--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > That was really interesting, thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:20 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: > > > > > > > Good points. This one interested me the most: > > > > > > > > "rather by recognizing that mysticism is completely > > > > beyond science." > > > > > > > > It is beyond the scientific method in its focus and range, but I > > > > think Sam Harris would claim that when it talks about how the > > > > world "is" mysticism enters the field where logic does apply. You > > > > mentioned that Schroedinger is a physicist, a world class one at > > > > that from what I understand. But Physics is a field driven by math > > > > skills and I don't think that gives him a leg up on this kind of > > > > discussion over say...you or Chopra. It is all speculation about > > > > life. He leaves his credibility in his own field far behind on these > > > > topics. Because you have gained something from it, I will spend > > > > some more time thinking about it. > > > > > > Curtis you might enjoy the following brief talk with Ken Wilber where > > > he answers the question "does quantum physics prove god?" where he > > > rather elegantly explains that the quantum state is not unmanifest > > > spirit/brahman/the tao/PC. Interesting talk. Not so interesting for > > > the TM quantum mysticism, but rather embarrassing. I think by > > > extension you could conclude that a mysticism based on Quantum > > > physics is pretty bad mysticism... > > > > > > It's on page two: > > > > > > http://www.kenwilber.com/professional/media/index.html > > > > > > > > Well, let's see, Ken Wilber, a rather superficial (sorry Judy) philosopher who has had a few > grad-level QM courses as part of his work in biology, concludes that QM can't have > anything to do with "true mysticism," whatever that means, vs John Hagelin, who published > a bunch of papers in the field, including the 27th most important paper of all time in the > field.
Couple things, Lawson. I don't recommend Wilber as a profound philosopher per se, but I do think he has some very clear insights into various aspects of the relationship between science and mysticism. I don't think this particular "talk" touted by Vaj shows those insights at their best, however. I'd recommend instead his introduction to "Quantum Questions" and several of the chapters in "Eye to Eye." Also, I'm not at all sure what Wilber says in this vein contradicts Hagelin. I think their approaches come from very different angles and that they aren't really talking about the same thing. > Yeah, anyone that listens to Ken WIlber about anything shows bad mysticism. (You meant Hagelin here, not Wilber, right?) > Not only is his treatment of QM and strings (the most popular theory has 10 dimensions, > not 11 --the 11th is used to reconcile the various 10-dimensional theories with each > other, IIRC) superficial, but his treatment of enlightenment is equally superficial. > > Sheesh. This is the guy that everyone worships? How much have you read of what he's written? > > Wotta maroon. > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
