User talk:Picatrix

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Thanks for your great contributions in AOS's biographical section. But it is obvious that your contributions specially emphasizes Spare's artistic aspects. As you say "The Book of Pleasure was said to have been inspired by Spare's marriage to the actress Eily Gertrude Shaw...", it totally neglects the importance of unique magical/mystical paradigm which is proposed in this book. Similarly, the phrase "his own theories of the relationship between the conscious and unconscious self" somehow degenerate his stance as a magician/mystic too. It is also true about Anathema of ZOS: One should not take this book simply as a psychological reflection of Spare's last years.

Unfortunately the research on Spare's mystical aspects in English literature has been very shallow. Chaos Magic of course has only inherited one of his simplest ideas as a technique... --Sepand (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sepand, Thanks for getting in touch, and thanks for your comments.

You will see that the biography section kept all of the magic references from the last one (except for the comment about his motto), so this version has not lost any of the emphasis on magic, it has only gained emphasis on art. I mentioned in my talk posting that in addition to the bio, the article should probably have a "Spare the Artist" and a "Spare the Magician" division. You will see that I have expanded the bio, and created and developed the "Spare the Artist" section. I hope to do the "Spare the Magician" section next. However, I want to use Spare's remarks as the primary basis for the description of his theory and practice. I am gathering materials for that now. Also, I don't think that suggesting that Spare's ideas were his own "degenerate" his stance as a magician. Unless you can point me to a published reference describing his influences we'll have to assume these ideas were his own. Spare certainly didn't seem to need to have his ideas compared to someone else's in order to feel satisfied with them. On reading his work and looking at his art it seems clear that he was happy to have ideas of his own. In fact, looking at his life it seems as though he sacrificed a great deal specifically to have and express his ideas as his own.

You yourself mentioned in your section on his philosophy that "Regarding Spare's magical system, Kiaism, his terminology is unique and could not be traced back in other traditions" This suggests that he had at least some ideas of his own, though I have some problems (that I've already mentioned on the talk page) with your suggestion that "Kia" (and the rest) are original concepts, though I would agree with you that he uses original terminology. You also suggest that his "Kiaism" requires a person to develop his own system of magic. If you did write this, why would you have a problem with my saying these were his own ideas. If they were not, who's were they? I can't write about what I think. I can only gather, collate and present attested references that shed light on an aspect of a subject. If this article were full of my ideas about Spare, believe me, it would be very different.

I hope to emphasize his magic in a second section. The biographical section having slightly more emphasis on Spare the artist is intended to provide information on the more conventionally acceptable side of Spare's career so that readers who might not be into "Chaos Magick" have a way to approach and understand Spare. Keep in mind that he first made his reputation as an artist, and as an exceptional one. Also, for the majority of the world, he was an artist first, and an eccentric sorcerer second. For people into his esoteric ideas, it may seem like discussing something besides his 'magic' at length is unfair. However, for the majority of the people who don't know anything about esoteric studies, Spare was a wild and talented artist whose career occurred too early for him to take advantage of the surrealist movement. The article is intended for the general public as well as specialists. That is, if they know about him at all... And if they don't they deserve to hear just as much about his art as his magical pastimes.

In any case, again, I hope to expand the section on Spare's magic. I should also emphasize that I do not feel that Spare's art and his magic can be completely separated. The two aspects of his career coexist. However, for the purposes of the article it seemed to me appropriate to separate them for the sake of continuity. I'm just not finished with the additions. It took me two days of steady work just to find all the references for the Crowley relationship and to cite it.

I should also mention that the passage about Eily Gertrude Shaw has been combined with the mention of the inspiration just because I cannot find anything at all about his wife. I did not want to just write "he married Eily Gertrude Shaw on xx" as an unpleasant orphan passage. But so far, I've found nothing else. And that seems very strange. But yes, it would be unfortunate if anyone thought that The Book of Pleasure was just a way to celebrate a wedding. This can be addressed in the "Spare the Magician" section. Unless you have some other suggestion?

