User:Ash/My Philosophy

(Difference between revisions)

< User:Ash

Current revision

Table of contents

1 A little history

2 The Thelema challenge

3 The core principles

4 But what about multiple points of view?

5 Participation

[edit]

A little history

When I first began Thelemapedia, I thought that it would be pretty straight forward. The idea was simply to have a site that would give plain information about Thelema. I know, I was naive. The fact is, the formal presentation of information is very difficult. Ultimately, you have to draw the line somewhere, because without one—if a collection of data has no epistemic standards—then it ceases to have any value beyond a repository of chaotic voices babbling into the void. Now then, I'm not putting down chaotic babbling: projects which have that goal are no less valuable than Thelemapedia. However, the model isn't an effective one for an encyclopedia.

In the beginning, I borrowed largely from Wikipedia's model of information. At the core of Wikipedia is the idea that articles should present knowledge from what they call a neutral point of view (or NPOV for short), which means without bias and representing all views fairly. Of course, this being an encyclopedia about Thelema, it would make sense to bend that rule and say it is preferable to give articles a pro-Thelema bias. I thought (again, with great naivete) that this would make things clear and relatively easy. I soon found that things got complicated very fast.

[edit]

The Thelema challenge

Here is the problem with Thelema in regards to an encyclopedia: it is a relatively new system that has no central authority and attracts adherents who are encouraged to think independently, sometimes to the point of developing opposing ideas for the sake of asserting individuality. A popular notion within Thelema is that since interpretation of The Book of the Law is a matter for the individual, then it is acceptable and possibly required for Thelema as a whole to be tailored for each person. I philosophically agree with the idea that any system of thought or practice is created by the individual as s/he experiences it, which is always going to be different to some degree from every other person's experience. However, it is not possible, by definition, to create an encyclopedia that captures every single potential manifestion of Thelema.

So, the problem: how do I set up boundaries that are tight enough to make a meaningful, useful encyclopedia while being loose enough to allow for having a robust site? Said another way, it couldn't be too loose, because the site would cease to define anything in a meaningful way, and it couldn't be too tight, because useful information might not get added.

[edit]

The core principles

The resulting central guidelines regarding content would be as follows:

Aleister Crowley shall be the first source. This site recognizes that, whatever faults Crowley might have had, he was the prophet of Thelema and was largely responsible for synthesizing and creating the core system we call Thelema. Therefore his opinions on Thelemic matters will trump others when there are multiple options.
Information should come from the knowledge base. This means several important things. Like Wikipedia, Thelemapedia is not set up as a forum or journal for personal opinion or subjective research. Instead, information should ideally come from published works of expert Thelemites. Of these, the first priority goes to Crowley and those who are in basic sympathy with him, such as Israel Regardie, Jack Parsons, J.F.C. Fuller, etc. After them comes more current scholars, such as Lon Milo Duquette, Sabazius, Dionysos Thriambos, Richard Kaczynski, Gerald del Campo, etc. This principle is a fundamental one, because as an encyclopedia, its central duty is to act as a reference for existing information. The idea here is that Thelemapedia gathers information that can basically be found in an occult library, but written in a more condenced, concise way for the purpose of rudimentary education.
Non-Thelemic information should come from sources that are considered reasonably expert. I think this principle is pretty straightforward.

I am the first to say that this model is not going to be perfect. I understand that some Thelemites might believe that I am trying to silence their voices, in essence trying to define Thelema for the world. My first response is that they give too much credit to Thelemapedia and not enough credit to its readers. Thelemapedia does not have the power, even if it should wish it, to foist a single definition of Thelema onto the world. Also, people who are truly interested in Thelema will not stop at our humble encyclopedia. Even the briefest of explorations will quickly uncover the multitude of Thelemic voices in print, on the Internet, and within the numerous Thelemic organizations that are extant.

[edit]

But what about multiple points of view?

Here is a conundrum, indeed. Thelema is all about individual liberty and the notion that each person is the center of their universe. So, surely a site on Thelema should respect this by allowing all those equally valid voices to have a say, right? Well, yes and no.

Aleister Crowley is certainly not the only voice in the field of Thelema, and I myself consider some of his social and political theories to be trite, outdated, and even bigoted. At times, he presented information regarding other cultures and beliefs that are far better understood and explained by others. Moreover, Crowley's writing could occasionally be described as convoluted, demagogic, opaque, and rambling, making it difficult to know what he was really trying to say. He has been justly accused of having at least two opinions on every subject, so that almost any conceivable position within Thelema could be backed up by quotes from his vast library of works.

What I'm trying to say is that even with Crowley at the center, there is plenty of room for multiple points of view. The trick is that when an article presents multiple viewpoints, it should describe the stances fairly, not advocate for them (remember, this is a site that acts as a reference for existing knowledge, not for personal opinions or subjective research). Moreover, alternative or minority viewpoints are welcome as long as they are presented as such. For example, it is fine to mention that some Thelemites believe that Thelema is the worship of the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, as long as it is mentioned in its own article and not presented as if it were a core or majority belief, and that it is backed up with some sort of documentable evidence.

