To: LLCF who wrote (9109 ) 9/22/2010 4:36:50 PM From: Solon 1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) | Respond to Kirkus Reviews have been reviewing professionally with field experts for 80 years and they are less than convinced by Goswami's arguments. But it is definitely a step up from talking donkeys and light not forming hues! I was curious as to what you were meaning by "god". Using "god" makes it sound like something very material indeed--but I guess language has her limitations. You apparently use "god" to mean a type of immanent consciousness that either IS everything or imbues everything. Very much as Spinoza thought although he believed in matter as well...and that all matter was "god"."formless potentia in myriad possible branches in the transcendent domain" !! :-)doing something? Which is to say: Are dead people and inanimate things just as thoughtful as living humans or are they UNconscious??truly refute, so it remains of interest..."Vastly less satisfying is his brief for monistic idealism. For one thing, he writes off an important alternative, dualism--the ``common-sense' view that mind and matter both exist, that a rock is a rock and a thought is a thought--in a few skimpy paragraphs. For another, his argument is inconsistent: He cites paranormal events as evidence for idealism, but when an exception arises (such as out-of-body experiences, which suggest dualism), he becomes a debunker. Worst of all, when he tries to describe how idealism actually shapes the world, he sounds like Madame Blavatsky with a hangover (``the universe exists as formless potentia in myriad possible branches in the transcendent domain'). Goswami's aim is inviting--who does not wish us to ``realize our full potential--an integrated access to our quantum and classical selves'?--but most readers will remain agnostic. More substantial than Fritjof Capra, which isn't saying much. This is one cosmic egg that may be too big to crack. "
