This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I've changed the True Will section to reflect what I found in the cited source via Amazon. It says on p214 that "Crowley on occasion" rejected magical theism, specifically in the first few years of the 20th Century when he practiced a "skeptical" and "rational" form of Buddhism, "before he finally became a Thelemic mystic by accepting the Book of the Law as a revelation that can be applied to the entire world." By a startling coincidence, that agrees with the position of reliable-seeming biographer Lawrence Sutin. Dan ( talk) 04:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Several issues here that I want to change. Anonymous at 159.53etc, please read the last bit.
The first issue really concerns a host of other articles more than this one, but I'll put it here for convenience. We all seem to agree that the author of The Book of the Law refers to Rabelais at one point, kind of like how Lovecraft and Palahniuk refer to the Bible, or how Hegel refers to Kant. But if you insisted on editing Philosophy of Right to say that Hegel adapted his philosophy from the work of Kant, people might call it vandalism. And that seems like a much simpler issue involving no strange voices or deities. It looks like someone wants to define Thelema to mean Thélème and Thélèmites (which both have perfectly good names in scholarly use if you want to discuss them without bringing in Crowley or Aiwass). But you can't have it both ways. Either Heru-ra-ha belongs in the topic of Thelema, in which case the Rabelais-only definition rather obviously fails, or he doesn't belong, in which case Rabelais does not belong in his article.
Incidentally, the other user who recently took the side of anonymous editor WiC was banned user Ekajati, as indeed were all the others who actively took his position in previous years.
Second, Ekky's position led to a distortion of Rabelais. Not one recent scholarly source that I found took his side. As this did not suffice to calm fears of synthesis, I have some new references explicitly describing the current scholarly consensus.
Third, sources do not agree on what Francis Dashwood did at Medmenham. They agree that he used the phrase "Do what thou wilt," and that information appears in all versions of the introduction.
Fourth, this means we can streamline the introduction slightly. I don't think I'll remove any information from the article entirely, and I may leave Mahendranath in the intro. I assume that nobody minds if I give references for the terms we use to describe Thelema, and that for the obvious fact of conflict almost any source will do.
Fifth, the article presently gives a misleading picture of Crowley's views about Rabelais.
Sixth, I think Crowley does not give us a consistent picture of women and Thelema. The article presently gives one side which appears to contradict other statements. I don't see why it belongs in this article at all, as Aleister Crowley has more on the subject.
Seventh, the fact that "Ethics of Thelema" seems self-published doesn't bother me that much, but even the author describes it as a minority position. Let's not state it as a fact. Seems generous to leave it in. My citation for the other side happens to address the previous point as well, though I didn't intend that; I just went looking for the most conveniently located Reliable Source.
Eighth (more than I thought!) I have yet to see a reference for the claim that Ankh-ef-en-Khons personally wrote the words on "the Stèle of Revealing", or even that Egyptian priests of that period commonly engraved their funeral stelae. Any such reference should probably go at Ankh-af-na-khonsu.
I had a reference explicitly linking "astral" phenomena, and magick in general, with Thelema in order to help justify their inclusion. I don't recall why someone replaced it with another footnote, but I think the editor believed this other reference explained something important for the general reader. This seems backwards to me. If we need explain this matter further, then we should do it in the main article space rather than a note. People could reasonably disagree about the specifics, so I think I'll keep both refs for now. But I think an explicit reference seems better, for the purpose of helping fact-checkers, than one which does the job only if you accept some definition of "Thelema". And several of the quotes in footnotes seem a bit long, though it makes sense to put Mahendranath in context if we keep him at all.
Finally, I don't know if I understand the recent anonymous edit to the True Will section. The article should certainly talk about the mystical meaning of True Will. But we do make some reference to this at the end of the Ethics section. Perhaps it says too little, and we can argue about location, but explaining the link with Ain Soph Aur seems like too much for this particular article. And the part about deities, insofar as we can support it, seems implied by the article's previous sentence and the whole Cosmology section. The existing bit about the HGA and True Will relates to these issues as well.
- Dan ( talk) 21:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
No consensus ever existed. Please explain how you can dispute the description of the scholarly consensus on Rabelais, or the conclusion I reached starting from the obvious differences between his work and Thelema. Your own sources (or Ekky's) talk about the dispute on this point, and the more scholarly Sutin draws a sharp distinction.
Please seek one other non-banned user to take your side before reverting again. That shouldn't take much, if in fact the GA meant what you seem to think. Dan ( talk) 01:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Breaking it up seems like a lot of work. Why don't you read the Rabelais section, and tell me what "facts" you think I've "removed". And take a look at Skinner, p.15. I guess we could reconcile it with p.149, if we assume what I put in the introduction. Dan ( talk) 07:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I've done it piecemeal. I don't think I removed any points of view. Maybe if you count the part about women that does not explicitly concern Thelema -- that bit seems to contradict the new Ethics citations which do, explicitly, deal with the topic of the article. It also seems more suited to Aleister Crowley, which I think deals with this issue. Otherwise, I just gave more weight to the scholarly sources on Rabelais and Crowley. Dan ( talk) 17:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, WiC, now you're openly misrepresenting the sources; claiming that the author of Ecumenical Thelema did not consider his views ecumenical, asserting that for some reason phrases in the scholarly literature like "Scholars are agreed" and "It is evident from the scholarship devoted to Rabelais" and "contrasts strongly with Rabelais scholarship, in which the theological significance of the Frenchman’s scatology is widely acknowledged," do not describe the scholarly consensus, claiming that when Natalie Zemon Davis of Princeton University says on p19 of "Confronting the Turkish Dogs:Rabelais and His Critics" ( page 25 of this cache) that "The scholarly interpretation of the first episode—of Panurge of the multiple languages—has seen it as primarily an expression of Rabelais’ program of Christian humanism," this does not provide a source for his Christian Humanism. For some reason you even claim that a polemical source who says many will not agree with him does not provide evidence of disagreement. (And just now you failed to grasp a reference to a character in Rabelais, though I thought the source explained it quite well.) I ask you again to refrain from further reversion of this kind and see if you can convince any non-banned users of these curious claims. Dan ( talk) 00:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC) (Incidentally, for those who don't feel like looking, that reference something contrasts with Rabelais scholarship meant Martin Luther. On some points, they treat Rabelais more uniformly as a Christian writer.) Dan ( talk) 00:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
And I didn't put this in the article due to the growing length, but I thought you knew it followed the quote from Antecedents: Nor does the great Magician of Touraine stop with any mere symbolic identification; he indicates the Master Therion by name! Dan ( talk) 00:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Refs 57, 58 and 59 are broken because the intial ref has been removed. Please fix this. Totnesmartin ( talk) 09:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Thomas Urquhart was not a precise, academic-style translator. He was quite fast and loose with Rabelais, so can his work be fully relied on as evidence? I feel (and here I dive head first into the mud) that if Crowley used Urquhart's translation to develop his theories, then we should include Urquhart. If he used a more accurate translation then we should be very wary of Urquhart. Totnesmartin ( talk) 09:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Dan, I fail to understand your focus on "proving" that Rabelais was in essence a Christian. First of all, it can't be done, all we can really write about are the opinions of scholars of Rabelais. Second, despite your contorted attempt to use improper synthesis of overly-specialized sources, the simple fact of the matter is that since 1942, there have been two or three divisions of scholarly opinion on Rablelais. Before 1942, and this is of the most interest to the article, the opinion was uniform that Rabelais was an ant-Christian atheist, and probably a militant one.
The style of your writing leaves your meaning unclear. Making a bold statement followed by a dozen disparate references is usually a sign of improper synthesis. Next, none of your quotes actually outright says what you are stating as fact in the article. Another sign of improper synthesis. It also seems that you may not be choosing the best quotes to represent the view you are espousing. If there is a more direct statement of what you intend to convey in your source, by all means use it, but combining two oblique reference to imply meaning is most certainly improper synthesis.
Next, I fail to see how, even if you could somehow cobble together a direct statement from a broad survey of the scholasticism of Rabelais that Rabelais or his philospohy were basically Christian, how you could then logically conclude that Crowley's Thelema was not derived in part from Rabelais, as other sources have directly stated. First, no one in Crowley's time believed that Rabelais was Christian! The only' opinion of the time was that he was anti-Christian and that would have the only view available to Crowley in the literature in his formative years and even in 1904 when he borrowed "Do what thou wilt" directly from Rabelais!
Your whole approach may seem logical to you, but these glaring holes of illogic are big enough to drive an 18-wheeler through! Will in China ( talk) 13:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
this won't do. a statement about modern thelemists' views is "supported" by a reference to 777. Please replace with a reference to a more recent work. Totnesmartin ( talk) 18:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
The following problems exist with Dan's presentation of Rabelais:
This improper synthesis is quite simply poor scholarship, whether or not is it driven by any bias on Dan's part. Because of these glaring misinterpretations of sources, it is impossible to trust any of his other non-web-accessible citations.
Dan, please provide quotes from the following sources that directly support your text without synthesis or inference:
Each needs to have an explicit and unqualified statement to the effect that, as you write in the text they support, "Most scholars think the French author wrote from a specifically Christian perspective". Otherwise what you have done here is certainly improper synthesis. Will in China ( talk) 14:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Just FYI, WP:SYN says, "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources.". In case you haven't bothered to read it. Will in China ( talk) 18:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
As to tarring me with "3RR breaker" for things I may have done over a year ago before I even knew there was a rule about it, that's pretty low and a personal attack to boot. I'm requesting help from people familar with both synthesis and disruption to come take a look at your editing patterns. If you think I'm a sock of your preciously beloved banned user who you talk about so much, then report me. Otherwise, STFU about it. Will in China ( talk) 19:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
My queries on the original research noticeboard (who knew there was such a thing), have yield agreement that you are engaged in improper synthesis, Dan. See Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard#Help_with_original_synthesis_at_Thelema_.28Talk:Thelema.29. Thanks. Will in China ( talk) 23:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
WiC wrote at that noticeboard: Dan, one thing that is unclear to me is how a quote can have two separate citations. Which source is it from, who is it quoting. It's simply unusual to put a quote into an article without saying who said it. Plus neither of the sources are web-accessible so I can't check which the quote is in or who said it or anything. I'd be happy to include that quote in my overview of the scholarship, but for the fact that it's ultimately unsourced by following it with two citations and no explanation. That's why I tagged it as well as the more obvious synthesis. Could you introduce the quote with text and cite it to its original source only?
