Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 May 15

= May 15 =

Henry Corbin essay
I am having trouble finding an essay by Henry Corbin called “Eyes of Flesh, Eyes of Fire: the Science of Gnosis.” According to the Wikipedia article on him it was "presented" in June of 1978, but no mention is made as to where it was presented or where (or even if) it was published. -- noosph e re 01:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Take a look here . It was an address to the Université Saint Jean de Jérusalem, whatever that may be. DuncanHill (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's perfect.  -- noosph e re 19:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

"Out"
I've been reading Mansfield Park, and there's a peculiar use of a word that I didn't get. Phrases like "his sister was not out", "She was then out", and "Miss Price is not out" [emphasis in original] use the word "out" as in a girl being out. What does "out" mean in this context? The only guess I came up with is that the girl has hadher first menstrual period and is thus a woman and ready to marry, but that doesn't make much sense since Miss Price is 18 years old! Sorry if I'm not familiar with the British social customs and terminology of the 18th siecle. Best, 76.230.146.50 (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Could be to do with coming out, or it could be to do with being "in" or "out" to callers - one might ask the footman to tell callers that one was "out" in order to avoid having to see them. I've never got on with Jane Austen though, hopefully a Janeite will be along soon to help further. DuncanHill (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's a very good explanation of the ins and outs of the word's meaning. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It means she hadn't yet made her debut in society. See the links DuncanHill and Clarityfiend have provided above. The word out is often used in Jane Austen and Victoria Holt novels.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jeanne Boleyn; you can read "out" as a short form of "out in society." --- OtherDave (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Government/executive boycott election?
Chief Executive of Hong Kong Donald Tsang said that he and his politically appointed team will boycott the Hong Kong by-election, 2010. Are there any cases in history where the head of government/ the executive would boycott a legitimate election held by that government? F (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Not so much a "boycott" as such, but in Australia, not all the major parties always contest by-elections. Elections of all kinds, at the federal level, are conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission, a government-created and -funded body but one that operates independent of government and is answerable more directly to the Parliament of Australia.  In a broad sense, however, one could say that all elections are conducted by the "government", but there have certainly been occasions when the government of the day has chosen to let the other parties slug it out.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   04:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The boycott in this case is by not voting. Traditionally, the Chief Executive and major officials would stage photo-ops such as inserting the ballot into the ballot box and by opening the ballot boxes at close of poll. They are refusing to do it this time. F (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you checked out all the elections listed in the article "Election boycott"? Gabbe (talk) 08:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Regnal number of future Spanish monarchs
Regnal number seems to me to follow the Asturian-Leonese-Castilian monarchs in Spanish history. Is this true? I know that the Crown of Aragon was technically abolished in the aftermath of the Spanish War of Succession. So would a future heir to the Spanish throne named James or Peter follow the Castilian regnal number and be James I of Spain and Peter II of Spain or the Aragonese regnal number and be James III of Spain and Peter V of Spain?--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There hasn't been a precedent, so we won't know until a James or a Peter ascends the Spanish throne. I don't think there's a rule saying who is counted and who's not. I'd like to know whether the Navarrese monarchs will be counted from now on. If they were going to count the Navarrese monarchs, Charles III of Spain would've been Charles IV. But they might be more concerned about Navarre now than they were three centuries years ago, so Infanta Leonor of Spain might reign as Leonor II. Surtsicna (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Navarrese Crown merged with that of France and not Spain. See Henry IV of France.  Spanish Navarre was conquered early in the time of the united crowns of Castille and Aragon; it was a bit of a side-conflict during the War of the League of Cambrai.  See Spanish conquest of Iberian Navarre.  There remained a "rump" Kingdom of Navarre (known as Lower Navarre) until Henry III of Navarre became Henry IV of France in 1589 (Paris being well worth a Mass, apparently also worth a LOT more than the puny Kingdom of Navarre).  Navarre continued on in name in personal union with France until Louis XIII of France officially abolished it as a seperate kingdom in 1620.  Numbering of Navarrese monarchs would therefor have little bearing on regnal numbers in Spain.  -- Jayron  32  23:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Ferdinand II of Aragon conquered a part of Navarre and assumed the title of King of Navarre by the right of conquest. Was that part of Navarre incorporated into another Spanish kingdom or did it remain seperate until the reign of Philip V like the other Spanish kingdoms? If the latter is true, numbering of Navarrese monarchs should have some bearing on monarchical ordinals of Spanish monarchs, shouldn't it? Surtsicna (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * . I don't see where there is any evidence he claimed right to the title King of Navarre.  The article you show states that he conquered part of the kingdom and annexed its lands to Spain/Castile, but I see no reliable sources which state he, from then, claimed the title to King of Navarre.  Near as I can tell, the was never any Spanish claim to the title; there is no mention of the title King of Navarre being part of either the Crown of Aragon or the Crown of Castile.  -- Jayron  32  15:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course he claimed right to the title King of Navarre. His immediate successors, Joanna and Charles I, used the title Queen and King of Navarre. All their successors seem to have used the title as well. What's most interesting, it seems that the Habsburg Kings of Castile actually held different monarchical ordinals in Navarre. For example, Philip IV of Castile ruled over his part of Navarre as Philip VI. Even after the Crown of Aragon disappeared, Spanish monarchs seem to have held different ordinals in Navarre (for example, Charles VI of Navarre). The sources which mention Cortes generales and Charles as Charles VI are especially interesting. Do I need to cite more examples and more sources? Evidently, there are precedents and Leonor could reign as Leonor II. Surtsicna (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * More then likely, the Castillian numbering will continue. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Islamic or Sufi quote
I am trying to find a quote by an Islamic philosopher (or maybe a Sufi mystic), who said something like "when you put a match to cotton, it is not the flame that burns, but God." Does anyone know what the original quote was and who its author was? -- noosph e re 19:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It was al-Ghazali in The Incoherence of the Philosophers, which actually has the passage about cotton quoted in the article, although it is uncited. Averroes criticized al-Ghazali in The Incoherence of the Incoherence, and quoted long passages so he could refute them, so the bit about cotton burning is also in there (see this translation of Averroes for example). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Sugarloaf Mountain, New Brunswick memorial crosses
An IP editor just asked on the Help Desk about two white crosses on the side of Sugarloaf Mountain, New Brunswick. I was able to provide them with this link to a short account of their origin, but was wondering if anyone had any further information. DuncanHill (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Kemp and his idea of the "indigenous peoples" of the British Isles
This guy, Arthur Kemp, who has his own Wikipedia article and everything... he is asserting that the white Western native British people even if their ancestors have lived in Britain for centuries if not millennia... (that may be true sometimes but...) constitute an "indigenous people". Whilst his genetic findings may have some truth in that the British people may not have much admixture, that does not make the British an "indigenous people", regardless of their genetic heritage. Do the white British live in huts, caves, or so on? Do they hunt fish with spears? No. Do they obtain their food from Tesco and Asda... yes.--Lightsin (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps they left an actual question in those caves? --- OtherDave (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheddar Man lived in Britain 9150 years ago, give or take a few, and people related genetically to him live in the same spot now. The Romans found Britons to be little natives who smeared their skin with blue clay and fought like hell. They lived much as you describe, and did not get their food from Tesco at the time. Edison (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Presumably there are some people who were the first people to settle a land; even someplace like Britain, and they would therefore be "indigenous". The decendants of those people don't have to be living in caves to be indigenous, just that they are decended from those people.  Indigenousness has nothing to do with economic status.  That being said, I make no statement about the validity of his ideas; just that ones objection shouldn't be based on the use of the term indigenous to describe a population of people.  -- Jayron  32  00:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you need to consult a dictionary on the meaning of "indigenous". It doesn't mean "hunt fish with spears". FiggyBee (talk) 02:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree fully with FiggyBee. Indigenous peoples are any ethnic group who inhabit a geographic region with which they have the earliest known historical connection. --Lgriot (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As I understood it, the earliest British people were the Welsh or Celts. They got driven back, or perhaps intermarried with, many waves of migrants such as the Romans, Saxons, Normans and so on. The ancenstry of British people is that of mixtures of migrants. 92.26.59.240 (talk) 09:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)