One thing I appreciate about Plato's account of the problem of evil—if you can call it that within a Platonic framework—is his emphasis on devolution at the heart of nature. This force in nature explains why everything dies, degrades, turns to chaos. It's entropy, in other words. It's also at the level of biology in the form of cancer—cells turning against their form, striking out on their own. That negative force of nature is caused by Non-Being (or Necessity, Matter), and we are caught up in between Being and Non-Being in the material world, the world of Becoming.
The Gnostics left us with some interesting interpretations of Platonism that are kind of funny but also richly imaginative and in that way appealing, but also emotionally satisfying when it comes to solving the problem of evil: Why is there evil in the world? Because what many call god is really Ialdabaoth who thinks he's God, but he's not. He's an evil demiurge who's trying to copy God but mucking up everything.
From the IEP:
"Gnosticism began with the same basic, pre-philosophical intuition that guided the development of Greek philosophy—that there is a dichotomy between the realm of true, unchanging Being, and ever-changing Becoming. However, unlike the Greeks, who strived to find the connection between and overall unity of these two “realms,” the Gnostics amplified the differences, and developed a mytho-logical doctrine of humankind’s origin in the realm of Being, and eventual fall into the realm of darkness or matter, that is, Becoming. This general Gnostic myth came to exercise an influence on emerging Christianity, as well as upon Platonic philosophy, and even, in the East, developed into a world religion (Manichaeism) that spread across the known world, surviving until the late Middle Ages."
Interesting. Aren't they suggesting, if not the exact same idea, at least very similar concepts? This reminds me of Kabbalistic panpsychism. Here’s an interesting video on the topic:: https://youtu.be/uDtjJ0vh5jg
Cool video! There are a lot of similarities there, at least in my view. With Plato it's always a matter of interpreting and interrogating the dialogues, which makes for a range of views and quibbles amongst Plato scholars, but I see a lot of similarities between the Kabbalistic system and Platonism in the hierarchical structure and self-similarity. The divided line (that diagram I showed you earlier...I'll include it below in case anyone is interested) gives you some sense of his "system" as a continuum of sorts, although he throws in the equality of the middle segments of the line as a paradox, encouraging readers to puzzle out its meaning. The same paradox exists in the cave allegory as the fire representing the sun.
Thanks for the piece. I appreciate the attempt to find a more complicated explanation for the existence of evil than the more obvious ones (such as that suffering emerged without intention or consideration), but I don’t think your theory holds up under careful scrutiny.
A baby born in a hospital that is bombed, leading to the baby burning slowly to death shortly after birth doesn’t appear to represent a teaching moment for the baby. Wild/domestic animal suffering doesn’t appear instructive.
To explain to a child victim of sexual abuse that her abuse is a necessary step for her to achieve greater enlightenment seems questionable on many levels.
This all seems particularly true because despite the theory’s proposal that we are all somehow one with God, the most basic evidence doesn’t support this. Neither the baby, nor the animals, nor the little girl have any access to the mind that perpetrates these evils upon them, nor do they have access to the power of creation, nor do they have access to the comforting knowledge that their terrible suffering serves some purpose for which they probably would still not agree to undergo to realize.
It seems much more intellectually honest to simply look at suffering not as a necessity of divinity, but an unfortunate byproduct of life that perhaps some day people, as they gain in wisdom and power, might be able to eradicate.
If you read through your comment - hypothetically, not simply blinding accepting what Marco wrote - and take the perspective that the baby, the hospital, the bombs, are all formations of a transcendent and universal consciousness, part of which remains transcendent and looks on ITS OWN forms much as Shakespeare looks on Romeo, Julius Caesar and other of his characters. They have no existence outside of Shakespeare's consciousness, so it is not 'the baby" or "the animal" that are or not learning lessons; it is Shakespeare himself.
perhaps a book is not a clear enough analogy. Imagine Shakespeare with the capacity to project his own consciousness as a 3D holographic world, and HE is the sole character appearing as a vast muliticiplity of characters (much as you or I might be in a conscious dream, in which we know we're dreaming).
Do you see how the perspective might be radically different?
And remember, in an evolutionary perspective - in which, say, I (Don) am the "Shakespeare" creating the 3D holographic world - I have chosen to dive in, forget myself, for the sake of the adventure of rediscovering myself. I have gone in fully recognizing that in what will appear to be aeons for the various characters I will be appearing as, there will be what to us is known as "suffering."
