Re: Re: Re: Re: Drawing is the a good idea
Originally posted by Ross G Caldwell [/i]
Well, here's what I think -
You’ve got a nice home-made theory, it’s very charming.
#### any theories are homemade, in the case you yourself set them up
There is no theory which is not "homemade", as there is always somebody, who set them up
But it won’t stand a minute in the real world.
#### that's a projection.
a. you don't know the theory at its full length
b. you simply don't know, what will happen
Try it, on the ANE list where they know about the most ancient evidence for alphabets and the pedagogic methods. These are the people whose books you rely on for the information that informed your theory, or their students. These people are the ones who *produce* the knowledge on ANE, on the ancient scripts; this is the living tradition of master and student starting with Champollion, Rawlinson and Hincks, the people who deciphered Hieroglyphs and Cuneiform; these are the professors in the universities, the modern Masters of the Alphabet. Test your theory on them – they write the books, they are where you got your knowledge from in the first place. Except for your other divine source, your own intuition. But in questions of history, that is less reliable.
#### well, at LTarot we wait one year and longer for the experts to appear to defend their earlier theories - have we see them? These experts are a paper tiger ... once this theory is established, we probable will make the experience, that everybody comes and had it known all the time
Although I think your theory has no merit as a theory to explain the 22 letter Phoenician alphabet, that doesn’t mean it is an absurd idea in a generic sense. It is an interesting and possible idea, that a coherent story is in the alphabet, perhaps a picture of a man. It is a natural suggestion. Maybe it will lead somewhere. Let’s think… does the light of the ABC-man theory illuminate anything? Yes, in fact; a direct piece of ancient evidence for an ABC man, a little older than the Sefer Yetzirah, but not concerning the 22 letter alphabet. Shine it over there… where? Well, it’s something I’ve shown you before, several times, but you always ignore it. Since you like riddles, I’ll let you think about it.
#### Turning the tables ...
No, the point is still in the details, what is kaph, what lamed, what mem, what nun, what samekh. Nothing else. First the ABC-Man ...
The rest of the Alphabet we can look on then. And what it means in historical context, we will see then after. And where it sheds light on, again is later. One problem after the other.
I know you say Tarot history is kindergarten, or the “tail” of the bull, and the alphabet is the bull. But what a difference in approach between Huck’s treatment of evidence for his alphabet theory, and autorbis’ treatment of evidence for tarot history! Autorbis is not satisfied with the least mistreatment of the evidence; even one year is too much anachronism for him; for Huck, jumping 1700 years is no problem, with no evidence, or even where the evidence contradicts. Autorbis found out what was wrong with the early theorists of tarot history, they saw cards that weren't there; there were 14 in Bembo, but everybody thought "logic demands, there were 22"; autorbis thought clearly; Huck sees body parts in letters that are not body parts; he is doing the same errors as the tarot historians who think all those cards had to be there in every deck. On trionfi.com, we have fine-combed the evidence, we have every piece published, almost, we have it down to the day. Trionfi.com is a monument to scholarly enterprise; it is sometimes uneven in value, but it is incredible in breadth and depth. I would say without hesitation that autorbis is the leading authority on early tarot history today, in the 15th century, knowing more than Michael Dummett, Detlef Hoffman, Gherardo Ortalli, Thierry Depaulis, or any other scholars with much more familiar names. They rushed on, not bothering to get the whole picture down to the minutest details, to do the fullest background research, the work of years. But autorbis, and the group of patient scholars whose work is represented at trionfi.com, did. His grasp of the evidence is unequalled, and his analysis superb, far surpassing mine. It doesn’t matter that we disagree on points of interpretation; the point is the sheer magnitude of the accomplishment, of the mass of evidence and detail brought to bear on the question of early tarot. This is the stuff of real scholarship, solid evidence, all the evidence, and the work that will form a basis for further research. This is a real accomplishment, a magnificent achievement, unchallenged in scope or depth.
#### Whow, what a laudatio ...
but personally I know autorbis and I now, that he works with intuition, whereby his intuition just comes mostly from much experience. Just working with "much systems" gives a feeling, what's wrong and right in specific matters. Autorbis compares it with the intuition of good car-drivers. They also know, what the others will do in next moment in traffic. It looks as ability not very special to the good cardrivers themselves, they take it as natural phenomen. But actually they just have invested a lot of energies to become "that" genious in it .... Autorbis doesn't drive with a car, he put the same energy and a little more in just his specific objects - naturally he's good with that.
