[Ken Wilber] Ken Wilber is Fraud - Website
by a Friend
I think I understand Wilber a bit better now. In everything
I was
searching for, I couldn't find the other side, a differing opinion.
This site is by a friend, David Deida, who presents Wilber's
greatness, the side of Wilber that rings closer to Nietzsche. It fits
with an attitude I was developing while reading "One Taste," that Ken
Wilber was big on Ken Wilber, and rightly so.
Perhaps Wilber is . . . no, I think I'm going to use that line on my
final.
From: "guardianlxxii"
<
guardianlxxii@y...> Date: Thu Jun 27, 2002
8:14 pm Subject: And I thought doing TM as a kid
was cool . . .
What makes a person a spiritual leader in structured Western religion?
A paycheck.
"One Taste" had been a very rewarding read. I'm won't say that I've
become convinced of a spiritual reality, but I am more open to the
idea now.
As I've gotten older, I've become more resistant to suggestions of the
supernatural. What Wilber discusses skirts right along that edge. My
Great Chain of Being doesn't continue in a straight line. It branches
and forks at different points, mainly because I have a problem with
placing a "higher consciousness" above the rational ideal I hold so
strongly to.
Perhaps the most enjoyable section (hint for those of you looking for
information on the Nietzsche<->Wilber questions) was his description
of the change in Christianity towards the end of the book. If you
have trouble finding it, try the index.
"Amnesis" was very helpful in getting an understanding of what he
means by transrational levels.
On a totally seperate note: I've hung out in downtown Denver, it's
pretty cool.
It's not just you, Lyndsay. I've had to start checking
the groups
directly. FYI, you're going to get this twice, because I'll send it
to you're email address, as well as posting it to the group.
--Rick
--- In laneonline@y..., "lilrainone" <lilrainone@y...> wrote:
>
>
> For some reason, just recently, I'm not receiving things, that I post
> in the groups, into my mailbox. Is it just me or is happening
to you
> guys, too?
>
> --Lyndsay
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
laneonline-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
This site is not so much a summary of Søren Kierkegaard's work,
as a
summary of my thoughts on him. Feel free to check it out, I put a
fair bit of work into it.
--Rick From: "guardianlxxii" <
guardianlxxii@y...> Date: Sun Jun 23, 2002
10:39 pm Subject: Re: Who is Dreaming God?( post
for critical thinking)
Please read what you're actually responding to. My original post was
a description of Borges writings. Borges was a Latin American author
who used a writing style known as "Magic Realism." The style is known
for presenting supernatural events, abilities, situations, etc., as
common or non-extraordinary. Borges does not present the magical as
possible, but instead uses it as a story-telling device.
The story in question was intended to refute a concept of Berkeley's
that what we perceive is a direct creation of God's mind. Borges does
not believe that there is a succession of dreamers, nor does he
believe that a magician could dream another person. Actually, Borges
doesn't believe anything, he died a few years ago.
Likewise, I do not believe in Berkeley's perspective. I do however,
think that Borges writes great stories, and "The Circular Ruins" is a
particular favorite.
So, I ask, where is the pseudo-science? In Berkeley "esse es percepi"
or in Borges refutation, or in my critique of Borges story?
Perhaps the most accurate statement would be that I lack the ability
to present an idea clearly.
--Rick
--- In
msacphilosophygroup@y..., "twan003" <
twan003@y...> wrote:
> I am responding to message 8957 "Who is Dreaming God?" As I have
> written before, "Maybe people lean towards pseudoscience for several
> reasons, some people believe that they have their own evidence of
the
> paranormal while others need something beyond themselves to live
to
> see another day." I believe that this is pseudo scientific because
> it seems to be that pseudoscience is more of a belief than reality.
> The beliefs are so strong that it turns into reality. Or maybe it's
> reality first. It's hard to explain. Just as we believe in God
> enough for him to exist, Borges shows this magician how he dreams
his
> son into life. Maybe if you believe it enough it will come true.
> Maybe the boy believed that he was real even though he didn't know
he
> was a shadow. Maybe it is all truth. Maybe it is all only belief,
> but who is to say that belief isn't as true as one plus one equals
> two?
