Talk:Flower of Life (geometry)/Archive 1

New age

I am currently reading volume one of Drunvalo Melchizedek's "The Ancient Secret of the Flower of Life." I can't wait to read volume 2 and practice meditation. My interest in Egyptian culture is growing quickly and this book is really starting to change my perception on everything. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitelight (talk • contribs) 00:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Article split discussions

I don't think this article needs information tagging it as "Robotech-related" any more than the entry on Kabbalah needs Neon Genesis Evangelion information. - Tzaquiel 09:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

changed to an {{anime-stub}} to be more appropriate, as it deals with more than one series anyway. Plus, the stubs help if someone needs to find the info to work with it as needed.--み使い Mitsukai 13:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My point is that it isn't "anime/manga related"; it's an ancient symbol with many rich and varied meanings. The Seal of Solomon can be seen in a huge number of anime series, certainly far more than the Flower of Life, yet the former article doesn't carry a anime/manga stub notice - because it doesn't need to. Something doesn't become "anime/manga related" as soon as any anime or manga features it. The article is fairly stubby as it stands, and it needs to at least keep some focus. Any references that people care to add can be placed under the "In fiction" heading. - Tzaquiel 01:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

There is now a Flower of Life (Robotech) article. - Tzaquiel 18:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

bad link

I saw a link in the article to "compass" and followed it. I expected to go to Compass (drafting) but got to a page about magnetic compasses. This is likely an error, I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.220.32 (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Sloth monkey's edits

First off, this article was not a stub before your edits -- it was concise, but covered most of the more important points in a reasonably adequate manner, and was appropriately illustrated.

Second, I've already been "contributing" to this article for over a year, as you could have easily verified by looking at the page edit history[1]

Third, a commercial game's promo material and rules booklet is most definitely not the place to look for careful scholarly accuracy (several such game inserts I've seen in the past have been quite historically inaccurate and shallow). I've held the box of the "Da Vinci's Challenge" game in my hand and perused the promotional puffery on the outside of it, which left me feeling quite unimpressed.

Fourth, the picture of the alleged Leonardo da Vinci illustration was too small and blurry to make it possible to verify that it was actually intended to portray the "Flower of Life" pattern.

Fifth, the whole list of shapes geometrically related to the Flower of Life pattern should most definitely NOT have been formatted in the form of ten one-line subsections, but rather as a list (whether bulleted or within ordinary article text). And if the listing in fact refers more to the "Metatron's cube" geometrical construction than to the Flower of Life pattern, then it should be added to the Metatron article instead.

Sixth, this article really doesn't need gushing New Age inspired prose about "a visual expression of the connections life weaves through all mankind" "in perfect harmony". AnonMoos 01:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Sloth monkey's latest edits

Your latest round of edits contain some material which could actually be useful for this article -- but unfortunately, your version of the article is not usable in the form in which you left it, since you wrapped everything in a thick layer of New Age gobbledegook ("Akashic records", etc. ad nauseam). It would be nice if you could actually discuss the future state of this article here (which is the designated place for such discussions). AnonMoos 14:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have spent an enormous amount of time and effort to contribute greatly to this article. If you notice the stub tag, it's condition prior to my arrival was (and now is) a small and informative stub. In response to my contributions, you have twice simply reverted the article entirely and wholly it its previous state, being that of a stub. I would like to refer you to Help:Reverting#When to revert as well as Wikipedia:Assume good faith. If you read it you may notice a repetition of statements such as "If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it," and "Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it."

