Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Toledano Tradition

"This article is about Kabbalah. The name of the article, 'Toledano Tradition', is a term used only in the books of one kabbalist, Warren Kenton and by his followers. The term is not used in any traditional works of Kabbalah, nor by any scholars of Kabbalah. The term 'Toledano Tradition' is very closely tied to the books of Warren Kenton, and with no one else. The article also contains diagrams from Kenton's books. Given that, the article should have been directed at a discussion of that particular aspect of Kenton's teaching....if such an article is justified. Instead, much of this article, as it now is, just duplicates part of the history section that is already in the Kabbalah article Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)"


 * As noted on the Toledano Tradition page, the TT refers to the ecumenical culture of al-Andalus and how, subsequently and more importantly, it affected and influenced the work of the Spanish and, later, the Provencal Kabbalists. That is why there is a detailed section of the history of Kabbalists/ism of that period on the TT page.


 * All the Kabbalah Society and Halevi did was revive the tradition and name it specifically. As such, that needs no imprimatur from anyone, scholar or rabbi. For further evidence to support this see the Toledano Tradition discussion page. On the question of the name itself, and in support of the process of naming, was Isaac the Blind pilloried when he first called Kabbalah "Kabbalah?" No. He, in fact, referred back to the prior Jewish mystical tradition in support of his advances - similarly with the content of the Toledano Tradition page...Vassyana (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would also like it noted here, as it is on your user page and the Toledano Tradition discussion page, that you have not responded to a request for a further, more formal step in the mediation process, but have decided to move directly to an appeal for deletion. Dispute resolution pursued to the end? I don't think so.abafied (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I did reply. If you want mediation, as I understand the process, it is up to you to request it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You replied by ignoring links to Wikipedia policy. Here they are again: Request for Mediation. When you have read it, I would like a reply as to whether or not you propose to go for further mediation. Meanwhile and until I am unequivocally told otherwise, as you've started the process of deletion, I will assume that you don't want mediation to proceed. abafied (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Abafied, The term "Toledano Tradition" is used by no one but Warren Kenton and his Kabbalah Society followers. There is nothing wrong in using the term "Toledano Tradition" as the name of an article about Kenton or his Kabbalah Scciety, but it is deceptive to use it for the name of an article about two thousand years of Kabbalah history. What you have done is something like writing an article about the history of encyclopedias and calling the article "Wikipedia". Moreover, the history in the "Toledano Tradition" just duplicates some of what is in the history section of the Kabbalah article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Deceptive? I see. Indeed it is deceptive that you deny that the the Toledano Tradition exists, has a long and scholarly attested history, none of which you are able yourself to source being entirely ignorant of the era. On the issue of the section in Kabbalah, you have been told that only three of the Kabbalists are mentioned there; many more are mentioned and discussed, many more sources and references are quoted on the Toledano Tradtion page. The history section of that era of Kabbalism on the Kabbalah page is just a general introduction and is woefully inadequate. You are preventing its expansion elsewhere. abafied (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"Delete without prejudice to re-creation. As it currently stands, the article is little more than a POV-based fork of Kabbalah that serves to advance the position of the Kabbalah Society. The modern restorationist movement of the Toledano Tradition, as spearheaded by the Kabbalah Society, may or may not be suitable for inclusion depending on whether sufficient reliable references can be found. However, the current article is simply a promotional vehicle that disregards our principles of no original research, balanced and comprehensive presentation, and inappropriate content. It has little to do with presenting the named topic in an encyclopedic fashion, instead acting as a shallow vehicle for its claims. It would be like if the Latter-day Saint movement article said little to nothing of the movement, instead simply presenting its version of continuity and history (such as the Great Apostasy and Restoration) as fact. Alternatively, it would be as though the Kemetism article presented the Kemetic view of ancient Egyptian history and religion, and their sympathy with modern Kemetism uncritically and unqualified. This is not simply poor content, but a complete deviation into a POV fork. However, deletion of this fork should not prejudice the creation of an appropriate article under this name.(talk) 01:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)"


