Frege's Puzzle

foolish

There's a big difference between primary sources and secondary sources. The examples you give above are all secondary sources and therefore liable to distortion. Also, it is true that facts gathered by white colonialists will probably be missing facts known to native peoples.
I not aware of anyone having any major problems with primary source issues such as when a deck of cards were ordered, etc. It seems that the history section is doing a great job with that area of research. The difficulties come up in discussions about the meanings of the cards - which is really where the bulk of interest lies with most tarot enthusiasts. And the problem is that, when it comes to deciphering the meanings of the cards, there doesn't appear to be any primary sources (unless I missed something). No one, to my knowledge, has said, "I have made a deck of tarot cards, and this is what they mean."

The closest thing I've seen to that was the translation of an old Italian text which Ross shared with us last year. But even in that short document, the author makes a point to disclose that fact that he is not an authority in this area. The text remains in the realm of secondary evidence. It is one man's opinion. And only that. And if we are to believe his interpetation, we would be forced to accept the fact that (if I am remembering correctly) the Bateleur is some dude hanging out in front of a local pub. (Although this seems like a fanciful interpretation, it does point to an important peice of information - that many of the cards may in fact have been used to relate local information, and not just used as examples of the larger iconography which these images may reflect.)

So, by your own methodology, this type of evidence can be subject to distortion, and should be taken within its own context - a point of view from what appears to be an orthodox Catholic. And by your own analysis, the "facts" that this Christian may have in his brain may not include the facts that another person, say a heretic Christian, would have in seeing the exact same images. It is therefore, incomplete.

Regarding images - it's not just about 'deciphering' them. Rather, one gathers what is known about closely similar images that appear at the same location and time, and then evaluates the relevancy and period perspective based on a number of factors.
The first thing to come to terms with in gathering information about the cards by looking at similar images that appear at the same location and time is the fact that these images did not have only one use. In my particular field of interest, for example, I have dedicated half of the book I wrote to discovering the way these images were used, and explaining how they could just have easily reflected the ideas of heretics of the time as they could traditional orthodox themes, based on similar imagery. Which one you want to accept is up to you. But the fact remains that there is no ONE way of looking at it - although the idea proposed by this history section often suggests differently.

I agree completely that all the people with ideas and theories that are not based on primary source material should have a place to present and talk about their ideas. You could ask the forum owner to institute a new section called whatever - perhaps "Theories, Ideas & Speculations." One of the rules of that section can be that no primary source evidence is necessary.
I think this would be a great idea. All those people who are interested in these types of discussions could participate in a hassle-free environment. The rules could also include keeping all comments within a civil tone, and refraining from personal attacks or disparaging remarks - in other words, communicating like a mature human being. They could also include the guideline that all ideas would be better accepted if accompanied by rational statements and reasonable arguments. My feeling is that if such a forum was created, you would soon be left with a very short list of core members in the AT history section. But the new forum could possibly refer to the history section for information relating to primary source questions.

Each section of the tarotforum has its own 'rules.'
Of course you have the right to set up your own rules for consideration of posts. It's your house, so to speak. And you can treat your "guests" any way you want.

And you also have the right to set up your own rules for conduct - if you so desire. I find it interesting that you failed to respond to the other main point of my comments which has to do with a seemingly ongoing problem with the abusive nature of some of your friends in this history section. I've only been a member for a short time now, but I've already been contacted numerous times by PM regarding the difficulties some people are having with the derisive comments coming from core history members. If you take into account the principles of customer service departments that have to do with complaints, you should know that for every one complaint being registered, there are most likely dozens of others which never get reported. So, if it means anything to you, you might use some of your tenure and influence to clean up the reputation being created here.

For someone who seems to be so intent on creating high standards of methodology, it seems odd that you would condone and even tollerate such behavior. As far as peer review goes, I can't see how anyone could consider a "review" of your peers as valid when you resort to ad hominem remarks and other non-professional tactics. How can anyone really take you guys seriously when you've got people jumping around the internet resorting to name-calling and other immature behavior?

It's your game - do what you will.
 

Teheuti

The difficulties come up in discussions about the meanings of the cards - which is really where the bulk of interest lies with most tarot enthusiasts.
There are many other places on the tarotforum to discuss card meanings. Historical Research is not really about that.

And the problem is that, when it comes to deciphering the meanings of the cards, there doesn't appear to be any primary sources (unless I missed something).
What period in specific are you talking about? History is very 'period and place specific.' True, there are only fragmentary early sources and they are not divinatory meanings.

