Frege's Puzzle

gregory

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.

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.
OT and farewell - but that would NOT cover all such threads, that's the trouble.

Oh well.
 

Teheuti

Huck, There are a lot more people who would post if they knew they wouldn't get shot down by a demand for facts and evidence. Christine Payne-Towler is another example, and much of the material in Dai Léon's book Origins of the Tarot: Cosmic Evolution and the Principles of Immortality, could be discussed.

Although the occult tarot emerges out of and is a major carrier of esoteric philosophy (including origin stories), there is no place on tarotforum to discuss that - except in the Kabbalah section or in regard to specific decks. Even there, not much of that is going on.

Personally, I don't care if the Kabbalah section were renamed or a new section added. I think it should come under "Tarot History & Iconography" simply because I think most of the people who would want to share their ideas would gravitate toward this area.

I like a title something like "Ideas, Speculations and Philosophy."

It would be good if there were a "Read This First" post that would establish some ground rules. I think an important one would be that it is not appropriate to 'highjack' someone else's thread by promoting your own theory in their thread - although general topic threads could go anywhere. I'm not sure how much people would want to restrict critiques - because in that case, what you end up with is people only being able to say things like "that's nice," or "how interesting."

The exciting thing about History is that new evidence means new considerations, new theories and sometimes a whole rewriting of what we know. Plus people can add or subtract data as applies to a theory and, thus, make substantive (if small) changes - like Michael did with Ross' speculations.

Added: It's clear that Ross' theory can be examined historically and have a certain likelihood based on several pieces of circumstantial but relevant evidence. My speculations are totally unprovable and very unlikely, even though I used an historical name in one of them. I thought my logic regarding game scores sounded impressive but it is meaningless historically-speaking.
 

Titadrupah

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.

That a forum dedicated to a 10% fact/90% speculative talk is named Speculative, Philosophical or Far-fetched is not really that important. But the existence of such a place is.
(The Kabbalah & Alphabets is a quite specific title.)

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

It wouldn't harm you either.
 

philebus

Let me see if I've understood all this regarding a new forum...

The problem doesn't seem to be that wild speculation is unwelcome in this forum (it really seldom is unwelcome in academia - it can, as noted, be rather useful) - but what is unwelcome to some of those who post those speculations is that they are critqued to a high standard by historians.

Sooo...are people asking for a 'history' forum to post speculations safe from critique? or from critique that is to a certain standard required by the field of history? I'm not sure that I see the value in that, really. What is it that people want from such a discussion? Is it to advance our understanding of what is actually true or to share stories that we find appealing? The former is history and the later is not. The former requires standards of practice to have a hope to achieve its end or it devolves into that later.

I know that the rough and tumble of peer review can be tough and bruising but that's the price we pay to advance knowledge and understanding, there's really no way around that. And if you think that academics are too hard on non-academics, then you should read a little academic literature to see just how much harder they can be on each other - and their students. It is uncompromising and no idea is too sacred, no ego to precious to not be sacrificed for another step in the right direction.

It sounds harsh but if there is to be a new forum in Tarot History and Iconography, free of critique, then "Flights of Fancy" seems to be a more fitting title. It won't hurt to have it but we should be clear what it would ultimately, whatever the intentions, amount to. Without critque, that's all I can see it being.
 

Mercurius

What "historical" implies

This debate is important in distinguishing genuine historical research, based on evidence and sources, from speculation or inquiry within a historical context. Such speculation may well prove valid and it is certainly true that speculation within the historical context may come first and lead a researcher to look for the evidence to back the idea up, just as a scientists may intuit breakthroughs before they can provide the necessary formulae or proofs. There is always a danger here of confirmation bias, seeking only the evidence that fits or taking only what fits from the evidence, and this is particularly where proper method helps ground investigation.

The important thing is to distinguish what can be supported by means of primary evidence and what cannot. Just because something deals with the past and with history does not make it historical in this more academic sense.

To return specifically to two of Yggdrasilian's original points--
1.
The gap between the occultist and the serious historian is unbridgeable, because anyone committed to preserving an esoteric system of hidden knowledge will have avoided the explicit documentation of any such tradition into which one had been initiated. Thus, the documentary evidence upon which the historian relies would, in theory, always remain elusive.
Yes, the evidential methodology of history faces real and special problems when facing the world of secret traditions. In order to study or trace Hermetic history it may be necessary to extrapolate a little more than would normally be desirable because of this. For the readers of such history, speculation by someone familiar with the period, material and facts is probably going to be of more value than what they could come up with themselves, but it needs to be qualified as such.
Similar problems are seen with many aspects of "private life" in the past, from the day-to-day ideas of people to the real reasons behind many events. Our frustration at lack of evidence in such matters should not lead us to be too free and easy with allowing speculation, however well-intentioned, to take its place. Creative use of sources and dogged research can turn up insights, but historical method reaches points beyond which it just cannot go. We may find that crucial letter from Ginevra Malatesta commissioning a pack, but we are unlikely to find any evidence ever that an anonymous artist's mother was a key influence, even if it is was the case.

