The Take-Over of Historical Research into Tarot

Debra

There is no harm whatsover in playing with ideas about the origins of tarot and tarot symbols.

I was once a Knight of Swords against crackpot claims, vague meanderings, bizarre speculations, demanding that people explain themselves to my satisfaction and account for gaps in their logic and evidence. Compared with some others, I am a poor amateur in the "pissy and sarcastic" department; but I was surely pissy and sarcastic enough.

Then I saw how pissy and sarcastic posts squashed some potentially interesting investigations.

Isn't it enough to raise questions or present reasons for doubt? And if the questions go unanswered, the doubts ignored...say "thank you, I shall pass on by"...as we do in all the other parts of the forum?
 

JayBee

On the subject of the term "theory", perhaps an approach to the world from the field of science would help in providing clarity. As used in this forum (and widely in general), the word theory is often used as a synonym (or near synonym) for "guess", "idea", "speculation", and similar. In science, the meaning is much more precise. A theory is an explanation of an event or an observation that is supported by consistently obtained/discovered evidence. A good theory also leads to successful predictions of new events or observations. When a theory is contradicted by reliable evidence, scientists must either modify the theory to account for the contradiction (in which case, the modified theory must continue to have successful explanatory and predictive power), or it must be discarded.

I believe that the kind of historical research that Mary is advocating here is very much in line with the nature of "theory" as it is used in science. And rightly so, because it is what can clearly distinguish legitimate inquiry from crackpot-ism, and it probably requires a certain kind of rigour be brought to "speculation" to prevent speculation from backsliding into the realm of the crackpot. Nothing wrong with speculation, but speculation devoid of consistent and/or reliable supporting evidence is fiction, more likely than not. Nothing wrong with fiction, of course; but it belongs elsewhere on this forum.

Jay
 

Debra

Sulis has already explained why the moderators leave discussions that tend toward historical speculation here rather than moving them.

Riddle me this: What makes tarot significant enough, historically, to deserve its own "academic field"?

IS TAROT IMPORTANT HISTORICALLY? (minimum 1200 words, please, double-spaced, footnotes) :laugh:

Or is it simply something that we find interesting?

I vote the latter.
 

Rosanne

Hehe Debra, I posted something similar in the 'Hole maker Tarot' thread.
The idea of 1200 words has me reeling ( I try and read essays like that elsewhere and my eyes droop and I start to twitch).
So in the scheme of things... is Tarot Historically important?
ummmmm, not like the Life of Abraham Lincoln, or Barbie, but importance is lost on me everytime I get out my cards.
~Rosanne
 

ravenest

Sulis has already explained why the moderators leave discussions that tend toward historical speculation here rather than moving them.

Riddle me this: What makes tarot significant enough, historically, to deserve its own "academic field"?

IS TAROT IMPORTANT HISTORICALLY? (minimum 1200 words, please, double-spaced, footnotes) :laugh:

Or is it simply something that we find interesting?

I vote the latter.

Double he he ... I vote with you.

I find tarot history interesting and want to hear AS WELL the research and theory

I don't want to pay tax for a special university department of tarot history research & lab ... unless I can work in it and get paid (my sister is a scientist ... I know what they guys get paid to do ? And the isn't even the social sciences ! )
 

Abrac

Have to agree with you JayBee.

I'd also add that new ideas are usually mocked by the established views of the time. Nothing new would be uncovered were it not for "crackpots." I believe everything should be allowed, and what's true will rise to the top; this is true science.

When I come across something that seems "bizarre" I just move on, or if I'm bored enough, read on and sometimes learn something. :)
 

Richard

What constitutes 'historical speculation'? Would the following be acceptable?
"Tarot originated in Atlantis. I know this to be true because my Spirit Guide told me so."
 

Rosanne

In defence of 'Speculation'

Well LRichard, I will answer you in a roundabout way.
Umberto Eco wrote a book called Serendipities: Language and Lunacy
and I will quote directly from chapter one called the 'Force of Falsity'
At this point it can be said that, over the course of History, beliefs and affirmations that today's encyclopedia categorically denies have been given credence and indeed believed so completely as to subjugate the learned, generate and destroy Empires, inspire poets (not always witness to the truth), and drive human beings to heroic sacrifices, intolerance, massacre, the quest for knowledge. If this is true, how can we not assert that a force of the False exists?

