Frege's Puzzle

foolish

Wow – a lot has been written in the last day or so. (And some people still can't resist getting in a few jabs whenever they can.) I'd like to address what I feel are a few of the main points of discussion in this thread:

1) People who post ideas in a forum are not looking to simply make a statement and not expect others to respond. If that was the case, they'd set up a blog where they could just expound or pontificate their own ideas. Most people, including myself, welcome critical feedback from others. In fact, I am grateful to those who have found errors in my initial draft and allowed me to make corrections in the pre-publication phase of my book. But when responses are sent with extreme prejudice, inflammatory or derisive remarks, the conversation becomes degraded and looses its value.

Let's say that you, as a parent, have a child that did something wrong. So you take out your belt-strap and give him a good whopping. A friend of yours hears about this and tells you, out of concern, that perhaps this was unnecessary or inappropriate. So you reply, “ Oh, so you want to just allow kids to grow up without any discipline at all, do you?”

The point is (and I think I'm speaking for some of the other members) that it's not the idea that critique is not needed or wanted in these discussions, it's just the counterproductive manner that some people use to “discipline” those who err in the arena of theoretical debate that bothers me. And, unfortuantely, it only takes a few individuals to spoil it for the rest.

Some members have noticed that there seems to be a few people in the history section who choose to diminish the otherwise professional quality of the forum, and have made a request that it should be handled somehow. Is that really such an unreasonable request? I would think that this could be handled most appropriately by the moderators. (By the way, it would be interesting to know why the previous moderators quit.)

2) As far as the appropriateness of what should get posted in the history section, or whether you need a new section for those who want to discuss issues which are not fully supported by primary source evidence, it might be a good idea if either a) a list of prerequisites or expectations were present so people could understand them prior to posting, or b) the moderators would jump in as soon as it became evident that the thread be better suited in another area.
In my case, for example, we went on for quite some time before the discussion turned to whether I should have posted the thread in the history section or not.

3) The posting of an idea which has no additional information to follow up with will soon end on it's own. There is nothing left to do, and nothing to fear. The fact that some ideas cause others to respond is evidence of interest. If anyone is questioning what level of interest exists in ideas that are not entirely based on historical fact, just take, for example, the number of books and articles that Mary has written which are not based in primary source evidence vs. those that are. The fact is that many people are interested in topics that stimulate the imagination. And in the large category of ideas and theories outside of primary evidenced facts, there is a broad range of what it reasonable or plausible.

I hope that everyone can get together and move beyond the territorial boundaries that seem disconnect people here and figure out a way to make this work. Look, there's obviously a lot that people can learn from this forum. The problem is that people don't want to attend a class where the instructor has a reputation of berating those who ask “stupid questions”. A little tolleration goes a long way.
 

Titadrupah

Christian's Initation ritual was taken from the Krata Repoa, which, in turn, was derived from "The Ritual of Initiations" by Humberto Malhandrini (Venice, 1657).

In 1770 an adaptation, with the title "Krata Repoa" was published in Germany by Von Köppen as a revelation of a new branch of Freemasonry. It appeared in French in 1778. It was described as being a set of initiations into the ancient society of Egyptian priests taken from earlier Greco-Roman texts. Since Iamblichus was the most well-known exemplar, he was associated with it although nothing in his extant works supports him as a source.

You will also find Iamblichus mentioned many times in Agrippa's Occulta Philosophia:


There were also amongst the Aegyptians six hundred sixty six kinds of sacrifices; for they did appoint divine honors, and holy sacrifices to each star, and planet, because they were divine animals partaking of an intellectual soul and a divine mind; whence they say that the stars being humbly prayed unto, do hear our prayer, and bestow celestial gifts, not so much by any natural agreement, as by their own free will. And this is that which Iamblicus saith, that celestial bodies, and the deities of the world have certain divine and superior powers in themselves, as also natural and inferior, which Orpheus calls the keyes to open and shut; and that by those we are bound to the fatal influences, but by these to loose us from fate. (Book 3)
---
And it is reported that the people of Cacenia wonderfully adored the God Moon. From this compleat intelligence of supream fecundity his love is produced, binding the intelligence with the mind. And by so much the more, by how much it is infinitely more intimate to it self, than other off springs to their parents. This is the third person, viz. the holy spirit. Iamblichus also brings the oracles of the Chaldeans placing a fatherly power in God, and an Emanation of the intellect from the Father, and a fiery love proceeding from Father and Son, and the same to be God. (Book 3)
---
Plotinus and Philo deliver, that the Son of God, viz. the first mind or Divine intellect floweth from God the Father, even as a word from the speaker or as light from light; from hence it is that he is called both the word and speech, and splendour of God the Father; for the Divine mind by it self, with one only and uninterrupted act understandeth the chiefest good without any vicissitude, or mediate knowledge; he generateth in himself an Issue and Son, who is the full Intelligence, compleat image of himself, and the perfect pattern of the world, whom our John and Mercurius name the word or speech; Plato the Son of God the Father; Orpheus, Pallas born from Jupiters brain, that is, wisdom: This is the most absolute image of God the Father, yet by a certain relation, or some intrinsecall absolute thing, as it were begot and distinguished from the Father, who saith in Ecclesiasticus, I have proceeded from the mouth of the most high, I am the first begot before all creatures: Iamblichus testifieth this Son to be One and the same God with the Father in Essence, namely calling God, both the Father and Son of himself. (Book 3)
---
Magicians teach that Celestial gifts may through inferiors being conformable to superiors be drawn down by opportune influencies of the Heaven; and so also by these Celestial [gifts], the Celestial Angels, as they are servants of the Stars, may be procured, and conveyed to us. Iamblichus, Proclus, and Synesius, with the whole
School of Platonists confirm, that not only Celestiall, and vitall, but also certain Intellectuall, Angelicall, and divine gifts may be received from above by some certain matters, having a naturall power of divinity (i.e.) which have a naturall correspondency with the superiors, being rightly received, and opportunely gathered together according to the rules of Naturall Philosophy, and Astronomy: And Mercurius Trismegistus writes, that an Image rightly made of certain proper things, appropriated to any one certain Angel, will presently be animated by that Angel. (Book 1)
---
etc.
 

Teheuti

The fact is that people do get chastised for inappropriate language here. This is done privately (to my knowledge). Usually the posts are not removed and no one else may be aware except that the discourse usually settles down. A little more latitude is certainly allowed here than in other forum sections where any form of criticism of someone else's ideas is severely limited. In fact a lot of people with strong opinions who express them without pulling punches have left the forum, in some cases to our great loss.

The moderators have a thankless task and, I believe, try to do their best for each section. Personally, I tend to prefer hands-off as much as possible - although I agree that personal name-calling is not appropriate. Also, calling an idea stupid in place of saying why is not very helpful. If the person continues to advocate something that clearly meets no historical standards then what are we to do? Having the moderator move the topic to a section for Speculation could be an answer (which we have never had before).

I agree that we should have a "Read This First" sticky at the head of this section. But, that's just my opinion.

just take, for example, the number of books and articles that Mary has written which are not based in primary source evidence vs. those that are. The fact is that many people are interested in topics that stimulate the imagination.
As Ross(I believe?) pointed out, there are far more sections and discussions on tarotforum that meet the 'stimulate the imagination' criteria than this one small section that deals with factual evidence.

As to my books - it's an issue of genre, topic and audience. When I write a "how to" book it has certain constraits on it relative to the type of book it is and to the field it covers. Publishers and the reading public are very clear about these things. Every area in publishing has it's 'rules,' which have consequences when they are broken.
 

