User talk:Dchmelik

Welcome to Wikibooks, Dchmelik!  First steps tutorial Wikibooks is for freely-licensed collaboratively-developed textbooks. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing and assume good faith about the intentions of others. Remember, this is a wiki, so you're allowed to change just about anything, and changes can be made easily. Come introduce yourself to everyone, and let us know what interests you.

If you're coming here from other Wikimedia projects, you should read our primer for Wikimedians to get quickly up-to-speed.  Getting help  Goodies, tips and tricks  Made a mistake? Thanks, Swift (talk) 10:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC) (P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)
 * See the Wikibooks help pages for common issues.
 * Remember, every edit is saved, so if you make mistakes, you can revert to an earlier version if needed.
 * Get help from the community in the Reading room or in our IRC channel.
 * You cannot upload an image until you have been a member for at least 4 days. If your upload is tagged with, , or , please read the template message as it explains the violation of our media policy. Please be sure to provide the required : a license tag and source citation are always required; fair use images require a . Get help in the user assistance room.
 * Please fill in the edit summary and preview your edits before saving.
 * Sign your name on discussion pages by typing &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;
 * Please make sure you follow our naming policy - modules should be named like.
 * User scripts can make many tasks easier. Look at the Gadgets tab of my preferences; check off the boxes for the scripts you want, and hit save!
 * Need to rename a page? Use the move tab (only become available once your account is 4 days old - until then, ask for help).
 * To get a page deleted, add to the top of the page.
 * If something you wrote was deleted, please read the deletion policy, and check the deletion log to find out why. Also check the VFD archives if applicable. You can request undeletion at WB:VFU, or ask the administrator who deleted the page.

Grammar, Arithmology, And Isopsephy
It isn't quite clear what, exactly, this is. Could you clarify that a bit better, please? For the scope of this project, please see What is Wikibooks. Cheers, --Swift (talk) 10:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * [May I add your statement above before my following reply that is also in the book's discussion page?]


 * It is a start on a book about gematria, temurah, notarikon in the context of any language in which the alphabet traditionally doubled as numbers before the cultures had number characters, or at least their alphabets traditionally have numbers assigned to all letters so the 'value' of each word can be defined. That 'value' in text is evaluated in the context of both 'religion & mythology' and  Philosophy (at least the depth level of Theosophy.)  Such arithmology is used to analyze both mythography (lit of religion of the masses except when the myths have reasonable--invariably esoteric--Philosophical scientific meaning) and 'Perennial Philosophy' (the few deep-thinking Philosophers agreeing across most/all eras and cultures, and who also analyze lit/mythography) the latter of who would have most use for this book, though neither the 'religious' nor 'scientific' masses have much/any use.  Theosophy's founder (implying [erennial: its founder required both study of science and its various ideas cause-effect or 'causality' surely used in many liberal arts/sci wikibooks.  It also implies if you want to call 'cause-effect' something more subjective than causality (reason; 'logos' in Greek) such as the Classical Greek definitions, then that is okay and is reasonable for every culture.  That means if someone wants to equally call causality Logos in Hellenismos such as the Greek mythological Chaos or Cronos and the elemental forces they cause, or a more Germanic-language idea such as Hegel's 'Absolute,' and either Teutonic mythology's 'titans' or implied English physics forces (since I said the English Greek-based word 'physics,') then that is okay.  It turned out true from viewpoints: math of dynamic systems (math of chaos) and physics with time as a mere proper dimension (Einsteinian and newer.)


 * Arithmology is of course inherent in astrology, most of which I think is nonsensical, except the astrophysics idea that all heavenly matter affects each other and we are in the 'heavens:' astrology just needs re-writing and the best is probably just in Philosophy of science of astronomy wherever the professors feel they need humour about the universe or their science. Above are the reasons for reasonableness of this book, and following are further ones if you respect the origination of the term 'wiki' or the cultures in the area near/at its origination.  Then I will summarize how I try to write about arithmology conservatively for the use of anthropology/sociology/lit/communication scis., though other mathematicians may want to define arithmolgy as 'math' and delete the book.


 * Philosophy as in schools above (main Western examples are above) also allows poorer cultures to speak of science their own way until they translate everything and develop a thriving higher academia system. This book should allow one to analyze the religious & spiritual Philosophy texts of any culture in the traditional literate way, rather than dismissing them and dismissing Philosophy, both of which are usually done at the same time 'scientists' dismiss other cultures and 'politicians' enable/encourage the exploitation of those cultures, at the same time those 'civilized' people probably unknowingly dismiss the core Philosophy of their own culture and enable the dismissal of the highest civilized standards: just verify history's cycles.  To uphold civil standards, Wikibooks should allow the most difficult and fundamental academia topic: Philosophy (I mean, what does the term 'Phd' entail?) which Classicaly emphasizes the most difficult and fundamental science topic: math.  Philosophers without a Phd or not being as well-read can say what they want about each book, but apparently we need more Phd or well-read Philosophers here to guide their topic here, which was non-existent here when I last checked.


 * If they dislike non-Western mathematicians, and various atomists, Hermes Trismegistus, Pythagoras, Sokrates, Plato, Aristotle, Scholarch Plotinus, and how the latter reportedly would describe the ideas of Hegel, Kant, the 'reformers' of Kant (Quine?,) and Dr. Chomsky or any other modern grammar-dialectics-mathematics-algorithmics Philosophy of sci people. then they should delete my book at once (please notify me first: I would rather write a book that I do for education here, and if esoteric Philosophy that 'offends' most scientists--by either astounding or being good ideas with mediocre grammar--becomes prohibited by Phds and well-read people, then this book should clearly be deleted.) I am not a Phd and am unfamiliar with much more than Classics and basics of aforementioned modernism.  Maybe in the West top Philosophy (of sci) scholars are beyond the ancient idea in this book and consider it wrong.  As far as I can tell it rests upon the math-Philosophers Plotinus and Dr. Chomsky, but maybe people disagree about both classical Logos (cause; vibration; sound/word) and Dr. Chomsky's ideas about logic-grammar-lit sci. integrated in academia without conflicting with all sciences.  I am just a comp. sci student that added math as a major in the last several years, and arithmology is my favourite rec.-math.  I am sure most mathematicians might laugh, but any fellow academic who requires the classical liberal art of grammar integrated into mathematics-algorithmics could see this as interesting: such integration seems to be a cause of Chomsky's ideas; I just hope I do not infuriate people more versed in those.  I will just say I have read some of but have only recently come across some of his language books.


 * If I do not infuriate any other esoteric Philosopher-mathematician here, then I would like the section above to be the 1st 'back of the book' or 'inside dust jacket' or 'appendix: discussions on 1st. ed.' if necessary whether it gets to the point of being printable or not.--Dchmelik (talk) 08:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)