Goethean

Revision as of 20:41, 16 August 2005

Latest revision as of 13:30, 22 December 2024

Line 1:

{{User:MiszaBot/config

== Welcome ==

|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}

Hello, [[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|welcome]] to Wikipedia. Thanks for reverting the vandalism on [[Johann Wolfgang von Goethe]]. If you need to do it again, there are some tips at [[Wikipedia:revert]]. Other useful pages are: [[Wikipedia:How to edit a page|how to edit]], [[Wikipedia:How to write a great article|how to write a great article]], [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions|naming conventions]], [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|manual of style]] and the [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|Wikipedia policies]].

|maxarchivesize = 70K

|counter = 9

|minthreadsleft = 0

|minthreadstoarchive = 1

|algo = old(31d)

|archive = User talk:Goethean/Archive %(counter)d

}}Archives: [[User talk:Goethean/2004|2004]] [[User talk:Goethean/2005|2005]] [[User talk:Goethean/2006|2006]] [[User talk:Goethean/2007|2007]] [[User talk:Goethean/2008|2008]] [[User talk:Goethean/2009|2009]] [[User talk:Goethean/Archive 4|Archive 4]] [[User talk:Goethean/Archive 5|5]] [[User talk:Goethean/Archive 6|6]] [[User talk:Goethean/Archive 7|7]] [[User talk:Goethean/Archive 8|8]] [[User_talk:Goethean/Archive_9|9]]

== [[WP:ACE2016|ArbCom Elections 2016]]: Voting now open! ==

{{Ivmbox|Hello, Goethean. Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2016|2016 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

If you have any questions, see the [[Wikipedia:Help|help pages]], add a question to the [[Wikipedia:village pump|village pump]] or ask me on [[User_talk:Angela|my talk page]]. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]! [[User:Angela|Angela]][[user talk:Angela|.]] 21:35, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|Wikipedia arbitration process]]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

== Ken Wilber ==

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates|the candidates' statements]] and submit your choices on '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/399|the voting page]]'''.

I'm fairly sure it has not been rewritten enough so I've removed it for now. It needs to be significantly different from the original to prevent it looking like [[plagiarism]]. I've noted this on [[talk:Ken Wilber]] too. [[User:Angela|Angela]][[user talk:Angela|.]] 21:56, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}

<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52 bot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mdann52_bot/spamlist/2&oldid=750798221 -->

== Gandhicon ==

Just a heads-up, [[Gandhicon]] has been moved to [[GandhiCon]]. --[[User:Dante Alighieri|Dante Alighieri]] | [[User talk:Dante Alighieri|Talk]] 20:26, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

== Article Licensing ==

Hi, I've [[User:rambot#Free the Rambot Articles project|started a drive]] to get users to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the [[Creative Commons]] Attribution-Share Alike (''CC-by-sa'') v1.0 and v2.0 [[Creative Commons License|License]]s or into the [[public ___domain]] if they prefer. The ''CC-by-sa'' license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the [[GFDL]], but it allows '''other projects''', such as [[WikiTravel]], to use our articles. Since you are among the [[Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits|top 2000]] Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at ''minimum'' those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

*[[User talk:Ram-Man#Multi-Licensing FAQ|Multi-Licensing FAQ]] - Lots of questions answered

*[[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|Multi-Licensing Guide]]

*[[User:rambot#Free the Rambot Articles project|Free the Rambot Articles Project]]

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "'''<nowiki>{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}</nowiki>'''" template into their user page, but there are other options at [[Wikipedia:Template messages/User namespace#Licensing Templates|Template messages/User namespace]]. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

:'''Option 1'''

:<nowiki>I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:</nowiki>

:<nowiki>{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}</nowiki>

'''OR'''

:'''Option 2'''

:<nowiki>I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:</nowiki>

:<nowiki>{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}</nowiki>

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public ___domain, you could replace "'''<nowiki>{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}</nowiki>'''" with "'''<nowiki>{{MultiLicensePD}}</nowiki>'''". If you only prefer using the [[GFDL]], I would like to know that too. ''Please let me know'' what you think at my '''[[User talk:Ram-Man|talk page]]'''. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- [[User:Ram-Man|Ram-Man]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit&section=new comment]| [[User talk:Ram-Man|talk)]]

== Snide, me? ==

Ouch ... but I'm afraid you're right. Time for me to detox from New Page watch for a while, where wallowing through the vandalism, half-baked non-ideas, and "XXX is gay" rants can sour even a wiki-optimist. I'll only work on creating or improving *good* pages until I'm my old sunny self again. - [[User:DavidWBrooks|DavidWBrooks]] 16:38, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

