Eleanor Lundholm
Forum Replies Created
-
Hello! Glad you think so, though sometimes it seems that things kind of tail off a bit!
-
I think this is a good idea. I personally would find it really beneficial to have access to an audio version of the book. And yes, maybe a variety of voices would add an interesting dimension. If there aren’t enough of us to tackle the whole thing, then why don’t we just do what we can?
-
Hello James and Cooper. How lovely to be able to share the profound effects that reading TMWT has had. You did indeed start an interesting thread Cooper, as James said! I can relate to your “thort” James about when you were reading the book for the first time. A revelatory experience. The thing for me is that whilst I have read the book, I will never actually stop reading it. It is written in such a way that you can pick it up and read again any chapter, even at random, once you have a grasp of the whole thing. In this way, the concepts are always going round in my head such that I am able to relate them to everyday life, if you see what I mean! I also listen often to the discussions with Alex Gomez-Marin. I do not have a science background at all but have become very interested in physics since reading the book! I agree Cooper, that it would be interesting to have McGilchrist’s take on some of the issues we have been discussing. Have you considered submitting a question for the next Q&A session?
-
We three belong to the ranks, obviously, of those who are “not sufficiently alert to (the book’s) contradictions.” Thank goodness then for Mr Ellis’s concern here and his desire to alert us to them. He tells us that he writes “with a sense of painful duty”, fearful as he is that TMWT will be appropriated by the corrupt right.
There seems a feverish sense of righteousness to this review. Nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone and Ellis is far, far more knowledgeable than I can ever hope to be in this realm. However, it is people like me that he seeks to save from McGilchrist’s “uncritically presented” and “impractical metaphysical philosophy”, accusing him of dogmatism and an inability to develop critical awareness. Huh? A pity then that he lacks McGilchrist’s clarity of writing style.
He tells us that he is aware that readers of this review “may remain baffled” by his criticisms and suggests they refer to his own book “Absolutization” for clarification. Erm, I don’t think I’ll be doing this in a hurry, wearied as I am of trudging through this “load of near-incomprehensible waffle” (to quote Ellis himself on TMWT).
To be fair, I think hidden in here might be some valid points (his reference to Popper’s views on the philosophy of science perhaps merit some investigation; perhaps also his discussion of McGilchrist’s supposed misuse of the terms induction and deduction), but his points are so woolly and laboured that I find myself totally lacking in any kind of inspiration to find out more.
Which is a complete contrast to the effect that TMWT had, and continues to have, on me. As I see it also has had on you two. So I fear, Mr Ellis, you have a long way to go in your dutiful battle to save us all!
-
Thank you for posting this fascinating review. Like you, I am astonished. Nonetheless it is interesting and instructive to read negative criticism, whether or not you agree with it. There is so much to digest that I need to read it again a few times before I can really collect my thoughts on it!