Frege's Puzzle

[Ross G Caldwell]

Originally Posted by philebus

And let's not forget the earlier fib from Antoine Court de Gebelin of Tarot being Tar & Ro, his Royal Road - that one is still used by people in videos, web-sites, and publications.

Yeah, that one got a lot of mileage. "Royal Road" is a resonant term.

Once the fantasy genie is out of the bottle, all the historian can do is study what the genie does. We can stomp our feet and say "You are just fantasy! Get back in the bottle!", but the genie laughs and says "I'm more powerful than you. I give people fantasy. And it doesn't matter what people believe about Tarot origins anyway, it is harmless, only a few people care about such trivialities. It's not like I'm a dangerous fantasy like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or something."

Out of the bottle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gK4FXyNcPIs

And the historian has to sigh with resignation and be consoled only by remembering that
Multi enim sunt vocati, pauci vero electi.
Qui habet aures audiendi, audiat.

[Huck]

Originally Posted by Ross G Caldwell

Another was the fabrication of the Cipher Manuscript by some of the founding members of the Golden Dawn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cipher_Manuscripts
That the deception was revealed only a couple of decades later doesn't matter, since a generation of occultists already believed it and based their theories, and their spiritual lives, on the doctrines contained in it. These occultists and the order they founded or continued after the original's dissolution are the main inspiration for Tarot esotericism in the English-speaking world today.
You can see the Cipher Manuscript here -
http://hermetic.com/gdlibrary/cipher/

The first was a lie, the second a forgery, and since they promulgated what claimed to be authoritative teachings, they fit exactly the meaning of propaganda, under most of its dictionary definitions.

... :-) ... well, yes, and in this foundation party of the new Forum "Flights of Fancy" (I assume, a "working title") it surely is recommendable to point to ...


http://books.google.de/books?id=KrcB...201859&f=false

... Kenneth Mackenzie, in whose papers the Cipher manuscript once was found. Now Kenneth Mackenzie had a youth in Germany and his favored book as a child had been "Till Eugenpiegel". When he then found himself later in England, he translated his first literary love, and this was the first publication, by which he got some fame in literature himself.
This was relative short before he visited Eliphas Levi.

The literary father of this Till Eugenspiel, at least, what the printed edition concerns, had been Thomas Murner, a well known German humanist, who got the idea to use playing cards as a didactic method.



In the course of this development he got a favor for Fool's literature, following the roots of Sebastian Brant, who short before had made the bestselling "Ship of Fools", which became the greatest literary success in Germany before Goethe's "Werther's Leiden" (1776; which btw. also reflected the German Tarock game). So he (Murner) was indeed a well known Fool ... his greatest success became the Tyll Ulenspiegel.



When the reformation developed, Murner, always a man with some revolutionary ideas, astonishingly decided to stay a Catholic. More than this, he used his well known satirical charm against the protestants.
This didn't went well, cause the protestant had a very similar satiric spirit and made Murner to a preferred object of their own mockery attacks. Murner was painted as a cat, cause Mur- sounds in German like the sounds of cat (another literary figure developed from it: Kater Murr, also known in Micky Mouse ...



...) For Murner himself it looks (for instance) this way:


Murner tries to evocate the spirit of the Fool


The evocated Fool gulps Murner

************

One special prank should be mentioned.

The protestants wrote a letter to Murner "from the English king" and this fantasy king invited Murner to England to teach the English true Catholicism. And Murner believed this. So he appeared before the real English king (famous Henry VIII) and found out, that this king wasn't really informed. So he told the story to the king, and the king had an insight, and gave him some money to disappear back to Germany ... likely he realized, that Murner was dangerous.

But the English King recognized also the dangers of all the mockeries of the protestants and so it happened, that all England started to take the protestant perspective.

... :-) ... well, it's really good, that I don't need to give references for all and everything. This opens new satiric possibilities.

***********

More to Kenneth Mackenzie:
http://autorbis.net/kenneth-mackenzie

[Titadrupah]

Originally Posted by Ross G Caldwell

At least two acts of willful deception had deep influence on the development of esoteric Tarot, with effects which continue to this day.

One was Paul Christian's description of an initiation into the Mysteries which he claims to be taken from Iamblichus, specifically an edition of 1678. In the course of this initiation the Tarot trumps are clearly described and assigned letters with invented names in the order of Hebrew alphabet, and mystical teachings are delivered. As the authors of A Wicked Pack of Cards, pp. 204-207 point out, there is nothing of the sort in that (or any) edition of Iamblichus.

Christian's reputation as a charlatan was perfectly established in A wicked Pack of Cards, true. But even if that had not occurred, his Histoire de la Magie itself is enough to make you laugh. As of his share in the effects that you mention, well, you said it too: kind of trivial. Toute proportion gardée, I would even group Crowley with that team of imaginative individuals.
p.s. Iamblichus is a hell of a read.

[gregory]

Originally Posted by Huck

... :-) ... well, yes, and in this foundation party of the new Forum "Flights of Fancy" (I assume, a "working title") it surely is recommendable to point to ...

Rare conceits would do nicely.

And closrapexa - sure, the Egyptian thing has been done to death. But why shouldn't people who WANT to talk about it do so ? Some people like arguing and discussing it "just because" - and sometimes genuine and interesting new stuff will come out of those discussions.

I had actually come here to mention the Behenian Stars - one of the best threads EVER on AT, IMHO - to find that debra already had - we must have cross posted while I logged off for the night. But that's a classic example.