I have consciously chosen this, for my infinite Self.
As far as whether "you" or "I" are one with the Mind of God, I hope you realize that not only Marco, but every mystic teaching the world over, including Christian, Sufi and Jewish mysticism as well as Tentai, Shinto, Neo Confucian, Vedantic, Tantric, Jain, Sikh, Taoist and other mystic traditions (Greek, Egyptian, Pacific indigenous, etc) teach about Avidya, Ignorance, by which we go through one life or countless lifetimes perceiving our mind-body individuality as utterly separate from the mind of God.
That's the whole point of an evolutionary perspective. The Infinite I has CHOSEN to exist in material, plant, animal, human form in ignorance to grow to realize I have never been separate from the Mind of God.
As far as evidence, if you mean scientific evidence, at the moment (and I'm speaking as a psychologist who has conducted research), I'm not sure people who have not conducted research in the mind-sciences realize that strictly speaking, there is no 'scientific' evidence for the existence of consciousness, if by that you mean subjective experience, not cognitive processes. There is no scientific evidence fort the existence of subjective experience at all, including the various qualia (including color, sound, the feeling of a foot kicking a stone a/la Samuel Johnson). So you could say, in terms of the universe as we experience, scientific research has no evidence for that - and has no need to, if we all could remember that all of physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology and neuroscience begins, as Andre LInde put it, with our perceptual/sensoroy experience, only we abstract it away and think the various models and quantitative formula, such as "matter" and "energy" and "magnetism," etc are the "real" thing and qualia and consciousness are illusory epiphenomena, exactly the opposite of the only evidence we ever have.
>As far as whether "you" or "I" are one with the Mind of God, I hope you realize that not only Marco, but every mystic teaching the world over, including Christian, Sufi and Jewish mysticism as well as Tentai, Shinto, Neo Confucian, Vedantic, Tantric, Jain, Sikh, Taoist and other mystic traditions (Greek, Egyptian, Pacific indigenous, etc) teach about Avidya, Ignorance, by which we go through one life or countless lifetimes perceiving our mind-body individuality as utterly separate from the mind of God.
What exactly is this supposed to objectively indicate? That these ancient traditions, because they were shared, are more likely true? This is an interesting approach to judging the validity of a concept.
Belief in dragons is also common among ancient cultures. As are ghosts, witches and evil spirits. On what basis do you selectively judge which such unfounded beliefs should be carried forward and which shouldn’t? Popularity?
I’ll leave you to explain your theory of seemingly needless suffering to those who experience it firsthand. I’m sure my dad would’ve appreciated your perspective as he lost his mind to Alzheimer’s. Or as my mother’s fungating tumor broke through her belly. Instead of trying to eradicate sexual abuse, seemingly needless pain, etc., your advocacy instead suggests that eradicating it is counterproductive and that torture is essential—an aspect of divine perfection. What else might we normalize in this manner? What else have we already normalized in this manner, thanks to theological certainty?
I’m glad you find comfort in the necessity of pain in the universe. I don’t. And I don’t see a lot of compelling evidence suggesting that a hidden, perfect god invented evil and agony to make everything as perfect as possible. This just seems like double talk, and a deliberate attempt to look past explanations that don’t require so much needless complication.
I wonder if you realize that what you wrote is almost the exact opposite of what I wrote? Marco this is why I do not think any purely text based writing is sufficient for communion sting these ideas. Woolery has a complex set of conditioned ideas thru which he filtered what I wrote
You might say what difference would video or animation make.
The thing is. As Kahneman pointed out in slow and fast thinking. Which Sri Aurobindo elaborated more profoundly in his kena commentary noting the rapidity of samjnana and prajnana. Putting this in video or animated form you have the ability to take the viewer as slow as needs be through all the rapid unconscious assumptions that arise. And show they have no rational basis.
You saw what happened the last time I had a text based conversation with a physicalist He finally got to see that the word physical has no rational meaning, and then shifted to say I don’t care we don’t need a definition
How would you say to Woolery that there is no scientific or empirical evidence for the existence of the physical world in the way implied in his comment, I don’t see any way to do this through text, but I believe a step by step animation could possibly make a difference
For example, I wrote “shaving science with Occam’s razor” in 2011. Four people responded with essays that literally had nothing to do with what I wrote. By the way, if you search that title, you can easily find the essay, which I believe clearly lays out the logic underlying the point I just made about lack of scientific evidence for a purely unconscious allegedly. Physical universe.