From: Rick Wagner <
guardianlxxii@y...> Date: Sun Jun 23, 2002
5:39 pm Subject: Re: [MSAC Philosophy Group]
Frieddrich Nietzsche
--- sweetandtastyforyou <
Lorena.R.Ramirez@k...>
wrote:
> I beleive that he's carreer ended soon,because of
> his way of looking
> at religion. He was known best for (Human, All to
> Human)a anti-
> religious work. Not only that, but he shouldn't of
> critized the
> Greek's tradition's .
Why not? I don't hold Greek thought as sacred.
Plato and Aristotle didn't agree, so I feel no need to
look at their ideas as perfect.
No wonder this man never
> recovered from his
> serious physical and mental collaspe he suffered in
> 1889.
> I'll get to the point, I didn't like his books.
You are not alone. I think he was a lunatic, but in
"On the Genealogy of Morality" he raised some
interesting points as to WHY we would feel the need to
be moral.
And at the time of his writing, a more outspoken
attitude was perhaps better.
--Rick
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
From: "guardianlxxii" <
guardianlxxii@y...> Date: Sun Jun 23, 2002
4:14 pm Subject: Critique of Hegel - Website
(Not my dead philosopher)
Not that we're really covering the German Romantics right now, but as
I was working on my dead philosopher website, I came across this.
[MSAC Philosophy Group] Nietzche, On the
Genealogy of Morality
Lunatic.
OK, now that I have that out of the way . . .
Hard read. Nietzche so busy being pissed off, he barely has time
to
make a point. How about period? Or a new paragraph?
I suspect the
translation lacks quite a bit in connotations.
Again, I will not summarize something that we're all reading, just
point out the points that caught in my mind.
Overall, I can understand exactly why the Nazis held his ideas up as
motivation. Despite his attack on Anti-Semites towards the end,
overall he portrays Jews (and Christianity) as sick, weak group.
And
his continuous presentation of the tribes of Germany as noble and
cruel savages who left a concept of morality around the world . . .
Animal Rights - what did he say, a blue stocking has suffered more in
a single night than all the research animals ever? I'd hate to have
been his pet when he was a kid.
Judaism birthing Christianity - What a concept. The idea of the
Romans providing the impetus to create the message of Jesus was
already in my head, by his argument is a little different.
Ascetic Life - How did he see himself? Did he avoid the behavior
he
despised, or did he hate himself? Was he strong-willed? Was
he an
absolute prick at parties?
Anyways, some good ideas presented in a very negative way.
--Rick
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
msacphilosophygroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Hi, thanks for actually reading what I said and
giving a reasonable response.
I understand the necessity of freewill in allowing
us to worship. I've taken the time to study a
religion, and many of my family are devout. I'm
curious about Craig's arguments, I'll look into them.
The problem about freewill and omniscience is the
difficulty with knowing the future. Does God know the
future? The Bible claims he does, else how could
there be prophecies?
So if God knows all of our future activity, does he
know exactly what I'm going to do, before I do it? I
suspect you'll say yes. Did God know the tortures
that would be inflicted on Job? And if so, how could
he allow them to happen?
It's simpler for me: There is no god.
In my mind, if there was an infinite god, it makes
no requests for us to worship. My family forgives me
when I err, why does Christianity allow for
forgiveness of all acts but disbelief? And if God can
not see the future, he is not infinite, and no matter
how great, is simply another being. I will not
worship.
--Rick
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
msacphilosophygroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
From: "guardianlxxii" <
guardianlxxii@y...> Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002
11:04 pm Subject: Singer, Vegetarianism, and
the Cold War
I'll try to keep this concise. Some of you may actually use this
group for reasonable discussions.
In Animal Liberation, Singer make heavy use of shock value at the
beginning. Perhaps this is needed, perhaps not. Sometimes reality
itself is shocking. He made his point with me early on, everything
after the first chapter was redundant. I have to decide if I want to
consume animals, particularly if that inflicts a painful life on the
animal.
I'm wrestling with my attitudes about taking human life, capital
punishment, warfare, self-defense. There are many situations where I
feel it's justified to take another person's life. Mainly in the most
extreme Us-Or-Them times. But I have never been held at gun-point by
a chicken. Likewise, cows may have provided the materials for
McVeigh's bomb, but I don't really feel they were complicit.
So on what grounds is it ethically appropriate to kill and eat an
animal? As a necessity of survival, I would feel justified. But
plopping my ass down at Ruth's Chris is not survival, it's gluttony.
Delicious, expensive, gluttony. So I'm working on my perspective. I
will certainly look into the condition the animals I eat are kept in.
