Talk:Cosmotheism (classical)

Edited for a more NPOV.

What statistics do you have or citation proving that "most" pantheists verses "some" for:

"and of which some within the pantheist community often find objectionable"?

(cur) (last) 17:31, 1 Apr 2005 Goethean (rv softening of prose to benefit the white seperatist POV)

Curious.

A NPOV of "some" is not "softening" anything, it only is far more "objective" and it is far less POV than "most", which is unsubstanciated.

Thanks- Accuracy and NPOV-Editor

Cosmotheism is a form of classical pantheism that identifies God with the cosmos, that is, with the universe as a unified whole.

Cosmotheism asserts that "all is within God and God is within all". It considers the nature of reality and of existence to be mutable and is destined to co-evolve ever towards a more complete "universal consciousness", or to co-evolve ever towards Godhood.

Etymologically, cosmotheism differs from "Pan-theism" in that "pan" is ancient Greek for all, while the Greek word cosmos means an orderly and harmonious universe. Cosmotheists take this as meaning the divine is tantamount to reality and consciousness, an inseparable part of an orderly, harmonious, and whole universal system.

In its broadest sense, the word cosmotheism may be considered synonymous with pantheism, although not all modern pantheists would accept the term as a synonym for their own worldview, only due to its relatively recent association with William Luther Pierce and his white separatist political views, and of which some within the pantheist community might find objectionable. (see Cosmotheism (Pierce)).

Does this exist?

Please provide some evidence/sources that "Classical" Cosmotheism exists independent of the cosmotheism of Pierce. --BM 19:39, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course, "Cosmotheism" does exist, just do a Google or Yahoo search on the term "Cosmotheism" and you will find plenty of evidence/sources proving that "Classical" or "Ancient" Cosmotheism also exists completely independent of the Modern "Cosmotheism" or his unique "interpretation" of it by the late Dr. William Luther Pierce.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say: "Cosmotheism was a synonym for Pantheism until its meaning was hijacked by White Supremacists." --Goethean 19:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the word "Cosmotheism" still is the only accurate synonym for the word "Pantheism", and its essential "meaning" of "God is the Cosmos and the Cosmos is God", is still unchanged, and regardless of who or whom actually tries to "hijack" it or not. Also, it is more accurate to say "White Separatists", when referring to Pierce, and to his "interpretation" of Cosmotheism, and not "White Supremacists".

I must say that I've never come across the term outside Wikipedia. It isn't mentioned in the main philosophical text on the subject of pantheism, Michael P. Levine's Pantheism: A non-theistic concept of deity (1994, London: Routledge). I'm inclined to suggest that this be made a redirect to pantheism. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:24, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just because you have or some here have not come across the term outside of "Wikipedia", doesn't mean that the term "Cosmotheism" isn't a proper term for a Classical "Pantheism", which it actually is. Your ignorance of this term "Cosmotheism" is really no good excuse or reason for your redirecting it.

I've never heard of it before either. --Goethean 20:27, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A quick bit of Googling reveals that, aside from its use by various racist kooks like Pierce, it's used by a couple of writers as a semi-technical term within their theories, with no agreed upon meaning. One, for example, uses it to refer to pre-monotheistic polytheism. I'm even more inclining to making this article a redirect (especially as there's nothing classical about any of it). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:58, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The reason that I redirected Cosmotheism to William Pierce back in December was that nobody was able to produce any evidence that it had any significance apart from Piwrce. My question did elicit quite a lot of ranting from Paul Vogel, however. I would propose that this article be redirected to pantheism and that the Cosmotheism article be redirected back to William Peirce (i.e. that it not be a disambiguation page) --BM 22:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That looks right to me. Shall we wait a day or two to say if there's any objection from people who are actually involved with the page, and then do it? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:21, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All of these arguements for redirecting "Cosmotheism" are really just complete and "politically-motivated" nonsense. http://www.nationalvanguard.org/printer.php?id=4789 It is clear that anyone doing a "Google" or better a "Yahoo" search can see that the term "Cosmotheism" relates to both a "Classical" and/or to a "Ancient" Pantheism and that the updated and the Modern interpretation of "Cosmotheism" by the late Dr. William Luther Pierce is a far more accurate reflection of this "Classical" or of this "Ancient" Pantheism or "Cosmotheism" than are many of the so-called and mis-labeled Modern "Pantheists" of today. My objections are based upon retaining factual accuracy and maintaining a NPOV within articles, and not falsely pushing any "political" bias within them. (216.45.198.137 (talk · contributions))

