User talk:Bmorton3/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive #1 June 2-Sept 20

Welcome!

links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Tone 18:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Recent Stuff 2 Aesthetics 3 Vandals 4 Welcome! 5 thanks 6 Hello 7 Guidelines reviewers 8 CD Project 9 Philosophy project 10 Interspersed comments 11 FA situation 12 Hilary Putnam again 13 Oh dear 14 RPG theory 15 what's a... 16 Had enough 17 Art 18 Hello 19 hello 2- electric boogalo 20 hello3 21 Alphabet 22 Paraconsistency 23 A question 24 Neoplatonism and Gnosticism 25 Response to low self-worth theory

Recent Stuff

I wrote a "Supposition Theory" page on an obscure topic in medieval philosophy.

I wrote major overhauls of "Art" and "Aesthetics"

"Art" In particular was just put in version 0.5 and given an A grade

I have begun working on RPG Theory, and some related RPG History and definition stuff

Aesthetics

Well done, and thank you!

I commend you on the marvelous article. I can't begin to describe the satisfaction from reading the rewritten aesthetics page. First of all, the photos really make an impression right away (I mentioned my first reaction "Oooooh!" and "Ew!" on the article talk page). The writing style is also thoughtful, clear, and organized. I removed the expert assistance request tag, and you brightened my day :) Thanks. Wipfeln 06:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks from me too :-) JeffC 12:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I deeply appreciate your work there as well, and I've done some wikification and copyediting that I hope helps. Thanks! inkling 20:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandals

From the sounds of it, the thing to do in this case is to take it to Wikipedia:Abuse reports. You should use whois to look up the user's ISP, then leave a notice in the New Alerts section; an admin will look into the case and possibly ban the IP address. Hope that helps. Percy Snoodle 08:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello there! Welcome to Wikipedia. I followed the link from the unfortunate incident of the Hilary Putnam thing, then found your fantastic new article on Supposition Theory. Note you will have to be careful about article titles, because as you see WP is very sensitive about case, thus supposition theory doesn't work, nor Supposition theory. I think the convention is initial capitals only, unless a proper name, but it's a pain.

And a medievalist too. I wrote the articles on Term logic, William of Sherwood (with another medievalist, Sarah Uckelmann) and I am currently working on Square of Opposition. I was going to add a section on supposition to the Term logic page, but never got round to it. I thought your article hit all the right buttons.

I gave up on WP some time ago, mainly because there wasn't a critical mass of philosophers, and one had to spend so much time explaining that philosophy isn't alchemy or crystals or one's own opinion on the philosophy of life. The fact you are here, and the fact Franco still seems to be persisting gives me a little hope. Do stay.

Check at the draft page on logic here User:Dbuckner/logic. I was working on it with Charles Stewart, who was meant to put in the modern logic section, but that never happened.

I also edit the Logic Museum a collection of primary texts, many of them new translations from the Latin. Do check out the latest page on connotation.

Anyway, keep in touch. The medieval section needs an awful lot of work. And do check out the style guidelines. Dbuckner 11:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I just had another look at the William of Sherwood page, and there is a perfect example. supposition theory is referenced, but because of the capitals it fails. I would alter it, but I suspect you may have to change the title of your piece to Supposition theory. I'll check it out. Dbuckner 12:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for your comments and the work on the Square!!! I'll leave some comments on the Talk Page for that article. As you know, there is controversy about whether Aristotle did actually make the assumption that no terms are empty. As Parsons points out, (see his SEP article, Google "square of opposition"), he says 'not every man is just' rather than 'some man is not just' which is Boethius' interpretation of the O proposition.

When you say "Logicians working in the term logic tradition tried a lot of different compromises" are you referring to Keynes? Or is there some other work I've missed. We'll need to think of some references (as the FAC thing showed). Dbuckner 20:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hi - I've replied to your helpful comment on global justice on the GJ talk page. Cheers, --Sam Clark 10:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines reviewers

Hello Brian. A new page has been created (by the reviewers, not the contributors) in response to the Putnam affair. The aim is some ground rules for reviewing. Would be very grateful for your comments. Here: Wikipedia talk:How to review a featured article candidateDbuckner 15:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

CD Project

Hi Bmorton & thanks for your message! I am a quite new participant in the project, and I am not an expert on copyrights, but "GFDL" means "Gnu Free Documentation License".

For more info you can see:

• CD Project Copyright & Disclaimer Info
• GFDL - Text of the GNU Free Documentation License

If you still wonder, you could always post a message on the CD Project talk page.

Furthermore, if you are interested in the CD project, you could become a participant. I think the project is a great idea, and I am currently working on localizing and tagging important articles for the next CD version, which has the objective of containing the 5000 most important articles.

My regards, Dennis Nilsson. --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 16:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy project

Actually, Shotgun house isn't my work. I've posted a rather lengthy commentary on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy in response to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:How_to_review_a_featured_article_candidate. Thanks for letting me know about the project! --Spangineer^es (háblame) 14:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Interspersed comments

Hey. No offense taken. I just wanted to keep all the comments below the comment sub-header so that someone reading what I was proposing and the reasoning for it wouldn't be confused. As for whether or not there's a guideline on ways to respond in given situations, I don't believe there's any specific suggestions. Help:Talk page and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines just seem to imply that editors should try to keep it as coherent is possible, which varies from situation-to-situation.

Again, no harm done. Ryu Kaze 20:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

FA situation

Hi BM, thanks for your post. I think quite a few people are feeling as you do. It's not that copy editing standards have become too high. It's that they're the idiosyncratic views of one user, User:Tony1, and the thing to do is to make sure his views don't contine to hold sway. This is a wiki. No one person's views can take precedence if others stand against it. Please do continue your work with the aesthetics article. Let me know where it is, and I'll pop in from time to time and check it out. I'll also let you know if discussions are taking place about this anywhere, so you can join in. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

For example, it would be helpful if you would leave a comment here, basically saying what you said to me. This thread is about whether a link to Tony1's subpage, which gives his own views on what constitutes "good writing," should go on the main page. I think it should not, without making clear that they are his personal views. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Heck: who's an angry stalker? SV should have better things to do with her time. Tony 02:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hilary Putnam again

Hi I've just noticed that Raul has reopened the nomination for Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hilary_Putnam. All brief supports so far (including from Sandy, Tony, etc.), but it might be worth rounding up the troops... Cheers, Sam Clark 09:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear

Hello, I'm the anonymous mumbler you were talking to here. The tone sounded a bit discouraged, and I'd hate to see yet another a new and potentially valuable contributor get turned off, so I hope you don't mind that I had a quick look at the last few entries on your log. Am I reading this right? A professor of philosophy doesn't think he can constructively contribute to articles in his own field? That's not a good sign for Wikipedia, is it? -Dan 17:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

OH MAN its vastly worse than that. Look at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject_Philosophy, I am easily the least discouraged of several professional philosophers on WP. We just went through a hugely demoralizing battle to try to get the Article Hilary Putnam to FA, which resulted in the longest FAC discussion in the history of WP, and a flame war that has spiralled in all directions and largely engulfed "What is a Featured Article" and several other such policy spaces. WP was a great tool and a source of joy for me a few weeks ago, now it makes my skin crawl.

Consider our fight on paraconsistent logic, you know what that was? That was OR. I was advancing an opinion about the nature of inferential weakness and strength, and it was not the opinion of the bulk of the published sources. I do OR in paraconsistent logics, (admittedly all of my fucking papers on it have collapsed over the summer; I've become convinced they are wrong or their points are already punished). But the problem is systematic. It is simply impossible to do philosophy in WP, with any honesty, because deciding what is and isn't POV is itself the heart of OR in philosophy. Over in RPGs I can write NPOV stuff without it being OR, because who is and isn't a reliable source is pretty clear. But in philosophy, anything I write is POV (mine) or OR (by me, on what isn't POV). Even in something as mathematical as PL, any alterations I try to make to the page are going to be OR by me and POV (me). I could add a bit about how non-adjunctive approaches, Positive Logic + approaches, relevance logic approaches, and Dynamic logic approaches differ, and how they relate to strong and weak paraconsistent logics. But you know what? There is no consensus of scholars, and anything I write would be pushing my POV and OR agendas. I have no idea anymore how to conform to the many goals of WP within the area of philosophy, and that's without even worrying about editing and FA, and that whole mess.

As I said to Sam Clark, wikipedia searches for consensus, but whenever anything gets within spitting distance of consensus it ceases to think of itself as philosophy. It would be tempting to blame the many strong and conflicting personalities around the recent debacles, but I don't think that's it, it think philosophy inherently works more poorly on the policy system WP has set up than most other areas. Then again you'd think politics would have the same problem and it doesn't. Bmorton3 17:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what has happened exactly, but it sounds like you've been hit over the head with the POV and OR clubs hard and often enough to induce paralysis. I will try to read up on the discussions you refer to at some point, it sounds a bit troubling. In the meantime, for what it's worth, "neutral", "consensus", "fact", and so on, are terms which have acquired some unusual meanings around here, and I'm afraid they are sometimes abused. I personally try to not to use them -- or any policy -- as weapons, even defensive weapons. I'd certainly hate to think my minor objection about a term on PL is stopping you from adding other content unrelated to it to the same article. -Dan 192.75.48.150 19:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

(PS on the citeseer link I pointed to, on my browser I can access the text of the article from the top right corner, in a whole bunch of formats.)

