Frege's Puzzle

Zephyros

It would be the reverse of wisdom to claim ad ignorantiam as proof of Santa Claus. Likewise for Tarot's origins as a form of Qabalah. The point made above is that an unbridgeable gap exists between occultists and serious historians so long as the former keeps hidden what the latter must see in order to believe. Both may refer to the same deck of cards, but each possesses a different sense for what those cards mean. And no amount of ad hominem will ever succeed in bridging that gap. Yet, if Tarot can be utilized to reveal a hidden rationale underpinning both the symbolism of Freemasonry and the sequence of Hebrew Letters, it would benefit the serious historian to learn how that methodology works considerably more than arguing from incredulity.

It can be demonstrated that distinct mathematical & geometrical properties arise from the Hebrew alephbet when the Tarot de Marseilles is applied as a “cypher” [aleph=0]. Properties which are reflected in the iconography of the cards themselves, and which have a direct bearing on the Great Pyramid at Giza. While this does not prove that Tarot cards have existed since the time of the Old Dynasty pharaohs, it does offer a reasonable explanation for why certain notable occultists have maintained that they represent a kind of Book written by the mythological inventor of Letters & Numbers.

non haec sine numine divum eveniunt

I must agree with Mary, what you are saying is not based on empirical knowledge. Were a link found, even a little jotted note in the corner of a card saying anything that connects Tarot and Kabbalah, I would see something there, but unfortunately, there isn't. Again, it works, but I don't know how or why, and I suspect the combination is not "natural," as in, both the cards and the Tree of Life had to be "raped" somewhat in order for the attributions to work (it was certainly done to the Wheel of the Zodiac in order to accommodate the new attributions). Not only that, but the number of cards wasn't always uniform and has changed over the centuries, until Ettiella (and others), in a way, "codified" Tarot and brought it to its present state.

In addition, not to be, again, harsh, but it would be good if you could cite your sources about the Great Pyramid and other ideas. I'm not saying you're wrong, but if there is anything remotely Tarot on the Pyramid, it would interest me very much!
 

Teheuti

Here's an article that deals with a similar issue among neopagans and academics - anthropologists and archeologists. I'm sorry that it begins kind of mid-stream in an on-going debate and may refer to issues that some will not recognize, but there are plenty of internal links that go further into the issue. I know and have discussed these issues with several of the people mentioned in the article, and might be able to help if the links don't clear things up.

http://the-pagan-perspective.com/2012/03/14/of-pagans-scholars-and-cognitive-dissonance/
 

mjhurst

Hi, Mary,

Here's an article that deals with a similar issue among neopagans and academics - anthropologists and archeologists. I'm sorry that it begins kind of mid-stream in an on-going debate and may refer to issues that some will not recognize, but there are plenty of internal links that go further into the issue.
Thanks for the link, and the chains of links it leads to. Some excellent and directly-relevant discussions.

Best regards,
Michael
 

Titadrupah

Hi, Ross,

Well said, but... margaritas vestras ante porcos.

Best regards,
Michael

In the years I’ve spent reading this forum and other related websites, I´ve found interesting to see that always in the history section, people can engage in incredibly ill-tempered, bordering in hysterical discussions regarding the origins of Tarot.
While known evidence is certainly of no use to the occult, Egyptian, Gnostic and whatever crackpot theories available, one wonders why this obsession with disproving. If 90% of tarot enthusiasts in every corner of the world will work upon imagination and myth (even in many cases being familiar with history and facts), this attitude of “what you guys believe in is bogus” or “it was only a game”, is really to be taken as the product of wannabe academics that just didn’t make it in the so called –traditional- intellectual arenas.
 

mjhurst

Hi,

In the years I’ve spent reading this forum and other related websites, I´ve found interesting to see that always in the history section, people can engage in incredibly ill-tempered, bordering in hysterical discussions regarding the origins of Tarot.
Given that your post has zero historical content or argument, and is purely a personal attack, the question naturally arises: what alternative history do you propose to defend? Are you defending, or intending to defend, the ancient Egyptian Kabbalah theory of Tarot origins with which this thread began? Or just posting insults?