Well, the quote comes from LaGuardia. The footnote/ref citation to LaGuardia, which comes first after the quote (and first in the previous list) ends with the phrase, "Article quote on p36". You will also see, if you look at the previous talk section here, that I repeated the quote and followed it by saying "I don't know what you thought I meant by Article quote at p36," if you didn't know it came directly from the source. (Note that you broke the comment at that very junction.) The other reference for the quote in the article goes to Davis, available here and elsewhere as I've said both in the reference and in discussion, because I think the part referenced shows clearly and explicitly that she agrees with LaGuardia's view of the scholarship. Also, you can find it online. Dan ( talk) 02:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
From the comment I just posted: Davis, available here and elsewhere as I've said both in the reference and in discussion
Also on the noticeboard, WiC just asked why I don't "want" to include earlier scholarship, saying it might have influenced Crowley. Well, the article has citations for how Crowley came by what you're talking about, and for the influence (direct or indirect) that scholarly sources agree on. If you have other published scholarly sources saying more, then by all means tell us. Dan ( talk) 02:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
To put this another way, and I mean no disrespect by this because I do it to, it seems like you've mainly read the edit diffs rather than the edits as they appear. This makes it hard to, eg click on links. Please read the article, come back here and tell us what you think we should change on the merits, and see what people think. That's all I've ever asked (well, nearly all). Dan ( talk) 03:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Well gee, now I feel more confused. Do you believe LaGuardia says what I directly quote him as saying? If so, what do those words you just posted mean? Dan ( talk) 03:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
And for those who don't want to go to the noticeboard, I said this:
1. I think the quote that follows that line in the article does say that, or something stronger. I also think the Davis reference says it. (Both come from one of three references that I added to the list of examples.) You know the difficulty in finding citations for something that everyone knows. I don't think it gets much better than this. But I plan to visit a university bookstore and look for a textbook tomorrow -- the viewing for my dead neighbor should allow that -- and maybe check their library again. I will also request a book or two from someplace I cannot reasonably get to directly. WiC, please do not revert any part of the article before I get back to y'all on this.
2. I don't know why WiC has chosen to fight on this issue and demand that level of detail, but he has. Other users seem satisfied with the clear statement of Lawrence Sutin on the relationship between Rabelais and Thelema. Dan (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
3. If the bulk of current scholarship states the Christian views of Rabelais as a fact -- and it does, to the point where LaGuardia couldn't ignore this when writing on Rabelais in the context of his time's "medicine" -- how would you include the views of earlier scholars? Would you say the article on Thelema does not require us do so? Dan (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
copied Dan ( talk) 03:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Dan, please provide quotes from the following sources that directly support your text without synthesis or inference:
I would like to offer my assistance as an entirely informal mediator. Wikipedia:Mediation provides a nice overview of the general purpose and form of mediation. While it is the policy for formal mediation through the Mediation Committee, the general gist of the page is applicable across the board. I have a lot of mediation experience with the Committee and with the informal mediation group. I am also quite familiar with Thelema and Western esotericism. I also could help find another person with dispute resolution experience and/or find a couple of admins to help monitor the page. Thoughts? -- Vassyana ( talk) 04:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm still reading this talk page and the article before I comment further, but I'd be willing to help. Syn ergy 13:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Thoughts? -- Vassyana ( talk) 16:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
There are no textbooks for Sixteenth-Century French Literature, not in that store. I do have four library books to start with, and I can confirm that LeFranc's arguments for the atheism of Rabelais seemed "untenable" as early as 1985. Now, before we continue this discussion, I see two issues here.
1. LaGuardia should suffice to say that current scholarship agrees with Sutin on R.'s Christian perspective, even without all the supporting examples. We have a quote from Sutin, we have another reliable source describing the scholarship on Rabelais, and the two agree. Edit: agree on this point. 07:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
2. People want a citation saying that most scholars today accept this view that "is evident from the scholarship" (LaGuardia; I should mention that the issue seems incidental to most of what his essay says, and not essential to any obvious polemical point of his). Now, the same source tells us (from Thelema footnote 25), "Scholars are agreed that one must read these concrete and visceral passages of Rabelais in the most abstract of terms: the physical purgation of the body is an exact analog of the spiritual purgation of the soul." (emphasis added) He goes on to say that "The religious and theological context for Rabelais's seemingly scandalous preoccupation with scatology has, therefore, been well documented in the scholarly literature on the subject." Since he then spells out that context as the depiction, by R's texts, of "the Evangelical preoccupation with salvation and the true faith, and the need for good Christians to work toward the ideal Utopia of Christ's kingdom," this being "evident", the synthesis objection seems unnecessarily pedantic. I mean, I only said "most" because the laws of psychology tell us that some scholar somewhere must still disagree. But again, I'm looking for more sources -- ones that actually set out to describe the scholarship, rather than finding they couldn't avoid it.
- Dan ( talk) 06:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
LaGuardia tells us:
The English language tells us:
What do y'all believe follows from this? Dan ( talk) 07:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Re: point 2, R. L. Stevenson Bowen, Barbara, "Rire est le propre de l'homme," Ch. 1 in Enter Rabelais, Laughing. Vanderbilt University Press 1998, which you will notice comes after 1984:
Twentieth-century academics have "discovered" a bewildering multiplicity of François Rabelais. Although most critics nowadays accept Screech's Rabelais the Evangelical Christian humanist, our author has also been firmly labeled an atheist (LeFranc), a Freemason (Naudon), a proto-Marxist (Lefebvre), a social subversive (Bakhtin)... (and many others) Some of these Rabelais are undoubtedly authentic (whereas others exist only in the fertile minds of their expositors), but even when authentic they are usually, for my taste, too exclusive. p2-3.
Note as well that the article does not claim Rabelais wrote only as a Christian humanist and not as, say, a humorist. Technically, it doesn't even take a stand on the Freemason question. Dan ( talk) 03:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
fixed citation for the article 07:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I think you might want to read the rest of page 2 and maybe 3 more closely, since I see we can read it at Google Books. Though really, I'm not sure where you're going with this. Dan ( talk) 07:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Freude, schöner -- er, I mean, the book I most wanted to find in the library has a relevant excerpt at Google Books. The whole Enigmatic Prophecy entry by E. Bruce Hayes (p68) confirms what the article says with the phrase "a true meaning" of the poem that (as the article also takes pains to say) receives two interpretations within Rabelais by two different characters. (This prophecy and its context seem like the most relevant parts of Gargantua and Pantagruel for the purpose of this article, though we can discuss that later.) The entry says in part, ...Pantagruel's interpretation of the enigma, as an allegory of the suffering of evangelical Christians in France, is also viable. Read in an evangelical context, the double interpretation can be seen as a device to thwart those who might attack the author's reformist text by offering the anodyne interpretation of Frère Jean. However, neither interpretation is exclusive, and both offer only a partial understanding of the text. Although both interpretations are correct, both are incomplete. (second emphasis added)
The entry for Thélème, Abbey of p243, continues the theme that difference does not imply disagreement (e.g. with Sutin) and flatly says that for Rabelais, "The Greek name Thelema declares that the will of God rules in this abbey", while many other pages (esp. 92, perhaps) describe specifically Christian aspects. p74 in the Evangelism entry by Harp connects the Abbey with free will "disciplined and educated," human nature "saved by grace", and the internal Christian dispute that receives its own entry on p102. Dan ( talk) 19:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
For those who don't want to click through:
The Rabelais encyclopedia By Elizabeth A. Chesney, Elizabeth Chesney Zegura Edition: 3, illustrated. Published by Greenwood Publishing Group, 2004 ISBN 0313310343, 9780313310348
- Dan ( talk) 19:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Sounds about right to me, John. I've said before I think Sutin might suffice for one of the questions here. Dan ( talk) 20:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
You know, the GA article isn't quite as good as I thought. It has a glaring omission. It mentions that Rabelais is listed in Crowley's list of saints, but it neglects to note that it's one of the italicized names. Those in the know will realize that this means that Crowley not only was claiming that Rabelais foresaw Crowley's coming; he was also claiming to be the reincarnation of Rabelais. Given Crowley's notion of the great work, no doubt to complete what he'd started. This makes quite clear what Crowley believed of Rabelais' theology, at least.
It also means that Sutin was talking out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand claiming that Crowley was beyond doubt, but at the same time denying his continuation of Rabelais' work and thus simultaneously doubting Crowley's claims of reincarnation! One wonders if this was intentional, but ultimately has to conclude "probably not". Sutin possesses none of the genius of either Rabelais or Crowley, that's for sure. No offense intended Dan should you just happen to be Sutin. Will in China ( talk) 06:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Despite the lengthy obfuscation, I think we have a very basic question here. Do we approach the subject top down or bottom up? Arguing from details embedded in specialized literature is all very well in a research paper. A research paper is intended to build up a view from the details. But not an encyclopedia article. That should be more of a top down view, which naturally tends to prevent improper synthesis - allowable in a research paper but not in an encyclopedia article. This is more than a question of style, though it includes stylistic concerns. Does anyone else see the dispute in this light? Does anybody have any observations to contribute at this level of abstraction? Do we have to perpetually be drawn down into details with no end in sight? Let's get the conversation back on track. Will in China ( talk) 21:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Thelema, for better or worse, ought to be treated as a religion-- or at least a way of thought and life.
In my galactic mistakes in editing certain pages, I've learned one thing: DISPASSION. Clearly, Thelema cannot be approached with anything but dispassion.
So I agree with the venerable one who says it ought to be redone, from the bottom up, that is to say, with the simple definition and history of Thelemic leanings going straight through Rabelias, Crowley and Thelema today.
One thing with which I can empathize is the passion of contributors, but please remember one thing about this resource: it must be like an encyclopedia! Thelema is simple enough to define, as a "Do What Thou Wilt" way of life.
Its history may not be so easy, but I don't think the page needs to be a raging debate about the "natures" of Rabelias or Crowley, which ought to be full entries unto themselves. Let Thelema be Thelema, and how about someone approaching Thelema itself and asking for a little help [3] ?
Gosh, everybody is making it so complicated to be involved in Wikipedia. Think of it this way: someone asks for a good page on neurology. Are you going to define it, outline its history in general and put the greatest names on that page?
Or will you argue throughout eternity whether Charcot or Itard "came first"?
I await an exciting response! RevAntonio ( talk) 23:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
If someone wants to talk about the history of the word then why not trace it to Augustine of Hippo? His philosophical ideas about the divine and the human will are just as relevant, if not moreso, as the parodies of Rabelais. Maybe we need a disambiguation page to distinguish between the religion of Thelema, which was obviously founded by Crowley according to every reliable source, and the history of the Greek word.
If we're talking, on the other hand, about the religion called Thelema, Rabelais' relationship is no more significant than is Hippolytus'. Certainly he has antecedent ideas which contribute to Thelema, just as Solomon contributed eventually to Christian doctrines, but you won't find anything saying that Solomon founded Christianity just as you won't find a single reliable source indicating that Rabelais founded the religion of Thelema. What religion doesn't have antecedent influences? These influences do not however confer credit for founding the religion. -- Thiebes ( talk) 18:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if our moderator wants this or not, but Synergy requested an outline of the reasons for my changes.