== ID ==

Thanks from one zen practioner to another. [[User:Stirling Newberry|Stirling Newberry]] 22:24, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

== [[:Category:Contemporary_Philosophers]] ==

I deleted [[:Category:Contemporary_Philosophers]] as requested on the [[Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)]]. You can also add <nowiki>{{db|Explain why here}}</nowiki> for a [[Wikipedia:Speedy deletions]] for cases like this. More controversial deletions have to go through [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]]. BTW, do you know that you can sign your edits with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>? Happy editing -- [[User:Chris 73|Chris 73]] [[User talk:Chris 73|Talk]] 07:17, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

== [[Andrew Cohen]] ==

What was wrong with just [[Wikipedia:revert|revert]]ing it to the non-violating version of 18:34, 2004 Sep 21 by [[User:Andries|Andries]]? Surely that would have been preferable to what is now in the rewrite at [[Andrew Cohen/Temp]]? Now we're going to lose all of that work. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] 20:28, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

*I believe that the verbiage at Andrew Cohen/Temp is another copyvio anyways. So now I have reverted to Andries' version, which I must have missed first time around. --[[User:Goethean|Goethean]] 20:44, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

**That was my belief, too. &#9786; I've marked [[Andrew Cohen/Temp]] as a speedy deletion candidate. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] 20:52, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

***Did you see the author's comments at [[Talk:Andrew Cohen]]? --[[User:Goethean|Goethean]] 20:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

== FACTS VfD ==

I am no longer participating in Wikipedia. [[User:Stirling Newberry|Stirling Newberry]] 04:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

==[[Human]]==

Goethean, could I ask you to consider working with us at [[Talk:Human]] to come up with a consensus version we can all live with? Quite a few editors object to the old version, and around the same number to the new version, so the best thing is to start from scratch and build it up slowly, which is what my compromise suggestion intends. Please do make suggestions for what you'd like to see added, or make the additions yourself. I'd be genuinely interested to hear your views. Then once we have a working model up and running, we can compare it to the old and the new versions, and see what the overall consensus is. Would that work for you? Best, [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] 08:49, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

:I want the wikipedia to acknowledge multiple points of view, and you want it to claim that all points of view except for reductive biologism are illegitimate. I don't see room for compromise there. --[[User:Goethean|Goethean]] 14:17, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:What was wrong with the version of 1 March 2005? --[[User:Goethean|Goethean]] 14:21, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

==Alien Point of View==

Hello!

On [[Talk:Human]] you say: ''"The scientific viewpoint should be noted as such. There is a difference between the beliefs of biologists and reality"''.

You might find this odd, but I must confess that I am utterly bewildered by this comment! It is very alien to me, right down to the use of english. I'd like to understand what your POV is so I can understand it better.

If it helps, I'll go first:

I'm (officially ''almost'') a biologist and hmm, well, from my point of view:

* I don't hold beliefs wrt biology (well not wrt the scientific part of it)

* the whole point of science is to discover what reality is.

So basically a scientific statement made at any one time is supposed to be the best representation of reality that you are going to hear at that point in time.

So that really differs with what seem to be a number of assumptions/beliefs/ideas that are behind your statement. If you might, would you care to grant me some of your time and enlighten me as to what those are and why you hold them, please?

Thanks very much if you do! :-)

[[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] 22:38, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

: My views are very similar to those of the philosopher [[Ken Wilber]] -- I wrote the article on him. Yes, your views are what you concieve as reality, but so are the views of religious adherents. Science ''should'' be privileged above the claims of narrow religion --- see my contributions to [[Talk:Intelligent Design]] for my ferocious attitude towards creationists. This is because science is formalized observation, while dogmatic religion is sort of pre-formalized. But that doesn't make religion pure fiction. It is sort of distorted observation. And science is ''less'' distorted, but not ''un''distorted. The conclusions of science are not the end of the story. Thus, a balanced view goes as follows: science says x, religions say y, z and q. This is not to pit science against religion, it is to try to achieve balance by giving each its due. After all, this is a better outcome than a continual edit war between science and religion, and that's sort of what you have in the American "culture wars". The ultimate goal is to achieve an integrated or holistic viewpoint that accounts for how some responsible observers can reach the conclusions of science, while other responsible observers can reach the conclusions of religion, and still others can reach other conclusions. Wilber has written a book on science and religion called "The Marriage of Sense and Soul: Integrating Science and Religion" --[[User:Goethean|Goethean]] 23:01, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:: Thank you kindly! Let me think about your answer for a while. If I have any questions later, I hope you don't mind if I come back? :-) [[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] 23:30, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:::You are always welcome. --[[User:Goethean|Goethean]]