Yes, I agree that the research on Spare's mystical aspects in English has been somewhat shallow. However, we'll have to stick with referenced material. Can your recommend studies of Spare in another language that are superior to the studies in English? --Picatrix (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The very reason that distinguishes Spare from his contemporaries is in affinity with the reason that his contemporaries has neglected the rich Persian mysticism in developing the so-called "western occultism". (Please note that Persian mysticism is different to Arabic or Islamic mysticism.) I do not surprise at all when see Crowley rejects Spare's school of magic - simply because Crowley as a master of "metaphysics adaptive study" has simply neglected the Persian mysticism (and even Islamic mysticism) which both had had important influences on magical current in general. It is totally marvelous a thing when you discover that how close is Spare's soul of teachings to someone like Omar Khayyam whose poems are never translated into English. Fitzgerarld has actually composed a poetry on Rubba'iat of Omar Khayyam in his own words - which in most of cases is not even close to the original version. Of course you know the relation between Khayyam and Spare: It is actually the only source that Spare has mentioned but of course its influence is completely concealed in Spare's works... to a degree that his works still remain original.
Beside this the way Spare contempts humanity and existence in general is very close to e.g. the way Shams-e-Tabrizi has done... At the time I finished my translation of Spare's works into Persian, an English friend told me "Spare was unable to translate himself into English. So how you have done this?!!" --Sepand (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


We got off on the wrong foot. Why don't we let bygones be bygones and concentrate on improving this article. I promise to listen to your objections, advice, and sources (thanks for the Richardson source, good book), and hopefully you will do the same for me. Now that I'm moving away from biology and working on other aspects of Nietzsche, I am no longer confident in my expertise. In these matters, I tend to think it's wise for me to simply provide my source work to the community of Nietzsche editors and see what all of you make of it, and how we might best put it together. I roundly apologize for losing my temper in our discussions, I can see now why you would have objected to my additions at first. Hopefully, we can agree that I did concede many points to you, and my final edit was much better as a result of the fact that I did listen to the points being made and change my addition accordingly. I hope that you also realize that your objections and advice were not in vain; even though we had a contentious debate, I considered what you had to say and I acknowledge that my initial additions were poorly done and biased. But neutrality is what this community is meant to achieve, and this will not happen if the page is maintained merely by all Nietzsche admirers, or all Nietzsche critics. I happen to be a blend of both. I believe Nietzsche is Picasso-like figure. He is incredibly fun to read. I would rank him in my top half-dozen favorite technical writers. However, he often displayed poor scholarship, and while I acknowledge and appreciate his brilliance and the many worthwhile contributions he has made to humanity, I must at the same time voice my utter contempt for his ethics, politics, and—in my opinion—bigotry. I am not convinced by attempts the postmodernists have made to appropriate them as a champion for the left. I don't believe this is a dispassionate or sober view. That's my 'cards on the table'. I am striving now not to let my personal views enter into my articles, and I believe I'm doing work that is based purely on facts and interpreting sources. I hope you accept my apology so that we can move forward and do some good work. I am pretty new to wiki, and I unreasonably rejected your initial arguments against the style of my work. CABlankenship (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This is entirely acceptable to me, and it seems constructive and useful. As for our differences in personal opinion, we can agree to disagree. I'm all for concentrating on improving the article. In this spirit please disregard the upper part of my most recent post to the talk page, and take a look at the suggestions for which I've requested an informal vote from editors. I will add an apology of my own below my most recent comments (I was editing it and did not see that you had posted this). Please look at my suggestion for how to proceed and offer up your vote as well. Thanks for your apology, which, while not necessary, is certainly accepted in the same gracious spirit in which it was offered. Best, --Picatrix (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's easy to get upset when you put a lot of work into a project. I came in brashly, I admit. It was wrong. I've actually been reading Nietzsche for years. He's a guilty pleasure, perhaps. I still think we need to be very very careful that we do not allow this article to become either an idealized portrait through uncritical wart-plucking, just as you have to remind me (forcefully at times) when I'm being unfair. Hopefully as we move along, there will be fewer and fewer such disputes, and I believe this will be the case. CABlankenship (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This quote is kind of weird: The erroneous notion of Nietzsche as a 'social Darwinist' and a believer in survival of the fittest was created by the Nazis, who rejected Lamarckian heredity as a Marxist lie because, according to Walter Kaufmann, it would have invalidated "their whole racism." What is the motivation or improvement in removing "as they admitted" in favor of "according to Walter Kaufmann"? It seems to imply that Lamarckian heredity would not have invalidated their racism, which is simply strange. Are we suggesting that this is just Kaufmann's subjective point? I preferred the previous entry. Likewise, what is the benefit of putting "their whole racism" in quotes? It comes off as sympathetic to the Nazis, in my opinion. I don't like it. What is your reason for this? Also, the comment While Nietzsche showed a keen interest in the implications of theories of evolution is bizarrely worded. The phrase theories of evolution is confusing, and we are providing a layout for the lay reader. Merely "While Nietzsche showed a keen interest in the implications of evolution" is a superior wording. I have no problem with your other additions and changes. CABlankenship (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I must call into question another change. The placement of the quote and in particular expressed disdain for the idea of 'the survival of the fittest' is misleading. This was not Darwin's term, it was Spencer's. Spencer was a social Darwinist, whom Nietzsche despised. Darwin also despised the notion of 'social Darwinism', and considered it immoral. The placement insinuates that this was Darwin's idea, which is misleading to the lay reader. However, I believe this fact could be put into another part of the article, where it does not mislead people into thinking this was Darwin's idea. CABlankenship (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue with the Kaufmann quote is that his own statement is unsupported. We can certainly include it, but where is the support, the basis for his statement that the Nazi's knew it would invalidate their entire racism? Where is the original source for it being a 'Bolshevistic' lie? If Kaufmann said it, and we can cite it, we can certainly keep it. However, without any basis for his statement, it seems safer to give notice to the reader that this is according to Kaufmann. If they admitted it, we have to cite it, or someone does... Where is this admission? If Kaufmann says the moon is made of green cheese should we post it to Wikipedia? Now, don't get me wrong: I suspect that Kaufmann is right, but we don't have a source. As for the "theories" wording I believe it to be superior based on the facts (as I understand them - correct me if I am wrong) that there are theories of evolution today, and there were theories of evolution at the time Nietzsche was writing. Lamarck's theory of evolution was advanced before Darwin's no? The two men differ on points of how such evolutionary change is effected, not whether or not it occurs. Hence: "theories".
While we are on the subject, I'm preparing to add material on the claim you have made that the heritability of acquired characteristics has been completely disproved. What are your thoughts on this:

