Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:32, 25 August 2006

Common sense of "hermetic"

I moved the common sense of "hermetic" and "hermeticism" (#2) to the disamb page. If that sense is not explained there, the reader will have no way of guessing which article to read. Jorge Stolfi 23:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Robert Fludd Link

gfdgadfand mystidgfadfgdfgcism, bufdgffggdat nothgdfagadfdfafgdagdffgding sadfgagfadfgadys he was a Pussy Hermetadfgdfgdfagfdagic. I'm mainly leaving this here asfdgaadfgadfg a dfgadfgadfggadfgafdnoadfggfdte tfgadfgadadfggadfadfgadfgofgaddfgadfgdfa chadfgdfgdfagfdeck up on tagdfgdfgfdghat, afadgdfgadfgdfgnd delete the link if found oudfagdafgdfgt otherwfdadfgdfgafgdise. Feefdgfgdfdfl frfgdadfgfadggadfee gdfto hfgdfgdfgand mfdgfgddfae tdafgdfaafgdadfghe pradgfgdafgfadgfgadoof. KV 18:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC) gfd

Plea to Contributors

Please add in your sources when possible when you add in information. I would like to make this a featured article, and we need everything cited for that.

KV 17:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Statement of Intent - Citations

After we have put as much information as we can, from our current contributors, and have this fully cited, I intend to convert the harvard notation to endnotes to increase readability. It is too difficult to do mess with numbering before we have a working version. I felt that I should say this so no one is taken by surprise.

KV 19:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Astrology Operation

About the Operations, the Puritans called astrology the Operation of the Moon. I'm not entirely sure if that would actually be the Hermetic Operation of astrology, which is why I haven't edited it. It does seem plausible and will leave that up to KV here, since it is a bit of an assumption and I only ran across it on a site about the Puritan view of astrology.

I do find the article a good read and I will see if I can find the other operations. If I do I will post back here with the information.

Stratus Fireborne 11:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It's very possible, especially with the passive, feminine approach to astrology (you read the planets, can't move them) and the fact that much of astrology must've been done at night, when you see the moon and not sun. Until we find out otherwise, it's probably a good idea to put that in.

KV 18:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The Operation of the Earth, may possibly be the operation of Theurgy. I will look for any information I can find on it and get back to you.

Stratus Fireborne 07:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good

KV 21:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Considering Alchemy involves the Soul(Sun), Astrology could possibly involve the consciousness(Moon), and Theurgy the all in all or Earth aspect. That is the way I've developed Earth as the last operation.

Stratus Fireborne 00:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that. My guess, before we find actual documentation, is that the Sun (masculine) and Moon (feminine) are outdone by the connection of both, the Stars (God). But what they chose is beyond me.

KV 04:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Suppose it's possible I'll do some more research into it. Just started studyng Bardon's works a few days ago and planning to be a serious hermeticist. I just have a good bit to learn and plenty of reasons to research things.

Stratus Fireborne 05:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hope the article is part of the reason behind that.

KV 18:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's not, but it is why I understand Bardon's Initiation into Hermetics a bit better. My general interests in magic and alchemy are the reason for my interests in Hermetics.

Stratus Fireborne 01:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I seriouisly hope that the "Operation of the Earth" is not Theurgy. As far as I know, Theurgy is magic concerning God, in the Judeo/Christian scense. Basing it on that, operation of the earth would be wrong, since it would be paganistic at best. Unless you can conclude that God is nature itself, and how this relates to Theurgy, as well as other Theurgy texts on magic.

Zos 09:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Magic section

I realized after seriously looking at the section, that much of the section has nothing to do with magic and repeats things said elsewhere. This has to be (by me or others) be weeded out, the nonrepeated information that doesn't belong there moved, and rewritten.

KV 19:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I've reorganized, clipping out some repeated facts elsewhere, which belong elsewhere, and moved the unrepeated facts to other sections or improved sentences in those sections by fusing those facts in. I then added more relevant material to the section, which is alas, still uncited.

