Talk:Andrew D. Chumbley/Archive 1

message: :A quick web search confirms Chumbley's contributions to Chaos International; I'm adding  tags for the claim that Spare had recently used the term "Sabbatic", and the claim that there are Chaos influences in Chumbley's work. The source I've read just now (the Mysterymag article) names several influences from Spare (such as the Sacred Alphabet), but doesn't explicitly call them "Chaos". Thanks.
:Adding citation needed tags is generally the first step in dealing with unverified information. It gives readers a chance to fill in the gaps for us, and means the information remains available, although it is clearly flagged as potentially suspect. Only in cases where information is obviously wrong or is potentially libellous (etc.) should material be directly removed.
:A note for other researchers: if we can find sources who express opinions about Chumbley, can we make sure those opinions are presented as just that: opinions, and cited? That's how we should proceed to ensure the article presents a neutral point of view. I know there's info here already that isn't properly cited as opinion - I'm not sure I have time to clean it up myself... Fuzzypeg☻ 05:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, what you say seems reasonable. The obvious solution regarding "Chaos influences" is to instead just say his work shows a lot of Spare's influences, and not mention Chaos at all, apart from stating that he contributed to Chaos International. Now regarding the mysterymag article, I'm still reluctant to remove it, simply because no-one has come up with a better option. As flawed as it is, it is still the only resource anyone has come forward with that gives any kind of independent biographical information or description of his work. Obviously it's a bit low on information, and there must be much better sources out there describing the man. You guys all seem to know lots about him, where have you got your information from? I don't want to see the mysterymag article removed until we have something better to replace it with, which from the way people here have been talking, shouldn't be hard. If we can't find other sources for information on him, we have to start wondering whether Chumbley is notable enough to warrant having an article. Fuzzypeg☻ 22:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you've added another citation already. Excellent. Fuzzypeg☻ 22:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Please read wikipedia policy WP:CIVIL. You're welcome to participate in constructive debate; otherwise please take it elsewhere. Fuzzypeg☻ 00:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, my suggestion of removing the article was a botched attempt at irony. If there really is so little information written about him (and it wouldn't actually surprise me, I know of other influential occultists who don't have any articles written about them) that just means it'll be a short article. And that's fine. Fuzzypeg☻ 00:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chaos influences? Other problems with references

message: Gee, Fuzzypeg-"claimed involvement"? See edit re: Hutton. You're pushing me to actually write something of merit, well referenced here, aren't you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.65 (talk • contribs) 
:I personally reckon there was traditional witchcraft in England, however Hutton's main thesis is that there never was, and that the various forms of "traditional" witchcraft were invented between the 1940s and 1960s, largely inspired by Romanticism, Margaret Murray, and the late 18th century occult revival. I think Hutton's full of it, but "claimed involvement" pays lip-service to him (since he's widely touted as the world expert on the subject)! I would like to see referencing in Wikipedia that's at least a little better than Hutton's. ;) Fuzzypeg☻ 01:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Claimed involvement" with traditional Witchcraft

message: The issue over the need for citations and references academically is difficult in Magick and the occult since Magick is subjective and cant really be verified in a academic context. In this context the moderators on Wikipedia are always going to have a problem with Occult postings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.52.186 (talk • contribs) 
:Haven't seen too many problems yet. Remember this is an encyclopedia, built on an academic-style process. It's just not going to ever include certain facts that aren't verifiable by normal scholarly means. The only conflict I've seen between WP and occultists is when they haven't properly taken that on board. Once they do, they figure out how to use the system. The system has limitations, but these limitations are its strength. As long as no-one gets too precious about including their own unverifiable material it all works fine.
:It's worth remembering that a lot of these more "shadowy" occultists never intended to be in the public eye.Fuzzypeg☻ 00:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Referencing difficulties with magic and occultism articles

message: I have a problem with the word syncretic describing Chumbley's philosophy. Syncretic means "reconciliation of conflicting (as in religious) beliefs",  "syncretism." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com ( 10 Nov. 2006). Chumbley's philosophy was not syncretic/involving conflicting beliefs within his philosophy. His philosophy involved a reconciliation of beliefs that heralded from a common thread, (see any Eliade book to make correspondences) not from conflicting beliefs. 
Eclectic describes Chumbley's philosophy much better than syncretic; "selecting what appears to be best or true in various and diverse doctrines or methods : rejecting a single, unitary, and exclusive interpretation, doctrine, or method : of or relating to eclecticism : "eclectic." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com ( 10 Nov. 2006).
So, if the person who changed the word eclectic to syncretic can give references refuting Eliade's body of work supporting Chumbley's eclectic philosophy, the word might be better changed. This is why I have returned the wording to eclectic. 
70.106.245.190 04:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the Merriam-Webster is written from a rather judeo-christian perspective whereby different religions are seen as "conflicting" merely because they're different. Being somewhat more acquainted with mystical approaches, we understand that many of these mystical schools of thought have no "conflict" with each other, and respect each other as valid paths. However the combining of elements from different religions that normally remain separate is properly termed 'syncretic'. This is a neutral word, and to my mind a nicer one than "eclectic", which for me evokes "eclectic Wicca". It's a small point though, and I'm not really concerned either way. Fuzzypeg☻ 06:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you get the above quote from (about "flagrant compromise", "illogical", "inconsistency")? It seems to have been written by someone with little grasp of the English language. "Syncretism" does not have these negative connotations. It simply means "the combination of different forms of belief or practice" or "the fusion of two or more originally different inflectional forms" (Merriam-Webster online). Whoever wrote what you quoted above is probably barking up some fundamentalist monotheism tree. "Syncretism" is in fact precisely the right word to express Chumbley's philosophy, as well as that of most Western occultists. I don't really mind which word you use, but lets not redefine the English language in the process of choosing! Fuzzypeg☻ 20:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Ha ha, don't I look stupid! I guess I'm used to hearing the term in anthropological contexts, where it doesn't have any negative connotation. Well, I can't argue with that. Sorry for ranting. Fuzzypeg☻ 01:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Syncretic" vs. "eclectic"

message: Greetings,
It was myself that changed 'eclectic' to 'syncretic' - I have done some minor work on the article but forgot to log in - apologies for that. I hear what you're saying re Eliade, but I don't think it necessary to refute his body of work to make such a change. Thanks for typing out the definitions from Webster; I favour Chambers and Oxford. My rationale being that if you practised those disparate forms of religious belief simultaneously, you would likely find some conflicts in the way you applied your belief. What Chumbley's system apparently achieves is a  re-alignment and consequent harmonization of systems in the context of practice. The whole thing might be better phrased as, "his method of gathering was eclectic, the system/philosphy he designed is syncretic." Can you see the difference? The reference in the article refers to Chumbley's philosopy, does it not? - not to Chumbley's means of creating that philosophy.
I'm surprised that the reference to Chaos Magic stays in - Chumbley had nothing but disdain for Chaos Magic; his articles were published in 'Chaos Int.' because the editor was impressed by Chumbley and his work while one or two other London-based mags had not become aware of him. 'Chaos Int.' was at the time issued four times a year, and punctually, while others such as 'Starfire' once a year if they could manage it. It was simply a question of the editor 'snapping him up' before others could. It is very difficult indeed to discern any CM influence in Chumbley's work; there are parallels between some of his strategies and those to be found in Pete Carroll's books which were available prior to 1992 (when Azoetia was published), however I think it is far more accurate to say that both Chumbley and Carroll were following a modus operandi established by Aleister Crowley.
By the way, Spare did not describe himself as a 'witch'; his article 'Mind to Mind and How', which was intended for magazine publication, was to be credited 'by a Sorcerer'. All other attributions can be traced to the works of Kenneth Grant. You'll look a very long way to find Spare labelling himself in magical terms at all; to the best of my knowledge, apart from that somewhat ironic article credit, he did not.
Thanks for your fine work Fuzzypeg.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Reineke (talk • contribs) 
Hello;
No, I don't agree that Chumbley's philosophy is/was syncretic, or "a flagrant compromise in religion or philosophy: eclecticism that is illogical or leads to inconsistency: uncritical acceptance of conflicting or divergent beliefs or principles" as syncretism means. Surely you know that Chumbley not only had an unusual grasp of words and meaning, he also chose his words very carefully. He was also very critical of all that syncretism implies. He had very high standards, was extremely precise in his magical structure and could back up everything he did with critical standards of correspondence. 
Syncretic is not the right word to express Chumbley's philosophy. And yes, I do understand the difference between Chumbley's method of gathering and his philosophy, thank-you. Fuzzypeg pointed out that eclectic reminds him of the syncretic co-option of the word by fluffies. That is a shame, and perhaps the word has lost its luster through association. But surely something other than syncretic would be a better description of Chumbley's philosophy. LulubyrdLulubyrd 03:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you get the above quote from (about "flagrant compromise", "illogical", "inconsistency")? It seems to have been written by someone with little grasp of the English language. "Syncretism" does not have these negative connotations. It simply means "the combination of different forms of belief or practice" or "the fusion of two or more originally different inflectional forms" (Merriam-Webster online). Whoever wrote what you quoted above is probably barking up some fundamentalist monotheism tree. "Syncretism" is in fact precisely the right word to express Chumbley's philosophy, as well as that of most Western occultists. I don't really mind which word you use, but lets not redefine the English language in the process of choosing! Fuzzypeg☻ 20:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha ha, don't I look stupid! I guess I'm used to hearing the term in anthropological contexts, where it doesn't have any negative connotation. Well, I can't argue with that. Sorry for ranting. Fuzzypeg☻ 01:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Syncretic/eclectic, Choas influences?, how Chumbley referred to himself