 * The article is not a "promotional vehicle": you have given no evidence that it is. Your opinion is merely that, opinion. You were given reasons why the Toledano Tradition page was put up. Those are detailed on the TT discussion page and are to do with the tradition of the Spanish and Provencal Kabbalists as stated above. I might add that in your initial entry on the TT discussion page, you made the mistake of conflating an established and attested tradition with the Kabbalah Sociey and Halevi's work. To make it clear, Halevi revived the work of the Spanish and Provencal Kabbalists; the Kabbalah Society promotes it; neither are the tradition itself.


 * Further, sources were put up to support the tradition in the TT article itself and on the discussion page: they have been ignored by Schosha and assessed as being erroneously used in this article by you. Neither of you, it appears, have read all the references or books on the source list;neither of you have much knowledge of this paticular area of study. People are free to read the discussion, evidence and sources on both pages of the Toledano Tradition entry. The truth of the matter is that the Toledano Tradition exists - attested to by scholarship over the last century and a half: the question of the name has nothing to do with anyone here or elsewhere. As said before, did anyone give an imprimatur to Isaac the Blind when he introduced the title "Kabbalah" into his mysticism? No. Neither was it questioned by anyone. Your point is spurious.


 * Moreover, it is mentioned on the TT page that Halevi revived the tradition. What there is now is a body of people working with that tradition, rather than with post-Lurianic Kabbalah. Once again, let me make it clear - neither Halevi's work not the Kabbalah Society are the Toledano Tradition. The former revived it; the latter works with it and promotes it; the tradition, the subject of the Toledano Traditon page, is that of the Spanish/Provencal Kabbalists. Why is that so difficult to understand?


 * The work of the Kabbalah Society is detailed on its own page, though it is as yet a stub and could do with expansion: the work of Halevi is also detailed on its own page - Z'ev ben Shimon Halevi. I kept the Toledano Tradition page separate from those precisely so I could concentrate on the history of Kabbalah in that period and on the work of the particular Kabbalists, many of them having Neoplatonic elements in their work. In that regard, it is significant that Schosha deleted all references to the Neoplatonism of the Kabbalists without any discussion; he had appended citation tags only to the Neoplatonic references. When I put up so many other sources by Jewish scholars, he could no longer ignore the fact that Neoplatonism was introduced into Judaic mysticism by those rabbis and Jewish mystics. That he has also provided no sources or evidence either countering or supporting that indicates either ignorance of the period, or personal bias against Neoplatonism in Judaic mysticism, or both.


 * Of course Halevi was mentioned on that page: he revived the tradition. However, if the page is read carefully and without prior bias, the vast bulk of the work refers to the Kabbalah of the period, as do all the sources. Halevi's work is deliberately not mentioned - that is appropriate only to the biography page.

abafied (talk) 11:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletions
I note that Schosha had deleted/reverted the subheading categories I put up and with it deleted some additions I had made to my own text. I do hope this is not another attempt at high-handed editing/deletion in order to take control of a page and/or suppress material. The process is becoming extremely tedious and cramping. abafied (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Abafied, I want to caution you for your repeated incivility []. I explained in my edit summaries why I removed your retroactively installed headings. You certainly have a right to disagree, but saying about me "I do hope this is not another attempt at high-handed editing/deletion in order to take control of a page and/or suppress material" is insulting. Already, on several previous occasions you have called me a liar and assorted other insults. Please stop this incivility. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I notice you didn't discuss the deletions with anyone here, but just did so. That is not in the spirit of Wikipedeia, yes? Further, I note the message passed to you by Vassyana about incivility and soapboxing on his user page, when you complained to him there, rather than addressed the issue with me here, about the subheadings.


 * Incidentally, in that rush to delete, you also deleted additions to my own text. Please do check that you are not destroying people's work by acting precipitously and without discussion. abafied (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Abafied, since you added those headings without discussion, why are you surprised that I removed them without discussion? (Sorry if I deleted anything else that you added, it was clumsiness and not done intentionally.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Retain and expand: Case against deletion:
 * As noted on the Toledano Tradition page, the TT refers to the ecumenical culture of al-Andalus and how, subsequently and more importantly, it affected and influenced the work of the Spanish and, later, the Provencal Kabbalists. That is why there is a detailed section of the history of Kabbalists/ism of that period on the TT page. What the Kabbalah Society and Halevi did was revive the pre-Luranic tradition, name it specifically and work within it. As such, that needs no imprimatur from anyone, scholar, rabbi or Wikipedia. For further discussion to support this see Talk:Toledano_Tradition. Further, neither base their work on pixie dust, but on an established lineage of Judaic mysticism up to the time of Luria. The Toledano Tradition exists - attested to by scholarship over the last century and a half: the question of the name has nothing to do with anyone here or elsewhere. Did anyone give an imprimatur to Isaac the Blind at the time he introduced the title "Kabbalah" into his mysticism? No. Neither was it questioned by anyone. The point concerning the name is as spurious as the one on diagrams.


 * The diagrams I put up are mine; made by me; that can be checked on Wiki:Images. All modern Trees of Life derive from the one devised by Isaac the Blind; they differ. The other that I put up derives from one in a photo of a Yemeni Kabbalistic manuscript dated 1474, in which eleven interlocked circles are the source for the diagram of Jacob's Ladder - see Kedourie, E., ed., The Jewish World, Thames and Hudson, 2003, p66. Yes, Halevi uses similar ones: no, my diagrams do not appear in his books. They constitute no evidence for a change of status of the Toledano Tradition page.


 * The article is not a "promotional vehicle". No evidence has been offered that it is, merely opinion. Further, sources were put up by me to support the tradition in the TT article itself and on its discussion page: they have been ignored by Schosha and assessed as being erroneously used in this article by Vassyana, again without supporting evidence or sourcing. Neither, it appears, have read all the references or books on the source list; neither have much knowledge of this particular area of study; neither have put up source material of their own to support what must remain opinion only, even when asked repeatedly in some cases. People are free to read the discussion, evidence and sources on both pages of the Toledano Tradition entry.


 * The work of the Kabbalah Society is detailed on its own page, though it is as yet a stub and could do with expansion: the work of Halevi is also detailed on its own page - Z'ev ben Shimon Halevi. The Toledano Tradition page was kept separate from those precisely because the page needed work on the history of the Toedano Tradition and on the work of the particular Kabbalists, many of them having Neoplatonic elements in their work. In that regard, it is significant that Schosha deleted all references to the Neoplatonism of the Kabbalists without any discussion after they had been sourced; he had appended citation tags only to the Neoplatonic references. When I put up so many other sources by Jewish scholars, he could no longer ignore the fact that Neoplatonism was introduced into Judaic mysticism by those rabbis and Jewish mystics. That he has also provided no sources or evidence either countering or supporting that indicates either ignorance of the period, or personal bias against Neoplatonism in Judaic mysticism, or both.


 * This article is, as yet, unfinished. It needs more content on the history; not less. abafied (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * reply to: Case against deletion

I want to restate briefly the problem with the article and reason for the RfD. The article is presented as a balanced account of the history of Kabbalah and summery of the goals of Kabbalah. But it is not balanced because it represents the teaching of one Kabbalast, Warren Kenton...a Kabbalist who is not in the mainstream of Jewish Kabbalah tradition. Since Kenton's ideas are particular to him it it is necessary to make that clear, which the present article does not. Rather the contrary it claims to be objective and balanced. Compare this statement in the article:

"During these periods, Kabbalists incorporated into their expositions and exegeses a degree of Neoplatonism that conformed to the requirements of Jewish theology and philosophy, though, to some extent, in medieval times, it conflicted with the Aristotelian approach to Jewish philosophy by Maimonides and his followers []"

to this more balanced statement:

"Beyond the specifically Jewish notions contained within the kabbalah, some scholars believe that it reflects a strong Neoplatonic influence, especially in its doctrines of emanation and the transmigration of souls (see Neoplatonism)."

