User talk:Zeusnoos/archive1

Welcome

Hello Zeusnoos/archive1! welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for contributing. Here are a some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Best of luck. Have fun! --ElectricEye

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article
Getting your info out there
Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting Help
Wikipedia:Where to ask a question Help Desk
Getting along
Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

User:Aquirata RfC

I have started a Request for Comment regarding this user's behaviour: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aquirata. Your occasional comments on the astrology pages have been well-informed. Perhaps you have a comment here. I'm less concerned about everybody's POV at this point and more concerned about how Aquirata is behaving in regards to parsing all criticism while providing no sources of his own. Marskell 09:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC's are an imperfect process, as there is no specific mechanism to resolve things. Rather, it's an open-ended place to talk and it is, tacitly, a form of censure if enough people show up and say "yes, this person has caused trouble." The user most certainly won't be banned. Only arbitration (WP:ARB) can do that. An RfC can lead to an arbitration case if the complaints are not addressed or if the person tells everybody off in there response. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment and specifically Wikipedia:Request_for_comment#User-conduct_RfC. Sorry if these aren't as explanatory as you'd like. Note, you don't have to endorse my comments. You can simply provide your own "outside view" in the appropriate section. Marskell 15:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

preserving ovacontent

User:Zeusnoos/ovacontent0614

User:Zeusnoos/ovatalk0614

Ophites

Hey Mr Zeus mind would you please look at this article I edited it alittle bit. But it still needs more work. LoveMonkey 16:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed as alway excellent points. Why the attacks on christianity though, just a thought. I have very very limited knowledge of the ophites outside of Gersha Sholam.

LoveMonkey 17:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Turner

Hey is everything OK with Professor Turner his site has been down for quite sometime. jdt.unl.edu/ Thanks LoveMonkey 18:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bein' loose with the Zeusnoos?

Hey I am grappling with the right way to handle the whole source or one verses the demiurge thing on the Timaeus page. Please help LoveMonkey 16:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Neoplatonism article I tried to add the newer research by Dr Turner's group about the origin of some of the more unique neoplatonic ideas being pre-plotinus AKA The Anonymous Commentary on Plato's 'Parmenides'. I admit I did not do the best job (I am trying to improve through practice :) but the entire addition was removed. Considering the content where and what would be a good place to add the "new" stuff? And how did I word it wrong? LoveMonkey 12:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS correction Mr Dab just moved it to it's own section "Commentary on Parmenides" (God bless him). Dab does make an an awesome point or two though. There needs to be a very clear set of ideas that make the justifcation for a separate Neoplatonic in contrast to later platonic. Dab hinted that a list of specific differences between Neoplatonic and Platonic ideas be stated. You know like the Enneads elaborates on the properties of the soul in contrast to what was stated in Phaedo or the Enneads elaborate on the source of the demiurge outside of outside of Timeaus. This is a tall order! LoveMonkey 13:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PSS ALSO THANKS AGAIN for being so cool about all of this greek stuff. LoveMonkey 13:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know I was DOING most of this when I came onto wikipedia. I have been effectively shutdown. Dr Moore's articles are exceptional to say the least. I had gotten permission from him so that I could use his work to flesh out the articles here (without reprinting them of course). Dr Moore is very kind and an excellent teacher. I also thought that since there where so many bots and contributors that some might give me alittle editor'ish boost. Well you see now I have to argue on the talk page to even add about 8 words to precious Plotinus. I have had to fight people to even validate that Plotinus was not attacking christians because he was too stupid about followers of gnosticism to be about to tell the difference between them and christians. I can not imagine the hell that a scholar has to go through here on wiki if they where to try and contribute. I mean think of the time spent on this talk page alone. Also Nikolai Lossky LoveMonkey 14:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Still around?

