[MD] New Age++

Tue Jan 10 00:39:12 PST 2006

Hi Gav, (and Mike and Ant) thoughts inserted,

Sorry Gac, I must have got the tone wrong, I mostly agree with you.
I was playing to your playing to the gallery as the cool hippie dude stereotype.

On 1/9/06, gav <gav_gc at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 1/9/06, ian glendinning <psybertron at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Gav, Ant and Mike, et al,
> > >
> > > This is interesting territory. I made the link
> > between "New Age" and
> > > Mike's "New Objectivity" in the EDGE thread.
> > >
> > > As Ant points out the issue here (with which Gav
> > is totally
> > > comfortable, ironically at least) is the
> > pejorative rhetorical use of
> > > "New Age", forever consigning its advocates to
> > being seen as weird
> > > hippie types, way off the
> > socio-politico-intellectual (and academic)
> > > mainstream.
>
> i would have thought being way off the
> socio-politico-intellectual mainstream would be a good
> thing.

[IG] - Depends whether you expect anything but a "mainstream" to
govern the limits to the way we live our lives. Better to get the
mainstream to understand the need to chill, and get with the vibe, I
reckon. (Again we seem to want the same outcome - I'm softly softly
catchee monkey - you seem to want to rebel / revolt / confront "the
monkey" - each to his own.)

>
> > >
> > > Conscious dreaming (and similar "myths and
> > legends")
>
> "myths and legends"....? myths and legends engender
> subtler, higher truths than the prosaic truisms of
> science, dogmatic religion/philosophy etc. they are a
> reflection of the underlying order of the universe. an
> order that is impossible to grasp intellectually: tao,
> Quality etc. if reality is quality and quality is
> something you feel, rather than conceptualise, then
> reality can be known directly only through the
> aesthetic nature of a particular experience. therefore
> reality, or the more refined apprehension thereof is
> suited to the arts (and singularly metaphor itself)
> and the finer appreciation of all aesthetic
> experience, which is of course to say all experience.

[IG] I agree - the prosaic truths of GOF-Science, can learn a thing or
two from the higher truths of myths and legend. Believe me I'm
serious. DMB's presentation was my favourite at the conference. I'm
talking a new enlightened "science" - a new-objectivity - recognising
the limits to conceptualisation and the value of real experience and
participation, etc (as posited in myth and legend).

>
> reflect the
> > > endurance of the concepts, and suggest the grain
> > of truth somewhere,
> > > even if it's largely a psychological truth.
>
> what other truths are there?

[IG] Probably none, stupid :-) We agree already.
(See my Conf Paper - it was entitled It's Evolutionary Psychology, Stupid)

>
>  Whilst
> > I'm sympathetic, eg
> > > I called myself New-Age+++, I still believe 99% of
> > what is written
> > > about new-agey ideas is 99% bullshit - the powers
> > of pyramids,
> > > chrystals, astrology, etc.
>
> this would seem a blanket dismissal and perhaps a
> little irrational, if i may say so. 'science' is a
> group of interpretations of phenomena based upon
> certain metaphysical assumptions. given the same
> metaphysical assumptions many different
> interpretations can be *created* to fit observed
> phenomena. given different metaphysical assumptions
> the number of different interpretations increases much
> further. which interpretations are true? well i would
> say the ones that work better, cover more
> eventualities, have more predictive power. these are
> 'truer' than the others.
> what if there were new scientific paradigms that were
> created that accomodated phenomena hitherto either
> ignored or ridiculed, in a coherent framework? maybe
> this is already happening, maybe it has already
> happened and we are just finding out about it again
> now.
> astrology: why is it practised in such a variety of
> cultures and for so long? maybe it had value?
> crystals:  they grow. are they therefore alive?
> conscious in some way? again used for eons by many
> different cultures. again i just think it is a better
> bet that people all over the world practised stuff for
> thousands of years because it worked, rather than it
> didn't.
> pyramids - try reading 'pyramid power' by pat
> flanagan, an engineering PhD.

[IG] Dismissive ?- I was being open minded (but a little conservative
as Mike points out - perhaps 99% was a bit harsh - I'm treading a fine
line here. Crystals alive ? See my Caveat Metaphor to Ant, life in the
case here. I'm familiar with the involvement of DNA-pre-cursor
crystals etc in the earliest "life", but not mystical worship of shiny
regular objects. (If I read Pat Flannagan, will you read Brian
Josephson and Sue Blackmore - two rigorous but open minded sceptics.)
(Let me dig out some specific links.)

>
>
>  What I do not discount
> > though, is the
> > > reality of some aspect of consciousness beyond the
> > single human brain.
> > > (My favourite Nobel-prize winner, Brian Josephson,
> > about whom I've
> > > blogged many times, similarly defends against
> > those "scientists" who
> > > 100% consign the 99% bullshit to the scientific
> > trashcan, as a reflex
> > > move prior to any kind of analysis.)
>
> everything *is* because of consciousness.
> consciousness is the 'space' things exist in; the
> awareness that is a prerequisite for anyting to 'be'.

[IG] - I think that's taking the metaphor too far (but I can see the
attraction) - "awareness", a mechanism for interaction - perhaps - but
I don't buy full blown, intentional. intelligent consciousness as a
fundament of reality. (1% / 5% / 20% who knows, but not zero% I'll
grant you.) Life's complicated enough.

>
> > >
> > > Talking of conscious dreaming, recall that the
> > closing lines of my MoQ
> > > Conference paper were a quote from T E Lawrence
> > "All men dream: but
> > > not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty
> > recesses of their
> > > minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity:
> > but the dreamers of
> > > the day are dangerous men, for they may act their
> > dream with open
> > > eyes, to make it possible."
>
> hear, hear,
>
> > >
> > > My interest is, of course, to rescue the grains of
> > non-GOF-objective
> > > truth (New-Age+++) from the new-age trash-can and
> > hippie-communes, and
> > > rehabilitate it into the new-objective mainstream.
>
> aaaaaaaaaaah! i won't assimilate.

[IG] That's OK, it's not compulsory, except in those who choose
positions of power and athority - in the new-mainstream. They'll need
to toe the "new-objective" line some day soon. You'll have your
freedoms, 'come the evolution. Each to his own (dream).

>
> > >
> > > Finally, by coincidence, my wife Sylvia, bought me
> > everything
> > > available from Bill Hicks on CD for Christmas. I
> > didn't recall
> > > dropping any hints - honest :-)
>
> nice one.
>
>
>
> > >
> > > Ian
> > > moq_discuss mailing list
> > > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> > >
> >
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > > Archives:
> > >
> >
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> > >
> > moq_discuss mailing list
> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> >
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > Archives:
> >
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> >
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Find a local business fast with Yahoo! Local Search
> http://au.local.yahoo.com
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>