Referring to the article by Poor Richard that ends with a video of Dawkins, this quote expresses quite well my misgivings about these type of 'fundamentalist-secularist' approaches, when they have to deal with different cultures and approaches: Chris Knight: "Evolutionary psychologists, while presenting themselves as cautious scholars on their home ground, respond by parodying politically backward stereotypes when on the rampage outside their specialist domains. This is true not only of the self-professed racists and reactionaries. Not even Darwinism’s liberals can resist the knockabout fun and games. Take, for example, Pinker (p. 305) on ‘shamanism’ – a topic properly considered within social anthropology. Ignoring the vast scholarly literature on this fascinating theme, he explains the phenomenon as follows: ‘Tribal shamans are flim-flam artists who supplement their considerable practical knowledge with stage magic, drug-induced trances, and other cheap tricks’. The belief systems of preliterate peoples – their view, for example, that certain anthropomorphized principles are ‘sacred’ – are demoted to the status of hoaxes. Where constructs diverge from ‘the real world’, they must be quackery. On this issue as most others, Pinker is joined by Dawkins (1993), for whom religion of any kind is a computer bug – a cultural virus malevolently introduced to parasitize gullible minds. To social anthropology as a profession – I need hardly stress – such doctrinaire verdicts on the subject of * other peoples’ beliefs * are interesting only as an example of western folk-prejudice, not scholarship or science." (http://p2pfoundation.net/Culture_in_Mind) -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
I would join Michel in taking strong exception to the Pinker quote, despite owing much to Pinker's general body of work; but Dawkins is slammed without being quoted so I can't comment on that. I share Chris Knight's concerns, but find this quote to be too absolute and categorical with respect to ALL Evolutionary psychologists. I will stipulate that EvoPsych is a new field and can be *expected* to make many of the same mistakes as early psychology, social science, etc. I cannot paint the whole field with the same brush, even though it is perhaps the least reputable and credible of any of the new fields attempting to assimilate cognitive neuroscience, genetics, and evolution into its portfolio. I would not characterize my own position as "fundamentalist" in any respect. My view is largely integral. While the cautionary sentiment expressed is entirely appropriate, healthy, and organic (the dangers of scientism are ever-present) I don't feel they pertain to my own views or remarks. If any of my own comments seem to express fundamentalist or overly extreme positions, please quote them so I can consider revisions. PR
hi Richard, I have no specific reference to Dawkins, just that whenever I hear him the hairs on my back go up ... just seems to me to the other side of the coin to evangelical fundamentalism, though of course, from a more complex point of view based in rational thinking, but definitely not 'integral' ... To make this hard, I'd have to study him in detail, something I'm unwilling to do, just as I would not spent a lot of time studying the Tea Party or theocratic evangelicals .. I don't find it interesting enough, too much of what he does not understand is summaril rejected .. Michel On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 1:44 AM, Poor Richard <[email protected]>wrote:
I would join Michel in taking strong exception to the Pinker quote, despite owing much to Pinker's general body of work; but Dawkins is slammed without being quoted so I can't comment on that. I share Chris Knight's concerns, but find this quote to be too absolute and categorical with respect to ALL Evolutionary psychologists. I will stipulate that EvoPsych is a new field and can be *expected* to make many of the same mistakes as early psychology, social science, etc. I cannot paint the whole field with the same brush, even though it is perhaps the least reputable and credible of any of the new fields attempting to assimilate cognitive neuroscience, genetics, and evolution into its portfolio.
I would not characterize my own position as "fundamentalist" in any respect. My view is largely integral. While the cautionary sentiment expressed is entirely appropriate, healthy, and organic (the dangers of scientism are ever-present) I don't feel they pertain to my own views or remarks. If any of my own comments seem to express fundamentalist or overly extreme positions, please quote them so I can consider revisions.
