Talk:Theoria (Eastern Orthodox Christianity)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Theoria (Eastern Orthodox Christianity). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

The Title of this Wiki Entry Needs to Be Changed from "Theoria" to "Eastern Orthodox Understanding of Theoria"

This wiki page on "theoria" as eastern orthodox theology is like having the wiki page of "water" be almost entirely about "holy water"!

I am appalled by the sloppy wiki standards being used on this page. This is not a page about the classical etymology of the term "theoria," but instead is a theological discussion about a word that can be used in theological or secular contexts. Theoria is not a specifically Christian word.

The "Contemplation" page is similarly religious with an inappropriate focus on Christianity.

See also Tabor Light for more information on the split in opinion, which should also be referenced on this page.

Classical

This page should be edited to include classical philosophical views (particuarly in Plotinus and Aristotle) that existed before and alongside Christian views of Contemplation. 70.179.101.33 05:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)Wilhelm

Feedback requested

I've just edited the whole first paragraph. I mainly revised the meaning of the intro or the main description paragraph, and corrected grammar. If my edits are welcome, I can collaborate little by little. I thought the first paragraph was confusing. Is it easier to understand now? Let me know.Jrod2 18:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Greek philosophy

Beyond accusations of scholasticism, the article should critically examine the position of the Greek-Russian Orthodox on the metaphysics of Aristotle and Plato, which have indeed been very popular in the West. The problem is that there is a near total separation of faith and reason in some of the oriental mysticism, to the extent that Aristotle himself is accused of being a Latin, someone who is foreign to a purely practical and mystical understanding of the divinity. ADM (talk) 06:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Photius argued for philosophy as only one tool that one could use to begin to approach a human understanding of God as did Gregory Palamas. The demarkation is that the human mind is finite, there is no way for the mechanical reason of philosophy as to be resolved with the noesis or the inuition of the human heart and spirit/nous. Modern theologians whom attempted a reconcillation between metaphysics and gnosiology did so starting from and with Aristotle's noesis (i.e. Leibniz). N. O. Lossky is another such person. This article does not attempt sobornost, but rather to follow from N. O. Lossky's son Vladimir Lossky to express in a modern way the Vision of God. As much here on wiki is a fight adding to much to this article will cause the article to be branded too long. I can only work within the limites of policy and hope to not trigger edit wars in my creation of articles here. The Orthodox position to the subject in general can be seen here [1]. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Position clarification aside. I am completely willing to engage in the creation of an article contrasting scholastic methods with mystical/ascetic practice. I will say that I am trying very hard to engage such a thing already, but scholastics are not abandoned in the East, no they are seen as insufficent, since theoria accounts for the stochastics of ontology. Without the vilifing of God, Creation, the mind or existence (as gnosticism does in order to manifests it's destructive dualism nihilistically playing on the dialects of philosophy). This is the work now this is Taleb. Byzantium is much misunderstood. Propose away. I think a real good starting point could be Aristotle's Energy and Dynamis. Since the East uses Aristotle's Plato's energy in a way very different from the West. I think this is what you are getting at, yes? The most beloved argument over energy. Now, now, now you're talking. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Eastern Catholics

The article should maybe clarify the status of theoria among Eastern Catholics, sometimes called Unia. There are many Eastern Catholics such as Melkites, Maronites, Ukrainian Catholics, Catholic Copts and Chaldeans, who also share Eastern spirituality and Tradition on a very similar level, although perhaps not always sharing the exact same kind of theology as the said Palamists. ADM (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Difficult to say. I do not know if their ascetics validate seeing God.

They lay claim to the concepts but the groups have not stated this like say Archimandrite Sophrony for a modern example. Actual illumination-seeing God, the Tabor light- theoria. I mean the West can lay claim to the "concepts" and "traditions". Hey if you have info about it from them add it to the Roman Catholic section. LoveMonkey (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

tag refimprovesect

The following subsections of "Orthodox Theology" are completely unreferenced:

Alexandrian tradition of theoria
Cappadocian tradition of theoria

If they can be cited, let's do so, otherwise I'm gonna pull them out. LOL ^thulu 10:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I believe that the needed references were added. Cody7777777 (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work Cody thank you. The overview I used for the article I used (after incorporating in what was already here) was the lay-out that Vladimir Lossky used in his teaching courses on theoria. The article as I attempted to structure it therefore is based on the collection of those sessions printed in his book "The Vision God" so the section in question is just an overview of what that book states since the entire tract is strictly about theoria.[2] The book can be generally used to source the entire article section by section as it corresponds to the book in order, sequence and content, overview. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

is this accurate?

The following excerpt is from False Spiritual Knowledge, a subsection of Theoria. I am wondering if it is accurate, as it has no citations and is not really too similar to the rest of the article as I see it. I'm wondering how much of this is true, and important in the Greek Orthodox Church, and how much of it is a rant. Thanks

"False spiritual knowledge can also be iniquitous or of an evil origin being generated from an evil rather than Holy source. Hence the knowledge of Good and the knowledge of Evil, some knowledge is good, some knowledge is bad or evil. The most common false spiritual knowledge being derived not from an actual experience of God but from reading another person's experience of God. Then deriving one's own conclusions, and believing those conclusions as being equal to the actual experience knowledge (then causing conflict in interpretations). Since knowledge is derived from experience i.e. contemplation. Experience (or the being of contemplation) however is not derived from knowledge. Knowledge here defined by the change in mankind's nous caused by partaking in the knowledge of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Since mankind in his finite existence (mankind is a created being or creature) can never by his own accord arrive at an objective enough consciousness to properly use such knowledge." makeswell (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, the next excerpt from Theoria#True Spiritual Knowledge is similar to the one above, after the first sentence,

"It is when the mind is placed in the heart (kardio) and the nous is focused on the immediacy or immanence of the Trinity of God rather than strictly insight or foresight (which is to face the unknown with free will and faith) and rather than hindsight (determinism and knowledge). It is much like the difference between reading about an experience and reading about an experience one has already experienced. Thus theoria is an expression of insight (noesis), and is deeply focused on the 'now', the 'immediate', the 'present'. Though theoria is akin to acting by free will and by conscious choice rather than deterministically. It holds that, one moves through time into the future without knowing, but that we proceed by faith (faith is meta-gnosis or beyond knowledge). Theoria means placing the actual experience above recollection of an experience (mnemonic) or memory, knowledge of the experience (gnosis). As it is the contemplation of the present (insight) while in the present rather than the past (knowledge) or future (unknown), it is ultimately the experience of the hypostases of God."

In fact the part following the first sentence seems to be a different explanation that that of the first sentence in that it says that we reading about an experience is akin to understanding God through, "determinism and thought." The two parts seem to be by the same author as they contain similar ideas, specifically the comparison to reading about an experience. Does anybody know if these excepts are accurate? They are not consistent with the rest of the article, which largely reiterates similar and consistent ideas, and they also have no references, so I will delete them, or archive them, if nobody responds within a month or so. makeswell (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This article by and large is based on [3], [4], [5], [6]. There are no excepts. There is no rant. I will source.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Yeah I'd love to work with you on this.

Actually, I'm going to have to get back to you on this one tomorrow or the next day, as I can no longer stay near a computer at the moment. I apologize. makeswell (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

OK.LoveMonkey (talk) 02:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

In the first paragraph, are you saying that hearing something from someone who has realized it is the same as logical thought, and that experiencing it directly is the same as the type in Apophatic theology which is beyond logic? Are you saying that logical thought is bad and that experiencing it is good, or that mankind was in God and experienced God before eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, or are you saying that experience in God yields knowledge that is good because it comes from a holy source, namely the source of union with God?

In the second paragraph, the first sentence seems to be saying that theoria is different from insight, and insight is made of free will and faith, and then goes on to say that theoria is acting with free will and with faith, as in, "It is when the mind is placed in the heart (kardio) and the nous is focused on the immediacy or immanence of the Trinity of God rather than strictly insight or foresight (which is to face the unknown with free will and faith)... It holds that, one moves through time into the future without knowing, but that we proceed by faith (faith is meta-gnosis or beyond knowledge)." These two sentences just quoted also need a subject because the, 'It', that starts them is not clear.

One of the few things I do know about the Christian formulation of the Unio Mystica is that Carmelite nuns have said they must recollect the experience of God in order to enter the state because God cannot be called upon at their will (source: [7]). This seems to be contradicted later in the sentence when theoria, or Unio Mystica, is said to be an experience of the present and not one of, "recollection...or memory".

Good Luck, and I'll support whatever changes you make to it. I'm not going to edit war with you. Thanks for contacting me and if I have the time I'll respond to any changes you make if you'd like so. makeswell (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

makeswell wrote: "In the first paragraph, are you saying that hearing something from someone who has realized it is the same as logical thought, and that experiencing it directly is the same as the type in Apophatic theology which is beyond logic?"

LoveMonkeys response: This is a very Western question or questions. The allegory as a concept appears to be missing as a word from what you are saying. However I think you are alluding to that concept, forgive me if I am wrong in this. Theoria is about consciousness or nous and consciousness intuitively transcending epistemology (i.e. by faith). The bible is properly understood through contemplation. All Holy writings and teaching are to be understood this way. A much better but VERY technical way to answer this distinction would be from one of the books and or sources I added to the article from Christopher Hall's book Reading scripture with the Church Fathers and his work on Diodore of Tarsus.[8] Another would be one of the most famous passages from John Romanides I added to the article.

"A basic characteristic of the Frankish scholastic method, mislead by Augustinian Platonism and Thomistic Aristotelianism, had been its naive confidence in the objective existence of things rationally speculated about. By following Augustine, the Franks substituted the patristic concern for spiritual observation, (which they had found firmly established in Gaul when they first conquered the area) with a fascination for metaphysics. They did not suspect that such speculations had foundations neither in created nor in spiritual reality. No one would today accept as true what is not empirically observable, or at least verifiable by inference, from an attested effect. So it is with patristic theology. Dialectical speculation about God and the Incarnation as such are rejected. Only those things which can be tested by the experience of the grace of God in the heart are to be accepted. "Be not carried about by divers and strange teachings. For it is good that the heart be confirmed by grace," a passage from Hebrews 13.9, quoted by the Fathers to this effect."[9] All of this and more was the foundation of the passage I think you are referring to.

makeswell wrote: Are you saying that logical thought is bad and that experiencing it is good

LoveMonkeys response: No, it as scientific knowledge, is only knowledge of process. Process is creation, limitation. Limited is incompleteness. Once one moves to the uncreated arche they are beginning to engage noesis or the noetic this is the realm of metaphysics. Beyond metaphysics, ontology, Platonic categorization is :gnosiology [10] this is one of Professor George Metallinos arictle addressing types of knowledge.

makeswell wrote: or that mankind was in God and experienced God before eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil,

LoveMonkeys response: In God would be very Origen-ish. Part of the asleep-ness of Origen's theology [11].

In pre-Christian Stoic and Middle Platonic philosophy, this term referred to the universal restoration of the cosmos to the state in which it was first constituted by the divine mind or first principle. The great Christian theologian Origen of Alexandria used this term to denote the final restoration of all souls to God. According to Origen, all souls pre-existed with their Creator in a perfect, spiritual (non-material) state as "minds," but later fell away in order to pursue an existence independent of God. Since all souls were created absolutely free, God could not simply force them to return to Him (this was, according to Origen, due to God's boundless love and respect for His creatures). Instead, God created the material cosmos, and initiated history, for the purpose of guiding the wayward souls back to contemplation of His infinite mind, which is, according to Origen, the perfect state. This obviously excludes any concept of eternal damnation or hell. Apokatastasis doctrine was officially declared a heresy at the Council of Constantinople II. However, St. Gregory of Nyssa taught the doctrine without repercussions, and St. Maximus the Confessor seems to have subscribed to a mild form of the teaching during his early years, though he later significantly revised Origenist ideas as he elaborated his own highly influential theology. The idea that salvation will be universal is to be found as well in the work of modern theologians, notably the Orthodox-inspired Russian philosopher Nicholas Berdyaev.[12]

Origen is just one opinion. You are allowed whatever in Orthodoxy since this is not defined (dogma) and is an theologoumenon.

makeswell wrote: or are you saying that experience in God yields knowledge that is good because it comes from a holy source, namely the source of union with God?

