Diana
Rosanne said:Sacre bleu! There is Tarot without a capital?~Rosanne
Ask the historians. Many of them spell it with a small letter and I'm sure you'll find at least one who would be willing to expound on this matter with you.
Are you a Flat World Society Member?
Ask the historians. Many of them spell it with a small letter and I'm sure you'll find at least one who would be willing to expound on this matter with you.
Lee
Does anyone really care whether tarot is spelled with a capital "T"? Life is too short!
-- Lee
-- Lee
Diana
I care. Very much indeed. And no-one knows how long life lasts. It could be one human life-time and then nothing, or it could be eternity.
Rosanne: When I was a little girl (10 years old), I had a teacher. He was the kind of teacher who you only read of in books. Perfect. Absolutely perfect. Sort of a Mr. Chips, but even grander. He called me back one day after class, and said to me something like "You could be a member of the Flat Earth Society".
I never knew what he actually meant. Your post reminded me of his words.
Rosanne: When I was a little girl (10 years old), I had a teacher. He was the kind of teacher who you only read of in books. Perfect. Absolutely perfect. Sort of a Mr. Chips, but even grander. He called me back one day after class, and said to me something like "You could be a member of the Flat Earth Society".
I never knew what he actually meant. Your post reminded me of his words.
Umbrae
I like to dream!
I like facts.
I find that often the fantasy and the dream are separated by huge gaps of logic.
Like…taking 0. Big discussion about 0 on Fool. But nobody bothered to look into the history of the 0. It was revealing. History shows, that placing a Galgal on the Fool card is not possible, that the majors cannot be a zeroth sequence. Factual stuff…but it blows up some pet theories.
So take tarot (not Tarot). It’s history is far more droll than one may imagine. Once again, if you change the wording of the question, you get a different answer (just like big T little a-r-o-t).
So take a look at the history of papermaking. You cannot have cards without paper…and the glamour vanishes. Marco Polo had zip to do with paper, the crusades had nothing to do with paper…the gypsies didn’t manufacture it (or carry the manufacturing secrets with them)…what we find is a very mundane connection to the history of playing cards.
Well like ‘duh’, can’t make cards without paper. And you cannot ship them far or they absorb moisture and revert to pulp...
Just a boring little series of facts.
My history of 0 was rewarded with ‘indifference’ from the ‘historians’. I suppose because it stopped the discussion? Have to go re-write the pet theories?
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.
However this is called the Historical section – and as such, it should allow history to be explored.
For example – a Viking helmet means there is a Viking helmet. Could have been a trade good. May have been used as a ship bucket. May or may not have been on a Viking head at the time.
And retrograde motion IS nothing but an optical illusion that does not work in a Copernican model.
That said…if you give me a compass, an accurate time-piece, a sextant and tables, and a chart…in order to (Blue Water) navigate from say, Seattle to Australia, I have to assume the lie is a fact – I have to assume that Ptolemy was correct. I have to assume the earth is the center of the universe or die before I get to Hawaii (and that’s a fact). Of course now with GPS....
But you know, we’re smart people. We know that we can change the question and get a different answer – but what if our pet theory blows up in our face? Do we go into denial mode?
Some do.
The Viking Helmet is not part of a zeroth sequence. If it was, they’d have fallen off the edge of the…
I like facts.
I find that often the fantasy and the dream are separated by huge gaps of logic.
Like…taking 0. Big discussion about 0 on Fool. But nobody bothered to look into the history of the 0. It was revealing. History shows, that placing a Galgal on the Fool card is not possible, that the majors cannot be a zeroth sequence. Factual stuff…but it blows up some pet theories.
So take tarot (not Tarot). It’s history is far more droll than one may imagine. Once again, if you change the wording of the question, you get a different answer (just like big T little a-r-o-t).
So take a look at the history of papermaking. You cannot have cards without paper…and the glamour vanishes. Marco Polo had zip to do with paper, the crusades had nothing to do with paper…the gypsies didn’t manufacture it (or carry the manufacturing secrets with them)…what we find is a very mundane connection to the history of playing cards.
