DianeOD
re Fudugazi
I found your thread interesting - not least because it gives a very clear idea of the history of this section on AT.
It was all so pleasant, you see, that I assumed I was the first person to be attacked - or should I call it 'flamed' - in this way.
About to fall on sword for the general good, and that sort of thing..
However, on the issue of historical research itself. I can perfectly appreciate your feeling, though I cannot live that way. One does, though, so often think that Henry Ford probably should have the last word [ that history is bunk], nd at others I think so many of our constructed arguments in history are really very like medieval theology: unquestioned premises, on which are built constantly-growing intellectual structures, supported by quotations from still older authorities, and aspiriing... not to a higher or clearer picture... but only to add one more brick to the pile on those spurious foundations.
If one accepts that angels are 'fact' and that pins are 'fact' and that the eminent secondary sources are not only logical, but right, then it is possible to argue about angels on a pin-head.
Whole schools of thought about tarot built in that way. Heretics in this discipline, evidently, are called 'trolls'. Curious term - in the context of this 'academic' conversation.
PS - if we notice typos, poor expression etc. in our own posts is there some objection to making the correction as an edit? Should one instead add another post to the thread, drawing everyone's attention to the changes one wants to make?
What is the form?
Fudugazi said:Oh, what a thread, what a thread!
I found your thread interesting - not least because it gives a very clear idea of the history of this section on AT.
It was all so pleasant, you see, that I assumed I was the first person to be attacked - or should I call it 'flamed' - in this way.
About to fall on sword for the general good, and that sort of thing..
However, on the issue of historical research itself. I can perfectly appreciate your feeling, though I cannot live that way. One does, though, so often think that Henry Ford probably should have the last word [ that history is bunk], nd at others I think so many of our constructed arguments in history are really very like medieval theology: unquestioned premises, on which are built constantly-growing intellectual structures, supported by quotations from still older authorities, and aspiriing... not to a higher or clearer picture... but only to add one more brick to the pile on those spurious foundations.
If one accepts that angels are 'fact' and that pins are 'fact' and that the eminent secondary sources are not only logical, but right, then it is possible to argue about angels on a pin-head.
Whole schools of thought about tarot built in that way. Heretics in this discipline, evidently, are called 'trolls'. Curious term - in the context of this 'academic' conversation.
PS - if we notice typos, poor expression etc. in our own posts is there some objection to making the correction as an edit? Should one instead add another post to the thread, drawing everyone's attention to the changes one wants to make?
What is the form?