On Jun 14, 12:14Â pm, Art
zilch.com> wrote:> 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."
>
>
> 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 :) Â 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 :)
>
>
Arthttp://home.ptd.net/~artnpeg
