text:
Wikipedia talk:Historical archive/Policy/Rules to consider

In my opinion this page belongs on meta with some kind of ratification or transport of the most interesting discussion to an appropriate editing guidelines file on Wikipedia. It seems silly to me to be voting on rules, the first of which is to ignore them if you choose, and then be jumping all over people who break them either unwittingly or intentionally. user:mirwin —Preceding undated comment added 20:01, 15 April 2002 (UTC)

 * Seeing as how people aren't voting on them, I hardly see the point. People are placing their names on what they do and don't support.   I found this incredibly useful when I was a newbie, because it gave me a lot of insight into who the other wikipedians were.  Also, knowing what rules are even under consideration (or active and virulent debate) helps a newbie get insight into the workings of the wikipedia.  I advise all newbies to look at it, as well as checking out homepages and other contributions of their fellow wikipedians before randomly editing all the work put into existing articles.  Having this on the main site makes it  much more accessible to the people who can most benefit -- putting it on meta just reinforces the very false opinion that this is some kind of arcana of a ruling cabal. JHK —Preceding undated comment added 20:18, 15 April 2002 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Panentheism

Untitled
Questions for someone knowledgable to answer about panentheism - Who 'invented' it? When? Where? Why? How did it spread?

 * This way of thinkjing about God has been around for many centuries, if not milennia. I know that it has existed in the Kabbalah (esoteric Jewish mysticism) for nearly a milennia. However, I believe that the formal name for this view of God wasn't invented by someone until the early 1800s. RK

> Is it a common/popular belief today?

 * Many Chasidic Orthodox Jews, and many Conservative and Reform Jews, have views of God that are basically panentheistic, even if they themselves don't use this formal philosophical term. This view of God is mainstream among those who adhere to process theology and process philosophy. RK

Was it common/popular at any other stage in history? If possible - are there any specific fact/figures/dates that should go with this entry?

 * Panentheism is the classical Christian view over Supernatural Theism. Supernatural Theism is a commonly used way of viewing God as a commander living "out there". Borg discusses Supernatural Theism as something he was taught as a young boy in Sunday school which later turned him into an atheist. He later discovered Panentheism which "made sense" and he regained his relationship with God.

Yes, it goes back to at least the Ancient Aryans of Northern India, long before the Kabbalah, within their sacred Sanskrit writings of the Vedas, Upanishads, and within the B. Gita. See cosmotheism which term goes back to at least Ancient Egyptian-Greek times, and which idea may have also been transmitted from Ancient Aryan India.

Just a note: I moved the contrast/link to Pantheism up to the top because the definition here read like a response to something else which was left unspecified until the very end of the article, which left me a bit confused. --Brion 22:11 Aug 18, 2002 (PDT)

I have greatly expanded the "Panentheism in Christianity" section, outlining the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox doctrine of panentheism. Evidently, it looks like a single term manages to describe two very different things.Dogface 18:35, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Should the pandeism section removed be added back??? Falphin 02:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please don't flame me if I get the etiquette wrong, I just wanted to point out that to claim that Neoplatonists are polytheirstic is highy debatable and the weight of academic debate comes down fro a panenthentheistic monotheism, or even emanationist, but not polytheism as is commonly understood today. If Neoplatonists are polytheistic, then so is Christianity, hope that makes sense? == pantheism/panentheism ==

It might be good if we decide which forms of Hinduism are pantheist, which are panentheist, and which are neither. I suspect that they are all a mix of pantheism and panentheism, but lets discuss! ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Raj2004 has been generous enough to tell me the following:

The schools of Hinduism that are panentheistic include Ramanuja, and Kashmir Shaivism, see http://www.kashmirshaivism.org/introduction.html The schools of Hinduism that are pantheistic are those of Sankara. Kasmir saivism rejected the maya theory.

another link (not from raj) is:

¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 02:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