Another example deals with Ordo Templi Orientis. Thelemapedia accepts the "Caliphate" O.T.O. as the "true" continuation of Aleister Crowley's O.T.O., and we aren't interested in debates regarding this issue. However, we certainly welcome entries for S.O.T.O., T.O.T.O., and other Thelemic organizations, along with full descriptions of their structure, history, and beliefs.

Moreover, we want entries for Wicca, Enochian and Chaos Magick, Gnostic churches, and other such areas that are of interest to many Thelemites but not intrinsically related to Thelema.

The final word: Thelemapedia has more than enough room for multiple voices as long as viewpoints are reported, not advocated. Articles should present information, not argue or try to convince (unless that is itself the point of the article, such as arguments for and against Thelema being a religion.

[edit]

Participation

The next big issue is: who gets to participate? Initiatially, I wanted the site to be open to all, like Wikipedia. I assumed that with all the Thelemites in the world, the membership roster would fill quickly, and that activity would quickly reach a high level. For reasons I still don't understand, that didn't happen. The number of people who have made contributions to the site are well under 50, perhaps closer to 15 or 20, with only 1 or 2 people editing at any one time. Now then, this is fine with me, too...my goal is to make a great encyclopedia, and if only 15 people make it, then so be it.

The problem is that with low numbers like this, wikis have a hard time being self-correcting. Poor writing, vandalism, and policy violations do not get monitored and corrected. This allows folks who have a personal agenda to cause mischief, and this has certainly happened here.

So, I have had to make joining more difficult by making folks apply for it. There are two reasons for this. One is to filter out certain people who seek to cause harm to Thelemapedia (no, I'm not paranoid :) ). The other is to grow a roster of editors who are truly interested in adding to the site. Here is my hope: if the site can get filled with editors who work in good faith and have an investment in Thelemapedia, then eventually I will be able to "open the gates" and allow people to become editors without any roadblocks.

Retrieved from "http://thelemapedia.org/index.php/User:Ash/My_Philosophy"