Haven't seen you in a while. Fast and furious as ever on the astrology talk tho the page has been locked down for a while :). Marskell 15:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your allergic reaction, it's really too bad that people feel the need to leave the page. I haven't been perfect, but I have yet to encounter the same level obstinacy and sustained, tortured logical that I have found on this page. And that's saying something after a year-and-a-half on Wiki. Marskell 14:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My worry is this: Chris may be inclined to leave the page. I don't think he will "leave leave", but he may practically leave, which would just be awful. Trolls don't win Wiki-wide, but they can tire people out in a given encounter (if it's not clear, I think Chris is a guy into astrology that the astrology page needs, but the others...). In any case some sane voice needs to be there. Even if you have talk comments on particular lines it would be good (before they get buried under hundreds of K of rubbish of course ;).

As for your larger comment on belief (or faith systems, really, because that's what you're indicating) astrology isn't my first encounter with it. You'll note on my user page the area of the world I live in. I know how mutual reinforcement works. And believe me, I know how typical "if you'd only read/study/look it, you'd know" is amongst the faithful. See here for an example that makes arguments over astrology seem grade school. Marskell 22:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plotinus

Hey thanks again Zeusnoos! LoveMonkey 12:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ZN read the Plotinus talk page and you will see what I was talking about..

LoveMonkey 19:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is just an awesome set of edits. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neoplatonism&diff=62424656&oldid=61057588 Thank You ZN. LoveMonkey 21:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BIG QUESTION

Is there any clear and concise data on who destroyed Porphyry's against christianity? I was under the impression (though I can not find where I got it) that Porphryr himself burned the text because of his friendship with Origen. Although Christos implies something else. Also Goethan edited the Plotinus talk page to state that christians had burned the text. This is something that I have never found an answer too. LoveMonkey 15:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ZN for the answer it was as I expected. Hey why is it that these two articles contridict one another? Why no Plotinus?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monad_%28Gnosticism%29 LoveMonkey 00:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu adoption of Greek zodiac

I am not positive about the 4th century. This was supposed to give rough outlines, it may also have been the 3rd or 2nd. It is clear that the contact was via the Indo-Greeks, so transmission may have begun even earlier, but it is unlikely to have predated Ptolemy. If I remember correctly, I calculated the 4th century figure from the difference between the systems, so the 4th century would mark the divergence (loss of contact). There may have been a couple of centuries during which the Hindus calculated identically to the Greeks. Again, I will not insist on the 4th century figure; we could still mention, for what it is worth that it marks the point of divergence. dab (ᛏ) 19:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS, please sign your posts, it makes it easier for people to reply to you. dab (ᛏ) 19:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The accuracy of this calculation is about 100 years. I.e. we can say 3rd to 5th century, which is not precise, but it is better than nothing. dab (ᛏ) 23:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demiurge

Hey Zeusnoos I have been thinking. I have been working on how to approach the whole creation urge and it's roots in Plato and the poets. I think that the demiurge article is way out there. The demiurge is not an artist here on wikipedia he is a fallen spirit or demon this is shameful to the kindness of the philosophy fathers. The demiurge article follows to much compromise with New Age and gnosticism - like concepts. This article to gnosis. I would like to write something that included the Demiurge as a will of the one (yes and I mean to use that d@mned word for him) and his manifestations as wills. I am completely apprehensive simply because people just won't understand. I would like to separate all this from the occult which to me is kitch compared to Plato. Also that vandal on the Plotinus talk page makes me wonder if people understand that clear specific differences between Plato and the Demiurge and poets/artist=for the people and Neoplatonic energy/source or one. Man this is hard. I believe I am wrong in some respects as well though not like that troll/vandal. There is actually a category on wiki here that states that the concept of the one or monad belongs to gnosticism. Do a search on google for monad. Even under the heading in the article monad there is no Plato no Plotinus but gnosticism. Also whats up with the Pythagorean article (aw hell nevermind). Hey I was just hoping to bounce it off of you once I get it jell'ed. Thank you so much ZN. LoveMonkey 13:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pleroma

Hey I tried to edit this article and put in the commentary by John Dillon but I kept getting reverted out. Please help. LoveMonkey 17:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

gnosis

Hey ZN help me with this edit please. I would like to word it alittle less provacative but can't find a way. LoveMonkey 18:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A moving target + RfM

Hey Zeus. I can see your frustration in attempting to contribute to the page given how rapidly it changes. One think you might do is start a user page (User:Zeusnoos/Astrology, say), cut and paste the section as it stands, and work on it by yourself. When you have what you feel is a good section, bring it up on talk or even be bold and paste it to the page.

