Goethean

== Welcome == Hello, Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers to Wikipedia. Thanks for reverting the vandalism on Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. If you need to do it again, there are some tips at Wikipedia:revert. Other useful pages are: Wikipedia:How to edit a page, Wikipedia:How to write a great article, Wikipedia:Naming conventions, Wikipedia:Manual of Style and the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. If you have any questions, see the Wikipedia:Help, add a question to the Wikipedia:village pump or ask me on User_talk:Angela. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedia:Wikipedians! User:Angelauser talk:Angela 21:35, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC) == Ken Wilber == I'm fairly sure it has not been rewritten enough so I've removed it for now. It needs to be significantly different from the original to prevent it looking like plagiarism. I've noted this on talk:Ken Wilber too. User:Angelauser talk:Angela 21:56, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC) == Gandhicon == Just a heads-up, Gandhicon has been moved to GandhiCon. --User:Dante Alighieri | User talk:Dante Alighieri 20:26, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC) == Article Licensing == Hi, I've User:rambot#Free the Rambot Articles project to get users to Wikipedia:Multi-licensing all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (''CC-by-sa'') v1.0 and v2.0 Creative Commons Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The ''CC-by-sa'' license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at ''minimum'' those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information: *User talk:Ram-Man#Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered *Wikipedia:Multi-licensing *User:rambot#Free the Rambot Articles project To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "" template into their user page, but there are other options at Wikipedia:Template messages/User namespace#Licensing Templates. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page: :Option 1 :I agree to Wikipedia:Multi-licensing all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below: : OR :Option 2 :I agree to Wikipedia:Multi-licensing all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below: : Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "" with "". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. ''Please let me know'' what you think at my User talk:Ram-Man. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- User:Ram-Man ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit§ion=new comment]| User talk:Ram-Man == Snide, me? == Ouch ... but I'm afraid you're right. Time for me to detox from New Page watch for a while, where wallowing through the vandalism, half-baked non-ideas, and "XXX is gay" rants can sour even a wiki-optimist. I'll only work on creating or improving *good* pages until I'm my old sunny self again. - User:DavidWBrooks 16:38, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) == ID == Thanks from one zen practioner to another. User:Stirling Newberry 22:24, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) == :Category:Contemporary_Philosophers == I deleted :Category:Contemporary_Philosophers as requested on the Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance). You can also add for a Wikipedia:Speedy deletions for cases like this. More controversial deletions have to go through Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. BTW, do you know that you can sign your edits with ~~~~? Happy editing -- User:Chris 73 User talk:Chris 73 07:17, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC) == Andrew Cohen == What was wrong with just Wikipedia:reverting it to the non-violating version of 18:34, 2004 Sep 21 by User:Andries? Surely that would have been preferable to what is now in the rewrite at Andrew Cohen/Temp? Now we're going to lose all of that work. User:Uncle G 20:28, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC) *I believe that the verbiage at Andrew Cohen/Temp is another copyvio anyways. So now I have reverted to Andries' version, which I must have missed first time around. --User:Goethean 20:44, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) **That was my belief, too. ☺ I've marked Andrew Cohen/Temp as a speedy deletion candidate. User:Uncle G 20:52, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC) ***Did you see the author's comments at Talk:Andrew Cohen? --User:Goethean 20:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) == FACTS VfD == I am no longer participating in Wikipedia. User:Stirling Newberry 04:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==Human== Goethean, could I ask you to consider working with us at Talk:Human to come up with a consensus version we can all live with? Quite a few editors object to the old version, and around the same number to the new version, so the best thing is to start from scratch and build it up slowly, which is what my compromise suggestion intends. Please do make suggestions for what you'd like to see added, or make the additions yourself. I'd be genuinely interested to hear your views. Then once we have a working model up and running, we can compare it to the old and the new versions, and see what the overall consensus is. Would that work for you? Best, User:SlimVirgin 08:49, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC) :I want the wikipedia to acknowledge multiple points of view, and you want it to claim that all points of view except for reductive biologism