My version of the article has citations for the definition, while the previous version does not. And I have other scholarly sources I didn't add last time. I'm literally picking the first two I can find in my notes here, from a set of at least five: The Encyclopedia of magic & witchcraft says AC developed the topic of this article from the Book he received, and that "Thelema was a new cosmology and set of ethics for the Aeon of Horus." It also agrees with Dictionnaire critique de l'ésotérisme in placing "the idea that the individual was a star" at the heart of Thelema along with "Do what thou wilt"; the Dictionnaire actually lists three fundamental principles, including love as a basis for "la magie sexuelle". The Rabelais Encyclopedia, meanwhile, does not have an entry on "Thelema" (only "Thélème, Abbey of".) It mentions no "philosophy of life" by that name. It does mention an ideal, namely "the ideal of Christian charity," on which the Abbey story and many others are predicated (p34). Now, a private citizen might reasonably take an ecumenical view and focus on similarities between this Christian story and Thelema, instead of their differences. We can even include this view in the article, and I have. But I see no justification for starting off that way. In both previous disputes on this point I mentioned the Christianity article:
"Christianity (from the word Xριστός "Christ") is a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus as presented in the New Testament."
Thelema is a religious or philosophical system centered on the rule of "do what thou wilt" as presented in Aleister Crowley's Book of the Law (which combines it with other principles we don't need to put in the intro).
Certainly the word Xριστός comes from pre-Christian tradition (which merely used another language). Even the rule that Paul calls "the one rule" and "the law" in Romans 13:8-10 comes from the Hebrew Bible. Oh, and I've seen published sources identify Melchidezek, a person from that earlier book, with Jesus. What of it? None of that belongs in the introduction. Please explain why this does not apply here, citing your sources.
Two other points seem closely related. First, the old article promoted a false and outdated view of Rabelais (by claiming that Crowley just further "developed" a phrase that loses one meaning and takes on another in Thelema). It seems like the Humanities equivalent of letting the reader think that bees are celibate, spontaneously-generated paragons of obedience to their male King. And while we can discuss this in more detail when we look at the details, I've thoroughly addressed the recent worries with more new sources. Second, I thought the article should do a better job of including Crowley's view of the Book -- given that it appears in several non-Thelemite sources -- while stating (without weasel words) what no source seems to dispute, namely that the Book makes implicit reference to Rabelais. Mind you, I now think we should change the statement about "the reception of the Book", as Skinner puts it on the cited page, as long as nobody tries to claim the same source says something that logically contradicts it.
Two other issues seem distinct from those, but involve similar principles. The bit about women in True Will just seems one-sided and inappropriate for this article. The Ethics section in the old version depends on one privately published third-party source; mine adds one from St. Martin's Press, another non-Thelemite.
Let's see, what else- I removed an unsourced anonymous addition that WiC had removed earlier. I removed the word "Crowleyan" from before "Thelema" in the account of Tolli. I rephrased the account of a recent conflict to follow NPOV, as you can see here. I added sources and tried to clarify what sources said. That seems like the lot. Dan ( talk) 06:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Please do not break my comments. As far as Chappell goes, Pope Ratzinger quotes Augustine as follows: "The New Testament lies hidden in the Old; the Old is made explicit in the New." (And from
Christianity: "The Christian concept of the Messiah differs significantly from the contemporary Jewish concept.")
The "Law of Thelema", according to some of my sources, includes other fundamental principles. One source gives the law as the combination of two quotes from the Book, and I know you can guess which two. Several others list the "star" doctrine as fundamental. The French source gives those three "principes fondamental".
The article explicitly mentions that Rabelais scholars in the past did not always share the modern consensus. Also, all the sources I've seen indicate that no scholarly dispute on his Christian humanism exists today.
We can argue about True Will at True Will if you really want to, but Sutin specifically relates a ban on sexual harassment and more to Thelema (quoting Crowley on the Law). Note that the previous version of the article gave AC's supposed views on women and True Will with no secondary source.
Speaking of which, "Our policy: Tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources." This article calls for a broad summary of Rabelais and his relation to the article topic. Though as far as Crowley and Thelema goes, I used multiple secondary sources. Edit 18:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC): and I recently filled a request for a summary of Rabelais scholarship to go with or replace eighteen bazillion secondary sources.
- Dan ( talk) 18:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I know at least the first two parts of this seem uncontroversial. Add Bowen reference after the "Most scholars" phrase. Remove all non-repeated footnotes that follow it. A few sentences later, add In the story of Thélème, which refers in part to the suffering of loyal Christian reformists within the French Church, [1] the reference to the Greek word θέλημα "declares that the will of God rules in this abbey". [2] This results in the following code before "Alexander Pocetto":
Most scholars think the French author wrote from a specifically Christian perspective, [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] improper synthesis? while pointing to disagreements with the Church. [9] [10] improper synthesis? "It is evident from the scholarship devoted to Rabelais that his texts ultimately depict the Evangelical preoccupation with salvation and the true faith, and the need for good Christians to work toward the ideal Utopia of Christ's kingdom." [4] [6] improper synthesis? This applies even or especially to the author's scatological motif. [4] [5] improper synthesis? In the story of Thélème, which refers in part to the suffering of loyal Christian reformists within the French Church, [12] the reference to the Greek word θέλημα "declares that the will of God rules in this abbey". [13]
Uncontroversial: add something like this at the beginning of the last paragraph of the introduction: Part of the system looks to the past.
Definitely uncontroversial: change the second line of the "Aleister Crowley's work" section to read "wrote or received".
- Dan ( talk) 19:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Add this to the quote from Antecedents, and remove as much of it as we can without sacrificing clarity: ...Nor does the great Magician of Touraine stop with any mere symbolic identification; he indicates the Master Therion by name! Dan ( talk) 20:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I have restored the GA version of the article, as the only objecting party conceded to restoration as a starting point. Diff of change: [4]. -- Vassyana ( talk) 03:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I've restored the GA version, as noted above. My intentions for moving forward:
A few points to consider:
Just some general thoughts and points. -- Vassyana ( talk) 04:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Are there reliable sources that discuss these points in relation to Crowley's Thelema? (Specific points: Biblical references. Augustine. Colonna's Thelemia.) Let's review those, if they are available. If not, should we remove those claims? Please bear in mind the prohibition on original research and our need to present the topic of Thelema in proportion with reliable sources. -- Vassyana ( talk) 04:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Since we've identified some good sources for the section, let's move forward. The article protection has expired, so please make the changes directly to the article. -- Vassyana ( talk) 18:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
“ | The word θέλημα (thelema) is of some consequence in the original Greek Christian scriptures, referring to divine and human will. One well-known example is from “The Lord’s Prayer” in Matthew 6:10, “Your kingdom come. Your will (Θελημα) be done, On earth as it is in heaven.” Some other quotes from the Bible are:
He went away again a second time and prayed, saying, "My Father, if this cannot pass away unless I drink it, Your will be done." —Matthew 26:42 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. —John 1:12-13 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect. —Romans 12:2 …and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will. —2 Timothy 2:26 Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created. —Revelation 4:11 |
” |
People seem to have access to the sources that discuss the Biblical use of the word. Could someone be bold and replace the above with paraphrases of the sources with citations? (As it consists of excessive quotations and original research, replacement is preferable.) Once the change is made, please note it here on the talk page with the diff of the change and we can discuss it. -- Vassyana ( talk) 18:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
“ | In the 5th century, Augustine of Hippo wrote "Love, and do what you will" (Dilige et quod vis fac) in his Sermon on 1 John 7, 8.[18] | ” |
As above, people seem to have access to reliable sources dicussing Augustine in context of Thelema. I'd invite someone to be bold and add material paraphrased and cited to those sources. (Since it's a simple statement of fact that illustrates the point, direct citation to Augutine is a good compliment to the other cited material.) Also as above, please post a note of the change with diff here for discussion. -- Vassyana ( talk) 18:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
“ | In the Renaissance, a character named "Thelemia" represents will or desire in the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili of the Dominican monk Francesco Colonna. Colonna's work was, in turn, a great influence on the Franciscan monk Francois Rabelais, whose Gargantua and Pantagruel includes an Abbey of Thélème. | ” |
We should remove this material until a reliable source can be found to support the claims. Unless there are objections, we can add an external link to Ash's site with a short note that it links Colonna to Rableis. Thoughts? -- Vassyana ( talk) 18:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I have come to agree with Totnesmartin that whether or not Rabelais was writing from a Christian perspective or not and whether scholars agree on this or not is simply irrelevant to the article. What is important to the article is what the predominant view of Rabelais' was during Crowley's life. If this cannot be mentioned without contrasting the modern view, then I suggest something like (adding sources as needed of course):
I think something like this paragraph covers all the bases. It makes clear what the view that would have influenced Crowley was, that it has changed, how it has changed, notes the majority view and also notes that this view is not unanimous citing the most well-known advocate with a differing opinion. Will in China ( talk) 10:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Dan, I thought we had an agreement here to participate in mediation. Yet you have gone ahead and made changes anyway. I am now of the opinion that no analysis of Rabelais belongs in this article. People can easily click through to the Rabelais article. What you've added is not about Thelema, it's about Rabelais and is off topic here. I am removing all off-topic material. If you have a problem with that, please restore the GA version and wait for the involvement of the mediator and other editors. Will in China ( talk) 01:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Will in China ( talk) 02:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Will in China ( talk) 03:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
What reliable sources talk about Rabelais in the context of Crowley's Thelema? What do those sources state? Like with the previous section we worked out, we should stick to reporting what reliable sources have stated about the topic. Let's compile some sources, noting what they report, and move on to reporting that information in the article from there. -- Vassyana ( talk) 08:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Some nice quotes on the topic from an article in The Journal of Thelemic Studies v. 1, no. 2. Note the presentation of the "subconscious" authorship Dan so recently denied anyone had asserted as an alternative to the "received" woo woo.
Later:
And:
And:
I think all that's pretty clear and mirrors exactly what the Wikipedia article states based on other sources. Also note the sources at the end of the article. Wikipedia was not one of them. Nor were the sources used in the Wikipedia article. This is a completely independent source. You can find a PDF of the journal linked on this page. Will in China ( talk) 06:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
According to Maxine Sanders and Alex Sanders in an article titled Wicca, Crowley "stole" his axiom from Rabelais:
Note that the authors of this essay are notable published authors.
