Thelemapedia talk:Community Portal

(Difference between revisions)

Current revision

Editorial Principles

The little debate with m1thr0s below has given me an opportunity to think about what principle should guide our editorial policies. This is what I have come up with:

The prime editorial principle could be: the promotion of clarity, understanding, and accuracy. Any other reasonable principle, such as "the promotion of personal expression", is acceptable in practice until it violates the prime editorial principle. As I mentioned to m1thr0s, an example would be the issue of spelling variants of "magick" also with a "k", like "magickal" and "magickian". Allowing this spelling violates the PEP, because it might confuse people who see "magician" in one article and "magickian" in another. Add to this the fact that the variant spelling is not used by Crowley or any other major Thelemic writer, such as DuQuette, Regardie, Sabazius, etc., lending support to the argument that the varient spelling is based not on technical reasons, but on personal expression. "Personal expression" is a principle that, as a Thelemite, I strongly support. However, as managing editor of Thelemapedia, I believe that the PEP trumps it.

I would be very interested in other people's thoughts on this. —Ash

UPDATE: for anyone interested, I have created the Primary Editorial Principles:

Whenever executive editorial decisions have to be made on Thelemapedia, they will be based on the following primary principles:

1. Articles should be sympathetic with the principles, culture, practices, and beliefs of Thelema whenever possible.
2. Articles should promote clarity, accuracy, and the will to inform without distortion or fabrication.
3. Articles should reflect knowledge that is generally accepted in the Thelemic community, drawing from expert sources or common knowledge.

This is open to comments...please give feedback. —Ash

I feel that articles may contain knowledge which is NOT generally accepted, or is contentious, as well, though such should be presented in the form of hypotheses linked to the names of those who hold them. Obviously, points of view presented ought to be indexed to their origins, proponents etc. otherwise we run the risk of constraining the discourse to 'orthodox' points of view. I feel that using reference to established authors is key for supporting points of view, but that as a limitation to discourse (ie; if a major author doesn't mention it then it's not valid) it is problematic. Who knows, perhaps some of us will become 'major thelemic thinkers'.-ibisis

Allow me to be more precise with the general editorial principles in this regard. You can present any viewpoint you want on any topic you want as long as it is a part of the general knowledge base. In other words, Thelemapedia is not the place to offer personal theories that are beyond the bounds of common knowledge, orthodox sources (i.e. Crowley, Levi, Regardie, etc.), or recorded academia (Starr, DuQuette, DeCampo, Dionysos Thriambos, Sabazius, etc.). I cannot stress this enough...this is not the place for personal opinion, personal expression, or personal agendas...there are other sites well suited to that purpose. If a topic presents some information that has alternative viewpoints, please add them. However, it will get edited out unless you can back up that information. I am not shy about saying that this is indeed an orthodox position...this site is not intended to be an experimental playground of new ideas. If everyone can come here and present any opinion they want, with no other qualifier than that they have an opinion, then this site will become useless.

On the flipside, if you see information here that you believe is seriously in error, you have the right and the ability to edit it. Even with the presentation of orthodox positions, there is lots of room for bias. You have complete control over this and can change how an entry reads, changing that bias completely even if the fundamental facts remain the same. —Ash

Added "Using Images" to Help page

For those of you who would like to use images in your articles, this is a good page to learn how...Thelemapedia:Using Images. —Ash

Thelemapedia comments

This is a great idea!

Frater C.U.G.

This is fantastic!! Thank you Scarlet Woman Lodge! :)

Glad you like it!

...of course, it will be as good as we all make it. I am hoping that over the next couple of years, we will make Thelemapedia the single best source of information on Thelema anywhere! The world will be ours! Muwahahaha! —Ash

Indeed ! This is an outstanding venture and excellent execution. At lease from what I see so far. I am sure I'll get a good deal of milage at of this in my office as PIO. Thank you my brothers, and please let me know if I can be of assistance with this project.

93/93

In L.V.X.,

Frater Hrumachis

Well, of course you can be of assistance...write an article!  :) —Ash

I especially appreciate you allowing us young'uns (Thelemically speaking) to add to the corpus of Thelemic knowledge.

