The Weiler Psi

Parapsychology Journalism: The People, The Theory, The Science, The Skeptics

The Big TED Controversy of 2013, Part 1


This is the story of a controversy that happened at TED. TED is a nonprofit devoted to Ideas Worth Spreading. It started out (in 1984) as a conference bringing together people from three worlds: Technology, Entertainment, Design. Since then, its scope has become ever broader. On their website, which includes blogs and discussion areas, they mainly post excellently produced videos of interesting speeches from the conferences they have held. The controversy concerns two speakers, scientist Rupert Sheldrake and author/archeologist, Graham Hancock, as well as an independently produced TEDxWestHollywood event which included Dr. Larry Dossey and physicist Russell Targ as speakers. The controversy occurred because TED first allowed and then rejected these presentations.

I have a book coming out on the controversy early next year which follows the story in detail, but this should give you enough to get a broad sense of what happened. However, while this is solely a narrative of events, it will  raise more questions than it will answer. The answers require a tremendous amount of additional explanation, and for that you’ll have to read the book. (To get on the mailing list click here.)

The story begins in late 2012 with a reddit thread devoted to trashing a TEDx event in Spain.

The TED name is being dragged through the mud in Valencia, Spain, where a TEDx-approved event is promoting pseudoscientific stuff like (and I quote): crystal therapy, Egyptian psychoaromatherapy, healing through the Earth, homeopathy and even “basic mind control”.

Lara Stein, the director of TEDx programs, saw the thread and responded to it.

In the past we have handled most of these issues as one-offs, and dealt with the organizers individually. Thanks to this discussion we decided to take on the “bad science” issue directly and openly. We agree it is an important issue. Here is the email that went out to all the TEDx organizers yesterday.

The email was reprinted to a blog post (here.) While it  got the part about good science mostly right, it also contains a long and rambling list of topics and markers which TED considered to be pseudo science. This set up an inevitable conflict because some of those areas that are labeled as pseudo science meet the criteria of good science.

In January of 2013, TEDxWhiteChapel was held at Artsadmin’s Toynbee Studios in London, England. This event featured, among others, a speech by Rupert Sheldrake, “The Science Delusion,” and Graham Hancock’s talk, “The War on Consciousness.”

On March 6th, Three mainstays of the skeptical movement and longtime critics of Rupert Sheldrake voice their objections.  Associate Professor of Biology at the University of Minnesota Morris, PZ Myers, posts a short blurb condemning Sheldrake’s talk. On the same day, skeptic Kylie Sturgess also posts a quick piece slamming the Sheldrake talk. And also on March 6th, Jerry Coyne adds his opinion to the mix. His alarming title: “TEDx talks completely discredited: Rupert Sheldrake speaks, argues that speed of light is dropping!” The main part of Sheldrake’s speech, which was about the materialistic dogmas of modern science, was not addressed by Coyne.  Jerry Coyne then sent an email to Emily McManus, an editor at TED, and published her reply the next day. TED was officially on board with the skeptics.

A short biography of Rupert Sheldrake can be found here. The Wikipedia version is under constant dispute, is absurdly biased, and is not recommended.

On March 7th, Sheldrake’s video is taken down from the TED YouTube page and TED opens up a comment section to view the video and invite opinions from the TED community. This balloons to 523 comments in just two days. The overwhelming gist of the comments was along the lines of, “Leave the video up. We can think for ourselves.”

I picked up on the story and published it on my blog on March 9th.  (here) That was picked up by Dean Radin’s blog, by The Daily Grail, and by Reality Sandwich among others. It had started to be a bigger story, while Rupert Sheldrake was in India and had no idea what was going on.

On March 14th, Graham Hancock’s video is also removed. TED creates a post that subsequently gets several updates.  (here) They give detailed reasons for removing both videos, with said reasons being from TED’s anonymous science board. TED is absolutely ripped in the comment sections of this post for not only removing the talks, but also because of their reasons, which were poorly thought out. (The TED criticisms are now shown as crossed out text.) The videos can be seen below.

