A Dummies Guide to Historical Research

[DianeOD]

Why?

Why?

Let's look at this logically.

Suppose I tell you that I am qualified to teach, and have taught ... say chemistry, or biblical history... or whatever.

Then what?

Are you then going to demand I email you copies of my degrees (because, as a matter of fact, I have more than one qualification. I spoke only about the studies which led directly to my contact with the circumstances of the tarot pack.)

Are you then expecting to telephone, email or fax the universities concerned to check that my various documents are genuine?

really, this is fantastic.

 

[baba-prague]

Well, I deleted my list of qualifications here as I feel uncomfortable doing a "who has what degrees" thing. As I've said before, I don't judge people's posts by the qualifications they have. I judge by the quality of posting - and yes, by "credentials" that are not necessarily formal in any way (thanks Ros, useful distinction). But what I've found positively offensive at times - although at others rather amusing - in some of Diane's posts include:

* Implications of holding a university post that it seems may not be the case (it's amazingly difficult to get Diane to answer a simple question about this).

* Implications of the work being done for a formal post-grad qualification that it seems may not be the case (it's amazingly difficult to get Diane to answer a simple question about this).

* These implications used to try to establish a credibility for the work which, when taken by itself, it does not appear to have. I don't care about the degrees and formality. I just find it reprehensible to imply that they exist in order to "talk up" the work and - I think - quell honest critique.
I'd add that protestations that we have to read the 1000-page manuscript to understand any of the ideas just make me ask why she then bothers to post so many scattered and disconnected notes? What's the point if she claims they can't be understood anyway?

I'd also add a couple of things that have made me, personally, lose respect for Diane here:

* Mistakes hardly ever acknowledged but rather ignored. I've seen many, many mistakes pointed out to Diane and only two rather grudging retractions (I haven't read all, so do tell me if there is something I missed). For example the "Lacan invented semiotics" howler in my exchange with her. This was not a typo, but a clear error (a major one for someone who claims semiotics as one of the areas she has studied - it would be a pretty major one for anyone who has done academic work in a Humanities dept in fact) which was then defended over a couple of posts. It was never acknowledged as an error (after I put up a simple link about the history of early semiotics.) Instead the inarguable evidence was totally ignored on the thread but the mistake was, I think, quietly edited out by Diane later. This is not a good way to go about things. It feels dishonest to me. Plus it lacks respect. We are all capable of making mistakes - but when you do, be polite and admit to them.

* Just about all counter arguments answered by patronising and very silly - in my opinion - accusations that people here don't know even the most basic stuff about reading imagery. All this from someone who seems to make basic mistake after basic mistake in her own reading of imagery (that "angels" thread was actually embarrassing, I swear I squirmed). Then followed up with weird accusations about our obvious fear of - er, something, I could not make out if we are supposed to be afraid of Islam, the East or what? - and our general terror of new ideas (yeh, people on this forum are indeed known for their terror of new ideas lol) etc, etc. Debra puts it better than I could on this thread: http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?p=1264136#post1264136

All in all, when I first saw Diane's postings I was interested and open to these ideas. Why not? Star maps are interesting things and the history of astronomy/astrology is something that's very deeply intertwined with the history of this region so it tends to attract me.

But I've ended up instead being really quite amazed that anyone who claims any sort of academic background could enter a forum like this and behave in the way she's done. Wild speculations and disconnected lists of "things" (with all sorts of "mystery implications" that they are far, far more significant than any of us dolts here can possibly grasp) are absolutely fine. Though mostly silly and time-wasting. Misleading references, imagery deliberately presented out of context, accusations of prejudice any time anyone makes a perfectly ordinary comment or asks a question are just not tolerable.

All in all it seems to me that the hostility on this forum is something that Diane has entirely brought on herself, it's got nothing to do with any other forum or any "campaign" by anyone. It's completely self-inflicted.

 

[DianeOD]

Matters of opinion

Study of Lacan occupied three months of our first year in the Fine Arts option of Film studies and semiotics.

