The Take-Over of Historical Research into Tarot

[ravenest]

I routinely go mad, but I haven't been locked up yet. Sorry if I come across as arrogant and impolite. Unintentional.

Your warning bark is worse than the bite

 

[ravenest]

Look out .... BOOO!

Statement 3 is of a different semantic type. It is incapable of being either verified or refuted. Maybe it is true, but it is impossible to tell whether it is true or false. Wittgenstein (who was not an unbeliever in mystical things) would consider the statement as inadmissible in philosophical discourse, because technically it is not a proposition (i.e., it does not have the property of being verifiably true or false).

But DUDE!!! people in category 3 aren't going to get it

"Is Witgutstein your spiritual guide? inadmissiblephilosophicaldiscourse whaa??? Ahhh what the hell ... why don't you become 'spiritual' then you will get it."

 

[Zephyros]

But DUDE!!! people in category 3 aren't going to get it

Then they probably shouldn't try, and a conversation with one of them would be very limited. It is like discussing the bible with a theocrat, there will simply never be common ground.

 

[momentarylight]

Boo! Here comes the big bad . (BTW, I did not introduce the term 'crackpot' into the discussion. All I unfortunately did was to popularize it.) My personal views on the use of the Historical Research subforum is very flexible, not at all those of a historical purist. They are pretty much expressed in my responses in The Tarot Symbols Origin thread (along with some posts by others in New Age jargon, which are uncomfortable because totally inappropriate).

May I present for your consideration three statements? Two of the three I consider appropriate for the forum. One is not, and I will explain why.

1. Court de Gebelin thought that Tarot originated in Egypt.
2. Tarot originated in Egypt.
3. The Goddess revealed to me that Tarot originated in Egypt.

Statement 1 is historical fact. Statement 2 is historical conjecture. These two can be logically analyzed, and evidence can be gathered to support or refute them.

Statement 3 is of a different semantic type. It is incapable of being either verified or refuted. Maybe it is true, but it is impossible to tell whether it is true or false. Wittgenstein (who was not an unbeliever in mystical things) would consider the statement as inadmissible in philosophical discourse, because technically it is not a proposition (i.e., it does not have the property of being verifiably true or false).

If you can't see the difference between statement 3 and the other two, then I withdraw all my other comments and resign myself to the fact that irrationality must prevail here. That is not in itself a bad thing, but I'm glad that it doesn't generally rule in the medical sciences.

ETA. Since people seem to be so fond of misconstruing statements, I think that I must emphatically insist that I do not reject Statement 3 merely because it appeals to the supernatural. I'm getting tired of explaining that I believe in the supernatural myself, in spite of the fact that my profession was that of a mean, nasty, atheistic mathematical physicist. (Some day I may do a post about those of my profession who were active in the occult.) Statement 3 is rejected because it is semantically not verifiable. What good is a 'historical' statement if there is absolutely no way of telling whether it is true or false?

I read through the "Origin of Tarot Symbols" thread which illustrate your points to a certain degree but in the argument/debate which occurred throughout that thread a lot of things were explained which would not have happened had that question not been put and argued by the original poster.

I learned quite a lot by simply reading. It's not quite Socratic debate but a little like it. . Scholars said things that might not have in another discussion and that is how I learned. And the tension of the discussion got me in as well, as I'm sure it drew a lot of others.

Not a tarot car wreck but a kind of drag session which encourages attention or rubber necking. Good learning strategies in a place like this.

I think it is a little presumptuous to say that there will never be any common ground where there are such differences.

And I have never heard a Goddess believer say that tarot originated in Egypt

 

[The crowned one]

What a meandering road this thread is taking.

 

[ravenest]

The thread about the history forum being taken over is being taken over again.