Michael Anthony Corey, Evolution and the Problem of Natural Evil, Rowman and Littlefield, 2000, p7: "Although Lamarck's theory is said to have been repeatedly disconfirmed over the years, it still has many devotees, particularly in France." he adds however, "Today, however, it has been emphatically rejected by most evolutionists, since it is known that the vast majority of changes that are incurred in day-to-day life will not be passed down to subsequent generations." He goes on to say, "it is also possible that only a certain subset of acquired characters is heritable, while all others may not be. Indeed a growing amount of experimental evidence suggests that it is the phenomenon of environmentally-triggered genomic stress that tends to determine whether or not a given character will in fact be heritable. That is to say, if the character in question happens to be acquired in response to a locally-triggered genomic stressor, it could very well turn out to be heritable, whereas if it is acquired in the absence of such genomic stress, it probably won't be.

Thus, the only type of acquired character that appears to be heritable is the kind that is recruited from within an organism's genome, in response to outer pressure from the environment. This type of "acquired character" is to be sharply distinguished from the kind that is accidentally imposed upon an organism in total isolation from local environmental pressures, because only the former kind appears to flow naturally from within the organism itself."

I strongly suggest that you back away from the crankism involved in attempts to apologize for Lamarckism. Look, I'm a socialist, and even I have to admit that this is only coming from the hardcore left-wing fringe of biology—who are still pining for it to be true—as it would in fact invalidate all racism. It's just not true. I will try to explain this, but I am forced to use technical terms. In what is commonly known as Lamarckism (and how it was understood by Nietzsche), the genotype to phenotype chain is reversed. That is to say, if the phenotype (a trait possessed by a organism) is successful (the brawny blacksmiths arm), that trait will somehow become spliced into their genotype (the organisms genetic makeup), which is simply impossible. Testing has refuted this so many times, that only the most idealistic can hold out for it to be true. In fact, nobody does. What they have done is attempt to create a Neo-Lamarckism, which is (quite frankly) based on wishful thinking and mysticism instead of hard science. It's not taken seriously. You would have to be familiar with the intricacies of biology to really understand the history of this argument, and its unfortunate ties to politics—which has consistently been a problem in this science. Furthermore, nothing in the modern debate about the misnamed "Lamarckism" relates to Nietzsche's views at all. It would be sophistry to attempt to add something like this into an article meant for the casual lay reader. This is a fringe debate in biology on a hypothesis that has still yet to provide even a grain of evidence in its favor, even though it has been one of the most tested and hoped-for theories in all of science. The soviets alone ran countless experiments in their attempts to prove Lamarckism, with finally tragic results: Lysenko. I'd like it to be true also, but it just isn't. When one has an understanding of modern genetics, it is in fact a preposterous notion. There is simply not one highly respected biologist who defends this idea. The closest is Gould, who—admitting that what is called 'Lamarckism' is flat wrong—simply argued that it was unfair to Lamarck (a fine scientist) to associate him primarily with this erroneous theory. The rest comes from the fringe of biology, and from far-left cranks (a few French scientists), who have thus far failed to produce anything resembling evidence, and instead have resorted to hype and obscurantism. Lamarckism lasted as long as it did only because most biologists wanted so badly for it to be true on some level. Some still do. But honest scientists (the guys who are actually producing results), have long since admitted that it's completely false. One striking example of this is the legendary John Maynard Smith. Smith was a Marxist during the early cold war, and a hold out on Lamarckism. He tried and tried to find evidence for this, but to his despair he finally had to admit it was false. In interviews, he talks about how painful it was for him and his colleagues to admit that the hypothesis was simply impossible to defend against the facts being produced by modern genetics, and to his end of days he sadly admitted that we must give up on the idea. However, other aspects of Lamarck's work (which has no bearing on Nietzsche) are still useful, but they have nothing to do with what Nietzsche meant by Lamarckism, which is what we're discussing. For all intents and purpose, Lamarckism, as Nietzsche understood it, is totally wrong on an objective level.