are illegitimate. I don't see room for compromise there. --User:Goethean 14:17, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) :What was wrong with the version of 1 March 2005? --User:Goethean 14:21, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==Alien Point of View== Hello! On Talk:Human you say: ''"The scientific viewpoint should be noted as such. There is a difference between the beliefs of biologists and reality"''. You might find this odd, but I must confess that I am utterly bewildered by this comment! It is very alien to me, right down to the use of english. I'd like to understand what your POV is so I can understand it better. If it helps, I'll go first: I'm (officially ''almost'') a biologist and hmm, well, from my point of view: * I don't hold beliefs wrt biology (well not wrt the scientific part of it) * the whole point of science is to discover what reality is. So basically a scientific statement made at any one time is supposed to be the best representation of reality that you are going to hear at that point in time. So that really differs with what seem to be a number of assumptions/beliefs/ideas that are behind your statement. If you might, would you care to grant me some of your time and enlighten me as to what those are and why you hold them, please? Thanks very much if you do! :-) User:Kim Bruning 22:38, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) : My views are very similar to those of the philosopher Ken Wilber -- I wrote the article on him. Yes, your views are what you concieve as reality, but so are the views of religious adherents. Science ''should'' be privileged above the claims of narrow religion --- see my contributions to Talk:Intelligent Design for my ferocious attitude towards creationists. This is because science is formalized observation, while dogmatic religion is sort of pre-formalized. But that doesn't make religion pure fiction. It is sort of distorted observation. And science is ''less'' distorted, but not ''un''distorted. The conclusions of science are not the end of the story. Thus, a balanced view goes as follows: science says x, religions say y, z and q. This is not to pit science against religion, it is to try to achieve balance by giving each its due. After all, this is a better outcome than a continual edit war between science and religion, and that's sort of what you have in the American "culture wars". The ultimate goal is to achieve an integrated or holistic viewpoint that accounts for how some responsible observers can reach the conclusions of science, while other responsible observers can reach the conclusions of religion, and still others can reach other conclusions. Wilber has written a book on science and religion called "The Marriage of Sense and Soul: Integrating Science and Religion" --User:Goethean 23:01, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) :: Thank you kindly! Let me think about your answer for a while. If I have any questions later, I hope you don't mind if I come back? :-) User:Kim Bruning 23:30, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::You are always welcome. --User:Goethean == NPOV: revolting? == ::Hope you two don't mind if I butt in here. Actually Rednblu, I think that NPOV is an unsurpassingly beautiful concept. It's just not being followed on the Talk:Human page. --User:Goethean 20:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::* Yes, hello, Goethean. Good to have you in all of the conversations on the many pages. 8)) I guess I wrote carelessly on User talk:Hawstom without thinking enough how it would "sound." I agree wholeheartedly with you--that 1) NPOV is an unsurpassingly beautiful concept and 2) NPOV is not being followed on the Talk:Human page. The rest of what I said has some faulty Boolean logic. 8)) As you point out, obviously ''some'' people "who know in their heart with certainty unquestioned that Religion is wrong" ''are'' insisting that NPOV in its unsurpassingly beauty should be respected. Would you agree? ---User:Rednblu | User talk:Rednblu 00:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) Goethean, I am learning a lot from you. Please see my talk page for some thoughts on Rednblu and NPOV. User:Hawstom 19:55, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC) ==Hinduism: God and Man== Goethan, here are my thoughts. Hinduism is not one religion but four religions, Smartism, Shaivism, Shaktism and Saivism. This is not suprising as the religion is over 5000 years old. Just as Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the same God but slightly differ in conceptions of God, Hindus all believe in one God but differ in their conceptions, the major difference between conceiving of God as Vishnu or Siva. Basically, God is conceived as Vishnu or Shiva (Vaishnavism , and [Saivism and Shaktism] separately, and Smartism which considers all forms of God the same and a semantic difference. Smartism closely followed Advaita philosophy. The belief that man is essentially identical with the eternal immaterial spirit is only true of Advaita which stressed the impersonal Brahman and not a personal God unlike Ramanuja and Madhva who stressed a personal God like the Judaeo-Christian religions: The following web sites will give you a good overview of the relationship between Man and God. http://www.nalanda.demon.co.uk/vedanta.htm#The%20Theist%20Revolt and http://www.dlshq.org/download/hinduismbk.htm#_VPID_93 The major philisophical school is Vedanta which is divided into Dvaita, Visishtadvaita and Advaita "iritual experiences. Dualism, Qualified