In an article titled " Thelema and the Equinox of the Gods in Literature, Soror S.O. wrote:
Note that this is an article from a 1978 edition of The Newaeon Newsletter, V. I, No. 2 and thus is not self-published. Will in China ( talk) 17:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
P.R. Koenig, an author noted for his published histories of O.T.O. (in German), is another proponent of the plagiarism theory, here, including Augustine and Nietzche as plagiarized sources in addition to Rabelais:
Again, this is an author with comprehensive published books on the history of various occult groups. Will in China ( talk) 17:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Dave Evans wrote about Crowley's plagiarism in Aleister Crowley and the 20th Century Synthesis of Magick. Although I don't have a copy, notable reviewer
Peter Carroll wrote of the book:
Evidence is building up that this is not simply a minority view that can be dismissed from inclusion in the article. Will in China ( talk) 17:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I propose that based on these sources,
that the following sentence be added as the first sentence of the Rabelais section:
Of the three references, the first is published in the only academic, non-partisan journal dedicated to Thelema. The second is self-published, but the author Vere Chappell, is a well-known lecturer [5] and writer within the Thelemic circuit, has been a Grand Lodge Officer of O.T.O. and is currently holds the positions of Bishop and Sovereign Grand Inspector General within that organization. Based on these credentials he can be assumed to be knowledgeable about the topic at hand. The third source is a published writer and the article itself is not self-published.
I also propose that the final paragraph beginning with "Some scholars" be deleted. None of the sources deal directly with Crowley or Thelema. The argument as to whether Rabelais' works are fundamentally Christian in nature has no bearing on the other points that Dan is attempting synthesis with. Will in China ( talk) 02:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Add another source that say precisely the same thing as Chappell:
Also note from this source that what is being called Rabelais' "philosophy of Thelema" is also called Pantagruelism in other sources. Will in China ( talk) 13:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Confirmation on this point can be found in Marian Rothstein's " Androgyne, Agape, and the Abbey of Thélème", where in a footnote on p. 17 she notes that:
Of course, we all know that Thélème is simply the French transliteration of the same Greek word which is transliterated Thelema in English. So here we have a Rabelais scholar pointing out that Thelema in Rabelais does not refer just to the abbey, but to the ideals (i.e. "Do what thou wilt") of Pantagruelism, which other writers refer to as the "philosophy of Thelema". Will in China ( talk) 14:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I edited the True Will section back to how I originally wrote it in order to give a more accurate and in-depth analysis, since the section as it stood today was fairly weak and opinionated. Having read and studied Aleister Crowley for over ten years now, I am fairly confident that statemets regarding (my own words) the absence of any GOD, is wildly inaccurate. I may revert the editor to the actual writings of Aleister Crowley instead of second hand accounts passed down from Amazon.com. True Will in Thelema is a central theme, a concept that deserves great discussion and perhaps a more agile and probing mind to fully analyze and in turn, write about. It is extremely important to emphasize that, to each individual, the True Will is unique, whether that entails removing some form of "God" from the equation or not.
I would question wheather or not the editor of this section has really taken the time to meditate and study the meaning of True Will.
With regard to the comments directed towards me below, and I quote:
"Finally, I don't know if I understand the recent anonymous edit to the True Will section. The article should certainly talk about the mystical meaning of True Will. But we do make some reference to this at the end of the Ethics section. Perhaps it says too little, and we can argue about location, but explaining the link with Ain Soph Aur seems like too much for this particular article. And the part about deities, insofar as we can support it, seems implied by the article's previous sentence and the whole Cosmology section. The existing bit about the HGA and True Will relates to these issues as well."
Certainly the fact that the Cosmology section "implies" the inclusion of Deities should give some indication that the claiming otherwise in the section proceeding it is illogical. Reference to accuracy in other sections (i.e. Cosmology and Ethics) does not preclude the same ideas in regard to True Will. In other words, simply because something is glossed over in another section doesn't make it any less important in other sections, especially if there are statements which contradict each other (as is the case with the Deities). Nothing personal, but like I stated, the concept of True Will deserves and begs further extrapolation and analysis, forgoing personal prejudice. I welcome further discussion and meant nothing personal towards any one individual.
159.53.110.141 ( talk) 18:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC) JAB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.110.141 ( talk) 17:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I am down with editing the current version, but please remember that simply because Crowley "once" held a certain degree of rational skepticism during the years he practiced Buddhism, does not in any way define his attitude or ideas regarding the nature of The True Will. Taking Crowley's "stance" before he received Liber Al would be missing a considerable amount of progression, both spiritually and philosohpically, in which Crowley's ideas, especially with regard to Thelema (since he wasn't propigating the Law of Thelema until long AFTER the events in Cairo) were able to flourish and develop. It makes no sense to take Crowley's stance PRE-Thelema, when presenting an article which attempts to synthesize data concerning Thelema itself. The section we are editing is about "True Will", not Crowley's ideas of rational skeptical buddhism before he even received Liber Al. My point is that it is erroneous to assert such statements that narrow the idea of "True Will" to some sort of rational/skeptical atheist, when it couldn't be farther from the truth. I refer to a voluminous amount of Crowley's work, both Pre-Thelema and post the events which led to Liber Al. Also, I apologize for the anonymous entries, as I am currently stuck at work. I would thoroughly enjoy further discusssion though. If needed, I can delve into my library at home and provide ample support for the ideas I presented earlier in the actual article. I really wish to dispel the notion that one must abandon all ideas with regard to "God" or be a satanist to get down with Thelema or Crowley. This type of thing only perpetuates abuse and misunderstanding. 159.53.110.141 ( talk) 20:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The section I edited is the section I felt needed updating. It isn't perfect, but no one has to wait around for consensus to edit pages here. The changes I made were hardly UNILATERAL, considering there are others who have contributed. Is this some control issue, because I don't play those games. The point is to dig as deeply into the analysis as possible. But do give me a ring whenever you are ready to proceed. Just kidding. If this happens to be your property, than I acquiesce of course, but otherwise, educated and informative entries are welcome whenever by whomever. I see that the True Will section is back to being weak, shallow and misinformed though. Have it your way. It is unfortunate though, that subjects as important as this are being lorded over this way. 159.53.110.141 ( talk) 16:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I know this may be controversial, but I propose changing the heading "Aleister Crowley's work" to "Aleister Crowley's religion of Thelema". I know this sounds awkward so suggestions on other ways to phrase it are welcome. The important point in my opinion is to include the word "religion". I also believe this section should be reworded to refer to Crowley's system primarily as a religion, while noting any sources which disagree.
The reason I think this should be done is to lessen confusion. There is broad agreement I think that Rabelais originated the philosophy of Thelema, which some people persist in confusing for a claim that the founded the religion of Thelema. I don't think that fact that Rabelais' philosophy was presented in a fictional context makes it any less a philosophy or means we should call it a "fictional" philosophy. Note for example the popular book Sophie's World which presents many elements of philosophy in the context of a fictional setting. This in no way makes the philosophical points presented in the book fictional themselves.
In any case, I think it important to make a clearer distinction about where in the historical presentation the philosophy is transformed into a religion. I don't think it unreasonable to use the majority view in headings to achieve this end, just so long as we also present any minority views in the text. Will in China ( talk) 16:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Dan, verifiability on Wikpedia means that sources can be cited supporting a statement. That's all. Multiple sources specifically refer to a "philosophy of Thelema" and either date the beginning of the philosophy of Thelema or its creation to Rabelais. Denying its existence as a object of discourse simply seems obtuse to me. You are welcome to provide a source that says that it doesn't exist and add that as a counterbalance to the sources that discuss it. Since you seem to be unable to refrain from edit warring, I'll be asking Vassyana to revert to the last consensus version (that is, to the last change to the introductory section of "Historical background" before you started making changes without any consensus having been achieve) and reprotect it. Will in China ( talk) 22:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Problem is, your steps are not connected. The only thing that counts is what the sources say. Whether or not Rabelais scholars agree that Rabelais was writing from a Christian perspective has nothing to do with whether he, intentionally or unintentionally, created something that other sources call a philosophy. That Sutin agrees with these scholars about Rabelais' Christianity has nothing to do with whether or not Crowley borrowed from Rabelais. Sutin saying that Crowley didn't can't be supported by any number of Rabelais scholars who say nothing directly about Crowley. You are trying to use some sort of logic to produce a conclusion. Not what is done in an encyclopedia. I've repeatedly stated facts about points of view, and invited you to add to this other points of view, but you persist in removing or altering what I've added to reach what you consider a "logical conclusion". But we aren't supposed to be leading the reader to any conclusion. We are simply supposed to present what all the sources actually say and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. What you say may seem perfectly logical to you, but to me it reeks of false assumptions and improper synthesis. Will in China ( talk) 01:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
This is the other statement of 93 (Thelema). I've never really understood what it meant, though I've read various vague things. This article doesn't mention it much. I think we should mention it. Can someone explain it, with WP:RS? Sticky Parkin 00:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Could we remove the WP:NPOV tag now? Also, I used to like 'Will' [6] and I'm sure there's other stuff we can include. Thelema's not just magick- at least in the OTO, some of them don't practice individual magick as such. They like initiation and rituals though. Sticky Parkin 22:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
With the banned user gone, there's no longer an NPOV dispute, as I agree with you over the Rabelais issue. Just fire away and make any changes you feel are necessary. If any of us us really objects to another's edit we can follow the normal editing practice of WP:BRD. The tag just makes me stressed that's all lol:) as it implies there's an argument in progress. This is my proposal on the mediation front- WiC and his many faces have (perhaps temporarily) gone, possibly removing most of the need for mediation. He's not typical of the editing style of most users, and mediation is not typical of how articles are edited. Vassyana is mediating, but is away for a few days. What I suggest is seeing how we get on without him, editing as we feel is right and whether we can avoid excessive arguing (which might not have any reason to exist now) and edit in a friendly way by ourselves. Sticky Parkin 14:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Original text sourced from Free Encyclopedia of Thelema was added on March 13th, 2005, original text sourced from Thelemapedia was added on April 16th, 2006. The GFDL requires acknowledgment of all GFDL sources used in the creation of a derivative document. Will in China ( talk) 13:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Eventually this could be WP:FA standard. Not yet of course, and unlikely, but we can at least try and meet the standard, even if we don't pass it. An example of a WP:FA on minority religion is Bahá'í Faith. We'd have to stop edit warring.:) Sticky Parkin 18:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm somewhat mystified to find Frederico Tolli's obscure work given a whole paragraph here. He's far from being a reputable source. I really don't see that his work even deserves a mention, never mind a whole section; it's totally irrelevant to Thelema. -- Rodneyorpheus ( talk) 00:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
What's with the Further Reading list? Surely if we're going to have such a thing (and I have no objection to it) something like the Commentaries on the Book of the Law or Magick Without Tears would be rather more obvious contenders? -- Rodneyorpheus ( talk) 00:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I've changed the True Will section to reflect what I found in the cited source via Amazon. It says on p214 that "Crowley on occasion" rejected magical theism, specifically in the first few years of the 20th Century when he practiced a "skeptical" and "rational" form of Buddhism, "before he finally became a Thelemic mystic by accepting the Book of the Law as a revelation that can be applied to the entire world." By a startling coincidence, that agrees with the position of reliable-seeming biographer Lawrence Sutin. Dan ( talk) 04:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Several issues here that I want to change. Anonymous at 159.53etc, please read the last bit.
