[MD] Is this the inadequacy of the MOQ?

[118]

Hi Tim,
If I may intrude into your question to John with a comment.  I read the Tao
of Physics a little after I read ZMM in the '70s.  Of course people like
Alan Watts preceded them in the introduction of mainstream Eastern thought
in the US.  At that time, physics had reached a point at which the
interpretation of data and its theoretic premises were finding correlations
between such physical notions and "old philosophies".  As such it was an
attempt to bridge the two.  AG is quite correct in that physicists were
supporting such philosophies with theoretical physics and not the other way
around.  So the materialistic aspect was prevalent.  Much has changed since
that time, where philosophies are used to explain some things in physics.  A
similar "early work" was the Dancing Wu li Maters by Zukav.  Both of these
authors became converted to a more new age thinking as is reflected in their
later works.  For them, it would seem that physics provided the path to
spiritualism.  These early works are somewhat dated now, but they were
pioneers at the time.

Mark

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:45 PM, <rapsncows at fastmail.fm> wrote:

> John,
>
> I was following up on the tao of physics and found this amit goswami
> guy: my curiosity is peaked
>
> AG: I'm glad that you asked that question. This should be clarified and
> I will try to explicate it as clearly as I can. The early work, like The
> Tao of Physics, has been very important for the history of science.
> However, these early works, in spite of supporting the spiritual aspect
> of human beings, all basically held on to the material view of the world
> nevertheless. In other words, they did not challenge the material
> realists' view that everything is made up of matter. That view was never
> put to any challenge by any of these early books. In fact, my book was
> the first one which challenged it squarely and which was still based on
> a rigorous explication in scientific terms. In other words, the idea
> that consciousness is the ground of being, of course, has existed in
> psychology, as transpersonal psychology, but outside of transpersonal
> psychology no tradition of science and no scientist has seen it so
> clearly.
>
> from: http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j11/goswami.asp?page=2
>
> Tim
> --
>
>  rapsncows at fastmail.fm
>
> --
> http://www.fastmail.fm - Access your email from home and the web
>
> 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/md/archives.html
>