Talk:Dust (His Dark Materials)

OR

This article seems to have a lot of original research. I don't remember it ever being explicitly stated that Dust is what gives the armoured bears their ability to see truth, or allows the witches to use magic. There's no source given in the article. 90.212.82.155 (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Or that intercision performed on an adult acts like that. I'm moving the OR claim up. Rawling4851 21:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I presume the 'effect on adults' is a reference to 'Subtle Knife' referring to being eaten, rather than intercision. i've tidied slightly though this COULD be re-phrased, since I'm not sure that this is seperation and whether Dust is referred to. Pincrete (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

the citations used are make a lot of leaps from the original content of the books and quite frankly seem to just make things up at times, and by are no means of encyclopidi quality216.154.71.232 (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

"In the surface story's climax, Lyra (the heroine, symbolising Satan's Paradise Lost daughter, Sin) and Will (symbolising Cain, son of Adam and Eve in Paradise Lost)" Where does this come from? In the story it is made explicitly clear that Lyra symbolises Eve; indeed it's a plot point. 92.238.93.77 (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if you will return to read this, but '92.238.93.77', the answer to your question is probably that it comes from an academic called Leonard Wheat (and his fans). Personally, I find his theories nonsense, however the biggest problem is not simply the oddness of his theories, so much as that these theories have been interjected into HDM articles as facts. I (today) have done a temporary fix on the Dust page to attribute that whole section to Wheat (it has no other sources). I've spent a lot of time since December trying to clean up, tidy and rationalise all the HDM pages. Dust has been on my list but I've lately got a bit bored with it all. If you know/like the book, why not join me??Pincrete (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Dust - in relation to Karma

Anyone have a view on potential relationship between Dust and Karmic particles - particularly as in the Jain form (see below from other Wikepedia entry)

Karma in Jainism conveys a totally different meaning as commonly understood in the Hindu philosophy and western civilization.[32] In Jainism, karma is referred to as karmic dirt, as it consists of very subtle and microscopic particles i.e. pudgala that pervade the entire universe.[33] Karmas are attracted to the karmic field of a soul on account of vibrations created by activities of mind, speech, and body as well as on account of various mental dispositions. Hence the karmas are the subtle matter surrounding the consciousness of a soul. When these two components, i.e. consciousness and karma, interact, we experience the life we know at present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.134.226 (talk) 08:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Dust as the Symbol of Knowledge

The earlier version of the Dust article, though superficially accurate, completely overlooked the symbolic meaning and significance of Dust. The new section brings out the essence and meaning of Pullman's most basic symbol, Dust. Pullman is, in effect, symbolically retelling A.D. White's 1896 classic, A History of the Warfare of Science [knowledge, dust] with Theology [religious superstition, specters]. Atticusattor (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

What

This article is almost completely unreadable. There are lucid moments, and then the babbling of your crazy aunt, or maybe they are her lucid moments in a sea of babbling. This is not encyclopedic material. Purge, and begin anew. Wjhonson (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Completely agree with the above. At present the whole article is a mixture of fanciful speculation, irrelevant analogy and A VERY PROBLEMATIC interpretation from a single source (Wheat).Pincrete (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair warning I intend to clean up this page, removing a great deal of speculative interpretation and making clear that the Leonard Wheat opinions are, just that, one man's opinions! Text seems to obscure the matter, rather than clarify it. Help appreciated!Pincrete (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I have just got round to a fairly major 'clean up' including removal of 'Wheat', which doesn't refer to dust specifically at all. Hope the 'babbling of your crazy aunt', factor is lessened. Pincrete (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Mary Malone, dark matter, I Ching and all things westward

The text "She (Mary Malone) believes that Dust is dark matter", is not supported by the source, nor I believe the books. The source simply says Mary is studying Dark Matter, whether Shadows=Dark Matter=Dust is never I recall made explicit. Equally, where I Ching fits into all this is not made explicit.

Thoughts? How do we cover the fact that PP 'plays' with these ideas without being explicit about the relationships ? Pincrete (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

You're right, that's a bad source. I should have gone straight to the text. In chapter 12 of the subtle knife, Mary Malone is talking to shadows on her computer, and they confirm that they are dark matter. I can't find confirmation that they are I Ching as well, but Lyra believes they are based on the symbols, and Malone uses the same frame of mind to read them. I'll rewrite.

Full Quote:

She felt as if she had stepped on a space that wasn't there. Her whole being lurched with shock. It took several moments for her to calm down enough to try again. When she did, the answers lashed themselves across the right of the screen almost before she had finished.

Are you Shadows? YES.

Are you the same as Lyra's Dust? YES.

And is that dark matter? YES.

Dark matter is conscious? EVIDENTLY.

What I said to Oliver this morning, my idea about human evolution, is it

CORRECT. BUT YOU NEED TO ASK MORE QUESTIONS.

I think that's pretty explicit. Smith(talk) 18:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I know all these things are 'loosely connected' in the books, but I'm sceptical about defining the connections more precisely than PP does.

Agree, explicit. Pincrete (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I found confirmation by Lyra that the I Ching also work - "But when it went on to that second bit… it meant Asia, almost the farthest east but not quite. I dunno what country that would be—China, maybe. And there's a way they have in that country of talking to Dust, I mean Shadows, same as you got here and I got with the—I got with pictures, only their way uses sticks. I think it meant that picture on the door, but I didn't understand it, really. I thought when I first saw it there was something important about it, only I didn't know what. So there must be lots of ways of talking to Shadows."

That's good enough for me - do you think that's conclusive enough to remove the OR tag? Smith(talk) 18:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I mis-remembered the relationships as implied rather than explicit. Pincrete (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Alethiometers and Aletheometry

Anyone know whether these are the same? Aletheometry being an invention of James Joyce (FW370.13:9) 194.207.86.26 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)