Everyone:

The following is from an email I received from a man named Dan Parker...

Quote:

---

For my 2 cents, I would say Mr. Bloom's works are not primarily scientific, nor even philosophical, but political. From previous correspondence with the author, I am aware that he is a committed Zionist. In these terms, he is attempting to build a Golem, using clay that has failed before, and will fail again. That is, his books are an exercise in attempting to massage mass psychology, the better to meet
certain political objectives. He is reprising the psychological tactics he used to greatly increase the circulation of a music magazine, only this time on a larger stage.

His anecdotes emphasize the dark side of human nature, without pointing out myriad examples of opposite actions, which would temper his one-sided analysis. Even as he advocates peaceful solutions, he describes one billion people (Muslims) as belonging to a religion of hate. Given Mr. Bloom's Zionist committments, it is likely his thinking (and writing) is largely driven by the emotion of fear, given the precarious position of Israel. It is also likely much, if not all, of the writing which misses the mark is happening at a subconscious level. How else can one explain his thesis on suicide, and its inverse in the tragedy of middle east suicide bombings.

For truly out of the box thinking on superorganisms, I would suggest the Principia Cybernetica Web Site and such books as Peter Russell's The Global Brain (1983) or Joel de Rosnay's Symbiotic Man. For the idea that the superorganism will engage in the same old, same old, Mr. Bloom's works reign supreme. His conclusion that the solution is to discuss the issues in as neutral a setting as possible is belied by the tenor of his book. Mr. Bloom also refused to comment on a very important, but somewhat taboo subject regarding the current monetary system; although he was more than willing to discuss other issues. This proved
out my initial feeling regarding how the conclusion of the book did not relate to the body of the work.

Here's hoping a conflagration in the Mideast does not happen, and that there is a true move forward for humanity. Here's also hoping Mr. Bloom can get his obvious talents and energy aligned with a more positive, and accurate view of the past, and of the future. A co-writer, probably female, will be necessary for his books to truly enlighten, in my opinion. This is not to say I have a pollyannish view of what the rule of ruthlessness has caused, nor what it can threaten. For some starting ideas on actually implementing the 'discussion first' model on the MidEast, I would suggest Norm Kurland's Abrahamic concept, and Troy Davis's democracy project. Key words will get you there. I am sorry
I do not have time to get further involved in your discussions of the books.

You can use this post as you see fit.

Regards
Dan Parker

---

Chris

Edited by: Chris OConnor  at: 10/30/05 3:44 pm

If Dan Parker were here to answer I would ask him for more specifics about what Bloom says about Islam that he (Parker) considers false.

Since he isn't I will simply observe that Bloom's writing is in my opinion in a completely different league (i,e, superior) to anything I have seen at PCPW.

Xilog

I recall Bloom saying that the US and Israel are also barbaric, with the only difference being the degree of our barbarism. Ok, so its not politically correct to label one superorganism as inherently more barbaric than another, but so what?

Bloom cites his sources and makes sense. Perhaps its time for the world to open their collective eyes to the barbaric nature of the Islamic faith. Too bad this isn't politically correct, but reality rarely is.

If we are to pride ourselves as being people of reason, then lets not be afraid to examine things even if their examination is not socially acceptable.

Chris

Edited by: Chris OConnor  at: 10/30/05 3:45 pm

I guess the PC thing these days is to carefully distinguish between mainstream Islam and Islamic fundamentalism.

It also seems normal for fundamentalists to ignore any attempt to make such a distinction and portray any criticism of islamic fundamentalists as an attack on Islam as a whole.

Chris said...(No relation to Edward Said)-

"If we are to pride ourselves as being people of reason, then lets not be afraid to examine things even if their examination is not socially acceptable."

Hell- If we freethinkers waited for our examinations to be socially acceptible we'da never examined anything ever...

Poor Dan.

Quote:

---

Perhaps its time for the world to open their collective eyes to the barbaric nature of the Islamic faith. Too bad this isn't politically correct, but reality rarely is.

---