Talk:Red string (Kabbalah)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Kabbalah Portal This article is supported by the Kabbalah WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to Kabbalah-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
	The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

[edit] Superstition

Hi, There was a challenge to my edits. Firstly. Take a look at the wikipedia article on superstition and see if the red string doesn't match perfectly the definition of superstition. Secondly. It doesn't matter whether you believe or don't believe in red-string there is no evidence that it wards off bad luck. This is not a matter of opinion. If you have any evidence then please source. Thanks Christianjb 06:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Christianjb: This is like asking for a "scientific" confirmation of Jesus' Resurrection and Ascension --> there is NONE. In fact many people think it's all phony-baloney. The best one can do is DESCRIBE and EXPLAIN what Christians believe/write/claim about it. Similarly here, the first job is to DESCRIBE and EXPLAIN what those who put on these red strings rely on in terms of Judaism, and only then later one may add the criticisms. But it is incorrect and unfair either to the Christian view of Jesus or to the Kaballistic views of red strings to place the criticims at the center. To do that would mean that nothing is ever understood the way its practitioners view it, if only the views of the sceptics are given prominence. IZAK 09:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. I respectfully disagree! In a fact-based encyclopedia we shouldn't just list people's competing opinions and give equal prominence to all sides. It's important to note the underlying facts behind the opinions and note if the facts themselves are controversial. It is a fact that there is no published evidence showing that wearing red string works. As I said- it really doesn't matter if someone believes in red string or not- you can't deny that there is no evidence to support this belief. If people wish- they can choose to believe in the powers of a piece of red string- that is a matter of faith. However if they want to claim that there is empirical support for this belief then they should be able to source it. Similarly, I think it's perfectly relevant to state that there is no scientific/historical support for the claimed ressurection of Jesus. I'm not being skeptical here- I'm being realistic. To the extent that skeptics adhere to factual views then I side with them when it comes to editing an encyclopedia. I am not criticizing anyone's faith. Christianjb 09:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• My main point is structural, and I have this debate with many people. You cannot start with a criticism of any phenomenon, whether it is ultimately real or false, without FIRST describing and explaining what it is that you are talking about. That is the correct empirical way of analyzing anything and everything. You cannot commnece with a critique from a newspaper and then work backwards (that's POV). You cannot call something a "superstition" (also POV until clarified): without first knowing what you are dealing with. Sure, you may call it that in your conclusion, but first try to find out what it is in terms of its original setting. You know, I once tried to add the "anti-Communist opinion" into the article (it's actually a disambiguation page) about Communist revolution that "Non-communists and anti-communists view such a revolution as a violent imposition of an anti-liberal and anti-democratic totalitarian dictatorship on a state." [1] and I couldn't get the chief editor there to accept that, he had to revert me [2] and cut out my comments. I left it that, I can't fight all the battles... So that's the way it works, first we present the subject in terms of its own identity, and then only subsequently do we add on critiques and refutations if that's how it's seen (but many times you can't even do that because editorial opposition is too strong)....so be happy that the subject here is not communism... IZAK 09:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I mostly agree with what you've said. I worry a little that articles like this can have the appearence of conferring factual status on very controversial topics. There ought to be a clear way for the reader in distinguishing red string from string-theory- from shoelaces. One is very controversial that is not backed up by any empirical evidence (again I don't consider that a point of view at all!). The second is controversial, is again not backed up by any empirical evidence, but is at least taken seriously by many scientists (maybe that's a POV) and the third is completely uncontroversial fact (no-one denies the existance of shoelaces?). Well, I'm a little happier with the article as it stands for the time being. Thanks for taking the time to explain your position. Christianjb 10:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, Christianjb, you are always going to have these problems with articles relating to any religion or any forms of spiritual practices, since they are not subjects relating to "science" or scientific metthods as such, they will never have the qualities of how materialistic and worldy things are presented and understood. It would be a gross insult and injustice to any religion or spiritual way of worship to present it in terms of its critics views about it and not first how it views and functions on its own. How else would one grasp its appeal or success as a religious or spiritual practice then? Religion and science may over-lap at times but they are diffrent domains of knowledge and experience. One cannot and should not rail-road the other. Then also, rationalism and mysticism are different (even contrary) ways of understanding faith and God but they are also not to be seen as crushing each other, each must be understood in its own terms first, and then one can offer up the critiques of one against the other. There has to be a method which should never be based on a rush to judgment without deeper exploration and considerable meditation. Just some thoughts. IZAK 10:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

But it's completely irrelevant whether a member of a religious group finds a Wikipedia page insulting if it conflicts with the facts. It's very easy- everyone is welcome to their religious faith- but as soon as they make a statement about the factual world, then they have to prove those facts. I'm not sure if it applies here though- since the 'evil eye' is just as much a superstitious belief as red-string, if someone feels that red-string wards off the evil-eye then that's fine. If however, they claim that it increases their luck or health, well that's a claim that has no factual basis and should be reported as such. This may not seem very important in the context of red-string- but some religious beliefs are extremely contentious and have real-world ramifications. Christianjb 11:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

