Quote:
Originally Posted by mjhurst
If by "here" you mean on a forum titled "Historical Research", where you and I are chatting,
|
No - I meant "here in this post and in the example I am now giving . . ."
Quote:
others who have no use for that boring stuff researched and published by Decker et al.
|
Where have I ever said I have no use for Decker et al??? To disallow any critical comment of a work is not rational. Nor is it correct to generalize that I have no use for the work or that I find it boring when I said nothing to indicate those things.
Quote:
That is because one work is filled with historical facts and the other is filled with dreck presented as fact.
|
You are missing the point that historical documents in general contain as much dreck as they contain fact. The historicity of de Gébelin rests not on its being a work of historical fact but that it influenced a particular development in history.
Dummett & Decker did not say all that there is to be said about de Gébelin. Historians regularly go back to primary documents rather than believing that secondary sources contain everything of significance that should be known about a work as you have stated here:
Quote:
In terms of understanding occult Tarot HISTORY, one may read the account in "A Wicked Pack of Cards" (while completely ignoring Tyson's much-appreciated translation) and miss nothing of significance.
|
Quote:
"As Cerulean [quoted Bob Place], it is because of this myth that almost all of us are involved in tarot." Except that he didn't say "almost", which would have been accurate, and which would not have prompted my correction. He said something false, and you intentionally misquoted him
|
I was not quoting from Place but rather extrapolating from Cerulean's use of a quote by Place in order to refer to the "us" here at Aeclectic. I was making my own statement as a play on Cerulean's reference. And, since I can't be absolutely sure that all of "us" reading the tarotforum came to it as a result of the occultization of tarot, I was, correctly, more careful in my wording than Place was.
Quote:
You are so accomplished at playing these dishonest games, even to the point of sliming the actual historians you claim to respect, that it makes attempts at discussion futile.
|
I was not sliming Dummett et al by pointing up a weakness in their books. It is something that a great many reviewers have noted and that even Decker has acknowledged.
Quote:
I thought that even you might someday grasp the difference between historical research and contemporary practice -- silly me.
|
I agree that my suggestion to look at de Géblin's myth as allegory and interpret it as a "public dream" especially through the use of tarot cards (horrors!) is more "practice" than historical analysis and should thus be moved to some other part of the forum (I just don't know where). Moderator: please move.
I feel attacked when you say that you "pity" me and "lament" my choices, when you make unwarranted claims about my intentions - like my "loathing" history and that I was "intentionally" misquoting when you cannot possibly know what I think or feel, and when you call me names - "charlatan" "dishonest,"and "tea-bagger," and accuse me in derogatory terms of things like "sliming" others, when I was actually making a valid criticism that has also been made by other reviewers and even one of the co-authors.
I simply ask that you, please, deal with the issue itself through facts and criticism of the ideas and statements rather than by personal attacks on me.