Talk:Emin (esoteric movement): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:53, 21 May 2008

This page was created with the name emin, then moved to emin society, then moved to the Template Network; now you're denying its purpose by asking to remove historical information. shame on you! put it back in, or split the entry into two articles -- 99.231.208.23 (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Pwesth's accusation of dishonesty demonstrates bias. If the page is better served to describing what the Template Foundation actually is today, then why the need to introduce what a third party was reported to have said about its predecessor 25 years ago? My understanding is that guilt by association is not permitted within the rules of Wikipedia. Similarly, the request to introduce a section on criticism or controversy, demonstrates bias, because neither criticism nor controversy mean fact. On the contrary, the media seeks to introduce 'spin' and controversy into articles to make them more interesting. Therefore mass media reports as a basis for decision making does not result in good decisions. Wikipedia is an encyclopdeia and therefore not a forum in which to introduce unqualified media speculation as 'fact'. I still argue that since this is an article on the Template Foundation and not the Emin, Emin history is irrelevant. That would belong on a page on the Emin. The Template Foundation is different and new. There is a commonality of membership, but there are many new members for whom the history is irrelevant. PWesth's assertion of dishonesty seems to declare his own intention. A fair and balanced description of what the case actually is doesn't necessarily mean the article is biased. For example, the Emin's history in Israel is not a negative one. The Template Foundation's activities in Israeli today have no negative connotations. On the contrary, there are lots of very positive things to be said about it. But they are hardly newsworthy. Therefore, Im removed that reference, because it is partial, biased and misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith**** (talk • contribs) 10:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keith, what you are in effect saying is that if, say, Osama Bin Laden decided to change his name tomorrow, then he would would be completely justified in saying that 9/11 had nothing whatsoever to do with him, since it was an act commited by a person bearing another name. That is plainly absurd.

Likewise, criticism and controversies obviously are facts, even if their substance isn't factual. If you were to write a wikipedia article about some school of philosophy, for instance, surely you would have to mention the criticism that has been levelled against it, even if the critics were wrong.

Anyway, the fact that we do not agree on any of this means that the neutrality of the article is disputed, so please do not persist removing the POV tag.

--Pwesth (talk) 11:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may very well be that the Template foundation differs from the Emin foundation in important ways (even though the majority of members are the same, the buildings where they meet are mostly the same, the fundamentals of the worldview are the same, even the name of the websiteis the same). But it is still a fact that the Emin, its history of frequent changes of name and organization, the various mistakes that have been made, the blind alleys that may have been travelled, and the various controversies that the Emin has had with the media and with anti-cult groups around the world - all of this is part of the historical background of what the Template is today.

I completely agree that the reference to the Israeli branch of the Emin was partial and biased.

--Pwesth (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The accusations of bias are humorous. The Emin members I met in the 1990s had secret names for each other and put on special "public faces" when interacting with non-members. There was something innately deceitful about the group then, and the continued whitewashing of this page here convinces me nothing has changed. In fact, the name was changed shortly after I first heard of the organization. Frequent small shifts in the group identity seem to be a hallmark of Emin.

YeauxRly (talk) 05:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need to expand historical background

I have added this tag mainly because the reference to the controversies in Israel during the eighties that have been added. In itself this is relevant information, but as it stands it needs to be contextualized, both with reference to controversies in other countries (such as Britain, Holland and Denmark), and with reference to the larger picture of the Emin's history in Israel.

A possibility that I favour is to add a separate "criticism" or "controversies" section, as there used to be (see [| page history])

--Pwesth (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag back on

I have added a NPOV tag - again. The concern with "relevance" that is put forth as an argument for deleting historical facts seems to me plainly dishonest. The whole article is now so abstract and vague as to be completely non-informative, which appears to be the way supporters of the Template Network prefer it. --Pwesth (talk) 11:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is this?

What is this article? It doesn't make any sense from the intro. A religion? Philosophy? Club? What? --AW (talk) 07:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing background

The historical background section is lacking.

