I have no passion for thwarting TED. I have a lot of passion for dealing with how we think as a society and as a world, for which TED could become a catalyst and a conduit. Our worldview is like the water the fish swims in -- as the student fish said to the philosopher fish, "Water, what water?" I think that dialogue about this is the most important conversation on earth. We are end-users, struggling to find fixes for what challenges us yet oblivious to our belief system that hold the status quo in place.
I'm waiting for TED to get back to me about creating a forum. with links to our Ex TEDx talks for Brother, Can You Spare a Paradigm?, that would let us have that conversation. Would TED have found our program objectionable if it had been produced under its auspice? TED could serve the larger picture, that lacks for a focal point now, by a continuation of the very intelligent exchanges that were sparked by their cancellation of our license plus the marginalizing they did of TEDx talks by Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hancock.
If TED says to the world, "We told you so," about what we presented, how would everyone feel about ideas that are worth spreading that might differ from what TED thinks, where the constriction that TED has been in parallels the constriction of a world running on the authority of materialistic science?
I came across two book reviews that speak cogently about scientific materialism as our swimming pool. They are in the NETWORK REVIEW, a journal for The Scientific and Medical Network, an international organization of forward-thinking, scientifically oriented people that I belong to. Its largest presence is in England and it isn't heard of much in the States, but they are my kind of people. Here are quotes from the reviews written by one of my favorite forward-thinkers, David Lorimer, which point to telling it like I think it is:
A New Model of Mind
David Lorimer reviews BRAIN WARS by Mario Beauregard
...we do indeed need a new model of consciousness that takes in the whole range of human experience rather than trying to squeeze anomalous and transcendent phenomena into a materialistic understanding
...false assumptions of scientific materialism... the way in which philosophical assumptions and peer pressure join forces to delay real progress in expanding the scope of a science of consciousness.
...we need a new model of mind...
The key question is whether there is a difference between our brains and our minds or consciousness. The materialist framework answers in the negative, based as it is on the assumptions of physicalism, reductionism and objectivism...they become a stumbling block if we try to constrain the whole range of human capacity within this framework. The placebo/nocebo effect...establishes downward causation from the conscious mind... It turns out that the power of belief is extraordinarily significant and that we can exercise conscious control over the development of brain structures...If we change the mind, we can correspondingly change the brain and body.
...science must be distinguished from scientific materialism and that there is a genuine spiritual dimension to human existence. As Rupert Sheldrake has indicated, liberation from materialist dogma would free up the spirit of enquiry and open all kinds of interesting questions for research.
David Lorimer reviews SCIENCE AND PSYCHIC PHENOMENA by Chris Carter
The foreword by Rupert Sheldrake provides a brilliant summary and commentary on the book...Rupert is at the forefront of the paradigm war (Mark Woodhouse's expression) between so-called sceptics and believers...
It is argued that the paranormal contradicts the established principles of science, when it is in fact only the established principles of scientific materialism that are contradicted...
The real issue is less about evidence than its interpretation in the light of differing presuppositions or philosophical assumptions. Rupert himself began by thinking that properly controlled studies would prove convincing, but he found that some sceptics still dismiss the evidence out of hand and assume that it must be flawed or defective. If they do actually look at the evidence, it is with a view to finding as many flaws as possible; and even if they do not find any, they brush it aside on the basis that such phenomena are a priori impossible...they sometimes try to prevent the evidence from being discussed in public or excise the relevant parts...
The politics of knowledge and the sociology of science mean that one can open oneself to scorn and ridicule if one espouses an unorthodox viewpoint...
Ray Hyman and James Alcock were members of CSICOP, now renamed the Committee for Scientific Investigation...Hyman insists that parapsychology is incompatible with relativity and quantum theory...a 1946 letter from Einstein saying that, from a physical standpoint, we have no right to deny a priori the possibility of telepathy and that we should not walk through the world wearing blinders. It is clear that the incompatibility between established science and parapsychology stems not from relativity and quantum theory, but rather from the mechanistic assumptions of classical science.
On www.facebook.com/tedxwesthollywood, where this will be posted, I invite your comments and your Likes!
A little housekeeping:
If you want to visit the crop circles in England, consider going 8/5-8/12 with Barbara Lamb, who is a star of my movie, What On Earth?, and will create an insider good time for you: http://barbaralambmft.com/08schedule.html.
I am looking for help: an L.A. assistant, someone to deal with my activity in cyberspace, and a power player to help me create a place that could be in cities everywhere for people to eat, meet and be the live audience for presentations about our worldview and more that would go out to the world.