I have also started a request for mediation. I did not list you as an involved party because you have not really engaged in reverting (to your credit). However, you can certainly be included if you like. There's a good chance it will be rejected as Aqu is refusing to sign for the moment. Marskell 14:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I will request arbitration here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. But I'm going to save that a while and see if there's any useful evolution on the page. Marskell 15:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Man

Just checking in with you. I tried to get EM to respond to me but he obviously don't love me no more. I was going to ask him about Chaos and the connection to ex nihilo, but he is as aloof as ol Hermes. LoveMonkey 14:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

I noticed your comment on Hermeticism. Would you mind lending your attention and knowledge to these articles being disputed and RfC'ed?

Hermeticism and other thought systems - talk page
Hermetism - talk page

Thanks in advance. SynergeticMaggot 17:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curious...

"This morning I woke up to the first indisputable scientific proof of some of astrology's major claims in five thousand years of written history..." Do you have an idea what the hell he was talking about? Just curious--it's a bloody relief to finally have a calm page. Marskell 16:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he showed up again today. Dammit. Marskell 15:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ZN

Hope all is well. Please please please help with the demiurge page. My articulation skills suck. I added some more technical stuff which to me sounds off. Help me with the forms as roots and or hypostasis of mankind. Please please please.

PS check out my Niko Lossky page man. Hehehe God how I love that old man! He was THE russian neoplatonist! LoveMonkey 20:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree! Completely too much christianity AND gnosticism to little plato. Hey- thanks. LoveMonkey 23:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I am at a loss as to how to insert the how poets versus science thing. Or artists versus logiticians. LoveMonkey 13:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Destiny and other articles

I'll be acting as advocate for the user 'Knowledge for All' regarding the article 'Destiny', and probably for several other articles as well. I noticed on the talk page that you have brought up the subject of linkspamming, would you please elaborate on what you're referring to? And any other problems you may see with this user's edits? I would really appreciate your comments, including any suggestions you might want me to make to 'Knowledge for All'. As a new user, I'm sure part of the problem stems from an unfamiliarity with some of our basic policies, but I'd like to find an equitable solution without resort to more formal dispute resolution procedures. (as far as I know, the user has not actually requested mediation) Thanks very much for your input. If you like, you could answer right here on your talk page, I'll add it to my watchlist. Again thank you, and I'm sorry to bother you. User:Pedant 20:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pedant, the matter, I think, is quite simple and can be evaluated with little effort from the edit history. Shortly after signing up, KFA added a line to the Destiny, Free will, and articles:

"Spiritually evolved researchers claim that in fact 65% of our lives are ruled by destiny (that is, are not within our control), whereas 35% are ruled by our wilful action (ie. are within our control). Examples of destined events include: birth, marriage, major accidents, death, etc."

This makes an absurd and arrogant claim of some type of spiritually superior research group or class. When I reverted, I thought it was self-evident to any other editor why it was reverted. Another editor promptly reverted the claim on the Free will article. This edit was accompanied by the same website (and the only one) that KNA added to every single page he/she edited. Before evaluating the value and notability of the content of the site as a link, it first prompts one to suspect that KNA is partial and involved in the organization he/she is promoting. KNA then rephrased the edit:

"According to spiritual science, 65% of our lives are ruled by destiny..."