DVV

There's no age limit for the ability to write a good article! Thanks for contributing. --Ash 19:12, 21 Sep 2004 (EDT)

---Okay, read your profile...sorry, that was presumptuous of me. I should have said, "there's no limits on Thelemic newbies of whatever age to write a good article." My apologies. —Ash, the insensitive dope

Actually, this is a good vehicle for someone who is "just learning" to research topics of interest. --DVV the old fart.

style issues

Can we get a standard on spelling? I am extremely averse to the spelling magickal. Now, for those who must have a K, the word magick is a perfectly proper adjective, as in "magick wand." But Crowley never used the word "magickal," and I recommend that we also stick to magical when the three-syllable adjective is in order. -paradoxosalpha

I agree 100%, Nix on magickian also. -- Frater C.U.G.

"Magickal" and "magickian: are not words, as far as I'm concerned. —Ash

To hear is to obey, effendi. "Magickal" shall be magickally removed from my posts henceforth. DVV

Ok, here's a trickier one: qabalah? That's Crowley's spelling, approximating transliteration, but it's usual to spell it Kabbalah in reference to Hebrew mysticism, and cabala in reference to Christian esotery and systems of word calculation and symbolism. Should we have a standard? --Paradoxosalpha 19:31, 24 Sep 2004 (EDT)

I made some redirect pages last night Kabbalah and cabala both go to qabalah now. Frater C.U.G.

In my original entry, I used "qabalah" to refer to Hermetic Qabalah, and "Kabbalah" to refer to Jewish Kabbalah. Purely arbitrary and any modifications are welcome. DVV

I can't agree that "magickian" is not a word since it is the logical extension of the term "magick" and has the same advantage over "magician" that "magick" has over "magic". Moreover, I should think that Thelemites have infinitely more important matters to attend to than this kind of thing though. If we cannot excercise a little tolerance against little things that might happen to irk us, how on earth can we expect to overcome the really important issues in life? Censorship is a poor way to begin any project involving the free expression of ideas towards a greater exploration of Higher Self and Will. Unless it can be demonstrated that the use of these terms is patently wrong, any call to banish them is fundamentally pushy, if not a bit selfish. Words evolve constantly...that is in their nature. If these words have caught on for some reason, isn't it possible that they have done so because they feel right to a lot of people? And if this trend continues as I suspect it will, aren't we making mountains out of molehills to make a big thing of it? I submit that a person's intent is much more important than the spelling they may choose and unless there is a definite problem of some kind, whether a person says magic or majik or magick, magical, majikal or magickal is all about the same thing really and should not be fussed over but simply accepted in lieu of natural human differences...m1thr0s

You use the word "censorship", but incorrectly in this case. Censorship is defined as the banning of information or ideas. Instituting an editorial policy for spelling does not ban any idea or piece of information. Do you see the dictionary as a tool of censorship? Ultimately, this particular spelling policy is based on three things:

1. the words "magickian" and "magickal" do not appear in any Thelemic holy book or work of Crowley,
2. the invariant spelling is less commonly used in modern Thelemic writings, and
3. if articles are using both forms, it could cause confusion about assumed differences in meaning between the two spellings.

Please note, we do not take the position that using these words are somehow wrong, or that we want to stop its use everywhere. We have no opinion about other people adding the "k" anywhere else they want. However, using the variant spelling is largely a matter of personal expression, like some feminists using the spelling "womyn". Personal expression is obviously a central value of Thelema, but Thelemapedia is not a forum for personal expression...it is an encyclopedia, and as such it is here to reflect the general body of existing knowledge and substantial works of Thelema. If you quote a published work, for example, that uses the variant spelling, then that is of course acceptable. However, in all other cases, we want to have a single, standardized, consistent term for Thelemapedia articles, and using the traditional form makes more sense at this time.