I'm also thinking that the section may do better below, swapping places with the religion section. I'd like to hear some comments on this...... but if not I'll probably just do it in a week or so figuring that no one gives a (explitive deleted).

KV 05:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thoth Pic

I'm also thinking that we might want to change the Thoth pic, amongst searching in Wikimedia commons...... under HERMES.... I found the attached image. It seems to be easier to see, but smaller. Does anyone have an opinion on this?

KV 06:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Reason for reverting Infinitysnake's changes 2/22/06

First, your "spelling" change was not a valid change, there is both Hermetism and its offshoot Hermeticism. Then you removed cited information without reason, such "speculation" is done by experts in the field, and so is perfectly valid. Then you simply deleted a large block of text, which though I may agree wasn't worded perfectly was also changed on me once before. We can change the wording..... but before you go make any other major changes that aren't additions, but rather radically changing already existing text...... how about if we discuss it here first.

KV 15:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There were numerous spelling and grammatical errors, "Hermetism" was changed for consistency. Switching from one to the other without reason is only confusing, especially as 'hermetism' has fallen out of use, and the etymology section is suffiicient.

Further, the 'experts' presented are not scholars but spiritual authors who were speculating- as much as I like Manly Hall, he's not the best source, and outdated to boot. It is not the consensus of scholars that Thoth was a person; the very idea is simply silly given that Thoth predates the first-century authorship of the Hermetica by a good long time. The genral consensus is not that Hermes was a person; this was a Renaissance vanity. It is now generally accepted that the Hermetica were written by various philosophers in the Alexandrian community who psuedonymously attributed it to Hermes/Thoth. The idea that Hermes T. was a man was brought about as a justification for studying Hermetic texts, as he was promulgated as the gentile Moses." In any case, whther Hermes was a real person, Thoth was never regarded as such, being a god from antiquity.

Better sources would be Fowden, van den Broek et al, Freke & Gandy, etc.

There is much that is either incorrect or improperly stated here, and correcting misinformation should be corrected first and discussed later, IMO- esp as there are still a great number of typos, akwardly worded sentences, etc.

Fixing grammar or spelling is never a problem, but there was so much changed I had no choice but to revert. Hermetism and Hermeticism are only separated by the time of the movement, but stand historically as two separate movements, and so we must credit them properly, and not use them interchangably.

As far as Hermeticism and the occult are defined, both the authors of The Kybalion and Manly P. Hall are leading experts, even if deceased.

The "Kybalion" is a spiritual work, and really has no scholarly authority. We might call the author of "Genesis" an expert on Judaism, but we wouldn't quote it as a historical source. Manyly Hall wasa gifted individual, but by his own admission he was indulging in speculation, not in testable hypotheses. That aside, there is quite a bit of good, up to date modern scholarship on the subject, and I don't think Hall, et al, could be called "leading" experts.

The past doesnt' change, and neither did you show any more recent discoveries that refute them. And the Corpus Hermeticum is dealt very specifically in the article, and the range of dates, based on the Greek linguistic style, push from 500 BCE to 200 CE, not necessarily the 1st century CE. Of course, the earliest version we have found of the Corpus Hermeticum dates to that era, but if we listen to prized Egyptologist E.A. Wallis Budge, who is still seen as such despite his death nearly a century ago, just because the earliest text you found dates to that era, it doesnt' mean that it is the earliest text that existed. There is no surprise that the linguistic style may date to that era if it was translated from Egyptian to Greek at that period. Imagine someone dating the New King James Version Bible, based on linguistics, and by not having any other versions of the Bible, dating the creation of the Bible in the 1970's or 80's.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, I don't dispute the dating, I dispute the placement of Thoth (as a living person, no less)into that timeframe. It was a misleading phrasing at the very least.

