Talk:Classical element/Archive 1

Notice, I've changed this page to classical element from Classical Element. See naming conventions, please.

The pages about each individual elements will, when we finally (don't know when that will happen...) upload some software that will allow parentheses in titles, have to be moved from subpages to such pages as fire (classical element). Classical element/Fire and classical element/Water are perfect examples pages that could be subpages of other pages: the fire page could be under Fire/Classical views, for instance.

Also about the pages about fire, water, etc.: what does it mean to say that Plato associated the different elements with different solids? I don't understand that.

--Larry Sanger

---

I've no idea what these associations were supposed to mean. But I notice that the Johannes Kepler article claims it was Kepler who made them, so there's a mistake somewhere. --Zundark

---

Why do all these things link to subpages? Information on fire's position among the four elements would fit just fine on a Fire page, and the reader would have quick access to a lot more information about it.

---

My memory is a little fuzzy, but wasn't one of the chinese elements wood?

---

The Chinese elements correspond to the brighter planets visible with unaided eyes in the night sky: Metal (Venus), Wood (Jupiter), Water (Mercury), Fire (Mars), Earth (Saturn). Air from Plato's system was not part of the Chinese system. The Moon represents Yin, The Sun represents Yang. Yin Yang, and the five elements are topics in I-Ching which obviously was related to Chinese cosmology and astrology.

---

I have a nomenclature question. Since we know that these are not the modern Elements, and since they and the Chinese elements are almost always referred to in the plural ("Oh, that is a classical element from the Presocratics" is a usage with which I am unfamiliar, while "Oh, that is one of the 4 elements" is a sentence I have used in a class this semester.) I wonder if this is a useful nomenclature. If Presocratics are plural their elements should be plural, and vice versa. I'm confused. --MichaelTinkler

Buddhism and Hinduism

This may me nitpicking, but the elements form the basis of neither Buddhism nor Hinduism. They certainly have a role to play in these philosophies/religions, but are not their basis.

Untitled

Archives: 1If we consider that earth air fire and water are actually different states energy comes in then it all makes sense. Air is electricity, water is magnetism, fire is pure energy and earth is hadrons and bosons. In physics this would be a quadrapole with the fifth element being the center point as the manifestation of the particular manifestation.

Salt, Sulfur, and Mercury

Forgive me if this is irrelevant, but I seem to remember salt, sulfur, and mercury as forming their own sort of elemental trinity in some circles. I can't for the life of me find any information on this, though, certainly not on Wikipedia. If it helps, I believe it had something to do with either medieval science/alchemy, or with theology. Am I in the right, or am I off picking strawberries here? --PheonixSong 13:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• From here,

"Now, as to the philosophy of the three prime elements, it must be seen how these flourish in the element of air. Mercury, Sulphur, and Salt are so prepared as the element of air that they constitute the air, and make up that element. Originally the sky is nothing but white Sulphur coagulated with the spirit of Salt and clarified by Mercury, and the hardness of this element is in this pellicle and shell thus formed from it. Then, secondly, from the three primal parts it is changed into two - one part being air and other chaos - in the following way. The Sulphur resolves itself by the spirit of Salt in the Liquor of Mercury, which of itself is a liquid distributed from heaven to earth, and is the albumen of the heaven, and the mid space. It is clear, a chaos, subtle and diaphanous. All density, dryness and all its subtle nature, are resolved, nor is it any longer the same as it was before. Such is the air. The third remnant of the three primals has passed into air, thus; If wood is burnt it passes into smoke. So this passes into air, remains in its air to the end of its elements, and becomes Sulphur, Mercury, and Salt, which are substantially consumed and turned into air, just as the wood which becomes smoke. It is, in fact, nothing but the smoke of the three primal elements of the air. So, then nothing further arises from the element of air beyond what has been mentioned."

Exppii 10:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Angels and Demons

Why was the section on Angels and Demons removed from the article text? We have plenty of instances of the use of the classical elements in pop culture (Captain Planet, etc). What's wrong with including instances where the elements are used prominently in literature? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:48, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Because everyone and their uncle makes reference to the four elements. I've removed the pop culture list as well. --Carnildo 21:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I personally find the inclusion of those trivia items to be fairly encyclopedic, as they show how the classical elements are referenced in modern literature and pop culture. There is precedent for these kind of lists in articles such as Seven deadly sins#In modern popular culture. Would you be ok with a list of references with some kind of notability? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:50, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

These lists, once started, tend to grow without bound. See Railgun as an example of what can happen when everyone comes by and adds their favorite example. I expect the situation here to be even worse. --Carnildo 22:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Still, there are plenty of lists on other Wikipedia articles, and unless you support removing them all as a point of policy, then the classical element article certainly deserves such a section, as the references are quite significant and important. Railgun seems to be an extreme case where there is much fancruft, and not a lot of policing of the list. If we set down guidelines for notability for this list, I think it can be pretty tame. If we merge the literature and pop culture list we had before, there are only 5 items. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:34, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

How about this for criteria for adding to the list:

1. The use of the four elements must form the core of the work or one of its major themes.
2. The work is widely known.
3. The work is known for its use of the four elements even beyond those who have had contact with this work.

--Carnildo 23:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. By that reasoning, I think that Angels and Demons, Captain Planet, and The fifth Element can stay. I've never heard of WITCH, but if it's actually significant, that can stay too. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 03:52, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with DropDeadGorgias. If the list does eventually grow to be too long, it can always be moved to a separate article. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 04:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, I did not see this. I have created an page for Elements in popculture using research and knowledge off the top of my head. I have copied some work from this page there. If there is a problem, I will rewrite them. I hope it is okay. Thank you.

HVulpes

Merge: Yea or Nay

Merge Just fold Primordial's terminology into the Greek element subsection of Classical Elements, provide a redirect, and have done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.136.124.170 (talk • contribs) .

Merge if there is anything noteworthy in this article at all.--Niels Ø 01:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

MERGE "Primordial" , meaning "having existed from the beginning; in an earliest or original stage or state", is not really a correct term for the "Classical" elements postulated by the Greeks. Terry King 23:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

No, don't merge. Even while the current article is not developed very well, they are different subjects of study and they should be separated. I personally like how short and clean the primordial elements article is right now, but I can understand why the merging is suggested: it is poor and classical elements is way more complete while including everything treated so far in the first one. But my point is primordial should be classified as stub and get a complete different point of view from the Greek, although should be using Greek as one of basic studies, while Greek is the classical because it is the basis of our current Occidental society. They're just different subjects and should be threaten separately.