Teheuti

You will also find Iamblichus mentioned many times in Agrippa's Occulta Philosophia
If you are hinting that these quotes have anything to do with the Krata Repoa or Paul Christian's Tarot then I don't get it, or are you simply demonstrating that Agrippa quoted Iamblichus?
 

foolish

... :) ... well, there are a few points.

a. Foolish is by far not comparable to Galileo.

b. The decision to stop this thread was due to the wisdom of earlier moderators.

c. Indeed I think, that I personally worked inside this thread more about Cathars then Foolish.

d. Indeed Foolish very seldom talked about Cathars there. He also doesn't tell much in his book (just my opinion).

e. Foolish is very strong in the presentation of communicative contexts, which are NOT the theme in Historical Research usually.

a. the topic of tarot history is by far not comparable to the scientific significance of the location of the earth in our galaxy.

b. Where were those moderators when the discussion broke down into ad hominem remarks?

c. Then, you could have been a good source of information who could have added to the discussion. For example, many people have accepted O'Neills analysis of the Cathar-tarot connection as conclusive. However, I address most of his arguments in my book, but no one bothered to take up the discussion.

d. Apparently there is still some confusion here. The book was not intended to be a comprehensive historical treatise on the Cathars – or on the tarot, for that matter. It is an interpretation of the TDM within the context of a Cathar history, as I see it. Simple as that. It was intended for the pleasure of the general public – not the history section of AT. In fact, the only reason I presented it to the history forum in the first place was on the suggestion of Mary, who I had contacted with a request to review it. The historical introduction was intended to be a foundation for those who are not familiar with the historical events surrounding the Cathars, so that they might appreciate my interpretation of the cards and understand why I make certain associations.

e. Thank you.
 

Titadrupah

If you are hinting that these quotes have anything to do with the Krata Repoa or Paul Christian's Tarot then I don't get it.

I pointed at them as a matter of precedence. Independently of Christian's fraudulent intent of legitimization (and the Golden Dawn’s strategies for membership awards) this paragraph, again from Agrippa:
"But because the letters of every tongue, as we showed in the first book, have in their number, order, and figure a Celestial and Divine original, I shall easily grant this calculation concerning the names of spirits to be made in only by Hebrew letters, but also by Chaldean, and Arabick, Ægyptian, Greek, Latine, and any other, the tables being righty made after the imitation of the presidents. But here it is objected by many, that it falls out, that in these tables men of a differing nature, and Fortune, do oftentimes by reason of the sameness of name obtain the same Genius of the same name."

made me recall another branch in the history of correspondences, another affluent of what you characterized as the "underground stream of ideas".
 

Huck

a. the topic of tarot history is by far not comparable to the scientific significance of the location of the earth in our galaxy.
For instance. You were also not located in a prison.

b. Where were those moderators when the discussion broke down into ad hominem remarks?
If you've a problem with the moderators, talk to the moderators. I think, that this is part of the usual rules of Aeclectic.

c. Then, you could have been a good source of information who could have added to the discussion. For example, many people have accepted O'Neills analysis of the Cathar-tarot connection as conclusive. However, I address most of his arguments in my book, but no one bothered to take up the discussion.
You might have tried to talk with O'Neill about this. For that, what I wrote about Catharism, you might have attempted to talked to me.
Maybe you assume, that many people have adapted O'Neill's analysis in this point. I would think, that this is not very realistic. People usually have an own head and own ideas. It's relative clear from a lot of conditions, that the Cathars weren't (with high probability) not
responsible for the Tarot development.

When you state "you could have been a good source of information who could have added to the discussion" you seem to overlook, that I added to the discussion. When you didn't understand my arguments or overlooked them, it's your problem.

d. Apparently there is still some confusion here. The book was not intended to be a comprehensive historical treatise on the Cathars – or on the tarot, for that matter. It is an interpretation of the TDM within the context of a Cathar history, as I see it. Simple as that. It was intended for the pleasure of the general public – not the history section of AT. In fact, the only reason I presented it to the history forum in the first place was on the suggestion of Mary, who I had contacted with a request to review it. The historical introduction was intended to be a foundation for those who are not familiar with the historical events surrounding the Cathars, so that they might appreciate my interpretation of the cards and understand why I make certain associations.
As I said, I've probably more talked about catharism than you in the thread. The title of the thread was "reconsidering a Cathar connection", it was not "Robert Swryn's new book". If you make a connection between Cathars and Marseille Tarot, your readers possibly assume, that you know both developments very well. It was my impression, that this isn't really the case. You're right, when you say, that you didn't write it for the History Section of At.
As I naturally have an evaluation system, which cares for the question, if something is useful for the History Section or not, I come to the same conclusion as you: Your book wasn't written for the History Section and indeed it isn't useful here. It's written for the broad market of Tarot enthusiasts, who have often an interest for exotic ideas, and, well, they may take care for it.
So, what do you want here?
If you're interested to learn something, nice. If you've something of importance (for Historical Research of Tarot) to contribute, very good. If you've questions, ask. If you've an interest to make it the stage for your personality show, please look for another place.
That's nothing special for Robert Swiryn. That's just the common habit here.

