Talk:Non-religious Thelemites and their views

(Revision as of 19:58, 12 Jun 2005)

Table of contents

1 POV edits

2 Two takes

3 Discussion of one article vs. two

3.1 Moved from Aleph's talk page

4 Contemporary Opinions

POV edits

I would like to respectfully suggest that those who are biased toward Thelema as a religion to the extent that they feel the need to put "non-religious" in quotes, add material to the article about Thelema being a religion, and otherwise add to the article in ways that subtlely and not so subtlely treat non-religious Thelemites in a derogotory way by adding digs, etc., please refrain from editting this article at all. How can someone who does not accept or even understand the non-religious point of view represent it accurately? Aleph 10:10, 12 Jun 2005 (CDT)

The problem is that there are two things going on in this article: non-religious views and non-religious Thelemites. The first is the topic and even the name of the article. The second is misleading and vague. For example, I myself agree with some non-religious views of Thelema...but that doesn't make me a "non-religious Thelemite". But I also don't label myself a "religious" Thelemite. I'm a Thelemite, and I happen to define it as a religion. By using such language, it makes it seem like there are two branches of Thelema...those who are religious and those who aren't. But this isn't an accurate description of reality. I think the majority of Thelemites fall somewhere in the middle. That's why I think it might make for a better article if it sticks to ideas and loses the religious/non-religious Thelemite theme. —Fr. Ash— 12:02, 12 Jun 2005 (CDT)

And yes, I am able to understand non-religious views, very easily. I used to be an avowed athiest, and I know exactly what it means to shun anything smacking of religion. Also, there are lots of things missing from this article, such as the philosophy, ethics, and practices of Thelema...things that are not strictly religious. Believe it or not, I pretty well understand those things and can speak of them outside of a religious framework. Just because I don't agree that Thelema isn't a religion doesn't mean I don't understand why some people take a non-religion stance. —Fr. Ash— 12:06, 12 Jun 2005 (CDT)

Why the quotes then around "non-religious"? You are projecting your opinions about what is and is not religious onto an article about the non-religious viewpoint of non-religious Thelemites. That's how the article starts out, as an observation that there are comtemporary non-religious Thelemites and an attempt to describe their beliefs. Since you are NOT one, you cannot presume to describe their "philopsophy, ethics and practices." I severely disagree with your statement "it might make for a better article if it sticks to ideas and loses the religious/non-religious Thelemite theme." That intentionally subverts the original intent of the article. Which is exactly what you set out to do to the two sentences in Thelema that led to the writing of this article. Clearly, you don't agree with this article. Tough! You state that all Thelemites regardless of belief are welcome to contribute to this encyclopedia. Regardless of your denial, there are non-religious Thelemites and we demand representation in this venue without your attempting to alter our portrayal of our approach to Thelema, to marginalize or belittle us by "losing" the very distinction we are trying to describe. The whole point of this article was to separate these very concepts and let non-religous Thelemites present their own view. If you wish to write a more comprehensive Sociology of Thelema, by all means do, but please stop trying to force your viewpoint onto this article. Aleph 14:05, 12 Jun 2005 (CDT)

The quotes are there because it is a casual term...it doesn't strictly define any group of people. For example, one could say: OTO Thelemites vs. SOTO Thelemites, because those are distinct groups of people with clear definitions. In contrast, what exactly is a "non-religious Thelemite"? It is inherently vague. The vagueness continues: Since you are NOT one, you cannot presume to describe their "philopsophy, ethics and practices"... This is where you are making your biggest error: this article is about presenting various viewpoints regarding aspects of Thelema that are not ecclesiastical. It cannot be about trying to summarize the opinions of all "non-religious Thelemites" as if they were an organized group of people with a manifesto, because no such group or manifesto exists. You are no more qualified to speak for this "group" than I am.

This site is supposed to reflect the knowledge base and common knowledge, not Aleph's personal beliefs (you can post on your brother's site for that). Furthermore, no one is banned from editing an article because they are not "qualified" enough. Editing "Non-religious Views of Thelema" is not limited to self-professed "non-religious Thelemites". I'm sorry if you thought this article was exclusive to you, but it isn't. —Fr. Ash— 14:24, 12 Jun 2005 (CDT)

Yes, but there is still such a thing as the original intent of the article; the intellectually honest acknowledge that and collaborate with the the original author to better understand that intent and maintain the integrity of the article. Aleph 14:56, 12 Jun 2005 (CDT)

Two takes

Fr. Ash : Something to consider: this article might be made more neutral if it were split into two main sections:

It is possible to define Thelema as something other than a religion, offering various example definitions found in the literature or common enough to be considered common knowledge.
A focus on components of Thelema that are not overtly religous, such as philosophy/practice/ethics/lifestyle/etc. This section would not be about refuting the religious label, but detailing aspects that many might not label as religious.

