I've just read one of Alan's papers and am not surprised you would value him Bill. On a first, quick read, I find him railing against something close to problems I believe should be more central to 'anti- dogma that still allows us belief'. In my own shorthand, I am distressed by materialism that cannot keep the question 'materialism for what?' in mind - and also by the way in which criticism is generally so unbalanced because it is so difficult to put it to experimental test. His notion that dogma prevents proper consideration for many people is very close to mine and much written on competing paradigms and unevaluated assumptions. I didn't spot an conspicuous originality but don't have time for a fair examination at the moment, but would want to once the current confluence of farce in my personal situation clears (fingers crossed 'soon'). At this stage I can only say I am reminded of Ortega Y Gasset's statement that fascism reverses discussion, persuasion, coercion. Generally, science attempts to design what we need to do to find the observations (roughly evidence) that confirm the speculations we can muster (or otherwise). In some cases, this design itself is problematic, needing galactic-sized particle colliders and so on. In some cases, 'direct observation' becomes something like 'direct impingement on the unconscious' reifying fictions to a real status - in other situations much that is very real to many is denied any significance at all as 'subjective' - all very strange when our best view on reality is the 'reality hypothesis' in which we must question how we structure reality. None of this stops us 'doing chemistry' - but I would find it difficult to envisage chemistry existing without such questioning.
On 12 Sep, 19:40, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > Not knowing for sure what evidence you pursue Neil, I will project on > the topic by saying your personal experiential evidence is all that > will matter. That said, for more on Alan, his personal site and his > Santa Barbara Institute site follow. > > http://alanwallace.org/ > > http://www.sbinstitute.com/ > > On Sep 12, 11:15 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Phenomenology pays much attention to the appearance of modes and so on > > Orn. There are apparently rigorous methods, but they leave me cold. > > My own path leads through Quine and Whitehead, possibly what we might > > call radical translation - though I'm always looking for that that > > doesn't need the almost over-skilling in literacy that is the bane of > > philosophy. A short burst of Wallace obviously hits my network of > > experience as something of a disappointment - but that doesn't mean I > > wouldn't change the network if I felt 'a dose of evidence' coming on. > > We surely can't keep going on forcing the idiot 'cold' version of > > science down everyone's necks and I certainly felt in tune with some > > parts of what he had to say. > > > On 12 Sep, 18:33, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Well I disagree in part because by law we register our automobiles, > > > fill out w2's, purchase items at public locations that report to > > > government agency. Cannabis will spring up everywhere, in yards, > > > parks and vacant fields while legally anyone can deny ownership of > > > yard growth based on the fact that the seeding can be the result of a > > > tropical storm wind transplant. I have weeds in my yard because my > > > lazy neighbor doesn't want to take care of her lawn, so, if she was > > > growing cannabis in her yard I'm sure it would be growing in mine as > > > well, whether I wanted it or not. So how can they go about taxing > > > it? Flat tax for all? > > > > On Sep 12, 11:01 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > “How would they tax something that people can grow in their own > > > > yards?...” – SD > > > > > Uhhh, like they tax automobiles? Like they tax income? Like they tax > > > > sales? Like they tax professional licenses? IF the existing > > > > governmental drug networks and enforcement arms were geared towards > > > > this end, taxation, it would be easy to do. And, like all such taxes, > > > > there would be some who slip through the cracks. Don’t you know > > > > someone who makes beer in their cellar too? Perhaps over the legal > > > > limit? Again, it need only apply to those who wish to market it…and, > > > > since current prohibition of pot IS ALREADY based on tax laws, it > > > > would seem to be all too easy to do. All it would take was a shift in > > > > attitude and attention. > > > > > On Sep 12, 6:36 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > How would they tax something that people can grow in their own yards? > > > > > That's the