Talk:New Age/Archive 1

We need people to write, not remove, to help not detract. If you don't like the article find another one and ruin theirs ! ~BF
 * Actually, we need people to render this article the most accurate, unbiased account of the New Age movement as possible. The purpose of this article is to give as fair an accounting of the movement, the people associated with it, its sub-movements, and above all the recent history of it, as possible.  It isn't the purpose of this article to state any one individual's take on the movement.  The subject is one that we ought to be able to collaborate about. --User:LMS

BF, I'm one of the people who's always disagreeing with you. I've never changed anything you've worked on just to be annoying. But the point of Wikipedia is, if I post an article saying "Giraffes have four feet, they are green, eat herring, and are native to Alaska. George Washington was the first president of the USA, and Abraham Lincoln was the first president of France", someone's going to change it! If they change it to say "No, Princess Diana was the first president of the USA", then somebody is going to change that.

Nobody is trying to "ruin" the article, we're trying to improve it. And it's NOT yours, it's Wikipedia's. Really. Actually, it's explicitly "everybody's". Have a good one!

Sadly you're correct. It is wiki's. You write very well, and I know your ip shows Brazil so make a name and "come out of hiding "

BF, I don't feel comfortable doing that at this time. I've always been more interested in what people have to say than in who's saying what, and I'm just applying this to myself so far. And I must say, it's pleasant to converse with you instead of arguing. :-)

The New Age entry now contains some links to external sites within the text. What is the "Wikipedia way" for this? ''Read the talk and old talk. Larry Sanger wanted examples and definitions, not generalizations. The links are self-explanatory if you check.''

If you want to help, and you are not into New Age yourself, it might be great to get someone else besides me to add on to the article. Everyone has their own ideas about how an article should look. We need writers before editors. Article is not finished and as I said in Old Talk and Talk, leave it alone so it can expand. Nobody listens though. Too easy to white out than to write out.


 * BF, see Most common Wikipedia faux pas and Be bold in updating pages. People are doing what they're "supposed" to be doing. The ext. links are removed except for the permission granted one under History.

What is the relevance of Adams' attraction to Eastern thought, which is not New Age of necessity, or of the supposed relationships (resources would by nice) between the freemasons and US presidents? This is never explained, the facts are only given as if they are supposed to mean something. Articles should state rather than imply, since some of us really don't get it.

That part was removed and restored by different people I believe. It was a continuous part of the excerpt quoted, and linked to the outside source. Credit me with going to the trouble of gaining permission to include external content, don't worry about someone grumbling. [and Larry, if you want that author's email who granted permission ask.]~BF

-

I wonder if the New Age entry would work better if we put the whole quote from "Michael" on a separate page? That will happen when I, or someone else gets busy and writes(anyone know what that means?) some history on New Age.~BF

-

BF, do you feel yourself succumbing to the Wiki way? :) If you haven't ever been subject to peer review, this is what its like for everyone.  It took me 4 years to get my MS thesis through reviews and published.  Not that there was anything really wrong with it, but when a reviewer states that "no one uses Equation 1 anymore"... one learns to cope... ;)  Also, short is sweet. I just spent 10 days cutting 2400 words out of a 4700 word paper, at the "suggestion" of the editor and 3 reviewers. It took longer to revise the paper down than it took to write the original 4700 words. But I have to say, the shorter version is a *much* better paper than the original! In short, if you can deal with the heat here, you will learn some very valuable communication skills.

BF, I cannot see how the discussion of Freemasonry is germane to the New Age movement, and including it in the article is only going to confuse people into thinking Freemasonry (and ancient Rosicrucianism which was a hoax, and is a very interesting subject in itself) are the same as or a part of the New Age movement. They are not, or at least, you seem to refuse to inform me as to why they are. So, I feel that it is best to remove those sections if you cannot tell me why they are there. --User:Alex Kennedy

"New Age avoids conventional decription...." I think you misspelled "decryption." Certainly the paragraph this sentence introduces is in need of decryption -- I must be amazingly unenlightened (not to say "stupid"), because I cannot make head or tail of it.

At least we got a spellchecker in the house.

