Hebrew Alphabet & Tarot

LRichard said:

The problem is that people who do not understand the reasons for their correct opinions are likely to overextend their opinions into areas in which they become invalid or at least highly questionable. What was once true for historical Tarot (before its reinterpretation by esotericists) is no longer necessarily true, especially for decks produced in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, most notably those in the Rider-Waite or Thoth traditions. (Etteilla seems sort of out of the mainstream of Tarot development, but there are efforts by Christine Payne-Towler and her followers to revive interest in it.) The fortune tellers who use Rider-Waite may (arguably) be justified in ignoring the intentions of its author, but some of them have a tendency to ridicule those who are indeed interested in the deck's history, and will attempt to justify their ignore-ance by asserting the half-truth that Tarot and Qabalah are unrelated. Probably this misconception is harmless, but nonetheless it can be annoying.

Click to expand...

That's interesting, LRichard. I have to admit I'm out of my depth with the sub-culture of RW users, I can't make any generalizations. The way you explain it, I can understand it though. Perhaps this is the phenomenon that closrapexa was referring to, and perhaps he's right then, that a significant proportion of "No"'s comes from this type of user, in which case it remains a polemical vote, and not one informed, however vaguely, by historical considerations.

It's an interesting question, if someone is right for the wrong reasons, are they still right? I agree with what LRichard said about modern Tarot users, in that many (not all!) take the fact that esoterica and Tarot were not originally (officially!) affiliated and then superimpose that on to modern decks, ones that are wholly Kabbalistic animals. Even Mary made that distinction in the original question, something I myself missed or didn't think about. In the wrong hands the right answer can be just as wrong as the right one.

I wouldn't agree that Etteilla is out of the mainstream, though, although it depends who you ask. The GD didn't think so, he was an important stepping stone for them. The difference is marketing, in the good sense of the word. Esoterically the GD is far more accessible (and I'm not putting on airs, the fact that a layman like me can access the GD and more or less complement myself on understanding it says little about me, but a lot about the original system) and visually... well, the RWS speaks for itself. Etteilla just doesn't have that star-quality. The Anglo-American hegemony of the time also played a part in the proliferation of the GD. Etteilla has the wrong nationality and writes in the wrong language.

In any case, as Huck so elegantly demonstrated, the way a question is asked is just as important as the answer. I wouldn't go so far as to define it as "global nonsense," though. However, it does demonstrate that contrary to popular perception the empirical view taken by traditional historians is not some monolithic "no," but rather accentuates the process rather than the answer.

closrapexa said:

It's an interesting question, if someone is right for the wrong reasons, are they still right?

Click to expand...

Logically, it's a no-brainer - right is right, for whatever reason. But not every opinion is a logical one only - there are things like moral positions that cannot be called merely logically or factually correct, simply conventionally correct, moral, right, even if irrational. So if someone expresses a factual truth based on irrational reasons, they may be factually correct, but we may feel morally obliged to discount their opinions as having any weight.

So the problem is with the word "right". It sounds moral. Logicians use "valid" and "invalid" in logical reasoning, and "true" or "false" in truth tables. That is, conclusions deriving from premises (or terms) may be valid or invalid deductions, or true or false conclusions, so that while an invalid deduction may be factually correct, the premises were wrong (your argument), and therefore the "argument" is invalid. We just have to know what the argument - the reasoning - is. If someone says "I don't believe that Tarot was based on Hebrew because I hate Hebrew, so I vote 'No'", then the reasoning is pretty weak, so weak that we can characterize it as wrong - the argument is invalid.

The broken clock example is still pretty useful - if you didn't know that a clock was broken at 6 o'clock, and happened to be wondering what time it was at 6 o'clock, and you glance over at the clock you don't know is broken as you pass by, you will get the correct time. But it was pure accident, coincidence - the clock is right, and you get the right time, but for the wrong reasons. Yes, it is 6 o'clock, but no, the clock is not telling the right time, because it is not telling anything - it's stopped. Coincidence caused the illusion of a correct result.

Try the reverse method to see if it casts any light on the positive formulation -

If someone is wrong for the right reasons, are they still wrong?

It irks that way, doesn't it? If someone has right reasoning, surely their thinking will be right.

So how can someone with wrong reasoning have a right opinion?

Let's use the clock example again. Let's say a clock is working just fine, it's just telling the wrong time. But you don't know that, so you are late for an appointment. You were wrong about the time, but for the right reasons - you didn't know the clock was wrong.

Does it work morally? It can't really, because moral rightness and wrongness are arbitrary, however firmly we may believe otherwise. But we may say that the man who missed his appointment had a moral obligation to make sure his clock was right, and that therefore his reaoning - trust in this one clock - was wrong. So the negative formulation doesn't work if we apply moral considerations to the factual ones - he was wrong, and had wrong reasons as well.

