Frege's Puzzle

[closrapexa]

I think that the proposed new forum should be called the History of Symbolism; that should be a good umbrella term for what I believe people want to discuss.

However, the question must be asked, were such a forum to exist, or, rather, those who complain that their ideas get shot down by people asking for "facts," what is the alternative? Rather than a historical forum, would there be a forum discussing the historicity of the book of Genesis? Would this "creative history forum" have posts like "I believe Tarot was invented by aliens, and that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it"?

Were I to post a thread about the connection between Tarot and Lascaux (an interesting premise, one I basically agree with), I think that would fit nicely in the Talking forum, since, while not directly related to Tarot, is still about basic human symbolism. That kind of speculation I would welcome, but historical posts get shot down for lack of facts for a reason, since there's nowhere to go, and unsubstantiated ideas exist only in the minds of their originators and evaporate once they come under scrutiny for a reason. If you have a thesis, post it; it will either be proven right or proven wrong, but both ends add to knowledge. Not everyone has to agree, even when evidence is brought forth, but higher standards must be kept than "I think, therefore I post."

But I vehemently object to making history into the rest of "there's no right or wrong in Tarot" undercooked mush. That road includes teaching evolution as an "alternative" theory.

[Teheuti]

How the Hippies Saved Physics is proving to be very relevant:

"The group of hippies who formed the Fundamental Fysiks Group saved physics in three ways. First concerned style or method. They self-consciously opened up space again for freewheeling speculation, for the kind of spirited philosophical engagement with fundamental physics that the Cold War decades had dampened. More than most of their generation, they sought to recapture the big-picture search for meaning that had driven their heroes—Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, and Schrödinger."

The 2nd way was their interest in Bell's Theorem and quantum entanglement, and the third was an off-shoot of that—their "no-cloning theorem" that led directly to quantum encryption.

Of course, one point that emerges is that, in times of ferment, turbulence and change, such individuals will find each other, form groups and seed changes, whether big or small.

In a kind if irony, in the field of fringe occultists and outlaw tarot readers, a group of people with serious historical interests and standards becomes the anomaly and can possibly plant the seeds that will open the field to a whole new level. But, really, both wild speculation and rigorous standards are needed. And a little LSD?
[I just noticed that this is my post #3333 - hummmm.]

[gregory]

Originally Posted by closrapexa

I think that the proposed new forum should be called the History of Symbolism; that should be a good umbrella term for what I believe people want to discuss.

I think that's on the narrow side.... The suggestion - shot down many times - that the Tarot came from Egypt wouldn't fit... but people like to discuss it.

Originally Posted by closrapexa

Would this "creative history forum" have posts like "I believe Tarot was invented by aliens, and that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it"?

Not unless they were prepared to discuss WHY they thought that. "That's my opinion, end of" is not a discussion.

Were I to post a thread about the connection between Tarot and Lascaux (an interesting premise, one I basically agree with), I think that would fit nicely in the Talking forum, since, while not directly related to Tarot, is still about basic human symbolism.

Threads about "Tarot came from Egypt" do get closed there as not being tarot talk but "history" talk - which they aren't, in real research terms....

That kind of speculation I would welcome, but historical posts get shot down for lack of facts for a reason, since there's nowhere to go, and unsubstantiated ideas exist only in the minds of their originators and evaporate once they come under scrutiny for a reason. If you have a thesis, post it; it will either be proven right or proven wrong, but both ends add to knowledge. Not everyone has to agree, even when evidence is brought forth, but higher standards must be kept than "I think, therefore I post."

YES when it is genuine historical stuff.

But I vehemently object to making history into the rest of "there's no right or wrong in Tarot" undercooked mush. That road includes teaching evolution as an "alternative" theory.

I absolutely agree. That's why Mary's Flights of Fancy seemed like such a good name. It can also be fun exploring the idea of creationism...

Schrödinger's cat had the right idea...

[Titadrupah]

Originally Posted by Debra

People like Yyg and foolish most recently, but others as well--these are people with ideas they want to discuss, not zombies who must be blown to bits lest they contaminate us all.

...lol

[closrapexa]

Although, as I said in my first post, the idea that Tarot was invented in Egypt is just as good as the idea that cards can tell you your fortune, I think that in a large part this debate is age-old, only here we're using different names. Let us signify "ideas that cannot be verified" as "faith" while "historical facts" are "science". Using those terms, the debate becomes much clearer. People want an outlet for origin myths connected to their "faith" in Tarot, while the scientific community demands demonstrable proof. The two are, and should be, irreconcilable. The fact that "people like to talk about Tarot coming from Egypt" only illustrates this. I have no bias towards the matter, hence I do not tenaciously hold on to that idea, because I don't "believe in it." If new evidence comes to light that Tarot is the invention of technological unicorns from the lost continent of Atlantis, I won't bemoan the fact that I "knew" otherwise once, until I was proved wrong.

The Higgs Boson, although hypothetical, is not a matter scientists have "faith" in, it is a vacuum around which revolve certain questions that can be answered by the existence of such a particle. It is perhaps a quintessential example of scientific "flights of fancy," but based on previous research, as in, the questions one asks are at times more important than the answers one receives.

However, speculative philosophical discussions about the development of symbols from the earliest cave paintings of hunts and agriculture up to the Empress are ones I would be fascinated to participate in. There is nothing wrong with baseless speculation, but one has know when to invoke it, and when to quit.

Myself, I would like to see the Historical section branch out into new avenues (who said it has to be a somewhat separate continuation of the Marseilles forum?) such as early cave painting, Assyrian mother goddesses, Babylonian phallic vases, early (as in, Bronze age early) use of color in order to convey ideas... there are so many places to go. A prehistoric figurine of a large-breasted, pregnant woman need not be labeled "Tarot" for there to be an inherent connection.

[Titadrupah]

Originally Posted by Yygdrasilian

Were these “occultists” consciously engaged in an act of willful deception?
...
Through my own research I have come recognize that there is a rationale in tune with the symbolism of Freemasonry and the alchemical arts when the 22 triumphs are used as a cypher for the 22 Letters of Hebrew - and that to fathom this rationale requires a study of both the history of alphabets and their more esoteric corollary, the Qabalah. Being an “occult” tradition notorious for the use of cryptic blinds to safeguards its secrets, those who have kept with this tradition have not been entirely explicit with the primary sources they have left us.

However, the fact that providence has not yet allowed one to see that which is hidden, does not mean there are no fish beneath the water, so-to-speak.
[/i]

Perhaps there have been no evil intentions at all...and your intuition is leading you towards the beauty of resonant fractals and pattern recognition.

Originally Posted by Teheuti

And a little LSD?

By all means!

[Ross G Caldwell]

Originally Posted by Yygdrasilian

Not to put too fine a point on it, but there is a difference between the criminal act with criminal intent, and the criminal act without. It has been asserted that Tarot was “the subject of the most successful propaganda campaign ever launched... An entire false history, and false interpretation...concocted by the occultists; and it is all but universally believed.” But this implies both the act and the intent to deceive, while ignoring whether the proponents of ancient Tarot origin theories believed their own views to be true.

Were these “occultists” consciously engaged in an act of willful deception?
-or-
Is there a basis for understanding the cards sequence & iconography as an extension of the Hermetic tradition?

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.
You can check it for yourself here
http://books.google.fr/books?id=vCc_...mundus&f=false
Christian's book, in French, is here
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k2029696
(Iamblichus reference on p. 106; see the following pages for the initiation. The English translation is not in the public domain, but sections of it can be found online. The story begins on page 89)


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.

[Debra]

Ross, are you referring us to Wikipedia for the true story of the cipher manuscript? You say it was fabricated by early Golden Dawn members, while Wiki lists eight contending explanations of its origins (apart from the original claim) without reporting a consensus judgment as to their comparative validity.

[Ross G Caldwell]

Originally Posted by Debra

Ross, are you referring us to Wikipedia for the true story of the cipher manuscript? You say it was fabricated by early Golden Dawn members, while Wiki lists eight contending explanations of its origins (apart from the original claim) without reporting a consensus judgment as to their comparative validity.

Wikipedia is often the most convenient, and usually the first, place to visit for people to who don't know about something. I know I use it often, and use my judgment about the quality of their sources (or lack thereof) to make up my mind about what the editors of the page write. They often also include links; in this case, a link to the actual document.

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. Please note that one of the "controversies" cited by Wikipedia is the "watermark of 1809"; this is footnoted to a Arthur Machen's autobiography, Things Near and Far, (1923) where he mentions this "fact" on pp. 153-154, without citing the source of his information on this matter. I have never seen it elsewhere and don't know the source; as far as I can tell, this is probably disinformation from an earlier stage of the GD's dissolution that Machen happened to believe (Correction later - he did not in fact believe it, as the full quotation shows:

I like the story; but there was not on atom of truth in it. Its true date of origin was [1880-1885?] at the earliest. The 'Cipher Manuscript' was written on paper that bore the watermark of 1809 in ink that had a faded appearance. But it contained information that could not possibly have been known to any living being in the year 1809, that was not known to any living being till twenty years later. It was, no doubt a forgery of the early 'eighties. Its originators must have some knowledge of Freemasonry; but so ingeniously was this occult fraud 'put upon the market' that, to the best of my belief, the flotation remains a mystery to this day. . . There was not the ancient frame of mind; it was not even the 1809 frame of mind. But it was very much the eighteen-eighty and later frame of mind....the Twilight Star shed no ray of any kind on my path.

http://usminc.org/goldendawn.html ).

So Wikipedia's un-resolution of the story, to make it appear controversial, is misleading. Nevertheless, for intelligent people - and I give the benefit of the doubt to anyone reading this Forum - it is a good and succinct summary and a place to begin if you want to learn more.

[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.