Monism, Pure Monism—all these culminate eventually in the Advaita Vedantic realisation of the Absolute or the transcendental Trigunatita Ananta Brahman. Sivananada said the following: Madhva said: “Man is the servant of God,” and established his Dvaita philosophy. Ramanuja said: “Man is a ray or spark of God,” and established his Visishtadvaita philosophy. Sankara said: “Man is identical with Brahman or the Eternal Soul,” and established his Kevala Advaita philosophy. A Dvaitin wants to serve the Lord as a servant. He wishes to play with the Lord. He wishes to taste the sugar-candy. A Visishtadvaitin wants to become like Lord Narayana and enjoy the divine. He does not wish to merge himself or become identical with the Lord. He wishes to remain as a spark. A Jnani merges himself in Brahman. He wishes to become identical with Brahman. He wants to become the sugar-candy itself." Hope this helps. Raj2004 Goethan, read this link, Question #7 in http://www.ssvt.org/Education/Hinduism%20FAQ.asp#What%20are%20the%20different%20schools%20of%20Hinduism?%20What%20is%20their%20basis%20to%20be%20called%20different%20schools%20of%20Hinduism?%20Are%20they%20important%20to%20understand?|Different Please read question #7. Raj2004 ==Martin Heidegger quotes == Hi, the reason givenfor deleting all your quotes from this article was that most of them were unreferenced. Could you provide the source of each quote, that is, the work of Heidegger in which it appears, please? And if possible the edition and page number. --User:Tony Sidaway|User talk:Tony Sidaway 16:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==Talk: Human== The info is valid, however after removal of the sentence that it commented, I removed it because I did not see it relevant to discussion anymore. If you insist, I'll just rewrite it and leave it there. --User:Eleassar777 18:11, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) :Oh...I didn't know that the sentence that it commented on had been removed. Sorry. --User:Goethean 18:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) =="involutions", not "involution"== Please. The article titled ''involution'' is ''not'' about "involution in mathematics"; it's about ''involutions'' (plural!) in mathematics. User:Michael Hardy 23:37, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Holistic science? == Hi. I found you in the history of the Ken Wilber article. I recently picked up the orphaned Holistic science page and I'm floundering around looking for other people who might be interested in the subject. I am extremely lacking in knowledge of the subject, but find myself drawn to it nonetheless. Therefore I would appreciate the opportunity to interact with people who are more knowledgeable. The first question I wanted to ask was: Are you in favor of having an article with the title Holistic science? I have also created "Non-reductionist science" as a redirect to it. --User:Smithfarm 13:35, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::I have a couple of responses. One, there is clearly a methodology that Sheldrake and others use, and skeptics cannot tenably argue against accurately describing that methodology. Maybe it should be called something other than holistic science, although I see nothing wrong with that name. The simple fact is that there are several scientists and theorists who call themselves holists. One wonders what possible objection there would be to calling their activities "holistic science." Especially when "holistic science" brings up 10,000 google hits. Hello! ::Ken Wilber talks frequently about "narrow science" and "broad science." In his usage, the latter is what he is doing, and includes, for example, the testimony of mystics, which would be ignored or explained away by "narrow science." I havent read Wilber's book on science, but I have read his more philosophical works which do touch on the subject. [http://www.sheldrake.org/glossary/ Here] is another good reference. Sheldrake seems to call his scientific methodological paradigm "holism" or "organicism." ::Two, I'm not sure whether "Goethean methodology" refers to the method of Goethe's ''Theory of Colors'', or to Rudolf Steiner, or to both. I am familiar with the Theory of Colors, but not with Steiner. Perhaps User:M Alan Kazlev (who maintains an enormously informative website on New Age ideas) could hep us with the Steiner aspect. ::Three, perhaps the article should be re-written (again), in response to the complaints of skeptics. Simply asserting that the methodologies of Goethe, Steiner, Sheldrake and Wilber diverge from that of reductionistic or physicalistic science seems like a pretty uncontroversial claim. I'm not sure if we can include Wolfram in that group, however. --User:Goethean 16:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) : Thanks a lot. I'm completely in favor of any attention (up to and including complete rewriting) you care to give to the page. I haven't had the opportunity yet to read any of the books you are referring to, or that I have linked to on the page - I was just shooting in the dark from stuff I found while Googling. So if any are inappropriate (Wolfram?) then I would suggest they be removed. The Goethean methodology is something I inherited from an earlier, somewhat incoherent version of the page. Maybe it, too, can be simply left out. Anyway, would you mind if I copied my question and your answer over to the Holistic science talk page? --User:Smithfarm 20:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::That's fine. --User:Goethean 