The Hallowed Profane

[Yygdrasilian]

Hallowed Profane

Weaving into an elder thread, I recently resurrected from the archives a post entitled, “What Makes A Tarot Historian,” by the esteemed Ross G. Caldwell ( http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=108963 ). Overall, I found it to be a lucid and comprehensive assessment of what would logically constitute a solid academic foundation for any historiographic research into Tarot. In a way it was also a kind of wish-list for an idyllic life of travel in the pursuit of knowledge.

And I’m all for living the dream, friends.

Still, I couldn’t help but feel something was being missed, something fundamental. A strange loop inevitable within the reasoning of any academic pursuit, a paradox one can see reflected in the dynamics of their own human intelligence. This arises when moving up or down through a hierarchical system one finds oneself back where one began - like a snake swallowing its own tail. Douglas Hofstader brilliantly interwove the music of J.S.Bach, the art M.C.Escher and the mathematics of Kurt Godel to illustrate this concept in Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid.

In the spirit of that work I attempted to initiate a discourse on how this paradox might affect our understanding of history and of Tarot. My replies were not, it seems, well met. I suspect that was due to the mischief imbibing my delivery. I apologize for any undue frustration this may of caused, but ask you to now consider this paradox more fully.

The sum of all historiographical models will never come near a 1:1 ratio of accuracy in its representation of the past because there will always be that which cannot be retrieved from the past. In other words, in its guts there will always be Facts that can never be verified. This problem is especially poignant whenever the subject of study involves “the Occult” as it is, by definition, Hidden. Guilty by association, Tarot studies have perhaps overcompensated for the stigma lent it by the occult by downplaying its influence. In the aforementioned thread I tried to convey this by translating Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem into -

The Occult History Theorem:
This statement of historical theory does not have any proof in the system of historiography and related systems.

At face value this may seem a non-sensical statement, but it presents a logical paradox that every historian has to make peace with. Luckily, one can still function as a historian without having to address this paradox every time one wishes to make a point. So, out of respect for the earnest research being undertaken in this forum, I will try to put brackets on this set of ‘statements without proof’ by initiating this thread.

Let us hear your histories of the Hidden. The plausible that cannot be proved. And the weird, but "true" enigmas surrounding these ubiquitous cards. Who knows what sort of Facts may be lurking here? Perhaps there will be something there for those with eyes to see.

 

[mjhurst]

The Profaned Hallows

Hi, Y,

Weaving into an elder thread, I recently resurrected from the archives a post entitled, “What Makes A Tarot Historian,” by the esteemed Ross G. Caldwell. Overall, I found it to be a lucid and comprehensive assessment of what would logically constitute a solid academic foundation for any historiographic research into Tarot. In a way it was also a kind of wish-list for an idyllic life of travel in the pursuit of knowledge. And I’m all for living the dream, friends.

If that was your take-away from Ross' thread, then you apparently understood almost nothing from it. You are the one proposing idyllic fantasies. Ross was proposing long hard study, not a dream. It may be your nightmare, given the cavalier manner in which you reject historical evidence.

Evidence constitutes the hallowed treasures of history.
Historians are humbled by facts: they give obeisance to the facts.

Ross began this thread (a couple years ago) with the question, what makes a Tarot historian, or more specifically, "What kind of study course would make 'The Perfect Tarot Historian'?" His initial post focused on historical knowledge. It emphasized specific knowledge concerning the facts of Tarot history and broader background knowledge concerning different areas of specialization, as if for a college curriculum. From the materials he cited, there might be three such areas: pre-Gebelin Tarot history, i.e., the game and its place in society (Italian and Latin req'd); occult Tarot history, i.e., a case study in modern folklore (French and Latin req'd); and pre-Gebelin Tarot art and iconography. The first two specializations would probably be taught in the social sciences department, the third in the humanities. Or something like that. In any case, the emphasis of his post was on the depth and breadth of requirements for real competence.

This is how one gets away from the playful but childishly self-indulgent approach of pure fantasy, the approach which does NOT involve historical research.

Still, I couldn’t help but feel something was being missed, something fundamental.

Here, I would suggest thinking a bit rather than relying entirely on your feelings.

A strange loop inevitable within the reasoning of any academic pursuit, a paradox one can see reflected in the dynamics of their own human intelligence. This arises when moving up or down through a hierarchical system one finds oneself back where one began - like a snake swallowing its own tail. Douglas Hofstader brilliantly interwove the music of J.S.Bach, the art M.C.Escher and the mathematics of Kurt Godel to illustrate this concept in Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid.

A fascinating book, but such vague allusions to masterful and thought-provoking entertainment is not enough to justify your typical, even traditional dismissal of genuine historical studies in favor of fantasy, "at a threshold between awareness and dream - the liminal zone".

The reason why Ross emphasized both breadth and depth of study is because there is a factual basis for claims about Tarot history. You seem to have no interest in that, which makes you one of the many who take the easy path, who presume to invent "history" rather than actually learning about it. Ross was talking about real history, based on facts rather than intuition and indoctrination.

In the spirit of that work I attempted to initiate a dialectic on how this paradox might affect our understanding of history and of Tarot. My replies were not, it seems, well met. I suspect that was due to the mischief imbibing my delivery. I apologize for any undue frustration this may of caused, but ask you to now consider this paradox more fully.

You are the one confused. You have stated no paradox, and neither have you addressed any historical question. You have simply stated, in a blathering New Agey manner, your distaste for genuine historical research. Welcome to the club -- judging from books and websites, that membership includes 99% of all Tarot enthusiasts.

Speaking of which, you might want to take note of the fact that there are a couple dozen other Tarot forums on this very site, ones not titled "historical research".

The sum of all historiographical models will never come near a 1:1 ratio of accuracy in its representation of the past because there will always be that which cannot be retrieved from the past. In other words, in its guts there will always be Facts that can never be verified.

Limited information is the reality in every area of historical research. It is addressed primarily by 1) discovering as many facts as possible, 2) keeping speculation to a minimum and remaining as close to the facts as possible, and 3) relying on certain canons or guidelines of historical research.

Historical evidence is extremely fragmentary, so much so that I named my timeline Collected Fragments of Tarot History and began each of the pages with this quote from Detlef Hoffmann:

One must get used to the fact—and this will be said time and again—that even now we know precious little of such everyday things as playing cards.
Detlef Hoffmann, The Playing Card, (1973)

Because of the fragmentary nature of the evidence, the historian must do more than simply recount the facts -- he must explain them by constructing a narrative. This is the goal of the historian, to explain the facts. If you are not working from the facts then you are not doing history.

There are, however, any number of potential explanations for a given set of facts. What distinguishes the historian's approach is the method by which alternative explanations are evaluated. There are considerations such as explanatory power, theoretical integration, and conceptual parsimony which are used to compare competing hypotheses. Explanatory power and scope mean that the explanation is sufficient to account for the facts, that the narrative is actually explanatory. Theoretical integration means that the explanation is plausible, consistent with many other aspects of history and inconsistent with few or none. Conceptual parsimony means that the explanation is necessary, not arbitrary or ad hoc. Each area of evaluation ties history to factual evidence, which is the objective basis for historical research.

This problem is especially poignant whenever the subject of study involves “the Occult” as it is, by definition, Hidden.

No, not so much. This observation is itself largely a fiction. We have many historical works from the Middle Ages and Renaissance discussing a wide variety of subjects which we might term occult and/or divinatory. None of them talk about Tarot nor anything much like Tarot. We also have, beginning around 1440, many historical works referring to Tarot, including surviving decks. None of these appear to have any connection with occult subjects of the period. We also have many other works of art and literature from both before and after the invention of Tarot which do have clear parallels in the Tarot trump cycle. These are not hidden subjects, but in fact among the most popular subjects of the era.

Guilty by association, Tarot studies have perhaps overcompensated for the stigma lent it by the occult by downplaying its influence.

You appear to know nothing about the studies which have been done since the 1960s, when Moakley published (1966) and when Dummett began his research (1967?). Both of these researchers, and virtually all others, began their studies with the preconception that Tarot was originally an occult manifesto of some sort. The facts, however, changed their minds. That is the definition of an open mind, one which can be changed by acquaintance with facts.

