Talk:Hermeticism/Archive 1

Common sense of "hermetic"

I moved the common sense of "hermetic" and "hermeticism" (#2) to the disamb page. If that sense is not explained there, the reader will have no way of guessing which article to read. Jorge Stolfi 23:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Robert Fludd Link

As I see the article it links to, he was involved in the occult and mysticism, but nothing says he was a Hermetic. I'm mainly leaving this here as a note to check up on that, and delete the link if found out otherwise. Feel free to hand me the proof.

KV(Talk) 17:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)KV 18:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Plea to Contributors

Please add in your sources when possible when you add in information. I would like to make this a featured article, and we need everything cited for that.

KV 17:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Statement of Intent - Citations

After we have put as much information as we can, from our current contributors, and have this fully cited, I intend to convert the harvard notation to endnotes to increase readability. It is too difficult to do mess with numbering before we have a working version. I felt that I should say this so no one is taken by surprise.

KV 19:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Astrology Operation

About the Operations, the Puritans called astrology the Operation of the Moon. I'm not entirely sure if that would actually be the Hermetic Operation of astrology, which is why I haven't edited it. It does seem plausible and will leave that up to KV here, since it is a bit of an assumption and I only ran across it on a site about the Puritan view of astrology.

I do find the article a good read and I will see if I can find the other operations. If I do I will post back here with the information.

Stratus Fireborne 11:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It's very possible, especially with the passive, feminine approach to astrology (you read the planets, can't move them) and the fact that much of astrology must've been done at night, when you see the moon and not sun. Until we find out otherwise, it's probably a good idea to put that in.

KV 18:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The Operation of the Earth, may possibly be the operation of Theurgy. I will look for any information I can find on it and get back to you.

Stratus Fireborne 07:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good

KV 21:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Considering Alchemy involves the Soul(Sun), Astrology could possibly involve the consciousness(Moon), and Theurgy the all in all or Earth aspect. That is the way I've developed Earth as the last operation.

Stratus Fireborne 00:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that. My guess, before we find actual documentation, is that the Sun (masculine) and Moon (feminine) are outdone by the connection of both, the Stars (God). But what they chose is beyond me.

KV 04:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Suppose it's possible I'll do some more research into it. Just started studyng Bardon's works a few days ago and planning to be a serious hermeticist. I just have a good bit to learn and plenty of reasons to research things.

Stratus Fireborne 05:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hope the article is part of the reason behind that.

KV 18:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's not, but it is why I understand Bardon's Initiation into Hermetics a bit better. My general interests in magic and alchemy are the reason for my interests in Hermetics.

Stratus Fireborne 01:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I seriouisly hope that the "Operation of the Earth" is not Theurgy. As far as I know, Theurgy is magic concerning God, in the Judeo/Christian scense. Basing it on that, operation of the earth would be wrong, since it would be paganistic at best. Unless you can conclude that God is nature itself, and how this relates to Theurgy, as well as other Theurgy texts on magic.

Zos 09:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Magic section

I realized after seriously looking at the section, that much of the section has nothing to do with magic and repeats things said elsewhere. This has to be (by me or others) be weeded out, the nonrepeated information that doesn't belong there moved, and rewritten.

KV 19:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I've reorganized, clipping out some repeated facts elsewhere, which belong elsewhere, and moved the unrepeated facts to other sections or improved sentences in those sections by fusing those facts in. I then added more relevant material to the section, which is alas, still uncited.

I'm also thinking that the section may do better below, swapping places with the religion section. I'd like to hear some comments on this...... but if not I'll probably just do it in a week or so figuring that no one gives a (explitive deleted).

KV 05:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thoth Pic

I'm also thinking that we might want to change the Thoth pic, amongst searching in Wikimedia commons...... under HERMES.... I found the attached image. It seems to be easier to see, but smaller. Does anyone have an opinion on this?

Thoth found under Hermes

KV 06:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Reason for reverting Infinitysnake's changes 2/22/06

First, your "spelling" change was not a valid change, there is both Hermetism and its offshoot Hermeticism. Then you removed cited information without reason, such "speculation" is done by experts in the field, and so is perfectly valid. Then you simply deleted a large block of text, which though I may agree wasn't worded perfectly was also changed on me once before. We can change the wording..... but before you go make any other major changes that aren't additions, but rather radically changing already existing text...... how about if we discuss it here first.

KV 15:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There were numerous spelling and grammatical errors, "Hermetism" was changed for consistency. Switching from one to the other without reason is only confusing, especially as 'hermetism' has fallen out of use, and the etymology section is suffiicient.

Further, the 'experts' presented are not scholars but spiritual authors who were speculating- as much as I like Manly Hall, he's not the best source, and outdated to boot. It is not the consensus of scholars that Thoth was a person; the very idea is simply silly given that Thoth predates the first-century authorship of the Hermetica by a good long time. The genral consensus is not that Hermes was a person; this was a Renaissance vanity. It is now generally accepted that the Hermetica were written by various philosophers in the Alexandrian community who psuedonymously attributed it to Hermes/Thoth. The idea that Hermes T. was a man was brought about as a justification for studying Hermetic texts, as he was promulgated as the gentile Moses." In any case, whther Hermes was a real person, Thoth was never regarded as such, being a god from antiquity.

Better sources would be Fowden, van den Broek et al, Freke & Gandy, etc.

There is much that is either incorrect or improperly stated here, and correcting misinformation should be corrected first and discussed later, IMO- esp as there are still a great number of typos, akwardly worded sentences, etc.

Fixing grammar or spelling is never a problem, but there was so much changed I had no choice but to revert. Hermetism and Hermeticism are only separated by the time of the movement, but stand historically as two separate movements, and so we must credit them properly, and not use them interchangably.

As far as Hermeticism and the occult are defined, both the authors of The Kybalion and Manly P. Hall are leading experts, even if deceased.

The "Kybalion" is a spiritual work, and really has no scholarly authority. We might call the author of "Genesis" an expert on Judaism, but we wouldn't quote it as a historical source. Manyly Hall wasa gifted individual, but by his own admission he was indulging in speculation, not in testable hypotheses. That aside, there is quite a bit of good, up to date modern scholarship on the subject, and I don't think Hall, et al, could be called "leading" experts.

The past doesnt' change, and neither did you show any more recent discoveries that refute them. And the Corpus Hermeticum is dealt very specifically in the article, and the range of dates, based on the Greek linguistic style, push from 500 BCE to 200 CE, not necessarily the 1st century CE. Of course, the earliest version we have found of the Corpus Hermeticum dates to that era, but if we listen to prized Egyptologist E.A. Wallis Budge, who is still seen as such despite his death nearly a century ago, just because the earliest text you found dates to that era, it doesnt' mean that it is the earliest text that existed. There is no surprise that the linguistic style may date to that era if it was translated from Egyptian to Greek at that period. Imagine someone dating the New King James Version Bible, based on linguistics, and by not having any other versions of the Bible, dating the creation of the Bible in the 1970's or 80's.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, I don't dispute the dating, I dispute the placement of Thoth (as a living person, no less)into that timeframe. It was a misleading phrasing at the very least.

Now, what happened to these texts? Hall explicitly states several times in his books that they are likely to have perished, for the most part, in the burning of the Great Library in 391 CE, which was for the explicit reason of destroying such texts so that the Egyptians could be subjugated.

You're using "explicit" here like Hall has the final word on this; he is obviously speculating, and this should be clearly noted, as should the abscense of evidence. Further, one's "expert" is meaningless if his or her views do not reflect scholarly consensus.

He was part of part of the Order of Freemasons which he implies though seemingly for reasons of secrecy surrounding the order in which he achieved the honorary degree of 33rd, has come from the Egyptian Mystery schools, and which taught Hermeticism. The ideas in the Corpus Hermeticism surely come from Ancient Egypt, and not Greece, as the translators of the translation I keep citing, have stated. It is certainly likely that the Corpus Hermeticum is quite ancient, despite the greek translation.

Sure- but that is, and will remain speculation until evidence shows otherwise. We can't make a claim for an earlier date based on intuition- the earliest it can be dated is to the earliest fragment, or the earliest quote or textual reference in other works.

The concept that the authors may have been in that era is discussed, with all the evidence I have ever seen to that effect. If you have other contrary evidence, feel free to add that in without destroying the evidence that was already there. But as those occult scholars claimed such, it is worthy of including. I already included an alternative explanation I came across, with proper citation.

It doesn't matter that they were scholars, it matter whwether there is evidence to support. As there is not, it can only be presented as speculation. To promote that viewpoint with a modifier is irresponsible. That someone believes it, no matter what their qualifications, is not enough- unless there is evidence, it must be clearly presented as the speculation that it is.

Feel free to add anything you like, if it is properly cited. However, there MUST be discussion before cited material is simply deleted and replaced.

"Must" is a bit strong, all things considered. I don't believe we are bound by any "musts" here I would prefer if you'd refrain from gatekeeping behavior, please. "I got here first" is simply not a valid argument for keeping your preferred version of the material. As I said before, it is not enough to cite; the sources must uphoild the citation, and the source must provide evidence. (For example, one could cite von Daniken; that wouldn't mean a claim that aliens built the pyramids is a valid inclusion.)

Adding evidence that is contrary to what I have said will certainly bring this article closer to NPOV, but what you had changed didn't only add more on that POV (uncited of course) but made it more POV, by eliminating the POV of Hall and the Three Initiates, which was already balanced out somewhat. You add information to bring about NPOV, not delete it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tom harrison (talk • contribs) .

The "Three Initiates," again, did not provide a scholarly work, (and never meant to) and should not be used as a source. The anonymity of the work, the lack of identifiable sources of credentials, make it a very poor choice.

In summary, after spending a total of 60 hours between research and writing on this page, I have no problem with you adding in viewpoints, expanding on them, but I refuse to let you scrap out those that you don't agree with.