== NPOV: revolting? ==

::Hope you two don't mind if I butt in here. Actually Rednblu, I think that NPOV is an unsurpassingly beautiful concept. It's just not being followed on the Talk:Human page. --[[User:Goethean|Goethean]] 20:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

::* Yes, hello, Goethean. Good to have you in all of the conversations on the many pages. 8)) I guess I wrote carelessly on [[User talk:Hawstom]] without thinking enough how it would "sound." I agree wholeheartedly with you--that 1) [[NPOV]] is an unsurpassingly beautiful concept and 2) [[NPOV]] is not being followed on the [[Talk:Human]] page. The rest of what I said has some faulty Boolean logic. 8)) As you point out, obviously ''some'' people "who know in their heart with certainty unquestioned that Religion is wrong" ''are'' insisting that [[NPOV]] in its unsurpassingly beauty should be respected. Would you agree? ---[[User:Rednblu|Rednblu]] | [[User talk:Rednblu|Talk]] 00:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Goethean, I am learning a lot from you. Please see my talk page for some thoughts on Rednblu and NPOV. [[User:Hawstom|Tom Haws]] 19:55, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

==Hinduism: God and Man==

Goethan, here are my thoughts. Hinduism is not one religion but four religions, Smartism, Shaivism, Shaktism and Saivism. This is not suprising as the religion is over 5000 years old. Just as Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the same God but slightly differ in conceptions of God, Hindus all believe in one God but differ in their conceptions, the major difference between conceiving of God as Vishnu or Siva.

Basically, God is conceived as Vishnu or Shiva (Vaishnavism , and [Saivism and Shaktism] separately, and Smartism which considers all forms of God the same and a semantic difference. Smartism closely followed Advaita philosophy.

'''The belief that man is essentially identical with the eternal immaterial spirit is only true of [[Advaita]] which stressed the impersonal Brahman''' and not a personal God unlike Ramanuja and Madhva who stressed a personal God like the Judaeo-Christian religions:

The following web sites will give you a good overview of the relationship between Man and God.

http://www.nalanda.demon.co.uk/vedanta.htm#The%20Theist%20Revolt and http://www.dlshq.org/download/hinduismbk.htm#_VPID_93

The major philisophical school is Vedanta which is divided into

Dvaita, Visishtadvaita and Advaita

"iritual experiences. Dualism, Qualified Monism, Pure Monism&#8212;all these culminate eventually in the Advaita Vedantic realisation of the Absolute or the transcendental Trigunatita Ananta Brahman.

Sivananada said the following:

Madhva said: &#8220;Man is the servant of God,&#8221; and established his Dvaita philosophy. Ramanuja said: &#8220;Man is a ray or spark of God,&#8221; and established his Visishtadvaita philosophy. Sankara said: &#8220;Man is identical with Brahman or the Eternal Soul,&#8221; and established his Kevala Advaita philosophy.

A Dvaitin wants to serve the Lord as a servant. He wishes to play with the Lord. He wishes to taste the sugar-candy. A Visishtadvaitin wants to become like Lord Narayana and enjoy the divine. He does not wish to merge himself or become identical with the Lord. He wishes to remain as a spark. A Jnani merges himself in Brahman. He wishes to become identical with Brahman. He wants to become the sugar-candy itself." Hope this helps.

[[Raj2004]]

Goethan, read this link, Question #7 in http://www.ssvt.org/Education/Hinduism%20FAQ.asp#What%20are%20the%20different%20schools%20of%20Hinduism?%20What%20is%20their%20basis%20to%20be%20called%20different%20schools%20of%20Hinduism?%20Are%20they%20important%20to%20understand?|Different

Please read question #7.

