Talk:Gnosticism in modern times/Archive 1

Proposed merge

No merging is necessary. Links between the articles are good enough. The other article can be renamed to "Modern gnostic mysticism" if necessary, but this one has no reason to change its title, since it is not really "Modern" gnosticism (like that PKD-infomysticism-IS-cyberspace concept), but exactly - "Gnosticism in modern times". And the external links have no reason to be additionally subtitled 'modern gnosticism', but simply external links, 'modern' is already in the main title (since the article is about modern TIMES).Ndru01 04:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Merge the two articles. Only one sentence, if that, needs to be kept from the text currently at Modern Gnosticism. The rest is original research. — goethean ॐ 21:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• The article Modern Gnosticism has been deleted (repeatedly, because its author keeps reinstating it). Merging is no longer an issue. Fuzzypeg 04:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The article Modern gnostic mysticism is a reincarnation of Modern Gnosticism, tagged for speedy deletion. It was deleted by consensus vote because it was deemed to be original research. The article Infomysticism is a redirect to that article. Please delete links to these articles if the author tries to put them back. Thanks, Fuzzypeg 04:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It has few changes, it is not completely the same as it was, and it is not 'original research'. It can have that tag of 'neutrality disputed' if you find it so controversial, but it is simply nothing 'original'. And no 'concensus' was reached, since there was at least one person against deletion. Ndru01 21:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The record of the deletion votes is here. I note you did not choose to vote, although I supplied you with the link. You can see that several authors agreed with my original research assessment. This page, however is not the place to discuss the details of why it was deleted or what constitutes original research, especially since our discussions so far have been many KB long! If you wish to discuss it further with me, please do so either on my talk page or your own. Fuzzypeg 05:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You gave up logic (which I always insist on) in favor of insults, you were offensive and disrespectuf towards me in at least one of the posts on talkpages, implying that I might be mentally ill or whatever (which is surely a violation of some Wikipedia policies), while I treated you and everyone else with curtsy, so why should I talk to you at all. And I cannot understand that you have the nerve of writing anything about my texts after that. Ndru01

I'm in favor of it being deleted, myself. I did try to clean up some biased comments, assumptions, and inaccuracies, though. Sammael Von Weor, Blavatsky, and Crowley wove some things they thought were Gnostics into their religious conglomerations, this wasn't very clear in the previous entries. Voegelin is easy to entirely misrepresent in such a short treatment, I edited to give a little more accuracy. SquirleyWurley 02:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Grammar

"The" Archons is OK, and implies all of a fixed group, or a composite, as in "the Muses". It is important to introduce terms assuming no background knowledge by the reader. The bullet point now reads:

the physical world is an illusion created in the Demiurge's manifestation, and it is ruled by the Archons... (emphasis added)

The first clause is now much less clear or readable then when it read simply "an illusion created by the Demiurge". In English, "created in" could mean created inside a container or workplace, in a process, or the special case "created in the image" of something. My reading would be the second, so that the clause means "the physical world is an illusion which was created as a by-product of the Demiurge becoming apparent or manifest". I don't think this is intended or reflects any of the writers mentioned earlier in the article. My suggestion would be "an illusion fashioned by the Demiurge" since this implies pre-existing material.

Again, I would suggest the editor discusses these ideas with someone in real life. If that person is a native English speaker, so much the better. --Cedders^tk 08:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh my God, you're so full of your 'english' and didn't really prove it is better than mine. I already pointed out once with good reasons that you can be equally (or even more) confusing with your expressions like/than me. Plus that use of THE Demiurge I still think is wrong. God is simply - God and not THE God. And of course I meant 'in a process' (of manifestation). So if you wish, it can be rephrased: "...illusion created by (the) Demiurge while manifesting himself" Ndru01

OK, I'll change accordingly. Even after looking at the sentence for about 30 seconds, I still wasn't sure of its meaning. You may not realise it, but a lot of your writing has that effect on native English speakers. English is often an illogical and idiomatic language, but that is what the English language Wikipedia uses. --Cedders^tk 06:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Nietzsche

A little bit for Nietzsche has been added. More information about his eternal return belief was added in order to show the contrast between his idea and the Gnostic idea. The fact that he was a denier of god was added for further contrast. I didn't add any citations: there isn't any for the original assertion that his idea can be compared to the Gnostic idea. I don't deny that though, because I remember quite clearly him being compared in a book on Gnosticism by one Benjamin Walker which I read, so I'm sure there's citable sources for the information that he has Gnostic-comparable ideas. But I'm also sure there's citable sources for the information I added. So either way, citations can be added if there's any contests: doesn't seem like very controversial stuff though.

Oh, I, sorrowfully, don't know German, so I could be wrong with the adjective formations I made for the "Übermensch" substantive and "Allzumenschliches" adverb(I believe) which are the words that Nietzsche uses.--216.211.55.237 02:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This section is entirely either original research or unverifiable opinion that is irrelevant to the subject of the page, I deleted it. SquirleyWurley 02:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)