This article is currently more of an argument for the non-religious view, rather that an encyclopedic source of knowledge, which falls out of the scope of Thelemapedia. Naturally there will be some support for the view needed, but the tone is somewhat defensive and combative, and it doesn't need to be that way. By splitting up the article into two major sections as outlined above, the piece might become more neutrally informative than argumentitive. Remember, the goal is not to convince the reader, but to inform.

I don't think it comes off as an argument. I consider it informational about contemporary Thelemic culture. In any case, it is under development. Give it a few weeks. Aleph

Discussion of one article vs. two

Use this article to discuss unorthodox interpretations of Thelema or its various off-shoots. Again, please try to stick with either the knowledge base or common knowledge. In other words, please limit entries to views or practices held by reasonably substantial numbers of people. Examples might be a focus on satanism or the various cults of Babalon. Fr. Ash

This is a, IMO, a much better way to allow for expansion than simply moving the section around in a much longer article. Aleph

I thought so too. I really hope editors add a lot of great material here. Fr. Ash

The question remains: Alternative to what? By placing these nonreligious views in this article instead of the "Thelema & Religion" article, all that is being accomplished is to ghettoize the contemporary perspectives. Why not include this stuff in the section in Thelema & Religion where the question of differentiating between the religious and nonreligious is directly discussed?? This is what was proposed by myself and Paradoxos Alpha, and you said you wanted to see how it turned out. Why are you now, before it has been completed, trying to have it both ways? It makes for a very confusing presentation of the material and reduces the possibility that the material which you have included here will be found by those who are examining the question. --Thiebes 00:37, 9 Mar 2005 (CST)

I disagree. I feel that forcing non-religious views of Thelema into an article about "Thelema & Religion" is ghettoizing it. You are hiding the views down at the end of an article no one is going to read through. I am open to changes to the title of this article. I don't want my discussion at the end of your article. Thanks. Aleph

You haven't even looked at it if you think it's at the end. --Thiebes 10:01, 9 Mar 2005 (CST) Nevertheless I think the solution of calling your separate article non-religious and using that within the main article as a template could work.

The point is that it is essentially hidden is a large article mostly discussing religion. I did look at it. It hides and qualifies my views in a way that I don't agree with. As I said before, the topic deserves two viewpoints and two articles. Please simply link to the Non-religious Views of Thelema rather than attempting to copy or source this article into Thelema & Religion. This is an article that stands on its own, and it is not finished. I intend to expand it significantly. The whole point of trying to force me to put my material into Thelema & Religion seems to be to pre-qualify the idea of Thelema as "not a religion" with a "but it really is" context. I don't agree that that accurately reflects the views that I am attempting to document. Aleph

You wrote: The whole point of trying to force me to put my material into Thelema & Religion seems to be to pre-qualify the idea of Thelema as "not a religion" with a "but it really is" context

No, the point is to present the facts of both views together with traditional means to examine the question. Like you would find done in an encyclopedia, as opposed to an editorial article where one opinion is presented. --Thiebes 10:20, 9 Mar 2005 (CST)

Look, if you and Ash and P.A. and the other O.T.O editors are intending to force me to do it your way, just say so. I will go elsewhere and stop wasting my time trying to discuss the issue with you. Aleph 10:26, 9 Mar 2005 (CST)

I have no doubt that is what you'd rather believe, than to simply confront, with logical argument, the question of what it is that you are trying to do. Instead you resort to these kinds of veiled accusations. --Thiebes 10:28, 9 Mar 2005 (CST)

Time will tell, I guess. I am not trying to do anything other than write an article in the way I believe the information in it will be presented most clearly. It is typical on Wikipedia to break an article into sections when it gets too long or the presentation is trying to cover multiple viewpoints or schools of thought. I have added up front the distinguishing feature of this article and a pointer to the involved discussion of Thelema & Religion. I'm sorry you disagree with me, but can't we agree to disagree? Aleph 10:38, 9 Mar 2005 (CST)

Fine. I wish you would have given me a chance to complete my work before reverting my edits, or at least discussed your reservations rather than simply "giving up" as you put it. But whatever. --Thiebes 10:41, 9 Mar 2005 (CST)

I genuinely feel fine about the two articles they way they ended up. My concern was actually that the nonreligious view would be marginalized by being separated into a different article (especially by the name "Alternative"), but the way you have implemented it avoids the problem fairly well and works out better in the end. One thought I had was that the nonreligious article could potentially cite the definition of religion in the thelema & religion article that gives the model by which Thelema is considered nonreligious (the "Greek Thought" bit I mentioned above). --Thiebes 12:56, 9 Mar 2005 (CST)

Moved from Aleph's talk page

I'm not sure what the best way is for us to have a discussion on here. I don't like the interface for discussion. Anyhow, you wrote:

I want a place to discuss Thelema outside the context of religion completely. Why can't you understand that? What precisely is wrong with that?

What's wrong with that is that an encyclopedia isn't a place where we get to create little blinders where the real world doesn't exist. Thiebes

Um, that is not what I am doing. I am trying to accurately report on how a specific community of Thelemites view Thelema. That school of interpretation doesn not even care how religion is defined or feel that there is any need to justify their view in the context of religion. Aleph

I don't understand why they wouldn't care, since those very definitions can form the basis for a rational argument about the idea that Thelema is nonreligious. (The "Greek Thought" sections, I think, would be especially applicable.) --Thiebes 12:48, 9 Mar 2005 (CST)

My article is not intended as a rational argument about whether or not Thelema is a religion. It is intended to be a description of the varying attitudes and beliefs with a specific non-religious cultural segment which includes itself under the banner of Thelema. That's why I don't think it belongs in Thelema & Religion. Aleph

The quote you have there written by myself is a rational argument along the "Greek Thought" line that Thelema is not a religion. Crowley's quote is also a rational argument to that end. In any case, I think that the argument that Thelema is not a religion should be presented, whether in your article or the Thelema & Religion one. Thiebes

What's wrong with that is that by saying Thelema is nonreligious, that automatically puts it in a religious context because you are discussing religiosity (in this case, the lack thereof). Thiebes

No, because it is not the main article on Thelema. It is a secondary article, is clearly a secondary article, and points both to the main article and to Thelema & Religion. I am doing everything I can to make sure that I do not impede those who wish to write about Thelema as a Religion. Why do those who do view Thelema as a religion get so upset about my writing about a different view that they feel the need to impede my work with all this rigamarole? Aleph

I do not think of it as an impedence, but as a more effective way of presenting the information. I have been upset because you did not discuss it with me after the change was made, but simply reverted and got upset yourself. Then you couch your arguments in prejudicial language about how me and the OTO minions are conspiring against you. This is frustrating when I am only trying to show why I think my presentation of the information is more effective. I also did not know, at the beginning, that you had planned to change the title or add links in the way that you have. What I reacted to was what appeared to be a simple reversion along with the explanatory comment, "I give up." don't you see why that might be upsetting? --Thiebes 12:48, 9 Mar 2005 (CST)

Yes, but you persist in misunderstanding what I am doing and why I don't think it belongs in the context of your article. Aleph

I understand the argument that the information is more effectively presented this way.
I did not think it made any sense to call it "alternative."
I do not understand how you can say it's not a rational argument against the idea of Thelema being religious, since that's basically what it is. Maybe it will be different when it is done, but either way this does not affect my opinion, which by the way is that I like it separate better anyway.
I did not understand your action of reverting back to the old format and saying the T&R article was bull and saying you give up. With the further edits and discussion, I understand much better now. Thiebes

Finally, what's wrong with discussing Thelema without talking about religious concepts at all would be a disingenuous and false representation of Thelema. User:Thiebes

Why do you think so? Isn't it enough that there are already two articles discussing it as religion, the main article and Thelema & Religion?? I can't help but feel that there are some unspoken agendas here. I am not trying to in any way delete or excise the view of Thelema as religion. I haven't blanked your articles or taken anything out of them. Why do you feel so threatened by my point of view and my accurately reporting on the similar views of others? Aleph

The implication that my arguments are motivated by "feeling threatened" or that there are unspoken agendas is incorrect. You seem very quick to come to that conclusion, despite that you have yourself pointed out where Ash and I disagreed about this article. I genuinely feel fine about the two articles they way they ended up. My concern was actually that the nonreligious view would be marginalized by being separated into a different article (especially by the name "Alternative"), but the way you have implemented it avoids the problem fairly well and works out better in the end. One thought I had was that the nonreligious article could potentially cite the definition of religion in the thelema & religion article that gives the model by which Thelema is considered nonreligious (the "Greek Thought" bit I mentioned above). --Thiebes 12:48, 9 Mar 2005 (CST)

Ok, I just realized that you don't really understand my point of view or what I am trying to write about or the pov from which I am writing.

See above. Thiebes

Cultural differences and different schools of thought within a movement are certainly valid topics for encylopediac description. Aleph

I realize that. Thiebes

Contemporary Opinions

The section called "Contemporary Opinions" ... I'm not sure whether we want those, do we? There is a question of credibility of contemporaries, and that they may well change their minds. We can study Crowley's opinions and decide which of them seem fairly persistant throughout his life, etc. But we cannot do this with contemporaries so much. I should add that I'm quoted there, something I wrote years ago which I now find narrow-minded -- not to mention I hardly consider myself an authority worthy of quotation in a scholarly encyclopedia, which is the point that I'm trying to bring up here. --Thiebes 10:41, 9 Mar 2005 (CST)

Retrieved from "http://thelemapedia.org/index.php/Talk:Non-religious_Thelemites_and_their_views"