What makes a "Tarot Historian"?

le pendu said:

Curiosity, Imagination, Open-Mindedness, Flexability.

Click to expand...

I believe I have those qualities, and I wouldn't trust anyone who didn't.

Knowledge is also important (which means memory and meditation), along with respect for elders (study of the older generation).

Those six qualities should be a good mix.

Angel's Fear

A lifetime's worth of study to be sure.

And if your goal is an academic tome on the origins of playing cards, then more power to you. While I can appreciate sober historians and the nuggets they mine from the remnants left us of our past, we should also consider that Tarot, ultimately, stands at a threshold between awareness and dream - the liminal zone where academics fear to tread because the rigors of their logic can never fully grasp hold of its subject there. Tarot's enigmatic portraits possess a certain mystique the ivory tower would rather ignore than admit to being baffled by. Any study of Tarot must contend with this stigma if it wishes to be taken seriously there. Even so, its fate would likely be as obscure as all the other installments in our vast compendium of trivia - rarely read, cited less.

The power of myth has become a political tool that has given far too much dominion to the least deserving among us. Tarot, perhaps more than any other system at our disposal, gives us the means to invent new mythologies by showing how the old ones have been turned against us. And that, my friends, is real Magick. The kind that changes history. Hopefully for the better.

Historians are academic, by definition. I don't think using mystical means (dreams, magick) to document history would fly in the academic world. Conversely, just mention the name Michael Dummett to most occult-types and they will froth at the mouth and fall on the floor in convulsions...

Yygdrasilian said:

we should also consider that Tarot, ultimately, stands at a threshold between awareness and dream - the liminal zone where academics fear to tread because the rigors of their logic can never fully grasp hold of its subject there.

Click to expand...

A historian cannot pre-suppose where tarot might stand, that is surely something to be learned from the study, indeed, the whole point of the study. Also, I'm not sure that you are using the word 'logic' the way an academic would. Think of logic as the study of what can be meaningfully said. The rules of logic are not arbitrary or relative but are a pre-requisite for the existence of language, without them there could be no language because words could not carry meaning. This clearly has implications for the notion of something of something that "logic can never fully grasp".

Numbers as Realities Misbehave

I wouldn’t get too hung up on my attempts at a more poetical style of writing. I find it more amusing than a purely dry, academic delivery. Indeed, the game of logic could be well-played with Tarot cards, especially where the cipher is concerned. What I meant by the rigors of academic logic had more to do with the ivory tower’s inherent inability to cope with experiences that do not fit into a scientific materialist schema.

As an example, take the anthropologist’s experience of the spirit world in ceremony. Ethnographers studying shamanic subjects can address the psychological or cultural function a belief in spirits might confer, but the mere suggestion that those realms might have any sort of ontological validity will get one laughed out of the University and into the newage bookstores quicker than you can say Carlos Castaneda. Yet, most of those who’ve been “there” will attest to it’s “reality.”

Tarot is the same way, sort of. We may dissect the patient thoroughly and never learn a thing about its Soul. We may compile a vast library of its anatomical features, collect the fossils of its evolution and squabble about the existence of missing links; but the magick and mystery of Tarot will always elude such an approach.
The rigors of academic proof won’t allow much room for serious exploration of the occult as it is, by definition, hidden from view. And some secrets do stand the test of time. Perhaps this why there are no courses offered in Tarot History at any university.

Yygdrasilian said:

What I meant by the rigors of academic logic had more to do with the ivory tower’s inherent inability to cope with experiences that do not fit into a scientific materialist schema.

Click to expand...

Logic, as I've stated, is about what can be meaningfully said. It is a tool of philosophy, not only science (or natural philosophy). Metaphysics is hardly a materialist schema and logic is as vital too it. When we describe a statement as illogical, we mean that on analysis the statement fails to communicate anything meaningful. It may have what we might term a surface grammar - but at at a deeper level, there is none. If logic cannot, in principle, 'fully grasp' a subject, then I would question that there is a subject there at all.