On the Kaufmann quote: while Kaufmann is certainly not an authority on what the moon is made of, he is an authority on history and Nietzsche. Therefore, I believe his citation is enough. Furthermore, I urge you to again consider that it makes this sentence seem sympathetic to the Nazis.
On theories: I'm telling you that this is a bizarre wording. While a biologist would of course understand that evolution is made up of many theories, facts, and hypotheses, many lay readers confuse these distinctions. I am under the impression that wiki encourages us to compose summaries for the lay reader in instances where the reader might not be likely to understand the more intricate details of science and evolution. In that sense, I think that simply the word "evolution" is more clear and concise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CABlankenship (talkcontribs) 12:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Your latest edit is an improvement, much more clear. CABlankenship (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

For the business about Kaufmann, I understand your points and have reworded it. If it is not acceptable to you, then make it so. As for theories, do the same, as you like, though for my part I feel that "theories" does not make the article confusing, and raises the discussion to a higher standard.
As for 'Lamarckism' I still don't see how it is so thoroughly discredited as you claim. Please to not suggest that I'm a crank because I'm discussing possible editorial lines on 'my' user talk page - and discussing them with you in advance of any edits. I'll 'back off' when and if I care to, so long as I'm not violating any policy. That said (in the interest of maintaining civility), it might be necessary to establish shared definition here. What Nietzsche was arguing for (so far as I understand his ideas) was the idea that human beings can play a role in their own development (the usual 'teleological' concomitants of 'Lamarckism' that are often noted, as in Lange). Hence his examination of morality and his attempt to place it on a 'scientific' basis in the sense that moral codes should (according to him) be consciously established based on the 'type' of human he wished to see realized. While I'll grant that the proponents of a modified 'neo-Lamarckism' or a 'Lamarckian/Darwinian' synthesis appear to constitute what is clearly a minority, it appears that scientists still recognize a number of interesting possibilities as regards heritable characteristics. All would appear to depend upon synthesis, as 'pure' Lamarckism is a non-starter, and all the sources I've found later than the 1920s agree upon this unanimously. Since it seems that though Nietzsche claimed to reject Darwin he in fact embraced some of his ideas, and since it seems that he did accept the idea of heritable characteristics there might (I still am not informed enough to say) be justification for adding a clause to an existing sentence or adding a footnote indicating that aspects of the 'Lamarckian' approach are not dead, though they are only embraced by a minority. It could be that the rather muddled synthesis that Nietzsche was deploying as a theoretical basis has much in common with some emerging neo-Lamarckian/Darwinian syntheses. Please note: I do not claim this. It is an idea that I am exploring.

"ORIGINAL: sealed off from the outside world [author here referencing a quote of one of Dawkin's metaphors] CGAT codes for genes do not change as the organism adapts to its environment. By this criterion, the inheritance of acquired characteristics ('Lamarckism') is impossible. Fine, except that the statement suggests that organisms are defined only by their genes; whereas in truth they are also defined by the very varied ways in which genes actually operate within a living cell, and these gene expression patterns are most certainly influenced by the outside world.