(PPS a paradox of self-reference which might be relevant here is WP:IAR)

1) Thanks for clarifying Citeseer, I've got it now. Thanks. 2) I added some of admin jkelly's thought on these subjects to the wikipositions section of my user page. 3) No one has hit me with POV or OR much except me. Rather I have been attempting to take these two very seriously, and am slowly coming to understand that most do not. I see things that violate the no synthesis of materials without third-party publication clause of the no OR policy all over the place. The clubs I have been hit with are "dumb edit" and "not well written" and "not in comformity with the style manual" and simply overriding my edits without attempt to justify, and those have certainly created cannot-copyedit and cannot-contribute-to-potential-FAs paralysis. Balancing OR and NPOV, is a big part of what made my total overhauls of art and aesthetics successful and things I am proud of. Yet whenever I attempt to work on something I know well, I can no longer avoid OR, or balance OR and NPOV. WP:IAR is certainly helpful, I wish someone had pointed me to WP:IAR earlier. I don't want WP to be filled with pet-project cruft anymore than anyone else does, so I do feel some need to restrain myself with no OR. Bmorton3 20:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

RPG theory

Hello! You asked some questions on my talk page almost a month ago and I haven’t answered yet. Yes, you’re certainly allowed to remove the stub note and add whatever categories you find suitable. If someone disagrees they’ll re-add the stub note or remove the categories, so it’s no problem. I’m not familiar with the critical theory category, but I can say it’s no stub anymore.

I’ll read through the article when I have more time to see if I can help out. When it comes to peer reviews through the RPG project we have an editable box at the top right of the project page where you can request peer reviews. I’ll add the RPG theory article for you, and you can remove it again if when you feel like the article has been checked by others. Welcome to the project, I hope you’ll ask more questions at the RPG project talk page if you have any. Jonas Karlsson 21:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I see now that the current peer reviewed article is a Wikipedia wide review, and not just through the RPG project. I'll add the article for project peer review only now, and read up on how to nominate it for a Wikipedia wide review later. I hope that's ok. Jonas Karlsson 21:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

what's a...

Techgnostic? Just curious. Zeusnoos 16:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed reply. I thought perhaps you had some inside information on TG - sounds a lot like a trend from a few years ago, technomagick or something, a belief in supernatural occurrences and/or magical synchronicity symbolism facilitated through electronic communications. On SE, the arguments he borrows, which, as has been argued by some, are from the Academic Skeptics such as Carneades, are not necessarily consistence with his criterion. How he might argue based on his other works, as a moderate and ethically-minded skeptic, is not really what's going on here. The detail that he expresses in his arguments about the poor timing of the birth chart, the inaccuracies of the water clocks, etc, seems more originally his own argument or he has embellished an older one with his experience. He discusses how to calculate a chart and the elementary tools of astrology - this is a step up on the experience level than, say, Plotinus. As far as your wife cooking to the seasons, I wouldn't call that astrology unless she is preparing the feast from Petronius' Satyricon! Anyhow, you were definitely 'doing' astrology - whether you were an 'astrologer' is still debatable - professional astrologers get touchy when someone calls themselves an astrologer after only one or two or even 5 years of experience. I was for a time an 'astrologer' by any definition narrow or generous. Since I don't believe in astrology, don't answer questions anymore about things astrological (interpretations), and don't use it for any planning, I cannot call myself an astrologer. Someone recently told me this is impossible. This reminds me, have you read the book Questions of Eclecticism, eds. Dillon and Long? Good essay on SE and Ptolemy's Criterion. So, does it 'seem' to you that astrology works? You're obviously not taking the realism position on this, but a pragmatic one? Do you still practice to any extent? Zeusnoos 23:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for the interesting response. You're very permissive with your definitions - as an historian (if I can tentatively call myself that without a proper degree in history (at what point does someone become a philosopher? Or a biologist?)) - I try to make more distinctions between seasonal empiricism, celestial based omens, divinatory astrology, etc, because without them, people write books about 'astrology' that create confusion in the novice who might think Rg Veda mythology is the same thing as modern Indian astrology. I came to wikipedia for the purpose of reporting back on some gnosticism articles to someone who was being pestered to help. He's very anti-wiki. Instead I got caught up in the discussions on astrology, and have found this experience very fruitful for one of two books on the subject I've been outlining. Perhaps I may contact you in real life at some point this winter to interview you about your experience with astrology and to bounce some ideas? Your description of building astrology from scratch is what I think happens when anyone starts out with astrology - then the process of socialization begins. I still think in astrological terms - it's inescapable, but I don't need to know someone's chart to know I'm sensing a pattern that can be captured in astrological symbols. I will argue that astrology has provided methods and categories more meaningful than contemporary personality psychology. Zeusnoos 16:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Had enough

As you see Brian, I finally had enough. I've been here three years. You are clearly one of the good guys. Not that there are any bad guys. But so many confused and muddled guys, I just gave up. Best. Dean Dbuckner 07:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Art

Sorry, but where do Latin come from?

How much of all that's around you come from Anglo-Saxon culture (that's a wide term) and how much from the little Italy? Let me know.

Although, there are no conflict of interest.

Commissions are nominated by the Senate.

Where were the letters we're using invented?

Codice1000.en 22:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've seen you're a philosofiae doctor. I would like to discuss with you. Codice1000.en 22:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have little interest in tutoring you in history or critical thinking. Hold whatever opinions you like about the relationshiup between ancient Rome and modern Italy, about Anglo-Saxon influence on the modern world, about the reliability of commissioners talking before political bodies about why they should have more power, about Phoenician and Hellenic influence on the development of the alphabet, the use of bold on other peoples talk pages and so on. Hold whatever opinions, you want, but if you make extraordinary claims on regular wikipedia pages make sure you have extraordinary evidence to back them up. Bmorton3 13:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello

How are ya Professor? I saw you bend the ear of Zeus Brain and was hoping to get alittle input from you. Hey how do you reconcile being for Socrates, Pythagorus, Iamblichus, Plotinus and also for Gnosticism? I myself have found the subject misrepresented. I mean by what Gnosticism does, it is being blasphemous according to Timaeus. Either the kosmos is an imagine of perfection or we are then being blasphemous. Also how do you make mead? LoveMonkey 18:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

But what about what is stated in Timaeus? Rather one disagrees or not with the universe moving toward perfection or theosis is not what I asked. Timaeus stated that to say that the universe was not made perfect by being based on a perfect image well that is blasphemous. My point being.....This, so how do you reconcile this? Either the craftsman was good and all is good or he was not and all of this created is a phallacy at best. Do you agree? So then do you believe the material world/kosmos to be good or do you believe what other? I believe one achieves perfection though humble love. As Philo spoke of the Minuth and as prelise is validation of the truth though ego or hardheadedness and nepsis is soberity and self awareness or realization though humility. I see myself as perplexed. I do not see theosis and peace and ecstasy as based on conflict. Such things as conflict are a distraction. I do not believe that the will to power is all emcompassing. And no you have not offended me. But I do not believe Jesus married anymore then I believe Plato or Pythagorus were followers of gnosticism. I believe they would just like Plotinus, been offended that one "did not show the proper gratitude at the opportunity of existence". I do not hate anyone but I have a great deal of disappointment in, the those that vilify artists/art and nature. LoveMonkey 19:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

??? You seem to not understand. Here is one passage from Timaeus. You seem to attack the henad.

" The work of the creator, whenever he looks to the unchangeable and fashions the form and nature of his work after an unchangeable pattern, must necessarily be made fair and perfect; but when he looks to the created only, and uses a created pattern, it is not fair or perfect. Was the heaven then or the world, whether called by this or by any other more appropriate name-assuming the name, I am asking a question which has to be asked at the beginning of an enquiry about anything-was the world, I say, always in existence and without beginning? or created, and had it a beginning? Created, I reply, being visible and tangible and having a body, and therefore sensible; and all sensible things are apprehended by opinion and sense and are in a process of creation and created. Now that which is created must, as we affirm, of necessity be created by a cause. But the father and maker of all this universe is past finding out; and even if we found him, to tell of him to all men would be impossible. And there is still a question to be asked about him: Which of the patterns had the artificer in view when he made the world-the pattern of the unchangeable, or of that which is created? If the world be indeed fair and the artificer good, it is manifest that he must have looked to that which is eternal; but if what cannot be said without blasphemy is true, then to the created pattern. Every one will see that he must have looked to, the eternal; for the world is the fairest of creations and he is the best of causes. And having been created in this way, the world has been framed in the likeness of that which is apprehended by reason and mind and is unchangeable, and must therefore of necessity, if this is admitted, be a copy of something."

You seem to not mention or address that the works of Plato progress. That what was addressed in previous writings and then shown to be deficient (the idea of forms deficient due to 3rd man). The republic is in this vein. Timaues an answer. As for Plotinus, John D Turner, AH Armstrong disagree that Plotinus was blind to the milder form of dystheism that Valentinus prescribed compared to Sethianism. I tried to post this from Armstrong's intro in that Ennead but it kept getting removed first as orginal research and then copyright infringment (Armstrongs words were referred to as "trash") I had a terrible fight posting here on wikipedia that Plotinus attacked gnosticism. As for St Dionsysius I'm Orthodox don't be ridiculous I love him completely. He does not vilify ontology or nature or the material world . A passage comes to mind. "This is the kind of divine enlightment into which we have been intiated by the hidden tradition of our inspired teachers, a tradition at one with scripture." And we should have patiences, by St Dionysius' words knowledge (including gnosis is cataphatic and a by product of finite, ontology again)it is fallen and should be discarded. But then mediative gnosis really isn't knowledge at all, it is Orthodoxy a much as Hagia Sophia represents what true wisdom or sophia is, the church.

