Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etheric projection

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 13:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etheric projection

Etheric projection (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unverifiable OR/WP:BOLLOCKS. References are "ebooks". Leibniz 17:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Original research and woo. Everyone knows that they have it wrong about etheric projection anyway: since Pico della Mirandola, the correct procedure has been well known, so there really is no reason to have outdated garbage here. The Crying Orc 17:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to astral projection. The subject is already covered there in slightly different terms.17:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and salt - what is this, the 15th century? Pseudosciencecruft, original research, and totally unverificable. Not a WP:RS for miles. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 21:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BOLLOCKS. I've never seen a page so fitting the description; next we'll be advocating the burning of witches at the stake. Great. Moreschi 21:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. wikipediatrix 22:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete but in a kindly way. It may be nonsense and flapdoodle, but it is entitled to an article if the editors demonstrate multiple independent reliable sources. Pseudoscience has a place in Wikipedia if lots of people believe it and publish articles about it in the mainstream press.(see N ray, Lysenkoism). The article lists several psychic journals and ESP research establishments, but I do not see citations to particular journal articles about the subject of the article, nor do I see articles about it in newspapers or magazines of general circulation, or even TV documentaries, I expect such references are out there, but the article looks like O.R. supported only by websites devoted to the phenomenon which cannot be regarded as independent. Edison 23:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe redirect to the OOBE page... failing that, delete as prime wibblecruft. Grutness...wha? 23:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• NOT Delete Many independent sources have been cited, as to the originality of the term itself. On top of that, it has been CLEARLY distinguished from astral projection in both the external literature, and from within the Astral Projection article itself.

And what makes a source "verifiable", to begin with? There MANY sources which validate the concept of etheric projection and the etheric body-- Dion Fortune being one, who's book (Psychic Self Defence) has been in print since the early half of the 20th Century. Others include the Rosicrucian Fellowship and the in some cases, the Theosophical Society, all whom distinguish the astral from the etheric states of consciousness.

Lastly, I would like to draw your attention to the discussion page for the main article. There, it states the case for why this page should remain where it is. There is no reason to assume astral and etheric projection are even closely related, when there are literally hundereds of reports of at least two seperate extremes-- one being fantastical, while the other being scientifically objective.

I should also add that astral projection is in no way objective. People claiming to visit spirit guides and crazy mixed up adventures are not objective, yet these kinds of experiences are in fact lumped in with the whole OBE paradigm. How can this stand, yet something that IS objective is being up for deletion? solstice

• I fail to see which is the 'fantastical' and which the 'objective' one from the articles. Can you explain? How is 'etheric' projection an objective, scientific phenomenon but astral projection not? Not that this has anything to do with the existence of a Wikipedia article on either of them, but anyway?
• How are we to believe that this idea is not original research on your part, or some sort of POV fork?
• Does etheric projection allow one to time travel? I ask because the author of 'Psychic self defence' was apparently born in 1891 (according to our article). This would mean that their book would have had to have been published a few decades before they were born, if it was published in the first half of the 19th century. The Crying Orc 12:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• I meant to say early 20th Century, sorry. All the e-books are in physical print, and can be found in local libraries, or through some on-line retailer. Other than having physical books in print that have been around for decades, I am unsure as to what else someone could mean as "verifiable", because lots of other Wikipedia sources are furnashed in the same manner or less.

For one thing, an OBE has been described by people in two ways: one where the person can "float" around in the mundane world (or some reflection of it), while the other (which is associated with shamanism), depicts fantastical adventures in words that can not and do not exist-- such as visiting spirit guides, and dieties. One of these extremes is objective and has been replicated in a lab (see Tart, for example). Given that all the literature on "ether" relates to either a physical state of being (Etheric Region, to the Rosicrucians), or a close proximity, it is only a matter of opinion that the fantastical paradigm be lumped with something that can be physically validated.

In shamanism and other magickal systems, the adept uses "astral projection" to travel to the "inner planes" (or Underword), to learn about power from entities and their worlds-- none of which physically exist. Even according to Robert Monroe himself: he had to "shed" a "second body" in order to be "completely free". Monroe explained that his second body seemed to have some sort of "electro-magentic" properties, which we all know EM fields are physical, not conceptual. He refered to this second body seperatly from that which he used to travel to all those other worlds.

My other arguement is that since this term DOES exist and has been used to relate to a state seperate from the astral, according to several independent sources. The Rosicrucians have been around since at least 1916; Theosophical Society has been around since the 1800s; Dion Fortune's book has been around since the 1940s-- on top of that, "ether" is an expression used by alchemists and occultists (such as Eliphas Levi) to indicate a semi-physical state (see Transcendental Magic, and Key to the Mysteries). "Etheric Vision" to those occultists was the mean by which one can perceive the ether, and this was coined independently from "astral sight" and "astral light". So, "etheric" projection exists in relation to a mundane experience, not a conceptual one.

In conclusion, I think if nothing else, that the astral and etheric projection articles could be merged into one "OBE" article. From there, their distinctions and similarities can be made. solstice

• Delete Wikipedia is not ready for such knowledge as seen by the delete votes before me. Anomo 16:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• DO NOT DELETEThis information is important to those who do paranormal, and metaphysical research. Threre is nothing wrong with quoting from e-books. The Bible is available as an E-book, does that make it less of a quotable source? Most of the classic books of the occult are available in PDF form and if the article was written, citing these sources then it serves its purpose. Some information in the occult is only available from journals or kept as lodge secrets, never entering the public eye. Classic occult literature is a valuable resource to those who study the occult or the occult sciences. This subject touches on metaphysical science, and much of metaphysical science is not openly verifiable in scientific terms. Metpahyiscal science is best understood when many pieces come together to form a larger picture, and this is often done by research, no matter if it came from the 15th century or if it is a modern version. The age of knowledge has nothing to do with its value, and if people have been writing about it since the 15th century and even before that then maybe there really is something to take note of there. We would like solid concrete physical proof but the occult, psychic research and also religion does not work in this way. Such is the nature of the metaphysics. This article not only should be kept but it should be treasured as a good source of information on what the "etheric" really is, for those who study metaphysical sciences, and for those who are looking for additional sources on this great topic. If anyone here who actually studies the occult and its sciences will appreciate an article like this. I agree that OBE and astral and etheric are all related but to have a better understanding of each idea they should be seperate articles as well. user Venus

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.209.82 (talk • contribs)

'Metaphysical science' is an oxymoron, just like Christian metal. If something is metaphysical, it cannot, by definition, be scientific. And something 'not openly verifiably in scientific terms' is, simply put, not scientific. By definition. If we do not use words according to their generally accepted meanings, then we fail to communicate effectively.

However, this discussion has bugger all to do with whether 'etheric projection' is effective, real, interesting, etc. So the whole argument above is spurious anyway. The Crying Orc 07:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the literal definition of 'metaphysical' is "beyond the physical". This means that a metaphysical science is that which studies and observes non-physical phenomena. There are two sciences that do that in one manner or another: Quantum Physics, and Parapsychology. "Psi phenomenan", for example, has no known physical mechanism, and can not be attributed to any known physical energy; there for, this specific event is "beyond" what we know to be physical, until other evidence surfaces.

And yes I agree, this whole discussion is spurious. Hardly anyone has taken a good look at the evidence that has been presented, yet assume everything is invalid. solstice

What utter nonsense. Quantum physics is not metaphysics (only New Age-flapdoodle scribblers like Gary Zukav allege otherwise, in their second-rate, ignorant screeds). Quantum physics is empirical, and science is, by definition, an empirical endeavour. Empiricism deals with things which are physical, i.e. which can be measured, which are accessible through the senses (all five of them), etc. Therefore, if something is scientific then it is de facto not metaphysical.

Parapsychology is pseudoscience. However, even if we were to assume that some 'parapsychological' phenomena were somehow accessible to scientific enquiry, then they would be empirical and hence not metaphysical.

In short, you don't know what you're talking about. I suggest you make sure of the definitions of the words you use, before digging that hole any deeper. Did you follow that link to Humpty Dumpty? The Crying Orc 10:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Nice way to accuse, rather than investigate. How many scientific journals have you read on Psi Phenomena? How many scientists can you name that study it? I have personally read at least a dozen, and can name as many, including Charles Tart, Jessica Utts and Dean Radin, but you must know of them already. Unless you can answer those questions with honesty, then your arguement is subjective and there fore invalid. You basically summed up what you do not know on the subject, because you are somehow under the impression that anything metaphysical and/or paranormal can not be observed via the scientific method. This is a logical fallacy, and has no place in this discussion.

"All" FIVE senses? Are you sure? Perhaps if you looked up the meaning of that, you might want to rethink accusing strangers of being ignorant. Here you go: The senses.

This is a direct quote from Dr. Radin's website, entitled "What Parapsychology is Not":

Many scientists have viewed parapsychology with suspicion because the term has come to be associated with a huge variety of mysterious phenomena, fringe topics, and pseudoscience. Parapsychology is also often linked, again inappropriately, with a broad range of "psychic" entertainers, magicians, and so-called "paranormal investigators." In addition, some self-proclaimed "psychic practitioners" call themselves parapsychologists, but that is not what we do. (Source: Dean Radin's Parapstchology FAQ

Tell us, how many degrees do you have in psychology, physics, statistics or psychiatry? Because you seem to know a lot about these things, even though the evidence is contrary to what you believe. Is belief now part of empirical science, now a days?

PS, making personal remarks like that is against Wikipedia rules, and I am going to have to report it.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.