Mixing the four elements article with one on primordial elements is another example of the countless stupid suggestions made by Wikipedia users and "editors" who just have to meddle with other people's work. No, the two topics do NOT belong together.

Were you aware when you wrote this that primordial elements has undergone significant revisions since the discussion started? BTW, caue's signature from 12 March 2006 goes with the previous comment ("Even while the current article...") and not the one on "stupid suggestions."

--caue 21:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[copied from primordial's talk page] merge--"primordial" is confusing (it makes me think of soup) and I have never heard this distinction before. If you take a good look at the Greeks, they had everything Caue thinks is primordial: stories and speculation, little empirical proof, matter theory. Read up on Empedocles (you have to go past wikipedia though).Maestlin 08:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

NAY It's dumb! The primordial elements are the elements that make up THESE elements! So THIS article should be a stub, and the OTHER article should be a full article! Then it would make sense to merge it... but since is is the opposite way, merging an article about parent elements into an article about their children elements... dumb.... besides, there's only one more element added to the list, the premordial elements are as follow: fire, water, earth, air, the classical elements are these: fire, water, earth, air, aether.... I think I got my point through.... ~VNinja~ 23:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Tarot Suits and the Elements

hi, i'm not that familiar with wikipedia, but i saw an error in this section, currently it reads:

"The tarot suits: cups, wands, swords and pentacles may be taken as corresponding to water, air, fire, and earth respectively. ", and "respectively" would indicate that cups=water, wands=air, swords=fire and pentacles=earth right? this is incorrect, it's supposed to be swords=air and wands=fire. see for reference: http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/learn/meanings/suits.shtml and http://www.learntarot.com/less3.htm (both mentioned as links on the wikipedia-page about Tarot, and considered very useful resources by myself as well), also i really never encountered any text about tarot that switches these elements around :) i mean you can switch Strength and Justice all you want.. but the suits are the suits ;-)

so i set out to correct this error, check back a few days later and see it reverted :(

the revert reads: "06:48, 20 February 2006 Carnildo (Revert unsourced change)", revert unsourced change, what does that mean? am i supposed to give a source to explain which tarot-suit corresponds to which element? really? apologies if i made a mistake here, i thought it was just a tiny mistake and tried to correct it, didn't think of the need for a source. but as it reads here i would not agree with it.

as i'm not that familiar with wikipedia and editing/correcting pages, i'm not sure if i should go and change the paragraph back - again, and if i would perhaps it would be a good idea to include a link to the aeclectic.net as IMO it has the clearest explanation about the suits?

wooow correction, i just read on aeclectic.net, "FIRE (though some decks have it as Air). If FIRE then:" and "AIR. AIR though some decks have it as Fire. If AIR then:" .. guess i didn't read it correct either. heh, that's new to me. if you don't mind i'll just give up now, encyclopedia-editing is probably not for me ;)

I reverted it because a common and hard-to-detect form of vandalism of Wikipedia articles is for someone to make a minor, unexplained change, such as changing Mount Rainier's elevation from 14,410 feet to 14,310 feet. When I see such a change and I can't immediately verify it one way or the other, I decide to err towards conservativism and undo the change. Providing a source where the change can be verified, either in the edit summary or in a endnote or footnote after the change, will solve this. --Carnildo 07:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The way it reads right now:

The tarot suits of cups, swords, wands and pentacles may be taken as corresponding to water, air, fire, and earth respectively. These correspond in the modern deck of playing cards to hearts, spades, clubs, and diamonds. Cups and water, pentacles and earth are correct. Swords are fire and wands are air however. This is certainly true in horoscopes.

...is completely nonsensical, and I had no idea what the third and fourth sentences were talking about until I looked here on the discussion page, where I was going to comment asking someone who knows something about tarot to please make it make sense. Now I can see what's wrong with it, but I don't know much about tarot, so I'm not sure which way is right. I do know that those two sentences belong here, though, not in the article itself, since they're commenting on the article, so I'm off to remove them. Nalgas 20:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Classical Elements in Greece

Regarding "(Latin derivatives are pyro, terra, aero, and aqua)." Aqua and terra are indeed proper Latin for 'water' and 'earth', respectively. But aero is not really proper Latin; the Latin for 'air' is simply aer, although there is a rare oblique case form aero. Further, pyro is not Latin by any means. Pyro is apparently derived from the Greek πυρ/pyr ('fire') (see e.g. "Woodhouse's English-Greek Dictionary"), although again it is not properly Greek in form. The Latin for fire is ignis, which can be easily verified in any Latin dictionary.

I suspect that pyro, terra, aero, and aqua may be terminology that is in current vogue for referring to the classical elements, but I don't know this and certainly have seen no sources to cite. What is certainly true is that the forms given are not all Latin derivatives. I'm removing the word "Latin" and asking for citations on this parenthetical comment.Derek Balsam 17:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I finally removed this section about pyro, terra, aero, aqua since no one can document that these pseudo-Latinate/pseudo-Greek words are actually used. Also, the derivation given for "aether" as being from the Greek for "eternal" is simply incorrect. See Aether (classical element) for a correct derivation. αιθήρ/aithēr is from αιθω/aithō "to shine". Derek Balsam 03:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I always thought that the English prefixes for the elements were pryo, hydro, aero, and geo, all derived from Greek in some way. The wikipedia pages for those prefixes (excepting aero) all claim the same thing, but this may be one of those "common understanding" things that really isn't true at all. I won't try to verify, source, or refute it; that's better left for people with actual knowledge about the subject. 129.61.46.16 18:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Judaism

I seem to recall the concept of 4 elements also being used in Jewish mysticism in the Talmud.Loodog 02:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, it was the Kaballah.Loodog 04:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

that's what I came for. doesnt Kaballa revolve around the elements and how they repeat in everything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.162.132 (talk) 04:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Genesis and the account of creation relates in many ways to the classical elements.

Earth-> Land Water-> Seas Air -> sky / heavens Fire-> Light (sunlight comes from a nuclear bonfire)

Water and darkness - prexisted the 7 day of creation. But on day 3 we get the creation of the land and the seas.

Day 1) Light Day 2) Sky Day 3) Land

Once all of these are in place, the creator fills them simple commands

Day 3) Land is filled with vegetation Day 4) The heavens are given moon, stars and sun Day 5) The sky is given birds etc and the sea is given fish etc Day 6) The land is given creatures and man

Man is "special" because he is "handmade" the dust of the earth and the breath of God as part of day six.

Water and Fire are very important wrt making things holy. (Blood and sacrifice are also important but they are not one of the classic elements and niether are they mentioned in the account of creation.)

