here we are with the assembly of school teachers, David lane and Frank Wisser, upset by kenny´s heresy "it´s just love". Kenny has failed to the test on Evolution. The sucker has lost all scientific credibility and he has turned into a fan of Jerry Falwell.

But can  we really take these cheap shot critiques seriously?

it looks that these people are not willing at all to look - for many reasons I suppose- at the metaphorical and poetical exposition on Cosmic Evolution done by Kenny, but take any chance as provincial nerdy school teacher they behave like to sadistically hammer: "the boy is at last wrong, let´s beat him hard that arrogant moffo". I am wondering if these two dudes understand humor any longer?

Kenny had a master in life sciences, doing research (a more than good enough an understanding of Darwin´s theory is implicitely told) - well I have once followed the life science  research trip so I can see what he probably did -, and now he is just taken for an erring lost boy between the irrational rocks of Charybdis and Schylla of christian creationism. Once you have been trained in research design and practice at doctorand level, it is pretty obvious you are not easily falling a prey for unscientific crap because your memory bank is already filled with a lot of scientific discourses and programs rejecting anything that is not in accord with empirical verification principles.  

But for the "philosopher" Lane and the theosophist Wisser, themselves as far as I know not specially sophisticated in life sciences practical paradigms, must as Vatican conclave experts announced that it is already so. 

Or maybe Kenny should now seriously think to give a lecture on Prigogine dissipated structures or Jacques Monod "Hazard and necessity" or René Thom´s "Catastrophe theory" in order to convince them he is not so deeply fucked up and with this Mea Culpa repentance rejoin again the true "integral" Ecclesia.

Yuk yuk yuk

Views: 49

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

an invisible teleological eros is certainly a possibility and personally i think it just as likely as not. i like metaphor and poetry but my understanding is that natural selection aka darwin, dawkin's and dennett is not a metaphor or a poetic musing. so i don't think visser and lane are that far out of line in their criticism when kenny suggests that natural selection is driven by eros......it could be but eros isn't science as far as i know.....

well that´s pretty obvious isn´t it?

Every high school student would answer like Lane and Wisser and KW certainly knows that,

so that´s not the issue. like that old metaphor of the ecolution of th winf in BHOE

andrew said:

an invisible teleological eros is certainly a possibility and personally i think it just as likely as not. i like metaphor and poetry but my understanding is that natural selection aka darwin, dawkin's and dennett is not a metaphor or a poetic musing. so i don't think visser and lane are that far out of line in their criticism when kenny suggests that natural selection is driven by eros......it could be but eros isn't science as far as i know.....

and of course I wouldn´t need to answer as Lane and Wisser because I don´t belong, as Pthe french sociologist Pierre Bourdieu would say, to the field of transpersonalists with its socially constructed elected experts, their positions gained through the number of  publications and their struggle to win recognition. The politics of the "integral field" coul we call these sorts of writings.

We are in the same position as the Sokal affair when he, physicist, criticized well-known philosophers like Derrida and Deleuze for their use of biological metaphors, the rhizom for example, to the point of calling them intellectual impostorsm abit goifn too far I believe

I leave to KW many degrees of freedom about that Eros metaphor, and that scientific "heresy" but I would not ask Wisser anything about evolution theory if I wish too, there are more serious specialists in that field to ask.

 

Yes KW has never been a "scientist" since psychoanalysis, existential and transpersonal psychology do not fall under the label "scientific disciplines" in the sense of a Carnap or a Russel.

 

 



andrew said:

an invisible teleological eros is certainly a possibility and personally i think it just as likely as not. i like metaphor and poetry but my understanding is that natural selection aka darwin, dawkin's and dennett is not a metaphor or a poetic musing. so i don't think visser and lane are that far out of line in their criticism when kenny suggests that natural selection is driven by eros......it could be but eros isn't science as far as i know.....

DANGER WILL ROBINSON: IT"S A SMALL STEP FROM POSITING AN INTELLIGENT POSSIBLE METAPHOR TO ALL MANNER OF 2012 WOO-WOO.........

 

even the french philosophers don't understand the french philosophers so don't get me going on the french philosophers...lol

xibalba said:

and of course I wouldn´t need to answer as Lane and Wisser because I don´t belong, as Pthe french sociologist Pierre Bourdieu would say, to the field of transpersonalists with its socially constructed elected experts, their positions gained through the number of  publications and their struggle to win recognition. The politics of the "integral field" coul we call these sorts of writings.