This was so because in our lecturer's opinion, Lacan is the father of modern semiotics.

Personally, I have very little time for semiotic theory. to prove it, near the end of that year, I submitted an "Ern Malley" essay, conconcted with a vocabulary of semiotic terms, a pin, a friend, a few glasses of something and a typewriter. When the essay was given a ridiculously high mark, and I was complimented on my 'breakthrough' in understanding the ideas - I asked for permission to fail the course. (It was then too late in the year to withdraw). Instead I switched to study with one Joan Kerr, a woman of immense learning and absolute intellectual rigour. She gave me a very good result and I was happy to accept it from her.

Nonetheless, the point is that what you were hearing about Lacan as being "the father of semiotics", Baba, was another academic's point of view, one which seems to have differed from your own teacher's.

About the rest: this forum is supposed to be about tarot, isn't it.

So let's just talk about tarot.

I will not respond to any further queries for information that is personal.

In return, from now on I will be posting information only. And references. And all of it will come from what can be salvaged from my [computer-] manuscript.

Think I'll start with some additional notes on the number '22'...

Diane

 

[baba-prague]

Study of Lacan occupied three months of our first year in the Fine Arts option of Film studies and semiotics.

This was so because in our lecturer's opinion, Lacan is the father of modern semiotics.

Good grief - who on earth was the lecturer? You had some very weird tuition if someone told you that. Though I see you have now added the word "modern". Hmm, as opposed to?...


And did you edit that out of your post, or am I mistaken? I've checked. Hmm, well it used to state something along the lines of "Lacan invented the science of semiotics" but you seem to have removed that now. Or, I'd ask again, am I mistaken?

It's not that I want to talk semiotics with you. You said that you found all of it "nonsense" - including Eco I suppose?- so there would be no point. Plus you don't seem to understand the subject very well to be frank (you confuse it with post-structuralism and psychoanalytic theory - they are not the same, in fact as MHurst eloquently pointed out, they are in many ways opposed). But the point is that you do not acknowledge factual mistakes in your posts. Though sometimes you seem to remove them later on - quietly.

______

I might add that my MA tutor was Peter Wollen - who actually DID invent ("invent" - odd word in the context, but as you used it I will repeat it) the use of semiotics in film theory.

Actually, I now begin to see what your mistake is. You are talking about film theory. I think you misunderstood what was being taught - or maybe it wasn't well taught. You've muddled up the use of Lacanian analysis (the gaze and all that - Laura Mulvey stuff to grossly oversimplify) with analytical semiotics as developed by (post Saussure of course) people like Eco. And not understanding this, you then extended it to assume that Lacan invented semiotics, because you don't have a grasp of the overall context outside of film theory (which has its own special way of going about things - I studied then researched and taught at Kent, where "Screen" was produced for many years so I was pretty immersed in this stuff). So - at least I now understand where that bizarre statement came from.

 

[BrightEye]

..... and this feeling that if I read anything by another poster and go and investigate or discuss with myself (I talk to myself ) then post am I plagiarizing?

This is what our Calendar says about plagiarism. People would be considered to plagiarize when they

1) fail to distinguish between their own ideas and those of others
2) fail to take proper notes during preliminary research and therefore lose track of the sources from which the notes were taken
3) fail to distinguish between information which needs no acknowledgement because it is firmly in the public domain, and information which might be widely known, but which nevertheless requires some sort of acknowledgement
4) come across a distinctive methodology or idea and fail to record its source

As to point 3: Just because something is published on the internet doesn't mean it's in the public domain. Public domain means anything outside of copyright law. Like a Charles Dickens novel or a Wordsworth poem. They have to be published before a certain date (forget the exact one, it's something like 70 years or so). Other stuff that's on the internet is protected by copyright law, but it usually says so.

If you read other people's stuff on here and go off to be inspired by it and then post what you think without mentioning that poster is not plagiarism in the above sense because what people post here is usually not an official publication (nor an essay submitted for assessment in a university). However, to be fair to the person who had that idea that sent you off on your ruminations, I would mention them and they should mention you. It's a matter of courtesy.