LoveMonkeys response: Theoria is not experience in God. Theoria is to experience God as best as can be done. The transfiguration is properly called the metamorphosis (theosis). Man must see that infinity can not stop being infinite to stop and become a man. The spirit that establishes sentience and life did not stop doing that and instead go and became incarnate as a man. People did not stop having freedom while Christ laid in the grave. There is no where without God there is no outside or away from God, period. Halos in the East are the radiation of the photomos from holy persons not a ring hovering in the air over someones head. Union with God is acquisition of the Holy Spirit.

makeswell wrote:

"In the second paragraph, the first sentence seems to be saying that theoria is different from insight,"

LoveMonkeys response: Noesis or insight can be obtained without theoria. Gnosis does not come from gnosis. Gnosis comes from experience, the digestion of experience is it's contemplation. You can not study someone elses' gnosis and then claim you have their understanding. Anymore then you can read a book about swimming and then say you know how to swim. This insight into swimming is obtainable without Holiness.

makeswell wrote: and insight is made of free will and faith, and then goes on to say that theoria is acting with free will and with faith

LoveMonkeys response: Some insight (noesis) is supernatural like clairvoyance or prognostication. This would be insight without having truly rational completeness. However people build metaphysical systems or cosmologies that have very big and wide general "insight(s)" that can then by rationalized to be retrofitted to ones unique circumstance. Theoria true theoria is beyond oneself. It is extasis achieved to a purification of one inside a purification of heart a catharsis which causes self realization (enstasis). Then on who is pure of heart sees photomos if the spirit is willing. All is a by product of libertarianism or free will.

makeswell wrote: "It is when the mind is placed in the heart (kardio) and the nous is focused on the immediacy or immanence of the Trinity of God rather than strictly insight or foresight (which is to face the unknown with free will and faith)... It holds that, one moves through time into the future without knowing, but that we proceed by faith (faith is meta-gnosis or beyond knowledge)."

LoveMonkeys response: Ascetic practice in specific hesychasm. The metagnosis is V. Lossky.

makeswell wrote: These two sentences just quoted also need a subject because the, 'It', that starts them is not clear.

LoveMonkeys response: It = Orthodox ascetic practice (orthopraxis) in hopes (faith, pistis) of obtaining the vision of God (theoria). Hesychasm.

makeswell wrote:

One of the few things I do know about the Christian formulation of the Unio Mystica is that Carmelite nuns have said they must recollect the experience of God in order to enter the state because God cannot be called upon at their will (source: [13]). This seems to be contradicted later in the sentence when theoria, or Unio Mystica, is said to be an experience of the present and not one of, "recollection...or memory".

LoveMonkeys response: searching online I found this about East and West it is just an opinion.[14] Thank you for your kind words.LoveMonkey (talk) 03:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey LoveMonkey, I just wanted to share those questions because I felt like many of our readers may have the same questions that I had, so I thought you might be willing to edit it for them. makeswell (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Copy edit September 2010

I'm working on this one - let me know if there is anything in particular that should be addressed. Paulmnguyen (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much Paul. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I have completed an extensive restructuring and first-pass of copy editing. I would greatly appreciate a second opinion as to both content and copyediting. Thanks! Paulmnguyen (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit is now complete. Many thanks to LoveMonkey and Baffle gab1978 for their input and work. -Paulmnguyen (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Wiki hounding

Esoglou has now followed me from the East-West schism, filioque, Roman Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences, theosis articles to this one unfortunately even more so as that this article has just been copyedited. Esoglou has decided to come to this article and merge it with the article contemplation. Which is inappropriate as theoria is used in theology in the West where as the West does not use called whats called philosophical contemplation to express, theoria. The West calls it philosophical contemplation. As Esoglou is throwing out a theologian as a philosopher and is using this one individual's ideas against the International Society of Neoplatonism teachings on the one of Plotinus. As the one can not be contemplation since it is the one thing that is to be "contemplated" (Ennead VI.9.4) OR more correctly it's emanations as the one is above contemplation. Contemplation is an activity and the one is void of activity. The nous or demiurge or Zeus is the act (action, activity) of contemplation. The one is not cause or source the one has no activity only potential as the one is the primordial substance that is formless and without consciousness it is pure substance or being yet beyond being (as consciousness i.e. axiology) only it's second emanation or hypostasis has, is consciousness or nous (activity) and it is contemplation and it contemplates the one. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The One cannot, strictly speaking, be referred to as a source or a cause, since these terms imply movement or activity, and the One, being totally self-sufficient, has no need of acting in a creative capacity (VI.9.8). Yet Plotinus still maintains that the One somehow ‘emanates’ or ‘radiates’ existents. This is accomplished because the One effortlessly “‘overflows’ and its excess begets an other than itself” (V.2.1, tr. O’Brien 1964) — this ‘other’ is the Intelligence (Nous), the source of the realm of multiplicity, of Being. However, the question immediately arises as to why the One, being so perfect and self-sufficient, should have any need or even any ‘ability’ to emanate or generate anything other than itself. In attempting to answer this question, Plotinus finds it necessary to appeal, not to reason, but to the non-discursive, intuitive faculty of the soul; this he does by calling for a sort of prayer, an invocation of the deity, that will permit the soul to lift itself up to the unmediated, direct, and intimate contemplation of that which exceeds it (V.1.6). When the soul is thus prepared for the acceptance of the revelation of the One, a very simple truth manifests itself: that what, from our vantage-point, may appear as an act of emanation on the part of the One, is really the effect, the necessary life-giving supplement, of the disinterested self-sufficiency that both belongs to and is the One. “In turning toward itself The One sees. It is this seeing that constitutes The Intelligence” (V.1.7, tr. O’Brien). Therefore, since the One accomplishes the generation or emanation of multiplicity, or Being, by simply persisting in its state of eternal self-presence and impassivity, it cannot be properly called a ‘first principle,’ since it is at once beyond number, and that which makes possible all number or order (cf. V.1.5). [15]

Where did/does the article say that the One is a source or a cause of anything? If not, what is the point of the quotation immediately above? A better quotation would be "The One does not act to produce a cosmos or a spiritual order, but simply generates from itself, effortlessly, a power (dunamis) which is at once the Intellect (nous) and the object of contemplation (theôria) of this Intellect. While Plotinus suggests that the One subsists by thinking itself as itself, the Intellect subsists through thinking itself as other, and therefore becomes divided within itself".

As for the other statements that LoveMonkey has made above, he has cited no source for them, and yet objects to the provision of exact quotations of sources such as the Cambridge Companion to Plotinus in response to his citation requests and deletes the quotations! What can I then do but restore the actual citations while leaving side by side with them his citation requests?

For the same reason, I have not dared to remove LoveMonkey's "dead link" tag regarding a citation that is supported by a very live Google Books provision of two editions of the book in question. I have only added a hidden comment that the link is by no means dead.

It would be a good idea to merge this article (on theoria/contemplation) and the one that goes under the title "contemplation", but no merging has (yet) been done. Esoglou (talk) 10:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I quoted the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Enneads Esoglou back at your same lame edit warring nonsense. Only in the mind of Esoglou could he attack the comment and then deny the link or source as it is clearly posted. AND THEN USE THE SAME SOURCE TO CONTRIDICT ITSELF. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

How taking things out of context screws them up

Here is the same Gerson that Esoglou is taking out of context.. Here is this same Gerson on the Stanford article for Plotinus confirming that the One is not contemplation. That the one is itself non-sentient and therefore nothing but substance, eternal substance that the demiurge or nous or Zeus or the energiea of Aristotle contemplates but is not contemplation as at best the one can only properly be describe as dunamus or dynamic or potential energy. Not the contemplation of it. The reason that this is said and is wrong was covered by David Bradshaw's book Aristotle East and West and is why to say that the One is anything other than dunamus energeia is WRONG. The one is not contemplation as it is a nonsentent essences. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

"The first derivation from the One is Intellect. Intellect is the locus of the full array of Platonic Forms, those eternal and immutable entities that account for or explain the possibility of intelligible predication. Plotinus assumes that without such Forms, there would be no non-arbitrary justification for saying that anything had one property rather than another. Whatever properties things have, they have owing to there being Forms whose instances these properties are. But that still leaves us with the very good question of why an eternal and immutable Intellect is necessarily postulated along with these Forms.

The historical answer to this question is in part that Plotinus assumed that he was following Plato who, in Timaeus (30c; cf. Philebus 22c), claimed that the Form of Intelligible Animal was eternally contemplated by an intellect called ‘the Demiurge’. This contemplation Plotinus interpreted as cognitive identity, since if the Demiurge were contemplating something outside of itself, what would be inside of itself would be only an image or representation of eternal reality (see V 5) -- and so, it would not actually know what it contemplates, as that is in itself. ‘Cognitive identity’ then means that when Intellect is thinking, it is thinking itself. Further, Plotinus believed that Aristotle, in book 12 of his Metaphysics and in book 3 of his De Anima supported both the eternality of Intellect (in Aristotle represented as the Unmoved Mover) and the idea that cognitive identity characterized its operation." Gerson [16] LoveMonkey (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

CONTEMPLATION can not be done without intellect. The one is in its pure essence is non sentient or without intellect. It is a formless principle of being and the Ones' sentience or consciousness of itself is the Two or the Dyad or nous called Demiurge or the second hypostasis. Esoglou is REALLY REALLY REALLY SCREWING up and abusing his sources by taking them out of context and therefore misrepresenting what they are actually saying as a whole or overview. As the One is not contemplation it is potential. Dear lord next Esoglou will deny the entire debate at the heart of metaphysics and substance theory. Esoglou will have to rewrite about of wikipedia to do it he can start with the Avicenna#Metaphysical doctrine, since he is so Europe centric in his correctness. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Love, if you disagree with the sources - for instance, the one that says that "the One ... generates from itself, effortlessly, a power (dunamis) which is at once the Intellect (nous) and the object of contemplation (theôria) of this Intellect" - and prefer your own unsourced ideas - for instance, that it is the One that is dunamis - take it up with the sources, not with me. Esoglou (talk) 14:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not the one whom disagrees with Professor Moore's articles I am in AGREEMENT WITH him as I have been for all the years I have been on wiki and his work started the edit war I had in order to create much of the Neoplatonism's content here on Wikipedia Esoglou. You again do not know what you are posting. You are distorting and oversimplifying Plotinus to the point of completely distorting and undermining his work. You are ignorant of the whole Neoplatonic community as Gerson has had to revise much of what he wrote 15 years ago. He was WRONG. Here is John D. Turner for example clarifying that the one as itself has no sentience it's sentience is its second emanation called the second hypostasis or the dyad. [17] You are wrong to post what has been shown as Roman Catholic theology and not actual Greek philosophy. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

READ OUT LOUD TO YOURSELF WHAT TURNER JUST SAID. The second hypostasis of the one called the Dyad is the one's CONTEMPLATOR. The one is not contemplation its is non sentient infinite dunamis energeia (potential actuality). It by itself has no sentience and therefore is not contemplation. It is the object of intuitive contemplation only is as much as what is manifest can elude to it as it is nonsentient non conscious substance from which the mind (nous) organization is called "reality". LoveMonkey (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
THE ONE CAN NOT CONTEMPLATE BY ITSELF AS IT'S CONSCIOUSNESS IS IT'S SECOND EMANATION THE DEMIURGE OR NOUS. How can something be contemplation if it in itself has to have a second component in order to contemplate? How can it? It can't. Poor word choice in your terribly poor attempt for the Roman Catholic church to paint the Eastern Orthodox Neoplatonic again Esoglou. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You agree then with what Moore said in the quotation above, identifying the δύναμις in question with the Intellect, not with the One. And Turner makes no statement to the contrary. So we are all in agreement on that matter. Esoglou (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Stop attempting to post for me. I have posted what I have posted. Moore is a member of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies.[18] They both makes statements to the contrary and this is nothing more than your opinion and interpretation. Both things that have caused your wiki hounding on several of the article I have worked on to turn those articles into obfuscated nonsense. It is shame here as this article was just copyedited but I am sure you relish that. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, what Moore said has been quoted here. No contrary statement by Turner has been quoted. You say you agree with Moore. Enough. Esoglou (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is Esoglou coming to this article and asking to be informed about this field of study AFTER Esoglou radically rewrites the article and then revert wars over keeping his ill informed and distorted content? Where does Moore or Turner say that the one is contemplation? THEY DON'T and if they did they they have deviated greatly from what is acceptable about the teaching of the One. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Content dispute

Fellow editors, particularly LoveMonkey and Esoglou, let us consider the content here. There are discussions above regarding retitling the article to limit its scope to Eastern Christianity's notion of theoria (translated to Latin as contemplatio). There is another objection in #Wiki hounding that suggests that content from Contemplation was merged into this article. There does exist an article on Contemplative prayer, as well as several others, that have a Western slant, while referring to their Eastern analogues.

It is my impression that the content should be "normalized" in order to separate the topics more properly and avoid duplication. I think that the sections on Athens and Plotinus should be condensed and placed into a 'Philosophical foundations' section or something of the like. Wikipedia already contains abundant information on each of those topics in their proper articles. I am not entirely familiar with the Eastern Christian tradition of theoria or contemplative prayer, but I am studying these philosophers at this time (and Catholic doctrine) and it seems that we need to sort out the coincidence of terminology between the Greek philosophers who used the term and the Eastern Church, which uses the term because its proper language is Greek and the philosophical understanding of theoria seemed to suit the theological notion (please correct me if this is wrong).

