Talk:Idries Shah/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Footnote style

I find the long texts in the footnotes a little off-putting. Would it be possible to incorporate more of this information in the article itself, or dispense with it altogether? Also, we should not use abbreviations such as Op. cit. in the footnotes -- subsequent insertion of intervening footnotes can make it difficult to decide which is the cited work referred to. The title and author should always be named in full. Cheers, -- Jayen466 13:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Why dispense with information ?
Or bend to every customer designed whim ?
The following also is information:
in reference to Kitab el-Luma :
" al-Sarrāj gives a tradition to the effect that the name of Ṣūfī was attached to men of exeptional piety before Islām "
reference is made to p. 22 of Kitāb al-Luma' R.A.Nicholson ed. London, 1914 by Margaret Smith in Studies in Early Mysticism (1931) Philo Press Reprint 1973 p. 160
In stead of whining about form would it not be better to look if the information presented is of relevance ?
Why for instance was the section on Psychology originally presented removed as spam ?
Do you really want to know something, or are you just playing around ?
Lunarian (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Re Op. Cit. and the like see WP:FN -- Jayen466 19:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Style In Controversy

In 1964 when Robert Graves was noted for his preface to Idries Shah's "The Sufis" he had already collaborated with William Sargant on his "Battle for the Mind" (1957) and was still deemed clever enough to be commisioned (1965) to rewrite Sargant's autobiography "The Unquiet Mind" (R.P.Graves:"Robert Graves and the White Goddess", Weidenfels and Nicolson London 1995, index s.v. Sargant).
The mind of the poor man must have rappidly deteriorated for -according to Moore in 1968 he was feeble enough to fall a helpless victim to the psychological pressure of the Shah brothers; presumably unfit to judge the critical comments appended to their joint translation of Khayyam's Rubayat.
Whatever the paparazzi value of Moore's "debunking" some attention must be given to the psychological angle. Sargant by himself is controversy enough, yet -as must be observed- he was still responsible to explaining the mechanics of indoctrination, brainwashing & thought control. "Battle for the Mind" has remained in print by courtesy of ISHK, under the responsability of Robert Ornstein.(coauthor with Claudio Naranjo of "On the Psychology of Meditation")
People studying Shah will perhaps remember Ornstein's influential "The Psychology of Conciousness" (1972) where the contribution of Shah was relevated against the forefront of psychological research -in casu the split-brain experiments by Roger Wolcott Sperry and Michael Gazzaniga.
The publication by Octagon in 1983 of "The Manipulated Mind, Brainwashing, Conditioning and Indoctrination" by Denise Winn further testifies to the genuine concern for mental health that Shah's contributions point to -though scattered over numerous works in an era when instant juxtaposition was slow if not unthinkable.
The onus of the approach is on social psychology (Joost Meerloo, Stanley Milgram etc.)
A further remark may be made on the pittyfull mental state of -according to Moore- Shah's helpless victims.
It breaks ones heart to see John Godolphin Bennett, who writes of himself as head of Military Intelligence "B" in Constantinople 1919-1921, forced to face the "ruffian" Shah on the authority of his friend Reggie Hoare ( Knowing Reggie to be a very cautious man, trained moreover in assessing information by many years in the Intelligence Service, I accepted his assurances ... Bennett in : "Witness, the autobiography of John G. Bennett).
Are we dealing with morons ?
At the end of his wits Bennet concluded his biography:
I am wholly convinced that there is a Providential Power at work in the world, but it cannot help us without our consent. I finish this new edition of Witness (1975) as I did the first by quoting Gurdjieff ': Two things have no limit: the stupidity of man and the mercy of God.
Lunarian (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Your point being --? -- Jayen466 19:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing you should worry about. Lunarian (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe there is a point...
New ideas are the positive aspect of lateral thinking, but those who never use lateral thinking do not simply forego this positive aspect -they also incur a definite disadvantage. This disadvantage is the way such people can be manipulated, for their minds always follow a predictable high-probabilty pathway. (...)
The fanatic is effective because he sees everything according to a rigid pattern.
Edward de Bono in "The Use of Lateral Thinking" Jonathan Cape 1967
Nasreddin is a special case of lateral thinking, he comes with an introduction to contemporary history of the utmost importance.
It is doubtfull whether Wikipedia is the right forum to go into details. They may not be judged notable.
There was a time...
Lunarian (talk) 11:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Critical appraisal

Shah received considerable critical acclaim from various book critics, plus some determined criticism notably from Elwell-Sutton. I guess the article would benefit from some coverage of this. See e.g. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/10797 (the article itself that this exchange relates to is linked on the page, but only available subject to a $3 charge). -- Jayen466 15:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section

When Idries Shah started his famous introduction to Sufism with its highlight in 1964 – "The Sufis", with an introduction by Robert Graves (Doubleday) – there was as yet no sign of the internet, so he designed his work to be digested at the pace of studious reading. As his work unfolded, the reader willing to take his lead was guided in the experience of gathering original Sufi material. This passage is unsourced and does not seem to be saying anything of note. The first sentence applies to all books – they are all designed for "studious reading", internet or no. And the second sentence also just seems to be a puffed-up description of the experience of reading a book, any book. "The reader willing to take Prof. T. Rex's lead is guided in the experience of gathering information on the various families and suborders of dinosaurs (for an encyclopedia on dinosaurs, e.g.). Any suggestions? Shall we just lose the sentence? -- Jayen466 16:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Right you are.
Best lose it.
Lunarian (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Idries Shah's successor

A year before Idries Shah died, he had this to say to his son Tahir: 'Many more will ask who I left as my successor. They will hound you, asking for a name. It is important that you tell them that my successor is my printed work. My books form a complete course, a Path, and they succeed when I cannot be there.' -- Tahir Shah, 'In Arabian Nights', New York: Bantam Dell. pp. 215-6.

EricT (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Hope the wording is okay for you. Cheers, Jayen466 22:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Coupled with the fact that Idries Shah organized study groups led by deputies, doesn't this warrant him being described not only as an author but as a Sufi teacher like his brother Omar Ali-Shah?
EricT (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Y Done Jayen466 22:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your efforts, Jayen and Lunarian.
EricT (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Quality Scale

Surely this article must by now have moved beyond 'Start Class' on the quality scale? EricT (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)