On March 18th, Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hancock posted replies which were inserted into the March 14th post. It was because of the effectiveness of the speakers’ replies that the original TED science board comments now appear as crossed out text. It’s worth reading the crossed out sections and the replies to see how utterly effective the replies were. They leave no room for reasonable doubt. Another update to the March 14th post leads to yet another TED blog post combining weak rationalizations and justifications for their actions in addition to apologizing for using “language that in retrospect was clumsy,” and because “some of the specific examples we gave were less than convincing.” (here ) This new blog post is immediately ridiculed by myself (here) and by the Daily Grail (here).

At this point in the controversy here are some noteworthy issues:

  1. The reasons provided by the science board for taking the videos down were so awful and easily disputed that they amounted to pure fiction.
  2. Neither Hancock nor Sheldrake received apologies for the defamation of their characters.
  3. Although the videos are up, they are in a remote area of the TED website and removed from YouTube. Although TED denied this amounted to censorship, many felt otherwise.
  4. TED provided no new reasons for leaving the talks down after the original criticisms were refuted.
  5. TED talked about Graham Hancock’s “Army of Passionate Supporters” as though they are just a bunch of groupies instead of being reasonable people objecting to TED’s actions on viable grounds.
  6. This ridiculous scenario extrapolated from Graham’s talk:  “We don’t want to hear from a parent whose kid went off to South America to drink Ayahuasca because TED said it was OK.”

One would think TED would have had the good sense God gave rocks to just put the videos back up on YouTube and put an end to the charade. But that’s not how it played out. See The Big TED Controversy, Part 2.

Additional Material:

Rupert Sheldrake’s The Science Delusion:

Graham Hancock’s The War on Consciousness:

44 comments on “The Big TED Controversy of 2013, Part 1

  1. Pingback: More to dying than meets the eye - Page 2

  2. Pingback: TED being protested at their censorship of Rupert Sheldrake | Richard Presser's Blog

  3. Pingback: Wikipedia Under Threat : Veracity Voice

  4. Pingback: How the Skeptic Ideologues Control Wikipedia : Conscious Life News

  5. Zirkoff
    September 7, 2013

    Re Wikipedia, their policies are pretty sensible, I think, and the Sheldrake article seems to conform to them. They don’t want to mislead readers into thinking fringe ideas like those of Sheldrake hold inflence in the scientific community. Even if you happen to be sympathetic to Sheldrake’s ideas, you would still want this Wikipedia policy in place for other topics. For instance you wouldn’t want (I hope) Wikipedia to suggest to readers that there is likely to be a link between vaccines and autism, as that would potentially threaten the lives of children around the world.

    • craigweiler
      September 7, 2013

      No, Sheldrake’s article does not currently conform to Wikipedia policy. It’s heavily biased towards a skeptical point of view. The point of view you’re suggesting is extremely harmful to scientific inquiry.

      • Zirkoff
        September 7, 2013

        Craig, Wikipedia policy is to clearly describe the level of acceptance in the scientific community with regard to fringe ideas. It is thanks to this policy that the anti-vaxers are not able to use Wikipedia as a legitimizing platform for their views, which are able to literally harm or kill children.

        • craigweiler
          September 7, 2013

          You have a poor understanding of Wikipedia policy. Above all, articles must maintain a neutral point of view. And this is especially true for biographies of living persons.

          You can drop the anti-vax straw man any time now.

          • Zirkoff
            September 7, 2013

            I am referring directly to the Neural point of view policy:

            “An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific [fringe] theories should be prominently included.”

            “When there is a consensus of opinion on scientific matters, providing an opposite view without consideration of ‘due weight’ can lead to ‘false balance'”

            “We do not take a stand on these [fringe] issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them, and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world.”

            Again, the purpose of this policy is so that Wikipedia does not serve as a legitimizing platform for fringe views. Some fringe views cause real harm, and it is proper that Wikipedia does not give them to have undue weight. An exception can’t be made for the fringe views that you personally like.

            • craigweiler
              September 7, 2013

              *sigh*

        • Sue Pease Banitt
          September 9, 2013

          These are not fringe ideas. They are anglo-saxon ideas. Most of the world routinely turns to these healing modalities and they have from time out of mind. Over half the globe experiences energy medicine and healing as a reality. The crippled minds of conquering cultures can no longer experience this so they call is false.