2.
Being derived from the hieroglyphs of ancient Egypt, these Letters [the Hebrew alephbet's] are themselves the so-called Book of Thoth whose title is, by extension, conferred upon the Tarot.
This seems very questionable. The Hebrew alephbet derives from the Phoenician and Proto-Canaanite, not some simplification of Egyptian hieroglyphs or demotic. Ugaritic is an entirely different kind of script (cuneiform) but has the same letters with a few extra--some 28 or 30--which points to the fact that this alephbet precedes the script and is not Egyptian in origin. Again just because we are dealing with historical time does not make such a conjecture historical.

I am generally a reader rather than a contributor, but I would support the creation of a separate forum as the most appropriate way to offer a proper arena for more speculative ideas. They may the interest of a minority, but to this minority, including me, they are of great interest and I am sure that most readers of this forum would also be readers of that one, just a little more relaxed about standards of evidence.
 

Mercurius

Missing Queens

The monarchs that Teheuti's friend brought back from Morocco appear to be from a version of the baraja española (the Spanish deck), where the curtailed pip cards include 8 and 9 which are not used in many games, and the 10, 11, 12 are knave, knight, king. See http://a_pollett.tripod.com/cards6.htm for illustrations where the kings are a little more hirsute.
copas.jpg
 

Debra

The Mamluk Empire covered Egypt

Huck, There are a lot more people who would post if they knew they wouldn't get shot down by a demand for facts and evidence.

I'd like to see what they have to say--their ideas about tarot history.

Threads presenting unfalsifiable historical hypotheses--like Yyg, and perhaps Foolish's--engage the imagination of some readers, not all. Threads exploring general historical and cultural background themes--like many of Huck's--also find a select audience.

Someone hoping to clarify the appropriate research methods and types of evidence can easily make the point politely or refer readers to relevant threads, and let it affect the course of the discussion--or not.

People like Yyg and foolish most recently, but others as well--these are people with ideas they want to discuss, not zombies who must be blown to bits lest they contaminate us all.

Some of the history forum's most interesting discussions involved lots of exploration and speculation. http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=80370&highlight=Behenian+stars The idea that began this thread--Yyg's distinction between an occultist approach to history and a more traditional approach--has merit.

Can't we agree on polite discussion and if you don't like how it's going, don't read the thread? There is a thread for venting frustration! It's "Getting it off your chest" in Chat.

The idea of tarot history advocated here is lopsided, anyway. Tarot history is part of art history, too, and there's hardly any understanding or recognition of art history in this part of the forum.
 

gregory

It sounds harsh but if there is to be a new forum in Tarot History and Iconography, free of critique, then "Flights of Fancy" seems to be a more fitting title. It won't hurt to have it but we should be clear what it would ultimately, whatever the intentions, amount to. Without critique, that's all I can see it being.

Flights of fancy would be fine with me. As would criticism - it would simply be a different KIND of criticism. You could call it philosophical rather than historical discussion. Bishop Berkeley never did manage to prove that fire kept on burning in the other room when he wasn't watching it, or whether it just looked like it had when he came back because that was what his experience had led him to expect. But discussing whether it did or not and how that might be ascertained fascinates to this day.

But when a flight of fancy turns up in historical research here - discussion is always stopped dead in its tracks by the "no tangible evidence, then no value" posters. Fair enough. In which case, as Mary says, there needs to be a place for such speculation sans concrete PROOF. Otherwise such discussion is shot down, mods are called in (yes, I know Huck said he prefers these threads to stay open - but in those very threads he has said - and that is his privilege - that there is no proof. so forget it) and the discussion is strangled. Clearly he doesn't want such discussion in historical research - though why that should only focus on "c. 1300 - 1850" beats me - so why can it not have a place where he won't even have to read it ? Kabbalah and alphabets has nothing to do with much of this stuff. If I WANT to talk about whether I really believe some images in the tarot came from the paintings in Lascaux - well, I can IMAGINE what would happen to me in this forum. But why SHOULDN'T I try and draw some parallels if I want to ? It hurts no-one and could shed some dim light on something... if only backwards on the caves...