Jan and I are working on developing a series of videos would take people step Through this analysis. It may be some months before it’s ready and I hope you can offer some feedback to help make it more powerful
Meanwhile, Woolery, here is a friendly challenge for you. See if you can provide a summary in around 10 sentences of what you think I said, and let’s see if we can understand each other
"I wonder if you realize that what you wrote is almost the exact opposite of what I wrote?"
Huh? What? I have reread both my text and yours, and I can't see the difference, other than the fact that you described the same thing much better with a Shakespearian touch. Could you elaborate on where we diverge?
Regarding the limitations of purely text-based writing, I agree. However, over all these years that I have sought to convey certain ideas, I have concluded that the format (whether text, video, or any other medium) and style can only take someone halfway. The other half depends on an inner connection to the deeper truths of existence. One must have an inner contact with some experiential dimension. If a person cannot relate these words to their own subjective experiences, intuitions, or feelings, and instead externalizes all thought processes while looking outward, then no amount of careful word choice, medium, text, video, music, or even a powerful speech will suffice.
I don’t question your intention to produce videos and animations; that may also be helpful, and I will certainly participate in your project. However, I believe that without at least an initial opening, no matter how hard we try, these spiritual ideas will sound only like blind belief, abstract philosophy, anthropocentric theories, or mere religious superstition. This is why Steven Weinberg once said, "The more comprehensible the universe becomes, the more pointless it seems," while Heisenberg said, "The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass, God is waiting for you." I don’t see a difference between their knowledge or understanding. What makes the difference is whether we externalize or internalize. If the inner connection is lacking, nothing can help us overcome that other half of the way.
This is why I don't invest too much time trying to convince others—we shouldn't preach or convert, right? I send a message in a bottle, and those who are interested and open to that kind of inner communication with themselves will gain something from it, no matter how awkwardly I may express my ideas. While, those who can't relate it to their own experiences won't be convinced, regardless of how beautifully our words may be put.
Meanwhile, I will copy and paste ypur writings... ;)
So I agree about 99.9%. Yes, it’s ULTIMATELY about an inner opening. But - and of course you agree with this or you would have stopped writing - there are better and worse ways of presenting these views.
I know, you have no trouble with that.
Let’s see if I can make this any more clear:
How did Woorley end up writing something so many light years from what I wrote? Was it simply a matter of a lack of. Inner opening?
I don’t think so.
If he agreed to take what I wrote and rewrite it in his own words, I’m absolutely convinced he could do it.
Then, if he was willing to take a 3 month course, in which he went over the steps in a 30 minute practice, 2x a day, within 3 months he would have at the very least a purely intellectual understanding rather than a confused mixture of contradictory ideas.
Now at that point, if there’s no opening, he’s left with some intellectual clarification but no opening.
Is there really ANYBODY - including Steven Weinberg - who is truly not capable of understanding these things to some extent on a purely mental/intellectual level?
I know we’ve differed about this in the past and may differ radically now, but I doubt it.
In any case, Ulrich and I have set up a zoom for a few weeks, and I think he’s about 1000 percent more in your camp than mine. He took me to task a few weeks ago on his substack for even giving a thought to the idea that large numbers of people might be more open to these things.
And he may be right and I may be utterly wrong. I’m terribly stubborn (Sun in Leo, or Leo in Sun sign, or something like that - Sorry Mr. Woorley)>
And speaking of Woorley, there was a Gerry Worlee (I think that’s the spelling) a former anesthesiologist who - back when Amazon allowed comments on reviews - continued for TWO YEARS in a thread that I think had over 1500 responses in which about a half dozen of us kept presenting empirical facts involving parapsychological phenomena as well as philosophic points regarding the limitations of materialism.
He has an MD and is obviously a “smart” guy in some respects. But he couldn’t follow even the simplest philosophy 101 points, so he was a classic example of someone I try to recall when I’m getting too stubborn about the possibility of getting these ideas across to everyone.
One thing I appreciate about Plato's account of the problem of evil—if you can call it that within a Platonic framework—is his emphasis on devolution at the heart of nature. This force in nature explains why everything dies, degrades, turns to chaos. It's entropy, in other words. It's also at the level of biology in the form of cancer—cells turning against their form, striking out on their own. That negative force of nature is caused by Non-Being (or Necessity, Matter), and we are caught up in between Being and Non-Being in the material world, the world of Becoming.