          • Sue Pease Banitt
            September 9, 2013

            Sorry, an edit is in order. The arguments against so called “fringe science”, a highly disrespectful term are based on anglo-saxon culture and ideas. If the British don’t believe in this science why did they cut off all the fingers of the advanced Marma practitioners in India?

        • Derek Stephen McPhail
          October 2, 2013

          Zirkoff, find it odd you have latched on to the notion, that all vaccines are sacrosanct; when in fact, it is common knowledge in the medical community, that dangerous heavy metals, such as formaldehyde and mercury are found in vaccines.

          “The measles vaccination has also increased bowel disease. A British study of 3,545 individuals who received measles vaccinations showed that there was a threefold increase in Crohn’s disease and a two_and_a_half_fold increase in ulcerated colitis as compared to control groups. The formaldehyde, mercury and diseased animal tissue in vaccines all contribute to the breakdown of intestinal tissues.”

          “There are many different kinds of acids coursing through the blood that are left to the kidneys to dispose of. There is the mercury, lead, iron, cadmium and aluminum from immunization shots. (The polio vaccine contains twenty-eight compounds foreign to the body, including formaldehyde, an embalming fluid.) The vaccine immunization program given to children, starting at birth, is estimated to have caused millions of cases of kidney degeneration in the young.”
          – from “The Acid Alkaline Balance Diet: An Innovative Program That Detoxifies Your Body’s Acidic Waste to Prevent Disease and Restore Overall Health” by Felicia Drury Kliment.

      • Jordan Wm. Burrill
        September 8, 2013

        Hi Craig!
        I think this area is shaping-up nicely – good work!
        I’m afraid I have a need to contribute a comment or two on the Wikipedia question, too. Unlike TED, I think that this organization is trying and would like to be – a responsible www community member. But, without access to up-to-date, impartial scientific research resources and the experts (who are actually doing the work), they are left at the mercy of the patrolling pseudo-‘skeptics’, who are able to deceive, misinform, confuse and even intimidate the uninformed staff of Wikipedia.
        Here is an example that anyone can look at and see for themselves:
        Go to Wikipedia and type-in the word ‘psychic’. The page that we’ll see is exactly what you would expect to see if it were written by pseudo-skeptics. It is full of misleading data, out dated, information, false assertions and biased foot note sources. We will even see that one of the first foot notes is from the infamous and obnoxious “Amazing Rand!” :D – one of the most militant and destructive of these pseudo-skeptics.
        Remote Viewing is mentioned, in passing, but no references to the two well respected physicists Puthoff and Targ who helped perfect this program that ran for almost 20 yrs. Nor are there any quotes or research data included from the many studies done – that conclude this to be a validated phenomenon (repeated by many labs),included.
        So, anyone going to this area will get a false impression – created by the rampaging pseudo-skeptics.
        I received an email from a researcher in this field that reported that these militant kooks were actively pursuing this activity or tactic – pretty desperate!

        [ I think the best way to get an inside view of this desperate rampage by militant pseudo-skeptics is to read: "Science and Psychic Phenomena: the Fall of the House of Skeptics" by Chris Carter. It outlines the historical, political and financial inter-connections of these organizations and how they operate. ]

        The Why? is also intriguing AND important! It was the founder of Analytical Psychology, Carl Jung who labeled atheism as a neurosis. And, for good reason;
        1. Anyone who has studied logic knows it is impossible to ‘prove a negative’ – (it’s labeled a fallacy), because you can never know if you are dealing with an open or closed system. And now days – with the proofs of quantum ‘entanglement’, well …
        2. One must have an idea (right or wrong), of something – before attempting to reject it. So, an atheist must have personal (if only unconscious), feelings, impressions or ideas that they feel compelled to militantly deny or attempt to reject – for a sense of comfort or safety. Consciousness research directly frightens them – because transpersonal consciousness (being proven), leads to questions about an ‘ultimate consciousness’ – a deity or divinity.
        Since these militant pseudo-‘skeptics’ know that coming right out and declaring their illogical beliefs would hurt their cause, they pretend to be endlessly ‘skeptical’ about this subject while doing everything in their power to confuse, deceive and muddy the water.
        I apologize for the length of this response, but I felt it was important to look at this question in a broader context.