Not even when they're untrue or poorly sourced, apparently. Will it be "It's my ball, I'm going home," then?

KV 04:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

In my recent editting of the History section, and pulling it out into it's own section...... I have removed some of the text that you didn't like, and currently it is only found in Hermetism currently. We still need expansion on the History section, and removing the text that is unneeded elsewhere now that it's in the History section. When I originally started the History section I struggled to find out about Hermetism, and broke through in my 40th or so hour of research, in finding mention to it in Hall's book. So, I traced Hermeticism back to Ancient Egypt rather than Hermetism. I'm unsure if there should be a section on Hermes Trismegistus specifically in this article, where we expand on him, or if we should simply leave that to the Hermes Trismegistus article, which is where I am leaning. Hopefully you're a bit happier with the current version.

KV 19:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

please don't parse like that....... it makes it nearly impossible to reply to this properly when your reply is parsed in with mine.

As far as the Kybalion for an accurate text, whether or not it is, its view should be mentioned. I do not mention only its view and I mentioned every source on the subject that covers the identity of Hermes that I found. Is there anything that you feel needs to be worded differently to make that NPOV or have other sources that suggest otherwise that we can add in? The article size is not an issue, because there are parts that can be made into their own articles if need be. But I do believe that the most important part of NPOV is to add in all views held by a significant group involved. Perhaps Harold Johnson's view may not be important (fictional guy I made up just there), but the Kybalion has a view which should be .

For Manly P. Hall, would you mind telling me where he says he only speculates? Though, the text seems to me to be saying that he is speculating, and based off of very logical thought as well. I know that he does not state with 100% assurity that Hermes was a man, but no scholar can say with 100% assurity that he wasn't either, at least not honestly. They come to their conclusions much as Hall came to his, speculation. Sure, I may say that, but I don't offer it as evidence in the article, that's my personal proof and I don't expect people to take my vision as proof for them, without even knowing of me. Perhaps we should fix that by mentioning that most scholars believe that he wasn't a man, that way we can include everything. Also, I should note that whatever Hall wrote had to be approved by the Masons, and perhaps he wasn't allowed to state it out as truth because it may deal with some hidden secrets.

I'm not going to check right now..... but I do believe that I mentioned Budge in concern with the dating of the Corpus Hermeticum... I do believe you editted that section. Perhaps I must word it better, but the idea is that with another Egyptian text (I know that Hall claims this deals with Hermetic alchemy, but I have to read it over more carefully myself before accepting that) has been seen constant revision and rewriting throughout the ages. Of course, I do believe I've added in the new find of one of the books to Asclepius (which I found in a preface written by a PhD for a translation, the guy teaches at Etrycht (sp?) and Harvard) at Nag Hammadi in 1945, which proves that at least parts of the book are older than the Greek version. The point was to leave it open ended on the age of the document. Just as Budge mentions that there may be older versions of the Book of the Dead, just not found, the same could be true of the Corpus Hermeticum. It certainly was true when Causabon dated it so late, because an earlier version of part of the text was indeed found.

As for your speal about speculation, let us look then not to take it out, but to word it in a more NPOV manner. Let's throw some text, piece by piece into a new discussion heading and find a wording that we can both live with. I'm certainly not against rewording things to make them NPOV, only removing information.

On the burning of the texts, I do not personally take Hall's claims as speculation. Reading the text itself, it may seem as specuation, but then I think of the context. This is certainly an area we should debate more on. But I note that Hall is a 33rd, honorary, degree mason. The masons are said by Hall (which one would assume by his position to not be speculation) to have come from the Egyptian mystery schools, perhaps through greece, as he notes that Peter Gower is Pythagoreas, and thus would know this story as fact. I, myself, speculate that they not only know this as fact, but probably have the original copies in their possession at this point.

As far as must goes.... anyone is welcome to delete uncited material as per Wikipedia policy. However, I feel that it is implied that one does not simply remove cited material because they don't agree with it. Certainly, claiming that the pyramids were built by aliens based upon Von Daniken would be wrong... but mentioning that he claims such would be perfectly acceptable. When removing cited text, one should discuss it first. Certainly, this is much better documented than many "featured" articles on Wikipedia. Though my getting there first doesn't warrant it remaining, some discussion as to why cited material should be removed is. Wikipedia policy suggests not removing other people's material, as such, but working around it and adding to it to balance it out. Rewording into NPOV manner would certainly be acceptable, but I do not see deleting it without giving so much as an explanation of why would be proper.

The Three Initiates are a very powerful driving force in modern Hermeticism. They provide great information on Hermetic beliefs, and their view should be taken into consideration, though not accepted fully. I have attempted to keep it NPOV by mentioning that they say it, not that it is an undisputed fact. We are also talking about a time period, when no one cited sources.... the most you got was a bibliography at the end and occaisionally you saw Manly P. Hall write (see such and such) after something. We cannot discount all views from before 1970.

And my point in mentioning my time isn't that it's my ball... but that some basic respect for my additions should be given. I did spend a lot of time, hours on end, researching and writing what I have. I have found sources for everything in my POV, and most of what I added in an attempt to make it NPOV. To see my hours go to waste as someone just walks in and deletes it without explanation, without discussion, is rather insulting. As so far as of yet, you haven't given reason to delete it, only to attempt to word it in a more NPOV manner and add more information to balance it out. I myself have had problems on Wikipedia with attempting to make something more NPOV (outright bashing Alchemy specifically as a pseudoscience and nothing more), unable to make the slightest changes. So, I have seen other people come in and change things, reword them, attempting to make my work more NPOV. I left them alone, since they added information or reworded them, they didnt' destroy my work. But that doesn't mean that I'm simply going to let anyone do anything without explanation.

I believe Wikipedia to be a relativist ideal, NPOV is treating all views as equal. However, in my opinion, in deleting such material you were attempting to make this article a completely objectivist/skeptical POV. Objectivism and skepticism certainly has a place in this article, but those views that aren't completely indisputable, by scholars on the subject need to have a place too. Hermeticism especially needs this, because most of Hermetic thought is specifically that: theories that cannot be certifiably proven, but which have some reason and logic and evidence to it. The views I have given are of the Hermetic community, and respected members of it none the less. I have included the arguments of skeptics who are not of great repute, to attempt to balance it.

Certainly, it is not seen as necessary to deprive Christianity of stating that people believe that Jesus was both a man and God. There is a small section on it. It has not been proven that Jesus was both, it is a belief. There is a significant portion of Hermeticists who believe that Hermes Trismegistus/Hermes/Thoth was based upon an actual man who lived at some point, and it is only proper to mention that such a belief exists. I do not believe that the article, as it stands says that Hermes was a man, only that certain respected elements, properly named, believe him to have been an actual man. That is not POV, only if it were stated as an absolute fact could it be claimed as POV. I would love to have some cited materials by scholars that state that he wasn't a man, and I invite you to add those in. But don't take away the voice of respected Hermeticists to accomplish that goal.

KV 06:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

First Picture Subtitles

The subtitle in the first picture uses the very general and convoluted designation of "African" for the hypothetical features of an Egyptian person, contrasting it with Caucasian features. Though the point is well taken, the emphasis seems to be rather misplaced. African is not a phenotype, however, the common educated populace understands its connotation as lying in the proximity of Negroid. To use this designation for an Egyptian is rather misleading. Consideration of the majority scholarly opinion based on the convergence of the various fields of Genetics, Anthropology, and Archeology, as well as the detailed visual aid of the non-Pharaonic Egyptian sculptures, leads us to a different conclusion. Nubian presence can be seen--in sculptures--but the distinct features seem to be emphesized. Yet, ancient traditions refer to peoples more commonly associated with the "Caucasian" features you referred to as having much population and culture exchange with Egypt--modern Archeology seems to claim that these movements were actually more prominent than would have been thought from the sources alone. Egyptian myths reflect interaction with Syrian kings. The use of cedar would suggests interaction with the peoples of Lebanon, perhaps Phoenicians. Syrian and Near Eastern records show a great and immediate awareness of Egypt and its processes. Greek tragedies are set in Thebes. Greek architecture can be analyzed as in continuum with Egyptian. And, let us not forget the various Biblical references to migrations into and out of Egypt by such non-African peoples.

While I am fully aware of the concern that might arise--that everything African and external to the European heritage tends to be "exotified" or "orientalized"--it seems more appropriate to accuse the ancient Egyptians and their self-conceived setting of this than to defend them from it. But what was their self-conceived setting? What did they identify as "us"? Who did they conceive of as a credible participants in their international arena--whether they be enemies or allies? Who, on the other hand, was devalued in their eyes to the extent that they were considered unworthy of consideration or condenscion from a civilized nation--especially one such as themselves?

Any answer to all these questions is is complex, difficult, and sure to induce well-meaning academic debate. However, it seems to be that the ancient sense of civilization (in reference to Egypt's self-classification) revolved around the Mediteranean basin most prominently, though perhaps not exclusively. The sense of identity was different throughout ancient and classical times. While an ancient Greek might have mourned his child's marraige to a "Northern Barbarian", the average Victorian may have seen marriage to "some Arab" of average or low standing as undesirable. However, no "European" and especially not one from the British isles, would have considering treating Augustine as some sort of foreign, exotified breed of North African. This is not to exclude the peculiar insularities and claims to a peculiar glory of every nation, Babylonians, Greeks, and Egyptians alike. However, it is worth recognizing that the paradigm of civilization and the archetypal conception of self to which Egypt seems to have subscribed in the ancient times (and anthropological studies of North Africa today will reveal similar trends, though no evidence can be drawn from this due to possible confounding factors such as the interaction of divergeant civilizations) was the Mediteranean. It would be wrong to ignore Egypt's overwhelming ethnic and civilizational heritage as a contributing and receptive member of the conception of the ancient mediteranean civilization.