There's some inconsistency in the Modern usage section. Einstein believes in Spinoza's God, but Spinoza's God is a pantheist God. Modern usage should be deleted, as it makes no sense. 130.245.250.52 (talk) 03:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Panentheism in Judaism
I am removing this statement "More strictly, since this doctrine states that the universe is God yet God is more than the universe, it is a type of pantheism. Non-Hasidic Orthodox Jews viewed this theology as heretical. However, after the schism between Hasidic and non-Hasidic Orthodox Jews closed in the mid 1800s, the panenthist aspects of the Hasidic thought were largely abandoned. " Because although the terms used are more commonly found with those that believe in pantheism, the belief that Chasidim have is really that G-d is the animating force behind everything and therefore everything is really nulified before G-d, because G-d can stop giving the life force to the world. See Shaar Yichud Vemunah in Tanya and Lekutei sichas #12, pg 74-75 footnote # 30 and it's footnote. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  04:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest that the characterisation of panentheism as a fringe belief within Orthodox Judaism is judgmental, and has no place in the wikipedia. I know many Orthodox Jews, and a few Rabbis, who are explicitly comfortable with the idea of panentheism, and find that it refelcts their own beliefs. Lee-Anne (talk) 00:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

God/Goddess and "Primitive" Cultures
The article has the statement, "Modern anthropologists have discovered that virtually all the aboriginees [sic] of various continents have deep panentheistic worldviews when they have the concept of a Goddess (there are vanishingly few male-centric gods in primitive tribes)...." This second half of this statement seems to me to be debatable; at the least, it needs to be documented, in my view. Is there a database as to how many "primitive" people have gods, and how many goddesses? And don't many have deities that are more or less impersonal (e.g. the concept of Wakan Tanka of the Lakota or the numen of the earliest Romans)? Also, what is "primitive"? In this context it seems to mean "hunter-gatherer" or "pre-agricultural", but this ought to be clarified.

At one time a widely held view had it that pre-agricultural peoples worshipped the "Great Mother" or the "Great Goddess". In recent years, this has been increasingly controversial. See, for example, The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory by Cynthia Eller and In the Wake of the Goddesses by Tikva Frymer-Kensky. Many still hold the belief of the primacy of goddesses (or the Goddess), but it seems from what I've read no longer to be the dominant viewpoint. At the very least, evidence is ambiguous. Should this be reflected in the article, or should there at least be documentation? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turmarion (talk • contribs) December 29, 2005

 * I find the sentence "There are more archeological records of panentheistic cultures than any other variety in the hunter-gatherer societies" baffling. How exactly can you have archaeological records of panentheism?  Did ancient peoples carve "by the way, this is a symbolic representation of the animating principle of the universe" onto their religious articles?  This completely undocumented section really mars the rest of this article. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.36.43.175 (talk)

 * I agree with Turmarion that that the reasoning in that paragraph needs to be explained and sourced. I have added a  tag, but if no-one comes forward to source it, someone should be bold and delete the paragraph. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Panentheism in Hinduism
Wouldn't Sankara's entire enterprise be considered panentheistic? The notion of Advaita itself carries the ontological tension between transcendence and immanence. I would be inclined to think that the transcendent, unchanging, impersonal nature of God in his metaphysics, combined with the idea of God's sustaining presence in creation, fits pretty squarely within the tenets of panentheism. Quigonpaj 15:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

criticism??
Are there any significant critics of the Panentheist philosophy? This would be an interesting section to add. Who does or does not traditionally fall within this conception? Fundamentalist Islamists? ? Liberal Christians? Atheists? Wiccans? MPS 23:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

 * From reading the talk page about Bishop John Spong, the conservatives and fundamentalist Christians who oppose him are strongly against Panentheism. Spong and other more liberal theologians like Marcus Borg are embracing it more and more at the current time.  202.138.16.98 00:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In reply to the question raised by MPS in 2006, yes there has been some substantial criticism of panentheism. Notably the 2006 book Panentheism: The Other God of the Philosophers by Reformed theologian John W. Cooper. Marcus Borg's particular interpretation of panentheism has been critiqued by Presbyterian theologian Thomas G. Long, first in his book Preaching from Memory to Hope (Westminster John Knox Press, 2009), in the chapter "Meeting Marcus Borg Again for the First Time" pp. 79-110. More recently in a book review published in The Christian Century, "The Binary Christianity of Marcus Borg", July 7, 2017. https://www.christiancentury.org/review/binary-christianity-of-marcus-borg