22:07, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==216.45.221.155/Paul Vogel== It's been determined that User:216.45.221.155 (User talk:216.45.221.155 · Special:Contributions/216.45.221.155) is in fact User:Paul Vogel. I've banned 216.45.221.155 for an initial period of 24 hours until I can ascertain the proper procedure with an IP-address sockpuppet of a banned User. User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 21:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Greetings == Sorry I was not around for the VfD on Facts, but after increasing levels of right wing hostility and the corruption of the judicial process on wikipedia, I have decided to focus on my professional writing, instead of dealing with the constant threats and unpleasantness that seems to attend working on wikipedia. User:Stirling Newberry 18:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) == ID == Editorial, yes, pov, no. A fact is presented, and then a comment (albeit a rather leading comment) is made. I would have a hard time calling it pov. Not to mention, that your promise to remove pov contradicts the Sanger quote on your user page - Sanger said present all povs. I think I good case can be made for rewording that sentance, but on a page like this it would be much better done on the Talk page. In addition, your edit summary was misleading. User:Guettarda 18:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==That "M Document" at ''Gospel of Matthew''== This seemingly very knowing reference was added by a discontented Christianist a while back. No information. Does it mean ''anything'' to you? See my note at Talk:Gospel of Matthew''. Thanks! --User:Wetman 20:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Human == I think the current issue is an acceptable compromise for now. I would prefer that the paragraphs after paragraph one would begin: :Biologically, ... :Behaviorially, ... :Spritually, ... And that the paragraph be a little different - however, I don't think it warrants a totally disputed tag. I have read your comments. 20:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) clarification: The Vedas and the Upanishads which follow are anonymous because they are considered to smrti or revealed scripture, the word of God, in Hinduism, which has no author, in contrast to shruti, what is remmbered, and is written by man. See Hindu scripture Bhagavad Gita is in fact transcribed down by Vyasa Raj2004 == "Wholism" == I see what you mean. I've followed your example, and made it a redirect. By the standards of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion it could be simply deleted, in fact. Let's see what happens next. User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 17:06, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Guru == hi Goethen, Thanks for your invitation to view on the article on Guru. I dont think i can make much contribution to the article in its present stage. There is a lot that can be added - difference between acharya and Guru, guru-geeta etc. User:Ramashray 05:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC) == Integral Wiki == hi Goethean I was very interested by your suggestion of an integral wiki and had a look at that site, but there doesnt appear to be much there, and the articles that are there are mostly pretty brief. An Integral Wiki project would be a very interesting and worthy ideal, but it would be extremely tedious to have to rewrite everything from scratch. Why doesnt the integral wiki use the same GNU open source licence as wikipedia? If it did we could just copy over relevant articles from the wikipedia, and then develop them along integral lines. By the way, have you seen the [http://www.integrativespirituality.org/postnuke/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=phpWiki&file=index Wisdom Wiki]? Covers pretty much the same ground, but has longer entries. -User:M Alan Kazlev 07:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC) == Thanks for drawing my attention! == Yes, I am following GURU article with interest. Yet reading all those controversial points makes one exasperating. Let all this cool down. I am thinking of making some additions here and there after due pause. Thanks for drawing my attention. *User:Swami Vimokshananda 05:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC) ==I do not make edits in bad faith== You may consider my edits against in guru against NPOV but I sincerely believe that I make good edits. Why is it so difficult to accept different perspectives in the article on gurus? The Hindu view on gurus is just one of many possible. User:Andries 20:34, 5 May 2005 (UTC) :I told you that I was done with this conversation. You believe that the article on gurus should be at least 50% criticisms of gurus. I believe that gurus are an integral part of Eastern religion and the article should discuss the concept as a part of Eastern religion. You are only interested in using the article to broadcast unsubstantiated allegations. I consider that writing in bad faith. You cannot be reasoned with. I am through wasting my time with you. --User:Goethean 21:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC) == Re: Talk:Guru#proposal == Wow, you sound great! I'd be glad to help you put a POV header on Human, if you explain precisely how it discriminates against religion. ''User:Sam Spade'' 17:13, 7 May 2005 (UTC) :Hows [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human&diff=0&oldid=13388656 this]? ''User:Sam Spade'' 17:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC) == Speedy Gonzales == Thank you — I