Essentially, we need to decide whether this article treats of the Theoria of the Eastern Orthodox Church (and refers to Contemplative Prayer in the Western Christian practice), or whether it should focus on the Greek Philosophical notion of theoria and the grasping of universal and eternal realities. If there is such a distinction to be made, then I propose branching the article along that line. –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 14:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I take it that you are proposing changing this article from one on theoria to one on Eastern Orthodox ideas about theoria. Am I right?

I don't think that what Plato and company said about contemplation - since they spoke Greek, they used the Greek word for it - should be considered as no more than a mere philosophical foundation for just one of the later uses of the word. Esoglou (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Paul and the massive amount of work I have contributed to the article I thought was clear that it was keeping the focus of the article within the limits of the article being Christian theology. Esoglou has several articles that I have worked on and that "out of the blue" Esoglou then decides without any talkpage input, to rewrite and restructure to make then compatible with his Roman Catholic point of view at the expense of denying that there is a Greek Orthodox one and or that the Greek Orthodox one is any different then his. Esoglou has now decide to take his messed up view of Plotinus and Neoplatonism and argue over it in this article. This nonsense is a very common tactic and has no place here on Wikipedia. [19], [20] The level of ignorance and disinformation contained in the New Advent Hesychasm article is beyond insulting and incredible and it seems that many Roman Catholic apologists want to claim that there is no difference between Eastern (Greek) Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. And when they get shown that they are misinformed they then attempt to poison the well so to speak and then start claiming that the Eastern church is corrupted with Gnosticism and Neoplatonism while they themselves can be shown to be exactly that. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic church is entitled to keep their messed up and incorrect interruptions of Aristotle and Plotinus but the Greeks are also entitled to their point of view as well. Esoglou is here to do nothing but distort what he does not like. As he would not even know about this article if he was not edit warring with me on other articles here in specific the Roman Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences article. Esoglou is not here to improve only spread disinformation with his wiki hounding.[21] LoveMonkey (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I have added to the article, which, as it stands, is not about Eastern Orthodox ideas only of theoria. If we change the title to Eastern Orthodox idea of theoria, then everything will be clear. Theoria in a broader sense will be dealt with elsewhere, presumably in the contemplation article. But the article now claims to be about theoria, and the religious sense that the word has acquired is only one section of that field. Excising other sections, as long as the article is supposed to be about the wider field, is unjustified. Esoglou (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

There ya go Esoglou talk and post but don't listen and read. I posted Christian theological article not strictly an Eastern Orthodox theological article but considering that there is already a Roman Catholic article from the Roman Catholic POV as Paul points out this is nothing but a Roman Catholic POV editor (Esoglou) coming to a Greek Orthodox theological article and forcing their POV as it is attested that there already is a Roman Catholic article exclusively about this subject. As far as I can tell the Contemplative prayer article is almost exclusively Roman Catholic POV and very little if any Greek Orthodox is in it. As I have already shown that the Roman Catholic church speaks of Heyschasm and Gregory Palamas as heresy while allowing the Eastern Catholic (for now at least) to venerate him. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

According to its title, this article is about theoria, not about "Christian theological ideas of theoria" Right? If you want to exclude Roman Catholic views entirely, the solution is simple: change the title to "Eastern Orthodox views of theoria".

If you think the contemplative prayer article needs more information on Eastern Orthodox writers on the subject, please add the material. In accordance with its title, it wishes to include them. Esoglou (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that this article is about the Christian concept of Theoria. I think that the Greek Orthodox already have a contemplative prayer article under the Greek name of the concept, as the Hesychasm article is already written. This is the same nonsense over how we as Eastern Orthodox can not post the name we use in the middle East because it is written in Greek. As the Eastern Orthodox in the East call themselves the Orthodox Catholic church. But since the Latins now OWN the Greek word Catholic (and don't and won't use the Latin translation of the word Universa) this is just one more example of a Roman Catholic hijacking the Greek language from the Greeks, now isn't Esoglou? I think the term for it is called cultural theft. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

So we merge all the material of this article into other articles? The part on theoria as Greek Orthodox religious contemplation into Hesychasm and the rest of the material into Contemplation? No objection on my part. Esoglou (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Go back and read what was posted here by me and the other editor. Not reading what has already been posted and suggested by me and the other editor about this article is the very type of rude behavior you Esoglou continue to engage in on various articles you have already came to and edit warred on. Articles that I have made sizable contributions to. Post here what part of what editor Paul or me posted that gave you Esoglou the idea that either of us was suggesting what you just posted. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Better yet, define what Esoglou believes the term branching of the article means. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is time for Paul to intervene again. LM and I are getting nowhere. Esoglou (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Tripartite proposal

I see that I was hasty in my proposition and did not consider all its ramifications. My goal here is to help break down the edit war in order to achieve Wikipedia's goal of providing accurate and complete (encyclopedic) information on every notable topic introduced.

From my reading of the article and the lengthy discussion here, there are 3 primary topics within this article (in no particular order):

Theoria ('contemplation' not necessarily connected with either the Catholic/Western Christian tradition or the Greek/Russian Christian tradition, though it surely predates them and, in many ways, provides a foundation for them)
Theoria and contemplative prayer as a means of arriving at union with God in the Eastern tradition
Contemplation, contemplative prayer, and the mystical sight-based knowledge of God in the Western tradition

I agree with Esoglou's initial objection that 'theoria' is a term from Greek used by philosophers before the rise of the Greek Orthodox church, and therefore it is unfair and mis-representative that the article bearing such a title should refer only to the understanding of the latter. It is also important to note that the two Christian churches did not develop in isolation, but rather parted ways after a time of common tradition, which itself followed after the "ancient" notion of theoria; this leads to the case in which each of the three articles will need to refer to each other.

I also recognize that the existing articles that cover related topics vary widely in quality and coverage of their respective topics. I tend to disagree that the non-/pre-Christian thought regarding theoria should be extracted and merged into 'contemplation' because the very fact that the Greek name is the primary label speaks about the culture and tradition within which it was conceived and developed. The characterization of 'theoria' as 'contemplatio' in Latin is a significant distinction.

Further, it is not the case that the Platonic and Aristotelian notions of theoria were developed in the absence of a religious system. Surely the ancient Greeks were not big on prayer and contemplation as a whole, but their notion of universals and deities necessarily frames their outlook and thought.

Presupposing that all this information should not reside in a single article, and given my above considerations (I do not pretend to be exhaustive, so please contribute any further considerations), what are your thoughts on how the content can be divided?

A caveat to the above 3-article division: the discussion that characterizes the discrepancies between Eastern and Western notions of theoria/contemplation would be somewhat orphaned and would probably lack sufficient context if left in the "primary" 'theoria' article. Your thoughts?

Please maintain a tone respectful of your fellow editors in this discussion. It is useful to point out destructive behavior, but not to exhibit it in return. Thank you. –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 00:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

My first thought is I am unclear on if you want this article branched or not. My opinion on the idea that contemplation is the pondering of something is as a base and general and all inclusive as one could get. But the West is still not getting it right on what the East means by theoria. Theoria means that one has seen the light of Tabor and has experienced ecstasis. Say like Saint Sophrony it is not to get a degree from Oxford in theology and then see if that makes God give you the gift of the Tabor light (hint: it won't). It is to see this light and go into this light. It is the experience God in this life as Moses did and St Paul for example. This gift in Orthodoxy is available to everyone and is part of being Orthodox it also celebrated every year in what is called Pascha. It really is as simple as that. One derives knowledge of God (i.e. gnosis) from the experience of God (i.e. theoria). True gnosis is Orthodox gnosiology. [22] LoveMonkey (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Paul. I think I agree with your initial paragraphs, though not perfectly with your proposed tripartite division. I will start with the paragraph beginning "I also recognize".

If this article continues to be titled "Theoria", rather than "Theoria (Eastern Orthodox)", it seems obvious that the pre-Christian and early-Christian uses of the word should remain in the article. I don't think that "the characterization of theoria as contemplatio in Latin is a significant distinction". Both the Greek word theoria and the Latin word contemplatio are rendered in English as "contemplation". The sources about the subject in the writings of the Greek philosophers naturally sometimes quote the Greek word, but they also freely use the English word when reporting what the philosophers said. Similarly, when speaking of the Christian writers of the early centuries, sources sometimes, though rarely, use the Latin word contemplatio, but almost always use the English word, which differs by a single letter.

Both theoria and contemplatio were words with religious overtones from the beginning. Before taking on a philosophical meaning, theoria was used to mean participation (viewing) in a religious rite, as spectators, not actors, especially by an official delegation from one's city. And contemplatio is associated with templum, a temple: at least one source says that this word originally referred to a sacred area where augurs went to view omens, such as bird flights. (I can search for this source again, if challenged.) With Plotinus, of course, "contemplation" had overtones that, perhaps more in the mind of Christians than in his own mind, were strongly religious. By the way, I don't think that Aristotle's idea of universals was at all religious, but I would not insist on that.

If LM would indicate whether he accepts the division into three distinct articles (the "3-article division", corresponding to the three "primary topics" that you discern within the present article), perhaps we could advance from there.

LM insists on an article centred on how Eastern Orthodox theologians use the word theoria. He sees a necessary link between contemplation in this sense and the hesychast prayer exercise, and a link also to belief that the divine light perceived in contemplation is not just a mental light but is perceived by the senses (do I perhaps misunderstand him?). This, I think, sets a very narrow limit on the meaning, making it very different from the meaning that contemplation had for Plato, Aristotle, and even Plotinus. But if the article were given an appropriate title, realization of LM's wish would indeed be feasible.

I don't think the article on contemplative prayer should be limited to the Western tradition alone. As you yourself have indicated, there was Christian contemplative prayer before any division between Eastern and Western Christianity. Today too, Christian contemplative prayer employs many different methods. John Cassian's, for instance, was not a repetition of the Jesus Prayer. In the West no one presentation of contemplative prayer and no one method is considered official. Only in the Byzantine East (not, for instance, in the Coptic East) is there a tendency to consider dogmatic one single particular interpretation and method. There is no reason why this idea could not be mentioned in the general article on contemplative prayer, accompanying the mention with a reference to the main article about the idea.

You speak of the section on (alleged) "theological discrepancies between Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity". I don't think this belongs in the article – or in any of the three proposed articles. What necessary connection is there between contemplation and the varied pictures of hell in Eastern Christianity (yes, as the article shows, more than one picture is presented in Eastern Christianity) and in Western Christianity? Why should the article include information on the contradictory views held by Eastern Orthodox writers on the contemplative character of a certain Augustine of Hippo? The view of Augustine that LM insists on has been described by an Eastern Orthodox archbishop (who was only an archimandrite when he wrote it) as "clearly outside the mainstream of Orthodox thought and careful scholarship". But LM is very much attached to this, and for that reason alone it can remain in an article that treats of his idea of theoria, if he insists. The material has been lifted from the article Roman Catholic-Eastern Orthodox theological differences, and I think having the material in that other article is quite enough. But, as I said, if LM insists ... Esoglou (talk) 09:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul I think it is very important to note that modern Greek philosophers think that Western sources are uninformed to say the least. To be more specific they think the West is completely wrong and thats not just starting with Plato but Greek culture in general. Now this is not say for example that the Greeks did not get things wrong as Zahi Hawass will tell you flat out that Iamblichus was so completely wrong on Egyptian mythos that the Greeks had themselves invented a new and completely different Egypt; a different Egypt from one the Egyptians knew of themselves. So too is the case here. It is not a matter of opinion here it is a matter of understanding. The West is wrong and preaches wrong and uninformed, misinformed about allot of what is called Greek. It is not my place to correct that. I can only point out from those sources who have been designated to speak for the Orthodox to the West and really only reflect as best I can what they have said. Thats what this is from my input. Not so much a learn to speak and read Greek thing but rather. What are the differences and how to express them as best as has been done for me. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Keeping one general article on theoria

Thank you both for your responses. I now see that it should be reasonable to maintain the content that is currently in the article, but I do propose some reorganization. The first couple sections are many and short... since the total coverage of the article is quite extensive, the context and origin information should be consolidated. I do not know how best to label it other than 'Introduction'; maybe that is sufficient. I see this article containing the following sections:

lead section, which could be longer and incorporate some of those short sections
Introduction, which would contain the rest of the information before the current "Fourth-century..." section
Greece, which would include the present information on Platonic, Aristotelian, Neoplatonic ideas
Christianity
1. Eastern Orthodox
2. Western, which could just go down as Catholic or Roman Catholic, though I think some of this also applies to Anglican/Episcopal/Lutheran/etc sects of the Western Christianity as a whole.
3. Theological discrepancies

Regarding the comments made above that indicate the Western Church not understanding the Eastern development of thought and Christian doctrine are well-defended, this notion should be represented as such in the article. In reply to removing the theological discrepancies section, I think it is reasonable to include the theological disputes section, if it is placed as indicated above and follows after the independent description of each tradition. This is because the main article on the discrepancies is quite extensive and it would be difficult to refer readers of this long article to that article, which is four times as long and does a point-by-point comparison that is hard to distill to the relevant information.

