A Nice Explanation of Supersessionism
598962
Soulen's work is a nice introduction to the issue of supersessionism from someone who disagrees with this doctrine. The best part of this work is his categorization of the three main types of supersessionism: (1) punitive (Israel is rejected because of disobedience); (2) economic (Israel's special role has expired with the coming of the church); and (3) structural (the Hebrew Scriptures are ignored).
Soulen also does a good job of showing how theologians such as Kant and Schleiermacher have contributed to the view that God is forever done with national Israel.
The reader should be aware that this book is mostly historical and philosophical. It does not grapple with keys texts such as Matthew 21:43; Galatians 6:16; and 1 Peter 2:9-10. Thus, someone looking for a biblical examination of supersessionism will need to look elsewhere. Still, for an overall introduction to supersessionism from a historical point of view, this is a good book to get.
1914561
Mr. Harris extends a detached, scientifically based analysis of meditation and how it affects the mind.  His detailed discussion about self, consciousness, and what constitutes 'Me'  is fascinating and well constructed. Bravo. His discussions on meditation are based on 1st hand experience in several traditions and that can be of great value to less-practiced meditators. He goes on to offer guidance on pitfalls to the practitioner, but near the end seems to get stuck in a rut of disproportionally criticizing a competing author - for me that eroded some of  his credibility.  My book is highlighted with great insights and I will reread those notes in the future.
3308978
Sigmund Freud's "Beyond the Pleasure Principle" is  a key text, not only for psychologists, or literary theorists, but anyone who thinks about why our minds work the way they do.  If your mind is open to extreme possibilities, give this text a read.  It is short, barely 75 pages, but give yourself time to pore over and make notes, as Freud moves very quickly.
In "Beyond the Pleasure Principle," Freud seeks to discover the causes and effects of our drives.  To this end, he begins with the pleasure principle, which basically holds that the job of our 'mental apparatus' is to lower tension and move us towards pleasure and stability.  Working against the pleasure principle are our baser instincts, which must be repressed by a vigilant brain.  The pleasure principle can also be interrupted by the reality principle, which operates in moments when basic life functions are threatened - to wit, when maintaining life is more important than pleasure.
Examining the pleasure principle, Freud looks at scenarios which may shed light on mental processes that seem to challenge it.  These include repetition compulsion, wherein adults seem to fixate and reenact moments of trauma.  Seeking a more primal cause for repetition instinct, Freud analyses children's games.  Interestingly, the further Freud regresses, the more speculative and intense he gets - from childhood, Freud talks about the brain itself, moving back to simple multicellular organisms, unicellular organisms, and ultimately inorganic matter - all the time looking for an explanation of the origin of instincts themselves.
Freud's queries on instinct and repetition compulsion lead him to the darkest possible places - the revelation of the death instinct.  Freud posits that the repetition compulsion manifests itself in all conscious beings in the desire to return to the earliest state, total inactivity.  The remainder of his treatise is spent developing the conditions of the death instinct, and trying to find a way out of this shocking thesis.  Taking up Hesiodic Eros as symbolic of the life instinct, Freud attempts to argue out of the seemingly inescapable conclusion.
Freud's writing style is direct and fluid, but not necessarily straightforward.  If you're not paying attention, Freud can go over your head quickly.  For example, on page 50 of this standard edition, his line of argument dismisses Darwin, Marx, and Nietzsche in a matter of two paragraphs to astounding effect.  His language is highly figurative, drawing on philosophy, literature, biology, and anecdote to make and illustrate his points.  A critical text for anyone interested in psychoanalysis and its figurehead author.
122877
Pieper begins this short book with the observation that while sin still have grave connotations in our
language, it is used largely for humorous effect in modern times.
Confucius once observed that the first step in philosophical debate was to agree on one's terms, and Pieper does a neat little job of investigating what the misunderstood yet evocative word "sin" means. His chief foundation is Thomas Aquinas, but he does a very impressive job of integrating modern, Eastern, and other pre-Christian sources; I did not realize how the concepts of expiation, confession, and original sin have parallels in Eastern and Classical thought. Even Sartre and Nietzsche--hardly Christians themselves!--are used in very sensitive, perceptive ways to show what sin does to us.
The book begins with observations on how sin is perceived in modern times, and then analyzes what the word sin actually means (to "miss the mark"), and how the Hebrew, Latin, and Greek writers have used the the word sin. Building this foundation, we begin to delve into the psychological basis of sin, and look at
a very troubling paradox of sin: "if sin is going against our nature, how can our natural desires lead us to sin?" This question of what exactly drives us to sin haunts much of the book, and Pieper gives no easy answers, but rather opens up this debate for the reader, and gives many references, allowing one to pursue this question on one's own later on.
For anyone who wants to know more about why we do evil things, this is a good beginner's guide. Pieper is intelligent but
accessible, and the book is very compact. Sometimes I wish he would have spent a litle more time developing some ideas--he sometimes takes Scholastic philosophical terms for granted, and while he defines them clearly, it would have been nice if he shows why these definitions are relevant to us. For instance, he observes that the term "order" has a static, fixed connotation to the modern person, but to the Medievals, it could mean a dynamic process. Pieper then adopts the Medieval view without telling us why we should take the Medieval one over the modern. This could have been easily explained by noting how scientific laws, while they are fixed equations, describe dynamic events, like radio waves, falling objects, and chemical reactions. Such an explanation would have been easily within Pieper's capabilities, and would connect his wealth of Scholastic understanding to the modern reader more easily.
Still, that quibble aside, this is a very readable, educational book, and I recommend it.
4851340
The title of this book is a good summary of what it's about. It's about how the human brain could connect with other human minds through the Internet.

