Talk:New Age/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Observation

It was an observation. Heart♥Gold^{Cry Like a little girl} 17:34, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

A lot of red wikilinks in this article. Heart♥Gold^{Cry Like a little girl} 16:59, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

Then fill some in, Captain Obvious. It beats whining about it. --Kels 17:14, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

What Kels said. Red links are not inherently bad -- think of them as a "we need this" marker. Honestly, I don't have the attention span for a lot of them, and a Wiki is a collaborative environment. If you've got something to add, add it, don't complain that it's not there. EVDebs 17:32, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

Interesting side note, most Pagans who are at all serious about it are rather skeptical of anything that goes so far as to call itself "New Age", as that generally implies "fluffy" and "trendy" to those who take it a bit more seriously. Which is interesting coming from people who generally deal with a lot of the same paraphernalia (crystals, pendulums, Tarot and so forth). --Kels 17:19, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

You have New Age, we have Baptists for Brownback. Not much of a contest there, I'm afraid ;)! --מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Hehe, where I come from, we call New Agers "Fluff Bunnies". --Kels 17:24, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

Out of curiosity, aren't magical thinking and a belief in magic two different, albeit related, things? The article says one but links to the other, so I'm wondering about the intent of that part. --Kels 17:53, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

• A fair point. I'm open to a new article. EVDebs 18:00, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

Okay if I take care of it tomorrow? --Kels 18:07, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

---

Random comments on the above: "New Age" came before the modern rise of neo-paganism, and has a "less cool" hipness factor. Although they both just modern religious syntheses full of woo.

Magical thinking is basically a kind of hope that things will work out the way you want.

Belief in magic is thinking David Copperfield is not just a great sleight=of=hand artist. I'll check the link and phrasing if it's still there and I can find it. human 21:51, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Cover Nomination

(please do not archive this section)

• Nominated by Susan^Purrrrr
• I concur. human 14:57, 5 March 2008 (EST)
• Support, pending somebody giving it a good once-over for typos and teh like Secret Squirrel 21:33, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
  • Why, did you edit it again? ;) I just ran through it a bit, it's getting pretty tight. human 21:46, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
    • Nope, didn't edit it yet again. It's just that while gazing at a magic crystal trying to achieve aura alignment with infinite intelligence, Ramtha spoke and told me there were typos in teh article and if they weren't fixed NOW the apocalypse would come a lot sooner than 2012. ;) Secret Squirrel 22:08, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm going to give it a quick proofreading and mark it approved. human 18:20, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I think this is ready for prime time now. DogP 21:18, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Done. human 21:28, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Heavily Distort?

Pretty!
And, it makes my brainz glow!!!

I don't know if the New Age Movement's sin is so much distorting such belief systems as Buddhism as it is indiscriminately and mindlessly glomming onto any and all spiritual and supernatural beliefs, giving them all separate but equal status no matter how contradictory or whacky the end result is, and mixing them all together. PoorEd 08:58, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Duz dis nice widdle artikle wantz a nice widdle crystal to play withz? human 21:31, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

BTW, how about this crystal if you want your brain to glow? Rational Ed^perception 13:07, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Nice! Those remind me of Breaking Bad, an amusing Comedrama on AMC. human 13:50, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Link unlinked - but you can get a 'free alcoholism' newsletter.

82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Muzak vs new age musik

Human, things have changed. The music played in waiting rooms and elsewhere is now more often New Age music or "ambient music" than Muzac. Rational Ed^evidence 12:23, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, if we are to generalize, music played in waiting rooms, elevators, etc., could be anything. From Muzak (TM) to new age, to satellite radio, to talk radio... Heck, even my old chiropractor didn't play new age in his waiting room (used local FM station instead). human 12:56, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Did you mean your old chiropractor didn't play muzak? I think it is a fair to say that new age music is one of the more popular kinds of background music. Rational Ed^perception 13:04, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Not without some sort of evidence, I don't think it is. The only place I hear it is, well, new age stores (crystals, oils, psychic in back room), and something that is close to new age in a candle store I like. human 13:47, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Narrow Minded

I have to attest that I'm pretty shocked how narrow-minded people on this site are. I thought you wanted to be above religious fundamentalists, not below them. I guess you're mostly from the Richard Dawkins school of thought? It shows, as you're generally a patronizing, stereotyping bunch of people, guilty of the same fundamentalism you so greatly hate. You're fundementalism is science however, and therefore all the more powerful - everything you say is in some way backed up by fact or theory (though usually flexible to the latest scientific explanation). Though any answer science throws up ultimately results in more questions, you seem to be so arrogent that you neglect this fact and neglect any possibility of spirituality, safe in the unaffirmed belief that any unanswered questions will still be answered in the future by science. I am not an atheist, neither am I religious. If there is spirituality in this world - and I have experienced something of it - then I will not sell it as propaganda, but neither will I neglect it and reject it without understanding the limitless concept which beholds it. Even if science explains everything in the universe, which is doubtful, it will surely never explain the absolute existence of it, nor the nature of it. Entheogenicorder 12:08, 08 September 2008 (BST)

Chill out. There are many of us who are spiritual as well. There's a diversity of opinion, and many of us move it one way, and others move it another. Researcher 11:09, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

• Your. You have no fucking idea how annoying that is. ^{— Unsigned, by: 101.165.71.7 / talk / contribs}

I don't think you'll find even any of the hard core anti-religion people here, who think science will explain "everything". Morals (not their existence, but which ones are right) is high on that list. But at the same time, the nature of the universe is pretty clear. the "absolute existence of it" will not be explained, but i don't know if anyone in science, cares. any more than 'science' wants or needs a "meaning of life". it is, therefor it is.Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 13:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