Clearly the second quote is more sensitive and more balanced, admitting the views of religious Jews, who reject the presence of Neoplatonic influence; while also stating that a contrary scholarly view also exists. This is a single example, but the extent of unbalanced statements results in an article that amounts to original research. Of course, if it was presented as the thinking of Kenton (who is notable), there would be no problem; and it might be acceptable to merge the article with the Warren Kenton article. Because even the name of the article, Toledano Tradition, is completely tied to Kenton that might make sense. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Response to the above. If all that is required is that, currently, Orthodox Jews disagee that Neoplatonism influenced the Spanish/Provencal Kabbalists, a statement to that effect can be incorporated into the original article, along with the work and names of rabbis who do so. However, academic research since the 19thC. indicates otherwise (see Toledano Tradition page for general references and Talk:Toledano_Tradition for some more detailed references), and the Columbia Encyclopedia entry quoted gives no references to those scholars who have disagreed. In fact, of the four authors which are quoted in a footnote at the bottom of the Columbia page, two are academics who support the influence of Neoplatonism in Kabbalah, Scholem and Dan/Talmage; of the other two authors, Weiner's book is about his personal quest in Kabbalah and Rosenberg's book concerns sexuality and psychology in Kabbalah. I would submit that the Columbia Encyclopedia entry is a little short of references to back up the statement Schosha quotes. However, If Malcolm Schosha would be so kind as to pass on the names of those scholars who do disagree, their work, too, could be referenced in the article, along with a statement that they disagree.


 * Further, there is no case for merging this article with Halevi's biographical page: the WikiBiog.Project people would rightly have such additions concerning the historical lineage of the Toledano Tradition deleted as irrelevant to a biographical article. That is the reason why the stand-alone page for the Toledano Tradition was put up.


 * On the question of balance, the first quote that Schosha put up has in the original statement on the Toledano Tradition page a reference, ref. no, 12, to Lenn Goodman's book, Neoplatonism and Jewish Thought, in which he states that Maimonides and others disagreed with the Jewish Neoplatonists: this,  alongside  investigations into the influence of Neoplatonism on Kabbalah, does not constitute imbalance. Goodman is a notable academic and scholarly editor in the field of Jewish and Islamic Philosophy, of which Kabbalistic studies are a part. I have yet to see any articles, academic or otherwise, that view his work as unbalanced. If Malcolm Schosha has references to any of those, I would be pleased to have them.abafied (talk) 07:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Kenton biography
There are many biographies of authors that contain substantial information on the the author's writing. One that comes to mind is the Alice Bailey biography. While this was being written, there was an RfC that an experienced administrator (AnonEMouse) from the biography section oversaw, and there was never any objection to the expansion of content describing Bailey's ideas on virtually every subject. Likewise, there is no reason discussion of Kenton's ideas needs to be separate from his biography. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You have noted that the neutrality of the Bailey article is under dispute - the very issue that you have disputed for the TT page - according to the Wiki notice at the top of its page. Moreover, Halevi's work is not the history of the Toledano Tradition, but a revival of that history; that is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abafied (talk • contribs) 17:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Abafied, you wrote above: "the WikiBiog.Project people would rightly have such additions concerning the historical lineage of the Toledano Tradition deleted as irrelevant to a biographical article", which you know is not true. Here is another example of a biography which includes the ideas of the author: []. It is perfectly okay to do that. What is not okay is to present the ideas of Warren Kenton on the history of Kabbalah as the actual history of Kabbalah....no matter how sincerely you believe it is true. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "What is not okay is to present the ideas of Warren Kenton on the history of Kabbalah as the actual history of Kabbalah....no matter how sincerely you believe it is true..." Same old, same old, eh? Sling enough ignorant mud in the hope that it sticks. The lineage of the Toledano Tradition is of the Kabbalists of Spain and Provence, repeated ad nauseam (with verifiable sources, I might add) and knowledge of which you have little. That is not suitable for a biography page. What needs to go on Halevi's page is how he has adapted that to fit modern needs, not the history of the lineage itself. One example of Halevi's adaptation: psychology. I'm pretty sure that Freud and Jung didn't exist in 13thC Gerona, aren't you? abafied (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Neoplatonism
On the question of Neoplatonic influence in Kabbalah, this is discussed already in the Kabbalah article []. In general, the Toledano Tradition article only duplicates information already in the Kabbalah article, and only serves to put it into the context of Warren Kenton's teaching.