While known evidence is certainly of no use to the occult, Egyptian, Gnostic and whatever crackpot theories available, one wonders why this obsession with disproving.
You might want to reconsider the question of who is obsessed. The basic factual history of Tarot, (including the fact that it was invented in Italy, around 1440, and was not adopted by occultists until around 1780), was detailed over three decades ago. There is an obsession on display here -- an obsession with denying the factual history of Tarot.

If 90% of tarot enthusiasts in every corner of the world will work upon imagination and myth (even in many cases being familiar with history and facts), this attitude of “what you guys believe in is bogus” or “it was only a game”,
Two points: first, the ancient Egyptian Kabbalah crap IS bogus, and second, nobody claims "it was only a game" or "the images are meaningless" or any of those silly strawman attacks. In regard to the Bible passage you apparently object to, that quote seems perfectly appropriate to describe the presentation of facts to those you suggest are 90% of Tarot enthusiasts -- those who ignore facts in favor of folklore, for whom "known evidence is certainly of no use". Isn't your description exactly what the biblical metaphor suggests?

is really to be taken as the product of wannabe academics that just didn’t make it in the so called –traditional- intellectual arenas.
This insult appears to be directed toward me personally, so let me point out that I'm not an academic, wannabe or otherwise, and I have never suggested otherwise. I'm just a hobbyist who is interested in Tarot history and iconography. I have respect for evidence, rational argument, and the scholars who produce such information, and am aware that it is a different process than simply making up new versions of old Masonic fantasies.

On the other hand, if 99% of the Tarot enthusiasts in every corner of the world prefer 18th- and 19th-century Masonic lies to scholarly history, I have absolutely no problem with that. And in the many years I've been posting online I've never attempted to impose historical arguments outside the realm of historical discussions. In one of the articles which Mary pointed out, Caroline Jane Tully wrote:

I need to emphasize that I am not suggesting that knowledge gained through the currently valid procedures of the human sciences is necessarily superior to knowledge gained in other ways, such as those methods used by many Pagans, such as dreams, trance states, gut knowing, flashes of intuition or revelation. Obviously different intellectual and political movements create their own forms of relative "knowledge", truth is a relative rather than an absolute concept, and what is "true" depends on who is speaking to whom and in what context. If this is the case though, then academic research ought to be afforded the same respect as other forms of knowledge.
This is ostensibly a forum for "historical research", not "unverifiable personal gnosis" or other forms of wholly subjective "feel-good epistemology". There are many hundreds of online fora devoted to such approaches.

Best regards,
Michael
 

Debra

I like Teheuti's suggestion of a third way.

My question is: What is the secret knowledge? Is it information, is it spiritual teaching or prophecy, is it instructions on how to do something, a tool or procedure?

When I think about secret knowledge, I end up with these three options.

1. There's a house key hidden around here somewhere, where is it? Susan is suspected of embezzling from the business, how do you figure out if she has? The secret is some kind of information of value for some purpose.

2. There's a profound understanding of the human condition, deeper and truer than those one might access more easily. Getting to it involves being part of a secret society. The secret is a world view on life, death, the meaning of it all.

3. There's a method for doing something -- magic, or old science, something along these lines. The key is coded much as alchemical manuscripts are coded. The secret is a method or procedure.

Are there other types of secrets that might be considered "secret knowledge"?
 

Titadrupah

Given that your post has zero historical content or argument, and is purely a personal attack, the question naturally arises: what alternative history do you propose to defend? Are you defending, or intending to defend, the ancient Egyptian Kabbalah theory of Tarot origins with which this thread began? Or just posting insults?

...This insult appears to be directed toward me personally, so let me point out that I'm not an academic, wannabe or otherwise, and I have never suggested otherwise. I'm just a hobbyist who is interested in Tarot history and iconography. I have respect for evidence, rational argument, and the scholars who produce such information, and am aware that it is a different process than simply making up new versions of old Masonic fantasies.

There was no insult in my comment. At least not an insult in terms of, say, calling people pigs (which is what Matthew did, metaphors aside). I pointed out what I've seen as a negative Attitude, quite verifiable in tone, and not only in this post.

