gregory
Fair enough. But having followed this thread I would not vote in a poll again (did I vote in this one ? I forget 
)
)
Hebrew Alphabet & Tarot
Ross G Caldwell
Fair enough. But having followed this thread I would not vote in a poll again (did I vote in this one ? I forget
I am - sincerely - sorry to hear that. You have made me think through problems of communication, which I may have taken for granted before. This has forced me to make an effort to find better ways to communicate information when there is resistance. So, your resistance has been instructive, a lesson. I can only hope it has been in some way instructive for you, but it has taught me a lot (in case you were wondering).
gregory
Hey - no worries ! I didn't mean anything awful. Just that none of us can ever PROVE this - even the source you quote would have to prove their point and so ad infinitum. And anyone can write anything in a book, after all. What you have proved is that Gebelin indeed said this, in French (luckily I read French ), in a book, on that date, NOT - critically - that no-one ever said it before he did, or that they didn't. Show me a book that can prove that ! It can't be done - there will always be more books to be found, whether or not any of them has anything to say about this.
Years ago it was proved that the earth was flat. That the planets revolved around the earth. And so on. New evidence for almost everything turns up daily. There's that wonderful old saw about the only thing we can be sure of is that the sun will rise tomorrow. But how can we even know that. I've maybe done too much logic and philosophy reading. If a tree falls in the forest where there is nothing to hear the crash - did it make a sound ? When I leave the room leaving the fire burning and come back to find it has burned lower - how do I know that what I see isn't simply what I expected to see ? All evidence is basically empirical, when you come down to it.
So no, I would not vote in a poll again (I see I did vote in this one !) just because I don't think I could, in all honesty, pick a valid answer, is all. I am not resistant - not to either side, actually ! - I just have no idea, and I don't think even you can prove that it is not so, to my satisfaction, anyway. That's nothing wrong in YOU, it is just - one of those things.
It's a bit like the argument I have with my sister. I don't believe in god. She does. She is certain sure that god exists. She is also (which is where the argument comes in !) that I just haven't realised that I actually know this too, yet...
You find me a tablet from the dawn of time that says "tarot will be invented in x year and its beginnings will have nothing to do with the Hebrew alphabet" (or even one that says "today I made the first tarot images and they have nothing to do with....") and I will think about it again.
But until there is THAT level of absolute concrete EVIDENCE, no-one can prove it. That's all. That's not to say I shall abandon reading this thread - or maybe even posting in it - but I can only post subversively like this - because - I don't KNOW, and nor can I pretend that I have the historical background to pontificate either - there I am well aware that you - and Mary - are far better qualified than I. But I still don't have to agree that either of you has absolute proof either way - much as I respect you both.
The history of ideas is a constantly shifting quicksand....
), in a book, on that date, NOT - critically - that no-one ever said it before he did, or that they didn't. Show me a book that can prove that ! It can't be done - there will always be more books to be found, whether or not any of them has anything to say about this. Years ago it was proved that the earth was flat. That the planets revolved around the earth. And so on. New evidence for almost everything turns up daily. There's that wonderful old saw about the only thing we can be sure of is that the sun will rise tomorrow. But how can we even know that. I've maybe done too much logic and philosophy reading. If a tree falls in the forest where there is nothing to hear the crash - did it make a sound ? When I leave the room leaving the fire burning and come back to find it has burned lower - how do I know that what I see isn't simply what I expected to see ? All evidence is basically empirical, when you come down to it.
So no, I would not vote in a poll again (I see I did vote in this one !) just because I don't think I could, in all honesty, pick a valid answer, is all. I am not resistant - not to either side, actually ! - I just have no idea, and I don't think even you can prove that it is not so, to my satisfaction, anyway. That's nothing wrong in YOU, it is just - one of those things.
It's a bit like the argument I have with my sister. I don't believe in god. She does. She is certain sure that god exists. She is also (which is where the argument comes in !) that I just haven't realised that I actually know this too, yet...
You find me a tablet from the dawn of time that says "tarot will be invented in x year and its beginnings will have nothing to do with the Hebrew alphabet" (or even one that says "today I made the first tarot images and they have nothing to do with....") and I will think about it again.
But until there is THAT level of absolute concrete EVIDENCE, no-one can prove it. That's all. That's not to say I shall abandon reading this thread - or maybe even posting in it - but I can only post subversively like this - because - I don't KNOW, and nor can I pretend that I have the historical background to pontificate either - there I am well aware that you - and Mary - are far better qualified than I. But I still don't have to agree that either of you has absolute proof either way - much as I respect you both.The history of ideas is a constantly shifting quicksand....
The crowned one
"View Poll Results: Do you believe Tarot was originally based on the Hebrew alphabet?"
I would like to see a poll on the infuence of these poll results:
Did the yes people force you reconsider your position.
Did you change your position after seeing the results? elaborate.
ect.
I would like to see a poll on the infuence of these poll results:
Did the yes people force you reconsider your position.
Did you change your position after seeing the results? elaborate.
ect.
Zephyros
But isn't ascertaining the truth what peer review is for? A theory is proposed, then tested and then the community carries out the same tests and concludes whether their conditions can be duplicated. If they can, the theory is regarded as true as present evidence allows. While history is different from the exact sciences much the same standards apply. Things can be considered true or false beyond a reasonable doubt, at least until someone proposes a new theory. The world was never proven to be flat, it was believed to be, and this conclusion was not arrived at by any kind of methodology.
gregory
It was arrived at by the methodology of the time....
kwaw
Who believed the earth to be flat?
Is that just not, mainly, a 19th century 'historical' myth too?
Few in the ancient world believed the earth to be flat, not in the dark or middle ages either - Ancient methodology was sufficient to prove the world round - the 'flat earth' is by and large a late 18th early 19th century invention (revision/reconstruction/myth) -largely to do with protestant anti-catholic polemics.
Despite that, I was taught at school (by history teachers), that the consensus/belief in pre-copernican 'Chirstendom' times was the earth was flat (and was actually caned for disputing otherwise with the teacher). Such 'historical' crap is still taught - and believed - but isn't 'true'.
gregory
Well they CERTAINLY believed that the sun revolved around the earth.... Galileo suffered BIG time over that.
kwaw
Most (of medieval/renaissance Christendom*) did indeed - and the science/maths was in their favour - the ancient (somewhat complicated) maths developed from that geocentric viewpoint (involving things like epicycles) could predict planetary positions better than the copernican system ever could! (Until someone looked at considering 'ellipses' instead of 'circles', which religious minds thought were more perfect, and thus more in line with the 'mind' of god, which they believed nature would reflect.)
Kwaw
*There are ancient proponents of the heliocentric system (and even some among medieval Christian astrologers/astronomers who tentatively favoured that).
ravenest
Not forgetting the ancient Egyptian account that at one time they (sorry cant remember exactly where this is written) sailed so far south that when they turned to the west the Sun was to their right. They must have made SOMETHING of that ?