The Gnostics left us with some interesting interpretations of Platonism that are kind of funny but also richly imaginative and in that way appealing, but also emotionally satisfying when it comes to solving the problem of evil: Why is there evil in the world? Because what many call god is really Ialdabaoth who thinks he's God, but he's not. He's an evil demiurge who's trying to copy God but mucking up everything.
From the IEP:
"Gnosticism began with the same basic, pre-philosophical intuition that guided the development of Greek philosophy—that there is a dichotomy between the realm of true, unchanging Being, and ever-changing Becoming. However, unlike the Greeks, who strived to find the connection between and overall unity of these two “realms,” the Gnostics amplified the differences, and developed a mytho-logical doctrine of humankind’s origin in the realm of Being, and eventual fall into the realm of darkness or matter, that is, Becoming. This general Gnostic myth came to exercise an influence on emerging Christianity, as well as upon Platonic philosophy, and even, in the East, developed into a world religion (Manichaeism) that spread across the known world, surviving until the late Middle Ages."
https://iep.utm.edu/gnostic/#SSSH2b.iii.1
Interesting. Aren't they suggesting, if not the exact same idea, at least very similar concepts? This reminds me of Kabbalistic panpsychism. Here’s an interesting video on the topic:: https://youtu.be/uDtjJ0vh5jg
Cool video! There are a lot of similarities there, at least in my view. With Plato it's always a matter of interpreting and interrogating the dialogues, which makes for a range of views and quibbles amongst Plato scholars, but I see a lot of similarities between the Kabbalistic system and Platonism in the hierarchical structure and self-similarity. The divided line (that diagram I showed you earlier...I'll include it below in case anyone is interested) gives you some sense of his "system" as a continuum of sorts, although he throws in the equality of the middle segments of the line as a paradox, encouraging readers to puzzle out its meaning. The same paradox exists in the cave allegory as the fire representing the sun.
https://youtu.be/I8Qb4KYACBY?si=2WfoTPpLusw28Whm
Thanks for the piece. I appreciate the attempt to find a more complicated explanation for the existence of evil than the more obvious ones (such as that suffering emerged without intention or consideration), but I don’t think your theory holds up under careful scrutiny.
A baby born in a hospital that is bombed, leading to the baby burning slowly to death shortly after birth doesn’t appear to represent a teaching moment for the baby. Wild/domestic animal suffering doesn’t appear instructive.
To explain to a child victim of sexual abuse that her abuse is a necessary step for her to achieve greater enlightenment seems questionable on many levels.
This all seems particularly true because despite the theory’s proposal that we are all somehow one with God, the most basic evidence doesn’t support this. Neither the baby, nor the animals, nor the little girl have any access to the mind that perpetrates these evils upon them, nor do they have access to the power of creation, nor do they have access to the comforting knowledge that their terrible suffering serves some purpose for which they probably would still not agree to undergo to realize.
It seems much more intellectually honest to simply look at suffering not as a necessity of divinity, but an unfortunate byproduct of life that perhaps some day people, as they gain in wisdom and power, might be able to eradicate.
If you read through your comment - hypothetically, not simply blinding accepting what Marco wrote - and take the perspective that the baby, the hospital, the bombs, are all formations of a transcendent and universal consciousness, part of which remains transcendent and looks on ITS OWN forms much as Shakespeare looks on Romeo, Julius Caesar and other of his characters. They have no existence outside of Shakespeare's consciousness, so it is not 'the baby" or "the animal" that are or not learning lessons; it is Shakespeare himself.
perhaps a book is not a clear enough analogy. Imagine Shakespeare with the capacity to project his own consciousness as a 3D holographic world, and HE is the sole character appearing as a vast muliticiplity of characters (much as you or I might be in a conscious dream, in which we know we're dreaming).
Do you see how the perspective might be radically different?
And remember, in an evolutionary perspective - in which, say, I (Don) am the "Shakespeare" creating the 3D holographic world - I have chosen to dive in, forget myself, for the sake of the adventure of rediscovering myself. I have gone in fully recognizing that in what will appear to be aeons for the various characters I will be appearing as, there will be what to us is known as "suffering."
