J R R Tolkien, The Lord of The Ring, Book One, Chapter Ten, 2004 ed. p 170.
I believe that creator, the infinite Divine, aka the Tao aka Ayn Sof, needs us.
I believe that the act of creation did not go as planned.
I believe that the act of creation led to the cosmos being flawed and in a state of disharmony.
I believe that sentient beings were created to help restore harmony, although this is a choice that each one of us has to make throughout our lifetime.
We are needed by the infinite Divine/ Tao/ Ayn Sof to restore harmony to ourselves, to the cosmos and to the Divine / Tao/ Ayn Sof.
This task that we may choose to participate in is called in Hebrew: Tikkun Olam. That phrase means in English, to heal / to restore/ to repair / the World aka the cosmos.
You are here because you are needed to contribute to this cosmic need.
You are here to assist in restoring, repairing, and healing yourself, the cosmos and the Divine.
You can do this at every moment of your life.
You can do this by any act of goodness, truth, beauty, justice, and harmony.
Will you answer the call of the Divine?
Will you help?
And if not now, when?
1) People shape and are shaped by ideas. [A revelation I had when I was nine years old and has guided my life’s intellectual and spiritual journey every since.]
2) The beginning of wisdom is the realization that you might be mistaken; mistaken in your observations, your analysis, and/or your conclusions.
3) Unexpected invitations are dancing lessons from the Divine.
4) If, and when, you react emotionally to something, some event, some experience, or some idea, that reaction is evidence of your bias making itself known to you. The intensity of your reaction is an indicator of how intensely you value, or how old that bias was acquired. You are indifferent to stuff that is unimportant to you.
5) Do not confused or mistake utility for accuracy. Maps of the Territory are made to be useful, but that does not guarantee their accuracy. Lastly, no single map is every a complete description of the Territory.
[philosophic translation of the first line of the Tao Te Ching by G M Jaron]
The Territory is non-symbolic infinitely interconnected and dynamically vast-a multitude of undifferentiated stuff.
We map it out.
We demarcated it.
We name it.
We create it as a thing that we claim to understand to some extent.
Goodness, truth, beauty, justice, evil, the divine, God, Satan, are all things we created. They were and are the stuff of the Tao/Territory that we spoke and speak about.
Those words are some of our maps.
Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason laid out the idea that we cannot know reality directly. His word for reality was ‘The things-in-themselves’. We can never know these things-in-themselves we can only know the phenomenon, our sensory experience of them with the added layer of our a priori constructs, those being time, space, causality, etc.
He seemed to imagine that these things-in-themselves were of some sort of aspect of reality that we were forever cut off from.
He was wrong.
Those things-in-themselves are simply the non-verbal/non-symbolic Territory. We are a part of the Territory, we are made up of the Territory and thus directly connected with it and directly interact with it. We do not know the Territory directly as Kant said because it is non-verbal and non-symbolic. We know things on a continuum of processes.
Subconscious and unconscious knowing is the non-verbal/non-symbolic knowing that is familiar to animals and infants.
It is direct interaction and direct understanding of the world. For humans we are conscious of one important additional way of knowing about the Territory and that is by means of symbols and symbol systems. Our must vital and fundamental symbol system is our verbal word system.
However as Korzybski noted, the word is not the thing, which is similar to what Lao Tzu stated in his opening lines of the Tao Te Ching, ‘The Tao (Territory) that can be spoken about is not the true aspect of the Tao (Territory). The name (map) that can be named (mapped) is not the true name (aka the things actual non-verbal nature) ’
We consciously know only words/maps, and our direct conscious experience of knowing about the Territory is with and through words/maps. This is Kant’s phenomenon. Since the Territory is non-verbal, it is the things-in-themselves, we cannot know them consciously expect through words/maps. Hence Kant’s statement that we never know the Territory/things-in-themselves is partially correct.
Knowing as defined by creating and using words/maps is not the same as directly experiencing the Territory. However, we can interact with the Territory/things-in-themselves on a non-verbal level and thus through our bodies we directly interact with and come to know the Territory. When we observe animals and infants we are seeing them directly interact and know the Territory.
Kant was confused.
He only focused on verbal conscious knowledge and didn’t understand that there was unconscious and subconscious knowledge of the Territory that infants and animals demonstrate. We also interact with the Territory on a sensory/body level before we process that data/experience into words/maps. Hence we do know on some levels the things-in-themselves. We are not cut off from knowing the nature and structure of reality aka the Territory aka the things-in-themselves.