As for the question of existence of Neoplatonic influence in Kabbalah, there is scholarly writing that supports that view, so it needs a place in a balanced article. Nevertheless, Kabbalah exists as is a part of Jewish theology and the Jewish theologians do not think that scholars (mostly historians) are capable of understanding either the origin or nature of Kabbalah. That needs to be in an a balanced article also. It is not the job of Wikipedia editors (as I understand it) to decide where the truth lies in such a controversy, but simply to note that the controversy exists. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, TT page information goes far beyond the basic info. on the Kabbalah page. There are many more Kabbalists mentioned on the TT page, with many more sources, and more to come. No, it is not put in the context of Halevi's teaching. Nowhere in the TT article are the details of Halevi's teaching mentioned. You are relying on opinion and supposition again. abafied (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed it isn't. However I noted on the articles page that the diasagreement between some rabbis and scholars could be noted on the TT page provided you supplied names of those rabbis and the works where their objections can be sourced. I am still waiting. If you provided those sources, or put them up in the article, that would constitute veriable balance on the issue of the conflict between rabbis and scolars. Until the time that you supply those you are relying on hearsay and generalisationsabafied (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Many are mentioned in the Kabbalah article, and have their own articles too. Moreover, No one has said that no more kabbalists can be added to the history section of the Kabbalah article.


 * Your insistance on the importance of Neoplatonic influence on Kabbalah is problematic. There was some such influence through Solomon ibn Gabirol, but Jews regarded him as a heretic and rejected his writing. He is of more interest to Christan and Islamic philosophers. Also calling him a Neoplatonist is like calling Spinoza a Stoic (which some do). There are some scholars who detect a Neoplatonic influence, but when Solomon ibn Gabirol was born the schools of philosophy (including Neoplatonism) had been closed 500 years previously by the Christian emperor Justnian . By then most of the ancient Neoplatonic texts had been lost, and there were no living teachers that carried on the tradition. In the time of ibn Gabirol Neoplatonism was a dead philosophical tradition, while Kabbalah continues to this day as a living tradition. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Response to the above
"Many are mentioned in the Kabbalah article, and have their own articles too. Moreover, No one has said that no more kabbalists can be added to the history section of the Kabbalah article..." Many of the kabbalists of the Spanish/Provencal school are mentioned on the Kabbalah page, are they? Excuse me, but not to my knowledge. When I looked 24 hours ago, there were only 3, unless you or someone else has been extra busy since. An example of a grave omission? Pitiably, nobody on that page has even mentioned the important work of Azriel of Gerona who systematisedised and conflated ibn Gabirol's philosphical work with the doctrine of the Sephirot at the same time as Isaac the Blind was devising of the Tree of Life, they being contemporaries and it being known that there was constant commerce between Gerona, Lunel and Posquieres. And that's only one example.