 

[gregory]

Gosh I'm bored with all this.

But a lot of these new itty bitty threads do seem very unconnected to tarot. I looked at one and posted - but I can't be bothered with the others.

 

[baba-prague]

Well you know, I feel that if you don't deal with trolls fairly firmly then it can be a bit of a "Night of the Zombies" scenario. Next thing, they're everywhere, lumbering towards you, thread after thread taken over, people screaming, faint voices heard to gasp, "You'll never make me say it came from Egypt" before they are snuffed out forever.

Then before you know it it's just jmd and le Pendu holed up with Moonbow* in the Thoth forum with jmd saying, "I've got two bullets left Moonbow*. If they break in here I want you to know that I'll use one on you and then the last one on myself". Which leaves le Pendu muttering, "Er, excuse me a minute..." and wondering bleakly what life as someone who has "gone over" will be like. It sure won't be a bed of roses.

You've got to take a firm stand before it gets to that point girl.

 

[Umbrae]

As I once said (and was loudly flamed for such an insinuation), the world of Tarot is filled with sloppy scholars.

Folks with a bunch of TLA’s pontificate and speculate, and loudly decry any who question their ‘expertise’.

There are a few forums here on the AT that are ‘owned’ by a few posters, who when pressed, resort to rhetorical tricks to insult the questioners.

There are, educated folks – and jackball-headed geeks alike, who love to bludgeon truth with facts.

I’ve learned not to visit this section of AT for that very reason. One side is allowed to behave in an irresponsible manner, and others are not.

But you see – I don’t care how many letters ya got after yer name, a troll is a troll.

And some trolls are sloppy scholars with degrees.

 

[Rosanne]

Thanks very much BrightEye- that helps alot!

......and thats right Baba- as I said earlier at the beginning I have come across this before (lately elsewhere) and I am somewhat gun-shy. I have been very careful to speak in first party as you will note in my opening thread. This is not about qualifications- though that has been interesting; this is about what is expected of me as a poster on the Historical Research Forum here. If I can understand what is and what is not acceptable, then with my pea sized brain- everyone else will understand it also. Do you get my drift? I am although unlettered past a Bugger-All -I am streetwise and I am getting nervous. Have for a month now. ~Rosanne

 

[Umbrae]

...as I said earlier at the beginning I have come across this before (lately elsewhere) and I am somewhat gun-shy. I have been very careful to speak in first party as you will note in my opening thread. This is not about qualifications- though that has been interesting; this is about what is expected of me as a poster on the Historical Research Forum here. If I can understand what is and what is not acceptable, then with my pea sized brain- everyone else will understand it also. Do you get my drift? I am although unlettered past a Bugger-All -I am streetwise and I am getting nervous. Have for a month now. ~Rosanne

I've never figured it out either. Seems when I wander in here and post - it's always wrong, I get flamed, I flame back. If I speculate I get abused, If I post facts I get abused. I have learned that this (along with a couple other areas on AT), do not welcome 'outsiders'.

These few forums appear to be 'owned' by a handful of posters, anyone else is and 'outsider'. In one of 'those' areas I was once referred to as a 'new age woo woo' person. Well Rosanne, you've met me - am I 'Woo woo'?

But what bothers me is that in SOME areas, flaming appears to be alive and well...history, kabbalah, thoth...all them 'bookie' places.

So I don't go there anymore. I know I'm not welcome here. But you posted so I had to chime in (Still love ya babe...).

I guess that sloppy scholars tend to be defensive...I wonder why?

Around here, speculation is allowed, provided you have a couple TLA's, otherwise - you shall be flamed.

Bottom line Rosanne, we don't have those degree's, we're not special, we're not welcome. The Moddies will tell us we're welcome, but the actions of the posters - which is allowed by the Moddies - tells us otherwise.

What's expected of you? You're supposed to sit on your hands, not ask questions, and tell the Scholars, "Oh how wonderful!" while the continue to bludeon the truth with unrelated facts.