User talk:ThePeg

Welcome!

Hello, ThePeg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 02:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Silberer

Hi! Very comprehensive description of this authors' book. I didn't know there was psychological approach to esotericism and mysticism in the early 20th century, it was nice to find it out now. Do you know if the author mentions directly the "Chymical Wedding" at his book? Please put your answer below; because if he did, a section on Publications could be created at the article "Chymical Wedding" (I had already created that section; but then I removed it as I was not sure if his book makes mention to this 3rd Rosicrucian Manifesto). Thank you! --88.214.171.137 22:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - great to hear from you. Really pleased someone has looked at this article. Silberer is one of the great unknowns of these studies and yet the book is extraordinary. Its no longer in print I don't think but you can get it second-hand through Amazon. As I mentioned in the article, Jung expands on Silberer's ideas massively in Psychology and Alchemy but there's something about Silberer's book which goes right to the heart of things. Its also very easy to read. Silberer doesn't mention the Chymical Wedding or at least doesn't go into detail about it. The Parabola Allegory is much shorter and more concentrated than the CW but also very interesting. Silberer does, however, devote an entire chapter to the Rosicrucians, analysing who they were and what they aspired to. What is your interest in this subject matter? As for the Rosicrucians, they are like the proverbial bottomless well. No-one will ever exhaust their possibilties or mysteriousness. Have you heard of the fourth work by Johann Valentin Andreae known as the Republicae Christianopolitanae - The Republic of the City of Christ? Apparently there is an English language copy in the British Library which has been translated into Dutch. I don't know if there are any copies anywhere else but apparently its pretty much the fourth Rosicrucian Manifesto. ThePeg 2006

Hi. If you're out there still you can now get the book online. The article has the link but here it is as well: * [1] ThePeg 16:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! :) Thank you for your reply-clarification and the link (I was not aware of a possible fourth Manifesto). Only now have I seen your reply to my earlier question above. My interest, may sole aim, is [or it should be] to learn how to better Serve, aspiring to become worthy one day of being accepted to learn the true Philosophy amongst the pure Brethren of the Rose Cross (of Whom I truly miss, "saudade", for currently being apart...); but it will take time to dominate my current nature. Meanwhile, I have been around editing as if a "vox clamantis in deserto".

I would add to your comment that Rosicrucians are like a 9 strata "proverbial bottomless well" deeply into the roots of the Earth...

Also, I had left yesterday this message below in your user page; being physics and maths another aspect I have been pursuing to better understand the currents times facing a still unnoticed change of paradigm (at different levels, in different fields):

Following my comments at the Fama's discussion page and related to some of these areas of interest of yours, allow me please to suggest the article about the physicist Harold Aspden and his latest (last?) physics and cosmology book, Creation: The Physical Truth, derived from his lifelong research of the omnipresent aether that seems to govern the quantum activity of our physical world; both articles were erased by dogmatic 'Relativity' science editors from en.wikipedia some weeks ago in very biased and dramatic way, from my point of view. Thanks, See you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.58.99.61 (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for this. Just looked at your Fama comments. Added this link you might like to look at: http://map.twentythree.us/board/index.php?board=4;action=display;threadid=144&start=0 Best wishes. Why don't you give yourself the UserName VCIN or VOXCLAM? :-) Feels odd talking to a series of numbers. ;-) And re: science, maths, quantum phsyics and mysticism you might want to check out David Bohm. ThePeg 14:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the Harold Aspden page but I'm afraid, coming from an arts and not science background I can't understand much of it. Is the Aether idea similar to the Dark Matter idea or Bohm's theory of the Implicate/Explicate Order? Could you explain in layman's terms? ThePeg 14:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ThePeg. I apologize for not having said anything earlier; this last years and last times have been far from easy to me. I have summarized the way i currently see Science (an old materialistic established science & a new emerging more Spiritual one) at Talk:Plane (metaphysics). From what i have been able to experience, i sense transition will not be easy (currently there is too much "intellectual pride" and a strong attachment to matter). I'll have to leave editions for an indefinite time. Thank you, best wishes and please have a nice Holy Easter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.58.99.61 (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sophia (Gnosticism)

Hi ThePeg. I have replied to you on my talk page.

By the way, on another topic, regarding Unio Mystica, there was an artist by the name of Johfra who did a work by that name and which translates very well symbolically to the teachings of gnosis. Percevalles 04:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shield of the Trinity

Re: The comments at User talk:AnonMoos#Shield of the Trinity --

I see little in common between the two, since the links in the "Tree of Life" are not polarized into negative and positive links (see the "color-coded" version of the Shield of the Trinity diagram in the article), and in any case, the Christian doctrinal point of view would be that the Trinity pertains to Ein Sof, not the bottom of the Tree... AnonMoos 22:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, see Sephirot (Kabbalah) for some of the variations... AnonMoos 22:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, there aren't negative and positive links but the shape of the image is the same and as I am sure you know Christian Kabbalists have always identified the Christian Trinity with different Trinities contained within the Kaballah - eg Kether = Father, Chochmah = the Son & Binah = the Holy Spirit. In fact these were central arguments in the belief people like Lull, Pico, Giorgi and Ficino had that Christian Kaballah proved the validity of their faith and could therefore be used to convert the Jews. My point is that the image is the same whether the substance is or isn't.

Anyway, thanks for dropping by. Its always stimulating to have comments come in. :-) ThePeg 18:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: A Whistle In The Dark & other questions

Hi ThePeg,

I think I fixed Tom Murphy (playwright), though I'm not sure what the problem was. As for Conversations on a Homecoming, I didn't notice any mistake in the title, but the way to fix it would be a page move. I also didn't see any record of a clean up tagging on Jane Leade. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 17:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tewfik. Actually I think someone else fixed the Conversations thing. You won't have found the Clean-up tag on Jane Leade cos I took it off having not heard anything from anyone for a while and deciding to do what I could to clean it up. ThePeg 17:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done - the issue was A Whistle In the Dark vs A Whistle In The Dark, but I remedied that as well with a redirect. It seems that the name should be standardised to A Whistle in the Dark. Is all well with the other problems? Tewfik^Talk 18:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks Th'peg, I was not certain anyone would actually reply to such an ignorant question, but your information has helped me greatly. I had some idea of the non-religious nature of Hermeticism, but couldn't have won any arguments about it. ...so thankyou again, and keep it up!

--Tapsell 20:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure, Tapsell. Glad to be of help. I'm no expert but I do my best. Drop in any time. ThePeg 23:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cathars and Catholicism (and other stuff)