I'm inclined to think that the nature and tone of this response makes it count as evidence for making the page a redirect. I did do a Goggle search, with the results that I mentioned above. The claims made by 216.45.198.137 are thin, to say the least. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:22, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The rest of us are inclined to know that you censored out the Yahoo search link here: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Cosmotheism&fr=FP-tab-web-t-223&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8 that revealed hundreds of results for "Cosmotheism" besides just those few from a Google Search, now which "politically" censors its own listings as well as those for its current "news sources", http://www.nationalvanguard.org/printer.php?id=4789 and thus, GOOGLE is not really very fair nor objective in its Web searches anymore. Also, you are the one with the actual "weak claims", otherwise, you would not be censoring this article nor be calling for making the page a redirect, now, would you? LOL! :D

Oh good grief; "LOL! :D"? (And what did your first sentence mean?) If "cosmotheism" is part of ancient thought, what exactly is the reason supposed to be for Google censoring it?

How about this reason? http://www.nationalvanguard.org/printer.php?id=4789

If Google is, as you claim, censoring pages for political reasons, and this affects the hits for 'Cosmotheism', then you agree that cosmotheism is political rather than religious? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:57, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It meant exactly what it said, "Charlie Brown". LOL! :D Several hundred hits on Yahoo and far less on Google. You figure it out. Also, some "religions" are censored for "political" reasons, so your point is what, exactly? http://www.nationalvanguard.org/printer.php?id=4789

It's looking to me like it would be reasonable to redirect this either to "Pantheism" or "Classical pantheism". There seem to be rather a lot of different pantheism articles, and it isn't clear to me why "Classical pantheism" and "Pantheism" are different articles. Any thoughts on where this should be redirected? --BM 21:51, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, just like "Christianity", or any other religion, there are really many different "interpretations" of "pantheism". Just because you don't understand the differences between Classical or Ancient Pantheism and Modern Pantheism or Modern Cosmotheism doesn't mean that these actual differences aren't significant or aren't meaningful, most especially, to those of those various beliefs. To think otherwise, is really only the height of both arrogance and ignorance of the subject matter, as would be reverting or censoring it only for your own biased "political" reasons like this: http://www.nationalvanguard.org/printer.php?id=4789 or an ignorant and selfish POV.

Well, Mr Anon, I asked a question. So far you haven't bothered to answer it. You have only accused me of POV for asking it. Asking a question is not a POV. Please provide some evidence that there is a cosmotheism distinct from Pierce's views, because those are already covered in the Wikipedia article on him. For example, who are the major thinkers in the tradition of "classical cosmotheism"? Please provide some quotes where the term "cosmotheism" is used by a notable thinker -- other than as a reference to the refer Pierce's cosmotheism. --BM 22:49, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, Mr.BM, maybe because I had already answered it? If otherwise, then please be more specific as to what question I should bother to answer? Where, exactly, did I accuse you of being POV for asking a question? Be specific. There is plenty of evidence that there is a cosmotheism distinct from Pierce's views, and those are NOT already covered in the Wikipedia article on Pierce, whatsoever. The major thinkers in the tradition of "Classical" or "Ancient" Cosmotheism are in the Ancient Aryan Vedas and Upanishads and is also in the ancient Egyptian Akenaton's impersonal and montheistic religion. A notable and modern expert on the esoteric subject of this ancient Egyptian "Cosmotheism" is Jan Assman, of the University of Heidelburg in Germany. He has written much about this "Ancient" or "Classical" Egyptian "Cosmotheism" and how it relates to Moses and to what he calls the "Mosaic Distinction". Essentially, this specific "Mosaic Distinction" was an Hebrew invention and departure from the original and Impersonal GODHOOD religion of Akenaton, to a PERSONAL and TRIBAL GOD, YHWH, and making this version of a GOD intolerable of all and of any others. According to Assman, this is the ancient and root source of Gentile, Christian, and Muslim, "anti-semitism". There are many other experts and sources, including the Encyclopedia Britainica, etc., that prove that "Cosmotheisms", just like "Pantheisms", or other religions, do have many distinct "interpretations", and they are all equally valid.