The first issue really concerns a host of other articles more than this one, but I'll put it here for convenience. We all seem to agree that the author of The Book of the Law refers to Rabelais at one point, kind of like how Lovecraft and Palahniuk refer to the Bible, or how Hegel refers to Kant. But if you insisted on editing Philosophy of Right to say that Hegel adapted his philosophy from the work of Kant, people might call it vandalism. And that seems like a much simpler issue involving no strange voices or deities. It looks like someone wants to define Thelema to mean Thélème and Thélèmites (which both have perfectly good names in scholarly use if you want to discuss them without bringing in Crowley or Aiwass). But you can't have it both ways. Either Heru-ra-ha belongs in the topic of Thelema, in which case the Rabelais-only definition rather obviously fails, or he doesn't belong, in which case Rabelais does not belong in his article.
Incidentally, the other user who recently took the side of anonymous editor WiC was banned user Ekajati, as indeed were all the others who actively took his position in previous years.
Second, Ekky's position led to a distortion of Rabelais. Not one recent scholarly source that I found took his side. As this did not suffice to calm fears of synthesis, I have some new references explicitly describing the current scholarly consensus.
Third, sources do not agree on what Francis Dashwood did at Medmenham. They agree that he used the phrase "Do what thou wilt," and that information appears in all versions of the introduction.
Fourth, this means we can streamline the introduction slightly. I don't think I'll remove any information from the article entirely, and I may leave Mahendranath in the intro. I assume that nobody minds if I give references for the terms we use to describe Thelema, and that for the obvious fact of conflict almost any source will do.
Fifth, the article presently gives a misleading picture of Crowley's views about Rabelais.
Sixth, I think Crowley does not give us a consistent picture of women and Thelema. The article presently gives one side which appears to contradict other statements. I don't see why it belongs in this article at all, as Aleister Crowley has more on the subject.
Seventh, the fact that "Ethics of Thelema" seems self-published doesn't bother me that much, but even the author describes it as a minority position. Let's not state it as a fact. Seems generous to leave it in. My citation for the other side happens to address the previous point as well, though I didn't intend that; I just went looking for the most conveniently located Reliable Source.
Eighth (more than I thought!) I have yet to see a reference for the claim that Ankh-ef-en-Khons personally wrote the words on "the Stèle of Revealing", or even that Egyptian priests of that period commonly engraved their funeral stelae. Any such reference should probably go at Ankh-af-na-khonsu.
I had a reference explicitly linking "astral" phenomena, and magick in general, with Thelema in order to help justify their inclusion. I don't recall why someone replaced it with another footnote, but I think the editor believed this other reference explained something important for the general reader. This seems backwards to me. If we need explain this matter further, then we should do it in the main article space rather than a note. People could reasonably disagree about the specifics, so I think I'll keep both refs for now. But I think an explicit reference seems better, for the purpose of helping fact-checkers, than one which does the job only if you accept some definition of "Thelema". And several of the quotes in footnotes seem a bit long, though it makes sense to put Mahendranath in context if we keep him at all.
Finally, I don't know if I understand the recent anonymous edit to the True Will section. The article should certainly talk about the mystical meaning of True Will. But we do make some reference to this at the end of the Ethics section. Perhaps it says too little, and we can argue about location, but explaining the link with Ain Soph Aur seems like too much for this particular article. And the part about deities, insofar as we can support it, seems implied by the article's previous sentence and the whole Cosmology section. The existing bit about the HGA and True Will relates to these issues as well.
- Dan ( talk) 21:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
No consensus ever existed. Please explain how you can dispute the description of the scholarly consensus on Rabelais, or the conclusion I reached starting from the obvious differences between his work and Thelema. Your own sources (or Ekky's) talk about the dispute on this point, and the more scholarly Sutin draws a sharp distinction.
Please seek one other non-banned user to take your side before reverting again. That shouldn't take much, if in fact the GA meant what you seem to think. Dan ( talk) 01:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Breaking it up seems like a lot of work. Why don't you read the Rabelais section, and tell me what "facts" you think I've "removed". And take a look at Skinner, p.15. I guess we could reconcile it with p.149, if we assume what I put in the introduction. Dan ( talk) 07:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I've done it piecemeal. I don't think I removed any points of view. Maybe if you count the part about women that does not explicitly concern Thelema -- that bit seems to contradict the new Ethics citations which do, explicitly, deal with the topic of the article. It also seems more suited to Aleister Crowley, which I think deals with this issue. Otherwise, I just gave more weight to the scholarly sources on Rabelais and Crowley. Dan ( talk) 17:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, WiC, now you're openly misrepresenting the sources; claiming that the author of Ecumenical Thelema did not consider his views ecumenical, asserting that for some reason phrases in the scholarly literature like "Scholars are agreed" and "It is evident from the scholarship devoted to Rabelais" and "contrasts strongly with Rabelais scholarship, in which the theological significance of the Frenchman’s scatology is widely acknowledged," do not describe the scholarly consensus, claiming that when Natalie Zemon Davis of Princeton University says on p19 of "Confronting the Turkish Dogs:Rabelais and His Critics" ( page 25 of this cache) that "The scholarly interpretation of the first episode—of Panurge of the multiple languages—has seen it as primarily an expression of Rabelais’ program of Christian humanism," this does not provide a source for his Christian Humanism. For some reason you even claim that a polemical source who says many will not agree with him does not provide evidence of disagreement. (And just now you failed to grasp a reference to a character in Rabelais, though I thought the source explained it quite well.) I ask you again to refrain from further reversion of this kind and see if you can convince any non-banned users of these curious claims. Dan ( talk) 00:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC) (Incidentally, for those who don't feel like looking, that reference something contrasts with Rabelais scholarship meant Martin Luther. On some points, they treat Rabelais more uniformly as a Christian writer.) Dan ( talk) 00:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
And I didn't put this in the article due to the growing length, but I thought you knew it followed the quote from Antecedents: Nor does the great Magician of Touraine stop with any mere symbolic identification; he indicates the Master Therion by name! Dan ( talk) 00:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Refs 57, 58 and 59 are broken because the intial ref has been removed. Please fix this. Totnesmartin ( talk) 09:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Thomas Urquhart was not a precise, academic-style translator. He was quite fast and loose with Rabelais, so can his work be fully relied on as evidence? I feel (and here I dive head first into the mud) that if Crowley used Urquhart's translation to develop his theories, then we should include Urquhart. If he used a more accurate translation then we should be very wary of Urquhart. Totnesmartin ( talk) 09:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Dan, I fail to understand your focus on "proving" that Rabelais was in essence a Christian. First of all, it can't be done, all we can really write about are the opinions of scholars of Rabelais. Second, despite your contorted attempt to use improper synthesis of overly-specialized sources, the simple fact of the matter is that since 1942, there have been two or three divisions of scholarly opinion on Rablelais. Before 1942, and this is of the most interest to the article, the opinion was uniform that Rabelais was an ant-Christian atheist, and probably a militant one.
The style of your writing leaves your meaning unclear. Making a bold statement followed by a dozen disparate references is usually a sign of improper synthesis. Next, none of your quotes actually outright says what you are stating as fact in the article. Another sign of improper synthesis. It also seems that you may not be choosing the best quotes to represent the view you are espousing. If there is a more direct statement of what you intend to convey in your source, by all means use it, but combining two oblique reference to imply meaning is most certainly improper synthesis.
Next, I fail to see how, even if you could somehow cobble together a direct statement from a broad survey of the scholasticism of Rabelais that Rabelais or his philospohy were basically Christian, how you could then logically conclude that Crowley's Thelema was not derived in part from Rabelais, as other sources have directly stated. First, no one in Crowley's time believed that Rabelais was Christian! The only' opinion of the time was that he was anti-Christian and that would have the only view available to Crowley in the literature in his formative years and even in 1904 when he borrowed "Do what thou wilt" directly from Rabelais!
Your whole approach may seem logical to you, but these glaring holes of illogic are big enough to drive an 18-wheeler through! Will in China ( talk) 13:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
this won't do. a statement about modern thelemists' views is "supported" by a reference to 777. Please replace with a reference to a more recent work. Totnesmartin ( talk) 18:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
The following problems exist with Dan's presentation of Rabelais:
This improper synthesis is quite simply poor scholarship, whether or not is it driven by any bias on Dan's part. Because of these glaring misinterpretations of sources, it is impossible to trust any of his other non-web-accessible citations.
Dan, please provide quotes from the following sources that directly support your text without synthesis or inference:
Each needs to have an explicit and unqualified statement to the effect that, as you write in the text they support, "Most scholars think the French author wrote from a specifically Christian perspective". Otherwise what you have done here is certainly improper synthesis. Will in China ( talk) 14:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Just FYI, WP:SYN says, "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources.". In case you haven't bothered to read it. Will in China ( talk) 18:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
As to tarring me with "3RR breaker" for things I may have done over a year ago before I even knew there was a rule about it, that's pretty low and a personal attack to boot. I'm requesting help from people familar with both synthesis and disruption to come take a look at your editing patterns. If you think I'm a sock of your preciously beloved banned user who you talk about so much, then report me. Otherwise, STFU about it. Will in China ( talk) 19:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
My queries on the original research noticeboard (who knew there was such a thing), have yield agreement that you are engaged in improper synthesis, Dan. See Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard#Help_with_original_synthesis_at_Thelema_.28Talk:Thelema.29. Thanks. Will in China ( talk) 23:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
WiC wrote at that noticeboard: Dan, one thing that is unclear to me is how a quote can have two separate citations. Which source is it from, who is it quoting. It's simply unusual to put a quote into an article without saying who said it. Plus neither of the sources are web-accessible so I can't check which the quote is in or who said it or anything. I'd be happy to include that quote in my overview of the scholarship, but for the fact that it's ultimately unsourced by following it with two citations and no explanation. That's why I tagged it as well as the more obvious synthesis. Could you introduce the quote with text and cite it to its original source only?
