Talk:Hermeticism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hermeticism article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Manly P. Hall

As in Hermetism, I propose that all information that comes from Manly P. Hall's works be removed unless it is verified by a reputable third party. -999 (Talk) 16:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Hall is not a generally reliable source. However I think that instead of removing things that cite him it may be more useful to state that he is not a consistent source. The reason for this is that his works are well known and are often a good starting point for finding information as he does say where a lot of his stuff comes from.Morgan Leigh 10:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem with referencing Hall is that it creates, in essence, a reference to a reference. Secret Teachings of All Ages is encyclopedic in nature. It would be more appropriate to reference, if possible, the original sources that Hall himself references. But, I wouldn't go so far as to qualify Hall as a non-reputable third-party without such a person making the qualification knowing a little more about Hall's background.--P Todd 01:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

WikiProject Ancient Egypt (or KV) keeps trying to add this post-Egyptian subject to their project. Please respond as to whether you support or oppose this. Please make a decision below, and discuss in the discussion section.

[edit] Support

  • Support - If they want to work on it, they have the right.KV(Talk) 17:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Hermes Trismegistos is a syncretic figure conflated from The Egyptian god Thoth and the Greek god Hermes, amongst other things. It is impossible to have an understanding of HTM if one does not know of this Egyptian source. The concepts of Hermeticism are likewise impossible to understand if one is not aware of the Egyptian traditions that lie behind them. I think one needs to bear in mind the huge socio-political changes that arose as a result of Alexander the Great's conquests, especially in the way that it affected both Greek and Egyptian religion. Hermeticism is NOT post Egyptian. By which I mean, it is a coming together of two religions which had many similarities and as such allowed the syncretism of these two gods to happen. If the concepts were not as similar as they are then this syncretism would have been much harder to imagine. My point here is really that it is very hard to pick an arbitary line as to what is 'post ancient Egyptian'. This is like trying to understand North American history without considering English history. Morgan Leigh 02:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  • Strongly oppose - the project should stick to subjects that are exclusively Ancient Egyptian. —Hanuman Das 17:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - my understanding is that Hermeticism is completely post-Ancient Egypt. --Frater Xyzzy 18:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - nothing in the article indicates at this time the claims of the WikiProject(KV). SynergeticMaggot 18:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Hermeticism starts with the Corpus Hermeticum and is post-Egyptian. -999 (Talk) 22:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tricky

This is a tricky one as many Hermeticists and Occultists believe that although the texts of the Hermetica are definitely post Ancient Egypt the wisdom is not. The theory goes that the substance of the Hermetica dates back to ancient Pharaonic Egyptian religious ideas. Some commentators claim that similar concepts and images can be found in Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs. I for one have no idea. We know the Hermetica was written in Greek but we also know that there was a lot of intellectual/spiritual traffic between Ancient Greece and Egypt. Pythagoras was supposed to have spent 22 years in Egypt learning his theories. I leave it to the experts - if there are such - to decide. :-) ThePeg 17:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

  • CommentAnd they don't constantly try to post it, they posted it once and I backed them up. This is a problem of WP:OWN if you ask me.KV(Talk) 17:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, they have the right to work on it. But they don't have the right to tag it if the majority of current editors disagree. It's not WP:OWN, otherwise I wouldn't have started a survey. Doh! —Hanuman Das 17:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
      • You do not constitute a majority of editors. They can tag it all they want, tags are not exclusive or any show of ownership. It only means that the project is marking it out for work.KV(Talk) 17:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I think he was referring to the evidence from the failed AfD's, but I could be wrong. SynergeticMaggot 18:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Erm... the bot tags all ancient egypt catagory pages automatically. If you don't want the tag, you technically have to drop the catagory. Which I think has been done Thanatosimii 14:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, we're not complaining b/c the bot tagged it. We're complaining b/c King Vegita put it back three times. Since it is now clear that this was a personal effort rather than a project effort, there's no longer a problem... —Hanuman Das 14:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Hall citations

WP:V states:

"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth.