ALTERNATIVE: "moulded by the outside world [author proposing an alternative to Dawkin's metaphor] The number of possible gene expression patterns is virtually unlimited. What is more, these patterns are determined at higher levels of the organism in the context of its interaction with the environment. Moreover, the expression or repression of genes may be affected by experience in a previous generation. So, all essential characteristics of gene function except for the coding are 'moulded by the outside world'. Which of these statements you prefer depends on whether you are focusing on gene coding or gene expression. Both are valid biological viewpoints. One (gene coding) takes a long time (generations) to change significantly; the other (gene expression) can change in hours.

There might be some reason to prefer the original statement. The environment influences gene expression levels during the lifetime of an individual organism, but the changes that result are in principle not inherited. What is passed on to the next generations is therefore 'sealed off from the outside world'. However, this is not completely certain. Some maternal effects additional to the DNA coding do seem to be transmitted." Denis Noble, The Music of Life, Oxford University Press, 2006, p19


"Some recent writers have also suggested that the principles of Darwinism and Lamarckism are not as antagonistic as contemporary texts have supposed. I shall consider three prominent cases: Steele's (1981) study of the inheritance of immunity in rabbits, Cullis's (1988) study of variation in flax, and Cairns et al.'s (1988) study of variation in Escherichia coli bacteria. These studies all report processes of organic change that can be interpreted as Lamarckian, but they differ in an important way from earlier reports of putative Lamarckian change. In each of the three cases, the postulated mechanism of Lamarckian evolution depends upon one or more Darwinian processes. The relationship thus suggested between Darwinian and Lamarckian processes is more complex and less antagonistic than that usually assumed. Such a view of the relationship is made possible, in part, by certain developments that have taken place in biology in the past few decades. Advances in molecular genetics have shown the genome to be a complex and dynamic system, and suggest a range of mechanisms for producing and transmitting genetic modifications (Hunkapiller et al., 1982), some of which might provide mechanisms for Lamarckian change. Mainstream Darwinism, meanwhile, has expanded its explanatory apparatus to include selection at various levels of biological organization. These developments make room for a rethinking both of the nature of Darwinian and Lamarckian processes and of the relationship between them." Paul Patrick Gordon Bateson, Peter H. Klopfer, Nicholas S. Thompson, Perspectives in Ethology, Springer, 1993, pp 231-232

It sometimes seems to me that excessive certainty can be justifiably viewed as a sickness. While you might be inclined to attribute this to my 'postmodernism' (despite the fact that my early education, and my taste leaves me constitutionally inclined to dismiss it in toto) I feel this observation to be in keeping with the desire to maintain an open mind. This is particularly important if one bears in mind the 'observer effect', which you should be well acquainted with as a scientist. Best, --Picatrix (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but we're not talking about QM. We're talking about biological facts. I seriously wasn't implying that you are a crank (and I apologize for the misunderstanding), I meant that you should be careful with this matter, as a lay reader, as you're going to miss a lot of fine distinctions that are really only understood after careful understanding of these issues. Speaking of QM, what you're doing here is similar to those who claimed that the LHC could create a blackhole that would swallow the earth. Exactly the same thing. As for the rest, in the interest of brevity, I assure you 99% (no exaggeration) of biologists roll their eyes at this rubbish. At best, one can water down the term 'Lamarkism' enough from the meaning in which Nietzsche used it so that it just becomes a sort of watered down and trivially true Darwinism. It's all too politically motivated in my opinion. Marxists need to let it go. It was a big blow to Marx's theory, but wishful thinking is not science. If I see anything resembling solid evidence for phenotype to genotype translation, I'll be the first one to applaud. Unfortunately, this hasn't the slightest chance of being so at this point. Examples will certainly be trivial, and confined to the germ and cell level—which is not the same thing, and is only called 'Lamarkian' as a metaphor. Lamarkism as Nietzsche understood it is as dead as God. CABlankenship (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I looked around for a solid pop-science article for you on this subject. I think this will help you a lot: Lamarckism as Nietzsche understood it is dead and buried. Blurring this point on the Nietzsche article would be an embarrassing howler. CABlankenship (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, none of your changes are technically wrong. I simply have 'artistic' differences with them. Hopefully you will consider my opinion (as the original writer) on this stylistic matter, but I can't change something that is technically true. I think that "according to Kaufmann", the quotes on 'their whole racism', and 'theories' are kind of embarrassing. It just looks ugly. CABlankenship (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, every time I read 'theories of evolution' I cringed. I had to remove it, sorry. Tell me if you are fine with my latest edit. Please also consider changing the Kaufmann citation back to the way I originally had it. It's an eyesore. CABlankenship (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I also owe you an apology: I did in fact assume that you were a po-mo. It's gratifying to hear that you in fact reject that 'school'. I apologize for my ignorance and rush to judgment. CABlankenship (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