In the old testament I cannot find any biblical reference for God being light, but in the new testament, 1 John 1:5 says that God is Light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.36.24 (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Similarities

As far as I can see, there are really only two sets of documented elements - Chinese and Western/Hindu/Buddhist/Japanese/etc. So should we only have two pages - Classical Elements and Chinese Classical Elements. Then, in Classical Elements, we could have stuff like "Elements in Hinduism" etc.

Buddhism?

Certainly some Buddhists may recognise them. But they don't come anywhere near to being the "basis" of Buddhism. Our teachings don't even touch upon the 4 elements.

I would like to see a citation here or a re-wording.

" In early Buddhism, the Four Elements are a basis for understanding suffering and for liberating oneself from suffering." Is not accurate. The Four Noble Truths are the basis for our understanding of suffering and its extinction.

Lostsocks 19:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This article should link to the stub on Prismaticism. I would do that myself but I don't know how to do that.

Sorry, new to wikipedia talk pages - but what is up with the Buddhist description saying he taught before the Greeks and may have sent emissaries to the region to plan the idea? Siddhārtha is predated by Hesiod by 300 years and all evidence points to the greek system developing independently from and often in stark contrast to most eastern philosophy, not to mention the fact that Buddhism does not teach elements in the manner described. This sounds like revisionist history in a way that fails to credit the west and at the same time fails to understand the east that it attempts to supplant them with... --24.188.46.187 (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the above comment, I'd like to note that in the Wikipedia entry for "Gautama Buddha" we learn that, on one hand, "at a specialist symposium [...] the majority of those scholars who presented definite opinions gave dates within 20 years either side of 400 BCE for the Buddha's death, with others supporting earlier or later dates." On the other hand, Empedocles, who is usually credited for the four-elements idea in Western philosophy, lived "ca 490-430" (see entry on Empedocles), thus his life, most likely, predated that of Buddha. How could Budda send "60 arahants to the known world to spread his teaching" and influence Empedocles who lived before him? As it stands, Wikipedia is self-contradictory (at best; actually this paragraph with the "arahants" looks childish to me). Somebody eliminate the contradiction, please. 79.103.107.85 (talk) 13:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Flora

The concept of flora as a fifth element is something I have never heard of outside of this article. Is there any citation for this claim?24.24.81.186 01:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Lots of weird stuff has been added lately. I'm not sure why this article and Classical elements in popular culture have been attracting this stuff of late. I have a feeling it could be a Stephen Colbert or Youtube thing. -- Kesh 23:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

From what it seems, anything that remotely deals with Prismaticism is being listed as having a relation to the classical elements. For instance, in many video games and some television series, there tend to be fairly gimmicky environments (ice planet, lava planet, etc.) and that if this can be seen as being elemental in any way (an arctic setting may have some areas of liquid water in it, there may be plumes of fire in a volcanic setting) then people may erroneously regard this as a deliberate referrence to the classical elements. 74.74.84.169 22:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

In the Classical Elements of Greece section the picture describes air as hot and wet while the text describes it as cool and dry. The opposite goes for Earth.

Modern science

Where the modern science elements: Time, Space, Matter and Energy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.11.145.80 (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Classical elements. THe key word is classical. Showers 20:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

In regards to this, should this article really open with a paragraph comparing ideas in modern sciences to the Classical elements? 24.24.90.148 02:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I woulden't say it's a bad idea. I mean, after all, it is rather annoying how there are those who argue such things as "Water is not an element because it's made from Oxygen and Hydrogen!" Dark Sorcerer666 (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the title be Classical Elements, plural? It looks very stupid singular —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.171.66 (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

New World

I think someone should do some type of research on the native cultures of the Americas. I'm sure that they have belief relating to the elements. TeePee-20.7 05:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I just saw this at colombian mythology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombian_mythology

It says that the muiscas thought the creators of this world danced and created the smoke, the cosmic clouds and other element, but I forgot its name. Can someone add that information to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.28.67.195 (talk) 03:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Modern interpretations

A number of additional sections have been added to this article fairly recently:

Many ancient philosophies used a set of archetypal classical elements to explain patterns in nature. These naturally-occurring fundamentals are actually more accurate in being classical states of matter than "elements" as they are defined in modern science. Most notably the four Greek classical elements earth, water, air, and fire correspond approximately with the four states of matter, solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. The fifth Greek classical element "idea" ("quintessence" in Latin; "aether" in Hindu theory; "void" in Japanese theory) corresponds approximately with the non-matter (non-material world) of cyberspace, mathematics, algorithms, and computer programs that run in analog as well as digital computers, often referred to in information theory as a state of low entropy. Regardless of whether their material embodiment is mechanical, pneumatic, hydraulic, optical, electric, or otherwise, a computer program can be thought of as made of the fifth state of matter even if the computer itself is made of solid matter ("earth"). In the Plato/Aristotle sense, the mind is made of idea (non-matter), whereas the brain in which the mind "runs" is part of the material world (matter).

References

Neo-Paganism

In neo-Paganism, it is believed that all living things have a smaller piece of nature inside them. Of course the two elements not seen in other cultures represent Parts of the Human Soul. Light of course represents the purity of the human soul While Dark represents the tainted parts. In most beliefs neither can exist without the other and Good and Evil exist in all things.

But beyond that the idea is that one may only find peace at mind after understanding the elements outside ones "self". Along with that it is a belief that the "Divine Presence" in this world is female because of the fact that when a woman is pregnant all elements can be found within her.

Do these interpretations of this concept really relate that well to the notion of classical elements? Where the first mention at least has citations, is it really appropriate to introduce an article primarily discussing classical ideas with a mention of conceptions within modern science? 24.24.90.148 02:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I second this complaint; seriously, outside of one isolated paper on how some musical instruments can be considered "ethereal," where does the idea that computer science represents the Fifth Element come from? 74.236.79.85 (talk) 00:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. All the 'Idea' and musical intrument stuff appears to be either WP:OR or not notable enough for inclusion. Ashmoo (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Tabular overview

The tabular overview shows up overlapping with the Classical Elements template. Im using Firefox though and perhaps it shows up normally on other browsers. I propose that the tabular overview be removed since having both of them doesn't really serve any purpose. Showers 22:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I for one actually loved the idea and contribution of the Tabular Overview and prefer we have both. It further expanded and featured more elements (along with other philosophies and systems that are not mentioned in the article) and better organized them and their properties as where the Classical Elemental template only simply lists the overall elemental concepts of the major philosophies. Dark Sorcerer666 9:31, 1 December 2007(UTC)

All the elements in the table were all found in the article. It didn't add anything new except a way of organizing them into categories. Something that comes dangerously close to original research in my mind. If you prefer the table then we should get rid of the template instead. Having both serves no purpose. Showers 00:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Very well then, I do see your point. You are correct in that the Classical Elements template does feature the elements as directly discussed in the article within their respective philosophic culture, however there were in fact others as well as whole other philosophies and concepts that were included in the Tabular Overview that were not mentioned at all with in the context of the article itself that were also worth noting; concepts such as I-Ching, the Planetary Natures as well as the featuring of the other elements of the Chakra system that were included in the Hindu/Buddhist column. If what you are saying is to be the case than it would be more logical to exchange the Classical Element template for the Tabular Overview for its broader diversity and organization. Dark Sorcerer666 5:40, 4 December 2007(UTC)

I put the table back and removed the template. Showers (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Augh. This needs a lot of cleanup - I've done some, but I strongly suspect that this table is currently oversimplifying a number of traditions, or making connections where they don't exist. Right now, all it's really pointing out is that earth, air and fire are pretty universal - this would probably be easier to point out in prose than in text.

