reconsidering a cathar connection

[Teheuti]

Originally Posted by Debra

The "side" you're on becomes a matter of sustaining the lifestyle you grew up with.

Good point, even though I was thinking of those who actively make/choose the schism rather than be born into an existing one—but even in the first place people will go with friends rather than with theology.

[gregory]

Originally Posted by Teheuti

Good point, even though I was thinking of those who actively make/choose the schism rather than be born into an existing one—but even then people will go with friends rather than with theology.

Sadly not always - ghastly family and friend schisms have been caused by religion

[Teheuti]

Originally Posted by gregory

Sadly not always - ghastly family and friend schisms have been caused by religion

Should have said "some" people. Certainly the point is that each person has their own story and reasons although there are trends that can be discerned.

[foolish]

Originally Posted by Teheuti

And what is it that causes schisms within a group (sometimes violent ones)—that divides Lutherans from Calvinists or that even split the Italian Cathars? Doesn't the 'average' heretic take theological sides? You seem to be saying that most heretics were of the same mind in that they just wanted a 'lifestyle' outside of Catholic guidelines (whatever that means).

It's the theological differences which split groups into schisms. It was this very process which split the early Chirstians into various "sects" (Manicheans, Paulicians, etc.) of which the Catholic Church became the most predomenant, mainly because the Roman Bishop was given political power over others. As far as the "heretics" of the 13th century are concerned, most of them were illiterate, and couldn't read theological texts. The common thread which bound them was the belief that salvation was possible through the blessing (consolamentum) of the perfect, rather than in the hands of the priest.

Most of these heretical sects shared this concept of salvation outside of the confines of the Church. They doubted the importance of the sacraments and questioned whether the average local priest, who often lived a spritually corrupt lifestyle, could be the source of salvation. This was a common theme of Jon Hus, Valdensius of Lyons, Peter of Bruys, Arnold of Brescia, Henry of Le Mans, and many others.

It's not that everyone necessarily agreed on all points of faith, but that there was a continuum of personal questioning, which is part of the healthy evolution of personal spirituality.

[foolish]

Originally Posted by gregory

That would be using EXISTING decks as instructional material, though, rather than creating their own, using images specially significant to them.

I think...

As you know, the tarot was subject to many changes as it evolved from one place to another. My guess is that the French printers included their own signiture in the images they used, at times making changes to better "tell" the story being presented. This is most likely why the TdM has differences from the Italian decks which they were adopted from. The mythology and culture of the place will surely have an affect on how the cards are made.

[Teheuti]

Originally Posted by foolish

My guess is that the French printers included their own signiture in the images they used, at times making changes to better "tell" the story being presented. This is most likely why the TdM has differences from the Italian decks which they were adopted from.

How is this not an attempt at history via personal "logic" (i.e., what makes sense to you) in place of evidence?

My point is that instead of saying, "This is my story of how a Cathar sympathizer would have viewed and changed the tarot," it is, instead, what you propose actually happened and must, therefore, be historically true. You have concluded that the changes in the deck occurred for this "most likely" reason. And, this high likelihood (high probability) is derived not from evidence, but from your "guesses."

It is precisely this kind of statement that makes it sound as if you are presenting a "probable" history without doing any of the historical research to support it. And, the fact is that many of your readers will not be able to tell the difference between story and history either! They will take your work as history because, even though you qualify yourself, you really want them to conclude, along with you, that it is the most probable history.

[Teheuti]

What criterion should be used to determine the relative probability among all the otherwise equally valid "could haves"? Is this an unreasonable question?

[foolish]

Originally Posted by Teheuti

It is precisely this kind of statement that makes it sound as if you are presenting a "probable" history without doing any of the historical research to support it. And, the fact is that many of your readers will not be able to tell the difference between story and history either! They will take your work as history because, even though you qualify yourself, you really want them to conclude, along with you, that it is the most probable history.

In a way, you're saying that I may be deceiving some people by presenting an idea as fact. Actually, I am presenting a "probable" history. But I don't agree that many of my readers won't be able to tell the difference between a theory of what is probable and what has been proven as historical fact. I think that most people can handle the lack of certainty and still enjoy the story.

[foolish]

It's sometimes funny the way we label historical facts. Many people believe in the fact that a man was cruxified and then rose from the dead three days later. The evidence is in the fact that it was written down and preserved in the New Testement and other accounts. It's a historical fact. But, does that make it true?

[Teheuti]

Originally Posted by foolish

In a way, you're saying that I may be deceiving some people by presenting an idea as fact. Actually, I am presenting a "probable" history.

Did you even read what I wrote?? I twice mentioned that you were presenting a probable history. But you claim that that's not what I said!!! Please re-read this (emphasis added):

Originally Posted by Teheuti
It is precisely this kind of statement that makes it sound as if you are presenting a "probable" history without doing any of the historical research to support it. And, the fact is that many of your readers will not be able to tell the difference between story and history either! They will take your work as history because, even though you qualify yourself, you really want them to conclude, along with you, that it is the most probable history.

How can I trust anything you've written when you are continually mis-representing what I wrote - even when the text is right in front of you?