I do know that the ancient Egyptians were traced to East Africa genetically, though it's a mix nowdays. The caption also only says that it is likely, not certain. The purpose of the statement was to clarify that it was unlikely to be an accurate depiction, and Hermes was most likely a black man. My own spiritual visions on the subject are specifically that, but of course I can only claim here what can be ascertained from outside evidence. What would you suggest be changed?

KV 04:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, I changed the text to do what I think may make you feel it is more NPOV: "Hermes Trismegistus depicted as Caucasian in a medieval rendering. However, some believe that if Hermes was from Ancient Egypt, he is more likely to have had African characteristics.".... Does this solve things?

KV 04:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

General observations

Just from perusing this page, I'd like to make a couple of observations. First, it would be a lot easier for a newcomer to the discussion to figure out the conversation if everyone would take the time to sign their posts. This is just one of the suggestions for good wikipedia etiquette. Next, when it comes to dating things, I had always thought that the established date of the oldest fragment meant that the text in question was at least that old. The oldest fragment of something that we have might be the oldest there is, or might just be the oldest fragment that survived, or that we have found so far. It seems reasonable to say something like "the oldest known fragment has been dated to year X, but some (scholars/philosophers/whoever) suspect it may be a (a bit/much) older, perhaps as old as year Y. Citations, and reasons for thinking it older could then follow. Wesley \

Regarding whether Thoth or anyone else was a god or a man, the obvious thing to do is to list who thought he was what, and when. If the earliest known time anyone suggested he was human was the 19th century, then go ahead and say whatever 19th century writers suggested he was human, but also say this is the first documented time this was suggested. Might have been suggested earlier of course, but if we don't have evidence of it, it's just speculation, right? Or if more than that, list reasons for thinking it's more than speculation. (shrug). Wesley 17:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

In addition

Someone I had look at this argument posted on my user page.... User talk:King_Vegita#Thank_you_for_calling_me_in_on_Hermes_Tris

KV 19:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I also had this comment placed under User talk:King_Vegita#Hermeticism which made it hard for me to see at first: "For what it's worth, I think that the article on Hermes Trismegistus is the proper place for mentioning any theories about the figure being based on a real person. It is quite peripheral to the main subject of Hermeticism. Myopic Bookworm 12:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)"

So, what I have gathered from others so far is:

A) we need more statements to follow the theory B) we should probably put a blanket statement in this and fix up Hermes Trismegistus.

Perhaps that is best, but Hermes Trismegistus still needs a lot of work yet. I'll try to do something about it soon.

KV 03:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject: Egyptian Religion

All who are interested are asked to join.

KV 19:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for exposition

Would an editor familiar with this particular religion please give a quick synopsis of the view of Hermeticism on the origin belief page? Thanks! --ScienceApologist 20:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Done, and I'm glad because I've been procrastinating writing that, and I can add it to this article now :)

KV 04:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Caucasian

The text below one of the illustrations say: "However, if Hermes was from Ancient Egypt, he is unlikely to be Caucasian." But the ancient egyptians, like the current ones, were mainly caucasians so this POV captions should be moderated.

Caucasians?! The current ones aren't even caucasian! I'm caucasian, neither the current ones nor the ancient ones, definately not the ancient ones, were caucasian. They're very dark-skinned currently, which are a mix of arab and african blood..... and I already compromised to not specifically say that he would be black. There is no way he would be caucasian, and the only people who honestly believe that are the nazis!

KV(Talk) 16:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

So I am a nazi for pointing out the fact that the people of North Africa are considered to be caucasoid? Seek help! And if you insist on dragging race into the article at least get your facts straight. Not saying he would be black is, by the way, not a compromise as the ancient egyptians were also mainly caucasoid (the same as today) and not black.

Please sign with ~~~~ please. And I did not say caucasoid, I said caucasian. And the modern Egyptians do not fit into any of the three classic races at all. If you would like, I have no problem changing caucasian to European, but The modern egyptians are not primarily"caucasian", and there is no doubt that the ancient ones were not at all.

KV(Talk) 19:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, English is not my mother tongue but according to the wikipedia article "Caucasian race, Caucasian or Caucasoid" are synonyms. Current US use may require a person to be pale skinned to qualify as a "caucasian" but I do believe "European" would be preferable in the caption as the people of North Africa are considered caucasian/caucasoid - even if they are darker than most Europeans. 193.149.191.1 08:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Darker than most arabs too.

Library of Alexandria

In the article on Hermeticism, under the section "Enter the Corpus Hermeticum", the statement is made : " ... in 391 CE when the Romans burnt the library down." Later, under "Religious and Philosophical Texts" this is repeated: "...in 391 CE when the Romans burnt down the Library of Alexandria." This is misleading. The riots in 391 were specifically 'Christian vs. Pagan' in nature, instigated by Bishop Theophilus. He and others may have thought of themselves as 'Roman' citizens, acting with the blessing of the Emperor in Constantinople, but from our point of view today, the phrase should be " .. in 391 when Christians looted/burned the Library ..." Jrathe 17:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The source says Romans.......... but I would be fine if you found one that blamed it on the Christians specifically. Of course we did have someone trying to change it into "Jews" without citing anything :/ Just find a reputable source, which it sounds like you already have. We can mess around with the reference tags after that.

KV(Talk) 18:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Poemandres or Poimandres

In some articles, especially Hermetica, it is Poemandres. Here it is Poimandres. So??--Connection 19:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It's Poimandres (Ποιμανδρης) in the Greek Corpus Hermeticum - I typically see it transliterated as such. I think the Poe is 19th century English. Zeusnoos 20:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Later, I had seen also Pymandres! Based on your comment above, we need to settele for one "form" for all the articles.--Connection 15:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There are many spellings, the source used Poimandres, so that is what is used. Poemander is also sometimes used.

KV(Talk) 23:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Text removed by User:Byrgenwulf

I intend on reinserting the text:

"This is very similar to what one would come up with if they conjoined the quantum mechanics principles of wave-particle duality and nonlocality. Everything being (when not observed for location) a wave and in the same place, we have a wave without dimensions, best described as a vibration" once I have citations, and can reword it to be more NPOV.

KV(Talk) 16:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think I see where you're going with this...and apologies for not discussing my removal here (I'm a bit grumpy today). Anyway, NPOV isn't really so much of an issue as factual accuracy. Would the following not work, if it is in accord with the idea that's being communicated:

"Quantum entities can be described as both particles and waves. In some interpretations of quantum mechanics, unobserved entities may be said to exist as a superposition of quantum wavefunctions, in other words as standing waves much like a plucked violin string. Moreover, the entities posited by string theory as being the fundamental building blocks of nature are one-dimensional vibrating objects. Some researchers have pointed the parallels between these ideas in physics and the teachings of hermeticism, but the idea is not a recognised part of mainstream science."

If that works, you only need to find a citation for someone who's made that link (and I daresay someone will have), and then it will be factually accurate, NPOV, and suitably intelligible (I hope) for someone new to both hermeticism and QM, which is only a Good Thing and What We're Here For. A picture of a standing wave in a superposed state of vibration should be easy to find and would illustrate the principle quite well, perhaps? Oh - I'm also replacing Calvinist with philologist w.r.t. Casaubon, because I think that's more pertinent to the article. Byrgenwulf 17:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I see you have mentioned "nonlocality", but quantum nonlocality doesn't imply that everything is in the same place: phenomena such as the EPR paradox and Bell's theorem seem to indicate that information can travel between quantum events at faster-than-light speed: they are still spatially distinct (indeed, they are called "spacelike separated" in scientific terminology) so I'm not sure that using nonlocality is appropriate in this instance. Byrgenwulf 07:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

File:Standing wave.JPG Will this do for an illustration? Byrgenwulf 07:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

That's similar to what I was going to change it to. I will reword it slightly, but only to clarify, and I'll post that when I have the citations. I'm not sure what the illustration is specifically trying to illustrate though.

KV(Talk) 01:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Awaiting sources

• Some scholars feel that Hermetism is a Greek movement which developed around the time of Christianity. Other scholars, primarily from occult circles, trace Hermetism's roots to Egypt and its mystery schools. There are a few others who go further and trace Hermetism to Atlantis, in which some survivors handed their wisdom down to the people of Egypt.

I found this somewhere in the lead/intro. It strike me as OR and weasel words are being used. It can be added back in once sources are found, and weasel words are dropped. SynergeticMaggot 16:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No reputable scholars trace Hermeticism to Atlantis, so this is a mute point. The debate on Greek or Egyptian origins is one between Garth Fowden and other scholars (typically older scholarship). The debate is usually framed in terms of the ideas originating in Greek philosophy such as Stoic and Middle Platonic thought, then given an Egyptian antiquity veneer, or whether some of the concepts are of Hellenistic Egyptian origin, perhaps reflecting a bit of indigenous tradition. A recent publication of demotic Hermetic papyri has revealed that there are more differences than similarity between Egyptian language Hermeticism and Greek philosophical Hermetica. The only similarities are the pedagogical format and the names in the dialogues. Scholars debate on the fine points, but there is no question that Hermetic material emerged in Hellenistic Alexandria. I'm usually afraid to look at this article since its mixing contemporary practicing hermeticism and historical hermeticism. Zeusnoos 17:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Possible Perversion by Christianity
• For centuries, Hermetism had to survive where Christianity flourished. During much of this time, outright persecution and bookburning was a common way for dealing with pagan practices. In order for Hermetists to keep themselves and their texts from burning, they had to not only be veiled in secrecy, but also in Christianity, so that any texts found would be mistaken for obscure Christian ones. Some Hermeticists believe that the texts of Hermetism were brought to them already partially corrupted by Christianity, though the inner meaning may still be intact under the metaphors.