The addition of a section for Criticism is certainly warrented. BlueMesa171 (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Native Americans?
The article currently states that most Native Americans were panentheistic, except the (monotheistic) Cherokee. Many monotheistic groups (Judaism, Eastern Orthodox Christianity) are panentheistic as well according to the article, so surely these are not mutually exclusive? I would describe most (North American) Native religions as panentheistic and monotheistic, but with a recognition of other spirits. (Various Mesoamerican groups were polytheistic.) Vultur 15:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps they should be described as Henotheistic and Panentheistic rather than as Monotheistic and/or Panentheistic as various Native American groups believed in the existence of both an imminent Panentheistic god and a pantheon of other gods, goddesses and spirits.--Fang 23 (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Moved New Thought Movement section
I have moved the "New Thought Movement" section to be a subsection of "Panentheism in Religion." New Thought is a religious or spiritual belief system; therefore this section should go under the Religion section of this article, rather than have its own section. Shiningdove (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The Baha'i Faith section of this page
This section is basically undeciperable. It should either be edited, with substantiation, or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.71.89 (talk) 06:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The Baha'i Faith section of this page
This section is basically undeciperable. It should either be edited, with substantiation, or removed.

Ignore the previous statement. Someone edited it since I pointed out the problem on a listserv this morning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.71.89 (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The new age section looks like WP:OR
The discussion of the Jane Roberts material looks like analysis, and seems to me to come to an incorrect conclusion at that; her views seem to be pantheistic. Also, it's not clear to me how much she should be used as an expert on the New Age in general. Can we get some citations from experts/analysts? Mangoe (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

EO section is getting a bit POV
The section on Eastern/Oriental Orthodox theology is drifting into projecting non-panentheistic onto other Christian theologies. If a contrast is going to be made, actual evidence is going to have to be produced of what other Christians believe. My impression is that the only significant difference may well be the EO use of the "energies" language. Mangoe (talk) 04:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I tried to add parts of the Palamas stance from the Philokalia to the article. I figured it would get reverted. Suprise, it was. What I added can be sourced but everything now on wikipedia is an edit war. And I am tired. It is old. The differences for the record however are massive. If you are interested here is but one difference. You know this is but one difference there are more. The entire afterlife according to Orthodoxy is completely different then in RC and Protestantism. As for Panentheism. Well you can read here  for yourself. The word is not used so much by Orthodox theologians except maybe Alexei V. Nesteruk. Because the word begins to treat God's immanence as not immanent. But rather an extension of God which of course is back to Augustine. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with explaining how the Palamite theory is panetheistic. The problem material is the polemics against western theology. Orthodox apologetics are reliable sources for Orthodox theology, but not for western theology.

 * I'm willing to make a go at editing out the anti-western contrasting, but I'm going to need someone Orthodox to make sure I haven't made a hash of the Palamite material. Mangoe (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I fear I am missing something here. Most modern Orthodox theologians ARE anti-Western theology. Romanides, Florevsky, Lossky are all anti-Western its in their works. I am sorry but they are a source of the content in themselves and they are not alone. I have been trying to explain to a Protestant historical biblical editor on here (Wikipedia) that its not any Orthodox lay person per se it literally is the theologians themselves this includes Seraphim Rose and hes American. Please clarify, I mean why be Orthodox if you feel any different. Sobornost is pretty much the guidelines that ecumenism follows but this is very contingent, though. Bad blood is bad blood, Wiki policies and guidelines or not. LoveMonkey (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

 * The point is that they are only good sources for Orthodox theology; they are not good sources for Catholic or Anglican or other Western theological systems. If Seraphim Rose (to take the most egregious offender) says that western theologians look at things in thus and such a way, that is not a good enough authority for Wikipedia to claim that the westerners do think that way. Rose in particular is an apologist, and in my experience he is not a reliable witness to to beliefs of his opponents. If it is necessary to present that these theologians differentiate themselves from the west, it has to made clear that they do not speak for scholarship, but only for themselves.

