Talk:Prometheus Rising

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Books Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Prometheus Rising article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Uncited paraphrase 2 Style 3 Law of accelerating returns 4 Online version availability

[edit] Uncited paraphrase

The first paragraph contains a paraphrase of an introduction by Israel Regardie:

Found this on: http://www.eurotrib.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2006/6/25/213810/651

"Imagine trying to make sense of an amalgam of Timothy Leary's eight neurological circuits, Gurdjieff's self-observation exercises, Korzybski's general semantics, Aleister Crowley's magical theorems, the several disciplines of Yoga, Christian Science, relativity and modern quantum mechanics, and many other approaches to understanding the world around us! A man is required with an almost encyclopaedic education, an incredibly flexible mind, insights as sharp as those whom he is trying to synthesise and mirabile dictu, a wonderful sense of humour." --Israel Regardie, Introduction to Prometheus Rising, p17

I dont have the book so I cannot confirm

Mleinart 08:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I do own this book in German translation and can confirm the aforementioned citation from the introduction. --84.62.202.236 17:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Style

The article's current style violates Wikipedia:NPOV consistently. Someone who knows the book should fix it. Michaelbusch 17:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is a veritable torrent of undiluted crap. It is unclear to what extent it is salvageable. It violates not only WP:NPOV, but the guidelines on fringe theories and other such matters quite brutally as well. The content needs to be placed in the context of orthodox knowledge of the world (this is an encyclopaedia, after all) by someone who has the time and patience to do so. Rosenkreuz 10:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not an article about any scientific theory or theories. It is an article about a non-fiction book. __meco 10:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of that. Only the article is being used to articulate, in detail, the particular pseudoscientific theory of consciousness which is put forth in the book. Hence, if it wants to describe the contents of the book, it needs to contextualise such contents within the broader picture of established knowledge in the field. Else, the last section about the `eight-fold model' or whatever should just be removed altogether. Rosenkreuz 10:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Then reverting my edit objecting very politely to using Category Pseudoscience is hardly right.--Alf ^melmac 10:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Having gone through the history of the article edit by edit, the whole section about 8-Circuit Model of Consciousness was added in one edit, and as we have an article about that idea, and it being mentioned as the basis of the book in the opening lines, the whole thing could go - if it only the 'improvements' Wilson made to Leary's ideas I would be happier about it but I see no point in it being there in its current format.--Alf ^melmac 15:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I can understand the criticism of the deleted article as being almost the same as the wiki-entry for Timothy Leary's 8-Circuit Model. But it doesn't show manners that some people feel the need to come up with phrases like 'gobbledygook' and 'bullshit' for an article that simply summaries what this book is about. If the removed article is criticized for being unscientific, than this book shouldn't be labeled 'non-fiction' in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.247.77.14 (talk) 14:36, January 17, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Law of accelerating returns

Can somebody explain the reason to have mutual "See also"s with Law of accelerating returns? I have read Prometheus Rising but it's been a while; I don't remember any reference to this concept. Brianhe 00:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Since no reply, have deleted the See also. Brianhe 19:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The reference comes from the chapter dealing with the third circuit of consciousness and passing knowledge through generations. I can't remember the exact details right now, but it's elaborated on for a decent few pages. 205.174.160.6 18:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Online version availability

An anon user left a URL to a PDF-edition of Prometheus Rising which was swiftly removed on grounds of copyright infringement. Since there is a possibility that the publisher has given, or would be willing to give, permission for someone to publish an online version of the book (albeit perhaps not under a free licence), maybe someone could contact New Falcon Publications at info@newfalcon.com to solicit a clarification on this issue.

I can imagine several countries where ownership of this book would be frowned upon by the authorities as subversive (it is a very subversive book, I'm sure many who have in fact read it will agree), hence making an e-book the only realistic opportunity for reading it. __meco 06:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)