The closest thing I've seen to that was the translation of an old Italian text which Ross shared with us last year. But even in that short document, the author makes a point to disclose that fact that he is not an authority in this area. The text remains in the realm of secondary evidence. It is one man's opinion. And only that.
You misjudge the terms. It is "secondary" in regards to what the author might have thought someone else intended, but it is a piece of primary evidence in regards to it being a document from a particular period.

And if we are to believe his interpetation, we would be forced to accept the fact that (if I am remembering correctly) the Bateleur is some dude hanging out in front of a local pub.
This is also where you seem to get confused. History is not about believing what the writer of the piece or anyone else had to say. History simply says that he said it, and when and where. An historian would try to determine if the ideas were common or idiosyncratic for the time and place. It involves determining the genre of the piece - satire, fantasy, poetic, observational. Any theories would require the examination of much, much more evidence from the period.

(Although this seems like a fanciful interpretation, it does point to an important peice of information - that many of the cards may in fact have been used to relate local information, and not just used as examples of the larger iconography which these images may reflect.)

So, by your own methodology, this type of evidence can be subject to distortion, and should be taken within its own context - a point of view from what appears to be an orthodox Catholic.
When you say "may in fact have been used to relate local information" you are confusing the situation. "May - in fact"—which do you mean? What distortions did Ross make regarding the evidence? All I see here are things you are reading into the situation.

And by your own analysis, the "facts" that this Christian may have in his brain may not include the facts that another person, say a heretic Christian, would have in seeing the exact same images. It is therefore, incomplete.
The "fact" is that he wrote something. What he wrote does not have to be factual. It's a fact that he wrote it. And, of course, it is not going to tell us what anyone else may have thought, much less a heretic (and I have no idea what a 'heretic' (whatever you mean by that) would have thought).

There is also a vast difference, historically speaking, between my fantasies of what cards might have meant to a 15th century person and the actual fantasies of a 15th or 16th century person.

I find it interesting that you failed to respond to the other main point of my comments which has to do with a seemingly ongoing problem with the abusive nature of some of your friends in this history section.
I leave that up to the moderators. I have, on occasion, spoken either privately to a person or to a moderator about name-calling (and, I believe, was called on it once myself). I agree that it doesn't further conversations and I know how painful it can be to experience.

For someone who seems to be so intent on creating high standards of methodology, it seems odd that you would condone and even tollerate such behavior.
I can tolerate quite a bit when someone has proven themselves worthwhile in other ways. I am thankful that the moderators give us a little more latitude here then they do in other areas, because
1) critique is essential to the sciences and can sometimes get heated, and
2) frustrations are natural when there is a clash between individuals who don't know or see the point of historical methodologies and standards, and those who do but get tired of defending them to those who don't care to learn.
 

Teheuti

Here's from the History Help site http://www.schoolhistory.co.uk/studentforum/index.php?showtopic=4889

1. Primary Sources
These are sources of information which come from the time.
What are you studying? The Battle of Hastings - well the Bayeux Tapestry is a primary source for 1066, and so is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, or the Chronicle of William of Poitiers. A axe-head dug up at the site of the battle would be a 'primary source'. They were written/made by people who were there, and they are called 'primary sources' because they form the original information base for the events. They were the first to write/draw this information, and the information comes from them.
One thing to remember about primary evidence is that it is not 'better' simply because it comes from the time. Both the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and the Chronicle of William of Poitiers, are both VERY biased and unreliable. Remember that a soldier in a battle might give an 'eye-witness account' which sounds very exciting and 'real', but he probably only saw what was going on in his section of the battle - he did not have the overview.

2. Secondary Sources
Over the years, professional historians and textbook writers have collected together all the primary evidence, and weighed and evaluated it, and patched it together to make synthesised accounts of what they think went on. These are called 'secondary' histories, because they are made 'at second hand' - the people writing/drawing them weren't there at the time; they based what they did on the primary accounts of other people who were alive at the time.
One thing to remember is that, some secondary histories are VERY careful, well-researched and unbiased. Having said that, however, not all secondary histories are 'good'. They are written long after the event, with the benefit of hindsight. They cannot be based on ALL the facts because some facts have been lost through time. And some of them are poorly-researched and very biased. Examples of appalling secondary histories are the Mel Gibson films on Braveheart and the American War of Independence (The Patriot).

2. Tertiary Histories
When you write your essays, based on what you have found in textbooks (secondary sources), you are of course writing AT THIRD HAND. It could be said, therefore, that what you are is a 'tertiary source', but by this time it's just getting silly, isn;t it!
 

Debra

I understand.