Perhaps you should read a book or two before lecturing those who have. Facts are available, but you either do not know them or do not like them. Perhaps historical research is so unpalatable to you that you never will learn anything about Tarot history, but that scarcely makes you qualified to expound on the topic.

In the aforementioned thread I tried to convey this by translating Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem into -

The Occult History Theorem:
This statement of historical theory does not have any proof in the system of historiography and related systems.

Instead of posting more and more of this odd and irrelevant posturing, why not say what you have to say? Do you actually have any questions or answers regarding Tarot history? Any genuine interest in the subject at all?

Genuine: properly so called; actually having the reputed or apparent qualities or character; sincere; authentic; free from pretense, affectation, or hypocrisy; not counterfeit.

Let us hear your histories of the Hidden. The plausible that cannot be proved. And the weird, but "true" enigmas surrounding these ubiquitous cards. Who knows what sort of Facts may be lurking here? Perhaps there will be something there for those with eyes to see.

This is fun, and this occupies most of the posts on most of the threads on most of the forums in this site... and on tens of thousands of other sites, and in most of the hundreds of books which discuss such fantasy. Don't you have anything to ask or say about real Tarot history, fact-based Tarot history?

If not, what makes you so arrogant as to believe that unbridled speculation, untethered to evidence, constitutes an appropriate topic for "historical research"? Do you think that Ross was just making up all those areas of serious study as an inane "idyllic dream"? Is he a fool wasting his time with study, whereas you've come to show us a way to discern history without facts?

Best regards,
Michael

 

[philebus]

I don't see how incompleteness theorem translates to the study of history.

History, like science, is an empirical study and as such there are no proofs of the kind that we can find in rationalist studies, such as mathematics and logic.

Broadly, we might talk of two kinds of knowledge: empirical and rationalist.

The purely rationalist or a priori is based upon deductive argument. However, the empirical is based upon inductive argument.

For example, we might once have said:

“All the swans we observe are white

Therefore,

All swans are white”

Until your explorers reach Australia and find black swans – the argument is not a valid one.

This does not mean that inductive reasoning is without value, if it were, then you would have to give up any claim to knowing where your house is, what you look like, or what the ‘on’ button on your computer does.

Empirical knowledge is about probabilities, when I say I know that the Earth orbits the sun, I am saying that what I have most reason to believe is that the Earth orbits the sun. For that reason, all empirical knowledge is open to revision, something we see often in science and history.

There is a kind of third category of knowledge, one we might call hypothetical a priori. We may reason with deductive argument to reach new knowledge from a set of empirical observations. In such a case our conclusion is true if and only if those observations are true.

Where in this scheme of things, does the occult fit in?

Is occult knowledge something we can reach through a priori reasoning? Then there is nothing controversial or in any special way hidden – it is just another element of philosophy, metaphysics perhaps.

Is occult knowledge something we can achieve through examining evidence? Then it falls to historians to study and is in no special way hidden.

Or by occult, do we mean a truth that is hidden in such a way as to be, in principle, unknowable? In which case, it is irrelevant – we have no reason to suppose it, no evidence by which to infer it.

If, on the other hand, the occult refers to truths that can only be ‘accessed’ by means other than by reason or observation, then again it is irrelevant because there is no way, in principle, by which we can discern truth from fantasy and no reason to suppose that any of it is true.

 

[Abrac]

Historians may not always be the best interpreters of history, and by the same token anthropologists without all the facts are driving blind. To get the best results both are necessary. It's only when one thinks it doesn't need the other that problems arise; the ivory tower effect on the one hand and oddball theories on the other.

 

[Yygdrasilian]

Autopoesis

Query: Is the practice of history an act of self-creation attempting to characterize living systems?

You are the one confused. You have stated no paradox, and neither have you addressed any historical question. You have simply stated, in a blathering New Agey manner, your distaste for genuine historical research. Welcome to the club -- judging from books and websites, that membership includes 99% of all Tarot enthusiasts.

Speaking of which, you might want to take note of the fact that there are a couple dozen other Tarot forums on this very site, ones not titled "historical research".

You make some heated arguments, Euthyphro. And what do you say of piety - is it loved because it is holy, or holy because it is loved?