A search for "Jan Assman" plus "cosmotheism" gets exactly two hits on Google, both reviews, neither supporting your assertions. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are far many more hits than just these "two" from Google , on "Jan Assman" and on "Cosmotheism", http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Jan+Assman%22+%2B+%22Cosmotheism%22%2C+&btnG=Google+Search and use another one, especially, and "more than double the hits" if you do a web search actually using the Yahoo search engine: http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&fr=sfp&p=Jan+Assman+%2B+cosmotheism verses only Googles, and then far many, 1,780 in fact, on just "Cosmotheism",alone: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=+cosmotheism&ei=UTF-8&fr=sfp&fl=0&x=wrt and even including those "two hits" from Google that actually do support my own proven assertion that "Cosmotheism" has many distinct "interpretations", and that they are all equally valid.

I have just e-mailed Prof. Assman to ask him if he would be prepared to look at the article and at this discussion (I've provided the URLs) and give his opinion. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:10, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. I am looking forward to his input and opinion. It is clear that your own POV is too biased to use a different search engine from GOOGLE, http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=+cosmotheism&ei=UTF-8&fr=sfp&fl=0&x=wrt nor to be at all factually objective about the term and about the ancient and modern religion of "Cosmotheism". Also, Jan Assman is not the only one or is not the only modern expert that understands the term and religion of "Cosmotheism", but, he is one of the best known.

For an example, from one of the five Yahoo "hits":

The Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt In the Ancient Egyptian religion, there are over 3000 gods and goddesses (collectively known as the Netjer). On these pages, some Netjer are described. Some are not. To try and describe all of them, even with brief descriptions, would be a monumental task, and there are already many websites filled with minor descriptions of various deities.

What IS Netjer?

Netjer is One and the Many. This concept is extremely foreign to many folks, but is akin to how in Catholicism, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are separate, yet the same.

Netjer is both plural and singular. I can talk about a particular Netjer, Sekhmet, as an individual deity. Or I can write about Netjer as a whole concept.

In some pagan relgions, you hear the concept of "facets". How the Goddess has many facets to herself, but She is still the Goddess showing facets to different people. The One and the Many concept is nothing like that analogy.

The best analogy to date I have heard is one of a huge ball of yarn that is thousands of colors, with many threads going into different spindles. Each spindle is a different color. And on those yarn filled spindles, there are two threads: one coming from the ball, and one going to the ball. Which thread is feeding the ball, and which is feeding the spindle is unknown.

Jan Assman refers to the One and the Many concept as 'cosmotheism'

What any of the above has to do with pantheism is anyone's guess. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not really. It is very clear to me. Maybe you should do more research and with an open mind for a change, and then, maybe it would be clear to you as well.

To be honest, I can't think what Professor Assman is going to reply that would convince me that one professor's use of "cosmotheism" to refer to the religious system of the Akhnaton sect of Ancient Egypt makes "classical" Cosmotheism sufficiently distinctive as a school of thought to merit a separate article. It seems to me that apart from Pierce, "cosmotheism" is a term used infrequently by diverse academics and writers, with no fixed meaning, to refer to various forms of pantheism. In that situation, it still seems to me that this article should just be merged with pantheism. --BM 18:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In other words, your mind is already made up, BM, so you just won't be bothered with the actual or with the cited facts. That seems to me to be POV.

I haven't heard back from him yet, but what I've seen about his work suggests very strongly that he'll think most of the stuff on this page, and from our anon on the Talk page, is nonsense. And my general view is the same as yours. Still, I'll reserve judgement for the moment. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Right. On the contrary, if Jan Assman is honest and truthful, he'll think that only your and BM's POV "arguements" are just "ignorant nonsense", about the term "cosmotheism" and the fact that it actually has many views, all equally valid, and all of them worthy of their own unique articles within an Encyclopedia. I am looking forward to seeing him post his views here regarding this debate and discussion. It is clear that you have "hardly" reserved any "judgement", as your own POV bias is quite clear for all NPOV observers and readers to see.-ANON (216.45.221.15516:50 (talk · contributions), 7 Apr 2005)

