Talk:A Course In Miracles
|
|
| Contents |
Initial construction handshakes
[to Gary D:] Thanks for your article on ACIM that I started. It looks very impressive. Where are the followers located? I have the impression that ACIM is quite popular here in the Netherlands and in the USA. There is one controversial group in Wisconsin. Shouldn't that one be mentiond? Andries 17:50, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
Andries, thank you for your kind note on the A Course in Miracles article. I liked your stub and although you have said you are a skeptic I thought the stub had nice NPOV. I wrote the article from the background of being an ACIM adherent, and I hope the POV has remained sufficiently neutral.
I hope you don't mind me removing the second paragraph, but I think all of its content has been included in the expanded version.
Thank you also for your suggestions. The followers of ACIM are worldwide, and I will mention that. The controversial cult in Wisconsin should probably also be included in the future, but that is beyond my scope at the moment, because I am very new to Wikipedia, and am currently just trying to do a general overview. The Wisconsin organization is part of a very large and controversial (though fascinating in its own way) subtopic. In fact, I bet we will find that what I have already written will be considered controversial when other ACIM students start to review it. We will see. Thanks again! Gary D 18:12, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
Saw your recent wikification. I had been wondering myself about whether to link to Columbia University and psychiatry, but as I've said, I'm very new to this, and wasn't sure how far to take the whole linkage thing. Didn't think at all about the American links; ethnocentrism, I suppose. Thanks for those. Gary D 22:38, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
"Christian in statement"
GaryD, "Christian in statement", what does that mean? It may be my English because I never lived in an English speaking country but I really don't know what that means. Can you please clarify? Thanks in advance. Andries 18:29, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
Once again, Andries, you ask a good question. This is in fact somewhat odd phrasing, even for native English speakers. It is my attempt to convey information in a few words while avoiding controversy. I took the phrase "Christian in statement" from the ACIM Preface itself, and as used there, it means that ACIM deals in Christian concepts and uses Christian terminology, and of course it is said to come from Jesus, the very center of Christianity. However, ACIM takes the position that it is correcting Christianity, and it in fact dismisses several core Christian principles, so it is not a Christian work in the traditional sense. There are many, many traditional Christians who would call ACIM blasphemy, the work of the Devil, and say everyone involved with it going to Hell. So I used the same phrase that ACIM uses as a means to express the work's conceptual and textual proximity to Christianity without putting it squarely into the Christian camp. There is a term that has been kicked around to describe ACIM, "Neochristianity," but I wouldn't say that term has become sufficiently established to include it here. --Gary D 22:31, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
Gene's report
I removed shallow or waning influence as inappropriate and unsupported, and tried to NPOV a bit. There is still a vast amount which could be added. User: Gene Ward Smith
Why ACIM cannot speak for itself in Wikipedia
I can see you have spent alot of time on this, thank you. I have added a couple of links, in regard to the so called copyright issue. A Course In Miracles is so much more than your/my ideas about it, why not use the course's own descriptions of Itself to present?. Everything is covered in the book. Can we let it speak for Itself? Tony (mailto:tony@acimi.com)
- This may sound like heresy, but no, I don't think we can let it speak for itself, because the context here is an encyclopedia where casual readers come to be brought up to speed quickly on topics with which they are likely unfamiliar. ACIM is heavily nuanced and uses a thick layer of special definitions, allusions, and meanings that even dedicated adherents cannot agree about after several readings of the book. You as an adherent may read those introductory passages and see special personal inspiration and poetry, but the general public coming to Wikipedia for quick information will read them and see meaningless hash. My motto here is always, "think of the reader"; perhaps in an ACIM context that can be seen as a form of Wikipedia helpfulness. --Gary D 21:16, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
==Sigh== ==sniff==
Oh, my pretty article, my pretty article, oh, just look at it now...--Gary D 22:47, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
Forgive me if the changes to your article have offended you but please remember it IS Jesus' book and it should not be compromised. God bless.
Trying to Allow Both Sides to Present Themselves
Admittedly, I am a student of ACIM, and have an innate bias in favor of it. Obviously much of the article that was there before my recent edits was written by those who had a strong bias against ACIM. Such things as implying that it might be a ploy of the Devil, and then giving no counter-argument, to me seems to be a bit one sided.
I am a firm believer in letting everyone have their say, but also in trying to make a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts out of this. As such, the recent edits that I made to this page made every attempt, within reason, to retain almost all of the original anti-ACIM material as possible, but to attempt to present both views in as detached and objective of a fashion as I am able.
I have corrected all of the simple factual errors that I found in the article, of which there were several, and I have also tried to give as comprehensive and complete of an explanation of ACIM's philosophy as I am able.
I believe that the Wikipedia was intended to be a sort of an alternative to Brittanica. As such, I tend to think that by trying to make the article present both the views of anti-ACIM people, as well as the views of ACIM students, it becomes a more presentable and well rounded article. -Scott P. 01:38, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, representing relevant POVs isnt a "trying" issue, rather its a "do or do not, there is no try" issue. WP articles must represent all important POV's and by so doing become intrinsically NPOV. The problem is in the introductory paragraphs which set the tone - either they are too clinical and not representative of anything in the article, or they are too suggestive of one POV, leaving the whole article leaning to one side or another. So at a certain point its a question of writing style and ability - many prolific contributors of detail and substance arent very good at writing clear concise and well rounded introductions - and vice versa. We all have different strengths in different areas of writing, and we "try" to make things come together.
