving me an imbecile, engage me – make me use my brain.

By the way…100% of all murderers in the USA drank milk and ate candy bars as children. That’s a fact.

it does not indicate "Causality".

:smoker:
yay thank you Umbrae- that is what I was trying to say ~Rosanne
 

Huck

Huck said:
According what I've read the astronom Peurbach "invented" the use of Arabic numbers. Likely this doesn't mean, that he really was the first who used them, but possibly he was a greater distributor for their use. This might have happened 1455 - 1460, perhaps earlier. He was a professor in Ferrara 1448 - 1450, so he might have used the system already in his teachings, which are called successful and impressive.
As 1448 - 1450 is early for Tarot and the way from Peurbach in Ferrara to the actual producers of Tarot cards, also in Ferrara, is rather short .... it stays, that the Tarot producers could have used "0" very early.

Actually I've also read from Ifrah, that they appeared much earlier in Europa, as signs on imported Arabian abaci, but it is a difference between small distribution and a broad distribution of an idea ... Actually I remember a years number inscription from 10 years before in Austrian (emperor) context. Then Peurbach was still a little young to have that big influence, but the emperor loved astronomy and astrology, too. So perhaps it was not Peurbach, but the astronomical school of Vienna, which used it.

Perhaps it was new use in Italy. At least it's true, that Peurbach and later Regiomontanus were able to impress Italians.

I've to correct me, it's said, that:

"Peurbach has been called the father of observational and mathematical astronomy in the West. He began to work up Ptolemy's Almagest, replacing chords by sines, and calculating tables of sines for every minute of arc for a radius of 600,000 units. This was the first transition from the duodecimal to the decimal system."

So the use of 12 for time measuring systems became replaceable by the decadic system. Generally it's said somewhere:

"By the mid 13th century algorithmic arithmetic was established in Italy well in advance of anywhere else in Europe, the immediate reason for this being the commercial pre-eminence of the northern Italian cities. Dissemination was slow: although by the 15th century one could learn algorithmic addition and subtraction in Germany, instruction in the arts of multiplication and division could still only be found in Italy. By the beginning of the 16th century, just before the scientific revolution, the Germans were still 200 years behind!"
"The algorithmic revolution made zero into a number by expanding the meaning of number, a process driven by expanding its use."

Well, I'm a little puzzled and I've Ifrah not at hand. But this sentence gives the riddle, that Peurbach and Regiomontanus from North of the Alps could improve some complex astronomical viewing points with responding Italian enthusiasm about it, although, as attested, being 200 years behind and possibly not able to teach multiplication and division in their own countries.

But I guess, the question around a "0" in use on playing cards touches the question, what "common behaviour" did ... as far I observed it, Roman numbering system was
still in use in mid 15th century.

Roman numbering system does run well with abacus use. And Abaci can easily be used for multiplication and division. So what is this guy talking about?

Anyway, the writer above seems to have the impression, that using the "0" as cipher was already given in commercial circles in mid 13th century.

Is that, what Ifrah also talked, kwaw?
 

baba-prague

Oh, I know I should probably stay well out of this discussion, which looks like becoming a bit heated. But there is something I'd like to throw in - though it isn't "for" or "against" any particular argument that's been put here.

Like many others, I do find this part of the forum difficult to take part in. It's an interesting read, but the way it's going sometimes reminds me of the very confrontational times on TarotL, when there were some real flame wars going on (I once received five PAGES of flame on my personal email address from someone on TarotL who took offence at something I said about Umberto Eco's theories - something which in fact I did my post-grad research on - I had to laugh! But receiving that kind of aggressive email is not the kind of experience I am keen to repeat.) I don't mean that people here flame, but there is a pressure to conform to a certain content and approach - and I just think the pressure is mis-applied at times.

I do think that posts that veer a bit from this are too often and too readily interpreted as opposing the 15th century Italian origin - so they got shot down before discussion can even begin. I'd really like to talk about a number of issues, but I've sort of stopped bringing them here for this reason. Personally, for what it's worth, I go along with the Italian origin, the weight of evidence clearly supports it, but I'd also like to talk about other influences and evolutions that went alongside that. For example, the cross-over with general Hermetic beliefs (I am once more immersed in Frances Yates) and with alchemical imagery is interesting - discussing it does NOT mean that I believe that the tarot originated from the Book of Thoth or that it is a secret encoded alchemical message!