Removed more. Uncited, seemingly POV or OR, plus there is an issue of section title wording (possible perversion by Christianity, not sure? OR). SynergeticMaggot 16:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Some Hermeticists who do not agree with everything that The Kybalion states, would say that free will is part of the Law, and it requires the incertitude called chance. If we are to make choices freely, any omnipotence must be limited to not include the result of our choices. Therefore, though it may be derived from all other information what we are likely to choose, there must be that chance that we will choose something else if free will is to exist. This view is closely related to the idea that The All acts to gain something.

I think I fact tagged this a long time ago. Same as the rest, its more like speculation and has no citation. It can be readded in, once this is found and done. SynergeticMaggot 16:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Greek Origins

The presumed Egyptian origin of the Hermetica of Bruno and Ficini has been roundly refuted and disproven yet mention of it still abounds, possibly due to the predeliction of such in occult groups. If Hermes Trismagistos was a syncretistic deity comprising Hermes and Thoth his name would be 'Hermes-Thoth' just as Zeus-Ammon was a syncretism of Zeus and Amon. At best Hermes assimilated Thoth but certainly not he reverse. In any case Thoth appears as the son of Hermes and Trismagistos doesn't even feature as anything like a deity in the actual text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.248.192 (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleted as Factually incorrect;

Hellenistic Egyptian who is the representation of the conflation of the Egyptian god Thoth with the Greek Hermes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.36.230 (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Philosophy

The following quoted section has been reworked and the obscurantism deleted. All Gnostic religions are monotheistic in a unitarian and deistic understanding of the term.

"In Hermeticism, the Supreme Deity is referred to variously as God, the All, or the One. The Absolute is the central focus of Hermeticism, and therefore it is difficult to assign it a position among traditional theistic religions, or along the monotheistic–polytheistic spectrum.

Hermeticism transcends both monotheism and polytheism, as well as deism and pantheism. Its philosophy teaches that there is a transcendent God, or Absolute, in which we and the entire universe participate. It also subscribes to the idea that other beings, such as gods, angels and elementals, exist within the universe." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.197 (talk) 13:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I recall passages from the fifth text of the Corpus Hermeticum that speak of God in very pantheistic and/or transtheistic senses. I could just as easily quote those passages and say that Hermeticism or Hermetism is profoundly pantheistic or transtheistic. We must remember that neither Gnosticism nor Hermeticism were consistent schools of thought. The varied Gnostic and Hermetic texts had varying authors not necessarily agreeing with each other. We must also remember that this article will be read by those not familiar with a "unitarian and deistic understanding" of monotheism; what that is, I must admit to not knowing. I must bluntly state that I believe the removed passages from the article were more appropriate. I must contend this change. --75.190.245.39 (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

"I recall passages from the fifth text of the Corpus Hermeticum that speak of God in very pantheistic and/or transtheistic senses." Theres no pantheism in the Hermetica, God is absolutely transcendent. The Fifth Book "Though Unmanifest God Is Most Manifest" teaches that God is manifest by virtue of his creation of the cosmos and not as the universe istelf. As such its an affirmation of deism and a complete rejection of pantheism.

____________

Doubtless that there are schools of Hermetic thought in which God is understood as transcendent and no more; doubtless also is that pantheism is explicitly shown in some Hermetic texts (not only in the fifth text of the CH). To list a few pantheistic\panentheistic expressions:

"Naught is there which he is not. For all are He and He is all." CH V.10

"For that Thou art whatever I may be; Thou art whatever I may do; Thou art whatever I may speak." CH V.11

"And in the All is naught that is not God. Wherefore nor <i.e., neither> size, nor space, nor quality, nor form, nor time, surroundeth God; for He is All, and All surroundeth all, and permeateth all." CH XII.23

Explicitly read, these are expressing dynamic pantheism\panentheism. Id est, immanence is expressed. That the Hermetica express the idea that God can be seen through the cosmos as its creator is not rejected.

What is to be said is that it must be understood that Hermeticism is not a monolithic and coherent school of thought, which I believe is what you are implying. The Hermetica are not a coherent whole, but much like the Bible, is a collection of various texts authored by various authors; eclecticism and incoherence are accepted features of the Hermetica . One will find different and contradictory ideas expressed: Transcendence, Immanence, Evil Cosmos, Good Cosmos, Nous is God, God is not Nous, et cetera. --174.110.214.156 (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

"To list a few pantheistic\panentheistic expressions:" None of those can be said to be anything more than expressing God's omnipresence, substantial pantheism is expllicitly ruled out be the underlying concept of Gods transcendence. In the Hermetica God is absolutely transcendent not identical with the cosmos, that cannot be reconciled with pantheism in any way ahape or form.

You are obscurring the plain reading with modern relativism and forcing a pantheist reading where one really doessn't fit.

"That the Hermetica express the idea that God can be seen through the cosmos as its creator is not rejected." Thats Deism not pantheism and yes thats fine, God is seen through his works not because he actually is the cosmos, as in pantheism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.197 (talk) 08:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I must disagree. There is no fine line between omnipresence and "omnibeing." The quoted passages and more explicitly read that God is "omnibeing," not omnipresent. That the Hermetica express God as being transcendent is not rejected; however, they also express God as being immanent. That there is contradiction and incoherence to be found in the Hermetica is accepted and well-established. Different schools of thought can be found in the Hermetica and Hermeticism: This is also well-established.

The idea that the observation of the natural world points to a creator deity alone is not deism. This is a fundamental principle and key feature in deism, but it naturally encompasses more ideas than such, such as deity's non-interference and the rejection of special revelation. --174.110.214.156 (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

M: Of course there is and thats a perfect example of your obscurantism!

"God alone, unmanifest, who hath made all things by His Will?" CORPUS HERMETICUM V. (VI.) Thats buries pantheism for good, any assertion of pantheism can be measured against it.

M: God certainly doesnt intervene in nature, according to the Hermetica. Theres no divine incarnation therefore revelation is not intervention, its a case of illumination.

"God is All" is not the same as "God is all-present." The former is identifying God while the latter is locating God. Both expressions are found in the Hermetica. The crux is that it must be expressed that there are different schools of thought as well as inconsistency and incoherence to be found in the Hermetica and in Hermeticism: Id est, there is no single Hermetic philosophy or school of thought. Saying otherwise would be contradictory to scholarly opinion and analysis of the Hermetica and of Hermeticism, as well as explicit readings of the Hermetic texts. --174.110.214.156 (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Philosophy section is in need of improvement. It does not express the diversity that is to be found in Hermetic thought. --174.110.214.156 (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

M: The philosophy section needs cleaning up and not obscurring further.

I think the philosophy section is perhaps taking too much liberty in assuming the character of God in Hermeticism in general and the Hermetic texts in particular, at least in the opening paragraph. There appears to be more subjective interpretation than objective information. For example, "Hermetism is therefore profoundly monotheistic although in a deistic and unitarian understanding of the term." What does this even mean, and can anything in the opening paragraph be supported outside of an ostensibly subjective interpretation of a single passage from a single text of the body of Hermetic literature? 2606:A000:1504:29C:653:8C77:AC0A:11A2 (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

2606:A000:1504:29C:653:8C77:AC0A:11A2 (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Manly P. Hall

As in Hermetism, I propose that all information that comes from Manly P. Hall's works be removed unless it is verified by a reputable third party. -999 (Talk) 16:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Hall is not a generally reliable source. However I think that instead of removing things that cite him it may be more useful to state that he is not a consistent source. The reason for this is that his works are well known and are often a good starting point for finding information as he does say where a lot of his stuff comes from.Morgan Leigh 10:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with referencing Hall is that it creates, in essence, a reference to a reference. Secret Teachings of All Ages is encyclopedic in nature. It would be more appropriate to reference, if possible, the original sources that Hall himself references. But, I wouldn't go so far as to qualify Hall as a non-reputable third-party without such a person making the qualification knowing a little more about Hall's background.--P Todd 01:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

MPH is a well known Hermeticist and to drop him is irresponsible. Hermeticism itself is ultimately defined by the Hermeticists of classic works. His analysis of freemasonry symbols is good work. He has ideas not accepted by other Hermeticists, but the reverse holds as well. JEMead (talk) 12:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

if you mention people like Barson and Crowley, then Hall fits just as well.JEMead (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Survey 2006

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

WikiProject Ancient Egypt (or KV) keeps trying to add this post-Egyptian subject to their project. Please respond as to whether you support or oppose this. Please make a decision below, and discuss in the discussion section.

Support

• Support - If they want to work on it, they have the right.KV(Talk) 17:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Hermes Trismegistos is a syncretic figure conflated from The Egyptian god Thoth and the Greek god Hermes, amongst other things. It is impossible to have an understanding of HTM if one does not know of this Egyptian source. The concepts of Hermeticism are likewise impossible to understand if one is not aware of the Egyptian traditions that lie behind them. I think one needs to bear in mind the huge socio-political changes that arose as a result of Alexander the Great's conquests, especially in the way that it affected both Greek and Egyptian religion. Hermeticism is NOT post Egyptian. By which I mean, it is a coming together of two religions which had many similarities and as such allowed the syncretism of these two gods to happen. If the concepts were not as similar as they are then this syncretism would have been much harder to imagine. My point here is really that it is very hard to pick an arbitary line as to what is 'post ancient Egyptian'. This is like trying to understand North American history without considering English history. Morgan Leigh 02:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

• Strongly oppose - the project should stick to subjects that are exclusively Ancient Egyptian. —Hanuman Das 17:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - my understanding is that Hermeticism is completely post-Ancient Egypt. --Frater Xyzzy 18:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - nothing in the article indicates at this time the claims of the WikiProject(KV). SynergeticMaggot 18:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Hermeticism starts with the Corpus Hermeticum and is post-Egyptian. -999 (Talk) 22:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Tricky

This is a tricky one as many Hermeticists and Occultists believe that although the texts of the Hermetica are definitely post Ancient Egypt the wisdom is not. The theory goes that the substance of the Hermetica dates back to ancient Pharaonic Egyptian religious ideas. Some commentators claim that similar concepts and images can be found in Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs. I for one have no idea. We know the Hermetica was written in Greek but we also know that there was a lot of intellectual/spiritual traffic between Ancient Greece and Egypt. Pythagoras was supposed to have spent 22 years in Egypt learning his theories. I leave it to the experts - if there are such - to decide. :-) ThePeg 17:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

• CommentAnd they don't constantly try to post it, they posted it once and I backed them up. This is a problem of WP:OWN if you ask me.KV(Talk) 17:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, they have the right to work on it. But they don't have the right to tag it if the majority of current editors disagree. It's not WP:OWN, otherwise I wouldn't have started a survey. Doh! —Hanuman Das 17:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • You do not constitute a majority of editors. They can tag it all they want, tags are not exclusive or any show of ownership. It only means that the project is marking it out for work.KV(Talk) 17:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I think he was referring to the evidence from the failed AfD's, but I could be wrong. SynergeticMaggot 18:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Erm... the bot tags all ancient egypt catagory pages automatically. If you don't want the tag, you technically have to drop the catagory. Which I think has been done Thanatosimii 14:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, we're not complaining b/c the bot tagged it. We're complaining b/c King Vegita put it back three times. Since it is now clear that this was a personal effort rather than a project effort, there's no longer a problem... —Hanuman Das 14:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of Hall citations

WP:V states:

"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth.