[[Raj2004]]

==[[Martin Heidegger]] quotes ==

Hi, the reason givenfor deleting all your quotes from this article was that most of them were unreferenced. Could you provide the source of each quote, that is, the work of Heidegger in which it appears, please? And if possible the edition and page number. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 16:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

==Talk: Human==

The info is valid, however after removal of the sentence that it commented, I removed it because I did not see it relevant to discussion anymore. If you insist, I'll just rewrite it and leave it there. --[[User:Eleassar777|Eleassar777]] 18:11, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:Oh...I didn't know that the sentence that it commented on had been removed. Sorry. --[[User:Goethean|Goethean]] 18:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

=="involutions", not "involution"==

Please. The article titled ''[[involution]]'' is ''not'' about "involution in mathematics"; it's about ''involutions'' (plural!) in mathematics. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 23:37, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

== Holistic science? ==

Hi. I found you in the history of the Ken Wilber article. I recently picked up the orphaned [[Holistic science]] page and I'm floundering around looking for other people who might be interested in the subject. I am extremely lacking in knowledge of the subject, but find myself drawn to it nonetheless. Therefore I would appreciate the opportunity to interact with people who are more knowledgeable. The first question I wanted to ask was: Are you in favor of having an article with the title [[Holistic science]]? I have also created "Non-reductionist science" as a redirect to it. --[[User:Smithfarm|Smithfarm]] 13:35, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::I have a couple of responses. One, there is clearly a methodology that Sheldrake and others use, and skeptics cannot tenably argue against accurately describing that methodology. Maybe it should be called something other than holistic science, although I see nothing wrong with that name. The simple fact is that there are several scientists and theorists who call themselves holists. One wonders what possible objection there would be to calling their activities "holistic science." Especially when "holistic science" brings up 10,000 google hits. Hello!

::Ken Wilber talks frequently about "narrow science" and "broad science." In his usage, the latter is what he is doing, and includes, for example, the testimony of mystics, which would be ignored or explained away by "narrow science." I havent read Wilber's book on science, but I have read his more philosophical works which do touch on the subject. [http://www.sheldrake.org/glossary/ Here] is another good reference. Sheldrake seems to call his scientific methodological paradigm "holism" or "organicism."

::Two, I'm not sure whether "Goethean methodology" refers to the method of Goethe's ''Theory of Colors'', or to [[Rudolf Steiner]], or to both. I am familiar with the Theory of Colors, but not with Steiner. Perhaps [[User:M Alan Kazlev|M Alan Kazlev]] (who maintains an enormously informative website on New Age ideas) could hep us with the Steiner aspect.

::Three, perhaps the article should be re-written (again), in response to the complaints of skeptics. Simply asserting that the methodologies of Goethe, Steiner, Sheldrake and Wilber diverge from that of reductionistic or physicalistic science seems like a pretty uncontroversial claim. I'm not sure if we can include Wolfram in that group, however. --[[User:Goethean|Goethean]] 16:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

: Thanks a lot. I'm completely in favor of any attention (up to and including complete rewriting) you care to give to the page. I haven't had the opportunity yet to read any of the books you are referring to, or that I have linked to on the page - I was just shooting in the dark from stuff I found while Googling. So if any are inappropriate (Wolfram?) then I would suggest they be removed. The Goethean methodology is something I inherited from an earlier, somewhat incoherent version of the page. Maybe it, too, can be simply left out. Anyway, would you mind if I copied my question and your answer over to the Holistic science talk page? --[[User:Smithfarm|Smithfarm]] 20:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::That's fine. --[[User:Goethean|Goethean]] 22:07, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

==216.45.221.155/Paul Vogel==

It's been determined that [[User:216.45.221.155|216.45.221.155]] ([[User talk:216.45.221.155|talk]] &middot; [[Special:Contributions/216.45.221.155|contributions]]) is in fact [[User:Paul Vogel|Paul Vogel]]. I've banned 216.45.221.155 for an initial period of 24 hours until I can ascertain the proper procedure with an IP-address sockpuppet of a banned User. [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">&Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf;</font>)]] 21:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== Greetings ==

Sorry I was not around for the VfD on Facts, but after increasing levels of right wing hostility and the corruption of the judicial process on wikipedia, I have decided to focus on my professional writing, instead of dealing with the constant threats and unpleasantness that seems to attend working on wikipedia. [[User:Stirling Newberry|Stirling Newberry]] 18:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== ID ==

Editorial, yes, pov, no. A fact is presented, and then a comment (albeit a rather leading comment) is made. I would have a hard time calling it pov. Not to mention, that your promise to remove pov contradicts the Sanger quote on your user page - Sanger said present all povs. I think I good case can be made for rewording that sentance, but on a page like this it would be much better done on the Talk page. In addition, your edit summary was misleading. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 18:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

==That "[[M Document]]" at ''[[Gospel of Matthew]]''==

This seemingly very knowing reference was added by a discontented Christianist a while back. No information. Does it mean ''anything'' to you? See my note at [[Talk:Gospel of Matthew]]''. Thanks! --[[User:Wetman|Wetman]] 20:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== Human ==

I think the current issue is an acceptable compromise for now. I would prefer that the paragraphs after paragraph one would begin:

:Biologically, ...