Hey there, ThePeg. I indeed agree that there is no one tradition of gnosticism, but many streams. When I say Gnositicism (with a capital G), I am referring to the movement at large. I should perhaps mention that I only use the captial-G term in reference to the Christian gnostic traditions, as I think there is sometimes a mistaken tendency to equate just about any kind of ancient mysticism (Mandaeanism, Hermeticism, Kabbalah, etc.) with Gnosticism. Anyhoo, I didn't mean to imply that that there is a Catholic tradition of equating the OT god with Satan. I just meant that it seems to me that Cathar theology became simplified through its exposure to the religious culture surrounding it. Hence, instead of the complex cosmology that we see, for example, in Ptolemy's writings or The Reality of the Rulers, we get Yahweh=Satan. It seems like at some point someone just decided to cut out all the middlemen. Just a theory. Given how little we truly know about the Cathar system, I don't think I can ever be proven right beyond all doubt, but I think it explains pretty well why these guys from southern France were the first ones to take the extra step and say the OT god is Satan. Even Marcion didn't go quite that far. It is indeed refreshing to talk to someone who is knowledgeable about and interested in this subject. Most people I know would be gaping blankly at me right now. Just by the way, I can't tell you how sick I am of people mentioning Gnosticism and The Da Vinci Code in the same breath. Am I alone? Girlfawkes 06:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No.You're very much not alone. There's someone over here who feels the same. I got to chapter eight of that stupid book and couldn't get any further. The simplistic way in which he presents massive ideas is little better than Tabloid Journalism. The Gnostics would have been embarressed by his thinking. Ah well. That's a resistance movement of two then. You're right about the way in which Gnosticism is equated with other movements. However, the term Gnosis is used in the Hermetica and I suppose the broadest translation of the term is 'Individual Knowledge'. I guess that strictly speaking all direct individual experiences of God or the Divine are Gnostic by that definition. ThePeg 21:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:-) So I thought; but then diffusion counts, and I'm sure the book had many more readers than, say, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail". Xyzt1234 22:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What up, ThePeg. I've always been interested in history and in the study of religion. I guess my interest in Christian history in particular began in high school. I went to a Catholic school and the religion classes were always among my favorites. I attended a state university, however, and the things I learned there were decidedly different. It's amazing the things you discover when there is no particular theological slant applied. I had never heard of Gnosticism before college, and the more I learned, the more fascinated I became. In fact, over the years, I have come to consider myself a Valentinian at heart. I don't think you can study Christian history in any serious way without it affecting your own belief system somehow. It shatters some people and helps others grow. What's your interest and experience? 4.232.126.240 23:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is from Girlfawkes. Not sure what's up with the little red number.

Hiya Girlfawkes, nice to hear from you. You probably had one of those glitches where the computor forgot to sign you in so your entry didn't know you were Girlfawkes. Happens to me all the time.

My interest in this stuff is a bit wierd and has two elements - Part One: I was brought up with by a Jewish father and a Catholic mother, neither of whom were practising and had rejected their faith but who were hugely influenced by the spirituality and thought processes they grew up with. I therefore had an open door onto spirituality from birth but was able to encounter them free of any upbringing or indoctrination as a child. Hence when I read the original texts I experience them without prejudice. This lines like 'I give you a new commandment, love one another' means to me just that, rather than an element in an eternal football game between God and the Devil for human souls if you don't do the right thing.

The second element is more recent and to do with something which set me on a path which involved a lot of delving into the real traditions of these faiths, in particular the esoteric traditions. I was led to the Gnostics via the Cathars and was led to the Cathars via the Rosicrucians. Since then I have moved about in all the amazing movements which existed in thea early days of Christianity - Marcionism, Gnosticism, the Essenes, Hermeticism, the Valentinian school, Mani, Pseudo-Dionysius, Byzantine Christianity - as well as Jewish Gnosticism, Kaballah and Sufism. I have found that delving into the reality of these periods reveals just how rigid and repressive Christianity has become and how extraordinarily rich, open and visionary the early reaction to Christ was. My view is that there seems to have been a moment when an all-embracing, egalitarian, fluid, visionary appreciation of the Gospels and Christianity gave way to an oppressive, orthodox, reactionary, patriarchal, almost materialist one, the effect of which has been to cripple us spiritually and turn people away from the Western spiritual tradition in droves. The period of the struggle between the Cathars and the Roman Church when all sorts of extraordinary visionaries sprang up all over Europe in all the great Western religions - Abulafia, Ibn Arabi, St Francis & St Clare, Hildegard von Bingen etc - was the last throw of the dice for the way in which things would go. In the end the established Church won, the mavericks lost and the visionary experience went underground into secret esoteric groups.

All very interesting. What's your take on this? And I know exactly what you mean about the Valentinian school. His vision is very appealing. ThePeg

It seems to have all been downhill from the Nicene Creed, doesn't it? I think it's a great tragedy that everything these days is dogma and tradition, and anyone with a different view is a bad Christian in need of prayer or a heretic. I find it very frustrating that those of us who adhere to ideas that have a lineage just as long (or longer) than orthodox Christianity are now labeled New Age kooks at best. I also find it frustrating that the New Age movement has latched onto Gnosticism and turned it into something cute and easy that flowers grow out of. Check out the homily for this week on gnosis.org. I think it hits it right on the head. Girlfawkes 23:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite agree. These movements weren't about being nice to each other, waving crystals about and hugging trees, the Gnosis was a massive event which could drive you mad if you weren't careful. As with the Cathars, an initiate underwent a lot of training before they achieved Gnosis. It was a pretty austere way of doing things and was very much NOT a 'believe what you like' approach to Christianity. Also, there were plenty of people within the established church who were gnostic without knowing it. Juliana Of Norwich, for instance, whose works I am reading at the moment. If you understand Gnosis as Divine/Direct Knowledge and Christian Gnosis as a personal revelation of God then she was one. In fact the way she describes her encounter with the Devil and God's means of overcoming him begins to make sense to me of what you were saying about Cathar doctrine. If you see the Devil as Matter distracting you from God then it makes complete sense of your thesis. Anyway I'm babbling, but its good to talk. ThePeg 23:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I think you're right about Julian of Norwich being a gnostic without knowing it. I think I would also include St. Teresa of Avila and St. Francis in that category, and probably John of the Cross. I'd love to go into more detail, but, perhaps ironically, I have to go to church. Merry Christmas to you. Girlfawkes 00:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, I think if you're a Mystic you're a Gnostic in the sense that you are penetrating the veil between us and God or the Divine or whatever you want to call it.

Interesting that you mention Francis. I read in a book on the Cathars by Phillipe Roy (some of which is on the net) that after the fall of Monstegur a lot of male Cathars, when faced with conversion to Catholicism became Franciscans as they were the closest to their beliefs as they could find. There is also considerable evidence that the Franciscans did all they could to oppose the Inquisition's bloody supression of the Cathars, not because they agreed with the Cathars but because they thought killing was wrong (novel, don't you think?). One movement, the so-called Spiritual Franciscans, were suppressed as heretics because they were getting too Gnostic and resistant to the Inquisition.

Have you checked out the Beguine/Beghard movement and the Brethren of the Free Spirit? Very interesting.

Merry Christmas! ThePeg 23:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, Just dropping you a line to say how much I enjoyed reading your contributions to the 'Cathars' talk page. Makes me wonder if Catharism did actually die. There must be many people around who feel that the angry, petty spiteful god of the Old Testament cannot logically be the same entity as the benevolent, empathic fatherly god described by Jesus / Mohammed / Bahaullah etc. Obviously the last original Cathar went to the stake a long time ago, but perhaps we're due for a comeback :-) That should please the Vatican !. Best Wishes ChrisRed (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind reply...also the 'Go See' pointer to Kabbala. Perhaps that's why the disciples were told not to go preaching in Asia...again, it's almost Hindu isn't it? Looks like god had already 'mopped-up' the south Asians already :-) It all starts to slowly come together like a jigsaw after a while, doesn't it? ChrisRed (talk) 11:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's fascinating. I remember seeing a documentary where (I think it was the Portugese) went to India, and were surprised to find that Christianity had already beat them to it. I agree that if you mentally stand in Jerusalem and turn slowly around, the atlas of the world looks very different. (I'm in England, and we were still painting ourselves blue and throwing rocks at the Romans at that time :-) As for the cross-pollenation of ideas - I think that the internet actually plays a part in this. You can start with a blank sheet (just your own spirituality), and then almost assemble your own personal religion around it by taking elements from different religions until you arrive at a 'patchwork quilt' of thoughts that you feel easy with. It's the opposite of my childhood religion (Roman Catholicism) where every detail and article of faith was pre-agreed and controlled by others. I agree that Jesus (or the mortal 'Prophet Yeshua' as I think of him) was a very potent symbol. I note that he never asked anybody to 'worship' him, but just to 'follow' him. Perhaps he kicked the door down to the 'return path' into the non-physical universe for us gentiles when he 'died'. The timing was exquisite too - just wait for the Roman Empire to reach its zenith and then plant the 'virus' and watch it spread. Makes you think sometimes :-) anyway, thanks for the great read, look forward to more. ChrisRed (talk) 09:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Photos