There's no wiki article [Raymond Armin]] and the Leo disambiguation page doesn't mention him at all. I haven't been able to find a cause (or exact date) of death so creating a page for him seems premature. In fact, I'd really like to see a citation on either birth or death dates, because the closest I can see is "around 1925" for birth and "2002" for death. The lack of details is curious given the apparent reverence for the man by his followers.

YeauxRly (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you search the article history a couple of years back, there is a lot of historical background there. It has, however, been deleted by what appears to be members or supporters of the Template Network, who feel that such specifics are irrelevant (or perhaps irreverent).

Raymond Armin was born in 1924 AFAIK, and died i 2002.

Pwesth (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with Pwesth. It looks like the previous Emin material has been deleted by someone sympathetic to The Emin. This is a shame, as it contained interesting historical material on a fascinating and unique group. If anyone can add it back in it would be a great thing.

Their history is constantly re-mythologised, and this new Wikipedia version which has obliterated previous ones doesn't do that rich history justice. It also air-brushes out the cult controversies of the 70s and 80s, which is not helpful to any student of new religious movements. Whether one subscribes to the anti-cult thesis that people join groups like The Emin because of deception, coercion and "brainwashing" - and I most defnitely don't share those views - they are important historically. Their removal suggests that this article is still not a neutral one. --William1shaw (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clothing

I'm sure that in 'spying in guruland' the writer recounted that the Emin group he was with wore purple (or perhaps white?) clothing, anyway they had one colour that they predominantly wore. Could this be mentioned in the article, and do they still have any clothing preferences today? It would be important in an encyclopedia article, which attempts to describe what they're like.Merkinsmum 18:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs Clarification

Speaking of Laws, it seems to me that "The natural laws" are the laws that Gurdjieff introduced. And if they are, then why is this saying

Emin groundwork (a term given to elementary research practices) shows that the whole of the Universe and all that goes on in it happens through the government or manifestation of natural laws.

that "Emin groundwork shows" when these are in fact Gurdjieff's laws.

Therefore it seems to me that this article doesn't credit the rightful owner of those teaching concepts which are being thought. Aeuio 20:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tthe truth of things is the truth of things and indeed the Seekers of truth are the seekers of truth - but to say that the 'truth of things' is a word play on the 'seekers of truth' may be stretching one's defense of Gurdijeff too far. Raymond Armin never hid the fact that the origins of his search were inspired in part by Gurdijeff and he credited Gurdijeff. But this is a third party description of another man's work involving a society that has moved on from its originator's teachings. If there are laws that govern the universe, then there are and they aren't the exclusive intellectual property of Gurdijeff, but everyone acknowledges that Gurdijeff preceded and had an influence on Raymond Armin. Equally, you could say that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle also had an influence on Raymond Armin, but that hardly negates Armin's contribution to his own body of work. It is also true to say that The Template Foundation has moved a very long way from its origins in terms of articulating and describing those laws, but that it is for each individual to come to their own understanding and their own positions about their life, the universe and everything. The 'law of gravity' is one of the laws that, in part, describes the behaviour of the universe and although the maths of Newton and Einstein's descriptions may not quite predict the motion of galaxies the fundemental principal of masses being attracted to one another holds. So I've removed the npov tag because frankly the origins are properly attributed given the context.

First of all, the npov tag was removed after you made considerable changes to the article, so don't try to make it look like I was wrong on the subject. Second, I am not talking about the way that Armin presented and credit ideas, its the way that it was done here. In this discussion under "New Changes" Psweth commented that the following (which was written in the article some time ago) be changed:

Through observing and studying nature he independently arrived at the understanding that the Universe works through certain core Natural Laws and of what these laws are.

Let me emphasize "INDEPENDENTLY" and "what these laws are". (If that's the case then there would be no reason for him to even mention Gurdjieff.)