aim to please. User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 17:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC) ==Quantum reverts== Hi, please don't revert the categorization of Bohm interpretation. The category :Category:quantum mechanics had an excess of 200 articles in it. I attemtped to solve the poor organization by moving approx 30 articles to :category:quantum measurement. Please don't revert without discussion. Yes, I agree that :category:interpretations of quantum mechanics may have been a better name for this category, in retrospect. User:Linas 03:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC) == NPOV == Please check out Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate, User:Slrubenstein | User talk:Slrubenstein 23:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC) == Rick Ross == Have a look at Talk:Rick Ross. --User:Zappaz 20:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC) == Esotericism WikiProject == hi Goethean, I've been thinking what we need is an ''Esotericism'' WikiProject. The idea would be to work out things like templates, a uniform format, and so on, for esotericism wikipages. This could even include or be organised according to a classification of esoteric topics, if such can be agreed. Anyway if you and some of the other folks who post here are interested, then I'd love to get involved. But it's not something I want to do on my own (i'm spread too thinly as it is!) User:M Alan Kazlev 10:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC) == POV Removal of Ramakrishna NPOV? == I notice that you have taken it upon yourself to remove the NPOV from the Ramakrishna article, in spite of the fact that you did NOT put it there (I know, I did...) and in spite of the fact that anonymous users continue to remove anything dealing with Dr. Jeffrey Kripal's scholarship...and you allowed their vandalism to go on un-checked. Well, I'm back, and watching the article again. I've reverted the vandalism, and if it continues I will slap a NPOV on the article once more. Your edits seem rather benign (though partisan... I detect a definite POV), but if it goes over the line, back into hagiography, well, you know what will happen. We are very capable of expanding the bibliographic footnotes in to whole paragraphs, into entire articles detailing the controversy. Do you want it to explode in that manner? Let's leave well enough alone and stay true to the Wikipedian ideal, no? All the best, User:Emyth 21:53, May 28, 2005 (UTC) ==Integral Template== Very good idea (Template:Integral). The only thing I would question is putting the states of consciousness here as a separate group rather than one of the ideas. There is no consensus on these categories. Even Wilber himself uses various names for these, so I think that while there is no question of the importance of the concept, the variablitiy in descriptions of them suggests they do not yet merit a primary place on the template. --User:Blainster 20:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) Good luck on the logo. That is definitely not my forte. I was just adding a little to the article on Arthur M. Young. Did you ever read his ''The Reflexive Universe''? That was my first introduction to the field of consciousness studies. I think he should be on the template. --User:Blainster 20:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Young was a very integral thinker. He was educated at Princeton, interviewed by Jeffrey Mishlove in the latter's PBS television series "Thinking Allowed", and profiled in the book ''The Roots of Consciousness'' by Mishlove. I see there is no article on Mishlove either. He earned the only PhD in parapsychology from U C Berkeley. Add Young to your watchlist and I will expand the article. Another candidate for the list would be Teilhard de Chardin. --User:Blainster 21:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) == 20th century authors == Stephen King is in the list of 20th century writers. --User:Brunnock 13:18, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC) :Heh! Well, I said that it was absurd, not that people didn't think it. --User:Goethean ॐ 13:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Polytheism == I largely agree with your removal, if only because it was distracting. That said, some religions which are often seen as polytheistic from the outside (Hinduism, many forms of buddhism, possibly even ancient greek mythology or native american beliefs) are actually speaking of a number of aspects of God, and/or of lesser entities, djinn or devas. I can see that was a bit difficult for me to present. An important example would be the many buddhist dieties. User:Sam Spade 00:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Entries for each of Wilber's Levels == Hi Goethean. I recently added a (still rather stubby) entry for the Triple transformation. Anyway I mention there two of Wilber's highest levels, which I give the wiki links as Causal (Wilber) and Ultimate (Wilber). I notice however that you have Subtle realm and Causal realm on your user page. So since you're doing most of the Wilber stuff, I'll leave it to you how to name the links and entries User:M Alan Kazlev 04:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) == New Integral Wiki == [http://integralwiki.net/index.php?title=Main_Page The Integral Encyclopedia Wiki] User:M Alan Kazlev 05:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :btw this would be a good forum for a non-physicalist version of Human, and a non-cynical version of Guru (haven't checked both pages lately so don't how these issues have been addressed. I've been transferring wikipages over, and will eventually be adjusting some away from a non-physicalist-bound perspective (e.g. the page on The Mother is very limited by its required physicalist slant on wikipedia, when i have time i'll combine this page with the older "sympathetic point of view" one to get a good balanced perspective) User:M Alan Kazlev 00:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Goethean