PR
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
Friends, The phrase "Spirituality and the internet" makes me think of a book entitled Earthdance by Elizabeth Sahtouris. She is an evolutionary biologist and her book is an excellent rendition of our planet's evolution. Her explanation of humanity begins in Ch 11 entitled "The Big Brain Experiment". By Ch 20 she talks about human sustainability in terms of adapting a living systems approach for human organizations where the Internet becomes our central nervous system and collective consciousness. It is a really great read plus the entire book is available online. I included a link to Ch 20 - "Sustainable Society" for your perusal. http://www.ratical.com/LifeWeb/Erthdnce/chapter20.html -Jeff Sterling Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: Poor Richard <[email protected]> Sender: [email protected] Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:44:55 To: <[email protected]> Reply-To: [email protected] Cc: p2p-foundation<[email protected]> Subject: Re: Spirituality and the internet I would join Michel in taking strong exception to the Pinker quote, despite owing much to Pinker's general body of work; but Dawkins is slammed without being quoted so I can't comment on that. I share Chris Knight's concerns, but find this quote to be too absolute and categorical with respect to ALL Evolutionary psychologists. I will stipulate that EvoPsych is a new field and can be *expected* to make many of the same mistakes as early psychology, social science, etc. I cannot paint the whole field with the same brush, even though it is perhaps the least reputable and credible of any of the new fields attempting to assimilate cognitive neuroscience, genetics, and evolution into its portfolio. I would not characterize my own position as "fundamentalist" in any respect. My view is largely integral. While the cautionary sentiment expressed is entirely appropriate, healthy, and organic (the dangers of scientism are ever-present) I don't feel they pertain to my own views or remarks. If any of my own comments seem to express fundamentalist or overly extreme positions, please quote them so I can consider revisions. PR
many thanks Jeff, I'm aware of her work but have never read it thoroughly, Michel On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 9:15 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
** Friends,
The phrase "Spirituality and the internet" makes me think of a book entitled Earthdance by Elizabeth Sahtouris. She is an evolutionary biologist and her book is an excellent rendition of our planet's evolution.
Her explanation of humanity begins in Ch 11 entitled "The Big Brain Experiment". By Ch 20 she talks about human sustainability in terms of adapting a living systems approach for human organizations where the Internet becomes our central nervous system and collective consciousness.
It is a really great read plus the entire book is available online. I included a link to Ch 20 - "Sustainable Society" for your perusal.
http://www.ratical.com/LifeWeb/Erthdnce/chapter20.html
-Jeff Sterling
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry ------------------------------ *From: * Poor Richard <[email protected]> *Sender: * [email protected] *Date: *Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:44:55 -0700 (PDT) *To: *<[email protected]> *ReplyTo: * [email protected] *Cc: *p2p-foundation<[email protected]> *Subject: *Re: Spirituality and the internet
I would join Michel in taking strong exception to the Pinker quote, despite owing much to Pinker's general body of work; but Dawkins is slammed without being quoted so I can't comment on that. I share Chris Knight's concerns, but find this quote to be too absolute and categorical with respect to ALL Evolutionary psychologists. I will stipulate that EvoPsych is a new field and can be *expected* to make many of the same mistakes as early psychology, social science, etc. I cannot paint the whole field with the same brush, even though it is perhaps the least reputable and credible of any of the new fields attempting to assimilate cognitive neuroscience, genetics, and evolution into its portfolio.
I would not characterize my own position as "fundamentalist" in any respect. My view is largely integral. While the cautionary sentiment expressed is entirely appropriate, healthy, and organic (the dangers of scientism are ever-present) I don't feel they pertain to my own views or remarks. If any of my own comments seem to express fundamentalist or overly extreme positions, please quote them so I can consider revisions.
PR
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
(Sorry, This was first posted under the wrong topic.) My comments are interlinear... On Sunday, September 11, 2011 12:24:54 AM UTC-5, Michel Bauwens wrote:
Dear Richard,
I've read your contributions here with great interest, and as you say, we're really broad agreement 'in practice' despite us reacting differently to some semantic 'hot button' words ...
I agree, Michel. I think you will find that "spirituality" is a hot button word to many (not all of course) in the atheist/agnostic/free-thought/skeptic/scientific community. Thats a pretty big swath of the "techies" out there, not to mention the general public.
Feel free to use my words in your blog.
Thanks. I think it will add much needed scope and nuance to my post on spirituality.
I'm about to go on a 20-day lecture tour, I will need to engage with this much later now, however much the topic is of interest to me. THank you so much for engaging with my ramblings and letting me see better where you are coming from. This is the true purpose of dialogue.