Well, the quote comes from LaGuardia. The footnote/ref citation to LaGuardia, which comes first after the quote (and first in the previous list) ends with the phrase, "Article quote on p36". You will also see, if you look at the previous talk section here, that I repeated the quote and followed it by saying "I don't know what you thought I meant by Article quote at p36," if you didn't know it came directly from the source. (Note that you broke the comment at that very junction.) The other reference for the quote in the article goes to Davis, available here and elsewhere as I've said both in the reference and in discussion, because I think the part referenced shows clearly and explicitly that she agrees with LaGuardia's view of the scholarship. Also, you can find it online. Dan ( talk) 02:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
From the comment I just posted: Davis, available here and elsewhere as I've said both in the reference and in discussion
Also on the noticeboard, WiC just asked why I don't "want" to include earlier scholarship, saying it might have influenced Crowley. Well, the article has citations for how Crowley came by what you're talking about, and for the influence (direct or indirect) that scholarly sources agree on. If you have other published scholarly sources saying more, then by all means tell us. Dan ( talk) 02:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
To put this another way, and I mean no disrespect by this because I do it to, it seems like you've mainly read the edit diffs rather than the edits as they appear. This makes it hard to, eg click on links. Please read the article, come back here and tell us what you think we should change on the merits, and see what people think. That's all I've ever asked (well, nearly all). Dan ( talk) 03:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Well gee, now I feel more confused. Do you believe LaGuardia says what I directly quote him as saying? If so, what do those words you just posted mean? Dan ( talk) 03:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
And for those who don't want to go to the noticeboard, I said this:
1. I think the quote that follows that line in the article does say that, or something stronger. I also think the Davis reference says it. (Both come from one of three references that I added to the list of examples.) You know the difficulty in finding citations for something that everyone knows. I don't think it gets much better than this. But I plan to visit a university bookstore and look for a textbook tomorrow -- the viewing for my dead neighbor should allow that -- and maybe check their library again. I will also request a book or two from someplace I cannot reasonably get to directly. WiC, please do not revert any part of the article before I get back to y'all on this.
2. I don't know why WiC has chosen to fight on this issue and demand that level of detail, but he has. Other users seem satisfied with the clear statement of Lawrence Sutin on the relationship between Rabelais and Thelema. Dan (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
3. If the bulk of current scholarship states the Christian views of Rabelais as a fact -- and it does, to the point where LaGuardia couldn't ignore this when writing on Rabelais in the context of his time's "medicine" -- how would you include the views of earlier scholars? Would you say the article on Thelema does not require us do so? Dan (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
copied Dan ( talk) 03:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Dan, please provide quotes from the following sources that directly support your text without synthesis or inference:
I would like to offer my assistance as an entirely informal mediator. Wikipedia:Mediation provides a nice overview of the general purpose and form of mediation. While it is the policy for formal mediation through the Mediation Committee, the general gist of the page is applicable across the board. I have a lot of mediation experience with the Committee and with the informal mediation group. I am also quite familiar with Thelema and Western esotericism. I also could help find another person with dispute resolution experience and/or find a couple of admins to help monitor the page. Thoughts? -- Vassyana ( talk) 04:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm still reading this talk page and the article before I comment further, but I'd be willing to help. Syn ergy 13:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Thoughts? -- Vassyana ( talk) 16:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
There are no textbooks for Sixteenth-Century French Literature, not in that store. I do have four library books to start with, and I can confirm that LeFranc's arguments for the atheism of Rabelais seemed "untenable" as early as 1985. Now, before we continue this discussion, I see two issues here.
1. LaGuardia should suffice to say that current scholarship agrees with Sutin on R.'s Christian perspective, even without all the supporting examples. We have a quote from Sutin, we have another reliable source describing the scholarship on Rabelais, and the two agree. Edit: agree on this point. 07:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
2. People want a citation saying that most scholars today accept this view that "is evident from the scholarship" (LaGuardia; I should mention that the issue seems incidental to most of what his essay says, and not essential to any obvious polemical point of his). Now, the same source tells us (from Thelema footnote 25), "Scholars are agreed that one must read these concrete and visceral passages of Rabelais in the most abstract of terms: the physical purgation of the body is an exact analog of the spiritual purgation of the soul." (emphasis added) He goes on to say that "The religious and theological context for Rabelais's seemingly scandalous preoccupation with scatology has, therefore, been well documented in the scholarly literature on the subject." Since he then spells out that context as the depiction, by R's texts, of "the Evangelical preoccupation with salvation and the true faith, and the need for good Christians to work toward the ideal Utopia of Christ's kingdom," this being "evident", the synthesis objection seems unnecessarily pedantic. I mean, I only said "most" because the laws of psychology tell us that some scholar somewhere must still disagree. But again, I'm looking for more sources -- ones that actually set out to describe the scholarship, rather than finding they couldn't avoid it.
- Dan ( talk) 06:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
LaGuardia tells us:
The English language tells us:
What do y'all believe follows from this? Dan ( talk) 07:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Re: point 2, R. L. Stevenson Bowen, Barbara, "Rire est le propre de l'homme," Ch. 1 in Enter Rabelais, Laughing. Vanderbilt University Press 1998, which you will notice comes after 1984:
Twentieth-century academics have "discovered" a bewildering multiplicity of François Rabelais. Although most critics nowadays accept Screech's Rabelais the Evangelical Christian humanist, our author has also been firmly labeled an atheist (LeFranc), a Freemason (Naudon), a proto-Marxist (Lefebvre), a social subversive (Bakhtin)... (and many others) Some of these Rabelais are undoubtedly authentic (whereas others exist only in the fertile minds of their expositors), but even when authentic they are usually, for my taste, too exclusive. p2-3.
Note as well that the article does not claim Rabelais wrote only as a Christian humanist and not as, say, a humorist. Technically, it doesn't even take a stand on the Freemason question. Dan ( talk) 03:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
fixed citation for the article 07:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I think you might want to read the rest of page 2 and maybe 3 more closely, since I see we can read it at Google Books. Though really, I'm not sure where you're going with this. Dan ( talk) 07:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Freude, schöner -- er, I mean, the book I most wanted to find in the library has a relevant excerpt at Google Books. The whole Enigmatic Prophecy entry by E. Bruce Hayes (p68) confirms what the article says with the phrase "a true meaning" of the poem that (as the article also takes pains to say) receives two interpretations within Rabelais by two different characters. (This prophecy and its context seem like the most relevant parts of Gargantua and Pantagruel for the purpose of this article, though we can discuss that later.) The entry says in part, ...Pantagruel's interpretation of the enigma, as an allegory of the suffering of evangelical Christians in France, is also viable. Read in an evangelical context, the double interpretation can be seen as a device to thwart those who might attack the author's reformist text by offering the anodyne interpretation of Frère Jean. However, neither interpretation is exclusive, and both offer only a partial understanding of the text. Although both interpretations are correct, both are incomplete. (second emphasis added)
The entry for Thélème, Abbey of p243, continues the theme that difference does not imply disagreement (e.g. with Sutin) and flatly says that for Rabelais, "The Greek name Thelema declares that the will of God rules in this abbey", while many other pages (esp. 92, perhaps) describe specifically Christian aspects. p74 in the Evangelism entry by Harp connects the Abbey with free will "disciplined and educated," human nature "saved by grace", and the internal Christian dispute that receives its own entry on p102. Dan ( talk) 19:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
For those who don't want to click through:
The Rabelais encyclopedia By Elizabeth A. Chesney, Elizabeth Chesney Zegura Edition: 3, illustrated. Published by Greenwood Publishing Group, 2004 ISBN 0313310343, 9780313310348
- Dan ( talk) 19:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Sounds about right to me, John. I've said before I think Sutin might suffice for one of the questions here. Dan ( talk) 20:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
You know, the GA article isn't quite as good as I thought. It has a glaring omission. It mentions that Rabelais is listed in Crowley's list of saints, but it neglects to note that it's one of the italicized names. Those in the know will realize that this means that Crowley not only was claiming that Rabelais foresaw Crowley's coming; he was also claiming to be the reincarnation of Rabelais. Given Crowley's notion of the great work, no doubt to complete what he'd started. This makes quite clear what Crowley believed of Rabelais' theology, at least.
It also means that Sutin was talking out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand claiming that Crowley was beyond doubt, but at the same time denying his continuation of Rabelais' work and thus simultaneously doubting Crowley's claims of reincarnation! One wonders if this was intentional, but ultimately has to conclude "probably not". Sutin possesses none of the genius of either Rabelais or Crowley, that's for sure. No offense intended Dan should you just happen to be Sutin. Will in China ( talk) 06:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Despite the lengthy obfuscation, I think we have a very basic question here. Do we approach the subject top down or bottom up? Arguing from details embedded in specialized literature is all very well in a research paper. A research paper is intended to build up a view from the details. But not an encyclopedia article. That should be more of a top down view, which naturally tends to prevent improper synthesis - allowable in a research paper but not in an encyclopedia article. This is more than a question of style, though it includes stylistic concerns. Does anyone else see the dispute in this light? Does anybody have any observations to contribute at this level of abstraction? Do we have to perpetually be drawn down into details with no end in sight? Let's get the conversation back on track. Will in China ( talk) 21:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Thelema, for better or worse, ought to be treated as a religion-- or at least a way of thought and life.
In my galactic mistakes in editing certain pages, I've learned one thing: DISPASSION. Clearly, Thelema cannot be approached with anything but dispassion.
So I agree with the venerable one who says it ought to be redone, from the bottom up, that is to say, with the simple definition and history of Thelemic leanings going straight through Rabelias, Crowley and Thelema today.
One thing with which I can empathize is the passion of contributors, but please remember one thing about this resource: it must be like an encyclopedia! Thelema is simple enough to define, as a "Do What Thou Wilt" way of life.
Its history may not be so easy, but I don't think the page needs to be a raging debate about the "natures" of Rabelias or Crowley, which ought to be full entries unto themselves. Let Thelema be Thelema, and how about someone approaching Thelema itself and asking for a little help [3] ?
Gosh, everybody is making it so complicated to be involved in Wikipedia. Think of it this way: someone asks for a good page on neurology. Are you going to define it, outline its history in general and put the greatest names on that page?
Or will you argue throughout eternity whether Charcot or Itard "came first"?
I await an exciting response! RevAntonio ( talk) 23:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
If someone wants to talk about the history of the word then why not trace it to Augustine of Hippo? His philosophical ideas about the divine and the human will are just as relevant, if not moreso, as the parodies of Rabelais. Maybe we need a disambiguation page to distinguish between the religion of Thelema, which was obviously founded by Crowley according to every reliable source, and the history of the Greek word.
If we're talking, on the other hand, about the religion called Thelema, Rabelais' relationship is no more significant than is Hippolytus'. Certainly he has antecedent ideas which contribute to Thelema, just as Solomon contributed eventually to Christian doctrines, but you won't find anything saying that Solomon founded Christianity just as you won't find a single reliable source indicating that Rabelais founded the religion of Thelema. What religion doesn't have antecedent influences? These influences do not however confer credit for founding the religion. -- Thiebes ( talk) 18:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if our moderator wants this or not, but Synergy requested an outline of the reasons for my changes.