I would also LOVE to talk about the fact that I've finally verifed that Czech Marias cards are used for divination (we actually walked into a friend's shop to find a reading going on - using a whole method of spreading the cards that I'd never seen before - fascinating stuff). But again, I hesitate as I have a feeling that this would be interpreted here as me saying that the tarot originated with the Russian Rom or something ;-) So, sadly in a way, I find that I'm more comfortable continuing to look into this very interesting history on my own.

What I'm trying to say is that there is a definite prejudice in favour of posts that sort of stick to the orthodoxy - fro example, any posts about Christian imagery tend to get a good response. I find such posts very interesting, but surely we're past the stage of being SO defensive about the Italian origin that we have to reject discussion about anything a bit different (and NOT necessarily oppositional)? I also admit that I've sometimes walked into this part of the forum with a post that isn't well thought out or well researched - mea culpa - but well, if we don't allow a bit of room for that, and for speculation and tangential issues, I think "Historical Research" is going to become quite boring here - and terribly orthodox.
 

catlin

Some more questions

I think there are still sooo many questions of human history unsolved, eg the Viking helmet which was mentioned at the very beginning.

The Vikings did vast trades, even with China, so why should not have a Viking helmet travelled in the saddle bags on the Silk road to Asia and from there on to what we now call New Zealand?

What do we really know about the true life of Lucy in Tanzania?

What was the reason why Oetzi travelled alone in the icy mountains?

Who really built the Sphynx?

There are so many if's, what's, where ...
 

Moongold

Many of the posts in the history and iconography forum are not written in an engaging way. They may be interesting to those who participate but they're not really to those who want to learn and who may not yet have reached the level of detail that you guys have.

What happened to the art of story telling? History is story telling but few posters seem to have cottoned on to that. Dry as dust it all is and one gets lost in odd pathways that seem to have no beginning and no end. Perhaps the forums are not the ideal medium for making history exciting? No, I don't believe that.

Perhaps it would be helpful if you thought you had an audience? And you might also realise that you're passing on the baton to others.
 

Umbrae

baba-prague said:
What I'm trying to say is that there is a definite prejudice in favour of posts that sort of stick to the orthodoxy … …that we have to reject discussion about anything a bit different (and NOT necessarily oppositional)? I also admit that I've sometimes walked into this part of the forum with a post that isn't well thought out or well researched - mea culpa - but well, if we don't allow a bit of room for that, and for speculation and tangential issues, I think "Historical Research" is going to become quite boring here - and terribly orthodox.

Bingo. I too have been on the receiving end of a witch-hunt due to failure to not cross a T.

Long ago it was a FACT that 40mph was the fastest speed a human body could withstand, faster than that and it’d fly apart – mind you – that was considered factual.

Moongold said:
What happened to the art of story telling? History is story telling but few posters seem to have cottoned on to that. Dry as dust it all is and one gets lost in odd pathways that seem to have no beginning and no end. Perhaps the forums are not the ideal medium for making history exciting? No, I don't believe that.

Yup. Couldn’t agree more.

Some of us, can actually find and understand the thesis of this post. Others, are not so fortunate. Why is that?
 

kwaw

This whole thread is getting completely nonsensical, it should be on the game forum. 'No one responds to me' someone screams umbrage, then ;'you respond to me and make me feel like an idot'. Duh! I'm not interested in these games. The flat earthers were not the ones who observed facts, but those who rejected them in preference to blind faith. If you find history too dry, then liven it up, not with sentiment but with your self proclaimed story telling instincts. If you can do better then do it, stop moaning at the rest of us because we are too 'dry'. And stop deluding yourself that because we don't always agree we don't understand. And if you want dialogue perhaps don't go in attacking, what sort of limited self proclaimed understanding does that take? Moaning when someone doesn't respond and then when someone does is not indicative of a wish to engage in dialogue, but rather negative mind games. And it is a history forum after all, no one is being 'nasty' in asking for references or offering alternative interpretations of the facts, nor in pointing out anachronistic misinterpretation of such. And why be so patronising and condescending, 'oh we can understand the theme of this thread why is everyone one else an idiot and we are so superior?" Maybe its not the message but the tone? And as to pressure to conform, I ignore it, among the historians here I am sure I am considered a typical 'madam fifi', more your traditional speculative occultist than an historian. I just carry on regardless , but I suppose not everyone is such a thick-skinned 'madam fifi'.

Kwaw