        Very Best Wishes!
        Jordan

        • craigweiler
          September 8, 2013

          I am well aware of the Wikipedia problem. It’s going to be covered in depth in my book.

          • Jordan Wm. Burrill
            September 9, 2013

            Hi Craig!
            I’m glad to here you’re going to get deeper into this. I’ll be very interested to hear your perspective on Wikipedia’s err, … jet lag? – in and beyond it’s non-profit issues.
            Thanks, Jordan

        • Derek Stephen McPhail
          October 2, 2013

          well said, Jordan. you’re forgiven for being long-winded, as this tyranny of the “pseudo-skeptics” has gone on long enough. though, am skeptical of left brain imprisoned souls intellectually figuring it out, until they’ve had some kind of near-death experience.

      • Jordan Wm. Burrill
        October 2, 2013

        Hi Craig!
        I’ve been doing a bit more looking at Wikipedia – and I now have to agree with you. It’s not ignorance or intimidation by pseudo-skeptics. It does look as if they are a systemic infection, much like TED. A true shame. But, they’ve made their bed and will now have to lay in it – especially as word travels, contributions further diminish and credibility is further diminished. I’m looking forward to your expose’ of them in your forth-coming book! Cheers!

  6. Jordan Wm. Burrill
    September 5, 2013

    Hi Folks (and Derek too)!
    Damn! I wanted to respond to Derek more directly, but couldn’t do so for some technical reason. But, this comment is o:k for ‘general consumption’ … (PG-13 rated :D )
    Anyway, I am somewhat familiar with Peat’s work and they ARE excellent reads! I should go back and ‘drag net’ more of his writings though.
    Thanks Derek for your cites – very worthy! I especially love Blake – It is always great to experience artist’s works, who are also dimensional explorers!
    Also thanks for your other thoughtful quotes as well!
    I’ll also check out your site refs. too!
    Interesting how often creative work(ers) and dimensional exploration seem to get intertwined.
    Cheers!
    Jordan

  7. Jordan Wm. Burrill
    September 3, 2013

    ” … I realize that this love is the gravity that attracts us all, and holds us together in a community of interconnectedness. Just as I can’t be a musician by thinking about music, I can’t know god or love by simply exercising my intellect. Tibetan Buddhist teacher Sogyal Rinpoche tells us; “the absolute truth cannot be realized within the domain of the ordinary mind. And the path beyond the ordinary mind, all the great wisdom traditions have told us, is through the heart. This path of the heart is devotion.” – Russell Targ, PhD, physicist and co-creator of Remote Viewing

  8. Anonymous
    September 2, 2013

    Sorry about the rudeness to them, but great publicity for them and their ideas!

    • Jordan Wm. Burrill
      September 3, 2013

      Hey there, anonymous!
      I’m not sure I can agree? I don’t think the TED oligarchy really understands how badly they look to the www community, nor do they realize that they are NOW in serious competition with other communities that ARE open-minded and TRULY looking to advance understanding. I personally have not contributed to the TED site for some time … too many other, open and honest places to go. But, the raucous food-fight over their idiotic behavior is still up and being observed. And, I still get ‘thumbs-up’ from people who are now just reading it – even though it was closed many months ago!
      Most of the exTEDx contributors have on-going conversations that are very interesting – right here at their face book pages and there is a www ‘exTEDx site also! More and more ‘useful’ and open places are popping-up all the time!
      ENJOY!, my friend!
      Jordan

  9. Pingback: Home - Ex TEDxWestHollywood

  10. prioris
    August 25, 2013

    Where was Max Planck when scientific fraud on a grand scale – The Theory of Relativity – was rolled out. Keeping very quiet. Physics is filled with lies.

    A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because the New World Order allows it.

    If the New World Order wants the moon made out of swiss cheese, it’s foot soldiers in the scientific community will form a consensus of truth that it is.