I will be returning the state of the article to that of its complete form which includes all of my contributions. Clearly you feel biased towards some of the statements that were made in my edit of the article, as you feel the entire thing is wrapped "in a thick layer of New Age gobbledegook." I might remind you that the subject of this article has a great deal of religious meaning to a lot of people and those beliefs are worth mentioning. The Flower of Life is consider sacred geometry for goodness sake. It doesn't matter if you or I believe these things (I don't, for the record); it simply matters that people throughout history and yes even New Age gobbledegook folks believe so many things associated with it. When these beliefs are presented in the article, it is clearly stated that they are simply what some groups of people believe; certainly not stated as a fact or what I believe. And whether or not you personally feel they are worth listening to, they are very note-worthy for an article explaining things about the Flower of Life, for without these beliefs it is simply a drawing with no meaning. I might also point out that these are not simply beliefs held by a few rare and unimportant individuals, they are beliefs held by large groups of people, all over the world, and throughout history.

Also if you feel that information given in the article is coming from an unacceptable source, then perhaps you should find a more 'acceptable' or trustworthy source of information which either contradicts what I have written or supports it. That would be the appropriate action in changing what I have found and reiterated in this article. I would like you to note that clearly I am not just making things up out of my head; I am drawing a wealth of information from various sources on the Internet, which all seem to be saying a lot of the same things, and I have very thoroughly documented all references in a list of almost 100 sources. Keep in mind that I agree with you that it would be more desireable to have information coming from better sources, such as perhaps a novel written on the subject, rather than a web site. But that does not mean that it is unacceptable to post things taken from various sites, this is commonplace on Wikipedia. In fact what's more common, and what is the case with the stub version of the article, is to have NO references. At least this way people can see where the information is coming from and judge for themselves if they feel it is a trustworthy, accurate source. ..And again, I would like to stress that much of the same information is presented on many different web sites, so this adds some to its validity, as it is not coming from just one source.

It's not my intention to be personally attacking you here, but I feel I should say that I believe you should take a look at what you've been doing here and reconsider some things. I feel that what you've done is stifle the information presented in this article by insisting that it stay in the form of a stub and devoid of so much information and imagery that has been gathered about it. I would assume you must be doing this because you feel you are keeping the article in a state which presents information that you feel you can trust (or agree with?). That being the case, please remember all that I said about how the sources of this information have been cited and it has all been presented in a way so as to make clear that they are simply beliefs and not statements. Please do not deprive people of this information, regardless of whether or not we agree with it.

In any case, I feel I've lectured you enough to probably get you agrivated, but please try to recognize that my intentions have been to improve the article, that I have put a great deal of work into this, and that even if you feel it isn't just the way you'd want it, I have succeeded in improving the article and contributing to Wikipedia. sloth_monkey 22:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

In addition, it has occured to me that you mentioned your dislike of the Leonardo da Vinci picture and that you may very well dislike other pictures presented as well. I would ask that you please reconsider removing any of these images, as I feel they add greatly to the article. I believe that it is vital to visually illustrate the components of the Flower of Life in order to understand what they are and what they look like. Saying things like "circles placed with six-fold symmetry" doesn't paint a clear enough picture. As for the da Vinci picture, I have now reworded the section to state that it is mearly purported that he has studied the FOL and that this is supposedly an example of his work. Note that there are multiple sources supporting this claim and I have seen none that go against it. ...Anyway, please try to be understanding here and stop yourself from deleting my work. Thanks. sloth_monkey 22:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Jargon

I gave you a few days to try to improve the article, but unfortunately you did nothing to tone down the thick layer of semi-meaningless New Age jargon in which you slather everything. I really don't have the inclination or patience to disentangle the kernel of interesting and possibly valid material in your edits from the surrounding nonsense which you insist on encumbering it with (nor do I consider it to be my duty to do so), so the burden is on you to present it in a form which is acceptable to Wikipedia. By the way, it's not that I "don't like" the Da Vinci picture, it's that the particular image was too small and blurry to make it possible to verify that it was actually intended to portray the "Flower of Life" pattern (as I clearly stated above). AnonMoos 07:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You are demonstrating a clear violation of Wikipedia's policies. You have completely reverted the article numerous times, to exclude an enormous amount of contributed relevant material. See Help:Reverting#When to revert. And you have done so on the basis that you are biased towards the information presented and consider the beliefs stated to be "New Age gobbledegook." As I've said, it doesn't matter whether you or I agree with these beleifs. They are simply presented as facts that there are groups of people whom associate beliefs (which they hold as important and meaningful) in regards to the Flower of Life, which is even considered by them to be sacred geometry. To ignore the presentation of this information and exclude it simply because you don't like what they're saying is depriving readers of important, relevant information and would constitute a violation of the NPOV policy. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. In addition, you show a lack of acknowledging the good faith policy. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith. This article will not be reduced to the state of a stub, simply because of your lack of adhearing to Wikipedia's policies and the arbitrary imposition of your own biased opinions. I am going to undo your revert and replenish the article with a wealth of information. Please do not attack this article again or I may be forced to bring it to the arbitration of Wikipedia's authorities.