But things have changed in the decade since the Tarot-L list days.

Many people who post their historical research at AT also have blogs or web sites of their own, and a forum elsewhere is specifically devoted tarot history. There are other public places with rules to keep the history discussion "pure" and in line with whatever standards these people have in mind. It's not like AT is the "sole repository of true knowledge about tarot history." Here people such as the original poster and others want a chance to explore their historical ideas with others.

I hope people will not be discouraged by all this, one way or another.
 

Huck

Frege's Puzzle

frege-puzzle.jpg


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottlob_Frege

When I ask Google, what it thinks about Frege and Tarot, it understands "free reading".
It believes, I made a typo. Google thinks, everybody wants "free reading".

"Gottlob Frege Tarot" then brings up Michael Dummett.

It's an interesting world.
 

foolish

History is not about believing what the writer of the piece or anyone else had to say. History simply says that he said it, and when and where.
Again, I don't think there is any problem with the primary source information - i.e. here is a statement about the tarot made by someone at this time. The next stage in rational inquiry on the subject would be to ask questions like, "Is this the only way the tarot was seen at this particular time?" or "Given the content of the statement and what we know about the source, what else might we learn from this?" I realize these are speculative questions, but, when combined with knowledge of the time, they often lead us through inquiry to other discoveries and insights. Yes, I know that insights are not primary sources of evidence, but that's where many people like to explore ideas. Obviously, the solution would be to place those ideas and insights in the proper forum so that the hard core history fans don't get their feathers ruffled. It seems that the problem revolves not around whether these are legitamate topics of inquiry, but whether they get posted in the history section.

When you say "may in fact have been used to relate local information" you are confusing the situation. "May - in fact"—which do you mean? What distortions did Ross make regarding the evidence? All I see here are things you are reading into the situation.
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I'm not suggesting that Ross made any distortions. I'm saying that, based on your statement that all "stories" are subject to distortion, that the story being told in this document (not the document itself) is subject to distortion. Therefore, we should be careful to not put too much emphasis on the accuracy of the author's statements - not that they were not accurately stated or translated, but that they may not really reflect, for example, the real intentions of the creators of the cards, or even everyone who used them, for that matter.

The "may, in fact" statement can be seen as inferring information presented in the piece - that the Bateleur was standing in front of a local pub which had a similar image posted outside. This can assume from this fact that someone has made an interpretation of the card in terms of local culture or landmarks. The next question to ask might be, "could other people have used similar methods of interpretation, using the cards to express ideas, locations or themes of local interest?

I can tolerate quite a bit when someone has proven themselves worthwhile in other ways. I am thankful that the moderators give us a little more latitude here then they do in other areas

In looking through your rules, I came across the following guidelines:

"Respect Our Members"

"Play nice while you're here.... No flaming, baiting, insults, or harassment of other members on the forum or via private message. Lack of respect for other members will result in post removal and/or temporary or permanent suspension of all member privileges."

So, it seems you're willing to bend the rules when it suits you. The question is really whether this works or doesn't work for your forum. If you're comfortable with the way things are, then so be it. People will probably vote by sticking around or not. I was just offering you some honest feedback.
 

Teheuti

Yes, I know that insights are not primary sources of evidence, but that's where many people like to explore ideas.
And, all of these ideas are all equally valid. So, how do we know if one is more likely than another, especially if all are couched in way that seems somewhat likely for the period?

Therefore, we should be careful to not put too much emphasis on the accuracy of the author's statements - not that they were not accurately stated or translated, but that they may not really reflect, for example, the real intentions of the creators of the cards, or even everyone who used them, for that matter.
Has anyone suggested that that author's statements were an accurate presentation of the real intentions of the creator(s) of the cards?

The next question to ask might be, "could other people have used similar methods of interpretation, using the cards to express ideas, locations or themes of local interest?
And how do you determine the answer to this question?

"Play nice while you're here.... No flaming, baiting, insults, or harassment of other members on the forum or via private message. Lack of respect for other members will result in post removal and/or temporary or permanent suspension of all member privileges."

So, it seems you're willing to bend the rules when it suits you.
How have I flamed or been insulting or harassing? It is not just my forum. I didn't create the rules. I try to live by them, but I am not an enforcer of them.

As you accuse me of not following the rules, then please report me. I am sure you can have me removed since I so flagrantly bend the rules.
 

Teheuti

Debra earlier posed a question part of which was "Why were the Queens added to the earlier (Mamluk) deck?"

I answered as follows:

"The Queens were added because Ginerva d'Este Malatesta wanted a portrait of herself holding a Cup to be part of the deck (she always wanted to be a Queen anyway), and she decided to add her three sisters, too."

