The Take-Over of Historical Research into Tarot

momentarylight

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.

I think it is not helpful to use labels like 'new age'. That label too often has derogatory connotations. From what I understand there is little agreement about what it actually means.

Beside that, as I have said already, there is NOTHING wrong with a question, naive or otherwise. How do people learn if they don't ask? It is the kind of answer you give that matters.
 

Richard

I think it is not helpful to use labels like 'new age'. That label too often has derogatory connotations. From what I understand there is little agreement about what it actually means.

Beside that, as I have said already, there is NOTHING wrong with a question, naive or otherwise. How do people learn if they don't ask? It is the kind of answer you give that matters.
Why does there have to be this continual distortion of the issue? It's not about whether a question is right or wrong, it's whether certain discussions constitute Historical Research. I'm at the point where I really don't give a damn.

Maybe the term 'metaphysical' would be more acceptable than 'New Age', not that I care.
 

ravenest

Like I said ... the guard dog seems to have run off.

Any little agreement about what New Age actually means, is a further manifestation of the issue that is annoying the hell out of the historians ...

We can argue about what THAT means in terms of what I believe ... what I 'channelled' what my 'spirit guides' told me ... or we can just go to

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

and go "Ohhh ... now I get it ! " OR go <puts fingers in ears> (loudly) "La la lalala ! "

(Which is actually what an AT moderator wrote in a thread once :laugh: )
 

Zephyros

I think taking it to the realm of New Age or spirituality is indeed going to a certain extreme. There are many cases that do not constitute belief, may still not meet historical research standards as such, but are still worth exploring. For example, there have been any number of threads that postulated something like (not quoting any specific thread here) "the Empress is Venus, Venus is Isis, Isis is Ashtoreth, hence Tarot must be of prehistoric origin." This example isn't that far-fetched, because if one assumes as a given the universality of the images, one could explore the archetypes that constitute them to no end. Ashtoreth is the Empress, the basic symbol of the primeval Mother. Thetis, Artemis, Hera, Athena, Gaia, Binah, Virgo, Shechinah, etc., cannot all those be explored as mythical influences, as different names for a similar idea? Or must I show that Visconti uttered the word Hera during umpty-dumbty-fifty-four, hence we have the Empress? I'm not talking about divinatory interpretation but direct cultural significance.

Asserting that such a connection means Tarot as we know it, the complete assembled volume of images, dates from prehistory is going too far, but the history of myth can still be explored even without direct references. One must tread lightly, however, and not stray into the territory of those that would say semantic connections reveal causality, as in "the fact that there is a rainbow in the sky proves the story of Noah's Ark."

History needn't be a list of printers, dates and dry references only, just as one doesn't need a stone bas-relief of half-Mary/half-Isis to infer that one came from the other. Perhaps the issue is not with the subject matter, but with the way it is presented.
 

ravenest

I think taking it to the realm of New Age or spirituality is indeed going to a certain extreme. There are many cases that do not constitute belief, may still not meet historical research standards as such, but are still worth exploring. For example, there have been any number of threads that postulated something like (not quoting any specific thread here) "the Empress is Venus, Venus is Isis, Isis is Ashtoreth, hence Tarot must be of prehistoric origin." This example isn't that far-fetched, because if one assumes as a given the universality of the images, one could explore the archetypes that constitute them to no end.

Oooooo that's gonna get 'someone's' Mercurial goat !

All we would have to do to keep all happy and enjoy the 'cross-cultural' input would be to say; " "the Empress is Venus, Venus is Isis, Isis is Ashtoreth, hence IMAGES IN Tarot must be of early historic origin." (cant be prehistory unless the image is traced back to a pre literate or non-history recording culture) ... the example 'cheats' (in the game of history) by making a quantum jump at 'tarot cards' and maybe a fudge at 'pre-history'?

Otherwise 'literalists' will just go "there were no 'tarot cards' in pre history, prove it!" and around and around we go ...


Ashtoreth is the Empress, the basic symbol of the primeval Mother. Thetis, Artemis, Hera, Athena, Gaia, Binah, Virgo, Shechinah, etc., cannot all those be explored as mythical influences, as different names for a similar idea? Or must I show that Visconti uttered the word Hera during umpty-dumbty-fifty-four, hence we have the Empress? I'm not talking about divinatory interpretation but direct cultural significance.

I agree ... perhaps the complainants wanted absolute accuracy of language ????

'University Politics' ??? (History Faculty feels threatened by Cultural Anthropology Faculty)?

Asserting that such a connection means Tarot as we know it, the complete assembled volume of images, dates from prehistory is going too far, but the history of myth can still be explored even without direct references. One must tread lightly, however, and not stray into the territory of those that would say semantic connections reveal causality, as in "the fact that there is a rainbow in the sky proves the story of Noah's Ark."

History needn't be a list of printers, dates and dry references only, just as one doesn't need a stone bas-relief of half-Mary/half-Isis to infer that one came from the other. Perhaps the issue is not with the subject matter, but with the way it is presented.

Yep ... but the complainants wanted it presented with high tech resolution and the eager curious don't consider it essential.

I still don't get why the complainants didn't just say ... "well, your idea is interesting (or not) but it isn't history" .... tag it and leave it alone <shrug>