 * I'm also seeing another problem which has only become apparent on rereading the article closely. It's not clear to me that the passage is even saying that EO theology is panentheistic. It seems to be saying that, if it is panentheistic, it is so in a manner that is different from western theology. That turns the whole thing into a WP:COATRACK for anti-western controversialism. At the very least the bit about "a fundamentalist panentheism" in that the highly pejorative "fundamentalist" is quite unclear. I'm not at all sure that the real fundamentalism has any opinions at all about the matter, but it also seems that the passage may mean a (terminologically) "strict" panentheism-- in which case "fundamentalist" is a misleading word choice. I'm inclined to strike the whole paragraph as it stands. Mangoe (talk) 04:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

LoveMonket response to the Mangoe
Mangoe posted The point is that they are only good sources for Orthodox theology; they are not good sources for Catholic or Anglican or other Western theological systems. -- LoveMonkey's reply Where was sourcing of the Catholic or Protestants sections in the article ever done using Orthodox theologians? As far as I can tell no where. If you have found out where any other groups theological position where sourced by polemical Orthodox remove them. I won't revert. So again I seem to be missing why what Orthodox theologians say about Orthodox theology should not go in the Orthodox theological section. Why are you interpreting wiki policy to say that a positions sources are invalid and unwikipedian when they are reflective of that group? That makes no sense. --- Mangoe wrote If Seraphim Rose (to take the most egregious offender) says that western theologians look at things in thus and such a way, that is not a good enough authority for Wikipedia to claim that the westerners do think that way. -- LoveMonkey's reply This point seems to me to be confused on your end. You have confused two points as if they are one and the same. First point that within the confines of this article that Seraphim speaks for anyone outside of Orthodoxy. 2. That by posting what someone says Wikipedia then by simply posting it endorses that person and that person's position. Only you are saying that. Neither point is valid. - Mangoe wrote Rose in particular is an apologist, and in my experience he is not a reliable witness to to beliefs of his opponents. If it is necessary to present that these theologians differentiate themselves from the west, it has to made clear that they do not speak for scholarship, but only for themselves. --- LoveMonkey's reply All of this is your opinion Mangoe, if you can prove where any of these individuals has been addressed by scholars and their work invalidated as such please post it. Each of the above formentioned individuals have their own respective wiki article pages and nothing is stopping you from posting that they should no longer be considered valid in their respective fields and or cultures. Did yhey as scholars not provide sources, do you have one to validate your critieria as you have outlined it? I will say at best you will be perceived as Western-Eurocentric POV pushing. This is the problem John Romanides and George Florovsky and Seraphim Rose had with the WCC. NPOV does not mean to not have a point view, it means to post all major points of view and to balance out the article to reflect that. Professor and Father Romanides will not loss his degree in theology no matter what kind of impossible logic for censuring someone position you take Mangoe. Censured because people dont like the message. - Mangoe wrote I'm also seeing another problem which has only become apparent on rereading the article closely. It's not clear to me that the passage is even saying that EO theology is panentheistic.

LoveMonkey's reply It would probably be clearer to you if you looked on the article history page. Where it shows I edited the section and then another editor came in and removed all of the clarifications I added and the other editor removed and replaced with ambigious confusing terminology. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC) - Mangoe wrote I'm also seeing another problem which has only become apparent on rereading the article closely. It's not clear to me that the passage is even saying that EO theology is panentheistic. It seems to be saying that, if it is panentheistic, it is so in a manner that is different from western theology. That turns the whole thing into a WP:COATRACK for anti-western controversialism. At the very least the bit about "a fundamentalist panentheism" in that the highly pejorative "fundamentalist" is quite unclear. I'm not at all sure that the real fundamentalism has any opinions at all about the matter, but it also seems that the passage may mean a (terminologically) "strict" panentheism-- in which case "fundamentalist" is a misleading word choice. I'm inclined to strike the whole paragraph as it stands.

LoveMonkey's reply OK so with all of the above stated post a wording that you like here of the section and I will collaborate with you and source it. But understand that questioning the validatity of the sources is not a step in the right direction. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

About time for a purge of dubious stuff
This article is carrying around too many uncited claims about various groups. I'm about ready to strike them all unless someone comes up with some actual evidence. In particular there seems to be a disagreement about the Mesoamerican claims, neither side of which is cited at all. Mangoe (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Spinoza (as always)
One section (In Europe) has it:

 * It is a widespread misconception, however, that Spinoza was a pantheistic, that is, equating God with the material universe. In a letter to Henry Oldenburg Spinoza states that: "as to the view of certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken".

