Talk:Daniel Odier

Notability
I don't understand how the guy who wrote the book that became the movie "Diva" can't be considered notable. The movie is quite famous. It appears the fellow is a reasonably famous author -- a number of his books seem to be available through purchase through Amazon and similar outlets. Perhaps he is less famous in the US than in France but that doesn't seem like a reason to exclude him. --Pmetzger 00:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Having confirmed that Mr. Odier is actually a famous person, I've removed the "should we delete this because this person is not famous enough" markings, cleaned up the page a bit, renamed it, etc. --Pmetzger 01:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

One last thing: there is an extensive page on the French wikipedia about Odier. Someone with enough time and energy might want to translate it. --Pmetzger 01:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute
The statement in question appears to be slanted in favor of a single, particular writer's point of view, citing only one source while purporting "some" sources, and not presenting any alternate viewpoint(s) to balance the claim. No direct, verifiable evidence of Odier's inauthenticity with respect to the claim in question is actually presented by even the source in question; it merely contains a reviewer's critical opinion (qualified or not?) of a specific Odier work on Tantra. For obvious reasons then, this addition to the article does not appear to constitute an encyclopedic fact but, instead, merely to point up and render props to a statement of uniquely-advocated opinion. Therefore, pending no further validation in counter-argument from the editor, I will move for deletion of the statement in question. Riskquette (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I cite "some doubts", not "some sources". The alternate viewpoint that this is an authentic experience that actually happened is made by the book itself, thus hardly needs to be backed by additional viewpoints, though I think it is obvious that many people who have read that book have presumed it to relate a true experience, and this is how it is presented by Odier himself (or at least he acquiesces in that interpretation). The analysis cited disputes the claim of authenticity on both psychoanalytic and text-critical grounds. It is, like anything, a point of view which may or may not be correct but I think it is valuable that readers of the work are aware that its authenticity has been questioned and why. They can then make up their own minds. I think a neutral reader will agree that the critique in the cited source is reasonably argued and thus relevant in this regard. However, I am certainly open to a solution involving improved wording here.Fbunny (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The word choice you've articulated hardly nullifies my point, especially if you intend Odier's text itself as an alternate viewpoint to the one you've presented; for his text cannot be so. I will point to a couple of sources to explain how the latter assumption and the blog source which you cite are both problematic.  Firstly, the very central basis for an open-source web project given almost completely to the postmodern marketplace of ideas (namely: Wikipedia) is found in the following late-modern, hermeneutical assertion by Paul Ricœur from his text, "Metaphor and the Problem of Hermeneutics":"The writing-reading relation is not a particular case of the speaking-answering relation. It is not a relation of interlocution, not an instance of dialogue.  It does not suffice to say that reading is a dialogue with the author through his work, for the relation of the reader to the book is of a completely different nature.  Dialogue is an exchange of questions and answers; there is no exchange of this sort between the writer and the reader.  The writer does not respond to the reader.  Rather, the book divides the act of writing and the act of reading into two sides, between which there is no communication.  The reader is absent from the act of writing; the writer is absent from the act of reading. (Continental Aesthetics: Romanticism to Postmodernism: An Anthology. Ed. Richard Kearney and David Rasmussen. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001. 340.)"  Thus, by extension, the writer is absent from the act of interpretation by the reader as well.  So you see, the writer himself cannot truly be stated to interpret his own text in the critical manner of the reader.  Similarly, the text itself cannot be said to hold a critical, interpretive viewpoint on itself.  Therefore, the more "obvious" presumptions of the "many" readers which you mention do, in fact, need to be cited in order to balance your content in accordance with the aforementioned hermeneutical distinction situated at the heart of this project.  (Although, this is probably not possible in this article, except via reliable, non-self-published sources as, if you read on, you will discover.)