So back to the positive formulation. If someone is factually right by accident, they remain factually right, but we may feel that, like with a broken clock, that the opinion is not to be trusted. That is, there is a qualitative dimension to the "truth" in this instance, not merely an absolute right or wrong. That quality is what I call the moral dimension.

So the only way to test the quality of our poll results is for each voter to give their reasons. We can only accept those that display a mastery of the relevant data. So - how do we decide what is objectively relevant?

Yes, back to authority, as is the case in all moral questions.

closrapexa said:

In any case, as Huck so elegantly demonstrated, the way a question is asked is just as important as the answer. I wouldn't go so far as to define it as "global nonsense," though. However, it does demonstrate that contrary to popular perception the empirical view taken by traditional historians is not some monolithic "no," but rather accentuates the process rather than the answer.

Click to expand...

... ... thanks for your words.

It's "global nonsense" from the perspective of those, who cared for some knowledge about the conditions and details of the running Tarot History research, it's naturally NOT "global nonsense" from the perspective of those, who didn't care, and who just want a "Yes" or "No" to have a simple answer, so that they can go back to their desired major interest, card divining etc..
The second group of persons is rather obviously the majority of the Tarot users. But, if they want a Yes or No answer, then they should ask: "Is there a simple answer for the question, if there had been a connection between Tarot and Kabbala during 15th century?" and then they would get a clear "NO".

There had been about 8.000.000 persons living in Italy as an average for 15th century .... if the majority of all these didn't think of a connection between Tarot and Kabbala, but one or some did, then the answer "NO" to the given Poll-question would be wrong.
As far I know, nobody can exclude the "one or the some" in the long course of 15th century, that's simply impossible. We don't have a mind-control-system for persons in 15th century, we even don't have it for 21st century and hopefully we don't will have it in 22nd.

Anybody who would claim, that he could (exclude), would be either Superman or he would lie.
It's just a question, if we can point to positive evidence of a connection between Tarot and Kabbala. That's difficult, but somehow given (only in indirect, not sure form, so only as "weak evidence") in the case of Matteo Maria Boiardo and his Tarocchi poem. Perhaps also in some other cases.

Negative evidence ("I've searched everywhere, but couldn't find it") doesn't mean too much. Nobody can have "searched everywhere", intensive research only forms "probabilities", if something was "far spread" or "less far spread" or "possibly not existing".

But then you're in the details and complications of Tarot History research of 15th century, and not in the clean mental kitchen of the 21st century diviner with his desired Yes and No answers.

I answered the poll nearly five years ago. No was my answer.
I think there might be more credence in proving Tarot was based on the Italian language alphabet than a Jewish one. 21 Letters and there is more correspondance in Italian childrens A is for Apple, B is for Ball etc.
A is for Asso through to letter 13 which still today after all these hundreds of years -O is for Osso which means 'Bones'- D is Duke- I cannot remember them all- but there was quite a corrspondance with the Italian children's picture books of Alphabetical rote learning and Tarot images. Most likely totally coincidental.
~Rosanne

Not necessarily. It may very well be that the Trumps originated in a source that was, for the time, so commonplace and popular it needed no explanation. A children's song would perhaps fit the bill. Mickey Mouse may or may not exist in five hundred years, but today a picture of him needs no explanation.

Of course, this is my own theory, lacking any verification of any sort. Plus they don't "feel" childish, but that's just another opinion.

I voted no, because Tarot came from Ancient Egypt before there was a Hebrew alphabet.

I think some of you are missing the whole point of the question as defined by a key word in it.

ravenest said:

I voted no, because Tarot came from Ancient Egypt before there was a Hebrew alphabet.

I think some of you are missing the whole point of the question as defined by a key word in it.

Click to expand...

Well, we speak of playing cards on paper, which were called by some contemporaries Tarot or similar.
We don't speak of older symbolic systems with similar character, possibly containing also 22 elements. Such objects existed, for instance in Old Egypt. The 22 political districts of Upper Egypt, engraved in stone by 22 hieroglyph compositions, in existence c. 2400 BC, combined with 20 political districts of Lower Egypt, also engraved in hieroglyph compositions, both groups manifested at the front and backside of the Egypt temples.





http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauliste_(Sesostris_I.)

Well, not really playing cards.

That is not at all what I am referring to . Again there is a key word in the original question ... cant you see what it is ... it actually (sorta) refutes all your complaints about the validity OF that question ... and a lot of posts here.

ravenest said:

That is not at all what I am referring to . Again there is a key word in the original question ... cant you see what it is ... it actually (sorta) refutes all your complaints about the validity OF that question ... and a lot of posts here.

Click to expand...

That's the question:
Do you believe Tarot was originally based on the Hebrew alphabet?

"believe"
"originally"
"based"

You mean "believe"? Or "Do you believe?"? A request for an opinion?