"If there are laws that govern the universe, then there are and they aren't the exclusive intellectual property of Gurdijeff" Of course they are not, but you don't go and credit some other person for their introduction. If my neighbor was interested in gravitational forces, and he did a lot of reasearch on them, there sure wouldn't be something written about him such as "Mr. Smith arrived at the conclusion that there is a law of gravity and how this law acts"

Anyways, since you basically deleted many links which would clarify some things for those readers that aren't familiar with Emin society, the (top)above process of asking for clarification might be repeated, so if it is just please remember to credit the rightful person who introduced the things. Aeuio 21:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Aeuio that the article downplays the legacy from Gurdjieff more than it ought to. To be sure, the Emin has parted ways with Gurdjieff on many issues but still, the "research" of Raymond Armin described in the section on the origins of the philosophy must have included either a lot of reading of Gurdjieff, Ouspensky and the like, or of contact with Gurdjieff-related groups.

By the way, people interested in in the way the Emin has developed over the years may find illuminating parallels in James Moore's article [Moveable Feasts" at http://www.gurdjieff-bibliography.com/Current/20_link-to-pg23.pdf]. --Pwesth 20:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag removed

As there has been no discussion for three months, NPOV tag removed to reduce category backlog. Tyrenius 02:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality in dispute? Having read this page and some of the history attached to it, it doesn't seem to me to be balanced. I acknowledge that this is a difficult task, but in the greater scheme of things it might be a useful exercise to produce a more rounded description of what, after all, is the endeavour of a group of people, however misguided they may appear to others. I don't think it would be unfair to add a new npov tag. What do other contributors think? Keith****09:21, 27 June 2006(UTC)

You think that the article is negative? I think it's main problem at the moment is that it is not informative enough.

The article has been pared down quite a bit recently, presumably by someone who felt that a minimal description of Emin notions and practices was better than an incomplete description. So all longer quotations are gone (I thought those were nice, giving some of the flavour of Emin writings), and even mention of things like astrology, tarot, palmistry, aura reading and so forth. I agree that these things are not essential to the Emin philosophy, but then what is?

I am one of those who have added "negative stuff" to the article. I think in principle that it belongs, just as criticism of and some of the less flattering facts about, say, Heidegger belongs in an article about him. But it is a delicate balance, and apparently it puts Emin supporters seriously off. Maybe Wikipedia just isn't the right venue for a treatment of living religions and :philosophies that gives the "pros" and the "cons" equal say.

So, at the moment I think the article could be much improved by the addition of a more detailed and congenial account of what Emin members in fact think and do, put as neutrally as possible, and with minimal recourse to "coded language". But that really has to come from an insider.

Also, I think it might be an idea to rename the article. What is the point in calling it "Emin Society", when the first line declares that no such society exists?

--Pwesth 14:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True. Done it. --wayland 13:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New changes

today, I have made quite a lot of changes to the page. I realize that some of them may seem a bit aggressive to the original authors, but I hope you can appreciate my motives.

I have rearranged and renamed many sections, in order to give the article a more logical structure.

I have deleted and/or condensed a lot of very detailed accounts of Emin teachings. Even though most of it was correct, a lot of it seemed to me repetitious and redundant, and must have been almost incomprehensible to someone not allready familiar with the peculiarities of Emin discourse.

I have removed several internal links that to my mind added little but confusion to the text. for example, I see no real reason to add links to year-names.

I have added a lot of material such as facts, quotations and examples, in order to make the text less abstract and hopefully more informative. Also, I have added a section specifically about Emin offshoots.

Also, I have deleted one or two obviously false statements, most notably the claim that the Emin no longer exists.

In the process, I have tried to be as neutral as possible, and to give equal say to both sides of controversies. Consequently, I have removed to POV warning.

No doubt, I have commited several errors myself, but I feel confident that they will be corrected by others in due course.

Pwesth 19:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Position: all knowledge is notable. I could not understand Leo's paper, "How to think" without a lot of background study. Rather than delete detailed teachings, let's find a place for them, and make them concise and comprehensible, perhaps put them in a linked article, e.g.: Emin teachings?

I agree in principle. However, to my mind the litany of statements at [1] is not simply too detailed; it is repetetive, saying the same thing over and over with different words; It lacks a sense of which ideas are central, and which are less important; and it all sounds far more abstract than Emin teachings generally do, in my experience. In fact, it looks a lot like my own notes from Emin meetings in the early 1990's. So - to be useful, I think a more systematic approach would be needed. Lacking that, I think the many references to Gurdjieff and fourth way teachings is the best way for people to get some grasp on what kind of thing the Emin is.Pwesth 08:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC) PS: Please sign your comments ;-)[reply]

Over the last few weeks I have updated the text. After having read the above comments I have removed repeated references and links from the article, rewritten certain sections to remove ambiguity, and added as much detail as seems fitting based on my own personal experience in the Emin Society for a number of years. I have left untouched any previous text that was not ambiguous. I hope this is a useful contribution..AE 13 December 2006.