Hi ThePeg,

You'll find basic instructions for image use at Wikipedia:Images#Using_images. Let me know if you have any specific questions. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 23:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Just to let you know I finally got around to reading your comments at Talk:Brethren of the Free Spirit. I know I put that NPOV tag there and have since done nothing research-wise to repair the article; it hopefully will bubble up next time I purge my watchlist. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things Poretes book says in a few places (my sole literary criticism would be it can be a tad repetative) is that a cleric would not understand it; I suspect that must be true as the Paulist's are publishing it. I don't presently have a copy as I have a habit of lending whatever copy I have out. I haven't read a lot of the comparative literature of other "approved" mystics, maybe because Porete's is the kind of book you read in order to discover the mystery as to what exactly she could have written that got her burned. Likewise with other heretics; it's hard to care about Luther when he died peacefully in his sleep. However, I will bite my tongue for spoilers.

I have read neither von Marberg nor von Bingin; I hadn't run across them before, nor even Langland. I had heard of the Lollards; I sometimes think of one of their teaching on Monday mornings: work is hell. Greil Marcus in his book Lipstick Traces mentions them (and even Porete) as part of a long tradition which he traces forward to Paris student uprisings in the 60s and to the punk movement. You could go the other way to, tracing Lollards to the Quakers eventually gets you in not too many steps to 60s hippie peace protests in the States, and lingering anarchial-organized irreligious groups like the Rainbow Family.

Last time I was in San Francisco, for several months, I was a little surprised that I never saw a single Franciscan in the city named after him. Yet there were easily a hundred beggars along the few blocks of the upper Haight; you could tell the "hippies" from the "punks" only from their dress and whether or not they preferred the sunnier side of the streeet. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't heard of Hildegard von Bingen then you have a treat in store for you. She was a truly remarkable woman and very much ahead of her time. An Abbess, at the age of 42 she had her first vision and, after a period of anxious consideration, she began to illustrate her visions in the most extraordinary way possible. You can get most of her amazing illuminations on the web. She also started writing mystical books which she claimed were narrated to her by her visions, composed music of the most unutterable beauty (the best CD is called Sequentia. I highly recommend it) as well as books of medicine, science, theology, poetry and drama. She was also an active campaigner for the reform of the Church. An amazing woman and very modern in her outlook. I haven't read much of Mechtild (I had only just heard of her the other day) but the extracts I have read are very special.

What interests me about these women is, as I say, the visionary intimacy of their spirituality and their readiness to absorb the New Testament into the personal world of love, sexuality (of an albeit rather otherwordly kind), intimacy and healing. In this their holistic vision is a wonderful corrective to the more masculine, intellectual vision of the male-dominated church. They side step the legalistic, salvation/damnation cosmology of Aquinas etc and embrace a much more direct, humane cosmology of the soul.

The fact that two of them were Beguines is revealing. I am very alienated from the established church's view and find the more guerilla, grass-roots approach of groups like the Begiunes, the Cathars and the Lollards much more attractive. A spirituality which is active, present and walks on the streets is a powerful one for me.

The Lollards are a fascinating movement in England with links to the Waldensians and Cathars (although probably more of the former). William Langland, who wrote the masterpiece Piers Ploughman, was almost certainly a Lollard. Like the Ws and Cs the Lollards preached a return to social Christianity, a rejection of the Church and a belief in the inner journey of Christ's message which was available to all. Their movement inspired Wycliffe who first translated the Bible into English. There is, therefore, a direct line from them through Wycliffe to Tyndale and eventually the English Reformation and the King James Edition of the Bible. There also seems to be a curious link to Shakespeare....

In brief, although I am not a Christian, I am attracted to all movements which believe in an inner soul journey. Thu movements like the Cathars, the Lollards and the Beguines as well as mystics like Eckhardt, St Francis and others interest me more than conventional theologians who want everyone to follow the rules. ThePeg 10:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've meant to get back to you; just sidetracked. I was raised an atheist, and converted in college, but took a course on Women author's of the Middle Ages at about the same time (ended up the only guy in the class; but it was either that or Voltaire) so I don't know if I ever got the full Catholic experience without the influence of these thinkers. My anarchial leanings really didn't appreciate the role of the heirarchy; perhaps Jesus said it best by "do as they say, not as they do." I'm not the zealot I once was by any means.... But anyway, tell me about the Shakespeare thing? Post here if you'd like; I can keep my eye out for it. (I have email, of course, but rarely check it.) -- Kendrick7^talk 00:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to add a new heading to this so this page doesn't just look like a huge chunk of text!