There were some discrepancies over worthy sources and personal opinions discussed previously. It is somewhat foolish to ask you two, who likely hold your own to be valid, but I ask anyway: Is your source crazy? If your source is sane and addresses the topic, and is a WP:V source familiar to your typical scholar in the field, the information may be included here. However, the information should be well-qualified if, for example, the thinking is not supported by the Eastern church, though the thinker resided within its geographical jurisdiction during a particular time, or some such case. I think it is in the best interest of the readers of Wikipedia to be informed of both correct and incorrect (or incomplete) ideas (with respect to some school of thought) in this history of philosophy, as it were. Treating you in good faith, I do not, at this time, believe you to desire to contribute false or misleading information, but we must take care to ensure that we do not mislead readers. I am not familiar with the particular sources of which the above comments treat, so I cannot make such a judgment. Something I think I "hear" in the arguments presented is that Western thinkers' characterizations of Greek thought are mistaken - I do not see why we need "outsiders" describing each school of thought (in the empirical sciences, "outsiders" are necessary) - I would be in favor of removing these references, to be replaced with a primary source or a secondary source within that school.

–Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 13:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No objection on my part to keeping a single article about the whole of the theoria idea. If LM wants to have an article devoted especially to the Byzantine idea, he can propose a change of title and change the content to suit the title, and I will not object to that either.

Is the present section headed "General observations" worth keeping? I didn't dare raise this question before. How many people are really capable of understanding its contents?

I think it will be more productive if I make no comment now on the question that Paul raised in the last paragraph of his latest contribution. Esoglou (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope and I pray and I act in good faith that Mr Paul does not let his Roman Catholic religion bias him. I have every right and need to make that statement after this editor posted that which appears to question the sanity of some of the sources. Please pretty please clarify that. As for example Saint Sophrony was a man very much from this modern era and has only recently passed away. As he is quite famous for speaking of the uncreated light or the Taborian Light. As I have already pointed out in m posting is this the person you are saying we need to confirm if they are sane? What about say Professor George Metallinos from the University of Athens? How is it that we might go about confirming their sanity. What is the criteria that we should use for that? In specific? Since it appears you are saying people whom religious experiences are now to have their sanity questioned. This is starting to sound like Piteşti prison all over again (may God Bless our beloved Father Gheorghe Calciu-Dumitreasa). What does Paulmnguyen mean by making the statement "Is your source crazy?" My how Roman Catholic of you. So much for the revelation of Christianity, as such a thing now makes one crazy. Someone can't be saved or speak of God from experience but rather they are only valid in doing so if they have a degree. Now ain't that Roman Catholic. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think since this discussion has been hijacked and is now becoming an ecumenical - anti ecumenical article. It should be restructured to show the history of mystic or revelation as the heart and soul of the Christian movement. As Lossky did this with his book Seeing God [23] or Vision of God. As Lossky is not called ecumenical and many Westerns are offended by his works calling them polemical (as anyone knows of his Yves Congar dialog). It should reflect at least in the Greek Orthodox section how gnosis is used by the Church to overcome it's cultural wars. As it was true gnosis or vision of God that was used to defeat the pagans and their various mutations i.e. gnosticism and then later in it's conflict with Islam (which is still ongoing) and then further in it's defeat of atheism in Russia and the Baltic states. Since we are all of the sudden talking about full scope. As what is happening to European Christianity in using reason to try and justify a belief in God is failing. Trying as the Mohammadian to validate free will and God by drug experiences, pleasure (see the Turks) and Culture is leading to agnosticism replacing the gnosis lacking apophaticism that they have embraced and is destroying their respective cultures as well. Now the atheist regimes this is another thing. This is allot of history and I was just trying to touch base on the theoria as a theological term but now since the terms history is so important... well lets see how sincere that statement is. As the mystery religions (and their allies the gnostics) gave people metaphysical systems to contemplate and then stated that they could give their life meaning via this gnosis (derived from thinking and or rationalizing metaphysical concepts to explain creation the ontology of occult and science), it was Christianity that came and gave them the trust vision vision of God God in pure revelation God in this life that made martyrdom not a task at all, but a gift. And people once they saw the light did not need to rationalize anything including it. The gnostics did that stuff and tried to buy and sell it to people etc. etc while themselves never really experiencing God first hand but only selling second hand gnosis as the saint have told people. This is as it is in the East as is taught culturally. As is from that perspective. How then might the get condensed down to fit into an article here on wikipedia. For the East even the tip of this iceberg is MASSIVE. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we could cover Lossky's coverage of this in his book The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church also and the goal of obtaining the theoria to have gnosis derived from the theoria. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

In response to both of your objections to my question, "Is your source crazy?", I admit it was a bit rash of me to pose my question in such a way. I meant that unless a quoted or referenced source was actually not a legitimate part of this topic, it should be included, and we should find a suitable way to include ideas that, while they may have been proven incorrect up to the present point in time (today), they should be included for historical reasons. Thinkers who clearly oppose what seems to be a coherent trend in one school of thought should either be treated in an appropriate chronological order within the existing article or consolidated and treated at the end of the section treating the "mainstream" progression of that school of thought.

The reorganization I proposed was acceptable to Esoglou; LoveMonkey did not affirm it as such yet. Please be bold if you agree (I don't mean to put the work on your shoulders - I'll move it around if you so wish).

I think that the proposed reorganization, while it seems to me that it would benefit the article, does not resolve the issue for which I entered this discussion, namely, the dispute over relevance of sources. I will reiterate, that if the source is germane to the topic of theoria, considered historically, philosophically, and theologically, the content is worthy of inclusion in this article, in my view. Moreover, it should be presented as such. I have not a critical enough eye to discern and verify each citation here, or criticize any particular line.

I will not be on Wikipedia until near this time tomorrow, so if either of you feels so compelled, I think we have reached very near consensus on reorganizing this article, and I, for one, now welcome boldness in pushing this forward.

–Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 02:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I must leave the boldness to you: I fear a reorganization by me could be counterproductive. Besides, we await a statement by LM on the proposal to reorganize the article (without, at least immediately, deleting parts of it). And I do think that the best course is to leave reorganizing the article to someone - anyone - other than LM and me. Esoglou (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I will only say this for now. Try, do it whatever. Lets see it first. I still think that much of this should be included in the contemplative prayer article if it is such the Western way of treating this. I personally think the article should be narrowed down to just being an article about the Eastern Orthodox use as a theological term. As there already is an article called contemplation and an article called contemplative prayer and an article on meditation and a disambigious link called Contemplation (disambiguation). I added a link to the disambigious link and it keeps getting removed as Esoglou removed it here recently. [24] Please note I have never touched the contemplative prayer article and there is no wikilink from that article to this article. I find this an obvious hypocrisy as in that article there is no mention of Plato, Aristotle or Plotinus where here the Roman Catholic editor Esoglou insists and editwars over that content. As again it appears that Roman Catholicism wishes to speak for the Orthodox and tell people what it is that the Orthodox believe since we just can't seem to do that for ourselves. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Love, for pointing out the lack of a wikilink from the contemplative prayer to this article. I have now remedied the omission. I think Plato etc. would be out of place in an article on contemplative prayer, but they are very relevant to an article on theoria, to which they attached such importance. Esoglou (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No. And in English no one goes around talking about theoria and Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus they talk about contemplation. You know this and if it is that big a deal then as I have attempted repeatedly and pointed out that I have. This article can very easily note in it's introduce it is exclusive to the theological term as used by the Orthodox Church as Romanides and Lossky where from the 21 century unlike Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This argument appeals to me: that 'theoria' is the precise term used by the Eastern Church to refer to this mode of prayer or spiritual activity, while its close cousin in the Western Christian Churches uses 'contemplation'. IMO this disparity of terminology is sufficient to separate them, provided the distinction is identified in the lead sections of both articles. I would even venture to say we should remove the Western Christianity section from this article and leave the section on theological discrepancies as a subsection of the one on Eastern Orthodox Christianity. The lead could still be consolidated better. I'll try something tonight. The links between other articles on contemplation, contemplative prayer, christian contemplation, christian meditation, etc look fairly well-linked at a glance; I'll also look at these later, though it does not immediately impact the theoria article. –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 17:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I must disagree. You might as well say that, because of the disparity of terminology whereby Eastern Orthodox use the word Pascha (an instance is found above, with the date stamp 00:39, 19 October) for what in English is generally called Easter, Wikipedia must have a special Wikipedia article on Pascha. Theoria is the Greek word for what in English is generally called contemplation, and the meaning of the Greek word is not limited to a Christian religious activity alone - just like the meaning of the English word. This is the English Wikipedia, and it does not need separate articles for "theoria" (Greek) to represent Eastern Orthodox traditions, for "contemplatio" (Latin) to represent Roman Catholic traditions, and for whatever is the corresponding Coptic or Armenian word, to represent Oriental Orthodox traditions. Esoglou (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

More games, my how Esoglou loves to resort to forensics. NO. Again do not call the Coptic church Coptic and then say they don't use the language name COPTIC. I say lets create an article for them for their term for this like terminology. As for Pascha, the Hebrew word is Pesah. And so much by Esoglou's standard for St Melito of Sardis! Esoglou did exactly the opposite and earlier this year insisting and edit warring and saying that using Pascha instead of the Western Christian and European term Eastern for that article would confuse people and make them think I was posting about a brothel called Pascha (brothel). The Hebrew term is not used exclusive to Hebrew as again in Hebrew it is Pesah, but how often do people in the West go around talking about theoria? They don't. Where as in the Western news as a common practice refer to Eastern Orthodox Easter as Pascha. Its on peoples TVs. [25] Of course everything for the Eastern Orthodox has to be approved by Esoglou first. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

May I just explain that my earlier remark to LM was on the inadvisability for him to wikilink his mentions of "Pascha" to the disambiguation article Pascha, which gives as one meaning of the word a German brothel! I also told him at the same time that the Hebrew term for Passover is not Pascha but פסח, transliterated as Pesach or Pesah. Esoglou (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

So Esoglou says it as a standard understanding (a word that is a translation of a word from another language) is the same as a loan word. The criteria is the same until Esoglou decides when it is not. Theoria isn't a translation from Greek to another language. So I am at a loss as to how the example of Pascha applies here. Also Esoglou was wrong about removing the link in his previous episode of edit warring with me when Esoglou could have just corrected the problem. Esoglou likes to silence and cover up and misdirect to make sure no one might depict themselves in a way against Esoglou's conventional wisdom. I mean it's not like there wasn't a Crimean War right (how strange that played into Greek genocide). I mean the Orthodox can't have a war against Muslims oppression? No no the English and French will see to it that Orthodox will never have their Hagia Sophia, at least not unless it is Europe that gives it to them. See here's an edit to Sophia I just made today. [26] Lets see how long that clarification will be allowed to stand? LoveMonkey (talk) 13:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Orthodox theology and Plotinus' One

Why is there no mention in this article's contributions by Esoglou about what Vladimir Lossky stated about Neoplatonism? About this big difference between Orthodox Christianity and Neoplatonism? Why is Esoglou only taking a Western Scholastic history or opinion and posting in such a way that makes that opinion one that appears universally accepted when Lossky and his father N. O. Lossky wrote extensively on the subject. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You ask: "What is there no mention of Lossky?" The remedy is in your hands. Please put him in. I had no notion that the quoted views of scholars such as Professor Edward Moore of the St. Elias School of Orthodox Theology were "a Western Scholastic history or opinion". I still do not have that notion. Esoglou (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of Lossky by YOU, Esoglou is what I asked since you are working on an Eastern Orthodox theological article. It would seem you should at least know a little about the subject and it's more famous participants and what their positions are. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be better if you did not attack other editors. Instead of making accusations you should state succinctly what you think is wrong with the article. Reading your posts above it is very difficult for me to understand what you actually want. Ruslik_Zero 18:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello Ruslik this is a long history and not something exclusive to this article. The editor is wiki hounding. I am allowed to point that out. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I really wish DGG would finally step in on Esoglou as he promised that he would after the summer break. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Single introduction

I support Paul's collapsing of the previously separate opening sections into a single introduction. The second paragraph's opaqueness already existed. Esoglou (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The 8 forms

I originally wanted to include St Gregory of Sinai's eight forms of contemplation from the Philokalia's "On Commandments and Doctrines" passage 130, but couldn't quite figure out how the teaching on contemplative form as asceticism might be incorporated into the article. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of contributions - RfC