:Behaviorially, ...

:Spritually, ...

And that the paragraph be a little different - however, I don't think it warrants a totally disputed tag. I have read your comments. {{User:Trödel/sig}} 20:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

clarification:

The Vedas and the Upanishads which follow are anonymous because they are considered to smrti or revealed scripture, the word of God, in Hinduism, which has no author, in contrast to shruti, what is remmbered, and is written by man. See [[Hindu scripture]] Bhagavad Gita is in fact transcribed down by [[Vyasa]]

[[Raj2004]]

== "Wholism" ==

I see what you mean. I've followed your example, and made it a redirect. By the standards of [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion]] it could be simply deleted, in fact. Let's see what happens next. [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">&Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf;</font>)]] 17:06, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== Guru ==

hi Goethen,

Thanks for your invitation to view on the article on [[Guru]]. I dont think i can make much contribution to the article in its present stage. There is a lot that can be added - difference between acharya and Guru, guru-geeta etc.

[[User:Ramashray|Ramashray]] 05:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

== Integral Wiki ==

hi Goethean

I was very interested by your suggestion of an integral wiki and had a look at that site, but there doesnt appear to be much there, and the articles that are there are mostly pretty brief. An Integral Wiki project would be a very interesting and worthy ideal, but it would be extremely tedious to have to rewrite everything from scratch. Why doesnt the integral wiki use the same GNU open source licence as wikipedia? If it did we could just copy over relevant articles from the wikipedia, and then develop them along integral lines. By the way, have you seen the [http://www.integrativespirituality.org/postnuke/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=phpWiki&file=index Wisdom Wiki]? Covers pretty much the same ground, but has longer entries. -[[User:M Alan Kazlev|M Alan Kazlev]] 07:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

== Thanks for drawing my attention! ==

Yes, I am following GURU article with interest. Yet reading all those controversial points makes one exasperating. Let all this cool down. I am thinking of making some additions here and there after due pause. Thanks for drawing my attention.

*[[User:Swami Vimokshananda|VMO]] 05:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

==I do not make edits in bad faith==

You may consider my edits against in [[guru]] against NPOV but I sincerely believe that I make good edits. Why is it so difficult to accept different perspectives in the article on gurus? The Hindu view on gurus is just one of many possible. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 20:34, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

:I told you that I was done with this conversation. You believe that the article on gurus should be at least 50% criticisms of gurus. I believe that gurus are an integral part of Eastern religion and the article should discuss the concept as a part of Eastern religion. You are only interested in using the article to broadcast unsubstantiated allegations. I consider that writing in bad faith. You cannot be reasoned with. I am through wasting my time with you. --[[User:Goethean|goethean]] 21:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

== Re: Talk:Guru#proposal ==

Wow, you sound great! I'd be glad to help you put a POV header on Human, if you explain precisely how it discriminates against religion. <big>'''''[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]]'''''</big> 17:13, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

:Hows [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human&diff=0&oldid=13388656 this]? <big>'''''[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]]'''''</big> 17:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

== Speedy Gonzales ==

Thank you &mdash; I aim to please. [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">&Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf;</font>)]] 17:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

==Quantum reverts==

Hi, please don't revert the categorization of [[Bohm interpretation]]. The category [[:Category:quantum mechanics]] had an excess of 200 articles in it. I attemtped to solve the poor organization by moving approx 30 articles to [[:category:quantum measurement]]. Please don't revert without discussion. Yes, I agree that [[:category:interpretations of quantum mechanics]] may have been a better name for this category, in retrospect. [[User:Linas|linas]] 03:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

== NPOV ==

Please check out [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate]], [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 23:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

== Rick Ross ==

Have a look at [[Talk:Rick Ross]]. --[[User:Zappaz|Zappaz]] 20:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

== Esotericism WikiProject ==

hi Goethean,

I've been thinking what we need is an ''Esotericism'' WikiProject. The idea would be to work out things like templates, a uniform format, and so on, for esotericism wikipages. This could even include or be organised according to a classification of esoteric topics, if such can be agreed. Anyway if you and some of the other folks who post here are interested, then I'd love to get involved. But it's not something I want to do on my own (i'm spread too thinly as it is!)