I’ve created a timeline of selected events in the Western World. It starts before the common era of our time with the beginnings of the Hebrews and follows their history until it intersects with the events that shaped the Western world with the coming of the Roman empire. The timelines include events in the history of science particularly as western natural philosopher and scientists try to understand what is light. It also follows the developments of Western music, a selection of literature as well. It follows the development of Jewish mysticism, and the Western Occult tradition as well. Lastly I added the ongoing acts against the Jewish people in the Western world. I call these timelines the history of the natural light, the hidden light and the ever present darkness.
You can find the timeline by going to the navigation icon on this blog site.
If it makes you more comfortable, you could simply think of it as metaphor.
Religions are, by definition, metaphors, after all: God is a dream, a hope, a woman, an ironist, a father, a city, a house of many rooms, a watchmaker who left his prize chronometer in the desert, someone who loves you—even, perhaps, against all evidence, a celestial being whose only interest is to make sure your football team, army, business, or marriage thrives, prospers, and triumphs over all opposition.
Religions are places to stand and look and act, vantage points from which to view the world.
From Neil Gaiman, American Gods. First published 2001, HarperTorch paperback printing May 2002, Chapter Eighteen, pg. 508.
William James: born January 11, 1842 - died August 26 1910
Alfred Korzybski: born July 3 1879 – died March 1 1950
Quotes from : 1911, Some Problems of Philosophy: A Beginning of an Introduction to Philosophy, 1996, University of Nebraska Press
Example 7: No real thing can be in two relations at once; the same moon, for example, cannot be seen both by you and by me. For the concept ‘seen by you’ is not the concept ‘seen by me’; and if, taking the moon as a grammatical subject and, predicating one of these concepts of it, you then predicate the other also, you become guilty of the logical sin of saying that a thing can both be A and not-A at once. Learned trifling again; for clear though the conceptual contradictions be, nobody sincerely disbelieves that two men see the same thing. (89)
Concepts not only guide us over the map of life, but we revalue life by their use. (71)
Concepts thus play three distinct parts in human life.
1) They steer us practically every day, and provide an immense map of relations among the elements of things, which though not now, yet on some possible future occasion may help to steer us practically;
2) They bring new values into our perceptual life, they reanimate our wills, and make our action turn upon new points of emphasis;
3) The map which the mind frames out of them is an object which possess, when once it has been framed, an independent existence. …
We thus see clearly what is gained and what is lost when percepts are translated into concepts. Perception is solely of the here and now; conception is of the like and unlike, of the future, of the past, and of the far away. But this map of what surrounds the present, like all maps, is only a surface; its features are but abstract signs and symbols of things that in themselves are concrete bits of sensible experience. (73-74)
We extend our view when we insert our percepts into our conceptual maps. We learn about them, and of some of them we transfigure the value; but the maps remains superficial through the abstractness, and false through the discreteness of its elements; and the whole operation, so far from making things appear more rational, becomes the source of quite gratuitous unintelligibilites. Conceptual knowledge is forever inadequate to the fullness of the reality to be known. (78)
1) Conception is a secondary process, not indispensable to life. It presupposes perception, which is self-sufficing, as all lower creatures, in whom conscious life goes on by reflex adaptions, show. To understand a concept you must know what it means. It means always some this, or some abstract portion of a this, with which we first made acquaintance in the perceptual world, or else some grouping of such abstract portions. All conceptual content is borrowed: to know what the concept ‘color’ means you must have seen red or blue, or green. To know what ‘resistance’ means, you must have made some effort; to know what ‘motion’ means you must have some experience, active or passive, thereof. …Whether our concepts live by returning to the perceptual world or not, they live by having come from it. It is the nourishing ground from which their sap is drawn. (79-80)
But since the relations of concepts are of static comparison only, it is impossible to substitute them for the dynamic relations with which the perceptual flux is filled. Secondly, the conceptual scheme, consisting as it does of discontinuous terms, can only cover the perceptual flux in spots and incompletely. The one is no full measure of the other, essential features of the flux escaping whenever we put concepts in its place. (81)
Now let me map out for you the brain/mind by way of focusing on the processes and activities that occur there. To begin with, I do not want you to image a separation of the body, brain and the mind. They form a unity. The body is the whole unit, of which the brain is one special organ. Our mind arises from the existence of and the workings of the body with that organ the brain. The brain is the organ most directly connected with the workings of the mind. But make no mistake; the mind would not have come to be as it did without the existence of the rest of our bodies. Our mind is embodied.