Well like ‘duh’, can’t make cards without paper. And you cannot ship them far or they absorb moisture and revert to pulp...
Just a boring little series of facts.
My history of 0 was rewarded with ‘indifference’ from the ‘historians’. I suppose because it stopped the discussion? Have to go re-write the pet theories?
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.
However this is called the Historical section – and as such, it should allow history to be explored.
For example – a Viking helmet means there is a Viking helmet. Could have been a trade good. May have been used as a ship bucket. May or may not have been on a Viking head at the time.
Eratosthenes figured the size of the earth in 3BC. However he was wrong – and that Christopher Columbus was using Eratosthenes figures on his voyage west – proved to him that he was in the Indies! He was following incorrect information.jmd said:
And retrograde motion IS nothing but an optical illusion that does not work in a Copernican model.
That said…if you give me a compass, an accurate time-piece, a sextant and tables, and a chart…in order to (Blue Water) navigate from say, Seattle to Australia, I have to assume the lie is a fact – I have to assume that Ptolemy was correct. I have to assume the earth is the center of the universe or die before I get to Hawaii (and that’s a fact). Of course now with GPS....
But you know, we’re smart people. We know that we can change the question and get a different answer – but what if our pet theory blows up in our face? Do we go into denial mode?
Some do.
The Viking Helmet is not part of a zeroth sequence. If it was, they’d have fallen off the edge of the…
kwaw
Umbrae said:
Fact, fool in 15th century sola busca is numbered '0', so from 15th century we do have example of such. How can you say 'nobody looked into the history of the '0'? I've got 4 books on the history of zero sitting on the shelf above me now, and several more connected on the bookshelf behind me, and have often referenced them when talking about the fool and O. As perhaps one of the most frequent posters on the association between the fool and '0' I find insulting the implied suggestion that I do so without knowledge of the history of '0'.
Kwaw
le pendu
Tarot
I'm going to start this post by defining Tarot, (tarot, and The Tarot): A deck of cards with 40 pips, 16 courts, and 22 uniquely identifiable cards I'll refer to as trumps. What makes this collection of cards unusual compared to other decks is the addition of a fourth court card and the 22 trumps. When referring to Tarot, I refer to this collection.
15th Century Italian Theory
We have a limited number of facts about the origin of Tarot, most, if not all of them, suggest 15th Century Italian game origin. I'll call this the 15th Century Italian Theory for now.
No evidence has been provided that the Tarot ever existed before (or in any other place than) 15th Century Italy. This theory has plenty of evidence to support it, including historical painted decks, historical printed decks, and plenty of documentation.
However, some basic facts about this theory are still missing. We do not know for sure Who first created Tarot, or Where, or When...and perhaps not even Why. So we might consider it a partial, or incomplete theory.
Working within the 15th Century Italian Theory
One "arm" of research is to try to explain these basic questions while remaining "inside" the 15th Century Italian Theory. Just in this alone, there is plenty of controversy and conjecture. Several theories are in development.. 5x14 being one, Bologna another.. and probably many handfuls more. These theories do not challenge the theory of the 15th Century Italian origin of Tarot, but rather try to provide a deeper explanation of it. Within this group many individuals have their own "ideas" on how Tarot developed, and the *interpretation of the facts*, rather than the facts themselves, are often called into question.
Beyond the 15th Century Italian Theory
Moving from there, we have several theories that try to explain the evidence of the 15th Century Italian Theory, but attempt to explain it by looking at it as a later expression of something that existed either before the 15th Century, or outside of Italy, or both. Here we move into mostly conjecture. No one has currently provided evidence that Tarot (or the 22 trumps) existed *as a group* before the 15th Century, or outside of Italy, in a manner that "outweighs" the 15th Century Italy Theory. Even the idea that Tarot was created originally in France falls into this group, as no evidence supports that the combination ever existed in France before Italy.
Theories vs Thoughts and Ideas
I don't think this means that people can't or shouldn't express ideas and thoughts, but I do think it means that they should be stated and treated as just that, rather than theories.