Have a great trip!
Last thing: every modality has positive and negative potential, and that includes both magical and rational thinking, both of which can be misused, especially when not used in a integral or integrative fashion.
Michel
Agreed. I don't see any of the modalities of consciousness as independent nor as "*Non-overlapping magisteria*<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria>" as posited by Stephen Jay Gould<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould>. "Magical thinking", religious experience, and many other modalities of consciousness are being investigated by cognitive neuroscience. I don't think about any modality of consciousness, including rational thought, the way I used to. When you return to the group, Michel, I hope we can continue this discussion. Perhaps others will join in the meantime. At this juncture, I want to offer an example of a partial secular re-appropriation of certain aspects of spirituality. This regards the so-called mystical, transcendental, or cosmic experiences (often framed as religious experiences). Such experiences (indistinguishable from "real" experiences) can be induced by drugs, electrical and trans-cranial-magnetic stimulation of the brain, epileptic seizure, oxygen deprivation, brain injury, psychosis, hypnosis, chanting, rhythmic movement, and many other means. I have explored many of these means myself. All this strongly suggests that even the "real" mystical experience might be something generated internally within the brain, or at least that it would be impossible to distinguish a "real" mystical experience from an artificial one* without some reliable method for doing so*. One of my mentors, John C. Lilly<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Lilly>, (perhaps known best for his efforts to communicate with dolphins) in speaking about mystical and transcendental experiences, suggested three hypotheses concerning them. I recall his simple chalk diagram in my mind's eye. Paraphrasing Lilly, the *contained mind* hypothesis says all forms of consciousness, subjective experience, and "knowing" are generated entirely by and within the brain, even if most of the details are still a mystery. This hypothesis tends to be favored by many scientists, especially neuroscientists. The *uncontained mind* hypothesis (shared by many mystics, etc.) says that the individual mind, at a deep level not usually obvious to our conscious mind, forms a continuous fabric with other minds and/or with the universe itself. The *leaky mind* hypothesis, to which Lilly and I subscribe, says that for the most part, most of the time, the contained mind hypothesis is true, but that occasionally under special circumstances, or more often in very subtle and usually imperceptible ways, our minds interact with the cosmos outside of the channel of our normal senses. The leaky mind leaves open the question of whether we are dealing only with unknown senses or with extra-cranial intelligences in such cases. I have previously proposed a hypothesis that DNA or other structures in a cell may act like an antenna and allow an organism to respond to signals in various kinds of natural and artificial radiation. There is much evidence that even non-ionizing radiation can cause responses in cells. Many single-celled organisms, often without any known mechanism, can respond to light, heat, magnetic fields, and radio frequency radiation. Natural radiation is not generally assumed to contain a "signal" as such, but even simple amplitude variations can carry information. Signals could come from many sources, even off-world sources. Perhaps there is literally a cosmic "music of the spheres <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_the_spheres>" that our cells can "hear". In this way, neurons or networks of neurons may be "connected" to extra-cranial sources of information that may somehow get passed up to the conscious mind and there manipulated in some form. There is also the possibility that DNA carries *embedded* information that is of a relatively cosmic or transcendental nature. An example might be information about the "essence" or "true nature" of the biosphere or other life forms with whom we share some genetic history. There may be ways that such information can be transmitted under certain conditions into the conscious mind where it may be greatly augmented or elaborated upon by the imagination. Science is very limited in the extent to which it can explore such hypotheses today, but these are the kinds of hypotheses, expressed in the kinds of language, that science will probably eventually be able to prove or disprove. How do these hypotheses bear on magical thinking, etc? It does not invalidate magical thinking or mystical experience, but it may bear on the understanding, interpretation, and utility of such experience, if only to shake some of our confidence in our past and present assumptions about it. A good intro to the intersection of spirituality and neuroscience is the work of Sam Harris <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_%28author%29>. (disclaimer: I do not adhere to his warmongering positions.) Neuroscience should give us pause to review all our assumptions about the mind, including what we consider to be rational thought. A very good introduction to this topic is the work of Dan Ariely<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Ariely> . PR
Another tangent of this spirituality in the internet topic is spiritual machines. *The Age of Spiritual Machines*<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Spiritual_Machines>is a book by futurist <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurology> Ray Kurzweil.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil> My thoughts on the subject are on a different track from Kurzweil, but he may be the inventor of the general concept. My interest is focused as bit differently from his. I imagine a "spiritual Turing Test<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_Test>" in which the object is to detect whether the test taker is a human or a machine, but in which all the questions relate only to the subject of spirituality. I predict a machine will pass this test, judged by a panel of religious and political celebrities, in the year 2030. PR
I find the Lilly diagram VERY VERY useful, many thanks, it clearly maps out possible differences in giving value to such experiences ... However, I'm agnostic on them, because whatever their ontological status, they are 'real' experiences and have 'real' meaning. So for the the correct consequence is: 1) acknowledging the experience (eye of spirit); 2) discussing their meaning intersubjectively (eye of mind); 3) assessing their ontological status (eye of matter, the 3 mind theory of Lilly). I would love to read Luminarium, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/books/review/luminarium-by-alex-shakar-boo..., which directly investigates those issues ... ha John Lilly (big bouts of nostalgia) ... yes, Richard that really shows (y)our age <g> for the young amongst us: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Lilly ... can't remember who that was, but I once hadd long conversations with a man who had been Lilly's librarian for years ... Michel On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Poor Richard <[email protected]>wrote:
Another tangent of this spirituality in the internet topic is spiritual machines. *The Age of Spiritual Machines*<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Spiritual_Machines>is a book by futurist <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurology> Ray Kurzweil.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil>
My thoughts on the subject are on a different track from Kurzweil, but he may be the inventor of the general concept. My interest is focused as bit differently from his. I imagine a "spiritual Turing Test<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_Test>" in which the object is to detect whether the test taker is a human or a machine, but in which all the questions relate only to the subject of spirituality. I predict a machine will pass this test, judged by a panel of religious and political celebrities, in the year 2030.
PR
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
The likes of Lily, Jung, Steiner, Goethe, Capra, Tiller, and the like have done fine contributions towards a more spiritual understanding of the universe. However, such contributions are incomplete without the emergence of Multi-Dimensional Science which offers for the first time in human history the complete system by which a more scientific comprehension of the psychic, and spiritual would become increasingly possible as time goes by. The implications will probably be astonishing................. http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Multi-Dimensional_Science From: Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; P2P Foundation mailing list <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Sent: Monday, 12 September 2011, 7:00 Subject: Re: [P2P-F] Spirituality and the internet I find the Lilly diagram VERY VERY useful, many thanks, it clearly maps out possible differences in giving value to such experiences ... However, I'm agnostic on them, because whatever their ontological status, they are 'real' experiences and have 'real' meaning. So for the the correct consequence is: 1) acknowledging the experience (eye of spirit); 2) discussing their meaning intersubjectively (eye of mind); 3) assessing their ontological status (eye of matter, the 3 mind theory of Lilly). I would love to read Luminarium, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/books/review/luminarium-by-alex-shakar-boo..., which directly investigates those issues ... ha John Lilly (big bouts of nostalgia) ... yes, Richard that really shows (y)our age <g> for the young amongst us: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Lilly ... can't remember who that was, but I once hadd long conversations with a man who had been Lilly's librarian for years ... Michel On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Poor Richard <[email protected]> wrote: Another tangent of this spirituality in the internet topic is spiritual machines. The Age of Spiritual Machines is a book by futurist Ray Kurzweil.
My thoughts on the subject are on a different track from Kurzweil, but he may be the inventor of the general concept. My interest is focused as bit differently from his. I imagine a "spiritual Turing Test" in which the object is to detect whether the test taker is a human or a machine, but in which all the questions relate only to the subject of spirituality. I predict a machine will pass this test, judged by a panel of religious and political celebrities, in the year 2030.