Whomever has been working on this article, please go away and read Neutral Point Of View (and the proposed new text on meta.wikipedia.com), and if you already have, read it again. We are *not* here to convince the world that New Ageism is a wonderful thing, we are trying to explain to the world what is, and what others think of it. --User:Robert Merkel

The new first paragraph of the entry says just about nothing. It's utterly uninformative. --TheCunctator

We who are reporting unbiasedly on New Age are presenting New Age POV, and welcome other non-New Age POV as well. Since I realize skeptical POV exist, those references were in place, and removed by whoever. Check the revisions. And, I restored a decent first para, C, which was simply deleted by one of our illustrious collaborators. User:BF

I must admit, that first paragraph is oodles more interesting, but it's totally fruity. Or is it nutty? Whatever the case, it smacks of granola. (I hope you can take that with a sense of humor.)


 * "Flaky." The word you're looking for is "flaky."  Or, perhaps, "froot-loopy."  Utterly meaning-free, in any case.

All I want is for the article to be specific and comprehensible. BF--I'm not talking about presenting lots of different points of view, I'm just saying that to describe New Age we can't use New Age language, because you get trapped in a circle of self-reference. I know that you may feel that traditional forms of language don't properly express the sense of New Age, but the trick is to start from a common foundation, then build towards the vision, not start from the vision. The rapture of instant enlightenment can't (shouldn't?) come from an encyclopedia; rather, it may complement and guide the experience. --TheCunctator

"Flaky, nutty, froot-loopy"? Are you people hungry ? Try some ham & eggs with a toasted english muffin. =) First of all, it's more like shredded wheat with honey and cream, followed by a multi-vitamin pill washed down with filtered water! I realize, Cunct, that all language traps meaning--words do that. I have a 6-month journal filled with so many variegated truths that I have NOT put in here. The words were written by me(and who is "I", in the ultimate sense, when we think seriously-- a body?) in a semi-trance state. Automatic handwriting with a totally different writing style, as if something else was writing. Only one of these journal entries is here Visions_of_Truth. Although I want to give my truths freely, seeing people react, watching them shred Beauty into pompous strands of biased opinion, plus Larry's admonitions, "All articles belong to Wikipedia," keep me from posting any more. Without a doubt, the "dis-turbation" of a person's psyche(or mind) by actual simple metaphorical/allegorical words is a worthy goal of anyone who has a deep gnosis experience. It would be mislabeled 'evangelizing' here. The wikipedia does not want any Walt Whitmans, James Redfields, or Rachel Carsons writing here. No visionaries, no people ahead of their time or even outside of time. We will publish our beauty, and wiki can report unbiased NPOV 20 years afterwards. All for now... User:BF

Here's the removed paragraph:


 * New Age can be expressed simply as: a new era, a vision of a new, better future, the beginning of a new Astrological Age, or even the anticipation of a new world replacing the old-- a new order of experience. Such a New Age results from the interaction of pre-existing older ideologies with newer, mystical, and experiential phenomena. Being a dynamic container by nature, New Age is constantly redefining itself. To understand New Age one must examine its diverse attributes, old and new. These wide-ranging parts, simultaneously in flux, synergistically enable the whole-- the New Age movement. Although no rigid boundaries actually exist, New Age perspectives on history, philosophy, religion, spirituality, lifestyle, and music may help those who wish to explore the subject further.

Sorry, BF, but they're right--this is utterly devoid of meaningful content, and does not aid the reader in understanding anything, so it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. What might belong in its place is a quote from some recognized New Age author or leader that looks something like the above, properly introduced and attributed. For example, the opening paragraph could be something like:


 * "New Age" is a vague term for.... As Deepak Chopra says in his book XXX, "New Age can be exressed as...(fill in pseudo-philosophical nonsense here)..."

--LDC - I do not like the idea of our including long quotations to describe what the New Age movement is about. The reason is simple: (1) the quotations contain content that simply describes the movement, something that we want to do ourselves, but (2) they are uneditable, being quotations. But we want to be able to edit content that describes, at such length, the subject of the article!

I think we should replace them with, perhaps, similar thoughts in our own words. --User:LMS

When others mistakenly edit quoted content, sooner or later I restore the quote and reinsert the skeptical or "other" pov. It's rare to see copyrighted content on wiki. Most don't bother taking the time or effort to ask for permissions. After nearly 200 revisions of New Age, we can see how far "our own words" lasts here =) ~User:BF

I still think we should replace the quotes, for the reasons I cited. Yes, it's grand that you got permission. But that doesn't mean that that was the right way to go. Having uneditable, long discussions of the stuff makes it hard for others to edit what we say about the New Age. We want them to be able to. This isn't just "the official view" of the New Age movement, in the words of representatives of the movement.

