Talk:Hypersigil

Examples
Q: Would the symbol that Prince used while he was the Artist Formerly Known As Prince be considered a hypersigil? gK &iquest;? 09:12, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Almost certainly not: Prince didn't set up a bunch of other sigils and ideas and creations and etc to reinforce it for a prechosen magical effect. --maru 20:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Terminology
Must we call a hypersigil a memetic complex? I think this is a violation of the NPOV because by using the term here, because it isn't needed in this article and using it is only promoting the controversial theory of memetics. --Maprovonsha172 21:27, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * We probably should- Morrison has at times referenced memetics, which makes it applicable. Go read the Invisibles if you do be doubting. --maru 20:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It's unnecessary at best, Maru. And I don't give a damn if Morrison uses it or not, that doesn't make it encyclopedic. I'm changing the wording to uphold the NPOV-I'm not going to change the meaning, however, so unless you're dogmatically defensive about meme theory you shouldn't mind. --Maprovonsha172 23:11, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Meh- I'll leave this edit alone unless, when I finally get around to reading the rest of the Invisbles, I find that Morrison explicitly thought of hypersigils, and used them, with memetic terminology (as in within actual quotes). In which case I will change it back, because it will be a situation similar to ID or evolution like has been outlined elsewhere. But until then... --maru 23:35, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * maru, I find it rather amusing that the person who has taken on the single-minded dogmatic task of removing the word "meme" from an array of articles where it is properly used has the temerity to accuse you of being "dogmatically defensive about meme theory." Hilarious, actually. Oh, and reverted on principle. --FCYTravis 04:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It is kind of amusing, but as you can see on Internet phenomenon, I am trying to attempt some sort of settlement; or at least have tried (so that way if worse comes to worst, and we have to take it to arbitration or a vote, we have the high ground.), and mentioning that to him would hardly help. --maru 10:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Not only does the claim that a peice of artwork contains a memetic function (presuming there is such a thing) violate the NPOV, saying that there is a magical function seems to do so as well. Is there one instance where this has been recorded by reputable scientists? Shouldn't we try to tell the truth in an encyclopedia? Or are we just peddling bullshit?

Even non-memetic information in this article seems to promote neo-pagan fetishism which doesn't seem worthy of an entry.

As for my dogmatism, I think a quick look at the e-philosopher forum thread Memetics (which I started) would clear me of any suspicion of that charge. I've changed my mind several times about meme theory as I've read various things on it. I do hold one position very adamantly, however, is that it is not wikipedia's place to take sides in a controversial matter such as this. Claiming something is a meme presupposes the existence of a meme, which is a matter of the dispute in the most hallowed halls of academia. Anyone promoting it here is doing so underhandedly, and whatever POV pro-memetic endorsements are written should be removed.

No one can deny the fact that "claiming something is a meme presupposes the existence of a meme" and doing so is POV because the existence of memes is a matter of dispute; it's extremely presumptuous and unacceptable.

Due to the fact that all information on this article is either pro-memetic POV or pro-occult POV I find nothing of encyclopedic value in it and I will suggest its deletion. --Maprovonsha172 16:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone second my suggestion to delete this article?
I think we should delete this article because I see nothing of encyclopedic value in it. I will wait to hear someone voice a similiar opinion before I go ahead with the deletion process. In the meantime I will edit the shit out of it in an attempt to salvage it. I want to make the point clear, though, that as far as I can discern this is New Age Bullshit and so an article about as if it actually exists is blatently POV. I can't imagine one reputable scientist writing anything about this---as never has any instance of something such as this been recorded to my knowledge. Therefore, it's just a meaningless concept (in the sense logical positivists used the word 'meaningless') with no correspondance in any way to reality.

This is an encyclopedia, we're not here to promote neo-pagan occultism or anything else.