Is it legitimate in this particular case for an editor to delete all the edits made in response to the deleting editor's several citations requests? Esoglou (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC) (This is in continuation of the "discussion" immediately above. Esoglou (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC))

So its right off the bat an RFC when the reason given is that Esoglou blanket deleted and rewrote contributions without discussion on the talkpage. Esoglou has made edits that I have not reverted and rather than address Esoglou rewriting the Eastern Orthodox position (which is a conflict of interest and a direct violation of No POV) and creating WP:OR in posting Esoglou's opinion in those contributions Esoglou instead posts an RFC. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for responding at least a little more to the point than Taiwan boi did. Would you tell me how you qualify as "rewriting the Eastern Orthodox position" my response to your questioning the statements about the attitude to contemplation in the West, by providing citations from Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Merton, Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski, and James Harpur, and from Pope Saint Gregory the Great in response to your questioning the Western interest in "seeing" the Eternal Brightness? Esoglou (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Again Again Again Again. Why do you continue to think that what people think is what the Wikipedia project is about? It is about valid sources from whatever perspective giving clarity on that perspective. The tired old example of using a enemy's sources to validate a perspective is so obvious. You don't even know valid Orthodox sources and you have a history of creating your own research to undermine Orthodox theologians. Theologians whose work you have not read and would not know about if you had no edit warred against me. Here is an article from a Orthodox theology student about the exact same nonsense [27]. Esoglou is doing exactly what is talked about among the Orthodox. THE SAME BEHAVIOR instead of getting people as Orthodox to reconcile his actions only makes us feel more shut out and silenced. But Esoglou go right ahead on and keep ignoring what people are saying to you as you think your righteous in your head and that justifies your censoring, distortion and slander. Your way guarantees just like the article states that there will be no reconciliation as you continue to silence what is the Orthodox's position that they maintain as rightful points of objection. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

After that tirade about various other subjects, would you now give some explanation of why you deleted the replies to your requests for citations about Western views (which I gave using "valid sources from the Western perspective giving clarity on that Western perspective"!)? If you don't, I am surely free to restore them. Esoglou (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

LM gave you a perfectly good explanation. You are simply misrepresenting a position on which you are clearly uninformed. Not only that, but you are doing so after being asked repeatedly not to. Not only that, but you are deliberately targeting the views of a theological opponent, which exposes your POV editing for what it is.--Taiwan boi (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Taiwan boi, why do you insult me by saying that I am uninformed about Thomas Aquinas? About Thomas Merton? About Gregory the Great? How much of their writings have you read, or how much have you studied about them to enable you to make that accusation against me? Esoglou (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. I never said you were uniformed about any of those writers.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleting those writers is what this section is about. If you want to attack me for alleged ignorance of other matters, start another section for that attack. Esoglou (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Again and again and again and again. Esoglou wastes peoples time. GO READ THE LINK I POSTED ESOGLOU ITS ABOUT THOMAS AQUINAS AND ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY. You are frustrating editors by insisting on being heard while not wanting to listen. You have your opinion which you refuse to source and yet when I post an Orthodox theology student's opinion from Fordham you ignore it. AS USUAL. How is it that you want people to listen to you and your points and will not even go and read a current article about how Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not compatible theologically? Now to show other people who might be reading. The article link I posted early in reply to Esoglou that he completely ignored and disrespected (calling it a tirade).

"To Catholics who insist that we share a common faith, I wish to ask a question that may sound flippant or even abrasive. A common faith? Really? Are you ready to de-canonize Thomas Aquinas and repudiate his scholasticism? Because Orthodox faith is something incompatible with the "theology" of Thomas Aquinas, and if you don't understand this, you're missing something fundamental to Orthodox understandings of theology. And if you're wondering why I used quotes around "theology," let me explain. Or, perhaps better, let me give an example."

How the hell is anyone to talk to Esoglou? When he flat out disregards those sources out of hand? And then creates WP:OR to attempt to undermine them? Why can Esoglou not leave the Orthodox perspective alone (theological articles and all I mean I have not gone to the Immaculate conception and edit warred)? This article is not about the Roman Catholic ANYTHING. It was a theological article about what specific theological difference the Orthodox hold as their perspective AGAINST Roman Catholicism. Eosglou came into this article and rewrote AFTER IT WAS REWRITTEN FOR COPYEDIT. And merge allot of content into it from the ambiguous article on the subject of contemplation. In reality buried the Orthodox perspective wayyyy down in the article. Esoglou who is NOT an Orthodox theologian and could not name any Orthodox theologians before editing any of these articles and has since not explained why he is even editing this article. Is here taking this subject which in the modern world is about as the name theoria, the Greek Orthodox theological concept. NO ONE in the West calls contemplation anything but contemplation and Esoglou added TONS of content that is not at all the history of the term as it was used in the Greek church from Orthodox theologians he at best has a passing remark from Louth whom is not held in as high a position as Vladimir Lossky. Esoglou is misquoting misusing and distorted in order to hide or discredit Orthodox theologians and their teachings on the difference theologically between the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox and he needs to STOP. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want to talk about all those matters, you are free to start a new section. This section is about your deletion of my responses to your citation requests. Esoglou (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thats it thats what you have to say about ignoring and disrespecting Orthodox sources? [28] Post here Esoglou what Eastern Orthodox books you have read about Eastern Orthodox theology. Post here what books you personally own about the subject. Post here where any of the Orthodox theologians that address the subject theoria deviate from what I originally posted and contributed to this article. AND DO THAT BEFORE ASKING ANYTHING OF ME. You are a POV pushing edit warring editor who wiki hounded me and that is how you found out about this article was you stalking me on wikipedia. You never knew about this subject before you followed my contributions and found it. And that means that you have no business editing it (other then to protect or push your POV) just like you have no business rewriting Orthodox perspectives like you did on the Roman Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences article. You are at the least engaging in a conflict of interest. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Still no explanation of why you deleted the particular edits that this section is about. And you have actually now gone and deleted yet more! Esoglou (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I gave an explanation and enough of one for other editors on this article to see what you are doing. I removed what you did and I have stated what you did. You ignore but want other editors to obe you and your requests and even when they answer you, you don't see it or hear it. Go back in read the edit summaries I posted. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

"You removed what I did" (my responses to your requests for citations), but why did you remove those citations? The only edit summary that you gave when removing them was "revert again Esoglou radically rewrites blanket deletes Eastern Orthodox opinion Again Esoglou does this with no discussion talkpage in order to push esoglou's RCC POV". It seems, then, that you believe it is correct to revert everything I write, even citations from Western writers provided at your own request. If that is not the explanation of why you removed the citations, what is the explanation? Esoglou (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Since no reason has been offered to explain the deletion of precisely these citations of Western writers, and since the editor who deleted them has proceeded to make further changes, I will now restore the deleted edits. If, as I hope, they are not deleted again, I will then remove the request for comment by others. Esoglou (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You have already been given an answer; it is dishonest for you to claim otherwise. If you replace your edit I will remove it again.--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Disconnect in the flow of the article about the role of Revelation in the East

Esoglou edit warring and misrepresenation based on his POV pushing biases aside this passage below needs to be somehow reflected in the article as unbiased as possible. As it captures the essence of the difference and how and where those differences converge. -To Be Transformed by a Vision of Uncreated Light: A Survey on the Influence of the Existential Spirituality of Hesychasm on Eastern Orthodox History by Gregory K. Hillis

Many of these intellectuals compared their plight to that of Hellenistic times, and to that of the West which was in the midst of a cultural renaissance. Such comparison led to a certain nostalgia and longing for the Hellenistic past, and as a result, Hellenistic thought experienced a resurgence within intellectual circles. While still remaining faithful to the Orthodox Church, these fourteenth century humanists endeavoured to interpret theology through the lenses of Hellenistic wisdom. In the words of Vladimir Lossky, "the old hellenism reappears in the writings of the humanists who, formed by their studies of philosophy, wish to see the Cappadocians through the eyes of Plato, Dionysius through the eyes of Proclus, Maximus and John Damascene through the eyes of Aristotle."[30] Therefore, this re-emergence of Hellenistic philosophy owed its origins to a pervading desire to return to an era of bygone greatness, and was not the result of Western influence on the East. At the same time, however, this re-emergence did pose a problem of 'westernisation' for the Eastern Church. By the fourteenth century, scholasticism reigned supreme in the West, meaning that theology largely became subject to rationalistic interpretation on the basis of Aristotelian presuppositions, and became somewhat divorced from personal experience of the divine. Likewise, the humanists in the East endeavoured to bring about a similar form of theological scholasticism whereby reason would be elevated over experience. Consequently, what emerged in Byzantium in the fourteenth century were two very different types of renewal. On the one hand, Byzantine monasticism inaugurated a renaissance of hesychasm - an existential spirituality based on the patristic and ascetic emphasis on theosis. On the other hand, Byzantine humanists inaugurated a renaissance of Hellenism whereby reason prevailed over experience, and patristic theology was subservient to rational thought. It proved to be inevitable that these two schools of thought would come into conflict in what has been labelled as the 'hesychastic controversy.' [29] LoveMonkey (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Section "Theosis" and verifiability

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. That is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true" (WP:V). The section headed "Theosis" needs adjustment to correspond to this core content policy of Wikipedia,

1. The claim is made that theosis is Greek for "reconciliation, union with God" and "glorification". The Greek word instead verifiably means "making divine".

2. The claim is then made that theosis "is expressed as 'Being with God' and having a relationship (God is Heaven, God is the Kingdom of Heaven) that is infinite and unending, glory to glory". Whatever this statement about how "theosis is expressed" means, it is unverified. The source given, a book by Cardinal Daniélou, nowhere uses the word "theosis" (at least, Google Books says that the word is not found in it) and was perhaps cited only because its title includes the three words "glory to glory".

3. A statement by M.C. Steenberg about Barlaam of Seminara is turned into a statement about "the West".

4. A statement follows that a list of Eastern Orthodox theologians hold that Barlaam's criterion "is at the very heart of many theological conflicts between Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Western Christianity". A text by Romanides is given as a source. This text might arguably be taken to support this statement with regard to Romanides himself and Gregory Palamas, but certainly not with regard to Lossky, Hierotheos, Hopko, Loudovikos, Stăniloae, Harakas, who are not mentioned in the text, nor with regard to Symeon the New Theologian, to whom Romanides attributes no statement regarding Western Christianity. A separate citation is given for Hopko, but that source, instead of speaking of theological conflicts, treats of the lack of a classification in the East of saints as "mystics", and of the "tremendous", "inexplicable" and "unfortunate" (as judged by "many Orthodox monastics, theologians and hagiographers") lack in the East of writings by women mystics. (Metallinos is also mentioned, with an extract from ~~an anti-European~~ a Eurosceptic speech by him.) Esoglou (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Point 1

LoveMonkey's replies to Esoglou latest attempt to take over Greek Orthodox theology article and rewrite it to reflect his Roman Catholic POV pushing.

Esoglou wrote
1. The claim is made that theosis is Greek for "reconciliation, union with God" and "glorification". The Greek word instead verifiably means "making divine".