It is not for you to decide whether or not he is correct. He is a prominent figure, prominent enough that you have a view on him, which WP:NPOV states:

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one.

You need to find something to balance it out if you find him in any way wrong. You cannot simply go through indiscriminately deleting views because you do not like Manly P. Hall.

KV(Talk) 22:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I support the removal of unqualified Hall citations. He was not an academic, and his theories are at best imaginative. Find supporting citations, start a section on Hall's beliefs, or qualify his assertions. And do it in such a way that you don't undo all the formatting improvements H.D. did. -999 (Talk) 22:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Book of the Dead

I'm not sure why this paragraph is in here. I thought that the Corpus Hermeticum was being discussed, not the Book of the Dead. Does Budge mention the Corpus Hermeticum at all? If not, this simply appears to be a speculative attempt to make the C.H. seem older than it is...based on speculation about a completely different book. No thanks, that's not encyclopedic. —Hanuman Das 10:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

However, E. A. Wallis Budge, uses different reasoning. Budge, in discussing the Egyptian text, The Book of the Dead, clearly stated that the earliest version of The Book of the Dead found was not necessarily the earliest version that existed. Budge argued that one cannot claim that an earlier version does not exist simply because it has not been found. Budge maintains that The Book of the Dead itself was drastically rewritten, reorganized, and amended several times in Egypt, creating four distinct versions which have been found. These versions stretch over a millennium, from the Fifth Dynasty (2498 BCE - 2345 BCE) to the Twentieth Dynasty (1186 BCE - 1073 BCE).

References

Hermeticism vs the Church

The Church has not always been opposed to Hermeticism has it? The article says it has. The Wikipedia has an image of Hermes on a mosaic floor in Sienna Cathedral which suggests integration rather than opposition. The Renaissance was hugely influenced by Hermetic reading. People like Pico, Ficino and many artists and religious figures of their day saw Hermes' words as confirming the message of Christianity. Most Renaissance religious art was inspired by Hermetic ideas as much as Scripture. Milton read and admired and lifted imagery from Hermes. It would be useful to know when the Church cracked down on the Hermetica. Could someone elaborate on this? I suppose one of the fascinating things about the Hermetica is that although it echoes or presages vast amounts of Christian and Judaic ideas and imagery it was never turned into a religion and thus has no dogma attached to it. This means it can be read without prejudice. I'm reading it now and find it extraordinary. One element no-one has talked about is how close to Quantum Theory it is. It is perhaps no surprise that the Coat Of Arms of nuclear scientist Ernest Rutherford has Hermes on it! ThePeg 17:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

At one time most scholars thought that the Hermetica was written by early members of the Christian cult. There are a lot of similarities between ideas expressed in the Hermetica, and ideas expressed by Gnostic Christians. I don't think it was until Coptic versions of the Hermetic texts started to appear, suggesting that they might have pre-dated Christianity, that this idea was even seriously challenged. I'm no scholar, but my studies of the subject lead me to think that early Christianity was a polyglot of different ideas and belief systems-- and there is no reason to think that Hermeticism was singled out until about the same time that the Gnostics were suppressed by Rome. Light lvx 18:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)light_lvx

Magical idealism - need stub

Can anybody start a stub article on Magical idealism? Thanks. -- 201.51.221.66 15:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is ghastly, I will try my best

I am a devout hermeticist and if I where to inform my friend that I was a hermeticist and they tried to learn more about it by going to this article. I don't think they would even get the slightest idea of what hermeticism is. The main problem I see in this article is that it tries to include and treat material originated in the last few hundreds of years as the same as tracible ancient documents. Lets face it, The corpus hermeticum can be traced thousands of years ago. The Kybalion can not. Trying to suggest that the early hermetic authors believed in the theories in the Kybalion before the Kybalion was published you would have to accept that the early hermetic authors somehow got ahold of this document without public knowledge. The kybalion was published in 1912. Which means that unless this is a mass conspiracy. All hermetic authors before 1912 has no knowledge of the kybalion. Using the Kybalion as a source for the majority of this article without specifying which theories come from which document is needless and confusing. Thusly, I will try to rewrite this article, I will outline which document expresses which theories by quoting the document and expounding it by sourcing the interpretations and I will try to keep as much of the objective information already provided in this article as much intact as possible. This will be quite a project for me, so it will take some time and please express any problems you may have with this and I will try to be as complient as possible. JaynusofSinope 13:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

As a Hermetist I wholeheartedly agree with JaynusofSinope above and would like it on record here that genuine Hermetists wouldnt go anywhere near the Kybalion, Kabbalah or Rosicrucianism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.197 (talk) 08:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

does anyone know what this means?

"These beliefs have influenced magic traditions and further, the impact of serving as a set of religious beliefs."

This doesn't make sense. What is "These beliefs have influenced... the impact of serving as a set of beliefs" supposed to mean? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aussietiger (talk • contribs) 05:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

haha. that bot is fast. realised i forgot to sign, tried to edit to sign, couldn't 'cause the bot was editing it already. aussietiger 05:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I can explain the first part - Hermeticism was a massive influence on the Renaissance and the idea of the Magus as something to aspire to. Champions of Hermeticism included Pico, Ficino, Bruno and a host of others all of whom influenced the development of European culture through their spreading of Hermetic ideas (Leonardo, Michelangelo, Marlowe, Dee, Shakespeare etc all read their work). Some of the non-philosophical elements of the Hermetica include Astrology, the conjuring of spirits into statues and the hierarchy of the universe. Along with Kaballah, the Hermetica set a lot of people off on the search for how one could use the forces of the universe magically - in this sense I mean the word literally ie not tricks but the manipulation of reality, the conjuring of angels and demons (Dee did a lot of this, or believed he did), healing illnesses, achieving immortality etc. Practitioners such as Crowley and the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn all persued this course.

The second half of the sentence doesn't make any sense. Looks like a bit of grammatical error to me. ThePeg 11:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you could edit it so it makes sense. aussietiger 13:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Which bit? The first bit? I think it makes sense. I can't edit the second bit as I don't know what it should mean. ThePeg 21:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's meant to say: These beliefs have influenced magic traditions and further, [have had] the impact of serving as a set of religious beliefs.

What that means is that as well as influencing magical theory, they have had a secondary influence upon the religious beliefs of Hermetic scholars and their readers.

Nuttyskin (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Fundamental problem

The intro of an article is supposed to function as an abstract, but this introduction only vaguely talks about beliefs and philosophy, and doesn't go into detail about what they are. Hermeticism seems to be distillable into key concepts, and yet the article does not do this at all. If it does, it's so buried in unclear writing that it is indistinguishable. Could someone who knows something about this rewrite the intro so it works? MSJapan 05:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sabians

The comment about the Sabians/Sabeans is not quite true. What happened was there was a community of people the Muslims encountered who practised Hermeticism as their religion. When they were told that because they were not mentioned in the Koran as one of the acceptable religions (Judiasm, Christianity, Islam) they were given a period of time to decide what to do - convert or die. They paid an Islamic Scholar a great deal of money for advice. He scoured the Koran and found a reference to a people known as the Sabeans who were also deemed acceptable and advised them to name themselves that. This they did, so when the authorities returned they let them live. The source for this story I found in the book Hermetica: the Lost Wisdom of the Pharoahs. ThePeg 21:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Granted that is the story, but it's missing the part that the source quoted is mentioning. They were allowed to live because they were accepted to be the Sabians. Feel free to add more information, perhaps in the history section, elaborating from that source. Btw, they also had to name their book and prophet. Technically, though, they called themselves Hermetists, the precursor to Hermeticism, but of course that article was deleted, not because it wasn't sourced, or was untrue (generally, if a dictionary includes either, it's Hermetism, not Hermeticism), but because they disagreed with it and claimed that a term from the early centuries BC or AD was created by a man born in the 20th century. I gave up on editting this article after they simply went through and deleted everything they didn't want to be true, POVed the article, and got away with it since they had numbers, even if not actual policy.KV(Talk) 22:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Picture citation?