—Ash

I see. Good luck with your project then. I certainly will not be contributing any articles that force adherence to such an arbitrary standards which - as you have clearly stated - are primarily based upon your own personal sensabilities. I don't know that these words do NOT show up anywhere in the holy books as you have stated and I don't believe it really matters. Nevertheless, it's your project so good luck with that...m1thr0s

Curious...the reasons I mentioned are not arbitrary at all, and are based more on logic than "personal sensabilities". However, this little debate has given me an opportunity to think about the general principles guiding our editorial policies. See "editorial Principles" above...

'Magick' defined Thelemicaly is distinct from 'Magic' defined as a performance art. This is a technical spelling which, though not in use by everyone, has been helpfull to distinguish Thelemic practice and Will based Magick from Magic as it is commonly understood (usually by the public as a performance art). So this is a matter of taxonomic distinction. Similarly 'magical', and 'magician', would be extentions of the word 'magic', just as 'magickal' and 'magickian' would be extentions of the word 'magick'. I think that this goes beyond the personal and into the realm of skillful means. I use 'magickian' and 'magician', both, and they have a technical difference. I think it's helpful to have recourse to that expression in this Encyclopedia, just as it is helpful to be able to evolve language along divergent lines of thought... Ibisis

Crowley didn't think so...he never used the spellings "magickal" or "magickian". Considering he was the originator of the term "magick", I will defer to his taxonomic expertise (for the purposes of this site). I won't ban anyone for using the alternative spellings, or anything drastic like that, I will simply edit the entries. I realize that some people will find this unreasonable...however, I have given my reasons above, and I believe they are, in fact, perfectly reasonable. Ultimately, it is about clarity, and my opinion is backed by the fact that no major Thelemic author has ever used the alternative spellings, putting those words outside the bounds of "technical terms". The words "magician" and "magical" are technically aligned with the term "magick"—based on their usage as such by Crowley, Regardie, DuQuette, Rodney Orpheus, Martin Starr, Dionysos Thriambos, Sabazius, Hymenaeus Beta, Tim Maroney, etc., etc. You mention the alternatives as "expressions" and I agree...they are personal expressions, not academically accepted technical terms. As an illustration, I know lots of people who refer to Aleister Crowley as "Uncle Al", but that doesn't make it an acceptable reference on this site. —Ash

I appreciate your concerns here Ash but I cannot agree with your reasonings thus far. It may be true that Crowley did not use the words in question but this does not make their usage incorrect. These are conventional english extensions of the word "magick" and no more or less than that. Their usage is inherently correct within the confines of English itself. If these terms have not caught on more - give it a little time...and not much time either I'll wager. As near as 3 or so years ago to my best recollection these terms were hardly ever used anywhere at all and now their usage is becoming much more widespread. I think that the truth is that there was a certain amount of discomfort associated to using conventional terms to express a New Aeon concept, but since no one "in authority" had breached the topic, people were hesitant to be the first to take the plunge. But language evolves of necessity and the reliance upon these words today is born of that same necessity. There are always more than one way to approach the idea of "correct usage" in language. Arguing that Crowley may not have used these terms in his writings doesn't mean he would have been opposed to their usage. It's a circumstantial argument at best in my opinion. I will continuwe to use these terms as they are correct of English itself, and I suspect others will continue for the same reason. Now if you can show some good reason that it should NOT be correct English - I will be glad to consider it...m1thr0s

I do not have to show reason that they are or are not "correct english", because that is not the issue. The issue is one of accepted knowledge. This is a conservative project, and the primary source of expertise that I accept comes from the Master Therion, who did not use the alternative spellings. His example is followed by every other person who has seriously added to the knowledge base of Thelema, such as Regardie, DuQuette, Sabazius, and the other usual suspects. It doesn't make sense to allow the spelling "magickal" when you can't find that word in any of their books! When and if the alternative spellings take hold in a majority of new serious literature, then there will be a reasonable argument that it has become accepted as legitimate spellings. Until then, Thelemapedia is sticking with Uncle Al.