LoveMonkey's response
WP:Undue weight and distortion. What why would I go to a Chicago University to validate what Greek priests and theologians teach? Esoglou is acting like the gnostics (which is the word for heretic). Arguing over the meaning of words. Creating or fabricating his own POV and insisting that this POV be included. This is exactly what Joseph P. Farrell wrote about in his book God, History, & Dialectic where whenever the church isn't enough and won't agree, people go and create their own authority and then claim that authority higher than that of the actual church. I mean all Esoglou has to do now is claim some sort of a conspiracy and he'll have covered all the bases. As in the East Mt Athos is the very example that one follows for the manifestation for the highest ideal of what is Orthodoxy. Here is what is taught at Mt Athos in Greece to the ascetics seeking theosis. [30] Now if one goes to that website and clicks on the definitions page they find the definition of theosis discussed under the title 'On Union With God and Life of Theoria' [31] and there stated as theosis, deification, becoming god by Grace, self-realization, the acquisition of the Holy Spirit, experience of the uncreated light; "glorification" being the term in the Old and New Testaments), which is a purpose of man's life, as presented to us by a saint who experienced it. If one goes to the full text of the book by Archimarite George (which you also can buy from Amazon) [32] Since Esoglou is not Orthodox and does not know any Eastern Orthodox text on the church's teaching of theoria and theosis Esoglou is making things up as he goes and using sources that contradict what is actually available for people to read provided by the Orthodox church. This here is an excellent example as Esoglou wishes to use a third party source to validate what Esoglou wants theosis to mean and direct people away from what the church says. I bet thats partially because allot of the Eastern Orthodox text available for people contains many criticism of Roman Catholicism and Western Christianity in general. All of this and Esoglou also wars against Orthodox sources as this one example here is how he does that. Since what is above is already in the article and Esoglou can not be bother to ACTUALLY read Orthodox SOURCES and see that he is attempting to undermine them even when they are speaking for their perspective. Esoglou has been doing this allot as a continuation of his war against Orthodox theologians, as anyone can see by his blanket deletion of Nellas' teachings on theosis from the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theological differences article. Esoglou actually did that with User:Richard 's help. Esoglou also wholesale deleted H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr. contributions to that article when he had the bioethics thing deleted by him and Richard. [33], [34]. Here is a combination of those many diffs [35] Esoglou does not care to keep consistency with Orthodox sources. Esoglou constantly wants to source Orthodoxy tenets with Roman Catholic, Protestant and secular sources this is another example of Esoglou and respecting or allowing the Orthodox position to be represented by Orthodox. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This source andthis say theosis means "deification", another way of saying "making divine". This source says theosis "literally means to become gods by Grace", yet another way of saying "making divine". None of them says theosis is Greek for "reconciliation, union with God" and "glorification". So still not verified. Esoglou (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

They are already verified and you are being argumentative Romanides is already in the article plenty as is Lossky and both refer to theosis as this as do the sources I posted in my response. Again you refuse to read or ignore what people tell you and continue to feign or act ignorant when they answer your questions with answers you don't like or that don't fit your agenda in order to cover your edit warring behavior. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

What remains unverified is your claim that theosis is Greek for "reconciliation, union with God", and also for "glorification". Just quote from any reliable source a statement that theosis is Greek for "reconciliation, union with God" and from the same or another source a statement that theosis is Greek for "glorification". A source for even one of these two claims would be a help. Esoglou (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion your doing this on purpose go back above and read the sentence I have in italics (it has been in italics this whole time) I posted from the book written from the Ascetic from Mount Athos. As again everything your just posted has a source in my already posted statement above. Esoglou should not be arguing over information that is already available but does this as just one more thing to frustrate and edit war in hopes of wearing down editors Esoglou wishes to run off from Wikipedia. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Will you not accept or propose a sourced explanation of the meaning of the Greek word. I put up three translations, all well sourced, which Taiwan boi, then reverted. Based on reliable sources, there is no reason why they shouldn't be admitted to Wikipedia. In fact there is every reason why they should. Will you at least present here your own proposal for sourced translations. Taiwan boi objected to amending the article itself, until agreement is reached here. If Taiwan boi's notion is accepted, it applies to both of us, not to one only. So I must regettably revert your edits back to his. Esoglou (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Point 3

Esoglou wrote
3. A statement by M.C. Steenberg about Barlaam of Seminara is turned into a statement about "the West".

LoveMonkey's response
Distortion, misrepresentation. The article says that [36] but again Esoglou can not read the source he has to have someone else do that for him and point out how he is being dense and disruptive. As even the New Advent online confirms the Orthodox teaching that Barlaam and his followers (Barlaamites) are referred to Latinophiles. As the New Advent also states that Barlaam wrote (as an Orthodox Christian first) in defense of the West. Barlaam later of course became a Roman Catholic priest. Esoglou is acting as if Barlaam was not in alliance with Gregory Akindynos. And wishes to have statements of Barlaam maybe made in a vacuum. [37] Rather then statements of Barlaam as he is depicted in the East. As if there is not section in the article right now on how Barlaam was condemned at the councils of Constantinople for trying to take some of Augustines teachings and claiming them "Orthodox". So what is Esoglou's complaint that I have not added Romanides as a second source to the statement (which I am still unclear which one Esoglou is complaining about)?

9. The Ninth Ecumenical Council of 1341 condemned the Platonic mysticism of Barlaam the Calabrian who had come from the West as a convert to Orthodoxy. Of course the rejection of Platonic type of mysticism was traditional practice for the Fathers. But what the Fathers of this Council were completely shocked at was Barlaam’s claim that God reveals His will by bringing into existence creatures to be seen and heard and which He passes back into non existence after His revelation has been received. One of these supposed creatures was the Angel of The Lord Himself Who appeared to Moses in the burning bush. For the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils this Angel is the uncreated Logos Himself. This unbelievable nonsense of Barlaam turned out to be that of Augustine himself. (see e.g. his De Tinitate, Books A and B) and of the whole Franco-Latin tradition till today"

Can somebody please explain what is wrong with how Barlaam is depicted in the article? Is Esoglou implying that Barlaam is not considered scholastic by the Roman Catholic church? Is Esoglou saying that the Catholic Encyclopedia statement "There was a very faint echo of Hesychasm in the West. Latin theology on the whole was too deeply impregnated with the Aristotelean Scholastic system to tolerate a theory that opposed its very foundation." Is being refuted or denounced somewhere by officials in the Roman Catholic church? If so whom are those officials? Please post they condemnation of this statement and stance and their clarification and correction of the actual Official Roman Catholic stance on the issue. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

No original research or synthesis please. Just report the verifiable fact that what was said was about Barlaam. Esoglou (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep ignoring what I have posted. Keep ignoring what I posted. As I have to repeat things over and over again in order for Esoglou to even notice what is being said. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you can agree to say: "One point of Barlaam's teaching, according to Romanides, "turned out to be that of Augustine himself and of the whole Franco-Latin tradition till today". Esoglou (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to remind you that, if you want the article to say this, you must source it with Romanides' statement that you have quoted above, but that is not at that point in the article. Esoglou (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Point 4

Esoglou wrote
4. A statement follows that a list of Eastern Orthodox theologians hold that Barlaam's criterion "is at the very heart of many theological conflicts between Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Western Christianity". A text by Romanides is given as a source. This text might arguably be taken to support this statement with regard to Romanides himself and Gregory Palamas, but certainly not with regard to Lossky, Hierotheos, Hopko, Loudovikos, Stăniloae, Harakas, who are not mentioned in the text, nor with regard to Symeon the New Theologian, to whom Romanides attributes no statement regarding Western Christianity.

LoveMonkey's response
According to an uninformed Esoglou whom even when shown that Esoglou is wrong and ignorant, this Esoglou editor then just moves on to yet another argument and continues in the same disruptive, frustration inducing edit warring POV pushing that he has in the past. Why is it that Esoglou Can't accept the statement? Why is it that Esoglou assumes anything at all?
Why is it OK for Esoglou to lie through misrepresentation since the actual statement in the article is

Theosis (Greek for "divinization", "reconciliation, union with God" and "glorification") is expressed as "Being with God" and having a relationship (God is Heaven, God is the Kingdom of Heaven) that is infinite and unending, glory to glory.[97] Since God is transcendent (incomprehensible in ousia, essence or being), the West has over-emphasized its point by qualifying logical arguments that God cannot be experienced in this life.

Makes no mention at all of Esoglou interpretation of this statement that he posted here on the talkpage which does not appear to have any connection to what is post above and in the article.
How Does Esoglou get from this.....
Theosis (Greek for "divinization", "reconciliation, union with God" and "glorification") is expressed as "Being with God" and having a relationship (God is Heaven, God is the Kingdom of Heaven) that is infinite and unending, glory to glory.[97] Since God is transcendent (incomprehensible in ousia, essence or being), the West has over-emphasized its point by qualifying logical arguments that God cannot be experienced in this life His interpretation?.
This? " A statement follows that a list of Eastern Orthodox theologians hold that Barlaam's criterion "is at the very heart of many theological conflicts between Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Western Christianity"
When the statement in the article makes no mention of Barlaam at all? LoveMonkey (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Where does he get it from? He just makes it up in his POV editorializing.--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou wrote
A separate citation is given for Hopko, but that source, instead of speaking of theological conflicts, treats of the lack of a classification in the East of saints as "mystics", and of the "tremendous", "inexplicable" and "unfortunate" (as judged by "many Orthodox monastics, theologians and hagiographers") lack in the East of writings by women mystics. (Metallinos is also mentioned, with an extract from ~~an anti-European~~ a Eurosceptic speech by him.)

LoveMonkey's response
So now criticism is hate speech? Metallinos is a citizen of a European Country Esoglou. Are you saying that people whom have been victimized are not entitled to address their victimization because doing so is now hate speech? Being critical is anti something which is implied "hatespeech". I thought the Roman Catholic church was against political correctness, well I guess only when it benefits them? I mean if someone molests a child is the child engaging in hate speech for reporting what happened to them? Other people that maybe work for the same company or have some of the same associations as the molester are they not also victims of what the molester may have done? By being indirectly defamed by the actions of the criminal? Should they to not speak out? And then in doing so are they to be seen as corrupt as well? If they then speak out are they then too also engaging in hate speech? Before Esoglou starts throwing around and implying anti anything speech Esoglou should look at his own associations. As this implied tactic (just like part of my statement just now) can been seen to have all kind of interpretations and allot of them not good. And none of them appropriate for this article and or this forum. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Let us suppose that this criterion "is at the very heart of many theological conflicts between Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Western Christianity". Let us suppose that all those mentioned did say this about the criterion. Let us suppose that all this is the truth. It is still not verifiable. As mentioned earlier, part of the problem with the section is precisely that it makes no mention of Barlaam at all, and instead applies, without verification, what concerned him not to him but to "the West". Esoglou (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that LM has been extremely generous, tolerant, and patient with Esoglou throughout this whole business, and has absolutely bent over backwards to find common ground. I believe his attitude is commendable, and would really like to see it reciprocated.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Accusation

You forget to mention that you: a) make things up, b) falsify references, c) misrepresent sources, d) write POV editorializing.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This is grave defamation. Esoglou (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

No it's not, it's well documented. You're still doing it on the immersion baptism thread. If you want to take it to an administrator please be my guest, I would be happy to show them a list of diffs.--Taiwan boi (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Then substantiate, for instance, your charge that I make things up. That is a charge not of some mistake that anyone, even you, can make from time to time, but of something habitual ("you make things up"). Substantiate it. Esoglou (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Easy, nearly every time you add your POV editorializing you add something you've made up, like claiming a source isn't being specific when it is, or claiming a source says X when it says Y, or claiming a source is an authority when it isn't even a WP:RS. I've given you any number of examples previously. I identify it explicitly every time you do it. You're a completely unreliable editor who habitually pushes POV, falsifies references, makes things up, writes POV editorializing, and misrepresents sources. You have no redeeming value whatsoever, and shouldn't even be allowed here, not least because of what one of your own co-religionists refers to as your "addiction" to Wikipedia.--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

So the accusation is based on a difference in valuation of what sources say. You claim, for instance, that the statement, "The word baptism is a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo which means to plunge, to dip, or to immerse", shows that the writer understood baptism by immersion to be baptism by submersion. My opinion is different. Since the Eastern Orthodox, no recently arisen small denomination, use the term "immersion" for their Church's practice of immersing children in baptismal fonts without having to submerge them beneath the water, and since there are Western scholars who sharply differentiate what they call "immersion baptism" from "submersion baptism", I hold that this insufficiently specific statement does not prove that "immersion" means "submersion" (in this case, or always - you are well aware that I by no means deny that sometimes "immersion" is used to mean "submersion"). I think you are mistaken and that you have done wrong by removing a questioning tag that you find conflicts with your personal POV, and by insisting that on this point the article should present your view alone. But I do not accuse you of merely making things up. I cast no doubt on your sincerity, on your good faith. Esoglou (talk) 10:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No the accusation is not based on " a difference in valuation of what sources say". It's based on you habitually pushing POV, falsifying references (including deliberately misdating sources published 100 years ago as if they were published recently), making things up, writing POV editorializing, and misrepresenting sources. That's what it's based on. Of course you don't accuse me of making things up; you can't, because I don't. In contrast, I have a page of diffs recording your habitual bad behaviour, not to mention diffs showing that you have been given repeated warnings for bad behaviour, you have been involved in numerous edit wars, you changed your name to avoid detection after repeated clashes with other editors, you removed warnings from your Talk page, you were the subject of an RfC focusing on your bad behaviour, and I can find half a dozen independent editors who will testify to your habitual bad behaviour.--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to persist, I suggest that you present your supposed evidence on the appropriate noticeboard. What you have written here is evidence and publicity enough of your own attitude. Esoglou (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not "supposed evidence", you know these are facts. You've tried to hide the RfC, your warnings, and even changed your name, but it's a matter of record. And you hate it, don't you? You hate the fact that it's all out there and you can't wipe it away. You know there are half a dozen editors who will testify to your appalling behaviour, and it enrages you.--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry (sort of) to disappoint you. Esoglou (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments by LoveMonkey