[closrapexa]

Originally Posted by gregory

And closrapexa - sure, the Egyptian thing has been done to death. But why shouldn't people who WANT to talk about it do so ? Some people like arguing and discussing it "just because" - and sometimes genuine and interesting new stuff will come out of those discussions.

Of course people can talk about it, I would never shut anyone up. But why rehash an origin myth time and time again? Or rather, bring up further "evidence" the earth is flat or held up by a turtle? After centuries of objective science lighting the way from the dark ages of faith, suddenly we are asked to concede that discussions in which the myth is as real as the fact are just as scholarly. This sounds just like the debate in the US on creationism in schools (in Israel the Huns have already won. Darwin is not taught in schools, Genesis is) in which faith is deemed just as plausible, objective and legitimate as science.

I can't do that.

Like I said, I am in favor of speculative history in certain situations; but what would be the benifit of the retelling of fairy tales, only this time in a "scientific" light? I am willing to concede that this is a Tarot forum, hence science does not always reign supreme, but only as long as we, as a community, strive to disseminate real informatiom when it does come to scientific disciplines, not to treat fairy tales as history, thus promoting disinformation.

I understand how this can be disconcerting to some; although I am not a regular contributer, the History section is the only one on Aeclectic where you run the risk of being told "you're wrong." I am not afraid of being wrong, it is how we learn. Plus, there is an important Tarot lesson there about humility. I would not want it to be any other way, and while the concept of a speculative forum isn't completely something I'm against, the idea needs to be developed and kinks hammered out.

[Ross G Caldwell]

Originally Posted by closrapexa

This sounds just like the debate in the US on creationism in schools (in Israel the Huns have already won. Darwin is not taught in schools, Genesis is) in which faith is deemed just as plausible, objective and legitimate as science.

Please tell me you're kidding - or at least qualify it. ALL schools in Israel? Excluding universities, of course - but all public schools, primary and secondary? I simply can't believe that a state that wishes to be known as secular and democratic would put biblical myth on a par with science - the state, not some freaky private school, home-school religious fanatics.

Or... are the critics right? Israel is just a theocracy-in-waiting, little different from its neighbors?

[Ross G Caldwell]

Originally Posted by closrapexa

This sounds just like the debate in the US on creationism in schools (in Israel the Huns have already won. Darwin is not taught in schools, Genesis is) in which faith is deemed just as plausible, objective and legitimate as science.

Does that include six-day creationism and literal adherence to the biblical chronology (in which case it is year 5772 since the creation of the world), or is it just (!) the allowance of the vague idea that G-D created Adam and all the animals as is? Sort of the "metaphorical" sense of scripture?

Still dangerous, since Genesis is absurd, but it is better than what passes as Creation Science in the US, which does not merely compartmentalize, but rots the mind.

[AJ]

Talking Tarot forum already contains many threads on symbology and the Why Does and Why Doesn't questions. A new forum seems entirely redundant ... unless something elitist is required?

A subscription is an avenue to much conversation and exchange of ideas which some of the posters here may not be aware of.

[Teheuti]

Re the Cypher Manuscript page on Wikipedia -

Originally Posted by Ross G Caldwell

By not reporting a consensus, the most recent editors of the page no doubt wish to imply that there is none. However, as far as I know - and I admit to being no expert on Golden Dawn-ology - there is overwhelming consensus that it is a forgery by either Westcott or Mackenzie. . . .
So Wikipedia's un-resolution of the story, to make it appear controversial, is misleading.

I know quite a bit about this controversy and agree completely with Ross, except that the cypher manuscript was almost certainly the work of Mackenzie, whereas the Fräulein Sprengel letters were almost certainly forgeries by Westcott. Wescott hired Mathers (at the time a relative newcomer) to turn the manuscript into a working set of rituals.

Arthur Machen got his GD information from Waite since they were very close friends for many years and Waite spent several years gathering every shred of information possible about the manuscript and Sprengel.

I was rather shocked by the presentation in the Wikipedia article of all the theories as equally likely. It's a perfect example of why Historical Research should have standards! The article is a kind of cover-up of the highly-likely truth by presenting absolute fantasy as equally valid.

Leaving historical speculation and in-depth explorations of the ideas historically associated with Tarot to the area "Talking Tarot" hasn't worked. The 'Underground Stream' of ideas that are associated with Tarot is an important area and deserves far more attention than it gets.

I agree that most discussions of symbology belong either in Talking Tarot or in sections dealing with specific decks. Whoever proposed that at a new section title is leading the subject way off track and confusing the issue.

[Teheuti]

Originally Posted by Ross G Caldwell

Paul Christian's description of an initiation into the Mysteries which he claims to be taken from Iamblichus

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.

Paul Christian had earlier written a novel, "L'Homme rouge des Tuileries" (1863) that included most of his Egyptianized tarot descriptions (novelized as an ancient manuscript given to Napoleon by a Benedictine monk), but in "The History and Practice of Magic" (1870) he recreated it as a new initiation, inserted into the earlier Krata Repoa material.

I used to take groups of people through this initiation (both in classes and at conferences). I did it as a guided visualization to which I added music and lots of sound effects (Paul Horn's "Inside the Great Pyramid" has a huge clangor that happens at exactly the most opportune moment). It's a great way to kick off a series of classes on the symbolism of the cards. In fact, I think I'll do it for the next Pantheacon!