Friday 14 December 2007

Thursday 13 December 2007

Latte art

I've been keeping an eye on coffee crema art for a while now.

Blog queen GwenBell has uploaded some beauties

Can You Spot the Sexy?

I plan to get my own efforts up and running in the new year. So you'll have to come down to the centre on Saturdays to see how I'm getting on!  :)


Macchiato or Seashell?

L'art'e  -  geddit?! 

Blogged with Flock

Wednesday 12 December 2007

Which Philosopher Are YOU?

I'm proud to be sussed as W.v.O. Quine / Late Wittgenstein

Early Wittgenstein would have been annoying and W.v.O. Quine is pleasing now I'm reading Dennett.



Which philosopher are you?
Your Result: W.v.O. Quine / Late Wittgenstein

There is no provable absolute truth. The way you see things is dependant on your language. Truths exist only within a language, and change as the language does.

--This quiz was made by S. A-Lerer.

Early Wittgenstein / Positivists
Sartre/Camus (late existentialists)
Immanuel Kant
Nietzsche
Aristotle
Plato (strict rationalists)
Which philosopher are you?
Take More Quizzes

Blogged with Flock

Facebook News Network

Embedded Video

Blogged with Flock

Tuesday 6 November 2007

base-jumping

this video fills me with so much internal tension. And, later, release, that I just had to post it as I want to watch it again and again.

Wednesday 31 October 2007

TECHNOVIKING!

Be afraid, be VERY afraid.

Monday 29 October 2007

Why I am “Integral” « both/and

"Being truly integral means, among other things, developing intimacy with everything that constitutes us. A genuinely integral consciousness lives such intimacy both conceptually and nonconceptually."

Why I am “Integral” « both/and

Wednesday 19 September 2007

Ideas to die for « both/and

Crosspost from: Ideas to die for « both/and





Dan Dennett on Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of the meme.








Memes. Fit for their own survival. Not yours.

Sunday 16 September 2007

Integral Options Cafe: The Failure of the Loud Atheists

Thank you Integral Options Cafe for not lumping Dan Dennett in with the fundamentalist, or Loud, athiests - a habit I've been very keen to dispell recently. Haidt's essay is a good example of where people are mis-understanding Dennett.

As you say in The Failure of the Loud Atheists the biggest flaw of the atheist fundamentalists "is their failure to distinguish between objective reality and subjective reality". Now Dennett, in both 'Breaking the Spell' and 'Consciousness Explained' is playing a completely different game and to roll him up into the angry atheist crowd is mis-reading him almost completely.

Dennett recognises interiors and exteriors. He recognises evolution and development. He recognises the difference between left and right-hand quadrants (although wouldn't use those terms). And he states clearly that 3rd person methodologies have a large part to play in understanding interiors. He's got at least Zone1 and Zone2 of the 8 Integral Methodological Pluralism zones covered and he spotted the blind spot that phenomenology has to structuralism and 3rd person methods. His hetrophenomenological method addressed the problem back in the 1980s.

This, from his latest TED talk, says it nicely.

"Scientists, using their from-the-outside, 3rd person methods, can tell you things about your own consciousness that you'd ever dream of. And the fact that you are not the authority on your own consciousness that you thought you were."