Wow! That was some response. However, Mike, I'm not sure if you're being
disingenuous;
maybe you aren't. In any event, I'm not New Agey by any of the points of the
definition
you pull from the sites that the "objective" atheism.about.com you sent. Not
exactly the
most "scientific" site(s) I've ever visited. Got a question. How come you can
visit and
use these slanted sites while you castigate me for supposedly doing the same
thing? And,
let's clear some more air. I don't where this idea of yours, that I agreed in
the
comparison of scientists to Nazis by Ben Stein-which he didn't say, though a
bunch
were--came from. Do I unthinkingly and unquestioningly grovel at the altar of
science as
the panacea of all human ills? No. Science, like religion, can, has, and is
used,
misused, and abused. And, using this computer, and my touch-screen cell phone,
and my LCD
flat screen, and my Miata MX-5, and my mosquito repellant, and my tankless
water heater,
and my solar lawn lights, and my AC, and the PSA test that led to the early
discovery of
my cancer, and my neuro-angiogram, and my synthetic walking socks, and my
cholesterol
meds, and my grandmunchkin's ADHD meds, and my etc etc etc, show me where I
have shown an
Amish-like disdain for science or scientific discovery or scientific thinking
beyond a
healthy skepticism of the oft made claims to totally detached, sinless,
objectivity free
of slant, bias, and prejudice, or to possession of total truth, or using "in
the name of
science" as a cover for anything goes, or that being a scientist automatically
makes for a
highly moral and ethical human being divorced from impacts of life's personal,
professional, and social slings of outrageous fortune. Can a scientist be
religious? I
say, "Yes." I think we had this discussion before? Is "scientist" synonymous
with moral
and ethical? I say, "No." How many speak the moral, ethical, personal,
professional, and
social teleological precepts offered by science (i.e. the second paragraph of
the
Declaration of Independence), but no more live them and live up to them than do
the
adherents of organized religions, i.e. the scientists who used cephalic
indexing to
legitimatize racism, super-nationalism and colonialism, or who performed
medical and other
scientific experiments on human guinea pigs in Auschwitz and Buchenwald and
Bergen-Belsen,
or who engaged in the syphilis experiments at Tuskegee. But, enough of this.
I won't be
drawn into that kind of tit-for-tat.
You asked for my source of my definition and understanding of mindfulness,
awareness, and
otherness. Fair enough. I guess it was some sin of omission of cosmic
proportion that I
failed to use the word Buddhism or Judaism or even existentialism. I hope
you're not
inferring that I was plotting some devious theological and philosophical
infiltration and
undermining of TIPS' scientific soul with the intention of dragging it down the
ten levels
into the depths of religiosity. I hope you're not inferring there are no
members of TIPS
who are church-goers, synagogue attendees, or mosque...? Sources? Sure. You
got me. I
make no bones about that. I plead guilty. Of course, there are those personal
experiences of mine in arriving at my understanding of mindfulness, awareness,
and
otherness, both inner and outer, of struggling to live them to the fullest each
day, of
having my personal--and consequentially professional and social--epiphany
eighteen years
ago, facing and facing down the "Big C" nearly five years ago, and of beating
the
overwhelming-staggering: 95%--odds against surviving unscathed a massive
cerebral
hemorrhage almost two years ago. Now, do I see the "hand" of a divine
Supreme Being in
all this? No, never said I did in anything I wrote and shared about these
experiences.
However, I do appreciatively see the appendages of a lot scientists. But, the
last
experience, in particular, revealed--dare I use that word--that death can be a
means of
inventing and appreciating life; it can be a reminder that none of us have
anymore
guaranteed than this moment; that it is the ultimate sin of sins not to live
richly and
fully each of those moments; and that while we cannot control others or other
circumstances, we can control our responses to others and circumstances. Some
it is that
Thoreau and Emerson existentialistic thing; some of it is that Judaism and Zen
thing; some
of it is just a "what really matters" kick in the pants thing. You call that
anecdotal; I
call it a piece of datum. Same difference! If after having submitted
Kabat-Zinn's and
Kornfield's name, you can pulled up their stuff in a few minutes, I've done the
job I
intended to do without cluttering the list with lists. Sure, you were supposed
to be
"impressed" with their Ph.D.s, or their affiliations with UMASS medical school;
I think we
academics call it "credentials." But, perhaps you're right. I was too vague:
Aside from
my personal experiences that have shaped my values, I start my understandings of
mindfulness, awareness, and otherness with the first section of the first part
of Jon
Kabat-Zinn, Wherever You Go, There You Are, and go to Jack Kornfield, After the
Ecstasy
the Laundry, . You can also go to Peter Senge, Fifth Discipline, Daniel
Goleman,
Emotional Intelligence, Social Intelligence, Edward Deci, Why We Do What We Do.
Got to go talk with my flowers.
Make it a good day.
--Louis--
Louis Schmier http://www.therandomthoughts.com
Department of History
http://www.therandomthoughts.edublogs.org
Valdosta State University
Valdosta, Georgia 31698 /\ /\ /\ /\
(229-333-5947) /^\\/ \/ \ /\/\__/\ \/\
/ \/ \_ \/ / \/
/\/ \
/\
//\/\/ /\
\__/__/_/\_\ \_/__\
/\"If you want to climb
mountains,\ /\
_ / \ don't practice on mole
hills" -
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([email protected])