This doesn't have to be so hard, BF. Just "let go and let wiki." ;-) --User:LMS


 * Larry, how are ya ? I can see the article beforehand... much less quoted material, used to reinforce/enhance the original material written by myself and (count them on one hand) others, who added-on to the article. It may be the compromise on which you and I could agree? You seem to like the gentle chaos of change-- letting everyone get their 2¢ in. Even if the penny devalues the currency, at least it's a shared EURO-dollar!


 * I believe that one hidden goal here on wiki is to transfer polished, good content to neupedia eventually(or the primary author(s)). Yet articles are never really done here when context shifts ever so slightly via the standards allowed everyone-- to "edit pages boldly". Do you want wiki to be a grand sandbox for everyone to enjoy writing? If so, she who restores the prior version last wins the playground. I think you want interesting content written by ordinary people. Then, as writing skills increase with practice, the authors may become published one day! In this schema, wiki is a mecca for the published authors of the future. They got their start here; but who are the scouts for the big publishing houses, such as Simon & Schuster?


 * Should a well-known expert in a particular field decide to do a charity session, writing anonymously on here, it would be ruined by the Wikipedia Bible-toting NPOV's, more than likely. Again, this means wiki will become filled with AxelBoldt style articles, on arcane subjects. Dr. Boldt does write excellent articles, but his topics are so little-known to most nobody could or would want to change them.


 * New Age, however, is a social phenomenon that points back at us, wakes us, even instills fear of change in the complacent apathy of western society. Ironically, James Redfield was right when he wrote in The Celestine Prophecy that toward the end of the 20th century a critical mass of like-thinking individuals would change the social order en masse; and that a polarity would arise, at every level of society, driven by the Fear, the Old Age vs. the New Age.

How does this "lifestyle A to Z" differ from living in any community? People meet and talk, and gain from it. Bravo! But what's "New Age" about that? And the amateurism mentioned under music reminds me of punk's DIY ethos. Is that a useful comparison? --User:Vicki Rosenzweig

The 2 thought-up conversations aren't different from many others you might see. You got the point Vicki. New Age, whether people admit it or not, whether they like it or dislike it, has become the norm. I think people living in a vault may not realize this trend has finally started to crest. Also, the last new age was the Piscean Age(c.30-70 AD), which saw the beginnings of a cult in Palestine, later to become a major religion =) If you wanted to add on to the article you know how!

I think you're missing my point, BF: this is how humans have *always* done things, since we became human (maybe before--language doesn't fossilize). There's nothing new about it, nothing that makes it specific to New Age approaches. Claiming it as a "New Age" development is like someone arguing that, since members of their model railroad club send email, anyone who sends email is "really" a model railroader.

From New Age/Workshop
Instead of just deleting stuff, move it here until questions have been answered.

New Age offers us a change in how we actually form ideas, the overall archetype itself.

''What specific change? The archetype of what?'' Archetype is a synonym for paradigm, and i had trouble using that word earlier if u recall. This means "new age allows a change in the system itself underlying how ideas are formed." When a person's cognitive mental system changes, her perception changes and extraordinary events may ensue.

Isn't that a truism? It is the next stage after a person has new perceptions, categorically labelled the mind. Suppose someone comes back from the brink of death. She looks at her world totally new, compared to her old viewpoint.

New Age also resists labelling processes, for example, biological taxonomy, because it is a dynamic, event-driven system at the simplest level.

''How does New Age resist labelling processes? What is the simplest level? What does "event-driven system" mean?'' This was put in there to lessen the descriptions made in the article that diminish the experiential nature of New Age itself. Event-driven means exactly what it says, driven by events. An example...When a leaf falls from a tree, and I happen to notice it, there is a frozen snapshot in time, when I consider "leaf here now", and whatever I feel is part of this. Any more specifics would be unfair, and dilute the import of experiential reality. Mind you, I may have also merely thought, "oh there's a leaf" and nothing else. Such things are so varied and dynamic and ongoing once you have changed your mindset, C. Related to this last part is an old saying, "Take time to smell the roses." My thoughts at this moment, which you should cherish, are that I not only smell the roses, I get lost in the petals, like a tiny little bee, while viewing myself as the bee, out of body, from above, then enlarge into normal size again, and smile.

BF, I'd like to say with all due respect (really) that most of the things you write sound crazy. I assume you know this already. When you claim to be so all-fired sure you know "the truth", surely you can't expect others to agree with your view of it unless you can present something more substantial to back it up. I think that's what we've basically been asking for here. Either give us some sort of reason to agree that you're right, or don't expect us to agree that you're right.


 * See also : New Age