-My philosophy here...coming soon
+===A little history===
 When I first began Thelemapedia, I thought that it would be pretty straight forward. The idea was simply to have a site that would give plain information about Thelema. I know, I was naive. The fact is, the formal presentation of information is very difficult. Ultimately, you have to draw the line somewhere, because without one—if a collection of data has no epistemic standards—then it ceases to have any value beyond a repository of chaotic voices babbling into the void. Now then, I'm not putting down chaotic babbling: projects which have that goal are no less valuable than Thelemapedia. However, the model isn't an effective one for an encyclopedia.
-In the beginning, I borrowed largely from [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia|Wikipedia's]] model of information. At the core of Wikipedia is the idea that articles should present knowledge from what they call a neutral point of view (or [[Wikipedia:NPOV|NPOV]] for short), which means without bias and representing all views fairly. Of course, this being an encyclopedia about Thelema, it would make sense to bend that rule and say it is preferable to give articles a pro-Thelema bias.
+In the beginning, I borrowed largely from [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia|Wikipedia's]] model of information. At the core of Wikipedia is the idea that articles should present knowledge from what they call a neutral point of view (or [[Wikipedia:NPOV|NPOV]] for short), which means without bias and representing all views fairly. Of course, this being an encyclopedia about Thelema, it would make sense to bend that rule and say it is preferable to give articles a pro-Thelema bias. I thought (again, with great naivete) that this would make things clear and relatively easy. I soon found that things got complicated very fast.
+===The Thelema challenge===
+Here is the problem with Thelema in regards to an encyclopedia: it is a relatively new system that has no central authority and attracts adherents who are encouraged to think independently, sometimes to the point of developing opposing ideas for the sake of asserting individuality. A popular notion within Thelema is that since interpretation of [[The Book of the Law]] is a matter for the individual, then it is acceptable and possibly required for Thelema as a whole to be tailored for each person. I philosophically agree with the idea that any system of thought or practice is created by the individual as s/he experiences it, which is always going to be different to some degree from every other person's experience. However, it is not possible, by definition, to create an encyclopedia that captures every single potential manifestion of Thelema.
+So, the problem: how do I set up boundaries that are tight enough to make a meaningful, useful encyclopedia while being loose enough to allow for having a robust site? Said another way, it couldn't be too loose, because the site would cease to define anything in a meaningful way, and it couldn't be too tight, because useful information might not get added.
+===The core principles===
+The resulting central guidelines regarding content would be as follows:
+# '''Aleister Crowley shall be the first source.''' This site recognizes that, whatever faults Crowley might have had, he was the prophet of Thelema and was largely responsible for synthesizing and creating the core system we call Thelema. Therefore his opinions on Thelemic matters will trump others when there are multiple options.
+# '''Information should come from the knowledge base.''' This means several important things. Like Wikipedia, Thelemapedia is not set up as a forum or journal for personal opinion or subjective research. Instead, information should ideally come from published works of expert Thelemites. Of these, the first priority goes to Crowley and those who are in basic sympathy with him, such as [[Israel Regardie]], [[Jack Parsons]], [[J.F.C. Fuller]], etc. After them comes more current scholars, such as Lon Milo Duquette, [[Sabazius]], Dionysos Thriambos, Richard Kaczynski, Gerald del Campo, etc.  This principle is a fundamental one, because as an encyclopedia, its central duty is to act as a reference for existing information. The idea here is that Thelemapedia gathers information that can basically be found in an occult library, but written in a more condenced, concise way for the purpose of rudimentary education.
+# '''Non-Thelemic information should come from sources that are considered reasonably expert.''' I think this principle is pretty straightforward.
+I am the first to say that this model is not going to be perfect. I understand that some Thelemites might believe that I am trying to silence their voices, in essence trying to define Thelema for the world. My first response is that they give too much credit to Thelemapedia and not enough credit to its readers. Thelemapedia does not have the power, even if it should wish it, to foist a single definition of Thelema onto the world. Also, people who are truly interested in Thelema will not stop at our humble encyclopedia. Even the briefest of explorations will quickly uncover the multitude of Thelemic voices in print, on the Internet, and within the numerous Thelemic organizations that are extant.
+===But what about multiple points of view?===
+Here is a conundrum, indeed. Thelema is all about individual liberty and the notion that each person is the center of their universe. So, surely a site on Thelema should respect this by allowing all those equally valid voices to have a say, right? Well, yes and no.
+Aleister Crowley is certainly not the only voice in the field of Thelema, and I myself consider some of his social and political theories to be trite, outdated, and even bigoted. At times, he presented information regarding other cultures and beliefs that are far better understood and explained by others. Moreover, Crowley's writing could occasionally be described as convoluted, demagogic, opaque, and rambling, making it difficult to know what he was really trying to say. He has been justly accused of having at least two opinions on every subject, so that almost any conceivable position within Thelema could be backed up by quotes from his vast library of works.
+What I'm trying to say is that even with Crowley at the center, there is plenty of room for multiple points of view. The trick is that when an article presents multiple viewpoints, it should ''describe'' the stances fairly, not ''advocate'' for them (remember, this is a site that acts as a reference for existing knowledge, not for personal opinions or subjective research). Moreover, alternative or minority viewpoints are welcome as long as they are presented as such. For example, it is fine to mention that some Thelemites believe that Thelema is the worship of the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, as long as it is mentioned in its own article and not presented as if it were a core or majority belief, and that it is backed up with some sort of documentable evidence.
+Another example deals with [[Ordo Templi Orientis]]. Thelemapedia accepts the "Caliphate" O.T.O. as the "true" continuation of Aleister Crowley's O.T.O., and we aren't interested in debates regarding this issue. However, we certainly welcome entries for S.O.T.O., T.O.T.O., and other Thelemic organizations, along with full descriptions of their structure, history, and beliefs.
+Moreover, we want entries for Wicca, Enochian and Chaos Magick, Gnostic churches, and other such areas that are of interest to many Thelemites but not intrinsically related to Thelema.
+'''The final word:''' Thelemapedia has more than enough room for multiple voices as long as viewpoints are reported, not advocated. Articles should present information, not argue or try to convince (unless that is itself the point of the article, such as arguments [[Arguments against Thelema being a religion|for]] and [[Arguments for why Thelema is a religion|against]] Thelema being a religion.
+===Participation===
+The next big issue is: who gets to participate? Initiatially, I wanted the site to be open to all, like Wikipedia. I assumed that with all the Thelemites in the world, the membership roster would fill quickly, and that activity would quickly reach a high level. For reasons I still don't understand, that didn't happen. The number of people who have made contributions to the site are well under 50, perhaps closer to 15 or 20, with only 1 or 2 people editing at any one time. Now then, this is fine with me, too...my goal is to make a great encyclopedia, and if only 15 people make it, then so be it.
+The problem is that with low numbers like this, wikis have a hard time being self-correcting. Poor writing, vandalism, and policy violations do not get monitored and corrected. This allows folks who have a personal agenda to cause mischief, and this has certainly happened here.
+So, I have had to make joining more difficult by making folks apply for it. There are two reasons for this. One is to filter out certain people who seek to cause harm to Thelemapedia (no, I'm not paranoid :) ). The other is to grow a roster of editors who are truly interested in adding to the site. Here is my hope: if the site can get filled with editors who work in good faith and have an investment in Thelemapedia, then eventually I will be able to "open the gates" and allow people to become editors without any roadblocks.