Talk:Palamism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Clark Carlton quote

Dbachman removed the Carlton quote and, in response, LoveMonkey slapped a POV tag on the article. A pox on these POV tags. Bring the discussion here, please.

I have restored the quote and removed the POV tag. I am inclined to leave the quote in the article lead for now. I think Carlton makes a reasonable point although I would prefer to see the same point being made by an EO theologian or cleric. The term "Palamism" is probably a Western term used to describe what some have considered to be a set of novel and arguably heretical doctrines originated by Palamism but that the Eastern Orthodox Church considers fully Orthodox and that Palamas only elaborated but did not invent. If anything, this point should be made more explicit in the text. I am short on time these days so I won't be able to look at it right away but, if no one else gets to it first, I will try to review the article and improve the text around this point.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

"The first thing we must understand about Lutheranism, is that there is absolutely no such thing. Lutheranism is the invention of opponents of Martin Luther—I will not call them theologians—who wanted to justify their own heresy by giving what is the undoubted and traditional teaching of the Christian Church an exotic label, turning it into an historically conditioned “ism.” All Martin Luther did was to express the age-old teaching of Christianity within the framework of contemporary controversy. Behind all of the talk about "sin like a man, but believe like a hero (pecca fortiter sed crede fortius)" lay a fundamental distinction that Christian theologians have been making since at least the time of Saint Paul" (after Carlton). "I think this is a reasonable point. The term 'Lutheranism' is probably a Roman Catholic term used to describe what some have considered to be a set of novel and arguably heretical doctrines originated by Martin Luther but that Protestants consider fully orthodox and that Martin Luther only elaborated but did not invent" (after Richard). Much the same could be written about the teaching of other theologians, of Thomism, Scotism, Calvinism, Origenism ... "Any belief can be termed an -ism, that doesn't prejudice its value or truth. Theism. Atheism. Both are isms. Take your pick, you'll be an -ist in any case" (Dbachmann). Esoglou (talk) 07:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Dbachman's position is a logical fallacy called no true Scotsman. No Esoglou wrangling and wiki legalizing will change that its a fallacy and no valid information can be based on a logical fallacy nor can someone use a logical fallacy to try and justify their behavior. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to remind everyone that I created this article and wrote/copied most of it. I am responsible for the article title. I did give the choice of title some thought and, given the lack of a better alternative, I think it is the most appropriate title for this article topic although I recognize the POV nature of it and thus I am more than willing to document the POV issues in the article text.

Esoglou, the point here is that when Christians label a set of doctrines as an -ism, they are generally ascribing it to a particular father/doctor/theologian. In some (perhaps most) cases, the label is then used to argue that those particular doctrines are innovations (possibly heretical) that depart from the true, orthodox faith. The West, in particular, the Catholics, have done this with Palamism in the past and probably many (even most) still hold this view. Carlton's comment is reacting to this POV.

Considering your example text above... it's certainly true that Catholics would argue that Protestants have innovated where as many Protestants (especially the fundamentalists) would argue that it is the Catholics/Orthodox who have innovated and departed from the true faith. (so your text above about Lutheranism does actually describe the positions of Catholics and Protestants with some accuracy).

Of course, you could also substitute Mormonism into the Lutheranism sentence and thus come up with an accurate description of the positions of those churches.

The point being made here is that (at least some) Orthodox object to the use of the term Palamism because it has been used by the West as a term to label and denigrate a set of doctrines which they hold to be orthodox and central to the faith. It is a fair point to document. Labels have a lot of semantic power, especially when there are judgmental connotations attached to them. To be NPOV, we must not allow the use of a label to assert a particular POV over the others. If a label has a POV connotation, we should document that.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Calvinism, the teaching of John Calvin, exists, whether invented by Calvin or not, and it would be silly to say there is absolutely no such thing as Calvinism. Thomism, the teaching of Thomas Aquinas, exists, whether invented by Aquinas or not, and it would be silly to say there is absolutely no such thing as Thomism. Palamism, the teaching of Gregory Palamas, exists, whether invented by Palamas or not, and it would be/is silly to say there is absolutely no such thing as Palamism. Dbachmann certainly has a point. Esoglou (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Hence, No true scotsman. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The Orthodox acknowledge that Palamas said something that was very valuable that had not been said quite so clearly and eloquently before. What they dispute is whether he said anything new or if he simply presented the ancient faith more clearly and eloquently. So, of course they revere Palamas, they only reject the use of the term by the West as a way of denigrating its orthodoxy. If Carlton raises this objection in a way that seems "silly", well that's your POV. You're not (AFAIK) a reliable source. Carlton is. I could hope for a more reliable source such as an Orthodox theologian or cleric to raise the objection but, until someone presents one, we should use Carlton. I'm not taking sides on this question. Our job is not to take sides but to describe the debate as it takes place in "the real world". --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