Where in this scheme of things, does the occult fit in?

Is occult knowledge something we can reach through a priori reasoning? Then there is nothing controversial or in any special way hidden – it is just another element of philosophy, metaphysics perhaps.

Is occult knowledge something we can achieve through examining evidence? Then it falls to historians to study and is in no special way hidden.

Or by occult, do we mean a truth that is hidden in such a way as to be, in principle, unknowable? In which case, it is irrelevant – we have no reason to suppose it, no evidence by which to infer it.

If, on the other hand, the occult refers to truths that can only be ‘accessed’ by means other than by reason or observation, then again it is irrelevant because there is no way, in principle, by which we can discern truth from fantasy and no reason to suppose that any of it is true.

Very well stated, Philebus. We can learn much from this sort of discourse. Perhaps the four sides of knowledge you have described are all “true” - like facets of a tetrahedron. I know this may sound impossible, but I try to keep an Open Mind’s eye by considering a range of possibilities - even when they may not agree.

I am by no means suggesting we abandon the empirical method or rational thought. Merely positing what seems an obvious enough truth, that there are Facts we don’t know and cannot prove. This is, in effect, the Incompleteness Theorem at play. One might even contend that it is the very principle which allows our brains to work inductively, by moving through the tangled hierarchies (or, heterarchies) we use to sort out probabilities. Hofstatder, if I’m reading him right, points out that if we could ever disprove the existence of strange loops within such a system, it would invalidate that system. Hence, the paradox: to resolve incompleteness invalidates what is then “completed”.

Something I’ve been considering: what if history, the human experience, the cosmos, everything- is itself a Strange Loop? How would we, as strange loops ourselves, recognize that from within the Meta-Loop? Could we somehow recognize it in our study of history?
Perhaps there is a truth somewhere in between this oddball theory and the Tower that we may empirically “grasp.”

 

[philebus]

Merely positing what seems an obvious enough truth, that there are Facts we don’t know and cannot prove. This is, in effect, the Incompleteness Theorem at play.

This is not the Incompleteness Theorem at play. Empirical facts cannot be proven and no-one would suggest that there are not facts we do not know.

Perhaps my meaning was not clear. I have not presented 'four sides of knowledge', I have presented two distinct kinds of knowledge and suggested that if the occult fits into one of those, then it is in no special way hidden and is therefore subject to normal academic discourse. Further, if it does not fit one of them, then it is at best irrelevant to us.

 

[Yygdrasilian]

negative x3 = negative

This is not the Incompleteness Theorem at play. Empirical facts cannot be proven and no-one would suggest that there are not facts we do not know.

Please enter your definition for FACT and PROOF

Perhaps my meaning was not clear. I have not presented 'four sides of knowledge', I have presented two distinct kinds of knowledge and suggested that if the occult fits into one of those, then it is in no special way hidden and is therefore subject to normal academic discourse. Further, if it does not fit one of them, then it is at best irrelevant to us.

Were you not considering one subject from 4 different angles?
Could each be functionally "true" or "false" dependent upon its context?

 

[philebus]

A fact is something that is true.
A proof is the certain demonstration that a thing is indeed true.

Were you not considering one subject from 4 different angles?
Could each be functionally "true" or "false" dependent upon its context?

No. I have presented two distinct kinds of knowledge, empirical and rational and pointed out the difference between them. The other two 'suggestions' were explaining why, if the occult fits neither of these types of knowledge, it fails to be anything at all. Context has nothing to do with it.

 

[mjhurst]

Hi, Y,

Query: Is the practice of history an act of self-creation attempting to characterize living systems?

Perhaps, if you insist on using slippery, evasive, and grandiose generalities to maximize your potential for subsequent linguistic mischief.

Someone more forthright might just say that history is understanding the past.

You make some heated arguments, Euthyphro.

And you say nothing about Tarot history, even when directly confronted.

Ignoring the actual subject of a forum and posting such sweeping and empty pop-culture dreck, coming from someone who joined Aeclectic only a few weeks ago and posts under a nom de net, you appear to be a troll.