ugh, I have to get rid of that ugly Kaufmann sentence. I think Kaufmann is an authority on Nietzsche and german history, and the phrasing is redundant with the fact that Kaufmann is listed in the ref with his exact quote. I don't mean to clutter up your page with this stuff, you can of course delete anything I type here whenever you please and I won't mind. CABlankenship (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


Hey how are you Picatrix? Do you have any idea about Latin name for Colchis? Thanks a lot. Iberieli (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm well, thank you. The term used in period in Latin (at least for the late Republic onwards) appears to have been "Colchis", and, sometime around the 2nd century AD, "Lazica". I think you can find mention of this in Polybius. The use of "Colchis" is attested in the Lewis Short Latin Dictionary with citations from ancient authors from which you should be able to pull dates (available online at the Tufts "Perseus" Project). Good luck!

Colchis/Shota Rustaveli[edit]

Hi Picatrix, thanks for your answer. You are correct, Romans called it Lazica rather than Colchis. As for your Rustaveli pouch, it is very hard to tell about its origins. Do you own that peace? its probably 19c but I can look for some info about it (although i doubt there are any in English and especially available online). Im sorry for not offering some clues on that peace, but i'll try to search about it in the Georgian sources. Again, thanks for your answer. Best. Iberieli (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Iberieli. I should point out that according to the dictionary entry on Colchis that I found at Perseus (probably deriving from the Lewis Short Latin Dictionary) the Romans called it Colchis and later (2nd century) referred to it as Lazica. I do own the Shota peice. I agree that it is 19th century. I would very much appreciate information about it and the general form because I would like to start an article about this form of material culture in the Caucasus. While Tcherkesskas (the mountaineer coat) seem to derive from a Qajar Persian court coat, and while the kama/kindjal, shashka and the rest seem to be used throughout the Caucasus, I suspect that these little silver panels are more Georgian than anything, as I have seen photos in them (suggesting contact with more developed centers like Tiflis, Christian imagery, and, of course, the picture of Shota). I should add that this one of Shota has three mounting "staples" on the back, suggesting it was attached to the surface of something. So were the others that I have seen. Also I've seen a form of belt purse shaped the same way, so my suspicion is that it went on the face of the pouch. Any information you can find on them would be great. Georgian sources are fine if we can cite them. --Picatrix (talk) 12:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick to move to dispute resolution[edit]

I'm not sure how to say this, but you seem a bit eager to initiate dispute resolution proceedings. After only a few days of discussion with Alcmaeonid, and before there was anything approaching an edit war, you suggested mediation.[1] And considering that I've been in favor of saying something about Stirner, so long as it did not give undue weight to the theory of influence, I'm not sure that your request for a third opinion to determine whether he should be mentioned at all [2] captures what might be at issue. I hope that was not your response to this edit. RJC Talk Contribs 20:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

