The Take-Over of Historical Research into Tarot

ravenest

Yes, hence some people's problems here. Posting one's beliefs, theories and practices can open one up to a vast objective opinion. Those that see their subjective experience as objective see the outside objective variant viewpoints as a threat.

It intrudes on their internal objective ( :) ) validity ... so the external objective viewpoint becomes a projection focus point for the shortcomings in them ... another case of psychological projection. ( Which, on this level , " Although rooted in early developmental stages, and classed by Vaillant as an immature defence the projection of one's negative qualities onto others on a small scale is nevertheless a common process in everyday life. "
 

Richard

Yes, hence some people's problems here. Posting one's beliefs, theories and practices can open one up to a vast objective opinion. Those that see their subjective experience as objective see the outside objective variant viewpoints as a threat.

It intrudes on their internal objective ( :) ) validity ... so the external objective viewpoint becomes a projection focus point for the shortcomings in them ... another case of psychological projection. ( Which, on this level , " Although rooted in early developmental stages, and classed by Vaillant as an immature defence the projection of one's negative qualities onto others on a small scale is nevertheless a common process in everyday life. "
I don't think that identification of the subjective and objective is a shortcoming in anyone, but it can be pathetic in a culture in which a dualistic mindset is predominant. When in Rome it is advisable at least to pay a certain degree of lip service to Roman cultural distinctives. Not to do so may get you thrown to the lions, and a martyr complex is usually pathological. Let's suppose that I am a mystic who identifies above and below, inside and outside, spiritual and material. If I refuse to recognize that this is incompatible with the "rules", then I have not learned how to play the game and might as well expect rejection and failure. It is foolhardy to expect the majority to understand my mindset; and for me to trample on the majority's distinction between internal and external is an offense which is just as objectionable as their refusal to understand my mystical monism. Is it asking too much for a monist to temporarily suspend the blatant expression of their perspective long enough to compose a post to a dualistic forum? I think not. If I can do it, anyone can.

The Monistic Illiminatus and Crackpot

ETA. Based on my acquaintance with the New Age movement, wherein 'spirit guide' was probably popularized, I would hazard the guess that most people who use the term are fairly conventional dualists, certainly capable of distinguishing between what is generally regarded as material and what is spiritual.
 

Rosanne

Gobbly.... and Gook = Dualism
Gobblygook = Monism

The stretching of the Linguistic muscle going on here is beyond my ken.
Or it is joke that I do not get.
Or it is.....gobbly-gook in both ways.
~Rosanne
 

Richard

Gobbly.... and Gook = Dualism
Gobblygook = Monism

The stretching of the Linguistic muscle going on here is beyond my ken.
Or it is joke that I do not get.
Or it is.....gobbly-gook in both ways.
~Rosanne
Look them up.
 

ravenest

Not identification OF them but the confusion BETWEEN them ... I meant.
 

Richard

Not identification OF them but the confusion BETWEEN them ... I meant.
I wasn't sure. I think that actual confusion between subject and object in someone whose cultural environment is dualistic is not a good thing. It can be a symptom of schizophrenia.

Within the Native American culture (what precious little that has survived the brutal clash with the dominant Euro-American culture), spirits and such-like are as real as animals, trees, tobacco, and whisky, but this is a cultural perspective, not confusion. (I don't like to think about this too much, as I see something very precious that is rapidly disappearing, and I get sad and mad. The Cherokee component of my blood begins to boil.)
 

ravenest

I too have boiled blood re. the indigenous Australians perhaps we could split to 'spirituality' and discuss a third option aside from the subjective and objective?

(We wouldn't want to be seen to be taking over a thread about taking over a forum ;) )
 

Yygdrasilian

Castles Made of Sand

I protest...
Poetry and philosophy may always be hostile to one other, yet they are nothing more than speculation without empirical evidence in the service of logic. So, much as I appreciate the 'hidden' genius of Tarot, I'm with Mary.
 

McFaire

I hope that a separate section can be maintained for academic and professional historical discussion. Why not have a different forum for speculation, beliefs, and theories that are not based on empirical evidence?

I agree with Mary's proposal to separate the two. Perhaps a forum called Empirical Research would mitigate the back-and-forth about semantics.
 

Sulis

I hope that a separate section can be maintained for academic and professional historical discussion. Why not have a different forum for speculation, beliefs, and theories that are not based on empirical evidence?

I agree with Mary's proposal to separate the two. Perhaps a forum called Empirical Research would mitigate the back-and-forth about semantics.

The problem with splitting the topics is that there just isn't enough traffic through the History sections of the forum to warrant it... Sub-forums tend not to work and end up being closed due to lack of posts.
Another problem is that discussions tend to naturally contain speculative posts and factual posts and splitting them into different threads completely destroys discussion and leaves threads very disjointed and difficult to read.

Sulis - moderator