The "medieval rendering" at the top of the page is by Jean-Jacques Boissard, from De Divinatione et Magicis Praestigiis (1605). I wasn't sure how much (if any) of that should go into the caption, but probably at least a link to the artist is appropriate? Strumphs 15:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal. 2007

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I have suggested that the As Above, So Below article be merged into this one. There is very little in that article that is not already covered here (other than some examples of rock music lyrics that make use of the term), so there is not much to merge. I simply see no reason for such a short article on a concept that is inseperable from Hermeticism, and which is already covered fairly well here. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree: As the original creator of this article one year ago, I agree with this proposal. I would however like to assure we put a redirect in place that routes to the As Above So Below sub-heading in this article. When I created the entry, I had hoped that it would be expanded. With the exception of the interesting but trivial rock music lyric references, I see that no additional expansion has been made. I would also like to see the "see also" section somehow preserved--I find the other references that are not neccessarily thought to be Hermetic in nature to the concept significant.--P Todd 01:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that someone finally responded to this proposal. Honestly, though, I cannot claim to know enough on the subject to decide what should be merged, and what should not. Certainly, the, as you say "interesting but trivial," rock lyrics are not necessary. But, truly, I leave it to you, as the original author to judge what should be merged and how it should be done. I am not sure, honestly, that redirects to specific subsections of an article are allowed. But, I can check on that. Thanks for the response. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Any further comment on this matter? It has been more than a month now since I suggested the merger. If there is no further comment, I will go ahead. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

RepublicanJacobite, I'll make the merge sometime this Thanksgiving weekend.--P Todd (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge completed.--P Todd (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dates = AD vs CE

We recently had a brief edit flurry, with one editor replacing all dates with "AD/BC" dating... and another editor reverting back to the "CE/BCE" designation. I don't think the dating system has actually been discussed ... so it may be a good idea to get a record of consensus on file in case this becomes an issue. I approve of using CE. Since the article establishes that Hermeticism has non-Christian elements to it, and can even be thought of as a non-Christian religion, I think it is appropriate to use a non-Christian dating system. I am sure there are other reasons. Please express them for the record. Blueboar 14:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

As a non-christian Hermetist and the person who started the CE dating, I concur. KV(Talk) 15:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur as well, even though I am Irish Catholic. The BCE/CE system is much more appropriate. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. (off topic: why do I suddenly feel like I'm in the set up for a bad religious joke here: "A Protestant, a Pagan and a Papist all post on a Wikipedia Talk Page, the Protestant says....") Blueboar 03:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I hate to see a joke left incomplete; it's like whetting your lips and then getting nothing to drink. Accordingly, I'll take the liberty of referencing the joke (and, with artistic license, offering a variant on the beginning you cited):

An Episcopalian died and went to Heaven. As St. Peter was escorting him around his new surroundings, he came across a group of people who were suffering terrible tortures. He queried Peter, "Who are those people, and why are they being punished so terribly?" St Peter replied, "Oh, those are Jews who ate pork."

They continued with their journey, wherupon the man spied another group of people, suffering even greater trials, and he again asked St Peter, "Who are these people, and why are they being punished so terribly?" And St. Peter replied, "Oh, those are Catholics, and they ate meat on Fridays."

They continued on their way, and they came across a third group of people, who were suffering even greater tortures. The man was extremely curious, and he asked St. Peter, "Well, who are these unfortunate souls, and what did they do to warrant these horrible sufferings?' "Oh," St. Peter replied, "Those are Episcopalians, and they were caught eating their steak with a salad knife."

I hope this provided you with a welcome break from your esoteric researches into the Hermetic Corpus. 207.237.89.3 (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC) Allen Roth

Alchemy

For Hermeticism, Alchemy is not the changing of physical lead into physical gold.[15] Rather, one attempts to turn themselves from a base person (symbolized by lead) into an adept master (symbolized by gold). The various stages of chemical distillation and fermentation, among them, are metaphors for the Magnum Opus (Latin for Great Work) performed on the soul.[16]

I am so thoroughly tired of this modern, psychological, new-age reductionist misinterpretation of alchemy. It is just as false as the misinterpretation of alchemy by the hands of modern, scientific materialism and dogma. If anyone looks into the actual history of the ancient alchemists, they will prove to themselves the utter ignorance and falsity of this statement. Horror of horrors, many great alchemists, and not just greedy puffers worked in their labs. The laboratory work is not just merely a metaphor for the internal work. The inner and the outer work are in harmony. It is an investigation of God and Spirit in Nature, not just human nature, as the anthropocentric new agers might proselytize! I will make a commitment to myself to reword this as best as I can, in alignment with actual fact, and not new age, psychological garbage! If anyone contends my position, I would be very interested in their well-informed judgments. Thank you--75.155.209.69 (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now my references are not perfect, but as I am a beginning practical alchemist and not a scholar or historian, please bear with me. I will work harder for better references, and others can as well, but I feel this explanation is MUCH less false and reductionist and is much more encompassing; much closer to the truth. --75.155.209.69 (talk) 04:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

(goran) It did not save what I wrote. I do not know why. Tis a lesson to write it in notepad first. I'll have to redo it.--75.155.209.69 (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I intended to leave a response here after I reverted your edits yesterday, but I forgot. All I wanted to suggest was that you combine your information (and your references) with the information (and references) that were already there. That way, both positions are represented. I do not have a problem with your edits, per se, I just did not want to see the previous content deleted. Morgan Leigh has made some edits today that are close to what I am talking about. Let me know if I can be of any assistance. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that is much, much better.--207.81.94.148 (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger 2008

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The article Hermetism, Hermeticism and other thought systems has been proposed for merger into this article. There is currently a section of the article already dealing with the subject, and the most relevant information can be merged into it. I would personally support such a merger, as having an entirely separate article dealing with the alleged impact of one belief system, which is in several ways difficult to differentiate with Gnosticism, seems to me to be giving undue weight to those particular sources who do make such differentiation. While the interrelationships of religions is important, and there is already an Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Interfaith work group to deal with such matters, lumping all this material together into an article which deals primarily with the idea from the viewpoint of what is probably the least significant of the faith traditions mentioned seems counterproductive and possibly POV pushing. I would support such a merger. John Carter (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - The merger would be complete POV pushing. The article exists because it can be sourced and it includes both arguments for interrelation, opposing ideas on interrelation, and detracting statements about the interrelation, all meticulously cited. There is clear differentiation between Hermetism and Hermeticism (which was in the process of being expanded and explained) and both of them and Gnosticism. These differences have been put forth and cited by reliable peer-reviewed sources from University presses. There is an attempt to improve Wikipedia's coverage of this topic in general, and it seems that everyone just came over from WP:FRINGE/Noticeboard to try to remove any attempt of expansion in some sort of thought that Hermetic thought is a fringe theory that should only be minimally covered. That is not the purpose of WP:FRINGE at all. I support the creation of similar articles on all of those subjects, but I am not responsible for creating them myself. This is deletionism at it's worst; attempting to minimize coverage on a subject no matter how well cited and how well its notability is proven. Such a merger would be of a detriment to Wikipedia.

However, let it be said that giving a brief synopsis here on the topics dealing specifically with Hermeticism, and in Hermetism, specifically with Hermetism, would be a good thing if the main article remains standing. That would improve Wikipedia, though improvement takes time, and I happen to be one of very few trying to add to this subject and the only one to add extensively. Please try to help me by expanding the coverage and countering any POV issues you might perceive with equally well referenced balancing material than deleting well cited text. KV(Talk) 02:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"Hermetism, Hermeticism and other thought systems" is not an arguable title. Perhaps something sensible could be produced under "History of Hermeticism" or similar, organized as a {{main}} article branching off this one. KV first needs to understand basic Wikipedia rules such as WP:SYN. If you want to discuss the cult of Hermes in classical antiquity (i.e. before Hellenism), you'll need another title. Try Hermes or Ancient Greek religion to begin with. "Hermetism" is used synonymously with "Hermeticism" and refers to the tradition of Late Antiquity (Hermetica) revived in the Renaissance. Discussion of an older cult is welcome, but will need excellent sources. Esotericist blather about Ancient Egypt isn't going to cut it. dab (𒁳) 06:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Peer-reviewed academic sources, which as per WP:RS are the sources which should be most strongly considered, discount Hermetism being any older than the 2nd century CE. These include The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions edited by John Bowker. If you can provide other academic peer-reviewed sources which substantially refute this, please do so. However, as stated above, they will have to be very reliable and relied-upon to prove that they do not qualify as fringe theories. The fact that the articles which have been recently worked on do their best to minimize, even to the point of not mentioning, the prevailing scientific consensus on the subject is evidence that, at present, the article already is pushing POV and fringe theories. Otherwise, it is at best very difficult to differentiate between Hermitism and the Gnostic tradition from which, to the best of my knowledge, the overwhelming majority of reliable sources believe Hermeticism arose from. John Carter (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just moved the comparative article to Hermetism and other religions (that seems to be standard). The article is still awful but at least the title isn't quite so painfully bad. I've also deleted some of the more outstanding claims - that the entire Pentateuch is a Hermetic text, and that Marx's theories were Hermeticism-inspired. I mean, WTF? Moreschi2 (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Original Research in Rosicrucian Section

I placed a flag on the "Rosicrucianism" section because these comments not only are unsourced but seem virtually impossible to source as they are. Why is the graded system of Rosicrucianism more like the graded system of Freemasonry than the graded system of the American public school system? Besides, Rosicrucianism is older than Masonry by at least a century. Etc etc. Section needs attention. Yonderboy (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is the graded system of Rosicrucianism more like the graded system of Freemasonry than the graded system of the American public school system?

An absurd question! It is like Freemasonry because, as with all recondite knowledge, it is of interest to Freemasons, who tend to organise things in the manner to which they are themselves accustomed. If it were organised by members of the American public school system, doubtless the hierarchical resemblance between them would be greater.

Rosicrucianism is older than Masonry by at least a century

Only the Grand Lodge variety. Freemasonry in Scotland dates to the 15th Century at least.

Nuttyskin (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added a citation for The Rosicrucian Enlightenment (Frances Yates), which documents the publication of the three German pamphlets in the 17th century. This reference does not cover any of the other material in the section in question, however. AdamFunk (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Modern History of Hermetics

This is not a direct edit, but something that needs to be discussed by everyone who has been editing this article!