RJC, Thanks for your input in the discussion, and thanks for getting in touch with me to clarify this. First of all, I requested a third opinion in the matter of Alcmaeonid removing my edit - not for the edit you made. I hope I am not mistaken (and if I am, I apologize) but my impression was that a third opinion is a way of avoiding moving to dispute resolution, and that the third opinion is solely for disputes involving two editors. I asked for a third opinion because it seemed that the dispute was between myself and Alcmaeonid, who insisted on removing the edit I had made even though we were all still discussing it and you yourself had suggested that it should perhaps be included. My requests for input on the Philosophy project noticeboard and the Fringe Theory noticeboard were posted only to solicit further information about policies that I personally felt Alcmaeonid was interpreting to suit his or her tastes. My very first mention of dispute resolution, early on in the talk page (to which your responded) was intended solely to make it clear that I was not willing to be bullied out of contributing by a few editors who seem to be unable to understand either citations or Wikipedia policy. I will not engage in an edit war because I don't make arbitrary edits. Waiting for an edit war before asking for outside input helps nobody, and my own experiences suggest to me that edit wars are not the only form of unreasonable behavior that can be dealt with through requesting the opinions of others.
Your remarks have been helpful, you seem willing to compromise, and you have bothered to read and consider what I have posted. I cannot ask for more. I haven't the slightest problem with the edit you made and I'm happy to leave it as is.
As regards your feeling that I seem eager to initiate dispute resolution proceedings I should say that I am not at all eager to get involved in such a mess. But I read the comments that were posted on the talk page for the Nietzsche article the last few times that someone tried to mention the Stirner/Neitzsche question and it seemed very clear (at least to me) that some editors working on the article were "more sure than right" about whether or not the material deserved inclusion. I had (and have) no desire to have my edits deleted and to be hounded out of participation in work on an article (as happened to other editors who raised the issue before) simply because some people working on the article are unwilling or unable to entertain the notion that Stirner played some role in Nietzsche's development. Thanks again for your participation and your willingness to consider a point of view that you do not share. I mean it when I say that I appreciate it, particularly when compared to the way Alcmaeonid reacted. --Picatrix (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, then. I was confused by the fact that you requested the third opinion after I had made the edit. I'm glad to hear that I was mistaken. RJC Talk Contribs 01:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Just to be absolutely clear, please note from time stamps that I made the request for a third opinion before you made your edit. Your edit is time stamped as 15:15, 28 June 2008, while my request for a third opinion is time stamped 09:59, 28 June 2008. You will also see that I changed the references for the Stirner passage to reflect the six sources you suggested were pertinent and acceptable in support of the citation. --Picatrix (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Stirner and Nietzsche[edit]

Sorry for such a late reply, i just wanted to praise the effort given to try to give Stirner's possible influence on Nietzsche a mention in the latter's page. Sorry i didn't help out and fight your corner. In my experience the editors are just too stubborn on this matter and perhaps slightly protective. I am amazed at the number of citations you have dug up on the subject and you said you have even more. With this material and Laska's findings as well as others, the subject could be given an article of its own which could then be given a link in the "see also" section of th Nietzsche article. This is probably the best one could hope for. If you think this is a good idea i would be more than happy to help.Itafroma (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have just realised that you have successfully given Stirner a mention in the article, i presumed this was not possible, the reply above was a bit hasty, well done!. I am still considering giving the subjects ts own short article though, would appreciate your help if i do.Itafroma (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Itafroma, I'd be glad to have the help. I've launched a stub version of the article here. Take a look at the talk page. --Picatrix (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about writing an article on this very subject. Congratulations, it's a fantastic addition to the encyclopaedia. Skomorokh 08:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. There's still a lot more material to be uncovered. After reviewing the academic sources I was able to collate it is apparent to me that there is much more material on this subject than I had at first thought. Any suggestions for how to break up the content within the major sections would be much appreciated! --Picatrix (talk) 11:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You are lucky that the article hasn't been deleted. Only those aficionados who are interested in the important thoughts of these profound men can fully appreciate the value of such an article. I have had bad luck with a few articles on Schopenhauer. They were deleted by non–connoiseurs as being devoid of interest.Lestrade (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Hello, I did quite a bit of the original Der Einzige in the German wikipedia (it's been obliterated by now), my knowledge of Stirner-FN connections stems from (A. Laska) mostly. Your article is superb, a joy to read, thanks Pnd (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Art of Memory[edit]

Thanks for the message. I shall give it some thought. I am currently wandering around ambridge, a city in which I use to live over thirty five years ago. Having a pencahnt for psychogeography, I find the comparison between pleaces which have been redeveloped and those which have not (bearing in mind Cambrdige has a surfeit of buildings of historic dimensions, this was naturally bringing to mind the Method of loci memory system. In my own view there was a celtic memory system whereby journeys were memorised as narrative structure and that Druids learned the Lays of the Land encompassing both a practical guide to moving across the landscape with a mythological/historical account of the land. However A lot of this is original research, although I may be able to find secondary sources for this. David Stevenson's The Origins of Freemasonry: Scotland's century 1590 - 1710 (Cambridge University Press, 1988), has the key link with Freemasonry and renaissance memories systems - which link back to Giordano Bruno through Dickson and Fowler. Anyway my thirty minutes is running out . . . more laterHarrypotter (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a friendly note - On this same thread - before claiming two users are the same you may want to take a look at WP:SOCK which also has details of how to identify and close down socks - and before claiming to know who the identity of a user is you may want to check WP:OUTING. I realize you already deleted your comment, just wanted to mention it to you. Regards.    7   talk Δ |   12:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