Another section (Modern Usage) has it:

 * Albert Einstein, amongst several other scientists, held a panentheistic view of God, and named Spinoza as the philosopher who exerted the most influence on his world view (Weltanschauung). Spinoza equated God (infinite substance) with Nature, consistent with... ...

Thus we learn that Spinoza (allegedly) equated God with Nature and at the same time didn't equate God with Nature. Which in fact is quite cool, because in this way you can simply choose what you like better. Of course, it is also a contradiction and as such makes an unfortunately already rather poor article (see previous entry by Mangoe) even poorer only. The more appropriate rendition, by the way, is that given under In Europe, namely, Spinoza did not equate God with Nature (and "Deus sive Natura" should consequently not be understood literally) -- yet can I prove this? No! I can't! But I know it.. and that is something too. :-) While you cannot prove that Spinoza ever contradicted himself either. As your article states. Cheerio. Zero Thrust (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

 * The truth is Spinoza is NOT a panentheist because he never makes the claim to completely understand the nature of God and thus hold God completely separate from nature. He is, more specifically, agnostic to panentheism.  Furthermore, prominent American philosopher and self described panentheist Charles Hartshorne calls Spinoza a "classical pantheist".  I have added some of this to the article but in my opinion the article should be edited to remove the long winded case for Spinoza as a panentheist.  It's rather inconveneint that a major panentheist scholar would not label Spinoza a panentheist. (Allisgod (talk) 05:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC))

Hinduism problems
There are no citations in the Hinduism section, which is already a problem. Beyond that, however, the second quotation (from the Vedasara Shivastotram) would be understood by the casual reader as asserting pantheism. I'm tempted to invoke the lack of citation and make everyone start over, but at the very least this section needs to be argued from actual authorities instead of bald assertions from passing editors. Mangoe (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Unclear
The first two paragraphs of the article need work as they aren't clear. They are confusing. Shorter sentences would help so that the reader can see more clearly exactly which elements are being referred to. Directspirit (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

stoics?
the greek stoics of ancient times were said to be pantheists, but not sure if they were panentheists as well. the wikipedia article on pantheist(m) seems to suggest they were. 173.65.75.42 (talk) 07:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)jiohdi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.75.42 (talk) 07:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

spurious statement
In the first sentence the insertion of "and, presumably, spacelessly" has the flavour of a facile comment by a scientist who thinks he's clever. Is a scientist qualified to criticise theology? If he didn't understand the concept he should listen to spiritual teachers, not interject uneccessary spurious statements. I am going to delete it Kildwyke (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Panentheism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160101103851/http://wildfaith.homestead.com/mcdaniel.html to http://wildfaith.homestead.com/mcdaniel.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Panentheism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114200326/http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/charleshartshorne.html to http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/charleshartshorne.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Theism and mainstream rabbinic Judaism
"While mainstream Rabbinic Judaism is classically monotheistic, and follows in the footsteps of Maimonides" In fact that's not true, because the only group which follow maimonidean theology is dor daim, rather marginal group(even some rabbis consider them "heretics") while Kabbalah is considered as absolute truth in mainstream Judaism, so in kabbalistic thought there are some views on that issue, Baal haTanya and Baal Nefesh haChaim have different positions in details but both agree that tzimtzum is actually concealment and not contraction(which is actually panentheistic view) opinions of them are followed by most religious jews, also there is opinion of Baal haLeshem who take tzimtzum literally, this is more theistic position, but his works far less studied than Tanya and Nefesh haChaim. I even wanna say that theism wasn't mainstream position in rabbinic Judaism even in times of tannaim and amoraim because it is written in midrash bereishit rabbah 68:9 "Why we call G-d haMakom(the Place) because he is place of the world, and not the world his place." 217.118.90.247 (talk) 07:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This is all WP:OR according to Wikipedia policies. If you'd have reliable academic sources explaining one or two of your several thoughts above, you might try your hand at adding a footnote to the issue. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 16:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * P.S.: I also completely disagree with your random assertion above that "Kabbalah is considered as absolute truth in mainstream Judaism." There are no WP:RS in the world that would support such a random exaggeration. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 16:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Buddhism
The section on Buddhism is incorrect, misleading, and should be removed until more accurate text can be created. To cite one >100 year old article about god and Buddhism is simply inadequate and parochial. Buddhism may be referred to as atheistic, nontheistic, etc., but there is no god or deity in Buddhism. One can practice Buddhism and believe in a god if one so chooses. Buddhism can coexist with Western beliefs in god because it recognizes that such beliefs assist people in dealing with their everyday needs. However, we can only achieve enlightenment when we understand reality as it is, beyond all concepts and beliefs, and the nature of our own minds which become attached to concepts and beliefs. Arthur012345 (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Panentheism