I think you have done a good job overall. There are a few places though, where the neutral point of view gives way to enthusiastic praise. A phrase like "profound understandings about the Universe, the Human, the seen and the unseen, that are quite extraordinary, original and profound" is really not informative in any way.

A specific point that I disagree with is the claim that the many commonalities between the teachings of Raymond Armin and those of Gurdjieff are mere "similarities". If you look at the early archives, the similarities with Gurjieff teachings are so strong that direct borrowing is the only reasonable explanation. It is not just that the ideas are similar; many concepts and wordings are nearly identical. This is not to dipute that the Emin philosophy is the fruit of the life-long, personal endeavour of Raymond Armin, but it seems evident that Armin has adapted rather substantial parts of Gurdjieff's teachings to his own purposes.--Pwesth 12:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are quite right, I have rewritten these articles..AE. 19 December 2006

Upon re-reading this I agree that there is insufficient information and context for a proper understanding, so I have added briefly some explanation, albiet only with my IP address because I couldn't remember my logon.

It is still inadequate, but I will attempt to put in more up to date information so that it becomes a better represenation of the Emin / Template Network.

Keith —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keith**** (talk • contribs) 12:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

19th January 2006. Some changes today to remove repeated information and to place new contributions into the existing structure of the article. Some pevious content that had been removed was restored. Confusion tag removed, but is it still confusing? It seems a lot clearer than when the tag was added. What do other readers feel about this? The article above was also moved into the New Changes section of this page so we can keep track of changes more easily; apologies if that was out of order. The links section has also been cleaned up and the Spam warning has been removed. The Insufficient Context tag has also been removed. There is a lot of good background information there now and perhaps there is enough to give the reader a good idea of the subject. Hopefully the article will grow and develop further but for now what do other readers think about the state of the article?..AE

Hi "AE"

I think some parts of the article have become more detailed and informative, particularly those describing philosophy and practices. However, I find that the text now suffers from a lack of objectivity, and in some places relies too much on Emin language with connotations that would be obscure or misleading to the average reader.

A few examples:

"Through observing and studying nature he independently arrived at the understanding that the Universe works through certain core Natural Laws and of what these laws are. He then embarked on a journey of ever greater research into the natural worlds as well as the great works of science and philosophy from around the world and throughout history."

This section states Emin beliefs as if they were facts. The expression "a journey of ever greater research" is simply praise without any definite information value (what does "journey" mean? Is it to be understood literally of metaphorically? and what is "research"? Surely the image that this word conjures up in the mind of the man in the street, of men in white coats working in laboratories, is inaccurate). And the implications of the word "independently" are unclear (independent of what, in what sense - and why does this need to be stressed?).

"The Template philosophy has developed above and beyond the Emin philosophy"

I assume that this distinction must have profound implications to those engaged in the Template Network, but what these implications are is entirely incomprehensible to an outsider, without some explanation of what the differences are between "the Template philosophy" and "the Emin philosophy". What does "above and beyond" imply, philosophically and practically?

"The Emin philosophy is vast and is based on the direct observation and study of how things actually work"

Again, this states simply that Emin beliefs are factual, without giving any information as to what these beliefs are. Observation of what, and what does "direct" mean here? The phrase "how things actually work" obviously says a great deal about what members of the Template network themselves think that they are doing - but it does not give the rest of us any idea of what it is that you are doing.