"Your insistance on the importance of Neoplatonic influence on Kabbalah is problematic. There was some such influence through Solomon ibn Gabirol, but Jews regarded him as a heretic and rejected his writing..." Your sources? Books? Articles? Some influence? Some influence all the way up to Luria directly and then carried on in Ashkenazi Kabbalah unknowingly. Odd that I've not heard, seen or read any Kabbalist of any persuation, orthodox, reform, jewish revivalist or otherwise, deny that the Sephirot emanate from the Godhead. Where do you think that theory of emanation came from, Cabbage Patch dolls on the 5th planet spinning around Alpha Centauri? No. It came from Plato via Plotinus via the Byzantines and Muslims of Baghdad and al-Andalus to ibn Gabirol. You want sources? Go and read those I put up on the TT page - histories and academic studies. Further, for what it's worth, had you read the Wiki article of Neoplatonism, you would notice, under the sub-heading "Early Christian and Medieval Neoplatonism", that ibn Gabirol and Issaac the Blind are both stated to have been influenced by Neoplatonism. No Wiki editor has questioned that appellation, I see - yet.

"... He is of more interest to Christan and Islamic philosophers..." Of more interest? You have proof and sources to prove that generalisation and not, please, internet bits-'n-pieces? No, of course not: you have refused to put up creditable sources all along. Odd how, being "of more interest to Christians and Muslims," his Keter-Malkhut, containing both Neoplatonic and astrological references, is to this day in the Sephardi liturgy, eh? It seems to me that the Sephardi mind was rather more liberal than the Ashkenazi one. Source for that statement? Perl, Chaim, The Medieval Mind: the Religious Philosophy of Isaac Arama, pub. Valentine, Mitchell: London, 1971. I forget which page: read the book.

"...Also calling him a Neoplatonist is like calling Spinoza a Stoic (which some do)..." Dismissed as irrelevant and ignorant nonsense.

"...There are some scholars who detect a Neoplatonic influence..." Are you still insisting on generalisations to make a "case" and refusing to put up sources?

"... but when Solomon ibn Gabirol was born the schools of philosophy (including Neoplatonism) had been closed 500 years previously by the Christian emperor Justnian [6]. By then most of the ancient Neoplatonic texts had been lost, and there were no living teachers that carried on the tradition. In the time of ibn Gabirol Neoplatonism was a dead philosophical tradition..." You very obvoiously do not know the history of the Greek texts during what the West called the Dark Ages. Byzantium still contained (and used) most of them, as did the Library of Alexandria. After the Muslim conquest of North Africa and the Near East, the Abbasid Caliph, al-Ma'mun, in the early 9thC, set up a "House of Wisdom" in Baghdad, purely for the translations into Arabic of Greek texts borrowed from the Byzantines. Translations were sent to al-Andalus, among other parts of the Muslim world; translation also took place in Cordoba, though not on the same scale. That is how the Greek texts on many matters reached al-Andalus and Greek Neoplatonic texts became available to ibn Gabirol. No, Neoplatonism was not dead; it decided to plonk itself safely in Byzantium for a few centuries, while war and chaos raged about it after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, and let the Byzantine philosophers and mystics such as Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite get on with reading  it until al-Ma'mun and his court got wind of what their libraries contained, sent out diplomatic emissaries to borrow the texts, translated them and spread the word. He was at least honest enough to send back the original copies to the Byzantines; centuries previously, the Alexandrians had gone the same route, but retained the originals, returning the copies they had made to Byzantium. There is a need here for a debate among the knowlegeable, not with someone who indulges in unsupported generalisation, who digs up unsubstantiated snippets from nowhere important and who wrote this on Hanina's user page:


 * ...But, although Kabbalah fascinates me, I am not particularly knowledgeable in the subject. Neither am I a skillful writer... It is my hope that someone qualified will do the work necessary to improve the article in ways that I can not. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Am I here to teach you personally? I don't think so. Please go and do some detailed study yourself and stop with the repetitive and circular arguments going nowhere and meaning less.

"...while Kabbalah continues to this day as a living tradition. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC) ..."Indeed it does. Long live variety beyond orthodoxy and censorship, eh? abafied (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Abafied, the Kabbalah article has become very long, and I have considered moving its history section to a separate article. That would give plenty of room you, or anyone interested, to make good additions...but not under the heading "Toledano Tradition", which is a term used by no one but Warren Kenton and his followers.


