Talk:New Age/Archive 5

I think the section on new age music deserves it's own article. It's not necessarily connected with the religious idea of "new age".--ArcticFrog 16:16, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

After three years this article seems to have a longer shelf life than 2 years ago. Recent History shows minor cosmetic improvements and/or personal phraseology preferences(including mine). Looks like we got a solid base now for the Amateur Internet Writer's Guild to expand upon! I had refrained from doing any major additions for nearly 2 years due to the in-house arguing from the science based community, who still maintain that tearing something down into modules, then inspecting each, is how to prove the whole exists--from the sum of the parts. With my own experiential updates about Avalon, there may appear some indisputable "proofs" in the article. Thanks to all who edited. BF 19:27, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Let's try to keep this article free from rhetoric involving excess words which lose the reader in doubletalk, and the annoying abundance of commas, please? I know everyone writes differently. Leave it as is for a week and see if it works as is now. BF 06:24, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why is the major part of the "Lifestyle" section indented? Is it a quote? If so, should it be attributed? Soundray 11:55, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph ends with major headings that divide the article into sections. Last two edits were done by people who have no home page. Please read the whole article if you have time before you throw it out of balance with additions that have no backing. A lot of work and research, including authors' permissions, has given this article credibility... using many examples as well. Related Topics toward the end is a place for short add-ons. Thanks. As for the indent, someone must have felt what I wrote was a quote, or resembled a conversation-like quote. BF 03:33, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

- I think the term new age is so vague and the movements that it is supposed to describe differ so much from each other that the term is useless. It only serves to camouflage the ignorance and the intellectual laziness of the person who uses it. Andries 21:11, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Andries: I respect your interpretation, and that the term may be useless for you personally, but surely, if it was useless in a general sense, it wouldn't exist. Vagueness doesn't preclude usefulness.  I agree with you in so far as there doesn't seem to be any such term as "Old Age" to contrast New Age with.  But what is the inference, anyway?  I like the broad interpretation presented in the article, and wouldn't want to see it changed, even in the light of the points you are making.  Soundray 21:33, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * What could be added is a statement like 'Some people doubt the added value of the classification of beliefs and movements to New age because, they say, that the beliefs and movements that New Age is supposed to comprise are too diverse which, they argue, makes the term New Age too vague to be useful.' By the way, I don't think that something is true or useful only because many people use it. I think that one should look at the evidence, instead. Andries 18:32, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Your addition sounds okay to me, apart from the bit about usefulness. That something is being used doesn't make it useful, but it proves that it is useful to those who use it -- especially if that something is a term. The term "New Age" is being used a lot -- there's your evidence. Soundray 18:59, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Soundray:Thanks for ur comment. But the reason why one makes a classification in the first place is because some things have something in common. If these things have (hardly) anything in common then the classification is useless. Another reaon why one would classify certain things is to help to understand these things. I don't think that the term New Age helps to understand things. Hence I think that the term is useless. If I said it derogatory again then I would say that the 'use' of the term New Age is only to camouflage ignorance and intellectual laziness. I don't blame people, because u can't know all. Andries 19:16, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you're not making sense. Even if the classification was useless, how would that make the term useless? And, once more, what is your inference? Also, you are imputing ignorance and laziness, but of course you aren't blaming anyone. Do I sense a slight contradiction here? Soundray 18:06, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Soundray: The term New ages is used to classify beliefs and movements so you can't seperate the term from the classification. My inference is that it is better to refer directly to beliefs and movements at stake. Call Tarot Tarot, astrology astrology and theosophy theosophy etc. That is better than calling them New Age. But I do understand that this may be difficult for many people unless they have accurate information. Andries 18:48, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Andries: In my opinion, you have to separate the term from the classification. Example: some people erroneously classify whales and dolphins as fish. The classification may be wrong, but the term fish is still useful. Soundray 11:36, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, anyway, finally I added my objection to the term New Age in the article, in a very moderate tone, I think. I hope others can agree with it. If I am really the only one who has this objection, yes, then I have to admit that it has to be removed. Andries 20:10, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

- This is your disclaimer, Andries:
 * "Some people, including neo-pagans, labeled New Age might find the term inappropriate since it appears to link them with beliefs and practices they do not espouse."

New Age may not be in your vocabulary. At least read the article before you criticize its usefulness. BF 02:59, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * BF, Sorry, you are right, I only glanced at it but it was frustration built up over many years. I never meant to say that the article is useless. After all the term is used widely.  Andries 18:38, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Nazis may have used the terms aryan, untermenschen, nordic as biological terms. They are completely useless and meaningless terms, except to understand the ones using the terms (as opposed to the people to which the terms supposedly apply to) CJWilly