This does not solve the problem. First of all, as you might see from WP's own article on Spiritual science, this idiosyncratic use of the term 'spiritual science' has nothing to do with a translation of the late 19th century German concept of humanities as a discipline as promoted by proto-phenomenologist Wilhelm Dilthey. That it is tied to this 'spiritual science' website indicates that it is only this site, those that claim to be spiritually evolved, who are positing the percentages. In my reversion, I said that it is "still an agenda pseudoscience edit no matter how it's worded." I further noted on the talk page that the site members claim scientific research - if you look at the the site and evaluate it, it is not a credible source for scientific claims - it is not a notable scientific research journal or organization. The definition of pseudoscience, while it has its controversies, is pretty clear that an organization, discipline, or individual, who claim to be scientific, and throw around percentages applied to a nebulous concepts such as destiny, are in fact pseudo-scientific and unfalsifiable. Many non-scientific things do not necessarily fall in the category of pseudoscience because they do not make claims of being a science or of leading to empirically verifiable knowledge (some forms of religious belief for instance). (If you need help on definitions of pseudoscience and the place or lack of place for it on wp, consult the editors involved in the pseudoscience project such as User:Jefffire or User:Marskell. I have actually defended some edits of hard to categorize topics such as astrology against deletions on the basis pseudoscience due to the context. But in this case, 'according to spiritual science', is pushing a non-credible view of a non-notable site that suddenly appears on a number of pages by the same person who is likely adding his/her own website to drive traffic to the commercial enterprise that claims "Spiritual research for lasting happiness" Happiness. All such advertising is unencyclopedic and strongly reduces the credibility of WP. Zeusnoos 00:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

more re: destiny

Oh, I'm with you, I have no problem understanding why you reverted, several policies apply. I'm acting as an advocate and, simply put, I can't really bring my personal opinions into play here, but I can counsel KFA as to applicable policies in order to avoid an escalation to more formal methods, which is my goal here: to resolve this without damage to the encyclopedia and without putting a drain on the community resources. I very much appreciate the time you've taken to explain your position, really I do. Understand that KFA is a new and relatively inexperienced member of the community please, and behave appropriately with that in mind, it would really help my job. (which is voluntary and I really am doing it for the benefit of the wikipedia as a whole)

If you'd like to keep tabs on my ongoing discussion with KFA, (and I would greatly appreciate if you don't edit the page there, please) the discussion is at [1] but you might refer to skip directly to my first advice [2] which I will sum up as saying I advised KFR to try to find a better source/why it is not a reliable source/a potential avenue for obtaining the 'research' which spawned those percentages/ and the alternative of quoting the site's assertion rather than making the assertion. I haven't touched on the linkspam issue, and am assuming good faith for now, that KFR is not affiliated with them and I haven't even asked yet. Rest assured, I've dealt with new editors before, and most of them are good editors now that they know how things work and what the policies involved are, and how we got there. I do welcome your input though, but it might be most helpful (to me) to continue this here rather than on KFA's page or mine. Thanks for your patience, I promise to get this wrapped up nicely and soon. User:Pedant 02:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oops... "translation of the late 19th century German concept of humanities as a discipline as promoted by proto-phenomenologist Wilhelm Dilthey" by this, you mean 'spiritual science' am I correct? User:Pedant

Your description of the issue on KNA talk is inaccurate since you say both editors have strong beliefs concerning destiny. I have not anywhere expressed any beliefs for or against the notion of destiny at all. Nor should any other editor since the purpose of an encyclopedia is to describe. I will say that it is absurd to claim that destiny, assuming that there is any reality to this concept (of which I have made no edits that might reflect my personal views either way), can be measured scientifically, but that's another story. To measure anything scientifically requires a measureable reality to that which is being observed by scientific method - otherwise it is in fact pseudo-science. If your proposed solution is implemented, I suspect it will likely be edited out when scrupulous editors eventually pay attention to this article - on the grounds that a single non-notable website (of which there are 100s such religious organizations) does not add much value to the article in an encyclopedic way. I will not be the one to do this editing since it would waste more time on a cut and dry issue. Zeusnoos 18:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I will say that it is absurd to claim that destiny, assuming that there is any reality to this concept (of which I have made no edits that might reflect my personal views either way), can be measured scientifically," sounds to me like a belief, and 'absurd' to me implies it is strongly held, but my opinion is of little value to me in advocating KFA's position. However, your opinion is helpful to me in explaining to KFA why his edit was summarily rejected...

So, in your opinion (?) the best resolution would be:

that no mention of "what percentage of our lives is governed by destiny" would be appropriate under any circumstances?

That quoting the assertion of this website would not be acceptable within an encyclopedic context?

That it is of no value to record the assertion

(because the website is not a reliable source?

or because the assrtion itself is absurd?

(Do you see the distinction I'm making?) Sorry to drag this out, part of my job as KFA's advocate is to clearly understand the objections to the edit in question, and not to assume that they are the same objections which I would have to the same edit.

(in my opinion, there are too many stochastic variables in the universe, such that the universe could not possible be determinate, and might be better assumed to be random, and that the concept of destiny in the sense of a predetermined outcome of any nontrivial set of events is in fact absurd. However, my opinion is not of value to me in helping KFA to achieve a stable valid edit.)

Also, how do you feel about those links, do they need to be removed? Because not a relable source /or/ because they are promotion? Or?

Again, thank you so much for taking the time to explain your position, it is very helpful to me in guiding KFA to an appropriate resolution without escalation. This is probably the last time I will bug you about this.User:Pedant 04:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a need to go into the ancient debates over what is doxa and what is doxa alethes or in modern parlance, justified true belief. I see the distinction you are making - by that I don't think mentioning percentages with regard to destiny is 1) the website is promoting pseudo-science, 2) the notion of calculating destiny is a-priori flawed (and in my opinion (yes in this case)), absurd. Supposing they are calculating something by the scientific method, perhaps gathering data through social psychology questionnaires, the hypothesis that what is calcuated is destiny either changes the definition of destiny or the results are shaped to reflect the hypothesis (with leading questions). If this org was in the news and considered seriously in any academic or popular context, then it would be noteworthy to add the comments from a NPOV. But it's not noteworthy - the article would be better expanded by looking at historical discussions of destiny and fate.

On the second point, I think all commercial advertising and sites to religious organizations or equivalent (with the exceptions of corporations or orgs that are the topic of articles or vitally pertinent to the topic) should be removed from wiki articles. Zeusnoos 15:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can really only deal with one issue at a time, and KFA's complaint was that you are removing his material, so that has been the limited scope I've been working within. If I can show KFA just how and why this one problem arose, my assumption is that this new editor may be quickly able to understand that the other 'problems' they are having stem from a similar cause.

It might have been helpful for the community as a whole for you to have provided a more thorough explanation of why you are reverting or deleting, epecially when dealing with an unseasoned editor. (assume good faith/don't bite the newcomers)

Not to grind on you, you have explained your position very well to me, you might consider that if you had done so on the talk page (at the time of the first revert), KFA might have undertstood better, and might not have considered that he was being unfairly censored but that his actions had less merit than he thought. He might have not, though, that's a lot of 'mights'. I personally, as a more experienced editor, immediately recognised the following:

"nonsense edits - "spiritually evolved researchers"" and

"rv - still an agenda pseudoscience edit no matter how it's worded."

...as plenty of explanation. Knowledge for All did not. That was the core of the problem as I see it, that a newcomer, unfamiliar with policies and customs and 'shorthand explanations', perceived your deletion as an attack. I'm not blaming you, (Really. I'm not.) and it could easily be said that KFA should have familiarised himself better with wikipedia guidelines and policies before editing. Wouldn't it be great if all new contributors would do that? However, as an advocate, my (voluntary) job is to help once the problem arose, and to represent KFA and help KFA understand your viewpoint and the relevant policies... I had to actually get your viewpoint before I could explain it to KFA, doing otherwise would have been unfair to you.

I know this has been a burden on you to deal with, and I respect how generously you've given your time to solve this. Thanks for all of your time that you have spent on this issue, and thanks for putting up with my work on this. You've been very helpful. cheers! User:Pedant 19:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. good explanation and fair enough. Zeusnoos 21:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha Found it

You made me wonder about where I had read abou Porphyryr and Origen. I got sniffing around and remember this one. 1. I hope all is well. God Bless. LoveMonkey 16:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again I hope all is well you look like you got your hands full. LoveMonkey 22:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Astrology, Skepticism and TechGnosticism

Uhm I figured our debates on Astrology were becoming more appropriate for our pages than the Astrology page. TechGnosticism was a term used by someone that Lacatosias was making fun of in the WikiProject Philosophy page. I have never seen it before, and I don't know the relevant guy. I am not a TechGnostic, and much of what that guy wrote looked like stupid amateur BS to me. But it looked like BS from a "amateur" in the sense of someone who is in love with wisdom and really genuinely trying; a seeker, and I had sympathy with the guy. I might have written that as a sophomore (wise fool) in college. Nowadays I have strong strains of Pyrrhonian Skeptic and Neo-Gnostic, and would list Sextus Empiricus and Valentinius, along with Donald Davidson or Diderik Batens as influences (and many others). Lacatosias also is in love with wisdom and is really trying, and I try to defend him when he pisses people off too, as he can be a little rough around the edges. He does good work, and is a fine philosopher too. In my experience Analytics often have troubles with philosophy as love of wisdom vs philosophy as search for truth, so I guess I see why that poor TechGnostic guy got straight up Lac's nose, and if he couldn't see the whole minority viewpoint problem once it was explained to him a couple times, I'd be annoyed as heck too. On the Astrology stuff, it sounds as if we agree except on some strange border cases (which is fun for conceptual analysis). I say SE is an astrologer who opposes most astrological theories, you say he is not an astrologer, but is educated in astrology and might count as an astrologologer. That's pretty close. What astrological positions would SE accept? Well look at how he opposes the Grammarians and Rhetoricians. Is there better and worse speech (and writing) in Greek? Yes. Is there a skill to speaking (or writing) well? Yes. Do Pyrrhonians assert a criterion? Yes! There is a positive project, the Pyrrhonists asserts the appearent as a criterion, and says "Adhering then to appearences we live according to the normal rules of life, un dogmatically, seeing that we cannot remain wholly inactive. And it would seem that this regulation of our lives is fourfold: 1) our guidance by nature 2) constraint of passions 3)the tradition of laws and customs 4) the instructions in the arts." (Outlines 1:23) A skeptic speaks Greek well, not by following dogmatic claims, but as a skill, indeed the worry is that dogmatic claims about good and bad grammar will inhibit forming the skill of speaking well. Grammarians are urged to give up dogmatizing with serious pronouncements, and instead to focus on training a skill. Now I haven't managed to read much of the against the astrologers stuff, but what SE should say in my opinion, is that astrologers who 1) stick to the appearent or 2) focus on teaching skills, constraining the passions, or laws and customs, rather than making claims are fine. Is celebrating natal birthdays on a solar calender an appropriate "correlation of heavenly bodies (and measurements of the celestial sphere) with earthly and human affairs?" YES! Because of the skeptics criteria of laws and customs. Is claims that the sun's celestial position effects some people via seasonal affective disorder an appropriate "correlation of heavenly bodies (and measurements of the celestial sphere) with earthly and human affairs?" YES! because of the appearent. (OK SE needs different examples, say timing religious festivals via a solar calender for custom, and planting and reaping based on solar measurments for the appearent). These ARE all astrology! Most "pseudosciences" get a bad rap, because we make fun of where they fail but forget to give credit where they have genuinely earned it. Things that seem obvious and true just don't seem like astrology anymore to most people. My wife's habit of trying to eat and cook seasonally, is like all other aspects of seasonality a triumph of Solar Astrology, but Astrology gets no credit because it is "appearant." Likewise, back in the day I did not just draw up charts, which is a purely mechanical thing that I did by hand once, and then used computers for from them on. I interpreted the charts according to the theory as I understood it, a complicated hermeneutic process, involving real skill (more an art than a science as they say). I even charged for consultations once or twice. But, if I Dogmatized about rules for interpreting charts, SE should attack me. If instead I give rules of thumb, emphasizing over and over, that chart interpretation is a SKILL to be perfected gradually, rather than a set of rules to be applied, SE should subside and allow me to get on with the buisness of life, like a good skeptic. Do I say that these things are so? Attack me! Do I say that these things seem to be so to me according to this theory? Carry on! Anyway that's my rant, hope it helped clarify. Bmorton3 19:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google supplied a few definitions at http://techgnostic.jetsolv.com/ "tech-gno·stic (tek-nos-tik) n. Intuitive apprehension of technolgoy (sic) truths, a skeptical take on technology knowledge." There are plenty more hits, including a Techgnostic gospel, and more stuff about some guy in Colorado named Tony Angelo Here's a link that uses both techgnostic and infomysticism in its beginning, probably the locus classicus for Lac's editor http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/techgnosis.html Bmorton3 19:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no inside information on TG, I have some minor contact with Ecclesia Gnostica, and ECGA two modern attempts at ancient style Gnosticism. I would not claim to have ever been a professional astrologer, but I would fight with someone who denied the term "astrologer" to amateur astrologers, just as I would oppose a psychiatrist who denied that amateur psychiatrists counted as psychiatrists (you can say they aren't credentialed psychiatrists if you want ...). I am teaching Diotima's speech on the importance of amateurism from teh Symposium to my philosophy class in a few minutes, in fact. My arguement that my wife's cooking was astrology, was based on our webpage's "definition" ie "Astrology is a group of systems, traditions, and beliefs in which knowledge of the relative positions of celestial bodies and related information is held to be useful in understanding, interpreting, and organizing knowledge about personality, human affairs, and other terrestrial events." Organizing human affairs around the seasons of the sun, or the lunar tides would count as astrology, under this broad definition, although perhaps that is a problem with the definition. I spent a year once trying to plan my daily affairs via my understanding of astrology, as a lifestyle experiment, and concluded that it was not helpful to me. I have done a couple of natal charts since then to keep a hand