 * With respect to the source you cite, I need only bring to your attention the Wiki policy page for verifiable content (WP:V). You should read the entire page; but, particularly, the last sentence of the subsection on "Self-published sources" (WP:SPS) explicitly prohibits the type of source you've cited with respect to Odier.  Therefore, I will accordingly remove the source now to avoid problems, and I ask you, on readily apparent grounds, to either remove or completely modify (in accordance with due neutrality) the final sentence you've added to the article.  Thanks.  Riskquette (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Riskquette, it seems to me you are acting certainly unilaterally and secondly somewhat casuistically here. Odier does make this claim, both in the book and in his teaching, as literally thousands of internet sources will readily confirm. The cited source indicates that the claim has been questioned, that's all. For this purpose it is sufficient, as it does indeed show that the claim has been questioned. I believe that your interpretation fails to appreciate the context of the claim, which is not only contained in a work whose genre may be debated. I also believe it is an inappropriate standard to apply to the biography of a living person, and that my edit improved the article for the purpose of the readers, which should be the litmus test. It certainly makes no sense to delete the reference and yet to retain that the claims have been doubted, as the reference at least indicates some grounds for those doubts, without which the statement is somewhat lame.


 * As I said I am happy to cooperate on this but it seems to me that you need to set out your argument in somewhat greater detail so that I can at least understand what it is you really have a problem with.


 * Could you therefore possibly, since you (alone for the moment) seem to have a problem with this, tell me with what wording you would be happy?


 * (update)ok, I read WP:BLP and on this basis I've modified it myself, I think WP is behind the curve here though and that the policy should be more nuanced (though I appreciate the scope for abuse, it unfortunately ends up excluding useful information). I may take the discussion up elsewhere. I hope the fact that he claims this in his teaching, not just the book, will be apparent enough from a google search of  Odier+Lalita without encumbering the text with laborious and individually not helpful references, and that we can agree it is a "claim".


 * (update 2)I added the link to his bio on his own website in order to remove any doubt as to the scope of the claim


 * I have actually already worked out an argument for the dispute of your now-removed final sentence on the grounds about which you inquire, and I would be happy to post it here, when I am not otherwise constrained, for your benefit as well as the foreknowledge of other potential editors of this and other such articles (assuming it does not consume undue length). However, I believe that it suffices, without that argument, to state that: without the necessary, qualified reference(s) to verify any claim(s) you append to this article (much less its discussion page), said claim(s) will inevitably be held in dispute.  This is, to me at least (although, I would venture to assert, to many others as well), intuitively obvious.


 * Futhermore, I'm not convinced that you've fully grasped the hermeneutical precedent that I referenced earlier (contrary to what you continue to argue in subsequent replies) which, in accordance with the requirements of any biographical sketch, regards all textual output by Odier as wholly separate and of a qualitatively different nature from critical interpretations, viewpoints, deconstructions, etc. made by any of his readers upon it. Alas, therefore, I re-word and reiterate: in an encyclopedic and biographical article about Odier, you cannot reasonably appeal to Odier himself or any of his text(s) as the sole source for interpretive viewpoints which endorse (or even dismiss) his own assertions or those of any of his text(s).  To disregard the latter assertion would enable, at best, something with an uncanny resemblance to circular reasoning.  By logical and intuitive extension, then, if you present one interpretive viewpoint by a given reader which calls Odier's textual assertions into question on grounds of authenticity, then you must (in order to maintain the imperative neutrality required by the encyclopedic article you're editing here) present another reader's viewpoint that upholds the opposite end of the interpretive spectrum—not only but especially if you know of and can comprehensively relay, with necessary citations, the accounts of separate, legitimate sources which disseminate both (and any other) viewpoints.  Furthermore, this means that, for the sake of neutrality, neither of these opposing viewpoints should be appended to the article without the other.  You should probably compile enough sources to give voice to both (or all) ends of the interpretive spectrum and post them all at once.  But, in any case, neutrality has it that no source's (relatively subjective) viewpoint should ever be predominant over that of any other source within the article.  Otherwise, your addition to this or any other article will possess an uncharacteristic "slant"; a "bias"; a disputable neutrality...It will be "incomprehensive" at best.