text:
Robert Goddard (disambiguation)

Robert H. Goddard (1882–1945) was an American scientist and pioneer of modern rocketry.

Robert Goddard may also refer to:

 * Robert Goddard, witness in a trial after the Boston Massacre (1770)
 * Robert Goddard (novelist) (born 1954), British novelist
 * Robert Hale Ives Goddard (1837–1916), American businessman and politician from Rhode Island
 * Robert Hale Ives Goddard III (born 1941), American anthropologist and linguist
 * Sir Robert Victor Goddard (1897–1987), British Royal Air Force officer

title: Robert Goddard (disambiguation)


text:
Chromatic scale

The chromatic scale (or twelve-tone scale) is a set of twelve pitches (more completely, pitch classes) used in tonal music, with notes separated by the interval of a semitone. Chromatic instruments, such as the piano, are made to produce the chromatic scale, while other instruments capable of continuously variable pitch, such as the trombone and violin, can also produce microtones, or notes between those available on a piano.

Most music uses subsets of the chromatic scale such as diatonic scales. While the chromatic scale is fundamental in western music theory, it is seldom directly used in its entirety in musical compositions or improvisation.

Definition
The chromatic scale is a musical scale with twelve pitches, each a semitone, also known as a half-step, above or below its adjacent pitches. As a result, in 12-tone equal temperament (the most common tuning in Western music), the chromatic scale covers all 12 of the available pitches. Thus, there is only one chromatic scale. The ratio of the frequency of one note in the scale to that of the preceding note is given by $$\sqrt[12]{2} \approxeq 1.06$$.

In equal temperament, all the semitones have the same size (100 cents), and there are twelve semitones in an octave (1200 cents). As a result, the notes of an equal-tempered chromatic scale are equally-spaced.

"The chromatic scale...is a series of half steps which comprises all the pitches of our [12-tone] equal-tempered system."

- Allen Forte (1979)

"All of the pitches in common use, considered together, constitute the chromatic scale. It is made up entirely of successive half steps, the smallest interval in Western music....Counting by half steps, an octave includes twelve different pitches, white and black keys together. The chromatic scale, then, is a collection of all the available pitches in order upward or downward, one octave's worth after another."

- Walter Piston (1987)

"A chromatic scale is a nondiatonic scale consisting entirely of half-step intervals. Since each tone of the scale is equidistant from the next [symmetry] it has no tonic [key]. ... Chromaticism [is t]he introduction of some pitches of the chromatic scale into music that is basically diatonic in orientation, or music that is based on the chromatic scale instead of the diatonic scales."

- Benward & Saker (2003)

The ascending and descending chromatic scale is shown below.

"The twelve notes of the octave—all the black and white keys in one octave on the piano—form the chromatic scale. The tones of the chromatic scale (unlike those of the major or minor scale) are all the same distance apart, one half step. The word chromatic comes from the Greek chroma, color; and the traditional function of the chromatic scale is to color or embellish the tones of the major and minor scales. It does not define a key, but it gives a sense of motion and tension. It has long been used to evoke grief, loss, or sorrow. In the twentieth century it has also become independent of major and minor scales and is used as the basis for entire compositions."

- Roger Kamien (1976)

Notation

The chromatic scale has no set enharmonic spelling that is always used. Its spelling is, however, often dependent upon major or minor key signatures and whether the scale is ascending or descending. In general, the chromatic scale is usually notated with sharp signs when ascending and flat signs when descending. It is also notated so that no scale degree is used more than twice in succession (for instance, G♭ – G♮ – G♯).