If one instance were recorded I would be persuaded. Maprovonsha172 18:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sample votes (and briefly put why as well as Delete or Keep, please):

Delete. (see my reasoning above)Maprovonsha172 18:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merge. I haven't seen much to suggest that anybody besides Morrison uses the term with the intended meaning laid out here, so I think it should simpy be copied over to Morrison's page, or to the Invisible's page, since it is pretty important for those topics. --maru 20:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

^Sample votes^
 * People who practice/discuss/theorize on chaos magic use the term. Lachatdelarue (talk) 20:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Would you be apposed to merging them, Lach? I wouldn't if someone would want to. Maprovonsha172 20:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

response
Just because you don't believe in something doesn't make it 'New Age Bullshit'. Saying it's 'POV' to write about a hypersigil 'as if it exists' is ridiculous. Nowhere in the article does it say that hypersigils exist as if it were a dead-set fact. It outlines the definition and usage of a hypersigil, along who who coined the term, the reason it was coined, and what the coiner thinks of it as. Take a look at Talk:Chaos magic. Many people do believe in this sort of stuff, myself included. Lachatdelarue (talk) 19:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Many people don't believe in this sort of stuff, myself included." Yes, but if doesn't matter that I don't believe in it, it doesn't matter that you do. If you think we should keep the article, put a Keep where I started the sample votes (along with your reasons why). As you've changed it back to what it was, it contains POV implications. By saying "Optimally, it alludes to and is referenced by multiple other artworks to reinforce its strength." Optimally is a value word, saying it is better one way. But if it doesn't exist it can't be better in one non-existent form or the other. Therefore, the value statement implies existence. To say that it exists one way better is to say that it exists, even if doesn't.

Of course, as I've argued extensively on this site, use of memetic terminology is in most if not all cases either POV or unnecessary. To say that a Hypersigil is intended as a meme-complex goes against the generally accepted definition of what a meme-complex is (though, like sigils, their existence is questionable as well). Here is what the Memetic Lexicon (which is apparently the only authority in this area) says of the meme-complex: "A set of mutually-assisting memes which have co-evolved a symbiotic relationship." But you say the Hypersigil is "created." Do you see the difference? A meme-complex is a grouping of mutually-assisting self-replicating systems, whereas a peice of art is just "created." Therefore not only is the memetic terminology here POV, it is incorrect from a memetic standpoint.

I'm change it back to the way it was in light of all of its problems. Maprovonsha172 20:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You seem to have missed the fact that I added "is believed to be...." A hypersigil exists in the same way the Lock Ness Monster exists. Some people believe in it. Could we please stop editing the article back and forth until we get some more input on it? Feel free to put an NPOV tag on it, but please stop removing viable information. Lachatdelarue (talk) 21:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A request
Before blindly reverting the edit I just made, PLEASE explain, here, exactly what lines/pieces of information you have a problem with, and we can work it out. If you really want to make this article the best it can be, try working with what's been in the article for a long time, instead of removing it. Lachatdelarue (talk) 21:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * What do you think of Maru's request? I would encourage you to merge this article with Morrison's article or The Invisible's article. What would be the harm in that? --Maprovonsha172 22:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I've thought about it a little more- it might make more sense to put it in a magic article, if the coinage is indeed live there, rather than the originator's article. Is Hypersigil exclusive to Chaos magic? --maru 22:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, it's exclusive to chaos magic. If it is merged anywhere, it should be the chaos magic article, with a mention in Grant Morrison and The Invisibles. I'm willing to merge it. If you'd allow me to do the merging, I'd appreciate it. It doesn't seem that either of you have personal knowledge of the things concerned, so I'd feel better if I did it. If that's ok with you two, I'll do it tomorrow (I've been on here waaaay too long already today). Lachatdelarue (talk) 22:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course, go ahead. I have no problems wi' you doing it, tomorrer. I fully understand that not everybody has the free time available two high school students on summer vacation. :) --maru 23:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm in full agreement with Maru.Maprovonsha172 00:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, but I'm a full-blown Wikiholic. See? I'm back now even though I meant to not return today. But, because I've started drinking for the evening, I think it's best to wait til tomorrow ;) Lachatdelarue (talk) 00:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)