In the history of philosophy and science, the mind has been referred to as the ghost in the machine, the immaterial and therefore enigmatic thing that supposedly haunts the machine that is the physical body. The materialistic scientist/philosopher starts with grounding the mind’s abilities and properties in the physical biology of the body. However, for some, this requirement of the physical is taken to an extreme and they question the very existence of the seemingly immaterial mind. These extremist scientist/philosophers fear the duality created by Descartes and want to avoid any hint of this conception of the immaterial. In doing this they end up denying the very existence of consciousness and the mind.
My answer to the denial of the mind and consciousness is the following. The mind is our map for our internal experiences. I believe we cannot deny that we consciously experience life; we see, hear, touch, taste, and smell the world around us. We think, ponder, worry, imagine, and dream. That fact that we can experience anything, and we can consider the meanings of those experiences, demonstrates that we have a process that we have designated with the word: mind. The mind arises out of the workings of the body. Experience is the kernel of proof that the mind is real. Even though it is a certainty that we experience, how this takes place, the mechanics of the workings of that experience in the physical brain, and how the mind arises out of the body with the brain as the central focal point, is all not clearly explainable.
Despite this uncertainty, I believe my map of the body/mind can be described as follows. My map of the brain/mind is of a three-layered structure resembling a pyramid in shape.
The top level of the pyramid is where consciousness, that state of awareness, resides. Consciousness is the equivalent of what we are aware of, what we take notice of.
When and where we focus our attention is what is in the field of the conscious portion of the brain/mind. For example, right at this moment you are reading these words and perhaps only aware of the sight, sound, and meaning that they evoke. However, I can easily ask you to consider the sensation of your body. Such as, how it feels to hold this book in your hands. By these very words, I bring into your field of awareness sensations that were always present, but to which you were not paying attention a moment prior. That expansion of awareness is the flux of consciousness.
Now at the bottom of the pyramid of the brain/mind is the connection with the body. I call this the third level or the subconscious level. Here at this level, sensory data comes into to the brain/mind to be processed for meaning and possibly stored into memory. It is where signals are sent out to activate various parts of the body. It is also, where the brain/mind monitors the body, such as heartbeats, breathing, and muscle movement. If we feel the need, desire, or wish to move, it is through this level that the commands to engage the body pass through the nerves to call up the appropriate responses. This lowest level is the connection of the brain/mind with the rest of the body.
The middle area of the pyramid structure is the realm of the unconscious brain/mind. This is where every other brain/mind process takes place. This is where memory is stored, where sense data is interpreted, where dreams are created. Here is where we do much of our rational thinking, although we are not directly aware of this action. Here is where we do the thinking to perform the act of building new grammatically correct sentences, to be either spoken or written, to convey our thoughts. The act of processing the words into sentences takes place below our conscious awareness. We do not have to struggle to form words into grammatically proper arrangements. They just come to our awareness already so arranged. Coherent thoughts and analysis presented in the form of grammatical sentences spring Athena like from the depths of this level of the mind. It is here where creative new ideas, inspirations, images form and well upward into our consciousness, as if we are suddenly given the gift of insight, and inspiration, by some unseen muse. Here at this second level of consciousness dwells what we refer to by the metaphor of the heart, the place where we directly process the stuff of experience, our feelings and emotions.
Once we do process this material out of sense data that information is conveyed metaphorically upwards, it enters our field of awareness, and we have the experience of first level consciousness. Conscious awareness also floats in and out like a cork on dark sea in that fluid and fleeting time of flux between sleep and hazy awareness that is called the dream-time.
It is significant fact to consider that our subconscious, second level processes, and unconscious, third level processes, are continually active. Whereas consciousness only occurs during our waking hours and is thus only a small sample of all that takes place within the brain/mind. So many people place so much importance on our conscious mind. For some of these people the conscious mind is the sole location of rational thought. They seem to believe that it is only when we are aware of thinking that we are engaged in rational thinking. But, I hope you can now realize that so much has to occur when we try and think rational thoughts. We are not directly aware of the actual mechanics of the brain/mind. Also, why should the pattern of logic and rational discourse be only available when we are awake and aware of our thoughts? Does it not make sense that this skill is always available to all of our mind/brain? Hence it is being used by our subconscious, second level mind/brain process.