Hermetics is not a static system of beliefs or texts, but is a source of knowledge for students to continue the work of developing the knowledge of Hermetic Science and Philosophy.

The first thing missing from this article is a definition of Hermetics. I define it as follows: "Hermetic Science is the study of human consciousness and how the individual uses their consciousness to understand and to function in their environment." This definition and others should be a topic of serious discussion.

If you have read and studied the texts over the period of time already given in the various parts of this entry you will see that this Science and Philosophy has continued to develop from the time of the first documents to the present day.

Start as far back in the history of the documents as you care to go. For example: "Iamblichus' Exhortation to the Study of Philosophy" is a far better explanation of the basic concepts of Hermetics than any work that precedes it. This improvement in the knowledge and the basic principles and concepts of Hermetics shows a clear line of development all the way from Classical Greece to the present day. A still more recent example is the work of Mary Anne Atwood “A Suggestive Inquiry into the Hermetic Mystery;” originally published anomymously in 1850. It was later reprinted by Isobel de Steiger. However, it is known that the reprint is accurate because an additional copies of the original work are available. I am unsure if any of the editors of this article are even aware of this text or have ever read it. I note that it has not been mentioned anywhere in this article nor do any of the numerous works cited in her work appear in this article. (I have a copy of this book that I scanned and formmated into an e-text and would be happy to pass that to anyone who would like to read it. E-mail to Hermotimus@aol.com.)

It is known that this book found its way into the hands of a number of students of Hermetics who continued to carry on with the work of developing and improving the understanding of Hermetic Science and Philosophy. Among those students are the authors: Waite Arthur Edward (note his Hermetic Museum work); as well as numerous members of the Golden Dawn through the influence of both Waite and de Steiger; Atkinson, William, Walker, who is the likely author or co-author of the Kybalion, which is considered one of the modren texts which defines Hermetics; and Case, Paul Foster, who founded the Builders of the Adytum in 1932, and through its offices over the past 76 years, have taught by means of mail order lessons, what he knew of Hermetics and what he developed in terms of new knowledge on the subject during his lifetime. Hermotimus (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Good try, but you shouldn't use the first person in an encyclopedia article. Also, all opinions on a topic must be cited to a reference. Please read WP:CITE to find out how to properly format the citation. Bob (QaBob) 04:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

To put in all the citations needed for this discussion would bring this discussion up to at least 15,000 words. and if the discussion would be later placed in the article it would overshadow everything else in the article. I am willing to take on explaining the process of the development of Hermetics step by step from its first known documents to the modern day, citing each document and citing the changes from one document to its predeccor, but to do so would require a full length book and I am sure that this does not belong in wikipedia.

As far as the definition of Hermetics, I will dig out the needed citations. I know of at least 12 books that contain solid references to that definition and will post it here for further discussion, But, this will take me a couple of weeks to sort through all of the material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermotimus (talk • contribs) 13:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Just be aware of Wikpedia policy against synthesis and I'm sure you will do fine. Oh, and if you would add ~~~~ at then end of each comment you post it will add your signature and date/time of posting. Bob (QaBob) 16:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to break this into two separate topics. Here to continue the modern history of Hermetics and a new topic on the Definition of HermeticsHermotimus (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Hermetics

"Simply stated, Hermetism, or its synonym Alchemy, was in its primary intention and office the philosophic and exact science of the regeneration of the human soul from its present sense-immersed state into the perfection and nobility of that divine condition in which it was originally created. Secondarily and incidentally, as will presently appear, it carried with it a knowledge of the way in which the life-essence of things belonging to the subhuman kingdoms - the metallic genera in particular and, correspondingly, be intensified and raised to a nobler form than that in which it exists in its present natural state. It is to this secondary aspect only that the popular mind turns when Alchemy is mentioned, unaware of the subject's larger and primary intention, and it is desirable, therefore, to treat of the science here first from the larger aspect, and subsequently from its lesser and subsidiary one." A SUGGESTIVE INQUIRY INTO HERMETIC PHILOSOPHY AND ALCHEMY by Mary Anne Atwood (1850)(reissue with intro by de Steiger) LONDON: J. M. WATKINS, 21 Cecil Court, W.C. pg 26 Hermotimus (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you are in the wrong place, there is another article on Hermetism, which is the topic of your quote. This article is on Hermeticism. Bob (QaBob) 23:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems this definitions / Etimology needed some improvement and the talk page even has more information that need to be reincorproated IMHO for only correct citations were needed and article can be well expanded. Atlantisfoundation (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement removed then reverted

I removed this statement: "This last is an example of how Hermes Trismegistus was adopted by Christianity to serve its own particular purposes." The example, which I left in, was sourced and it stated: "Another explanation, in the Suda (10th century), is that "He was called Trismegistos on account of his praise of the trinity, saying there is one divine nature in the trinity.""

1. The claim that all of Christianity adopted Hermes Trismegistus is absurdly broad.
2. The statement is unsourced, and broad conclusions are exactly the type of statements that should be sourced.
3. Not only does it claim all of Christianity adopted Hermes, but makes a second claim that it adopted Hermes "to serve its own particular purposes." Which are or were what exactly?
4. The example the statement cites is based upon is a quote from the Suda, which is a 10th century Byzantine Encyclopedia written by someone we know nothing about (it is said to be Suidas). So to claim that he, or whoever wrote it, is an example of how all of Christianity adopted Hermes is a bit of stretch.
5. Who called him Trismegistos? All of Christianity? The author of the Suda?

So the statement should be removed or properly sourced by reliable scholarship. Sweetmoose6 (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sweetmoose5, and thanks for your edits. I was the person who reverted this particular edit and I'd like to address your points.

1. I felt that as this sentence followed a sentence referring to Marcilio Ficino that the context of renaissance Christianity would be clear. However I will edit it to make this clearer.

2. I have added sources in my edit of today.

3. The purpose of Christianity adopting HTM, was that of demonstrating a 'prisca theologia'. Until Casaubon's dating of the Hermetica to around the first or second centuries CE, it was widely believed that HTM was an ancient Egyptian priest, contemporary with Moses. and this was the line of argument put forward by theologians of the Renaissance. However, it was not only renaissance Christians such as Giordano Bruna, Pico Della Mirandola and Marscilio Ficino, who advanced this argument. Much earlier writers such as Lactantius and Augustine also regarded HTM as having divine wisdom. Lacantius' purpose, in his 'Divine Institutes', is to convince pagans to convert to Christianity. He sees HTM as a prophet of Christianity. Augustine, writing after Julian the apostate, isn't as effusive as Lactantius, warning that the Asclepius' references to the egyptian decans is tantamount to daemon worship, however he does still cite HTM as a pagan prophet whose prophecies prove the claims of Christianity, even though he has obtained this knowledge through the decans.

4. While the author of the Suda is unknown, it is still an authoratitive source. It is however far from the only Christian source that mentions HTM. I can be no more succinct thatn Frances Yates, in her "Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition" (Routleledge, London, 1964), so I shall simply quote her. "The name HTM was well known in the middle ages and and was connected with alchemy, and magic, particularilly with magic images or talismans" (p51). "However mediaeval writers interested in natural philosophy speak of him with respect; for Roger Bacon he was the 'Father of Philosophers'" (p51). There are other Christian sources mentioned by her in this work.

5. I would also refer you to the abovementioned work for more Christian references to HTM and the derivation of his naming as 'Thrice Great', especially the common Christian explanation of there having been three Hermes' i.e. Enoch, Noah and the Egyptian priest king who is known to us as HTM and derives his triple moniker from being the third in this geanology.

Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be so late in responding. I think the discussion is interesting but I would caution the outright label of Giordano Bruno, Marsilio Ficino, Campanella and Giovanni Pico della Mirandola as "Christian" writers. I'm not sure their positions on some things (particularly in the area of humanism or neoplatonism) would exactly be endorsed by orthodox Christians. One problem, obviously, is that one may call himself/herself a Christian and not actually be one, so it is difficult to really say who is and who is not a Christian. So all I'm really asking is what makes them "Christian" writers? And when you say Augustine, do you mean Augustine of Hippo or Augustine of Canterbury? Regardless I won't argue with you about either of the Augustines being Christian writers, but what exactly did he say? Sweetmoose6 (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure their positions on some things [..] would exactly be endorsed by orthodox Christians

"Orthodox Christians" (who seem to be a breed apart from the rest of us, ordinary people who merely happen to be Christians) never seem able to agree on anything, so they are hardly the best people to decide. And anyway, what Christianity is defined as meaning today would not have passed muster in either the Catholic or Protestant confessions of Giordano Bruno's time. It is not, I think, extreme or unreasonable to say that as these people came from a Christian background, in a Christian culture, and self-defined as Christians, that they ought to be classed as Christians. Ergo, it is a duck.

Nuttyskin (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Is hermeticism a proper noun?

I realize that wiki rules dictate that all entries are capitalized, but the author Jan Vijg in his/her book "Aging of the Genome" uses the term un-capitalized. re: Can modern science succeed where hermeticism failed?

The wiktionary has no entry and so, I wonder if capitalization is a mistake or that some kind of notation should be applied in the definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.73.124 (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The three parts of the wisdom of the whole universe

Didn't know where else to put this, so here goes. Isn't it said somewhere that the reason HT possesses three parts of the wisdom is because he is actually a pseudonym of three composite authors, or traditions, namely those of Europe, Asia and Egypt? Can't cite a source, does anyone else know of this?