No you are incorrect. Wikipedia does not share your POV. Wikipedia articles are not POV forums for members of any "groups", religious or secular. What Wikipedia tries to do is present the views of a subject in order to know and grasp it. In this case the subject is "red string", a sub-set of Kabbalah, which is sub-set of Judaism, which is a sub-set of religion. The way you view the "factual world" is your POV, but the way "red-string" either fits in with Kabbalah and Judaism is NPOV because it is in fact part of that field called "Kabbalah" whether one accepts it or not. The "evil eye" is most certainly NOT a "superstitious belief" as far as almost all Orthodox Jews are concerned (go ask any if you know them), unless you want to say that all Orthodox Judaism is "superstition" too, which is gross POV. Not everyone lives in the same "real world" you know. A Hindu's "real world" is a lot different to a Christian's "real world". A heathen's "real world" is not the same as a monotheist's "real world". You are falling into the trap of thinking that everyone lives in only one type of "real world" when in fact they don't. So it's not helpful to pre-judge something and criticize before first grasping what it means in terms of its own context first, then move on from there later on and draw conclusions to your heart's delight. But don't project your own conclusions first before you have explained what the subject is in terms of its own context. This is not so hard to grasp. IZAK 03:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to convince you- I can see that. I'm a scientist by profession who deals with the real factual world. By your standards it would seem that science is a point of view- and that seems a little sad to me. As a scientist I accept that everyone does live in the same factual world- with the same value of PI and the gravitational constant. I completely accept that people can be said to live in different mental subjective worlds. It doesn't matter to me whether orthodox Jews believe the evil-eye is not superstition. The fact is that there's no empirical evidence to show that the evil-eye exists (except as a subjective belief). If someone wants to do fund research to prove otherwise- then by all means go ahead. Also, don't lecture me on how to be a good Wikipedian or a good human. You seem to be taking offense at me including factual information in this article- which is a shame. That's what encyclopedias are for. I have gone along with most of your edits and allowed your modifications to my edits in most cases. I have bowed to your authority on Judaism and freely accepted that I am wholly ignorant of Jewish/Kabbalistic theology.Christianjb 03:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Also- take a look at the Wikipedia article on evil eye. The introductory sentence is: The evil eye is a widely distributed element of folklore or superstition Presumably you think that should be changed to protect people's sensibilities. Christianjb 03:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I've been looking at NPOV guidelines. I think we could both cite many sentences which appear to back each of us up. I would however like to quote:

" the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories."

Red string is obviously a fantastically minority point of view amongst scientists, since there is absolutely no empirical evidence to back it up. Same for evil-eye. I'm not denigrating people who believe in either- but the articles should at least reflect this. At the moment I think the article is actually pretty fair and in accordance with the NPOV guidelines.Christianjb 03:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Further clarification. You informed me that "Wikipedia articles are not POV forums for members of any "groups", religious or secular". I agree with that. Did I say anything contradictory to that? No? Well we agree then. Also, from the Wiki NPOV tutorial [3]I quote

"Some Wikipedians, in the name of neutrality, try to avoid making any statements that other people find offensive or objectionable, even if objectively true. This is not the intent of striving for neutrality. Many groups would prefer that certain facts be stated euphemistically, or only in their own terminology, or suppressed outright; such desires need not be deferred to. On the other hand, these terms should be presented, explained and examples given, perhaps with views of other groups of why the term is used as well as the group itself."

This was precisely my point. So- please, be careful about telling others what Wikipedia does and doesn't allow. It would perhaps be best to source your criticisms using quotes from the NPOV pages (like I'm doing).

Christianjb 04:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Christianjb: Allow me to reply to your above points (categorically):