Also, to put an end to our discussion on the Leonardo da Vinci picture, I have found sources verifying its authenticity. The Ancient Secrets of the Flower of Life Vol. 2, by M. Drunvalo; and The Unknown Leonardo (Ladislao Reti, ed., Abradale Press, Harry Abrams, Inc., Publishers, New York, 1990 edition). Also he has drawn figures which are derived from the Flower of Life, such as the Seed of Life, variations of such, and the platonic solids taken from metatron's cube. See above references for that, as well as here: [2] and here: [3]. sloth_monkey 19:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Borromean rings

By the way, the alleged Christian "Tripod-of-Life" (whatever that means) banner was probably actually intended to depict the Borromean rings. AnonMoos 13:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

World opinions

The last version posted by "Anon Moos" is very, very lacking in deatil and dosn't fully depict certain people's beliefs and opinions, only one opinion, which is totally biast and so I changed it back to "Sloth Monkey's" version. I also feel that this has merely turned into a biast argument, so as a neutral party I make these changes in favor of common sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neutral2006 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC).Neutral2006 06:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sloth Monkey's version is conspicuously lacking in freedom from free-floating unsubstantiated New Age gibberish derived from the semi-random promotional puffery contained in a board-game brochure and a jewelry-store website. If you want to de-jargonify Sloth Monkey's version, feel free to do so (it would be a very laborious task, which I haven't felt motivated to take on, partly because Sloth Monkey would probably just revert me again at the end of it). If you don't feel like de-jargonifying, then I don't see that you're particularly benefitting this article... AnonMoos 04:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm benifiting this article by allowing readers to read the information presented and make thier own minds up, it's not for you to decide if information is "New Age" or "Gibberish".

The information presented by "Sloth Monkey" is opinions and facts of the world, readers can make thier own minds up as to what is "Gibbersih". Censoring the article is in no way helping anyone. This article has gotton out of control and I think it's current version shows a variation of views and history from around the world as well as links to various places with more information.

This has become a battle and as a Neutral party I am ending it, please do not delete the information here, or I will be forced to make a complaint, which I do not want to do. If you want to add your little bit, by all means feel free, but don't delete the rest just because "your" beliefs tell you its "New Agey", when that clearly is not a representation of the whole world. -- unsigned comment by User:Neutral2006Neutral2006 06:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not really the way Wikipedia works -- see WP:V etc. Wikipedia is under no obligation to be "Neutral" between the hypothesis that the earth is round and the hypothesis that the earth is flat. Furthermore, Sloth Monkey's edit suppresses the information that many people think that the Flower of Life pattern has nothing to do with the alleged "Akashic Records", etc. etc, ad nauseam. AnonMoos 05:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying I'm neutral in the respect of this Ridiculous battle between you and "Sloth Monkey". As its clearly clouding your judgement.Not between different hypothesis about the information presented, although I do not have any biast with regards to the information, I just want it to be a true and varied represention, but since you like to point me to wikipedia polices, i'll point you to here Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

I will also quote part of it, Explanation of the neutral point of view:

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

"As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.

"Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed."

