Hebrew Alphabet & Tarot

[The crowned one]

To me the problem is now you are feeding information/ your perceived, by others, beliefs into the mix. These questions would influence some voters as they are presented as facts. Confounding of variables so to speak Mind you it is just a poll, and these cover most of the idea's nicely even if spoon fed.

No/2 or no/1 for me based on your question.

 

[Ross G Caldwell]

To me the problem is now you are feeding information/ your perceived, by others, beliefs into the mix. These questions would influence some voters as they are presented as facts. Confounding of variables so to speak Mind you it is just a poll, and these cover most of the idea's nicely even if spoon fed.

The point is to make them take a stand with one of the main lines of the basis for having an opinion, without "forcing" them (gregory's well-taken point) to explain their choices (no "becauses"), or to give them a way out - "yes/no for other reasons" and "possibly". So, I have to force them to respond in a certain way, if they are to participate in the poll at all.

There are only so many ways to cut a pie. People (the pie) have reasons for their opinions (the way of cutting). I have to figure out a way of cutting so that it shares as much of the pie as possible, without turning it to mush (every conceivable phrasing of the question and the responses, which nobody would read). I have to state the possible responses, in a few main lines, in the indicative voice. Otherwise we are back at the vague "yes", "no" and "maybe", which give no useful information at all.

No/2 or no/1 for me based on your question.

What response could I write that would enable me to distinguish the reasons for your vacillation between 1 and 2? They seem mutually exclusive to me. Either the Hebrew letter associations with Tarot cards were first made in 1781, or they were made earlier.

It seems the last No response - "No - but for other reasons", then satisfies your requirement.

I would expect this response to have a statistically insignificant number, but if it is enough to be of concern, I'd have to come up with better responses to get more qualified results.

 

[The crowned one]

What response could I write that would enable me to distinguish the reasons for your vacillation between 1 and 2? They seem mutually exclusive to me. Either the Hebrew letter associations with Tarot cards were first made in 1781, or they were made earlier.

It seems the last No response - "No - but for other reasons", then satisfies your requirement.

I would expect this response to have a statistically insignificant number, but if it is enough to be of concern, I'd have to come up with better responses to get more qualified results.

Dates are quantitative, forcing me to be less lazy as I *think* your numbers are right, but would have to look them up to be sure. Remove the dates but keep the question the same?

 

[Zephyros]

I'm not sure one really can always explain one's reasoning. Let's take the climate change example again. I "believe" it is true, but in this case it is a choice between competing camps, since I am not a climatologist and have not done any more research on the subject than any other layman. I can't say for a fact it is real nor explain my reasoning except in a very basic way which is no more than "because science." Seen from that perspective my opinion is invalid. Of course, I have the luxury of being able to have an uninformed opinion, not being a policy maker.

I assume there is no historical conspiracy to hide the true origins of Tarot, I read what historians, on the forum and elsewhere, say about the subject (even if I cannot ascertain the truth of what they say, not having the proper education for it) and arrive at the best conclusion I can with the tools at my disposal. In this case, people who's research I trust say something and I more or less accept it as true. I say more or less, because as Huck's example showed, even the people who's business it is to ascertain the truth do not always agree.

Add to that that there are many things I don't know, but I am aware that I don't know them (I am aware the profession of astro-physics exists, even though I know nothing about it). On the other hand there are even more things I don't know about which I am unaware of my ignorance about them, since I can't even imagine them (I am unaware of the existence of this or that manuscript detailing whatever about Tarot, hence I cannot make a guess as to what this hypothetical manuscript contains).

 

[Ross G Caldwell]

Dates are quantitative, forcing me to be less lazy as I *think* your numbers are right, but would have to look them up to be sure. Remove the dates but keep the question the same?

You're not supposed to argue with the pollster, you know!

(I'm not sure I could fulfill your suggestion and maintain the purpose of distinguishing 1 and 2, which is to differentiate between those who believe in a hidden tradition of interpretation, an oral one perhaps, of Hebrew-letter correspondences and the Tarot, but not one that the designer of the cards conceived (There is such a body of opinion) and those who think that the history is clear on this matter. I don't think further subdivisions - Masons, Rosicrucians, Illuminati, some other secret society, etc. - are necessary.)

It's not a test, there is no right or wrong answer, it's a way of trying to take a sounding of an unquantified mass of data. The issue is how to quantify it, how to categorize it.

Whether you trust the pollster's date or not is immaterial (1781 is the year that volume VIII of Court de Gébelin's Monde Primitif, with its two essays on the Tarot, was published. It contains, as you know, the first known correspondence of Tarot with the Hebrew letters. Since neither author appeals to earlier authorities, and since none have ever been found, it seems that these two are indeed the first to have done so) - it is only important that you know there is a certain date at which this association was first made. The pollster will take any blame for misleading you if he is wrong - nothing on your head, and no responsibility on your part.

So, you are really No-1 then.

 

[The crowned one]

You're not supposed to argue with the pollster, you know!



So, you are really No-1 then.

I really am

 

[Ross G Caldwell]

I'm not sure one really can always explain one's reasoning.

That's why the answers are ready-made. All you have to do is have an opinion, or have one and not be forced to explain it (Yes/no for other reasons; Possibly, but I can't explain why).

If even that is too much, no one is forcing you take the poll, and you can ignore it.

 

[Ross G Caldwell]

I really am

Of course, in more ways than one! (you are the first to respond to my poll, for instance)

 

[Ross G Caldwell]

I'm not sure one really can always explain one's reasoning.

I think I understand your point of view, closrapexa. The occult is a kind of play - a game of finding correspondences, making connections.

You refuse to take the game seriously, like it is a life or death matter of being right. You don't believe it is something like the Da Vinci Code, where evil authorities suppress knowledge in order to keep power over others.

If so, I am like you. For me the esoteric way of thinking can be liberating, but it is also very dangerous for a healthy, skeptical mind. When it becomes dogmatic, then it is simply superstition, and can lead to paranoia. I've seen it, I see it often in fact, but mostly it is just harmless fun, and really doesn't impact the way people really live their lives. Most people remain pragmatic, with their feet on the ground, and live happy, productive lives. Far out, unverifiable, ideas and beliefs are not incompatible, a priori, with a healthy worldview and a balanced life. I don't need to prove that.

But I am sure you have an opinion, however foggy you find your reasons to be, or however playful you wish to keep the game. At some point - like in a poll, for instance, if you have chosen to play -, you have to lay your cards on the table. There will be another deal, and you are never broke. How's that for a betting game?

 

[Zephyros]

Yes and no. Basically, like you said before, when in doubt, turn to an authority figure. But the layman has not the tools to be sure that the authority figure is correct. At some point I have no choice but to tell you "I trust your credentials, I have read your posts here and elsewhere and even if I don't understand your reasoning fully, I believe that what you say is as true as anything." This is similar to trusting a doctor's opinion.

Some things seem to be common knowledge, even if when pressed, we can't really justify why this is so. It is "almost" common knowledge that the attributions were not originally there, which is perhaps why the results are overwhelmingly in that camp. For most people who answered the poll, I suspect this to be the case. It is certainly the reason for my answer ("No"). More interesting for me, however, are the "Yes" answers, as they seemingly have the potential to actually be thought out. Not necessarily correct, but still indicative of independent thought. I sound like a snob, and if so I apologize, but like gregory pointed out, answering a poll online is quick, easy, and people don't often engage in lengthy contemplation about their answer.