Talk:Modern Gnosticism

Encyclopedia that says that 1=0 is not an encyclopedia and is useless. Is it not so? Saying that the presented short description of (modern) gnosticism is false, irelevant or nonsense would equal saying that a fact is not a fact.Ndru01 02:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Message for administrators: please do not delete this article, I will try tomorrow to cut some redudant adjectives in order to meet a NPOV without altering its core meaning. Sky-surfer 3:33 AM, 29 April 2006

Just to point out that there already is an article Gnosticism in modern times. I'd suggest this page redirects there. --Cedders^tk 06:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd first suggest identifying the origins of 'needs' to prevent a reader from reading the presented (short) text.Ndru01 11:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand what you are saying above. Someone interested in 'Modern Gnosticism' presumably wants an account of revivals or developments in the last few hundred years. It's quite a general title. If they are interested in some specific theory of possible links between Sheldrake and the Archons etc., they may follow that link frmo the general page. A general reader would want to know the status of many theories and thinkers, not so much their detailed content.

Also, I don't understand what you are saying in the Modern gnostic mysticism page you created, and I've read A New Science of Life, taken part in Bohmian dialogue groups, understand quantum nonlocality at a basic level, I've even read Invisibles. If I find your writing hard to follow, I think most people will have even more problems. I'm quite bad at using multiple digressions within a sentence, but it is definitely something to avoid. It seems you are pushing a particular point of view (see WP:NPOV), and need to contextualise it. In fact if it is only your point of view, then it is original research and erally you should try expstulating it somewhere other than Wikipedia. If you have read a book you want to summarise from a neutral point of view, then fine, but you do need to say what that book is, and preferably support with relevant quotations.

Your short statement, almost a manifesto, is not written in an objective, encyclopaedic style You write "So this short text is just a sincere reminder of that message..." If the majority of people do not believe in Archons (they don't) then you can't "remind" them of it (although I guess if you are a Neoplatonist as you seem to be, then everything you tell someone is a reminder.) And like I say, it takes a lot of effort to work out what is being said. I assume that what you want is a prominent or concise description of the beliefs of Gnosticism in the related articles. In that case, you need to write it in a more comprehensible way, which doesn't require most people to read the definitions in the Gnosticism article in the first place.

By the way, you haven't apparently worked out how to sign your name on Wikipedia, or have changed your preferences so there is no link. The way to do it is --~~~~ --Cedders^tk 13:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sign with 4 tildes, that is how it is required. I don't need to hyperlink, since it is not required. This article now has nothing to do with infoverse and infomysticism, so I don't understand what was your intention with mentioning that under this short entry. This 1 sentence now emphasizes what is the MOST essential to know, for a person interested in what it means gnostic today (and ever). The person that doesn't believe in demons simply cannot be gnostic and the reminder sentence wasn't the most appropriate, that I agree. And from your aspect, what is essential to point out regarding the word 'gnostic' today, and that can be said in 1 sentence? Ndru01 14:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason I brought up the other article was because of similar problems with it. While it may be possible to rewrite the paragraph in this article in better English with a NPOV, I suggest discussion continue at User talk:Ndru01 --Cedders^tk 15:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]