I've removed another section, BTW - which linked the four fundamental forces with four classical elements - on the basis that it made purely subjective connections like "gravity is like ripples, so it's like water". This is the sort of pseudoscientific waffle that this article needs to avoid. Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

neo paganism

when i added neo paganism 6 months ago it compared the elements to the body and the body to the earth, it however did not talk about people in this set of religions like they were a cadre of witches. Deanostrodamus the Mystical (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

bias

This article is kinda biased - it links to seperate articles for Indian/Chinese/Japanese etc elements, but no seperate article for the Greek elements. As far as I can tell this is the article for the greek elements. To make things clearer this article should be split into two groups, one specifically talking about the Greek element system and another that describes all of them on equal terms.--86.142.171.82 (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality discussion below. Razor Rozar7 (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Software in classical Japan

Does this:

"Idea" is the preferred modern term, and lends itself well to the idea that algorithms, software, or other similar "cyberspace" processes be categorized as belonging to the fifth element. In other words, just as the mind belongs to Idea, even though the brain is a mixture of solid ("Earth") and liquid ("Water"), software also belongs to Idea even though the hardware it runs on, i.e. silicon chips, etc., is made from solid ("Earth") matter.[2] The fifth Classical Element (Idea) may be further sub-divided into living and non-living. For example, the mind is an example of a living form of Idea whereas computer software is an example of non-living Idea.

really belong here? wr 87.139.81.19 (talk) 11:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems like WP:OR to me. Ashmoo (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Classical elements in sound and music

The whole Classical elements in sound and music section seems like WP:OR or at least the views of a tiny minority. Could someone detail who actually believes or proposed this view of music classification, so we can determine its notability? Ashmoo (talk) 12:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Based on some other material I have seen floating on the net, it doesn't seem to be entirely WP:OR, but notability is dubious. What bothers me, is not whether it passes the litmus test for notability (I have a fairly liberal stance on what should be included in WP), but that if it is included it needs to be defined in the proper context, and this article really isn't it. These newer constructs don't belong here simply because they have a loose inspiration from the "Classical Elements." From what I've seen it's a bizarre construct, with geophone/gaiaphone corresponding to seismic sensors, hydrophone corresponding to water, microphone corresponding to air, and ionophone corresponding to fire (er, plasma). Note the first thing is that these transducers don't all measure the same thing. An ionophone typically does not measure sound in plasma. In fact one might ask, isn't a microphone a microphone, so that all sound recorders are microphones? In a sense else, a hydrophone *is* a microphone with the design detail that its pickup is better impedance matched to water. A geophone is not strictly speaking a sound recording device.

The merit of such a correspondence is dubious to me in any regard, since this does not build a sound/music taxonomy with much extensibility or generality.

I'm removing it from here. 74.74.214.84 (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Elements and States of Matter?

Is there any connection between the two? I mean, the elements seem to correspond with the states of matter (Earth/Solid, Water/Liquid, Air/Gas, Fire/Plasma), but I've never seen it mentioned anywhere else. Xavius, the Satyr Lord (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall reading something that gave a similar correspondence: Earth = Matter, Fire = Energy, Air = Space, Water = Time. I believe it was some Wiccan/Neo-Pagan literature but I forget what exactly, possibly Starhawk. --86.135.180.131 (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not comfortable with the correspondence, especially that of associating fire with plasma. Whereas you can make some loosely valid connections with three of them, i.e. Water is a Liquid (as long as it isn't :-), Air is a gas (well the mixture of gas state compounds), Earth is a Solid (in many cases, yes), but fire (as it is defined in this context) is not an example of ionization in any sort. I really think the associations are all weak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.214.84 (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

In addition to that, the ancients could hardly have known about plasma as a state of matter, so if there is an equation, it's probably coincidental and/or unintentional. Razor Rozar7 (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless there was an advanced civilization or advanced information available in the past. Faro0485 (talk) 06:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems as though the associations are all strong, not weak. Perhaps fire = plasma takes an expert or a look at that other wikipedia article to determine but it seems obvious the ancients were talking about the states of matter when they talked about the elements, but that thinking of what are states of matter as elements must have greatly complicated their way of thinking, just as the complications for the sun and planet rotations around the earth must have been a bit involved. Liquid, solid, and gas are no-brainers so obviously that is what the ancients are taking about, but it shouldn't come as a surprise they got it all confused by making them elements instead of states of matter, after the basic facts were established because after all they were living in ancient, not modern times. What is surprising is the close correspondence the basic three to five elements have with our modern system of states. Fire, for example seems to correspond with plasma, and the fifth element corresponds directly, down to fairly recently used terminology, with the inexplicable, immaterial forces of nature of magnetism and gravity.Mac (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised that the question is even asked about the relation to the states of matter, let alone that it is questioned. Only such a strong connection could result in so many ancient civilizations independently coming up with the same basic theory of elements. It also seems clear to me that Fire basically corresponds to what we would now call Energy. Where the ancients would say that Wood contained a mixture of Earth and Fire, we would say that it just contains latent energy. When the wood is burned, the Fire / Energy is released from the wood, and it becomes something else. 135.196.124.77 (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

NPOV dispute: why doesn't the Greek system get its own article?

