On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:32:02 -0700 (PDT), turtoni
fastmail.net> wrote:
>On Jun 13, 3:18Â pm, "bigflet...@
gmail.com"
gmail.com>
>wrote:>> On Jun 13, 2:39Â pm, turtoni
fastmail.net> wrote:>>> "I am a physics student myself and was looking for books by top
>>> scientists whose insight lead them to radical new world views. And
>>> indeed, this book proposes a new paradigm that appears consistent with
>>> both science and some aspects of different religions. It contains
>>> interesting observations and ideas; so far so good.
>>
>>> Unfortunately, Peter Russell doesn't write like a scientist, but as a
>>> person with religious convictions. He has lost his sense of skepticism
>>> and presents his ideas as a truth that will inevitably become the new
>>> "metaparadigm".
>>
>>> Worse, the book gives an incomplete picture and leaves the critical
>>> reader with some rather concerning questions that were never answered.
>>> What happens when we die? After we die? Is there a purpose with life?
>>> Another disturbing issue is that even though he claims love and
>>> respect to be all important to the new paradigm, there are no
>>> arguments as to why this would be. In fact, the paradigm seems like
>>> the mass murderers dream - everybody will forgive you, and the light
>>> that shines within you and defines you is invariant. The light is God,
>>> meaning, God is an invariant. There simply are no consequences.
>>> Perhaps the answers lie somewhere in eastern religions/philosophies
>>> and are assumed to be known, but I can't be impressed with a book that
>>> proposes a new "metaparadigm" without bothering to address such
>>> fundamental issues.
>>
>>> In the end, Peter's ideas are just speculation that can't be proved
>>> right or wrong for now. They could contain elements of truth, but many
>>> other ideas exist that are equally valid, consistent both with both
>>> modern science and elements of religion. Some of these give a much
>>> more complete picture than Peter offers here, making them more
>>> convincing candidates for new paradigms in my eyes."
>>
>>
>> So what would he have to say to convince you ?
>
>of what? god? if there is such a thing in my opinion i'd imagine he'd
>be going down the ladder due to his materialistic nature; the book
>deals, the paid lectures, the money, money, money.
>
>in the scenario of there being a god; the people going up the ladder
>are the ones that have very little and dedicate themselves to helping
>others and living a simple life of honesty and love.
>
>but personally i believe:
>
>"Humanism features an optimistic attitude about the capacity of
>people, but it does not involve believing that human nature is purely
>good or that each and every person is capable of living up to the
>Humanist ideals of rationality and morality. If anything, there is the
>recognition that living up to one's potential is hard work and
>requires the help of others. The ultimate goal is human flourishing;
>making life better for all humans, and as the most conscious species,
>also promoting concern for the welfare of other sentient beings. The
>focus is on doing good and living well in the here and now, and
>leaving the world better for those who come after."
>
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o16uVon2NRQ
Turtoni, I haven't read Russell's book, only watched his "Primacy of
Consciousness" video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7799171063626430789&q=&hl=en
and I had a similar reaction to yours. His presentation lacks
a certain critical/skeptical tone, and what's worse he made this
presentation to a sympathic and uncritical audience who literally
cheered and whisteled quite often. It reminded me of a religious tent
meeting to some extent, which I disliked, even though I'm in
agreement with his views and I enjoyed his talk.
But let me attempt to cut the guy a break :)
Regarding Russell's "religious convictions", as you call them,
you must understand that people who have "awakened" have
necessarily become involved emotionally ... though the word
"emotion" can be misleading here since the very "high vibe"
feelings are of a different quality and nature from what the
word "emotion" usually implies. It's this awakening that's the
key and of prime importance. Spiritual experiences are
indescribable. They lie at the root of all religions which
unfortunately distort things horribly and create idiotic
dogmas.
This reminds me of a impromptu chat I had recently with a
neighbor who surprised me when we fell into a metaphysical
discussion instead of talking computers or what brand of grass
fertilizer is best :) At one point he blurted out that faith is a
"real thing" of some sort. Upon reflection later, I suspect what he
might have been trying to express the idea that faith has
nothing whatseover to do with "blind faith". It's actually
the high vibes in action. I'm reminded also of some "cafeteria
Catholics" I've known who make all kinds of sarcastic remarks
about their church's dogmas but who love their church
as a outer expression of their inner feelings and convictions.
Now, what I'm driving at is the idea that Russell might
purposely avoid the "meaning of life" questions, knowing that
after one awakens, one is much closer to the "whispers of
the soul", so to speak, which guide each person. I'm
convinced that meanings/purposes of each life vary
enormously depending upon his/her past experiences and
spiritual development. If so, he should probably have stated that
explicitly in his book so that "seekers" such as yourself wouldn't
have grounds for the criticism you expressed. I'd be very
concerned myself, if I were to write a book on the subject,
to stay away from "what it's all about" speculations since
I'm convinced such questions are for grad school, and not
earth school :)
Art
http://home.ptd.net/~artnpeg