In order for Esoglou and Dbachmann's point to not be a logical fallacy the entire history compiled under the term Philokalia would have to be a fraud, a fabricated hoax. The reason for the Philokalia is exactly this entire Western apology against theoria and Palamas. That is the point. There where not Eastern Orthodox theologians in the past per se, we have desert mystics, ascetics from monastic communities whom commune with the God.. Our mystics do not validate their charisma by obtaining a degree about the God from a college or divinity school. No they give up all their possessions and go live in a monastic community or ascetic setting. Our clergy have to have ascetic training and be activity engaged in ascetic practice, as do our lay people that's what Orthodoxy is. I think that people are posting here and creating articles about subjects and they are so almost completely clueless about the subject, that allot of their "points" are almost pure conjecture and speculation made from complete ignorance about actual subject matter. My my. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It is undeniable that Carlton is an extremely reliable source about his personal opinion (which he attributes to no one else) that Palamism (not the term, it seems, but the teaching itself?) was invented by Roman Catholic non-theologians, and that, although Palamism has been invented, there is absolutely no such thing as Palamism. I have no intention of removing that statement: it adds to the whimsy of the article. Presbyterians acknowledge that Calvin said something that was very valuable that had not been said quite so clearly and eloquently before. They dispute whether he said anything that wasn't in the original Christian faith or if he simply presented the ancient faith more clearly and eloquently. They revere Calvin, but I know of no one Presbyterian who puts forward as his personal opinion the notion that Calvinism was invented by others or that use of the term "Calvinism" is only a way of denigrating its orthodoxy. But to get to the point - I don't have to be "a reliable source" (any more than you) to express an opinion on Dbachmann's comment about that writer's "taking issue with the 'ism' suffix. Sheesh. Any belief can be termed an -ism, that doesn't prejudice its value or truth. Theism. Atheism. Both are isms. Take your pick, you'll be an -ist in any case". I do think that Dbachmann was basically right. Esoglou (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, for an Eastern Orthodox theologian who says what Carlton says, you need look no further than Carlton himself. Carlton is an Eastern Orthodox theologian, or at least a writer of several books on Eastern Orthodox theology, although, as you know, his writings have not won unanimous approval among Eastern Orthodox theologians. I wonder whether, to quote someone else, "he has theoria"! Esoglou (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that Lutheranism and Calvinism were departures from what immediately preceded them (i.e. the Catholicism of the medieval/Renaissance era). The Orthodox argue that Palamas was merely a continuation of the Greek fathers. However, putting that to rest since we don't disagree really, I will concede that the suffix "-ism" is not, in and of itself, derogatory and that those who consider it such are reading too much into it. I don't agree with Carlton. I just think the POV is significant enough to include in the article. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to keep the Carlton quote. I might question the notability of Carlton's POV (so far, I haven't seen quotes from any other Orthodox theologians who agree with what Carlton says), but this surely isn't worth having a fight over. Perhaps the sentence could be reworded, as Richard suggests, to explain better what Carlton's point is. (An average reader would probably have no idea what Carlton means when he says that "there is absolutely no such thing" as Palamism. As Esolgou points out, there certainly is such a thing as the teachings of Palamas, regardless of whether Palamas was merely transmitting older traditions. Confucius famously called himself a transmitter, not an inventor, but everyone recognizes that there's such a thing as Confucianism, i.e. the teachings of Confucius.) --Phatius McBluff (talk) 06:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Aquinas, Scotus, Confucius and their respective followers deny that their teachings (Thomism, Scotism, Confucianism) constituted departures from what immediately preceded them, while their critics perhaps wrongly say they introduced novelties. Palamas and his followers deny that his teaching (Palamism) constituted a departure from what immediately preceded him, while his critics perhaps wrongly say he introduced novelties.