I disagree with your body of the church analogy. I don't attack the creator as ignorant nor do I follow that the holy spirit is Athena. And yes I know who Solovyov is. I believe in a triunite UNITY not conflict, hypostasis as an encompassing complete existence onto itself, that have a unity not ignorance of one another. St Dionysius does not attack creation nor different hypostasises of the essence of God. I am not attacking, I am clarifing. I wish you no harm or ill. But I am not "sundering absolute unity." Once again blaspheming. "Let us not distort the treasure within" by making it about whoes smarter. I just can not reconcile these things and I can not see them as anything but blasphemous. Theotokos bless. LoveMonkey 18:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok let me take these in turn. 1) I do not think the Henad was the immediate creator of this world (although it was the mediate creator). That is already blashemy in many eyes, and if you take it as so, then I accept. 2) I simply disagree with much that Timeaus says in the passage you cite. Consider the dilemma you have focused on; which pattern did the creator view when fashioning the world, the unchangable or the created? This too is a false dilemna, the immediate creator could have had no pattern at all in view, or an impermanent or uncreated pattern, or a mixture of several patterns, etc. Which pattern does a mother have in view when gestating a baby? Which pattern does a jazz musician have in veiw when improvising? Timaeus claims that "everyone will see he must have looked to the eternal; that the world is the fairest of creations and he is the best of causes" and I disagree. 3) Do the works of Plato progress? Well, that is a common line. Another line is that gradually they move from a Socratic philosophy to a more Platonic one. Maybe the Socratic philosophy is better, and really Plato's works are regressing, as he throws more and more of his own opinion in. Maybe in the later works, Plato feels more free to depart from real historical discussions and add his own opinion. Maybe each work is simply a record of a dialogue on a different occasion with different interlocutors. Scholars fight on all this, and when we are honest, we know very little about exactly what Plato thought he was doing, and Plato has been interpreted in radically different ways in different ages. 4) I will not make strong claims about what Plotinus thought about the Valentinians. I would never call Armstrong's work trash, but I'm just not expert enough there. But I am very much in line with the teachings of one of my grand-teachers, Bentley Layton, in that when Porphyry discusses "the Gnostics" in chapter 16 of the Life of Plotinus, he is talking about the Sethian Gnostics NOT the Valentinians. It would be surprising if Plotinus was thinking of Valentinians but Porphyry does not mention any when discussing Plotinus' thoughts on the matter. 5) Does Dionysius vilify ontology, nature, or the material world? He says that God transcends every name, even the name being. Is that vilifying ontology? To say that the beyond-being is better than being? Let me quote (which BTW the Divine Names is cribbing from Proclus if I remember right) "All beings to the extent that they exist are good and come from the good, and they fall short of goodness and being in proportion to their remoteness from the Good" (Divine Names 720B, BTW the Orthodox Churches don't hold that the author of the Divine Names, Mystical Theology, etc. really is the St. Dionysius mentioned in Acts do they?). Is he vilifying nature, being and the material world? Well kinda, he's saying that in order for it to be distinct from the Good it must fall short of goodness and being to some extent. Everything other than the Henad is to some degree imperfect, and the Henad is beyond-perfect rather than perfect. If I am vilifying the material world, then it looks like Pseudo-Dionysius and Proclus are too. Or maybe my claim that the material world is vastly better than anything I could create, but is nonetheless imperfect, is not really vilifying it. 6) Is Gnosis kataphatic for Ps-D? "But again, the most divine knowledge of God, that which comes through unknowing, is achieved in a union far beyond mind, when mind turns away from all things, even from itself, and when it is made one with the dazzling rays, being then and there enlightened by the inscrutable depth of wisdom" (DN 872a-b). For Ps-D kataphasis and apophasis work together, both are part of the path, but apophasis is the highest men can go, and God is beyond both (MT 1048B). 7) I made no claims about Athena. 8) I mention Pseudo-Dionysius to make this point. Yes I am blaspheming, but every word any human says about God is a blasphemy, as is every thought. Human language and conception is imperfect and all our praise falls short of God and is bad-mouthing him. Yet God accepts our praises when they are offered in the spirit of praise as praises, despite the imperfection of our language and conception. I do not understand God and Creation and neither do you, but as we are yearning and praising, God accepts our poor formulations despite their blasphemy. 9) Never mind about strife then, I was not intending to imply strife between the three persons of God, but in a later stage of procession, read ibn Arabi later if you care about it, or forget it. 10) I am not trying to fight about who is smarter or lead you away from your path, (Although I admit, I can't resist some scholarly dispute on #4 and #6). I thought perhaps, my own personal paltry opinions might be of help to you, if they are not forget them. We are fellow travellers trying to make sense of our lives in a confusing world. If you cannot reconcile my words, or see them as non-blasphemous, then try to avoid blasphemy as best you can in your own way, and theotokos bless you as well. Bmorton3 19:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

hello 2- electric boogalo

Ok let me take these in turn. 1) I do not think the Henad was the immediate creator of this world (although it was the mediate creator). That is already blashemy in many eyes, and if you take it as so, then I accept.

When I create a world in fiction, am I an agent of the Henad, doing the will of the Henad? Well partially, but not completely. I have a deficient understanding of the will of the Henad, and I have desires and wills of my own. My creation of a fictional world is a mixture of my will and the will of the Henad. The Henad allows my creation to take place and adapts its plans to my choices. The Henad turns my creation to its own ends of theosis, but I am not a pure agent of the Henad in this process, and neither was the creator of our world, in my opinion. Bmorton3 15:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

2) I simply disagree with much that Timeaus says in the passage you cite. Consider the dilemma you have focused on; which pattern did the creator view when fashioning the world, the unchangable or the created?

We are a reflection of the infinite (St Gregory of Nyssa). This pattern. Each component of us is essential to make us to make now. Energy is as much a material thing as the 5 elements it is detectble in some degree by the 5 senses. If it be material is it fallen? Or is the reflection a perfect reflection? Just asking. The monad then becomes energy as much as the inake. The atom or the aperion. Or the original substance. Creation from God, Chaos begot Eros and Eros begot the Gods. Creation from God literally. The void, aperion being from God bring God. The first of all things being literially incomprehensible. This being Plato, Neoplatonic, not Christian so much.

Sorry I'm not following you. Bmorton3 15:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This is fair, this is very hard to articulate. I am grasping at Nikolas Lossky's philosophy here.

This too is a false dilemna, the immediate creator could have had no pattern at all in view, or an impermanent or uncreated pattern, or a mixture of several patterns, etc.

Speculation, conjecture. Timuaes gave a logic, speculation can not undo the logic. Please be specific. In order for order, one must understand order. Now how does one understand? Maybe by experience? If the demiurge where an "agent" of the one or incomprehesible this order would be a reflection of the incomprehesible's will.

The Timeaus made assertions, one of these assertions was that there were 2 possibilities to choose from, when there were far more. And if the Demiurge were a partial but not complete "agent" of the the incomprehensible, this pattern would be a partial reflection of the incomprehensible's will, and a partial reflection of other things.

Then there is even a small or partial connection. Any connection at all would make nil that the demiurge was ignorant of the incomprehensible. Let alone Sophia- Hence this contradiction "No other God then me".

Huh? Humans often act as agents of other humans to some extent without knowing it, indeed while being ignorant of whose agent they are. Oh the Demiurge may have had some dim comprehension of the ineffable, that's actually a common claim in Gnostic myth, but a partial connection would be compatible with the demiurge being partially or even extensively ignorant of the ineffable one. Bmorton3 16:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow, why humans again? Why not the deimurge? Yes we can relate to the demiurge. But I have no remembrance of existence before the age of 5 years. What in Plato would give then such a standard that would apply to the demiurge? And no I can not accept speculation or conjecture. If it is Plato then it must be Plato.

I am sorry, I simply do not understand what you are trying to say, perhaps we are having language barrier problems. The character Timeaus in a dialogue written by Plato makes some assertions, perhaps these mirror words the real Timaeus of Locri say, perhaps not, we do not know, we can only speculate, perhaps these assertions mirror the opinions of Plato, perhaps not we can only speculate. If you know the minds of such people long dead with more than the power of speculation and conjecture you don't need to talk to me. I as a person disagree with the assertions made by this character of Plato's at Tim 29. He holds there are only 2 possibilities, one of which is blasphemy to mention. I hold that there are several possibilities (at least 5). Would Plato agree? Who knows. I make no assertions about what Plato thinks here. I think that Timaeus' argument here is flawed because it is asserting a false dilemna, and I gave as examples several ways to avoid the horns of the dilemma. Bmorton3 20:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I was pointing out how you were imposing human limitation on the demiurge.

Which pattern does a mother have in view when gestating a baby?
Experience of other- trimester.

Huh? The mother has her experiences in view, if she reflects on them at all.