Do you have any questions or answers about Tarot history? Start with a fact. For example, the best preserved among the earliest decks has fewer than 22 trump cards, and they appear to have been made by two different artists. This can be explained in different ways. At least one of those explanations leads to confirmation of common sense conclusions that were already documented, while other explanations lead to novel but implausible conclusions that are not supported by the rest of Tarot history. At least one of these latter explanations is favored by some prominent online Tarot writers, making it an interesting subject for debate.

Don't you have ANY interest in Tarot history?

And what do you say of piety - is it loved because it is holy, or holy because it is loved?

[snipped by moderator]

mjh

 

[Ross G Caldwell]

Well, here's a story. It's the beginning of my personal journey into the real history of tarot.

I began historical tarot studies in early 2002, and made my first post on TarotL. Before that, I had 23 years of occult tarot (off and on), and had even been a professional tarot reader (in 1996). I hadn't thought much about the history of the cards, but since I was trained in historical methodology from '86 to '94, it didn't take much to apply it to tarot. The only hang-up I had was believing, like so many before me, that the cards *had* to have some occult significance, had to have arisen in the "mists of time", or at least, be very exotic and not "simply" some kind of early 15th century Italian game, etc.

Tarot history provided an escape from the pressures of being in a new country, with a foreign language. Secondly, here in southern France is "esoteric" territory - Templars, Cathars, Mary Magdalene - it was a good place to be, to explore all the half-baked ideas I had been consuming as an Anglo-American. Tarot as an esoteric text from the middle ages? No better place than here to research it. My entry was to explore the Charles VI deck, and I took umbrage at the assertion of the "authorities" that it was late 15th century Italian! Clearly, there was prejudice at work on their part...

Those blinders were eroded away when I applied myself fully to the study, and left no stone unturned to get every scrap of information (this was the only time I think that I went through some of Kubler-Ross' "stages of grieving" for a theory - or at least, a prejudice). I can remember the very day that I finally let it go (not the date, unfortunately, which I didn't record, but the moment, place, reason etc.) - early April, 2004.

My notebooks show the process fully - my natural skepticism, trained in sound methodology, battling against the slow and regretful loss of the tarot mystique - which was being replaced by a much more exciting and very real historical investigation. The loss was for times past, not of faith, because I had already lost faith (in the early 90s - yes my professional tarot reading was half-cynical, if compassionate). It was the death of an old friend.

After two years of hard research and collecting sources, I had found the title of a book that should at last demonstrate that someone who knew about esoteric stuff, thought that tarot had some esoteric significance. It was by Menestrier, from 1694, titled "La Philosophie Des Images Enigmatiques, Ou Il Est Traite Des Enigmes, Hieroglyphiques, Oracles, Propheties, Sorts, Divinations, Loteries, Talismans, Songes, Centuries de Nostradamus, De La Baguette." (to see why I thought so highly of his erudition, judgment, and particular qualifications, see the Catholic Encyclopedia article on him - in particular, he had made huge studies of heraldry and emblems, and was born, educated and lived his whole life in Lyons - *the center of French tarot production*).

This book was not in gallica's vast pdf. collection, and no previous scholar of tarot cards had cited it, so I presumed it had been overlooked or not yet examined, and I had to make a special trip to Montpellier to read it in the original.

Of course it was a test - I must have already long realized that the esoteric idea was dead - I just needed a final proof.

What I found that afternoon was that in nearly 500 pages of discussion of the most arcane of esoteric subjects (all the stuff in the title of course, hieroglyphs, alphabets, enigmas, iconology, lots and divination, geomancy, lot books, Malachy, Nostradamus, dreams, Cabala, talismans), Menestrier did not mention Tarot cards, nor even playing cards, even once. Not a single time.

I got up from the table with a sense of relief. Finally all the tendencies of the previous two years of studies came to rest. I felt now that I had read everything I needed to - the certainty of a PhD student at the end of coursework who knows he's read every relevant thing - in order to be able to assert that at the turn of the 17th century, tarot had no occult significance. I was free to devote myself without prejudice to a *new* (to me) study - the purely historical tarot. No more shadows, no more dark suspicions. The process of this liberation may have been gradual, but the moment of release is precise. It is when I read Menestrier's 1694 book.

Ross