Right On, Brother!

Aloha Deepak

Remember in the movie The Beautiful Mind, the character actually believed in his insanity. A Course in Miracles so beautifully puts it as you see your bother sane, you become sane. We unconsciously or consciously project insanity/anger out and when we see it coming back we see it as an attack. The best defense is being defenseless as all nature knows we live in a wireless universe. love patty

The link to Dr. Rupert Sheldrake's website does not work correctly. The one hereunder does:

http://www.sheldrake.org/homepage.html

Dear Deepak,

I guess this will always be a bottleneck when both scientists have an image in their head of their own truth, of which both of them are absolutely certain.

It is the same deadlock politics is facing at the moment.

Mieke

"Under the guise of an interview for a television series, Sheldrake found himself sandbagged by Dawkins' personal polemics (an experience more than one of us has had when called upon to represent views contrary to Dawkins, only to find them distorted and mocked once the film has been edited, and without a chance for rebuttal, of course)."

"The result, as Sheldrake relates it, was grossly prejudiced."

That's what plays out in the presentation of documentary films. Fahrenheit 911 for example.

On the question of fairness, I remember John McCain's Presidential nomination race in 2000, when he beat Bush in NH and was leading in South Carolina in a two way race. What ensued was one of the most dirtiest smear campaign in the history of primaries. Rumors and lies about his personal life(his supposed illegitimate colored child) poured in from unknown sources...and Karl Rove -- those who played the most unfair -- won the day.

Complaining that the opponent played unfair, therefore I am right in my beliefs is being righteous and not fair. The argument of "unfairness" is a cliche.

Not only Dawkins is "unfair" to Sheldrake, (but according to Sheldrake's own strong vocal criticism in the past) the entire mainstream scientific community is unfair; Sheldrake's scientific papers on his parapsychology research are not accepted by Scientific Journals (other than his own Journal of Parapsychology). This is unfair to sheldrake.

As I see it, there is nothing particularly-unfair about Dawkins even if he edited his views. He is playing by the rules of documentary filmmaking constraints. To portray Dawkins as an *exception* among biologists who doesn't agree with his work or views is patently unfair.

Perhaps one Protesteth too much against Hawkins.
He seems to be a mirror for some reflecting areas within oneself that feels uncomfortable. Was there a gun pointed to Sheldrakes' head during the interview?

Regards,

Steve

Dear Deepak

Thank you for sharing this article, with its compassionate yet keen description of how Dawkin's self-admitted bias played out in this one situation.

Steve, maybe you need to read the article again, as your comment reflects some denial of simple reporting, and some projection on your part.

love, Heath

I agree Heather, it was simple reporting, my comments were more targeted at the commentary before the article. It seemed to have touched a major nerve with Deepak, and I felt it was overblown, and perhaps Sheldrake was a bit naive to think Dawkins would be more open minded.

It's not a perfect world, yes there seems to be divisiveness in science. Maybe that's a good thing, it could spawn one up-manship and lead to further discoveries. I could care less what the intention was behind a cure for whatever disease, the scientist could do it out of spite or hatred for his/her peers. If it helps humanity, that's all I care about.

Cheers,

Steve

On second thought, perhaps Deepak is just defending a friend, then that's fine.

Steve

Yes, (Amba)Steve... both Dr. Rupert Sheldrake and Dr. Deepak Chopra are featured in the "Enemies of Reason" documentary. I had seen the film. Dr. Chopra is equally "unfairly" and even more harshly depicted than Dr. Sheldrake. Just goes to show Deepak's spiritual awareness and self-realization in not reacting, but also shows how he cares and reaches out to his friends who may not be as perfect as he is.

Irve,

don't soft peddle...say it like u want to...after all... they can't ban u.....causeu know how to come back under new aliases time and time again! come on....show ur stuff!

Dear Deepak,

thanks for sharing

Those that ride a high horse fall harder, Dawkins and I share an objective, the end of religion and superstition, (fictions and ignorance), the exception being a small amount of fiction necessary for play between two.

“turn the laws of physics upside down,”~Dawkins

The term “physics” denotes it’s inherent flaw. That is why I like Intangics.

Laws are something are created and made, and unless Dawkins is implying that there is a God there is no such thing as “laws of physics” but perhaps that is just semantics.

The math that gives rise to form was not created or made and is not a law, it just is.

As I have said before the atom and proof of it is no different than an all pervading intelligence. The Atom and God [beyond definition] are very similar in nature. Being unobservable, and there is a logical reason for that.

One is surprised Dawkins still has beliefs; I have none and function quite well without them. Be(lie)fs are fictions. Although I do see he picked up on the wisdom presented by this one that the wise man has few, and the infinite player has none.

“Anything supported by math is possible as long as the math works, with probability often being determined by the observer.” In other words 1 + 1 is (11) never (111). I could have used 2 but the symbol would have hid the reality of the observer quantifying the ONE.

I don’t know very much about math, an I don’t need to since I use a high level programming language to program my universe, so I always look to the pudding for proof.

The Infinite Player ends to speak of possibility and probability never beliefs.

I would offer that any sentence that begins with I BELIEVE is generally followed by a fictional story or a wish. Which is fine when we are playing making believe for fun and not getting to serious or lethal to a character.

I like to work with statistics and probability because this is the Math that provides for proof of intelligence and it’s scope or field of operation.

HERE IS SOMETHING NEW ONE PRESENTS

We have learned In science, the term observer effect which refers to changes that the act of observing will make on the phenomenon being observed.

I would like to suggest the Experiment Effect, in which the act of doing an experiment changes the results that would occur in a natural situation.

What do you think Deepak?

The days are few between now and The Great Revelation, and the resulting (R)evolution, the details collected, the insights born, now one must compile into something concise for delivery.

Someone once said “nobody could save the world”, so I became ONE.

And the word “I” is spoken to distinguish one’s self from the field.

I would say enough of my eccentric ramblings for now, but that would be forever.

One of my ex's said that my little min-pin always new when I was in the my parking space in my case. My dog could have heard my car when the ex could not. But I do BELIEVE the story about the dogs above as pet owners have too many experiences of connecting with their pets and I have many when I was a pet owner for many years. For example, my dog and I were very connected. When the vet put her to sleep, I new the exact time in the evening that she was given the shot and when she passed away, when I was told and thought it was going to be in the morning. Since I did not have the money, the vet decided to do exploratory surgery to make sure she had cancer, which I thought was the case and she did. How did I know? My dog's spirit hunted me down while I was riding in my car from work to home and I heard (not our normal physical hearing) her say, "Where are you? Why are you not here with me?" I said in return thought, "I'm sorry. I did not know [that she would know what was going on]." And then she left. I was ashame, as I did not know she would know and I could not bear watching her die, even though the vet said some people held their pets as they were given the lethal shot. I was most ashame because I could not afford to pay the vet any more money and I had her on IVs and in & out of the vet hospital for over a month, so I chose keeping my savings account over her life, as we did not know for sure it was cancer when I had her put to sleep. My dog had a spirit or soul or her thought could travel, i.e., consciousness?. Even in the Bible, Solomon said something like 'who is to say what is higher - the beast or man.' And I was reading in Psalms this morning where David or one of the other guys said something similar.

Love, Char

PS: I think we all have our own definitions about what BELIEF means to us and for me it comes first, then FAITH, followed by the TRUTH. However, one might find that they have believed in a lie and that is TRUTH. My use of the word above is belief by knowledge (i.e., pets), and I feel the masters in the Bible used the term, as they knew and many of us do not. So believe first and then one day, one might know (have Faith) that God exist for those who don't believe. Of course trying to define and understand God is probably the key to connecting the dots as It's vast. There's nothing wrong with belief. And in fact, one can believe and because of that belief they can co-create stuff, as faith the size of a mustard seed can move a mountain per Jesus in the Bible. So I think people don't like the preachy stuff, as I don't for which I am guilty of as well.

Well, time to go home to enjoy the weekend.

Love, Char

A couple months ago took on this failed project for the Pentagon, they considered it very urgent. I figured it was one way, a loop hole, to get the Defense industry to fund Peace since none of the Philanthropists are sending me any checks for my projects and endeavors. Nobody else wanted to touch it. I will have successfully completed it next week it was very difficult.

They asked me did I think this project was possible, I said yes with a little divine intervention and a miracle.

So anyway I was working with these few very bright scientists, physicists and engineers.

The first time we are having lunch one of them states "I am a skeptic". I said "cool".

Over the next few days I started pointing things out, various events and their relationships, and some weird synchronicities that occurred. They are not skeptics any more, just open minded and discerning. I did get what was thought might be impossible to happen.

The same thing might happen with Dawkins, he may have to concede in order to participate.

Of course I can only take credit for the placement of my attention. I have no idea where the intelligence comes from.

Deepak,

Shamans and Native People have no need to prove telepathy as they are rooted in it from all directions: East, South, West, North, Sky above and Earth below. To try to prove through analyses and logical explanation metaphysical and alchemical reality is a waste of time and energy to these people.