    • Jordan Wm. Burrill
      September 3, 2013

      Hi prioris!
      Good to talk to you! Personally, I can’t see ‘Relativity’ as a lie, more as a step ( incomplete, as it has shown to be), but an insightful and honest attempt to understand the unobservable and quizzical nature of reality. I think Albert tried in all sincerity – none of us is ‘there’ yet.
      If you’re interested; there is a link at my face page to a talk by Dr. Stuart Hameroff about the current theories regarding the nature of consciousness and its relationship to quantum physics.
      Best Wishes!
      Jordan

      • prioris
        September 3, 2013

        Nobody has received a Nobel Prize for the Theory of Relativity. I wonder why.

        We are on a step ladder of lies. There are big lies across a broad spectrum of sciences. Almost every science program on TV pushes big lies. The public is clearly being dumb-ed down by design.

        • Jordan Wm. Burrill
          September 4, 2013

          Hi prioris!
          Hope your having a great day!

          I think the answer is yes and no :(:D
          While it is true that Albert’s Nobel Prize in physics in 1921, was for ‘His services to theoretical physics’ (in general)), he was best known for his ground-breaking General and Special Theories of ‘Relativity’, E=MCC, as well as his explanation of the photo-electric effect and his role in the development of quantum physics.
          You’re correct; that all scientific ‘theories’ and explanations are ‘myths’, in an intellectual/societal context. They are intellectual models, constructed (in hopes), to provide an analogy that can be internalized into personal understanding. And yes, science IS political and theories are social/ political contrivances.
          But, I think that (despite all the political blood-letting involved), some or even many scientists are genuinely trying to understand the 4% ‘physical’ universe – even if only by analogy. I’m sure some are more interested in their status, than they are in trying to advance understanding – which would by deceit or lying.
          But, I still think that ‘we’ are all just unable to think or ‘see’ vary far ahead or understand the implications that others (with fresh eyes), will understand – further down the road. I don’t see ‘us’ as an ‘intelligent’ species, yet. I think spiritual insight and maturity will make us more than ‘we’ are now – should we allow God to lead us there.
          Great talking to you!
          Cheers!
          Jordan

          • prioris
            September 8, 2013

            At the end of the day, virtually all scientists work for the government. This is where virtually all their funding comes from directly and indirectly. Their careers can be destroyed by the government. The universities are tightly controlled by the government. Most scientists mindset mirror the general populations so most will be sociopaths who will fall in line with the lies because that will be rewarded the most. The ones fighting for the truth will fall to the bottom or even get assassinated. The manure will rise to the top. Physic theories of Relativity are not models. They are fabricated grand lies by the powers that be. At the end of the day, it is a minority of scientists who battle for the truth and they risk getting stomped on. Even some of those will be pressured socially to go along with the lies.

  11. I am a Recovering Alcoholic(nb anesthetic) and Cannabis Habitue(25 years) and a Recovering Psychiatrist(40 years) but, lately, a devoted student of Early Modern Man. I have stumbled upon a Collection of 8 Venus Figurines (similar to the Venus of Willendorf), which have been rejected as “Fakes” by all of the “Experts” contrary to extensive Observational Science supporting their Authenticity and Provenience. The “Experts” simply can’t believe that our Ice Age European Ancestors could have been so skilled and Obsessed with a Primordial Matriarchal Spirit. The Practice of the Religion of Exclusive Ever-rationalizing but all pervasive Pseudo-science has strangled the true quest for Eternal Truths. My experience with LSD-25 40 years ago was the most profound and wonderous Spiritual Adventure of my life. Thank you for your courage, far-sight and integrity

  12. rosa elvia
    August 21, 2013

    desafortunadamente no habla INGLES pero estoy presta al conocimiento y al despertar , por favor información quiero y muchas gracias por la información y benvenido el despertar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!GRACIAS Y DIOS LOS BENDIGA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  13. Pingback: Stirile zilei: 22 august 2013 » Solaris Systems Blog

  14. Abi Abbott
    August 21, 2013

    Interesting that Alex Grey can do a Ted talk and be applauded for talking about consciousness and LSD, spirituality etc and it is ok because he is labelled an artist. It is the same info. http://www.vividdecay.com/ted-talk-cosmic-creativity-how-art-evolves-consciousness-alex-grey/

  15. John
    August 21, 2013

    Don’t forget about the 3rd TED talk that was banned: Rich People Don’t Create Jobs by Nick Hanauer

    http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/07/12/banned-ted-talk-rich-people-dont-create-jobs-nick-hanauer/

  16. Derek Stephen McPhail
    August 21, 2013

    As my dear ole dad used to say, “Don’t confuse the issue with the facts!”

    kudos for recognizing the importance of this kafuffle and documenting it with a book.