Shakespeare & Heretical Sects

Well it may all be circumstantial but here goes... The Lollards share a lot of doctrinal, spiritual and ethical ideas with the Cathars and more particlularly the Waldensians (another sect who were present in the south of France during the Crusades and were driven out at the same time). The Lollards became quite a major movement in England and helped inspire the ideas of John Wycliffe who preached against the established Church's elitism and corruption. Like the Cathars, the Lollards believed in the individual's need to return to the apostolic traditions of Christianity (at the end of Piers Ploughman Conscience leaves the fortress known as Holy Church after it has capitulated to the siege of worldly influences to find Piers Ploughman somewhere in the world). Wycliffe translated parts of the Bible into English for the first time, just as the Cathars had translated it into French, both believing that ordinary people should have access to scripture. The Lollards ended up burnt at the stake but their and Wycliffe's examples inspired Tyndale to write his own translations of the Old and New Testaments into English. It was Tyndale's translation which then was used as the basis for the King James edition which Shakespeare is rumoured to have worked on. But the connection doesn't stop there. The Lollards' chief champion in England, the nobleman who protected them in the King's Court, was John of Gaunt, who plays a crucial role in Shakespeare's Richard II (indeed Gaunt is given the famous speech celebrating England's glorious past) and another major supporter of the Lollards among the aristocracy who eventually also died at the stake is Sir John Oldcastle, who Shakespeare used as inspiration for Sir John Falstaff. In fact there is some evidence in Shakespeare's plays that he was very attracted to, or at least interested in, grass-roots Christian movements. The real (and imitation) Franciscan Friars in Romeo And Juliet, Measure for Measure and Much Ado About Nothing are the only times in his plays he presents churchmen in sympathetic and/or non-political roles (everywhere else they are either referred to as corrupt or are portrayed as figures of temporal realpolitik). Friar Lawrence's first speech in R & J is almost heretical in its vision of virtue and vice and contains pantheistic and alchemical imagery. Similarly it is as a Franciscan that the Duke in Measure for Measure goes among his people and tries to right the wrongs he has helped set in motion. I read somewhere an article which argued that All's Well That Ends Well contains references to the Cathar heresy, being set in Rousillon (one of the centres of Cathar worship in the south of France) and containing descriptions of Cathar-like doctrines. I find this last argument the least convincing but intriguing nonetheless. What is true is that Shakespeare's plays are full of Hermetic, Alchemical, Kaballistic and other Western Esoteric imagery from Romeo and Juliet onwards. Very interesting. ThePeg 16:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very interesting. I must say the image of the Franciscan in R & J probably shaped my vision of clergy from some earlier time. I'm not a scholar of Shakespeare, and perhaps have below the minimum expertise normally expected of an American with a Bachelor's in English (if only because my course for which he was the main subject was taught by the old crow who happened to be the dean's wife -- though, OTOH she may have known the Bard personally). It seems to me his works have a noble/royal dichotomy generally which extends beyond the limited friar/bishop scope -- the unimpowered seem to be typically underdogs of one sort or the other. Is that at all erudite? I pride myself on having something smart to say in most situations, and your responses so far have a depth which keeps requiring me to put my thinking helmet on for a much longer than normal stretch. I normally excel at reasoned argument on the wiki and bad puns in real life. Forgive me for keeping you in any suspense! -- Kendrick7^talk 05:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're very flattering. Actually you're right about the Royal/Noble imagery in Shakespeare - more often that corresponding to the ideal of the Royal Art of the Soul. If you decided to put a massive esoteric hat on you could write a thesis on the hidden Alchemical imagery in the Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V sequence of plays with Richard being the Fallen Adam, the corruptible body and Hal being the journey of the Soul from thence through to a new birth as Henry V, the Great King, after the Battle of Agincourt. In fact Henry V starts with Old Adam imagery in Act One, goes through its own Dark Night Of The Soul before Agincourt, a rebirth the next day as a King who can lead his men by being one of them while simultaneously honouring God. The play even ends with an Alchemical Royal Marriage between the King of England and the Princess of France which brings peace and prosperity. In the Henry IV scenes between Hal and the King you even get moments reminiscent of the Alchemical imagery of the King and the Son. Other fascinating lines of inquiery would be the influence of the Hermetica on Antony & Cleopatra, a play with similar Divine/Royal Marriage imagery to Romeo And Juliet which ends, as you will remember, with the dead lovers reborn as Golden Statues. Also Tarot imagery (the Emperor, the Fool, the Hanged Man, the Tower, the Wheel of Fortune) and the Alchemical death and rebirth of the Self in King Lear, or the influence of Alchemy (Lead, Silver and Gold caskets) and Kaballah in The Merchant of Venice. The obvious one is, of course, the Tempest, which is heaving with imagery. It was Shakespeare's genius to be able to absorb all this information and weave it into the texture of his plays in such a way that you could see it if you knew about it but didn't have to know about it to be knocked out by the play. Goes to show that these systems grow out of the cycles and inner patterns of life and are not things superimposed upon them. Its also not a stretch of the imagination that he would have known about these things. England, London and the Court were awash with these ideas thanks to Dr Dee and his library and people like Francis Bacon, Robert Fludd and Michael Maier. Dee himself was at the centre of the main literary circles of his day - Sir Philip Sidney, Edmund Spenser, George Chapman were all his disciples and spent time studying with him. According to Frances Yates Dee was a driving force in the English Renaissance and a lot of the literary nationalism of the country was inspired by him. All forward thinking people from artists to architects and scholars were interested in this stuff, much of which was just coming across to England - Pico, Ficino, Giorgi, Agrippa, Hermeticism etc. If you were in the know that's what you wanted to be in the know about. :-) ThePeg 15:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sophia (Gnosticism)

I'm probably doing this wrong, as I have never tried to communicate with anyone on a talk page before. Risking all violations of propriety and procedure, it is, however, important enough that I take the time to thank you for your contributions to the Sophia entry. I'm not quite sure how I arrived at the topic of gnosticism, but as a long-time spiritual wanderer, this information is capstoning much of what I have assimilated over a lifetime. Mille grazie!!! Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.230.180 (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ThePeg,

I've been meaning to get back to you, but I haven't had very much time recently (I'm just barely maintaining the discussions that I'm already in . Seeing as its been a while since I got your request, could you update me about what you still need my assistance with? Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 07:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tewfik. In a nutshell I was asking if it was possible to change the title of Sophia (Gnosticism) to something like Sophia (Religion) or Sophia (Christianity) or something so as to enlarge the article. The Sophia is not just a Gnostic idea, she also features in mainstream Christianity (Catholic and Eastern Orthodox etc) and Judaism, Christian mysticism, Rosicrucianism, Alchemy, etc. Its a huge subject. As long as the article remains specifically Gnostic it can't be enlarged in this way. Can it be changed? ThePeg 18:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently frames Sophia in the almost exclusive context of Gnosticism. If its relevance to other ideologies is indeed significant, then perhaps you could create a new consensus on the article's Talk that would include restructuring the page's content as well as its name. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 20:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks Tewfiq. Alas as you will see I'm probably the only person who visits it but the topic is in fact much more wide-ranging than the Gnostic element (not that that isn't a deeply siginificant as well - its just part of a bigger picture). I will put something on the Talk Page. How long should I wait for a response/ consensus? If it doesn't happen eg cos no-one is looking anyway, should I start a whole new article? ThePeg 13:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are confident that the sources really support a wider definition (and not your own interpretation of the sources), then give it a week or two. As for changing your username, see Wikipedia:Changing username. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 18:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do. As I say above, the Sophia isn't exclusive to Gnosticism. I'm not going to erase the Gnostic section, just enlarge the article so as to include subsequent Christian Mysticism and the existence of the Sophia in Judaism and Jewish Wisdom Literature. ThePeg 11:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free spirit heresy versus Brethren of the Free Spirit

I think the counter arguement most commonly made against the free spirit heresy is that, put into practice, it leads to spiritual dissolution, and the Brethern are cited as an example of conclusion. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see the original idea of the Free Spirit was very pure but at the same time it was massively open to abuse. There's nothing to suggest that people like Eckardt, Porete or Mechtild von Marburg were dissolute and immoral but I am sure there were people who thought that if they called themselves Free Spirit followers then they could evade what was percieved as Christian morality. Let's face it there isn't a good idea in the history of mankind which someone didn't pick up on and use as a justification for bad behaviour. Was Stalin an examplar of the ideas of Marx? Or Torquemada of Christ? Or Sharon of Judaism? the list goes on. ThePeg 23:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Porete / Gospel of Thomas parallels

I recall thinking the same thing (I'm not familiar with Sister Catherine?). I'm not sure of a good explanation for the parallels. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Catherine (Schwester Kathrei) is a document which has been long associated with Meister Eckhardt but has now been pretty conclusively proven not to have been by him. Its a dialogue between a woman (Sister Catherine) and a Confessor in which she comes to the Confessor to know how quickest to reach God. They have two dialogues during which they discuss the best path. It ends with Catherine saying that she has achieved a constant union with God much along the lines of Porete and the Free Spirit Heresy. Its printed in the second Meister Eckhardt volume TEACHER AND PREACHER by the Paulist Press. It was (and is) regarded as the closest we have to a full expression of the Free Spirit idea.

