Talk:Sciousness

Improvements
The article is getting much better from all the work yesterday. I really like the additional citations, especially third party references. The citations from James are important but if he is the main source the article lacks third party commentary and neutrality. I edited one paragraph briefly to make the tone more neutral. I'd suggest adding some structure now that the page is longer, just for readability. My first-thought suggestions might be 'Critiques' to discuss other philosophers and how they commented on it, 'Conviction' to discuss how James himself may have been circumvent about proposing it or even believing it himself. Something like that. I'd really hope the article could also be expanded to include a comparison with radical empiricism in more detail, to place the ideas in relation to the philosophy he is better known for. That seems really important. Thank you for contributing to the wikipedia. - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Language
The tone of the article really could use some care toward maintaining a neutral point of view (POV), to meet encyclopedic standards.

I removed "something he felt comfortable doing as a philosopher, but not as a textbook writer for a conservative scientific community." and "...that he felt emboldened to do so". I think I see where you're going with this, that he felt he couldn't propose something so controversial for fear of alienating his employers. but do you have a citation for that point of view? it's a fairly specific claim or reason why he didn't push the idea forward, and it seems like there might be other reasons as well. A third party citation or research noting that specific reasoning is needed to avoid a personal POV.


 * The publisher was not his employer. The publisher was his publisher.  He was, tho, addressing a scientific audience in a scientific textbook.  This is not a controversial POV of mine.  Restore this please. Jbricklin (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Those claims seem so specific though, did James write in an autobiography why he held off including it in the first version of the book? Or talk about it later? I'm not asking if it's a controversial view but including it makes the language less neutral and object. See my notes below for more on that. - Owlmonkey (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Similarly: the following who paragraph lack neutrality and I'm not sure how to rewrite it exactly. The references in the article are good, butwords like "revolutionary", "mostly attacked", "could not accept", "resistance", and "increasingly difficult" are all point of view. Could you please rewrite this with a neutral point of view or more citations that specifically back up a universally held, scholarly belief that James was received this way?

The point of view WAS backed up with a cite. The Taylor cite of "The response to William James." Restore both, please.Jbricklin (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"Like other revolutionary ideas, pure experience sciousness was mostly attacked when it was first presented. With some notable exceptions, such as Bergson, Dewey, and Whitehead, Western philosophers could not accept the reality, let alone the prime reality, of non-dual experience. The resistance, though increasingly difficult to sustain, continues to this day."

Really appreciate the efforts. Would like to help make the entry more neutral and thereby encyclopedic. Also, thank you for excluding any references to your own publications on this page even though you are well published on this topic, to avoid spamming. - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns and your overall point of view is insightful and helpful. But please don't be too trigger happy with that delete button. Writing is long; deletion is short. Consider querying first. Thank you. Jbricklin (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sorry I came on pretty strong here. I'm truly sorry about that. Didn't mean to jump all over you but I fear I did. Let's talk about the specific issues I was having though. They weren't about the citations here particularly, but were more stylistic and how to edit the language to be neutral and encyclopedic. It's not that each point of view needs to be backed with a citation, but good encyclopedic writing is balanced and neutral. Opposing point of views can be backed with citations as long as the article doesn't present one point of view, as I understand the goals of the encyclopedia. Specifically - from the paragraph i snipped above - I read "Like other revolutionary ideas, ... was mostly attacked" as taking the point of view of an advocate or fan of William James. A more neutral version might read, "His ideas were mostly attacked when first presented" to omit the statement of value on the ideas. Then "Western philosophers could not accept the reality" implies that they should accept it. A more neutral version might read "contemporary western philosophers rejected James' view that reality consists entirely of non-dual experience." See what I mean? I was mostly trying to edit out advocacy and a non-neutral point of view. That's perhaps also why I started to scrutinize your other edits for point of view pushing. Again, my apology for jumping all over you, I'll leave this article to you and other editors if you prefer. But this article still needs more neutral point of view. I'll add the paragraph back that I removed, but with the edits I'm suggesting here.