Talk:Forty Six & 2

Untitled
The idea of "Forty-six + 2" chromosomes as a means of Christ Consciousness evolution is not based in Jung. The shadow, however, is.

Deletion?
DO NOT DELETE this article. It is about a real song, unlike the discussion by star wars nerds about the Endorian Holocaust or whatever it is. Keep articles on REAL THINGS Dankru 12:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Jung vs Adams
Did Jung really propose the 46 & 2 chromosomes as a next step for human evolution? I ask because as it stands, Jung and Adams are both credited with being first, but the Hitchiker's Guide seems to have been conceived a decade after Jung's death. Could somebody who has a better knowledge of Jung and has a copy of the guide handy double-check this? Actually, it might be better just to remove the "first" part from both sections, since it would probably be difficult to justify in either circumstance. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 23:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * He might have, I honestly don't know a damn thing about Jung outside of what I read on Tool websites to put this together. Perhaps an accuracy tag is in order and we can ask for help in other areas?  I'd hate to remove an entire section when it can be repaired instead. --badlydrawnjeff 05:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Where are people getting the reference to The Hitchhiker's Guide anyway? I can't ever recall having heard or read anything from the radio series/TV series/5 novels that has ANYTHING to do with this. I'm going to delete the statement unless someone can come up with a proper reference within the next week. --JohnDBuell 05:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm just (possibly) pedantically pointing out that, actually,t he more evolutionary stages a creature has gone through, the less chromosomes it has, so the next step in our evolution would involve losing two chromosomes. Just a point.

Ongoing History
I'm adding in information from a radio program "The Ongoing History of New Music" hosted by Alan Cross. And he is extraordinarily well educated on this topic and has been a radio broadcaster for 20 years.

Drunvalo Melchizedek believed the world was divded into grids that extended 60 feet into the eart, and 60 miles into the air. Each species have their own grid and are all connected. He believed a new grid was created in 1989 which will allow humans to evolve into a new form and gain 2 additional chromosomes making our genetic expression 46+2, instead of our current 44+2.

Also, http://toolshed.down.net/faq/faq.html

In http://www.deftone.com/archives/2003/07/46_and_2_are_just_ahead_of_me, there is a possiblee sxtrapolated explanation on why Jung is attributed incorrectly as the author of the theory.

--Waterspyder 03:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tool forty six and 2.jpg
Image:Tool forty six and 2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 14:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

46/2=23

"The "23 Enigma" is the Discordian belief that all events are connected to the number 23, given enough ingenuity on the part of the interpreter. It can be seen in Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea's Illuminatus! trilogy (there called the "23/17 phenomenon"), Wilson's Cosmic Trigger I: The Final Secret of the Illuminati (there called "The Law of 23s" and "The 23 Enigma"), Arthur Koestler's Challenge of Chance, as well as the Principia Discordia. In these works, 23 is considered either lucky, unlucky, sacred to the goddess Eris, sinister, sacred to the unholy gods of the Cthulhu Mythos, or strange. Discordians regard this as a corollary of the Law of Fives. As with most numerological claims, the 23 enigma can be viewed as an example of apophenia, selection bias, and confirmation bias. In interviews, Wilson has acknowledged the self-fulfilling nature of the 23 enigma, implying that the real value of the Laws of Fives and Twenty-threes lies in their demonstration of the mind's power to perceive "truth" in nearly anything."

~from the article about the number 23

Sounds like something Tool would be interested in...their other song "Viginte Tres" also means 23 --66.203.169.229 19:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tool forty six and 2.jpg
Image:Tool forty six and 2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

disharmonious?
would someone explain to me how 44 and 2 is "disharmonious" yet 46 and 2 is "harmonious", otherwise that whole section is getting slaughtered.Kas0809 (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Time signature
The article currently asserts that the song is in 7/4 time. However, even a single listen will reveal that it is in fact in 4/4 with sections of 7/8 in between. I am changing the sentence accordingly. --Aksnitd (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Section "Music Video" information wrong
I may have gone about it wrong though I tried to tell someone the information given was incorrect. Someone please please please, edit this article. I have found no video corresponding to this song. The one described in the article can be read in better detail on the actually song's article page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabola_%28song%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.133.62.176 (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Noticing some issues

 * The "Overview" section is odd, as it does not provide the reader with an informative overview. It just explains the promotional single was released by a label, followed by a fairly insignificant and unrelated explanation of how the label was subsequently dissolved/sold/renamed/etc. That doesn't provide an overview.
 * I do not quite understand why the section on Title & theme does not relate this song to the background of the album it is on. Those topics seem to be quite interrelated. (Conversely, I do not understand why this song's background isn't at all being discussed under Ænima
 * There is no "Covers" section. A clearly self-promoting edit on September 27, 2013 was reverted, but the cover that was discussed in that edit has by now received 10 million views on YouTube and therefore caused renewed interest in the song. This is why in my opinion it should (neutrally!) be discussed in this article. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Forty Six & 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061021061720/http://www.edge102.com/station/ongoing_history_of_new_music.cfm?rem=18667&pge=1&arc=2 to http://www.edge102.com/station/ongoing_history_of_new_music.cfm?rem=18667&pge=1&arc=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Forty Six & 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061021061720/http://www.edge102.com/station/ongoing_history_of_new_music.cfm?rem=18667&pge=1&arc=2 to http://www.edge102.com/station/ongoing_history_of_new_music.cfm?rem=18667&pge=1&arc=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)