Now, what happened to these texts? Hall explicitly states several times in his books that they are likely to have perished, for the most part, in the burning of the Great Library in 391 CE, which was for the explicit reason of destroying such texts so that the Egyptians could be subjugated.

You're using "explicit" here like Hall has the final word on this; he is obviously speculating, and this should be clearly noted, as should the abscense of evidence. Further, one's "expert" is meaningless if his or her views do not reflect scholarly consensus.

He was part of part of the Order of Freemasons which he implies though seemingly for reasons of secrecy surrounding the order in which he achieved the honorary degree of 33rd, has come from the Egyptian Mystery schools, and which taught Hermeticism. The ideas in the Corpus Hermeticism surely come from Ancient Egypt, and not Greece, as the translators of the translation I keep citing, have stated. It is certainly likely that the Corpus Hermeticum is quite ancient, despite the greek translation.

Sure- but that is, and will remain speculation until evidence shows otherwise. We can't make a claim for an earlier date based on intuition- the earliest it can be dated is to the earliest fragment, or the earliest quote or textual reference in other works.

The concept that the authors may have been in that era is discussed, with all the evidence I have ever seen to that effect. If you have other contrary evidence, feel free to add that in without destroying the evidence that was already there. But as those occult scholars claimed such, it is worthy of including. I already included an alternative explanation I came across, with proper citation.

It doesn't matter that they were scholars, it matter whwether there is evidence to support. As there is not, it can only be presented as speculation. To promote that viewpoint with a modifier is irresponsible. That someone believes it, no matter what their qualifications, is not enough- unless there is evidence, it must be clearly presented as the speculation that it is.

Feel free to add anything you like, if it is properly cited. However, there MUST be discussion before cited material is simply deleted and replaced.

"Must" is a bit strong, all things considered. I don't believe we are bound by any "musts" here I would prefer if you'd refrain from gatekeeping behavior, please. "I got here first" is simply not a valid argument for keeping your preferred version of the material. As I said before, it is not enough to cite; the sources must uphoild the citation, and the source must provide evidence. (For example, one could cite von Daniken; that wouldn't mean a claim that aliens built the pyramids is a valid inclusion.)

Adding evidence that is contrary to what I have said will certainly bring this article closer to NPOV, but what you had changed didn't only add more on that POV (uncited of course) but made it more POV, by eliminating the POV of Hall and the Three Initiates, which was already balanced out somewhat. You add information to bring about NPOV, not delete it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tom harrison (talk • contribs) .

The "Three Initiates," again, did not provide a scholarly work, (and never meant to) and should not be used as a source. The anonymity of the work, the lack of identifiable sources of credentials, make it a very poor choice.

In summary, after spending a total of 60 hours between research and writing on this page, I have no problem with you adding in viewpoints, expanding on them, but I refuse to let you scrap out those that you don't agree with.

Not even when they're untrue or poorly sourced, apparently. Will it be "It's my ball, I'm going home," then?

KV 04:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

In my recent editting of the History section, and pulling it out into it's own section...... I have removed some of the text that you didn't like, and currently it is only found in Hermetism currently. We still need expansion on the History section, and removing the text that is unneeded elsewhere now that it's in the History section. When I originally started the History section I struggled to find out about Hermetism, and broke through in my 40th or so hour of research, in finding mention to it in Hall's book. So, I traced Hermeticism back to Ancient Egypt rather than Hermetism. I'm unsure if there should be a section on Hermes Trismegistus specifically in this article, where we expand on him, or if we should simply leave that to the Hermes Trismegistus article, which is where I am leaning. Hopefully you're a bit happier with the current version.

KV 19:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

please don't parse like that....... it makes it nearly impossible to reply to this properly when your reply is parsed in with mine.

