Talk:Bilocation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Title

ummm... its bilocution I suggest moving the page to what its really called anyone want to second the motion?

Actually, according to Google, it's not bilocution at all. I'm changing it back in the text. --Jemiller226 20:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

etymologically speaking, bilocution would be the talent of speaking out of both sides of an issue. ;) Freder1ck 00:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Freder1ck

encyclopedia?

In an encyclopedia, can we accept stamentents without any proof, any source, any reliability as the following? "Another story involves a religious sister (nun) appearing to Native Americans in the American west." If so, I can sell you the Trevi Fountain: I am the son of the owner!

---

well what about that!! I have no son.

(the owner)

---

Are you disagreeing with the statement that the story exists? The entry makes no claim regarding the story's veracity.

Clearly the story exists, because it appears here. It would be good to have some source for its prior existence. --Townmouse 00:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC) (not either of the previous 2 editors)

Something doesn't have to be true to be in wikipedia. The phrase exists and the stories about the phenomona exist, and that sufficient for a page to exist.

Sources now added.

perfectblue 17:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

disambiguation page needed

from bilocate some metal band. Benwetmore 04:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Astral projection

Previously, this article included astral projection as a synonym for bilocation. The definition provided here, however, asserted that bilocation is physical, whereas the definition for astral projection states that phenomenon is spiritual or metaphysical. In addition to this difference in denotation, many differences in connotation exist. For instance astral projection is usually active, and thus associated with being magical, whereas bilocation is usually passive, and thus associated with being miraculous. I'll clarify what I mean by magical and miraculous, since the distinction is not necessarily obvious, and perhaps open to contention: miraculous refers to that which happens through the will of a deity, even through the inspired actions of a mortal; magical (as I mean it, anyway) refers to that which happens through the will of a mortal, even if assisted by a deity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.185.96.57 (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Better version

The term was misappropriated by various paranormal enthusiasts for a very real term from Catholic Philosophy surrounding Eucharistic mysteries. To that end, I have a new version:

[1].

I intend to restore this version after an appropriate comment period.

ScienceApologist (talk) 08:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems to make more sense used as a term related to saints and religion. I don't see anything in the other version, beyond labelling it wit ha template, which substantiates any claims of it being a scientific phenomenon. As such, it's not even a pseudoscience, just a matter of personal faith, which is hardly measurable, even by pseudoscience standards. leave it for the religion projects. ThuranX (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Christian usage is established. Other uses are welcome, but must be cited. If the article grows a good deal in either direction, a DAB page can be set up. -- Secisek (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

this really needs a cite

"In Christianity, bilocation explains the dual location of Christ at the Last Supper in both the transubstantiated host and in the person of Jesus of Nazareth." There's a BIG difference between bilocation (a person appearing to physically be in two places at once, with both appearances identical) and the Catholic doctrine of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist -- since, in Catholic doctrine (and other Trinitarian Christian beliefs) Christ was not -just- the physical man standing there, but also God. We need a cite saying that this has actually been called bilocation. 128.194.103.45 (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Excessive number of citations

Does anyone else find that the number of citations in the introduction is excessive. One or two would be good, but when I wrote this there were seven citations for this term being used in shamanism, and many of the others have 3-5. Slogsweep (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The citations obviously are trying to make a point that this is a very widespread phenomenon. That may be, but it's incredibly hard to read. At the least, we could put the references together at the end of the sentence (12 in a row is easier to work through than 3-3-4-2...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.206.164 (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Its the mind state

I have also heard of another kind of Bilocation, its a state in the mind, not physical body. The body doesn't split, but the mind can exist in my different states and possibly lives. Now I try to look at the world from a mainly scientific (but open-minded) point of view (Quantum mind). I am aware that wikipedia discussion pages are for improving articles, but this is my point and I think this could provide an alternative description to the article (but not deleting the original description of the body splitting). 88.105.37.136 (talk) 11:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)