Because my speciesist self can more easily accept killing than torture.
As for animal research, I absolutely believe that it must be
justified. And that is a huge grey area. But to push back at Singer,
many of those experiments were conducted during a time when the
greatest threat was the total annihilation of all life on earth. And
I served as Nuclear-Biological-Chemical Specialist. Part of our job
was to inform commanders as to the best course of action to take in a
radioactive area. How long to stay, how much protection (all you can
get), the best exit route, all of these decisions could determine the
fate of the unit, and ultimately, a battle or war.
You can't use the argument that the tests were worthless because they
were never used. The Cold War was a time of preparedness. If we had
faced that challenge, they may have played a key role. But like any
rational being, I can find no reason to inflict purposeless pain on
another being. If there is another way to arrive at the information,
or if the knowledge gained is deemed to have less value than the
suffering it causes, I have no stomach for it. Certainly today, I see
the need for animal testing dropping every second.
So, that's my piece. I'm considering vegetarianism and I'm
determining what ethical boundaries must be crossed to neccesitate the
pain or demise of an animal to benefit our knowledge. What I come up
with may not agree with what you believe, but at least I'm sitting
down and THINKING about it.
--- jonahcookingham <jonahcookingham@yahoo.com> wrote:
[. . .] > A demon comes down and
> asks you if you
> would want to relive your identical life countless
> times. I don't
> think there is any way I would say yes. [. . .]
> If the demon asked me to change my life
> and to right the
> regrets that I have, I would do it in a second.
> Anyone would. It's
> a story that makes you step back from your life and
> look at it like
> someone else would look at it.
I agree. But I also see it as a chance to look at
your life as your only chance. If we don't know if
there's a god, or an afterlife, then this is it. Your
memory will be the demon standing before you at the
end of your life. If you want to be able to say yes
to the demon, make this the best life possible.
--Rick
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
msacphilosophygroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
--- zrahmanian <zrahmanian@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I thought on the first day of class, the Professor
> said we didn't
> have to do a film? True or not?
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
msacphilosophygroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
I'm sorry, but I have a hard time getting the devoutly
religous line from a woman who chose
"sweetandtastyforyou" as her user name. Sometimes, I
think you're just atheist-baiting.
Lorena, you're getting defensive because your faith is
threatened. Why do you have to tell George that God
will not be mocked, why doesn't God do it himself?
What need does God have to strike down the wicked, if
they will all come to Him in the end?
If God is omniscient (all-knowing), why does he need
to bother with free-will? Doesn't he know exactly
what we'll do?
Pick one -
God is all-knowing, and everything we do is
pre-ordained. Therefore, God is just a twisted
individual who watches all this go down, and knows
what's coming next.
-Or-
Gos is not all-knowing, and we have free-will.
Therefore, if God doesn't know everything, there may
be other attributes he doesn't have.
--Rick
/*************************************************/
A finite being is not worthy of worship.
An infinite being would not demand to be worshipped.
--- sweetandtastyforyou <Lorena.R.Ramirez@kp.org>
wrote:
> Yes. There is a God. He gave you life,he can also
> take it. God will
> not be mocked.....
>
>
> --- In msacphilosophygroup@y..., George Walton
> <iambiguously@y...>
> wrote:
> > Lady,
> >
> > Nietzsche was a philosopher and so his approach to
> > religion was quite different from what one might
> > expect of, say, a discussion of Christianity on
> Oprah
> > to be: intellectually infantile.
> >
> > Christianity, like many other idealistic
> renditions of
> > "reality", becomes whatever folks want it to
> > become---mostly a reflection of who they think
> they
> > are.
> >
> > Philosophy, on the other hand, is grounded in
> > epistemology. In other words, in the relationship
> > between what we think we know and how we come to
> know
> > what we think we know. A huge difference.
> >
> > For example, you say, "of course there is a God."
> > Really? Please, by all means, demonstrate that to
> me.
> >
> > George
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- lady91741 <lady91741@y...> wrote:
> > > Wow. What a writer. I found the internet
> articles
> > > to be quite blunt
> > > and opinionated. I'm not sure if I agreed with a
> > > single statement he
> > > made. In the Anti-Christ- he basically says
> that
> > > Christianity will
> > > only bring harm. I cannot fathom the idea that
> > > Christianity is
> > > simply "pity" or a "depressant". I gathered
> that he
> > > was saying that
> > > our society is messed up-although it seemed that
> he
> > > was proclaiming
> > > the opposite. I think that all of the
> references to
> > > Christianity
> > > being suffering and it being pointless to need a
> > > "savior", was really
> > > him proving that our world is not perfect. If
> he
> > > didn't believe
> > > that, then why would he bring these subjects up?