 * All of that said, I find your re-editing of the final sentence(s) perfectly acceptable in all respects but a minor one: the reference that you cite there has already been previously cited in the article.  Therefore, in order to eliminate an unnecessary, additional source line, I will make a minor edit attributing the earlier-cited reference to your final sentence—just as you, ultimately, have done—and I will delete the redundant citation.  Thanks again.  Riskquette (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Riskquette, I believe I do understand the point you are making. We could doubtless go on at great length about it. Personally I think it was just sloppy editing on my part initially to have linked the claim (which directly underpins his spiritual ministry, more precisely through the concept of "lineage transmission") exclusively to the book. This is not really the point I wanted to make. Thus I fully accept that the original formulation was in error. I appreciate that you may also be more open to useful edits than the official Wikipedia policy seems to be, on the basis of which I concluded I could not in any case quote the source I used. Because I just dip in from time to time when I think I can add something useful, I have not studied all the guidelines. I think it is clear that there is much useful information on Wikipedia which doesn't conform to the policy - at least information which is more useful than no information at all. For me, and I suppose for you also, there is no such thing as neutrality; I think what is being requested is rather a balance of opinions. Yet I can accept that what I wrote (because I wrote it quickly) results indeed in a slant and is certainly incomplete.


 * We all have motives for what we do and mine was to call attention to certain inconsistencies in Odier's account which are important and which casual readers may not have noticed in their enthusiasm for his seductive and frankly beautiful language and surge of ideas (I read the book in the original). Having said this, I fully appreciate that most people would take it as self-evident that such a thing had not occurred because they have it as an axiom that such things do not occur. For the average reader - at least someone interested in his literary output - therefore, such a discussion might, I imagine, appear entirely arcane. The fact of the matter is, however, that thousands of people do take this as a literal claim and that is not without consequences. Of course, similar claims are taken as truth in all significant religions.


 * I guess the real problem I have is that, for me, Daniel Odier "is" the tantra teacher. I do not know the literary works but I do note that he presents himself, at least under his real name, exclusively as a tantra/chan teacher on his website and therefore this appears to be to be his dominant public persona. But the article gives little space to this. And I am wondering also if the matters I am concerned with are in fact really part of his "biography" or not rather a separate subject, being his "movement", which certainly consists of more than him and which could be documented separately. I don't know how much interest there would be in doing so and don't propose to do so myself; if I wanted to start up a whole new article I would have plenty of other priorities to work on first. On the assumption that most people looking for information on him would be interested in his tantra work, I adopt the utilitarian premise that those people should be given access to whatever exists and is of sufficient quality to enable them to form a view on that work, of which there is sadly not much (his movement is very secretive, it seems to me - but he is widely influential amongst people who have never met him nor have any direct experience of what he does). For me, even a blog article, if it is serene and reasonably articulate, should be considered sufficient in the absence of better sources in arenas such as this where truth is unlikely to emerge through learned consensus within a timeframe useful to the reader. Or you have to consider that the matter in question should not be within the scope of Wikipedia at all. But I believe that would be the wrong way to go. Because many matters are rightly within the scope of Wikipedia for which the standards of verifiability, neutrality etc are difficult to meet, at least in the sense of a "classical" encyclopedia, I think the policy is behind the curve because Wikipedia has not yet realized what in fact it is, and is most useful as - a source of information on matters so arcane or recent that no encyclopedia would or could carry them. On such matters, it offers a degree, however limited, of objectivity and transparency where none would otherwise exist. I love Wikipedia for this (hell, I even donated to them, which must get me a vote ;) - it is a great social service that is something very different from simply bringing encyclopedic knowledge on line for free - genuinely creating new knowledge in real time as the sole authority which rises above personal blogs, web forums and all the rest where these discussions go on.