We are in the same position as the Sokal affair when he, physicist, criticized well-known philosophers like Derrida and Deleuze for their use of biological metaphors, the rhizom for example, to the point of calling them intellectual impostorsm abit goifn too far I believe

I leave to KW many degrees of freedom about that Eros metaphor, and that scientific "heresy" but I would not ask Wisser anything about evolution theory if I wish too, there are more serious specialists in that field to ask.

 

Yes KW has never been a "scientist" since psychoanalysis, existential and transpersonal psychology do not fall under the label "scientific disciplines" in the sense of a Carnap or a Russel.

 

 



andrew said:

an invisible teleological eros is certainly a possibility and personally i think it just as likely as not. i like metaphor and poetry but my understanding is that natural selection aka darwin, dawkin's and dennett is not a metaphor or a poetic musing. so i don't think visser and lane are that far out of line in their criticism when kenny suggests that natural selection is driven by eros......it could be but eros isn't science as far as i know.....

this may fall within the preview of my own attempt to understand why i like to bash kenny. in my own case, i suspect it may come down to the fact that he's such a shitty indologist; and i resent the fact that the integral masses genuflex at his magesty when his magesty is a rather lame magesty: his sources on shankara and nagarjuna are 30 years old and yet he goes on as if nothing matters. he's a hack, imo. and yet we are told that he's the "new hegel." sorry. i don't buy it. and i can't help but bust the bubble of those who think he's such.

at the same time, i may have a particular animus i need to exorcize where he is concerned. and i have attempted to bring to light my own reflections on the matter, of late.

 

1. david lane. if i may do the thing we are not supposed to do, which is to speculate upon motive, i suspect that like me, david lane is a traditionalist, taught in the traditional manner among traditional teachers; and as such he is taught to resist new age interpretations of the teaching. this is actually quite evident from his writings. lane follows sant mat, and the sant mat is notoriously open to unorthodox interpretations. adi da presented sant mat as a not yet complete path, and kenny followed adi da's account in his own writings. now adi da was basically normative in his writings, but kenny presented his account as that of a "pundit," a scholar, which should be descriptive and not contain polemical matter. so... i suspect that lane took offence at kenny's presentation of sant mat... and he used his scholarly arsenal in an attempt to take kenny down. that is my diagnosis of "the case of david lane." hahahaha.

 

2. visser may have got snubbed by kenny, then may have reverted back to an orthodox theosophical stance, from which he may have attempted to launch an attack. dunno.

 

kela, playin the psychoanalyst. hahaha.

 

 

hahaha. also, i wonder: where why i am so eager to criticize (do i secretly envy his body-building physique?), why are you so eager to defend? (substitute the term "envy" with the appropriate analogous verb. hahahaha)

yeah, how much french do you understand, wise guy?



andrew said:

DANGER WILL ROBINSON: IT"S A SMALL STEP FROM POSITING AN INTELLIGENT POSSIBLE METAPHOR TO ALL MANNER OF 2012 WOO-WOO.........

 

even the french philosophers don't understand the french philosophers so don't get me going on the french philosophers...lol

xibalba said:

and of course I wouldn´t need to answer as Lane and Wisser because I don´t belong, as Pthe french sociologist Pierre Bourdieu would say, to the field of transpersonalists with its socially constructed elected experts, their positions gained through the number of  publications and their struggle to win recognition. The politics of the "integral field" coul we call these sorts of writings.

We are in the same position as the Sokal affair when he, physicist, criticized well-known philosophers like Derrida and Deleuze for their use of biological metaphors, the rhizom for example, to the point of calling them intellectual impostorsm abit goifn too far I believe

I leave to KW many degrees of freedom about that Eros metaphor, and that scientific "heresy" but I would not ask Wisser anything about evolution theory if I wish too, there are more serious specialists in that field to ask.

 

Yes KW has never been a "scientist" since psychoanalysis, existential and transpersonal psychology do not fall under the label "scientific disciplines" in the sense of a Carnap or a Russel.

