foolish
the following quotes are from Michael, which I will attempt to respond to:
[QUTOE]you don't know what "history" means when you wrote a history book[/QUOTE]
I have already talked about the use of the word "history" in my last post. It obviously has more than one definition. The fact that historians have a specific understanding of that word doesn't mean that the rest of the world uses it in the same fashion. I would be willing to bet that when most people see and read my book, they will not think of it as a "history" book.
on page 1, Tehuti said: "However, you don't have proof of even one example where any images were used this way among the Cathars in either France or Italy." and then on page 21, "statements like: 'could easily have been seen by Cathars' are not proof of anything."
Going back to O'Neill's essay on tarot.com, he says: "There isn't a shred of evidence for a Cathar/Tarot orCathar/Occult connection... But does that mean that the Catheri made no contributions to the concepts of the trumps? NO! That contribution remains feasible, perhaps even probable." And, "In such an environment, we should not lightly dismiss the possibility that an heretical enclave used shared orthodox symbols to express themselves. So the door cannot be securely bolted against the possibility of heretical input."
The last sentence of your statement is true. And this should tell you that most people are not simply interested in the limited scope of "evidence" and history when it comes to the tarot, but are drawn to its broader attraction, which lies in its rich symbolism. This does not make it "worthless." It only appears that way to you because of your own interest. There's nothing wrong with the investigation of tarot history. It has its place. But people are not "fools and charlatans" because they have another interest in the cards.
You're missing the point. It is not that there is something uniquely "Cathar" in the depiction of Judgment. As Christians, they would have used the same images found in medieval religious art. What is unique is the WAY they saw these same images. This was shown in Namadev's quote from the Cathar bible, which explains how they believed in a different sense of the Last Judgment. To ask that a set of Cathar images, distinct and unique from the traditionally used images of the time, be presented to prove their different understanding of these images is an unfair demand.
Yes, this is true. And, unfortunately, this also includes your long explanation of what you think the cards mean. Ideas of a moral sequence, divisions of three parts, etc. are all speculation. This kind of tarot "evidence" usually revolves around the argument: I see an image in the card which is used elsewhere in medieval art; therefore, it must mean the same thing. Simply because it is a more common usage doesn't necessarily make it so. It only makes it sound more reasonable or easily accepted.
Where did I say that? Again, you are misunderstanding what I have written. I am addressing Huck's concern about the state of your forum, and suggesting that if you insist on continuing to take your current, as you put it, "rude" approach to dealing with others, you may find yourselves with no one else willing to "play ball" with you. That might be just fine for you, Michael, but you should probably ask the rest of your group if that's O.K. with them.
I have no anti-Catholic agenda. The "disclaimer" in the book is not there to absolve myself of an anti-Catholic position, but rather to indicate that, just as the Catholic Church had done some terrible things in the past, it has also served as an inspiration for millions of others to live a good life. However, we can not excuse or deny the "facts" of history. The Church was responsible for the deaths of thousands of people whose crimes were no more than thinking outside the orthodox view. No one can deny that. It's historical evidence. However, it doesn't mean that the Church throughout history was evil. What I am is anti-hate. I'm anti-intollerance. And I'm anti-murder-in-the-name-of God. It doesn't matter who is involved.
I think I have enough problems with trying to defend the theory of the Cathar-taort connection without having to correct misinterpretations and inacurrate statements about what I am saying. And the rudeness really doesn't help further the discussion. I think we should stick to the topic.
[QUTOE]you don't know what "history" means when you wrote a history book[/QUOTE]
I have already talked about the use of the word "history" in my last post. It obviously has more than one definition. The fact that historians have a specific understanding of that word doesn't mean that the rest of the world uses it in the same fashion. I would be willing to bet that when most people see and read my book, they will not think of it as a "history" book.
on page 1, Tehuti said: "However, you don't have proof of even one example where any images were used this way among the Cathars in either France or Italy." and then on page 21, "statements like: 'could easily have been seen by Cathars' are not proof of anything."
Going back to O'Neill's essay on tarot.com, he says: "There isn't a shred of evidence for a Cathar/Tarot orCathar/Occult connection... But does that mean that the Catheri made no contributions to the concepts of the trumps? NO! That contribution remains feasible, perhaps even probable." And, "In such an environment, we should not lightly dismiss the possibility that an heretical enclave used shared orthodox symbols to express themselves. So the door cannot be securely bolted against the possibility of heretical input."
The last sentence of your statement is true. And this should tell you that most people are not simply interested in the limited scope of "evidence" and history when it comes to the tarot, but are drawn to its broader attraction, which lies in its rich symbolism. This does not make it "worthless." It only appears that way to you because of your own interest. There's nothing wrong with the investigation of tarot history. It has its place. But people are not "fools and charlatans" because they have another interest in the cards.
You're missing the point. It is not that there is something uniquely "Cathar" in the depiction of Judgment. As Christians, they would have used the same images found in medieval religious art. What is unique is the WAY they saw these same images. This was shown in Namadev's quote from the Cathar bible, which explains how they believed in a different sense of the Last Judgment. To ask that a set of Cathar images, distinct and unique from the traditionally used images of the time, be presented to prove their different understanding of these images is an unfair demand.
Yes, this is true. And, unfortunately, this also includes your long explanation of what you think the cards mean. Ideas of a moral sequence, divisions of three parts, etc. are all speculation. This kind of tarot "evidence" usually revolves around the argument: I see an image in the card which is used elsewhere in medieval art; therefore, it must mean the same thing. Simply because it is a more common usage doesn't necessarily make it so. It only makes it sound more reasonable or easily accepted.
Where did I say that? Again, you are misunderstanding what I have written. I am addressing Huck's concern about the state of your forum, and suggesting that if you insist on continuing to take your current, as you put it, "rude" approach to dealing with others, you may find yourselves with no one else willing to "play ball" with you. That might be just fine for you, Michael, but you should probably ask the rest of your group if that's O.K. with them.
I have no anti-Catholic agenda. The "disclaimer" in the book is not there to absolve myself of an anti-Catholic position, but rather to indicate that, just as the Catholic Church had done some terrible things in the past, it has also served as an inspiration for millions of others to live a good life. However, we can not excuse or deny the "facts" of history. The Church was responsible for the deaths of thousands of people whose crimes were no more than thinking outside the orthodox view. No one can deny that. It's historical evidence. However, it doesn't mean that the Church throughout history was evil. What I am is anti-hate. I'm anti-intollerance. And I'm anti-murder-in-the-name-of God. It doesn't matter who is involved.
I think I have enough problems with trying to defend the theory of the Cathar-taort connection without having to correct misinterpretations and inacurrate statements about what I am saying. And the rudeness really doesn't help further the discussion. I think we should stick to the topic.