The only explanation I can think of is that the parallels come from the circulation either of Gnostic ideas or manuscripts in Western Europe at the time. The possible Cathar link comes from the fact that the Cathars were not only essentially Gnostic but they a) claimed Apostolic Succession/Authority for their beliefs (which may have come from having access to Gospels attributed to the Apostles) and b) probably got much of their texts and ideas either from Eastern Europe (a possible route for Manichean and Gnostic ideas/texts via the Byzantine Empire) or Northern Africa via Spain. The actual Gospel of Thomas may not have been in their hands but some of the sayings/teachings may have been. The persistent Light imagery is very similar to evidence we have of the Cathars as is the idea that knowledge (Gnosis) of oneself leads one to God (Ibn Arabi said the same thing: 'He who knows himself knows Allah'). We know that there were Cathar communities in northern and Western Germany including Cologne where Eckhardt preached. In fact it was in Germany that they are first recorded as being called Cathars. Its not impossible that those Cathars who weren't killed, converted or fled may have gone underground, hence the survival of some of the ideas. The big difference, of course, between the Cathar heresy and the Free Spirit is that the Cathars preached the very opposite of Christian Pantheism. Still, several decades separate them (Montsegur fell in 1243, Porete died in 1310) so there may have been a possibility of an evolution of their ideas. We still don't know, after all, what the 'Treasure of Montsegur' was which was smuggled out across enemy lines. It could well have included Gnostic texts. We know that the Cathars afforded women higher status than the Church and many believe that they held Mary as being chief among the Apostles (some have the view that, in true Dan Brown fashion, they believed she was Christ's wife or consort). They may have got this from Gnostic sources. Who knows?

Interesting stuff though. What do you think? Could there be something in it?

Actually, on the subject of Mary and the Apostles, even in the Book of Acts she is up on the Mount of Olives with them when Christ ascends to the heavens. Wierdly, until I read Acts the other day I thought the idea of Christ teaching the Apostles things after his death and then ascending to heaven on the Mount of Olives was unique to the Pistis Sophia but it isn't!

ThePeg 15:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of an evolution from the Cathars to the Free Spirits is an interesting one. It seems in a way what we are looking at is three different answers to the fundamental difficulting of living in the perfection of charity in a fallen world. The Church's orthodox answer to the problem is the oath, the three vows of poverty chastity and obediance, the last being the tricky one by which its entire heirarchy comes into being. As the Lord forbade oaths, the Cathars develop a different solution -- incorporating the Gnostic demiurge idea of an evil world and extending this to its teaching about the Church. This approach has no problem attracting followers either -- everyone loves a good scandal and some mystery thrown in -- and through whatever sleight of hand the Cathar perfecti gain their daily bread from these followers. But this approach attracts too much attention, especially the ire of the orthodoxy, leading to the Albegensian crusade, and such a manner is wiped out. Which leaves the beghards and beguines professing their orthodoxy but still living beyond the obediance oath-granted authority of the Church. Which makes the Free Spirit heresy more subtle than the Cathar one; the world and the Church are instead "basically good", the Church with its clerics and "glosses on its scriptures" is simply misguided -- its role in the world reduced, at its height of power in the middle ages no-less, to merely spreading the gospel without truly grasping it -- and if you see beyond this illusion, this "lesser church", you can discover what Porete insists is the real Church. Of course, this doesn't please the hierarchy either, but I think this is the essence of the heresy. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take a more charitable approach to these heresies (probably because I find them so sympathetic!). I think each one was reacting against the mess the established church had got itself into, its temporal power and hence its inherent corruption. Not all the heresies of this time preached against the Church. Some wanted to see it reformed (eg the Waldensians). Th simple fact was that if you were a man or woman of any genuine spirituality it must have been very hard to reconcile the words of the Gospels with what the Church was actually doing. Similarly, the Church's version of the Christian message did everything possible to remove the possibility of salvation from the individual. God and Christ were miles away from human reach and only by doing what the Church said could the way be found (I think this was where the hostility towards Pantheism came from. If God was everywhere then how could the Church possibly pose as the mediators between Man and God?). All these movements preached a return to the purity of the Gospels and Acts and put the possibility of connection with God back in the hands of the individual. They rejected the materialism of the church and preached a classless redemption which was private and inner. All of this made the spiritual and temporal authorities' hair stand on end because it made them completely unregulatable. Now there's no doubt that the individualism of these heretics' spirituality could be open to abuse, and clearly the lunatic fringe of the Free Spirits was a real nuisance and did see people committing terrible things in the name of its ethics. But when you read Porete's book there's nothing there to suggest debauchery was allowed AT ALL. She was mereley calling on a higher authority than the Church ie God. In fact she is preaching a universal vision of personal transcendence and communion with God. She doesn't say one should throw out the Virtues, she talks about them happening spontaneously when one has genuinely become one with God.

Simply put, all these guys just took the power out of the hands of the Church and back to the individual. No wonder they hated it! Of course, the problem is who decides when someone is truly in tune with God? A murderer could say 'Yes I'm a rapist and a murderer but according to Marguerite I'm only doing God's will and can't sin. What do you mean am I genuinely in tune with God? Of course I am! And I'll stab anyone who says I'm not.' And viola you have the moral anarchy which the Free Spirits DIDN'T espouse but which clearly happened as time went by. One things for sure, though, there's no record of anyone being burnt at the stake by a Beguine, Beghard, Lollard, Free Spirit or Cathar. Organised immorality and violence was solely the preserve of the Church. ThePeg 15:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the state. Yes, that dawned on me more clearly when I read that in a town around here (Évora) the Inquisition produced, in about 200 years, 22.000 condemnations. That's about 9 every month, plus those sent from Lisbon for execution to avoid disturbances. Xyzt1234 22:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

changes look good

Just an aside, are you sure it is spelt "Giochinno"? I'm unfamiliar with the name, but google wants to put an "a" in there somewhere. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consubstantiation

I'm not sure this is completely correct. If I recall chapter 13 of the Mirror, which as I've said I don't have in front of me (and, was actually often missing from medieval copies for being among her more heretical leaning chapters), Porete's ideas in regards to the eucharist were somewhat more subtle than Luthor's. In any case, it might be worth noting in the article that the doctine of transubstantiation was only a few decades old at the time the Free Spirits were flourishing. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kendrick. Good one. I'll add it. You're right about Porete and the Eucharist. That's a beautiful passage isn't it? When I get to quoting Porete, Eckhart and the Sister Catherine document I'll be showing how its almost impossible to systematise the Free Spirit Heresy. As niether Porete nor Eckhart claimed to be Free Spirits I think it proves the point that its more a set of vague ideas used by a lot of people than a fixed ideology. ThePeg 10:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walcott

I have just been browsing through the section for Derek Walcott, whose plays I am studying in college. Although you posted your question about the best of Walcott's plays quit a long time ago, I might suggest that you read "The Sea at Dauphin," "Malcochan, or The Six in the Rain," and "Dream on Monkey Mountain." These are truly amazing works that delve into post-colonialism and the West Indian desire for an indigenous, original, national voice. LifeScience 08:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Changing Usernames

Hi, I'm not sure what the problem you are describing is. Perhaps you could link me? As for your signature, that is something that you can change in your 'preferences' page. Tewfik^Talk 19:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: CHU

From the description, it looks like it's working fine. :) The letters subst: indicate a substitution, in other words, it will substitute the template code to the page and fill in the variables (which you entered) into the template so that bureaucrats can rename properly. Copy the template, replace the fields, and save. That's all there is to it. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks. ThePeg 11:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fruitloopians

Hi there. Fruitloopian article already exists but threatened with removal. Article certainly could be improved. All hands to the pump. Gcp 21:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mirror of Simple Souls

You are all set. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stage History section from the Ma Rainey's Black Bottom

Hi: No, I didn't remove the stage history section. I looked back in the history and it seems to have been removed and replaced with the word "stupid". Just some stupid vandalism. Someone else came along and removed the word stupid without reverting the section that you found missing. That was before I came along to revert further vandalism. I was working so quickly, I never looked that far into the article. Good you caught it.