It is not for you to decide whether or not he is correct. He is a prominent figure, prominent enough that you have a view on him, which WP:NPOV states:

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one.

You need to find something to balance it out if you find him in any way wrong. You cannot simply go through indiscriminately deleting views because you do not like Manly P. Hall.

KV(Talk) 22:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I support the removal of unqualified Hall citations. He was not an academic, and his theories are at best imaginative. Find supporting citations, start a section on Hall's beliefs, or qualify his assertions. And do it in such a way that you don't undo all the formatting improvements H.D. did. -999 (Talk) 22:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Book of the Dead

I'm not sure why this paragraph is in here. I thought that the Corpus Hermeticum was being discussed, not the Book of the Dead. Does Budge mention the Corpus Hermeticum at all? If not, this simply appears to be a speculative attempt to make the C.H. seem older than it is...based on speculation about a completely different book. No thanks, that's not encyclopedic. —Hanuman Das 10:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

However, E. A. Wallis Budge, uses different reasoning. Budge, in discussing the Egyptian text, The Book of the Dead, clearly stated that the earliest version of The Book of the Dead found was not necessarily the earliest version that existed. Budge argued that one cannot claim that an earlier version does not exist simply because it has not been found.[1] Budge maintains that The Book of the Dead itself was drastically rewritten, reorganized, and amended several times in Egypt, creating four distinct versions which have been found. These versions stretch over a millennium, from the Fifth Dynasty (2498 BCE - 2345 BCE) to the Twentieth Dynasty (1186 BCE - 1073 BCE).[2]

[edit] Hermeticism vs the Church

The Church has not always been opposed to Hermeticism has it? The article says it has. The Wikipedia has an image of Hermes on a mosaic floor in Sienna Cathedral which suggests integration rather than opposition. The Renaissance was hugely influenced by Hermetic reading. People like Pico, Ficino and many artists and religious figures of their day saw Hermes' words as confirming the message of Christianity. Most Renaissance religious art was inspired by Hermetic ideas as much as Scripture. Milton read and admired and lifted imagery from Hermes. It would be useful to know when the Church cracked down on the Hermetica. Could someone elaborate on this? I suppose one of the fascinating things about the Hermetica is that although it echoes or presages vast amounts of Christian and Judaic ideas and imagery it was never turned into a religion and thus has no dogma attached to it. This means it can be read without prejudice. I'm reading it now and find it extraordinary. One element no-one has talked about is how close to Quantum Theory it is. It is perhaps no surprise that the Coat Of Arms of nuclear scientist Ernest Rutherford has Hermes on it! ThePeg 17:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

At one time most scholars thought that the Hermetica was written by early members of the Christian cult. There are a lot of similarities between ideas expressed in the Hermetica, and ideas expressed by Gnostic Christians. I don't think it was until Coptic versions of the Hermetic texts started to appear, suggesting that they might have pre-dated Christianity, that this idea was even seriously challenged. I'm no scholar, but my studies of the subject lead me to think that early Christianity was a polyglot of different ideas and belief systems-- and there is no reason to think that Hermeticism was singled out until about the same time that the Gnostics were suppressed by Rome. Light lvx 18:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)light_lvx

[edit] Magical idealism - need stub

Can anybody start a stub article on Magical idealism? Thanks. -- 201.51.221.66 15:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article is ghastly, I will try my best

I am a devout hermeticist and if I where to inform my friend that I was a hermeticist and they tried to learn more about it by going to this article. I don't think they would even get the slightest idea of what hermeticism is. The main problem I see in this article is that it tries to include and treat material originated in the last few hundreds of years as the same as tracible ancient documents. Lets face it, The corpus hermeticum can be traced thousands of years ago. The Kybalion can not. Trying to suggest that the early hermetic authors believed in the theories in the Kybalion before the Kybalion was published you would have to accept that the early hermetic authors somehow got ahold of this document without public knowledge. The kybalion was published in 1912. Which means that unless this is a mass conspiracy. All hermetic authors before 1912 has no knowledge of the kybalion. Using the Kybalion as a source for the majority of this article without specifying which theories come from which document is needless and confusing. Thusly, I will try to rewrite this article, I will outline which document expresses which theories by quoting the document and expounding it by sourcing the interpretations and I will try to keep as much of the objective information already provided in this article as much intact as possible. This will be quite a project for me, so it will take some time and please express any problems you may have with this and I will try to be as complient as possible. JaynusofSinope 13:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] does anyone know what this means?

