With all due respect for the man, I'm sure he would consider his ideas to be highly intellectual. There is no doubt he is very learned in his scientific observations. However, there is an element of being a rebel, or being provocative, in his observations.
The bottom line is, using the street vernacular, "he dead". If he can resurrect from that, he may gain more people's ears. --- In [email protected], "hugheshugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > Interesting article. But in MMY's view of things, the author lacked > > something-- enlightenment. > > It's a shame Doug is dead as I'd like to know what he would make of > that remark. He may have been a card-carrying atheist but he would have > been broad-minded enough to consider the concept of enlightenment, > undoubtably would have been fascinated by it. But, like me, would have > considered it a purely neurophysiological process and nothing to get > religious about. > > > However, the man appeared to be respected > > among his peers. >
