There was a wish: A new Forum

[gregory]

I think there IS an answer, and it's a separate forum for Speculation, within Tarot History and Iconography, but separate from Historical Research. A sandbox, as Teheuti puts it.

And it should be clear from the start that the disrespect and dog-piling that goes on in H.R. (in the name of high research standards) will not be tolerated in the sandbox.

To be clear, I am NOT saying that H.R. should not be held to high standards -- I think it should. I am saying that the crap that goes along with that should not spill out of H.R. Because frankly it is annoying and dreary for the rest of us to read.

I like it too.

 

[le pendu]

Unlike Huck, I think the new forum would be wildly popular, and suspect it would be the Historical Research forum which would have even fewer visitors. This type of forum is exactly what people have been asking for for many years now, a place where "historical" ideas can be discussed without the need for actual historical facts and evidence, fabulous! Sort of like "Talking Tarot", only "Talking Historical Tarot", only without the "Historical" part of it. It's unicorn hunting season, hurrah!

 

[gregory]

Hi you !

I don't know. Very few people post in historical now because of the level of shooting down. I don't think the people who want to play in the sandbox are the type of people Huck wants in here anyway. It isn't exactly "historical" ideas as such - did you see TCO on the subject of the Mamluk cards and Persian carpets ? From past experience that would have been marked up as OT in Talking Tarot, and disallowed here because it "couldn't possibly be so"....

What's wrong with having somewhere that it IS allowed ? Unicorns can be fun., and they don't need to be shot to extinction.

 

[Titadrupah]

Unlike Huck, I think the new forum would be wildly popular, and suspect it would be the Historical Research forum which would have even fewer visitors. This type of forum is exactly what people have been asking for for many years now, a place where "historical" ideas can be discussed without the need for actual historical facts and evidence, fabulous! Sort of like "Talking Tarot", only "Talking Historical Tarot", only without the "Historical" part of it. It's unicorn hunting season, hurrah!

I definetely like your attitude.

 

[Debra]

http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=109091&highlight=sandbox

 

[foolish]

While Historical Research sticks more closely to the actual facts themselves, it seems appropriate to have an area where these things can be discussed more broadly. Where we can speculate

That seems simple enough - and fair enough.

People who want to maintain the high standards of historical research should be allowed to have their own forum, and not have to be bothered with speculative ideas that can't be proven.

And others, who may want to discuss speculative ideas, should have their own forum without fear of being intimidated or insulted for not being able to offer proof of these ideas.

Why does this have to be more complicated than that?

Perhaps people are getting caught up in the fact that the term "history" is used differently by historians than it generally is by others. Should someone post a discussion in the "history" section if it has to do with talking ABOUT history - or only if it contains certain levels of proof?

In addition, the term "theory" means something different to historians than it may to others, who might use the term to refer to ideas that, by their nature, are NOT proven - in other words, it's just a theory.

The other issue which needs to be handled in forming another forum is the use of a moderator. The way I see it, the moderator's main job is not to decide on whose arguments are right or wrong, but to maintain the rules of engagement. This is the only way people will be able to feel comfortable in participating. And the current rules don't sound unreasonable - they just have to be strictly enforced.

 

[Teheuti]

Please vote on your preferences:
http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=174043

 

[Laura Borealis]

I like what you have said.

Thank you. I had to re-write it several times

A large concern still remains- how & where can we find history experts/teachers (in addition to Teheuti) who are willing to engage on our "flights of fancy" threads? I understand their concerns and resolutions to not support falsehood. But both sides need an interaction for it to work. I'm not trying to further the chasm between us, but in a way it is similar to the difference between playing a sport for a few weeks in Physical Education class vs being on a state competition level or even a professional team.

I think there are plenty of us who aren't "real historians" but ARE interested in real topics -- not in hunting unicorns, as mockingly suggested. For instance, I might be interested in exploring possible connections between the methods of Ars Memoria and the iconography of the tarot. TCO's interest in Persian carpet patterns is another example. I don't think we need "real historians" as teachers, and we certainly don't need them to shoot down every random theory for us. I can make up my own mind what notions I want to entertain.

 

[cardlady22]

My favorite teachers were the ones who were there for us to ask questions, but willing to let us circle things on our own. Gentle prods brought on by open-ended questions helped us explore directions we didn't know existed.

I don't mind being told I'm wrong or mistaken, but I have little respect for being told, "Because this is the way it's done" with no explanation.

 

[Teheuti]

For instance, I might be interested in exploring possible connections between the methods of Ars Memoria and the iconography of the tarot.

Yes - definitely! This is the kind of thing I've been missing here.