Chorost describes the book as a thought experiment about things that are conceptually plausible, though not yet in practice. He gives many examples of how his ideas about the future are based in technology that is already in use. There are chapters on the technology that is used to detect brain activity, chapters on nanowires and optogenetics - both mechanisms that can read and write brain activity, chapters on communications protocols for sending perceptions and memories from one brain to another, chapters on examples of what might result from linking humans to the Internet, and chapters on a possible future collective mind. The writing style is accessible and clear. In an age when people talk about neural pathways over the dinner table, the science discussions in the book are open and written for the average informed person.

Woven in with all this science reporting and speculation, is a personal narrative about Chorost's already wired brain - he has chochlear implants. He also uses stories about his personal life and relationships to introduce concepts about how the human mind works. The book is a surprisingly easy read.

Some of Chorost's examples are part of pop culture. He talks about The Matrix and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, for example. He doesn't mention Dollhouse, but I think it contains the best example of hive mind as he describes it. I don't mean the plot line in Dollhouse where new personalities are injected into people electronically and they can suddenly be doctors or kick boxing experts. Chorost's says that brains can't learn that way. But there is a particular episode of Dollhouse where the character Victor is linked to a group of soldiers, who all act with awareness of what the other soldiers are doing. Yet Victor can use his own will and thinking, even while being aware of what the others he's linked to are doing and thinking.

That Dollhouse episode is an example of Chorost's vision of the collective awareness that would come with linking the human brain to the Internet: an awareness, a perception, but not an abandonment of one's own thinking, one's own self. He thinks this would be a good thing.

The ways of making that a reality involve wiring the brain with tiny wires and/or devices, or possibly using genetically modified genes that are triggered into action with light (optogenetics). The part of the process that he accepts without comment is that people would be willing to step forward and allow these things to be done to their brains. That seems like a pretty big sticking point to me.

The book has notes, a bibliography, and an index for those who want to explore in depth.
1062091
Perusing the chapter flow of the text is instructive in itself:

Part One Basic Components of Science:
Observation and measurement
Experimentation and realism
Theories and models
Scientific explanation
Evidence and confirmation
Reductionism and unity of science.

Part Two Scientific change and progress
Inductivism and falsificationism
Paradigms and research programs
Problem solving research traditions and technologism
Plate tectonics

Part Three Values and society
Science and technology
Science and values
Science and religion
Science and society

Part Four Case Study
Mass extinctions
Glossary

In the observation section David Boersema addresses how observations are theory laden as articulated by Norman Hanson and  then follows with Israel Scheffler's objections. Later he quotes Gregor Mendel's experiments which are commonly rolled out to support primacy of observation but to be fair to Boersema he leaves the theoretical underpinning of observation open. From a critical rationalist perspective placing the sections Observation and Measurement and Experimentation and Realism before Scientific Explanation is unfortunate as it has a propensity to propagate the empiricist bias that has been for too long the model of science. In contrast to this David Deutsch, in The Beginning of Infinity, makes the point that scientific theories are explanations: assertions about what is out there and how it behaves. Where do these theories come from? For most of the history of science, it was mistakenly believed that we 'derive' them from the evidence of our senses - a philosophical doctrine known as empiricism in which sensory experiences are primary, thence derivation (such as extrapolation, generalization or induction) gives theories/ knowledge of reality. In Deutsch's view experience is indeed essential to science, but its role is different to that supposed by empiricism. It is not the source from which theories are derived. Its main use is to choose between theories that have already been guessed. That is what "learning from experience" is.  It would be great to see an introduction to philosophy of science that started with explanations before observation.

Be that as it may, Boersema's book is a comprehensive introduction to the philosophy of science that does present a balance of conflicting views along with quotations from original sources, including the usual suspects of Kuhn and Lakatos. One might have liked a stronger section on Karl Popper and his rebuttals to Kuhn and Lakatos but that would be unusual in an introductory volume.

I can see why this book is supported as a basic text for philosophy of science courses.

<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/The-Beginning-of-Infinity-Explanations-That-Transform-the-World/dp/0143121359/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">The Beginning of Infinity: Explanations That Transform the World</a>
1873684
Chapter 17 "The Ultimate Memeplex" is the most cogent summary of empirical research concerning the role of consciousness and a self-aware  self in behavior I have read. She reaches the conclusions that dualism is  wrong and that consciousness does NOT control behavior. I've been  introducing these ideas to my sophomore experimental psychology students  for twenty years. I'm delighted to find a chapter that organizes so  beautifully the arguments. I showed the book to a colleague and he has  added it to the required reading list for his evolutionary psychology  seminar.
4920661
This is an excellent and interesting book in that it offers enough in the way of direct insights to provoke one into deep contemplation concerning "being-in-the-world".

Essentially the technique offered for subduing and then beginning the process whereby the personal self is "managed out of the foreground" in everyday consciousness  consists of a "logic of erosion". This successfully leads to a genuine concept of arising perceptions which are apparently formed freely of themselves (so to speak) along with the idea  that the personal(pseudo)self constitutes just such a "perception" based in turn on such "arising perceptions". The net result is that consciousness, pure consciousness is experientially realized as the "source of all". Excellent! A truly fundamental insight is thereby realized.

The quibble that possibly surfaces is that all such "arising" percepts or un-associated elements are apparently held to be accountable to no relevant source. They arise  (apparently) from the profound, therefore based on nothing they are nothing and the personal (pseudo)self does not exist except as an unreal function of consciousness. Which if not-noticed might then be termed the non-volitional aspect of living since no person (pseudo self) can be held to account thereby. Hmmm.

However, Galen manages to work-in a section on ethics and sexual morality based on "higher character qualities" of being that are "free from the domination of the pseudo-self". Fine, as far as it goes, but from whence such "higher qualities"? The failure to adhere to the core character of such higher character qualities is then further held to account for "trouble and suffering".

A familiar model seems to be emerging here. The beginning of a procedure to deal with the overall phenomenon of "being-in-the-world" is well described in the book in terms of the arising and dismissal of the pseudo-self but the language suggests there is also a "true self" hidden somewhere between the falsehood (pseudo) and the pure consciousness within which we (apparently) have and express our being(in respect of  non-volitional living).

Conclusion: the beginning is well described and together with the "apparent" terminal comprehension of the role played by "pure consciousness", as that from which all derives is also succinct and well presented (i.e. all  is within consciousness only; that which is within consciousness is consciousness only). The middle-ground is less well handled and the region beyond consciousness seemingly not at all, which is no surprise because that which is not is absolutely not. Or, is "beyond consciousness" simply another realm within which consciousness might be described as an "error in perception" as is the case with the pseudo-self?
157195
As the subtitle of The Conscious Mind suggests, "Programming the Brain-Computer", the underlying analogy of this short, pithy book is that the mind acts much like a computer. Just like a computer, it is possible to modify or change the brain's "software", and by this live a more meaningful and positive life.  Although this concept is not a new one, the authors feel that with awareness and work, the individual has within him/her self, the ability to modify not just thoughts and ideas, but entire life styles.  There is emphasis on the idea of our SELF as a combination of "Body - Mind - Spirit", and that a good portion of this comes from the Ego.  The Ego is influenced by the 5P's, Power, Profit, Prestige, Possessions, Privilege and Pleasure.  When any of these P's begin to dominate, negative energies are produced that can adversely affect the Ego.  It is through the individual's free will that personal modification can occur to correct or control these energies and thus our Ego.  Unfortunately there are a large number of "programs" over which we have little or no control e.g. the autonomic nervous system (hunger, breathing, fear), however, there are still a large number of "programs" that we can modify for our well being.  By being aware of those "P's" that are adversely affecting us, we can obtain objectives leading to the modification of existing "programs".  It is through this reprogramming that we will be able to lead a life that has more a more positive outlook, energy and balance.