 

 



andrew said:

an invisible teleological eros is certainly a possibility and personally i think it just as likely as not. i like metaphor and poetry but my understanding is that natural selection aka darwin, dawkin's and dennett is not a metaphor or a poetic musing. so i don't think visser and lane are that far out of line in their criticism when kenny suggests that natural selection is driven by eros......it could be but eros isn't science as far as i know.....

I am relax  with you bashing KW,

who really cares?

 

I already told you that it is an easy match to challenge him in your or mine own field if I want to understand Habermas I read Habermas´s original works (and I did it of course) and not KW, if I want to understand Derrida, I read Derrida in french instead of some anglo-saxon soupe de merde à la Kenny or someone else. 

The last writings of Halfbass on new orientalism were disappointing, the same can be said of Bernard Faure on Buddhism. Nothing new has happened in that field either since 20 years ago. ! I leave that to the specialists.

 

But that´ wasn´t my contention.

Lane and Wisser are not evolutionists as far as I know, but they like to present themselves as authorities, neither are they posmetaphysicians. Wisser is lost at that game, that poor theosophist. 

 

Grof or Walsh are both MDs and biologists, they never wrote a single bashing line on KW´s evolution writing. Amazing, they could have written hundred of lines  on that.

Kenny is a common dude. What he writes today is repetition.

 

Dawking and Dennet laughing at organized religion is not a big deal. You don´t need to get a PH.D in astrophysics to get the silliness of that. they call themselves "bright" but to me they  are not, they are more like a pathetic bunch of old white pahollocrats lamenting the end of their scientistic domination. ahhahah

What´s cool about Dawking and Dennett and their explanation of the origin of consciousness?

well THX mañana, they are unable to say a single  word when it is about deep mystery.

 

I can recall that moffo Adi Da saying: "the atheists are a bunch of adolescents, they have no deep experience".

ahhahahah

 

Kela: well KW is harldy a model of plastic beauty like Alain Delon for example and I don´t give a fuck about  his colorado style. I don´t defend him on that, ahahhah



kelamuni said:

this may fall within the preview of my own attempt to understand why i like to bash kenny. in my own case, i suspect it may come down to the fact that he's such a shitty indologist; and i resent the fact that the integral masses genuflex at his magesty when his magesty is a rather lame magesty: his sources on shankara and nagarjuna are 30 years old and yet he goes on as if nothing matters. he's a hack, imo. and yet we are told that he's the "new hegel." sorry. i don't buy it. and i can't help but bust the bubble of those who think he's such.

at the same time, i may have a particular animus i need to exorcize where he is concerned. and i have attempted to bring to light my own reflections on the matter, of late.

 

1. david lane. if i may do the thing we are not supposed to do, which is to speculate upon motive, i suspect that like me, david lane is a traditionalist, taught in the traditional manner among traditional teachers; and as such he is taught to resist new age interpretations of the teaching. this is actually quite evident from his writings. lane follows sant mat, and the sant mat is notoriously open to unorthodox interpretations. adi da presented sant mat as a not yet complete path, and kenny followed adi da's account in his own writings. now adi da was basically normative in his writings, but kenny presented his account as that of a "pundit," a scholar, which should be descriptive and not contain polemical matter. so... i suspect that lane took offence at kenny's presentation of sant mat... and he used his scholarly arsenal in an attempt to take kenny down. that is my diagnosis of "the case of david lane." hahahaha.

 

2. visser may have got snubbed by kenny, then may have reverted back to an orthodox theosophical stance, from which he may have attempted to launch an attack. dunno.

 

kela, playin the psychoanalyst. hahaha.

 

 

Reply to Discussion

RSS

What paths lie ahead for religion and spirituality in the 21st Century? How might the insights of modernity and post-modernity impact and inform humanity's ancient wisdom traditions? How are we to enact, together, new spiritual visions – independently, or within our respective traditions – that can respond adequately to the challenges of our times?

This group is for anyone interested in exploring these questions and tracing out the horizons of an integral post-metaphysical spirituality.

Notice to Visitors

At the moment, this site is at full membership capacity and we are not admitting new members.  We are still getting new membership applications, however, so I am considering upgrading to the next level, which will allow for more members to join.  In the meantime, all discussions are open for viewing and we hope you will read and enjoy the content here.

© 2022   Created by Balder.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service