"These beliefs have influenced magic traditions and further, the impact of serving as a set of religious beliefs."

This doesn't make sense. What is "These beliefs have influenced... the impact of serving as a set of beliefs" supposed to mean? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aussietiger (talk • contribs) 05:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

haha. that bot is fast. realised i forgot to sign, tried to edit to sign, couldn't 'cause the bot was editing it already. aussietiger 05:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I can explain the first part - Hermeticism was a massive influence on the Renaissance and the idea of the Magus as something to aspire to. Champions of Hermeticism included Pico, Ficino, Bruno and a host of others all of whom influenced the development of European culture through their spreading of Hermetic ideas (Leonardo, Michelangelo, Marlowe, Dee, Shakespeare etc all read their work). Some of the non-philosophical elements of the Hermetica include Astrology, the conjuring of spirits into statues and the hierarchy of the universe. Along with Kaballah, the Hermetica set a lot of people off on the search for how one could use the forces of the universe magically - in this sense I mean the word literally ie not tricks but the manipulation of reality, the conjuring of angels and demons (Dee did a lot of this, or believed he did), healing illnesses, achieving immortality etc. Practitioners such as Crowley and the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn all persued this course.

The second half of the sentence doesn't make any sense. Looks like a bit of grammatical error to me. ThePeg 11:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you could edit it so it makes sense. aussietiger 13:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Which bit? The first bit? I think it makes sense. I can't edit the second bit as I don't know what it should mean. ThePeg 21:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fundamental problem

The intro of an article is supposed to function as an abstract, but this introduction only vaguely talks about beliefs and philosophy, and doesn't go into detail about what they are. Hermeticism seems to be distillable into key concepts, and yet the article does not do this at all. If it does, it's so buried in unclear writing that it is indistinguishable. Could someone who knows something about this rewrite the intro so it works? MSJapan 05:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sabians

The comment about the Sabians/Sabeans is not quite true. What happened was there was a community of people the Muslims encountered who practised Hermeticism as their religion. When they were told that because they were not mentioned in the Koran as one of the acceptable religions (Judiasm, Christianity, Islam) they were given a period of time to decide what to do - convert or die. They paid an Islamic Scholar a great deal of money for advice. He scoured the Koran and found a reference to a people known as the Sabeans who were also deemed acceptable and advised them to name themselves that. This they did, so when the authorities returned they let them live. The source for this story I found in the book Hermetica: the Lost Wisdom of the Pharoahs. ThePeg 21:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Granted that is the story, but it's missing the part that the source quoted is mentioning. They were allowed to live because they were accepted to be the Sabians. Feel free to add more information, perhaps in the history section, elaborating from that source. Btw, they also had to name their book and prophet. Technically, though, they called themselves Hermetists, the precursor to Hermeticism, but of course that article was deleted, not because it wasn't sourced, or was untrue (generally, if a dictionary includes either, it's Hermetism, not Hermeticism), but because they disagreed with it and claimed that a term from the early centuries BC or AD was created by a man born in the 20th century. I gave up on editting this article after they simply went through and deleted everything they didn't want to be true, POVed the article, and got away with it since they had numbers, even if not actual policy.KV(Talk) 22:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture citation?

The "medieval rendering" at the top of the page is by Jean-Jacques Boissard, from De Divinatione et Magicis Praestigiis (1605). I wasn't sure how much (if any) of that should go into the caption, but probably at least a link to the artist is appropriate? Strumphs 15:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal.

