Talk:Noetic Consciousness

Advertisement?

Is the link to "The Wisdom Acadamy" not an advertisement? I don't really see how this contributes to the article. Michael Hubbard (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The Lost Symbol

I came here looking for more information based on the new Dan Brown book. I suspect many will. Shouldn't it at least be mentioned?

This article is terrible!

Seriously! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.43.97 (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Definition

What is the difference between "intuition" and "noeticism" (noesis?)? This must be clarified, because it isn't immediately apparent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.43.97 (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

So why is Oxford not valid?

OK you stated to refer to talk about the removal of sourcing please post why? LoveMonkey (talk) 04:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Also I posted it word from word as it is the book, I also copy and pasted the words from the websites posted, your comment and "correction" of Oxford sourceS is very provocative and calling the sourceS (I think you are attacking 3 so far) is not a valid or acceptable position to take. LoveMonkey (talk) 04:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

LoveMonkey, I do not intend to be provocative. But sometimes we have to weigh the first scholarship we come across against more authoritative sources. I have reverted your edits which removed my addition of correct information about etymologies and meanings. First of all, there is no Greek form νοητκός. Second, there are two distinct adjectives: νοητικός and νοητός. The first is acknowledged by OED, SOED, and MW Third New International Dictionary (MW3I) as the immediate source of noetic. MW3I implicates νοητός as an intermediate: "Etymology: Greek noētikos, from noētos (verbal of noein to perceive, from noos, nous mind". But it is a plain error to exclude mention of the immediate source, as the small Oxford dictionary online does at http://www.askoxford.com. OED, the recognised higher authority, gives νοητικός and does not mention νοητός at all. Eric Partridge, in Origins, also does not mention νοητός, but treats νόησις as an intermediate. Independently, νοητός means "cognisable", as opposed to "visible, perceivable". Actually, I'll go back now and edit to the effect that νοητός may be taken as an intermediate; but no more. Please respect care and scholarship. This article desperately needs improvement throughout; why not continue to attend to other things in it, instead?

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 04:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Careful scholarship does not include calling a verifiable source "erronious" [1]. Also you are attacking Oxford online dictionary in both it's def of nous and noetic. None of this is showing respect for anything. LoveMonkey (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

LM, not only are you refusing to step back and look at weighty new evidence when it comes your way, you have accused me of bad faith in an edit summary when I offer it! You have restored faulty spelling that you introduced (it does not occur in the source you cite), even though I corrected and explained that error above. Invited to consider what more authoritative sources might have to say on the matter, including the monumental 20-volume OED, your reflex is to restore your lesser sources, sloppily and incompetently misquoting them, and with some of the poorest wiki-markup I have seen in a long while. This article is a complete mess, and probably a good candidate for deletion. If you cannot recognise the hand of someone who knows how to fix things and who has volunteered to patch what can be patched in this barbed-wire canoe of an article, I'll let you have your petty way. For now.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 04:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, in case someone else will ever be interested in truly authoritative sources, here is the Liddell & Scott entry for νοητικός:

νο-ητικός, ή, όν, intellectual, opp. αἰσθητικός, τὸ ν. Arist.de An.402b16; τὰ ν. μόρια Id.EN1139b12; ἡ ν. ψυχή, opp. ἡ αἰσθητική, Id.GA736b14, de An.429a28. Adv. νο-κῶς Porph.Gaur.17.6.

And for νοητός:

νο-ητός, ή, όν, hyperdor. νοᾱτός Ti.Locr.95a:—falling within the province of νοῦς, mental, opp. φατός, ὁρατός, Parm.8.8, Pl.R.509d, al.; ν. καὶ ἀσώματα εἴδη Id.Sph.246b; ν. ζῷα Id.Ti.30c; ν. κόσμος Ph.1.5, etc.; opp. αἰσθητός, Arist.EN1174b34, Phld.Piet.81, Plu.2.1114d, D.L.3.10. Adv. -τῶς, opp. αἰσθητῶς, Plot.4.8.6, cf. Ph.1.467, Iamb.Myst.8.6. II. = νοητικός, Orac. ap. Lyd.Mens.1.11. Adv. -τῶς carefully, LXXPr.23.1.

The usages are clearly connected, but also clearly differentiated. It is obvious that a form in -ic like noetic comes more directly from a form in -ικός, like νοητικός.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 05:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Since I am not perfect I have asked the help of a Greek who edits on Wiki -User talk:Ioannes Tzimiskes to look into this, but most certainly your style over substance fallacy can not be anything then what it is ad hom, and as such is the highest and worst form of un-professionalism. LoveMonkey (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Institute of Noetic Science

Positions attributed to Plotinus but really the programme of the Institute of Noetic Science have been inserted in this article. They have nothing to do with Plotinus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belfire (talk • contribs) 00:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources

This article needs BADLY to be sourced. In particular one thing that stood out to me was the following, under Noetic Origins: "Paleolithic humans (pre-history) - Cromagnon cave art depicts shamanic rituals and awareness of transcendent or "vertical" power involving transformation." Can someone please provide a source for this information. I could be wrong, but my understanding of Cro-Magnon cave paintings (most notably being the cave paintings at Lascaux, France) was that they were typically descriptive of animals (of course), but any ideas on the "meanings" behind these, especially ones pertaining to shamanic rituals are mere speculation. This line presents the idea as fact. Please cite the source of this information! If this is incorrect information it needs to be removed, and if this is speculation, that needs to be specified! Articles like this are part of why wikipedia gets a bad rap from many academics. 02:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Elonka 03:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)