<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <html><head> <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head>Friends,<br/><br/>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.<br/><br/>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.<br/><br/>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.<br/><br/>http://www.ratical.com/LifeWeb/Erthdnce/chapter20.html<br/><br/>-Jeff Sterling<p>Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry</p><hr/><div><b>From: </b> Poor Richard <poor.ricardo@gmail.com>
</div><div><b>Sender: </b> building-a-distributed-decentralized-internet@googlegroups.com
</div><div><b>Date: </b>Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:44:55 -0700 (PDT)</div><div><b>To: </b><building-a-distributed-decentralized-internet@googlegroups.com></div><div><b>ReplyTo: </b> building-a-distributed-decentralized-internet@googlegroups.com
</div><div><b>Cc: </b>p2p-foundation<p2p-foundation@lists.ourproject.org></div><div><b>Subject: </b>Re: Spirituality and the internet</div><div><br/></div>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 <i>expected</i> 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.<br><br>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.<br><br>PR<br>
</html>