I highly recommend that if you feel, that the flower of life has nothing to do with the "Akashic Records" then you make a part that states this, and provide background of who and why. Do not completely delete the information all together, because that is a form of censorship and biast, not a represention of the true facts and viewpoints.

It also does infact say "believed by some to contain a type of Akashic Record of basic information of all living things". So infact it doesn't say that it is definetly anything to do with the "Akashic Records". It merely states a view point and does not ascertain it to be true.

I feel that the information "Sloth Monkey" has presented is indeed far more detailed and representative of the worlds views and opinions, and true facts, although I would like to see more information from groups of people or organizations viewpoints on the Flower Of Life.

"Anon Moos" please do not edit my comments. Neutral2006 05:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I'm so happy to have someone sensible come along and defend my position in this ridiculous edit war. I think it's pretty clear to any normal person that AnonMoos is out of line. So thank you Neutral2006 very much for saying so. I really hope this whole ordeal can stop and AnonMoos will stop destroying the article.

Also, AnonMoos, I would like to put an end to your constant claims of my supposedly using only a board game (Da Vinci's Challenge) and a (allegedly untrustworthy) jewelry website as my sources. This is quite obviously untrue. I have literally OVER 100 sources cited as references. It just so happens that those two above mentioned sources are indeed a part of those 100+ references. It also just so happens that there are about 100 sources OTHER THAN those two you've mentioned and that for pretty much each instance in which one of those two sources are cited, there are also other sources cited in addition. In fact there are thousands of websites saying basically the same things over and over. And there are books which I have mentioned in the article, which speak in depth about everything which is talked about in the article. In fact, feel free to download such books for yourself and read them and see that all that I speak of is taken from what people are saying they sincerely believe about the Flower of Life, not from things I've made up.

And not to talk in circles here, but you seem to be rather thick headed, so I'll say it again. This symbol is considered to be sacred geometry; a religious symbol which holds significant meaning to many people. There are even people currently all over the world whom follow religious teachings based on the Flower of Life and hold "workshops" in which they teach newcomers their beliefs. And it just so happens that many of those people in modern times happen to be what may be called "New Age" thinkers. This is not intrinsically bad, as you clearly have made it out to be. Whether the ideas of these people are right or wrong is not for you to decide. You may decide these things for yourself, but not for others. This is an obvious concept, but clearly you have a problem with it. Please stop this now and leave the article be. sloth_monkey 11:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Somone has changed the page again without even saying why

This is now out of hand, someone had changed the page again without even saying why they did it, so this will be going to wikipedia. I have made a complaint against User AnonMoos for changing articles according to his "beliefs" and User Gzkn for changing articles without saying why. Neutral2006 20:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for not leaving a good reason. Here is why I reverted:

I was on WP:RC patrol, and one of the edits that popped up was a personal attack sloth monkey made against AnonMoos. I left a little note at his talk page about it. I researched a little further, saw that sloth monkey had surreptitiously added a byline to this article, and I jumped to conclusions that sloth monkey was trying to claim ownership of this article. I also noticed that many of the sources used in this article are actually references to other Wikipedia articles, which does not conform to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Moreover, personal sites such as Mendhak's were used as sources, again not conforming to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Another violation of Wikipedia policy was using unreliable sources ([4], [5], [6]) to include original research. Anyway, that's why I reverted...sorry for not explaining earlier, and thanks for letting me know that I didn't. I'm not interested in getting into an edit war, and have really no interest in this issue. I've put in a request for comment so hopefully other editors can provide further views on this matter. Gzkn 01:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this has gotten totally out of hand, and Gzkn has only made matters worse in his/her actions. Everytime I have edited Flower of Life I have left a comment in the discssion page. I am not in an edit war with Gzkn or AnonMoos or anyone else for that matter, and I am no ones sockpuppet as Gzkn and AnonMoos seem to think.

I have simple saw what AnonMoos was doing to Flower of Life and I wanted to help the article, but AnonMoos seem to be intent on destroying it, and then to top it off Gzkn came along and reverted the article without even leaving a reason and only left a reason "AFTER" I complained. Neutral2006 20:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

References

The article now has over 150 references cited. Most any questionable sources (such as the few links to other articles, mentioned earlier) are only cited as additional citings to back up the primary citied source of the information. For example, Da Vinci's Challenge is cited only in addition to other sources, such as the book Reti, Ladislao (1990). The Unknown Leonardo. New York: Abradale Press, Harry Abrams, Inc., Publishers. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help).

I feel it is particularly rare to find an article on Wikipedia containing so many sources, constantly cited throughout the article. Many articles get by with little to no references. By comparison I would say that the references included here are highly acceptable, given that it is acceptable for so many other articles to have next to nothing.

Additionally, there is a decent amount of reliable book sources included as references and under further reading. This even includes The Emerald Tablets of Thoth the Atlantean, translated by Doreal, Brotherhood of the White Temple. Thoth is a prominant figure in such studies as ancient religion and belief systems, such as those pertaining to the sacred geometry of the Flower of Life. Thoth may be to Hermeticism as Moses is to Christianity. How much more of a reliable source could you possibly have for explaining the religious beliefs associated with the symbol of the Flower of Life?

Also, The Ancient Secret of the Flower of the Flower of Life, by Drunvalo Melchizedek, is something of the defininitive work on the Flower of Life. It contains within it a comprehensive list of sources from which the information has been gathered. This is all in addition to the Emerald Tablets of Thoth, as mentioned above.

I believe it should be very clear to any rational person that the information presented in this article comes from acceptable sources. Afterall, the information presented is largely beleifs associated with the symbol and these beliefs are not what is in question (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). All that may be questioned (in terms of allowing it to be presented in the article) is the truth of whether or not people do in fact believe these things. And I think it should be very clear that there are a large amount of sources indicating that yes, people do in fact believe these things.

In conclusion, the constant reverting of this article is unfounded and needs to stop. sloth_monkey 12:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Platonic solids as the basis of organic life?

In what way are the Platonic solids the basis of organic life? I'm looking at myself right now, and I don't seem that regular… last I checked, it was D/RNA. 141.149.236.75 01:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The idea of the Platonic solids is that they are the harmony underlying organic life /the universe, not that we are all shaped like that. You will find similar structures/ formations in cells and sub-atomic structures and in the proportions of the body etc. That's the idea, anyway. I'm not an expert. ThePeg 11:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that justifies the statement that they "are the building blocks of organic life". The building blocks of organis life are organic chemicals, and you won't find any cubes, octahedra, icosahedra or dodecahedra in their structure. This sentence seems to be a piece of woolly mysticism - I suggest deleting it. HairyDan 20:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Seed of Life & Foetal Development

This is an extraordinary article. A real revelation. Full marks to whoever came up with it. Am I the only one who, looking at the sequence of the development of the 7 days of creation in terms of a circle to the Seed of Life image, sees an image of the early stages of cell division in a foetus after fertilisation? Bizarre... But I suppose not that bizarre... ThePeg 11:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my first thought too. 89.180.114.49 12:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Dodecahedron...

Image:ButcherDodecahedron.jpg The dodecahedron does actually fit into the Metatrons Cube. You should edit this article to include the fact that they do actually fit. Here's an example image.

ButcherGEIN 22:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The image link doesn't work. HairyDan 20:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

yeah, the image of the dodecahedron inside the metatrons cube is off, but it does fit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandexandi (talk • contribs) 13:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Page Update

I have updated this page in the light of recent photographic evidence that clearly shows Greek text alongside of the FOL designs. The earliest possible date for this inscription would be 547 B.C., which was when Pythagoras was in Egypt. It may however be much later.

David Furlong 07:17, 16 June 2007

Disputed

I just placed the "disputed" tag on the page.