There is consensus among us to keep Carlton's declaration that Roman Catholic non-theologians invented Palamism and that there is really no such thing as Palamism. His claim should not be synthetically bowdlerized. Esoglou (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Palamas and the Councils in Constantinople confirm that what Palamas had formalized he did so as no innovation. Confucius had no church councils to validate and or invalidate his teachings. None of the examples Esoglou uses had any thing close to a series of councils and a civil war based on what they as individuals had formalized. The co-relation is invalid and misleading. Also there is allot of assuming because I have as of yet to see where Esoglou has even read a single Eastern Orthodox theologians work and has quoted from it extensively. From this I find some statements here a bit disingenuous. I request for the sake of objectivity that Richard ask Cody about this as other theologians have written about it, VERY Famous Orthodox theologians and it seems that allot of people writing and working on this article are very ignorant of Palamas and the church that he represented. Hey its Wikipedia don't let that stop you. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Those associated with the Aquinas, Scotus and Confucius examples thank God for the difference. Esoglou (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh, but of course, not a single Ecumenical or Catholic council was held anywhere in the West. Not one of the 7 Ecumenical councils was attended by a Western Patriarch (i.e. Pope) in person not one of them'. The dominate language of the bible and the Christian faith and the Councils that defined church theology was not Latin, it was Greek. Esoglou can keep saying how the East have not right to have an opinion about themselves and their culture and that they need a guy in Rome Italy to validate themselves, but he'll keep getting people from "those places" telling him and those whom support his position a re-sounding "no". We are brothers and sisters we are not any Western Patriarch's children. Catholicos is equality. There is no history to support any primacy. And thank God for the Councils as they are the highest authority not any Western Bishop elected by Western Bishops anywhere on this planet. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe it is much less in vogue among Roman Catholics in the 21st century to attack "Palamism" as an "innovation" or "heresy" than it used to be. However, I am not aware of any movement to discard the term "Palamism" in the way that Americans have discarded the term "Negro". What I'm saying here is that there are several levels to consider Carlton's comment. Historically, he is probably accurate in his assertion if we are talking about the views of pre-Vatican II Catholics but, IMO, it is much less true of 21st century Catholic thinkers than it was of pre-Vatican II Catholic thinkers. Thus, arguing about whether Palamism was an "innovation" is not very useful because it's not clear how much this is being asserted by Catholic theologians today. However, at another level, it is worth mentioning Carlton's POV because it represents a point that Orthodox Christians are sensitive about (i.e. they are much more interested in casting Catholics as heretics and highly offended at being themselves cast as heretics even if those allegations are not used by current Catholic theologians). --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a history and ideas have consequences etc etc etc. Why is it that all of these contributing editors fight people of the Eastern Orthodox faith when they try to clarify things as again Carlton is not alone in his position. For the sake of objectivity ask Cody. I mean who has this kind of time to spare? LoveMonkey (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I would much prefer to see the ideas in the Carlton quote atrributed to a Bishop such as Bishop Auxentios of Photiki or to a theologian such as Romanides, Lossky or Yannaras. If you can provide a citation to someone of such stature, I would be happy to have that person cited in the article. ---Pseudo-Richard (talk)

What so you can argue over that like you have already done with Baron Meyendorff? Why can you simply not just read some of the sources I have already pointed to, I've provided plenty of sources and I can tell you that some of them address this very thing. I am tired of fighting in order to post information that is compliant to Wiki-policy because of some editors Roman Catholic POV. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Put up or shut up. If you got a better source, present it. Otherwise, we'll have to make do with the Clark Carlton quote. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Your the one whom created this monstrosity not me and I consider this article Roman Catholic POV that is attacking the Eastern churches' defenses on protecting the mystic or mystery of God in the Christian faith (as if Palamas was the first person to do such a thing). The contributions I have made to it I have done with a great deal of hesitation as I do not wish to give the subject anymore legitimacy. I keep saying this and you keep telling me to shut up. As for your nonsense to approach Palamas as this article does it POV as this is another example of the issue of labeling what the subject of mysticism is about in relation to Palamas. [1]LoveMonkey (talk) 12:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou editing restriction violation