Lastly, it is important to realize the power of our biases, our beliefs, and habits. Since our mind is active 24/7 then the power and influence of these biases that lie in our unconscious, are a potent force in our mind/brain. Our biases, our beliefs, and habits are shaping our thoughts all the time. Only occasionally are we paying close enough attention to our thought processes to catch ourselves from to quickly relying on those biases to our determent.
From Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Basic Books, 1999, p. 93
Embodied realism can work for science in part because it rejects a strict subject-object dichotomy. Disembodied scientific realism creates an unbridgeable ontological chasm between “objects”, which are “out there”, and subjectivity, which is “in here”. Once the separation is made, there are then only two possible, and equally erroneous conceptions of objectivity: Objectivity is either given by the “things themselves: (the objects) or by the intersubjective structures of consciousness shared by all people (the subjects).
The first is erroneous because the subject-object split is a mistake; there are no objects-with-descriptions-and-categorizations existing in themselves. The second is erroneous because mere intersubjectivity, if it is nothing more than social or communal agreement, leaves out our contact with the world. The alternative we propose, embodied realism, relies on the fact that we are coupled to the world through our embodied interactions. Our directly embodied concepts (e.g., basic-level concepts, aspectual concepts, and spatial-relations concepts) can reliably fit those embodied interactions and understandings of the world that arise from them.
The problem with classical disembodied scientific realism is that it takes two intertwined and inseparable dimensions of all experience—the awareness of the experiencing organism and the stable entities and structures it encounters—and erects them as separate and distinct entities called subjects and objects. What disembodied realism (what is sometimes called “metaphysical” or “external” realism) misses is that, as embodied, imaginative creatures, we never were separated or divorced from reality in the first place. What has always made science possible is our embodiment, not our transcendence of it, and our imagination, not our avoidance of it.
June 27, 2017
We live in a shared physically real world. A world of objects, that includes ourselves as one of those objects, which we interact with on a non-verbal, non-symbolic immediate level. Actually, the primary level of reality and our interaction with reality is at the level of physical non-verbal, non-symbolic level. I can prove this by a series of examples of interactions that I have with a being who doesn’t know any human cultural concepts that are conveyed via human symbol systems such as the English language.
We share this world with not only other human beings but also a multitude of living and non-living objects. Amongst the category of what we can classify as living are animals, insects, plants, etc. Specifically, I live with my wife and our pet cat that we call Basha.
Basha is a member of that general mixed breed classified as ‘short haired domestic American mackerel tabby cat’. My wife, Cedar, and I adopted Basha from our local animal shelter when she was approximately 5 months old. She is now almost five years old at the time I am writing this.
Now, if I had the experience of being a father of a newborn baby, much of what I am about to describe concerning my interactions with Basha and that six year old infant would be very similar. Both would be able to interact with me almost in the exact same manner. Neither could interact on a verbal level, all of us would be interacting on a non-verbal strictly physical level.
Even a six-month-old infant would not have had the time to acquire language, let alone sophisticated cultural concepts. Such an infant therefore would not understand or even be capable of either 1) imagining a solipsistic world; or 2) the concept of the world as in the Idealistic hypothesis proposed by Bishop Berkeley, i.e., that the world is non-physical idea that is sustained, and suspended in the mind of God; or 3) know the Hindu concept of Maya, which states that the physical world is an illusion. All of these cultural constructs would have to be taught to that infant for her to have them and believe them. All those ideas, and any others that you can imagine and proposed that would describe the world as not being physically real, would have to be taught to her for her to believe and or consider them. Therefore, while as a six-year-old infant she would simply be blissfully ignorant of those symbolic sophisticated cultural concepts, and simply interact as described below on a strictly physical manner and thus demonstrate the reality of our shared physical world. Therefore demonstrating the fact of the primary and fundamental reality of our physical existence.
Basha is an indoor and outdoor cat. We all live in a one bedroom ‘In-law house’ that is situated behind the main duplex in the front of our shared lot, in the suburbs of Berkeley, California, USA.
In our shared world, we can communicate with each other on a physical non-linguistic level.
She knows that we can ‘hear’ sounds just as she can hear sounds. She knows that we make sounds to communicate with her and she can make sounds to communicate with us.