in, but am too rusty to be of value. I have since come to stronger and stronger beliefs in seasonality. I do regularly practice seasonal rituals, and sometimes incorporate astrological symbolism. I also occasionally have or even intentionally induce visions in which I interact with the planetary spheres, and these I have found to be of serious pragmatic value, and to involve astrological metaphors for trying to understand more basic truths. I believe that most pseudo-sciences get a bad rap because we forget their great successes while criticizing their more extravagant claims. It seems to me that the position of the sun and moon directly influence life on earth, but I suspect most astronomers would follow me on all the examples about seasonality and tide. But just because other disciplines can explain these things also, does not make them any the less triumphs of astrology. The position of the sun, moon, and earth effect human life in lots of subtle ways, and modernity is in danger of losing touch with much of it via our constant struggles against seasonality. In my personal life I have never seen evidence of other planets having effects beyond their obvious astronomical effects. As a matter of pragmatics might it make sense to live by an elaborate astrological theory anyway regardless of the justificatory status of its claims taken realistically? Perhaps, but it did not for me, when I gave it an honest try. It seems to me that the old layers of Mesopotamian planet mysticism "work." It seems to me that the position of the sun and moon effect many aspects of daily life (and OUGHT to effect others that they are ceasing to effect). It seems to me that the elaborate Hellenistic theories of Astrology, were good theories once, and later were decent "arks" for preserving mathematics during the dark ages, but little else. It seems to me that modern astrology "works" to the limited extent that it is good training in cold reading (which is itself a great way to try to understand humanity, and is a path to wisdom). Astrology gives enough details to work with and enough flexibility that the skilled interpreter can use it as a kind of Rohrshach test, crafting the interpretation to their needs and their cold reading sense (also by the way great training in hermenuetics, another path to wisdom). Personally I have always preferred tarot cards for this, but I can see how astrology could be used to similar effect. I guess the right summary is that the old, old layers of astrology seem to work to me, and the more elaborate theoretical layers seem to be adequate masks for the working of the skills of the interpreter, to me. Oh I'm also a saecularist, and I suppose the some of the longer cycles in astrology might synch up with the saecular cycles, I don't know. I do still try to live by astrology I guess its just that the basics of solar seasonality are the only part that is very important to me anymore. I have not encountered the Dillon and Long text. My sense is that astrology is like economics, you can't disbelieve in it even if you try, at best you can disbelieve in an overly-elaborate astrological theory, or economic theory, but that doesn't inpugn the discipline, it just means you need to restrict your self to more basic claims. Summer turns to fall, the leaves begin to fall, the light bothers me less in the morning, the season shifts from the moving season of August to the settling in to academia of September, the tomatoes come in late, and the farmer's market turns to squashes and apples. These are the realities of my life and they coincide with the position of the sun, and both the astronomer and the astrologer claim a victory, so be it. Here, imagine you found the astrological theories presented unpersuasive and instead decided to build astrology from scratch based on your own experiences and the data availible to you. I don't think you'd get the null theory, I think you'd get something a lot like early bronze age astrology, before Hellenisation really got going, but most of your claims just wouldn't bother the astronomers. Bmorton3 14:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly you may contact me in real life, my academic name is Brian Morton, and I'm a professor at Indiana State University in the Philosophy department, I don't really want to put my email or phone number on WP, but that should be enough info to make them easy to find for you. I don't really mean to be permissive about my definitions, its just that astrology seems like a very "top-level" notion to me, like economics, or physics, or politics, or agriculture. Almost everything is to some extent economic. But from there we make lots of distinctions. Most of the time when people say astrology in our culture, they really mean something like western divinatory Astrology in the tradition I am most familiar with, but yeah OK technically they're willing to admit that other things count, if you push us. I think that someone becomes a philosopher when they love wisdom, many kids probably count (and they become a philosophy Ph.D. when they earn the degree, and a professional philosopher when they make a living with it, etc.) Similarly they become a biologist when they study living things. Often we say biologist, when we mean (by synchedoce) "professional biologist." If I said he's not a biologist he's a geologist I'd expect someone to understand but if they replied Well actually he is a biologist, that just isn't his profession, he's only tangentially a biologist, I would accept the correction. If you say he's not a astrologer that takes years of study and experience, I understand your meaning, but reply well it takes years to be a competent professional astrologer, but he's already a beginning amateur astrologer, and I take myself to be correcting a synecdoche, but not much more. Maybe this is an odd philosophy of language point because on my strong non-monotonicity on philosophy of language. Alchemy is often characterized as proto-chemistry, which is one of the strands, but it was also proto-economics, proto-psychology, early cryptography, hermeticism and several other things. I wasn't considering Astrology as symbol system for encoding personality types earlier. I have no experience of that synching up well with actual celestial events, or charts, but it might be of pragmatic value as a self-standing system apart from that, I guess I don't really have an opinion one way or the other. I would certainly agree that the seasonality stuff I was talking about could be described as "seasonal empiricism", and then would merely worry about whether or not that was one of the components of Astrology (I say yes, you perhaps say no). The Gnosticism articles need a fair bit of work don't they? Bmorton3 18:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch on Origen, thanks! Bmorton3 16:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brother Porphyry