 * In response to your challenge concerning Solomon ibn Gabirol, the Wikipedia article supports what I said: :[]
 * []


 * In response to my saying about ibn Gabirol,"...Also calling him a Neoplatonist is like calling Spinoza a Stoic (which some do)", you wrote: "Dismissed as irrelevant and ignorant nonsense." Abafied, your response is incivil, and misses my point too.


 * Solomon ibn Gabirol was influenced by Neoplatioic writing (what little was available to him), but he was not a Neoplatonist because the teaching had ceased to exist as a living school of philosophy 500 years before his birth. When the transmission from one teacher to the next ends, the school is dead. Likewise the comparison to Spinoza; he may have been influenced by his reading of a few Stoic texts, but he could not be a Stoic because the tradition of the Hellenistic Greek and Roman philosophical schools, passed on from teacher to student, had ceased to exist long before he was born.


 * You wrote: "Am I here to teach you personally? I don't think so. Please go and do some detailed study yourself and stop with the repetitive and circular arguments going nowhere and meaning less." Abafied, this is incivil. Additionally, although it is true that I am not advanced in Kabbalah, the most advanced Kabbalah teachers I have met (and those advanced in other fields of knowledge also) were all modest about their knowledge, and never arrogant.Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "Solomon ibn Gabirol was influenced by Neoplatioic writing (what little was available to him)..." Indeed he was so influenced - greatly and to the extent that Ashkenazi Orthodox Jewry still condemns his work. "... but he was not a Neoplatonist because the teaching had ceased to exist as a living school of philosophy 500 years before his birth..." The Neoplatonic tradition had not ceased to exist. It was extant in Byzantium and was used, among others, by Pseudo-Dionysius, c. 5thCE, as you were told before, but choose to ignore. IUf you have proof and sources that the history is otherwise, that will be an interesting addition to the list of sources on a number of issues you have so far failed to produce. To say that you know little about Kabbalah, or the period under discussion here, and which you've admitted elsewhere, is uncivil? I don't think so. Obviously you have never met up with the teaching style of Shammai; he would have soon straightened out your tactics and the ignorance in your arguments. Go and read.abafied (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Abafied, you claim (above) that the Neoplatonic tradition did not end. Follow this link [] and tell me what the first sentence says. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"Abafied, you claim (above) that the Neoplatonic tradition did not end. Follow this link 9 and tell me what the first sentence says. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)" ... It says this: "Neoplatonism is a modern term used to designate the period of Platonic philosophy beginning with the work of Plotinus and ending with the closing of the Platonic Academy by the Emperor Justinian in 529 CE." It is wrong, as are you - a major problem for those who only study the topic from the pov of the Western Christian tradition, or the Ashkenazi Jewish Kabbalist tradition.

The schools of Neoplatonism closed; the tradition didn't end. Proof? Read "The Philokalia" (Palmer, G.E.H; Sherrard, Philip; Ware, Kallistos, trans., St Nikodemus and St Makarios, compilers, The Philokalia, 2 Vols., Faber and Faber: London, 1979), that compilation of the works early Greek Orthodox Christian mystics and mystics in the hesychast tradition,  who wrote from the 4th-14thCs. Note that those dates cover the centuries during which you and the online encyclopedia wrongly claim that Neoplatonism died. I quote: "...the Hesychasts represent the native "Platonic" position of the Orthodox church..." - Hawkins, J., Plato in the Italian Renaissance, 2 Vols., pub. Leiden, 1991, p.194ff.