Esoglou the terms of your editing restriction prohibit you from making representations of what Orthodox believe. I have therefore reverted your edit. Please don't do it again, you know you're under an editing restriction.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Wishful thinking. :) Esoglou (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you dispute that your editing restriction prohibit you from making representations of what Orthodox believe, or that you are under an editing restriction?Taiwan boi (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It does seem to be a gray area. The text describes what (one) Orthodox talk show host thinks the motivation of Roman Catholics is. So, if you focus on the fact that it is a talk show host representing what Orthodox Christians think, then Esoglou is restricted. If you focus on the fact that the statement is making an assertion of what Roman Catholics think, then LoveMonkey is restricted. I personally hate the entire editing restriction but I have stepped in and rewritten the text so that we can avoid wasting energy on debating who is restricted in this specific case and why. The key to avoiding contention is for those under editing restriction to discuss on the Talk Page rather than editing and let others do the actual editing. (This means you, Esoglou) --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

This was perfectly clear. The text which was edited required representing Orthodox views. Esoglou is prevented from doing that. As you point out, the talk show host is representing what Orthodox Christians think. LoveMonkey is entirely free to make edits expressing what Orthodox think of Roman Catholic belief; his edit was entirely valid. What is more important is that Esoglou is not actually trying to keep the letter or spirit of his agreement.Taiwan boi (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Taiwan boi overstates the case when he says that it's "perfectly clear". At the same time, I can't see a principled argument in defense of Esoglou's edit. The restrictions prohibit Esoglou from editing content about Orthodox views (technically, the restrictions speak of "Orthodox teaching and practice", not of "Orthodox views" in general, but it would surely be pushing things for Esoglou to use this wording as some kind of loophole). Of course, the restrictions do allow Esoglou to edit content about what Catholics say about Orthodox views. But in this case, the content concerns what the Orthodox say about Catholic views. I will assume good faith on Esoglou's part (the contexts for applying these editing restrictions are getting infuriatingly complicated), but I would advise him not to make similar edits in the future. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 06:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought Phatius was done with this conflict. I am also disappointed in how Phatius is again defending Esoglou, whose incompetency is so high and continual, I think his behavior warrants more restrictions on his editing. This is at least the second time Phatius has popped in and defended Esoglou for breaking his editing restrictions [2]. Note however Phatius did not come to my defense when Esoglou opened up an ANI on me for the edit restriction VIOs. [3] LoveMonkey (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

LM, I think you may have misunderstood my comments. Please read them again. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

No you keep defending Esoglou he has again broken the editing restrictions put on him. There is not misunderstand in that. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

In my comment above, I specifically said that "I can't see a principled argument in defense of Esoglou's edit" and "I would advise him not to make similar edits in the future". Why do you think that I was defending his edit? --Phatius McBluff (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

"I will assume good faith on Esoglou's part (the contexts for applying these editing restrictions are getting infuriatingly complicated), but I would advise him not to make similar edits in the future." That comment. How come poor Esoglou gets to play confused and challenged and I don't? LoveMonkey (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Why are you placing so much weight on my opinion about whether Esoglou was editing in good faith? If this were a discussion about whether to sanction Esoglou for his behavior, then such an emphasis would be appropriate. However, no one here is suggesting that Esoglou be sanctioned for this particular infraction. Taiwan boi started this thread simply to point out that Esoglou had violated the restrictions and to warn Esoglou not to make similar edits again. Let's keep discussion focussed on the issue at hand, rather than my supposed personal bias in favor of Esoglou. If you have a problem with my behavior or my biases, then you should take it up elsewhere. This is not the place. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

And why should I not note? It is from my perspective that the behavior and or way that I am spoken of here is that I am here not to actually clarify what Orthodox theologians teach and say but rather I am here with a personal Anti-Roman Catholic axe to grind. This is complete nonsense and the fact that I have consistently and in good faith tried time and time again to post what actual people of authority within the community have said to only get it attacked with original research and ad hominem stupidity is to me, shameful. But "LoveMonkey believes this " and LoveMonkey says that, underhanded and despicable nonsense. They are counter productive to say the least. People here telling me to shut up, and somehow I'm being uncivil.

Follow that up with people again vilifying me and mocking my religions beliefs with statements like "he must not have had theoria" and I think I have been rather civil. Blasphemy dear lord. But keep blaming me for wasting my time trying to actually explain what the differences are so that people would at least have some sense of understanding about the other side or other perspective. You keep defending all of this and then tell me not to address any of it or to take it somewhere else, as if that has ever fixed anything. As it should noted in all of this due to the limits of functionality here at Wikipedia.

