Talk:Dialectical monism: Difference between revisions
Elfvillage (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Elfvillage (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
== Advertising? == |
== Advertising? == |
||
The last section in this entry looks to me like an advertisement for a particular school of thought. I think this should be discouraged, in the first place, because it is not an important or well-known one, and, more importantly, because this entry is on a general philosophical position and its historical locations and not |
The last section in this entry looks to me like an advertisement for a particular school of thought. I think this should be discouraged, in the first place, because it is not an important or well-known one, and, more importantly, because this entry is on a general philosophical position and its historical locations and not a venue for publising some netizen's religious use of it. |
||
[[User:Elfvillage|霊村]] 16:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC) |
[[User:Elfvillage|霊村]] 16:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 16:48, 4 September 2006
Vandalism Complaint
The author states: "As it is promoted today (chiefly on the Internet), dialectical monism refers to a worldview or ontology based in a framework of neutral monism, which attempts to synthesize Eastern mysticism with Western dialectics. In layman's terms, the basic idea is to outline a point of view which recognizes that all is one, but this oneness can only be experienced in terms of duality and creative opposition."
It appears anyone can create their own philosopy and then put it on Wikipedia to try to promote it.
- Check the IP on this user (User:Factchecker007). I am betting it is User:66.66.117.237, who has been vandalizing all pages related to me recently. The anonymous user at that IP is an individual who has a personal problem with me, and has been vandalizing other websites I own as well. --Nat 22:06, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Advertising?
The last section in this entry looks to me like an advertisement for a particular school of thought. I think this should be discouraged, in the first place, because it is not an important or well-known one, and, more importantly, because this entry is on a general philosophical position and its historical locations and not a venue for publising some netizen's religious use of it.