In regard to the Bible passage you apparently object to, that quote seems perfectly appropriate to describe the presentation of facts to those you suggest are 90% of Tarot enthusiasts -- those who ignore facts in favor of folklore, for whom "known evidence is certainly of no use". Isn't your description exactly what the biblical metaphor suggests?

The biblical metaphor you picked may indeed be about "ignoring facts in favor of folklore". But it also reveals an intolerant way of thinking. Judeo-Christian, male-dominated, Western scientific thought invariably tends to it.

Best,
T.
 

Richard

Debra, for some reason we all tend to externalize "secret knowledge" as something necessarily to be found "out there" somewhere.

Maurice Maeterlinck's The Blue Bird is about two children who leave home in search of the blue bird (which is a metaphor for happiness). After many adventures they return home to find it in their own back yard.

Perhaps the secret knowledge we desire is even closer than our back yard. In Biblical language, "...The Kingdom of God cometh not with observation. Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:20-21) Since it is fashionable to despise Biblical metaphors such as God, one could just as well substitute the Tao or the Force. I think that it refers more to a transformation of consciousness than to some concrete fact like the "correct" pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, not that external knowledge is by any means unimportant.

Bear in mind that it is often said that the Secret of Freemasonry is that there is no Secret. There is probably more truth than whimsy in that statement. The value of initiation into a "secret" society probably lies more in the initiatory experience itself than in any objective information ritually communicated.

Now after this departure from history into psychology, let us return to history.
 

Richard

......The biblical metaphor you picked may indeed be about "ignoring facts in favor of folklore". But it also reveals an intolerant way of thinking. Judeo-Christian, male-dominated, Western scientific thought invariably tends to it........
While there are certainly scientists who have a Judeo-Christian, male-dominated perspective; it is not valid to pass from specific examples to a generalization about Western scientific thought. You may or may not know anything about my professional background, but some of your statements are blatently ad hominem, and I take strong exception to such.
 

Ross G Caldwell

There doesn't seem to be much else to add to what has been expressed on this thread. Occultists are not keeping secret information that would prove that Tarot existed in ancient Egypt any more than those who personally know Santa Claus are keeping the proof of his existence secret.

The methodology of finding symmetries among the trumps and between other things numbered 22 is like the "science" of gematria, where you can always find a coincidence that impresses you.

The historians on Aeclectic Tarot Forum don't go looking for fights, or to debunk. They mostly inhabit the sub-forum called "Historical Research", and when they venture out to other parts of ATF, they play by the rules of wherever they post.

Less than 1 percent of the posts of ATF are in the Historical Research Forum. A quick count this morning gave the following figures: 2,190,849 total posts (Subscriber's area excluded, which would add another 600,000), excluding Historical Research. Historical Research had 14,020 posts. That means that 0.64 percent of ATF is devoted to Historical Research.

In broad terms, the rest of the Forum deals with Tarot readings, readers, tarot reading books, tarot reading methods, people asking for reading advice, kabbalah, divinatory methods other than tarot such as astrology, runes, palmistry, pendulums, oracle cards, etc., and sundry non-divinatory and non-tarot discussions.

The denizens of the Historical Research Forum don't venture into those parts of ATF to debunk all that stuff as "superstitious nonsense", yet every so often - very often when the Historical Research forum starts to get a lively debate - people who mostly frequent those parts of ATF come precisely to the HR sub-forum to try to debunk historical methodology and the results of historians, or to present a half-baked or crackpot theory for responses.

It seems unfair to expect affirmation and coddling of fragile egos when they are so vocifierous in their denunciation of historians. Use scare quotes and your favorite slurs - "historians", "self-proclaimed historians", "so-called historians", "the Establishment", "the Patriarchy", "Judaeo-Christian, male-dominated, scientific" (that's a great one), "meanies", "bullies" etc.

If you don't know, ask and learn. If you have a genuine interest in historical knowledge, there are several people here who know a hell of a lot.

If nobody knows, research and discussion is needed. You might be a person who can discover something new and add to our growing knowledge of early Tarot.