What level of control are you attributing to child birth? Why are you imposing human restrictions on the demiurge?

I hold that the woman has moderate but not extensive control over the gestation (and considerably more over childbirth). But a woman might well gestate without employing much at all in the way of theories, without viewing a pattern. Is the Demiurge like that? I don't know. Here is a possibility, the Demiurge created the material world, with very little control over its own power of creation, or without using any pattern at all. I use the human case as an analogy. Is the Demiurge like a human? Maybe maybe not, doesn't matter. Is this a speculation? YES. But Speculation is all that is required to beat a false dilemma. Party A asserts, there are only two options X or Y, party B lists other potential options. Even if X turns out to be true, the dilemma argument for the truth of X ceases to be valid, and A's holding of X becomes right opinion rather than knowledge. Speculation is weak, but it is strong enough to bust a dilemna arguement, unless the dilemma giver can shut down every open possibility. Bmorton3 20:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Your still imposing human limitation onto the demiurge.

Which pattern does a jazz musician have in veiw when improvising?
Scales or modes in their mind or nous.

No, the patterns are far more complex and vary from style to style, but also often express the sentiments of the musician. Creative improvisation is more than mere patterning, and the craftsman was being creative, not merely mechanically reproducing an image. Bmorton3 15:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Have in view does not connotate end result. You have confused the two. Based, meaning starting point.

Timaeus claims that "everyone will see he must have looked to the eternal; that the world is the fairest of creations and he is the best of causes" and I disagree.
Why?
I ask this because on one hand it is good to give respect to Mr Plato and to also disagree. But on the other hand many a gnostic have and do not pay due. Many a gnostic seems to portray themselves as truth within the tenets of what actually is philosophy not gnosticism. I find it inappropriate to claim to be a proponent for someone and then specifically do things that work against that person and or their work or message. Christian or Hellenic.

Look I am a lover of wisdom first and foremost, and I admire Plato, and many Gnostic thinkers and many Hellenic thinkers, and heck many other unrelated thinkers, but I'm trying to make sense of the world and my life too.

As are we all.

I feel no need to agree with authority because of its authority. I agree with authority when I can see the reasons the authority says what it says, or when it has build a large bank of trust.

I can only agree to this, in degree. I think of many a teacher who for the sake of the shortness of life, taught their student though discipline rather then reason. Only after having passed though many stages had the student through reflection understood why they would have been wrong, and or they would have responded through ignorance and been wrong at a pervious moment. But one size does not fit all.

I have some trust for Plato, but I am not at all convinced that what Mr Timaeus says represents Plato's opinion, rather than being a position Plato wishes to explore.

Plato makes no such refutation.

Nor does his arguement here seem to have any force to me. As I said earlier, it looks like a dumb false dilemma. "Everyone will see that..." c'mon thats an attempt to hand-wave a weak point, like saying "obviously" over and over. I don't see it, ergo it is not the case that everyone sees it.

Yes but considering it is the basis of the understanding of the demiurge then anything that comes from it must at least acknowledge it's understanding. If one does not understand it, it would be improper to use it as a foundation?

Why do you think this is the basis of the understanding of the Demiurge? Such doctrines are described in many other places in the Timaeus, in other Greek Myths, in many Gnostic myths, and some have argued in Genesis (and others have argued against it). Indeed, Here Timaeus claims he is NOT giving the basis for understanding the Demiurge "To discover the maker and father of this universe is indeed a hard task, and having found him it would be impossible to tell everyone about him. Let us return to our question and ask to which pattern did its "constructor" work?" (Tim 28). Tim is precisely refusing to explain or investigate the Constructor and is instead, assuming He exists and asking what kind of pattern he used.Bmorton3 21:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Not in this part of Timaeus, he was. It is an understanding arrived at though incremental understanding. It was Plato's dialog that introduced the demiurge. If not what predates Plato?

The bounderies between Gnosticism and Philosophy are not at all obvious, and Gnostics often fight about what is Gnosticism, just as philosophers often fight about what is philosophy. Proponents of someone often have very different opinions of what a person's work or message is, and which parts are important and less important. I am a proponent of Plato, and in fact am teaching him to my intro to philosophy class in an hour or so.

Most excellent what an honorable thing it is to teach people Plato!!

But I think his message centers on the importance of dialectical inquiry and aporia, far more than on any particular doctrines that he might seem to adopt because his interlocutors are unable to follow his objections to them.

This seems ambigious. No disrespect but I think Plato's intentions where more then to simply to motivate people to investigate. The investigation was to truth.

Your interpretation of Plato is certainly more popular than mine. Bmorton3 21:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Plato seems to set up a theory of the forms in the Republic, and also tries to undermine it, but his interlocutors can't follow him, so he gives them a myth instead, and saves his undermining of the theory of the forms for the Parmenides. Perhaps Plato would have written a devastating critique of the position he seems to espouse in the Timaeus if he had gotten around to it, and been able to find the right interlocutor.

Yes but speculation is speculation. Socrates in the republic is yet different then Socrates in Timeaus? Different then Socrates in Phaedo.

Attacking Plato where he seems to mess up IS valuing and following him. Bmorton3 15:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well this is very much outside of Plotinus. Plotinus was his own, but he stayed inline with Plato. His changes made no such radical alteration as to depict Plato as fabricating Socrates' dialog or that creation is evil. Or dystheism.

3) Do the works of Plato progress? Well, that is a common line. Another line is that gradually they move from a Socratic philosophy to a more Platonic one. Maybe the Socratic philosophy is better, and really Plato's works are regressing, as he throws more and more of his own opinion in. Maybe in the later works, Plato feels more free to depart from real historical discussions and add his own opinion. Maybe each work is simply a record of a dialogue on a different occasion with different interlocutors.

This makes me slam on the breaks. Socrates was the one leading the dialectical exchange in Timaeus with Timaeus. Tell me how was Socrates misrepresented then? Or was the Socrates in Timaeus not Socrates maybe, Socrates the younger?

Scholars fight on all this, and when we are honest, we know very little about exactly what Plato thought he was doing, and Plato has been interpreted in radically different ways in different ages.

Which scholars? I only remember something possibly close to this in Nietzsche, Twilight of the idols but then Nietzsche attacks Socrates also, so...

OK Quoting M. Burnyeat summarizing the situation here "In short in the early dialogues Plato is dealing with subjects that interested Socrates, dealing with them in Socrates's way, and very often no doubt putting into Socrates;s mouth what Plato knew to be Socrates' opinions. But as the years go by the momentum of Plato's enterprise carries him into dealing with subjects that interest him, Plato, and dealing with them in his own way, expressing his own opinions - but still mostly through the mouth of Socrates." Socrates was a real historical person with his own opinions and philosophy, but he was also a fictional character in Plato's dialogues. By the time Plato writes the Timaeus, Socrates is long dead, and Plato is using the character for Plato's own purposes, which are probably quite different from what the real Socrates would have done. The real Socrates hated speculation into the nature of the universe or the Gods, and wouldn't have touched the topic of the Timaeus with a 10-foot pole. The Socrates in the Timaeus was Plato's fictionalization of Socrates for his own purposes, not Socrates of Athens or Socrates the Younger, any more than the Socrates of Aristophanes comedies is either of these people. On Plato interpretation, hmm, well anciently look at Carneades or Sextus Empiricus Modernly look at Burnyeat or Richard Kraut, or T. H. Irwin, or (one of my old teachers) Michael Morgan, Marc Cohen, Gail Fine, Gregory Vlastos, I have a Stephan Strange Article on the Timaeus with a lot of other references to modern Timaeus scholars, uhm you want more names on modern Plato interpretors in English? Bmorton3 15:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That is very dishearting that one can not read Plato and take the words and works of Plato as Plato himself outlines them. I mean Plato states that Socrates is Socrates. I find such skepticism as you have expressed an impossible fallacy that renders everything not only unbelievable, but useless. It seems from the above that allot of theory get expressed as fact. I know from reading Plato I have no reason (other then agenda) to make or draw such conclusions or engage in such speculative skepticism. I find that degree of behavior very Plato. I have to separate my own personal wants from anything I engage in order to be objective. Interpretors?' Do you have any who are modern Greek?

I am not certain of the nationalities or ethnicities of many of these folk. I do not know of the work in Modern Greek. Gregory Vlastos I suspect of being Greek or Turkish, but I am not certain. Sorry. I will say that skepticism was KEY to the philosophy of Plato's Academy for centuries. Arcesilaus and Carneades were perceived by the ancients to be teaching the heritage of Plato. Bmorton3 21:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

4) I will not make strong claims about what Plotinus thought about the Valentinians. I would never call Armstrong's work trash, but I'm just not expert enough there. But I am very much in line with the teachings of one of my grand-teachers, Bentley Layton, in that when Porphyry discusses "the Gnostics" in chapter 16 of the Life of Plotinus, he is talking about the Sethian Gnostics NOT the Valentinians. It would be surprising if Plotinus was thinking of Valentinians but Porphyry does not mention any when discussing Plotinus' thoughts on the matter.

Well here is an interesting turn. Since Armstrong stated that gnostic or gnosticism is a core set of tenets shared between the different sectarians. This core set of tenets are sethian by sharing them the different sectarians got labeled "gnostic". This above point is one of those points that got called trash by our fellow wikipedians.

5) Does Dionysius vilify ontology, nature, or the material world? He says that God transcends every name, even the name being. Is that vilifying ontology? To say that the beyond-being is better than being?

He addresses this. Quote From the Divine Names 596c, 596d "that he is all, that he is no thing. And so it is that as Cause of all and as transcending all, he is rightly nameless and yet has the names of everything that is. Truly he has dominion over all and all things revolve around him, their source, and their destiny. He is "all in all," as scripture affirms and certainly he is to be praised as being for all things the creator and originator, the One who brings them to completion, their preserver, their protector, and heir home, the power that which returns them to itself, and all this in the one single, irrepressible, and supreme act.

Right! Ps-D says both things, the Kataphatic claim that God is all in all and the cause of all, and also the apophatic claim that he is no thing and transcending all. If you want to say that the Henad is the creator of all, because he is the ultimate source of all that it I will not fight you (although I prefer denials to assertions here). I agree with everything in the above formulation (I think). But if you say that he is the immediate cause of the creation of the universe, or the direct craftsman of the Universe, I will disagree with both Ps-D and canonical scripture. Just as God is the ultimate source of each of our human actions and choices, but is not the immediate cause of them. Bmorton3 15:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Strange.... So who if not the demiurge or creator is the "immediate" cause of the creation of the universe? Also Dionysius does not vilify the material world or universe nor its creator.

Let me quote (which BTW the Divine Names is cribbing from Proclus if I remember right)

Funny I can't confuse the two, has anyone else made such a claim? That they were so much alike that people thought they were the same. I do remember something about this. Seriously.

Well there is a long section from the Divine Names that is almost a word for word copy of Proclus, but there is lots of other stuff in the Divine Names that isn't much like Proclus at all. Bmorton3 15:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

:: Understood. I mean Dionysius has to use the same words to express himself as Proclus. I can see how this would have the potiential to lead to confusion.

"All beings to the extent that they exist are good and come from the good, and they fall short of goodness and being in proportion to their remoteness from the Good" (Divine Names 720B,
Yes disposition.
BTW the Orthodox Churches don't hold that the author of the Divine Names, Mystical Theology, etc. really is the St. Dionysius mentioned in Acts do they?).

This is one of my contributions to his wiki article. This also could stem from the text being an oral tradition (see Declamatio) that was only at the dates given finally put to record. "It must also be recognized that "forgery" is a modern notion. Like Plotinus and the Cappadocians before him, Dionysius does not claim to be an innovator, but rather a communicator of a tradition." [1]

Is he vilifying nature, being and the material world? Well kinda, he's saying that in order for it to be distinct from the Good it must fall short of goodness and being to some extent.

???? More speculating and in this case imposing your intensions on Dionysius' intensions. His own words betray your interruptions.

Huh? For him everything other than God is imperfect, to some extent good and too some extent deficient. Do you disagree that Ps-D believes this? I'm not speculating here, I quoted him.

Everything other than the Henad is to some degree imperfect, and the Henad is beyond-perfect rather than perfect.

We are both perfect in what we inherit from the divine imperfect in what seperates us. Existence and various degrees of energy (material,though and the like) are the opprotunity to connect to God. It is our own wills that seperate us from the divine. By choice we connect or disconnect. Our degree of sincerity is the degree of connection. We are in God here alive or dead.

But we are in union with God to the extent that we are able to be. No human, no angel either is able to be in Union with God to the utmost degree, even in Ps-D's works. God's activity is theosis, bringing us to him (oh we can circle him also, which is a kind of constantly being brought to without reaching), but that doesn't mean we are already-perfect. Bmorton3 15:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes the distinction between henosis and theosis.

If I am vilifying the material world, then it looks like Pseudo-Dionysius and Proclus are too.

Once again they have done no such thing. But as for you, tell me why nature or the material world is to be vilified. From you, not others.

Or maybe my claim that the material world is vastly better than anything I could create, but is nonetheless imperfect, is not really vilifying it.

Your logic is now not making sense. Why would you vilify what is lesser? How can this be just?

We must be miscommunicating. I don't think I am vilifying nature, creation, or the material world. All I am claiming is that they are all imperfect. Claiming something is imperfect does not seem like "vilifying" to me. I'll praise the material world, creation, and nature. But I won't praise them as highly as the ineffable parent, and I won't claim they are perfect. Bmorton3 15:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes we must, this is a far cry from stating that the material world was created by a separated ignorant God, a creator separate and against the will of the ineffable . Which is the core of gnosticism.

That is not the core of Gnosticism and many Gnostics opposed it.

Now here is where I can say I have opinion based on the works of others.

Valentinius opposed it, the Tripartite Tractate opposes it. "It was not without the will of the Father that the Logos was Produced" (Tri. Tract 76:24, although Tri. Tract. calls Logos what every other Gnostic calls Sophia). I challenge anyone to find anything in Valentinus or Ptolemy, which claims that the Craftsman crafted AGAINST the will of the ineffable. The craftsman in Valentinus suffers from lack of acquaintance, but this lack need not be complete. The Craftsman is not totally in line with the will of the ineffable, but not totally opposed to it either, rather the craftsman is partially ignorant of the will of the ineffable. Bmorton3 21:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

hello3

Now here we have arrived yes yes yes yes now to the point. I wrote this article for wiki- Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. Also this one needs some help Valentinus (Gnostic) too. Please help.

We'll see what we can do, but probably not right away. BTW, I've been confused. Do Orthodox use "theotokos" to mean "Mother of God" (perhaps refering to Mary of Nazareth) or to God-Labor, as in the process of theosis? I had assumed the second, but I'm worried I might be wrong. Bmorton3 14:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

God- bearer theotokos.

LoveMonkey 19:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, I mean is it intended to refer to Mary of Nazareth as the most famous and (for a Nicene) literal of God-bearers, or anyone who bears God metaphorically, or is the ambiguity intentional? Bmorton3 20:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguity? Please be specific. To bear, to carry. Also whoes WE? What do you have an army of students or frat brothers or something? No dig I am being serious.

LoveMonkey 12:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

On "we" perhaps I misspoke, I meant me and you, I assumed that if I started commenting on those pages, you would interact with me in the process of doing so.

Absolutely! I would be honoured. LoveMonkey 19:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no grad students or anything. The theotokos thing is no big deal but I had three theories about its usage 1) it refers to anyone who bears or carries or labors to bring forth God in a metaphorical sense, thus to the process of theosis and the great work generally, 2) It refers to Mary of Nazareth the mother of Jesus of Nazareth, who from a Nicene perspective bore or carried God in a more literal sense than the rest of us 3) it is intentionally ambiguous between meaning 1 and 2 (although neither meaning 1 nor 2 are particularly ambiguous). I initially assumed meaning 1; I am coming to suspect meaning 2, (I saw someone translate it as Mother of God, rather than as God-bearer).
Well no, the objective was that the first and most important saint is Mary. That all people to be save must submit and be humble like Mary. This must be respected but not to much of it is clear it is a mystery. I can say that I love the mother of God without reservation. What could be more beautiful then a child and mother. And yes she is also called the Queen of Heaven. LoveMonkey 19:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I listed meaning 3 only as another possibility I have considered, especially since Mother of God would be easy enough to say instead if meaning 2 was intended. Bmorton3 13:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

??? What can I say I love the mother of God. She brings joy for those who sorrow. LoveMonkey 19:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
6) Is Gnosis kataphatic for Ps-D? "But again, the most divine knowledge of God, that which comes through unknowing, is achieved in a union far beyond mind, when mind turns away from all things, even from itself, and when it is made one with the dazzling rays, being then and there enlightened by the inscrutable depth of wisdom" (DN 872a-b). For Ps-D kataphasis and apophasis work together, both are part of the path, but apophasis is the highest men can go, and God is beyond both (MT 1048B).

Agree.
7) I made no claims about Athena.

Gnositicism claims this, though. Maybe your not a gnostic, maybe (as I suspect) you are a philosopher. And this is very very very good.

Gnosticism focuses on Sophia an awful lot. You might once find a place where they use the term Athena instead, but Athena is not a focus of any of the ancient schools of Gnosticism. Perhaps I am a philosopher AND a Gnostic AND a Christian AND a father, and a homebrewer, and lots of other things too. Why do you think gnostics are not philosophers or vice versa? Bmorton3 15:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

When I say world I mean society and the ideas of men and even more so the passions that cause them. I don't mean brotherhood I don't mean the physical world. I see the lesser as a rung, not a punishment. All created by God (body and soul) but the choice of rebellion being against God. I believe my body is a gift an opprotunity not a prison. I can only use speculation as a starting point not an end. I don't see the material world as evil nor do I see submission to the God as evil rather then submission to myself and my own want and passions. I see my sin as degrees of lack of submission. But I must hold out and be right with the degrees of submission and must proceed via learned truths.

I agree with just about all of that except the speculation bit. My knowledge and wisdom is so limited that I rarely have anything better than speculation to work with, and when I do it is almost always acquaintence. I speculate about what God wants from me, or I am acquainted with the movements within my heart, but I have little guidance in submission beyond these. Bmorton3 21:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I will say that axiom fascinates me.

8) I mention Pseudo-Dionysius to make this point. Yes I am blaspheming, but every word any human says about God is a blasphemy, as is every thought.

Not so, this is poor justification at best. I mean no ill will, I just see the fallacy in this. Dionysius nor Proclus say no such thing and in the case of Dionysius he explicitely and repeatily addresses how this is not his message.

Human language and conception is imperfect and all our praise falls short of God and is bad-mouthing him.

Falls short sure but, once again why vilify the lesser? Falling short is not by any logic "bad mouthing".

If it does not seem to you that human language falls so short that every conception is a form of "bad-mouthing" then you and I are parting ways. I have no way to convince you of this, and hold it to be a spiritual point rather than an intellectual one. It does not seem that we are differing very much on Ps-D. Ps-D's message I think we both agree is that we should speak about God in the best way we can, and tailored to the needs of our audience, that kataphatic claims and apophatic claims are both appropriate. I say that they are appropriate even though they are all "bad-mouthing" you say they are not "bad-mouthing" at all. Here is our disagreement, it seems to me. Bmorton3 15:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

::Well so be it. That's OK, I really wonder why deficent would be perceived as "profane" or "bad mouthing". Really?

Yet God accepts our praises when they are offered in the spirit of praise as praises, despite the imperfection of our language and conception.

Yes God accepts our praises and God also makes requirements of us as well. Cain comes to mind.

Orthodox and Gnostic stories about Cain are not very similar. And the relation between the Ineffable parent and the being which did not respect Cain's offering of the fruit of the soil is not that clear to me, although I'm sure the Orthodox have no trouble assimilating them. Cain's later offence is tricky too. The Lord had made no commands about murder or killing in the story, but had looked with favor on Abel's killing of the lambs. How was Cain to know that killing Abel was wrong or opposed to teh Lord's will? Indeed The Lord had made it clear that the Lord did not want humans to live forever in Gen 1:22. In fact Cain had fulfilled The Lord's requirement in Gen 1:23 and been punished for it! Cain is a tragic figure who fulfilled the Old Testament God's requirements to the best of his abilities and understanding and was severely punished for it. Bmorton3 16:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Awe the obedience thing. Boy it's a mess ain't it! I think often of Kierkegaard and Abraham on this one. In the material world I find I signature and this signature is a logic I find in my person. I have the greatest love for this spirit and word -aka signature.

God makes clear commands to Abraham in the Kierkegaard story. Cain has no such benefit. Being given a hard command to obey is one thing. Obeying a command you have never been given is another. Bmorton3 21:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree, remember Abraham's dicohomy, the choice was his. As for Cain the choice was his, bad or good such was defined by their choices. But good point I love Dostoevsky this reminds me of him. Let me say I find this most valuable and a neglected sorrow. Under addressed is the sorrow of freedom. Such matters are of the highest sophisication. Again I am honoured.

I do not understand God and Creation and neither do you, but as we are yearning and praising, God accepts our poor formulations despite their blasphemy.

God requests that we not blasphemy. One must decide by understanding which way is the one that will be the best. This is freedom.

9) Never mind about strife then, I was not intending to imply strife between the three persons of God, but in a later stage of procession, read ibn Arabi later if you care about it, or forget it.

Henad is that there is unity so much so between the infinite and the finite that they are one. Creation, one with uncreated. Both of one will one essence

10) I am not trying to fight about who is smarter or lead you away from your path, (Although I admit, I can't resist some scholarly dispute on #4 and #6).

I am honoured to have your attention and time. If you have a love of Sunsets and Plato it is very easy to believe you have a heart of gold.

I thought perhaps, my own personal paltry opinions might be of help to you, if they are not forget them.

And vice versa.

We are fellow travellers trying to make sense of our lives in a confusing world. If you cannot reconcile my words, or see them as non-blasphemous, then try to avoid blasphemy as best you can in your own way, and theotokos bless you as well.

But I still do not understand how you can reconcile the vilification of nature with Plato, Socrates. Forgive me if my edits has been inappropriate I was just trying to make it as followable as best as possible. LoveMonkey 21:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I simply do not see the claim that the world is good but not perfectly good as vilifying, any more than me claiming that my wife or my beer is good but not perfectly good is vilifying. Some Sethian Gnostics take a harsher stance, and that harsher stance would be hard to synch with Plato (but easy to synch with Socrates who said basically nothing about nature accept when he was being used as a puppet by Plato). I am beginning to suspect that you are using vilify as a technical term whose meaning I do not quite understand. Bmorton3 16:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is maybe a rejection thing. I do not separate the spirit from the material in the same. I see the material as rung therefore a move upward. I do not perceive it as evil or a bain or negative thing only something that can improve. As for the Socrates that I know I only know him from Plato and Aristophanes. And it appears of the two, that Plato was far more closer to Socrates so I follow his depiction.

I agree, the material and the spiritual are not fully seperate but are a continuum, a rung on a ladder. The material is not evil per se, but is imperfect. Each spiritual rung on the ladder is imperfect too. Only the Ineffable is non-imperfect. I do not at all reject the material, I enjoy it, as one of the many gifts of being. But yeah it is deficient sometimes, especially in this world, and it has always seemed foolish to me to deny this. Bmorton3 21:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well the yearning for something higher is the highest evolution in man.

Well hopefully I have not angered you. If I have I apologize professor. I wish you well and once again appreciate your time and responses. I believe Professor that the only way to fix a misunderstanding, to address it. Now in degrees and not absolutes will one gain resolves. LoveMonkey 14:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No I'm not angered. It is a delicate dance for a heretic and an orthodox to attempt to talk productively to each other, and it seems to me that we are trying hard to do so. Bmorton3 16:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree I would hope that this desire to be productive would not be so isolated but then I can make no man do anything against his will. I must as Orthodox love enemy and friend alike.

LoveMonkey 18:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Alphabet

I don't say that all the world was born in Italy (we know that the man come from about Etiopia-Kenia)! But I say that the foundamental elements of the western culture come from: 1. roman empire; 2. christianism; 3. celtic & germanic cultures. Than you can add that most of the roman culture comes from etruscans and greeks, that christianism comes from judaism, that celtic & germanic cultures come from Turkhstan etc. That indoeuropeans come from Kenia. That man come from the cercopitheque (I probably have mistaken the translation; do you speak Italian?) etc. But the most important and determining elements of our (and also your, I think) world are these three ones. And many important and determining times of their evolution happened in Italy. Many many many if you consider it's a so small Country. Or not? Codice1000.en 15:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes you have made your opinions clear on a number of occasions, and while I do not share them I can think of little motive for arguing with you. Believe what you want. By all means be proud of your homeland. Be proud of the accomplishments of real Italians like Dante or the Illy family. I am certainly not trying to bad-mouth Italy. But is Rome more central to western culture than Greece? Christianity more central than Islam? The Germanic and Celtic cultures more central than the Slavic or the Turkic? Is the Italian Peninsula more central to MY world than the Greek, Arabian, Korean, Yucatan, or Floridian Peninsulas? How would you know? This kind of fight cannot accomplish anything other than pissing off those who take just pride in other things. Take pride, but allow others their pride too, and don't engage in fights like this, or everyone will think you are a troll. But hey, believe what you want, and if you have nothing better to do that pick fights with people, go ahead. Bmorton3 15:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Cazzo che bella filosofia! Codice1000.en 13:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Paraconsistency

I've noticed your activity on the subject of paraconsistent logic. Are you professionally interested in the topic? As I wrote on the discussion page, I don't have an access to Rescher's publications and more generally with American and Canadian development of paraconsistency. Can you help me with some online references? Or perhaps it would be possible for you to send on my e-mail address some articles on the subject? I would be much obliged. Glaukon 19:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you wear jeans? Codice1000.en 14:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Er only when camping. Bmorton3 16:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Bmorton3, who are you? JackJohnJames 14:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, my real name and physical location and job are all in the "Who am I?" section of my user page! Any other Questions? Bmorton3 16:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the reply. I'm interested in virtually eerything connected with paraconsistent logic, so I would be very happy to have some of your articles sent on my e-mail address. However, I'm not sure if I should leave the address here... any ideas? Glaukon 15:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No I have no good solutions to this, I do not let my my e-mail onto WP, but I give my name and university affiliation, over on my user page. You can Google to find my e-mail. It is on my university department webpage. Your page doesn't have enough info for me to find your e-mail, but mine should provide enough for you. You can e-mail me and I'll then have your address and could reply. Bmorton3 16:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

A question

You eat at 1,30 pm. Is it the traditional hour in USA?

Actually it is 12:03 in Terre Haute as I am eating my lunch now, because we recently changed time zones. I usually eat lunch between 11:30 AM and 1PM at some point depending on my schedule that day, and yes I think that is pretty typical in the USA. Bmorton3 16:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Neoplatonism and Gnosticism

Well all that I can say is you are a professor you should well know the book if you did many of the points would not be under question... I will once again post A H Armstrong's introduction to the text.

I should "well know" one superceded text from 1984? Do you know how many texts on philosophy came out in 1984? Since 1984? Even if we are just talking about Gnosticism, there have been 100s of texts since then. Lets try to keep things polite. Bmorton3 14:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Not fair, nothing I stated came from me. But you are a professor so I will most definitely keep it polite. And yes I still appreciate your time. :>) LoveMonkey 16:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Plotinus stating clearly in the Enneads titled "Against the Gnostics" that he felt it some what nessessary to address what he saw as "blasphemous" behaviour probagated by "imbecilic" men. Plotinus was addressing the vilification of Plato's demiurge in Plato's dialog named "Timaeus".

Plotinus thinks these guys are imbeciles, and blasphemers that is not in doubt Bmorton3 14:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Now we're cooking I can finally add that to the article. (Just kidding ;>)

LoveMonkey 16:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• This is what the scholar A. H. Armstrong wrote in the introduction in his translation of Plotinus' Enneads in the tract named against the Gnostics the 1986 editions.

- A.H. Armstrong introduction to II 9. Against the Gnostics Pages 220-222 - - Introductory Note This treatise (No.33 in Porphyry's chronological order)is in fact the concluding section of a single long treatise which Porphyry, in order to carry out the design of grouping his master's works, more or less according to subject, into six sets of nine treatise, hacked roughly into four parts which he put into different Enneads, the other three being III. 8 (30) V. 8 (31) and V .5 (32). Porphyry says (Life ch. 16.11) that he gave the treatise the Title "Against the Gnostics" (he is presumably also responsible for the titles of the othersections of the cut-up treatise). There is an alternative title in Life. ch. 24 56-57 which runs "Against those who say that the maker of the universe is evil and the universe is evil. - - The treatise as it stands in the Enneads is a most powerful protest on behalf of Hellenic philosophy against the un-Hellenic heresy (as it was from the Platonist as well as the orthodox Christian point of view) of Gnosticism. There were Gnostics among Plotinus's own friends, whom he had not succeeded in converting (ch.10 of this treatise) and he and his pupils devoted considerable time and energy to anti-Gnostic controversy (Life ch.16). He obviously considered Gnosticism an extremely dangerous influence, likely to pervert the minds even of members of his own circle. It is impossible to attempt to give an account of Gnosticism here. By far the best discussion of what the particular group of Gnostics Plotinus knew believed is M. Puech's admirable contribution to Entretiens Hardt V (Les Sourcesde Plotin). But it is important for the understanding of this treatise to be clear about the reasons why Plotinus disliked them so intensely and thought their influence so harmful.

Hmm, why does Armstrong think the Sethians are un-Hellenic? I see why he thinks they are heretics from the Christian and Neo-Platonist perspective. Armstrong thinks that "By far the best discussion" is in Puech?! Man that text is from 1960, and most of Puech's work is from 1949-51. I'm not ragging on the guy, but the scholarship had moved well past that by the 70s much less 86, or now.

:: Well that's the source Armstrong quotes. Hey juicy Zeusy stated that he knows John Dillion! You know he could get Dillion to clarify. YES YES YES. Dillion is the rockstar of the Neoplatonic -he is the coolest. His Iamblichus is the da bomb! LoveMonkey 16:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

- - The teaching of the Gnostics seems to him untraditional, irrational and immoral. They despise and revile the ancient Platonic teachings and claim to have a new and superior wisdom of their own: but in fact anything that is true in their teaching COMES FROM PLATO, and all they have done themselves is to add senseless complications and pervert the true traditional doctrine into a melodramatic, superstitious fantasy designed to feed their own delusions of grandeur. They reject the only true way of salvation through wisdom and virtue, the slow patient study of truth and pursuit of perfection by men who respect the wisdom of the ancients and know their place in the universe.

Again that's Plotinus' take on which ever Gnostics he managed to encounter, which is probably just one group of Sethians, from the names and descriptions that Porphyry gives. Even there we are probably in the land of polemic and exaggeration, Armstrong describes it as an "attack" not as a "description". Bmorton3 14:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

- - They claim to be a privileged caste of beings, in whom alone God is interested, and who are saved not by their own efforts but by some dramatic and arbitrary divine proceeding; and this, Plotinus says, leads to immorality. Worst of all, they despise and hate the material universe and deny its goodness and the goodness of its maker. This for a Platonist is utter blasphemy, and all the worse because it obvioulsy derives to some extent from the sharply other-worldly side of Plato's own teaching (e.g. in the Phaedo). At this point in his attack Plotinus comes very close in some ways to the orthodox Christian opponents of Gnosticism, who also insist that this world is the good work of God in his goodness. But, here as on the question of salvation, the doctrine which Plotinus is defending is as sharply opposed on other ways to orthodox christianity as to Gnosticism: for he maintains not only the goodness of the material universe but also its eternity and its divinty. - - The idea that the universe could have a beginning and end is inseparably connected in his mind with the idea that the divine action in making it is arbitrary and irrational. And to deny the divinity (though a subordinate and dependent divinity) of the World-Soul, and of those noblest of embodied living beings the heavenly bodies, seems to him both blasphemous and unreasonable. -

- Synopsis - Short statement of the doctrine of the three hypostases, the One, Intellect and Soul; there cannot be more of fewer than these three. Criticism of the attempts to multiply the hypostases, and especially of the idea of two intellects, one which thinks and that other which thinks that it thinks. (ch. 1). The true doctrine of Soul (ch. 2). The law of necessary procession and the eternity of the universe (ch.3). Attack on the Gnostic doctrine of the making of the universe by a fallen soul, and on their despising of the universe and the heavenly bodies (chs. 4-5). The sense-less jargon of the Gnostics, their plagiarism from and perversion of Plato, and their insolent arrogance (ch. 6). The true doctrine about Universal Soul and the goodness of the universe which it forms and rules (chs. 7-8). Refutation of objections from the inequalities and injustices of human life (ch. 9). Ridiculous arrogance of the Gnostics who refuse to acknowledge the hierarchy of created gods and spirits and say that they alone are sons of God and superior to the heavens (ch. 9). The absurdities of the Gnostic doctrine of the fall of "Wisdom" (Sophia) and of the gemeratio and activities of the Demiurge, maker of the visible univers (chs. 10-12). False and melodramatic Gnostic teaching about the cosmic spheres and their influence (ch. 13). The blasphemous falsity of the Gnostic claim to control the higher powers by magic and the absurdity of their claim to cure diseases by casting out demons (ch. 14). The false other-worldiness of the Gnostics leads to immorality (ch. 15). The true Platonic other-worldliness, which love and venerates the material universe in all its goodness and beauty as the most perfect possible image of the intelligible, contracted at length with the false, Gnostic, other-worldliness which hates and despises the material univers and its beauties (chs. 16-18).

I am also including the footnote from the Enneads here...

• This is what the scholar A. H. Armstrong wrote as a footnote in his translation of Plotinus' Enneads in the tract named against the Gnostics.

Footnote from Page 264 1. From this point to the end of ch.12 Plotinus is attacking a Gnostic myth known to us best at present in the form it took in the system of Valentinus. The Mother, Sophia-Achamoth, produced as a result of the complicated sequence of events which followed the fall of the higher Sophia, and her offspring the Demiurge, the inferier and ignorant maker of the material universe, are Valentinian figures: cp. Irenaues adv. Haer 1.4 and 5. Valentinius had been in Rome, and there is nothing improbable in the presence of Valentinians there in the time of Plotinus. But the evidence in the Life ch.16 suggests that the Gnostics in Plotinus's circle belonged rather to the other group called Sethians on Archonties, related to the Ophites or Barbelognostics: they probably called themselves simply "Gnostics." Gnostic sects borrowed freely from each other, and it is likely that Valentinius took some of his ideas about Sophia from older Gnostic sources, and that his ideas in turn influenced other Gnostics. The probably Sethian Gnostic library discovered at Nag Hammadi included Valentinian treatise: ep. Puech, Le pp. 162-163 and 179-180.

The Mother, Sophia-Achmoth fall stuff happens both in the Sethians and in the Valentinians. it may well be "best known to us" via the Valentinians, but that does not mean that it was known to Plotinus via the Valentinians. As Armstrong points out the evidence is that Plotinus is reacting to Sethians. The Valentinians almost certainly borrowed from the Sethians, did it happen the other way too? maybe. Bmorton3 14:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

:: No that's not the point. This ties into John D Turner's research.

LoveMonkey 16:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Please explain to me why I based my opinion on the most pre-emient scholars words and the introduction to the text in question and you claimed I was engaging in POV? Your supposed to know. I also would like to know who are these other scholars of opinion you mentioned? And you did not address the works I included of John D Turner, why? If you would like under fair use I can email you actual pages I typed out above. Why have you not read the text as is stated above before accusing me of POV? Your a professor. You know I was rather light on the things I posted in the article and here I am being accused of POV rather then posting from A H Armstrong and his own words and works. WOW,WOW! LoveMonkey 04:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well you have certainly found a scholar claiming that the Sethians were un-Hellenic, which surprises me. It is a long way from un-Hellenic to anti-Hellenic though.

Fair enough so there is a change in wording that needs to be done.

LoveMonkey 16:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, you have a scholar describing PLOTINUS's attack on the gnostics, not describing the Gnostics themselves. We all know what PLOTINUS' POV is.

:: BINGO! Hence my request for you to contribute to the article. A refutation section is in order. LoveMonkey 16:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If you claim "Plotinus believed that the Gnostics vilified Plato's ontology of the universe in the Timaeus" you are correct. If you claim, "Armstrong interprets Plotinus as attacking the Gnostics for their vilification of Plato's ontology in the Timaeus" you are even more accurate. If you claim the Gnostics were "anti Greek in it's vilification of Plato's ontology of the universe contained in Timaeus" now you are POV, namely Plotinus' POV.

:: Now that is an excellent point. And a modification I need to make to the article. As for POV I was trying to reconcile modern stuff from John D Turner's articles with Armstrong's. The wording was misleading. LoveMonkey 16:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Further Armstrong himself points out that there is every reason to think that Plotinus wasn't talking about all the things we mean by the word Gnosticism today, but about a fairly specific sub-group of it. And none of this helps with the next paragraphs. Bmorton3 14:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

So Professor what I am supposed to do? Deny these comments and accounts made by Armstrong and for that matter John D Turner as well? Why did you state that only one conference was posted in the article? When it clearly posted other conferences? Let me state once again I hate no one and I am not here with an axe to grind, so much as to post what I have read that seems to run sharply against the some of the OR and POV of other posters here. I mean I pulled myself back from the pleroma issue and have not actually posted what Armstrong's prodigy John M Dillon stated in the book and conference about the term. Look on the pleroma article. The comments are total POV and whenever any attempt was made by me to counter the points were removed. But what John Dillion stated in that article that I referenced does not hold up for the article here on wikipedia. Have you read his comments? His comments are really not nice. This is just another example. I was hoping to find someone well read and in opposition to the camp of A H Armstrong who could post more then speculative research as a retort to PLOTINUS. As for other commentary not one of the posters offered anything from the Neoplatonic community. Most offered other gnostics or gnostic sympathizer's opinions not specific commentary on Plotinus. Something YOU could do as a critisms section. But understand that making statements like "Further much of the conference focused on the nature of procession, and on the role of theurgy." Which it clearly did not. Plotinus was not a proponent of theurgy and the controversy that Iamblichus caused to the Porphyry was the first article. Plotinus was long dead Plotinus sets out no theurgy in the Enneads or any of his writings. This is wasting time. LoveMonkey 13:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If I stated that only one conference was mentioned, I didn't mean too. Certainly you focused heavily on one conference, and mentioned (without naming) additional conferences.

Well if you can come up with other sources please add them. I mean that, what else do I have to go on? This is the same problem I had with Zeusnoos and he was the one who allowed me to introduce the John D Turner stuff because he pointed out the specific books and lectures on the subject that I had not seen (in case you have not noticed even though he is abit cruel I am fond of Mr Zeus Brain). Not that this means anything since I am of no significates.

LoveMonkey 16:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have certainly not keep up with the fights between the posters. They may well have been quite rude. I am not nearly as up on the Neo-Platonist stuff as the Gnosticism stuff.

:: Here's what started it "Plotinus treatise against the Gnostics is no considered more a treatise against Christianity in general by scholars" and he insulted Plotinus and my mother too (just kinding on the mother part). His only saving grace is that he misspelled "now". LoveMonkey 16:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

But I can cite you Tripartite Tractate sections, that are more than speculative, in their retort to Plotinus. I'm not sure what you mean by Armstrong's camp.

:: Armstrong and Dillion. LoveMonkey 16:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that Armstrong agrees with the attacks that Plotinus makes, or do you think he is just trying to accurately report and summarize Plotinus' attacks?

Well I would put it this way. I don't know. I know that I have both translations of the Enneads, Armstrong's and MacKenna's. They completely would support Armstrong's conclusions IN MY OPINION. Are there any other versions or translations of the Enneads? I know that Dillion's IS Armstrong's. I mean I tried to be very direct without plagerizing (Zeusnoos thinks that most of what I post in the demiurge article is kooky or plagerized). I, of course disagree.

LoveMonkey 16:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Anton and Pearson's articles both focused on Theurgy, and its hard to imagine that Bregman didn't. Bazon, Hancock, and Pepin focus on procession, and I'll bet its a big theme in Kenney, and Mortley too. Plotinus may not have liked theurgy, but that has nothing to do with whether the conference talked about it, or whether later Neo-Platonists talked about it. I am certainly spending time interacting with you about this stuff. If it is wasting your time, then stop.

Stop? Now I have to feel out you intellectual types to see if you are going to let me be critical. Stopping obviously would not be an option if I were seeking to make such a relationship. Now would it. Stop. Please, this is a distraction.

LoveMonkey 16:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I disagree with Armstrong (here), except on whether the Sethians were un-Hellenic, and whether Puech's 1960 work was still the best summary of the Sethians Gnostics in 1986.

Good point I would like to work this conflict into the article somehow.

LoveMonkey 16:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

But I certainly disagree with Plotinus, on a number of other points, where Armstrong is (probably) accurately reporting what Plotinus' POV is. Don't deny what Armstrong says, but report it as Armstrong's summary of Plotinus' attacks, rather than as the simple truth.

I agree.

LoveMonkey 16:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

As per wikipedia Wikipedia:NPOV POV statements can often be made NPOV by careful attribution.

Man I believe this statement. I am hoping that alittle "cross the isle" cross pollination will make the article strong and professional.

LoveMonkey 16:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point about Pleroma is, the page has no discussion section, the only things you have tried to change since 2004 are still there.

:: Well that people are quick to revert without cross sourcing. LoveMonkey 16:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Was there a fight over two years ago there that you are still mad about?

Mad no but I can say that what I would like to post there I can not afford to have another long protracted fight like the one I had on Plotinus. So much for the truth, ugly man, just ugly.

LoveMonkey 16:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The page has the Gnostic side without much of the Orthodox side, you could certainly expand about how the term is used outside of Gnosticism, or about Dillon's work on the history of the term. I'm not certain I see the issue here. Bmorton3 14:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey lets move this stuff off of your talk page and into the N&G talk page?

We can continue there without cluddering up your talkpage. LoveMonkey 16:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to low self-worth theory

(part copied from last night)

These are all very deep and interesting questions having to do more with psychology (and social psychology)than philoshophy. But, based on my own experience of life and extensive reading, I can give you my personal, non-scientific opinions. First, I think it's absolutely common for experts, academics and professionals of all kind to experience periods of low self-worth and, even, severe depression. This is nothing unusual at all. And philosophers and philosophical types, in particular, seem to me (though I can't prove it) to be more prone to self-doubt and self-destruction than most. After all, they explicitly dedicate their lives to pondering, analyzing, arguing about, and studying the deepest and most challenging questions that human begins are capable of formulating. Most of these questions are probably not even answerable!! I once stated bluntly to a good friend of mine who was a Wittgentsinian: "you know, I think it's true. These are all pseudoproblems and philosophy s really just about generating maddening intellectual puzzles which no one will ever resolve. It's all empty and useless." (or something like that). He just looked at me and said, "yeah, that's what I love about it." I had to agree.

(continuation)

At any rate, the point was just that I am firmly convinced that intellectual types in general tend to be subject to bouts of extraordinary self-doubt and neccesary self-criticism to which the avergage person is immune. And, often the greater the intellect, the greater the tendendy toward self-criticism and even self-destruction. Dostoyevski put it well: "consciouness (in the sense of knowledge or refletiveness) is doubt, suffering, negation." I don't see this as necessarily a bad thing (unless it slips over into serious depression or something more dangerous). I have even read some recent studies which suggest that students with low-self worth tend to better at many tasks than people with a relatively exalted image of themsleves.

With respect to WP, this would suggest that it needs more people with low-self esteem or, at the vert least, that self-esteem doesn't really explain much about the kind of experts who contribute. It could be argued that, as in my case, the problem of low-self worth is one of the causes of som experts' being reluctant to contribute. Your self-worth is much more likely to be reinforced by publishing in a journal where you can see your name highleted as the sole author, where you are rewarded with a paycheck, with recogination from your acadmeic peers and so on, than it is by contributing to a project where no one cares who the heck you are, what your credentials are, what you name is, or even what you quality of work you have have previously contributed to the project. In this sense, it mught be argued that contrubuting to Wikipedia requires an extraordinaily HIGH level of self-esteem. On the other hand, I can aslo see that someone who is not very confident in exposing ttheir original ideas to the harsh scrutiny of professional journals might prefer the relative anonymity, lack of judgemenetless and easy interaction of Wikipedia, blogs or other Internet forums. Blogs are much more destructive than WP, IMO in this sense. Blogs have become just a way to prove, e.g., "I exist", "Hey, here's my dog and cat", "I hate Groege Bush (or Bill Clinton) even more vehemously than you do". There is no responsibility, no critical judgement and it is totally anonymous. Some people stake the meaning of their lives on it. THAT's where it gets out of hand.

So basically I don't know the answer to the question whetehr Wikipedia is more attractuve to people with low self-worth or not. But I don't see that it has nuch significance. The main problems for experts can be illustrated by a simple case. My cousin is a top-notch research geophysicist who has woked on just about every corner of the planet and has published in many professional journals. She is extremely busy with her career and her TWO CHILDREN. If I sent her an email asking her if she would like to contribute something to WP, I would be lucky to get a response in the next three months, depiste the fact that she is my cousin!! She wouldn't even look at it, but would probably say "Oh, that's a very nice idea. I like that. I hope you are finally doing something you enjoy." "Would YOU like to help write this article on tectonic plate activities in the Oceanic dorsal blah, blah, blah?"....................... No response. If I proposed to her, instead, "For such and such cash or your name in Nature magazine" it might be a different story. The problem for most experts is simply one of incentives and motivation. Then there is the problem of vandals, cranks and so on. I don't think psychological factors have much, if anything, to do with it. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)