Your work on the article (as was) and your recent intervention(s) at talk-pages are very much appreciated, not least your edit summary at the Hecate talk-page. Regards, Haploidavey (talk) 11:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me second that. I would praise your efforts, Picatrix, on the Hecate talk page, but that would only stir up He Who Must Not Be Named again. I regret allowing myself to be baited at the G&R Project talk page, and appreciate what you said there — again, I would acknowledge your effort in its proper place there, but realize belatedly that I must not enter into the conversation further. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Shota panther.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Shota panther.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Nietzsche talk page[edit]

I think the distinction between "you are worthless" and "your ideas are worthless" is a bit too subtle, especially as having worthless ideas speaks poorly about one's intelligence. In any case, people will always interpret it as a personal attack, so you should probably refrain from it just the same. RJC TalkContribs 23:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your constructive suggestion. I'll bear it in mind. I've already apologized for having made others feel that I had 'bitten' a newcomer. Apparently everything I'm writing is a bit too subtle, especially for the editor who wants to drag the Nietzsche article lead through the same old Nazi muck. For the record however, I feel I should point out that the distinction isn't between "you are worthless" and "your ideas are worthless" as you incorrectly frame it. I referred to the substance of a citation summarized by the editor in question to justify his or her editorial suggestion as "useless" and "ambiguous" "twaddle". Hence the distinction is between "the idea of the author you cited is worthless" vs. "you are worthless". I just don't want to let that distinction slip by only to have the various misreadings immortalized. Hardly a personal attack. But, as I said, I read and register your suggestion.--Picatrix (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

your email[edit]

Hi, Picatrix. Just wanted to let you know that I received your email, but regrettably I'm not the person you're looking for. In dropping by here, however, I couldn't help noticing the preceding remark (I read fast, at a glance, whether I mean to or not); the distinction you're trying to make is vital. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


Ping! - and again. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 15:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've now created the two sandbox articles, with links from my talk page. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 19:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Caduceus etc.[edit]

Hi there,

I have now had the chance to work on the caduceus confusion articles. There is now a new article at Caduceus as a symbol of medicine with detailed discussion of the confusion, and a shorter summary template at Template:Caduceus confusion summary which now replicates in both the Caduceus and Rod of Asclepius articles, thereby eliminating the need to rewrite things in both articles. Any input would be much valued! OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 12:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You'll find your reference summaries (which i've been making liberal use of so far, so thanks!), along with a possible list of further resources which i've added, at Talk:Caduceus as a symbol of medicine. I moved it all over when moving it from the development sandbox page to the mainspace. Hope that helps. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 10:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Citations and footnotes[edit]

Hi there,

I think the new caduceus article is really coming together now. I do have a suggestion though, if you are in agreement. I know you tend to add additional information in the inline citation notes. Some of this i've promoted to the main article because its relevant, but not all of it necessarily needs to be there. On the other hand, I generally dislike the mixing of footnotes (further explanatory text) with citations (the actual references). There is, however, a way round, which would be to use the cnote template for footnotes (syntax is {{cnote|Note name|Note text}} where the note name is usually a, b, c etc.). This means you can easily separate the two. Would this be agreeable? Regards, OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 12:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

In reply to your latest: the template you suggest sounds fine, though I've not used it. If that's more to your liking and it still allows for the addition of further comments in footnotes I'm all for it. I'm not sure I understand how to make the change however... In this last round of edits I (think I) figured out how to do the quotes properly to save you the trouble of having to clean up my edits in that respect (sorry about the past occurrences!). Since you have more experience with the markup would you be willing to make the change? From then on I should be able to follow the form by cutting and pasting instances.--Picatrix (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Replying here in order to keep the flow readable! No problem, i've set up the first example, although admittedly its not maybe the best example, it does work. You basically use a {{cref|name of note}} tag in line in the article, and a {{cnote|name of note|Text of note}} down in the Notes section. Its not quite as easy as the <ref> template and we have to be careful to make sure we update the name of each note if we insert one near the top of the article, as it doesn't do this itself, but i think it makes the footnotes a lot more readable not being stuck between the citations. I have started with the convention 'note a' (so its different to citations 1,2,3 etc.) but if you have a prefence we can use i, ii, iii or pretty much anything else like greek letters. Hope it makes sense, but let me know if not. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 14:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Fulgur Limited[edit]

See Talk:Fulgur Limited. Ansell himself tried and failed to provide two sources to establish notability. If he can't find the sources needed, nobody can. Yworo (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Aosdrawing.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Aosdrawing.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)