Oh well ... looks around ... waits .... okay then ;

The thing about 'spirit guides', so to speak, is that I ... and I dare say LRichard <cringes awaiting the thunder> don't specifically object to the concept as both Plato and Jung had 'spirit guides' of a sort. We give Jung validity and politely ignore all his 'mumbo-jumbo' about Philamon (or some name like that ? that Jung called him ... I'm sorry... that Philamon called himself )

Thing is that Plato or Jung never just quoted their personal daemons and said "That's it folks ... Philamon said so." They explained their gnosis by various means including reference to their relevant histories, debate, logic, study, research, etc.

 

[gregory]

May I present for your consideration three statements? Two of the three I consider appropriate for the forum. One is not, and I will explain why.

1. Court de Gebelin thought that Tarot originated in Egypt.
2. Tarot originated in Egypt.
3. The Goddess revealed to me that Tarot originated in Egypt.

Statement 1 is historical fact. Statement 2 is historical conjecture. These two can be logically analyzed, and evidence can be gathered to support or refute them.

Statement 3 is of a different semantic type. It is incapable of being either verified or refuted. Maybe it is true, but it is impossible to tell whether it is true or false. Wittgenstein (who was not an unbeliever in mystical things) would consider the statement as inadmissible in philosophical discourse, because technically it is not a proposition (i.e., it does not have the property of being verifiably true or false).

If you can't see the difference between statement 3 and the other two, then I withdraw all my other comments and resign myself to the fact that irrationality must prevail here. That is not in itself a bad thing, but I'm glad that it doesn't generally rule in the medical sciences.

ETA. Since people seem to be so fond of misconstruing statements, I think that I must emphatically insist that I do not reject Statement 3 merely because it appeals to the supernatural. I'm getting tired of explaining that I believe in the supernatural myself, in spite of the fact that my profession was that of a mean, nasty, atheistic mathematical physicist. (Some day I may do a post about those of my profession who were active in the occult.) Statement 3 is rejected because it is semantically not verifiable. What good is a 'historical' statement if there is absolutely no way of telling whether it is true or false?

I also have slight issues with statement two. If it were presented as

2. Tarot originated in Egypt. Discuss.

Or better,
2. I believe Tarot originated in Egypt.

I would be fine with it. It is the statement of theory as fact that I dislike.

I routinely go mad, but I haven't been locked up yet. Sorry if I come across as arrogant and impolite. Unintentional.

I subscribe to this except that I actually HAVE been locked up...

I read through the "Origin of Tarot Symbols" thread which illustrate your points to a certain degree but in the argument/debate which occurred throughout that thread a lot of things were explained which would not have happened had that question not been put and argued by the original poster.

I learned quite a lot by simply reading. It's not quite Socratic debate but a little like it. . Scholars said things that might not have in another discussion and that is how I learned. And the tension of the discussion got me in as well, as I'm sure it drew a lot of others.

Not a tarot car wreck but a kind of drag session which encourages attention or rubber necking. Good learning strategies in a place like this.

I think it is a little presumptuous to say that there will never be any common ground where there are such differences.

Very well said - especially the bit which I have bolded. Which is why I wouldn't like to see the fantastical theory threads banned.

Thing is that Plato or Jung never just quoted their personal daemons and said "That's it folks ... Philamon said so." They explained their gnosis by various means including reference to their relevant histories, debate, logic, study, research, etc.

Right on. But as long as we can all weigh in and argue, even if a totally off the wall OP starts a thread, we can all carry on discussing the good stuff (see under momentarylight !)

 

[Richard]

But DUDE!!! people in category 3 aren't going to get it

"Is Witgutstein your spiritual guide? inadmissiblephilosophicaldiscourse whaa??? Ahhh what the hell ... why don't you become 'spiritual' then you will get it."

Wittgenstein is god.

Some of my best friends are spiritual. No, I take that back.

 

[Richard]

I also have slight issues with statement two.

I see what you mean, but to a much lesser extent the same issue might be applicable to Statement 1. Both statements purport to assert a fact. It just happens that one of them is true (and of narrow scope), and the other probably false (but of broad scope).

If Historical Research is wide open to New Age speculation, I think there might be a need for stricter moderation in order to keep threads from deteriorating too much.

 

[Debra]

Where's the evidence that Historical Research has been "taken over"?