    • Jordan Wm. Burrill
      September 3, 2013

      Yes Derek!
      What we are seeing is the birth of a new science – in real time! Watching it unfold is fascinating! It is never pretty, well organized, clean or blood-less – as in the history books. It is always a cruel, nasty, rude, defensive, political and messy food-fight!

      • Derek Stephen McPhail
        September 3, 2013

        I certainly identify with the notion of order coming out of the chaos; and, I happily embrace the “food fight”.

        however, I don’t see this as a birth of a new science; but rather, a collective remembering of what the ancients referred to as the sacred sciences: sacred geometry (based on symbolic number), sacred astronomy (where modern astronomy still has a way to go to catch up), alchemy (which may have inspired chemistry & metallurgy, but originally was about spiritual transformation); and, geomancy (which is not just about geography; but, was originally about electromagnetic fields, which is now the foundation to modern physics.

        since, we’ve moved on from the scientific materialist notion of atomic building blocks to the holographic model of the universe, inspired by the “remembrance” of sub-atomic particles; science can now begin to make sense out of the mystic.

        unfortunately, too many small minded types still resist what these understandings really mean, in terms of the responsibilities of synchronicity.

        • Jordan Wm. Burrill
          September 4, 2013

          Hi Derek!
          I think we can agree to agree! :D Yes, ‘physics’ IS finally catching-up to what consciousness explorers have known all along. For example; the discoveries in physics/chemistry of Annie Beasant and Charles Leadbeater (of the Theosophy Society, in their book; “Occult Chemistry”), before these energy-information forms were ‘confirmed’ by ‘official’ science academia.
          But, it is in the FORM of a confluence in the new, transpersonal psychology (which includes holographic memory models of folks like Karl Pribram), and the new (quantum, holographic physics), of David Bohm – that this new model is being expressed in a societal context. Pribram and Bohm knew of each other’s work and (I believe), corresponded with each other to some extent. And now we have the model being proposed by Sir Roger Penrose and Dr. Stuart Hameroff, which looks very interesting!
          So, yes! this is not news to us dimensional explorers (the 4%, ‘material world’ is “maya”). But, the societal, institutional knowledge model IS moving beyond the materialistic/mechanistic model and toward an information-energy model – that is closer to the truth.
          You are a fun and interesting person to talk to! Have a great day!
          Cheers!
          Jordan

          • Derek Stephen McPhail
            September 4, 2013

            Thank you, Jordan, for your thoughtful comment.

            Are you familiar with “The Holographic Universe” by Michael Talbot, who does exactly what you mentioned, examining the related works of David Bohm and Karl Pribram; regards, the notion of the holographic model of the universe finally making sense of the mystic.

            Modern science has long given lip-service to the notion of developing a bridge or unifying system of thought to integrate the many branches of scientific enquiry.

            Have always considered “sacred geometry” has always been that unifying system, what the ancients call the “language of the gods”; as, it elegantly communicates, regardless of one’s language or cultural background.

            Also recommend, “A Beginners Guide to Constructing the Universe: The Mathematical Archetypes of Nature, Art and Science (A Voyage from 1 to 10)” by Michael S. Schneider has become a text book on the subject of “Sacred Geometry”.
            (www.constructingtheuniverse.com)

            • Jordan Wm. Burrill
              September 4, 2013

              Hi Derek!
              I knew it – we really ARE on the same page together … err what page was that? :D

              Michael Talbot’s “The Holographic Universe” really was a world-wide sensation when it was written in 1991 and has been continuously reprinted! It was republished in 2011, with a new forward by Lynne McTaggert (who wrote “The Field” – another great book). I know it effected me greatly – personally! At the time I was a budding occultist – having just ditched my prior ‘addiction’ to a religious paradigm. For me, all of the resulting paradigm ‘train-wrecks’ had caused me to deeply question my beliefs and to set them all aside – to study the great mystics, the occult and to further explore my spontaneous OBEs (which I had been told would lead to demon possession). :D [ If you like, you can read my short bio. at; TrueAscensionLLC.com ]