I have suggested that the As Above, So Below article be merged into this one. There is very little in that article that is not already covered here (other than some examples of rock music lyrics that make use of the term), so there is not much to merge. I simply see no reason for such a short article on a concept that is inseperable from Hermeticism, and which is already covered fairly well here. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree: As the original creator of this article one year ago, I agree with this proposal. I would however like to assure we put a redirect in place that routes to the As Above So Below sub-heading in this article. When I created the entry, I had hoped that it would be expanded. With the exception of the interesting but trivial rock music lyric references, I see that no additional expansion has been made. I would also like to see the "see also" section somehow preserved--I find the other references that are not neccessarily thought to be Hermetic in nature to the concept significant.--P Todd 01:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I am glad that someone finally responded to this proposal. Honestly, though, I cannot claim to know enough on the subject to decide what should be merged, and what should not. Certainly, the, as you say "interesting but trivial," rock lyrics are not necessary. But, truly, I leave it to you, as the original author to judge what should be merged and how it should be done. I am not sure, honestly, that redirects to specific subsections of an article are allowed. But, I can check on that. Thanks for the response. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Any further comment on this matter? It has been more than a month now since I suggested the merger. If there is no further comment, I will go ahead. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

RepublicanJacobite, I'll make the merge sometime this Thanksgiving weekend.--P Todd (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge completed.--P Todd (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dates = AD vs CE

We recently had a brief edit flurry, with one editor replacing all dates with "AD/BC" dating... and another editor reverting back to the "CE/BCE" designation. I don't think the dating system has actually been discussed ... so it may be a good idea to get a record of consensus on file in case this becomes an issue. I approve of using CE. Since the article establishes that Hermeticism has non-Christian elements to it, and can even be thought of as a non-Christian religion, I think it is appropriate to use a non-Christian dating system. I am sure there are other reasons. Please express them for the record. Blueboar 14:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

As a non-christian Hermetist and the person who started the CE dating, I concur. KV(Talk) 15:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I concur as well, even though I am Irish Catholic. The BCE/CE system is much more appropriate. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. (off topic: why do I suddenly feel like I'm in the set up for a bad religious joke here: "A Protestant, a Pagan and a Papist all post on a Wikipedia Talk Page, the Protestant says....") Blueboar 03:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alchemy

For Hermeticism, Alchemy is not the changing of physical lead into physical gold.[15] Rather, one attempts to turn themselves from a base person (symbolized by lead) into an adept master (symbolized by gold). The various stages of chemical distillation and fermentation, among them, are metaphors for the Magnum Opus (Latin for Great Work) performed on the soul.[16]

I am so thoroughly tired of this modern, psychological, new-age reductionist misinterpretation of alchemy. It is just as false as the misinterpretation of alchemy by the hands of modern, scientific materialism and dogma. If anyone looks into the actual history of the ancient alchemists, they will prove to themselves the utter ignorance and falsity of this statement. Horror of horrors, many great alchemists, and not just greedy puffers worked in their labs. The laboratory work is not just merely a metaphor for the internal work. The inner and the outer work are in harmony. It is an investigation of God and Spirit in Nature, not just human nature, as the anthropocentric new agers might proselytize! I will make a commitment to myself to reword this as best as I can, in alignment with actual fact, and not new age, psychological garbage! If anyone contends my position, I would be very interested in their well-informed judgments. Thank you--75.155.209.69 (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now my references are not perfect, but as I am a beginning practical alchemist and not a scholar or historian, please bear with me. I will work harder for better references, and others can as well, but I feel this explanation is MUCH less false and reductionist and is much more encompassing; much closer to the truth. --75.155.209.69 (talk) 04:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
(goran) It did not save what I wrote. I do not know why. Tis a lesson to write it in notepad first. I'll have to redo it.--75.155.209.69 (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I intended to leave a response here after I reverted your edits yesterday, but I forgot. All I wanted to suggest was that you combine your information (and your references) with the information (and references) that were already there. That way, both positions are represented. I do not have a problem with your edits, per se, I just did not want to see the previous content deleted. Morgan Leigh has made some edits today that are close to what I am talking about. Let me know if I can be of any assistance. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


