[Home]History of New Age/Talk

HomePage | Recent Changes | Preferences

Revision 138 . . November 24, 2001 10:19 am by BF
Revision 137 . . November 24, 2001 6:42 am by (logged).128.91.xxx
Revision 136 . . November 24, 2001 6:32 am by (logged).128.91.xxx
Revision 135 . . November 24, 2001 4:49 am by Stephen Gilbert
Revision 134 . . November 24, 2001 3:59 am by BF [yes!]
Revision 133 . . November 24, 2001 3:43 am by Stephen Gilbert [A proposal to BF]
Revision 132 . . November 24, 2001 1:42 am by BF [whaever dude]
Revision 131 . . November 24, 2001 1:30 am by Gareth Owen
Revision 130 . . November 24, 2001 1:24 am by BF
Revision 129 . . November 22, 2001 3:59 pm by Alex Kennedy [Further questions re: Freemasonry and "New Age" thought.]
Revision 128 . . (edit) November 22, 2001 7:04 am by BF
Revision 127 . . November 22, 2001 7:03 am by BF [answer for Alex]
Revision 126 . . (edit) November 22, 2001 2:15 am by (logged).128.91.xxx
Revision 125 . . November 22, 2001 2:15 am by (logged).128.91.xxx
Revision 124 . . November 11, 2001 5:09 am by Aristotle
  

Difference (from prior major revision) (no other diffs)

Added: 170a171,173

My comments in blue. The introduction needs to be changed. This is my idea... add another side of New Age(the experiential side which defines the topic best) because it will be more accurate and less verbose. My add-on will not have many wikied links to definitions. This would be stated just under the first paragraph and go something like this: "New Age is also a continuum of eclectic beliefs ranging from Physics on the factual/science side, through casual experimenters in new age topics(listed in the A to Z part)in the middle, to 'hard core' [don't misinterpet this] New Agers who live their lives totally swept in by the movement." I have never liked the stodgy terminology in the present introduction. It reads like someone is explaining something they don't like, in language that most people rarely use, to over-intellectualize the topic, and not make it reader-friendly.


Added: 171a175,176

Michael links to this article from his web site. I agree that some people may have a problem understanding different POV than their own on any subject. But, we need to "let all the horses out" on this topic and not worry if people find it controversial. New Age is controversial to the mainstream US citizens, but it is also changing the mainstream slowly. We can put Michael's article in a special section as you mentioned below, which means now, that I'll need help rewriting the history section. And the boldface headings can be like philosophy article, so let me do the them first and you can edit them or expand the in depth linked new pages.


Added: 173a179
This part will be easy. Just take the 3 talk sections, and copyedit the dialog right out of them. You may have noticed the critiques there and my defenses. Who won out ? Not me, but now maybe we can both have all sides presented, hopefully avoiding the petty squabbles such as,"what do you mean by 'paradigm shift' ?" That one really got to me. I don't use many intellectual terms because the truth should be presented simply. And New Age is a whole new POV as far as truth goes. I also want to do an in-depth on the Spirituality heading to show how deeply embedded the Judeo-Christian ethos is in the US, perhaps in western civilization ! People believe that Church is a good thing. They think that the Bible is accurate and been around since Adam. New Age is viewed as a thorn in the side to many Christians because one of its best features is exposing the deception in the Bible along with jumping on new archeological supportive evidence (Nag Hammadi, Essene Scrolls, etc).

HomePage | Recent Changes | Preferences
Search: