Huck
Thanks for the many heartly welcomes, I feel a deep pleasure about your interest and fun about the informations I've given. which btw. are only a short excerpt of that what's really going on.
I've made a post, that "Tarot history isn't very well organized" and a post about the "5x14-theory" and both posts indirectly are related, cause it's exactly 14 year too late, that you as interested persons in history of Tarot are informed about the 5x14-theory and this happened this way:
Autorbis discovered the mistake in playing card research in May 1989. And he calculated at that time, that to 99 % probability his own theory was true, although a lot of later proofs still weren't present.
He did run to various book fairs to offer his work to various book-publishers, either he wasn't taken serious or he must hear, that all were interested in the 50th good-selling how-to-do-book about Tarot, which autorbis might have written years before, but felt a little too educated at that later moments. Bookmarket had in his last days a rather bad structure, not really interested to bring good informations or quality, but interested to make money especially in esoterical circles. At least here in Germany.
Autorbis wrote to playing-card researchers, his explanations were complicated, perhaps it didn't work cause of that. He wandered through various emaillists, but in these early days of internet people were too interested in their own ideas to listen carefully and finally autorbis said "damn ****" and went his way, cause there are lots of interesting spots in life. Editing of internet pages wasn't that easy as nowadays, perhaps he had chosen that way, but he didn't.
Finally he gathered again and he said: Now, really ... it's late, but it's time.
What could be learned from this? Simply: don't let it happen again.
The structure of information processes has changed, we don't need book-market and internet-page-making is no mystery. That's good, but ... an Internet-page here and there doesn't change the world, there are much pages finally and who tells, which is good and interesting? Many pages are all telling the same or a similar story. Why? Cause anybody sits in his corner trying the great work and doesn't know, what the other hands are doing.
That's simply uneffective.
Those few heads in the world who can say something in the field should gather and cooperate, they do need an internet structure, in which that happens. So works Trionfi.com: Autorbis hates his walks to the libraries, Ross loves them. Autorbis is fed up with running through emaillists, Huck plays the messenger, arranging talkings, contacts etc.. Mari loves Ferrara. Jane Cocker is interested in the Boiardo-poem. Ray is Italian (Italian language, important) and knows a lot of art-history. We exchange "jobs" and informations and don't do, what the other does, helping each others. Well, not all works always totally good together, but we try it to be effective in producing contents for the net and the object is (in the moment) "earliest history of Tarot". And I would say, we are successful , although we started just a half year ago ...
We're only few and there is much to do ... the historical corner of Aeclectic consists (in the moment) also only of few "heads" if you look precisely , but ... together we still would be few, but some more ... and there is the chance to set up something, which in 100 years still exists. Simply something with quality and a way to integrate new people with new ideas.
We do live in an interesting time. Internet offers possibilities, from which older generation of researchers could only dream of. Immediate communication, worldwide, rather immediate publishing (no dependancy of bookmarket).
But look what has happened until now: If you research deeply in the net, you experience, how much is missing, how much potential is still outside the net.
We made for instance something about Parisina, which is a person inside playing card history. A little research, just a few days and we now offer the best material worldwide in the net to anybody who researches "Parisina", although we only do write about playuing-cards. With the time such an article will get 1000s of readers. It's so easy ... cause so few people really do "work". And do you know, how difficult it has been to get 1000 readers in the world of books?
The calculation is very easy. Who writes NOW with some quality will find many readers in the future. Who writes later, will have more problems, then there will be more material in the net. The GOLDEN TIMES are NOW.
That's the world of today. We're in the role of the early humanists, who carried their few books from Constantinople and anywhere and caused a revolution called "libraries and "more reading" and "printing-press" and "knowledge to the people". We carry information into the net ... with personal unclear destiny, cause nobody of us knows if he'll ever paid for such work. The only thing we know is: We will get readers.
jdm wrote these days: "It would be wonderful to have a short combined document which periodically revisits the state of historical play and various sources - without writing a whole book (a little along the lines of T. Little & al.'s TarotL Tarot History Information Sheet)."
Very good idea, that's practical use of the net. But wouldn't your individual work didn't more effectful working with others together? For instance: Perhaps somebody comes with the idea to wrote about the Michelino-deck. Wouldn't it be useful for him to know, that there is already something? Which eventually is difficult to beat? Let's assume, he really knows some details better or has simply another opinion just about a detail. Wouldn't it be better just to add his detail? Or his alternating opinion, just at the same place? Wouldn't he spare much energy, that could be used at another place? We know of places enough ... be sure
That's a way, who was not possible in earlier book-production-ways, but it is possible in the net.
In Germany we've a dictionary about the old Greek and Roman time and world, called Pauly-Wissowa. It is as large as a book-shell, 2,20m x 1.5 m, very much big and thick books and you find all in it, what you desire around that theme, written in a difficult scholar-language in perhaps 60 years by many studied persons.
Something like this you do only get, when many persons do cooperate. In this dimensions it's surely not necessary for Tarot, but perhaps you see ... that's a vision.