Similarly, some notes of the chromatic scale have enharmonic equivalents in solfege. The rising scale is Do, Di, Re, Ri, Mi, Fa, Fi, Sol, Si, La, Li, Ti and the descending is Ti, Te/Ta, La, Le/Lo, Sol, Se, Fa, Mi, Me/Ma, Re, Ra, Do, However, once 0 is given to a note, due to octave equivalence, the chromatic scale may be indicated unambiguously by the numbers 0-11 mod twelve. Thus two perfect fifths are 0-7-2. Tone rows, orderings used in the twelve-tone technique, are often considered this way due to the increased ease of comparing inverse intervals and forms (inversional equivalence).

Pythagorean
The most common conception of the chromatic scale before the 13th century was the Pythagorean chromatic scale. Due to a different tuning technique, the twelve semitones in this scale have two slightly different sizes. Thus, the scale is not perfectly symmetric. Many other tuning systems, developed in the ensuing centuries, share a similar asymmetry.

In Pythagorean tuning (i.e. 3-limit just intonation) the chromatic scale is tuned as follows, in perfect fifths from G♭ to A♯ centered on D (in bold) (G♭–D♭–A♭–E♭–B♭–F–C–G–D–A–E–B–F♯–C♯–G♯–D♯–A♯), with sharps higher than their enharmonic flats (cents rounded to one decimal):

 * {| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center"

!width=4%| !width=4%| C !width=4%| D♭ !width=4%| C♯ !width=4%| D !width=4%| E♭ !width=4%| D♯ !width=4%| E !width=4%| F !width=4%| G♭ !width=4%| F♯ !width=4%| G !width=4%| A♭ !width=4%| G♯ !width=4%| A !width=4%| B♭ !width=4%| A♯ !width=4%| B !width=4%| C !Pitch ratio !Cents where $256/243$ is a diatonic semitone (Pythagorean limma) and $2187/2048$ is a chromatic semitone (Pythagorean apotome).
 * 1 || $9/8$ || $32/27$ || $19683/16384$ || $81/64$ || $4/3$ || $1024/729$ || $729/512$ || $3/2$ || $128/81$ || $6561/4096$ || $27/16$ || $16/9$ || $59049/32768$ || $243/128$ || $256/243$ || $2187/2048$ || 2
 * 0 || 90.2 || 113.7 || 203.9 || 294.1 || 317.6 || 407.8 || 498 || 588.3 || 611.7 || 702 || 792.2 || 815.6 || 905.9 || 996.1 || 1019.6 || 1109.8 || 1200
 * }

The chromatic scale in Pythagorean tuning can be tempered to the 17-EDO tuning (P5 = 10 steps = 705.88 cents).

Just intonation
In 5-limit just intonation the chromatic scale, Ptolemy's intense chromatic scale, is as follows, with flats higher than their enharmonic sharps, and new notes between E–F and B–C (cents rounded to one decimal):

 * {| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center"

! ! C !! C♯ !! D♭ !! D !! D♯ !! E♭ !! E !! E♯/F♭ !! F !! F♯ !! G♭ !! G !! G♯ !! A♭ !! A !! A♯ !! B♭ !! B !! B♯/C♭ !! C !Pitch ratio !Cents
 * 1 || $25/24$ || $16/15$ || $9/8$ || $75/64$ || $6/5$ || $5/4$ || $32/25$ || $4/3$ || $25/18$ || $36/25$ || $3/2$ || $25/16$ || $8/5$ || $5/3$ || $125/72$ || $9/5$ || $15/8$ || $48/25$ || 2
 * 0 || 70.7 || 111.7 || 203.9 || 274.6 || 315.6 || 386.3 || 427.4 || 498 || 568.7 || 631.3 || 702 || 772.6 || 813.7 || 884.4 || 955 || 1017.6 || 1088.3 || 1129.3 || 1200
 * }

The fractions $9/8$ and $10/9$, $6/5$ and $32/27$, $5/4$ and $81/64$, $4/3$ and $27/20$, and many other pairs are interchangeable, as $81/80$ (the syntonic comma) is tempered out.