And the curious fact is that the above was added the day after I'd given Prof. Assman's response, below... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:03, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Prof. Assman's response

This (omitting salutations, etc.) is the full text of Jan Assman's reply:

“thank you for alerting me to what is going on in the internet. In taking up the term 'cosmotheism' from Lamoignon de Malesherbes who seems to have coined it in 1782 with regard to Pliny the Elder, I had no idea that there was such a thing as a "cosmotheism church" founded by an extreme right wing American Neonazi. Only the internet creates such a neighbourhood with people and ideas with which one would least wish to be associated. It is perhaps important to stress the fact that terms such as pantheism, monotheism, polytheism and, of course, cosmotheism are not antique.”

That is BS! You could have written such "nonsense" yourself, for all we know. Let Jan Assman write his own post, right here, and without your having edited it. The term "cosmotheism" is far older than "1782 and Lamoignon de Malesherbes who seems to have coined it in 1782 with regard to Pliny the Elder", it is actually an "archaic" term or is ancient Egyptian-Greek. The "Cosmotheism Community Church" was not founded by "an extreme right wing American Neonazi", whatsoever. That is really just deliberately and factually-incorrect political slander. And while it is true that the terms such as "pantheism, monotheism, polytheism" are not antique, however, the term "cosmotheism", actually is "archaic" or it actually is "ancient". Prove to us that Jan Assman wrote this for himself, as you have lied and have not shown your own factual sources and your citations before "reverting" before.-ANON

It doesn't get us much forrarder, to be honest (though it's nice to have confirmed what I hadn't in fact doubted, that Assman is innocent of any taint of Pierce's poison). My position is still, then, to merge whatever of this article is of any interest with pantheism, and redirect this article either there or to Pierce. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Right. You could have written such "nonsense" yourself, for all we know. Let Jan Assman write his own post, right here, and without your having edited it. Prove to us that Jan Assman wrote this for himself, as you have lied and have not shown your own factual sources and your citations before "reverting" before.-ANON

It's hardly worth replying to this, but if you want to check with Prof. Assman, hs e-mail address is on the Heidelberg Website, which is where I found it, and you can ask him yourself. It would be pretty stupid of me to make such an easily refutable claim. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are pretty stupid to do so. Please post the e-mail address or the link to the Heidelberg Website, so anyone here can ask him themselves. Until then, no one here should really believe you, as you have lied and have reverted without ever providing proper factual citations and or sources.-ANON.

I agree. A single sentence in the pantheism article on Pierce's unique usage of Cosmotheism might be helpful for the wayward. --Goethean 19:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Why bother with the actual facts, when your mind is already made up?-ANON

Well, I think that it's time we did that. Which do you think this should be redirected to: pantheism or Pierce? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pantheism. I think there is one sentence in Pantheism about "cosmotheism". It should be expanded slightly to state that while "cosmotheism" has sometimes been used by academics and others for forms of pantheism, it has most recently been used mainly for the sect originated by Pierce, etc, etc. --BM 15:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that then. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, we ALL have not AGREED to do that, then. Please post the e-mail address or the link to the Heidelberg Website, so anyone here can ask him themselves. Until then, no one here should really believe you, as you have lied and have reverted without ever providing proper factual citations and or sources.-ANON.

This article on Classical Pantheism is unique to Pantheism and should not be merged into "pantheism", unless complete:

The reality and the facts are that the late Dr. Pierce's unique interpretation of Classical Pantheism or Cosmotheism, updated to today, is a far more accurate reflection verses most of what is falsely touted and considered to be Modern "pantheism" today. Cosmotheism and Pantheism are really just two names for the same concepts: GOD is the impersonal COSMOS as a Unified Whole and COSMOS as a Unified Whole is GOD. Not what Jan Assman had falsely changed and claimed it is: Polytheism. Classical Pantheism is a Monotheist COSMOTHEISM,-ANON.

216.45.221.155/Paul Vogel

It's been determined that 216.45.221.155 (talk · contributions) is in fact Paul Vogel. I've banned 216.45.221.155 for an initial period of 24 hours until I can ascertain the proper procedure with an IP-address sockpuppet of a banned User. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)