Subject: LOTA theory of consciousness Date: Tue, 11 May 1999
Cornelis, you wrote:
"Hello,Thank you for your reply and for browsing through my web site. My initial message to you was prompted by the quality of links found at your site, since they fit with my objective to expand back links from complementary sites to my site. I did revisit your site - after receiving your reply - and read up on your own philosophical ideas. I had not seen this part before and I was not aware that your site was run by a philosopher with his own set of theories. Indeed, had I known, I would have approached it differently. Yet, my offer for a free book still holds, if you can live with the following 'temporary' inconvenience: Our theories are rather similar in objective (scope). Yet, there are differences in the fundamental assumptions from which we operate. Hence, in order to gain value from my book you will have to be prepared, mentally, to cast aside every philosophical idea you have constructed over the last fifteen years. Then reassemble the lot afterward in a new configuration. This is very hard for people (like ourselves) who have invested so much energy in constructing mental models.
My interests have moved on to the practical applications of the LOTA theory and I have no interest in comparing our ideas. Hence, you will be much on your own while going through this rather agonizing process of reconstruction.
If you are still interested, then please let me know and I will send you a copy of my book. My initial interest in back links with your site is unwavered.
Is your 'bio' anywhere on the web ?
With kind regards,
Cornelis"
:-) The plurality of views of what the world is, and what it could be, can't possibly subvert the unity of it. So, I have to smile at your cautionary remarks. Not to worry, I try not to plytize ... though I encourage the old-line thinkers to consider new options - just as you encourage people to do. So, I don't feel any compulsion to butt heads with you, and I am open to appreciating through your eyes. As you already sense, I like plurality of ideas, and actively support other voices whether they are perfectly in synchrony with me or not. We share existence and an essence that can't be differentiated away. So please do send me your book (I live in Nevada, USA), if you would be so kind. I like learning nuances and ideas. In fact, right now I am struggling to learn some of the notions of Buckminster Fuller, trying to see their flow, and how they might mesh with Integrity ideas.
I have to laugh at your comment "fifteen years". I'm more entrenched than that (!) ... As I am reaching my 52nd year, "forty five years" is more like it ... though indeed the number of years has no bearing on conceptual seniority. :-) .
I don't have a formal bio or CV, though the 'introduction' to the full "Understanding the Integral Universe" has a piece of it, and my Beijing paper has some fleeting remarks near the opening.
I am a Boundary Breaker, have been all my life. The cultural and academic systems we are born into held no 'absolute' mystique for me, any more than any living creature is the absolute standard form by which all other life forms should guage themselves. The institutions are 'tools' for us to use ... but they aren't the only ones ... and they don't preclude us from learning through other venues, nor diminish the insights learned elsewhere.
Our fundamentals can't be that different from each other's ... but I'll leave commenting until I can read your thoughts and can do justice to them, ok? :-)
Regards,
Jamie.
