A Different Route Considered?

[gregory]

Originally Posted by Fulgour

Consider, please, how the views of Nigel Suckling relate to Tarot
as a living tradition, alive first as potential, thriving upon further
development, and continuing today as vital and evolutionary...

This gives back the spark that mere detailed analysis snuffs out.

That was sort of what I was trying to say about it evolving rather than "being invented" - and I do agree about it being a living tradition - I feel it always has been. And they are notoriously hard to pin down.

This is a bit like that perennial question: "when exactly does a foetus become a person."

"At some point."

Which is I think how tarot is, was and ever shall be.... I am not denigrating historical research or I wouldn't have come to this thread, but I think there is room for a lot of POVs here.

[Ross G Caldwell]

Originally Posted by Fulgour

I like Nigel Suckling~ he has written a book on Tarot,
and co-created an authentic deck. I'm sure he would
welcome your viewpoint, if he were aware to do so...
but generally his views have the validity of presence.

He seems fine, and doesn't sound pretentious when you see his words in context. The artwork is nice. But you seem to be quoting him as a proxy for your own point of view. Will you personally step up for him, when these quotes are attacked? I have done so already.

I'm not against tarot esotericism... it's a form of interpretation, like that which is done with any artwork, poetry, songs, books, dreams, etc. Playing cards and tarot cards have been the subject of many kinds of interpretation over the centuries. The esoteric one is the just another, and happens to be the most popular - I imagine because it frees the imagination and inspires creativity. It also gives some people other powers, which can be used for good or ill.

But you can't do history by looking inside yourself or interpreting the tarot card pictures more intuitively. You have to see it as an object, in context. You have to develop a pair of virtual eyes and virtual fingers - knowledge of the context, the time, the place, the people - if you want to honestly apprehend the past. This discipline isn't for everybody, and most people probably see it as a dry sterile activity, until someone who is a good storyteller brings it alive. The best historians are good researchers and storytellers - but they don't deny or fudge the facts: the facts are meat and drink to historians. They starve without them.

[Fulgour]

Originally Posted by Ross G Caldwell

But you seem to be quoting him as a proxy for your own point of view. Will you personally step up for him, when these quotes are attacked? I have done so already.

The evidence indicates that I indeed quoted Nigel Suckling.
Three times, to be exact. I did not indicate myself as proxy
nor have I deemed it required to "step up for him" as proxy.

[Ross G Caldwell]

Tarot is very much a living tradition. The esoteric stream is just as interesting historically as the game stream.

Seriously, please - if I said I believed tarot comes from another planet, or maybe was encoded in a meteorite somebody found in the neolithic age, and that it actually is the source of all writing systems etc., wouldn't you ask how I know this? Would you just take it as being equal to anything else said about the history of the cards? Would you think that was as likely as tarot being created in the 15th century?

Honest ignorance is the beginning of knowledge... nobody knows everything, and there are things nobody can ever know. But there are things known about tarot cards, and some people make it their business to know as much as possible about the facts of the history of the cards. And you can only learn those facts and more importanly *grow* from them when you admit you are honestly ignorant. Then a new fact is like turning a gem subtly in a new light, to see a new facet or color - or sometimes a shining new light.

Do you really learn anything when you say "Everything is true"? Why bother to learn at all then? Don't you think I have abandoned many points of view of my own over the years of research I have done? The facts made me change - I let truth be my master.

I am a sculptor too. I sculpt stone. The stone is hard, but brittle. When you carve it, you have to take a long time when you are doing detailed work so that with one stroke you don't break it. So you can spend hours just looking a small area, patiently trying to work out how what to do next. You can't bend stone, you can't make it anything you want it to be. You have to let the stone master you, and then you can bring out the beauty you imagine within it.

The stone is like truth, like the facts of history. You have to be delicate and let yourself be weak, to be informed by the facts, until the real vision begins to emerge. If you treat history like clay or wax that you can make into any shape you want, then you can make no mistakes, you already know everything, and you will never know what it is to learn under a master.