 * I leave it there, I don't now wish to make another change to the article, these were just some reflections. If you have any thoughts on the above though, they're of course most welcome.Fbunny (talk) 12:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * PS just for the record, in case I have given another impression, I believe your concerns with my addition were entirely correct and justified, and not overly formalistic either, on the substance, which is why I have withdrawn the sentence in question. I would put it to you, though, that you might in this case have been less imperious and communicated a greater willingness to understand what it was I wanted to add through this edit so as to find a solution. I felt a little too much of a "threat" in your reaction which could dissuade people with good intentions from adding useful content. This tends to be in the nature of on line discussions, but it is not the highest form of interaction we can aspire to. On my side, I was perhaps too willing to assume that behind your pseudonym was merely a manifestation of the loyal disciples of Odier wishing to stifle debate - which it is also my impression they do - thus it aroused my suspicion and for this combination of reasons (assumed motivation and perceived threat) I wasn't really listening to you first time round, and had I been, I would doubtless have agreed more quickly. Fbunny (talk) 13:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I don't personally find anything about the subject matter you edited into the article exceptionally arcane, whether within or apart from the scope of its original context in Odier's text. As I've likely made strides to clarify at this point, it is only that I found your initial presentation of such material somewhat nebulous—whereas, I think matters of mystical significance should be handled, by secondary sources especially, with the utmost scientific delicacy.  The major influence on my reasoning here is doubtlessly William James.  In my estimation, his explanation in The Varieties of Religious Experience that, "No authority emanates from [mystical states or experiences (albeit he refers more, but not uncharacteristically, to those of 'union mysticism')] which should make it a duty for those who stand outside of them to accept their revelations uncritically (Exploring the Philosophy of Religion, sixth edition. Ed. David Stewart. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007. 9, 12.)," is never to be unaccompanied by such delicacy, since the critical difference between facts and the degree of proper examination of them tends to make or break the importance of any critique of any experience—religious, mystical, commonplace or otherwise.  Thenceforth, whatever anyone takes or does not take as "self-evident" or having occurred, as you say, is never legitimately unfiltered via these criteria; because strong opinions about insufficiently factual matters are (as virtually anyone will intuitively concede) about as justifiably trivial as anything else that comes at the proverbial rate of 'a dime per dozen.'  In the final analysis then, I agree that it is important what individuals opine and that the insights and über-current, myriad information that they varyingly possess greatly contribute to quite a wealth of knowledge in multiple contexts; yet, I cannot but also admit that the importance of such phenomena is indubitably augmented by the aforementioned criteria which seems to me a totally inextricable framework for a more beneficial Wikipedia.


 * Once appending my last paragraph, I pretty thoroughly agree with the majority of the insights you offer in your latter reply. And I especially think that the idea to flesh out a separate article on Odier's "movement" is consonant with your original intents (which, I'll add, were indeed fairly readily apparent to me).  Therein, perhaps, the additional content and corresponding insights you wish to unlock to readers will be not only properly contextualized but, also, more effective at directly informing and qualifying readers' opinions with respect to the spiritual matters in which your perspective appears specialized.  The only thing I don't seem to grasp in this discussion is what it was about my diction or tone, etc. that gave you the impression which you speak of in your latter post script.  Without further elaboration from you about this (which is something I don't recommend—as it's content regarding a mostly subjective and personal topic—on this talk page), I can only offer that, to me at least, I had no intent of 'dissuading anyone with good intentions from adding useful content' or any such thing, and I am curious whether what you considered to be "imperious" and/or an 'unwillingness to understand' is merely an attempt (now apparently a bit stifled) at being: impersonal-yet-articulate, as succinct and precise as possible, and overall to the point.  In any case, I certainly continue to ultimately feel and observe that, in my first post under this subject heading, I stated no more than my specific observation of a potential problem regarding a section of the article and my intent to remedy it in cooperation with your own assistance.  Oh well, no hard feelings now as ever, I say.  Cheers and thanks to you for corresponding as always!  I intend this to constitute my final reply under this heading.  Riskquette (talk) 06:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I accept your gloss of "imperious" in other-valued terms which didn't make it over the writer/reader divide. We close this here but now I think the talk page is more interesting than the article :) I believe I probably could take up the challenge of discussing whether his related and claimed experiences are an "insufficiently factual matter" and perhaps this will mature into something in another context. But substantially I take your point on this also. Fbunny (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

View of Anais Nin
It seems to me that this is pretty gratuitous and not NPOV. I would suggest it be deleted. If anyone has a more complete panel of views on his work, that would be more appropriate, but later on in the article. Fbunny (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)