We call her by that name, she clearly doesn’t know that name in the same way that we do. We are humans and she is a feline, a cat. We don’t share the same biological systems to allow her to create and interact with symbol systems such as the English language not even on a verbal auditory level. However, she does react to the sound of us calling her name. She probably recognizes the tone of our voice more than the actual sound of those specific letters. Again, she is not a human and so she does not have the capacity of translating certain sounds and recognizing that they are the sounds of the letters in her name. She only recognizes the pure tonal qualities of the sound.
She knows the sound of a can being opened. She knows the sound of her crunchy treats rattling around in its plastic container. Both of those sounds will usually bring her to us. She ‘knows’ that this means she will get food. She associates those sounds with the experience of us giving her food.
She also ‘knows’ the sound of me snapping my fingers and of my wife whistling. Those are two of the ways we call her in at night. She knows that when we she hears those sounds and she comes to us she will get her evening meal. The other sound that we can use to get her to come inside at night is the sound of her treats rattling around inside the plastic container. We can shake that container and Basha knows that this sound means she will get some treats if she comes to us.
Basha has a sense of space and time. This ability to recognize certain aspects of spacial and temporal relationships would either make Immanuel Kant proud or completely confuse him. I’m not sure of Kant believed and/or recognized that creatures other than humans had to ability to work with some of his ‘A Priori’ constructs, such as time and space, that he described in his book the Critique of Pure Reason. Basha clearly has no ability to understand the words ‘A Prioir’, let alone the concepts as Kant meant them in his book. Then again, the experience of failing to understand that concepts of space and time as A Priori concepts that are part of Kant's doctrine of the transcendental ideality of space and time is something she has in common with a majority of people on this planet.
Basha knows the difference between ‘indoors’ and ‘outdoors’. As a kitten when we had just brought her to our place, we planned on having her as a indoor only cat. She would often climb up to the windows ledges in the bedroom and would look out, she would stare out at the back glass door. She would get frantic at night and tear around throughout the house, running back and forth through all the rooms, climbing up onto any object she could and then launching herself back down to zip around. It was hard to get her to settle down at nights because of this activity. Finally I suggested that she should be let outdoors to run around and burn off that energy in the hopes that when she came back in at night she wouldn’t do this and would settle down to sleep. My wife reluctantly agreed, wanting to keep her safe, but wanting to keep her sanity and get some sleep. That’s when we managed to keep the bathroom windows open enough for Basha to get out but put something to keep it locked and in place. We put an outdoor table and chair next to the window to enable Basha to jump out and land on something to help her get in and out.
Once we did this she was a changed cat. She would come in at night when we called and we would feed her the evening meal and she would contently settle down and sleep with us. The arrangement worked. Basha enjoyed the freedom of coming in and out of our house and would hence forth not frantically tear through the house at night. Her going in and out of the house, looking through windows and patio glass doors, going in and out of the front door all seem to demonstrate that she knows the shape, dimensions of our small house. She knows that she can go out the bathroom window, and come back into the same-shared space through the front door or vice a versa.
She knows where her litter box is located. She knows where her favorite chairs are that she likes to sit on and take naps on. When we move them she will sometimes go to that spot and take a nap there, as if to say, this is my area and you need to put that object back where it belongs. She knows where her food dish is located. She knows where her food and treats are kept. She knows where our beds are located and she knows that we spend time on those beds and understands that we sleep on those beds. She knows that she ‘sleeps’ and so does my wife and I.
Although, I am not sure she knows the difference between ‘awake’ and ‘asleep’. Her hearing is so attuned that certain sounds will get her attention even if she is what I think that she is sleeping at the time. The sound of a can opening or her treats rattling in the container will almost immediately bring her out of sleep to come running to where that sound is being made. Hence, I am not sure how different or how she experiences the difference between sleeping and being awake. I’m sure it is different than my experience. I don’t have that ability to react to sounds like Basha can when I am asleep. I have been told that it seems as if that nothing short of a loud explosion could wake me from a sound sleep.
She will share that activity of sleep with us, by getting on the bed, lying next to us, hence demonstrating she knows the concepts ‘near’ and far’, and then close her eyes and sleep with us.
She knows ‘up’, ‘down’ ‘high’ and ‘low’. She knows that she is usually lower than us, that the floor is beneath her and that she can climb up onto couches, chairs, bookshelves, tables, beds, and other objects to get ‘up’ and be level with us, interacts with us and look us in the eye. She knows she can easily get ‘under’/’below’ beds, chairs, couches, tables, and that we have more difficulties doing the same and that we can’t get underneath them completely. Hence, she knows the concept of ‘hiding’, ‘escaping’, ‘being hidden’, ‘being unreachable’, etc. when she wants to avoid interacting with us, or wants to play with us knowing we can’t as easily get to her when she is ‘lower’/ ‘down’/ ‘under’ certain objects in relationship to us.
