Talk:Participatory theory

Philosophy Low‑importance

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Connection to astrology[edit]

Needs checking per WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:VAIN. This seems to be part of some kind of effort to put a philosophical basis under astrology. See [1]. Unclear how much of this is original research, or how much is accepted by anyone other than Richard Tarnas. The article needs review by someone with a real background in philosophy who can tell what's nonsense and what isn't. --John Nagle 04:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nagle. Richard Tarnas is the founder of the Philosophy, Cosmology, and Consciousness program at the California Institute of Integral Studies. To clarify, Participatory Epistemology is not simply an "effort to put a philosophical basis under astrology" though this is one of its possible applications. Rather, as you can read in "The Passion of the Western Mind" which was a best-seller and was used as a text in Harvard undergraduate courses, Participatory Epistemology is an extensive critique and extension of Modernism and Postmodernism that has been lauded by a wide range of academics, from Houston Smith to Robert McDermott to Joseph Campbell.

In regards to the "expert" issue, I'm writing a dissertation on Tarnas, Ferrer, Bache, etc. in relation to Literary Theory. Would you say that constitutes "expertise"? Murgy 19:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a step forward. Can you provide some jargon-free explaination, and some links that don't come from the California Institute of Integral Studies but reference participatory epistemology? They do have a tendency to go off in their own directions; I've been over there briefly. --John Nagle 20:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nagle, I'm not really sure what "jargon" you're talking about. Everything in the article is a reference to the well established discourses of Poststructuralism, Transpersonal Theory, and Hegel scholarship. Also, in terms of usage, if you type "participatory epistemology" into Google, you get 106 entries from a wide variety of sources. Finally, could you clarify what you mean by the statement that the people at the California Institute of Integral Studies "have a tendency to go off in their own directions"? Do you mean that "they" are outside of mainstream philosophy, that is, that CIIS is often construed as counter-cultural? I wouldn't necessarily argue with that claim, though I fail to see how this issue would have any relevance to whether Participatory Epistemolgy belongs on Wikipedia, which it clearly does.Murgy 21:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rather agree with Nagel on this, and note that the quote from Wilbur seems to argue for the relative unimportance of this concept, ever within the claimed paradigm of integral thought. I'd say that your writing a dissertation on this topic represents COI, rather than philosophical expertise in general. Third party attention would seem to bevery much in order. 14:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

There are plenty of citations available. — goethean ॐ 22:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move?[edit]

I'm thinking of moving this to Participatory framework, Participatory theory, or Participatory philosophy, as that would be a wider, more general topic. Any thoughts? — goethean ॐ 18:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. Based on the following search results, I will leave it here. [2][3][4][5] — goethean ॐ 19:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]