Talk:Hermeticism

Archives

/Archive 1

Manly P. Hall

As in Hermetism, I propose that all information that comes from Manly P. Hall's works be removed unless it is verified by a reputable third party. -999 (Talk) 16:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Hall is not a generally reliable source. However I think that instead of removing things that cite him it may be more useful to state that he is not a consistent source. The reason for this is that his works are well known and are often a good starting point for finding information as he does say where a lot of his stuff comes from.

Morgan Leigh 10:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

WikiProject Ancient Egypt (or KV) keeps trying to add this post-Egyptian subject to their project. Please respond as to whether you support or oppose this. Please make a decision below, and discuss in the discussion section.

Support

• Support - If they want to work on it, they have the right.KV(Talk) 17:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Hermes Trismegistos is a syncretic figure conflated from The Egyptian god Thoth and the Greek god Hermes, amongst other things. It is impossible to have an understanding of HTM if one does not know of this Egyptian source. The concepts of Hermeticism are likewise impossible to understand if one is not aware of the Egyptian traditions that lie behind them. I think one needs to bear in mind the huge socio-political changes that arose as a result of Alexander the Great's conquests, especially in the way that it affected both Greek and Egyptian religion. Hermeticism is NOT post Egyptian. By which I mean, it is a coming together of two religions which had many similarities and as such allowed the syncretism of these two gods to happen. If the concepts were not as similar as they are then this syncretism would have been much harder to imagine. My point here is really that it is very hard to pick an arbitary line as to what is 'post ancient Egyptian'. This is like trying to understand North American history without considering English history. Morgan Leigh 02:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

• Strongly oppose - the project should stick to subjects that are exclusively Ancient Egyptian. —Hanuman Das 17:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - my understanding is that Hermeticism is completely post-Ancient Egypt. --Frater Xyzzy 18:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - nothing in the article indicates at this time the claims of the WikiProject(KV). SynergeticMaggot 18:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Hermeticism starts with the Corpus Hermeticum and is post-Egyptian. -999 (Talk) 22:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Tricky

This is a tricky one as many Hermeticists and Occultists believe that although the texts of the Hermetica are definitely post Ancient Egypt the wisdom is not. The theory goes that the substance of the Hermetica dates back to ancient Pharaonic Egyptian religious ideas. Some commentators claim that similar concepts and images can be found in Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs. I for one have no idea. We know the Hermetica was written in Greek but we also know that there was a lot of intellectual/spiritual traffic between Ancient Greece and Egypt. Pythagoras was supposed to have spent 22 years in Egypt learning his theories. I leave it to the experts - if there are such - to decide. :-) ThePeg 17:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

• CommentAnd they don't constantly try to post it, they posted it once and I backed them up. This is a problem of WP:OWN if you ask me.KV(Talk) 17:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, they have the right to work on it. But they don't have the right to tag it if the majority of current editors disagree. It's not WP:OWN, otherwise I wouldn't have started a survey. Doh! —Hanuman Das 17:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • You do not constitute a majority of editors. They can tag it all they want, tags are not exclusive or any show of ownership. It only means that the project is marking it out for work.KV(Talk) 17:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I think he was referring to the evidence from the failed AfD's, but I could be wrong. SynergeticMaggot 18:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Erm... the bot tags all ancient egypt catagory pages automatically. If you don't want the tag, you technically have to drop the catagory. Which I think has been done Thanatosimii 14:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, we're not complaining b/c the bot tagged it. We're complaining b/c King Vegita put it back three times. Since it is now clear that this was a personal effort rather than a project effort, there's no longer a problem... —Hanuman Das 14:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Hall citations

WP:V states:

"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth.

It is not for you to decide whether or not he is correct. He is a prominent figure, prominent enough that you have a view on him, which WP:NPOV states:

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one.

You need to find something to balance it out if you find him in any way wrong. You cannot simply go through indiscriminately deleting views because you do not like Manly P. Hall.

KV(Talk) 22:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I support the removal of unqualified Hall citations. He was not an academic, and his theories are at best imaginative. Find supporting citations, start a section on Hall's beliefs, or qualify his assertions. And do it in such a way that you don't undo all the formatting improvements H.D. did. -999 (Talk) 22:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Book of the Dead

I'm not sure why this paragraph is in here. I thought that the Corpus Hermeticum was being discussed, not the Book of the Dead. Does Budge mention the Corpus Hermeticum at all? If not, this simply appears to be a speculative attempt to make the C.H. seem older than it is...based on speculation about a completely different book. No thanks, that's not encyclopedic. —Hanuman Das 10:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

However, E. A. Wallis Budge, uses different reasoning. Budge, in discussing the Egyptian text, The Book of the Dead, clearly stated that the earliest version of The Book of the Dead found was not necessarily the earliest version that existed. Budge argued that one cannot claim that an earlier version does not exist simply because it has not been found. Budge maintains that The Book of the Dead itself was drastically rewritten, reorganized, and amended several times in Egypt, creating four distinct versions which have been found. These versions stretch over a millennium, from the Fifth Dynasty (2498 BCE - 2345 BCE) to the Twentieth Dynasty (1186 BCE - 1073 BCE).

Hermeticism vs the Church

The Church has not always been opposed to Hermeticism has it? The article says it has. The Wikipedia has an image of Hermes on a mosaic floor in Sienna Cathedral which suggests integration rather than opposition. The Renaissance was hugely influenced by Hermetic reading. People like Pico, Ficino and many artists and religious figures of their day saw Hermes' words as confirming the message of Christianity. Most Renaissance religious art was inspired by Hermetic ideas as much as Scripture. Milton read and admired and lifted imagery from Hermes. It would be useful to know when the Church cracked down on the Hermetica. Could someone elaborate on this? I suppose one of the fascinating things about the Hermetica is that although it echoes or presages vast amounts of Christian and Judaic ideas and imagery it was never turned into a religion and thus has no dogma attached to it. This means it can be read without prejudice. I'm reading it now and find it extraordinary. One element no-one has talked about is how close to Quantum Theory it is. It is perhaps no surprise that the Coat Of Arms of nuclear scientist Ernest Rutherford has Hermes on it! ThePeg 17:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Magical idealism - need stub

Can anybody start a stub article on Magical idealism? Thanks. -- 201.51.221.66 15:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is ghastly, I will try my best

I am a devout hermeticist and if I where to inform my friend that I was a hermeticist and they tried to learn more about it by going to this article. I don't think they would even get the slightest idea of what hermeticism is. The main problem I see in this article is that it tries to include and treat material originated in the last few hundreds of years as the same as tracible ancient documents. Lets face it, The corpus hermeticum can be traced thousands of years ago. The Kybalion can not. Trying to suggest that the early hermetic authors believed in the theories in the Kybalion before the Kybalion was published you would have to accept that the early hermetic authors somehow got ahold of this document without public knowledge. The kybalion was published in 1912. Which means that unless this is a mass conspiracy. All hermetic authors before 1912 has no knowledge of the kybalion. Using the Kybalion as a source for the majority of this article without specifying which theories come from which document is needless and confusing. Thusly, I will try to rewrite this article, I will outline which document expresses which theories by quoting the document and expounding it by sourcing the interpretations and I will try to keep as much of the objective information already provided in this article as much intact as possible. This will be quite a project for me, so it will take some time and please express any problems you may have with this and I will try to be as complient as possible. JaynusofSinope 13:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

does anyone know what this means?

"These beliefs have influenced magic traditions and further, the impact of serving as a set of religious beliefs."

This doesn't make sense. What is "These beliefs have influenced... the impact of serving as a set of beliefs" supposed to mean?