BrianGV 23:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brethren of the Free Spirit

Yes, a somewhat of a life. I will poke through the article and make a few adjustments eventually. Oh, and regarding the pic, I couldn't determine was the licensing would be. It looks like it is too old to fall under copyright, but looks can be deceiving, and I was too lazy to bug the authors of the webpage about it. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly bring any major disputes to your attention before hand; if you should object to any of my minor peccadillos let me know. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. ThePeg 22:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mess Up

Hey ThePeg, Sorry it took me while, but I finally got to the age moves you requested. In general, you should check Wikipedia:Naming conventions to see when to favour what, something that I didn't do in this case. I also notice that there aren't very many links pointing to the pages, and so I suggest that you create more connections where appropriate so as to make the page more accessible, and thus also subject to more vetting by other knowledgeable editors. As always, I'm here to help. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 05:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosicrucian links

Well, I saw a few problems with that list: One, most of the group links went to stubs that weren't very useful. There's really (encyclopedically speaking) very little to say about the various Rosicrucian groups other than that they exist, and with all the infighting in modern groups, sorting who's who and where they come from is a real nightmare (I'm combining and rewriting the Societas Rosicrucianis articles, and I'm having issues there with only 5 or 6 groups). The levity.com link has a list of all the major groups and a few others, which I think is much better than a huge list of links to nothing more than more weblinks, which is a little too close to WP:NOT a list of links for my liking. Half the group articles could easily be AfDed for nn, but again, it's a hassle. Second, the research links all went to one site, which isn't really all that useful either; it's one group's interpretation. Third, on reading, many of the See also's had nothing apparently to do with Rosicrucianism (silver cord wasn't mentioned at all, for example, nor reincarnation), or those that did were already in the article (Rosenkreuz). The article should contain information, not be a list of links to other places that have information. Moreover, if the info goes into the article, it can be wikilinked and therefore doesn't need to go in its own section at the end. What the links are doing is preventing a much-needed rewrite of the article. MSJapan 14:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you're just going to go ahead and do whatever you want, regardless of what anyone else has to say. MSJapan 00:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bit like you did, you mean? I dropped a message on your talk page and if you look I've deleted New Age and unrelated links and focussed on specifically Rosicrucian ones. ThePeg 08:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what you did was open a dialogue by stating your intention on my talk page (you said "I'd like to reinstate them", which invites an opinion), and then you closed the dialogue before I had a chance to respond and did what you wanted to anyway. WP is supposed to be collaborative, and that's not how to go about it. Before I removed the links, no one had made any substantial edits to the article in months; it's a slightly different situation. Not only are the links formatted badly, but for example, Rosenkreuz doesn't need to be there because he's already wikilinked in the article. Half the things linked still aren't mentioned in the article, and the article itself is a mess. Frankly, considering nothing in the article is cited, if you want to really do something useful, find some sources for the article first before you worry about the minor stuff like links. MSJapan 16:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is a rather childish argument. All I did was reinstate some links minus some of the sillier ones having thought about what you said. Its not the end of the world. If you don't like it delete them again and then we can have a debate and decide what to do. We both agree that the article needs rewriting - and I DIDN'T write the original by the way - so why don't we rewrite it? Are you well-versed in all the different ambiguities of meaning of the Rosicrucians? ThePeg 10:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was Fulcanelli Really An Alchemist?

I left you this in the Fulcanelli talk.

I was told about Fulcanelli by someone in Spain. I've done a lot of digging and reading around the subject and there are two things I wonder about:

1) All the original Alchemists - Fludd, Maier et al - all insisted that Alchemy was NOT a science to do with materials but with the soul. The [...]

It does have to do with the soul (the mind, the spirit) but it has to do also with things to be done; one thing changes the other. It is not about transmutations of materials, but of oneself, the material transmutation occruriing (if it ever does!) as proof of the correctness of the personal transmutation. On the other hand, emphasis was put in the "living" metals in the "laboratory" of the brain, the mind; Morienus having been one of the first to point in that direction clearly. You can find partisans of the strictly psychological way, of the strictly material way, of the middle way, etc. Jung's appraisal of the development of the Self demands the middle way; the solve et coagula, ponder and do, do and ponder. Xyzt1234 21:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2) Alchemy was supposed to work on what was called the Great Work or Royal Art, which was 'the perfecting of mankind' in Silberer's phrase. The Fulcanelli story seems to focus around predicting Armageddon and an [...]

It apparently doesn't, but the end of the world helps people in working faster? Omnia festina ex diaboli, all hurry comes from the devil? I suppose you're talking about Fulcanelli's supposed third book. Xyzt1234 21:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point is - what is the real significance of this story? There are fascinating elements to it - the stay in the secluded house in Spain and [...] other such movements. Fulcanelli appears to be completely independent of this tradition. there is a dark, elitist element to this story which does not sit easily with what Alchemy was supposed to be.

Any thoughts? ThePeg 15:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alchemy is elitist. It's not for the common man. You couldn't milk the cows, have a beer and do alchemy too. You had to be a very learned person, buy loads of very expensive books, set up your laboratory (if only to do away with it after ten years), have people to feed you in the meantime and all that, and moreover you would have to be a chosen one to succeed. It still wouldn't be inexpensive today, and it is definitely time-consuming.

I think you mean the Armageddon aspect and the saving of the chosen ones. I went across these notions in a xeroxed alch. book I found, dated 1989, by some "Solazareff", obviously French. It did suggest a millenarian guns and militia approach to Alchemy I never saw before. Xyzt1234 21:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by the by, I somewhat doubt that F's 3rd book, if it states that, is his. F thinks like a scholar, not a karate, sharp-shooter militiaman. I don't think there's much to say about this, but if you want to, leave me someting in my talk page. Xyzt1234 21:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And still one more thought: the gun-toting philosopher approach can be a post-modern way to get the wrong people out into kung-fu classes. 21:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for the message re Fulcanelli.

I've since done more research and, in the end, nothing can be taken at face value with Fulcanelli. The playfulness, the hall of mirrors aspect of what he writes is part and parcel of his message. And much of what you say makes absolute sense.

And while you're right that Alchemy is/was elitist in the sense that it wasn't for everyone in fact all spirituality is alchemical. Indeed, all Mystery Traditions have at their root the creation of the Immortal Self/Light Body, from the Shining Ones/Devas of Hinduism to the Resurrected Christ. And since all religions begin with the Mystery Traditions, or at least have them at their root, there is a strong argument to say that what we call organised religion, although not obviously Alchemical, has clues with which one can penetrate to the Mystery and, by default, has moved the common mass of humanity forward along that path.

To clarify - from what we understand Alchemy originated from Ancient Egypt and was a science of spiritual transformation practised solely by the elite. Other cultures - the Persians, the Greeks, the Indians etc - all had similar processes available to them. Esotericists believe that Kaballah emerged from the meeting of the Egyptian, Jewish and Persians Mysteries. Kaballah helped feed into the Essenes and, along with other cultures, presumably triggered the inception of Christianity which, if one reads the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament, has encoded within it the process whereby the human organism achieves divinity a la Alchemy (indeed I have read persuasive analyses of Revelations in terms of Christian Alchemy). So the evolution of human spirituality in the West is one of transmission and amplification until what was an elite spirituality becomes available in exoteric terms ie to the many. Thus Christianity emerges into the light from an ancestry of Hermeticism, Alchemy, Kaballah, the Greek Mysteries, Gnosticism and Zoroastrianism.

Of course, only the very few were or have been able to respond to Christianity on this deeper, Alchemical level. Most followers can only relate to it literally. So esoteric truth becomes confused with literal truth and orthodoxy sets in. But, one assumes, the vestiges of that Alchemical message still have had an effect on us, however slow or small it might be,

Gosh! Having looked over that again, I realise I sound as obscure as Fulcanelli! What I am saying is that life itself is an Alchemical process and we are all on its path. Those we call Alchemists have made it their all-consuming life work.