This article, or rather the series of articles about classical elemental systems, seems to be (presumably unintentionally) biased. What I mean by this is that having the Greek system discussed only in the main article and then having all others split off into their own articles puts it on an unequal footing with the other systems. It implies that either a) the Greek system is the "generic" or "default" version of the system and that all others are merely exotic variations or abberations, which is obviously bias, or that b) the Greek system is not interesting or notable enough to get it's own article, which is a different kind of bias. Either way there seems to be a problem. IMO this article should refer to all the systems equally, then we can have a seperate article for the Greek system specifically. --86.135.180.131 (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

One could argue that this article should really focus on the Greek elements, per the dictionary definition of classical: "of or relating to the ancient Greek and Roman world and especially to its literature, art, architecture, or ideals".[1] --Itub (talk) 11:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Then there should be a new article at Element (philosophy) that refers to the concept as a whole, without singling out any one version. --86.135.180.131 (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added a new template suggesting that the page be split, for the reasons given above. --86.135.218.10 (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If there is a new article made for the philosophical elements, and this one is renamed "Greek elements" or somesuch, the Romans and their ideas should probably be merged into it, since the Greeks had so much influence on their culture. Razor Rozar7 (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What if we just cut the Greek section out, put a trimmed-down version and a link on this page, and then made the Greek section an article in and of itself? Razor Rozar7 (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of a Greek article, why is it that the alchemical symbols are used in the Greek section? I don't think this makes sense at all, because these symbols were not created by the Greeks but much later; their inclusion in this section carries the implication however that the Greeks DID make them. A separate section on the elements in alchemy might be more appropriate; in there the alchemic elements could also be covered. I'll leave it up to others to take these suggestions into consideration, however. 205.241.141.168 (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Colonial bias!

Yes, obviously! This is inherantly biased. It's like calling the Greek version classical/universal, and the Japanese/Chinese ones as "versions"! Shame on whoever did this! I'm moving the page in 10 days to "The Five Elements" if there's no response. MotherFatherChild (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Geometric associations of the elements?

This article does not mention the geometric associations made by Plato and Empedocles with the classical elements. A quick google search produced this site which explains said associations. Perhaps someone could augment the page to include geometric shapes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HylianElf (talk • contribs) 17:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Lucian?

Um, I've tried to do my research on this, and I got ziltch. Any sources? Haftorang 18:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haftorang (talk • contribs)

What justifies the existence of this article?

Could somebody clarify whether there actually is a genuine link between the Chinese five phases and the Greek elements, or between many of the other examples of "elements" in this article? The word "element" means something completely different in many of these examples, and I have serious questions about any article that purports that they can be discussed together. DDSaeger (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Lemurian?

Could someone explain what the "Lemurian" elements are refering to in the side bar? I clicked on the the link to Lemuria, which offered no explanation on its relation to this subject.--PointTheFinger (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

They're nonsense someone added to the template a few months ago. Gone. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Wu Xing

Wu Xing was traditionally translated as Five Elements, but it is chiefly an ancient mnemonic device for systems with 5 stages; hence it behaves less like the elements. So I wanted to just simply remove "Classical elements in China" section and merge into the Wu Xing article. But I was reminded by Chris that I can't just simply remove. I want to tell that Wu Xing are not the elements and I want to do something right, so can anyone point out what should be done? Thank you. 百家姓之四 Matthew 討論 Discussion 05:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

百家姓之四, I appreciate your good faith edits, but you are weakening the meaning of the text in English. Post what you would like the section to say, right here on the talk page first. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, perhaps something like:

===Wu Xing in China===

Main article: Wu Xing

In many traditional Chinese theory field, matters and its developmental movement stage can be classified into the Wu Xing. They are Tree, Fire, Earth, Metal and Water. Note that the Wu Xing are chiefly an ancient mnemonic device for systems with 5 stages, rather than the notion of different kinds of material. For further information, see Wu Xing.

Matthew 百家姓之四 Discussion 討論 06:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's good, let me tweak the English and come back to this soon. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

More

Hi. I stated/spoke what I want to edit in Talk:Classical element. In the period of the time, I want to make way for it. So I today deleted the following. but it rolled back. I want to explain.

Line 3: (as in the Chinese Five Phases)

My reason is, to give a example using Wu Xing will confuse people that Wu Xing is still a set of the classical elements.

Line 113: In Taoism there is a similar system of elements, which includes metal and wood, but excludes air, which is replaced with qi,

My reason is, There is no relationship between the Wu Xing and classical elements.

Line 113: In Chinese philosophy the universe consists of heaven and earth, heaven being made of qi and earth being made of the five elements

My reason is, this is totally untrue. One of the reasons is not only earth object can be classified into the Wu Xing, but also in heaven. Earth is made of the Wu Xing? Wu Xing are classings(categories), not material.

Line 113: (in the Chinese view, the attributes and properties of the Western and Indian Air element are equivalent to that of Wood, where the element of Ether is often seen as a correspondent to Metal).

My reason is, There is no relationship between the Wu Xing and classical elements. unsourced.

Can I recover my deleting? ^_^ Thank you.Matthew 百家姓之四 Discussion 討論 08:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't. Please be patient. There is no rush. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 08:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I will be more patient. Matthew 百家姓之四 Discussion 討論 08:56, 2 February 2009

"Line 113: In Taoism there is a similar system of elements, which includes metal and wood, but excludes air, which is replaced with qi"; Uh, I don't think Wu Xing includes air either (it's wood-metal-fire-earth-water), so why is this statement about Taoism included? Does Taoism replace wood (air) with qi? This matter should be addressed and clarified by someone who is truly knowledgeable. 173.28.244.122 (talk) 06:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

5 Elements

1-Light 2-Fier 3-Wind 4-Water 5-Earth

Light is the first element of the world as the beginning of the world is light Cannot leave without light for long time Reference Scientific - Religion (Jewish - Christian - Islamic) As the first construction of the world begin with light —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihabelrifai (talk • contribs) 08:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Synonyms for the word Element

I've been searching over the internet for any words that would have the same meaning as the word "Element", but I have yet to find one. Is there even a word or are all of its relations towards other cultures? Such as the Greek or Japanese, and if so then what would be the right word for "the use of elements" such as using Earth to build or Fire to cook and so on. Or is this again something that doesn't exist? If they do though then I would definitely like to see an entry on this topic. ~ esp (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Chemical elements aren't elements?

I'm puzzled as to why this article demarcates the so-called "philosophical" elements from the chemical elements of modern science... I can't think of any justification for not including a section on the 'modern' elements in this article. The Milesian philosophers, for example, posited their elemental substances for the exact same reasons modern scientists did: to explain the world in terms of its component parts.--Heyitspeter (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason why, is that modern science (or rather the modern philosophers) measures its progress by the distance from the Aristotelian physics system, which regarded the aggregation states of matter plus fire and a fifth hypothetical quintessence as pure elements that couldn't be reduced. The elements of modern science cannot be tracked backwards, because there exist no heritage from the classical elements directly towards the modern elements. We may imagine that f.ex. "earth" was splitup into "X" and "Y", then "X" into "X1" and "X2" and them "X1" into "iron" and "nickel", but such a continuity doesn't exist. Instead the classical elements were suddenly dismissed as invalid, and the scientists (lead by Robert Boyle) started to ask: "but what are the elements, really?". Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

(I hate to quote Wikipedia, but I just woke up and I'm feeling lazy.) There certainly is a continuity between the elements conceptualized by the Greeks and the modern elements. This article gives the impression that the Greeks had a more or less monolithic system; that one might be able to reject Greek elements by rejecting that the elements water, earth, air, fire and aether are scientific fact. But try scrolling through the philosophers who were members of the Milesian school. The Greeks took these men to have founded the theory of elements, but none of them endorsed all five of the Aristotelian elements, and a few posited their own in turn. Is there a similar discontinuity between them and Aristotle? It doesn't seem so, and on similar grounds there doesn't seem to be a discontinuity between the elements of Ancient Greece and those of Robert Boyle and his 'modern' science, eh?

Robert Boyle is cited as having "advanced towards the [...] view of elements as the undecomposable constituents of material bodies." This is precisely the view of elements held by the Ancient Greeks (e.g., Plato in the Timeaus)! I'd like us to add a little section with a redirect to the modern article "elements," or something similar. (p.s. I just edited that sentence at the Robert Boyle article to the extent that you'll only be able to find the latter part of it.) --Heyitspeter (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I fucked around with the article a bit. Let me know what you think.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I checked out the edit history. For a little while, there was a language problem with scientism, (but an honest oversight I think). Looks like Heyitspeter found all of it. Well done.

Outside the European/Middle Eastern context, there's no basis for evaluating science theories against "classic elements", (or vice versa). Also, States of matter can't be the de facto "scientific" version of "modern classical elements". Aristotle's elements modeled aspects of Gravity, Motion, Astronomy, Cosmology, Time… The names fire, air, water, earth and aether reveal as much about elements as charm, strange, top and bottom do about quarks.

There's no discontinuity, "the elements of modern science" can absolutely be traced back through history; as a rough example: Fire←Phlogiston←Oxygen,Hydrogen… Clearly that would be beyond the scope of this article, but starting with Gerber and his formulation of Aristotle's elements, we could fill in some of the missing people, substances and theories. The alchemist/scientists like Boyle and Newton had some really interesting theories about transmutation.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 08:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Lack of demarcation line

The modern element system occurs without a "demarkation line", which is a little misleading. The misnamed section Modern classic element system that I renamed to Classic vs. modern systems has quite some justification and can remain, but the great conceptual distance between the old element system and the new must be clarified. In The Sceptical Chymist from 1661, by Robert Boyle, the classical element system was denied, the infinite continuity theory of Aristotle was replaced with atomism, and from there on, up to a little after 1800 all classical elements were removed from the list of elements. This presents a gigantic paradigm shift in the world view – actually one of the very few greatest shift in the history of humankind. This demarkation line must be clearly treated in the text.

We can nowadays easily and intuitively understand what kind of phenomenons the alleged elements of Aristotle were — the states of matter — but we don't regard them as elements. The question is when the chemists understood what they were really, if the foundation of this understanding was created by Boyle also? Anyone who knows? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

(See above.) Denial of Aristotle's elemental system =/= discontinuity with ancient elemental theory. Proof by reductio: Milesian school.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I should chime in about the history of science tracing back to "medieval, Islamic and Greek models" (in the draft I did for the lead). I'm not very familiar with medieval philosophy/alchemy/history of science but I'm happy to help fill out that section?

My impression is that there were a number of gigantic paradigm shifts. Phlogiston comes to mind as a sort of proto-scientific theory (contemporary with Boyle) supplanting classic Fire and later supplanted by Lavoisier's theory of Oxygen combustion. Really, the paradigm shifts haven't stopped coming and I imagine they're always gigantic in some respect. I don't know that its feasible to clarify all the great conceptual leaps in an article of this scope (especially if chemistry developments aren't the only focus). I think its important to specify concepts as distinct (in a moderate voice) when they're from different times and places; assuming they typically are, in fact, reasonably distinct while having some similarities (that's what makes it so interesting).

Here's a JSTOR page on the much overlooked pursuits of Boyle the Alchemist. He's in good company with Francis Bacon (Novum Organum), and Isaac Newton, ("Newton was not the first of the age of reason: He was the last of the magicians").

Unless it was allegedly for a science article, just from the framing I'd tend to disagree with: we can nowadays easily and intuitively understand what kind of phenomena the alleged elements of Aristotle were… I think it goes without saying Aristotle and his peers easily and intuitively understood their own worldview, while a modern person's ability to intuit that would be subjective, at best. I think its fair to say phases of matter was the inspiration at some point, but modern science provides no insight into the ancient theory: how is Water not primarily wet? And how does Liquid exist, per se, in gray coded base-4 interactions? —Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

omg

i need a page thet will help me more so this i think needs more info on here thanks _KENN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.41.171.70 (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Opps, hit enter while editing the summary

Summary should be rewrite the lead to:

• not say, in science, they're patterns that aren't chemicals, natural substances or chemical mixtures; (the "technical difference" is a bit too confusing in contrast to philosophical concepts; this isn't the lead for the science article)
• say the opposite of what it said about the wu xing; (that it is a chemical etc./not a pattern)
• and include phases of matter; (which I thought should go in the lead too) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Machine Elf 1735 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Aspect Elements

These are the elements developed by some Hindi and Tibetan monks. They believe in ten true elements that have kept balance throughout the universe's existence. The elements each have a different description and role in nature. The elements are divided into groups of two. There are originals, which are the original aspects like Earth, Water, Wind, and Fire. Then there are the ancients: Light and Dark. And the End and Begin: Life and Death. And the two universal aspects: Time and Space.

The Peaceful Original Aspects

Earth: The strong, non aggressive balance that acts as a scale; said to be a barrier for the other elements to not wage war with one another.

Water: Peace loving friend to all mankind; said that it hates danger and violence and takes residence in the seas and other water sources.

The Dangerous Original Aspects

Wind: Powerful hot tempered assassin of nature; is said to antagonize water and will get very angry with humans and will hurt them. Although it is not completely bad, and is often seen as a benefactor.

Fire: Considered the only original aspect that is completely bad; is all about survival of the fittest. Only the strongest deserve it, and those that don't Fire considers unworthy and will attempt to kill them.

The Ancient Aspects

Light: Considered the only truly good aspect. It is considered an oasis in the desert, as it brings an end to fear and sarow. It loves the sight of happiness and revels in joy. It may not always seem enticing, but will usually lead to good fortune. This and dark, no matter how opposite the two seem, go together, as there is always a bit of dark in light, just like there is always some light in dark.

Dark: Considered the only truly evil aspect. Darkness represents all that is bad and is basically the opposite of Light. It starts the sorrow and enjoys other peoples sadness. It may seem enticing, but will usually lead to misfortune. This and light, no matter how opposite the two may seem, go together as there is always a bit of light in dark, as there is always some dark in light.

The End and Beginning

Death: Not really considered good or evil, but is considered the sad part of life. It is still needed and even though it knows this, and it is natural, people still fear it. However, even though they are different, life and death need each other. Without Life there is no death, but without death there can be no knew life.

Life: Not really considered good or evil, but is considered the happy part of life. It is loved and needed, however, even though they are different, life and death need each other. Without Life there is no death, but without death there can be no knew life.

The Universal Aspects

Space: Considered as a more free spirited aspect as opposed to Time, and is very concerned what happens to the space it controls and the people in it.

Time: Considered more uncaring, as in it doesn't care at all about the people that nor the things that befall the world, as it has seen things come and go and knows that what happens, no matter how good or bad will just be lost to the waves of time.

Each of the aspects are contradictory, yet need each other to function. The aspects are not only known by the monks previously mentioned, many religions tough lightly on the subject. The most brought up are usually Life and Death. Two very different aspects that still need each other to exist, as well is the same with Light and Dark.

---

Left message for User talk:63.226.180.189, and temporary moved edits to talk page.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Dubious

I already brought this up in Talk:Chemical elements, but have noticed the same statements made here. I'll re-state:

In the section on "Ancient classic element systems" it states that the term "element" was originally used to refer to states of matter. It goes on to list the relevant elements and their associated states of matter: solid/earth, liquid/water, gas/air, and plasma/fire. I don't believe that this is accurate. The original Classical elements were devised in ancient times (roughly Hellenistic era), but plasma wasn't discovered until the 19th century. The connection is tenuous. Also, this section makes connections between the "aether" and space, Idea, Void which needs backing up. (It sounds like new-age hokum to me.) I think the first part of this section should be changed or removed completely. --Danshil (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It's quite plausible that the names originated from natural observations of phases of matter (clearly not plasma, except the sun and stars) however, the philosophical theories weren't equivalent to phases of matter. Once aether was no longer needed for celestial mechanics, the name was reused, sometimes in connection with odic force (and in modern western occultism as spirit) but most recently in science as the luminiferous aether. Of course, that would take some work to develop and cite properly.

I changed Chemical element#History as well. In that article, I took out the global statement saying "they're all the same" because they're only similar due to everyone living on the same planet observing the same phenomena. There actually were theoretical differences. This article is able to compare and contrast the various theories but that would be TMI for the science article where Greek philosophy is the proper basis for comparison. Thanks—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Egypt

• Maat = Logos?
• Nu (mythology)= "water" of Thales?
• Shu (Egyptian deity) = "air"
• Tefnut = "the moisture of the sky"
• Geb = "Earth"
• Nut (goddess) = "Sky" / Böri (talk) 09:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

3 elements in Christianity?

This was added recently, can it be developed and sourced? —Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

In Christianity

• EARTH=Joseph (In part from the Egyptian name PTAH: Rissen Land. But also his trade TEKTON: Iron, Wood, Stone - I.W.S.),
• WATER=Mary (From the Greek MARE and Hebrew IAM e.i. Water. Bible name MAR-IAM) and
• FIRE=Jesu (Son aka SUN).

Lightning

Lightning is commonly named as a classical element, notably in many modern video games. Perhaps a mention in this article? Robo37 (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit for preference

Regarding the recent changes, I salvaged a few edits... from Imorthodox23. (I thought most of the edits to the various other classical element articles were constructive). There are reasons the elements are given in various orders... (godai, Aristotle, etc.) And the elimination of serial commas is a hard sell (based of preference and consistency?) Quotes shouldn't be changed. If changes are made, then square brackets are used to indicate what's been changed.

Thanks—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 23:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Idea

Why not rename the subsection classical elements of India and then place Hindu and Buddhist elements and the seven chakras directly underneath it.

Like this?—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 19:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

"PANCHAMAHABHUTAS ACCORDING TO BRAHMAJNANA"

Not only does this reflect the annoying Hindu habit of expressing their religious and philosophical ideas as if they were objectively real -- fine when talking to other Hindus, not so fine for Wikipedia's NPOV policy -- but it's laden with undefined technical terms in Sanskrit that convey no information whatsoever to anyone other than a Hindu who already understands it.

Bad enough when this kind of nonsense crops up in Hindu-related articles. Can we please not have it inflicted on us elsewhere? 192.91.172.42 (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course they express their "religious and philosophical ideas as if they were objectively real" as would anyone. NPOV doesn't suggest they should be presented as "nonsense" anymore than it would privilege some "objectively real" ontology. While it's little more than a table of correspondences, at the very least it satisfies WP:ATTRIBUTE by repeatedly using "According to"… quite helpfully indicating what might be sourced to the Rigveda, and where the WP:OR begins. I'll move it here in case anyone can cite what "mastery of Vedic meditation and an analysis of Vedic hymns" would make clear.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 14:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no, not anyone would. Not here, anyway. Christians, for instance, aren't allowed to get away with inserting their religious beliefs into random articles as if they were absolute truths. Nor should they. I have to believe you deliberately misread my comment (posted from another machine), one annoying, disingenuous tactic by the obtuse that was among the factors that drove me from editing Wikipedia some years ago. The "nonsense" isn't the beliefs themselves; it's their mode of representation. Yes, it says "according to". It also says that certain matters are revealed by meditation, and takes knowledge of Brahma's attributes as a given. And then there's the typesetting, giving non-neutral emphases to their conclusions as if they were important lessons to be absorbed. No, no one else gets away with this kind of thing. 74.220.76.54 (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

PANCHAMAHABHUTAS ACCORDING TO BRAHMAJNANA:

According to Rigveda 1.10.90-15 Purusha is the seat of seven hidden weapons and seven kinds of energies.

According to Manu Smriti 1.19 Purusha is made of seven Purushas. According to 1.20 the nature of these seven Perishable Purushas is determined by their position in the Purusha and the nature of each is a modification of the nature of the preceedring Purusha. It is not mentioned any where who these seven Purushas are and their position within the Purusha. However, mastery of Vedic meditation and an analysis of Vedic hymns would make it clear that they are the following.