I have not posted to Wikipedia the many many issues that the EO community have collected about or in relation to their subjection to the Muhammadian I will not even remotely try and share as that it is quite obvious that there is no faculty in place here that could allow and or protect such material. Because the culture of Wikipedia simply can not functionally allow it due to the abuse allowed under the concept of consensus. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the source "The Areopagite in 20th Century Orthodoxy, V"

A while back, LM told me that some of you folks had agreed that blogs couldn't be used (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Phatius_McBluff#Hell_in_Eastern_Orthodoxy). I'm not sure whether this agreement was supposed to apply to only one article or to all articles. Anyway, I just mention it because the above-mentioned source (currently footnote 84 in the article) appears to be a blog. Is this okay? --Phatius McBluff (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

A transcript of a radio broadcast is not a blog. The radio program called "Faith based radio" was not a blog..[4] Can someone confirm that we are to treat radio shows this way now? As now people here are using Wiki-wrangling and formalities to dispense with controversies. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to this source: [5]. Do you mean that the text of this blog post is a transcript of a radio program? --Phatius McBluff (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

No. This comment was not added by me. I thought this was on the Clarkson comment. As for the source your pointing out, you need to go to it and see that it is sourced by way of footnote {57}- specifically the books, The Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition: From Plato to Denys (Oxford: Clarendon Paperbacks, 1981), 159-178;[6] and Denys the Areopagite (London and New York: Continuum, 1989) By Andrew Louth [7]. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so the rule is that blogs are allowed as long as they cite reliable sources? Please understand, I'm just trying to get clear on what the rule that you people have agreed on about blogs. Also, I'm confused by your statement "This comment was not added by me?" What comment are you referring to? --Phatius McBluff (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

First, a tentative mea culpa. I think the text in question and citation was put there by me although I'm not sure and I don't feel like sifting through the edit history to be sure.

May I draw your attention to this dialog on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. So far, nobody has argued that ORA LABORA blog would be considered reliable even if the identity of Felix Culpa were known and he acknowledged the ORA LABORA blog as his. Given that neither of these two conditions exist, I would reluctantly have to concede that the blog cannot be considered a reliable source.

My personal perspective is that many Wikipedia rules are enforced only to the extent that people who are paying attention to a particular page care about enforcing the rules. Thus, the source in question could remain in the article for a very long time until someone noticed the issue and convinced the other editors of the page that the issue was worth doing something about. If we are to follow Wikipedia's rules, we would seek to replace that source with something better.

I do think the sentence in the article text is probably good and so our options are:

1. remove the sentence and its citation to an unreliable source
2. remove the citation to an unreliable source and replace it with a citation to a reliable source
3. leave both the sentence and the current citation in place and decide not to care that the source is unreliable

The "right thing to do" is option #1. If anyone wants to do the work to implement option #2, it would be much appreciated. This would probably involve someone taking a look at the books mentioned by LoveMonkey and finding the relevant pages to improve the citation by citing the relevant text directly.

I should also comment that the article text in question discusses the criticism of Meyendorff's analysis of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and not of his writings about Palamas and so the connection between the assertion of the sentence and the article topic is a bit indirect. If we are to keep the sentence, it might be useful to spell out to the reader the connection between this point and the article topic. (I confess that I am not sure anymore what that connection is.)

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The connection is that the blog lists two Andrew Louth sources that clarify that Baron Meyendorff is not without problems in his position on Dionysius. As Professor Louth is someone whom has done work to complete Meynedorff's work after his death. [8] As the article states that "Fr John Meyendorff's analysis of St Dionysius remains problematic. His division between Dionysius' theology properly so-called and his system of hierarchies fractures the integrity of Dionysius' theological vision." Meaning that Louth and this person at that website found problems with Meyendorff's theological approach to the Areopagite. Where as I have posted before that Romanides finds allot more to take to issue with Meyendorff's work. [9]

"It seems that for Father John (Meyendorff) the Orthodox insistence on the uncreatedness of sacramental sanctifying grace and the Roman insistence on the createdness of infused sacramental grace are essentially the same, and that both doctrines are of equal value against the general Protestant position. He comes to this conclusion partly by thinking that the Latin West generally, and scholasticism particularly, are of one accord with Palamas in rejecting Barlaam's and Protestantism's general denial of the vision of God to the viator. And this denial, according to Father John, reduces the sacraments to mere symbols. So he would have it that Palamas and the Latin scholastics were struggling against a common enemy, nominalism, which prepared the way for a future common enemy, Protestantism." Father John Romanides.

