Talk:Involution (esotericism)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This seems clear to me. The subject matter is religion not philosophy. Perhaps I'd go along with 'Philosophy of Religion' but that doesn't seem right either. Gregbard 02:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree. Neither Sri Aurobindo, Blavatsky (Theosophy), nor Ken Wilber (Integral Theory), are religious thinkers. In fact they each strongly criticise established religion as limiting. Although it is true that involution is not philosophy as defined in present day secular academia, it is much more misleading to define it as "religion". For sake of a better label I would categorise it as "spiritual philosophy" (as opposed to academic philosophy). But if "Involution (spiritual philosophy)" is too unwieldly, it should just be left under the present heading. M Alan Kazlev 11:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply I notice you consider yourself an "integeral philosopher." Perhaps we can get some outside opinions on the matter? The article is about Involution particularly, so it doesn't really matter these guys are not "religious thinkers" (in your opinion or anyone else's). They could be as non-religious as possible, and that still wouldn't change the nature of this subject at all. Their criticism of <key>other</key> religious thought is irrelevant also. It is very very clearly a religious subject not a philosophical one. Furthermore, labeling Involution as "Involution (religion)" does not imply that Involution itself is a religion, but rather is a term from the subject of religion. I notice you refer to "secular academia." Well quite frankly that's who you listen to for an objective definition on any given religion, NOT IT'S ADHERENTS. There is no "spiritual philosophy" as opposed to "academic philosophy" there is religion and there is philosophy. Hey listen, creation scientists are out there claiming that it's not religion it's science! They can say it all day long, but that doesn't make it true. Gregbard 20:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just looked into Aurobindo, Blavatsky and Ken Wilber. All three are clearly religious thinkers and specifically not philosophical thinkers. Philosophy means something. Not just anybody with an idea is a philosopher. Furthermore, there is no end to religious thinkers who desperately try to portray themselves as something other than religion. It's sad really. If you believe in this religious belief (which is just fine!), why don't you just admit that it is a religion and not try to portray it as something else? The whole thing loses credibility, and now I am thinking that a review of all of these articles from a secular, legitimately philosophical, and objective perspective will be necessary. My goodness! Gregbard 20:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi Greg

actually, the fact that this is a subject which I have expertise in should surely qualify me to be able to comment on it. What if there is a page on some sub-topic in physics, for example. Would you then claim that people with university degrees in physics shouldn't comment or contribute, but only those who don't have qualifications? Or that someone who has spnt years studying Renaissance Art should not contribute to pages on the subject? (And it is true that unfortunately Wikipedia does sometimes work this way). Surely not! Well, the same should also apply here.

Now I can see where you are coming from. Our problem is really one of semantics, regarding the definition of religion. For some people anything not materialistic or secular must automatically be a religion. But that is actually a very naive and limited definition. You may be interested in the work of Gilles Quispel, Wouter Hanegraaff and others who distingush between Faith, Reason, and Gnosis. Faith corresponds to religion, reason to science, and gnosis to esotericism. See for example Wouter J Hanegraaff, New Age Religion and Western Culture, SUNY, 1998, pp.518-20 for an excellent summary, and Arthur Versluis, What is Esoteric? - Methods in the Study of Western Esotericism, in Esoterica v. IV (2000), for the argument I am using here. These are guys who are respectible academics.

You claim that Sri Aurobindo is "clearly a religious thinker". Have you read any of his material? If not, on what grounds do you define his philosophy as "religious". Here incidentally is Sri Aurobindo and his co-worker The Mother's 's rejection of religion. They are saying exactly what Hanegraaff and Versluis are, just using different langauge; e.g. saying "spiritual" or "yoga" instead of gnosis. The fact that devotees tend to turn them into a religion does not mean that their teaching is a religion. It is spiritual (=gnosis, based on inner experience), but not religious.

