On Jun 15, 4:38Â pm, turtoni
fastmail.net> wrote:> On Jun 14, 12:14Â pm, Art
zilch.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:32:02 -0700 (PDT), turtoni
>
>>>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."
>
>
>
>> 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 :)
>
>
> i didnt write the review art. hence the quotes and link to it. but i
> do think russell is selling dreams too; for his personal profiteering.
> aka a cult.
>
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pieI3ctfMfM- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
How long have you been longing for affluence, and all the illusions
that go with it?
BOfL