One can reach a lot, when one concentrates.####
Compare this with Huck’s wave-of-the-hand approach to the early alphabet, and the difference is shocking. Any facts we need, all we need to do is imagine them. We don’t need much direct evidence, just a few commonplace ideas. Tarot history and its excruciatingly close attention to detail, to patiently gather all the facts and sift them, to analyse the information, to return to it again and again, is too small for Huck. It is just the tail. But if this much work is required for just the tail, then I advise him to follow autorbis’ lead, and work with just as much detail and patience to build a case for his alphabet-man theory; or to discard it, and build something more worthy of the evidence, but no less insightful and engaging to the wonder-seeking spirit.
### Ars longa, vita brevis. It was given, that Tarot in 15th century could have a lot of energies and "love for detail", but it's time to pass over to other fields, Olympia is calling.
In the question "does the names for the Hebrew letters contain a content or a very specific message important for the understanding for the object" we have - until now - the impression, that the scientific - and I think also the esoterical - side even didn't find the question - and of course no answer.
#### This might be an error - perhaps some outsiders once thought something like this. Generally it is testifying "research without intuition" - actually autorbis and me think, that it's the natural result of specifying research in historical sciences. People start
to rotate around their chosen object, they don't look in other fields, which progress is done there. Comparition with other fields would help.
Naturally an outsider in these specific local scientific hierarchies has at the beginning bad cards, he/she will meet all the arrogances etc.. what world found time to build there. But that's a problem for later.
First Problem: Understanding the ABC-man:
1st: aleph = ox, not part of the ABC-man
2nd: not part of the ABC-Man
3rd: not part of the ABC-Man
4th: not part of the ABC-Man
5th: not part of the ABC-Man
6th: not part of the ABC-Man
7th: not part of the ABC-Man
8th: not part of the ABC-Man
9th: not part of the ABC-Man
10th = 10: Iod = Hand ?
of course, this are "hands,", cause two hands have 10 fingers
11th: kaph = 20: ... ?
of course, this are toes, cause 10 fingers and 10 toes are 20.
12th: Lamed: The "L" still looks like the leg with foot off the alphabet-man.
The meaning "Ox-driving-stick" is a joke, of course you could kick with your leg an ox, that it marches on.
13th: mem = "Water" - which word is builded with m nearly in all languages? "Mama", mere, mother, mater. An M is female, Mem means "water", water as element is nearly everywhere identified with the female element. m is the female genital.
14th: nun = fish or snake, is similar written as "m", m+n is an Alphabet-pair. When "m" is the female, "n" must be the male. Fish and snake both have sexual-symbolism, male genital of course. "Fish in Water" is a natural sex-joke. The 14th part of the body of Osiris is the genetal, n is the 14th letter. The Osiris-myth is contemporary and "near", cause trade-relation between Byböos and Egyptia.
15th: samekh - optically a back-bone with rips, just the missing part of the body.
16th: eye
17th: mouth
18th: fish-hook (nose)
19th: <----- logic demands the ear here, it's quof, the back-head
20th: head
21th: tooth ----> means: show teeth, means: "smile
"
22th: and here's the mark --- I did it, I sign with a cross, I know the alphabet now. This letter is not part of the ABC-Man, it's the ending sign.
And now with music:
I am the ABC-man, ho, ho ...
I am the ABC-man, ho, ho ...
I am the ABC-man, ho, ho ...
With that we've a curious phenomen (too much body signals at a specific location in the row) inside a given group (names in relation to signs of alphabet), a projecting hypothetical exspectation (there is an ABC-man) with a number-related "order" (12, six for the head, six for the body) out of an older context which might contain a real rememberance (Sepher Yetzirah), with a solution as fulfillment for the hypothetical projection in a projected order (10 - 15 for the body, 16 - 21 for the head). And not a bad and very hairdrawn solution, I would guess. It's elegant.
Also we've Aleph and Tau, which pleases the all around context and don't contradict.
We've 8 signs still unexplained. But one step after the other.
