Talk:The Template Network

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

finally, an article that does justice to the Emin. thank you! -- Vansig 18:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you kidding? The article tells us barely anything about the Emin and the majority of it is just a guidebook on how to be a delusional nutcase.

ad hominem remarks and judgements aside, the article reveals the actual teachings, so it says much about the Emin. Go ahead and judge it as delusional, if you like. -- 216.234.56.130 16:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The emin society would probably like to know which parts you think are delusional. "Do not believe what we say, take it away, check it out, try and disprove it. If you can disprove it, please tell us."

This article needs to be completely rewritten. Large parts of it make no sense at all to someone without prior knowledge of the Emin. It has obviously been written by an adherent, and that in itself is not a problem - I am sure there is lots on wikipedia about Christian subjects written by practising Christians, for instance. But some attempt needs to be made to communicate in a manner that can be understood by the rest of us.

Unfortunately the complaint that "large parts of it make no sense at all" doesn't directly point at the problems. The society has its own jargon, including specialized terms and definitions that may be confusing to those unfamiliar with esoteric teachings. But many of these terms are widely used elsewhere and should be decipherable, such as "ray of creation" which is seen in Gurdjieff's work. -- 216.234.56.130 20:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Note also with jargon there is likely to be an esoteric distinction implicit in the terms. For example, look at the distinction between convince and persuade; likewise there is a distinction between the terms meme, coding (emin), and implant (scientology). Codings and implants are both memes that present themselves with or without a charge; the distinction being that codings situate themselves at a particular vibrational frequency. -- 70.29.131.204 17:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and confused readers should really try hard to get this: many links from the article go to disambiguation pages on purpose: the use of an ambiguous term is meant (abstractly) to cover all the different meanings. Those words should be placed in italics, and there should probably be a section specific to Emin codings that defines each and how it is distinct from popular terms. Insert examples here: agency, assembly, astral light, aura, charge, ceremony, coding, complex, content, criticality, culture, detection, entity, essence, gibberish, gold (emin), IOU, journey, moving centre, officer, occult, order, pressure systems, silver (emin), technology. Again, there is some overlap with terminology used by other esoteric schools, see http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/ for a useful glossary... -- 216.234.56.130 20:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 POV check 2 sexual stereotypes 3 NPOX 4 New changes 5 NPOV tag removed

[edit] POV check

I've added a request that this article be checked for POV/NPOV. I'm sure the article is very far from neutrality and is written in a style more suited to one of the emin society's own publications rather than an encyclopedia. --wayland 14:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

now that's a bold statement! instead of assuring us, please point directly at the parts you think are "far from neutrality"? -- 216.234.56.130 19:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

If only it were the sort of article which has one or two little things which could be "pointed" at as needing improvement. In fact the problems are to be found all the way through the article.

A possible way of fixing it would be to take one sentence at a time from the top and examine what's biased in each one.

Let's start with the first sentence: "The Emin is a society that does research into esoteric/occult through human being development." In this first sentence we need to know what the author of it means by researching something through human being development. If the sentence appeared in an emin pamphlet it would obviously be attempting to use vagueness of terms in order to drum up curiousity and some interest in attending open meetings. However, for an encyclopedia the tactics of deliberate vagueness and intentional ambiguity are at odds with the aims of the project as a whole (i.e: to deliver factual (and notable) information in as unbiased a way as possible).

There are all sorts of interpretations which could be put upon the first sentence but none of them are necessarily intended. The overall tone of the article, like that of other emin writings, is to lure and hint at what might be learned from getting involved with some emin teachings. Consequently the whole thing seems like fishing for new members, rather than an objective description.

To fix it I would suggest re-writing whole sections of the text in less ambiguous phrases. Also some of the apparent bias could be removed by examining the items listed as teachings, rather than merely listing them in sort-of "shorthanded" style.

I'll make a start on these changes today. --wayland 11:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's discuss POV edits on the talk page first, please.. particularly, the text "The Emin Society (or just "the emin" as members often prefer to speak of it) claims to do research, though it is unclear whether any strict methodology is employed"

in fact the method is clear, and scientific, which is: for any claim, "try to disprove it"; and emphasises using first-hand tests rather than trust another source or authority. -- 216.234.56.130 16:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

In what sense scientific? --wayland 12:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Did you know? Trying to disprove extraordinary claims is a hallmark of scientific skepticism -- 69.195.11.64 01:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

So if User:69.195.11.64 has correctly guessed User:216.234.56.130's intended meaning then the answer to my "in what sense scientific?" would be: in the sense of scientific scepticism? What I'm trying to establish here is whether anyone from the emin position claims emin to be science or part of science. Could we have clarification on this please? --wayland 10:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

That is a good question, but might better be stated as a question to anyone learning this newage stuff, "Do you select testable hypotheses? Do you question your own assumptions and look for flaws in your own theories and tests?" otherwise you risk practicing cargo cult science. -- Waveguy 07:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] sexual stereotypes