Oops I just gave myself an idea })
 

Yygdrasilian

Does Hesperus=Phosphorus?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but there is a difference between the criminal act with criminal intent, and the criminal act without. It has been asserted that Tarot was “the subject of the most successful propaganda campaign ever launched... An entire false history, and false interpretation...concocted by the occultists; and it is all but universally believed.” But this implies both the act and the intent to deceive, while ignoring whether the proponents of ancient Tarot origin theories believed their own views to be true.

Were these “occultists” consciously engaged in an act of willful deception?
-or-
Is there a basis for understanding the cards sequence & iconography as an extension of the Hermetic tradition?

In raising this issue I have not attempted to question the methodology of serious historians, nor their reliance on primary sources as a foundation from which to construct empirically-based narratives. Yet it seems that before disregarding Tarot as the “Book of Thoth” (with derision) one ought to determine why it has been believed as such by so many predecessors in the field of Tarot history. Whether or not that rationale is “true” remains another question entirely.

Through my own research I have come recognize that there is a rationale in tune with the symbolism of Freemasonry and the alchemical arts when the 22 triumphs are used as a cypher for the 22 Letters of Hebrew - and that to fathom this rationale requires a study of both the history of alphabets and their more esoteric corollary, the Qabalah. Being an “occult” tradition notorious for the use of cryptic blinds to safeguards its secrets, those who have kept with this tradition have not been entirely explicit with the primary sources they have left us. But, then, we are products of a different age - one whose academic institutions have been less inclined to provide its pupils with a formal grounding in the Pythagorean quadrivium. Thus, some of the more evident features of this puzzle elude the sight of our more astute peers.

Perhaps the gap between occultists and serious historians may never be bridged within the realm of Historical Research into the origins of Tarot. If the default position of certain analytic philosophers is that there may be no riddle to be solved, then the Philosopher’s Riddle will likely have very little draw for those who recognize only a game in such a wicked pack of cards. However, the fact that providence has not yet allowed one to see that which is hidden, does not mean there are no fish beneath the water, so-to-speak.


() http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0RgHwN_sXr0/TvgobZ2eXVI/AAAAAAAAAao/dFtfy75XQwE/s1600/Providence11.jpg


actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea
 

Huck

Huck, There are a lot more people who would post if they knew they wouldn't get shot down by a demand for facts and evidence. Christine Payne-Towler is another example, and much of the material in Dai Léon's book Origins of the Tarot: Cosmic Evolution and the Principles of Immortality, could be discussed.

Although the occult tarot emerges out of and is a major carrier of esoteric philosophy (including origin stories), there is no place on tarotforum to discuss that - except in the Kabbalah section or in regard to specific decks. Even there, not much of that is going on.

Personally, I don't care if the Kabbalah section were renamed or a new section added. I think it should come under "Tarot History & Iconography" simply because I think most of the people who would want to share their ideas would gravitate toward this area.

I like a title something like "Ideas, Speculations and Philosophy."

It would be good if there were a "Read This First" post that would establish some ground rules. I think an important one would be that it is not appropriate to 'highjack' someone else's thread by promoting your own theory in their thread - although general topic threads could go anywhere. I'm not sure how much people would want to restrict critiques - because in that case, what you end up with is people only being able to say things like "that's nice," or "how interesting."

The exciting thing about History is that new evidence means new considerations, new theories and sometimes a whole rewriting of what we know. Plus people can add or subtract data as applies to a theory and, thus, make substantive (if small) changes - like Michael did with Ross' speculations.

... :) .... definitely we have in Tarot History a multi-level-communication-problem and the problem doesn't get smaller with the increasing number of participants ....
... and additionally - due to internet-revolution - we've an increasing number of things, which "one should know", if one wishes to be taken serious.

Even those, who had been in the past years rather central to our own intensive communication exchange, have difficulties to be up-to-date and to have an overview. Those, who worked outside of this communicative enterprise on Tarot history themes in the two relevant Forums, naturally will have some more problems.

... :) ... There's a Tower-of-Babel problem. Due to the different levels of understanding, possession of individual knowledge or not-possession of other knowledge, which the others have, etc., etc., that makes a nice labyrinth full of possible misunderstandings.

Anyway, likely not such a big problem in the world like many others, and with some good humor, patience and some other useful mental exercises it likely will solve by itself ... more or less.
Well, I don't mind such a forum, under the condition, that there are really so much persons interested as you claimed. And ... even if not, then at least it generates an experience.
And those, which are not interested, have anyway the usual opportunity to avoid any contact ... :)