Talk:New Age/Archive 2

I'd like to make a list of New Age genres in the beginning, and to cross reference the genres as well. Next, explain how there is a New meaning to the old ideas referenced, with liberal interpretations. All are welcome to edit, but for the sake of interaction could we please just add on to what is already here before you remove anything ? The interaction of those who help with this topic will not devolve into some spirituality discussion group, it should actually reflect the opening statements in practice as this event moves forward. BF


 * I don't think you want my help here. I know James Redfield and the others quite well, and my "opinion" is that they are a bunch of manipulative money-grubbers out to exploit poor gullible saps like you (who will believe any quasi-spiritual "profound" mish-mash, because it makes you feel in possession of arcane knowledge that the other "non-enlightened" people don't have and is hence just a self-indulgent ego trip for the intellectually lazy), for every cent they can. His ideas open "you" to the so-called spiritual energy that exists, but just leave me out of it. I'll find Nirvana on my own.

Thanks to all of you for helping on this topic. It is moving along as expected from collaboration. I do listen to all remarks made, and will try to balance the Truth (as differing from revisionism) with personal truths. Hopefully, when we are all in a high state of Love (see Marianne Williamson @ http://www.marianne.com) all entries into this New Age area will merely be different colors and hues of the same light. Remember science "proves" light is white, (Err, no it doesn't -- GWO) yet the reflections of light on objects show different apparent colors '''  Lastly, I pray that we will be supportive of each other, trying to remove egotism and jading (a been there done that already cynicism) from what is presented. Text can be cold and stark. Let feelings guide your keystrokes. -BF

Today was an attempt to put to rest logic as an inherent factor of Truth. Revisionist? No. Visionary, yes. It is a terrible vulnerability for some to let go of themselves, realize this world and even the universe at large will never be excised of mystery by Science, common sense, logic, overintellectualization, and the threat of detachment of "I" from all that surrounds a person. Inevitably, making the Freudian Ego merge with all existence, is a radical paradigm shift. It's not for everybody, the buddhist or zen belief that "all we are is one drop of water in the ocean" is frightening to some because, as mentioned on the main page, most people who believe logic produces truth have already fallen into the tautology of Reason. ''And most people who think otherwise have already fallen int othe tautology of assuming their infallibility. ;)''

It's such a pleasure to watch the people whose apparent (meaning what they state they are) backgrounds deify the Natural Sciences, Mathematics, and some who have nice comments from Larry Sanger on their personal pages, and who feel it necessary to "bring the lost lamb" back into the Old Age School of Thought. Sometimes I feel like Madame Blavatsky in the present time! She fought tooth and nail with all the higher learned scientists and intelligensia of her day. Yet she was a woman like me who was fortunate, or unfortunate possibly, to receive knowledge about not only Scientific Laws but also revealed truths, from the Source. Now I understand the chuckling from everyone who peeks and tries to help out with New Age. They feel I am not playing in the same inverted Scientific Method as they play in, meaning They have a conclusion dignified by former duplication, and to enhance this theory they now work from a biased viewpoint, much like Pauli's exclusion principle, where I think he mentioned the idea of observer-influenced subatomic particle behavior ? So what happens is I present a NEW Age definition and in talk try to ally those who can understand sentence structure, and because they are still way back in time subscribing to the Cartesian coordinate system of 3 Dimensional Reality as "the only way it is, sister", does it not become mundane to chuckle back as they refuse to open up and drop the instilled indoctrination of the past, and try for just once to shift their awareness, and if that doesn't work, read Carlos Castaneda backwards ? -BF


 * As usual, you are not understanding the nature of the debate. I am anti-bias. This applies to scientific bias as much as any other. New Age thinking is not scientific. Don't try to say it is. That doesn't mean it is wrong or doesn't deserve to exist. There are others on the Wikipedia who feel any non-scientific viewpoint should be eliminated, this is as equally biased and I am beating them down as well. (Who appointed me to this role? I did.)


 * Let me get this straight... a bias against bias. Not only that, but who gets to decide what is "biased" and what isn't?   You?


 * Yep, bias against bias, as per the wikipedia policy. Everyone gets a say in what counts as biased, and everyone has a veto as well. :)


 * You wish to use the Wikipedia to "open people to new truths". This is an agenda and it doesn't belong here. Were this permitted, then we could use the Wikipedia to "open people to other truths" such as the Holocaust never happened, aliens are based at Roswell and Mariah Carey is actually quite intelligent.


 * I have already accused you of intellectual laziness and I am sticking to it. You do not understand science, nor scientific thinking. Read the articles on Scientific method and Pseudoscience before you start trying to raise Pauli's Exclusion Principle or the Schoedinger Wave Equation or other stuff you do not even remotely understand. I've read all the books by the new age gurus, I've been to "communion with the spirit" workshops with Deepak Chopra, so it is not like I'm not au fait with the topic.