On 19:10, 25 October 2005 User:24.185.180.216 complained, "There is no codified sexual instruction. Not true" about this text:

(so that heterosexual missionary position stereotypes of "normal" sexuality are codified into most aspects of Emin teaching)

Normative sexuality might be a point of view related to the anti-homosexuality remark that was already refuted as "a poor undertsanding of the man-woman mystery", but there does appear to be a view of "correct" male-female behaviour within Emin society. I've removed the text until NPOV can be reached. -- 70.29.131.204 06:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

raise the bar: we are not talking about male-female behaviour but the esoteric distinction between the masculine and feminine principle. This does not specify sexual conduct between a man and a woman; rather, it is a simple fact of nature that different forces are at play with respect to sperm and egg. They are wired to function differently (Law of Two). Causing this to force gender roles in a particular relationship is ignorant of the variations that exist in real human beings, individuals and culture. -- 216.234.56.130 17:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a very idealized and defensive statement: The Emin clearly sees homosexuality as unnatural. I've talked to emin members who claim that they have felt suddenly ill with no apparent explanation. Later they found out that they had been sitting in the aura of a homosexual, and that - to them - explained their sudden nausea: They had become polluted. Pwesth 19:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, do not assume the collective identity from the reports of some homophobic members. GOC Emin Canada around 1995 (apparently in response to criticism from within) denied that the society banned homosexuals from its membership. Many lectures on man-woman mystery followed this. -- 70.28.153.94 06:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope you are right. But are you sure that included practicing homosexuals? You cannot deny that for example "The Poem of the Church of the Emin Coils" explicitly forbids homosexual practices, and I have heard the "put two homosexuals on a desert island, there won't be any children, therefore it is unnatural"-argument numerous times, even from Raymond Armin himself. Pwesth 23:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Strangely, the materials were never made known to me. Did everyone hide them, thinking that I might take a stance? (doubtful, as I had no strong opinion on the matter); or were they simply set aside as dated/irrelevant?

Banning practicing homosexuals isn't the central question. Really, completely aside from the fact that there's something stupendously wrong with the argument, which is: if you put a pair of individuals on an island, regardless of whether they are homosexual, would there be babies? there are so many ways for the answer to be 'no', but so what? we should find the whole question unnatural! A much better question is,

 Q. what if homosexuality were a natural response, within a species, to
 overpopulation and is therefore a latent possibility in any human?

The central question is the society's claimed versus actual response to memes that are disproved.

If the society is open to accepting a proof, then they are practicising a form of imperical skepticism that is a hallmark of scientific research; if not, then they are a personality cult that engages in groupthink and possibly harmful mind abuse.

I would prefer the former, because of the very many times I was told:

• do not believe what we say;
• if you disprove it, please tell us;
• anyone may make mistakes on their journey;
• respect says to look again.

I do not cast out the bulk of the knowledge I have gleaned from the Emin over the simple matter of one position that I find untenable. Nor does Leo lose my reverence for this work. He ascends regardless: "Onward and upward." -- 70.28.153.94 07:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the Emin/Template are practicing scientific research. The willingness to try to disprove cherished beliefs does not constitute science, because the beliefs in question are principally impossible to disprove (see Falsifiability). How would you disprove that there is an aura? How would you disprove the law of two? How would you disprove the Ray of Creation? Whatever their value, these are not scientific theories that can be tested empirically. Pwesth 14:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I don't think that just because the Template isn't scientific, it is a "personality cult", although I do find that there is an ever present danger of groupthink in the organisation. I have never met a single emin/template member who clamied that they had been convinced to join by arguments or evidence. Everyone I know (includes myself) say that they were convinced by the way it felt. Pwesth 07:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOX

I've changed the template from a POV check to the NPOV template - the neutrality of this article is in dispute. The "check" template perhaps didn't adequately reflect this. --wayland 23:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay. Having made the claim that the neutrality of the article was disputed, Wayland made a large number of edits, most of which have stood; these edits certainly expanded the article a great deal, and are a definite improvement as they make the article much more encyclopedic. Good work! But the article now appears to be approaching stability, we don't see the kind of controversy here that might be expected from neutrality disputes: edit wars, ad hominem reverts being a strong indicator of such. I am at a loss to find non-neutrality. Please discuss remaining problems. -- 216.234.56.130 16:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

On 9 December 2005, User:72.137.65.73 exposed some very interesting arguments and then blanked his or her own text. Why?

Remember here, we agree that while neutral point of view is not actually attainable when trying to describe the emin, so far all arguments to keep the POV warning on the page turn out to apply equally to any page in the wikipedia. Considering any article then, however-conflicting the respective witnesses points of view might be, when the conflict settles down and an article becomes stable, it has reached a state somewhat less than consensus, called a tensegrity. That is the closest-to-neutral any article could ever hope to attain. That, my friends, is the egregore of the wikipedia:itself.

Returning to this article, then: at this point, just like any other wikipedia article, the bulk of the article is factual and neutral-enough that contributors are interested only in the occasional nit-pick over individual statements made.

If the tenor of a statement is of concern, let's discuss its problems here. For each statement, we encourage witnesses to please check and correct POV. is it:

• true always?
• true as at a particular date+time, but no longer true? in which case the statement should move to an historical section
• questionable accuracy or scope?

     if there is disgreement over whether some statement was ever true
     then who is the witness? move the disputed statement to the talk page for discussion,
     as were above statements on sexual instruction

• balanced treatment; there appear to be two types of dissenting opinions, and only the opinions of those with actual knowledge on the subject count here:
  • current and ex- members who support the society; versus
  • ex-members who have a gripe about the society.

Multiple contributors have already put a large effort into this process. Those authors should sit back for awhile and let others gnaw on this, and only stand up for egregius trolls.

There really must be a time limit on this process. Articles must not be stigmatized with POV warnings just because someone doesn't like them. Now is the time for action. --70.29.131.204 07:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the NPOV warning. See next section for discussion Pwesth 19:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

...and I have put it back on, after some "current or ex- member who supports the society" has pulled everything a little too far in his own direction, as I see it.

I do however think there is some progress in the article. I (being myself an "ex-member who has a gripe about the society") can see that quite af few of my own formulations regarding Emin beliefs have been retained by the above mentioned "current or ex- member who supports the society". This, to me, indicates that it should be possible to arrive at a text that is both accurate in the eyes of members and supporters, acceptable to critical ex-members, and informative to everyone else. But we are not quite there yet. Pwesth 15:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New changes

today, I have made quite a lot of changes to the page. I realize that some of them may seem a bit aggressive to the original authors, but I hope you can appreciate my motives.

• I have rearranged and renamed many sections, in order to give the article a more logical structure.

• I have deleted and/or condensed a lot of very detailed accounts of Emin teachings. Even though most of it was correct, a lot of it seemed to me repetitious and redundant, and must have been almost incomprehensible to someone not allready familiar with the peculiarities of Emin discourse.

• I have removed several internal links that to my mind added little but confusion to the text. for example, I see no real reason to add links to year-names.

• I have added a lot of material such as facts, quotations and examples, in order to make the text less abstract and hopefully more informative. Also, I have added a section specifically about Emin offshoots.

• Also, I have deleted one or two obviously false statements, most notably the claim that the Emin no longer exists.

• In the process, I have tried to be as neutral as possible, and to give equal say to both sides of controversies. Consequently, I have removed to POV warning.

No doubt, I have commited several errors myself, but I feel confident that they will be corrected by others in due course.

Pwesth 19:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Position: all knowledge is notable. I could not understand Leo's paper, "How to think" without a lot of background study. Rather than delete detailed teachings, let's find a place for them, and make them concise and comprehensible, perhaps put them in a linked article, e.g.: Emin teachings?

I agree in principle. However, to my mind the litany of statements at [1] is not simply too detailed; it is repetetive, saying the same thing over and over with different words; It lacks a sense of which ideas are central, and which are less important; and it all sounds far more abstract than Emin teachings generally do, in my experience. In fact, it looks a lot like my own notes from Emin meetings in the early 1990's. So - to be useful, I think a more systematic approach would be needed. Lacking that, I think the many references to Gurdjieff and fourth way teachings is the best way for people to get some grasp on what kind of thing the Emin is.Pwesth 08:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC) PS: Please sign your comments ;-)

[edit] NPOV tag removed

As there has been no discussion for three months, NPOV tag removed to reduce category backlog. Tyrenius 02:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality in dispute? Having read this page and some of the history attached to it, it doesn't seem to me to be balanced. I acknowledge that this is a difficult task, but in the greater scheme of things it might be a useful exercise to produce a more rounded description of what, after all, is the endeavour of a group of people, however misguided they may appear to others. I don't think it would be unfair to add a new npov tag. What do other contributors think? Keith****09:21, 27 June 2006(UTC)

You think that the article is negative? I think it's main problem at the moment is that it is not informative enough.

The article has been pared down quite a bit recently, presumably by someone who felt that a minimal description of Emin notions and practices was better than an incomplete description. So all longer quotations are gone (I thought those were nice, giving some of the flavour of Emin writings), and even mention of things like astrology, tarot, palmistry, aura reading and so forth. I agree that these things are not essential to the Emin philosophy, but then what is?

I am one of those who have added "negative stuff" to the article. I think in principle that it belongs, just as criticism of and some of the less flattering facts about, say, Heidegger belongs in an article about him. But it is a delicate balance, and apparently it puts Emin supporters seriously off. Maybe Wikipedia just isn't the right venue for a treatment of living religions and philosophies that gives the "pros" and the "cons" equal say.

So, at the moment I think the article could be much improved by the addition of a more detailed and congenial account of what Emin members in fact think and do, put as neutrally as possible, and with minimal recourse to "coded language". But that really has to come from an insider.

Also, I think it might be an idea to rename the article. What is the point in calling it "Emin Society", when the first line declares that no such society exists?

--Pwesth 14:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

True. Done it. --wayland 13:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)