Pwesth 11:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Pwesth for your comments above. There have been a number of additions to and subtractions from the article over the last month - it has been interesting watching these come and go! Today I have introduced two new sections and reduced the section on Laws which is covered in the article on Laws itself. I hope that this makes an improvement for the moment. AE. 5th March 2007

Subtractions indeed! I notice that the number of members worldwide has decreased from 3000 to 1600. That is a considerable drop. Does this simply mean that the original number was erroneous, or does the decrease reflect organizational changes of some sort? --Pwesth 21:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOX

I've changed the template from a POV check to the NPOV template - the neutrality of this article is in dispute. The "check" template perhaps didn't adequately reflect this. --wayland 23:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Having made the claim that the neutrality of the article was disputed, Wayland made a large number of edits, most of which have stood; these edits certainly expanded the article a great deal, and are a definite improvement as they make the article much more encyclopedic. Good work! But the article now appears to be approaching stability, we don't see the kind of controversy here that might be expected from neutrality disputes: edit wars, ad hominem reverts being a strong indicator of such. I am at a loss to find non-neutrality. Please discuss remaining problems. -- 216.234.56.130 16:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 December 2005, User:72.137.65.73 exposed some very interesting arguments and then blanked his or her own text. Why?

Remember here, we agree that while neutral point of view is not actually attainable when trying to describe the emin, so far all arguments to keep the POV warning on the page turn out to apply equally to any page in the wikipedia. Considering any article then, however-conflicting the respective witnesses points of view might be, when the conflict settles down and an article becomes stable, it has reached a state somewhat less than consensus, called a tensegrity. That is the closest-to-neutral any article could ever hope to attain. That, my friends, is the egregore of the wikipedia:itself.

Returning to this article, then: at this point, just like any other wikipedia article, the bulk of the article is factual and neutral-enough that contributors are interested only in the occasional nit-pick over individual statements made.

If the tenor of a statement is of concern, let's discuss its problems here. For each statement, we encourage witnesses to please check and correct POV. is it:

true always?
true as at a particular date+time, but no longer true? in which case the statement should move to an historical section
questionable accuracy or scope?

     if there is disgreement over whether some statement was ever true
     then who is the witness? move the disputed statement to the talk page for discussion,
     as were above statements on sexual instruction

balanced treatment; there appear to be two types of dissenting opinions, and only the opinions of those with actual knowledge on the subject count here:
- current and ex- members who support the society; versus
- ex-members who have a gripe about the society.

Multiple contributors have already put a large effort into this process. Those authors should sit back for awhile and let others gnaw on this, and only stand up for egregius trolls.

There really must be a time limit on this process. Articles must not be stigmatized with POV warnings just because someone doesn't like them. Now is the time for action. --70.29.131.204 07:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the NPOV warning. See next section for discussion Pwesth 19:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and I have put it back on, after some "current or ex- member who supports the society" has pulled everything a little too far in his own direction, as I see it.

I do however think there is some progress in the article. I (being myself an "ex-member who has a gripe about the society") can see that quite af few of my own formulations regarding Emin beliefs have been retained by the above mentioned "current or ex- member who supports the society". This, to me, indicates that it should be possible to arrive at a text that is both accurate in the eyes of members and supporters, acceptable to critical ex-members, and informative to everyone else. But we are not quite there yet. Pwesth 15:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV check

I've added a request that this article be checked for POV/NPOV. I'm sure the article is very far from neutrality and is written in a style more suited to one of the emin society's own publications rather than an encyclopedia. --wayland 14:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

now that's a bold statement! instead of assuring us, please point directly at the parts you think are "far from neutrality"? -- 216.234.56.130 19:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If only it were the sort of article which has one or two little things which could be "pointed" at as needing improvement. In fact the problems are to be found all the way through the article.

A possible way of fixing it would be to take one sentence at a time from the top and examine what's biased in each one.

Let's start with the first sentence: "The Emin is a society that does research into esoteric/occult through human being development." In this first sentence we need to know what the author of it means by researching something through human being development. If the sentence appeared in an emin pamphlet it would obviously be attempting to use vagueness of terms in order to drum up curiousity and some interest in attending open meetings. However, for an encyclopedia the tactics of deliberate vagueness and intentional ambiguity are at odds with the aims of the project as a whole (i.e: to deliver factual (and notable) information in as unbiased a way as possible).