There is a strong tradition still of emanationism in the Greek Orthodox Church, based on an unbroken lineage of Neoplatonism back to the time of Plotinus. Do, for instance, tell me more about the use of the word "Logos" in both Plotinus and the Greek Orthodox Church and mystical tradition and explain to me how that is not Neoplatonic. The tradition disappeared, did it; didn't appear in the works of the Pseudo-Dionysius and the Byzantine mystics between the 4th and 15thCs? Wasn't nursed for centuries within the Christian Byzantine Empire? You have been told that the Neoplatonic "tradition" was alive and well in Byantium; the paragraph above notes some of the works extant that prove that it did. Further, Neoplatonic Greek texts weren't sent from Byzantium, with its mystics practising the tradition, to Caliph al-Ma'mun and his translation school in Baghdad in the 9thC? The Islamic "falasufs" and Sufis didn't then expound on Neoplatonic doctrines? The Scholastics and Aquinians of the 12th/13thCEs of the Western Christian church didn't acquire their knowledge of Neoplatonism from Byzantium and Spain? The "thousand year gappers" and their wrong-headed variant supporters have been proven wrong. More real reading from books and studies are required, it seems, rather than the odd quirky and incorrect quote from internet encyclopaedias only.

On the issue of your refusal to go for further mediation, but, instead proceeding to article deletion knowing that it would take place befoer the mediation process would be completed, and, now, proceeding to a report by you to the administrators, you would do well to remember Hillel's words. "Do not do unto your neighbor what you would not have him do unto you; this is the whole Law; the rest is commentary. Go and learn."

This discussion is now, as far as I am concerned, at an end. abafied (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Conjecture: Kwork/Malcolm Schosha: Style of Editing
I object to the conjectures and imputations made by Schosha in his N.B. on the AfD page (and to other conjectures made on other pages, for which at least one other editor has taken him to task). This is tantamount to harassment, bad faith and editor abuse. I will not be taking a complaint to administrators as I wish this AfD process to end with a modicum of proper procedure left to it.

However, on searching, it's obvious that his style of editing and abuse has been questioned elsewhere, under his previous user name of Kwork and that I wish to draw that to the attention of administrators here. That is all.

The link between Kwork and Malcolm Schosha can be established by his comments on this Toledano Tradition AfD discussion page referring to Alice Bailey and the fact  that Kwork was taken to task on the discussion page there for his style of editing before Christmas 2007; he then rejoined as Malcolm Schosha in Jan 2008;  the association of Assagioli with comments on Alice Bailey in his comments to Sethi; and the appearance of both Kwork and Schosha on the pediaview link in 2. below which deals with Assagioli/Psychosynthesis.

1. From the TTAfD discussion page:

There are many biographies of authors that contain substantial information on the the author's writing. One that comes to mind is the Alice Bailey biography. While this was being written, there was an RfC that an experienced administrator (AnonEMouse) from the biography section oversaw, and there was never any objection to the expansion of content describing Bailey's ideas on virtually every subject. Likewise, there is no reason discussion of Kenton's ideas needs to be separate from his biography. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Further associations:

2.

3. From:

User talk:Sethie

Message for Kwork

I would like to say that I feel deeply regtetful that I was not able to be as cool, calm and civil with you as I would have liked. I really wished I would have slowed down more in our dialogue, chilled out and tried to work towards concensus as opposed to spending my time righteously trying to "educate" you about how I thought you should be behaving.

Sometimes I was really arrogant, convinced only I (or the people on "my side") were right and in our dialogues I wish I had focused more on content and less on contributor (i.e you).

If there is any way I can make this right with you, please let me know, or email me. peace, Sethie 02:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I moved your message to his talk page which is open, you could put the above there. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with editors getting passionate about things in which they believe. Bailey said that humanity is ruled by the 4th ray, harmony through conflict. Roberto Assagioli wrote that it is far better for people to have bad human relations than no human relations.

I did not leave because my feeling were hurt, but because administrators would not allow a process that was natural, and that was needed to write the Alice Bailey article. There is nothing you need to do to make things right because I am okay, and I knew that sooner or later an administrator would send me into wiki-exile.

Be well. Sorry if I was too rough on occasion.

Kwork —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.23.230 (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

abafied (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)