              Speaking of ‘Sacred Geometry’, I think you’d really like Russell Targ’s “The Reality of ESP”. Targ is one of the physicists who created ‘remote viewing’. He has a section on physicist; John Archibald Wheeler and an 8 – dimensional space-time model of ‘other-consciousness’ and retro-causation. I enlarged the diagrams in the book and put it on the wall of my studio (I’m a sculptor). It took me weeks to understand it – as a sectional view of a classic hypercube! At least, I hope I’m seeing it correctly :D (by removing the ‘observer’ and ‘participant’ world-time lines).

              I’ve thumbed Michael Schnieder’s book, but haven’t had a chance to really study it – your recommendation makes me think I really need to get into it – THANK YOU!

              Relatedly, you may enjoy “Genesis of the Cosmos” by physicist, Paul LaViolette – lots about symbolism and sacred geometry (he also wrote; “Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion” – which, if you’re unfamiliar with electro-gravitics, will blow your socks off!)

              I was beginning to think that this area was going to be as dead as Schrodinger’s cat! :D Thanks for the fun conversation!

              I have links at my face book page to talks by; Russell Targ, Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff, if you are interested.

              Thanks again for the enjoyable conversation!
              Jordan

              • Derek Stephen McPhail
                September 4, 2013

                Yes, we do seem to be on the same page. (maybe one of the pages in “William Blake: The Complete Illuminated Books”, where it is written:

                “To see a world in a grain of sand and heaven in a wild flower; hold infinity in the palm of your hand and eternity in an hour.”

                or, “When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do.”

                and, quite possibly, “The man who never alters his opinions is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind.”)

                Appreciate your book suggestions.

                Though am familiar with “The Field” by Lynne McTaggert, will look into re-reading it, as well as, the other authors I’m not familiar with: Russell Targ, John Archibald Wheeler, Paul LaViolette, Roger Penrose & Stuart Hameroff.

                My favorite “holistic physicist” is F. David Peat, who co-wrote “Science, Order & Creativity” with David Bohm; as well as, Bohm’s biography, “Infinite Potential: The Life & Times of David Bohm”.

                David Peat has been very prolific and I’ve only read a couple of his many excellent books: “Synchronicity: The Bridge Between Matter and Mind”, “The Philosopher’s Stone: Chaos, Synchronicity & The Hidden Order of the World”, “Blackfoot Physics: A Journey into the Native American Worldview” and “Gentle Action: Bringing Creative Change to a Turbulent World”.

                This last book, “Gentle Action”, explores “creating change in an effective manner by tolerating uncertainty, yet suspending action at its outset, in order to allow an over-all view to emerge.”

                Certainly a notion the invisible organizers of TED could have done well to contemplate.

                Am impressed you’re not just concerned about scientific inquiry; but, also apply your knowledge in creative activity.

                My adult life can be summed up, as “one creative project to the next”; where I’ve been active, as a musician, singer/songwriter, producer, actor, photographer, wood carver, screenplay writer and filmmaker.

                Will check out your web links and invite you to explore mine, at:
                http://www.beerweazl.com and http://www.vimeo.com/derekstephenmcphail.

                happy trails,
                Derek

  17. Pingback: Graham Hancock - The War On Consciousness

  18. mweston
    August 21, 2013

    “Dogmatic assumptions inhibit inquiry.” ~ Sheldrake … exactly! Bravo Rupert Sheldrake!
    “The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it.” ~ Chinese proverb and “Heresy is only another word for freedom of thought.” ~ Graham Greene

  19. Jordan Wm. Burrill
    August 21, 2013

    I think Nobel Laureate and one of the fathers of quantum physics, Max Plank said it best; “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

  20. Virginia MacKenzie
    August 12, 2013

    Was that a roar of applause at the end? Yes. Yes it was. Wake up TED.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 553 other followers

%d bloggers like this: