I believe that Dr. Wayne Dyer is a gibbering idiot (part2)
Try as I might, I can’t find a way to prove my point without specific examples. This is no real surprise; proof becomes allegation without facts to hang the arguments upon. Using quotes is no assurance of making a point, however. Dr. Wayne Dyer’s statements are often vague enough to support wide interpretation. It appears to me that Dr. Dyer fancies himself a prophet, minister, or shaman, and like any of these believers, the defense that I have misunderstood his message is open to him. Pay no attention to the unbeliever in the back of the room. That being said, this is what my reasoning ability tells me about Dr. Dyer’s message.
Dr. Dyer credits his … I don’t rightly know what to call it … ministry of intent? … vision? … breakthrough into the world of New Age marketing? I’ll be kind and stick to vision. He credits Carlos Castaneda with providing him a starting point, specifically, “Intent is a force that exists in the universe. When sorcerers (those who live of the source) beckon intent, it comes to them and sets up the path for attainment, which means that sorcerers always accomplish what they set out to do.” Taken from The Active Side Of Infinity, Castaneda’s last book. Would it surprise you to learn that I have more than one problem with those two sentences? For example: “always”??? I have not read Carlos Castaneda since the 1970’s and I only ever read his first three books. I did not read his later work because someone whose opinion I trusted told me that, what started out as an interesting foray into anthropological philosophy and a potential method for a person to connect with their own hindbrain had degenerated into pure mysticism. I did not want Castaneda to lose his place in my journey, so I went no farther along his path. Perhaps I will attempt to unbolt that part of the New Age Frankenstein’s Monster at another time. For now, I return to Dr. Dyer.
Quoting from Dr. Dyer’s book, The Power of Intention: Learning to Co-Create Your World Your Way, “Some prominent researchers believe that our intelligence, creativity, and imagination interact with the energy field of intention rather than being thoughts or elements in our brain.” This is a massive confusion of ideas, bordering on gibberish. “Some prominent researchers…” who? From a later sentence in the same book, “If scientific evidence appeals to you, I suggest you read The Field: The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe by Lynne McTaggart. Perhaps Ms. McTaggart is the “some” to which he refers? But no, he said “researchers”, not scientists, and all you need to be a researcher is a book and the ability to read it. Besides, Lynne McTaggart is not a scientist, she is a hack, in the oldest sense of the word, ruthlessly whittling down quantum physics to fit her preconceived ideas. “Prominent”? How? Do you need recognition from a higher authority, equally dubious peers, or just a following to be “prominent”? Moving on: “…believe that our intelligence, creativity, and imagination interact with the energy field of intention rather than being thoughts in our own brain”. Believe. How nice for them. And what, do they believe makes this “interaction” necessary? Intelligence is the measure of the result of a person’s knowledge, aptitude, and problem solving ability. There is wide dispute as to how to make this measurement, but if we agree that we all have it to a greater or lesser degree, and also agree that we have imagination and creativity, what else is required to perform an act of will besides a physical presence to commit the creative process to action? Dr. Dyer is attempting to remove the thought process and the will to commit action, and the decision to commit action or to procrastinate from my own brain and place them into the world of the mysterious and unseen. Boy, how nice to have an unseen force, and my failure to tap into it, to blame for my own failings. Balderdash.
One more example of the rampant confusion of ideas taking place in this pseudoscientific psudoreligious ersatz philosophy: “A tiny acorn with no apparent power to think or make plans for its future contains intention from the invisible field. If you cut the acorn open, you won’t see a giant oak tree, but you know it’s there.” Dr. Wayne Dyer, The Power of Intention: Learning to Co-Create Your World Your Way. No it doesn’t, no it isn’t, and no, I don’t. What the acorn contains is the plant equivalent of a zygote, and enough nourishment to give it a start in the world, proper growing conditions being met. This is what I would see if I cut open an acorn. That’s what I know is there. The acorn has the potential to become a seedling oak, or get eaten by a squirrel, or shoot out the bottom of my lawnmower, etc. If this is what Dr. Dyer means by “intent”, I think his definition needs work. The giant oak tree that he thinks he sees in that acorn is the product of a plant system that, every year, creates energy by photosynthesis, hoards that energy in its root system, and uses that energy for a burst of growth every spring. In the course of its life, it will also suck up tons of water and minerals to use in this process. I don’t see the intent to become an oak tree when I look at a wet pile of dirt, but that dirt makes up more of my future oak tree than the contents of an acorn does. There is another problem with assigning intent to the acorn. Say the acorn had intent to be a giant oak. Did it also have intent to grow a limb so large that it was torn off in a storm? Did it then have the intent to be so wounded as to allow infection to kill it? Was its ignorance of the laws of increase of volumetric mass versus surface area an ultimate intent to commit suicide? When one has to draw an arbitrary line through a chain of causality that, in itself, is only one of several possible outcomes, one has bias. A biased opinion of the nature of the universe disproves itself.
posted by breakerslion @ 12:57 PM
191 comments
191 Comments:
Very eloquent. I think that the very least Dr. Dyer can be accused of is being an overt, flaming optimist, the best, probably a zealot and at worst, an opportunistic marketing wizard. He is not, in my estimation, an inspirational leader.
Dr. Dyer seems to address the practical aspects of life.
Connecting with intent is not something that is a practical matter. Instead, it is mysterious and magical. Connecting with intent is not useful for getting a better job or finding your true love or for unlocking potential in any pragmatic way. It is a connection with the unknowable. This seems to be a contradiction, but it is not. Not everything can be understood. Somethings can only be experienced.
Thanks for the perspective from the world of woo.
Dr. Dyer addresses the practical aspects of life? Like breakfast? Like not picking your nose in public? I don't think so. "Dr." Dyer mines the human need for more of everything, and mystical magical answers, and does so for his own enrichment like all the other New Age product specialists.
"Connecting with the Internet is not useful for getting a job ... or unocking potential in any pragmatic way."
What are you, a troll? I know many people that would disagree with you. I think you need to look up the meaning of the word "pragmatic". I suspect you have been listening to some persuasive speakers that have shoveled their own steaming pile of connotation on top of it.
"It is a connection with the unknowable"
Bullshit. Everything that is available on the Internet is there because somebody "knows" it. This is even true of brain-dead delusional bullshit, a.k.a. fiction.
"Not everything can be understood."
How would you know? The only thing one can say with accuracy is, "not everything is understood by human beings at the present time". If you're one of those people who believe in Jehovamagod, you have just stated that It cannot be omniscient, by the way.
"Some things can only be experienced."
I agree. A mother can describe giving birth all she wants, as I can describe being kicked in the nuts. Niether one will be a substitute for the experience. That is not the same as saying it can't be understood, though frauds like Dyer often play with analogies like that.
Almost forgot.
"This seems to be a contradiction, but it is not."
Want to bet on that?
He may not be correct about everything he says, but it is actually idiotic to call him a gibbering idiot. Putting that label on the man is an instance of failure in analytical reasoning. Understand that I am not defending everything Wayne Dyer says. His model of reality may be over-extended, but he does have areas that he does very well in. His description of the behavior of neurotic people (and their failure to think positively in situations which truly call for it) in his earlier work is actually right on target. I do not agree with absolutely everything he says. It might be a 75% agree 25 % disagree kind of thing and I've often wondered what he would think of that. I don't believe that having an ego is necessarily a bad thing or causes one to be selfish,materialistic or unspiritual. What is interesting is how he can be so "cocksure" of mysticism as truth. He does have a good grasp of literary concepts. Also I don't believe that there is anything wrong with achieving goals, being proud of achievements, getting an "A" in a college course or reaching any other type of high standards of performance. You can have this big ego and still be liberal, humane, compassionate and altruistic. It depends on the semantics of the term ego. Maybe if one has high self-esteem we call that having a strong ego as opposed to overcompensating for feelings of inadequacy with a weak ego, but people assume that this is the case if they see someone striving to reach difficult goals.
Black Leopard:
As stated in the post above.
“Some prominent researchers believe that our intelligence, creativity, and imagination interact with the energy field of intention rather than being thoughts or elements in our brain.” This is a massive confusion of ideas, bordering on gibberish.
I stand by my assessment. I know a flim-flam man when I hear one, and Dyer's work is a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing. In other words, he gibbers. If he believes that mystical stuff himself, he's an idiot.
Anyone who tells you that you are tapping into a power outside yourself to accomplish your goals is both setting you up for magical thinking, and giving you a built-in excuse for failure.
Since you mentioned Carlos Castaneda, I must say that he too was a fraud.
I read all his books, mainly because I had hoped they would lead to some inevitable truth. No such luck.
Later I read from his cohorts how he used his influence to manipulate people for sex and power. It was a rude awakening.
Dyer stole his whole speal from Carlos Castaneda, who made it all up to sell books and control people. Sad. But as Carlos proved, people are easily manipulated using mysticism.
Every time PBS trots out Dyer for a pledge drive I slam the TV off. Dyer is not only anti-intellectual, which ok works for some types, he's basically the equivalent of a spiritual and mental lobotomy in response to life's problems. I can't help thinking that if his views and suspicious and crazy making admonishments are true, then homeless people must be the most enlightened of all. No not everyone has to like him, but there is certainly something troubling about his popularity and its consequences for society. My two cents.
I too read all of Carlos Castaneda's books, but I also read the bible and the Mormon book. So maybe these books were written too to sell books and control people. Believers of reason may argue that the only way to find truth is through the intellect are undoubtedly devout followers of Greek philosophers like Aristotle who declared that reason is the only oracle of truth. And how many books have been written on Greek philosophy just to sell books and control peoples' perceptions? But I'm not letting Wayne Dyer off the hook, either. He is plagiarizing Castaneda's works, the same way Castaneda plagiarized his Native American sources, but he’s being more successful at it. He's taking Castaneda's concepts of "intent", "not doing", and so on and selling someone else’s intellectual property to a bigger audience, possibly rivaling the sales of the bible, Mormon book and Western books of philosophy combined – and irking the heck out of intellectual zealots, to boot. Have fun.
Well hello again from "Black Leopard". Some of the responses to my attempts to stick up for Wayne Dyer (despite my own disagreements with him) were not understood by those who responded. You simply read what I said, didn't like it and then didn't bother to think about the points I made but simply carried on yakety yak presenting the same tired and simplistic arguments. You may not agree with Wayne Dyers metaphysical views but that doesn't give you the right to call him an idiot.
On the other hand, if you want a real gibbering idiot look at Ayn Rand. I'll give you some time to digest and absorb this: Ayn Rand is a real gibbering idiot! I'll be back to explain and give some rational objective reasons to back this up.
By the way..., (Black Leopard again)
Wayne Dyer would never feel that he had a need to respond to you because he believes in the principle of not caring what other people think of him and he is correct in identifying this as a fundamental priciple of what is emotionally healthy.
Another thing that you don't seem to understand is that whether a higher power exists or not, it is not logically impossible to have both a higher power and human beings that have minds of their own. It is logically impossible to have a "square circle". Would you rather take over your vital body functions so that you had conscious control of breathing and heart rate? In your conception of the world you must see yourself as a skin encapsulated ego that knows better than anyone else how the universe works. I wonder what you think of Albert Einstein. (As long as we're busy judging people).
Black Leopard back again:
As far as the distinction between mental faculties interacting with an energy field versus being thoughts in your own brain.....,
THOUGHTS IN YOUR OWN BRAIN?
I hate to disappoint you but 1) Every thing comes from somewhere especially since 2) conservation of matter and energy states nothing is destroyed but simply changes form 3) Every bit of the matter and energy (and possibly consciousness)that you are made of
came from processes such as chemical evolution that came from the "big bang" and the 4 basic physical forces of nature that were there before the "big bang". Did you think that you brought yourself into existence?
Black Leopard again:
Perhaps it isn't gibbering but just something you don't understand because you can't analyze it, so since it isn't clear to you, you're calling it confusion.
In the interests of good will and keeping our discussion civilized, I wanted to take a break to say some positive things about you "breakerslion". I was curious about your profile, so I peeked and was surprised to see that you have a diverse set of interests as I have and that like me, you enjoy Grateful Dead and The Doors.
I hope you understand that our differences are between someone ambivalent to Wayne Dyer (me) and someone totally opposed to him (you). But I still intend to show that Ayn Rand is the one who is truly a gibbering idiot.
What anonymous is calling plagiarism is really a failure on the part of anonymous to differentiate precisely, otherwise known as the inappropriate lumping into a category.
Now Mr. Breakerslion,
1. Fallacy # 1. Thou hast committed Ad Hominem.
2. Because you disagree with Wayne Dyer on one main concept or you find it illogical, you assume that everything he says is wrong.
3. You do have a point in stating that he makes statements that are unproven.
4. However, in his earlier work before he went off the deep end into mysticism, he did make a lot of sense clearly showing neurotic people that their negative and controlling thinking didn't work and he said things YOU would probably have agreed with.
Here's The problem with Wayne Dyer in a nutshell. His Ph.D. is in Counseling Psychology NOT Experimental Psychology. Therefore he is missing the experimental methodology that hard science gives you. That's why he thinks he has "license" to draw conclusions from past observations and deduction. His model of reality is simply overextended.
Now Ayn Rand is a different story.
A fairly good novelist but a piss poor philosopher. More about her to come.
I'm hijacking the focus of this blog and changing the dsicussion to
focus on Ayn Rand.....,
So Soon to come ...,
Why Ayn Rand is a gibbering idiot
by Black Leopard a.k.a. The Fierce Pet Emergency of Now a.k.a. jhmdvm2b a.k.a. SideLion1.
oh excuse me.....,
Why Ayn Rand was a gibbering idiot
I don't know whether someone who postulates entities, attributes or dimensions from mysticism or metaphysics is wrong or not.
A person is not an idiot because they are pursuing a line of reasoning that may turn out not to be empirically valid. If they are pursuing thoughts that are wrong they may simply be misguided.
What I am saying is that you're use of ad hominem is overextended and you are as bad as Wayne Dyer is and just as much a demagogue.
You express yourself in a very sloppy manner. Instead of saying I disagree with Wayne Dyer because I believe "x..., y..., z.." (keeping things on an objective level) you immediately resort to ad hominem.
Don't worry my critique of Ayn Rand is coming. And understand this:
That your rejection of Wayne Dyer and through him as a sort of example for others it is an attack on anyone who believes in anything mystical, metaphysical, or paranormal. The particular way in which you reject Wayne Dyer has implications for the kind of universe you think we're living in, namely a reductionist materialist monist one. You somehow believe that your philosophical picture of the universe is nailed down and I know for a fact that it has not. I have to ask you the same question that I would ask Wayne Dyer. How are you so cocksure that you're right?
My rejection of Ayn Rand is also going to paint a picture of the universe. (coming soon)
I don't know whether someone who postulates entities, attributes or dimensions from mysticism or metaphysics is wrong or not.
A person is not an idiot because they are pursuing a line of reasoning that may turn out not to be empirically valid. If they are pursuing thoughts that are wrong they may simply be misguided.
What I am saying is that you're use of ad hominem is overextended and you are as bad as Wayne Dyer is and just as much a demagogue.
You express yourself in a very sloppy manner. Instead of saying I disagree with Wayne Dyer because I believe "x..., y..., z.." (keeping things on an objective level) you immediately resort to ad hominem.
Don't worry my critique of Ayn Rand is coming. And understand this:
That your rejection of Wayne Dyer and through him as a sort of example for others it is an attack on anyone who believes in anything mystical, metaphysical, or paranormal. The particular way in which you reject Wayne Dyer has implications for the kind of universe you think we're living in, namely a reductionist materialist monist one. You somehow believe that your philosophical picture of the universe is nailed down and I know for a fact that it has not. I have to ask you the same question that I would ask Wayne Dyer. How are you so cocksure that you're right?
My rejection of Ayn Rand is also going to paint a picture of the universe. (coming soon) (world of woo my ass)
I myself am an agnostic. But I would like to hear from someone who believes "mystical stuff" and demonstrate they are not an idiot.
Richard Dawkins,Marvin Minsky and Daniel C. Dennett are not the highest "IQ's" out there.
Hey Breakerslion.., er uhh..., what exactly do you mean "connect with your hindbrain?" (what exactly does that do for you and what is the mechanism?)
I have to admit that this is an interesting enough blog that I find myself going back to review parts in more specific detail.
I was just focusing on Breakerslions' response to the comments from Anonymous:
First of all, as a concession to Breakerslion (to be fair to him) who is at least trying to give a decent philosophical argument here, let me say this:
Having seen and heard Wayne Dyers show about "Intention", my own reaction to Wayne Dyer was ambivalent but at least I understood what he was saying.
The account Anonymous gave about what Wayne Dyer said was not true. Dyers claim is that linking to "source" helps you in every area of your life. Anonymous completely misconstrued what Wayne Dyer said (and once again this has nothing to do with whether anything Wayne Dyer said is valid or not) What Anonymous said made no sense at all.
Let's get down to the nitty gritty
Breakerslion.
How do you go from a bunch of synaptic circuitry with action potentials to self-awareness?
My answer is you don't. There's "more going on than meets the eye".
Hey Breakerslion! Do you realize what I'm doing for you? You can place affiliate links on this site and monetize it. That's a freebie on me.
so Breakerslion did you abandon this site because you thought you made your point about Wayne Dyer?
Decided to move on?
Maybe I'll just use this thing to my advantage.
ok there's more than one Anonymous and I failed to specify which one
Breakerslion was responding to. It was the one who opend with "seems to address the practical aspects of life". What Breakerslion missed, Anonymous of that moment (10:52 PM), was that you contradicted yourself.
a). Dr. Dyer seems to address the practical aspects of life.
b). Intent is not something that is a practical matter.
c). Intent is not something Wayne Dyer talked about?
You argue so poorly that you make everybody that disagrees with Breakerslion look like an idiot by association!
Hi "The fierce Pet Food Emergency of Now",
You have done quite a bit of work here and given me some things to think about.
My blog is not abandoned. I have written a few things lately that I am not satisfied with, so they were not posted.
You accuse me of an ad Hom. attack. I very carefully stated that this was my belief. I am not presenting it as an established fact as most mud-slingers attempt to do.
The man is a huckster. That statement is easy to prove. He sells unfounded New-Age pseudo-science to those who are subject to the techniques of mass hypnosis that he employs in his "lectures". His intent is to make money. I cannot state with 100% certainty that he and the other mutually validating ilk at Hayhouse Publishing are wrong, but the burden of proof falls on those making the assertions. They have not one shred of scientifically verifiable evidence for their wild extrapolations on some of the wilder speculations of quantum mechanics. The are the modern snake oil salesmen. It doesn't matter to them whether or not their product is valid or effective, they have made a market and are vending for profit. They do not dazzle one with brilliance, they bamboozle with bullshit. Don't belive me? Watch Dr. Dyer with the sound off. Notice the props. Notice the symbolic weight of the props and what he does with them - he "endows". These are the actions of a calculating manipulator. Those who are trusting, and who have no prior experience with this type, and who are struggling to make sense of the nonsensical metaphysics they have been subjected to practically since birth, are like deer in the headlights.
So if I call Dr. Dyer an egomaniacal shitheel, that's not an attack against his beliefs. That's how I size him up.
As to his product, it shares many of the attributes of religious products and similar scams. It exploits a flaw in authority-based human behavior. I'm going to assume I don't have to take you through all the aspects of tribal alpha/non-alpha behavior. If you don't know what I'm talking about, say so or watch a show on apes. Humans are not that different, just more language and symbols to go along with the rituals. At the outer ring of magical thinking, there is a construct. It is born of fear. Fear of adults when one is little. Fear of retribution. The construct goes, "If i push all the right buttons in just the right order, everything will be ok." The exploit is simply this: if the magic formula that promises enlightenment and/or wisdom and/or salvation and/or wealth isn't working, you must not be doing it quite right. Or put another way, you still don't quite get it, so buy another book.
I'm going to repeat this as part of a fresh post. I'm not putting this kind of work in just to bury it in the comments.
First off, I want to thank you for the compliment.
Secondly, so its' not so much the content of his beliefs that bothers you, its' how you believe he's putting it across.
My concern is that you were trying to make an example of him so that you could be targeting anyone who has a religious belief. There are lots of very intelligent theists in the world. I would not include in that category anyone who denies the validity of biological evolution. There are theists who see biological evolution as part of the evidence of the existence of God because of our having a lawfully ordered universe, with God as the being that prevents it from being an anarchically magical one. As an agnostic I find that belief not entirely unreasonable.
I'm not so conerned about Wayne Dyer himself. I have a very strong belief in not throwing away the baby with the bathwater so when I have reacted in disagreement with a point or two from him I have simply said to myself that my ability to reason tells me it's ok not to agree with everything he says. By the same token it doesn't mean that everything he says is wrong. My concern is that reductionists do not have their metaphysical view of the world nailed down as somebody like Daniel C. Dennett, Richard Dawkins or Ayn Rand would like to think.
One interesting comment that Wayne Dyer made which I disagree with, is something to the effect that it used to be "in the old days" that if you asked a scientist if he believed in God, he would say "of course not, I'm a scientist" while nowadays if you ask a scientist if he believed in God, he will say "of course, I'm a scientist". Actually the biologists are tending toward atheism because the concept of natural selection involves randomness. So they make a big deal out of the randomness. At the same time, what seems to be happening is that the physicists are tending to support Eastern ideas. There is now strong evidence for non-locality. Not everything in the "New Age bag of tricks" is wrong either. Eastern religion has produced Yoga, Transcendental Meditation and Acupuncture, each of which are very successful and have very strong support in the scientific research literature of the West. Western culture has produced a stressful and toxic way of life.
By the way, I don't know if you are a deadhead Breakerslion, but as an at least fan of "The Grateful Dead", was it the song "Estimated Prophet" that got you on this kick? (That sounds like it could be your theme song) I'll be back. And I still owe you a diatribe on why Ayn Rand is a gibbering idiot. And you can call me either SideLion1 OR Black Leopard for short. I'm not sure were the system got "The Fierce Pet Food Emergency of Now" although I did come up with that at a time when I was obssessed with marketing organic pet food on the internet. ciao for now.(you do have my curiosity up about the mass hypnotism charge)
It may seem like I'm jumping back and forth to you, but I go back to this site frequently trying to review both what you (Breakerslion) and others have said and also what I've said to see if what I've said still makes sense to me, if I wanted to re-think and change my position on anything or reinforce something I've said or to analyze other things with more precision.
The interesting comment I'm focusing on right now is on "those struggling with nonsensical metaphysics". Whether I agree or disagree with you depends on exactly what range of metaphysical systems you are referring to. (ie., what the phrase "non-sensical metaphysics" extends to)It is as if you are trying to insult anyone who has a religious upbringing. In many cases I prefer to treat religion as a highly personal matter. It's possible that some people re-think their religion and retain only certain components that make sense to them. I myself am very arrogantly religiously opinionated or if you will, bigoted about religion in which I could create a hierarchy based on how intelligent I think the content of ideas in one religion as opposed to another are. That sentence came out too awkwardly. I'm saying that I can be considered religiously bigoted because I believe I can rank order the religions as to how intelligent I believe they are based on idea content. I will only do this when "my toes are stepped on" by say some bible-thumping right wing christian". I believe in defending myself when "my toes are stepped on" but I don't believe in "stepping on someone elses toes". Sometimes the metaphysics of a particular religion may not make sense but the cultural costumery of it may be fun for those people and who are we to take that away from them. Look, I'm a very strong believer in separation of church and state, of separation of religion and the workplace with employees being free from the threat of religious harassment (which it seems the followers of only certain religions tend to engage in that practice). With regard to certain religions when one strips off the cultural costumery there are some metaphysical essentials in common which I'm actually hoping turn out to be scientifically validated, but I am bound by scientific method not to actually have a belief one way or the other.
I wanted to mention some other things that you (Breakerslion) might appreciate. A few years ago one of the college newspapers for Florida Atlantic University printed a one frame cartoon which I thought was the greatest political cartoon I've ever seen. It was about prayer in the schools and showed a teacher telling the class "Now class we are going to hava a prayer..., would all jews,catholics, hindus, moslems, atheists, agnostics and other heathen please leave the room".
You should look up the case of Vashti McCollum, who was persecuted for her and her family being atheists.
I found a website from a group that call themselves "Jewish Atheists".
When I did consider myself somewhat religious and was riding on the bus having to listen to some bible thumper or holy roller..., I used to proclaim that there are other people on this bus who are not christians who still believe in God and kindness and in being a good person and that christianity does not have the monopoly on that. Some of these people wold rather be handed a package of beliefs so that they do not have to think. On the other hand, that doesn't mean that there are no valid metaphysical entitites, attributes or dimensions or analogues to these in nature. Also one can be somewhat religious and still be offended by and do battle with the religious right.
I have to confess something. I absolutely LOVE (which has nothing to do with whether I believe in or don't believe in or whether or not it is valid. Remember I did say I have a responsibility to scientific method to not say yay or nay) The Search for Bridey Murphy, Many Livea Many Masters, and Ian Stevensons work. On the other hand, one doesn't have to be neutral in order to be objective and I am saying this at a time when physicists are supporting the existence of consciousness,and possibly the paranormal and eastern philosophy. So what do I actually believe? Only what there is evidence for but I'm hoping for certain things to be vindicated or validated.
I have a lot more to tell you but it's getting late in the evening. You have to consider that while I find time to respond to you, I am also doing a lot of personal caretaking, trying to run some online businesses, taking care of animals in the household, substitute teaching when I can at elementary schools, have several science fiction novels writing themselves in my head, have plans to go back to school even at this late age and become a veterinarian and I'll have to do a Masters first to ensure that I get accepted (which will also buy me some time to retake some of the core premed science requirements and get "A"'s in them) and practice my guitar. On top of all this I have to learn music theory because even though I have a fantastic ear, I've just been told by some music teacher that I must have the theory or nobody will want to be in a band with me despite the fact that several excellent musicians have played with me and thought I was pretty good.
I consider myself highly alpha and rising.
As a teenager I used to think of God as a universal mind that selected this universe from an infinity of alternatives and made sure that there were scientific laws and set the probability structure of the universe (in what I now understand as a soft determinism that is often nonlinear), but there is no magic so a traffic light cannot suddenly decide that it wants to turn into a polar bear. But as a little kid in Hebrew School I thought of this:
You must be familiar with the fable of the little boy and the magic giant who challenged the magic giant by saying I bet you can't turn yourself into a fly. At which point the giant turned into a fly and was subsequently swatted. What if we substitute God for the magic giant and have the boy challenge God and say "I bet you can't turn into a fly" And what if God took up that challenge, turned into a fly and was swatted by the little boy. Now we have a schism:
If God remained dead, does this mean that God could not return to life? Versus If God came back to life does that mean that God could not remain dead? Either way, there is something that God cannot do despite the fact that God is supposed to know everything therefore be able to do anything.
Maybe I'm just getting demented because I'm up too late. ciao for now, I'll be back.
What Wayne Dyer said about the energy field of intention: (I'll have to go back and review what he was saying. At the same time I'll try to test your theory about the props). Think of a diode or triode. The energy of intention (He calls it "source") could be the heater or emitter while the "thoughts in your own brain" could be the plate current.
Sorry ..., you're probably not buying this and I'm not throwing this out at you to irritate you. But it would be more of a dishonor to you to hold back and not throw "everything including the kitchen sink" into this discussion.
Speaking of idiots BTW, How about that Rush Limbaugh today. Can you imagine him becoming the new leader of the GOP?
I do have to hand it to you. (Breakerslion) Your paragraph using the example of the acorn was excellent.
Black Leopard says:
Coconut woman
D A D A D A D A-D
Coconut ! Coconut ! Coconut ! Cocon…ut !
D A D
1. Coconut woman is calling out,
A D
and everyday you can hear her shout.
A D
Coconut woman is calling out,
A D
and everyday you can hear her shout :
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A D
Get your coconut water (four for five !),
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A D
man it's good for your daughter (four for five !),
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - A D
coco got a lotta iron (four for five !),
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A D
make you strong like a lion (four for five !).
D A D
2. A lady tell me the other day,
A D
no one can take her sweet man away,
A D
I ask her what was the mystery,
A D
she say coconut water and rice curry.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A D
You can cook it in a pot (four for five !),
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A D
you can serve it very hot (four for five !),
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - A D
coco got a lotta iron (four for five !),
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A D
make you strong like a lion (four for five !).
D A D
3. Coconut woman says you'll agree,
A D
coconut make very nice candy,
A D
the thing that's best if you're feelin' glum,
A D
is coconut water with a little rum.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A D
It could make you very tipsy (four for five !),
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A D
make you feel like a gypsy (four for five !),
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - A D
coco got a lotta iron (four for five !),
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A D
make you strong like a lion (four for five !).
D A D
4. Coconut woman is calling out,
A D
and everyday you can hear her shout.
A D
Coconut woman is calling out,
A D
and everyday you can hear her shout :
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A D
Get your coconut water (four for five !),
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A D
man it's good for your daughter (four for five !),
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A D
get your coconut candy (four for five !),
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A D - A – D …..
make you feel like a dandy (four for five !).
(capo 2nd)
(Harry Belafonte)
Coconut woman
D A D A D A D A-D
Coconut ! Coconut ! Coconut ! Cocon…ut !
D A D
1. Coconut woman is calling out,
A D
and everyday you can hear her shout.
A D
Coconut woman is calling out,
A D
and everyday you can hear her shout :
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A D
Get your coconut water (four for five !),
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A D
man it's good for your daughter (four for five !),
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - A D
coco got a lotta iron (four for five !),
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A D
make you strong like a lion (four for five !).
D A D
2. A lady tell me the other day,
A D
no one can take her sweet man away,
A D
I ask her what was the mystery,
A D
she say coconut water and rice curry.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A D
You can cook it in a pot (four for five !),
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A D
you can serve it very hot (four for five !),
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - A D
coco got a lotta iron (four for five !),
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A D
make you strong like a lion (four for five !).
D A D
3. Coconut woman says you'll agree,
A D
coconut make very nice candy,
A D
the thing that's best if you're feelin' glum,
A D
is coconut water with a little rum.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A D
It could make you very tipsy (four for five !),
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A D
make you feel like a gypsy (four for five !),
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - A D
coco got a lotta iron (four for five !),
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A D
make you strong like a lion (four for five !).
D A D
4. Coconut woman is calling out,
A D
and everyday you can hear her shout.
A D
Coconut woman is calling out,
A D
and everyday you can hear her shout :
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A D
Get your coconut water (four for five !),
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A D
man it's good for your daughter (four for five !),
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A D
get your coconut candy (four for five !),
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A D - A – D …..
make you feel like a dandy (four for five !).
(capo 2nd)
(Harry Belafonte)
Thought I'd lighten things up a bit.
Wow. Just wow. So many parallels to my own life, and you have given me enough clues to eliminate all the people I suspected you might be. (I still have a short-short list of "long shots", though it's more likely statistically speaking, that we've never met.)
I don't often answer personal information with personal information, but you've earned an exception. I love Harry Belefonte, and have done so for decades, long before Beetlejuice brought him back into general consciousness. I was introduced to him by my 2nd grade teacher, more years ago than I care to remember. I tend to gravitate more toward Frank Zappa though. When I was 15, I was talked out of a career as a Veterinarian by a Veterinarian at a "job fair" of sorts at my Jr. High School. I later pursued a path toward Early Childhood Education, but abandoned it when I became disillusioned at the vast quantity of red tape. It seemed that everyone wanted to monitor, and oversee, and "fix" the educational process to such a degree as to make sure that no teaching took place.
My cats are napping, one on either side, as I write this. They tolerate each other but wish I would make up my mind and pick one.
I was a choir singer for may years without learning "theory", and tried grimly to learn Bass Guitar for many years before admitting I did not have the proper drive to excellence. In short, I noodled. I did pick up theory in Junior College, and recommend such a course.
I have written a few Sci-fi stories in my head. One of the more developed ones has seen some success as someone else's idea. Some of the elements in "Stargate" are similar in premise, only my "gate" was controlled by three orbs. Worlds accessed were more like the parallel worlds in "Worlds of the Imperium", or the "Amber" chronicles, but less of them. Messed with that one since High School, long before the Stargate movie was made. Moral of the story: write it down.
One of my family members was in the organic pet food business briefly, as you might or might not know.
Thanks for the Vashti McCollum tip. That story was new to me. It’s quite possible I’ve hopped through the Jewish Atheist site, one of my occasional reads is Bacon-Eating Atheist Jew.
On to some of the questions you asked. I’d have to re-read and find out the context to give you an exact answer on what I meant by “get in touch with your hind brain.” I can tell you in general what I mean when I talk about it. I start with the suspicion that anything a religious hierarchy does is self-serving and not necessarily in the best interest of the individual. One of the things they do on a regular basis is separate humankind from the animal kingdom. The dogma denies that humans exhibit instinctual behavior. Why? How about because ritual exploits instinctive impulses? There’s a lounge hypnotist that bills himself as “The Erotic Hypnotic”, and several others with similar shows. It’s highly educational what can be put past the discriminators of the human brain. Advertising and mob psychology techniques are calculated to bypass the filters of the conscious mind. They work on impulse. If you’re more in tune with the primitive parts of your brain, it’s easier to notice when someone is messing around in there, or trying to. Please do not mistake this as an endorsement for acting on impulse. Playing around with your hindbrain is not an excuse to stop using your forebrain. Next time you get hungry, wait a while. Feel yourself getting restless. If you’re making yourself stay still, and not get up and eat, two parts of your brain are in conflict. If you drift off in thought, you’re likely to find yourself in the kitchen. The impulse can be that strong. Go outside and find a good vantage point to survey some open ground. Wait a while. Let yourself get bored but don’t zone out. Keep watching. Notice that your eyes start automatically focusing on movement. You are hunting. The more in tune you become to the animal side of human nature, the less people can screw with it without your noticing.
“Nonsensical metaphysics.” I don’t mean people who are religious are stupid. Some of the people I love most in this world are deeply religious. They have made their decision, they live their life in that mode. It works for them, and I don’t argue unless invited to, and I try to be polite and civil. On line, I tend to go for shock value. I am not respectful of that I don’t respect, the religious indoctrination and the suspension of critical thinking in otherwise intelligent people. I reserve most of my flippancy for Fundamentalists and Literalists. I figure they are not going to be swayed by a logical argument, so I tend to counter nonsense with nonsense. It comes off disrespectful, but I’m attempting to jump-start their bullshit detector, or at least drive a truck through what they say that others might follow.
Every religious doctrine has things that are allegorical, mythological, or just plain contradictory. I work within the framework of Christianity because that was what the grown-ups attempted to indoctrinate me into. I can go OT and speak to the Jewish faith too. I tend to leave Mohammed and his flying horse alone (most of the time) only because those nuts will kill you for it! I’ll give you an example with Moses/Aaron/Moses. The story of the Exodus reads as two similar traditions that were mashed together to honor the patrons of two different but uniting tribes. Several of the “miracles” were performed by the Egyptian priests as well. What does that mean? God is on their side too, or was it just a parlor trick? These are the obvious clues to man-made causes that the faithful have been taught to ignore and not think about. Then you’ve got the whole, “Okay everybody, we’re going to go see God at the mountain! … lots and lots of smoke… Oh wait, we forgot, you’re not allowed up there!.. Ok, why don’t the two of us go and get some clarification. You all wait here… We’ll be back” passage. There are seven year old kids in Brooklyn that could see through that one.
Your example of the fly raises an interesting metaphysical question. If God is all-powerful, can He die and stay dead?
I've answered some of your other comments here by the way. I apologize for the "word salad" crack. It wasn't exactly accurate, but you were jumping around a bit.
Black Leopard here again:
One of the reasons I was jumping around was that in the beginning of my communicating with you I didn't realize how cool you would turn out to be and so if I had said something that pissed you off the danger would be losing the opportunity to present other points to you.
I wanted to mention a statement I remember Wayne Dyer making which may sound off the wall to you but I think it's actually quite reasonable and can be backed up by physics. The only thing I see wrong with the statement is the general principle that I agree with you on about him that he makes statements that he is not prepared to back up empirically. The statement is to the effect that "Everything is a vibrational frequency". Not entirely unreasonable since matter is really a conditioned form of energy as if energy were frozen. In fact, after the big bang cosmic dust made up of radiation and subatomic particles (which can be considered energy) started to cool into gases and a process of chemical evolution was set in motion. In my ontological schema the universe is made up of objective components; matter, energy, and 4 basic physical forces AND consciousness which connects objective events with subjective experience. I believe that matter, energy and consciousness each have particle/wave duality (which is a paradox). I extend this into a hypothesis which will eventually either be experimentally verified or falsified: One particle of consciousness to each human body. Consciousness tells energy what to do (volition) and is related to electromagnetism, and sets up it's own electromagnetic field which is trapped in the body which is also essentially an electrical field. This gives an elevated significance to the process of respiration which is there in order to generate energy via ATP and oxygen as a final electron acceptor (using 3 major biochemical cycles, Glycolysis, The Krebs cycle and The Electronn Transport Chain) That energy according to my hypothesis is used to retain the soul or soul-analogue (particle of consciousness) in the body by having that energy supplied to the electrical field of the body and BTW energy can be stored in a magnetic field. But unlike Wayne Dyer I'm not saying this is how it has to be and I'm not imposing this on anybody. In fact, it's only one possible alternative to the notion that death is a total blotting out of ourselves into nothing (which sucks but could be true as well). Perhaps at death our consciousness jumps back in time to the moment of our birth like the Tralfamadorians of Kurt Vonneguts' "Slaughterhouse Five" OR alternatively we die temporarily but are brought back to life through the combination of Nietsche's eternal recurrence and an oscillating cosmos and the time spent dead would probably "feel like" the effects of some of the anesthetics that dentists use.
Pardon me for saying so but I hope that my continual mention of Wayne Dyers name doesn't cause in you a knee-jerk response of negative feeling. As I am at least in part a behaviorist even the brightest of us highly evolved primates can have conditioned associations. (There's Pavlovian, there's Operant and there's also some cognitive and gestalt stuff going on but no Miller/Dollard theory). I told you I was opinionated.
There is something I have to explain to you about the history of how ideas developed in the Jewish religion. In Judaism at least, religious scholars were allowed to debate issues as opposed to another religion that we all know where the followers are expected to simply swallow the whole package. More importantly, and In a nutshell, I believe there are "2 Judaisms". Assimilationist Judaism in which many Jews were conned into believing that Judaism was supposed to resemble Christianity. Then there's "Kabbalah Judaism" which reveals itself to contain the same ontological essentials as Hinduism and Buddhism (and whether valid or not beats the living shit intellectually and aesthetically out of anything that postulates a heaven and hell system rather than reincarnation of the soul). In Assimilationist Judaism there is believed to be a heaven and hell system because it is supposed to resemble Christianity. In Kaballah Judaism there is no objection to biological evolution and certainly no objection in Hinduism since biological evolution is considered part and parcel of the set of cause and effect relationships that make up what is known as karma. Randomness is simply the holes in the network of cause and effect. Things are even more complicated than that because some relationships are nonlinear. So when the cultural costumery of Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism are stripped away, the ontological/metaphysical essential attributes, entities, or dimensions left behind are pretty much the same thing. That's why I put these in the same box as opposed to Christianity and Islam. Sorry about my bigotry here but hey if I had to choose a religion I could never go with one that posited a heaven and hell instead of reincarnation of the soul, denied biological evolution, and denied sexual liberty by making sex the province of the devil. As for Islam, I find it disgusting that both sexes are punished and men cannot enjoy the beauty of women because they feel that they cannot control themselves in the presence of an attractive woman and the punishment of women in those societies is obvious and brutal. I have these criticisms but I get along with everybody. I've had Muslim friends that told me that Judaism and Islam were the same religion. One was a guy that was in my Calculus 2 class and we met to work on problems together. I told him about my Judaism =Hinduism theory and he was saying "no no no Islam and Judaism!" as if Islam were sucking up to Judaism. I said " you can't even get a "PlayBoy" in your country. He said "you can get it at a newstand in a brown bag".
None of this is meant to sound like I'm pontificating. My metaphysical stuff is offered as purely hypothetical.
I want to close this comment set by letting you know that I found something that you 'd appreciate and would like to send it to you.
I have just taped a show off of the DVR, on "Intelligent Design versus Evolution". There was practically a civil war in the school system over this and it was determined in the court that "Intelligent design was no more than an new name for creationism". There are some excellent defenses of evolution in detail by prominent biologists and it also touches on separation of church and state so there were legal aspects to the defense of evolution. What was also cool for me was that on the side of evolution were science teachers who believed in their religion devoutly yet fought hard for evolution and were attacked and called atheists by the religious fanatics trying to get creationism into the schools.
Let me know and I will send you a videotape with a recording of this show ( it was on NOVA). As you mayhave noticed I like to play "information honeybee" in which I send intellectual ammunition to people that are interestedin certain topics. ciao for now.
When I first saw the title of this blog I was wondering why you didn't use the phrase blithering idiot rather than gibbering idiot but then I noted your explanation deriving gibbering from confusion or in other words, the failure to clearly define terms that one is using. As a writer I'm fascinated with the semantics of how some wordsmiths prefer one word over synonyms and perhaps there is a subtle nuance of difference between them. Perhaps synonyms are not absolutely synonymous. These statements can be tested by psycholinguists using EEG's set up for Signal Detection Averaging.
I have a religious belief that pets should have hobbies and interests (activities might be a better word) rather than simply being "eating/shitting/sleeping" machines. For instance, giving the dogs chewbones, giving them a recess in th backyard to goof off, smell the various scents of the neighborhood and backyard flora and fauna, playing ball with them (Puddin when he was younger would chase a tennis ball or catch it and run back to me with it over and over and over again. It was a good way to keep his blood circulating and keep his weight down) For the cat, I turn the radio and let him listen to rock n roll, pop and jazz but have to be careful to change the station if a disco # comes on. Don't want him to be exposed to that crap. I am a bit concerned about my cat sleeping all day but then again he's an older cat and cats do that. ( I used the word pets rather than animals because this applies to those domesticated animals that exist in a reciprocal comfort-making relationship with humans.
I'm going to experiment with another outrageous line of thought here. I've rethought the issue with the example of the acorn which I still believe you did a fantastic job on and was so well-expressed. Here's where you and "Dr. Dyer" are in full agreement and you're both wrong. Your assumption ( The 2 of you guys..., you have to say this with a brooklyn accent ..., LOL!) is that humans are no different than an acorn in allowing fate to determine what happens to them-> you simply substitute randomness or fate for Dyers' "Intention". Human beings have the potentiality (should they accept it..., like Mr. Phelps on Mission Impossible your assignment should you accept it---> to choose the pathway they take. Randomness being the holes in the network of causality as we soft determinists a.k.a. nonlinear dynamicists would think of it. This is neither a clockwork determinism as religious rationalists might suggest nor a totally random universe as one might find in the head of a logical positivist. There are some basic tenets of existentialism that I'm in agreement with namely 1) that subjective experience is isolated and localized in mental space such that nobody van get into another person's (head, brain, mind, soul, personality, phenomenological self, empirical self, center of consciousness, working memory, realm of subjective experience) select the ontological label of your choice, whatever you call it. In short, nobody can get into another persons' head and know what it feels like to be "who they are" and therfore cannot make that persons' choices for them, despite the fact that you might be able to figure out what that persons' set of choices are rationally in some situations. Secondly, even in the most constricted of situations there is often still a choice and a power to make the choice. Some human beings never realize this potential and abdicate all sense of purpose. They have no interests other than acquiring their little piece of property and being obssessive-compulsive about keepiing it in order. I think this is called existential nil.
We should collaborate on turning this blog into a book-length manuscript.
Response is on the way.
Reminds me of the Dead song "Help On The Way"
I once witnessed what appeared to be a past life hypnosis. What happened was that there was a meeting of the FAU Psychology Club in which they had invited a hypnotist. After a bit of seminar and question/answer session, the hypnotist was about to do a demonstration asked the audience "any requests?". So I said "how about a past life?" The hypnotist said "ok let's go for it". The hypnotist then proceeded to hypnotize the president of the psychology club, a white girl with blonde hair back to a past life in which the girl indicated that she was a brown skinned south american woman who lived in a mansion on a plantation.
Now the possible defeaters for concluding that this really was a past life regression are:
1) I and the rest of the audience were getting hypnotized along with the subject. I doubt this but cannot disprove it yet.
2) False Memory Theory a la "Dr. Elizabeth Loftus". Dr. Loftus claims that hypnotists insert fantasy material into subjects of hypnosis and that the results could be alien abductions, past life regressions, satanic rituals, childhood sexual abuse, etc. However, there are some researchers that are attempting to refute Loftus's claims in the area of childhood sex abuse cases.
I had 2 other strange experiences in my life.
#2. Coming out from a Hebrew School class at night I look up in the sky and see these round objects that looked like they were images of uranus and neptune projected onto the ceiling of the Hayden Planetarium. I'm pretty sure these were not arc lights.
#3. I was a Ph.D. student in the department of Neuro-Biology & Anatomy (By anatomy in graduate programs is usually meant cell biology or histology (microanatomy) as opposed to gross anatomy. At every other medical school in the country micro-anatomy is called histology)of the Bowman Gray School of Medicine from July 1992 to June 1993. I lived in an apartment 5 miles from the school building. One night I was drving back to my apartment when all of a sudden the radio tuner started moving on its' own across the dial from left to right exactly as this had happened in an X-File episode only I didn't see this in an X-Files episode until a few years later.
I have no conclusions as to what any of these experiences really were. ciao for now.
Oh By the way when I was talking about your word choices ie., blithering versus gibbering I would have preferred blithering because gibbering makes me think of "giblets in gravy". LOL!)
I'm having a bit of trouble getting back to this. Lots on my mind right now. Here's what I wrote so far, incomplete and unedited.
You give me way too much to think about and respond to in one go. I will sincerely thank you for that later.
Where I grew up, it was a toss-up which was closer, a Temple, or the Greek Orthodox church. When I grew up, WWII was still in the immediate consciousness, and after some time to reflect, the Church Fathers of my denomination decided to actively combat anti-Semitism by forging a bond of friendship between our church and the Temple. I pride myself at being interested and not repulsed by cultural differences, which is not to say that I don’t find the whole religious indoctrination thing a little insane. I digress. I am well aware and in deep admiration of the logical style of argumentation used by the Jews to reason things out. It’s similar to Aristotalian logic, and no less impressive. If it suffers at all, it suffers from the inclusion of cultural prejudices, but don’t we all?
“Everything has a vibrational frequency.”
In a manner of speaking, true. What that signifies is open to interpretation. My hand won’t pass through a “solid” surface, even though it is mostly empty space (as is my hand) because of the interaction of the negatively charged electrons. The proximity and frequency of their motion is what creates the (relative) impenetrability of solid matter.
Consciousness, life, and self-awareness are special cases. As living things, we have a self-contained (but not closed) matter-energy system. It is what it is. It’s important to us, but whether it is more than an anomaly, or a simple execution of the laws of probability (it is possible, therefore it exists) I cannot say.
The fact of our consciousness and self-awareness also makes a difference in causality. Living, thinking creatures introduce volitional causality into the mix. We do things to affect an outcome. Lying in wait for prey is a cat’s example of volitional causality. The effects of a planet’s gravity well on a meteor is an example of non-volitional causality. Volitional causality can have foreseen and unforeseen consequences. Non-volitional causality can have predictable consequences, but they are always unforeseen, meaning there was no forethought. The tornado forms because of specific weather conditions, not for the specific goal of destroying a trailer park. Nam Myo Ho Renge Kyo, except there’s nothing mystical about it. And that brings us to “random.”
Random is like a mathematical limit, like infinity or “nothing”. You can approach it, but there is no absolute. Example: You can “randomize” a deck of cards by shuffling, but every combination, although unpredictable, leads inevitably to the next combination. If you start with an honest deck, and can count cards, when you flip the next-to-last card, the last card is a certainty. There was no particular order, but that card can only be one card. If the Universe would tolerate “absolute random”, that card would still be unpredictable. I could be blank, or the sneg of blurgs from some parallel universe. The point is, we don’t live in the kind of cartoon universe the Bible would suggest, and nothing is “absolutely random.”
No problem. The really cool thing is that you have this thing set up so that you can always come back and respond. I think it works out beautifully for both of us.
Let me also throw into the mix of historical things we were talking about--> my favorite atheist philosopher who defended jews in his book "AntiSemite and Jew", explained that existentialism is a humanism, (the title of another one of his books) and fought in the jewish resistance against the nazis...,ladies and gentlemen would you give a warm welcome to Jean-Paul Sartre!!! (enters the stage from left to right with loud applause from the audience). It's on my "bucket list" to read Being and Nothingness straight through.
I'm in absolute agreement with your stetement about the Bible if you define that as the Bible taken literally. For instance, I believe that scientists have found physical explanations for every single one of the 10 plagues. I remain open to hearing out figurative interpretations at least for the fun of it, but would be uncommitted to concluding any particular ontological scheme. I feel sorry for anyone who takes the Bible literally.
I've got to get some more work done on my website business, but I'll be back with more stuff soon.
Don't Forget I think you would enjoy the show I taped on how the debate between "Intelligent Design" and Biological Evolution took over a whole town in Pennsylvania. Of course, our side won and the way we won was so excellent. I'll try to get more information on it for you or if you have an address where you can receive it I'll send you a videotape with the show recorded on it. Let me know.
Just before I go ...,
Why Dana Scully is a worse lunatic than Fox Mulder!
I have one assumption here. That Dana Scully either secretly OR subconsciously believes in her catholic faith and is hiding behind science the same way that the Catholic Church does. Fox Mulder calls her the one who "keeps him honest" with her science and "rationalism" ( Note that the word rationalism as used by Mulder is somewhat different than the word would be used say in a philosophy class. As he used it it means the belief in the primacy of reason as opposed to relying completely on deductive reason).
If a priest puts in a request for an exorcism, the Church's bias is to deny the request. The real reason is so that the Church never has to be embarrassed by the possibility of a false positive. This gives the impression that the Church avoids superstition and uses scientific method.
Therefore, Scully can explain away all of Mulders' strange pursuits while secretly holding on to the ultimate "X" File. Ciao for now.
I found an article on msn.com about Near death Experiences being studied by scientists. Having saved the article to some of my e-mail accounts, I came back to the article and noticed this guys response which I kind of liked:
posted 09/12/2008 10:05:14 AM bobburd wrote:
What "Really" Happens? Wow, science is such an amazing tool, but I cannot believe the amount of arrogance in the scientific community. Anything that can't be studied using science's one very limited method must not exist. "If we can't observe it using one of our five very limited senses, it DOESN'T exist!" On second thought, maybe it's not arrogance, but rather stupidity.
Another charmer: "One study found that people who reported peaceful feelings, bright light and out-of-body experiences during a brush with death are more likely to have had difficulty separating sleep from wakefulness in their everyday lives." Poor delusional people, it wasn't really a NDE, you were just dreaming! While you were dead! I'd love to see some mention in this article of the NDE's in which people have been able to observe and learn about things in faraway locations (observing family members, friends, etc.) while they were dead which were later confirmed to be 100% accurate. Then again, we wouldn't want to give any credence to the fact that NDE's may actually be real, now would we? After all, we can't observe that, but observing REM sleep is easy.
I really think we would all be better off without all of the arrogance. How about a statement from the scientific community along these lines: "Ok, we have this amazing tool called science which lets us discover things about the world and understand them better. However, this tool cannot be used to study everything, so other tools may be better suited to study those things. Rather than declaring that anything which cannot be studied using the scientific method doesn't exist, from now on we'll just admit that we have no idea how to study it." A little humility please.
I can't help feeling somewhat sympathetic to bobburds' point of view. (fron the perspective of the world of anti-woo? LOL!)
I do have to apologize to you BreakersLion because I honestly was not trying to get you to reveal personal contact information on this site. I simply figured that if you wrote directly to my e-mail and gave me an address, I would be able to send you a copy of the tape of that show
which would be really cool for you to see because it deals with a topic that is centrally relevant to our discussion. Anyhow..., I'll be back.
I'll be working on a new blog piece entitled "Why I believe "QuackBuster" from the website "Confessions of a QuackBuster" is a blithering idiot.
I prefer the term blithering to gibbering because gibbering makes me visualize an infant with a stream of goo dripping down its' chin.
LOL!!!!!!!!!
You seem to be unnecessarily antagonistic.
This blog is really quite pointless if you're looking for an intelligent discussion.
This post is over four years old. Since only one person has commented on it of late, I must assume that this is that same person with a new sock puppet. If one were to check the frequency of my recent posts, one would realize that other concerns are making my time a bit limited. The more time I spend on the "back pages", the less I have for new posts. I'm not sure if you are young or old, but some interesting aspects of your personality are coming through. I find it curious that you are grumbling about a lack of attention on someone else's blog. Maybe you are just trying to provoke a response and I'm reading too much into this.
What I say about Dr. Dyer, the Woo Crew at Hay House, Oprah, etc. are just my considered opinion, based on a very jaundiced, but I think accurate, appraisal of reality, and the exploitation of the imaginary that has become such a big business since the religious corporations paved the way. Feel free to disagree. Eat the blue pill, drink the Kool-Aid, burn the joss sticks, whatever makes you happy. I'll try to treat you as a human being unless you exploit the wish-thinking of others.
PS: I will say this about these "spiritual" enlightenment techniques: I think they do help some people, but not for the reasons that are attributed to them. One thing all of these ... religions? pseudo-religions? ... have in common is the human element. The human brain is capable of abstract thinking. Psychological models are abstractions for that matter. If it helps us understand ourselves, or get in tune with our fellow creatures, it does serve some positive purpose. It is strictly a judgment call whether the positve outweighs the negative, or vice-versa. My opinion of those who tell you that you need to buy another book/tape/DVD if things aren't working for you should be pretty well understood by now, and owes a lot to the great P.T. Barnum.
The full quote ends with, "and two to catch him" in case you've only ever heard the short version.
I wish to dispose of my reaction to "smack" with a one word response.
(This is not aimed at you, Breakerslion).
BULLSHIT!!!
So Breakerslion, are you interested in obtaining a copy of that show about how "intelligent design" proponents were trying to take over the school system in a small town and the proponents of biological evolution (which included some religious people)
not only won but exposed the "intelligent design" proponents to be noting more than creationists? I can make a copy of the video and send it to you unless you're paranoid about giving me your contact info via my e-mail.
woops I meant NOTHING more than creationists in that previous paragraph.
When I was struggling through a difficult time in life, I picked up a Wayne Dyer book. I found inspiration that helped me see opportunity around me. Yet, as time passed, and my thoughts were clear again; I decided to read several more of his books. I became less impressed his writings; finding lots of redundancy and copying of other writers thoughts; only to prevent plagiarism by giving them credit.
I then went to several large seminars, where he was one of many speakers, as well, I spoke with him. Wayne Dyer could not carry on a normal conversation without quoting statements and experiences from his book. I did not want his opinions, nor a repetitive conversation read on paper; rather, I wanted to see the spirit and man behind the pen. What a disappointment.
I then realized, where he once read a lot of philosophy and wanted to compile his information into messages for the masses, with (possibly good intent), has now became another successful Miami resident living a life of luxury from profiteering. So sad. We all know those who preach.
I still believe that Wayne Dyer really is not the issue here. You're just using Wayne Dyer to in a sneaky way imply that you think the only rational view is one of materialism (materialist-monist reductionism). You also put up a great facade of science knowledge base. Get in touch with your hindbrain? What part of the hindbrain? Does get in touch with it mean that you feel sometHing? Is it the pons?, the medulla oblongata?, How about your thalamus? your cerebellum? Maybe if you swung from a tree you could get in touch with your vestibular system?
My point is that your terminology is just as psuedo-scientific as anyone you criticize?
You know nothing about quantum physics nor biological anthropology nor philosophy of science so who are you kidding?
I get "A"'s in graduate neuroscience courses. Hey maybe you know me.., have you seen me at FAU in Boca raton FL?
And notice folks he didn't take me up on receiving that video on evolutionists winning against so called intelligent design-ists because he was scared. He thinks he can guess who I am..., Ha!
Maybe I'll change this to Richard Dawkins is a gibbering idiot!
Hey Breakerslion! If you're such a Deadhead why don't you put the lyrics to "Estimated Prophet" in here. They seem to fit with your image of Wayne Dyer
Okay ..., I'll admit that once in a while I dance around what I'm trying to say before I spit it out
But something just popped into my head and i can't leave it unanswered.
Refer back to a comment Breakerslion made about the "wilder speculations" of quantum physics. Fact of the matter is that some of what he considers wild speculation is drawn from experimental and theoretical evidence. Physicists themselves are coming to conclusions backing the paranormal and backing Eastern philosophy. To consider these conclusions "wild speculation" merely betrays a bias coupled with an ignorance of quantum physics, string theory and holography. That all of these things are tied in was both creative and scientific. You don't need Wayne Dyer for any of this. None of this was about Wayne Dyer.
And these biologists who can easily jump into atheism and further into materialism (reductionism) because all they see is the randomness implicit in natural selection, but most of these biologists do not have that good of a background in the physical sciences.
Also your response to what I said about the Big Bang made no sense.
As to the guy who made the disparaging remarks about Baby Boomers, you wish you had the creativity that the Baby Boomer generation had. An infant could play the music you listen to.
Now back to Wayne Dyer. You really don't want to give any credit where it's due and you really do like to throw out the baby with the bathwater. How much critical thinking is required to understand that you don't have to feel guilty for being successful even when you know others are suffering and that you'd like to help them. Let's see you do the emotional counseling that Dyer has done. How much progress would you have with neurotic people?
As I read your post and those before this one; I realized you're argumentative for the sake of , uhmmm... boredom.
As you claim to be an "intellect," your responses to other bloggers displays narrow minded thinking, with a cynical observation to others.
Do read my post again. My comments were not about materialism. Until you can understand and communicate clearly with others with out so much hostility and imaturity, posting your thoughts on line may not be such a good idea for you.
"When you change the way you view the world, the world around you changes."
Furthermore, I will not respond to your future post, since I am aware of your closed unconscious thoughts.
Good Luck to you.
Diane: My thoughts on this matter are very conscious. My unconscious thoughts run the usual gamut of sex, violence, anxiety, and wish-fulfillment. The difference between me and Dr. Wayne is, I think I can tell the difference between what I like to call, "FUCKING REALITY" and what's just inside my head.
Black Leopard: Your Dec. 16 comment does not appear here for some reason. Show me the math that supports the gross extrapolations that these medicine show freaks have made or admit that it's junk science.
Mark Twain once did a nice piece on simplifying the English Language that applies equally well to the Hay House crowd's claim to have simplified quantum physics.
Time out for a moment, Breakerslion,
If my December 16th comment does not appear here, then where did you see it?
If an object fails to reveal itself is it likely that it does not exist?
BTW, unfortunately, I believe Diane was attacking me, not you. For instance, her line to the effect that "my comments were not about materialism" when it was i accusing you of being a materialist.
I did like your description of the term random. Randomness can be thought of as the holes in causality (the network of cause and effect relationships). Translated into the semantics of a religious person, (I beg your indulgence for a moment) perhaps randomness could be Gods' voluntary "side" and causality God's involuntary "side". Perhaps they could be seen as taoistic or janusian opposites.
Diane, (I'm having fun with this) I believe you were talking to me since I introduced the matter of materialism (pun intended) and it wasn't you I was aiming the label of materialist at. My buddy here, Breakerslion, thought you were talking to him. Nice defense buddy but I think I was the target of the lady's protest. (LOL!) On further review, I see that Breakerslion does believe in such things as consciousness, self-awareness, and volition in some sense so he may be in here with us "mystics". (LOL!)
I also have to give Breakerslion credit in the following sense. Even when I watched Wayne Dyer and read him and despite the fact that there wers some things that made sense to me, I felt myself asking myself how he could be so cocksure of these conclusions but also felt a craving for a broad array of views alternative to his.
So is it possible for an individual to desire, dream, conceive, and follow their own plan to become successful without the need to listen to somebody like Wayne Dyer? Perhaps it is even more likely to do when one is no longer dependent on the guru or the Father figure. (as John Lennon was speaking of) Once the individual gives themself permission to become what they want to be. ( I have to be careful here lest I fall into the spell of psychoanalysis which is just as unscientific and mystical as any religion it tries to undo. (By virtue of failing Karl Poppers criteria of falsifiability).
I do have more important poimts to make but I'm rambling here so I'll come back again when I'm awake.
As far as Moses performing the trick with the staff into a snake. I don't believe that it meant that God was taking any side. Teaching the Egyptians a lesson didn't mean that God hated them. The Jews being the chosen people meant not superiority against other peoples but that they had a special role which seems to mean being the world's watchdogs against fascism and who better after suffering so much persecution historically and who better to teach the world how to think about right and wrong on more exact levels? I am not speaking about the Bible as factual but rather I am citing facts about what was written in the bible with my opinion about what the authors meant. To confirm this interpretation, that God was not against one people and only for another people, look at the story of Abraham, in which Hagar gave birth to Ishmael and promised that Ishmael would he the father of a great nation, which meant The Arabs. Sorry about the run-on sentences but I didn't have time to edit my grammar.
I'll be back soon with more surprises.
Let me just add to my concept of the Jews as watch-dogs against fascism on behalf of jews and non-jews alike primarily because of a historical experience with multiple instances of persecution. The Jews to assume this role, do not have to be religious and can even be atheists.
I don't believe in the "Hay House"
belief system but I do believe that quantum physics supports the validation of Eastern Mysticism and the paranormal, consciousness conceptualized not as merely a state or epiphenomena, ESP, nonlocality etc., and the math is out there whether you understand it or not BreakersLion. It's the physicists themselves that are coming up with those conclusions.
In preparng for veterinary school, I'll be taking more chemistry courses. In the process of taking more chemistry courses I'll automatically be getting reacquainted with the results of quantum physics which atomic, molecular orbitals and chemical bonding are based on. So I'll at least be getting some of the math.
Before this turns into a wacky pissing match..., let me summarize my position which is the position I started out with in reacting to the initial premise of your site.
I believe that Wayne Dyer is a mixed bag and that I hold to the principles of 1( giving crdit where it's due and
2) Not "throwing out the baby with the bathwater"
Therefore globally dismissing Wayne Dyers' ideas is just as bad as gloabally accepting them and just as bad as however bad you think He is.
A pretense of critical reasoning betraying a sophmorish just as much "know it all" mentality.
Coming Up Soon is my criticism of BreakersLions' method or mechanism known as "Getting In Touch With Your Hind-Brain", which I will destructively deconstruct and expose to be sheer lunacy, both from a philosophical angle and from a nueroscientific angle. You won't want to miss this one.
In case I forgot to mention this, I did want to give BreakersLion credit for a comment to the effect of achieving goals and being proud of reaching high standards of skill as not necessarily being equated with being egotistical. Right on and thank you for that one. (credit where it's due)
Ahhhhh..., here's one. "The human brain is capable of abstract thinking". Not without a mind in it. The human brain in BreakersLions' conception of things is nothing more than circuitry which carries an electrochemical shuffling known as action potentials and that's all you can get to, unless you postulate something that appears like or is analogous to a mystical attribute, entity or dimension-something responsible for subjective experience, consciousness, self-awareness.
OK..., I did promise to deliver my
ASSAULT ON BREAKERSLIONS' NOTION OF "GETTING IN TUNE WITH YOUR HINDBRAIN"
However, before I do that, I will lead into it with a philosophical mini-treatise in which I expand on my previous comment.
Without a mind in it, the human brain is just a dum machine consisting of synaptic circuitry and action potentials. According to Hodgekin and Huxley one can characterize these action potentials in terms of the Nernst Equation. Big Deal! You still never make it to consciousness, mind or soul. You never make it to an explanation of what consciousness is and why it exists.
From quantum electrodynamics, we know that empty space can borrow energy from the future. We also know that energy can be stored in a magnetic field. It is obvious that what happens in our minds is bounded in some way in physical space. We know that electrical currents generate magnetic fields. The electrochemical shuffling referred to as an action potential must do so as well. Perhaps the magnetic fields of all the action potentials in the brain gestaltify or open up a dimension of space in which all our experience is indelibly etched ont space-time in a way that can never be destroyed. This is sheer speculation, but it is driven by a need to describe a component of the universe that reductionism fails to describe. Consciousness may require the same wave-particle duality that the various forms of energy do. This paradox serves physics quite well and experimental evidence bears out the usefulness of having both ways of treating a form of energy such as light. It would also make sense to believe that there is one particle of consciousness to a body since all of our experience is self-referemtial which is to say that we experience ourselves as whole beings.
Comment directly aimed at BreakersLion:
Referring to the paragraph in which you state that living beings have what you call "volitional causality". Where do you believe that volition comes from?
You might want to take a look at this URL:
http://www.integralscience.org/materialism/materialism.html
My assault on BreakersLions' "Getting In Touch With Your HindBrain"
has not started yet but is about to begin....,
"If my December 16th comment does not appear here, then where did you see it?"
All comments on my blog are copied to my email account. You have been busy. So have I, so I will have to read your comments and respond at another time. Skimmed a couple. Brain without a mind: show me one that is not mechanically faulty in some way. Alternately, show me a mind, a.k.a. "soul" that is seperate and distinguishable from the meat computer that you are trying to disect in this way. Ghost Hunter reruns don't count because, "My baloney has a first name ..." All I have time for at the moment.
Poor you. You're so full of hatred. Wayne Dyer promotes positivity, love and acceptance in his teachings. Are you against those things? Or is it too fun for your ego to derogate?
I appreciate that you're rushed for time and so am I despite what I've promised but I am confident that I will carry out what I've promised. My point is that the belief that there is no mind or soul and that all experience and behavior is attributable to the brain itself a) fails to explain everything that occurs b) is not "nailed down". This is so despite whatever silly labels you can conjure up to throw at a point of view you are conditioned to see as silly. The joke is on you because your whole description of the method and process known as "Getting In Touch With Your Hindbrain" Makes No Sense and I intend to show that it is utter nonsense both from a philosophiocal standpodint and a neuroscience standpoint. I've already given you a beginning of the philosophical part. I will send an article giving a philosophical debate about placebos which sheds light on what the materialist arguments fail to consider. Next after reviewing my Kandell & Schwartz Principles of Neural Science (basically a huge textbook with all the neural cell biology and biochemistry that graduate level psychology majors are required to be familiar with,
I will show that your understanding of the hindbrain has some severe deficits.
I'm not concerned with defending Wayne Dyer. (which is by no means offense to him)
I'm concerned with attacking your
fairy tale about "Getting In Touch With Your Hindbrain".
And I'm determined to expose it as riddled with fallacy.
BTW: sorry about my typing too fast and tripping over myself->
ie., "philosophical standpoint"
BTW, At least The "Ghost Hunters" operate in a manner that does not violate Karl Poppers criteria of potential falsifiability which qualifies them as legitimately adhering to scientific method.
After I am satisfied that
I have
completely
demolished
"BreakersLions' HindBrain Model", I am going to discuss some things about Carl Sagan, whom I admire.
I want to address the last Anonymous who thought by leaving a simplistic response involving very few words, she did a "hit and run" potshot and that that was all that was required to tell BreakersLion off. Pitiful and disappointing. If you want to deal with someone like BreakersLion you have to hang in there and do justice to arguing with him because he is a formidable opponent. I do not believe that BreakersLion is a hateful person in general. He has it in for Wayne Dyer because he is trying to hold Wayne Dyer accountable for belief systems that Wayne Dyer is putting out. We live in a society where we are constantly being bombarded by people who are trying to "sell" us their beliefs and most people do not learn to question them because we are taught by our low class un-educated peers not to like thinking.
Check out John Pollock's Knowledge and Justification for why it is logically possible for ghoats and other immaterial beings to exist. Then from www.subversivethinking.com
A fictional dialogue between a survivalist/dualist and a materialist/skeptic (Part 6)
This is part 6 of my fictional dialogues between a survivalist and a materialist.
Materialist: I'd like to discuss another good objection against dualism and, by implication, against the possibility of the afterlife.
Survivlist: Good.
Materialist: I'd like to call this objection "the causal closure of the physical world" objection against dualism.
According to this objection, if dualism is true, the soul would exert causal efficacy on the body. But it cannot be true, because the principle of causal closure of the physical world says that only physical causes exert causal influence on the physical world (Otherwise, a basic law of nature like the principle of energy conservation would be violated).
Therefore, if the soul is not physical, it's non-efficacious. And if it's efficacious, it's physical and thereby enterily explainable by materialism and physicalism, which would refute dualism
As consequence, the soul as an nonphysical substance or entity doesn't and cannot exist and thereby has not causal influence at all. And by implication, it cannot survives physical death.
Survivalist: I understand your argument. But it's flawed on several grounds:
First, if the soul is causally non-efficacious, then it cannot be causally active on the body. And if it's true, then the soul (or consciousness, or mind) is not causally eficacious on adaptative behavior either; and if it's true, then consciousness (and rationality, which is part of it in the case of human beings) is invisible and irrelevant to natural selection (which favors adaptative behavior). Therefore, rational thinking (which only exist in conscious minds) wouldn't have any adaptative value at all.
As has written philosopher and neuroscientist Jeffrey Schwartz (in regards to "mental efforts" as a causally active entity not reducible to the brain): "Materialists may argue that although the experience of effort is caused by the brain's actitivity (as are all mental experience, in this view), it has no effect on the brain. If the brain changes, according to this argument, it is because the same brain events that generate the feeling of mental effort also act back on (other parts of) the brain; this intervining thing called "the feeling of mental effort", they might argue, is a mere side effect with no causal power of its own. But this sort of reasoning is inconsistent with evolutionary theory. The felt experience of willful effort would have no survival value if it didn't actually do something" (The Mind and the Brain, p. 318. Emphasis added)
A "mere side effect with no causal power of its own" wouldn't be seen or detected by natural selection, and therefore, it can't be argued that consciousness, the mind and its internal processes (like logical and rational thinking) were favored by natural selection due to their adaptative biological value.
And this refutes some of the objections against Alvin Plantinga's argument against naturalism. The conjuntion naturalism+evolution+materialism+nonefficacious of consciousness make your position essentially, positively, demostrably and irrefutably irrational.
Second, the principle of the causal closure of the physical world begs the question against the existence of nonphysical things with causal influence. If dualism is true, then the causal closure principle is not true (or at least, not absolutely true in each case). So simply asserting that principle (which entails the falsehood of dualism) is not an logical argument against dualism
Also, as has written philosopher Uwe Meixner: ""It is alleged again and again that the nonphysical causation of physical events is bound to violate received physics because it, allegedly, entails the violation of the law of the preservation of energy, or the violation of the law of the preservation ofmomentum. Repetition does not make false allegations any less false. First, in physics, the mentioned preservation laws are always asserted under the condition that the physical system with regard to which they are asserted is a socalled closed system: that no energy or momentum is coming into the system from entities that are outside of it, or is going out of the system to entities outside of it. Now, physics is silent on the question whether the entire physical world is a closed system.
Moreover, it does not seem to be an analytic truth that the physical world is such a system. It follows that in order to have the nonphysical causation of physical events conflict with the preservation laws, it is necessary to go beyond physics and to assume the metaphysical hypothesis that the physical world is a closed system." (New Perspectives for a Dualistic Conception of Mental Causation. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 15, No. 1, 2008, pp. 18–19)
As a matter of fact, the principle of causal closure is a philosophical and metaphysical position. In fact, in wikipedia you can read the definition of the causal closure as "a metaphysical theory about the nature of causation in the physical realm with significant ramifications in the study of the mind."
But it's precisely a metaphysical position (i.e. dualism) what is at stake; so you can't assume as a premise of your argument against dualism a metaphysical position that entails the falsity of dualism, because you're guilty of begging the question (again!).
Materialist: I disagree. Leaving aside Plantinga's argument (which I consider already refuted by naturalists), I think the causal closure is justified by the evidence of all the sciences and it counts as an independent premise against dualism.
Survivalist: I disagree too. I don't think any naturalist has refuted Plantinga's argument with any nonquestiong begging objections. And some of the objectons to it are incompatible with the premises of consistent materialism (as explined above). So, they're merely sophistical ad hoc objections easily rebuttable and shown to be inconsistent with the premises that many naturalists and materialists defend in other contexts (this also give us some insights about the intellectual honesty of some of these individuals).
In any case, my argument doesn't rest on Plantinga's.
My point is that you beg the question, even when you assume that the evidence of all the sciences support your metaphysical principle of causal closure. In fact, some facts accepted by science don't support that principle:
-Cognitive Behavioural therapy assumes that changes in thoughts will be therapeutically beneficious and therefore causally efficacious. (This is why cognitive therapists try to change pattern of thinking, like beliefs, ideas, values, etc. to produce an effect and cause a change on the patient's condition)
-The placebo effect in medicine (which essentially and explicitly is defined in terms of the subjective belief of the patient, and how this subjective experience changes the body)
Also, parapsychology has evidence of the causal efficacy of consciousness on physical structures or objects.
So, if you were honest and would include ALL the evidence, you'll realize that your position is incorrect. You only include evidence that support your position, and dismiss or reinterpret (in terms favorable to your position) the evidence that refutes it. And you include only evidence favorable to your position because you believe, in advance, that dualism and survival cannot be true.
Materialist: I don't think so. And we're discussed in the previous dialogues why I think your argument are wrong.
Survivalist: Actually, I think I've proved that your arguments and objections are, at best, unconlusive and unconcinving and, at worst, clearly fallacious and false.
Materialist: Let's the readers to decide that.
Survivalist: I agree.
But let's to continue with our discussion in another moment.
Materialist: Fine.
Survivalist: Just think hard about all of these exchanges, otherwise we're wasting our time here.
The person who wrote this is a brilliant japanese philosopher and there are several other parts to it including a very interesting argument based on the placebo effect.
Now onto NeuroScience.>
Part 2 of Demolishing BreakersLions' HindBrain Model
("Getting In Touch With Your Hindbrain" --er uhh..., who or what is getting in touch with what part of itself? err uhh..., adda know???!!!)
The NeuroScience Part:
Let's start with a correct classification scheme for the parts of the human brain.
The human brain is divided into the following major parts:
1. The Forebrain which divides into the Telencephalon and the Diencephalon.
2. The Midbrain or Mesencephalon, which divides into the tectum and the tegmentum.
3. The Hindbrain which divides into the Metencephalon and the Myelencephalon (a.k.a. The Medulla).
BreakersLion, since you fancy yourself as such an expert, let me first point out that some of the comments you made earlier betray your ignorance of the basic anatomy of the human brain, never mind the neuroscience, the physiology, and the philosophical implications of what you've said.
Hey BreakersLion!
Remember This Comment?
If you’re more in tune with the primitive parts of your brain, it’s easier to notice when someone is messing around in there, or trying to. Please do not mistake this as an endorsement for acting on impulse. Playing around with your hindbrain is not an excuse to stop using your forebrain. Next time you get hungry, wait a while. Feel yourself getting restless. If you’re making yourself stay still, and not get up and eat, two parts of your brain are in conflict. If you drift off in thought, you’re likely to find yourself in the kitchen. The impulse can be that strong. Go outside and find a good vantage point to survey some open ground. Wait a while. Let yourself get bored but don’t zone out. Keep watching. Notice that your eyes start automatically focusing on movement. You are hunting. The more in tune you become to the animal side of human nature, the less people can screw with it without your noticing.
Check out this journal article abstract:
Neural Correlates of Appetite and Hunger-Related Evaluative Judgments
How much we desire a meal depends on both the constituent foods and how hungry we are, though not every meal becomes more desirable with increasing hunger. The brain therefore needs to be able to integrate hunger and meal properties to compute the correct incentive value of a meal. The present study investigated the functional role of the amygdala and the orbitofrontal cortex in mediating hunger and dish attractiveness. Furthermore, it explored neural responses to dish descriptions particularly susceptible to value-increase following fasting. We instructed participants to rate how much they wanted food menu items while they were either hungry or sated, and compared the rating differences in these states. Our results point to the representation of food value in the amygdala, and to an integration of attractiveness with hunger level in the orbitofrontal cortex. Dishes particularly desirable during hunger activated the thalamus and the insula. Our results specify the functions of evaluative structures in the context of food attractiveness, and point to a complex neural representation of dish qualities which contribute to state-dependent value.
Article Metrics Related Content Comments: 0 To add a note, highlight some text. Hide notes
Make a general comment
Jump to
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
References
Richard M. Piech1¤*, Jade Lewis1, Caroline H. Parkinson1, Adrian M. Owen2, Angela C. Roberts3, Paul E. Downing1, John A. Parkinson1
1 School of Psychology, Bangor University, Bangor, United Kingdom, 2 MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 3 Department of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
Abstract Top
How much we desire a meal depends on both the constituent foods and how hungry we are, though not every meal becomes more desirable with increasing hunger. The brain therefore needs to be able to integrate hunger and meal properties to compute the correct incentive value of a meal. The present study investigated the functional role of the amygdala and the orbitofrontal cortex in mediating hunger and dish attractiveness. Furthermore, it explored neural responses to dish descriptions particularly susceptible to value-increase following fasting. We instructed participants to rate how much they wanted food menu items while they were either hungry or sated, and compared the rating differences in these states. Our results point to the representation of food value in the amygdala, and to an integration of attractiveness with hunger level in the orbitofrontal cortex. Dishes particularly desirable during hunger activated the thalamus and the insula. Our results specify the functions of evaluative structures in the context of food attractiveness, and point to a complex neural representation of dish qualities which contribute to state-dependent value.
If you read the abstract Mr. BreakersLion..., then where in the article abstract is there any mention of a brain structure that is a component of the HindBrain?
Uhh..., excuse me I didn't hear you.
Structures such as the amygdala, the orbitofrontal cortex, the thalamus and the insula were mentioned. All structures that are not part of The HindBrain!!!
Now here's what The HindBrain consists of.....,
1. The Metencephalon which consists of the pons and the cerebellum.
AND...,
2. The Myelencephalon which consists of the Medulla exclusively.
So one could say that the HindBrain has 3 parts.
1. The Pons
2. The Cerebellum
and
3. The Medulla.
With me so far?
Now the obvious thing about this "hunger drive state" that you were describing is that it certainly could not have been mediated by the Cerebellum. The Cerebellum receives all kinds of sensory input and seems to be involved in coordinating and monitoring information and also fine tuning the coordination of skilled movements and receiving information about individual muscular movements in order to do that.
What about The Pons?
(No puns about The Fonz from "Happy Days" OR Ponzi schemes)
The pons is thought to play a role in sleep and arousal from sleep.
Nuff said about the pons. "Your honor I release the Pons from further cross-examination".
That leaves the Medulla. a.k.a. The Myelencephalon or Medulla Oblongata. The most caudal portion of the brainstem. It contains nuclei that control the cardiovascular system, respiration, and skeletal muscle tonus. It also relays somatosensory information back up to the thalamus.
Sorry ..., nothing about getting a hunger sensation here. And besides the acrobatic conundrum, the semantic tumblesault and dare I say contradictory notion of the conscioous mind trying to bear down upon the realm of subconscious sensation---> if there ever was a confusion of ideas ..., there it is folks!
By the way Drive Reduction Theory has also been demolished in favor of operant conditioning with respect to hunger and feeding behavior. See Olds and Milner 1973.
Confusion of Ideas indeed..., in which I show Breakerslion to be a gibberer himself dribbling giblet gravy down his chin.
BreakersLion..., as Chrissie Hynde is so fond of saying, "You've had it pal".
I could go a lot further, but if you don't understand how much damage I've already inflicted on you then you're an idiot.
The work that I've done here has shown that BreakersLion is not qualified to expose techniques fore muddling the brain. He himself is confused and uninformed.I've succeeded in exposing his ignorance.
This blog should be retitled "Black Leopard Takes On BreakersLion"
I don't think my attack on Ayn Rand will be necessary. On strictly political matters we are both somewhat left of center and not too much in disagreement.
I may look for a more appropriate counterpart (or should I say anti-counterpart) to Wayne Dyer to attack.
Or I may have already found him and it is you.
As I said, Wayne Dyer is a mixed bag. However, taking a look at where he is really good and has "no-one to touch him" is in his earlier work fleshiing out the description of neurotic behavior and how someone can protect their self-esteem from abusive and difficult people.
Let's se if I understand this correctly. I use a term that is not, strictly speaking, technically accurate when describing basic brain functions therefore Wayne Dyer is absolutely correct when describing his external "Use the Force Luke!" construct for human endeavor and I am pwned. You'll need a better "Aha!" moment than that.
Anonymous from January: Dr. Dyer promotes Dr. Dyer in the junk science tradition of the Medicine show. He has traded in Dr. Samuel Johnson's Magic Elixir for junk psychology, that's all. His audience is composed of those referred to by carnies everywhere as "Marks". Considering that you are commenting on a post I did in 2005, I have to wonder if you are a Publicity damage-control equivalent of a paid schill. My state of mind is none of your business and it's very narcissistic of you to presume that you know what it is.
Bullshit BreakersLion!
You haved no idea what you're talking about. You want to down play the error that you made. Your model or mechanism of "Getting In Touch With Your Hindbrain" is such dribble that is riddled with fallacy and superstition in itself and it deserves to be torn apart and I have successfully done that. It is in serious error on both philosophical and neuroscientific grounds. I can take this as far as you want but I have done sufficient work to put you in checkmate.
Furthermore I have taken over your "blog" like a hookworm lodged in your intestinal tissues. You'll never get rid of me.
Admit defeat and die like a man or I will fight you tooth and nail and this blog will get bloody. I'm gunnin for you and I ain't no shill. You should be so lucky.
Aha moment? All you did was misuse a term? Bullshit! Don't downplay this. Don't oversimplify this. As I said earlier if you don't understand the damage I've done to you then you're an idiot.
A further observation of BreakersLions' Model of "Getting In Touch With Your Hindbrain" (Pons, Medulla Oblongata and Cerebellum)
is that it is not potentially falsifiable a la Karl Popper therefore it is useless for the purposes of science.
I bet that Elizabeth Loftus's point of view also violates Karl Poppers' criteria.
BreakersLion, I never once concluded that everything Wayne Dyer says is correct.
How about learning how to read?
Right on target. Though you are most correct about this man, it is his bibbering that can be dangerous for the young and for those who search for meaning in life, or modern life. Dyer appeals much the same as the sophists did to the confused greeks in times of confusion: plato's "Protagaras". We need a Socrates to bring this sophist down and the danger he represents.
Anonymous (the last one) Nonsense. How is Wayne Dyer any more a sophist than BreakersLion?
First of all you have confused (me)Black Leopard with BreakersLion.
BreakersLion: an atheistic curmudgeon like "skeptic" reductionist who has it in for Wayne Dyer and thinks he knows it all.
Black Leopard (me)-an An open-minded Agnostic Jew who is interested in scientific validation of the paranormal, Eastern mysticism, and reincarnation of the soul especially as supported by quantum physics and holographic theory.
I don't believe in throwing out the baby with the bathwater and thus I believe in giving credit where it's due and by the way some of Wayne Dyers ideas are perfectly reasonable and valid even if BreakersLion doesn't understand them or doesn't like them.
I have been a graduate student in neurobiology and this has enabled me to demolish BreakersLions' model of "Getting In Touch With One's Hindbrain" thus showing BreakersLion how much he himself does not know.
Dr. Wayne Dyer has some genuinely good things to say. Namely, how to avoid being upset by neurotic peoples' behavior. Maybe the people most opposed to Wayne Dyer are neurotic controlling pain in the asses who don't want to be held accountable for what they do.
1. Yax. I never said I knew it all, to set the record straight.
2. My problem with Dr. Dyer has been stated many times: he is another sell-out with a medicine show.
3. My knowledge of the exact positional nomenclature of the human brain is not as precise as it might be. The knowledge that even the best informed person has is subject to change as new information becomes available, unless your beliefs are religious in nature. Psychological models are abstractions. While "hindbrain" might be too specific a term and incorrectly applied, I stand by the basic premise of instinctive behavior as influenced by millenia of selective breeding via social engineering.
4. Maybe the people who are opposed to the Wayne Dyers of the world are simply those who have seen how the trick is done and are no longer impressed. Perhaps Black Leopard has confused those who have no desire to be led with the control freaks desiring to be leaders of men. Perhaps there is some mechanism in the dim recesses of the brain that interprets such opposition to submission as a challenge to authority, and kicks off anything from a mild dislike to a full-out alpha ape challenge-response. Or, maybe the egomaniacs just dismiss the uncontrollable as useless to them, which is all that matters to a closet solipsist.
You seem to have a hell of a flair for making inaccurate and fuzzy comments (ie., fogging the issues) in order to try to defend yourself.
Your model "Getting In Touch With Your HindBrain" makes no sense for several reasons. It is not a simple misuse of a term. Even if it did "boil down to" a simple misuse of a term, generality versus specificity has not that much to do with it.
Why don't you review the reasons already given so that you begin to have a clear understanding of them?
OK here it is..., quite clearly.
If you look closely enough you can see a major contradiction in BreakersLions' defense of his model.
1) "The knowledge that even the best informed person has is subject to change as new information becomes available unless your beliefs are religious in nature".
2) I stand by (STAND BY rather than subject to change) the basic premise ( assumption: it is a basic premise so it not something to be changed) that "blah blah blah" = "instinctive behavior as influenced by milennia of selective breeding via social engineering". (sounds like an attack on the workingclasses on behalf of the workingclasses .., ie..,they stick to their guns and religion.
So the more informed person is supposed to change his view while you are allowed to SYAND BY your basic premise. A most bald-faced contradiction to me, but for your audience, I had to cut around the fat to expose it.
Let's take a look at statement component 1 again. It contains an internal contradiction as well as being the component of a larger contradiction.
First of all, revolutions in thinking do come about every so often due to discoveries in something we refer to as "extraordinary science". And when they do, every detail of the body of factual knowledge gained objectively through scientific method does not change.
The history of science is not going to be a continual flip-flopping back and forth on whether the Earth is flat or not. We are not likely to discover some day that cigarettes are good for you. Woody Allen made fun of this notion in the movie Sleeper when his main character was transported to a future time when it was believed that "everything we once believed was good for you is now considered bad for you and vice versa".
Be right back
In addition,
Your concept of how the brain functions psychologically is outmoded.
What science has found out is that the brain is much more flexible than your model accounts for and learning has a lot more to do with intelligence than genetics.
What you are calling an instinct is probably the same thing as a drive.
If so, please refer to
Oldes and Milner who demolished Miller/Dollard Theory (as an example of a drive theory) in favor of operant conditioning.
By the way ..., you say Wayne Dyer is "another" sell out. What other people do you lump into the same category? Have you made a list?
I know you don't like Oprah. I happen to like her but I'm not interested in discussing her because I'm more interested in who you don't like because of philosophical disagreement. Same with Dr. Phil, who I agree with you is an idiot Even Wayne Dyer doesn't care for him.
Again, I'm trying to get to the heart of what metaphysical stuff you don't believe in.
Here's another one. John Lennon would probably agree substantially with you, while George Harrison would probably do the opposite. I'll explain that later if you're interested. And if you're such a deadhead then why the hell do you not make use of the lyrics to the song "Estimated Prophet"?
I understand that you're trying to hold Wayne Dyer accountable for the belief systems he is "selling" to the public but I think this whole thing is really not about Wayne Dyer and it goes way beyond him to all the "stuff" you think is unproven or doesn't exist
"Those who refuse to be led versus Those who desire to be leaders of men". This is actually a very interesting issue. I'll have to take a closer look at this because it is complex and full of paradox. This is the very crux of an idea that I've been trying to write a book about. (And the comment I made involving John Lennon is relevant here. Come to think of it, so is "Estimated Prophet" by The Grateful Dead).
kalanchoe542...., who in your estimation would you consider an inspirational leader? And what makes you a good judge of that?
Instinctive Behavior
Selective Breeding
Social Engineering
Vague terms which you cannot define clearly.
And I can see how this relates to your "HindBrain" Model.
In short, a crock of shit.
What drives the capabilities of human beings is a combination of
conditioned behavior, social learning and self-image processing.
In a capitalist society (to oversimplify for the moment) you have the business people who want to be the leaders of men and the working-classes who want to be led. It took me a long time to deprogram myself out of basic marxist theory and realize that there is no such thing as solidarity of the working-class. It seems to be part of the natural order that there is a structure in which some people are more alpha than others. But some people get to this alpha position because they work their asses off OR invent something that provides value to a lot of other people.
Having said that, I suspect that you are not merely resisting being led but are using Wayne Dyer as a scapegoat to bolster your own sense of authority.
Here's a point that needs to be made clear to you as well, Mr. BreakersLion.
In your mind you come to the simple-minded conclusion that the argument between you and I is a case of pure Pro VS Anti Wayne Dyer----> When in fact, it is actually a case of my reasons for disagreeing with Wayne Dyer are so much better than your reasons.
Not unlike your "HindBrain Model",
Your extended paragraph or should I say diatribe entitled "What is the sound of one hand clapping?' is also a "crock of shit".
This is your attack on Zen Buddhism. It answers a question I was going to pose to you and confirms a suspicion I had about you..., in particular that your attack on Wayne Dyer is not really all that much to do with Wayne Dyer. You also have a disdain for certain philosophies that Wayne Dyer draws from and points to.
Your ego makes you think that you're the pinnacle of clarity and critical reasoning but like most reductionists..,
It speaks to your lack of having the creativity to understand how science and paradox can coexist.
Why is it that so many scientists, engineers, philosophers and artists all respect Zen Buddhism and in particular the zen koans that you're trying to ridicule were actually a technique for trying to get people to think outside the box or break down old models of reality that were not working anymore? Thought of in this way they are widely accepted.
Your attitude towards the zen koans reflects a literal, simple-minded, concrete mentality..., of the same type of thinking that you would correctly identify in a "bible-thumper".
(how uncool and Undeadhead-like)
Example of a paradox:
Claims of the form "if A, then B" are called conditional claims. It is not necessary to believe the conclusion (B) to accept the conditional claim (if A, then B) as true. For instance, consider the following sentence:
If a man with flying reindeer has delivered presents to all the good children in the world in one night, then Santa Claus exists.
Imagine that a man with flying reindeer has, in fact, done this. Does Santa Claus exist, in that case? It would seem so. Therefore, without believing that Santa Claus exists, or that this scenario is even possible, it seems that we should agree that if a man with flying reindeer has delivered presents to all the good children in the world in one night, then Santa Claus exists, and so the above sentence is true; this is not paradoxical.
Curry's paradox comes from taking the hypothesis of the conditional statement to refer to the truth of the statement itself. Consider this other sentence:
If this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists.
As before, imagine that the antecedent is true — in this case, "this sentence is true". Does Santa Claus exist, in that case? Well, if the sentence is true, then what it says is true: namely that if the sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists. Therefore, without necessarily believing that Santa Claus exists, or that the sentence is true, it seems we should agree that if the sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists. But then this means the sentence is true. So Santa Claus does exist. Furthermore we could substitute any claim at all for "Santa Claus exists". This is Curry's paradox. - Wikipedia
Example of a semantic non sequitur:
"What is the sound of one hand clapping?"
I do not dispute the emotional efficacy of the hypnagogic state brought on by mentally masturbating to a mantra. One can get the same result and more from a nice massage, with or without a happy ending. The problem arises when the Ringmaster uses this induced state to pour a steady stream of superstitiious bullshit into receptive subjects. Next thing you know, lighter wallets and free drudge work.
I'm also glad that I don't have to conform to your ideal of a Deadhead to be one. Music is emotionally powerful and evocative. There are three references to the very real need for a marching band in "The Guns of August" that prove this point better than any example of relaxation I could imagine.
Yeah right.
First of all you don't have to conform to my ideal of a deadhead to be one--> Touche' however,..., I gave you a freebie suggestion to make use of the song "Estimated Prophet" which would have served your message very well, but you in your pride and "insistence that you could smell blood on your own" ignored that suggestion. (Pardon my run on sentences)
As it turns out, there is a ton of scientific literature backing up the facts that Yoga, Meditation, and Acupuncture are highly successful in enhancing the health of people and in the case of Acupuncture, animals as well...., WHETHER YOU THINK SO OR NOT.
I'll get back to you on matters of logic, paradox and semantics; Areas I can also have you over a barrel with.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have some wallets to lighten with my latest health product. (LMAO but I am in the money and will be able to go back to college soon. Imagine being able to get straight "A"'s because you no longer have to sub-consciously worry about money. "It's the kind of day that makes you want to believe in supreme beings".
and can concentrate better)
I am now reviewing Currys' Paradox so that I can track your mis-use of it.
Getting more and better results from a massage than from transcendental meditation?
BULLSHIT.
As usual. you really don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
OK OK...., perhaps I shouldn't be yelling and cursing at you. I'll try another tact.
(Good Cop/Bad Cop coming from the same personality LOL!)
Let me introduce you to Roger Von Oech who has a Ph.D. in the History of Ideas, a sort of self-styled Philosophy program. He wrote a book
called "A Whack On The Side Of The Head; How You Can Be More Creative". In this book, he illustrates how zen koans were used to "whack" people's thinking so that they broke out of their stubborn old models of reality in order to come up with a creative solution to a problem.
In another process described by Von-Oech, the zen koan could be seen as the "first stupid answer" in a mastermind process that leads eventually to a smart answer that solves a problem. For instance, if a team of marketing people got together to come up with a creative solution to the problem of how to market some difficult to market product. One person kicks off the process by throwing out a stupid idea or the first thing on his mind which then stimulates somebody else to think of something and so on and so forth and there could be several levels of stupid ideas until one really smart one appears.
Every Buddhist knows that there is no such thing literally as "one hand clapping".
CONTRADICTION ALERT:
1) "So if I call Dr. Dyer an egomaniacal shitheel, that's not an attack against his beliefs. That's how I size him up".
VERSUS:
2) "If he believes that mystical stuff himself, he's an idiot".
Make up your mind! Are you attacking his beliefs or not?
Now here's an interesting irony.
You call Dr. Dyer egotistical (which I'm not saying at the moment whether you're right or wrong) when Dr. Dyer preaches that the ego is a very limited tool OR a major cause of problems. Now you can argue that perhaps he meant that everyone else's ego should be broken down and not his or that he is preaching one thing and acting in an opposite manner but you can't argue what he utters.
Another Black Leopard factoid coming at ya...,
Allen Ginsberg, who was a brilliant poet and a strong influence on both Bob Dylan and John Lennon, once told the anti-semitic poet Ezra Pound that He (Allen) was a Jewish Buddhist.
There is no Curry Paradox left.
My girlfriend and I used it up to cook some Thai Food.
Mr. BreakersLion,
Let's say for the sake of argument that you're right about Wayne Dyer in the respect that he is setting people up for failure by stating that they surrender their will to this external primary force that is supposed to make success come effortlessly
rather than putting effort into actively striving for a goal.
Are you simply going to wipe the slate like the 19th Century Russian Nihilists or the nihilist character in Les Miserables--> Burn everything down but don't bother to replace it with anything?
What is your proposed methodology for setting oneself up for success? OR is all human activity just "Dust In The Wind" by Kansas?
I think you guys have way too much time on your hands IMHO but I do respect both views. I came across Dr Dyers material after spending months in Psychologists offices dealing with issues from my parents divorce, a recent break up with a girl and overall manic depression. After speaking with some friends who are die hard Christians, reading your posts and listening to several of Dyers tapes, I have to admit that I agree with many of the thoughts posted here.
I think things are much more simple than what you have written. If the man (Dr Dyer) really believes in this BS that he speaks, why continue to sell product, travel to seminars and so on? Isn't that feeding his own ego? Why live in luxury and enjoy the "finer" things in life? There are many questions to ask a man who preaches one thing but doesn't practice the same. Like a majority of the people on the planet, a complete hypocrite. I can't say that some of his words didn't inspire me to pull my head out of my ass. Not simply because he was right, but rather because I realized I was dwelling on the past and not doing anything right now to better my own situation. Then I listened more and he basically encourage me to do absolutely nothing. Things would just be fine. I don't know anyone who has simply sat around become happy all of a sudden and had life delivered to them on a "silver platter".
It doesn't take a genius to see that this guy is a marketing master. He's a great salesman to the "normal" lazy American who doesn't care to think for themselves.
Do I think he is an idiot? I don't know if you could label a guy who has been able to make millions off of the general public an "idiot". Are his teachings and philosophical arguments idiotic? Yes.
I have become sure of just a couple things through listening to his teachings, going through several doctors, reading a great deal of material and taking many different medications. We as humans are different than the acorn. We have control of what we do, when we do it and how we do it. The acorn doesn't choose when to eat or where to mature or when to drink the water. It also doesn't choose where to move. Our lives are filled with choice. There isn't necessarily a right or wrong choice. These choices result in something that makes us feel something (good, bad etc.) but we have CONTROL. Our ability to control our emotions and the things we do or do not do are what lead to happiness or whatever you would like to call it. We can choose to dwell or not to dwell. We can eat when we are hungry or we can choose not to eat. I can go on and on about how we are different than a table, animal, plant and so on.
Nothing spectacular in my writing, very simple. I don't have a college degree and no, I am not a genius but I also realize that "REALITY" is here and now. There is no "MAGIC", there is no mystical force that is going to lift my ass off my couch, drop me in a bed with a loving caring woman and heal all my wounds going back 31 years. Just isn't happening. I sure as hell don't need Dr. Dyer or anyone else to show me how to be in control of what I do from here on out.
He's not an idiot, he's just a complete HYPOCRITE!
I think you guys have way too much time on your hands IMHO but I do respect both views. I came across Dr Dyers material after spending months in Psychologists offices dealing with issues from my parents divorce, a recent break up with a girl and overall manic depression. After speaking with some friends who are die hard Christians, reading your posts and listening to several of Dyers tapes, I have to admit that I agree with many of the thoughts posted here.
I think things are much more simple than what you have written. If the man (Dr Dyer) really believes in this BS that he speaks, why continue to sell product, travel to seminars and so on? Isn't that feeding his own ego? Why live in luxury and enjoy the "finer" things in life? There are many questions to ask a man who preaches one thing but doesn't practice the same. Like a majority of the people on the planet, a complete hypocrite. I can't say that some of his words didn't inspire me to pull my head out of my ass. Not simply because he was right, but rather because I realized I was dwelling on the past and not doing anything right now to better my own situation. Then I listened more and he basically encourage me to do absolutely nothing. Things would just be fine. I don't know anyone who has simply sat around become happy all of a sudden and had life delivered to them on a "silver platter".
It doesn't take a genius to see that this guy is a marketing master. He's a great salesman to the "normal" lazy American who doesn't care to think for themselves.
Do I think he is an idiot? I don't know if you could label a guy who has been able to make millions off of the general public an "idiot". Are his teachings and philosophical arguments idiotic? Yes.
I have become sure of just a couple things through listening to his teachings, going through several doctors, reading a great deal of material and taking many different medications. We as humans are different than the acorn, we have control of what we do, when we do it and how we do it. The acorn doesn't choose when to eat or where to mature or when to drink the water. It also doesn't choose where to move. Our lives are filled with choice. There isn't necessarily a right or wrong choice. These choices result in something that makes us feel something (good, bad etc.) but we have CONTROL. Our ability to control out emotions and the things we do or do not do are what lead to happiness. We can choose to dwell or not to dwell. We can eat when we are hungry or we can choose not to eat. I can go on and on. Nothing spectacular in my writing, very simple. I don't have a college degree and no, I am not a genius but I also realize that "REALITY" is here and now. There is no "MAGIC", there is no mystical force that is going to lift my ass off my couch, drop me in a bed with a loving caring woman and heal all my wounds going back 31 years. Just isn't happening. I sure as hell don't need Dr. Dyer or anyone else to show me how to be in control of what I do from here on out.
Just for the hell of it, if Dr Dyer is so convinced that doing so much nothing leads to great things, why did he continue to read material and then form his own publications based off of what he learned? Learning would constitute boosting one's ego would it not? He's not an idiot, he's just a complete HYPOCRITE!
I think you guys have way too much time on your hands IMHO but I do respect both views. I came across Dr Dyers material after spending months in Psychologists offices dealing with issues from my parents divorce, a recent break up with a girl and overall manic depression. After speaking with some friends who are die hard Christians, reading your posts and listening to several of Dyers tapes, I have to admit that I agree with many of the thoughts posted here.
I think things are much more simple than what you have written. If the man (Dr Dyer) really believes in this BS that he speaks, why continue to sell product, travel to seminars and so on? Isn't that feeding his own ego? Why live in luxury and enjoy the "finer" things in life? There are many questions to ask a man who preaches one thing but doesn't practice the same. Like a majority of the people on the planet, a complete hypocrite. I can't say that some of his words didn't inspire me to pull my head out of my ass. Not simply because he was right, but rather because I realized I was dwelling on the past and not doing anything right now to better my own situation. Then I listened more and he basically encourage me to do absolutely nothing. Things would just be fine. I don't know anyone who has simply sat around become happy all of a sudden and had life delivered to them on a "silver platter".
It doesn't take a genius to see that this guy is a marketing master. He's a great salesman to the "normal" lazy American who doesn't care to think for themselves.
Do I think he is an idiot? I don't know if you could label a guy who has been able to make millions off of the general public an "idiot". Are his teachings and philosophical arguments idiotic? Yes.
I have become sure of just a couple things through listening to his teachings, going through several doctors, reading a great deal of material and taking many different medications. We as humans are different than the acorn, we have control of what we do, when we do it and how we do it. The acorn doesn't choose when to eat or where to mature or when to drink the water. It also doesn't choose where to move. Our lives are filled with choice. There isn't necessarily a right or wrong choice. These choices result in something that makes us feel something (good, bad etc.) but we have CONTROL. Our ability to control out emotions and the things we do or do not do are what lead to happiness. We can choose to dwell or not to dwell. We can eat when we are hungry or we can choose not to eat. I can go on and on. Nothing spectacular in my writing, very simple. I don't have a college degree and no, I am not a genius but I also realize that "REALITY" is here and now. There is no "MAGIC", there is no mystical force that is going to lift my ass off my couch, drop me in a bed with a loving caring woman and heal all my wounds going back 31 years. Just isn't happening. I sure as hell don't need Dr. Dyer or anyone else to show me how to be in control of what I do from here on out.
Just for the hell of it, if Dr Dyer is so convinced that doing so much nothing leads to great things, why did he continue to read material and then form his own publications based off of what he learned? Learning would constitute boosting one's ego would it not? He's not an idiot, he's just a complete HYPOCRITE!
Sorry to post three times but it said the thread was too large to post. My bad.
Hey Anonymous,,,
1) That can be considered a very simplistic view of things.
2) How do you know what you're calling choice isn't simply a chain of positive reinforcement and pavlovian associations?
3) You really haven't said much or said anything original.
4) At least BreakersLion picks a position and argues it. (and with a certain style).
May the force be with you.... that is what he is preaching, maybe he is really Darth Vader!
You boneheaded coward. You aren't a quarter the formidable opponent BreakersLion is and you don't even have a unique identity.
It is one thing to respond flippantly as I have with BreakersLion appropriately. But there you are being flippant in a way that doesn't even answer anything I've said and trying to imitate BreakersLions style, repeating one or two things he may have said and saying nothing original.
This blog has become my argument with BreakersLion. If you can't be yourself and bring something new to the table then shut up and go away.
Lots of people become less than 100% satisfied with church, then leave and fall into the hands, of people with alternatives. Some of these alternavators actually get confused about how much power too wield, over the people. Pretty soon they just don't care. Anything goes. Sure you can try to pick out the good or true points they have, but it's really not worth it. Its not like baby with the bathwater, its more like poisen in the punch. Sorry, that's reality. PS Most churches have their poisen too.
I've never heard of you.
Not sure to whom that was directed, or the intended purpose, however....
Fame and fortune are only two measures of a man, and both can be found associated with notable and successful theives.
"Peter! You've become a pirate." - Maggie Smith as Granny Wendy in Hook
KnowsAboutWayneDyer:
A most inappropriate title. If you knew something about Wayne Dyer who by the way knows a hell of a lot more than you do, then your opinion of him whether good or bad
would be much more developed and detailed than to leave the tiny squirt of nonsense that you deposited here. At least BreakersLion, who takes the anti-Dyer position does a reasonable amount of work here rather than simply dismissing the issue as you do.
Hey BreakersLion
Don't you love all these pathetic "anonymous" types who put their tiny two cents in and then run?
Happy Holidays Man!
Black Leopard.
By the way "Fierce Pet Food Emergency of Now" and "Black Leopard" are the same person.
Just a courtesy reminder.
Let me try to repost this as I have lost this paragraph in my previous attempt.
I wanted to let you know BreakersLion, that you and I are on the same side against David Stewarts' attack on evolution.
If you go back to his site you'll see that I left a somewhat short comment which could end up being my opening comment. I noticed that you and I handle somebody like him differently. Your approach is one of frivolity where mine is argumentative. I guess the reason for my short comment is that who really has the time to explain to this guy all the scientific details and fine points. I mean , look ..., you and I could have a wing ding of a time arguing over metaphysical/paranormal things I think may be plausible and you think probably not BUT one cannot dispute that Biological Evolution is a Fact!!!! There's just way too much shit to explain to this guy.
Maybe I should start with the notion that Man didn't simply come from apes but rather both man and apes evolved from a common ancestor.
This reminds of when I was a litle kid in Brooklyn NY and I was arguing with little Brians' sister who kept saying that "a wasp is a certain type of bee" and I said nope "both bees and wasps belong to the class hymnoptera" (which I had read in a book).
Oh, about a statement on one of your other sites...,
Concerning the semantics of the term ego:
Aside from spiritual or unspiritual,
a healthy ego = high self esteem
whereas
an unhealthy ego = conceit or an inflated ego due to overcompensation for lack of self-esteem.
Fritz Perls M.D. Ph.D. defines the ego as the barrier between what one identifies with and what one is alienated from.
The ego is something that may have to be continually broken down because our models of reality have to be broken down and rearranged or reassimilated in order for us to grow.
It may very well be that Wayne Dyer may be saying that the ego is actually something that limits us rather than allows us to grow and learn. Therefore if we stay identified with our ego as Perls defines it we become like Archie Bunker.
What is confusing is he (Wayne Dyer) sounds like he contradicts himself on the idea of whether it is OK to feel proud of having achieved high levels of skill. Other authors on success and positive thinking (lest you disdain the lot of them) seem to think that being proud or satisfied with having achieved high levels of skill is OK and is associated with high self esteem.
"Self esteem goeth before a rise". (a Black Leopard original) Sounds much better than pride going before a fall.
Whoever invented the word "lust" and the phrase "sins of the flesh" should have been locked up in an insane asylum.
Well, as I am now an intransigent political news junkie I now return to having my eyes glued to MSNBC.
Speaking of which what do you think of this movement on part of the media to now feel guilty and embarrassed about vitriol and rhetoric so we now have to tone it all down in the interests of civility and bipartisanship and now we can't criticize and blame "W" anymore even as Sarah Palin places crosshairs on the map on her website and speaks of "Blood Libel".
As far as my metaphysical, paranormal, spiritual or mystical stuff my thoughts and ideas change as my beliefs shift radically
BUT
One things' for damn sure!
BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION IS A FACT!!!!
DO YOU HEAR THAT DAVID STEWART?
Got to check in real quick and make a quick qualifier (as John Lennon found he often had to do)
For all those who might react to my comment about Sarah Palins' comment about "Blood Libel", I happen to be Jewish so don't get nervous.., ok? Maybe I should stop my running joke with the waitreses at BagelTree Breakfast Restaurant in Sunrise Florida to the effect that I'm part Russian Jew and part Werewolf.
In fact, I've already said that I'm Jewish several times in this blog if you back track to earlier portions of this blog or web page or whatever you want to call it.
Join us next week folks when
BreakersLion takes on Jack Kerouac
and his synthesis of Sartre and Buddha. Word salads indeed. Quite useful for writing science-fiction stories Breaker.., I prefer to call them "alien glossaries".
Ciao, baby.
To the "Anonymous" who left a message 3 times and which wasn't really worth paying attention to once..., I have to qualify what makes you justified in saying that Wayne Dyers' philosophical arguments are idiotic?
BreakersLion can answer the question whether I agree with him or not. You can't answer the question.
One of my favorites from his many PBS specials is the part where he tells this long story about how his daughter wanted to record some music and supposedly used the power of intention to get the record made. Then she came out and sang and it totally sucked! That's the problem with these kinds of ideas. Life isn't that simple and you can't reverse-engineer success. Nice try though, it certainly sells a lot of books.
Nathan you are another one of these little nothings who come around and spit out a tiny glop of nonsense and run.
The man (BreakersLion) has done some work here. He has gone toe to toe with me in some fairly lengthy discussions.
Either give a substantial amount of discourse agreeing or disagreeing with him and do justice to this blog or else get lost!!!
I like boobs
@ Anon.
Thank you for sharing. Makes a nice couterpoint to Black Leopard's attempt to intimidate a commenter on what is, after all, not his blog.
Sometimes using faith above reason results in an experience like seeing a new colour. You see it ..and you realize why you do. Faith above reason. Of course you cant explain this new colour to anyone else.... Its meant to be that way. Sell your cleverness and purchase bewilderment.
Just my two cents. I will not be comenting again.
Question for you BreakersLion.
Is your name Richard Rockley?
My comments about the "2 centers" still stand.
You BreakersLion fighting it out with me ..., at least I can appreciate your attempts to hold Waybe Dyer accountable for what he tells the public. The fact that he thinks what he says is the truth despite not being equipped in proper research methods to back it up.
It also clarifies the fact that I have criticisms of him but for different reasons than you.
sorry for the mispell. Trying to type too fast. (wAYBE->wAYNE)
tHAT LAST aNONYMOUS AT LEAST HAS AN INTERESTING POINT.
But why don't they give themselves a username?
It's not like they'd be leaving a real name.
BreakersLion. This is your blog as you've stated and I have to open up to you and state some things openly out of fairness to you. (And perhaps I owe it to you as a fellow deadhead and by the way that was a pretty cool statement about not having to fit my concept of what a deadhead is and in line with another cool statement you made about not having to be like everyone else.) But I need to know that you're going to take it seriously. Because I'm losing my general interest (with the exception of some final points) in defending Wayne Dyer. Besides, he pisses me off with his anti-ego rhetoric and whether you accept or reject Eastern Philosophy He is misrepresenting it. I should state like these mafia guys put it "Do whatever you like with him".
I have to respect the fact that you're holding someone like him accountable for what he is telling the public. In fact, the philosophies that he draws from
are not even being well represented necessarily by him. His statements are simply his interpretations of them.
If I say I am not Richard Rockley will you go away? :-)
Couldn't resist, but I'm not.
I'm trying to see the up side in religious belief for a while. Not easy for me to admit that there is some value added, especially in 3rd world countries that don't have alternative educational opportunities. Still, something should be done about that.
The only problem I have with the concept that Wayne Dyer is misrepresenting Eastern beliefs is the similarity to the usual sectarian epithet, "Those other guys aren't doing it right."
If it's all imagination, wishful thinking, and magical thinking ... who is?
I think breakerslion is the winner! Black leotard is just plain silly! No.. I mean a goofball...oops...
IF YOU AGREE THAT YOU DONT KNOW EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW THAN YOU AGREE ON THE OPEN POSSIBILITY OF GOD...IF YOU SAY SIMPLY THAT EVRYTHING HAS A LOGICAL EXPLANATION AND THERE IS NO GOD THAN YOU ARE SIMPLY...AN ARROGANT CONTROL FREAK.
HEY ANONYMOUS! CAPSLOCK!
It doesn't work that way.
1. I agree I don't know everything. That is not an excuse to try to bullshit me, but that's the excuse that bullshit artists use successfully on thousands every day. Self doubt, and the benefit of the doubt are the best friends of all con artists.
As I have said before, I am agnostic to so many decimal points that I am virtually indistinguishable from an atheist, therefore I call myself one. The probability that there is a god seems vanishingly small to me. The idea that any self-serving religious hierarchy has accurately described such a being is ludicrous once you strip the ceremonial veneer and examine what they are selling. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, yet we are given none, just evasions and excuses. God will only like you if you believe without proof ... smells like bullshit to me.
2. Examine the feelings you experienced when you called me a control freak. How can my opinions control anyone? I don't stand in front of congregation, wearing the robes of false authority, and proclaim my own prejudices to be the Word of God. I don't cherry-pick an alleged holy book that was designed in part for precisely that purpose. Need a war? Here's a quote. Need reconciliation? Here's a quote. It's contradictory on purpose. It's a tool for manipulators.
What actually happens when someone like me states their opinions? We threaten to burst that comfortable delusion that some super-being is looking out for you and that death is not forever. I control nothing, but I stand as one seen in a dream, outside your comfortable "reality". I challenge your belief that you are awake, but I am no puppet master.
I just googled does anyone else think Wayne Dyer is an a..hole? he pisses me off with his ego. he likes to point out the exotic places his teachers are from and where he is "doing" something. like oooh I'm so impressed. there is a lot of talk on here about his content. That's pointless because he's just a regurgitating bird. He's repeating, the course in miracles, just read books printed by hay house. and you'll know it. He repeats things said to him and emailed to him. cause I've already heard it before and have fun naming the source in my head. lately he has been trying to step it up and talk about himself as if he were a legend. listen to the interview with well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzCy5B_1QpM&feature=related At least he's simple enough to be honest that until the age of 70 he didn't care to help anyone he came in contact with. at least he does give credit to the experience with John of God for making him a nicer person. He partially acknowledges that he's not God's gift to the earth. He doesn't seem to realize the helping 3 people happens to us ordinary people all the time. he said he was jealous he was only named 3rd most spiritually influential person online. first of all he screwed up the interpretation of Phil 2 he claims it tells us to be like Jesus and think we are equal to God but ...read it, it says to think like Jesus that even though he WAS God He was humble. It's telling us to be humble. Wayne Dyer would miss that. lol I listen to him because he regurgitates literature I read but I either laugh or get pissed off or shake my head in disbelief at his EGO. like in his PBS thing oh yeah Eckart Tolle was above me on the list but hey we just toured together so we cool. So that makes me amazing by association so there. I could regurgitate as well as him. He just reads a lot. and now he is hearing voices since John of God. I've done that several times too and know other "little People" who have that on a reg. basis. Get over yourself.
I will say that since he saw John of God, his EGO didn't come across and intolerable as it use to. I think he has become a nicer person but I'm sorry he doesn't realize this happens to many people and he doesn't have the corner market and it makes me actually sympathize with his child like innocence on the subject. Any body that surrenders can be used by God. He doesn't take the brightest but the willing.
I have a new discussion to open up with BreakersLion, which may be considered by him to be "old wine in a new bottle" so to speak but before i do that I need to respond to the "Anonymous" who called me a goofball.Apparantly, you believe that I'm supposed to care about what you label me. If you were even capable of taking the perspective of another person, you might consider how beneficial would it be to that person to care what you label them. Is it for instance a sign of (+) emotional health for them to be concerned with how you label them? But just out of curiosity..., How much of this page of BreakersLions' blog have you actually read? "Have you read the entire page of part 2 Confusion of Ideas Why I Believe Wayne Dyer is A Gibbering Idiot by BreakersLion" and read it thoroughly to make sure that you've understood the entire history of the discussion and arguments between him and I (Black Leopard) (because not every part of the discussion has been an argument). Once you've done that then you have earned the right to call me a "goofball" and then in some sense I'll be proud to wear that label because most of the comments I've made here I stand by. I do not give a shit whether Wayne Dyer has stolen quotes from others or whether someone thinks his speeches or seminars are for the purpose of exploitation. I am open-minded to the possibility that some of the beliefs he espouses may have some validity and some of these I am on the fence about. I believe I've been quite honest with BreakersLion about that. I haven't always lived up to the idea of having a civil discussion with BreakersLion but I have realized that if I fail to do that then I will fail to have the opportunity to further probe into the workings of how he (or she) thinks. And understanding that could prove useful for a future launch of an argument with a stronger stance.
I will also say this and BreakersLion cannot deny it:
1) A Large % of BreakersLions' Blog is invested not in arguing whether the content of Wayne Dyers beliefs are experimentally (empirically) valid or logically consistent or even having internal logical consistency in say a pearl of wisdom that a literary person might offer. Rather much of BreakersLions efforts are devoted to assassinating the mans' character. BreakersLions' excuse for doing so is that he believes the man to be a con artsit that is exploiting people.
I had to delve into how much of a scientist BreakersLion was and so I caught him in his own pontification about a matter of neuroscience ( an area I studied as a graduate student). His "hindbrain model" turned out to be nonsensical and not supported by fact. I have therfore put some constraints on how much of a scientific authority BreakersLion is. I'll be back to pursue this further.
Sorry about the typos. I never claimed to be much of a typist. If I go too fast I tend to trip over myself. But i had to type fast because the library is closing soon. Perhaps that alone makes me a "goofball".
What Cracks me up about his CD's, he say's he does not have an EGO but yet he says we are GOD. He is a GOD and Gods don't ask for stuff. Sounds arrogant to me regardless of what your belief system is. In that case I am the God of Laundry and I will not do the laundry I will ask it to get done. LMAO This is what makes America Great!! FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION. XOXOXO
PS. He does a great job explaining his thought process. Who care what he believes in. It does not have to match your own. I give him credit to be outside the box. I am a Christian and I think its cool how he know about alot of different aspects of religions and so on. He seems to be contributing to society. More then I can say for a lot of people. Why do we have to castrate him? YOu don't like it don't listen. He does touch well on health and the human nature on things. From the lectors I have heard he also quote where and who he got his information from and where and who helped him with his look on like. If you think he is looney, well, just put it off on the fact that he has 8 kids. lol Peace be onto all of you..
It works though. The key is to believe and feel what you want to be.
All of you just never accomplished this or tried.
Read the words I wrote, make believe till it's real!!
There is God and he is you only if you become him. He creates.
When you want to be something or want something you already believe that you can accomplish it right?
Did you ever accomplish something saying "I can't do this"!
You must create in the way stated by me, Dr. Dyer, Neville Goddard.
@ Your Brother:
"[M]ake believe till it's real!!"
Sounds like Dale Carnegie's "Fake it 'til you make it!"
I guess there really is nothing new under the sun.
Maybe I read Mark Twain's "The Duke and the Dolphin Come Aboard," etc. chapters in Huckleberry Finn once too often. My problem is not with the message so much as the cheesy shell Dr. Dyer wraps it in. I object to his tactics in selling it. I recognize those tactics as Barnum-esque hucksterism. It infuriates me that it works, that people seem to need to believe that this is all some kind of mystic Power ouside of themselves. That people so want to believe in magic and magic bullets that they can be shot like fish in a barrel by these age-old manipulations worthy of no more than the vaudeville stage.
It also pisses me off that a hockey game can inspire such blood lust in the audience that the whole experience has become unsportsman-like and uncouth. Booing the visiting team because they play well? Way too much emotional investment and negativity. Yet this is supposed to be a good family bonding experience for Dad and the kids!
If these two items seem unrelated to you, then you still aren't seeing what I'm seeing.
Does this explanation make any more sense out of my problem with Dr. Dyer than the last 29 or so?
I totally agree after I came across following --his expert advise about the book Tao Te Ching(Daodejing)as follows:
This Special Collector's Edition of the Tao Te Ching includes an Introduction by His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama on his message of truth, compassion and peace. REVIEWS: "One of the most important and profound texts of world literature." - Publisher's Weekly "This Special Collector's Edition is a revelation in its own right. For those seeking a better understanding of themselves, this translation delivers a wealth of wisdom and insights. " - Des Moines Register "It is rare that so few words can contain so much power." - Dr. Wayne Dyer
It annoys me no end to see so many blogs on which the comments are identified only by a timestamp. "12.34 PM" - how useless! For all I know, this discussion died in 2002, and my comment will not be read until 2022 (if then). So, for the record, today is May 31, 2012. Synchronize your calendars...
The reason I'm here is because I just saw another snake-oil presentation by Wayne Dyer on a PBS pledge drive, called "Wishes Fulfilled," attended by lots of weepy white people and the San Diego Children's Choir singing (mostly on key) "Amazing Grace."
His "all things are possible, if you only believe" philosophy is the same sack of suckerbait peddled by "The Secret." In keeping with the "baby vs bathwater" tone of the comments thus far, I will say that I think it's true that imagining or even asserting something is possible is the first step toward making it a reality. Dyer (and Oprah, and "The Secret") presents it as not only necessary, but sufficient. It's NOT sufficient, and some things are NOT possible.
I'll believe Dyer if he's still making the same claims 100 years from now. He'll be 170 then. Clearly, this should be no problem for him. Staying alive "feels natural" (unlike a 5-foot-7 140-pound man becoming a linebacker), and Dyer's "I am" in this case ("I am alive") has the advantage of being true. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever, if his vapid philosophy is true, that he EVER die, much less that he should die before May 31, 2112.
But that's the day I'll believe him.
My comment is directed towards Breakerslion & Black Leopard. As a previous listener to Dr. Dyer, I was quite interested in Breakerslion’s contradicting perspective on Dyer’s philosophy and analogy. Now I don’t want to get into a drawn-out interpretation of what’s true or false, right or wrong, proven or assumed, for me at least. I’ll just suffice by saying that the many points stated in the blog herein, are case in point, while others are solely based on biased fallacies of logic. Yes, Dr. Dyer is certainly milking the cow with his mystic claims, but then again, isn’t that the aim of ALL of us in the end—to tap into the well and fill our buckets with as much wealth as possible? He never claims to be altruistic after all. And to demand of any mystic to back his/her claim with scientific proof, is a contradiction in logic. How can you prove things of the spirit with science of the physical? They’re two totally separate (if not opposite) planes of existence that don’t relate to one another. We pay actors millions of dollars to weave fantasies that can’t be any further from reality, we revere them, love them and idolize them for it. Humans need to be fed gibberish and they know it. They seek it. And when it resonates with their sensibilities, needs and failings, they digest it like junkies attacking a pile of smack on the coffee table. Now none of Wayne Dyer’s methodical theories on intent have ever yielded any transcending transformations in my sphere of existence. I came to a point where I finally realized that you have to possess a certain character that is willing to readily believe what someone of seemingly venerable authority dictates upon them in order to extricate the benefits they’re seeking. I’m too skeptical and suspicious to readily surrender my beliefs that easily. So I simply abandoned the process, satisfied with the conclusion that this is simply not for me. If it works for others, good for them! But I never went as far as viewing Dyer as an “egomaniacal snake oil salesman” and a crook! He’s just a smart guy selling what certain segments of the population need. Supply & demand.
Anyways, I just want to finish by saying that it’s totally unprofessional and unnerving for people to engage in increasingly unrelated discussions, especially those of a personal nature, in the comments section, especially by the author himself. Your evolving “love affair” between you and Black Leopard only demonstrated your lack of legitimacy and credibility to state your opinion on the topic of spirituality and mysticism. Who wants to read about your personal lives, your love of Harry Belafonte, The Grateful Dead, or what kind of foods you feed your cats? Use your personal emails for God’s sake. Don’t subject your readers to such “gibberish” as you would call it. And Black Leopard, your posting of Harry Belafonte’s Coconut song lyrics over and over again is a sure sign of, saying it as politely as possible, a blabbering moron! If I was the author of this blog, I would’ve blocked your ass before the end of the first verse (with or without a capo). Breakerslion, if anyone is a charlatan, it’s you. What a phony?! Dr. Dyer (whom I could give a fuck about) is Mahatma Gandhi in comparison to you.
Now go connect with INTENT! That’s the only thing you have going for you.
Since the enemy of my frenemy is my enemy here, I'll stick up for myself and BreakersLion at the same time.
This is aimed at the last Anonymous who tried to call me a moron and look whose fucking talking. You coward who can't even give him or herself a proper username. We wear masks which is in accord with the rules of this game. But you are faceless. You don't have the intellect to appreciate me, BreakersLion OR Wayne Dyer. There's nothing wrong with BreakersLion and myself sharing some personal information which relates to our curiosity about each other ie., what is a person like who takes the kind of positions they take, and actually fosters some civility and helps us communicate with each other even though it is an argument. ( not a highly disciplined formal debate) This site was developed by BreakersLion and I am a guest on it and as long as BreakersLion allows it, the discussion takes a certain "informal form or format".
If you don't like it, freakin leave. I know a lot of highly intelligent and educated people that believe in things that both you and BreakersLion would cringe at. But the process of BreakersLion and I dancing around each other helps us argue things out with each other in a gentler fashion. Chess players oppose each other in a game but the rules of the game do not include bopping each other over the head with a glass bottle. Now BreakersLion..., do you see my earlier point about these cowardly Anonymous types?
If your goal is to attempt to expose the methods used to muddle the brain, you did better then expose-you became the muddle itself.
What is that crap (excuse me muddle) that you wrote about the oak trees large limb being torn off from the storm. Here's a little knowledge combined with the analytical and educated. Being one who has personally experienced the passing over head of the eye of a catagory 4 hurricane, I found in those moments dead is dead and the method is irrelevant. Equally life is life. Maybe the intent of the wind was more focused then the intent of the tree. Oh by the way, the oak tree does come back..Analyze that.
Wayne Dyer is a fraud. What's sad is that Tony Robbins, Rich Dad Poor Dad, and Wayne are not onlt the 3 biggest book sellers in the country, but are the 3 biggest frauds in the process!! No wonder faakes like Obama can get elected.
This country is being taken over by idiots!!!
Hilarious posts here. They are all BSr's. Course in Miracles , Dyer, Chopra, the list is endless. All parts of a bigger scheme called M.O.N.E.Y., pseudo conspiracy theory prepackaged with a false sense of ego, and frighteningly if in fact the Atheist psychologist who said she spoke and SAW Jesus had her re-write his own lessons, evil. But guess, what nothing new. This was all referred to about around 600BC, although this little gem rings true equally as well on nothing new, the chat about New Age, nature worship, WiCca, all of it was talked about back then, just to cover the bases..in advance. "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." Man just continually re-creating the wheel and putting it in a different package. As so well put, "Empty Vessels, white washed tombs. Pretty on the outside but when you get to the core it's nothing but a bag of bones"
Hilarious posts here. They are all BSr's. Course in Miracles , Dyer, Chopra, the list is endless. However! do they mean to be or are they sincere? From a Spiritual Perspective the entire course of action changes flavor considerably, so as long as they are referring to something "spiritual", define "Spiritual" and then define where the term originated from and the context at that time what it meant. "Consider the quarry from which you were mined, the rock from which you were hewn". All parts of a bigger scheme called M.O.N.E.Y. , or attention in some form or another, the cult prepackaged with pretty lace bows, pseudo conspiracy theory prepackaged with a false sense of ego, and frighteningly if in fact the Atheist psychologist who said she spoke and SAW Jesus had her re-write his own lessons, evil. But guess, what nothing new. This was all referred to about around 600BC, although this little gem rings true equally as well on nothing new, the chat about New Age, nature worship, Wicca, all of it was talked about back then, just to cover the bases..in advance. "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." Man just continually re-creating the wheel and putting it in a different package. As so well put, "Empty Vessels, white washed tombs. Pretty on the outside but when you get to the core it's nothing but a bag of bones" Regarding neurotic people, George Carlin describe neurotic people quite well, nihilistic atheist that he is, and unfunny as he was (rest his soul)...his best laughs were making fun of people who laughed with him, putting him on a pedestal for being made fools of. Whoops, topic switch. You cannot but new wine in new wine skins lest the skins burst as the wine expands, nor can one patch old cloth with a new one, lest it shrink and tear the old. I think the whole gamut of these two teaching types fits one or the other along, it's like plastic surgery of the soul, bought with plastic money, and book signings. Any teacher who pulls quips and quotes (and out of context no less) from any source is playing the life is a grab-bag ploy of take what you like and leave the rest. ..as well as lying to the ignorant in the case of the latter. Where wisdom is blissful ignorance....run.
Black Leopard seemed to give Dr. Dyer
some credibility...early on in his
many comments...for a lot of the ideas Dyer was writing and speaking about. Subsequently many comments written by Black Leopard and occasionally responded to by BreakersLion seemed to keep an argument going...Black Leopard trying to show fallacies inBreakersLion's reasoning here, while BreakersLion's defending them. It no doubt gets exhaustive for anyone else visiting
this blog...to try to read all!
But I was intrigued as my life has
been filled with years seeking out inspiration and yet distrusting all spiritual leaders and teacher's once the "leap of faith", "blind belief" and "trust in me" messages become loud and clear.
I did like the story Ram Dass told
when he finally got "it"...that
his emotional attachment and trust in his guru/teacher was not where he could connect with his authentic self. It was inside himself. He discovered that he could find the true GURU/Teacher inside himself. Thus, he no longer needed the teacher!
Now, I want to refer to Stephen's comments as they fit well with my tendency to distrust. However, ultimately we all believe in something even if it is our own self-aggrandizement. Listening to
Dr. Dyer on Public Television and
hearing these ideas is probably far better brain food than the consumerism, violence, and other neverending crap we feed our minds! Maybe someone does decide to start meditating on the positive goals they hope to replace all the negative self doubt with, particularly before they drift off to sleep. It is just as anonymous said...so what if he likes making money on regurgitating many different ideas from different people on how they might make their lives better. It probably makes him feel pretty good that people respond to his philosophy that is supposed to improve their lives.
Ultimately,it is up to the individual to decide they are not
going to let their puny intellect rule over them, but use it to lead
them to a knowledge that is inside
of ourselves. Meditation is a huge
part of it no matter what your religious practice or belief is...
it will lead you to a self that connects with all of life.
Through close relationship with others in a determination to grow
spiritually, we can better face all the bs in our lives we have created, and make the courageous choices to remake ourselves into better people and identify more and more as spiritual beings.
It is a personal leap of faith perhaps, to decide to courageously
go inward on a journey to one's true self. Maybe I got on the wrong blog as I neither desired to defend Dr. Dryer...he is doing just fine obviously! Nor do I desire to go after him for borrowing so many other's ideas and getting wealthy from being a self-help writer and speaker. You do not need either his books or CDs or DVDs of course.
One question for commenter Stephen, why the emphasis on the woman who claimed to get something different to write from Jesus...on the word evil? Was that the course of Miracles? It has just as much validity as the old Testament or new Testament of the Bibles. The truth is not those books...it is as the profit
Jesus said, inside of you. Yes, he
claimed to be son of God and even God...but he did refer to us as children of God and just as much
God as him! I think you could toss the two testaments away and thus avoid a lot of the old nonsense in them. I do like a lot of the metaphysical and moral teachings of Jesus.
My previous comment I meant to say Prophet, Jesus. Funny...all the talk
of Dr. Dryer and "Profit" rolled off
the hand so easily instead of Prophet!
Dyer, Dyer, Dyer straits! I have to write it on the blackboard `100 times as all of a sudden I misspelled his name over and over again. I knew it was Dyer...not Dryer.
I should have mentioned, I did like
how he came to the rescue of Ram Dass, (aka Richard Alpert) by putting up a lot of money to support him when he had fallen on harder times. Ram Dass wrote books and did "talks" for a number of years but made no where near the money Wayne Dyer made. Ram Dass followed an ancient lineage of Hindu/Buddhist teachings requiring rigorous practice and learning. I can respect a brilliant and practiced teacher of practical meditation and yoga, to learn from.
Hi Anonymous from June! Nice rant. Thanks for playing. I hope you’re not too disappointed in the slow response, and I hope that makes you understand that I’m not *too much* of an egomaniac. Still, since this is *my* blog, I am reluctant to give anyone the last word (even if that means feeding the trolls). Just to be clear, Black Leopard has shown enough intellect and sideways thinking that I don’t put him in the troll category, even though he has shown an aggressive tendency to take over this thread. Let’s get to it, shall we?
“Now I don’t want to get into a drawn-out interpretation of what’s true or false, right or wrong, proven or assumed, for me at least.”
Why? Because that might expose you to an argument wherein you would have to support your beliefs?
“I’ll just suffice by saying that the many points stated in the blog herein, are case in point, while others are solely based on biased fallacies of logic.”
Without giving specific examples, you once again need not support your argument with reason or logic. You are entitled to an opinion, but I hardly know what weight to give it.
“Yes, Dr. Dyer is certainly milking the cow with his mystic claims, but then again, isn’t that the aim of ALL of us in the end—to tap into the well and fill our buckets with as much wealth as possible?”
You sad person, you. While I find “A Christmas Carol” and “It’s a Wonderful Life” to be a bit saccharine, they do have something to tell us about values and appreciation. In my opinion, based on my perspective, Dr. Dyer’s huckstering is called, selling out, and that makes him a sad form of human being as well. He had potential. Now he is selling false hope and bullshit.
“And to demand of any mystic to back his/her claim with scientific proof, is a contradiction in logic. How can you prove things of the spirit with science of the physical? They’re two totally separate (if not opposite) planes of existence that don’t relate to one another.”
Dr. Jeckyl: “Did you drink this?”
Bugs Bunny: Well! I’ve never been so insulted in all my life!
To expect any “mystic” not to evade when asked for concrete proof of their claims is perhaps naïve. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, not the total lack thereof. If “things of the spirit” cannot be subjected to the scientific method, then all claims of insight thereof are both suspect, and equally “valid” no matter how ridiculous. In other words, all mystical “knowledge” is objectively meaningless. If they don’t relate to one another (assuming for the argument, that one of them isn’t completely imaginary), then how could any perception of the “spiritual plane” exist, and why are we even talking about it?
“We pay actors millions of dollars to weave fantasies that can’t be any further from reality, we revere them, love them and idolize them for it. Humans need to be fed gibberish and they know it.”
Feed me fiction, allegory, Aristotelian unities, personifications, anthropomorphisms, STORIES with plots and structure, climaxes and anticlimaxes. Get as preachy as you want, and lay it on with a shovel! I’ll vote with my eyes and feet if I think you go too far, or if your message is self-serving crap. Package it as “The Truth!” (… !! … nudge-nudge) and you’re a perfidious liar. Say practically nothing except, “it’s all explained in my book, for sale after the show!” – AND take two hours to say it, and you’re a huckster.
How patronizing of you, and how generalizing, to presume to tell me and all my fellow humans what we need.
I leave you with this thought.
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/qc4f5e77ae.gif
Zeggman, this is for you: December 17, 2012. You know, that lame time stamp annoys me too, but I get email copies to sort it out.
Stephen, Zeggman, LateGreatPlanetEarth, and yes, you too Black Leopard:
I don’t always find the time these days to reply, but I do enjoy reading your comments. This post garnered more attention than I ever intended it to. So much for the Power of Intent versus the “mystic” law of cause and effect! Nam myo ho renge kyo. ;-)
Dyer's New Age gibberish, consummated in his recent "You are God" theme couched in vague verbal meanderings that make no sense but seem, nevertheless, to mesmerize his studio audiences is simply a marketing ploy on his part to sell merchandise. He's the single best reason I have not to support public television.
Sadly ( as so people seem to think he is wonderful) Wayne Dyer does nothing for me. I have tried but I cannot read his work. I am not a fan of Hay House and watch in amazed/infuriated fascinated as the dollars pour in.
However, I am a huge fan of Anita Moorjani and totally believe her story. I work in the medical profession and everything she says makes sense to me.
He's another 'false prophet' just like was talked about 2000 years ago. So if you're hearing 'inconsistencies' in him, there are MANY! He refers to Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi, you name it..they can't all be right. He's what was also referred to in 600 BC as an 'ear tickler' and what Christ said, "That there will be false messiahs so that if possible even the elect will be deceived'. That goes for his liking of a Course in Miracles too. I know a lot of people really like Wayne, but why are they turning to a common man for answers is beyond only that folks have an aversion to The Truth and The Life itself based on prejudice. Again, how can all those people be correct when they even contradict each other and he supports them all. Whatever sounds good. This is Appealing to the Masses is what it amounts to and nothing more than brain washing. And yes, many people have been helped through him, but it's a lie. You might be helped TEMPORALLY but has been written, God will give our minds to any teaching if we choose so in his Perfect Love (in this life) for, "Unending Truth I tell you, 'they' have had their reward".
In Erroroneous Zones, Dr. Wayne Dyer made says that emotions come from thought. And who controls our thoughts? We do!! From experience, I have concluded that thoughts come from beliefs, and experiences. Anyone who has ever meditated would know that that thoughts often persist the harder they are resisted. I believe a truthful honest person would not say that he just chose or decided what to believe. The best we can do is search for the truth through experience and evidence. When our "beliefs" fit with the nature of the way things are, we are able to relate to the world around us in a more effective way. If we believe that we can put our hand on a hot stove and not get burned, we are in for a suprise. I say Dr. (Quack Dr) wayne dyer makes statements that are totally devoid of experience. For me, accepting things as they are and learning how to effectively relate to the world around me seems to be a much more reasonable and attainable path than looking for a power to make the world give me what I want.
I remember when there were 3 T.V. stations in total & they went off the air around 1:00AM & came back on at around 6:00AM.
Now that there are 100's, for comic relief at times I watch the different kind of hucksters & con men/women.
Business looks really good especially for those at the top of their fields (meaning the biggest scumbags).
Will be getting to Dyer soon.
I put the T.V. preachers at the top of the list. It is quite something that many of these vermin all have the same spiel, of course working it the best they can with their personalities & so forth.
That many of their whole shows are based on getting mostly poor & ignorant people to send them money (or gold or whatever they have laying around thats worth some cash)is amazing.
That they have the endless hand to the head & push back manuever where their other ministers (thugs) catch them & they wiggle in delight because whatever illness they had is now gone....walkers flung aside & people getting down to Papa's Got a Brand New Bag.
Also they want to Partner with you (which means u send them as much money as u can as often as u can).
You have to sow the seed (send them money, even if it's your rent or food money), so that u will reap God's Harvest. No question a mysterious and large amount of money is gonna come in your mailbox the day the rent is due.
And if they send u a prayer cloth, miracle bottle of water, or a special $1 bill after they have touched it....when u touch it, it will be a point of contact which will bring u great wealth.....they will trot out some ambigious scripture from the bible of some sort that will say this malarky.
And if you're real lucky, they will do a little speaking in tongues to you, Robin Williams could have made a killing doing this...but he took a different path.
OK, since this is my 1st post here I better end this pretty quick although I'll have a lot to say about Wayne Dyer in my next post.
I did want to mention that I saw Dyer recommending this John of God character who does miracle healings in Brazil which put him over the top as a complete sham as this guy from Brazil is a complete Charlatan.
You can find people on the net who will gather a few couples up and fly them there and go with them.
These people woul be called ropers in the parlance on con men/women.
The bills you run up on this trip will be unbelievable & that doesn't include the services of John of God who does miraculous surgeries with no surgical tools (old carnival tricks) & these desperate people will be told that their ALS will go away if they just believe & such.
Before long old Wayne will catch up with folks like Robert Tilton & Benny Hinn who loves to look directly into the camera & say.....You people out there who I minister to (rob), you know that I could never ever tell a lie to u!!!!!
Diane Sawyer and Dateline or some show like it outed Hinn in the early 90's & just wanted verifiable truth that he had cured 1 person out of the thousands he says he has of blindness, ALS, MS, and the list is endless.
Of course he couldn't do it.
She also asked him why he flew on a Private Jet to his healing services & always rented out the Penthouse or the whole top floor of the best 5 star hotel in the city (is that what Jesus would do).
Benny said he would like to talk in depth about these matters, but had pressing concerns to help the people & slinked away into the night & had his lawyers handle those things.
He is still in business today I think so I guess his lawyers convinced somebody about how religion works (money, like most things) & the seperation of church & state & probably handed out a bunch of money in one form or another....who knows.
Wow did I get carried away.....sorry for the length.
Love what you had to say and am quite confident the doctor you judge with such certainty enjoys the thoughts you've shared. Be well... infinitely well...
i can say, looking back on my life in the 70's I needed some meaning which I lack from my family, the mass media,and school. I was lost and in a dangerous place, lucky I did not turn to drugs or religion. But in the time i heard dwyne on TV and believed all this shit about the "Self", becoming a self, and all the other crap which Most lost individulal are victim to. I bought into his "Philosophy" with all my soul. and attempted to lead and rule my life. It was a terrible mistake which i have paid for dearly. It has ruled most of my life and when I attempted to acknowlege the mistake and rethink my beliefs. it was too late, so entrenched in its psycho stupid ideals. I still battle them and attempt to win back my life. the struggle i think has caused my to have seizure when i turned 40 facing the world with his optimistic self making. This is a dangerous system of belief for any young person looking for something to belive in. I feel sorry for all young people who have made this mistake and the damage that they face in life.
What does our need to disprove, debunk and expose Dr. Dyer's ideas say about our own journey? If you read or listen carefully, Dr. Dyer seems to be rescuing people from enslavement in cults and all encompassing religious traditions by yoking what we call mysticism to Gestalt psychology. Again and again he says you do not have to be religious in any formal sense, you do not have to 'join' anything to enjoy the fruits of spirituality. There is no retreat center or compound in which his followers are hiding away from the world. In fact, if you read his books and listen to his infrequent messages on PBS you can hardly be called a 'follower.' And you do not have to purchase anything, either. I have found every one of his books and CD collections at the local libraries in my area. If you have experience working with spiritual teachers, you would understand that Dyer does not offer what you might typically call 'spiritual instruction.' It is perfect for people who want to broaden their spiritual perspective without 'joining' some kind of organization...
Dyer's got great form in his personal life!! 3 marriages!!! Brilliant!!! and he's motivating others!!! Scary!!!!
Would you like to see the metaphysics ten commandments?
Email me at zzzgoat@yahoo.com
Post a Comment
<< Home