Later he goes on to say...
Ask an ordinary person what Christopher Columbus wanted to prove when he set to reach the Orient by way of the Occident and what it was that the learned men of Salamanca stubbornly denied, trying to prevent his voyage. The reply in most cases, will be that Columbus believed the Earth was round, whereas the Salamanca sages believed it was flat and hence thought that, after sailing a short distance, the three caravels would plunge into the Cosmic abyss.
Eco goes on to tell how many people really knew the World was round and posited that even Dante knew this, otherwise he would not have entered the funnel of the Inferno and emerge on the other side to see unknown stars at the foot of the mount of Purgatory if the world was flat. But the Church fathers insisted from a Biblical standpoint spoke of the World as a tabernacle form, right up till the 19th century.
The truth of the matter was that the Salamanca sages had made calculations more precise than Columbus and were actually sure the World was round and far more vast than reality and thought him mad to try. Columbus, burned with sacred fire, was a good navigator and a poor astronomer and thought the World round and much smaller than reality. Neither knew between Europe and Asia was another continent.

...and so you see how complicated life is, and how fragile are the boundaries between Truth and error, right and wrong. Though they were right, the Salamanca sages were wrong; and Columbus, while he was wrong, pursued faithfully his error and proved to be right.
Umberto Eco.

So I might read an article about Tarot and Atlantis, but I would be highly skeptical about the Spirit Guide, because I know Spirit guides do not bother with such pronouncements. If others thought the same as me the thread would die, or I could ignore it. On the other hand by such a speculation, a poster might have the directions to the site of Atlantis, now that would be cool! Ignoring would be just like Dante ignoring the Church teaching of a tabernacle shaped Earth. We are not stupid really as a group of posters. Or do you think we are?
~Rosanne
 

ravenest

Have to agree with you JayBee.

I'd also add that new ideas are usually mocked by the established views of the time. Nothing new would be uncovered were it not for "crackpots." I believe everything should be allowed, and what's true will rise to the top; this is true science.

When I come across something that seems "bizarre" I just move on, or if I'm bored enough, read on and sometimes learn something. :)

sweet! :) ... and balanced ... better than having a tantie about it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14UdSeNlIlM
 

ravenest

Well LRichard, I will answer you in a roundabout way.
Umberto Eco wrote a book called Serendipities: Language and Lunacy
and I will quote directly from chapter one called the 'Force of Falsity'


Later he goes on to say...

Eco goes on to tell how many people really knew the World was round and posited that even Dante knew this, otherwise he would not have entered the funnel of the Inferno and emerge on the other side to see unknown stars at the foot of the mount of Purgatory if the world was flat. But the Church fathers insisted from a Biblical standpoint spoke of the World as a tabernacle form, right up till the 19th century.
The truth of the matter was that the Salamanca sages had made calculations more precise than Columbus and were actually sure the World was round and far more vast than reality and thought him mad to try. Columbus, burned with sacred fire, was a good navigator and a poor astronomer and thought the World round and much smaller than reality. Neither knew between Europe and Asia was another continent.

Umberto Eco.

So I might read an article about Tarot and Atlantis, but I would be highly skeptical about the Spirit Guide, because I know Spirit guides do not bother with such pronouncements. If others thought the same as me the thread would die, or I could ignore it. On the other hand by such a speculation, a poster might have the directions to the site of Atlantis, now that would be cool! Ignoring would be just like Dante ignoring the Church teaching of a tabernacle shaped Earth. We are not stupid really as a group of posters. Or do you think we are?
~Rosanne

Great post but ...whoa a bit ... he just asked a question, I never took it as if he was having a go at my level of stupidity (although I may have demonstrated that to him previously ;) )

My answer is ... in a literal fashion ... Yes. LRichard I think it would be. But then ... does the definition of speculation include certainty ?