Although the ideas presented here are understandable, it may be that the actual "reprogramming" may be more difficult than suggested, and unfortunately the guidebook on the mechanisms of change is enthusiastically, but minimally instructive.  The book seems to good place to start in what possibly should be called "Reprogramming the Brain-Computer".
3055549
In this book, David Ray Griffin tackles the mind-body problem - a problem that neither materialism nor dualism has hitherto been able to fully resolve. In order to accomplish this task, he first defines the problem and what he calls "wishful-and-fearful thinking." He then proceeds to outline his "regulative principles" and then differentiates between "soft-core commonsense" and "hard-core commonsense." Hard-core commonsense are those commonsense notions that we must inevitably presuppose in practice even if we deny them in theory ("free will" being the primary example). Griffin makes a compelling argument that a metaphyiscal position must account for our hard-core commonsense notions. Accordingly, he shows how Whitehead's process metaphysics (which he refers to in this book as "panexperientialism") can account for our hard-core commonsense notions. Moreover, he argues that panexperientialism has more explanatory power than materialism, especially concerning our present scientific knowledge (e.g. quantum theory).

I thought "Unsnarling the World-Knot" was a very good read (I have read many books by Griffin and he is always good). That being said, I do feel that the book had several short-comings:

1) I don't feel that Griffin fully explained (at least to my satisfaction) how an objective "actual occasion of experience" causes a new subjective "actual occasion of experience" to emerge - an emergence that somehow enables the new momentary actual occasion of experience to have the capacity for partial self-determination. The "somehow" is the operative term here. How exactly does this happen?

2) I don't feel he adequately explained why moral responsibility requires freedom. If free will is, given the same situation and circumstances, simply the ability to choose otherwise, then why does this "random choice" imply moral responsiblity? IOW, if I had known better (meaning if I had had better information), then I would have made a better choice. Having better information is the key, not making a "random choice." Therefore, I don't really see how this is an improvement over causal determinism. If we can't hold an individual morally responsible because all his choices are predetermined, then why should we hold an individual morally responsible simply because he has the capacity to make "random choices?"

3) Although he dismantles eliminative materialism (which is not very difficult to do...after all, the proponents of this form of materialism deny the existence of consciousness!) and supervenient theory (which basically entails epiphenomenalism), he never addresses "type identity" (or "token identity") theories of mind. IOW, if mental states are identical to physical states, then how does this invalidate materialism?

4) I wished he would have explained in more detail what he meant by the terms "idealistic realism" and "realistic idealism." (He seemed to indicate that these views are compatible with our hard-core commonsense notion that there exists a real world independent of our perception of it.)
381556
Pope has made a significant entry into the rational interpretation of the "unconsious" mechanism of hidden or repressed memory. As a behaviorist I found myself agreeing with his hypotheses and conclusions and discovered some clarity in my own thinking at the same time. I find his writing style to be clear, clever, and concise. I have chosen to place this book on my desk for all to see.
3050476
This is a book that while providing a brief introduction into some of the theory and science of explorations into the nature of consciousness also has some of the authors own speculations on the subject.  Nunn opens with a background on a Mrs Willett, a lady who was not only involved in psychical research but also an apparent medium who actually channelled other psychical researchers.  Despite the rather supernatural aspect behind Mrs Willett's story, Nunn uses the case of Mrs Willett as a basis for his exploration into the nature of consciousness.  After introducing us to some of the philosophy and scientific exploration (and speculation) around consciousness, he returns to the case of Mr Willett in the final chapter to explore what her case tells us about  consciousness, the notion of self and of time.  So what goes on in the chapters in between?  Well, Nunn introduces us to what he tells us are 'mental landscapes.'  Such landscapes are described mathematically by so-called 'attractors' - a concept derived from mathematical Chaos Theory.  Nunn argues that attractors may represent mental dynamics between the mind of a subject and their environment and manifest in the brain though a hierarchy of neural processes which are 'holographically fractal.'  Despite Nunn's physiologically based conception of mental processes he does not see himself as a mental reductionist.  This is because Nunn does not believe that mind, which involves 'meaning,' can be reduced to information as it is understood in computer engineering terms.  Nunn does not really make clear his arguments for the non-reduction of meaning to information but his views may be similar to those expressed by philosopher John Searle who argued that you cannot derive semantics from syntax or computation.  This technicality aside, Nunn goes on to suggest that consciousness may be related to the physical brain by being a 'gauge-like field that reflects the energetic properties of the brain.'  Gauge fields are a concept from Quantum Field Theories which determine local symmetries (conserve physical properties) during dynamic physical processes.  Nunn suggests that the 'consciousness field' may be a 'broken temporal symmetry' and that consciousness may therefore manifest 'temporal anomalies.'  He rounds out these technical arguments by discussing various unusual conscious experiences such as Near Death Experiences, Mystical and Hallucinogenic Drug experiences which may (or may not) support the speculation that the consciousness field involves anomalous distortions of time.  If your head is spinning at the references to 'attractors, holographic-fractals, gauge symmetries' - not to mention 'qualions' (units of consciousness) and references to mathematical knot theory also made in the book - then you may be surprised to know that this book is actually quite an accessible read.  However, anyone reading this book will be forgiven for thinking that maybe science really is a long way off from a proper 'science of consciousness.'  Ironically, after having read this book, you may even be forgiven for thinking that the goal of having a pure science of consciousness is ultimately unobtainable.
4550450
Just finished reading this.
Not the anti-religion rant that Dr. Harris is known for (except for 6 pages in the Conclusion = and that's real good stuff), but the neuroscientist / philosopher has presented a first-hand view of Twenty-First Century Spirituality.
He has experienced many years of serious meditation, studying under famous, and not-so-famous, gurus and spiritual teachers; the effects of several different hallucinogenic drugs; done scientific study of the workings of the brain; has a well-rounded understanding of the history of worship and devotion to various spiritual avenues; and is a kind-hearted and really smart common-sense fellow.

Informative of accurate facts, and although I am not going to start meditating 18 hours a day, it made me feel pretty good about being happy with my life and my decisions. I personally have gone along many tracks to get where I am traveling now, and have the ability to be truly satisfied on a moment-by-moment criteria.

If you are not feeling satisfied, there is some great solutions here that do not cost a thing (beyond the price of the book). Four stars.
1868458
I recently downloaded the Audible edition of Lanzas book, Biocentrism, but I haven't had a chance to listen yet. Nonetheless, I have an advance copy of Beyond Biocentrism, which seems as though it should be a sequel or extension of that previous book. I don't think so. This new book is quite mind-bending on its own. Lanza takes all these questions, many of which we ask as children and our parents cant answer or dismiss as silly or obvious, but nonetheless mystify anyone who looks at them deeply enough. In the process, he seems to close in on answers that seem suspiciously mystical, but then on closer inspection are solidly scientific. I put that word in quotation marks because much of what passes for science has devolved into belief systems not far removed from religion.

Here we have an author willing to explore the most basic stuff, which it turns out isn't so basic. As Ive always asked of hardcore materialistic science believers, Where did the Big Bang come from? Or, as philosopher Bede Rundle put it, Why is there something rather than nothing. Some things are assumed, much as God is by the religious. In Beyond Biocentrism, we are shaken a bit from complacent non-examination of our reality, but in a way that not only helps us toward basic answers, but also helps us learn to pay closer attention to our ordinary everyday reality. This is a fascinating and accessible read for the curious.
1827392
The Doors of Perception is Huxley's narrated account of a time he took "four-tenths" of a gram of mescalin and tripped under the watch of an observant peer. Some of the text is a record of things he said and thought during the experience, some is commentary, elaboration, and interpretation. Some of his account is in plain English and serves to bridge the gap between what he was experiencing and what most of us experience daily. Other parts were more esoteric and, without having been there before, is tougher to comprehend. I particularly liked his reflection on humanity's appetite for self-transcendence that begins on pg. 62. He considers the various chemical modifiers of consciousness, focusing on both the mental effect and physiological price of each drug. He doesn't get explicitly political, but I imagine it leaves most USA readers a little indignant about the irrationality of our laws re: chemical modes of self-transcendence. For all the value that conscious altering drugs offer, which through his recounting of his experience + commentary, he has made a strong case for, one would think that the govt. would need a damn good reason to forbid them. Considering how dangerous tobacco and alcohol are, it must not be solely a matter of harm to humans. The most obvious implied explanation is that laws are intended to keep us away from the mind's antipodes. Could this be the case? If so, how inappropriate and kinda creepy.

