There was a wish: A new Forum

[Alta]

Solandia has said that she was reading this and would make a decision.

 

[Richard]

But the Golden Dawn wasn't Aeclectic, they certainly didn't take the stand that it was their opinion, and that others were entitled to their own. As far as they were concerned they were right, it was "meant to be" and all others were wrong........

That is certainly true. What I meant was that it is a historical fact that the Golden Dawn made such claims, not that those claims necessarily had any validity. It is also a historical fact that Antoine Court de Gébelin claimed an Egyptian origin for Tarot. There is no rational reason for believing any of these claims, only that they are firmly within the category of Tarot history.

 

[Laura Borealis]

?? I know there is no dedicated Moderator listed for this forum.

Is there a dedicated mod for this forum, but they just aren't listed currently?

Solandia has said that she was reading this and would make a decision.

Thanks for letting us know this, Alta.

 

[Teheuti]

Originally Posted by closrapexa
But the Golden Dawn wasn't Aeclectic, they certainly didn't take the stand that it was their opinion, and that others were entitled to their own. As far as they were concerned they were right, it was "meant to be" and all others were wrong........

LRichard: That is certainly true. What I meant was that it is a historical fact that the Golden Dawn made such claims, not that those claims necessarily had any validity.

And there is another part of the GD history story. When it was revealed that the GD founding myth was a lie, it caused a major schism, leave-taking, and restructuring of the GD, plus years of research by Felkin, Waite and others who tried to determine what was true and what wasn't.

Magical organizations are often founded on a lie in order to convince others that they are worth joining. In fact, it is almost a required tradition.

I was taught that there are are three levels of unacknowledged and unofficial initiation:

1) You are introduced to a teaching or system - learning a myth of origin, a 'secret,' or basic teachings that you are told are true. You have to choose to follow that path or go elsewhere. This is the first initiation.

2) At some point you discover that what you learned is a lie. Many leave at this point in great disappointment and disgust. Choosing to stay, knowing it is a lie, is the 2nd initiation.

3) You realize that the lie is actually a truth at another level. It reveals something you wouldn't have understood otherwise and gives you a glimpse behind the workings of magic or nature. If you stay you're at the third initiation.

There is, of course, an unspoken 4th level of initiation, known only to those who have 'been there, done that.'

BTW, consider a person going from high school physics, into college and then graduate school physics. In a sense, they have to go through the exact same thing, as they learn that "proofs" they learned at one level are not true at another. Some mathematicians committed suicide when mathematics was proven to be a self-referential system. They chose to leave.

 

[foolish]

A 'history' forum that is a rules of history free zone is probably not best described as history, no?

As I have tried to explain, the term "history" can be used several ways. I understand that strict historians use it in a specific context. However, should this prevent speculative discussions ABOUT history, or which revolve around historical events? If so, then these conversations do belong elsewhere. I guess we need to come to some agreement as to what should be allowed to exist under the umbrella of "history."

Also, in what way are the offerings there to be discussed? Is there to be no room for critique of any kind?

Just like any other conversation about someone's unproven ideas (i.e. a trial where all sorts of "evidence" and arguments are presented), reasoning, speculation, circumstantial evidence and rational arguments will probably be tossed around and, in the end, people will make up their minds - or remain undecided - as to whether they were convinced, or to what level of possibility the theory or idea seems to merit.

Why should all disucussion around these kinds of ideas be dismissed entirely because of their inability to stand up to levels of expectations placed on scientific analysis? Why should they even have to be evaluated according to the same standards?

We have no proof of the existence of UFO's, but I'm still open to the possibility and enjoy watching the "Ancient Aliens" series on T.V. - they created an entire series which revolves around presenting an central argument with "evidence" which doesn't stand up to primary source criteria. Nevertheless, it's an interesting show.

Critique might INCLUDE pertinent historical facts - some of which may appear to disprove the theory alltogether - but the critique would not revolve around the concept of "because you LACK the evidence needed to prove your case, this idea is no longer appropriate for discussion."

Obviously, if someone presents an idea that is completely fanciful, that can't be supported with reasonable arguments, that others can't add to or are not interested in, it will soon go away. End of story.

The real question is WHERE do these coversations belong. In the history section - as an adjunct to the "real stuff," or elsewhere, where those rules of engagement don't prevent discussions about "interesting flights of the immagination?"

 

[Teheuti]

Just like any other conversation about someone's unproven ideas (i.e. a trial where all sorts of "evidence" and arguments are presented), reasoning, speculation, circumstantial evidence and rational arguments will probably be tossed around and, in the end, people will make up their minds - or remain undecided - as to whether they were convinced, or to what level of possibility the theory or idea seems to merit.

Ah, history via popular vote, where the best 'sound bite' or most entertaining or persistent participant wins. Yes, that will probably happen to some degree. But Historians can always shift through the debris (the rather dull and not-so-glittery castoffs) to occasionally find a diamond in the rough.

I'm all for speculation. We periodically discover that what we thought was a myth has fact behind it. Pausanias used to be thought of as a fanciful story-teller of old Greece. But several archeological finds were made by following his data. So, the truth of his tales is constantly being re-evaluated.

Obviously, if someone presents an idea that is completely fanciful, that can't be supported with reasonable arguments, that others can't add to or are not interested in, it will soon go away. End of story.

Yes, I would imagine that if the ideas all end up being things like, "Tarot came from Mars" or other entertaining fictions that aren't relevant to actual history, that the section will either die a natural death or Solandia will move it under a different topic called something like 'entertaining fictions and flights of fancy.'

I don't think we'll know how it will go until we give it a try.

 

[foolish]

Ah, history via popular vote

Well, sort of. It's not that we're trying to recreate history as much as entertaining the possibilities which never came to their historical reality. It dosn't make it so, it's just food for thought.

Call me wacky, but I've always found it more stimulating to be IN discovery than in having discovered.

by the way, can anyone tell me how to get the "originally posted by" statement in these quotes? thanks.

 

[Laura Borealis]

by the way, can anyone tell me how to get the "originally posted by" statement in these quotes? thanks.

Click the quote button, and it will fill in automatically.

 

[Richard]

......3) You realize that the lie is actually a truth at another level. It reveals something you wouldn't have understood otherwise and gives you a glimpse behind the workings of magic or nature. If you stay you're at the third initiation......

Nicely put. I fancy myself at the third level. I think that your post indicates how truth may (at least subjectively) transcend the liimits imposed by historical research, even as metaphysics lies beyond the domain of physics.

 

[foolish]

Click the quote button, and it will fill in automatically.

Ah.... thanks!