- That said, I greatly appreciate your admission of bias, and Im trying to give enough detail in response to your edits, primarily to help you with your future writings here on WP, and secondarily to improve the article as it is ATM. You claimed the balance was leaning the other way, and hence its rather natural for it to swing in the opposite direction. You will be pleasantly surprised to find that truely improved, NPOV edits are almost universally appreciated, and extremes tend to quickly lose steam after the tone is properly set. Sinreg, -SV|t 08:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
PS: Following the Brittanica Tradition Further
Also, in step with the general Brittanica tradition of allowing various belief systems to first be told in the hypothetical voice of an adherent of the given belief system, but then always grounding any stated beliefs that might appear to be controversial with opposing beliefs or facts, I have attempted to generally follow this same practice here in my most recent edits. I hope nobody is offended by this. - Scott P. 01:49, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Its not a question of offense - though a comparison between WP and Britannica is rather insulting to WP ;). The problem with this style is that its not NPOV. All claims and POV must be put in context as POV claims -very simple. Wether its a whole section titled "what people x say" or a note in the intro, citing a particular source. In any case Britannica style is not WP style, though we do use (for rewrite) their expired copyright stuff from early last century. "Britannica Tradition" has been superceded :) -SV|t 08:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Point by point breakdown of intro problems
1. A Course In Miracles (or "ACIM") is a book on spiritual principles,
- First thing - What is it? ~ A book by someone about something, read by someone, who draws x conclusions and bases x associations and concepts on it. -SV
2. alleged to have been written by none other than the person of Jesus Christ,
- The wording "none other than..." is improper for an NPOV article. Because this sentence is speculative, (and particular to a POV interpretation) it can be dealt with later - deal with what it (the book) is first. Save claims and speculation for POV section or explicitly cite them as claims by x. -SV
3. via a certain type of channeling process known as inner dictation in which Helen Schucman describes herself as having been the "scribe".
- Same as 1 - but at least this is clearer. -SV
4. The official copyright claim for the book lists Helen Schucman and "Anonymous" as the authors. Presumably, here the listing of Anonymous as an author is a veiled reference to Schucman's belief or claim that Jesus Christ was the true author.
- This is highly speculative, and more its speculative about a rather unconventional or difficult to rationalise claim. It needs to be determined then, if she actually claimed the work to be "ghostwritten by Gee-zuss" or if its only the claim of its practicioners. -SV
5. The book was written in the style of a textbook, and contains various teachings and exercises covering the topics of forgiveness, brotherhood, and the nature of love.
- This (my wording) seems clear, but works only as an intro to the contents of the book - a secondary paragraph. -SV
6. Schucman describes having "received" the material between 1965 and 1978, and to have transcribed it with the assistance of Bill Thetford.
- This seems to contradict 3 - please distinguish her claims from the claims of her followers. -SV
7. The title of the book was derived from the book's core premise that love is a miracle, and it surpasses all others in value. -SV
- This seems like a claim, its not necessary to attribute it perhaps, but consider "title of the book is claimed to refer to love— as a miracle above all other miracles."-SV
8. The 365 practical exercises it contains were designed to be performed daily over the course of a year, and contain various meditations, prayers and mental exercises intended to provide practical illustrations and applications for the advancement of spiritual wisdom through forgiveness and love.
- The combination of "practical" and "spiritual" is almost oxymoronic, or otherwise expressive of a particular POV which advocates a spiritual view. The problem with allowing for one such POV, it means that all variations of such POV must also be considered. Its not POV to represent POV as claims - it is POV to use language which implicitly accepts a POV premise. -SV
9. The general teaching sections of the book consistently aim at enabling students to gain a conceptual framework (...) by which to apply the 365 daily lessons.
- Remove my "metaphoric language" - overdone -SV
- IMHO my version was superior in that it seperated logically the general concept introduction, the claims of authorship, the contents, and the nature of the followership. Your version simply jumbles the first three and removes the fourth. -SV|t 08:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Reply to point by point breakdown of ACIM intro
Dear Steve,
Since my last edit, I came across your point by point breakdown re the ACIM intro, and here is my point by point reply:
1. A Course In Miracles (or "ACIM") is a book on spiritual principles,
- First thing - What is it? ~ A book by someone about something, read by someone, who draws x conclusions and bases x associations and concepts on it. -SV
I believe that all of these topics are finally now covered in the intro.
2. alleged to have been written by none other than the person of Jesus Christ,
- The wording "none other than..." is improper for an NPOV article. Because this sentence is speculative, (and particular to a POV interpretation) it can be dealt with later - deal with what it (the book) is first. Save claims and speculation for POV section or explicitly cite them as claims by x. -SV
I have removed this phrase.
3. via a certain type of channeling process known as inner dictation in which Helen Schucman describes herself as having been the "scribe".
