|WikiProject Religion||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Alternative Views|
Involution is the opposite of Evolution. Evolution rolls out. Involution rolls in. Bobkiger 18:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)BobKiger
- That's fine etymologically, but the trouble is that everyone has their own definition of Involution and Evolution. e.g. Meher Baba's definition is the inverse to the Theosophical one! (he calls Involution what they call evolution) M Alan Kazlev 02:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Brand new to the article and term, responding to the RFC: It seems that there are several mutually contradictory concepts which are each labeled "involution." If this is accurate, shouldn't there really be a disambiguation page which would link to the Involution section for each of the philosophers/religions that use the term? VisitorTalk 05:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I only just became aware of this article, and the proposed move. I too find the name problematic. Perhaps it could be re-named Involution (spirituality) or Involution (new age). Banno 00:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think the problem is not with the name of the article, but in the writing of the article which is poor. Someone like Sri Aurobindo is not new age, but Ken Wilbur probably could be categorized that way. Aurobindo and Meher Baba are solidly in the tradition of eastern philosophy, namely advaita vedanta, which is as old as 8th century philosophy in India. But even "eastern philosophy" as a title would not be sufficient to cover the topic since "involution" appears in the writing of Nietzsche as well, but doesn't appear in the article which is a shame. It's true that none of this is analytic philosophy, but the concept is definitely in the realm of philosophy at large (if only German idealism, existential, and eastern). It inevitably falls under 'cosmology.' This is not the only example of a cosmological concept that has a different meaning in certain philosophies but can't be found in analytic philosophy. For another example, see Evolution (philosophy) for a precedent. Abronkeeler 13:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Came here via rfc
- Involution new age doesn't work... neither Wilber, Auribino or Meher Baba are "new age" thinkers!
- Personally, philosophy works for me.... philosophy is a big word... if we wanted to be pedantic we could move it to "involution philosophical concept."
- Appealing to some empirical evidence: I've attended two graduate schools for philosophy in my life, and there is no way this would ever be brought up at either of them. That isn't to say German idealism or existentialism came up a lot, but they are discussed. This involution stuff would not. I think both of Banno's suggestions are good ones. - Atfyfe 00:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
What's 'brought up' in a philosophy graduate program at Evergreen State College, University of Miami, and the University of Washington doesn't exhaust the topics and branches of what is classified as philosophy. How much eastern philosophy have you studied? See this site for a sense of the breadth of the term 'philosophy:' [] Cott12 01:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I think any ideas about "the divine" really do not belong under "philosophy" AT ALL. However, "religion," "new age," "eastern philosophy," or "philosophy of religion." Would be palatable. Attempts to place this stuff under philosophy are misleading. Gregbard 01:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think some here are confusing the term philosophy with one of its subsets. Philosophy is a broad term and includes analytic, continental, and eastern. Each of these again has sub-branches. Nowhere is "Involution" part of the creed of any religion. Nor is Ken Wilbur, who was born in Oklahoma, an eastern philosopher. Aurobindo, who went to Cambridge and wrote in the very eary 20th century wasn't 'new age.' Cott12 09:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- One possible precedent to consider is Cosmology (metaphysics). Perhaps the title of this page could be moved to "Involution (metaphysics)." That would at least be more accurate than religion or new age. Cott12 14:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- You see that's just the thing. NO it would not be more accurate. It's not metaphysics. Metaphysics means something. (Just like philosophy means something.) Not just any mumbo-jumbo is metaphysics. This article is talking about the Divine. That's religion. That's it. No controversy. No better term out there. Why run away from the religion label AT ALL?!? It just makes me find this article and these gurus less and less credible. I may even agree with some of the religious belief expressed here for cryin' out loud. At least I can call it what it is. Gregbard 21:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Please check out these philosophy related articles for mention of God, divinity, soul, spirit, etc.: Philosophy of religion, George Berkeley, Søren Kierkegaard, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Thomas Aquinas, Alfred North Whitehead, Adi Shankara, Anselm of Canterbury, Advaita Vedanta, Plotinus, Alvin Plantinga, Indian philosophy, Philosophy in Iran, Philosophy. Please also read the Wikipedia article on Metaphysics. Note that Religion and spirituality falls in the middle of the list of subjects that fall under the heading Central questions of metaphysics. Also check out what Wikipedia has to say about Wikipedia:Neutral point of view while considering using descriptors like "mumbo jumbo" when referring to cited published works. Abronkeeler 13:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- I also think that the name of the article is problematic. Involution (spirituality) would be my slight preference, but any of the three proposed names would be better than the current one. Does someone want to reopen this?
- (RFC response) Involution (metaphysics) seems to most accurately capture the topic of the article (i.e., meta=beyond, beyond the physical or material plane). A close second (though it's more value-laden) would be Involution (spirituality). Renee --Renee 17:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I mean we have:
~Aribindo- who originally was a Hindu then created his own unique philosophy
~Meher Baba- reasonably a traditionaly Hindu.... except he taught about Involution which is contrary to the funamentals of Hindu philosophy!
~Theosophy- a philosophical/spiritual/religious/historical/mythological set of ideas
~Ken Wilber- a guy who actively seeks to include all branches of knowing into his ideas (pyschology, spirituality, science, philosophy, art, to name a few)
Given that there are four vastly different areas coverd, it's going to be hard to find a perfect label for this page.
New Age is absurd, we don't even need to waste time considering it.
Religion is problematic, since there is no religion based on these ideas.
Spirituality is a possibility... feels kinda weak to me.
Philosophy is accurate, given that philsophy covers every speculative branch of human attempts at knowledge.
However, some people have the interesting ugggghhhh..... philosophy :), that philosophy = Western People's Atheistic-only Ponderings. So I doubt we'll ever get concensus for that page as it is.
Metaphysics is accurate. This idea is not based around scientific ideas and it is about the nature of "ultimate reality." In terms of western metaphysics, I don't think any of these thinkers/traditions are taken seriously there. I mean A Course in Miracles is metaphysical, but you don't see that label applied to it.
So the simplest is
If people can't get over the idea that philosophy=only-western-academic-atheist-thinkers bias then I say we call it:
involution (idea) or involutoin (concept)Sethie 18:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Deleting this important page because of controversy over the Integral movement is ridiculous. Involution is a common esoteric and metaphysical theme, and very often as nothing to do with Integralism. Moreover, the word, and ideas such as emanation, were around long before Wilber became a popular writer and made "integarl" intoa buzz-word.
For example, according to Google book search there are
- o 652 hits on involution Steiner
- o 645 hits on involution Theosophy.
- o 636 hits on involution and metaphysics; 634 without the word integral
- o 437 hits on involution Aurobindo
- o 306 hits on involution Blavatsky.
- o 123 hits on involution Plotinus
- o 91 hits on involution Kabbalah
- o 79 hits on involution Wilber
- o 64 hits on involution Sufism
- o 38 hits on involution and esotericism. Without the word integral there are 37.
- o 24 hits on involution Meher Baba.
The fact that Wilber scores more than Sufism simply refers to the bias involved in use of English. There is a voluminous amount of information on involution in Sufism and Kabbalah, but this is usually defined in specific technical terms. Note that Steiner, Theosophy, and Aurobindo score many times higher than Wilber. I'm not saying that Wilber's contribution isn't important, but only that to reduce the whole topic of involution to the contemporary Integral Movement, and then delete a page on that basis, is ludicrious M Alan Kazlev 22:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)