Then I asked -
"How would you know if what I was saying was the truth or not? Would my answer be equally as true as any other answer?"

No one bothered to answer me. I'd appreciate it if Debra and foolish would address this.

Furthermore, how would you distinguish my answer above from an answer such as:
"The artist of the original Tarot deck added them because his mother said he should."

Wouldn't they all go into a pot of equally valid possibilities that I or anyone else could choose to *believe* or not according to my own preferences?
 

Teheuti

Oh, oh, oh - I have a new reason for the Queens.

Whoever made up the game of Tarot/Tarocchi created the point count system of scoring. He realized that the total points in a game almost added up to the same number as the cards in the deck - 74. He considered lots of ways to get a few extra points but none of them made any sense. Then he realized that if he added four cards to the Court he could adjust the points in a very sensible way (Kings worth 4, _?_ worth 3, Knights worth 2, and Pages worth 1), plus the points he had already determined for the Trump cards. When he went to fill in the new card in the Court, it made sense to make it the King's wife - plus he knew it would please all the ladies. And, thus we have 78 cards and 78 total points that are scored in a game.

Oh, and Ginerva Malatesta wanted to be the Queen of Cups because she so loved the Arthurian myths and wanted to be the Grail Queen!

This is so much fun!

Now - what do we do with all these lovely historical theories?

Debra and foolish - How should the Historical Research section handle these possibilities? Should we vote on them? Or, if they had been presented by different people on the forum, would we have to be careful not to hurt anyone's feelings and therefore just say that they all must be right?
 

foolish

Mary,
I have never accused you of being personally insulting or harassing. I find your comments rational and civil, and have enjoyed our conversations, even when they may seem like arguments. I guess I just can't understand how you can condone the behavior of some of your fellow history buffs. If I was a major player in a forum of my primary profession, I would take offense to this, and not want to be associated with such behavior. But that's just me. I don't want to tell you what to do. I'm just concerned that many people might be turned away from what is otherwise a wealth of knowledge and information in the tarot field.

And, all of these ideas are all equally valid. So, how do we know if one is more likely than another, especially if all are couched in way that seems somewhat likely for the period?
That's what's interesting to me. The investigations and discovery involved in discussing these questions will revolve around how the argument is structured, and what "evidence" is presented. Since most of this evidence will be secondary, speculation or simply an opinion, everyone can decide for themselves how reasonable it sounds.

The next question to ask might be, "could other people have used similar methods of interpretation, using the cards to express ideas, locations or themes of local interest?

And how do you determine the answer to this question?
This is the beauty of logical argument and rational presentaion of one's point of view. As in a court case, where each lawyer presents his case, with all the evidence he or she can come up with - however circumstantial it may be - and the interepretation of the facts of the case, the jury puts all the information together and decides what they feel is substantial evidence or whether they believe one side of the story or the other. And in the real world of judges and juries, just like the real world of history, we are sometimes right and sometimes wrong. And in regards to deciphering the tarot, I believe the same process applies.

"The Queens were added because Ginerva d'Este Malatesta wanted a portrait of herself holding a Cup to be part of the deck (she always wanted to be a Queen anyway), and she decided to add her three sisters, too."

Then I asked -
"How would you know if what I was saying was the truth or not? Would my answer be equally as true as any other answer?"

No one bothered to answer me. I'd appreciate it if Debra and foolish would address this.
First of all, I would admit that I'm not an expert on the personal histories of Medieval Italian families, other than identifying the name of d'Este with some early cards. Secondly, I wouldn't dismiss the entire idea just because I hadn't thought about it or read about it before. I would be interested in hearing more from you regarding how you came up with that idea, and if you had any other reasons to believe that was so. I guess it could be "equally as true" as any other theory which presented equally compelling arguments.

What I wouldn't do is berate you or call you an idiot for coming up with such a lame idea.

Furthermore, how would you distinguish my answer above from an answer such as:
"The artist of the original Tarot deck added them because his mother said he should."
In a case where there are proposed arguments that can't be proven, the jury would decide on the relative "believability" quotient, based on the reasonableness of the argument. If I was to have to decide just from the two statements above, without any other embelishing arguments, I would have to say that the first one seems more plausible to me. But I can see that you are trying to present something that appears silly or unsubstantiated so that all other unproven ideas can be placed in the same bag of outrageous fantasies.

What I gather from our conversation is that these types of discussions would probably be interesting to some people - just not in the history section. That's a reasonable request, and I think everyone should be able to accept that.