As far as the Kybalion for an accurate text, whether or not it is, its view should be mentioned. I do not mention only its view and I mentioned every source on the subject that covers the identity of Hermes that I found. Is there anything that you feel needs to be worded differently to make that NPOV or have other sources that suggest otherwise that we can add in? The article size is not an issue, because there are parts that can be made into their own articles if need be. But I do believe that the most important part of NPOV is to add in all views held by a significant group involved. Perhaps Harold Johnson's view may not be important (fictional guy I made up just there), but the Kybalion has a view which should be .

For Manly P. Hall, would you mind telling me where he says he only speculates? Though, the text seems to me to be saying that he is speculating, and based off of very logical thought as well. I know that he does not state with 100% assurity that Hermes was a man, but no scholar can say with 100% assurity that he wasn't either, at least not honestly. They come to their conclusions much as Hall came to his, speculation. Sure, I may say that, but I don't offer it as evidence in the article, that's my personal proof and I don't expect people to take my vision as proof for them, without even knowing of me. Perhaps we should fix that by mentioning that most scholars believe that he wasn't a man, that way we can include everything. Also, I should note that whatever Hall wrote had to be approved by the Masons, and perhaps he wasn't allowed to state it out as truth because it may deal with some hidden secrets.

I'm not going to check right now..... but I do believe that I mentioned Budge in concern with the dating of the Corpus Hermeticum... I do believe you editted that section. Perhaps I must word it better, but the idea is that with another Egyptian text (I know that Hall claims this deals with Hermetic alchemy, but I have to read it over more carefully myself before accepting that) has been seen constant revision and rewriting throughout the ages. Of course, I do believe I've added in the new find of one of the books to Asclepius (which I found in a preface written by a PhD for a translation, the guy teaches at Etrycht (sp?) and Harvard) at Nag Hammadi in 1945, which proves that at least parts of the book are older than the Greek version. The point was to leave it open ended on the age of the document. Just as Budge mentions that there may be older versions of the Book of the Dead, just not found, the same could be true of the Corpus Hermeticum. It certainly was true when Causabon dated it so late, because an earlier version of part of the text was indeed found.

As for your speal about speculation, let us look then not to take it out, but to word it in a more NPOV manner. Let's throw some text, piece by piece into a new discussion heading and find a wording that we can both live with. I'm certainly not against rewording things to make them NPOV, only removing information.

On the burning of the texts, I do not personally take Hall's claims as speculation. Reading the text itself, it may seem as specuation, but then I think of the context. This is certainly an area we should debate more on. But I note that Hall is a 33rd, honorary, degree mason. The masons are said by Hall (which one would assume by his position to not be speculation) to have come from the Egyptian mystery schools, perhaps through greece, as he notes that Peter Gower is Pythagoreas, and thus would know this story as fact. I, myself, speculate that they not only know this as fact, but probably have the original copies in their possession at this point.

As far as must goes.... anyone is welcome to delete uncited material as per Misplaced Pages policy. However, I feel that it is implied that one does not simply remove cited material because they don't agree with it. Certainly, claiming that the pyramids were built by aliens based upon Von Daniken would be wrong... but mentioning that he claims such would be perfectly acceptable. When removing cited text, one should discuss it first. Certainly, this is much better documented than many "featured" articles on Misplaced Pages. Though my getting there first doesn't warrant it remaining, some discussion as to why cited material should be removed is. Misplaced Pages policy suggests not removing other people's material, as such, but working around it and adding to it to balance it out. Rewording into NPOV manner would certainly be acceptable, but I do not see deleting it without giving so much as an explanation of why would be proper.

The Three Initiates are a very powerful driving force in modern Hermeticism. They provide great information on Hermetic beliefs, and their view should be taken into consideration, though not accepted fully. I have attempted to keep it NPOV by mentioning that they say it, not that it is an undisputed fact. We are also talking about a time period, when no one cited sources.... the most you got was a bibliography at the end and occaisionally you saw Manly P. Hall write (see such and such) after something. We cannot discount all views from before 1970.

And my point in mentioning my time isn't that it's my ball... but that some basic respect for my additions should be given. I did spend a lot of time, hours on end, researching and writing what I have. I have found sources for everything in my POV, and most of what I added in an attempt to make it NPOV. To see my hours go to waste as someone just walks in and deletes it without explanation, without discussion, is rather insulting. As so far as of yet, you haven't given reason to delete it, only to attempt to word it in a more NPOV manner and add more information to balance it out. I myself have had problems on Misplaced Pages with attempting to make something more NPOV (outright bashing Alchemy specifically as a pseudoscience and nothing more), unable to make the slightest changes. So, I have seen other people come in and change things, reword them, attempting to make my work more NPOV. I left them alone, since they added information or reworded them, they didnt' destroy my work. But that doesn't mean that I'm simply going to let anyone do anything without explanation.

I believe Misplaced Pages to be a relativist ideal, NPOV is treating all views as equal. However, in my opinion, in deleting such material you were attempting to make this article a completely objectivist/skeptical POV. Objectivism and skepticism certainly has a place in this article, but those views that aren't completely indisputable, by scholars on the subject need to have a place too. Hermeticism especially needs this, because most of Hermetic thought is specifically that: theories that cannot be certifiably proven, but which have some reason and logic and evidence to it. The views I have given are of the Hermetic community, and respected members of it none the less. I have included the arguments of skeptics who are not of great repute, to attempt to balance it.

Certainly, it is not seen as necessary to deprive Christianity of stating that people believe that Jesus was both a man and God. There is a small section on it. It has not been proven that Jesus was both, it is a belief. There is a significant portion of Hermeticists who believe that Hermes Trismegistus/Hermes/Thoth was based upon an actual man who lived at some point, and it is only proper to mention that such a belief exists. I do not believe that the article, as it stands says that Hermes was a man, only that certain respected elements, properly named, believe him to have been an actual man. That is not POV, only if it were stated as an absolute fact could it be claimed as POV. I would love to have some cited materials by scholars that state that he wasn't a man, and I invite you to add those in. But don't take away the voice of respected Hermeticists to accomplish that goal.

KV 06:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

First Picture Subtitles

The subtitle in the first picture uses the very general and convoluted designation of "African" for the hypothetical features of an Egyptian person, contrasting it with Caucasian features. Though the point is well taken, the emphasis seems to be rather misplaced. African is not a phenotype, however, the common educated populace understands its connotation as lying in the proximity of Negroid. To use this designation for an Egyptian is rather misleading. Consideration of the majority scholarly opinion based on the convergence of the various fields of Genetics, Anthropology, and Archeology, as well as the detailed visual aid of the non-Pharaonic Egyptian sculptures, leads us to a different conclusion. Nubian presence can be seen--in sculptures--but the distinct features seem to be emphesized. Yet, ancient traditions refer to peoples more commonly associated with the "Caucasian" features you referred to as having much population and culture exchange with Egypt--modern Archeology seems to claim that these movements were actually more prominent than would have been thought from the sources alone. Egyptian myths reflect interaction with Syrian kings. The use of cedar would suggests interaction with the peoples of Lebanon, perhaps Phoenicians. Syrian and Near Eastern records show a great and immediate awareness of Egypt and its processes. Greek tragedies are set in Thebes. Greek architecture can be analyzed as in continuum with Egyptian. And, let us not forget the various Biblical references to migrations into and out of Egypt by such non-African peoples.

While I am fully aware of the concern that might arise--that everything African and external to the European heritage tends to be "exotified" or "orientalized"--it seems more appropriate to accuse the ancient Egyptians and their self-conceived setting of this than to defend them from it. But what was their self-conceived setting? What did they identify as "us"? Who did they conceive of as a credible participants in their international arena--whether they be enemies or allies? Who, on the other hand, was devalued in their eyes to the extent that they were considered unworthy of consideration or condenscion from a civilized nation--especially one such as themselves?

Any answer to all these questions is is complex, difficult, and sure to induce well-meaning academic debate. However, it seems to be that the ancient sense of civilization (in reference to Egypt's self-classification) revolved around the Mediteranean basin most prominently, though perhaps not exclusively. The sense of identity was different throughout ancient and classical times. While an ancient Greek might have mourned his child's marraige to a "Northern Barbarian", the average Victorian may have seen marriage to "some Arab" of average or low standing as undesirable. However, no "European" and especially not one from the British isles, would have considering treating Augustine as some sort of foreign, exotified breed of North African. This is not to exclude the peculiar insularities and claims to a peculiar glory of every nation, Babylonians, Greeks, and Egyptians alike. However, it is worth recognizing that the paradigm of civilization and the archetypal conception of self to which Egypt seems to have subscribed in the ancient times (and anthropological studies of North Africa today will reveal similar trends, though no evidence can be drawn from this due to possible confounding factors such as the interaction of divergeant civilizations) was the Mediteranean. It would be wrong to ignore Egypt's overwhelming ethnic and civilizational heritage as a contributing and receptive member of the conception of the ancient mediteranean civilization.

I do know that the ancient Egyptians were traced to East Africa genetically, though it's a mix nowdays. The caption also only says that it is likely, not certain. The purpose of the statement was to clarify that it was unlikely to be an accurate depiction, and Hermes was most likely a black man. My own spiritual visions on the subject are specifically that, but of course I can only claim here what can be ascertained from outside evidence. What would you suggest be changed?

KV 04:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, I changed the text to do what I think may make you feel it is more NPOV: "Hermes Trismegistus depicted as Caucasian in a medieval rendering. However, some believe that if Hermes was from Ancient Egypt, he is more likely to have had African characteristics.".... Does this solve things?

KV 04:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

General observations

Just from perusing this page, I'd like to make a couple of observations. First, it would be a lot easier for a newcomer to the discussion to figure out the conversation if everyone would take the time to sign their posts. This is just one of the suggestions for good wikipedia etiquette. Next, when it comes to dating things, I had always thought that the established date of the oldest fragment meant that the text in question was at least that old. The oldest fragment of something that we have might be the oldest there is, or might just be the oldest fragment that survived, or that we have found so far. It seems reasonable to say something like "the oldest known fragment has been dated to year X, but some (scholars/philosophers/whoever) suspect it may be a (a bit/much) older, perhaps as old as year Y. Citations, and reasons for thinking it older could then follow. Wesley \

Regarding whether Thoth or anyone else was a god or a man, the obvious thing to do is to list who thought he was what, and when. If the earliest known time anyone suggested he was human was the 19th century, then go ahead and say whatever 19th century writers suggested he was human, but also say this is the first documented time this was suggested. Might have been suggested earlier of course, but if we don't have evidence of it, it's just speculation, right? Or if more than that, list reasons for thinking it's more than speculation. (shrug). Wesley 17:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

In addition

Someone I had look at this argument posted on my user page.... User talk:King_Vegita#Thank_you_for_calling_me_in_on_Hermes_Tris

KV 19:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I also had this comment placed under User talk:King_Vegita#Hermeticism which made it hard for me to see at first: "For what it's worth, I think that the article on Hermes Trismegistus is the proper place for mentioning any theories about the figure being based on a real person. It is quite peripheral to the main subject of Hermeticism. Myopic Bookworm 12:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)"

So, what I have gathered from others so far is:

A) we need more statements to follow the theory B) we should probably put a blanket statement in this and fix up Hermes Trismegistus.

Perhaps that is best, but Hermes Trismegistus still needs a lot of work yet. I'll try to do something about it soon.

KV 03:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject: Egyptian Religion

All who are interested are asked to join.

KV 19:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for exposition

Would an editor familiar with this particular religion please give a quick synopsis of the view of Hermeticism on the origin belief page? Thanks! --ScienceApologist 20:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Done, and I'm glad because I've been procrastinating writing that, and I can add it to this article now :)

KV 04:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Caucasian

The text below one of the illustrations say: "However, if Hermes was from Ancient Egypt, he is unlikely to be Caucasian." But the ancient egyptians, like the current ones, were mainly caucasians so this POV captions should be moderated.

Caucasians?! The current ones aren't even caucasian! I'm caucasian, neither the current ones nor the ancient ones, definately not the ancient ones, were caucasian. They're very dark-skinned currently, which are a mix of arab and african blood..... and I already compromised to not specifically say that he would be black. There is no way he would be caucasian, and the only people who honestly believe that are the nazis!

KV(Talk) 16:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

So I am a nazi for pointing out the fact that the people of North Africa are considered to be caucasoid? Seek help! And if you insist on dragging race into the article at least get your facts straight. Not saying he would be black is, by the way, not a compromise as the ancient egyptians were also mainly caucasoid (the same as today) and not black.

Please sign with ~~~~ please. And I did not say caucasoid, I said caucasian. And the modern Egyptians do not fit into any of the three classic races at all. If you would like, I have no problem changing caucasian to European, but The modern egyptians are not primarily"caucasian", and there is no doubt that the ancient ones were not at all.

KV(Talk) 19:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, English is not my mother tongue but according to the wikipedia article "Caucasian race, Caucasian or Caucasoid" are synonyms. Current US use may require a person to be pale skinned to qualify as a "caucasian" but I do believe "European" would be preferable in the caption as the people of North Africa are considered caucasian/caucasoid - even if they are darker than most Europeans. 193.149.191.1 08:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Darker than most arabs too.

Library of Alexandria

In the article on Hermeticism, under the section "Enter the Corpus Hermeticum", the statement is made : " ... in 391 CE when the Romans burnt the library down." Later, under "Religious and Philosophical Texts" this is repeated: "...in 391 CE when the Romans burnt down the Library of Alexandria." This is misleading. The riots in 391 were specifically 'Christian vs. Pagan' in nature, instigated by Bishop Theophilus. He and others may have thought of themselves as 'Roman' citizens, acting with the blessing of the Emperor in Constantinople, but from our point of view today, the phrase should be " .. in 391 when Christians looted/burned the Library ..." Jrathe 17:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The source says Romans.......... but I would be fine if you found one that blamed it on the Christians specifically. Of course we did have someone trying to change it into "Jews" without citing anything :/ Just find a reputable source, which it sounds like you already have. We can mess around with the reference tags after that.

KV(Talk) 18:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Poemandres or Poimandres

In some articles, especially Hermetica, it is Poemandres. Here it is Poimandres. So??--Connection 19:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It's Poimandres (Ποιμανδρης) in the Greek Corpus Hermeticum - I typically see it transliterated as such. I think the Poe is 19th century English. Zeusnoos 20:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Later, I had seen also Pymandres! Based on your comment above, we need to settele for one "form" for all the articles.--Connection 15:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There are many spellings, the source used Poimandres, so that is what is used. Poemander is also sometimes used.

KV(Talk) 23:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Text removed by User:Byrgenwulf

I intend on reinserting the text:

"This is very similar to what one would come up with if they conjoined the quantum mechanics principles of wave-particle duality and nonlocality. Everything being (when not observed for location) a wave and in the same place, we have a wave without dimensions, best described as a vibration" once I have citations, and can reword it to be more NPOV.

KV(Talk) 16:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think I see where you're going with this...and apologies for not discussing my removal here (I'm a bit grumpy today). Anyway, NPOV isn't really so much of an issue as factual accuracy. Would the following not work, if it is in accord with the idea that's being communicated:

"Quantum entities can be described as both particles and waves. In some interpretations of quantum mechanics, unobserved entities may be said to exist as a superposition of quantum wavefunctions, in other words as standing waves much like a plucked violin string. Moreover, the entities posited by string theory as being the fundamental building blocks of nature are one-dimensional vibrating objects. Some researchers have pointed the parallels between these ideas in physics and the teachings of hermeticism, but the idea is not a recognised part of mainstream science."