After my opinion this article needs thoroughly cleaning up. I dont think i will do this work, but my most important point is, that among scholars it is usually separated between the "New Age" and "The New Religious Movement". The first is more millenarian in its views than the second, which is more holistic, health, music, money...etc oriented. I think also there needs to be separated between different views on the "New Age", since this topic is very hot. Wouter Hanegraaff separates between different types of publications on this topic; journalistic (scandal, controversy), theological (from theological dialogue with NA to demonizing), Sceptical (make a laugh, secular-humanistic view) and of course the internal view... maybe I will try to incorporate some of these views in the artice if I have the time. Otherwise I very much would recommend Wouter J. Hanegraaffs book "New Age Religion and Western Culture" (ISBN 9004106960). PeterKristo 00:36, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Kristo. I am getting annoyed once again at the unintentional misedits which throw this article off topic. The Aquarius yang mistake is one. Just because you read something you don't understand does not mean you can be some expert in the New Age. I would name names but I think most who check history know who does simple little improvements that ruin the flow of the article, presume to be NPOV by adding skeptical slams, point this article to a new article that plagiarises one section, and many more things. People? Learn to read the flow and sentence structure, grammar, style, whatever, before you revise this again. The recent edits are similar to one the original scientific paradigmed authors made to support their incorrect assumptions about what is reality and what is new age--- because people want to tack on a small incorrect comment or two to the article, of which they have no interest other than subtle sabotage. BF 02:00, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

We got colors now. BF 03:48, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi BF, the colors look nice, but (and don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing your design skills) unfortunately Wikipedia articles need to have a consistent look and feel Manual of Style, and centering text is getting pretty fancy, and it should be restored to the standard format. Thanks.   --Lexor|Talk 04:10, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Er, I guess I was too slow, looks like you already reverted before I posted! ;-) --Lexor|Talk 04:12, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Byron Bay
I added Byron Bay as a New Age community, but have done so strictly on the basis of hearsay and a vague example or two. It would probably be best for some Aussie in the know to confirm this. --Gary D 19:09, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Gary, supina an Aussie! BF 21:49, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Great! I can't find him/her as a WP user, though; how do I get in touch with him/her? --Gary D 23:54, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

WP Aussies. Am I your legal aide or PI ? BF 04:51, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Compatible with science?
Hi, I'm new here. I am very interested in this article -- unsurprisingly, a controversial one -- and hope to make a number of contributions to it. But to get started I would like to object to a particular sentence:


 * It is worth noting that this view [of the existence of nonphysical "forces"] is incompatible with contemporary science: the forces posited by physics are supposed to exhaustively describe the behaviour of the universe, so anything acting according to another force would have to break the laws of physics.

This isn't true on any count. The post-Newtonian/Cartesian idea of the clockwork universe (an idea to which I doubt either Newton or Descartes would have subscribed) has in any case been thoroughly obsoleted by quantum mechanics. Indeed, on Wikipedia's own page on the uncertainty principle we read:


 * For example, the pattern (probability distribution) produced by millions of photons passing through a diffraction slit can be calculated using quantum mechanics, but the exact path of each photon cannot be predicted by any known method. The Copenhagen interpretation holds that it cannot be predicted by any method.

I suppose you could say that the view in question is incompatible with 19th-century science, but it's certainly not incompatible with contemporary science, which has proven, not the completeness of physics, but its incompleteness.

I move that the sentence in question should simply be struck.

Slburson 18:04, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Recently I read Brian Greene's Fabric of the Cosmos, and agree with you. BF 20:41, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Too detailed arguments on Alternative medicine
I have removed this section from the "medicine" section as it is much too detailed and specific for a general article. It needs a home in an article discussing Complementory Aalternative Medicine. Lumos3 20:39, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Even seemingly "innocent" techniques such as Therapeutic Touch may potentially cause physical, spiritual, and religious harm. Yet some hospitals, such as St. Mary's Hospital in Amsterdam, New York, offer patients Healing Touch or Therapeutic Touch therapies which complement traditional medicine Center for Complementary Therapies. One form of Healing Touch involves a practitioner using his or her hands to sense the Human Electromagnetic Field(HEF) in a patient, locate abnormalities in the energy flow causing pain and/or disease, and restore normal chakra function. An interesting case study was overseen by 5 physicians to test the abilities of two practitioners, with no formal medical training, to predict and locate disk abnormalities in patients reporting lower back pain.Diagnostic Validity of Human Electromagnetic Field (Aura) Perception The results validated the HEF diagnostic procedure with a higher than normal correlation with the standard osteopathic MRI scan.


 * Some motion in this direction has occurred. There is at least one noteworthy trial study at the University of California, San Francisco(UCSF) on breast cancer in women. Dr. Yeshe Donden, former physician to the Dalai Lama, prescribed Tibetan herbs for treatments in a double blind trial. The Phase I trial involving 11 patients closed November 2000 ASCO. On March 13, 2002 Debu Tripathy, M.D., Director of the CAM program at UCSF Breast Care Center, commented on the study findings at a breast cancer research forum:
 * The FDA would only approve 7 formulas. We only enrolled 11 patients of the hoped for 30. The result showed no safety problems. Of the 9 patients who were evaluated, we found one patient with a temporary response, the other 8 had progression of their cancer. Our next step is to do an expanded study with all the herbs and a much larger number of patients. This will probably have to be done outside the U.S.


 * In 2003 UCSF continued the herbal therapy research with the now Clinical Professor of Medicine Hope Rugo, M.D.(who worked with the 2000 trial team) as principal investigator in a phase I/II trial&mdash; number 00758.National Cancer Institute  UCSF Trial Information

---