impetus for illegalization, the lack of control. Not many > > > > > have time to grow tobacco or maintain a brewery or whiskey still but > > > > > toss a few seeds out back and presto. There is no way they could > > > > > control and tax grass. > > > > > > On Sep 12, 7:49 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > If the USA government had been smart they would have legalized and > > > > > > taxed pot as well as treating e-mail/ the internet, etc. like > > > > > > postage. > > > > > > Imagine our bulging Treasury! > > > > > > > On Sep 12, 2:03 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes, how true, but there is a variety when combined with a brownie > > > > > > > that may offer some euphoric enhancement while on it's way to the > > > > > > > end. > > > > > > > 8-/ > > > > > > > > On Sep 11, 9:30 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Slip, ANY grass you eat will come out as dung! ;-) > > > > > > > > > On Sep 11, 6:22 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I had a friend I met while in Austin who moved to India and > > > > > > > > > returned > > > > > > > > > to sell off his materialism. He was so into all his new found > > > > > > > > > mysticism and soul enlightenment which he graciously laid out > > > > > > > > > for all > > > > > > > > > to see. He had a step van converted to propane from gas and > > > > > > > > > asked if > > > > > > > > > I wanted to buy it, and in fact I really needed it at the > > > > > > > > > time but not > > > > > > > > > the affordability. I straight faced told him that if he > > > > > > > > > really wanted > > > > > > > > > to enhance his spirituality he would just give it to me. > > > > > > > > > Well I'm > > > > > > > > > sure I don't have to tell you that he turned pale in the > > > > > > > > > knowledge > > > > > > > > > that I was purely right in perspective but he could not just > > > > > > > > > let his > > > > > > > > > material possessions go. I understood it all to be the cow > > > > > > > > > dung that > > > > > > > > > it all is. I think the grass is still greener on the other > > > > > > > > > side. > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 11, 7:51 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > The snag for me here Orn is that I just can't agree that > > > > > > > > > > there is no > > > > > > > > > > focus on the observation of mind in academe or even if I > > > > > > > > > > restrict that > > > > > > > > > > just to science, though I'd agree this is the case in the > > > > > > > > > > dross, > > > > > > > > > > populist bits of academe increasingly part of the > > > > > > > > > > mega-billion > > > > > > > > > > international education industry. My guts say charlatan > > > > > > > > > > watching this > > > > > > > > > > guy - I don't like his micro-expressions and general > > > > > > > > > > 'wide-eyed' > > > > > > > > > > approach. I would not fashion this into an argument > > > > > > > > > > without knowing > > > > > > > > > > much more. I don't go much for arguments starting in > > > > > > > > > > incommensurability claims and disliked the build-up Alan > > > > > > > > > > was given > > > > > > > > > > (such stuff always reminds me of Saturday Night at the > > > > > > > > > > London > > > > > > > > > > Palladium). Of course, I regard almost all 'notable' > > > > > > > > > > academics as > > > > > > > > > > charlatans (the best are too busy getting on helping where > > > > > > > > > > they can). > > > > > > > > > > Didn't spot the humour and there seemed little depth other > > > > > > > > > > than some > > > > > > > > > > clear emotional play. I much prefer you Orn. > > > > > > > > > > > On 10 Sep, 20:28, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a very accessible, clear and enlightening video > > > > > > > > > > > with one of my > > > > > > > > > > > Tibetan Language teachers, Alan Wallace. > > > > > > > > > > > > He is a scientist, a teacher, and one of the more erudite > > > > > > > > > > > and wise > > > > > > > > > > > people in an experiential way I have met in this area. He > > > > > > > > > > > addresses it > > > > > > > > > > > all….Christianity, contemplation, science, materialism, > > > > > > > > > > > happiness, > > > > > > > > > > > consciousness, mind, truth….and aspects of Buddhism like > > > > > > > > > > > philosophy, > > > > > > > > > > > suffering and other aspects of its ontology that are > > > > > > > > > > > commonly > > > > > > > > > > > misunderstood. > > > > > > > > > > > > His humor and depth is wonderful. > > > > > > > > > > > >http://www.consciousmedianetwork.com/members/awallace.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > What is your experience of Alan?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