Note this is why, according to Romanides, that Roman Catholic theologians have warmed up to Meyendorff's work.

LoveMonkey (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Using the Romanides source that LM just provided, I have drafted a revised version of the section Palamism#Modern rediscovery of Palamas#Among Orthodox theologians that avoids using the blog. The draft can be found here: User:Phatius_McBluff/Palamism_section. Any comments are welcome. (Most of the changes were, of course, to the part about Romanides's criticisms of Meyendorff.) --Phatius McBluff (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: In case anyone is wondering, yes, I am aware that Wikipedia already has its own policies regarding blogs, and that blogs are generally not allowed as sources. However, there are cases in which blogs may be used. My original question was whether Esoglou and LM had voluntarily agreed upon more restrictive rules regarding the use of blogs. At this point, I'm guessing that this isn't the case and that I misinterpreted LM's comment on my talk page.

No your right to point this out. Its just that like in the case of the second part of the Romanides article what the source was saying was pretty consistent (as Romanides is saying allot of the same thing that the Areopagite should be seen as Christian and not through some philosophical school of thought's label or name). In other words the actual content seems valid and therefore there was no one contesting it. As I did not add the content and or the sourcing I did not notice that it was a blog. However the blog does actually source it's statements with peered reviewed material so it is not just some opinion taken at random that can not be validated within the confines of WP:verifiability. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree that the content is valid. My concern is simply with the letter of Wikipedia policy. The fact that the blog cites academic sources doesn't seem to cut it; we should be citing the academic sources themselves. And I don't like Richard's suggestion that we could just ignore the fact that the blog violates policy. Check out my draft at User:Phatius_McBluff/Palamism_section (which avoids citing the blog and instead cites Romanides directly) and let me know what you think. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Very good you are a far better writer than me and that commentary is very good. I have no bone of contention with you personally and all soreness aside I respect your objectivity that you express in ways like this. I just from time to time feel like you don't give me a fair shake. As for the scholarily positions expressed in your correct depiction of them in your passage. The philokalia shows that there was no abandonment of hesychasm in the East 'ever. The 6th volume of the philokalia will bring that closer to the surface. Also this whole nonsense of the East "rediscovery hesychasm" is rejected by the EO as it seems that even William Gibbons could at least be right some of the time.[10] LoveMonkey (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your conciliatory words. Well, I won't apologize for my positions; I simply call it like I see it, and if we see things differently, then we must be prepared to agree to disagree. However, I do apologize if I have come across as biased against you. I think part of this may be a result of the erratic nature of my Wikipedia involvement. I contribute only once in a while, leaving Wikipedia for long periods of time, so (for example) I wasn't able to be involved during the noticeboard argument that you mentioned above. I have no interest in beating dead horses, so I won't discuss my own opinion on that particular past issue. However, I will certainly try to be balanced and objective when commenting on issues involving you, and I certainly hope that our interactions can be cordial. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be the proper way and so I agree. By way of comparison I would ask that you (if you get time) maybe read over the reposting of David Bradshaws position on all of this as it is posted as part of a discussion here [11] I think it kinda put to words some of the Eastern perspective in a Western way. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

A small aside. Esoglou's butchering of the theoria article has destroyed the very specific and yet subtle difference between the contemplation of the pagans philosophers and the contemplation of the Patristic fathers. You see Christian theoria is when we are driven by the vision (experience) obtained in ecstasy that validates our enstasis (self realization). In the ideological and by proxy Augustinian and Aquinas Western tradition our contemplation and thinking drives the experience. One objective (Tabor light) and used to validate substance theory, the other subjective and based on using contrast, comparison, reason and logic to speculatively validate substance theory. This is just a small note. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Energies of the Spirit by Duncan Reid

Anybody have access to this book by Duncan Reid? Seems like it would provide really useful information for this article as well as a bunch of related articles. I was interested in the bit about Barth and Rahner. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I ordered the book just now through my university's inter-library loan system. It should arrive in a few days. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)