User talk:Tgeorgescu
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What is New Age? Definition of New Age / definitions © Tudor Georgescu 2002, unless quotations are used:
New Age: the ensemble of thelemic doctrines; Religion: the ensemble of thelesmic doctrines.
Thelema: behaving anarchically; expressed by Aleister Crowley in The Book of the Law as "Do what you wilt is the whole law."; Thelesma: aware choice; expressed by Hermes Trismegistus in The Emerald Tablet as discrimination.
The message of New Age: "You don't think. You're an animal. That's good. Enjoy!"; The message of religion: "You don't think. You're an animal. That's evil. Wake up!".
Apparently in the other category: Anthroposophy, Grail's Movement, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormonism.
Thelema is always the thelesma of another entity. This is proven by the New Age stance of renunciation to thinking, in search of a so-called peace of soul. Since good entities are not imposive, it follows that thelema is always evil. It is the displacement of personal will through the suggestions of another will. Its purpose is the entitive annihilation, and its consequences are anarchy and anomy.
The thelemic increment is the tiny and apparently innocent quantity of added thelema. On a longer period, the general decay becomes evident.
(Above thelesma means enabling personality and thelema means taking over a personality by giving it a twisted idea that it is able to do everything, with no consequences whatsoever).
Hello Tudor Georgescu, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you realize that by submiting your writing here, you are releasing it under the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows copying, redistribution and modification of your work by anyone. See Wikipedia:Copyrights for more details. -- Stephen Gilbert 15:03 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)
I quote from reiser4-for-2.6.19.patch by Laurent Riffard: tgeorgescu
"Further licensing options are available for commercial and/or other interests directly from Hans Reiser: reiser@namesys.com. If you interpret the GPL as not allowing those additional licensing options, you read it wrongly, and Richard Stallman agrees with me, when carefully read you can see that those restrictions on additional terms do not apply to the owner of the copyright, and my interpretation of this shall govern for this license." tgeorgescu
I quote from http://www.benedict.com/Info/Law/What.aspx : tgeorgescu
"Copyright protects expression. The Copyright Act of 1976 states that the items of expression can include literary, dramatic, and musical works; pantomimes and choreography; pictorial, graphic and sculptural works; audio-visual works; sound recordings; and architectural works. An original expression is eligible for copyright protection as soon as it is fixed in a tangible form." tgeorgescu
"Consequently, almost any original expression that is fixed in a tangible form is protected as soon as it is expressed. For example, a graphic created in Photoshop is protected as soon as the file is saved to disk. This Web page was protected as soon as I stopped typing and saved the .html file." tgeorgescu
On GFDL, I quote http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.txt : tgeorgescu
"The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other functional and useful document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially. Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others." tgeorgescu
So, if somebody modifies my work so that violence is being suggested, I am not responsible for that. But, I maintain the authorship of the text I wrote, even if it is freely available for everybody to read and comment it. Naturally, I don't charge money for reading it. tgeorgescu
Btw, I don't mind that people copy and/or re-write what I write. According to my guru, one writes something down precisely because he/she wants everybody else to do whatever they please with his/her written words. E.g., the Bible has been mocked in innumerable ways, the same can be said of Shakespeare or Plato. The noble words of Socrates were raw matter for Aristofanes' scorn. And for Nietzsche's contempt. So, by writing something down, one consents that this is a pearl (if indeed a pearl) offered to the swines. So, it is understandable that esoteric groups are fond of secrecy, because they do not want their pearls to go to the swines. tgeorgescu
[edit] Could you
please move your addition to the Aleister Crowley talk page to the bottom. I can see what you wrote in the diff, but can't actually find it on the talk page. Normally, new responses on the talk page should be added at the bottom, not to some old section nobody is paying attention to anymore. IPSOS (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oops, sorry. I will do it. Tgeorgescu 07:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Original research/vandalism to Rudolf Steiner page
Wikipedia guidelines exclude original research in articles, especially when it appears to be vandalism as in this recent edit to the Rudolf Steiner page. Hgilbert 15:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I understand it is wrong to insert my own viewpoints in Wikipedia. However, it remains a fact that Rudolf Steiner was an egoist. He never disputed this fact, on the contrary, he wrote very favorable reviews of egoist authors (as Max Stirner and Friederich Nietzsche) and he praised egoism on many occasions. He was also a supporter of amoralism, perhaps this counts as original research, but this amoralism is totally Rudolf Steiner's, it is not a label applied to him from outside. Tgeorgescu 16:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Besides, it is not demonstrated that I was writing that in bad faith, so perhaps it cannot count as vandalism. Tgeorgescu 16:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
It is not vandalism if it was not done with the intention of disrupting the article, and I understand now you acted out of good will. I have struck out the suggestion that this might be so.
There are two issues here: one, the rules of Wikipedia; two, the ideas of Steiner.
- Wikipedia does have clear guidelines about an editor not putting in his/her own formulations, even if based upon a carefully built case and backed up with evidence; instead, we as editors should report on the conclusions drawn by authorities in the field. It's well worth reading the guidelines as to where the line is to be drawn between reporting on conclusions and drawing one's own. In particular, in the Steiner and related articles, arbitrators of an earlier dispute set down the guideline that Steiner's works should not be drawn upon in controversial areas; rather, independent authorities should be cited. This is because it is easy to come to opposing interpretations of the same passages, or find passages that seem to support even diametrically opposed conclusions about his ideas.
- In English, Steiner's position would be more commonly called ethical individualism than egoism, especially as he, as you point out, frequently pointed out the limitations on the ego and the importance of community (see his fundamental social law, for example). Hgilbert 00:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
By the way, only peer-reviewed, print-published, non-polemical sources should be used; see Verifiability standards to clarify this (and for exceptions). Hgilbert 00:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
