Re: The building blocks of Tarot History

#92
EUGIM wrote:* Even Mr. Dummett in " A wicked pack of cards " said :

- " Hidden meanings could have have been concealed within the Tarot trumps,even if those meanings were quiet irrelevant to any uses made of the cards in early times. "
Dummett (and Decker and Depaulis have to be included here, although it sounds like Dummett) is simply making a banal observation.

If an idea is not patently absurd, or explicitly contradicted by evidence, then it is possible.

The idea of a hidden meaning in the trumps becomes a plausible hypothesis because of the well-known penchant for riddles, puzzles, anagrams, enigmas, allegories etc. in medieval and renaissance art.

But although the idea is certainly possible and even plausible, it is nowhere near probable because many intelligent, ingenious and industrious people have looked for a such a hidden meaning for over 200 years, and no one has shown the slightest evidence, nor come close to arguing convincingly, that the trumps have one.

Therefore, the hypothesis of a hidden meaning (as opposed to an evident one) remains nothing more than a not-yet-absolutely-disproven idea. Year after year people try to argue for one (since no proof can be offered), and so it seems that the plausibility of the hypothesis has grown very remote. It has grown so remote that most of us who seriously try to explain the sequence of images have given up on it altogether, and consider it essentially disproven as a working hypothesis. There is no use wasting time on it, in other words.

That won't stop most people who will continue to believe it anyway, but all of the real discoveries and good ideas come from people who have given up on the idea of an esoteric meaning and seek understanding in the exoteric one.

Remember this sequence though - possible (= not absurd (impossible) or contradicted); plausible (= more likely than merely possible, given other circumstances); probable (=the best or one of the best solutions given the evidence); certain (proven absolutely or beyond reasonable doubt).

If you can't argue from a position of certainty or proof, try to argue from a position of probability.
Image

Re: The building blocks of Tarot History

#94
OnePotato wrote: PS- I never suggested anything about divination.
Of course you didn't; everyone knows that. That some choose to misread and misrepresent your position to develop a 'straw man' for them to demolish says more about their position than yours, reduced as they are to a rhetorical device than a legitimate argument; and reflects the paucity of their position, not yours.
Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different.
T. S. Eliot

Re: The building blocks of Tarot History

#95
SteveM wrote:
OnePotato wrote: PS- I never suggested anything about divination.
Of course you didn't; everyone knows that. That some choose to misread and misrepresent your position to develop a 'straw man' for them to demolish says more about their position than yours, reduced as they are to a rhetorical device than a legitimate argument.
I don't believe anyone purposely chose to misread and misrepresent OnePotato. Really Steve, it's this type of attack that says a lot.
The Tarot will lose all its vitality for one who allows himself to be side-tracked by its pedantry. - Aleister Crowley

Re: The building blocks of Tarot History

#96
robert wrote:
SteveM wrote:
OnePotato wrote: PS- I never suggested anything about divination.
Of course you didn't; everyone knows that. That some choose to misread and misrepresent your position to develop a 'straw man' for them to demolish says more about their position than yours, reduced as they are to a rhetorical device than a legitimate argument.
I don't believe anyone purposely chose to misread and misrepresent OnePotato. Really Steve, it's this type of attack that says a lot.
Then why does it become a discussion of 'secrets' and 'occult' positions that OP never intended? Such was a total misrepresentation of his position; a 'straw man' to ridicule. The fact that you don't recognise that, also says a lot.
Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different.
T. S. Eliot

Re: The building blocks of Tarot History

#97
SteveM wrote: Then why does it become a discussion of 'secrets' and 'occult' positions that OP never intended? Such was a total misrepresentation of his position; a 'straw man' to ridicule. The fact that you don't recognise that, also says a lot.
If you are referring to Ross' lengthy reply, he seems to be answering the points raised, exactly as he was asked to do by OP. If you are talking about another post or poster, then I'm even more lost.

This is astounding indeed.
The Tarot will lose all its vitality for one who allows himself to be side-tracked by its pedantry. - Aleister Crowley

Re: The building blocks of Tarot History

#99
SteveM wrote:
robert wrote:
SteveM wrote: "PS- I never suggested anything about divination."

Of course you didn't; everyone knows that. That some choose to misread and misrepresent your position to develop a 'straw man' for them to demolish says more about their position than yours, reduced as they are to a rhetorical device than a legitimate argument.
I don't believe anyone purposely chose to misread and misrepresent OnePotato. Really Steve, it's this type of attack that says a lot.
Then why does it become a discussion of 'secrets' and 'occult' positions that OP never intended? Such was a total misrepresentation of his position; a 'straw man' to ridicule. The fact that you don't recognise that, also says a lot.
Your position is the straw man, not OPs or mine. He quoted building block 9, I answered it. No mention of divination in either post. Bringing up an unmentioned or unintended argument to attack is by definition a straw man.

"Secrets" and "occult" positions do not necessarily imply divination, nor does divination mean occult. You seem to be falling into Dummett's trap of identifying divination with occultism. The two are not necessarily related, as I have repeatedly argued here and on other forums (and privately). In fact, I have argued that cartomancy - as we would recognize it, not just with lot books and written verses on cards - would likely have been practiced before the 18th century - in stark contrast to Dummett's statements - and have actually proven it with the discovery of Spanish cartomancy (not my discovery in the first instance, but bringing it to the attention of tarotists on the internet, yes). I also believe that tarot cards would have been used like these cards, where they were commonly used, but I can't prove it and won't insist on it.

I don't think OP meant to imply that *I* was thinking of divination either - he just wanted to insist that he didn't have a hidden motive of trying to argue that tarot was invented for divination.

Ross
Image

Re: The building blocks of Tarot History

#100
Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:
Your position is the straw man, not OPs or mine. He quoted building block 9, I answered it. No mention of divination in either post. Bringing up an unmentioned or unintended argument to attack is by definition a straw man.
"PS- I never suggested anything about divination."
is a quote from OP's post, not mine; in repsonse to posts that did not answer his position, but ridiculed a position he never made, ie, made a 'straw man' argument.
Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote: Bringing up an unmentioned or unintended argument to attack is by definition a straw man.

Exactly....as OP said he 'never suggested anything about divination.'

"Secrets" and "occult" positions do not necessarily imply divination, nor does divination mean occult. You seem to be falling into Dummett's trap of identifying divination with occultism.
Well as I haven't said it does I haven't fallen into any such 'trap', but in terms of putting words into anothers mouth and knocking it down it serves I suppose as another exemplar of a type of 'straw man' argument.

PS: My comments were not particularly directed at you....
Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different.
T. S. Eliot

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests

cron