Heaven and Hell is a study of the modes of accessing the mind's far corners of perception and experience. He focuses on art, colors, chemicals, objects and historical circumstances- ordered by most considered to least. He makes some compelling arguments linking humans' appreciation for certain things to their corresponding ability to bring us to visionary experience. Some of Heaven and Hell gets boring, but I think it's because I have a difficult time relating to the kinds of experiences that the various vision-inducing things can create.

The two short works plus the bonus material at the end of Harper's version all taken together made me appreciate the worth of alternative states of consciousness. It makes sense that we modern folk have a bias for normal waking consciousness because thus far it's been the most industrially productive (if we're counting effects of caffeine and not counting adderall etc.) Plus, most religious traditions that influence modern western thought are fairly conservative about which means of reaching spiritual experience are appropriate. If you approach this book with a willingness to reconsider your reasons for discounting alternative forms of consciousness, I think you'll understand why this book is considered a modern classic.
2040219
Goode provides a good (intentional) introduction to a sociology of paranormal beliefs.  Unlike other such studies, he does not attempt to debunk the beliefs of his subject.  He does, curiously, include Creationism among paranormal beliefs.  Creationism should more properly be classed as a variety of religious belief, specifically a fundamentalist variety, rather than paranormal. It seems to me that if you classify one religious belief system as paranormal, you should cast them all into the mix.  I often argue on my blog that religion and paranormal are related concepts, but I prefer to keep them distinct.  Nevertheless, Goode's investigation contains considerable insight and will reward those seeking a sociological explanation for why people believe some odd things.
3326431
I enjoyed this book. I had already read Thoughts without a Thinker by Mark Epstein, MD, and I would say Epstein's book seems more sophisticated and less doctrinaire. I found this book at a thrift store, and based on a few quotes I had read by him, I decided to read one of his books. Midway through I read some reviews on here & Amazon, and saw there were several unfavorable reviews, as well as a few gushing, glowing ones. I had noticed that he makes a number of cosmological declarations of fact which seemed to me to be mere unproven postulates or religious doctrines imported from various world religions. One reviewer called it a homily (or a satsang, which apparently means sermon or talk). It is not a peer reviewed research paper by an academic or licensed psychologist, as far as I can tell, and maybe that is why it generated a lot of heat from other reviewers who seem to think he has a lot of hubris to repackage  & over-simplify a lot of well known teachings from ancient traditions. Mr. Tolle apparently has a good education from a renowned school (Cambridge University in UK) and the writing, spelling, and grammar seemed pretty good to me, but it is not a perfect book. I think this book is helpful for someone who is trying to transcend a reactive mind with a lot of embedded pain memories and bad habits, or is seeking to optimize their awareness and consciousness. However, as Epstein states, merely being a witness to consciousness sometimes is not enough, and some technical work with a truly skilled counselor may be needed for some people to find their way. Eckhart Tolle does not seem to factor in such needs, and urges that the only thing necessary is to forget the past and future, get free of delusion of the false self of ego, and just BE HERE NOW, which was a simpler briefer title with a similar theme published in 1971 by Ram Dass. There is a lot of quotations and cross referencing of spiritual teachings by Jesus, Buddha, Hinduism, Zen, Tao, etc. etc.
All in all, I enjoyed reading it, and found it comprehensible, and I think it reinforced some things I either knew already intuitively or had read elsewhere. I do not necessarily completely adopt his cosmological models, but they were good enough as a working hypothesis and I think I understand most of what he was saying. His intentions seemed good, and his main recommendations seem true and helpful. Some of the bad reviews seemed to indicate that they thought he was some kind of clueless & arrogant megalomaniac in diapers or on training wheels, or trying to found a cult, or stampeding people into his fold with doomsday urgings that we must adopt his dictates or die. I noticed that he did seem a bit flatly doctrinaire at times, but complex proofs of his theorems would have bloated the length of the book and obscured his simple message, so I think it is OK the way it was written. He also in a number of places made statements of caveats and admissions of limitations on the scope of some of his statements, so it seems he is not a naif trying to found a cult, such as the Bagwan of Antelope Oregon, Jim Jones, or David Koresh of Waco did. No, it seems he is styling himself more as a global guru in a spiritual realm, and he explains pretty clearly how to reduce suffering caused by a reactive ego, and get on with opening up the channel to a postulated formless, cosmic consciousness and then let it emerge and be implemented in our world of form with acceptance, enjoyment, and/or enthusiasm in good works with coherent purpose enhanced with the cosmic awareness he recommends. Is that so wrong? No. That could be a very good thing. I enjoyed the book despite it's limitations and faults, and found it helpful, edifying, and worth reading.