Often these new concepts lead us to look at the issue from a different, and often potentially meaningful perspective. Alternate thoughts, suggestions, ideas... are the sparks that generate new connections and possibilities.
However. If a theory rather than a thought *is* suggested, it should be treated with the same scrutiny that the 15th Century Italian Theory is, and held to the same requirments of proof.
The Flat Earth
If anything, the suggestion that the Earth is Flat should not to be compared to the 15th Century Italian Theory, but rather to the theories that challenge it. The burden of proof is to explain why the Earth is Flat, just as it is to explain an origin for Tarot outside of 15th Century Italy.
best,
robert
I'm going to start this post by defining Tarot, (tarot, and The Tarot): A deck of cards with 40 pips, 16 courts, and 22 uniquely identifiable cards I'll refer to as trumps. What makes this collection of cards unusual compared to other decks is the addition of a fourth court card and the 22 trumps. When referring to Tarot, I refer to this collection.
15th Century Italian Theory
We have a limited number of facts about the origin of Tarot, most, if not all of them, suggest 15th Century Italian game origin. I'll call this the 15th Century Italian Theory for now.
No evidence has been provided that the Tarot ever existed before (or in any other place than) 15th Century Italy. This theory has plenty of evidence to support it, including historical painted decks, historical printed decks, and plenty of documentation.
However, some basic facts about this theory are still missing. We do not know for sure Who first created Tarot, or Where, or When...and perhaps not even Why. So we might consider it a partial, or incomplete theory.
Working within the 15th Century Italian Theory
One "arm" of research is to try to explain these basic questions while remaining "inside" the 15th Century Italian Theory. Just in this alone, there is plenty of controversy and conjecture. Several theories are in development.. 5x14 being one, Bologna another.. and probably many handfuls more. These theories do not challenge the theory of the 15th Century Italian origin of Tarot, but rather try to provide a deeper explanation of it. Within this group many individuals have their own "ideas" on how Tarot developed, and the *interpretation of the facts*, rather than the facts themselves, are often called into question.
Beyond the 15th Century Italian Theory
Moving from there, we have several theories that try to explain the evidence of the 15th Century Italian Theory, but attempt to explain it by looking at it as a later expression of something that existed either before the 15th Century, or outside of Italy, or both. Here we move into mostly conjecture. No one has currently provided evidence that Tarot (or the 22 trumps) existed *as a group* before the 15th Century, or outside of Italy, in a manner that "outweighs" the 15th Century Italy Theory. Even the idea that Tarot was created originally in France falls into this group, as no evidence supports that the combination ever existed in France before Italy.
Theories vs Thoughts and Ideas
I don't think this means that people can't or shouldn't express ideas and thoughts, but I do think it means that they should be stated and treated as just that, rather than theories.
Often these new concepts lead us to look at the issue from a different, and often potentially meaningful perspective. Alternate thoughts, suggestions, ideas... are the sparks that generate new connections and possibilities.
However. If a theory rather than a thought *is* suggested, it should be treated with the same scrutiny that the 15th Century Italian Theory is, and held to the same requirments of proof.
The Flat Earth
If anything, the suggestion that the Earth is Flat should not to be compared to the 15th Century Italian Theory, but rather to the theories that challenge it. The burden of proof is to explain why the Earth is Flat, just as it is to explain an origin for Tarot outside of 15th Century Italy.
best,
robert
Umbrae
Edited to remove earlier comments.kwaw said:
Dear Kwaw;
I’m sorry I’ve insulted you. Last I looked, you had chosen not to respond to my post on the non-tarot history of zero, or its conclusions.
Further, I was ignorant of the fact that prominent poster equals inarguable fact.
I remember once questioning about someone’s posts on kabala, was it Jewish or a non-Jewish in approach. I was handed my head and told in allegorical terms to go away, that my question was stupid. It was made clear that I was not to be messing around with 'real historians'.
Never was the underlying Kircher or Bahir? ( or Lurianic) addressed.
I apologize.
And uh – I’m trying to find where I mentioned you in my post…not sure why you would take it so personally insulting. But I apologise.