> He
> > > was saying that
> > > it would be better if we just celebrated our
> faults
> > > instead of
> > > classifying them as being "sins". How is it
> that we
> > > should celebrate
> > > things that we do wrong? Of course there is a
> God.
> > > Of course we
> > > need a savior. And not just a few "bad people"
> need
> > > one; anyone who
> > > is born needs this.
> > > What about "Gay Science"? Well, I thought this
> was
> > > a very
> > > interesting article as well. He was saying that
> we
> > > should stop
> > > trying to (basically speak to others about how
> their
> > > lives could be
> > > greater with God). I thought it was so
> interesting
> > > that he would say
> > > that we might as well give it up now-before it
> > > begins to wither
> > > away. Supposedly, if we encourage people and
> > > attempt a positive
> > > outlook, we will just watch the good layer of
> > > "positive outlook" chip
> > > off and begin to deteriorate to the point of
> being
> > > worse than
> > > before. I cannot see how this could be true.
> In
> > > fact, through
> > > experience I can say that I guarantee that God
> can
> > > change and make
> > > Anyone's life completely different and
> completely
> > > better.
> > > Nietzsche has very strong opinions-which is
> > > wonderful. I think it is
> > > very important to hold a strong opinion in
> something
> > > after taking a
> > > critical view at it. I think I can safely say
> that
> > > both Nietzsche
> > > and I have done that.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
> > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
msacphilosophygroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Borges - Philosophical point of "The Circular Ruins"
In "The Circular Ruins," Borges shows a magician who dreams his son
into existence. The magician removed from his son the knowledge
of
his origin, so that the boy would never know he was a shadow.
Borges is refuting Berkeley's Idealism, the concept that we only exist
in the perception of God. Using the magician to symbolize Berkeley's
God, he then tells of someone else dreaming the magician.
This leaves the question: Who is Dreaming God?
It immediate conjurs an image of an infinite chain of dreamers, or
perceivers, each creating the next. And as the magician removed
knowledge from his son, so that he would never know he was a dream, so
might each of the dreamers be unaware of their own origins.
If we only exist in the mind of another, do we really exist?
--Rick
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
msacphilosophygroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
From: "guardianlxxii" <
guardianlxxii@y...> Date: Mon Jun 17, 2002
10:47 pm Subject: Post to Correct Group - Magic
Realism
I've just finished Labyrinths. Amazing. I suspect that it will end
up being my favorite out of all the books assigned. Long ago, I read
some of the works by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, another Latin American
magic realist. I'll be heading right back to his One Hundred Years of
Solitude as soon as I get the chance.
There were many interesting ideas thrown at me, but I've found a few
to discuss.
I've read The Circular Ruins before, and at the time I'd mistaken if
for Gabriel Marquez. I love the story for itself, and more for
Borges's use of the dreaming motif to refute the ideas of Berkeley and
Hume.
The Lottery in Babylon; I'm sure I'm misinterpreting the point of the
story, but I began to equate "the Company" with "Fate". Try it, it
embodies fate.
Three Versions of Judas. Such simple questions. . .was Judas required
for Christ's crucifixion? Does that mean Judas wasn't acting out of
free-will, merely a tool for God? Why did it take Judas's betrayal
for the authorities to locate a man who was raising the dead?
Nowadays, news like that travels pretty quick.
Deutsches Requiem. For those of you who hate Nietzche, here's your
story. Enter the mind of someone who carried Nietzche's ideal further
than it should have gone.
The Immortal. Hardly an original concept, but beautiful in the retelling.
The God's Script. If you had ultimate power, would you use it? If
you were trapped as a prisoner, and your only means of escape was to
wield the Power of God, could you demure?
The Wall and the Books. As usual, I am amazed at what we are capable
of. Imagine building a wall between Miami and the North Pole, then
destroying all the knowledge on one side.
There are many people who believe that the Bible they have
on the
shelf is the Word of God, unsullied by human error. I would suggest
you read this web-site. It's A Brief History of the Bible, and covers
the origins of the modern book. Reality is, many of the documents
comprising the Bible, never survived in their original form, and were
never placed into a single work.
