User:Ash/My Philosophy

(Difference between revisions)

Revision as of 04:01, 30 Jun 2005

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.

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 even 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 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, Lon Milo Duquette, J.F.C. Fuller, etc. After them comes more current scholars, such as Sabazius, Dionysos Thriambos, Richard Kaczynski, Gerald deCampo, 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.

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

-My philosophy here...coming soon
 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.
+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 even 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 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]], [[User:Lon Milo DuQuette|Lon Milo Duquette]], [[J.F.C. Fuller]], etc. After them comes more current scholars, such as [[Sabazius]], [[User:Paradoxosalpha|Dionysos Thriambos]], Richard Kaczynski, Gerald deCampo, 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.