[[User:M Alan Kazlev|M Alan Kazlev]] 10:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

== POV Removal of Ramakrishna NPOV? ==

I notice that you have taken it upon yourself to remove the NPOV from the [[Ramakrishna]] article, in spite of the fact that you did NOT put it there (I know, I did...) and in spite of the fact that anonymous users continue to remove anything dealing with Dr. Jeffrey Kripal's scholarship...and you allowed their vandalism to go on un-checked. Well, I'm back, and watching the article again. I've reverted the vandalism, and if it continues I will slap a NPOV on the article once more. Your edits seem rather benign (though partisan... I detect a definite POV), but if it goes over the line, back into hagiography, well, you know what will happen. We are very capable of expanding the bibliographic footnotes in to whole paragraphs, into entire articles detailing the controversy. Do you want it to explode in that manner? Let's leave well enough alone and stay true to the Wikipedian ideal, no? All the best, [[User:Emyth|Emyth]] 21:53, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

==Integral Template==

Very good idea ([[Template:Integral]]). The only thing I would question is putting the states of consciousness here as a separate group rather than one of the ideas. There is no consensus on these categories. Even Wilber himself uses various names for these, so I think that while there is no question of the importance of the concept, the variablitiy in descriptions of them suggests they do not yet merit a primary place on the template. --[[User:Blainster|Blainster]] 20:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good luck on the logo. That is definitely not my forte. I was just adding a little to the article on [[Arthur M. Young]]. Did you ever read his ''The Reflexive Universe''? That was my first introduction to the field of consciousness studies. I think he should be on the template. --[[User:Blainster|Blainster]] 20:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:Young was a very integral thinker. He was educated at Princeton, interviewed by Jeffrey Mishlove in the latter's PBS television series "Thinking Allowed", and profiled in the book ''The Roots of Consciousness'' by Mishlove. I see there is no article on Mishlove either. He earned the only PhD in parapsychology from U C Berkeley. Add Young to your watchlist and I will expand the article. Another candidate for the list would be [[Teilhard de Chardin]]. --[[User:Blainster|Blainster]] 21:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== 20th century authors ==

Stephen King is in the list of 20th century writers. --[[User:Brunnock|Brunnock]] 13:18, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

:Heh! Well, I said that it was absurd, not that people didn't think it. --[[User:Goethean|goethean]] <big>&#2384;</big> 13:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== Polytheism ==

I largely agree with your removal, if only because it was distracting. That said, some religions which are often seen as polytheistic from the outside (Hinduism, many forms of buddhism, possibly even ancient greek mythology or native american beliefs) are actually speaking of a number of aspects of God, and/or of lesser entities, djinn or devas. I can see that was a bit difficult for me to present. An important example would be the many buddhist dieties. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 00:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== Entries for each of Wilber's Levels ==

Hi Goethean. I recently added a (still rather stubby) entry for the [[Triple transformation]]. Anyway I mention there two of Wilber's highest levels, which I give the wiki links as [[Causal (Wilber)]] and [[Ultimate (Wilber)]]. I notice however that you have Subtle realm and Causal realm on your user page. So since you're doing most of the Wilber stuff, I'll leave it to you how to name the links and entries

[[User:M Alan Kazlev|M Alan Kazlev]] 04:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== New Integral Wiki ==

[http://integralwiki.net/index.php?title=Main_Page The Integral Encyclopedia Wiki] [[User:M Alan Kazlev|M Alan Kazlev]] 05:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:btw this would be a good forum for a non-physicalist version of [[Human]], and a non-cynical version of [[Guru]] (haven't checked both pages lately so don't how these issues have been addressed. I've been transferring wikipages over, and will eventually be adjusting some away from a non-physicalist-bound perspective (e.g. the page on [[The Mother]] is very limited by its required physicalist slant on wikipedia, when i have time i'll combine this page with the older "sympathetic point of view" one to get a good balanced perspective) [[User:M Alan Kazlev|M Alan Kazlev]] 00:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== Harold Bloom ==

I may need to adopt a more ethereal approach, then? Thanks! [[User:Jeffrey Newman|Jeffrey Newman]] 08:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== integral wiki ==

''I and other users have therefore initiated the The Integral Wiki, which, unlike Wikipedia, is equipped to truly implement neutral point of view.''