I've just finished Labyrinths. Amazing. I suspect
that it will end
up being my favorite out of all the books assigned. Long ago, I
read
some of the works by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, another Latin American
magic realist. I'll be heading right back to his One Hundred Years
of
Solitude as soon as I get the chance.
There were many interesting ideas thrown at me, but I've found a few
to discuss.
I've read The Circular Ruins before, and at the time I'd mistaken if
for Gabriel Marquez. I love the story for itself, and more for
Borges's use of the dreaming motif to refute the ideas of Berkeley and
Hume.
The Lottery in Babylon; I'm sure I'm misinterpreting the point of the
story, but I began to equate "the Company" with "Fate". Try it,
it
embodies fate.
Three Versions of Judas. Such simple questions. . .was Judas required
for Christ's crucifixion? Does that mean Judas wasn't acting out
of
free-will, merely a tool for God? Why did it take Judas's betrayal
for the authorities to locate a man who was raising the dead?
Nowadays, news like that travels pretty quick.
Deutsches Requiem. For those of you who hate Nietzche, here's your
story. Enter the mind of someone who carried Nietzche's ideal further
than it should have gone.
The Immortal. Hardly an original concept, but beautiful in the retelling.
The God's Script. If you had ultimate power, would you use it?
If
you were trapped as a prisoner, and your only means of escape was to
wield the Power of God, could you demure?
The Wall and the Books. As usual, I am amazed at what we are capable
of. Imagine building a wall between Miami and the North Pole, then
destroying all the knowledge on one side.
--Rick
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
msacphilosophygroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Biggie,
For a nihilist, you're failing the apathy test.
Do we want science to answer our moral questions?
If all of our ethical dilemmas can be solved through
an algorithm of principles, we don't really have a
dilemma, do we?
The difficulty lies in determining the moral
standards to apply--the gauge for our behaviors. Who
do show the most concern for: the individual, society,
humanity as a whole?
If all of our actions are reduced to that which will
most serve a greater good, freewill disappears. We'll
all be worshiping at the Altar of Ultimate Causality,
where every move will make impacts the state of the
world. You fomenting dissent against science, with
hints of totalitarian enforcement by the scientific
community, my responses in a group of students who may
not wish to be exposed to this debate, all of this
could be construed as upsetting some overall Moral
Equilibrium.
Again you sound like you're hunting for absolutes,
while claiming there is no such thing, and denying a
desire for them.
Nothing is equal. No object, no situation, no
event, none of these will be identical to a previous,
simultaneous or future occurrence. The state of
Matter itself is not totally definable. Therefore,
there can be no absolutes, only rules that attempt to
provide situational guidance. Morality is an obsolete
term used to describe a particular set of rules. Try
using the word "Ethics." It tends to imply a judgment
applied to single instances, rather than an inflexible
set of absolutes.
After all, if a woman walks through a park naked at
night, do Greenpeace activists still get turned on?
Good Luck,
Smallie
Gratuitous Song Lyrics - Elvis Costello, Beyond Belief
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies the same defeats
Keep your finger on important issues
With crocodile tears and a pocketful of tissues
I'm just the oily slick
On the windup world of the nervous tick
In a very fashionable hovel
I hang around dying to be tortured
You'll never be alone in the bone orchard
This battle with the bottle is nothing so novel
So in this almost empty gin palace
Through a two-way looking glass
You see your Alice
You know she has no sense
For all your jealousy
In a sense she still smiles very sweetly
Charged with insults and flattery
Her body moves with malice
Do you have to be so cruel to be callous
And now you find you fit this identikit completely
You say you have no secrets
And then leave discreetly
I might make it California's fault
Be locked in Geneva's deepest vault
Just like the Canals of Mars and the Great Barrier Reef
I come to you beyond belief
My hands were clammy and cunning
She's been suitably stunning
But I know there's not a hope in Hades
All the laddies cat call and wolf whistle
So-called gentlemen and ladies
Dog fight like rose and thistle
I've got a feeling
I'm going to get a lot of grief
Once this seemed so appealing
Now I am beyond belief
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
msacphilosophygroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
I realize we're into a different week, but I found this idea
so
interesting I had to post some sites.
These cover the Aqautic Ape Theory, describing how our evolution may
have involved a period of aquatic living. It's a recent theory,
and
lacks robust support, but it does explain some differences between us
the fossil record.