I find the Fulcanelli myth fascinating, more the story of the visit to Spain than anything else. Again, I think this is a case of the Alchemical story being sold us through myth... Which makes it no less valid.

Anyway, thanks for chatting,

Best wishes

ThePeg 21:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer on my talk page. There's nothing you can take at face value with alchemists.

You weren't obscure, you were very clear and concise. I couldn't be as concise. I tried to do something like that and in order to get my points I started compiling about the evolution of religion, starting in Armenia.

Yes, the point is the Diamond Body, at least as I see it. The Tantra, the Tibetan Book, some fortms of Chinese religion and sexual practices, everything is about building the DB an being able to step into it in the appropriate moment. So, that boring Kundalini is around here too.

Of course it's pointless to insist on the solve et coagula thing (or just to insist), and that pondering without action is fruitless; indeed, it can lead to a "flood", an excess of "water", a drowning of the "I". Jung described the signs and symptoms and, interestingly, I experienced them once or so. On the other hand, an excess of action, without ponderation, is a fire; too much rationality is dryness, too much reliance upon intuition is "airness", etc...

"I think this is a case of the Alchemical story being sold us through myth... Which makes it no less valid." Obviously! Would the Gospels be less important if they were a fake? ;-)

I wandered a little about your F in Spain. Look, if it were in Toledo, a classic town, that would be interesting, for it is a town of iron and gold, with water. An androgynous is obviously Mercury, Eugène Canseliet ("well made when salt is present") salt, and you're missing nitro and sulphur, and I bet they're in the story? I didn't read it.

Oh, I somewhat recall that in that "Solazareff", stenciled 1989 alchemy book, he ("Solazareff") embalmed Canseliet right after his death. Interesting.

Thanks for your reply. Xyzt1234 22:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If memory serves me correctly the Spanish Fulcanelli story took place near Seville. Or am I wrong? I think the secret community of alchemists he is supposed to have referred to is somewhere in the Pyrenees. I first heard of Fulcanelli in Zaragoza.... ThePeg 22:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more note, as I've been reading this and that. The "Fulcanellis" (books) are known in the milieu, it seems, for saying the right things, but in such a mix-up that even the seasoned alchemists find it hard to know what they're talking about, not to mention their erudition and "Langue Verte" use. I suppose the Fulcanellis, hence, may have been creating a few victims. At any rate, it is also said that neither F nor Eugène Canseliet ever managed to produce the stone, although the demonstration they did was a "particular", a lesser operation from some author I no longer remember. But I'm definitely sure other opinions can be found, as all is foggy in this matter. The Solazaref group is said to have an ideology along the line of Le Pen's Front National. Xyzt1234 19:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's depressing to hear. One would have thought an Alchemist would not be bogged down in racist politics, particlularly given that most Alchemists should know that their Art was brought to Europe via the Arabs in the 12th & 13th Centuries through Spain etc!

Incidentally for a fine Alchemical read may I recommend The Angel Of The West Window by Gustav Meyrink? Although often rather chaotic it is based on the Alchemical Quest, being about the life of John Dee. Its a great read. Enjoy. ThePeg 10:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Things happen, I suppose, but anyway it's just hearsay. Just as a joke and trivia, you mean Spain and Portugal, right? I think Spain didn't even exist as such by then (that up to ~1600 and even later).

Thanks for the reference, but I'll have to look into Silberer first, as he seems to be important to understand Jung better -- possibly.

And as we're at it, it seems that both F (the cross of Hendaye) and Solazaref and another group (I don't give you the link, at it's big and in Portuguese) say that at least one of the ways is no longer possible due to external conditions, though some say it's the damp one, others the dry one. --Xyzt1234 12:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for keeping editing my texts, but... I work that way, by successive approaches, as if the text was a jaguar. On one of the matters above, I'd quote Fernando Pessoa: The supreme honorable state for a superior man is in not knowing who is the Head of State of his country, or if he lives under a monarchy or a republic. And not surprisingly now that I'm about to say it, I quote him because I entered the quotes at Wikiquote; a bit like Julius Caesar's introductory sentence in the Civilization IV game: "Would you care for a salad? I made it myself.". --Xyzt1234 13:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. I mean Spain and Portugal. As you say, there were no such places then. Perhaps I should have side 'the Iberian Peninsular'.

-) ThePeg 19:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One such place was already there by 1249, with its frontier more or less as they are now... It was in the (magnificent) Granada region that things took longer, and even then they (the guys on the center and east side of the peninsula) staid as different kingdoms united under a ruler, not as a single nation. Hm, let's say Iberian Peninsula is about ok, if a bit Roman Imperial. :-) --Xyzt1234 09:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum mysticism

You are correct that the article quantum mysticism presents only the POV of the typical university-trained scientist, who has no understanding of mysticism. It is missing any POV presented from the side of the experienced mystic, who typically has no clear understanding of mathematics or the methods of science. This leaves two camps who don't understand each other, and thus cannot communicate. They just talk past each other.

The article makes the correct, but extremely misleading point that the founders of quantum physics declared that there was no more than a metaphorical relationship between physics and mysticism. What it fails to reveal, is that they also said that the mathematics and physics had demonstrated the limits of physical knowledge, and most of them either were mystics or sympathetic to the viewpoint of mysticism. That is because they had discovered that mysticism could take them beyond physics to metaphysics. The two fields are complementary, not contradictory or coincident.

Philosopher Wittgenstein tried to address the limitations of language in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, in which he concluded that "that whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent". But this realm can be explored through mysticism. I don't have much time to fix the article, but I can provide you with references to their writings. One of the best selections is Ken Wilber's edited compilation Quantum Questions (1984), ISBN 0-394-72338-4. Quantum physicist Erwin Schrodinger explicitly praised Aldous Huxley's The Perennial Philosophy in his book What is Life?, ISBN 0-521-42708-8. There are many others. --Blainster (talk) 04:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Scientific Quantum Meditation (QM) Technique Dr. Tushar Ray (www.centralyoga.org) Our Innate Transcendental Quantum Field: The quantum field is the field of consciousness where an individual investigator loses his/her own ego (self-identity) for the time-being becoming one with the object of investigation. Under such condition of total self-absorption the person experiences no inhibition whatsoever possessing a wide open consciousness to receive the truth spontaneously flowing toward him/her from the object of inquiry. The entire mind-body domain feels like a clean mirror in this field of consciousness, while enjoying this amazing domain of blissful existence. The whole truth on the object of inquiry spontaneously flashes out to the mind-body mirror of an observer in the form of a subtle interlinked image. The knowledge gained by this process is called instinctive that was masked behind an adult ego, yet one can also get there deliberately after acquiring proper skill in meditation. The ancient Rishis, those experts in the field of meditation, gathered the spiritual truth behind this objective universe in this way and recorded them in numerous scriptures offering timeless knowledge to this day. Great scientists like Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr who built the philosophical foundation of modern quantum mechanics in the course of thought experiments, found the truth at first being in the all-connected quantum field within themselves, subsequently expressed them in logical language. Such holistic reality experienced in this field is very different than the one normally gathered by focusing an intellect on the object of inquiry producing only partial knowledge. The Mystical Vision of Albert Einstein: Albert Einstein was involved in constant mystic practice with a child-like curious mind, as acknowledged in his own words; “The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, a snuffed out candle.” Theoretical physicist, Dr. Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein’s collaborator at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton wrote: “For the path to Einstein’s theory was not merely physical rather than mathematical, but in a highly characteristic way intuitive rather than physical. Unless we realize this, we cannot properly appreciate Einstein’s achievement, for there was no logical path towards it.” It is impossible for a scientist without spiritual self-knowledge to even fathom the depth of the vast knowledge-base inherent in a quantum-field, although as a skilled intellectual he or she can use the established mathematical formalism to his/her own professional advantage. This is like trying to have a good grasp of a city by studying its map alone, although one can get a vague idea of the city from its map. This is why to a lot of modern scientists the quantum mechanics is still an enigma, yet due to its predictive ability for verifiable physical truth it is now universally accepted! Scientific Basis of Quantum Meditation: As mentioned earlier, anybody can reach this blissful state of the quantum consciousness having appropriate dedication and training in meditation science. It takes a lot of perseverance to develop mastery on this subjective art and science. However, once someone learns this skill well enough with a steadfast intellect he or she can attain that state by own will at anytime following his/her wish. In ancient yoga technology this state of being is called Jivan-Mukta (forever free with a human body)! A Jivan-Mukta physicist can travel to the quantum field at own will while trying to enlighten the enigmatic field in terms of mathematics for others. There are many Jivan-Muktas walking on our earth even today, each trying to help the humanity in their own way! The way to maximize this instinctive ability is to go through a rigorous traditional yoga discipline guided by strict moral principles to regain the lost mind-body harmony that we once enjoyed as a four-year old child, but want to enjoy it again with an adult intellect. The idea is to steady our unsteady mind at first through a series of discreet mind-body yoga postures while enjoying the accompanying blissful feeling and trying to figure out the source of that bliss. In due course a dedicated person gains an unwavering intellect with a balanced health acquiring steady knowledge about own mind-body network (self-knowledge). With time he can go into deeper meditation for longer time and ultimately loses himself completely in the all-connected field (the quantum field) of innate all-pervading blissful consciousness – the land of limitless bliss! This is when we discover that this universe is basically made up of bliss (pure consciousness) of which we are only a tiny, yet a very significant part as its observer! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.87.177 (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Gospel of John page I left you something. Kazuba (talk) 03:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gospels

