conversus
Thank you, Bee
No - I meant "here in this post and in the example I am now giving . . ."mjhurst said:If by "here" you mean on a forum titled "Historical Research", where you and I are chatting,
Where have I ever said I have no use for Decker et al??? To disallow any critical comment of a work is not rational. Nor is it correct to generalize that I have no use for the work or that I find it boring when I said nothing to indicate those things.others who have no use for that boring stuff researched and published by Decker et al.
You are missing the point that historical documents in general contain as much dreck as they contain fact. The historicity of de Gébelin rests not on its being a work of historical fact but that it influenced a particular development in history.That is because one work is filled with historical facts and the other is filled with dreck presented as fact.
In terms of understanding occult Tarot HISTORY, one may read the account in "A Wicked Pack of Cards" (while completely ignoring Tyson's much-appreciated translation) and miss nothing of significance.
I was not quoting from Place but rather extrapolating from Cerulean's use of a quote by Place in order to refer to the "us" here at Aeclectic. I was making my own statement as a play on Cerulean's reference. And, since I can't be absolutely sure that all of "us" reading the tarotforum came to it as a result of the occultization of tarot, I was, correctly, more careful in my wording than Place was."As Cerulean [quoted Bob Place], it is because of this myth that almost all of us are involved in tarot." Except that he didn't say "almost", which would have been accurate, and which would not have prompted my correction. He said something false, and you intentionally misquoted him
I was not sliming Dummett et al by pointing up a weakness in their books. It is something that a great many reviewers have noted and that even Decker has acknowledged.You are so accomplished at playing these dishonest games, even to the point of sliming the actual historians you claim to respect, that it makes attempts at discussion futile.
I agree that my suggestion to look at de Géblin's myth as allegory and interpret it as a "public dream" especially through the use of tarot cards (horrors!) is more "practice" than historical analysis and should thus be moved to some other part of the forum (I just don't know where). Moderator: please move.I thought that even you might someday grasp the difference between historical research and contemporary practice -- silly me.
Teheuti said:De Gébelin created a false history that itself fostered a significant branch of the continued historical development of tarot. It served to spread the use of the tarot around the globe and to generate huge amounts of creativity in the field when tarot might otherwise have disappeared entirely from popular use.
There are some who think that scorn and ridicule will keep serious historians from examining de Gébelin's work. Does such an attitude serve an objective historical analysis of the entire history of tarot or does it serve only a particular agenda?