If that works, you only need to find a citation for someone who's made that link (and I daresay someone will have), and then it will be factually accurate, NPOV, and suitably intelligible (I hope) for someone new to both hermeticism and QM, which is only a Good Thing and What We're Here For. A picture of a standing wave in a superposed state of vibration should be easy to find and would illustrate the principle quite well, perhaps? Oh - I'm also replacing Calvinist with philologist w.r.t. Casaubon, because I think that's more pertinent to the article. Byrgenwulf 17:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I see you have mentioned "nonlocality", but quantum nonlocality doesn't imply that everything is in the same place: phenomena such as the EPR paradox and Bell's theorem seem to indicate that information can travel between quantum events at faster-than-light speed: they are still spatially distinct (indeed, they are called "spacelike separated" in scientific terminology) so I'm not sure that using nonlocality is appropriate in this instance. Byrgenwulf 07:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

File:Standing wave.JPG Will this do for an illustration? Byrgenwulf 07:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

That's similar to what I was going to change it to. I will reword it slightly, but only to clarify, and I'll post that when I have the citations. I'm not sure what the illustration is specifically trying to illustrate though.

KV(Talk) 01:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Awaiting sources

• Some scholars feel that Hermetism is a Greek movement which developed around the time of Christianity. Other scholars, primarily from occult circles, trace Hermetism's roots to Egypt and its mystery schools. There are a few others who go further and trace Hermetism to Atlantis, in which some survivors handed their wisdom down to the people of Egypt.

I found this somewhere in the lead/intro. It strike me as OR and weasel words are being used. It can be added back in once sources are found, and weasel words are dropped. SynergeticMaggot 16:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No reputable scholars trace Hermeticism to Atlantis, so this is a mute point. The debate on Greek or Egyptian origins is one between Garth Fowden and other scholars (typically older scholarship). The debate is usually framed in terms of the ideas originating in Greek philosophy such as Stoic and Middle Platonic thought, then given an Egyptian antiquity veneer, or whether some of the concepts are of Hellenistic Egyptian origin, perhaps reflecting a bit of indigenous tradition. A recent publication of demotic Hermetic papyri has revealed that there are more differences than similarity between Egyptian language Hermeticism and Greek philosophical Hermetica. The only similarities are the pedagogical format and the names in the dialogues. Scholars debate on the fine points, but there is no question that Hermetic material emerged in Hellenistic Alexandria. I'm usually afraid to look at this article since its mixing contemporary practicing hermeticism and historical hermeticism. Zeusnoos 17:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Possible Perversion by Christianity
• For centuries, Hermetism had to survive where Christianity flourished. During much of this time, outright persecution and bookburning was a common way for dealing with pagan practices. In order for Hermetists to keep themselves and their texts from burning, they had to not only be veiled in secrecy, but also in Christianity, so that any texts found would be mistaken for obscure Christian ones. Some Hermeticists believe that the texts of Hermetism were brought to them already partially corrupted by Christianity, though the inner meaning may still be intact under the metaphors.

Removed more. Uncited, seemingly POV or OR, plus there is an issue of section title wording (possible perversion by Christianity, not sure? OR). SynergeticMaggot 16:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Some Hermeticists who do not agree with everything that The Kybalion states, would say that free will is part of the Law, and it requires the incertitude called chance. If we are to make choices freely, any omnipotence must be limited to not include the result of our choices. Therefore, though it may be derived from all other information what we are likely to choose, there must be that chance that we will choose something else if free will is to exist. This view is closely related to the idea that The All acts to gain something.

I think I fact tagged this a long time ago. Same as the rest, its more like speculation and has no citation. It can be readded in, once this is found and done. SynergeticMaggot 16:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

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)