My version of the article has citations for the definition, while the previous version does not. And I have other scholarly sources I didn't add last time. I'm literally picking the first two I can find in my notes here, from a set of at least five: The Encyclopedia of magic & witchcraft says AC developed the topic of this article from the Book he received, and that "Thelema was a new cosmology and set of ethics for the Aeon of Horus." It also agrees with Dictionnaire critique de l'ésotérisme in placing "the idea that the individual was a star" at the heart of Thelema along with "Do what thou wilt"; the Dictionnaire actually lists three fundamental principles, including love as a basis for "la magie sexuelle". The Rabelais Encyclopedia, meanwhile, does not have an entry on "Thelema" (only "Thélème, Abbey of".) It mentions no "philosophy of life" by that name. It does mention an ideal, namely "the ideal of Christian charity," on which the Abbey story and many others are predicated (p34). Now, a private citizen might reasonably take an ecumenical view and focus on similarities between this Christian story and Thelema, instead of their differences. We can even include this view in the article, and I have. But I see no justification for starting off that way. In both previous disputes on this point I mentioned the Christianity article:
"Christianity (from the word Xριστός "Christ") is a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus as presented in the New Testament."
Thelema is a religious or philosophical system centered on the rule of "do what thou wilt" as presented in Aleister Crowley's Book of the Law (which combines it with other principles we don't need to put in the intro).
Certainly the word Xριστός comes from pre-Christian tradition (which merely used another language). Even the rule that Paul calls "the one rule" and "the law" in Romans 13:8-10 comes from the Hebrew Bible. Oh, and I've seen published sources identify Melchidezek, a person from that earlier book, with Jesus. What of it? None of that belongs in the introduction. Please explain why this does not apply here, citing your sources.
Two other points seem closely related. First, the old article promoted a false and outdated view of Rabelais (by claiming that Crowley just further "developed" a phrase that loses one meaning and takes on another in Thelema). It seems like the Humanities equivalent of letting the reader think that bees are celibate, spontaneously-generated paragons of obedience to their male King. And while we can discuss this in more detail when we look at the details, I've thoroughly addressed the recent worries with more new sources. Second, I thought the article should do a better job of including Crowley's view of the Book -- given that it appears in several non-Thelemite sources -- while stating (without weasel words) what no source seems to dispute, namely that the Book makes implicit reference to Rabelais. Mind you, I now think we should change the statement about "the reception of the Book", as Skinner puts it on the cited page, as long as nobody tries to claim the same source says something that logically contradicts it.
Two other issues seem distinct from those, but involve similar principles. The bit about women in True Will just seems one-sided and inappropriate for this article. The Ethics section in the old version depends on one privately published third-party source; mine adds one from St. Martin's Press, another non-Thelemite.
Let's see, what else- I removed an unsourced anonymous addition that WiC had removed earlier. I removed the word "Crowleyan" from before "Thelema" in the account of Tolli. I rephrased the account of a recent conflict to follow NPOV, as you can see here. I added sources and tried to clarify what sources said. That seems like the lot. Dan ( talk) 06:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Please do not break my comments. As far as Chappell goes, Pope Ratzinger quotes Augustine as follows: "The New Testament lies hidden in the Old; the Old is made explicit in the New." (And from
Christianity: "The Christian concept of the Messiah differs significantly from the contemporary Jewish concept.")
The "Law of Thelema", according to some of my sources, includes other fundamental principles. One source gives the law as the combination of two quotes from the Book, and I know you can guess which two. Several others list the "star" doctrine as fundamental. The French source gives those three "principes fondamental".
The article explicitly mentions that Rabelais scholars in the past did not always share the modern consensus. Also, all the sources I've seen indicate that no scholarly dispute on his Christian humanism exists today.
We can argue about True Will at True Will if you really want to, but Sutin specifically relates a ban on sexual harassment and more to Thelema (quoting Crowley on the Law). Note that the previous version of the article gave AC's supposed views on women and True Will with no secondary source.
Speaking of which, "Our policy: Tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources." This article calls for a broad summary of Rabelais and his relation to the article topic. Though as far as Crowley and Thelema goes, I used multiple secondary sources. Edit 18:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC): and I recently filled a request for a summary of Rabelais scholarship to go with or replace eighteen bazillion secondary sources.
- Dan ( talk) 18:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I know at least the first two parts of this seem uncontroversial. Add Bowen reference after the "Most scholars" phrase. Remove all non-repeated footnotes that follow it. A few sentences later, add In the story of Thélème, which refers in part to the suffering of loyal Christian reformists within the French Church, [1] the reference to the Greek word θέλημα "declares that the will of God rules in this abbey". [2] This results in the following code before "Alexander Pocetto":
Most scholars think the French author wrote from a specifically Christian perspective, [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] improper synthesis? while pointing to disagreements with the Church. [9] [10] improper synthesis? "It is evident from the scholarship devoted to Rabelais that his texts ultimately depict the Evangelical preoccupation with salvation and the true faith, and the need for good Christians to work toward the ideal Utopia of Christ's kingdom." [4] [6] improper synthesis? This applies even or especially to the author's scatological motif. [4] [5] improper synthesis? In the story of Thélème, which refers in part to the suffering of loyal Christian reformists within the French Church, [12] the reference to the Greek word θέλημα "declares that the will of God rules in this abbey". [13]
Uncontroversial: add something like this at the beginning of the last paragraph of the introduction: Part of the system looks to the past.
Definitely uncontroversial: change the second line of the "Aleister Crowley's work" section to read "wrote or received".
- Dan ( talk) 19:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Add this to the quote from Antecedents, and remove as much of it as we can without sacrificing clarity: ...Nor does the great Magician of Touraine stop with any mere symbolic identification; he indicates the Master Therion by name! Dan ( talk) 20:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I have restored the GA version of the article, as the only objecting party conceded to restoration as a starting point. Diff of change: [4]. -- Vassyana ( talk) 03:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I've restored the GA version, as noted above. My intentions for moving forward:
A few points to consider:
Just some general thoughts and points. -- Vassyana ( talk) 04:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Are there reliable sources that discuss these points in relation to Crowley's Thelema? (Specific points: Biblical references. Augustine. Colonna's Thelemia.) Let's review those, if they are available. If not, should we remove those claims? Please bear in mind the prohibition on original research and our need to present the topic of Thelema in proportion with reliable sources. -- Vassyana ( talk) 04:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Since we've identified some good sources for the section, let's move forward. The article protection has expired, so please make the changes directly to the article. -- Vassyana ( talk) 18:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
“ | The word θέλημα (thelema) is of some consequence in the original Greek Christian scriptures, referring to divine and human will. One well-known example is from “The Lord’s Prayer” in Matthew 6:10, “Your kingdom come. Your will (Θελημα) be done, On earth as it is in heaven.” Some other quotes from the Bible are:
He went away again a second time and prayed, saying, "My Father, if this cannot pass away unless I drink it, Your will be done." —Matthew 26:42 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. —John 1:12-13 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect. —Romans 12:2 …and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will. —2 Timothy 2:26 Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created. —Revelation 4:11 |
” |
People seem to have access to the sources that discuss the Biblical use of the word. Could someone be bold and replace the above with paraphrases of the sources with citations? (As it consists of excessive quotations and original research, replacement is preferable.) Once the change is made, please note it here on the talk page with the diff of the change and we can discuss it. -- Vassyana ( talk) 18:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
“ | In the 5th century, Augustine of Hippo wrote "Love, and do what you will" (Dilige et quod vis fac) in his Sermon on 1 John 7, 8.[18] | ” |
As above, people seem to have access to reliable sources dicussing Augustine in context of Thelema. I'd invite someone to be bold and add material paraphrased and cited to those sources. (Since it's a simple statement of fact that illustrates the point, direct citation to Augutine is a good compliment to the other cited material.) Also as above, please post a note of the change with diff here for discussion. -- Vassyana ( talk) 18:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
“ | In the Renaissance, a character named "Thelemia" represents will or desire in the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili of the Dominican monk Francesco Colonna. Colonna's work was, in turn, a great influence on the Franciscan monk Francois Rabelais, whose Gargantua and Pantagruel includes an Abbey of Thélème. | ” |
We should remove this material until a reliable source can be found to support the claims. Unless there are objections, we can add an external link to Ash's site with a short note that it links Colonna to Rableis. Thoughts? -- Vassyana ( talk) 18:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I have come to agree with Totnesmartin that whether or not Rabelais was writing from a Christian perspective or not and whether scholars agree on this or not is simply irrelevant to the article. What is important to the article is what the predominant view of Rabelais' was during Crowley's life. If this cannot be mentioned without contrasting the modern view, then I suggest something like (adding sources as needed of course):
I think something like this paragraph covers all the bases. It makes clear what the view that would have influenced Crowley was, that it has changed, how it has changed, notes the majority view and also notes that this view is not unanimous citing the most well-known advocate with a differing opinion. Will in China ( talk) 10:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Dan, I thought we had an agreement here to participate in mediation. Yet you have gone ahead and made changes anyway. I am now of the opinion that no analysis of Rabelais belongs in this article. People can easily click through to the Rabelais article. What you've added is not about Thelema, it's about Rabelais and is off topic here. I am removing all off-topic material. If you have a problem with that, please restore the GA version and wait for the involvement of the mediator and other editors. Will in China ( talk) 01:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Will in China ( talk) 02:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Will in China ( talk) 03:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
What reliable sources talk about Rabelais in the context of Crowley's Thelema? What do those sources state? Like with the previous section we worked out, we should stick to reporting what reliable sources have stated about the topic. Let's compile some sources, noting what they report, and move on to reporting that information in the article from there. -- Vassyana ( talk) 08:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Some nice quotes on the topic from an article in The Journal of Thelemic Studies v. 1, no. 2. Note the presentation of the "subconscious" authorship Dan so recently denied anyone had asserted as an alternative to the "received" woo woo.
Later:
And:
And:
I think all that's pretty clear and mirrors exactly what the Wikipedia article states based on other sources. Also note the sources at the end of the article. Wikipedia was not one of them. Nor were the sources used in the Wikipedia article. This is a completely independent source. You can find a PDF of the journal linked on this page. Will in China ( talk) 06:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
According to Maxine Sanders and Alex Sanders in an article titled Wicca, Crowley "stole" his axiom from Rabelais:
Note that the authors of this essay are notable published authors.