The gospels cannot be trusted for being historically accurate: My favorite example: Only Mark counts the possessed swine; there are about two thousand (Mark 5:13). Even if demons existed it is hard accept that two thousand demons came from only one person? and then they stampeded, two thousand of them, into what is now known as a natural hot spring. [Hot Springs of Amatha near Gadara] Isn't that a bit peculiar? Doesn't this story sound like it is the supernatural explanation for a hot spring? Give me a break! And remember Mark is probably the only first and earliest version of the Jesus stories. Watch the Jesus stories grow larger in the later Gospels. Jesus is born of a virgin. A star moves across the sky. Jesus changes water to wine. When Jesus dies on the cross and there is sudden darkness, an earthquake and the dead come out of their tombs. Peter needs money to pay his taxes. He catches a fish with the money inside. Jesus bids his followers farewell and then flies away into the sky. The gospels are theology told in story form using the language of myth. At the south end of the dead sea where Sodom and Gommorrah stood (which they have never found) stand natural salt formations. With a little imagination a formation can look like a person. This is the way ancient people taught their lessons. It is still the same all over the world in pre-literate societies. The Gospels have been mistaken as history. Why? Because history became important. History is what we now understand and what we want. This gives us the "historical" and "scientific" proof of immortality and God. This is really not the way one keeps their faith in the brutal dangerous real-life world. Rudolph Bultmann knew better. Faith is kept by determination.

I remember one time I was talking about prayer and ESP with my wife and I said, "I don't think God reads your mind. This would never give you any privacy."

My wife replied, "I think God reads your heart." She was a wise lady.

Kazuba (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for intruding in here. Of course the four gospels we know were written very late, maybe 2nd century. The choice of gospels (and the choice of words) to include was a long process. Regarding their historicity I use to say, "Never mind, the story is good". We seem to have forgotten to listen to a story, maybe we only want to listen to History. But History is written by the winner, and as is usually said, truth is seldom pure and never simple.--Xyzt1234 (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Xyzt. The Gospels aren't history, they are spiritual history contained in a story. To take them literally as historical fact - as believers and non-believers insist on doing - is to fall at the first hurdle of understanding what they might have to offer. ThePeg (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi #2

Hi. I just came back for vengeance :-) You told me to read The Angel Of The West Window and so I did. I didn't dislike it.

On faculty quantum mysticism there's things I can say. It is less likely to spontaneously have knowledge of advanced math and physics than an inner knowledge of spiritual stuff. Though there are people who will deny their feelings on the later; these are, as Carl-Gustav Jung used to put it, people who run to the attic when they hear noises in the basement. Other people do go to the basement (the night sea journey) and learn the value, excuse me, of wearing brown pants for the occasion; other people hire people to tell them how the basement is.

Otherwise we believe in math, and purely mental math, awfully, describes the physical world we know to perfection (I suppose Einstein had a quote on this... ah, here: "How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality? Is human reason, then, without experience, merely by taking thought, able to fathom the properties of real things?", but maybe it was a rethorical question). How is this possible? If this isn't mysticism then what is? :-) Particles are probability clouds of events, Schrodinger cats are and aren't, vacuums (vacua it should be, who knows) have energy associated and spontaneously "grow" particle-antiparticle mass pairs, you can interchange mass and energy and maybe time and space, some particles seem to travel or to "talk" to each other faster than the speed of light, and maybe a CO2 molecule that Newton breathed out is now going about Mars. And, of course, maybe the tree isn't there while we aren't looking at it. All this would be quite supernatural, if things didn't occur in nature. Even our thoughts are a natural product.

I would hence suggest you some very, very light reading, a novel, "Improbable" by Adam Fawer. It's really light, yet I liked it a lot. Have fun, take care. --Xyzt1234 (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

> Otherwise we believe in math, and purely mental math, awfully, describes the physical world we know to perfection (I suppose Einstein had a quote on this... ah, here: "How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality? Is human reason, then, without experience, merely by taking thought, able to fathom the properties of real things?", but maybe it was a rethorical question). How is this possible? If this isn't mysticism then what is? :-)

Well, interestingly, the first great European mystic was Pythagoras who saw mathematics as the basis of everything. So I don't disagree. Of course, due to our modern embaressement regarding mysticism of any kind he is only presented to us as a mathematician but as with Descartes and Newton who are also only presented to us as mechanistic rationalists, his spirituality was fundamental to who he was and what he did. The Kabbalists, too, saw mathematics at the heart of spirituality. In those days, spirituality & science were not divided. If you look into Kabbalah, especially the Zohar, you will find most of the discoveries of modern science from the Big Bang to Dark Matter to ultraviolet and microwave level light described almost to a tee.

Interestingly, at the outset of Quantum Theory classical Physicists dismissed QM as 'Pythagorean Mysticism' because of its reliance on mathematics. David Bohm himself used this argument until he looked into it more and was convinced. Naturally as you have pointed out when mystics and scientists dismiss each other they usually don't know what they are talking about...

Humbly speaking, I don't remember doing anything to provoke 'vengeance'! I will have to look back over what I have said before! ThePeg (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Don't even bother. My "vengeance" is about your book reccomendation. Have fun.

I just hope I wasn't so talkative as to having made you miss my point (or one of them?): that you can build a representation of the physical world by thinking about it (math); which suggests that there is no difference (in the limit!) between introspection (math) and (outside) observation; which suggests the absence of a difference between mind (some) constructs and physical reality, me and the world, macrocosm and microcosm, etc... As Zen puts it, there's no subject of observation versus observer, but only observation as an action.Xyzt1234 (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]