I have consciously chosen this, for my infinite Self.
Does that change your perspective at all?
As far as whether "you" or "I" are one with the Mind of God, I hope you realize that not only Marco, but every mystic teaching the world over, including Christian, Sufi and Jewish mysticism as well as Tentai, Shinto, Neo Confucian, Vedantic, Tantric, Jain, Sikh, Taoist and other mystic traditions (Greek, Egyptian, Pacific indigenous, etc) teach about Avidya, Ignorance, by which we go through one life or countless lifetimes perceiving our mind-body individuality as utterly separate from the mind of God.
That's the whole point of an evolutionary perspective. The Infinite I has CHOSEN to exist in material, plant, animal, human form in ignorance to grow to realize I have never been separate from the Mind of God.
As far as evidence, if you mean scientific evidence, at the moment (and I'm speaking as a psychologist who has conducted research), I'm not sure people who have not conducted research in the mind-sciences realize that strictly speaking, there is no 'scientific' evidence for the existence of consciousness, if by that you mean subjective experience, not cognitive processes. There is no scientific evidence fort the existence of subjective experience at all, including the various qualia (including color, sound, the feeling of a foot kicking a stone a/la Samuel Johnson). So you could say, in terms of the universe as we experience, scientific research has no evidence for that - and has no need to, if we all could remember that all of physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology and neuroscience begins, as Andre LInde put it, with our perceptual/sensoroy experience, only we abstract it away and think the various models and quantitative formula, such as "matter" and "energy" and "magnetism," etc are the "real" thing and qualia and consciousness are illusory epiphenomena, exactly the opposite of the only evidence we ever have.
Beautiful! Formulated perfectly. I copy and past this into the text and my next book. Without permission, of course. ;)
>As far as whether "you" or "I" are one with the Mind of God, I hope you realize that not only Marco, but every mystic teaching the world over, including Christian, Sufi and Jewish mysticism as well as Tentai, Shinto, Neo Confucian, Vedantic, Tantric, Jain, Sikh, Taoist and other mystic traditions (Greek, Egyptian, Pacific indigenous, etc) teach about Avidya, Ignorance, by which we go through one life or countless lifetimes perceiving our mind-body individuality as utterly separate from the mind of God.
What exactly is this supposed to objectively indicate? That these ancient traditions, because they were shared, are more likely true? This is an interesting approach to judging the validity of a concept.
Belief in dragons is also common among ancient cultures. As are ghosts, witches and evil spirits. On what basis do you selectively judge which such unfounded beliefs should be carried forward and which shouldn’t? Popularity?
I’ll leave you to explain your theory of seemingly needless suffering to those who experience it firsthand. I’m sure my dad would’ve appreciated your perspective as he lost his mind to Alzheimer’s. Or as my mother’s fungating tumor broke through her belly. Instead of trying to eradicate sexual abuse, seemingly needless pain, etc., your advocacy instead suggests that eradicating it is counterproductive and that torture is essential—an aspect of divine perfection. What else might we normalize in this manner? What else have we already normalized in this manner, thanks to theological certainty?
I’m glad you find comfort in the necessity of pain in the universe. I don’t. And I don’t see a lot of compelling evidence suggesting that a hidden, perfect god invented evil and agony to make everything as perfect as possible. This just seems like double talk, and a deliberate attempt to look past explanations that don’t require so much needless complication.
I wonder if you realize that what you wrote is almost the exact opposite of what I wrote? Marco this is why I do not think any purely text based writing is sufficient for communion sting these ideas. Woolery has a complex set of conditioned ideas thru which he filtered what I wrote
You might say what difference would video or animation make.
The thing is. As Kahneman pointed out in slow and fast thinking. Which Sri Aurobindo elaborated more profoundly in his kena commentary noting the rapidity of samjnana and prajnana. Putting this in video or animated form you have the ability to take the viewer as slow as needs be through all the rapid unconscious assumptions that arise. And show they have no rational basis.
You saw what happened the last time I had a text based conversation with a physicalist He finally got to see that the word physical has no rational meaning, and then shifted to say I don’t care we don’t need a definition
How would you say to Woolery that there is no scientific or empirical evidence for the existence of the physical world in the way implied in his comment, I don’t see any way to do this through text, but I believe a step by step animation could possibly make a difference
For example, I wrote “shaving science with Occam’s razor” in 2011. Four people responded with essays that literally had nothing to do with what I wrote. By the way, if you search that title, you can easily find the essay, which I believe clearly lays out the logic underlying the point I just made about lack of scientific evidence for a purely unconscious allegedly. Physical universe.