Hey man thanks I will MOST definitely get my hands on it. I have a fellow orthodox professor aquintance of mine is about to release a fantastic book on Alyosha Karamazov;) so I am really focusing on that right now. Theotokos bless. LoveMonkey 02:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey what kind of clarity or info do you have on the use of Declamatio within Platonic tradition? LoveMonkey 18:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

en gravitus? no gravitus! no zeusnous.

Hey did you fall off the planet? I tried to do alittle something of a start on the differences between platonism and neoplatonism on the neoplatonism article. Its just wrong, it suffers from reductionism and poor articulation but it is a start. LoveMonkey 05:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man no response. Wheres the love? LoveMonkey 16:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Block of 192.175.182.25 changed to anonymous only.

Request handled by: WinHunter ^(talk) 16:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. I am in a catch 22. Interested publishers have told me that I need to make a name for myself at conferences before they will publish me (I have two unpublished so far) but the last time I read a paper at a conference, three people showed up. I was talking to the wall. I had to try something else ! The wiki thing is teaching me something about how to approach people. And believe it or not, I AM trying to go by your rules. I believe I do stick to the literature - the primary literature.... Brenda maverick 16:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amfipoli, Greece

Hi. I made added some info and some external links on a page about a town called Amfipoli in Greece. Could You check it out and maybe it edit please? Thank you! Neptunekh 02:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr No-Love

Wow you don't send me flowers any more? Well if I have offended you I apologize. Hey check out this extensive rewrite by an un-named editor of Ammonius Saccas, woof what a revelation to neoplatonic history. Is this original research? This changes everything. LoveMonkey 00:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is an edit war over this so..If you get a chance I would like to get some help improving it. LoveMonkey 01:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Want to make a difference?

All I ever wanted to do was improve the Heidegger article on Wiki. And one thing leads to another... KD Tries Again 22:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)KD[reply]