The article is currently geared to give the impression there is an old continuous tradition of use of this symbol. However, the individual instances only show vaguely similar symbols, from wildly divergent traditions, and explain them as variants of the "flower of life" or as otherwise related symbols. It avoids the very obvious question of where the actual symbol, and its name, originated. With the length of the article and the excessive sourcing provided, I find it hard to interpret this omission as anything else than deliberate.

I am quite certain Drunvalo Melchizedek started the use of this symbol in the shape presented on the page and under the name "flower of life", less than three decades ago. I would be happy to be directed to any source before, say, 1980, that describes the Flower of Life in the presented shape and with the name that heads the article, but I very much doubt there is any. None of my symbol lexicons know this supposedly widespread symbol, and it is mentioned absolutely nowhere in my fairly extensive library on the Kabbalah and the esoteric traditions.

In its current shape, the article can be understood as an attempt to forge retroactive reinterpretation of unrelated symbols into an illusionary tradition. Since such reinterpretations and claims to ancient traditions are fairly common in modern spirituality (see AMORC views of the history of Rosicrucianism, Gerald Gardners claims about the history of Wicca etc.), this is highly suspicious. Additionally, those sources given that interpret the various older symbols as related all seem to be written by Melchizedek followers, violating Wikipedia policy. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

In summary, the article appears to present an illusionary tradition as factual ancient history of an actually rather modern symbol, and is thus apparent (and hopefully unintentional) misinformation. Hence disputed. - Denial 03:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It certainly occurred as a decorative pattern much longer than thirty years ago (see Image:Cup Idalion Louvre N3454.jpg etc.), though perhaps not as a real symbol -- but a related non-repeated rosette design did sometimes appear to be used as a symbol (see Image:Saint-Martin-d'Arberoue Stèle1.JPG , Image:RozetaSolarSymbol.png etc.), as well as a decorative pattern (as seen in some illustrations in the book Folk Art of Rural Pennsylvania by Frances Lichten, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1946, which I'm looking at right now).

However, if you can severely prune back some of User:Sloth monkey's luxuriantly proliferating occultistic nonsense (largely derived from promotional fluff included in such "sources" as game-board inserts and jewelry-store websites), then that would be greatly welcomed -- I kind of gave up on trying to shovel out the Augean stables a while back. AnonMoos 10:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed tag agreement

I am inclined to agree with much of the above disputed content. Nevertheless there is undoubtedly an example of the "Flower of Life" (although I very much doubt that it was called that), which can be found in the Osirion in Egypt. I have seen it and photographed it. As I have shown in my citations the earliest possible date for this would be circa 2500 bc and could be as late as the 1st century ad. This is, to my knowledge, still the oldest known example. However one of the sites connected with the Flower of Life group suggests a Persian version that can be seen in the Louvre dated to c.640 bc, which would certainly be older than the examples in the Abydos temple. I have yet to check this out.

David Furlong 22:55, 9 November 2007

Again, I don't dispute there are patterns that look like that, more or less. The one on the Osirion may be one of those. There's nothing particularly original about repetitive patterns of intersecting circles - they're even in the Olympic Games logo. I do doubt, however, that the instances cited are related in any meaningful way. To forge all of those into an article that describes a very particular and (I think) quite modern symbol without proof of a meaningful connection is to buy into a non-empirical, quasi-religious claim of antiquity that Melchizedek followers are free to believe in, but is not to be stated as fact on the wiki. - Denial 00:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You can't be serious with this nonsense. Why is this even an article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.133.194.125 (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Secret Societies

Present Reference #15 is not valid. "Leonardo da Vinci was a freemason, and studied the Flower of Life extensively." This is a footnote not a reference, it doesn't provide a source but only makes a further unreferenced comment. Yonderboy (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Unscholarly Shlock

