Talk:London Institute of Pataphysics

this text was written by Asger Jorn as "Pataphysics - a religeon in the making" which was originaly published in the Situationist International magazine which , i do believe, had no copyright.

Anyway, i understand the deletion: it is lazy of me to just cut n paste, i will write a fresh text when i have time.

I have taken the original piece from Jorn and created a new page for Pataphysical situation to deal with this. Harry Potter

---

The following is a discussion from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion:

• London Institute of Pataphysics - probably copyright infringement andy 12:03 19 May 2003 (UTC)
  • No copyright infringement as published in the journal Situationniste Internationale a pioneer of anti-copright in the fifties and sixties. This translation comes from 'Smile' No. 7 1987. It should come as no surprise that those of us who have been exposed to situationist and neoist material should also enjoy developing the wikipedia project. I have moved the original entry to Pataphysical situation which is what it is about, rather than the L.I.P. Harry Potter
  • London Psychogeographical Association: Same contributor, but not much more than a list of links, which Wikipedia is not. -- John Owens 12:12 19 May 2003 (UTC)
    • Now it contains a little more text, which however seems to be copied from websites as well - at least part comes from [1]. And excuse my ignorance but I don't understand a word what that article is about. andy 12:58 19 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Add psychogeography and its psychogeographical redirect to the non-encyclopædic list. -- John Owens 18:52 19 May 2003 (UTC)
    • why are u moving 'psychogeography'? this is a serious discipline with practitioners and theorists all over the world!!!! these are new articles that are just taking shape as we speak and already they are going to be deleted! what's going on ????
  • Pataphysical situation has exactly the same text. The text is obviously POV and is also hard to understand. Andre Engels 10:18 21 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Text has now been slightly altered. Yes the text could be improved. As for being hard to understand, what about octonions and other mathematical concepts? one of the joys of wikipedia is that you can discover Total depravity without being immersed in Calvinism. Now Total depravity is a Calvinist concept, a therefore any explanation would have to delve into Calvinism. And the people keen to do this are the Calvinist community on wikipedia. This has led to a number of pages being a bit POV (and you can read themselves to see how easy they are to understand). But this should not be an argument for deletion. No doubt someone will come and improve both Pataphysical situation and Total Depravity, for instance. Check the discussion on predestination for example. Perhaps it is best to be patient until then. Harry Potter
  • I think these pages should be retained. Of course they are gibberish, but they are notable gibberish. GrahamN 14:12 27 May 2003 (UTC) (Anti-Deletionist Tendency)
    • Probably (no, make that certainly) this subject should be covered in wikipedia. I think the only reasonable ground for deletion would be that no amount of npoving or annotation starting from the text as it now stands could make these articles informative. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 15:07 27 May 2003 (UTC)
    • Pataphysics (and, apparently, all things associated therewith) are absurdist jokes. An encyclopedia might have articles on absurdist jokes, but they should be ABOUT the joke, they should not BE jokes. Any article which might lead a reader to take the joke seriously is seriously misleading and does not belong in an encyclopedia, so if these are not rewritten to be about pataphysics instead of an example of it, they need deletion. -- Someone else 15:10 27 May 2003 (UTC)
  • This last suggestion is seriously POV. It is possible to describe pataphysics as a Ludibrium, i.e. a serious joke. Thus any attempt to dismiss pataphysics as an absurdist joke would equally be seriously misleading. I also find Someone else suggestion that they should be deleted if they are not rewritten seriously flawed. Most wiki pages are less than perfect so why not abandon the project except for one entry wikipedia: a nice idea but impossible to realise. I feel this so-called 'serious' line of 'reasoning' leads nowhere. Scrap the entry on Rosicrucianism because certain people see it as a joke!!! There also pages and pages given over christianity, and indeed many people may take this seriously, although others see it as a joke. Likewise those of us who consider Plato's Republic as a satire might get cross that this understanding is not mentioned on that page. But surely then it is up to us to negotiate with those people who have considered the text as being of sufficient importance as to post it to organise a consensual solution, not just demand that it should be deleted because it does not make clear that the whole thing is probably a big joke!!!.C'mon, let's get serious now! Harry Potter
• Yes. Let's. -- Someone else 01:30 29 May 2003 (UTC)
  • i agree, and will be seriously upset if either pataphysics or psychogeography are removed. this is not funny!!! these are new articles and already being deleted before they are even complete! if u have something to add, then please add it, do not delete just because u do not understand!!!
    • Harry Potter is a wizard of gibberish. Delete. Also I think some of his other contributions (e.g. The Foundry , read up on Anthony Hancock elsewhere if you need to) may be beyond repair. Pcb21 19:03 29 May 2003 (UTC)
