Talk:A Vision

section "subject matter of a vision"
this section contains a lot of unsubstantiated claims, opinions offered as facts, and unattributed statements. i don't doubt the usefulness of a lot of the material here, but a lot of it amounts to the subjective interpretations of its author rather than strictly factual information. it should be altered to be in accord with the usual principles of verifiability and impartiality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.124.14 (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

This page is significantly wrong.
Apart from problems with certain aspects of grammar, this page appears to contain an interpretation of A Vision that is simply wrong. For example, the description of the four faculties is completely different from anything in either version of the original text of A Vision (either the 1925 or the 1937 version), or in any other source I am familiar with. It appears to be an idiosyncratic interpretation by the author of this page, and it is not supported by the texts whatsoever. It is simply wrong.

According to the text of A Vision (1937 version), Will and Mask are "the will and its object", and Creative Mind and Body of Fate are "thought and its object". Put another way, Will is the volitional self, Mask is what the will aims at in its volition, Creative Mind is the intellect, and Body of Fate is the whole of external reality, including the physical body of the individual being. However, this page has for Will "the socially conditioned person, the robot which is wholly governed by routines and knee-jerk responses; which has given up personal feelings and choices to do what is expected by others and to submit to the daily grind". That's just wrong. On this page, for Creative Mind, we have "what some philosophers have termed Gestalt or Collective Unconscious - all the racial memories which we share as humans, our collective knowledge, upon which we can each draw by virtue of our being human". There isn't much to say about that other than that it is simply wrong.

Other claims in this article are absurd on their face: "The problem with trying to read A Vision is that it is incomprehensible to the intellect." If one does not employ the intellect to read, then we are dealing with a concept of intellect quite different from the common one.

Other claims are flatly contradicted by primary and secondary sources: "Everyone is ruled by one of these 28 phases, depending upon the angle between the moon and the sun in the person's natal horoscope. In a sense it can be said that a person's natal phase symbolizes their purpose for incarnating in this present life." It is clearly stated in the automatic script which is the source material from which Yeats wrote that this is not the case: "Yeats was however quite clear that the "phases of the Moon in the symbolism I told you of have nothing to do with the horoscope, but with the incarnations only" (April 1921; FPS 80). Evidently Yeats felt that Sturm was still pursuing an astrological link even after the publication of the first version of A Vision in 1926; he wrote again that "You will get all mixed up if you think of my symbolism as astrological or even astronomical in any literal way. . . . Sun glyph [Sun] is a symbol of one state of being, Moon glyph [Moon] of another, that is all" (January 1926; FPS 88). Yeats had in fact taken some time to rid himself of the compulsion to find a link between the horoscope and the Phase, although the Instructors had told them very early in their sessions, on 30 November 1917, that there was "no astrological means of arriving at" a person's Phase or Cycle and that they "must get it by psychology as you divine birth sign" (YVP 1 142), and again on 22 January 1918, that no use was made of the apparent motion of the Sun and Moon and that the Phases were "symbolic & arbitrary only" (YVP 1 275).

I would suggest that this page needs to be re-written completely.MichaelRobartes (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1U7IF0VXIBG2V/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0020556004. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Gorthian (talk) 03:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)