PR
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens _______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Hi Robert, I generally appreciate your work, but I do have problems with the idea that someone has the 'complete' answer to human problems .. this gives the impression that if we all would just listen to one man, i.e. Robert Searle, all would be well ... it pretty much rules out the necessary particpation, not just in applying a model system, but actually in deciding which one this would be ... On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 3:53 PM, robert searle <[email protected]> wrote:
The likes of Lily, Jung, Steiner, Goethe, Capra, Tiller, and the like have done fine contributions towards a more spiritual understanding of the universe. However, such contributions are incomplete without the emergence of Multi-Dimensional Science which offers for the first time in human history the complete system by which a more scientific comprehension of the psychic, and spiritual would become increasingly possible as time goes by. The implications will probably be astonishing.................
http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Multi-Dimensional_Science
*From:* Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> *To:* [email protected]; P2P Foundation mailing list <[email protected]> *Cc:* [email protected] *Sent:* Monday, 12 September 2011, 7:00 *Subject:* Re: [P2P-F] Spirituality and the internet
I find the Lilly diagram VERY VERY useful, many thanks, it clearly maps out possible differences in giving value to such experiences ...
However, I'm agnostic on them, because whatever their ontological status, they are 'real' experiences and have 'real' meaning. So for the the correct consequence is: 1) acknowledging the experience (eye of spirit); 2) discussing their meaning intersubjectively (eye of mind); 3) assessing their ontological status (eye of matter, the 3 mind theory of Lilly).
I would love to read Luminarium, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/books/review/luminarium-by-alex-shakar-boo..., which directly investigates those issues ...
ha John Lilly (big bouts of nostalgia) ... yes, Richard that really shows (y)our age <g>
for the young amongst us: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Lilly ... can't remember who that was, but I once hadd long conversations with a man who had been Lilly's librarian for years ...
Michel
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Poor Richard <[email protected]>wrote:
Another tangent of this spirituality in the internet topic is spiritual machines. *The Age of Spiritual Machines*<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Spiritual_Machines>is a book by futurist <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurology> Ray Kurzweil.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil>
My thoughts on the subject are on a different track from Kurzweil, but he may be the inventor of the general concept. My interest is focused as bit differently from his. I imagine a "spiritual Turing Test<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_Test>" in which the object is to detect whether the test taker is a human or a machine, but in which all the questions relate only to the subject of spirituality. I predict a machine will pass this test, judged by a panel of religious and political celebrities, in the year 2030.
PR
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
Michel I know you don't have time to read much less respond to my chatter... On Monday, September 12, 2011 1:00:16 AM UTC-5, Michel Bauwens wrote:
I find the Lilly diagram VERY VERY useful, many thanks, it clearly maps out possible differences in giving value to such experiences ...
However, I'm agnostic on them, because whatever their ontological status, they are 'real' experiences and have 'real' meaning. So for the the correct consequence is: 1) acknowledging the experience (eye of spirit); 2) discussing their meaning intersubjectively (eye of mind); 3) assessing their ontological status (eye of matter, the 3 mind theory of Lilly).
Yeh that sounds pretty sensible.
I would love to read Luminarium, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/books/review/luminarium-by-alex-shakar-boo..., which directly investigates those issues ...
I'll check out the review.
ha John Lilly (big bouts of nostalgia) ... yes, Richard that really shows (y)our age <g>
for the young amongst us: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Lilly ... can't remember who that was, but I once hadd long conversations with a man who had been Lilly's librarian for years ...
I'd love to hear more about that some time. Now I can't help reminiscing a little about the time with the Lillys at Feathered Pipe Ranch in Montana. I was 19 or 20 maybe. In spare time I studied Tai Chi and Feldenkreis exercises for the first time, with teachers who were there. The big thing of course was the sensory deprivation tank. My first stint was after dark. Leaving the outbuilding that held the tank, the starry, starry night was incredible. It was pretty chilly but I lay down on the ground and gazed at the stars. Then I had one of the most amazing natural head trips of my life. I found I was able to instantiate multiple recursive "selfs". To oversimplify, I could see myself seeing myself seeing myself, etc. My head was never the same after that. But FYI, that time of witnessing my mind the way I would watch a wild animal in the woods, watching without motion, emotion, or thought-- I would not personally call that the eye of the spirit. I might call it core consciousness or something like that. Later the Feldenkreis teacher said I was too relaxed. She said, "You aren't supposed to be that relaxed, kid." Far out, huh? PR
I just remembered something else about the tank. I don't know how long I was in there, but at some point it was like being suspended in pitch black, empty space. My eyes were open but only blackness. No enclosure, no water, no boundaries. I was able to do "somersaults" (just in my head of course) but it seemed and felt just as if I were really suspended in infinite black space and tumbling this way and that. Oh, yeah: AS IF. That was one of Lilly's favorite mantras. PR
I do read everything you write Richard! On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 3:15 AM, Poor Richard <[email protected]>wrote:
Michel I know you don't have time to read much less respond to my chatter...