Her sense of time is so attuned that she knows that I go away most days. Though she clearly does not know where I am going and why. She knows I come back at a certain time of the day each workday. Her sense of time is so strong that she will usually, about 80% of the time, come inside and be in the house waiting for me to arrive from work. She knows that I will come in and pick her up, hold her in my arms and make sounds at her while I scratch her. She purrs when I do this and she knows that I react to that purring sound and will scratch her some more. She also knows how to get me to stop petting and scratching her so that she can be let back down.
She has such an excellent sense of time that she is able to recognize the difference between my workdays and the weekends. She somehow has a sense of my workweek, and the weekend, because during the workdays she will come into the house waiting for me to arrive from work while she won’t do that on the weekends. She knows that I come home about the same time every day during the week and that I will pick her up, pet, and scratch her when I come home. Whereas on the weekends there is no set time that this occurs and so she does not show up at that time.
She knows that she will get wet cat food twice a day. Once during the morning and the other time at night. For a time when my wife and I would divide the feeding of Basha between us, my wife feeding her at night and me feeding her in the morning, Basha knew this. She would come to Cedar and try to communicate to her to get her evening wet food meal and Basha would ignore me. We ruined that sense routine, and now I feed Basha both in the morning and at night her wet food.
When she is hungry, which is more often than when we have agreed to be her two daily feeding times, she will go over to where her food dish is or where her food and treats are kept and she will make certain sounds to communicate with us. She will also get up on her hind legs and scratch at the side of the kitchen cabinet next to her food bowl to get our attention.
She knows that sometime when she makes noise, or scratches at the kitchen cabinet, or bats at us when we are sitting at the kitchen chairs, she may be able to convince us to give her some treats. She knows that it doesn’t always work but that behavior works enough of the time for her to remember it, and do it, and expect to often enough get fed some treats.
Basha can purposefully wander in our shared space, recognize aspects of time with remarkable accuracy. I hope I have convinced you that we share a common physical world and that our interactions that are foundational and primary are of the non-verbal kind. If we didn’t share a common physical world all that I have described would not be able to take place.
The Measure of all things?
This quotation is restated in Plato's Theaetetus at 152a. Sextus Empiricus gives a direct quotation inAdv. math.7.60: πάντων χρημάτων μέτρον ἐστὶν ἄνθρωπος, τῶν μὲν ὄντων ὡς ἔστιν, τῶν δὲ οὐκ ὄντων ὡς οὐκ ἔστιν. ... Similarly, in Ancient Greek, Protagoras used the Greek word anthrōpos (human being, person), making a general statement about human beings.
What I think the phrase means is that it reveals that we understand the world through the lens of our own perspective. The world is experienced on a non-verbal direct sensory level. However, once we begin to process that non-verbal data we select and transform it into our human symbols systems. Hence we are the measuring tool that forces all things to conform to. We only understand the world through this process of selection and interpretation.
My Meetings with Remarkable Books
Here is a semi-random listing of books for you to wander through… (remember to use your browser’s back arrow to return to this website page.)
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert M. Pirsig, 1974
Man’s Search for Meaning by Viktor E. Frankl, 1946/1959 English Translation
The Psychology of Consciousness by Robert E. Ornstein, 1972
The True Believer by Eric Hoffer, 1951
The Social Construction of Reality by Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, 1966
The Sacred Canopy by Peter L. Berger, 1967
The Act of Creation by Arthur Koestler, 1964
The Ghost in the Machine by Arthur Koestler, 1967
Metaphors We Live By by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, 1980
Philosophy in the Flesh by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, 1999
Saving the Appearances by Owen Barfield, 1957
Science and the Modern World by Alfred North Whitehead, 1925
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn, 1962
The Passion of the Western Mind by Richard Tarnas, 1991
The Tao Te Ching: A New Translation with Commentary by Ellen M. Chen, 1989
Tao: The Watercourse Way by Alan Watts, 1975
The Tao of Pooh by Benjamin Hoff, 1982
Aristotle: The Desire to Understand by Jonathan Lear, 1988
The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes, 1976
Science and Sanity by Alfred Korzybski, 1933
These are some of the books I will be referring to on this Blog.