Just intonation tuning can be approximated by 19-EDO tuning (P5 = 11 steps = 694.74 cents).

Non-Western cultures
The ancient Chinese chromatic scale is called Shí-èr-lǜ. However, "it should not be imagined that this gamut ever functioned as a scale, and it is erroneous to refer to the 'Chinese chromatic scale', as some Western writers have done. The series of twelve notes known as the twelve lü were simply a series of fundamental notes from which scales could be constructed." However, "from the standpoint of tonal music [the chromatic scale] is not an independent scale, but derives from the diatonic scale," making the Western chromatic scale a gamut of fundamental notes from which scales could be constructed as well.

title: Chromatic scale


text:
St. Hedwig's Cathedral

St. Hedwig's Cathedral (St.-Hedwigs-Kathedrale) is the Catholic cathedral of the Archdiocese of Berlin on Bebelplatz in the historic centre of Berlin. Dedicated to Hedwig of Silesia, it was erected from 1747 to 1887 by order of Frederick the Great according to plans by Georg Wenzeslaus von Knobelsdorff in Baroque style. Damaged during the Allied bombing in World War II, the cathedral's interior was restored from 1952 to 1963 in post-war modernist style as part of the rebuilding of the Forum Fridericianum on Bebelplatz. Since 2018, the listed building has been closed for renovation, and is expected to reopen in the Fall of 2024.

History and architecture
St. Hedwig's Church was built in the 18th century following a request from local parishioners to King Frederick II. He donated the land on which the church was built. The church was dedicated to the patron of Silesia and Brandenburg, Saint Hedwig of Andechs. It was the first Catholic church built in Prussia after the Reformation. The building was designed by Georg Wenzeslaus von Knobelsdorff and modelled after the Pantheon in Rome. Construction started in 1747, but was interrupted and delayed several times by economic problems. It was not opened until 1 November 1773, when the king's friend, Ignacy Krasicki, the Bishop of Warmia (later Archbishop of Gniezno), officiated at the cathedral's consecration.

After the Kristallnacht pogroms that took place on the night of 9–10 November 1938, Bernhard Lichtenberg, a canon of the cathedral chapter of St. Hedwig since 1931, prayed publicly for Jews at evening prayer. Lichtenberg was later jailed by the Nazis and died on the way to the concentration camp at Dachau. In 1965, Blessed Bernhard Lichtenberg's remains were transferred to the crypt at St. Hedwig's Cathedral.

The cathedral was severely damaged by Allied bombing in an air raid on 1 March 1943. Only the damaged shell of the building was left standing. Reconstruction started in 1952 and on 1 November 1963, All Saints' Day, the new high altar was consecrated by the Bishop of Berlin, Alfred Cardinal Bengsch.

Between 1949 and 1990, St. Hedwig's was in East Berlin, under the control of the East German government.

The cathedral closed for major renovations on 1 September 2018. The relics of Bl. Bernhard Lichtenberg have been transferred to the crypt of Maria Regina Martyrum during the cathedral's renovation. The church of St. Joseph in Wedding is the interim location for pontifical masses. A focal point of the renovations is a hemispherical altar composed of small stones from around the diocese collected by parishioners, based on an idea proposed by Austrian artist Leo Zogmayer.

Tapestries
Fitting to the character of the liturgical season, a huge tapestry is hanging behind the cathedra. The cathedral owns three of them; all three share the motif of the heavenly Jerusalem.

The tapestry of former Bauhaus student Margaretha Reichardt (Grete Reichardt) (1907–1984) of Erfurt was handwoven in 1963. It depicts a stylised city with the names of the apostles inscribed on foundation stones. God is represented by the Tree of Life and a lamb features as a symbol of Christ. (1891–1965) made a colorful appliqué work. It is a geometric composition using themes from the Book of Revelation. The three-part woven carpet made by (born 1933) was made in cooperation with Nürnberger Gobelinmanufaktur GmbH, a tapestry weaving company, between 1979 and 1981. This also uses themes from Revelations.

Burials in the crypt

 * Konrad von Preysing
 * Alfred Bengsch
 * Bernhard Lichtenberg
 * Georg Sterzinsky

title: St. Hedwig's Cathedral