Since you seem to have it all figured out over there, perhaps you should spend your time there too. [[User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon]] 7 July 2005 18:04 (UTC)

== Three Revert Rule ==

{{3RR}} -- [[User:Bmicomp|BMIComp ]] [[User_talk:bmicomp|(talk)]] 7 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)

== Conduct on [[talk:Intelligent design]] ==

I think FW deserves an apology for your conduct, specificly the inflammitory statements towards the end.

Also, as a note, your conduct, while better, looks suspiciously like baiting FW. I am willing to give you the benifit of the doubt, but I ask you go out of your way to avoid baiting him even by accident.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 7 July 2005 22:47 (UTC)

:I went to look at that page to see what this was about, and I could not see anything Goethean had posted there. I thought okay maybe he had written something and forgotten to sign it, but i checked and he's not listed on the history screen either. Perhaps you're referring to another talk page? [[User:M Alan Kazlev|M Alan Kazlev]] 8 July 2005 05:53 (UTC)

::[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design], jump into archive 11.

Goethean, my attitude here is much like a school teacher or a parent. I don't care ''who'' started it, no one but you is responsible for what you say. I am not intrested in discussing FW's behavoir, I am intrested in the fact that you breached civility and that you should not have.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 8 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)

==[[Talk:Intelligent Design]]==

This seems to be the result of a script that left behind a fe anomalies. It's impossible to merge the history of this page with that I [[Talk:Intelligent design]], and my inclination is to leave it where it is (it's of no obvious use, but leaving it at least preserves its history). --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">&Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf;</font>)]] 8 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)

==Category: Integral Theory ==

Here's a new category page i made http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Integral_theory

We can add this to all the Integral theory pages

[[User:M Alan Kazlev|M Alan Kazlev]] 9 July 2005 06:27 (UTC)

You asked 'Why are you removing the Integral theory template from every article?' --[[User:Goethean|goethean]] <big>&#2384;</big> 22:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

:They are still there I am moving them to the references and links part of the articles where they fit best. References and links go at the rear of articles not at the head in all Wikipedia articles. [[User:Lumos3|Lumos3]] 23:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

::''Untrue &mdash; as you undoubtedly know, the use of templates as panels of links is a common Wikipedia custom. ''

:::Yes I do know this, and its not the use of a box of related links that I object to but its position at the head of these articles. There is clear guidance on this at [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#"See also" and "Related topics" sections]]. I have placed the boxes within these sections where they are most appropriate. A quick tour of [[Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 2005|wikipedia featured articles]] will show that this convention is universally adhered to. The only exception would be the Integral Theory article itself, where a box summarising key data would be appropriate. [[User:Lumos3|Lumos3]] 12:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

== Bangla ==

I dont know devnagari, but obviously can do the bangla part--[[User:Shmitra|ppm]] 20:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

yes, but [[hindi]] is not [[bangla]]. I dont know hindi either. --[[User:Shmitra|ppm]] 20:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

== List of purported cults ==

Hello Goethean. Please see the VfD on [[List of purported cults]]. I participated heavily in this article, but now I am siding with supporting deletion. After all, it is being used as a way to throw mud at religious groups that are not mainstream and thus inherently POV. Read and vote if you wish at [[Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_purported_cults/2]] and if you know of other editors that care for religious tolerance and freedoms and a WP that is devoid of bias against religions, please alert them as well so they can participate in generating consensus about the future of articles of this type. Thanks.--[[User:Zappaz|ZappaZ]] [[Image:Yin_yang.png|12px]] 04:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

== Cults ==

Thanks for your support on VfD. [[List of religious groups disliked by people who we like]] was especially fitting. More and more I'm getting the impression, that there is un undeclared WikiProject_Cults at work, which astonishingly consists of a strange alliance of followers and anti-cult-activists (mostly ex-followers), which have their terroritories split up and are enganged in a slow war of attrition, both sides preferring to not be disturbed by outsiders. --[[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]] 17:27, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

== TfD nomination of Template:Integral theory4 ==

[[Template:Integral theory4]] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Integral theory4]]. Thank you. &mdash;[[User:PrologFan|PrologFan]] <small>{[[User talk:PrologFan|Talk]]}</small> 21:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

==Something funny this way cometh==

I'm not a native speaker of English. You are welcome to correct "funny stuff" :) [[User:Subramanian| Subramanian]] ^{[[User_talk:Subramanian|talk]]} 22:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

== body-mind ==

My understanding of the Wikipedia principles are that varying interpretations of a subject are exactly what a Wiki is supposed to generate. My extentions to "Body-mind" you remove for not being "neutral". What do you understand by "neutral" ?? I spent another hour reentering in a compacter form which fully relates to the understanding of "Body-mind" in the world of alternative healing, and you simply delete this as well, this time with no further comment. Where do we go from here. Am I to open another new page "Bodymind" (one word) to pacify you, or will you mutilate this as well??