e. Thank you.
No problem. As I indicated, these communicative aspects might be not very requested in a Forum for Historical Research. Perhaps your talents work better at another place.
 

foolish

As Ross(I believe?) pointed out, there are far more sections and discussions on tarotforum that meet the 'stimulate the imagination' criteria than this one small section that deals with factual evidence.
And I wouldn't have had any problem placing my thread into one of those sections. As a new member, however, I was not aware of the guidelines or expectations of each of these sections. I therefore made the assumption (perhaps mistakenly) that, since the subject deals with a period of history, it should be posted in the history section. Knowing what I know now, perhaps the TDM section would have been a more appropriate location. A simple suggestion from anyone in the group would have sufficed to move it over.

As to my books - it's an issue of genre, topic and audience.
Exactly. And in the case of my book, the audience was meant to be anyone who is intersted in the interpretation of the Marseilles tarot cards, or those who enjoy history but may not be familiar with the saga of the Cathars.

Obviouslly, people like Huck, who may already have extensive knowledge about the Cathars, may not be impressed. But it wasn't written for that kind of audience. In fact, you may be surprised at how many people have never even heard of the Albigensian Crusade (outside of this forum, of course).

Thankfully, just about everyone outside of the strict historians in this foum have appreciated it for that, and have given me some very nice feedback.
 

Teheuti

Am also reading War of the Worldviews: Science vs. Spirituality.
http://www.amazon.com/War-Worldview...6883/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1332711121&sr=8-1

Leonard Mlodinow (conversing with Deepak Chopra) explains: "Deepak says that science displays a stubborn resistance to other ways of regarding the cosmos, but the 'other ways' science resists are merely ways for which there is no supporting evidence. . . .

"I agree that people should be free to discuss whatever intellectual issues interest them, but we shouldn't confuse discussing and learning about a topic with creating a meaningful theory about it. . . . [Mathematics] helps us to determine the logical consequences of scientific statements. It also helps us make precise and unambiguous definitions. . . . In fact, it is a theorem in mathematics that if you accept a false statement as true, you can use it to show that any other false statement is true. So precision in language is important. . . . We do not banish love, truth, compassion, hope, morality, and beauty from our thinking, but we do banish them from our theories."

While mathematics is even more precise than history, I think the jist of the statement is what we are talking about. In order for Historical Research to function as such, certain protocols are essential. Questions can be asked but the responses have to acknowledge those standards and theories must be based upon them.
 

Teheuti

Knowing what I know now, perhaps the TDM section would have been a more appropriate location. A simple suggestion from anyone in the group would have sufficed to move it over.
Okay, okay. I take full responsibility for suggesting that you mention your Cathar theory in Historical Research. My bad. It was my mistake (supported, to my mind, by language in some parts of your book). For one thing, I mistakenly thought that you wanted to have your ideas evaluated by individuals who had looked into the subject before and who, therefore, could affirm or challenge your theory on an historical basis - to the best of our varied abilities.

You have made clear all the ways in which we failed you - 1) by abusive language, 2) by not immediately realizing that you were not interested in actual historical connections (or not) between Tarot and the Cathars, and 3) by not letting you know where else to go so that you could get the responses you desired. As soon as we did realize it, we suggested the section on "Books & Media" as one alternative (others may have been suggested). Now you condemn us for not telling you soon enough. Sorry.

We are trying to address your concerns as well as those of other people. Clearly we are not perfect and the denizens of this section clearly failed to meet your needs. I think we get it now. In fact, I don't know why you are here except to keep letting us know how inadequate we were for you.

We are trying to address the issue and hopefully will be allowed to officially set some standards and make them known to everyone.