1. Science is not religion, no matter which way you slice it, so to attempt to explain one in terms of the other is to fall into the trap of illogic known as "comparing oranges with apples", it just won't work.
2. We are not documenting what "Orthodox Jews", or anyone else, believes or not. The question before us is what Kabbalah or Judaism teaches or says about a subject, in this case the "red string", a rather arcane piece of knowledge.
3. "Demanding" to see if and how it "works" may perhaps be similar to requesting to witness before our very eyes here and now an act whereby an ape-like creature evolves into a human, impossible indeed, even though many good scientists think it's a "fact" when it's only a far-fetched theory akin to a real superstition.
4. It's not just that people live in different "mental" worlds, but you fail to accept that people live in different spiritual and religious worlds, something that science cannot teach about, because science deals with the known (from scio "to know" and that's it), and not with what it cannot measure, which does not mean to say that the religious world-view is thus banned from Wikipedia (for proof see all the articles dealing religion/s).
5. The Wikipedia article on evil eye does not convey Judaism's views, it only mentions them in passing together with other strange views. If I were to re/write Evil eye (Kabbalah) it would make clear (i.e. explain and describe in its own terms) what the notion is first before judging it to be a "superstition" which is a POV statement.
6. Your quote "the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific)," BUT it simply does NOT apply in this case, because the subject here is not connected to "pseudoscience" -- but rather it's connected to Religion (i.e Judaism) and I dare you to go onto Religion's talk page/s (or Judaism's etc.) and call it all "pseudoscientific" -- you would be harshly dismissed for misapplying descriptions. Kindly do not equate Science fiction with Religion.
7. The article of "red string" is not meant to be guided by "scientists views" of it or by any other self-appointed group that knows nothing about religious subjects, which would not help explaining it in the first instances. It's like applying Freud's so-called definition of religion (as some kind of "projection" or whatever "thingamabob") and hoping that all other people should buy into Freud's standard/s and "definitions" because Freud is called a "Dr". It just won't wash with those who do not adhere to the cult of Psychoanalysis.
8. I have no problems with what you quote "On the other hand, these terms should be presented, explained and examples given, perhaps with views of other groups of why the term is used as well as the group itself" and I happen to agree. But always use common sense! For example: Would you think it's very "clever" to go into every article connected to Islam and point out to all the ways other religions or sciences agree or disagree with it? It would be foolsih and counter-prodctive and create mass chaos!
9. Finally, thanks for your positive points, and I appreciate your attentiveness. IZAK 07:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, after reading your comments on evolution- I can see that there's little common ground between us. If you wish to think that explaining variability in nature, discovering DNA, decoding the human genome and understanding modern biology is on a par with wearing a little bit of red string around your wrist so that a deity knows to bring you good-luck -- well I guess you're not going to accept the same factual world as understood by most scientists. This seems to me like comparing the Tooth Fairy and Quantum Mechanics. Anyway- I've had enough of this debate. The article isn't too bad and that's what this discussion page should be about. We're not here to convert eachother. By the way- yes- I do think it's entirely appropriate to edit articles connected to Islam, to show where Islam disagrees with modern science. I've done exactly that with numerous creationist articles- in a way that I hope is balanced and adheres to the Wikipedia NPOV. Christianjb 07:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Yea, I know, the poor "Creationist" articles are actually the Whipping boy subjects and articles for anyone who wants to trash the God and religion of the Bible, but few people would actually dare to take on the Islam-related articles because those guys fight back, if you know what I mean. Please don't trivialize even minute concepts. It is sad that you "believe" in Evolutionistic theories that people come out of apes, have you (or anyone you know) ever seen it happen, so how can you accept it's veracity, it's just no different than any incredulous tale from the Brothers Grimm for the gullible. IZAK 11:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Standard Kabbalah practice?

Also, it was my vague understanding that using red string is not even a standard practice amongst adherents of the Kabbalah. It's more of a fringe affectation adopted by the London Kabbalah center and other non-mainstream institutions. Can someone comment on this and add to the article if need be. Thanks Christianjb 09:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Nothing in Kabbalah is "standard practice" because by definition Kabbalah itself is NOT the "standard practice" of Judaism nor is it meant to be. A lot of stuff that true Kabbalists do is esoteric and would not make "sense" in the traditional sense of even traditional Judaism. So we must proceed with great caution when touching on topics associated with it in any way. The commercialization of Kabbalah has only added to the mass confusion and ignorance about an inherently abstruse subject. IZAK 10:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I plead total ignorance! I'd like to see other's thoughts on this though. Christianjb 10:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ask the Rabbi?

Pleading ignorance! but is this quotation appropriate? Is this a particularly well known Rabbi? How do I know that you've not just chosen a quote you happen to agree with? Religion is difficult... you can find a Rabbi, Priest etc. who can agree with or argue against just about anything. I'd prefer you kept it to reasonably factual/historical quotes, or at the very least, that quote should be placed in a better context. Let's not get into a situation where someone else puts another equally long rabbinical quote with the oppositie opinions. Christianjb 09:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Well, as a long-time editor of Jewish articles on Wikipedia, I searched for a source that would reflect the basic classical Jewish view. The source is very reliable. Ohr Somayach, Jerusalem is a well-known and reliable Talmudical school that specializes in explaining tough subjects about Judaism to novices. Would you rather I quoted the Pope on this :-) ? IZAK 10:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Since I'm not a Catholic and not a Christian, not that it matters, I don't know why you would bring up the pope. I'm also not Jewish, so I have no idea how authoritive the quote is. Christianjb 10:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I am just using analogies which I assumed may make sense to you. Feel free to be whatever you are...this is Wikipedia. IZAK 10:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Well- after warning against it- I eventually decided to supply an alternative rabbinical quote! Of course, I have no idea which quote is the more authorative or has more support amongst the Jewish or Kabbalist communities. One of the two Rabbis may be completely on the fringe. I will bow to people with more authority on this issue to put these quotes in better context.

Actually you have chosen from a reliable source, because both Aish HaTorah and Ohr Somayach, Jerusalem are identical institutions and in actual fact purvey similar "world-views" about Orthodox Judaism, so you have ironically actually re-inforced the proofs for the red string in most ways. IZAK 02:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like a reinforcement of proof to me- but then again I'm not a rabbinical scholar. It may be worth editing the text to show that the two institutions are the same- which I did not realise (but have no problem with)Christianjb 02:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The two institutions are not "the same", but they are very similar, like Oxford and Cambridge, of the Baal teshuva ("Returness to Judaism") world. IZAK 03:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)