In an article titled " Thelema and the Equinox of the Gods in Literature, Soror S.O. wrote:
Note that this is an article from a 1978 edition of The Newaeon Newsletter, V. I, No. 2 and thus is not self-published. Will in China ( talk) 17:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
P.R. Koenig, an author noted for his published histories of O.T.O. (in German), is another proponent of the plagiarism theory, here, including Augustine and Nietzche as plagiarized sources in addition to Rabelais:
Again, this is an author with comprehensive published books on the history of various occult groups. Will in China ( talk) 17:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Dave Evans wrote about Crowley's plagiarism in Aleister Crowley and the 20th Century Synthesis of Magick. Although I don't have a copy, notable reviewer
Peter Carroll wrote of the book:
Evidence is building up that this is not simply a minority view that can be dismissed from inclusion in the article. Will in China ( talk) 17:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I propose that based on these sources,
that the following sentence be added as the first sentence of the Rabelais section:
Of the three references, the first is published in the only academic, non-partisan journal dedicated to Thelema. The second is self-published, but the author Vere Chappell, is a well-known lecturer [5] and writer within the Thelemic circuit, has been a Grand Lodge Officer of O.T.O. and is currently holds the positions of Bishop and Sovereign Grand Inspector General within that organization. Based on these credentials he can be assumed to be knowledgeable about the topic at hand. The third source is a published writer and the article itself is not self-published.
I also propose that the final paragraph beginning with "Some scholars" be deleted. None of the sources deal directly with Crowley or Thelema. The argument as to whether Rabelais' works are fundamentally Christian in nature has no bearing on the other points that Dan is attempting synthesis with. Will in China ( talk) 02:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Add another source that say precisely the same thing as Chappell:
Also note from this source that what is being called Rabelais' "philosophy of Thelema" is also called Pantagruelism in other sources. Will in China ( talk) 13:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Confirmation on this point can be found in Marian Rothstein's " Androgyne, Agape, and the Abbey of Thélème", where in a footnote on p. 17 she notes that:
Of course, we all know that Thélème is simply the French transliteration of the same Greek word which is transliterated Thelema in English. So here we have a Rabelais scholar pointing out that Thelema in Rabelais does not refer just to the abbey, but to the ideals (i.e. "Do what thou wilt") of Pantagruelism, which other writers refer to as the "philosophy of Thelema". Will in China ( talk) 14:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I edited the True Will section back to how I originally wrote it in order to give a more accurate and in-depth analysis, since the section as it stood today was fairly weak and opinionated. Having read and studied Aleister Crowley for over ten years now, I am fairly confident that statemets regarding (my own words) the absence of any GOD, is wildly inaccurate. I may revert the editor to the actual writings of Aleister Crowley instead of second hand accounts passed down from Amazon.com. True Will in Thelema is a central theme, a concept that deserves great discussion and perhaps a more agile and probing mind to fully analyze and in turn, write about. It is extremely important to emphasize that, to each individual, the True Will is unique, whether that entails removing some form of "God" from the equation or not.
I would question wheather or not the editor of this section has really taken the time to meditate and study the meaning of True Will.
With regard to the comments directed towards me below, and I quote:
"Finally, I don't know if I understand the recent anonymous edit to the True Will section. The article should certainly talk about the mystical meaning of True Will. But we do make some reference to this at the end of the Ethics section. Perhaps it says too little, and we can argue about location, but explaining the link with Ain Soph Aur seems like too much for this particular article. And the part about deities, insofar as we can support it, seems implied by the article's previous sentence and the whole Cosmology section. The existing bit about the HGA and True Will relates to these issues as well."
Certainly the fact that the Cosmology section "implies" the inclusion of Deities should give some indication that the claiming otherwise in the section proceeding it is illogical. Reference to accuracy in other sections (i.e. Cosmology and Ethics) does not preclude the same ideas in regard to True Will. In other words, simply because something is glossed over in another section doesn't make it any less important in other sections, especially if there are statements which contradict each other (as is the case with the Deities). Nothing personal, but like I stated, the concept of True Will deserves and begs further extrapolation and analysis, forgoing personal prejudice. I welcome further discussion and meant nothing personal towards any one individual.
159.53.110.141 ( talk) 18:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC) JAB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.110.141 ( talk) 17:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I am down with editing the current version, but please remember that simply because Crowley "once" held a certain degree of rational skepticism during the years he practiced Buddhism, does not in any way define his attitude or ideas regarding the nature of The True Will. Taking Crowley's "stance" before he received Liber Al would be missing a considerable amount of progression, both spiritually and philosohpically, in which Crowley's ideas, especially with regard to Thelema (since he wasn't propigating the Law of Thelema until long AFTER the events in Cairo) were able to flourish and develop. It makes no sense to take Crowley's stance PRE-Thelema, when presenting an article which attempts to synthesize data concerning Thelema itself. The section we are editing is about "True Will", not Crowley's ideas of rational skeptical buddhism before he even received Liber Al. My point is that it is erroneous to assert such statements that narrow the idea of "True Will" to some sort of rational/skeptical atheist, when it couldn't be farther from the truth. I refer to a voluminous amount of Crowley's work, both Pre-Thelema and post the events which led to Liber Al. Also, I apologize for the anonymous entries, as I am currently stuck at work. I would thoroughly enjoy further discusssion though. If needed, I can delve into my library at home and provide ample support for the ideas I presented earlier in the actual article. I really wish to dispel the notion that one must abandon all ideas with regard to "God" or be a satanist to get down with Thelema or Crowley. This type of thing only perpetuates abuse and misunderstanding. 159.53.110.141 ( talk) 20:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The section I edited is the section I felt needed updating. It isn't perfect, but no one has to wait around for consensus to edit pages here. The changes I made were hardly UNILATERAL, considering there are others who have contributed. Is this some control issue, because I don't play those games. The point is to dig as deeply into the analysis as possible. But do give me a ring whenever you are ready to proceed. Just kidding. If this happens to be your property, than I acquiesce of course, but otherwise, educated and informative entries are welcome whenever by whomever. I see that the True Will section is back to being weak, shallow and misinformed though. Have it your way. It is unfortunate though, that subjects as important as this are being lorded over this way. 159.53.110.141 ( talk) 16:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I know this may be controversial, but I propose changing the heading "Aleister Crowley's work" to "Aleister Crowley's religion of Thelema". I know this sounds awkward so suggestions on other ways to phrase it are welcome. The important point in my opinion is to include the word "religion". I also believe this section should be reworded to refer to Crowley's system primarily as a religion, while noting any sources which disagree.
The reason I think this should be done is to lessen confusion. There is broad agreement I think that Rabelais originated the philosophy of Thelema, which some people persist in confusing for a claim that the founded the religion of Thelema. I don't think that fact that Rabelais' philosophy was presented in a fictional context makes it any less a philosophy or means we should call it a "fictional" philosophy. Note for example the popular book Sophie's World which presents many elements of philosophy in the context of a fictional setting. This in no way makes the philosophical points presented in the book fictional themselves.
In any case, I think it important to make a clearer distinction about where in the historical presentation the philosophy is transformed into a religion. I don't think it unreasonable to use the majority view in headings to achieve this end, just so long as we also present any minority views in the text. Will in China ( talk) 16:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Dan, verifiability on Wikpedia means that sources can be cited supporting a statement. That's all. Multiple sources specifically refer to a "philosophy of Thelema" and either date the beginning of the philosophy of Thelema or its creation to Rabelais. Denying its existence as a object of discourse simply seems obtuse to me. You are welcome to provide a source that says that it doesn't exist and add that as a counterbalance to the sources that discuss it. Since you seem to be unable to refrain from edit warring, I'll be asking Vassyana to revert to the last consensus version (that is, to the last change to the introductory section of "Historical background" before you started making changes without any consensus having been achieve) and reprotect it. Will in China ( talk) 22:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Problem is, your steps are not connected. The only thing that counts is what the sources say. Whether or not Rabelais scholars agree that Rabelais was writing from a Christian perspective has nothing to do with whether he, intentionally or unintentionally, created something that other sources call a philosophy. That Sutin agrees with these scholars about Rabelais' Christianity has nothing to do with whether or not Crowley borrowed from Rabelais. Sutin saying that Crowley didn't can't be supported by any number of Rabelais scholars who say nothing directly about Crowley. You are trying to use some sort of logic to produce a conclusion. Not what is done in an encyclopedia. I've repeatedly stated facts about points of view, and invited you to add to this other points of view, but you persist in removing or altering what I've added to reach what you consider a "logical conclusion". But we aren't supposed to be leading the reader to any conclusion. We are simply supposed to present what all the sources actually say and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. What you say may seem perfectly logical to you, but to me it reeks of false assumptions and improper synthesis. Will in China ( talk) 01:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
This is the other statement of 93 (Thelema). I've never really understood what it meant, though I've read various vague things. This article doesn't mention it much. I think we should mention it. Can someone explain it, with WP:RS? Sticky Parkin 00:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Could we remove the WP:NPOV tag now? Also, I used to like 'Will' [6] and I'm sure there's other stuff we can include. Thelema's not just magick- at least in the OTO, some of them don't practice individual magick as such. They like initiation and rituals though. Sticky Parkin 22:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
With the banned user gone, there's no longer an NPOV dispute, as I agree with you over the Rabelais issue. Just fire away and make any changes you feel are necessary. If any of us us really objects to another's edit we can follow the normal editing practice of WP:BRD. The tag just makes me stressed that's all lol:) as it implies there's an argument in progress. This is my proposal on the mediation front- WiC and his many faces have (perhaps temporarily) gone, possibly removing most of the need for mediation. He's not typical of the editing style of most users, and mediation is not typical of how articles are edited. Vassyana is mediating, but is away for a few days. What I suggest is seeing how we get on without him, editing as we feel is right and whether we can avoid excessive arguing (which might not have any reason to exist now) and edit in a friendly way by ourselves. Sticky Parkin 14:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Original text sourced from Free Encyclopedia of Thelema was added on March 13th, 2005, original text sourced from Thelemapedia was added on April 16th, 2006. The GFDL requires acknowledgment of all GFDL sources used in the creation of a derivative document. Will in China ( talk) 13:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Eventually this could be WP:FA standard. Not yet of course, and unlikely, but we can at least try and meet the standard, even if we don't pass it. An example of a WP:FA on minority religion is Bahá'í Faith. We'd have to stop edit warring.:) Sticky Parkin 18:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm somewhat mystified to find Frederico Tolli's obscure work given a whole paragraph here. He's far from being a reputable source. I really don't see that his work even deserves a mention, never mind a whole section; it's totally irrelevant to Thelema. -- Rodneyorpheus ( talk) 00:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
What's with the Further Reading list? Surely if we're going to have such a thing (and I have no objection to it) something like the Commentaries on the Book of the Law or Magick Without Tears would be rather more obvious contenders? -- Rodneyorpheus ( talk) 00:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)