Since Esoglou is not Orthodox and does not know any Eastern Orthodox text on the church's teaching of theoria and theosis Esoglou is making things up as he goes and using source that contradict what is actually available for people to read provided by the Orthodox church. This here is an excellent example as Esoglou wishes to use a third party source to validate what Esoglou want theosis to mean and direct people away from what the church says. I bet thats partitially because allot of the Eastern Orthodox :available for people contains many criticism of Roman Catholicism and Western Christianity in general. All of this and Esoglou also wars against Orthodox sources as this one example of how he does that. Since what is above is already in the article and Esoglou can not be bother to ACTUALLY Orthodox SOURCES and see that he is attempting to undermine them even when they are speaking for own perspective. Esoglou has doing this a continuation of his war against Orthodox theologians as anyone can see by his blanket deletion of Nellas' teachings on theosis from the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theological differences article. Esoglou actually did with User:Richard 's help. Esoglou also wholesale deleted H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr. contributions to that article when he had the bioethics thing deleted by him and Richard. [38], [39]. Esoglou does not care to keep consistency with Orthodox sources. Esoglou constantly wants to source Orthodoxy tenets with Roman Catholic, Protestant and secular sources this is another example of that. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This attack by someone who "constantly wants to source Roman Catholic tenets with selected Eastern Orthodox sources" on me and on Richard doesn't seem to substantiate any of the charges made by Taiwan boi, who has not yet either backed them up or apologized. Esoglou (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

[40] How is it that the informed and all knowing Esoglou can cause this entire new set of Esoglou edit warring conflicts with other editors and be so completely ignorant? And what I mean by ignorant in this specific instance is two things. One the word theosis is not the only word for "making divine" in Greek. If Esoglou had read my edit summaries [41] and actually (knew what he was talking about) on why I changed the term in the article from "divinization" back to "theosis" he would see that "theosis" is not "making divine" but a type of "divinization". And in Greek there are other words for "making divine" like the article I wrote here for Wikipedia "henosis". [42] Also there is the other type of "making divine" called Apotheosis. Esoglou can play all the hairsplitting games he wants but when Plotinus spoke of "making divine" Plotinus was speaking of henosis [43]. But thats my second point. The Greek Orthodox Church do not see the term theoria as meaning the same thing to the Greek philosophers as it meant to the Early church. That is why it is confusing and inappropriate for Esoglou to have added the philosophical history to this Greek Orthodox theology article. Why is Esoglou allowed to frustrate and behave in such a way and no one puts warnings about his feigning ignorance to justify his edit warring on his talkpage? LoveMonkey (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou deleting my attempts to source article

Recent edits by Esoglou that have caused other editors to ask Esoglou not to directly edit the article until a consensus for Esoglou edits have been reached on the talkpage here.

Esoglou ignores me providing him with the sources in good faith here that Esoglou requested on the talkpage and rather than add them himself he goes into the article and adds citation tags again ignoring what was already addressed and answered in good faith here on the talkpage. [44]
After I start adding the sourcing to the article Esoglou deletes,reverts the sourcing. And deletes a citation request I added to the article. [45]
After I restore some of the content Esoglou deleted, reverted, Esoglou saying that I have to get consensus on the talkpage to source the article, again deletes the sourcing content. [46].

I do not have to have consensus to source the article. Me and Taiwan have asked Esoglou to stop editing on the Eastern Orthodox sections of the article. There as far as I know is no need to have consensus before sourcing. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to have consensus before sourcing. LM is not required to establish consensus before sourcing. Esoglou should stop editing the Eastern Orthodox sections of the article because: a) he doesn't understand EO beliefs, b) he invariably misrepresents EO beliefs, c) he introduces POV editorializing to denigrate EO beliefs.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Taiwan boi. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Renewed attempt at discussion

LoveMonkey, you have no right of ownership to the article or to any part of it. You cannot exclude another editor who provides sourced material. The material you provide must obey the same conditions of other editors in being clearly backed up by reliable sources: it must reflect them faithfully and not be your own original interpretation.

Now why not start cooperating by discussing the opening phrase.

I propose this: "''[[Theosis]]'' (Greek for "making divine",<ref>[http://artfl.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.27:3:174.lsj Henry George Liddell; Robert Scott [1940], A Greek-English Lexicon]</ref> "deification",<ref>[http://www.greekorthodoxchurch.org/theosis_purpose.html Archimandrite George, Mount Athos, ''Theosis – Deification as the Purpose of Man's Life'' (extract)]</ref><ref>[http://www.greekorthodoxchurch.org/union_with_god_kallistos_katafytiotis_angelikoudis.html Translator of Kallistos Katafygiotis, ''On Union with God and Life of Theoria'']</ref> "to become gods by Grace")<ref>[http://www.greekorthodoxchurch.org/union_with_god_kallistos_katafytiotis_angelikoudis.html Archimandrite George, Mount Athos, ''Theosis: The True Purpose of Human Life'', Glossary]</ref> Have you any objection to that.

You are now proposing this (why don't you do it on the Talk page, as I requested above?): ''[[Theosis]]'' (Greek for "divinization", "reconciliation, union with God"<ref>Fellow Workers With God: Orthodox Thinking on Theosis (Foundations) by Normal Russell pg </ref> and "glorification")<ref>Theosis as the Purpose of Mankinds existence by Archimarite George [http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/theosis-english.pdf]</ref><ref>2. The leadership of the Roman Empire had come to realize that religion is a sickness whose cure was the heart and core of the Christian tradition they had been persecuting. These astute Roman leaders changed their policy having realized that this cure should be accepted by as many Roman citizens as possible. Led by Constantine the Great, Roman leaders adopted this cure in exactly the same way that today’s governments adopt modern medicine in order to protect their citizens from quack doctors. But in this case what was probably as important as the cure was the possibility of enriching society with citizens who were replacing the morbid quest for happiness with the selfless love of glorification (theosis) dedicated to the common good. SOME UNDERLYING POSITIONS OF THIS WEBSITE REFLECTING THE STUDIES HEREIN INCLUDED. by [[John Romanides]] [http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.00.en.some_underlying_positions_of_this_website.htm]</ref> You have not given the page of the book that you claim says that the Greek word theosis means "reconciliation, union with God". I presume your good faith, and so I suppose you are correct, but I would ask you to quote the exact phrase with which the statement is made. I thought you were mistaken about the first of the two sources that you give for the statement that theosis is Greek for "glorification". That source certainly says that theosis means "deification". But it seems that it gives "glorification" as an equivalent, even if not as the meaning of the word. So I do not think it worth raising any objection to. The second source is unclear. It uses the word theosis to explain "the selfless love of glorification". But I will not object to your interpretation of this as a statement about the meaning of the Greek word theosis. But don't you think that the English for the Greek word is best sourced from a Greek-English lectionary? So what is your objection to "making divine"? And what is your objection to "deification", which in the sources that I cite is stated to be the meaning of the Greek word? Esoglou (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the beginning point and repeat of the cycle or pattern of behavior that Esoglou does in his edit warring and has done on other articles like the East-West schism, the filioque (where he had a fellow editor do a MASS BLANKET DELETION and when I tried to restore it I was blocked for 24 hours) and also the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theological differences article which has Esoglou posting half truths and edit warring to maintain those half truths like him deleting the negative or critical things that Chrysostomos says of Augustine while keeping the comments of Chrysostomos that paint Eastern Orthodox critical of Augustine as Americans outside the Orthodox mainstream (Esoglou did the same thing on this article). These comments here of Esoglous are another example of what I mean when I say that Esoglou does not listen and causes a great deal of disruption and frustration edit warring against editors and ignoring what they post when it gives an answer that Esoglou doesn't like. Then once Esoglou is caught he all of the sudden admits that he caused all of this work and time for editors, people whom have tried to collaborate and answer him in good faith. Editors give up and leave out of frustration (who has this kind of time to spare?) and so Esoglou feigns incompetence and ignorance in order to wear down and frustrate away editors whom oppose his white washing POV pushing conduct. Esoglou does this and then proceeds to try and blame his edit warring, massive rewriting, blanket deletion and all around argumentative, disruptive and ignoring behavior on opposing editors. If anyone should doubt then read over his behavior on this article in just that past 48 hours. And tell me that Esoglou is not edit warring. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely with LM.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

An edit conflict prevented me from getting this in first. I do not withdraw it.

My thanks are due to LoveMonkey for letting me edit the article and for responding with citations to my requests. It is good to be able to work together with me responding to his requests and him to mine. Thanks, LoveMonkey. Esoglou (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou has now went and rewrote more [47]. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I have corrected his attempt to distort the article.--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you all need to find a mediator to settle this. I propose someone start by taking this to the content noticeboard.
Let me propose something else: LoveMonkey and Taiwan boi, your personal attacks on this talk page, going back at least three sections, are unacceptable. Esoglu, please lay off the sarcasm. Do I need to cite some of the personal insults?
argumentative, disruptive and ignoring behavior
the informed and all knowing Esoglou
You're a completely unreliable editor who habitually pushes POV, falsifies references, makes things up, writes POV editorializing, and misrepresents sources. You have no redeeming value whatsoever, and shouldn't even be allowed here, not least because of what one of your own co-religionists refers to as your "addiction" to Wikipedia
Such comments are simply outrageous and unwarranted, and the next one will be met with at least a level-3 "personal attack" warning template. FYI: "Level 3 – Assumes bad faith; cease and desist. Generally includes 'Please stop'." This behavior cannot continue. You all feel strongly about the topic? Transfer that into having the best possible article on the topic, and keep in mind that this project is a cooperative effort. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any emotional investment in this subject at all, I couldn't care less about the subject of this article. What I do care about is limiting Esoglou's disruptive behaviour. I have been following his edits for well over a year, and I have personal experience of him which reaches well back into 2009, so I know exactly what I am talking about. Not only that, but I know four other editors who have had the same experiences as I have with Esoglou, and who share the same view, most of them having had over a year of experience with him. Have you followed him as closely as I have? Do you have more experience with him than the four editors to whom I can refer you?

Do you want to see a list of Esoglou's disruptive behaviour? Do you want to see the previous RfC which was prepared as a result of his behaviour? Do you want to see the previous name under which he used to edit, and the trouble he became involved in under that name, and how he has repeatedly removed warnings from his Talk page to conceal notices given with regard to his behaviour? Do you want to see all the diffs showing edits making statements which were not only completely wrong but which weren't even referenced (such as here), all the examples of POV editorializing, use of unreliable sources, removal of WP:RS from articles, repeated edit warring and misrepresentation of sources? Please don't start making accusations of personal attacks until you have actually spent some time on the background of this dispute. I can substantiate every single one of my statements with diffs.--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Please show me the kind of English in which "You have no redeeming value whatsoever" is not a personal attack. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Please show me the Wiki policies under which POV editorializing, use of unreliable sources, removal of WP:RS from articles, adding completely unreferenced sources to articles, WP:OR, repeated edit warring and misrepresentation of sources, has any redeeming value whatsoever.--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the link for the RfC is something that was prepared in user space, two years ago, which apparently went nowhere. That's evidence of one disgruntled editor who apparently didn't see the need to go live with it. There is no RfC for User:Esoglou or User:Lima in the archive, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Please actually read what I write and link to. I said myself that the RfC was prepared, not that it was submitted. I also gave you a link to where the editor who prepared it explained why he didn't go through with it. I note with interest that you make absolutely no comment on the behaviour documented there. Is that kind of behaviour acceptable? Yes or no? If it is, then would you object to me doing it?--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Your comment Drmies (Please show me the kind of English in which "You have no redeeming value whatsoever" is not a personal attack) appears to be sarcastic, but your asking us to play nice. Could you show us by example how you think we should respond and also address Esoglou's deleting my sourcing twice I contributed in good faith? [48], [49]. How should Esoglou behavior be properly addressed? LoveMonkey (talk)

I intended no sarcasm. I meant that quite literally. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind commenting on LM's questions? "Could you show us by example how you think we should respond and also address Esoglou's deleting my sourcing twice I contributed in good faith? [50], [51]. How should Esoglou behavior be properly addressed?"--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Once is enough, thank you. I am not about to envelop myself in Eastern or Western orthodoxy, or redo the Great Schism all over again. If you have a content problem that apparently cannot be resolved with civil discussion on a talk page, then yelling insults is not going to help anyone, and it's certainly not going to help the article. I have no comment whatsoever over the content of those edits: from a quick glance, it seems to me that good faith edits are made on both sides. If talk page discussion does not help, some form of mediation is the answer--if we're still talking about content. Behavior should be addressed somewhere else, such as WP:AN/I. If someone is preparing an RfC, fine--let the process take its course. But keep the personal insults off the talk page, at least, and that goes for Esouglu's sarcasm also--unless I read the comments made here incorrectly, and they were sincere. I'm not here to work on this article, unless it is in the general sense, in an attempt to have editors adhere to rules of civility.