Similarily, in what way do you define Wilber's work as religious? Have you studied his books, or engaged in debate with followers or even critics of his work? Do you have any independent scholarly references that assert that Wilber is a religious thinker?

Also, the fact that you refer to a "secular, legitimately philosophical, and objective perspective", does indicate to me that you are trying to impose your own POV, which is either the same as, or strongly sympathetic to, secular modernity and positivism. Are you saying that only secular philosophy is legitimate? Would you consider Hegel a legitimate philosopher? Or Whitehead?

What I'm trying to show is that everyone thinks their own view is special, and they have some privelaged position by which they can judge others. Religious people think that, and positivists think that as well. Surely the goal of Wikipedia should be to present all povs, without bias abnd without claiming that one is the "special" or "correct" one. M Alan Kazlev 11:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you have expertise in a religion does not qualify you to call it a philosophy. I appreciate your contribution very much. However, I would like to see it put in it's encyclopedic context correctly. You are not qualified to do that alone as an adherent of this belief. If that was the case the Rastafarians would insist that they are not a religion either because they say they KNOW that Hallie Sallesie is the messiah. Do you see my point here? Your "expertise" is not the same as academic scholarly study. Since you have studied from the "confessional" perspective rather than from the "scholarly" perspective, your conclusions are rightly to be subject of further analysis. Autodidacticism only goes so far.

The fact that these people you mention criticize religion does not mean that their own beliefs are not themselves religion. All they are really doing is criticizing OTHER religions. Your gurus can criticize religion all day long if they want.

You say yourself "involution is not philosophy as defined in present day secular academia." That really is all the justification we need to move this thing. I'm glad you could admit this embarrassing detail. (That's good faith!)

Unfortunately you also say "it is much more misleading to define it as 'religion'." I'm sorry but it is not misleading at all. It is leading us to the appropriate way to classify these things. Just what about it is misleading exactly?

There is no such thing as "spiritual philosophy." It is a term used exclusively by adherents of religious beliefs who wish to portray their beliefs with more credibility than they deserve. You say it's spiritual and not religious. Well thanks for admitting that as well. All beliefs that presume a spiritual level of existence are religion.

Your statement on defining religion is telling. No it's not about materialism, or any other -ism. It's about methods. Philosophers use methods. You are trying to split out Gnosis from religion, but I'm sorry they are the same. There isn't something extra, or more compelling, or more legitimate that makes beliefs that are the result of "gnosis" anymore credible than religious beliefs. Gnosis sure does appeal to the existence of the supernatural doesn't it?? That's religion.

Interestingly, it's not about positivism either. Science doesn't have all the answers, but the answers it does have are scientific. The answers religion has are religious. I'm just asking that we call a spade a spade. I'm not saying that only "secular philosophy" is legitimate. I'm saying that only "secular philosophy" is philosophy, other wise it's "religion" or "philosophy of religion."

I guess I could just say AMEN to that last paragraph, but upon reflection, I don't really think there is anything "privileged" about my POV. The truths of philosophy are accessible to all humans equally, no "gnosis" is necessary. In fact, upon further reflection, I'm not sure I want all POVs on here either. Should we have the Nazi POV on the holocaust represented here? Or should we at some point say no that is not a legitimate POV? Be well,

Gregbard 00:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If it really belonged at "Involution (philosophy)" there wouldn't be a particular "philosophy's" navigation box there would there? Don't other "philosophies" also use this term? Gregbard 00:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to split out Gnosis from religion, but I'm sorry they are the same.

Read the references I gave. Otherwise it's just your pov. By the way, a quick google scholar seach for Hegel + involution turned up

• Sri Aurobindo and Hegel on the Involution-Evolution of Absolute Spirit - Steve Odin - Philosophy East and West, Vol. 31, No. 2, 179-191. Apr., 1981.

Also, do you consider Plato a "legitimate philosopher"? What do you think of his metaphysics? M Alan Kazlev 02:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.