For the record

Any New Ager who took to using Asatru beliefs would probably have it beaten out them pretty quickly. (One thing I give Asatru: They're hardcore, and don't take the namby-pamby route to religion.) Researcher 11:08, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

Opposition to the New Age movement

Old Age Movement? Retrograde Motion/Retrograders? ^{— Unsigned, by: 212.85.6.26 / talk / contribs} 17:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this gold or silver

As far as I can tell this is suppose to be a cover story, but Nx wants a new intro first. Comments? - π 02:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Can the cover story box at the top please link to the abstract? Please? ħuman 03:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but this is the only one that does not have one. - π 03:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not? Shouldn't it be automagic? ħuman 06:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It needs to be created. - π 06:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I could do it, if I really tried. Put on my to-do list for tomorrow? ħuman 06:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

There's something wrong with the link in the template, it's red everywhere. ħuman 08:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No it is not, it is red here because it does not exist, it is red on the CP ones because I have only just fixed it. Try Talk:Evolution. - π 08:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw you fixed it elsewhere. Is it fixed everywhere now, and this one just needs to be written/copied? ħuman 08:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It is broked on CP again. I will fix that another way. - π 08:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. ħuman 08:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I copied the lead to the red link and it went away. ħuman 08:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This was the only cover story without an abstract. All the abstracts need improving, but at least they all exist now. - π

The New Age movement is irrational and this fact should be mentioned on this page. ^{— Unsigned, by: 89.84.208.57 / talk / contribs}

"The New Age movement often lacks intellectual rigor and shuns scientific approaches to reality" is in the lead; later it says "The New Age movement is generally considered a load of bollocks by rationalists". Also, most of the articles it links too are on irrational topics and say so. ħuman 23:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Small correction?

"Fairies — Belief in fairies, faeries, furries, devas, angels, and other sorts of entities in this and other dimensions that can be contacted for advice and healing."

I am fairly sure that no new-ager believes in furries as a mythical being or spirit like unicorns or fairies, (as it is a subculture of human interest), so this statement seems innacurate to me. With permission I'd like to modify or add a new statement that belief in multiple identity/hidden inner identity or potential such as spirit animals or therianthropy can be connected to New Age belief instead. Normally I wouldn't make a talk page inquiring permission, but this is a featured and highly visible article and a gold brainstar, so I don't want to muck it up without anyone else's input. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{sufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic} 17:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I woulda thought it was an obvious joke - David Gerard (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I dunno. Generally when listing nonexistant things that are silly to believe, adding an extant subculture that isn't even an entity comparable to the others (fairies, angels = imaginary beings, furries = human subculture) is not really a helpful addition. You may as well replace 'furries' with 'republicans' in that statement; one of these things is not like the other. If 'furries existing' is supposed to be a punchline, it's a pretty crappy non-sequitur one. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{free guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain!} 18:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: which of these shows more poetic euphony?

1. "fairies, faeries, furries"
2. "fairies, faeries, Republicans"

The joke is (I would have said "fairly obviously", but, well, evidently not) even bothering to distinguish "fairies" and "faeries". With an overlay of comment on the idiocy of the idea of otherkin, though that's an aside and not directly relevant to New Age.

Tell me, how the fuck did you calculate that "Republicans" would be an indistinguishable drop-in replacement for "furries" in that phrase?

- David Gerard (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

(Um, otherkin and furries are actually separate phenomena. Otherkin are the type that make metaphysical/fantastical claims, furries are just... people with interesting hobbies.) — Haamer (talk) 05:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I know that. I'm part of the furry community, and I have been for years. It is a subculture in of itself, especially the anthro art community. It is separate from otherkin and therians, but there is significant overlap in some areas of it. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{going galt: the literal crazy train} 05:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I was replying to David, he mentioned otherkin for some reason. — Haamer (talk) 05:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, derp on my part. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{lavishly loquacious} 06:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't operating from a poetic standpoint. I was operating from a conceptual standpoint. Furries are not mythical beings, they are artifacts of an extant subculture. They are a community of people, for better or for worse. It feels strange to me to have a list about believeing in fictional beings... and then add in an item that is not a being, and is also not fictional. So much as a subculture can actually exist. Besides, 'furries existing' is only a punchline if one resides on 4chan. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{longissimus non legeri} 18:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

As the person who inserted furries in the list, I can confirm it was intended as an example of humeur. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Eh, if you guys like it. It just bugs me because it reads like this to me:

"These people believe that fairytale things exist, like hobgoblins, harpies, hippogriffs, and hipsters."

Yes, adding in hipsters is funny. But it doesn't really further the list, and sort of makes the whole list look stupider. I'm all for humor. But this seems... forced. But if you like it, I guess it's OK and to your standards. If the majority of the community doesn't really care, whatever. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{walls of text while-u-wait} 20:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't care all that much to be honest, but if it was my choice, I'd leave it out. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 20:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It's also a back-handed homage to an old friend of the site. ħuman 00:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

That too. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a reason to get rid of it, if anything. As I recall, we've been trying to cut back on self-referential humor in mainspace articles. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

There goes most of what I dun writ on here. ħuman 03:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's probably one of the many new "delete if you can't create" projects instituted by people, who, well, delete because they can't create. ħuman 03:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

New ager goes up to a hot dog stall...

...and says "make me one with everything." Sophie^Wilder 06:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I've heard that as "The Dalai Lama goes to a pizza parlor..." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)