[Ross G Caldwell]

Originally Posted by Fulgour

The evidence indicates that I indeed quoted Nigel Suckling.
Three times, to be exact. I did not indicate myself as proxy
nor have I deemed it required to "step up for him" as proxy.

Okay - I won't waste any more time discussing his ideas then, since he is not here to debate them.

[Ross G Caldwell]

Originally Posted by Fulgour

Consider, please, how the views of Nigel Suckling relate to Tarot
as a living tradition, alive first as potential, thriving upon further
development, and continuing today as vital and evolutionary...

This gives back the spark that mere detailed analysis snuffs out.

I'm sure that spark is in no danger of being snuffed out. The creative impulse given by tarot - as all playing cards have always done! - is higher than ever. Who knows how much higher it can go?

If you feel that history snuffs out the spark, don't do it.

I think though that there are some people who feel that they want to know the facts, even if they are uncomfortable and will destroy some cherished illusions. That way, they can build better fantasies on solid ground.

[Ross G Caldwell]

Originally Posted by gregory

Surely everyone's views are worthy of consideration ?

Surely they are. But what does "consideration" mean? Does it mean - all ideas are accepted? Does it mean that, after consideration, every idea will be found equally plausible, true, valid? Or can it mean that, after due consideration, some ideas will have to be rejected?

If not, I certainly shouldn't be joining in here; I don't know a thing; I just have odd (very) ideas of my own. I hoped to learn. Except for posts saying "nonsense" (not very helpful) I have learned something from all the posts on this thread.

Don't leave, please. I at least will *always* consider an idea, and then explain why I accept, reject, or put it on hold. If I don't explain something to your satisfaction, demand more.

[Fulgour]

Originally Posted by Umbrae

Richard Webster...
As a historian – he sucks.
As a writer – he’s a hack.

Since we will now (seemingly) be dismissing Nigel Suckling...
let's turn back to a previous author, our thread's inspiration.

For the sake of argument, I'll say that I have learned many
things from Richard Webster. I will say, I admire his writing.

What happens to me as a participant in this thread when we
dismiss his viewpoint, based only on personal interpretation?

[Ross G Caldwell]

Originally Posted by Fulgour

Since we will now (seemingly) be dismissing Nigel Suckling...
let's turn back to a previous author, our thread's inspiration.

For the sake of argument, I'll say that I have learned many
things from Richard Webster. I will say, I admire his writing.

What happens to me as a participant in this thread when we
dismiss his viewpoint, based only on personal interpretation?

You will be just as valuable a participant in this thread as ever, I imagine, no matter what the validity of Suckling's ideas or the quality of Webster's character.

I like Crowley, but he wasn't a good scholar, and I've come to appreciate his creative writing much more than his philosophical or even "technical" writing much more. Appreciating and learning from entertaining writers or penetrating thinkers isn't the same as trusting their scholarship.

If the idea is defensible, it can be defended without reference to the person at all (in the vast majority of cases... sometimes we *have* to rely on a person's reputation - earned - in order to use a fact, with that caveat stated openly. An example is Menestrier's reference to Gringonneur in Poupart's account entry in 1392. The original was destroyed, we have only Menestrier's account from 1704. But since Menestrier was a good scholar, and had no imaginable reason to lie, we trust that the entry did exist and that Menestrier's account of it was accurate.) or character.

I don't know anything about Suckling. It was his assertions that I criticized. Misleading isn't a personal slight - he may believe what he says, just as he says it. But it is as he says it that it can be criticized.

Your and my ideas and assertions are the same here - if somebody knows some assertion of mine is factually wrong, or even wrong-headed, I expect to be corrected by them in this forum. There are many participants who will do it, and point out flaws or discrepancies or whatever in what I have to say. They don't do it with extreme prejudice or personal grudges, as far as I can tell. And neither do I

[Fulgour]

Well said Ross! I think we are all prejudice and grudge free!
But if history were a pizza... would they deliver up in the hills?