And any great things start small.
http://trionfi.com
Huck
(in the mood of Marshall McLuhan)
I've made a post, that "Tarot history isn't very well organized" and a post about the "5x14-theory" and both posts indirectly are related, cause it's exactly 14 year too late, that you as interested persons in history of Tarot are informed about the 5x14-theory and this happened this way:
Autorbis discovered the mistake in playing card research in May 1989. And he calculated at that time, that to 99 % probability his own theory was true, although a lot of later proofs still weren't present.
He did run to various book fairs to offer his work to various book-publishers, either he wasn't taken serious or he must hear, that all were interested in the 50th good-selling how-to-do-book about Tarot, which autorbis might have written years before, but felt a little too educated at that later moments. Bookmarket had in his last days a rather bad structure, not really interested to bring good informations or quality, but interested to make money especially in esoterical circles. At least here in Germany.
Autorbis wrote to playing-card researchers, his explanations were complicated, perhaps it didn't work cause of that. He wandered through various emaillists, but in these early days of internet people were too interested in their own ideas to listen carefully and finally autorbis said "damn ****" and went his way, cause there are lots of interesting spots in life. Editing of internet pages wasn't that easy as nowadays, perhaps he had chosen that way, but he didn't.
Finally he gathered again and he said: Now, really ... it's late, but it's time.
What could be learned from this? Simply: don't let it happen again.
The structure of information processes has changed, we don't need book-market and internet-page-making is no mystery. That's good, but ... an Internet-page here and there doesn't change the world, there are much pages finally and who tells, which is good and interesting? Many pages are all telling the same or a similar story. Why? Cause anybody sits in his corner trying the great work and doesn't know, what the other hands are doing.
That's simply uneffective.
Those few heads in the world who can say something in the field should gather and cooperate, they do need an internet structure, in which that happens. So works Trionfi.com: Autorbis hates his walks to the libraries, Ross loves them. Autorbis is fed up with running through emaillists, Huck plays the messenger, arranging talkings, contacts etc.. Mari loves Ferrara. Jane Cocker is interested in the Boiardo-poem. Ray is Italian (Italian language, important) and knows a lot of art-history. We exchange "jobs" and informations and don't do, what the other does, helping each others. Well, not all works always totally good together, but we try it to be effective in producing contents for the net and the object is (in the moment) "earliest history of Tarot". And I would say, we are successful , although we started just a half year ago ...
We're only few and there is much to do ... the historical corner of Aeclectic consists (in the moment) also only of few "heads" if you look precisely , but ... together we still would be few, but some more ... and there is the chance to set up something, which in 100 years still exists. Simply something with quality and a way to integrate new people with new ideas.
We do live in an interesting time. Internet offers possibilities, from which older generation of researchers could only dream of. Immediate communication, worldwide, rather immediate publishing (no dependancy of bookmarket).
But look what has happened until now: If you research deeply in the net, you experience, how much is missing, how much potential is still outside the net.
We made for instance something about Parisina, which is a person inside playing card history. A little research, just a few days and we now offer the best material worldwide in the net to anybody who researches "Parisina", although we only do write about playuing-cards. With the time such an article will get 1000s of readers. It's so easy ... cause so few people really do "work". And do you know, how difficult it has been to get 1000 readers in the world of books?
The calculation is very easy. Who writes NOW with some quality will find many readers in the future. Who writes later, will have more problems, then there will be more material in the net. The GOLDEN TIMES are NOW.
That's the world of today. We're in the role of the early humanists, who carried their few books from Constantinople and anywhere and caused a revolution called "libraries and "more reading" and "printing-press" and "knowledge to the people". We carry information into the net ... with personal unclear destiny, cause nobody of us knows if he'll ever paid for such work. The only thing we know is: We will get readers.
jdm wrote these days: "It would be wonderful to have a short combined document which periodically revisits the state of historical play and various sources - without writing a whole book (a little along the lines of T. Little & al.'s TarotL Tarot History Information Sheet)."
Very good idea, that's practical use of the net. But wouldn't your individual work didn't more effectful working with others together? For instance: Perhaps somebody comes with the idea to wrote about the Michelino-deck. Wouldn't it be useful for him to know, that there is already something? Which eventually is difficult to beat? Let's assume, he really knows some details better or has simply another opinion just about a detail. Wouldn't it be better just to add his detail? Or his alternating opinion, just at the same place? Wouldn't he spare much energy, that could be used at another place? We know of places enough ... be sure
That's a way, who was not possible in earlier book-production-ways, but it is possible in the net.In Germany we've a dictionary about the old Greek and Roman time and world, called Pauly-Wissowa. It is as large as a book-shell, 2,20m x 1.5 m, very much big and thick books and you find all in it, what you desire around that theme, written in a difficult scholar-language in perhaps 60 years by many studied persons.
Something like this you do only get, when many persons do cooperate. In this dimensions it's surely not necessary for Tarot, but perhaps you see ... that's a vision.
And any great things start small.
http://trionfi.com
Huck
(in the mood of Marshall McLuhan)