Trish~~

This post by Deepak points to a lot of failures on the part of many people.

First of all the failure of the press/media to serve the public interest. The media believes that antagonistic shows pitting the clash of dumbed-down, simplistic belief systems will make more money than an intelligent debate, so that's what they want to put on the airwaves.

I have written extensively about the utter, abysmal failure of the press and mainstream media, so I won't repeat all that here, but it fully applies. Thank God (if there is one) for the internet.

Next is Dawkins making a conscious decision along similar lines. He also believes that the main thing that needs to put out publicly is exactly the battle of belief systems. He knows better, for sure, but he has made the calculation that enlightened debate will not garner public attention, just as the mainstream media has apparently concluded. So he compromises by trying to whip up rhetoric about anti-belief.

It's a classic mis-calculation, and it serves to undercut his own credibility.

I have been hanging out over at the science blogs a lot lately (scienceblogs.com - check it out, lots of cool stuff over there), and I have seen several professional scientists post up opinions about Dawkins. Contrary to what the media would have you believe, there is no army of scientists lined up behind Dawkins on a mission to squash everyone else's religion. Most scientists have some appreciation that Dawkins is fighting the idea of running a society based on superstitions, but they also don't see him as an enlightened debater, either, and many scientists are not enamored of his strategy and tactics for engaging the issue.

As pointed out by Sheldrake, you cannot simultaneously be "pro-reason" and refuse to examine evidence which was collected in accordance with the scientific method by a well known scientist.

That's the glaring problem with Dawkins.

I myself support the idea that religion should not be the highest authority in a representative republic style of government like we have in the USA. I also am against religious extremists, as well as the business community trying to muzzle and shut down scientific reasearch when it seems to contradict their beliefs and/or economic goals.

But I find myself not wanting Dawkins to be the guy who represents me in the public sphere in those debates because of exactly the issues Deepak and Mr Sheldrake are highlighting here.

The other thing is that I myself have anecdotal experience with pets knowing my arrival times at my residence, even though I had no set times or direction of approaching my home due to the kind of work I was doing, which involved driving to lots of different locations with no specified "quitting time". I didn't know of course, but my roommates were insistent that my cat always seemed to know about 10 minutes before I got home. I always wondered about that.

So I am glad Sheldrake actually took the time to try to study this kind of thing in accordance with the scientific method. He is entitled, in my opinion, to unbaised confirmation and analyses of his work by other scientists.

That is the way science is actually done.

No one has to kill anyone's religion, and no one has to protect their kids from godless child-eating atheists. Don't buy the hype.

I really wish we could get past the infantile representations and pre-schooler type food-fight BS I see supposedly passing as "debate" on this issue.

This exposes Dawkins for the fraud he truly is.
He bemoans the lack of evidence for anomalous phenomena, and when he has an opportunity to examine evidence, he refuses to look at it. He like the Church fathers who wouldn't look in Galileo's telescope, because real evidence can't be allowed to upset their preconceptions/beliefs.

Oops! I realized that my response #15 was off-beat and off-tone. It feels divisive and sustains the position of opposition. It's old paradigm and I don't want to support it anymore.

So, I'd like to infuse that emotional content in #15 with some logic and say that it's time to build a bridge between the two opposites. It's time to let down our defenses protecting our position and our territory. We all know that logic cannot see or hear in the same way of emotion. We know well the differences.

I'd like to get to know how these two opposite positions can complement and enhance one another. How they can find common middle ground.

What is that mid-point territory pulling each side to meet in haromonic convergence?

Trish~~

About the dog experiments, I think Sheldrake should bring his dog to the debate, leave it with Dawkins and leave the studio and go somewhere, for example to Starbucks for some time. Then he should come racing down to the studio in his car, and let Dawkins see for himself how Sheldrake's dog reacts.

Dawkins can do the same to Sheldrake. It's so easy for both them of them to choose the middle path and be peaceful. Either they prove or disapprove, by experiments, or both shut up. Why insult and fight. That's not spiritual and is highly undesirable for peace and love in the world.

Ambasteve - What is wrong with defending a friend?What are friends for?

Trish - I agree. If something works, for example fortune telling by Astrology, why waste time in experiments to prove it scientifically. What works, works. And what doesn't, doesn't. That's all.

And as there are numerous possibilities in life, it is also true that they will not work for everyone in the same way.

So having respect for what works in your life and for that what works in the life of someone else is in my humble opinion the first law to meet each other in harmonic convergence.

Being able to imagine someone else's point of view.
In the end: live and let live.

Mieke