On Monday, September 12, 2011 1:00:16 AM UTC-5, Michel Bauwens wrote:
I find the Lilly diagram VERY VERY useful, many thanks, it clearly maps out possible differences in giving value to such experiences ...
However, I'm agnostic on them, because whatever their ontological status, they are 'real' experiences and have 'real' meaning. So for the the correct consequence is: 1) acknowledging the experience (eye of spirit); 2) discussing their meaning intersubjectively (eye of mind); 3) assessing their ontological status (eye of matter, the 3 mind theory of Lilly).
Yeh that sounds pretty sensible.
I would love to read Luminarium, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/** 09/04/books/review/luminarium-**by-alex-shakar-book-review.**html<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/books/review/luminarium-by-alex-shakar-book-review.html>, which directly investigates those issues ...
I'll check out the review.
ha John Lilly (big bouts of nostalgia) ... yes, Richard that really shows (y)our age <g>
for the young amongst us: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**John_C._Lilly<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Lilly>... can't remember who that was, but I once hadd long conversations with a man who had been Lilly's librarian for years ...
I'd love to hear more about that some time.
Now I can't help reminiscing a little about the time with the Lillys at Feathered Pipe Ranch in Montana. I was 19 or 20 maybe. In spare time I studied Tai Chi and Feldenkreis exercises for the first time, with teachers who were there. The big thing of course was the sensory deprivation tank. My first stint was after dark. Leaving the outbuilding that held the tank, the starry, starry night was incredible. It was pretty chilly but I lay down on the ground and gazed at the stars. Then I had one of the most amazing natural head trips of my life. I found I was able to instantiate multiple recursive "selfs". To oversimplify, I could see myself seeing myself seeing myself, etc. My head was never the same after that. But FYI, that time of witnessing my mind the way I would watch a wild animal in the woods, watching without motion, emotion, or thought-- I would not personally call that the eye of the spirit. I might call it core consciousness or something like that.
Later the Feldenkreis teacher said I was too relaxed. She said, "You aren't supposed to be that relaxed, kid."
Far out, huh?
PR
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
it's a courtesy I try to extend to everyone, and in your case, it is really easy to do, as your input is invariable interesting <g> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Poor Richard <[email protected]>wrote:
On Tuesday, September 13, 2011 2:25:10 AM UTC-5, Michel Bauwens wrote:
I do read everything you write Richard!
Thanks, Michel. That's like getting a Pulitzer Prize to me!
PR
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
Thanks. By way of a sort of summary of the debate thus far, from my point of view: I empathize with anyone not wanting to thrash around in the thickets of this debate for a number of reasons. For one, its like a room full of cockroaches scattering every which way when the lights go on. I think many moderns use the term "spirituality" as a kind of non-sectarian catch-all for what Abraham Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature". I would change Lincoln's "angels" to "aspects" and the generic "spirituality" of my peers to somewhat less nebulous things like "intuition", "conscience", "sentiment", "good will", and of course the all-important empathy for all life and interdependence of all life. I recognize the utility of generic, nebulous (slippery?) terms in some contexts but it seems to me that "good-faith" conversation between modern, educated, open-minded people is seldom such a context. I say that not to impugn anyone's good faith, but simply advisedly. Use of the term "spirituality" (much less terms like "divine") in clever company would seem to beg at least for extensive qualification or clarification. Even if we are respectfully and sympathetically discussing pre-scientific world-views, indigenous culture, religious beliefs, etc.--we are always to some extent discussing it in the context of our own culture and times whether we like it or not. On the whole, my primary aim is to question certain aspects of contemporary discourse and not the truth claims of various world views per se (although I have done both in my arguments). PR
participants (4)
-
Michel Bauwens -
Poor Richard -
robert searle -
teleboiski＠gmail.com