As a final point, you talk about the evolution of language. That is indeed something that happens, and that's a good thing. But this is not a place to experiment with that. Encyclopedias, by their very nature, are conservative, orthodox creatures—as opposed to, say, journals or books on theory. If you want to write an entire article on the evolution of the spelling of "magickian", if it's pretty good I'll publish it in the Scarlet Letter (http://www.scarletwoman.org/scarletletter/index.html), our Lodge's journal (of which I am the editor). That is a great forum for presenting new and groundbreaking ideas...this encyclopedia is not. —Ash

Dictionaries are fairly conservative as well yet they do their best to keep pace with advances in language either in the form of slang or newly introduced words of merit. Crowley never used the term "Hexagramology" either and yet at least one major University in the US (UCB I believe) has granted degrees in this area. So it's not just a matter of attempting to be trendy, but rather correct within the moment. Nevertheless, it is your project as I have agreed and there is no point belaboring the subject en ad nauseam. I believe you are limiting yourself and others unnecessarily in this position and that there may be some more judicious approach to the matter than simply editing out these terms upon usage - something I would not be able to accept as a serious writer and philosophical thinker. It's entirely your call and I wish you all the best in future...m1thr0s

sigh...This site has a very liberal attitude...you can edit entries to your heart's content. You can write over existing material, you can present alternative viewpoints, you can format, invent categories, add images, create links, and on and on. The price for all this freedom is an adherence to the existing knowledge base. Let me say this for the last time: All material on Thelemapedia must reflect the EXISTING knowledge base, not the current trends and fads that might or might not become a part of the knowledge base in the future. The "knowledge base" consists of those materials that exist in the "literature"—that is, published works by people who are considered experts within the realm of Thelema (or writers who have excellent research skills who themselves use the existing knowledge base). When dealing with non-Thelemic topics, like Hindu godforms, this can be relaxed a bit, since Thelemic writers have only written so much on those topics (for example, Crowley spelled "Hindu" as "Hindoo" at times, but the proper spelling should be used, except in quotes). But when it comes to those topics that are central to Thelema, such as magick, then this site insists on a strict adherence to the knowledge base.

This is my last comment on this issue: the words "magickian" and "magickal" DO NOT, at this time, appear in the existing knowledge base as this site defines it. If this feels limiting to anyone, then they can take it up with the writers of those texts that make up the current knowledge base. If someone wants to challenge this editorial policy (which is always acceptable to do by anyone), then they must show that the alternative spellings have become (not will become) a significant part of the existing knowledge base—personal journals, blogs, and non-acadmeic articles do not count, sorry.
So mote it be. —Fr. Ash, the cruel dictator

As a linguist, I happen to agree that magickal and magickian are not valid English and the word magickian is highly unlikely to ever be incorporated into English. There was a time when magickal would have been correct. During this period, it was common for heretic to be spelled heretick and -al could be added to this because the consonant was still pronounced with a k sound. Thus, both heretickal and magickal could be valid in pre-modern English. On the other hand, magickian would never have been used unless it were pronounced ma.ji.ki.an, which I do not believe that even advocates of the alternate spelling use in speech. The use of ck in English is highly restricted. It can only be used where it is pronouced hard, i.e. as k and never where it would be pronounced sh. Thus, linguistically, magickal is nearly acceptable, but considered an archaic form, while magickian is simply a misspelling. Adityanath

kinda new to all this

kinda new to this. This site, I'm sure will be invaluable.

Welcome! You'll catch on. It took me 10 minutes to get writing; a week to get all the basics; and a month or two to really "get it". Now that I'm an admin and watching the site grow, I'm having to learn a whole new set of skills. If this site has done nothing but that for me, it's been more than worth it. —Ash

