User talk:Pariah

Welcome (reference)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:


 * Five pillars
 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type &#126;&#126;&#126; (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 06:18, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Stoic Spiritual Exercises
Hi, Pariah. The Stoic Spiritual Exercises is a good addition to the Stoicism article. I took the liberty of changing Stoic Spiritual Exercises to a heading level within Stoic Ethics. Following Zeno of Citium, most Stoics categorized philosophy broadly into concepts they called Logic, Physics, and Ethics. (These terms being, of course, not exactly what we'd use to call those concepts today.) So, to preserve their categories, I thought that the present two headings for Ethics and Physics ought to be at a level where a third heading for Logic could be added later. I hope this change makes sense to you and is OK. BTW it looks like we read a lot of the same books.--Tregonsee 21:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Pariah. Nice to hear from you. I was hoping you'd be OK with that edit and I'm glad you were. I'm going to add a short section about Stoic Logic to the Stocism page, maybe this weekend. With maybe something about Chrysippus and propositional logic in there.

I like the Stoics too. Right now I'm working on upgrading the article about Posidonius, but I have more to do there. After that, Panaetius. Then when I can get to it, some of the others, like Musonius Rufus, who seem to have been neglected.

From your quotes, you seem to have read a fair amount of s-f, as have I, so there'd be overlap. As for the books you'd mentioned, I've read: Frank Herbert's first two Dune books and a few others by him not in that series; Orson Scott Card, Ender's Game and some others. Since you referenced Richard Dawkins (a dead link, when I tried it), I'm thinking you might've read some books on memes, such as Brodie, Virus of the Mind and Lynch, Thought Contagion. On the Stocism page, you referenced a book by Hadot, which I've not read, but I have read Hadot's Inner Citadel, his book on Marcus Aurelius's spiritual exercise. --Tregonsee 19:53, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

FAC
You may be interested in commenting at Featured_article_candidates/Sociocultural_evolution, as you have discussed earlier version of this article on its talk page some time ago. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Bundle theory
Hi there. It is an interesting couple of paragraphs, but I feel you need to reduce the POV. I personally have no idea what Taoism has to say, but within Buddhism alone, you should identify the school(s) you are referring to. (There are, after all, a quarter of the world and over two thousand years of distinctions regarding concepts of Shunyata! Far too many schools of thought to be able to generalise). My specific concerns are "... but only exists with relation to other objects." This is confusing - I guess you are talking about Candrakirti's interpretation of Nagarjuna's views of Pratitya-samutpada? Regardless, the next two sentences (and the following two paragraphs) starting :
 * Hence, what Western philosophy might call a property refers to a relationship between the observer-perciever and the object being observed. Using the examples provide above, if you are looking at an apple, the concepts of "apple" as well as any other property you percieve (size, shape, colour, taste, mass, etc.) is in fact only a particular relationship between you and the apple.

are not Buddhist ideas at all, but your own interpretation of Buddhist ideas. I welcome your efforts - let's try to work out a suitable set of paragraphs. (20040302 00:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC))

Sociocultural evolution renominated
Since the last voting was a draw, I have renominated the article (Featured article candidates/Sociocultural evolution). Lead has been signifcantly shortened (which doesn't actually make it better IMHO but this was a popular complaint so I gave up on opposing that). I'd appreciate your input, especially as you voted during the last nom. I am not sure how to adress your former nom first point - perhaps you would like to do a little editing on this point in the article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Science & Religion
Thank you for your supporting words at Talk:Main_Page/Archive_42. Best Regards, --GalaazV 04:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I have just purposed Rosicrucian article for nomination at Featured_article_candidates. I request if you may give a look into it and, if you consider it acceptable, I request your support also in this one, dear Pariah. Thank you! :) --GalaazV 01:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Let it be :) I'm going for weekend, it seems the article needs work, next week. Anyway, have also a nice weekend my friend! --GalaazV 05:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you. The final list revision and the revision of English language at the article is being done by users User:Banana04131 and User:RDF. I guess any time soon will be again for voting. I donnot know yet if I'll still be around at that time; please keep up with it at the link Talk:Rosicrucian which contains the current state and link to the nomination/voting page. Regards, --GalaazV 16:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Sociocultural evolution FAR
Sociocultural evolution has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Availability for WikiProject_Anthropology/Collaboration_of_the_month
The probable sorry state of 'core anthropology' articles on Wikipedia has been recently identified here