Thank you, that is much, much better.--207.81.94.148 (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merger

The article Hermetism, Hermeticism and other thought systems has been proposed for merger into this article. There is currently a section of the article already dealing with the subject, and the most relevant information can be merged into it. I would personally support such a merger, as having an entirely separate article dealing with the alleged impact of one belief system, which is in several ways difficult to differentiate with Gnosticism, seems to me to be giving undue weight to those particular sources who do make such differentiation. While the interrelationships of religions is important, and there is already an Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Interfaith work group to deal with such matters, lumping all this material together into an article which deals primarily with the idea from the viewpoint of what is probably the least significant of the faith traditions mentioned seems counterproductive and possibly POV pushing. I would support such a merger. John Carter (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - The merger would be complete POV pushing. The article exists because it can be sourced and it includes both arguments for interrelation, opposing ideas on interrelation, and detracting statements about the interrelation, all meticulously cited. There is clear differentiation between Hermetism and Hermeticism (which was in the process of being expanded and explained) and both of them and Gnosticism. These differences have been put forth and cited by reliable peer-reviewed sources from University presses. There is an attempt to improve Wikipedia's coverage of this topic in general, and it seems that everyone just came over from WP:FRINGE/Noticeboard to try to remove any attempt of expansion in some sort of thought that Hermetic thought is a fringe theory that should only be minimally covered. That is not the purpose of WP:FRINGE at all. I support the creation of similar articles on all of those subjects, but I am not responsible for creating them myself. This is deletionism at it's worst; attempting to minimize coverage on a subject no matter how well cited and how well its notability is proven. Such a merger would be of a detriment to Wikipedia.
However, let it be said that giving a brief synopsis here on the topics dealing specifically with Hermeticism, and in Hermetism, specifically with Hermetism, would be a good thing if the main article remains standing. That would improve Wikipedia, though improvement takes time, and I happen to be one of very few trying to add to this subject and the only one to add extensively. Please try to help me by expanding the coverage and countering any POV issues you might perceive with equally well referenced balancing material than deleting well cited text. KV(Talk) 02:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"Hermetism, Hermeticism and other thought systems" is not an arguable title. Perhaps something sensible could be produced under "History of Hermeticism" or similar, organized as a {{main}} article branching off this one. KV first needs to understand basic Wikipedia rules such as WP:SYN. If you want to discuss the cult of Hermes in classical antiquity (i.e. before Hellenism), you'll need another title. Try Hermes or Ancient Greek religion to begin with. "Hermetism" is used synonymously with "Hermeticism" and refers to the tradition of Late Antiquity (Hermetica) revived in the Renaissance. Discussion of an older cult is welcome, but will need excellent sources. Esotericist blather about Ancient Egypt isn't going to cut it. dab (𒁳) 06:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Peer-reviewed academic sources, which as per WP:RS are the sources which should be most strongly considered, discount Hermetism being any older than the 2nd century CE. These include The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions edited by John Bowker. If you can provide other academic peer-reviewed sources which substantially refute this, please do so. However, as stated above, they will have to be very reliable and relied-upon to prove that they do not qualify as fringe theories. The fact that the articles which have been recently worked on do their best to minimize, even to the point of not mentioning, the prevailing scientific consensus on the subject is evidence that, at present, the article already is pushing POV and fringe theories. Otherwise, it is at best very difficult to differentiate between Hermitism and the Gnostic tradition from which, to the best of my knowledge, the overwhelming majority of reliable sources believe Hermeticism arose from. John Carter (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just moved the comparative article to Hermetism and other religions (that seems to be standard). The article is still awful but at least the title isn't quite so painfully bad. I've also deleted some of the more outstanding claims - that the entire Pentateuch is a Hermetic text, and that Marx's theories were Hermeticism-inspired. I mean, WTF? Moreschi2 (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)