There are all sorts of interpretations which could be put upon the first sentence but none of them are necessarily intended. The overall tone of the article, like that of other emin writings, is to lure and hint at what might be learned from getting involved with some emin teachings. Consequently the whole thing seems like fishing for new members, rather than an objective description.

To fix it I would suggest re-writing whole sections of the text in less ambiguous phrases. Also some of the apparent bias could be removed by examining the items listed as teachings, rather than merely listing them in sort-of "shorthanded" style.

I'll make a start on these changes today. --wayland 11:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss POV edits on the talk page first, please.. particularly, the text "The Emin Society (or just "the emin" as members often prefer to speak of it) claims to do research, though it is unclear whether any strict methodology is employed"

in fact the method is clear, and scientific, which is: for any claim, "try to disprove it"; and emphasises using first-hand tests rather than trust another source or authority. -- 216.234.56.130 16:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In what sense scientific? --wayland 12:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? Trying to disprove extraordinary claims is a hallmark of scientific skepticism -- 69.195.11.64 01:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So if User:69.195.11.64 has correctly guessed User:216.234.56.130's intended meaning then the answer to my "in what sense scientific?" would be: in the sense of scientific scepticism? What I'm trying to establish here is whether anyone from the emin position claims emin to be science or part of science. Could we have clarification on this please? --wayland 10:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good question, but might better be stated as a question to anyone learning this newage stuff, "Do you select testable hypotheses? Do you question your own assumptions and look for flaws in your own theories and tests?" otherwise you risk practicing cargo cult science. -- Waveguy 07:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer the former, because of the very many times I was told:

do not believe what we say;
if you disprove it, please tell us;
anyone may make mistakes on their journey;
respect says to look again.

I do not cast out the bulk of the knowledge I have gleaned from the Emin over the simple matter of one position that I find untenable. Nor does Leo lose my reverence for this work. He ascends regardless: "Onward and upward." -- 70.28.153.94 07:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

finally, an article that does justice to the Emin. thank you! -- Vansig 18:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, so cool. My first name is Emin, I never realized there was a society named after me! A lot of good info, too. Nalban 02:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? The article tells us barely anything about the Emin and the majority of it is just a guidebook on how to be a delusional nutcase.

ad hominem remarks and judgements aside, the article reveals the actual teachings, so it says much about the Emin. Go ahead and judge it as delusional, if you like. -- 216.234.56.130 16:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The emin society would probably like to know which parts you think are delusional. "Do not believe what we say, take it away, check it out, try and disprove it. If you can disprove it, please tell us."

This article needs to be completely rewritten. Large parts of it make no sense at all to someone without prior knowledge of the Emin. It has obviously been written by an adherent, and that in itself is not a problem - I am sure there is lots on wikipedia about Christian subjects written by practising Christians, for instance. But some attempt needs to be made to communicate in a manner that can be understood by the rest of us.

Unfortunately the complaint that "large parts of it make no sense at all" doesn't directly point at the problems. The society has its own jargon, including specialized terms and definitions that may be confusing to those unfamiliar with esoteric teachings. But many of these terms are widely used elsewhere and should be decipherable, such as "ray of creation" which is seen in Gurdjieff's work. -- 216.234.56.130 20:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note also with jargon there is likely to be an esoteric distinction implicit in the terms. For example, look at the distinction between convince and persuade; likewise there is a distinction between the terms meme, coding (emin), and implant (scientology). Codings and implants are both memes that present themselves with or without a charge; the distinction being that codings situate themselves at a particular vibrational frequency. -- 70.29.131.204 17:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and confused readers should really try hard to get this: many links from the article go to disambiguation pages on purpose: the use of an ambiguous term is meant (abstractly) to cover all the different meanings. Those words should be placed in italics, and there should probably be a section specific to Emin codings that defines each and how it is distinct from popular terms. Insert examples here: agency, assembly, astral light, aura, charge, ceremony, coding, complex, content, criticality, culture, detection, entity, essence, gibberish, gold (emin), IOU, journey, moving centre, officer, occult, order, pressure systems, silver (emin), technology. Again, there is some overlap with terminology used by other esoteric schools, see http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/ for a useful glossary... -- 216.234.56.130 20:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]