As a self-nominated WikiProject_Anthropology member, I thought I'd check on your interest and willingness to see anthropology better represented on Wikipedia? Bruceanthro (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Bruceanthro--I'm definitely interested. I am sorry to say that my knowledge is limited to a few particular areas (I'm a part-time undergrad), but I'll help out in any way I can.  I'll check out the core articles and see if there is anything I can add.--Pariah (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanx for your offer to give some assistance! At present the kinship article has been suggested, nominated and supported (see link in heading above) as a recommended first 'core' articles needing attention.. to be worked on over the mid_Jan to mid_Feb 2008 month?!


 * Perhaps you have ready access to some good summary text/s that may be useful in upgrading this article?! If you'd be interested in assisting with this first core concept article, please freely (and boldly!) contribute ..otherwise, keep an eye on upcoming monthly collaborations for other articles you may be able to help and assist with!!


 * Thanx again Bruceanthro (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No problemo--I'll definitely be keeping an eye on the articles and contributing wherever possible. I don't have access to many texts (I'm not actually attending classes at the moment), but if I know what I'm looking for I might be able to arrange the occasional day trip to the campus library.--Pariah (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Social Stratification
Hey there, Thanks for guiding me on this article, it was the first one I've added that much text to so was scared to bits lol

I updated the reference, it was that short. The publisher was before the book title so I moved it to the respective place adhering to the Harvard style.

Apart from that, your edits look good to me. It is hrd to keep opinions neutral when dealing with such a debatable subject, and the theorists opinions can clash in a topic like this so I tried to give viewpoints from all mentioned theorists.

If there is anything you want to see more of then just let me know!

Rosenny (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your kind message :) Do you use Firefox? If so I would recommend you look at twinkle - it is a java script based tool that allows quick reverting and warning for vandalism edits. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Tiddly  -  Tom  06:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

continuation of a discussion
I am writing in response to a comment you made on the discussion page of individualism. I would have replied there, but I'm using a school IP and vandals got every one at the school blocked. you talked about how people cooperating to raise children is not a selfish goal. they do that because it is in their self intrest to raise the child. selfishness.70.151.125.19 (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Arbiter099


 * But why would a truly selfish person, living up to a Randian ideal, waste valuable resources on a person who does nothing for him or herself? I assume you mean it is selfish in the sense that kids may grow up to one day look after their parents in their old age.  But it is also an entirely selfless act.  Children cost a great deal time, money, and effort to raise; and they may actually diminish your happiness.  They certainly diminish your freedom as an individual.  And yet, the drive to procreate is the strongest one we have.  The point is, we raise our kids because they are family, and families look after each other.  Altruistic behavior is no different, it just extends the concept of family to all people, and in some philosophies, to all living beings.  I have a problem with people who promote the doctrine of selfishness, because they don't understand that being selfish and caring about people are incompatible ideals.  There are times when we do need to put our own interests first, but there are many more times when we should consider others.--Pariah (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Indigo Children
I agree about an explanation about the 'indigo children' term is relevant in the intro, but since it's controversial and there isn't a generally accepted explanation, I don't think neither one of those belongs to the intro.

Nancy Ann Tappe, the creator of the term, explains she sees has a neurological condition called synesthesia, and that he experiences colors over a lot of things. Synestesia is a scientifically accepted phenomenon. So she can experience 'life colors' of people according to their personality (check out the synesthesia article, nancyanntappe.com and allaboutindigos.com ).

This has nothing to do with aura or aura colors. But for the New Age movement, and for those who doesn't understand synesthesia, it looks like the same phenomenon (and I'm not saying there's proof about auras). It's just like saying Kirlian photography or the corona effect is the same as auras, which are not.

Nancy Ann Tappe, Lee Carroll and Jan Tober, which are the most famous authors on the 'Indigo Children' concept (not necessarily the best or most formal), agree that it has nothing to do with aura.

I don't want to engage in an edition war or anything of the sort, but I'd like to hear your thoughts about this. Itzcuauhlti (talk) 07:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The edit you did seems to work. Perhaps I'll just add something like this: The term itself is a reference to the belief that such children have indigo "life colours." (which is not the same as aura)[1].
 * Itzcuauhlti (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)