The quality of this article is abysmal. Even as one largely ignorant of New Age meanderings, I must immediately regard the laughable references to "Akashic Records" etc. as prima facae propagandizing. It is not enough that one footnote-source out the wazoo. The text itself doesn't perform the basic work of sourcing. "Some believe" and "According to some religious beliefs" are completely unscholarly, and unfit for Wikipedia. Period. Whose beliefs? Which "some"? In what historical period and according to which *reputable* and scholarly sources? When did this glyph begin being articulated as relating to Biblical, Gnostic, and Qabbalistic meanings? How has the appropriation of this glyph by New Agers been different from ancient understandings? Currently the article betrays a complete lack of understanding of historical frame of reference. (Just because similar designs are found in Chinese and Japanese temples doesn't mean the builders knew of or cared about its meaning to Western occultists! Sometimes a circle is just a circle, people...)

That this article touches on New Age material ought be inconsequential. Propagation of writers' beliefs are irrelevant toward the necessity of providing a more judicious, parsable presentation of material. Mythopoesis is no excuse. As one previously ignorant of this material, I issue this appeal: this current article is unusable. Moreover it is emblematic both of the rankest level of New Age babble unsuccessfully attempting to clothe itself in pseudo-scholarship as well as embarrassing as a wiki contribution. Please, someone, for the love of learning, clean this up. WuShufei (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If you take a drastic scalpel, I'll probably back you up. I previously got kind of tired of the edit wars here when I was being tag-teamed by User:Sloth monkey and User:Neutral2006 and no-one was backing me up... AnonMoos (talk) 04:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I started, just now, to pare out some of the more blatant New Age proselytism, but upon closer inspection I simply haven't the energy to clean this mess up entirely. Best wishes though. Khaighle (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

To see what this article was like before it started going seriously New Age, look here... AnonMoos (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah...I just decided to come by an drop a suggestion, I'm not a contributing member of wikipedia, but I am an avid enthusiast of the history of the occult. It's articles like this that seriously impair the study of philosophy and mysticism, and I hope you can get it cleaned up relatively soon. Whoever's new-agying up this article, please take a few deep breaths and a few steps back, you're actually making me consider joining wikipedia and spending 8-10 days in the library to gather evidence necessary to clean up this mess. Putting aside all the grossly tentative connections that have been drawn, this article contains so many diversions from the actual subject at hand that it makes finding actual information on the subject difficult 165.134.171.103 (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible Plagiarism

I am concerned about plagiarism in some of the sections, specifically in the descriptions of the "Vesica Piscis" and "Metatron's Cube", in which some of the language and even whole phrases are directly ripped from other Wikipedia posts. For example:

"One of the earliest known occurrences of the Vesica Piscis, and perhaps first, was among the Pythagoreans, who considered it a holy figure." (Flower of Life, Vesica Piscis)

"It has been the subject of mystical speculation at several periods of history, perhaps first among the Pythagoreans, who considered it a holy figure." (Vesica Piscis, Mystical and Religious Significance)

And:

"If each circle's centre is considered a "node", and each node is connected to each other node with a single line, a total of seventy-eight lines are created, forming a type of cube." (Flower of Life, Metatron's Cube)

"If each circle's center is considered a "node", and each node is connected to each other node with a single line, a total of seventy-eight lines are created." (Metatron, Metatron's Cube)

I am unsure of Wikipedia's policy on plagiarism (though at the bottom of my page it says, "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted"), but this looks like it goes beyond an accidental misuse of sources (e.g., the copying and pasting of most of the sentence from the cited source "Metatron", changing only the spelling of the word "center"). I'm equally unsure of the current standard of how many words strung together require quotation marks and an attribution. When I was in college, the standard was five words copied from a source as an identifiable thought or phrase constituted plagiarism. One of my professors even considered three to be unacceptable. Five seems reasonable to me. My college's policy on plagiarism, however, was expulsion.