This is speculative but perhaps a better interpretation of three parts of the wisdom could represent the development of Hermetism from it's Hellenic roots. The three parts being the civic religion, the mystery religions and philosophy. Hermetism subsumes and completes all three. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.36.230 (talk) 10:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Nuttyskin (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

article is unintelligible to those outside your domain

I'm generally well-read and considered fairly intelligent, as well, one of my interests is Philosophy. So it was with some eagerness that I clicked the Hermeticism link in another article (Paracelsus) looking to learn a little something more. Well, from the intro paragraph on, I simply can not decipher anything that this article is trying saying. In that regard, all your work here is useless. What's the point of writing in a way that only those who already understand can get anything from it? Clearly you put a lot of effort into this article. Pls take that passion and re-write at least the intro paragraph so that a reasonably informed lay person can understand something about Hermeticism.

Ronewolf (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The Message Bible

The following insert is being placed into the article. There is no references and the said user has inserted statements trying to connect an "Occult" link to the Christian Message Bible. I will oppose until a real source is found. Good luck in finding it.

In the Message Bible translation, created by Eugene Peterson, the well known sentence in the Lord's prayer translated from New Testament Greek manuscripts usually as, "Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven", is rendered "Do what's best — as above, so below."

Basileias (talk) 02:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Basileias, I have not stated that there is a link between The Message Bible and the occult. I have simply inserted a piece of factual relevant information into the Wikipedia entry on the expression "As above; so below". Had I asserted that the Message Bible was occultic I would have needed a reference. However, the only reference required for my entry is one linking the expression "As above so below" to The Message Bible for Matt 6:10. In the original Greek of Matt 6:10 the words for "heaven" and "earth" and God's "will" occur. Eugene Petersen did not translate any of these words but made the fascinating choice of what is well known as an occult expression and translated "Your will be done on earth as in heaven" as simply "As above, so below". In a best selling Bible translation this fact is not insignificant and I suggest it deserves a mention in Wikipedia. I have no particular preference as to where it appears. You did not like it on the Message Bible page, so I moved it to this article here. This fact about the Message Bible is somewhat embarrassing I know. Either Eugene Petersen, a man of letters, is ignorant about this well known occult expression - which makes it very strange that he would just "invent" it (since the Greek behind it would not throw up this rendering) - or he is aware of it, which makes its insertion even stranger. I am not charging him or his translation with anything. I am stating a curious and fascinating fact in an encyclopedia. I will hold off on editing in anticipation of your response Journalist492 (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

the addition seems trivial. Better without it. Car Henkel (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Inserting curious facts, whether the intended tie is meant or not, tie a Christian author with the occult. It will need solid references. Basileias (talk) 13:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

What is Hermeticism??

This article (or at least its introduction) fails to answer that question. The intro says hermeticism is a set of beliefs, but it doesn't say anything about what those beliefs are. Can someone please fix that?46.194.129.179 (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You really have my sympathies; this article is simply dreadful (in terms of explaining to a layman) what Hermeticism is. I am too exhausted from fighting with the Wiki Police so, rather than edit and enter the fray, let me just try to explain (I'm usually pretty good at that):

Hermeticism is a set of beliefs and practices whose aim is the influencing of the world through contact with the heavenly forces. It claims descent from a prisca theologica, an original untainted, pure set of doctrines, secretive, which allegedly were compiled in ancient times, in Egypt, and whose undiluted purity guarantees their veracity and efficacy. Much of the importance of Hermeticism is due to its connection with the devlopment of science in the Renaissance and 17th century, because the prominence given to the idea of influencing or controlling nature, led many of the newe scientists to look to magic and its allied arts (astrology, etc.) in celebrating the idea of experiment--of putting Nature "to the test." Consequently, it is the practical aspect of the Hermetic writings that attracted attention after the Renaissance. Isaac Newton placed great faith in this idea of a "pure tradition," an unadulterated pure ancient doctrine which he studied vigorously, attempting (believe it or not) to aid in his understanding of the physical world. I hope this helps. 207.237.89.3 (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Allen Roth

New stuff goes at the bottom. We have a section in the article titled "Hermetic beliefs", but I will give a brief summary of that in the intro. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Why should that explanation of Hermeticism be in the article? No reliable sources are provided. I think that it should be removed.--75.190.245.39 (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

What's with the opening paragraph? I do not see any references or sources for most of the information. To be honest, it looks to me like someone giving their own interpretation of what Hermeticism is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.190.245.39 (talk) 01:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Citations for sixth paragraph.

"Much of the importance of Hermeticism arises from its connection with the development of science during the time from 1300 to 1600 A.D. ..."

The points of this entire paragraph clearly derive from the work of Frances Yates, specifically Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition.

This book was controversial within the history of science, claiming that Renaissance occultism, specifically magic, was influential over the development of science in ways not previously appreciated. The general response by historians seems to have acknowledged the general point in a moderate way, but Yates' works are not considered sound scholarship. I think the claim, that this is where much of Hermeticism's importance derives from, is too strong. Hermeticism specifically is not generally acknowledged by historians of science as being an especially significant influence.

I think the entire paragraph should properly be deleted. If it must remain, it should be prefaced by saying that it is a statement of the claims of Frances Yates (and possibly that those claims aren't taken especially seriously).

• Someone, perhaps yourself, should insert citations referencing the appropriate pages in Yates's lengthy work, to which I do not have access. Wahrmund (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

pseudepigraphical

I contend that falsely attributed is not a suitable replacement for pseudepigraphical. False is derived from fallō (“deceive”), which implies intentional wrong doing to gain advantage. The intention when ascribing pseudepigraphical writings to Hermes was not to deceive, but rather to indicate that, at it's most basic reduction, Thoth was the god of writing. So rather than having an intention to deceive, its actual purpose was to remind the reader of the divine derivation of knowledge. Plus by removing it we are curtailing opportunities for people to learn new words, which is bogus. Morgan Leigh | Talk 09:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

God?

The end of the first paragraph states, "..true theology exists which is present in all religions and was given by God to man in antiquity."

My understanding is that Hermeticists believe that "God" may or may not be a self-conscience entity. However, by using the term "God" seems to exclude the belief that this force could be a non-conscience entity. Am I correct? If so, is there another term that could be used instead of "God". Perhaps there should be a section on the Hermetic idea of what "God" is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.145.104 (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Cudworth

@Diannaa: have a look at this edit, and then Google for the sentence [https://www.google.nl/search?q=who+argued+that+Casaubon%27s+allegation+of+forgery&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=CdMYV7qvMsaXsgGL6JyoCA "who argued that Casaubon's allegation of forgery". Lulu.com seems to be doing good business with Wiki-texts. The info in question comes from Ralph Cudworth, The True Intellectual System of the Universe. First American Edition by Thomas Birch, 1837 (Hermes Trismegistus, Hermetica). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I am getting a different set of results than you (I am on google.ca rather than google.nl). Lulu.com is not showing up in my search results. On my search, the top hits are all Wikipedia articles (Hermes Trismegistus, Hermetica, Hermeticism). — Diannaa (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The user notes in his edit summaries that he copy-pasted from Hermes Trismegistus and Hermetica. — Diannaa (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hermeticism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121108052032/http://users.panola.com/lindgren/rosecross.html to http://users.panola.com/lindgren/rosecross.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Renaissance

In the second-to-last paragraph in the section Hermeticism#Renaissance is the following sentence:

• According to Cudworth, the texts must be viewed as a terminus ad quem and not a quo.

I'd like to put an English translation of the Latin terms in parentheses after each one, but my knowledge of Latin is limited. When I used Google translate, I got "boundary at which" for "terminus ad quem" and "where" for "quo". While those may be accurate translations, I don't think they make enough sense for the reader who does not know Latin because they are too close in meaning. This sentence must be understood in context, and, in particular, in relation to the sentence that precedes it. Besides "boundary", perhaps "terminus" could be understood as meaning "ending," or "end point". Perhaps an editor who knows Latin could help with coming up with precise, nuanced translations for these two terms that would make sense in relation to the previous sentence and make clear what the important difference is between the two terms.  – Corinne (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Isaac Newton

Many writers, including Lactantius, Cyprian of Carthage,[8] Augustine of Hippo,[9] Marsilio Ficino, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Giordano Bruno, Tommaso Campanella, Sir Thomas Browne, and Ralph Waldo Emerson, considered Hermes Trismegistus to be a wise pagan prophet who foresaw the coming of Christianity.[10][11]

Where's Newton? People are very uncomfortable WRT to his involvement in subjects such as this. 108.200.234.93 (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@108.200.234.93: Newton is mentioned in the next paragraph. If you have reliable sources about Newton's interest in Hermeticism, feel free to add more about it here. There's no denying that Newton had a lot of mystical interests, which often contrast strongly with the Enlightenment rationalism that he inadvertently gave rise to, and Wikipedia even has an article about them: Isaac Newton's occult studies. But that article doesn't mention Hermeticism specifically, and I don't know what his relationship with Hermeticism was. A. Parrot (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

"Hermetism" vs "Hermeticism"

Hermetism refers specifically to the philosophy of the Hermetic Corpus, whereas Hermeticism encompasses all of the Hermetic Sciences (The Way of Hermes, Inner Traditions International, 2000, Pg. 9):

This manuscript contained the nucleus of the Corpus Hermeticum, also falsely called Pimander, after the first treatise, Poimandres. Along with some astrological and alchemical works, also named after Hermes, these tracts became the fundamental writings of the Renaissance, together called Hermeticism, whereas the doctrine of the Corpus Hermeticum is called hermetism.

Augustine

I have removed the reference to Augustine in the introduction. Unlike Cyprian, Lactantius and most Renaissance hermeticists, Augustine of Hippo did not believe Hermes to be a wise prophet. In City of God, VIII.23-4, he characterises Hermes as being inspired by demons rather than the Holy Spirit and replacing an old form of idolatry by a new one, even though, inspired by demons, he would mourn a future abolition of this very system. For a secondary source, this view is expressed in the very beginning of Frances A. Yates's "Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition", specifically in the pages 9-11 of Routledge's 1964 edition. Leefeni^{aures audiendi audiat} 00:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)