• HP did not start The Foundry entry, s/he has only contributed once, so to attribute the entry to HP is misleading in the least, if you have some personal problem with HP then please sort it out with him/her instead of messing with other people's contributions! (NOTE : Paragraph written by User:Qqq )
  • Sorry Qqq, I got a little confused. The line that HP added to The Foundry article was to an article Anthony_Hancock_Paintings_and_Sculptures:_A_Retrospective_Exhibition which is deliberately misleading, i.e. claims Anthony Hancock is a real person! Being a character in a film, he is about as real as, well, Harry Potter! The article should be deleted and I'd urge Harry to muck in writing a proper encyclopedia. Qqq, I notice that the above line is the only contribution (as of 11pm Universal Time) you have ever made to the wiki, strange choice for a first edit, but welcome! Pcb21 22:50 29 May 2003 (UTC)
    • hi, i've been contributing things (including to the pataphysics page) but have only just registered, mainly because of the confusion with these pages (i'm an MA arts student doing my dissertation on pataphysics and painting - hence my concerns!)Qqq
• I feel somewhat nonplussed by Pcb21 behaviour. a) Anthony Hancock is a real person. Far from the entry being misleading it leads via the link (which is reproduced above) which is directly >>leading>> to an explanation of his role in the film The Rebel. Also if Pcb21 wants things which aren't real deleted, then Imaginary numbers should be deleted. But Pcb21 is the true master of gibberish pushing a clearly Cartesian POV line in the pretense that only people of his philosophical persuasion can distinguish between "reality" and whatever. Now Pcb21 is welcome to the opinion that only head banging cartesians should contribute to an encyclopedia, but should not expect everyone else to feel constrained by such warped and narrow views. As Leibnitz remarked "Perception is only a hallucination that is true." Check the page on imagiunary numbers: the limitations of Descartes position when he named them are referenced. I have altered the text of Anthony_Hancock_Paintings_and_Sculptures:_A_Retrospective_Exhibition, (which had suddenly been backed off to the talk page) of removing the POV term "unjustly", included an explanatiion of pataphysics with a link to the imaginary numbers page. Or is Pcb21 going to now dispute whether the exhibition ever took place, whether The Foundry exits, whether the London Institute of Pataphysics, whether the individuals mentioned exist, or whether Art Monthly exits or whether or not is probably the most influential art magazine in the UK. Or indeed whether London itself exists! On a more general note, with all the accumulation of knowledge that wikipedia promotes, perhaps we should allow for the accretion of a little wisdom! Harry Potter
  • The page was removed to the talk page because it was copied from another website with no indication of permission.
    • That aside, I ask a plain question : Having readAnthony_Hancock_Paintings_and_Sculptures:_A_Retrospective_Exhibition, Was Anthony Hancock a) a real person or b) a character played the British actor Tony Hancock. Hint to any others reading this conversation the answer is b) but HP insists in the article that it is a). This deliberate misinformation, coupled with repeated copyright violations, leads me to suggest that Harry Potter should be banned from wikipedia. Pcb21 11:52 30 May 2003 (UTC)
• Pcb21, thanx for the 'hint', but has it escaped your notice that 'Tony' is a corruption of 'Anthony'???! User:Qqq
  • No it had not. Have you watched the film, by the way?
    • Your personal problems with HP are not of concern to me at all, what is of concern is that you obviously have no understanding of Pataphysics as it has been applied in Fine Art, and therefore i respectfuly request that you refrain from messing around with the content of these entries. Your contributions in terms of formatting are, however, still very much appreciated. As for HP, s/he is doing a commendable job in writing about one of this country's most exciting visual and conceptual art forms since Op Art in the 60's. Please let him/her get on with it!!!User:Qqq
• I understand how might pataphysics apply to fine art, much as it might to fine wine. Pataphysics uses the language of gibberish nonsense, fine : that's your, and other pataphysicists' (ooops pataphysicians), perogative. However to use the language of gibberish nonsense in describing pataphysics is not on. How does the OED define pataphysics, for example? We should reach those standards too. If you don't want to do that, then I am sorry but the wikipedia is not the project for you. Pcb21 14:07 30 May 2003 (UTC)
  • P.S. That message is meant for both Qqq and Harry Potter. You are about as different as Tony and Anthony to me :-). Pcb21 14:07 30 May 2003 (UTC)
    • Well I am sure we can do better that the sorry state of the OED here - even though we are not trying to create a dictionary. I am not sure how helpful it is if you simply repeat your strident cartesian message. OK so you don't want engage with the topic, well I am sure you can find another area more congenial to your talents. However don't expect much sympathy when you project your highly controversial POV onto wikipedia. I am not going to suggest that you withdraw from wikipedia just because you have a hard job dealing with diversity. I happen to think that wikipedia may help you come to terms with this unfortunate aspect of your personality. Some of us may find ourselves a lttle irked by your behaviour, but, hey, that's part of living in a community, your friend Harry Potter.

---

I redirected to pataphysics. The LIP appears to be quite a small, select group, with limited international visibility, and comparatively few google hits, so it can be adequately covered as part of that article. Better that than a stub. Martin 19:21 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)