- Same as 1 - but at least this is clearer. -SV
Inserted word: claim to refer more neutrally to this process.
4. The official copyright claim for the book lists Helen Schucman and "Anonymous" as the authors. Presumably, here the listing of Anonymous as an author is a veiled reference to Schucman's belief or claim that Jesus Christ was the true author.
- This is highly speculative, and more its speculative about a rather unconventional or difficult to rationalise claim. It needs to be determined then, if she actually claimed the work to be "ghostwritten by Gee-zuss" or if its only the claim of its practicioners. -SV
All of these assertions can be documented by ample already published source material. If you would like, I would be happy to provide appropriate footnoting for this.
5. The book was written in the style of a textbook, and contains various teachings and exercises covering the topics of forgiveness, brotherhood, and the nature of love.
- This (my wording) seems clear, but works only as an intro to the contents of the book - a secondary paragraph. -SV
This is included in the intro as I feel that a good intro needs to briefly touch on the type of contents to be found in the book.
6. Schucman describes having "received" the material between 1965 and 1978, and to have transcribed it with the assistance of Bill Thetford.
- This seems to contradict 3 - please distinguish her claims from the claims of her followers. -SV
Please elaborate. I cannot see the contradiction. BTW, Schucman never had any personal “followers”, only people who followed the teachings of ACIM who never ascribed any particular spiritual authority to her, other than having once “channeled” ACIM
7. The title of the book was derived from the book's core premise that love is a miracle, and it surpasses all others in value. -SV
- This seems like a claim, its not necessary to attribute it perhaps, but consider "title of the book is claimed to refer to love— as a miracle above all other miracles."-SV
The actual text includes numerous assertions that this is its core premise. Why not allow its core premise to be laid out in the article intro?
8. The 365 practical exercises it contains were designed to be performed daily over the course of a year, and contain various meditations, prayers and mental exercises intended to provide practical illustrations and applications for the advancement of spiritual wisdom through forgiveness and love.
- The combination of "practical" and "spiritual" is almost oxymoronic, or otherwise expressive of a particular POV which advocates a spiritual view. The problem with allowing for one such POV, it means that all variations of such POV must also be considered. Its not POV to represent POV as claims - it is POV to use language which implicitly accepts a POV premise. -SV
It seems to me that your assertion here that spirituality is inherently impractical is an oxymoron, and may represent a certain POV. Considering the fact that all of the exercises and teachings are meant to involve real-life situations, and not merely theories, is it not POV to insist that such is inherently impractical, and therefore to imply that the fundamental premise of the book must be inherently flawed, as you seem to be insisting?
9. The general teaching sections of the book consistently aim at enabling students to gain a conceptual framework (...) by which to apply the 365 daily lessons.
- Remove my "metaphoric language" - overdone -SV
I thought you were the one who inserted this. I agree and have removed it.
- IMHO my version was superior in that it seperated logically the general concept introduction, the claims of authorship, the contents, and the nature of the followership. Your version simply jumbles the first three and removes the fourth. -SV|t 08:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I have since laid out the intro with separate paragraphs for each of these three things.
Thanks,
Scott P. 11:53, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Further thougts about point by point breakdown
"All of these assertions can be documented by ample already published source material. If you would like, I would be happy to provide appropriate footnoting for this.
That stuff needs to be directly cited, and footnoted. "According to the ACIM literature..." etc. -SV
"Please elaborate. I cannot see the contradiction. BTW, Schucman never had any personal “followers”, only people who followed the teachings of ACIM who never ascribed any particular spiritual authority to her, other than having once “channeled” ACIM.
"Devout believers" then? I think what I meant (when I wrote it) was that if youre going to be overtly specific about the 'type of process' above, then generalizing it to "recieved" can be contradictory to the notion of "inner dictation" (lowercase). I mean isn't "inner dictation" what everyone does when they think to themselves? ;) -SV
"The actual text includes numerous assertions that this is its core premise. Why not allow its core premise to be laid out in the article intro?
Fair enough - I wasnt certain because Ive never read it - was only talking about wording. Citing it may be a Good Thing - using an early foundational citation. -SV
"It seems to me that your assertion here that spirituality is inherently impractical is an oxymoron, and may represent a certain POV. Considering the fact that all of the exercises and teachings are meant to involve real-life situations, and not merely theories, is it not POV to insist that such is inherently impractical, and therefore to imply that the fundamental premise of the book must be inherently flawed, as you seem to be insisting?
Touche! Indeed you are right, though my comment nevertheless stands. Its a subtle point, of course, and depends on what the wording around it is. Just because the teachings "involve real-life situations" doesnt mean that the solutions it gives are practical. So theres a need to distinguish between the basic use of "practical" and the implied meaning of "practical" as a value judgement for the ACIM teachings. About this point "hard to predict, the future is" —depends on context. I havent read it yet - wildo shortly. Sinrega-SV
Each of your suggestions now incorporated into article.
Dear Steve,
I have now made adjustments to the wording, or inserted foundational quotes, as per each of your kindly suggestions. Thanks for putting up with a newbie.
Scott P. 19:01, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)