Activity

Thanks for posting Margie. I think this is a good example of aptness and ineptness, and I like Sheldrake. But this is where I get frustrated with the new-agey types (the interviewer, IMO), is when they use so much clumsy, inept language (this body or that body, and this consciousness or that consciousness) or analytical overlay, which further obfuscates and confuses the person/nature or person/soul distinction. And they always stop at secondary sources, always (i.e. a person like Steiner says this or a person like Steiner says that) rather than pursuing the tradition to it’s primary sources and reading what they themselves said about the tradition, albeit, on the other hand, this is what you hear Sheldrake doing, enumerating primary sources, i.e. Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas (oh no that dreaded christian tradition) themselves and the tradition, I guess that’s why I mainly stick with those dusty old creatures called books… (maniacal laughter and shaking head, lol). Although I’m not just ranting, what I did hear out of all the interviewers clumsy language, was the esoteric tradition of…. animal, vegetable, and mineral man… it’s so nice how the topological metaphor of the medium trains the mind to strip away all the metaphysical language, or analytical overlay.