1. Shunya/ Dreaming force/ Indra

2. Vayu/ Illusory force/ Shakti

3. Agni/ Voluntary force/ Brahma

4. Jala/ Semi voluntary force/ Vishnu

5. Earth/ Involuntary force/ Shiva

6. Status altering force/ Shani

7. Compulsive force/ Yama

Vishnu's association with water is well known. Also, Brahma originates from his navel. Brahma's association with the hip/ genital region too is well known. Shiva has to be associated with chest because he is part of Trimurti and thus must lie next to Vishnu.

Thus, Panchamahabhutas refer to the first five of the seven basic forces our life is made of.

Air is primarily wet, and not Water?

What was Aristotle thinking here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.196.124.77 (talk) 08:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't that seem like the weirdest thing. (It would kind of makes sense in a humid climate). Warm moist air was thought to spontaneously give rise to life.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 14:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, how on Earth (no pun intended) is Air wetter than water. If it were that way, we wouldn't be able to breathe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.67.40 (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Quintessence

There are five classical elements: Water, Fire, Earth, Air and Quintessence. Quintessence is Energy. You need that in life too. Also how is Air wetter than water? There shouldn't be two characteristics, only one. Water is wet, Fire is hot, Earth is dry, Air is cold, Quintessence is all. Quintessence is also electricity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.67.40 (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The article includes aether but the Empedoclean/terrestrial elements are four in number, and while Aristotle's celestial element was all energia and no dunamis, it was not “energy”. If they're still discussing your list of characteristics in two and a half millenia, they should put it in the article.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 05:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge Alchemical elements

Alchemical elements has one source and very little unique content.
—Sowlos (talk) 07:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Might as well serve as an introduction or after thoughts to the List of alchemical substances article. Ernobe (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Most redirects probably have titles good for related and sub-topics of their respective articles. That's not the issue; the issue is whether they have content to justify separate articles.

I'd be more than happy to withdraw the merge suggestion if someone fills it with unique, and sourced, content relevant to an article named Alchemical elements, otherwise it should be merged.
—Sowlos (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see much sense to the article either. It appears to be sourced from material in Ouspenskys' A New Model of the Universe. Why not merge it there? Ernobe (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm going based on the title. Perhaps the content would be better merged elsewhere, but Alchemical elements should redirect here.
—Sowlos (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Support: this article does (or did) have a section on Alchemy... which would be an appropriate merge target. The inclusion of sulfur etc is not classical however. Regarding the list, substances are conceptually distinct from elements.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 18:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Support: Elements in alchemy = the aristotle/empedocles system with no special differences. Content of alchemy section in this article re: sulphur is the tria prima (no article exists... Should be a different topic.)Content in the alchemical elements article ain't classical. Support moving it elsewhere if it's about a single text as suggested above.Car Henkel (talk) 13:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done — Merged what I could; deleted most of the OR.
—Sowlos (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

in Contemporary Architecture

see the link.--2.187.107.80 (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The film The Fifth Element (1997) as a reference??

Surely a Bruce Willis action film isn't something to use as a reference for a philosophy/faith article. What is the reasoning behind this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp3hybrid (talk • contribs) 03:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 15:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Explaining gravitation,magnetism, action & reaction and interaction of elements with help of akash Element

God willed to express himself into multiple forms and play a game of Maya.

My Explaination for Law of Gravitation

So, he created a vessel called sky and filled it with ether ( a mixture of akashic elements, like electron and magnetic particles, and blew his shabad (sound energy) through a opening in sky vessel, resulting in formation of various sizes of bubbles(in reality these are the nucleus of atoms),which were filled with akashic particles moving at light speed inside the bubbles. the bubbles are made of such film material ,which can not be penetrated by akashic elements, and so are pressurized by these akashic element , which are moving in straight lines,from all sides, but when this movement is obstructed by other bubbles, a pressure imbalance results , This pressure imbalance thus creats obstruction from one side on a bubble resulting in its attraction towards that bubble, this attraction in large quantity manifests itself as gravitational force, We can mathematically prove this ( GMm/r2)because this pressure difference is a function of sum of areas of the obstruction, and the sum of areas of the attracted bubble.and thus we can logically say that mass is nothing but the area of nucleus of an atom, through which this akashic element can’t pass.Thus proving ancient theory that akashic element is holing all other elements, by creation of gravitation force. Breaking and joining of bubbles(nucleus) to form new size of bubbles under force or high temperature results in release of internal energy of bubbles according to change in volume of (nucleus) bubbles , thus occurring, which may be called fission and fusion nuclear reactions. proving E=mc2 ,mass energy conversion equation of Einstein.

My Explaination for Magnetism

There are magnetic paricles of very small size ,in ether, In magnets, the elements align in straight lines to form tunnels( larger than size of magnetic akashic particles0, through which akashic magnetic particles can easily pass, Passing of mgt through tunnel near north pole results in creation of vaccum or low pressure of mgt near north pole resulting in forced flow of nearby mgt to fill the vaccum thus created ,manifesting in attraction for iron and magnetic materials, Thus magnets acts as pump for mgt creating a field from south pole to north pole. My Theory of Electromagnetism There are magnetic and electronic particles in space. The oscillation(interchange) of energy between these two results in electromagnetic waves. My Explaination for action and reaction and conservation of momentum The solids consists of nucleus bubbles and their fields, when a collision occurs the bubbles are pressurized to form elliptical shapes in place of spherical normal, when the force is removed they try to recoil to their natural shape(as in a spring), resuling in release of stored energy like in a spring recoiling in opposite direction. This is the reason that every action will have equal and opposite reaction.

the collision resulted in various atoms filled with different energy level.   These different atoms with varying energy levels(fire element) combined with each other and with others to create atoms and compounds with varying attractive and repulsive forces amongst each other resulting in manifestation of solid, liquid and gaseous substances. Solids (prithvi Tatva) formed  the shell or the structure or boundaries for the liquid (jal Tatwa) and gases(Vayu Tatwa) to entrap inside. Solids manifest  a temporary immortality in this mortal world.

The creation is a dance of attractive and repulsive forces and, motion between matters and electromagnetic waves, the interaction between higher energy state particles and lower stage particles, results in transfer of energy and destabilization of existing systems. Solids structures are always being attacked by fluids, which are freer to move, and are energized by sun and other radiating stars and heat entrapped inside the shell of earth. And there is difference in energy received at different level in space and time, so there is difference in energy levels and fluids move from higher energy levels to lower ones. And fluids are cutting the solids; always try to keep changing the structure of solids. So Elements are always attacking each other, and the equilibrium of forces keeps changing resulting in regular creation of new shapes of solid structures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.99.51.101 (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)