 * Your paragraph above indicates you have not studied Zen (I have studied it for 20 years and still don't claim to "get" it - it's exceptionally demanding intellectually), Freudian psychology, modern (or even basic) physics. Yet you somehow feel privileged to condemn scientists for their "ignorance" of your "profound truths". A touch arrogant, n'est ce pas?


 * Now - there are two forms of belief system, scientific and "inspired". The scientific belief system holds 3 principles sacred - 1 - only trust the evidence you can measure, 2 - when hypothesising, use the simplest explanation there is which fits the known evidence and 3 - if new evidence contradicts your theory, kiss your theory goodbye (or rework it or whatever). (That's a simplification, but it's basically it). There are those here who argue that this scientific system is "THE TRUTH". That's their belief system. It certainly IS the majority viewpoint, and that particular fact should be duly presented by the encyclopedia.


 * An alternative belief system is based on faith (ie. principles without tangible evidence to support them). Example contentions - there is a "spirit realm", "God exists", "our soul gets reincarnated". Fine - science can't touch these. If you say there this is how it is, then fine. Or not. Whatever. You can't prove it, science can't disprove it. Just don't tell me it is "THE TRUTH". Coz it ain't, anymore than the scientific viewpoint is "THE TRUTH" for you. The scientific viewpoint regarded as the TRUTH for most of the western world, but not for most of the world in general. Fine - let's report that accordingly.


 * So, accepting that the scientific viewpont is the viewpoint accepted by the majority of the western world, we can define Pseudoscience as "stuff which claims to be scientific, but breaks all the rules of science". Sample New Age claims under this heading would include "Our DNA is evolving into 12 strands" (a "would be funny if it wasn't meant seriously" source for this little gem is at - this manages to link fibre-optics, superconductivity and information technology, all duly referenced to the Pleiadeans). I repeat, you are absolutely free to believe this stuff - that is your inalienable right and I will defend it. But don't argue that it is science, 'coz it ain't.


 * Now I will repeat my assertion - New age adherents are for the most part people who want to believe anything that sounds nice, rather than use critical thinking. It is much easier to make sweeping generalisations about science because you read a bit of drivel by the guru-du-jour, rather than engage in the 10-20 years of intellectual rigour that scientists have gone through to develop their critical thinking skills. It is a profound ego trip because you (rhetorically speaking) get to swan around feeling "so much more enlightened" than everyone else, rather than dealing with the reality that you are an anachronistic hippy without decent employment prospects.


 * But that is just me spouting my personal contempt for your idealogy. I completely defend its right to exist in the 'pedia. Just report the facts in the following fashion: "here's what new age people believe. Here's why they believe it." Then link to wherever and be as biased as you want in there.

I DO say it, to everyone I meet (including you). She is utterly beautiful in every way. But my beliefs do not belong in an encyclopedia. And by the way - have a look here - you will see that I am arguing for the defense of non-scientific points of view. I walk down the middle. - MB
 * that's beautiful, man. The Scientific method, and/or your girlfriend. --MichaelTinkler

"There is no absolute truth." Quote from the article, not attributed. This is not even trying to abide by the NPOV rules, and they are important, so kindly fix this and similar problems or I will revert the page to something more appropriate. This is not oppression of your beliefs, mind, but enforcements of the principles that make wikipedia worthwhile.


 * BF, hello, yes it's me... you should know that by now there is no way I would let a sentence such as "There is no absolute truth or unmitigatable natural law, and I feel there never has been." stay in the article... but I will be courteous enough to let you fix it yourself. Express beliefs, but don't express your opinions. - MB

I cannot believe this ! Now they are stripping font tags. Browsers have a default font if they can't read the coded font. These people need something to amuse themselves and they find it by trying to take what little attempt at art we have here.

As monty Python said: "Yes - we ARE all individuals... (I'm not)". Welcome to anarcho-syndicalism, BF :) The majority don't like font tags (including me). You do - that is noted. We don't - that is noted too. - MB

If you're making attempts at art on wikipedia in font choice rather than in your prose, you've got the wrong idea about what the site's for.
 * we have more talk than article content. I had anticipated this from the start(see above). Whoever keeps inserting syncreticism into the main page, would you please define this rather than leave a blind link ? ~BF

''Fair enough!! :-)  Created stub 14 October 2001.''

Now how about somebody does something with paradigm shift?

I linked instance of "revealed truth" to Wikipedia entry on Revelation. Is this right or not?

It's fine the link. I was going to expand Revelation on the sentence that includes "non-anthropomorphic" but I'm still in shock at how New_Age looks. ~BF

I really like the new article - it reads like an encyclopedia article should - very neutral. It does not dismiss or support the movement, it validly points out that some groups oppose it and others support it. New Age is clearly syncretic and this is duly noted. What are your objections BF? - MB