The rigors of academic method are not arbitrary, they are the best tools we have to achieve understanding. The alternative fails because it presents us with no standards by which to judge its statements, without which we cannot tell truth from fantasy.

Cube with Magic Ribbons

philebus said:

If logic cannot, in principle, 'fully grasp' a subject, then I would question that there is a subject there at all.

The rigors of academic method are not arbitrary, they are the best tools we have to achieve understanding. The alternative fails because it presents us with no standards by which to judge its statements, without which we cannot tell truth from fantasy.

Click to expand...

This is precisely what I'm trying to get across - that the academic method cannot approach a subject that won't obey the rules of logic. I'm not disputing the value of its methods, but rather pointing out that they are insufficient for dealing with a subject that defies the scientific materialist scheme of causality.

While it is conceivable that Logic could formulate this conundrum, how does an anthropologist write a coherent argument when it has Godel's Theorem as a foundation? You might as well take up writing koans, or engaging in an obscurantisme a la Derrida.

How does an ethnographer describe the existence of beings in a "spirit world" without tangible evidence - without even the means of gathering anything tangible whatsoever? Academia will always refute the ontological validity of such a "place" because it must. To do otherwise threatens its very foundations.

In the realm of faerie logic is turned on its head, eviscerated, and its entrails paraded around you in a grotesque carnival, mocking what you thought you knew and how you thought you thought you knew it. Tarot are at that threshold between spirit and matter; and, as representatives of the archetypes inhabiting this other world, may be poked and prodded, examined studiously and be made a subject of academic discourse. But that which they represent will always be a phantasmagoria; more like a dream than a "thing."

Academia necessarily doubts its existence as a subject because our accustomed categories of truth and fantasy break down once you cross that threshold. So, by all means, write a History of Tarot; but do not expect it to do anything more than describe the surface of a door. What lies behind that door will defy your logic. And have loads of fun doing it.

The subject of this thread is researching history. I don't understand why, or even how, mystical methods should be employed.

A historian presents evidence, analyzes it, and draws conclusions based on his analysis. Speculation is allowed, as long as it's identified as such and not stated as fact. Pretty simple.

The "realm of faery" has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. Dreaming, channelling spirits, divining, etc., are great tools for certain things — chiefly of a subjective nature. They do not qualify as reliable methods for research.

Well the dictionary says a Historian is a noun and describes the writer of History. A Historiographer is an official Historian who studies historical method.
So what makes a good Tarot Historian?
The ability to write about History of Tarot in a competent way. They need to have a good basis in Historiography. They cannot be Histrionic though

Ross is a good example of a Tarot Historian- even if it is in a unofficial status.
He said in POst #21 of this thread..

It is useful to define terms. Many people consider tarot not to be "merely" a deck of cards, but a philosophy which came to be illustrated in a deck of cards. Thus, they search for the ideas behind this philosophy - which of course can be traced very far back. Thus they consider that Tarot is far older than the first appearance of tarot cards.

I am always clear that when I speak as a historian, tarot means first "carte da trionfi", and later "tarot" - an object, a certain kind of pack of cards, and what is done with that pack of cards (also called "tarot" - playing the cards, reading the cards, or whatever).

Click to expand...

Now that is clear and understandable, and readable. He defines his terms of reference- gives consideration to other views- but sticks to the prescribed 'Historical' article. Huck also does the same, but gives more History of the time and place to the reader to consider as an adjunct. He also sticks to what is, as what is known at this point in time. They are not amateur dabblers like myself. They have a method and proscribed boundaries. I have learned much from them, and they have bought order to my chaotic ideas.
I think they would be great at designing an official Tarot Historians degree.
The other things I am interested in regarding Tarot- could well be covered by a degree in Philosophy for example.
~Rosanne

Occult History Theorem

This statement of historical theory does not have any proof in the system of historiography and related systems.



snap