The Power of Myth

Cerulean

Thanks, it is interesting to see Waite, Case, Wescott summarized

So many historic beliefs entertwined.

I have been hoping to unravel or look at somewhat earlier French period Enlightenment or Alchemical (hermetic) myths entertwined with tarot and playing cards, that us where I am at so far.

So much history, 'romance' in an old fashioned way.
 

Mabuse

Confessions of a Tarot Reader by Jane Stern

Here's another attack on a Tarot reader promoting myths. Unlike Wanless who's myths are just bizarre, Stern gives the usual ones, that the Tarot was always used by psychics and was banned by the Church etc. I think it's worthy of discussion here. I do enjoy the debunking of Tarot myths because I find the myths to be reactionary and counter-productive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-79C9XikT8
 

Huck

Here's another attack on a Tarot reader promoting myths. Unlike Wanless who's myths are just bizarre, Stern gives the usual ones, that the Tarot was always used by psychics and was banned by the Church etc. I think it's worthy of discussion here. I do enjoy the debunking of Tarot myths because I find the myths to be reactionary and counter-productive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-79C9XikT8

... :) ... well. Let's talk about the universal hammer.
Everybody knows, that hammers are good for putting nails into wood. Now clever hammer producers have found ways to combine the hammer tool with a nail drawing function, we call the final product a carpenter's hammer.

17207863.jpg


Now imagine the funny debate between two carpenter students about this tool, from which one (only) has learned to hammer nails and the other has learned two draw nails (only). And imagine the rough words, with which their carpenter master might react on their idle talking.

Without doubt games are very old. And equal to this, also divination is very old, and definitely, there were a lot of tools, which were used for divination (the rest of your morning coffee, randomly requested books, the behavior of birds etc) , and especially also there were some methods, which used material otherwise used for playing games (Needham mentioned, that a Chinese method threw chess figures on a chess-board).

For instance the I-Ching (3000 years old) used as tool 3 coins. Now imagine an old Chinese banker preaching his contemporaries, that this would be a forbidden sacrilege and misuse of the holy Chinese money. Wouldn't he look a little bit stupid?

Similar stupid looks this two-sides-crusade about Tarot game and Tarot divination with often low level arguments.

In 15th century Italy was a time, when the word "Tarot" failed to exist, but already Trionfi games were noted ...

... we see missing evidence of the game Tarot
... naturally we also have missing evidence for divination with Tarot cards

... but we have some evidence for card playing
... but we have lots of evidence for the use of divination (... though not naturally with playing cards)

Missing evidence can't be used as total sure prove.

We have some indication, that the Boiardo Tarocchi poem might be near to lot books and with this to "dvination to cards" (possibly 1487).
We have some indication, that a Spanish game of c. 1450 might be near to "divination with cards".
In 1505 we definitely have lot books with playing cards (actually there is evidence, that this book was more or less a copy of an earlier lot scheme - Martin Flach in Basel -, which just exchanged animals with playing cards).
In 1507 Gianfrancesco Pico de Miranola spoke out against divination with cards.

A serious lot book researcher of 1850 (who was a brave librarian with considerable knowledge and not an esoteric writer; Sotzmann) laughed about the idea, that playing card divination wouldn't exist in that time. He saw much too much similarity between the lot book schemes and card divination ... and he indeed had studied the lot books with some intensity.
And indeed, if I compare that what I've researched bout lot books and that what I've researched about old Tarot, then I easily can suggest, that the complexity of some lot books surpasses the complexity of Tarot by more than 10 times.

But such things are more or less overlooked by Tarot-theme-lovers of the both sides of the two crusades. When I write about lot books, I usually find such articles completely ignored.

Also if I seriously attack with specific arguments the traditional view (formed by Decker, Dummett, Depaulis), that Tarot in c. 1450 had found its final form (which seems to be a dogma for most), I find no response.

There's simply missing competence ... at both sides, at least, as far the conditions of 15th century are concerned.
 

Yygdrasilian

Fata Morgana

“Competency” may be a question of divining the whY behind what riddles are posed by these Triumphs in heraldic protocol.
To speak of Fortune is beside the point.