Suggestion for new topic

In Lieu of the recent debate about how to ground legitimate entries in respect of the editorial policy, I propose the following: Why don't we create a section which could be called either 'unorthodox thelema', or 'contemporary thelema', or something similar to this? Also 'debates within Thelema','Heretical Thelema' or' Pre-Crowlian Thelema'. Here we could actually host an artical on the differences between "Magician and Magickian", so as to at least reflect the proposal of the argument for this term itself whilst indicating that it is under debate. As well, we could then have a forum for showcasing the newer inovations in Thelemic thinking, providing links to contemporary work etc... Additionally, it should be noted that Thelema pre-existed Crowley as a philosophy; It is present in the writtings of Francios Rabelais, and others, thus we could show with accuracy the continuum which is Thelema. My major concern with this site is that by 'restricting' it to certain accepted sources, it will present an innacurate portrait of what is really going on here. Thelema is very much alive, and growing; it is essential to accomodate this fact. While Dictionaries are inherently conservative in nature, the Wiki format alters this terrain a bit, and if we agree on a mode by which we can develop the evolutionary side of thelema without at the same time opening the encyclopedia to an anarchic free-for all, we will be better off. This is not an ordinary 'dictionary'. It is bounded by it's technological form, which is inherently evolutionary. I'd like to see this project be a living reflection of Thelema; both retaining form AND pushing boundaries. I have no desire to participate in a cannonization process; we've all seen how ugly that can be. So in short; Ibisis' Proposal is:Create a new category or categories to accommadate the debate rather than stifle it. Shall we?

-Ibisis-

The accepted method for this is simply to add a Alternate views or Differing views section to an article. For example, if someone wanted to add an Alternative spellings section to the article on Magick simply presenting in a matter-of-fact way that some Thelemites use alternate spellings for the terms and presenting these spellings and their distinctions, I doubt that anyone would remove it. One could also add redirect pages for Magickal and Magickian. Similarly, I have already begun a Different views of Thelema under the article on Thelema. This could simply be expanded or additional sections added to the main article to accomplish what you are suggesting. Also, you might consider a History of Thelema article for the Rabalaisian precedent to Thelema.

Adityanath

I pretty much agree with Adityanath on this one. Keep in mind, the issue is not one of orthodox vs. alternative or traditional vs. contemporary. It is about existing lines of knowledge. If you want to present an alternative or contemporary viewpoint in an article, by all means do so. But they need to reflect expert sources that you can reference or opinions that are accepted by a great bulk of the Thelemic community so to be considered "common knowledge". If we try to present every individual opinion on a topic (aspecially one like "Thelema" or "Magick") then they will be 20 pages long and so varied as to be useless. The object is to provide fundamental information, not an exhaustive range of individual viewpoints. That is the use of the "Links of Interest" sections, where you can link to any relevant info you want (see OTO for a good example of this). I understand that you want to use Thelemapedia to push boundaries, but that is just not the purpose of this site. If you want to explore the evolutionary aspects of Thelema, join Lashtal.com or present your ideas on LiveJournal.com or in a Thelemic print publication.

I will give an example to illustrate what I am trying to say. Crowley believed that the squiggle in AL is a tzaddi. Many Thelemites do not—enough to consider the opinion "common knowledge". Within the AL article, it would be acceptable to state both viewpoints, because they both fundamentally change the nature of the meaning, and each can be backed up with solid reasons. You use the difference between "Magician" and "Magickian"...the problem here is that there is no difference in meaning...within the canon of Thelemic literature (even "alternative" literature), they mean the exact same thing. If there were two camps—one of magicians and one of magickians—who had significantly different philosophies and practices, then it would be proper, even necessary, to point out the difference. However, such is not the case. Therefore, insisting on their mutual use muddies the waters and dilutes understanding (violating the 2nd editorial principle).

Fr. Ash

I find the arrangement suggested by Adityanath to be completely satisfactory. Thank you. If you re- read my comments, I think you will find reason to see that I am not trying to force you to convert to spelling "Magickian" as such, nor am I trying to use this site to push boundaries. I am simply calling it as I see it, perhaps contributing debate and new ideas where I see them to be pertinent. I think you will find that I can contribute helpful perspectives. In the interest of an open debate, please be careful that you do not make a 'straw man' out of my perspectives. Don't interpret the surface issues which I mention as iconic of my persepective. My suggestion was that we ought to create a forum for diverging views, as Adityanath has picked up on completely. Your response seems to me to suggest that the main content of my post was the proposition of "Magickian" and the opening up of a limitless dhiarea of unqualified discourse, and it is not. Principle of Charity of Interpretation, please.