I did not realize that dialogue does not exist, on a flat-earth.
Now – let’s return the thread to its original musings.
jmd
This thread is quite something...
In many ways, it shows the diversity and the various levels of difficulties on this side of the boards.
On the one hand, it is more difficult to post herein, for what is going to be considered by its readers is that some form of historical basis will form the foundation of the reflections posted.
As reader, we of course also bring with us our own prior reflections - our own 'bias', so to speak. One of these, at least for myself, is that the Sola Busca is a great deck in its own right, with connections to Tarot, but is itself not tarot per se.
I tend to wholeheartedly go along with Le Pendu's characterisation of Tarot has having a particular structural framework of the twenty-two Atouts, etc.. I also agree that the earliest artifacts are found in northern Italy (or what we now call Italy - a political state that was not in existence at the time).
On a personal note, I did not in the least mean to imply that Rosanne somehow believes a Phoenician descent (I used the Phoenician example as simply that: an example).
With regards to some of the posts not having many (or any) responses, I must agree, and recall that this whole Forum area began with very few of us making posts - this does not mean that many do not take the time to read and reflect and do, as a consequence, further research.
This is often more difficult for us (or at least me) as poster to take... for what I would much prefer is for direct comments to be taken up on the points raised, comments that allow further insights in directions I am currently travelling, rather than directions I shall take in five years.
Yet, the comments are ever so useful as they slowly add to further reflections, even if not posts.
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!
In many ways, it shows the diversity and the various levels of difficulties on this side of the boards.
On the one hand, it is more difficult to post herein, for what is going to be considered by its readers is that some form of historical basis will form the foundation of the reflections posted.
As reader, we of course also bring with us our own prior reflections - our own 'bias', so to speak. One of these, at least for myself, is that the Sola Busca is a great deck in its own right, with connections to Tarot, but is itself not tarot per se.
I tend to wholeheartedly go along with Le Pendu's characterisation of Tarot has having a particular structural framework of the twenty-two Atouts, etc.. I also agree that the earliest artifacts are found in northern Italy (or what we now call Italy - a political state that was not in existence at the time).
On a personal note, I did not in the least mean to imply that Rosanne somehow believes a Phoenician descent (I used the Phoenician example as simply that: an example).
With regards to some of the posts not having many (or any) responses, I must agree, and recall that this whole Forum area began with very few of us making posts - this does not mean that many do not take the time to read and reflect and do, as a consequence, further research.
This is often more difficult for us (or at least me) as poster to take... for what I would much prefer is for direct comments to be taken up on the points raised, comments that allow further insights in directions I am currently travelling, rather than directions I shall take in five years.
Yet, the comments are ever so useful as they slowly add to further reflections, even if not posts.
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!
kwaw
jmd said:
It is the earliest complete deck we have of 78 cards composed of 40 pips, 16 painted figures, 21 trumps and a fool. The 21 trumps are not what we now consider 'standard', whether or not that makes it a tarot or not is however beside the point I was making, it shows as fact the concept of numbering the fool card as zero had taken place by the latter half of the 15th century. Perhaps related to the same genre is the Boiarda, wherein the [unnumbered] fool commences the series of 22 trumps.
According to Umbrae "nobody bothered to look into the history of the 0. It was revealing. History shows, that placing a Galgal on the Fool card is not possible." The example of the Sola Busca shows that from the late fifteenth century it seems it was possible, the Sola Busca demonstrates the concept had taken place among a particular group. Of course the concept of zero has certainly developed since then, and thus 15th century concept of zero was thus in some ways different than today. The history of zero does not preclude a 'zeroeth series' in and from the 15th century. Its popular conception we can see also not just from the history of mathematics, but of its use in renaissance literature of paradox [of which the fool is also a common trope of the genre] and in the use of puns and plays upon the circle and nothingness in plays, poetry and literature that were very common from 15th to late 17th centuries. In mystical literature too, both jewish and christian, concepts of nothing referencing Galgal, the circle and zero can be referenced even earlier than 15th century.
kwaw
Huck
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.kwaw said:
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.