I am probably not alone in that I can't possibly take this article seriously if the author doesn't seem to have enough respect for the subject to research it thoroughly and present it honestly. This is a fine example of why many don't take a lot of New Age types seriously. The author looks gullible, sophomoric, and just plain lazy, with utter contempt for his or her readers, not having the confidence to come up with a sound argument to present.

I hate to be one of those jerks that says, "Yeah, well...someone should really do something about this," but I'm going to have to go ahead and suggest that the author (or anyone with significant concern for the topic) clean it up and make it credible, or that whoever has the authority just put it out of its misery. I'd take one for the team for the sake of scholarship, but frankly, I just don't have the interest. (With apologies to XSFear...maybe you can help.)AuroraSilvermane (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC) AuroraSilvermane

We can fix this

alright, that's it.

Hello wikipedia, my name is Theodidactus,there's been a lot of complaints on this page, and I say it's about time we got down to business and addressed them. I hearby announce that I actually DO have time to do what nobody else here has time for...namely, to clean this page up a bit. I'm totally ignorant about your policies for editing and whatnot, but I think a goodly number of us are in agreement that this page has gone too far. I say we clean it up, who's with me? Theodidactus (talk) 02:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've got three initial complaints so far....

1) In the section "Secret societies" this article states that the FOL was 'purportedly' used by the freemasons...the source cited is a testimony from the son of a mason...does wikipedia routinely deal in this kind of speculation? Just because a fact is believed by a few people doesn't mean it should be in the article, it most certainly doesn't mean it should be stated the way it is.

2) In the section on "alchemy" it is mentioned that alchemists used "components of the flower of life" for their work? Which alchemists? Which components? is this simply referring to the fact that alchemists were fond of circles and intersecting circles? or that they were fond of platonic solids? If so, it should be mentioned as such...currently it's creating the notion that there were alchemists out there actually using the "flower of life"...which I don't think is the case.

3) Among the sources cited on this page are a jewelry pamphlet, a board game flyer, and a host of new age books and articles. I have no problem with this, but shouldn't this be placed in a section entitled "beliefs about the flower of life" or something, it seems to me that we have a greater purpose here than simply listing things certain groups of people believe about the flower of life. 165.134.171.103 (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Stumbled back on this after ages, and with my copious spare time made some heavy-handed deletions. Slightly less preposterous now, could still use some improvement. Khaighle (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Discrepancy

Two statements made within this article do not agree with each other: "The earliest known example of the Flower of Life symbol dates to at least 400AD" and "The Flower of Life has represented important meaning to many people throughout history. It can be found in the temples, art, and manuscripts of cultures from all over the world. The following are some of the locations in which the FOL symbol has been sighted: Egypt - The Temple of Osiris in Abydos"

This makes no sense, especially considering that the temple at Abydos is one of the oldest in Egyptian history, way before 400 AD. I would imagine that the other examples would predate this as well.--154.5.117.67 (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The dating of the symbol as well as the name he provides it would appear to me to be related to one Wiki author's religion and commercial interests. I am not interested in support nor interference with that author, but it seems as if The Flower of Life should simply be retitled to reflect its subordinate nature as being of a specific published commercial interest. It's much like Hubbard's commercial religion or AMORC for that matter. (The writer of this statement noting discrepency is September) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.255.31.139 (talk) 10:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Unbalanced

I appreciate the time that someone took to qualify everything by "some people believe" and avoid blatant NPOV violations but I think the article still needs a warning so I added an unbalaned templete to the article. In particular the article only contains discussion of one sort of opinion, that is opinions about the importance of this symbol. It doesn't contain a single point of view suggesting it's just another symbol that some people have retroactively credited great significance towards.

I'm not sure if I choose the right template. However, I do know that as written this article still needs some warning and is not of encyclopedia quality.

I'm kinda worried that subjects like this pose a serious challenge to wikipedia as the "flower of life" may be a subject that lacks the visibility to attract many published critical viewpoints. Hopefully, however, I'm wrong and since I haven't checked that's very likely the case.Peter M. Gerdes (talk) 23:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)