--Please comment, thank you. User:Osioni (Niall O'Siochain).

== You do an awesome job ==

Thanks for fixing up my mistakes and clearing up some things so quickly. You rule! --[[User:Chadamir|Chadamir]] 16:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

== [[Guru-shishya tradition]] ==

Hi Goethean. Could you take a look at [[Guru-shishya tradition]]? See if you can assist with it. Thanks. (also, I never followed up with you about your request for a graphic for the [[Plato]] article.) [[User:Jossifresco|&asymp; jossi &asymp;]] 22:37, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

:Thanks for your help. Much appreciated. [[User:Jossifresco|&asymp; jossi &asymp;]] 02:26, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

== Authentic Matthew the sequel ==

The POV that was in [[Authentic Matthew]] before it was NPOVed has been re-created at a new article - see [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Original Gospel of Matthew]]. [[User:-Ril-|<nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki>]] ( [[User:-Ril-/BadBoy|!]] | [[User:-Ril-/Newgate|?]] | [[User:-Ril-/Nissa|*]] ) 20:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

== Lead should be comprehensive ==

Simply cutting 4/5 of it is not helping. [[Sociocultural evolution]] has a long, but acceptable lead. See FAC discussion for some lead comments. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] ^{[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]} 08:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

==RfC==

Greetings. Over the past week or so I've had the misfortune of encountering another editor named FuelWagon who has been extremely uncivil and abusive in his tone towards myself and some other editors. He has attacked me personally several times, posted comments insinuating that I should "leave wikipedia," and posted a fraudulent 3RR warning against me after only two reverts. He seems to also linger around the Requests for Comments page and has twice now posted belligerent and disruptive personal attacks in response to RfC's I've posted. I decided to post an RfC on his behavior as the problem is continuing. I looked over his editing history to document other cases where he's breached civility and saw you were editing at the Intelligent Design article and appear to have experienced much of the same from him. The RfC is located [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/FuelWagon here]. Please take a moment to review it. Any input you may have would be welcome as well. [[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 19:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

== Moral Development ==

Hey there. I was wondering, hoping actually, that you'd want to start shaping up and improving the [[Kohlberg's stages of moral development]] article with me. I've been side tracked for a while now with [[:Category:Alcohol_abuse]], [[AIDS]] and [[psychodynamic psychotherapy]]/[[psychotherapy]]. It's hard enough to find someone who can even fully understand [[Lawrence Kohlberg]], and you seem to know a good amount. How about it, what do you say? :) .... [[User:JoeSmack|JoeSmack]] [[User talk:JoeSmack|(talk)]] 18:28, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

== The Mirabai Article ==

Hi Goethean! I have just looked at the Mirabai stub that you have created. A small comment! The expression "prayerful bhajan" sounds a bit odd since the hindi word Bhajan literally translates to "a song of prayer to god". Should the expression not be replaced with something like: "many prayerful songs" or "many bhajans (hymns)". Any thoughts ? [[User:Syiem|Syiem]] 07:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Goethean! Changed. [[User:Syiem|Syiem]] 03:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

== RFA comments on Talk: pages ==

Ideally only votes should go in the vote section, and all other comments in a comment section or on the Talk: page. There is some leeway in this, of course, but post after post in the vote section makes the page extremely difficult to work with for other editors wishing to vote. I left in three of your comments, so people could get the gist of your issues, and you get the last word as well. I'm sure those who want to continue the debate will follow the link. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 20:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

== [[Bible and reincarnation]] ==

I've left a note on the anon's Talk page, and reverted his latest ramblings. I'll keep on eye on things, and if he continues, I'll have a stricter word with him. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">&Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf;</font>)]] 20:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

==IDRIVE==

{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="background-color: #c5fcdc;"

|-

| [[Image:Aidlogo.png|none|50px| ]]

| Thank you for your support of '''[[Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive|This week's Improvement Drive]]'''.<br>This week '''[[Spice trade]]''' was selected to be improved to [[Wikipedia:Featured articles|featured article]] [[Wikipedia:What is a featured article|status]].<br>Hope you can help&hellip;

|}

== [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ontology and methodology of evolutionary alternatives]] ==

Thanks for the alert; you guessed correctly... --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">&Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf;</font>)]] 20:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)