Talk:Incorporeality

Heavy Metal band
I am sorry to say that a band that is not yet famous to some degree, should not be listed in an Encyclopedia. Please remove this article. Thanks. Perhaps when the band does become quite well known, you can put an article here. Check out the rules for Wikipedia. A good general rule is that a google search should come up with a very long list of hits.


 * I have removed the following text:


 * Incorporeal is also a name of an up and coming Heavy Metal band in the Chesterfield, England area.


 * Toodles. - RoyBoy 800 04:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Raphael?
Could someone with a better grasp of Plato write an appropriate caption for the image of Raphael that someone added to this article? --— Twisted86 - Talk - at 05:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thought Thinking?
"Thought thinking itself can also be considered to be an incorporeal method"

I'm pretty certain this should be read as "Though thinking itself can also be considered to be an incorporeal method" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.93.200.42 (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

woo woo

 * User:Jeraphine Gryphon
 * User:Machine Elf 1735
 * User:Jeraphine Gryphon
 * No. Aren't you retired, ? WP:CIVIL WP:EDSUM... Apparently, by "self-referential" you think see also wikilinks were meant as citations. They were not. You might try template:cn if you can't explain yourself clearly and civilly in edit summaries. As for the inappropriate tone,, but it's not difficult to fix... Finally, in regard to the juvenile "woo woo" hectoring... see WP:NPOV (and again WP:CIVIL).—Machine Elf 1735  01:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Self-referential means self-referential, standard meaning. ("See [this other article on Wikipedia]" is self-referential.) I know what NPOV says and I really don't understand why you're the one pointing it out to me.
 * You've restored that sentence twice so I don't care if you didn't write it, you're responsible for it now. Tell me how it's not woo woo to mysteriously say that the ~incorporeal realm~ ~holds powers~ ~we're not aware of~ like this is some goddamn New Age book and not an encyclopedia. You found that ref and quote so I'm sure you understand what the sentence is trying to say, just put it in a neutral/technical/understandable tone and phrasing, without the "we" and without the mysterious ellipses.
 * In my own opinion, there's no reason to try to associate vacuum with the 'incorporeal realm' unless of course you got a source for it; and whatever is happening there probably does not qualify as "powers" in the traditional sense. I think the whole line should go.
 * (I understand if I hurt your feelings or something with the edit summary, but you really outdid yourself with the patronizing in this post. Dude, whatever. And I'm "retiring" on and off because I'm suicidal, don't try to encourage me. And that wasn't relevant to this issue here at all.) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 08:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It doesn't refer to itself. I pointed out NPOV because you seem to think "woo woo" is an excuse to discard material, "like this is some goddamn New Age book". Then again, you seem to think "we" is an excuse... I don't WP:OWN it, and I'm not stopping you from rephrasing it. There's nothing mysterious about it, without the embellishment and partitioning, it actually says:
 * It is possible that the incorporeal realm has powers we are not aware of... see Vacuum and Vacuum energy.
 * I see that you didn't have a problem with the sentence, as originally written, so if I exchange " with which to effect matter" for the "mysterious" ellipsis, will you own up to it? Correct, I understand that powers means a potential to do work, that effective causality is not required, and that no teleological Agent " with which to effect matter" need apply. You seem to think it's a problem for theologians and pixies, but it's not, it's a problem for scientists, one they had the audacity to overlook. I understand it's a magic fairy realm in your opinion, because you're unacquainted with any relevant source. The article explains that air was an example of the incorporeal, up to, but not including, the limit of perfect vacuum. Quite appropriately, the word was topos, "place". As I've explained, dynamis, "power", works too. Just because you're ignorant of the traditional sense, doesn't mean it should 'probably does not qualify as "powers" in the traditional sense', nor is it grounds for removal.
 * LOL, no apology necessary, and what a surprise you admire "the patronizing in this post", . Encourage you to what? retire permanently? if the dramz light up your life WP:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you.—Machine Elf 1735  23:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi; I'm here in response to the request for a third opinion. If this is the disputed content:
 * "It is possible that the incorporeal realm has powers we are not aware of... see Vacuum and Vacuum energy."

Then it's making fairly strong claims and I'd expect to see appropriate sourcing for that. However, a bigger problem is the vagueness of the wording - "incorporeal" is already a bit ambiguous but adding "powers we are not aware of" and "It is possible" just makes that worse. There are links to Vacuum and Vacuum energy which imply that these are areas of special incorporeal powers but don't actually say it outright. What do reliable sources say? If reliable sources say something which overlaps with the text but don't cover the whole claim, it should be reworded. Without reliable sources it shouldn't be added to the article at all. bobrayner (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Incorporeal isn't vagueness, it's the topic of the article. See above regarding powers. I agree that "It is possible" could be dropped. You can't get any more incorporeal than empty space and it is certainly capable of more than nothing. You seem to have a problem with something it does not actually say.—Machine Elf 1735  23:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Discorporate
When the body melts into the universe in taosim to become enlightened isn't this discorporation basically the same as incorporeality? Ranze (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Alcinous
"For Alcinous' writings on the incorporeality of qualities, see Alcinous The Handbook Of Platonism translated by John Dillon (2002, 1993). pp. 19–20."
 * I've moved following quoted line here because it has no business being in an encyclopedia article.

I'm leaving it here in-case anyone wants to use this as a ref to add some actual substance to the article regarding the incorporeality of qualities. Scyrme (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

judgement DAY
how will God converse with everyone with these different languages we speaking rn? how will early man* be judged? did he even know he was SINNING? 197.181.142.118 (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)