I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about in terms of unreferenced, contemporary views as being valid. I contributed an article on IAO in English. The concept is entirely self supporting, coherent, and works within the body of Thelemic research (rather than opinion). As far as I know, having never read that before, I 'discovered' that one (Mabye others too, but who knows..." Independent research which is not inter-textually referenced but which is nevertheless a coherent and obvious feature of Thelema is what I'd like to see admitted, NOT wild opinion, thank you.

-Ibisis-

What you are talking about enters into the vague arena of self-supported knowledge. I can offer no editorial policy on that one. It is certainly a valid strategy to put something up the flag pole and see who salutes. There is an equal chance that people will rip it to shreds, of course. No one "owns" the information in any of these articles, so it's prefectly "legal" to take a presented theory, and mangle it, perfect it, or delete it. That's why there is no need for a seperate forum on this site, which would only serve to confuse people looking for clear information. If someone can't make an idea fit within an existing article, then either the original article is flawed, or the new information is.

The one area that I still resist strongly is the idea of using Thelemapedia as a forum for presenting "independent research". That idea is fundamentally at odds with the nature and goals of this site. Contributors need to think of the end user, first and foremost. Writers should essentially be invisible to those who are using the site learn about Thelema. This site cannot work when the writers are using Thelemapedia as a forum for discussion, experimentation, and debate for their personal theories.

Is this limiting? Yes, of course it is. Thelemapedia is not going to try to be all things to all people. If you want to add information to an article, by all means do so...but please try to use info that can be backed up in the existing literature (whether orthodox or alternative, I don't care).

Fr. Ash

Cool. -Ibisis-

Godforms?

I see that we have a whole list of "godforms" but no entry under "godform" itself. Maybe an entry as to what a "godform" is?

I'd write it myself if I knew how to define "godform" (as opposed to "deity," "god," or "grand wazoo."). -- DVV

I'd say that the principal differences are 1) relationship with a lack of invested belief in the objective existence of the godform (Liber O I:1), 2) the option for the magician to identify with the godform through invocation (Liber O II:1-2). See also Magick Without Tears pp. 145-6; and the use of godforms in GD initiation. The most important godform, often mentioned by Crowley for its utility, is that of Harpocrates (http://www.livejournal.com/users/paradoxosalpha/34059.html).

For that matter, is there a clean way to link a plural to a singular? I was writing an article earlier where I wanted to refer to the word "Thelemite" (which should have an article) but the word in my text was "Thelemites". Any trick for this? -- isomeme

Yes there is! You just open double brackets and type the name of the article that you want to link ("Thelemite"), then a vertical line | followed by the word that you want to actually appear ("Thelemites") and close the double brackets. You can see an example right here in the Community Portal if you look at the way that the earlier signatures are scripted. --Paradoxosalpha 11:35, 27 Sep 2004 (EDT)

T-shirts

Okay, when do we get Thelemapedia T-shirts? You can't have a community project like this without T-shirts.  :D DVV

This idea is too good! I will look into it...  :) —Ash

Consider a CaféPress store. Thiebes

Linking to Wikipedia

You can link to the original Wikipedia for mundane things such as countries, cities, etc. For example, use [[Wikipedia:London|]] to produce London - note that the final '|' is needed or the link will appear as Wikipedia:London.

I would recommend that we hack the code to put some kind of inidication on these links, perhaps something like London W and I also think it would be a good idea to make such links open a new browser window so people don't get confused about where they are...

Also, we have to be careful not to do this for entries of a spritual nature, in order to encourage article to be written from a Thelemic pov in the Thelemapedia.

Adityanath

To tell the truth, I really don't think we should worry about linking "mundane" things like London at all.

Frater C.U.G.

Well, articles imported from the Wikipedia may have references that we don't want to duplicate in the Thelemapedia. I see no reason to remove them when the Wikipedia is available. Sure, everybody knows where London is, but the are many more obscure places and references in Crowley's life. Why not link to Wikipedia for completeness? Is is a great convenience for the user to be able to click through to say, Wikipedia:Kangchenjunga from Crowley's bio than not, don't you think?

Adityanath