But your question is answered, it seems to me: content dispute? Wikipedia:Content noticeboard, or Wikipedia:Mediation; possibly Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Behavior, bad faith, vandalism, removal of sourced comment, POV editing, etc etc.? Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, or possibly also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Good day. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have tried the various boards they do nothing but ignore and defer. Make excuses and post warnings to me but not old protected Esoglou. [52], [53] Now I'll take you to task for your assumptions like I haven't tried to use the appropriates "channels" to task. I have been collecting evidence but I bet your not here to do the right thing. LoveMonkey (talk) 05:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Drmies, my expression of thanks, to which you referred above, was made with absolute sincerity. It was so pleasant to see that the citations or adjustments that I provided in response to LoveMonkey's "cn" tags were not immediately deleted, and to see my requests for citations (or adjustments) being answered instead of being deleted out of hand. That, I felt, was the way to improve the article collaboratively. I regret that what I wrote could have been interpreted as sarcastic. Esoglou (talk) 07:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the impression of sarcasm in my expression of thanks was due to its present positioning. As even above is evident, I wrote it to follow immediately my appeal to LoveMonkey to work together, and I wanted to thank him for an apparently positive response. An editing conflict meant that LoveMonkey inserted a more belligerent comment before I could post my thanks. But, as I said ("I do not withdraw it"), I decided to post my thanks in spite of that comment. It seems that I should either have inserted it where I first intended it to be or have omitted it. Esoglou (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be good if you showed LM the same courtesy. He has been bending over backwards to achieve consensus and discuss edits, and has made concession after concession to you, yet you continue to disregard his concerns and make no effort to respond in kind.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It would also be good for Drmies to return and allow me to provide evidence of the things I have stated about Esoglou's behavior. As right now it appears that Drmies has assumed that I and Tb where just throwing allegations rather than reflecting on actual behavior. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

POV edit warring and pushing

This article was written as a Greek/Eastern Orthodox theology article and now has been rewriting by Roman Catholic editors to be a Greek named article about contemplation (ambigious). Editors here are FORCING and have forced the use of Western, RCC and Protestant sourcing on a Eastern Orthodox theology article. Edit Esoglou is using wikipedia to make original research statements that the Roman Catholic church would never make unless they seek to ENRAGE the Greek Orthodox. Here is an example.

" In a rather advanced phase of contemplative prayer (called in Greek theoria) the soul becomes "enveloped" by the Divine Nature.^[1]"

Thomas Merton makes no such statement. Esoglou wrote that out of complete contempt. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Drmies, your comment?--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

LoveMonkey didn't specify what article he was speaking of. It is Theosis.

He is unaware, no doubt sincerely, that as soon as I saw he had questioned the statement that he has given as an "example", I checked the alleged source, which I found to be invalid, and I deleted the statement as unfounded. That was two days before LoveMonkey made the above complaint.

It was not I who inserted the sentence to which LoveMonkey objected. The last part, about the soul becoming "enveloped" by the Divine Nature (a phrase that I find strange), was inserted on 29 July 2010 by a still active anonymous editor in Cambridge, Maryland. I assure you that neither on 29 July 2010 nor at any other time was I in Maryland. The first part was inserted by User:Trc on 11 June 2004. This part is well sourced, and could be restored.

For some reason, LoveMonkey mentions Thomas Merton. The source that was given for the statement that I deleted was not Merton, but George M. Sauvage.

I prefer to make no comment on why LoveMonkey wrote: "Esoglou wrote that out of complete contempt." Esoglou (talk) 08:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

So thats Esoglou's answering for making a statement that the Roman Catholic church teaches the same theology as the Eastern Orthodox in specific the theoria of the uncreated light. Where does it do that Esoglou? Again this is Esoglou's POV and original research as he can not provide official Roman Catholic doctrine. A statement that will enrage the East as it is not a documented tradition as it would be anecdotal at best. Esoglou is making statements in these articles from his own opinion that are going to cause allot more problems than what is in the mix right now. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This further remark, similar to many preceding, surely calls for no response from me. Esoglou (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

If the comment is not an official position of the Roman Catholic church that can be validated from an Official Roman Catholic source then it is your Point of View. Thats what I mean when I make that statement in reflection of your behavior. It is Original Research in that Esoglou from his POV assumes that what Esoglou posted about theoria is true and then when it gets pointed out what Esoglou is doing he starts pointing out superficial issues to draw attention away from his frustrating POV pushing and edit warring that is an attempt to counter the Eastern Orthodox position. Note Esoglou has not provided any sources of what he has studied about Eastern Orthodox theology. Nor has he posted the sources he owns. No one is calling him on this there appears to be allot of policy banter but again I am the only getting reprimanded when I feel that I have posted genuine grievousness about the things Esoglou has added to the articles and sourced from a sources that makes no such statement. Rather address this I instead get checked for "Clean hands" this is hypocrisy. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

People here defending wiki hounding

This article and also theosis and also Eastern Orthodox Roman catholic theological differences where articles I greatly contributed Eastern Orthodox sources and positions to. BEFORE Esoglou followed me to them after my disagreement with his edit warring behavior on the filioque and the East West schism articles. Richwales has made no public criticism to Esoglou for radically rewriting my contributions and blanket deleting of some them NO ADMINISTRATOR HAS. But some are real quick to jump on my talkpage and post comments about even the slightest possible policy infraction. [54] Wikipedia is not fair in its enforcement of policy and this behavior is ruining the project and running off contributors. Anyone can go to Esoglou's talkpage and see people complaining but unlike the rest of us Esoglou has yet to be blocked or even criticized for his behavior. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you.--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I refrain from making counter-accusations Esoglou (talk) 11:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I notice that several Wikipedians have cited as a very strong argument in favour of the candidature of the editor in question the diff that LoveMonkey gives here as a matter of complaint. That is sufficient answer to the complaint. Esoglou (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion of sourced contributions

Is this edit defensible, which, with no more explanation than "revert again Esoglou radically rewrites blanket deletes Eastern Orthodox opinion Again Esoglou does this with no discussion talkpage in order to push esoglou's RCC POV", deletes well-sourced contributions, including valid responses to requests for citations? (It comes from someone who added even more material without prior discussion, including unsourced personal evaluations.) Esoglou (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You have an established record of attacking Eastern Orthodox edits and replacing them with content which is POV, improperly sourced, or misrepresents sources, without a word of discussion with others. I have told you time and time again to confine yourself to edits concerning your own denomination, yet you continue with these disruptive edits. I support LM in this case.--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Now that you have let off your generic steam and repeated your imperious demand (wherever you got authority to make it) that a Wikipedia editor should "confine himself" to matters concerning a single denomination (of what denomination were those whom LoveMonkey deleted: Gregory the Great, Aquinas, Merton, Zagzebski, Harpur? of what denomination was Saint Augustine?), would you please address the particular case? Esoglou (talk) 11:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not discussing LoveMonkey's edits because I don't have any dispute with them. I have already made this clear. He does not have a record of misrepresenting the Catholic view. You have a record of misrepresenting the Orthodox view. That is why I tell you once more to confine yourself to edits concerning your own denomination.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Taiwan boi (talk • contribs)

So, does nobody defend LoveMonkey's deletion? Esoglou (talk) 14:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I already have, twice. Please read what I write. I don't see anyone here objecting to it except for you, and your bias against his edits is a matter of record.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Please give me the diff to at least one of the two times that you defended this deletion by LoveMonkey. I cannot find them. I have only found your attack on me, not a defence of this particular deletion. Or do you believe that anything I write, even on, for instance, Thomas Aquinas or Thomas Merton, must necessarily be deleted on sight? Esoglou (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Clear enough: "I am not discussing LoveMonkey's edits ..." You are not discussing this edit by LoveMonkey. Perhaps someone else will. LoveMonkey himself? Esoglou (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't be obtuse. I have told you several times that I am discussing this edit by Lovemonkey. I have made this perfectly clear.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You have told me that you are discussing this edit by LoveMonkey. You have also told me you are not discussing LoveMonkey's edits. Let's leave it at that. Esoglou (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

That is false. I have told you more than once that I supported this edit by LoveMonkey. I never made the contradiction you claim.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The record speaks. Esoglou (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Why a different and distinct article for Eastern Orthodox theoria?

Because theoria is not a feeling or some internal epiphany one gets from philosophizing about God (like pagan mysticism i.e. gnosticism). Theoria is God appearing to people LITERALLY. It is to see the uncreated light of God, LITERALLY. This is not taught in Western Christianity. It is the Eastern Christianity theological essential. And that is being buried here by Roman Catholic POV editors. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, listen up everyone. This POV-pushing, anti-Catholic rhetoric stops here and now. I was just alerted to this matter and this is supposed to be about Christianity. You know. Love, peace, Holy Spirit, Triune God, etc? Seriously, all of you, just log off for a day or two and calm down. PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, which "POV-pushing, anti-Catholic rhetoric" is that? Could you identify it please?--Taiwan boi (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This is addressed to all involved editors: Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

More precisely: this section. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou editwarring just today.

Diff 1[55]
Diff 2[56]
Diff 3[57]
Diff 4[58] LoveMonkey (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Multiple articles covering Palamism

NB: I am NOT, at this time, proposing a merger of any articles. However, I do think we should look at the inadequacy of coverage of Palamism in multiple articles.

Palamism used to redirect to Tabor Light (which was, in my opinion, the wrong place for it to redirect)

In addition to the article on Gregory Palamas, we also have articles on Theosis (Eastern Orthodox theology),Hesychasm,Essence-Energies distinction and Tabor Light.

It seems to me that all of these articles (except for the biographical one on Palamas himself) are just parts of the overall doctrine known as Palamism. We could either merge all of these articles into one big one titled Palamism or we could at least construct an article titled Palamism that introduces each of the subtopics in summary style and then links to the main article on each subtopic.

I think that having so many articles gives the reader a fragmented view of Palamism and requires him to find and read several articles in order to construct an integrated and complete picture. It is much like the four blind men describing different parts of the elephant.

To address this problem, I've created an article titled Palamism. At the moment, it is not much more than a collection of lead sections plus the section titled "Development of the Doctrine" that I originally assembled for this article from Hesychasm andGregory Palamas. I hope this new article can serve as an "umbrella" summary article for all these detailed articles that describe different parts of the elephant.

--Richard S (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I just happened to look on here after quite some time Richard, and I suggest not even thinking of a merger. The unfortunate situation, as I see it is the following:

This article itself looks like it was hit by a hurricane and an earthquake at the same time. I think it was shorter before from what I remember, but in any case, now it seems to have been the subject of a lot of debate. I have not (and will not) even read the debates to see who was saying what, but the article seems to be suffering not from a lack of facts, but the lack of harmony.

The articles on Hesychasm, Tabor light, etc. have somehow been saved from the hurricane and actually help readers. This article is so long and twisted that it does not help any Wikipedia reader in my opinion.

Therefore, until this disaster has been attended to by the United Nations, the Red Cross and other relief agencies (of which I am not a member) let us let the poor readers have some more usable and shorter articles that can teach them things, instead of inviting them all here. History2007 (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I say that the article be separated back up and left as a Eastern Orthodox theology article. It is bad enough that Richard and Esoglou as putting their POV on this article. And the contemplation article covers for the hisoty of the philosophy and its philosophy history what Esoglou has forcing into this article. How is it that one can make any sense of Eastern Orthodox theology when two VERY AGRESSIVE editors whom are not knowable of these subjects is making edits that obfuscate the Greek understanding. I would like to include the randomness of Maixmos and the modern manifestation of those ideas as expressed in the math of Markov and Kolmogorv and Pavle Florovsky and in more modern time Nicholas Metropolis and Taleb. But there can not be a EO Sumbebekos[59] article with editors like Esoglou on here obfuscating the subjects so that people can not understand the Eastern Orthodox perspective. These two "editors" have been edit warring against Byzantine philosophy being mentioned in the Gregory Palamas Essence Energy distinction article and why would Orthodox even try with the sarcasm and obfuscating of editors on Wikipedia. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is on theoria, a matter that concerns much more than the Eastern Orthodox Church: as the citations show, it was even being discussed centuries before Christianity. The article has on the Eastern Orthodox Church's view of theoria a section two and a half times as long as all the rest of the article together, and which it would be well to cut down in size and make more readable. Esoglou (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

At 138kb, the article is way too long and thus could benefit from being split up. The Eastern Orthodox section is 98kb long and thus is already at the limit of what a long article should be. My rough rule of thumb is that articles really need to stop growing around 100kb.

This suggests that there could be two articles (Theoria (Eastern Orthodox theology) and Theoria. The general article on Theoria would include a truncated summary of the more specific article on Theoria (Eastern Orthodox theology).

I acknowledge that History2007 was not complaining about the length of the article but about a lack of cohesion and cogency. Splitting the article will not necessarily fix that but it may help. It will at least address LoveMonkey's complaint about material that is unrelated to the Eastern Orthodox concept of theoria.

I will also take this opportunity to take exception to my being maligned for interference in articles and discussions that I have not been involved in.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, History2007, if you think this article got hit by a hurricane, what do you make of Roman Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences? That article makes this article look like it got hit by a dust devil. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

^ Cite error: The named reference Mysticism was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Mysticism-1] Cite error: The named reference Mysticism was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]