Neutrality is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced you are that your facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties disagrees with you, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties. --Larry Sanger First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view is correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present. --Npov#What_is_the_neutral_point_of_view.3F Wikipedia's enormous potential is currently being suppressed by the surprising number of users and administrators who are incapable of and/or have no intention of abiding by the Wikipedia policy of adhering to a neutral point of view, as it is articulated in the above quotations. In fact, in some articles, like Human and Guru, it is quite doubtful that points of view other than that of physicalism will ever be fairly treated. The success that these (ab)users have had in infiltrating the Wikipedia bureaucracy seems to indicate that this problem will never be resolved. To these people, wikipedia is not about the dissemination and interaction of ideas. Instead, it is about gaining, maintaining, and exercising power over other people. I and other users have therefore initiated the [http://integralwiki.net The Integral Wiki], which, unlike Wikipedia, is equipped to truly implement NPOV. ====Links==== User:Goethean/Quotations >
User:Goethean/Human >
User:Goethean/Human2 >
User:Goethean/guru >
User:Goethean/guru >
User:Goethean/Holistic science >
User:Goethean/20 tenets >
User:Goethean/Cent > [http://goethean.blogspot.com Goethea: an online notebook] [http://integralvisioning.org/ivwiki/index.php The Integral Wiki]. ====The Integral Project==== Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, Nondual, Boomeritis, Holon, Holarchy, Vision-logic Template:Integral theory, Template:Integral theory2, Template:Integral theory3, Template:Integral theory/draft/1, Template:Integral theory/draft/2, Template:Integral theory/draft/3 ====notes to self:==== * ~~Disambiguate Stuart Davis the painter from Stuart Davis the musician~~ * ~~The Involution entry lacks any account of cosmic, philosophical, integral or ontological involution, although an Aurobindo account has been relegated to the Talk:Involution page~~ * The Ken Wilber article lacks a section on "Transcend and include"; be sure to refer to sublation. ** Also, a section on Wilber's taxonomic approach to consciousness would be nice. ** ~~Also, a section on Boomeritis, or "Aperspectival Madness"~~ ** Basic moral intuition * Add verbiage on flatland, holonic span, agency vs. communion, The big three (the True, the Good, and the Beautiful), and Aurobindo to Sex, Ecology, Spirituality * expand reference to SES in Vision-logic * Add Wilberian verbiage to: Eros, Agape, Thanatos, Phobos, Plenitude, Many, Absolute * The article on Meta-philosophy is dominated by Mortimer Adler verbiage. * There are no entries on Prehension, Manifestation, Gross realm, Subtle realm, Causal realm, Neo-advaita, One taste, Ramesh Balsekar, Mechanistic paradigm, Narrow science, Irvin Laszlo, Allan Combs, The Self-organizing Universe, * ~~Add a paragraph in the "Ideas" section in the Ken Wilber article on "the pre/trans fallacy".~~ * The entry on Integral politics is poor. * The Mark Helprin article lacks an account of his biographical adventures ====stubs to be expanded==== AQAL, Wendell Berry, Bhagavan Das, Boomeritis, Chris Cowan, Evolution (philosophy), Georg Feuerstein, Jean Gebser, Bede Griffiths, John Hare, Jim Harrison, Andrew Harvey, Hidden Gospel of Matthew, Holarchy, Integral ecology, Integral Institute, Integral psychology, Involution (philosophy), Erich Jantsch, Manifest, Material Issue, Ron Miller, Mirabai, Stephen Mitchell, Noetic, Nondual, Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, Rupert Sheldrake, Theory of Colors, Eckhart Tolle, Transpersonal, Yeshe Tsogyal, Vision-logic, ====articles to which I have contributed:==== Spiritual evolution, Eknath Easwaran, Stuart Davis (musician), Ken Wilber, Integral theory (philosophy), Transcendentalism, Integral Institute, Original face, Body-mind ====favorites:==== GandhiCon, Conway's Game of Life, Ashtavakra Gita, You have two cows, Afshar_experiment, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hotel_Wikipedia ====CC License==== I agree to Wikipedia:Multi-licensing all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below: Disgruntled Wikipedians

Goethean

#REDIRECT Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

See other meanings of words starting from letter:

G

GA | GB | GC | GD | GE | GF | GH | GI | GJ | GK | GL | GM | GN | GO | GP | GR | GS | GT | GU | GW | GX | GY | GZ |

Words begining with Goethean:

Goethean
Goethean
Goethean
Goethean/20_tenets
Goethean/Cent
Goethean/Cent
Goethean/Centuries
Goethean/Examples_of_Mel_Etitis'_sophistry
Goethean/guru
Goethean/guru/extra
Goethean/Holistic_science
Goethean/Holistic_science
Goethean/Human
Goethean/Human
Goethean/Human2
Goethean/ITP
Goethean/Quotations
Goethean/sig
Goethean/Wilberbio
Goetheanum
Goetheanum1-640.jpeg
Goetheanum1-Elev.jpeg
Goetheanum2-640.jpeg