Jan and I are working on developing a series of videos would take people step Through this analysis. It may be some months before it’s ready and I hope you can offer some feedback to help make it more powerful
Meanwhile, Woolery, here is a friendly challenge for you. See if you can provide a summary in around 10 sentences of what you think I said, and let’s see if we can understand each other
"I wonder if you realize that what you wrote is almost the exact opposite of what I wrote?"
Huh? What? I have reread both my text and yours, and I can't see the difference, other than the fact that you described the same thing much better with a Shakespearian touch. Could you elaborate on where we diverge?
Oh my goodness, I didn't mean you!!! I meant Woolery. You and I agree 100%.
Ah, okay, great. Your text is in the post then.
Regarding the limitations of purely text-based writing, I agree. However, over all these years that I have sought to convey certain ideas, I have concluded that the format (whether text, video, or any other medium) and style can only take someone halfway. The other half depends on an inner connection to the deeper truths of existence. One must have an inner contact with some experiential dimension. If a person cannot relate these words to their own subjective experiences, intuitions, or feelings, and instead externalizes all thought processes while looking outward, then no amount of careful word choice, medium, text, video, music, or even a powerful speech will suffice.
I don’t question your intention to produce videos and animations; that may also be helpful, and I will certainly participate in your project. However, I believe that without at least an initial opening, no matter how hard we try, these spiritual ideas will sound only like blind belief, abstract philosophy, anthropocentric theories, or mere religious superstition. This is why Steven Weinberg once said, "The more comprehensible the universe becomes, the more pointless it seems," while Heisenberg said, "The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass, God is waiting for you." I don’t see a difference between their knowledge or understanding. What makes the difference is whether we externalize or internalize. If the inner connection is lacking, nothing can help us overcome that other half of the way.
This is why I don't invest too much time trying to convince others—we shouldn't preach or convert, right? I send a message in a bottle, and those who are interested and open to that kind of inner communication with themselves will gain something from it, no matter how awkwardly I may express my ideas. While, those who can't relate it to their own experiences won't be convinced, regardless of how beautifully our words may be put.
Meanwhile, I will copy and paste ypur writings... ;)
So I agree about 99.9%. Yes, it’s ULTIMATELY about an inner opening. But - and of course you agree with this or you would have stopped writing - there are better and worse ways of presenting these views.
I know, you have no trouble with that.
Let’s see if I can make this any more clear:
How did Woorley end up writing something so many light years from what I wrote? Was it simply a matter of a lack of. Inner opening?
I don’t think so.
If he agreed to take what I wrote and rewrite it in his own words, I’m absolutely convinced he could do it.
Then, if he was willing to take a 3 month course, in which he went over the steps in a 30 minute practice, 2x a day, within 3 months he would have at the very least a purely intellectual understanding rather than a confused mixture of contradictory ideas.
Now at that point, if there’s no opening, he’s left with some intellectual clarification but no opening.
Is there really ANYBODY - including Steven Weinberg - who is truly not capable of understanding these things to some extent on a purely mental/intellectual level?
I know we’ve differed about this in the past and may differ radically now, but I doubt it.
In any case, Ulrich and I have set up a zoom for a few weeks, and I think he’s about 1000 percent more in your camp than mine. He took me to task a few weeks ago on his substack for even giving a thought to the idea that large numbers of people might be more open to these things.
And he may be right and I may be utterly wrong. I’m terribly stubborn (Sun in Leo, or Leo in Sun sign, or something like that - Sorry Mr. Woorley)>
And speaking of Woorley, there was a Gerry Worlee (I think that’s the spelling) a former anesthesiologist who - back when Amazon allowed comments on reviews - continued for TWO YEARS in a thread that I think had over 1500 responses in which about a half dozen of us kept presenting empirical facts involving parapsychological phenomena as well as philosophic points regarding the limitations of materialism.
He has an MD and is obviously a “smart” guy in some respects. But he couldn’t follow even the simplest philosophy 101 points, so he was a classic example of someone I try to recall when I’m getting too stubborn about the possibility of getting these ideas across to everyone.
So who knows? We’ll see!!!