It would be much easier to accept all this without the poison of corruption and ignorance. 90% or more academic papers, despite so-called peer review, including medicine and hard science are rot, and of what's left few advance anything significant. Text books are 99% copies of copies or a dud original. Not long ago economics was a science, now one is supposed to take the stance of an objective scientist more than 60-100 years after we knew scientists are not objective. Look how slow our public language has been to catch up. Molly talks (in All About Living) of something I profoundly agree, a need to expose injustice. There is room for the 'non-believer', the different - it goes on. I don't care for the religious aspects, but this is because I frame them differently. The idea that science has destroyed religion is childish, though I think it is clear our societies have all been had by mystical rot, fable and sheer terror (instruments of torture).
The kind of things I would have liked to discuss go beyond exposing 'truth' and into mechanisms of exposure, from how religious experience works to how we still manage of keep injustice invisible in plain sight. I could pull Molly's books apart, but you have to know here we try to do the same with Einstein (whose main work is a critique and synthesis of Maxwell and experimenters) and have done this with Darwin and two-dimensions paper geometry. And that I would be happy for kids to be taught from her material and do something similar trying to get over scientific method to undergraduates. This group has never got the message that you can find argument to support or against almost anything. Science has experimental evidence difficult to replicate in other fields (though I can find arguments that dispute this). Argument is actually very rare - nearly everything pretending to be is rhetoric or disguised polemic. I don't do Molly's one but see good in its aspiration. I have found, despite a rather chronic positive generality that makes me uncomfortable, anticipation of much I would want. In the end there are things about getting on with each other in some way other than in positive manners so easily corrupted in a world that doesn't read, do science and exists in varieties of personal comfort, extracted by rationalisation. I don't think most people can see the truth and their minds are not structured to do this. This might well be a problem for the truth-seeker expecting that to expose truth is enough. Each to her own we say in all 'tolerance', forgetting the sociopath and that such relativism is both tolerant and all manner of excuses. On Saturday, March 21, 2015 at 2:52:00 PM UTC, Molly wrote: > > A good, but lengthy interiew with Rupert Sheldrake: > http://www.thebestschools.org/features/rupert-sheldrake-interview/ > <http://www.thebestschools.org/features/rupert-sheldrake-interview/> > > Articulates some of what is being bandied about here: > > > 1. Our viewpoint and how it effects our lives > 2. Science, like religion, is a paradigm of belief and the paradigm > changes > 3. His morphic resonance theory is interesting (to me) and may lend to > the mystical experience > > > On Friday, March 20, 2015 at 9:36:27 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: > > I agree most of that. The religious experience is mostly dead for me > unless it is interfering from old prejudice. Literature is full of > fictions and tricks, with the fictional structure forgotten as in > psychoanalysis or Marx's laws of history and god of economics (modern > economics is even worse). > > The Dawkins' delusion is very old. We might see it emerge in Compte and > the desire for a positive religion (sociology) of science. There was even > a free-love, hippy positivist, Enfantin. The gratest chat up line in > history is not 'Molly, I really love the way you regress to a foetal > condition in meditation'! We should dispute honestly in argument, yet > so-called rational argument is produced after the event. We would not find > much rational at the key-hole of scientists discussing how dumb religion > and mystical experience is with nothing measuring their smug index. > > On Friday, March 20, 2015 at 10:12:05 PM UTC, Molly wrote: > > "The primary purpose of a dynamic mytho > > ... -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
