GENIUS FORUMS

Dan Rowden wrote: I wouldn't be interested in that unless she's prepared to broaden the discussion into consciousness-gender per se and had a position on it she could sensibly articulate. Nor would I be interested in a discussion (mentioned previously) of the genome project. It's just not on my radar though Dave and Kevin may have a different perspective on that.

Well, you guys are trying to argue that women aren't as good at such things as men, but she's finding the opposite in small children. Girls are as good or better than boys in math. Which is a direct contradiction to your position and why I thought it might be interesting. I think one of the areas she's looking into is why kids go from being equal to men being ahead as adults.
*shrugs*but your call of course; I'm just trying to be helpful. :)

Katy I responded to your above reply in a new thread entitled: Priorities in the worldly matters forum.

To do this Media Savvy, you should concentrate on the pilot episode. Just QRS, or whoever is presenting and creating it.

As sad as it may be, you have to sell "it" (some-thing) to reel people in.

Having some unwitting guest getting ripped a new asshole on the first episode would not work very well.

Well, we're not planning on any proctological approach.

I would like to see the QSR interview Dr Zakir Naik.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHeQroDdCWI

.

Why? He looks like your average garden variety religious type to me.

Dan,

Are you not considering that a lot more insignificant people have been suggested for interviews on this thread? Even Dyc has been nominated. People get the impression that you want to interview any idiot with a computer.

( Am I going to get a nasty pm now where I'm called a racist? Or are my children's lives in danger now? Should I hire a body guard? )

Rhetorical questions, Dan. You do not have to answer. :) But at least three people here know what I'm talking about.

.

I'm open to any and all suggestions for potential guests. I just need to know why those persons are being suggested.

What topics are you interested in addressing? Wisdom? Truth? What else? Perhaps a list would reduce the silly suggestions.

.

Well, all those things. Anything, really, so long as it has a philosophical dimension and can be related to the attainment of wisdom in some way. I'm happy to talk to scientists, for example, about those aspects of science that have philosophical implications, but I don't want to talk to them about science per se. For instance, Demasio would be interesting in terms of a discussion about consciousness and emotions etc......unless he's a really boring guy, of course.

Hell, I keep forgetting I'm in the midst of the most concentrated genius on the planet.

What else can wisdom do but directly address ignorance?

If you were looking to interview only the wise, you'll find them already here, apparently.

~

Dan wrote:

Why?

Aside from this, you mean:

David wrote:

Anyone who you believe would make an interesting guest on the show - no matter how fanciful. They don't have to be well-known to the public. It might be someone you know personally. Philosophers, scientists, gurus, religious authorities, feminists, comedians, whatever.

I think he just might fall under the category “religious authorities.” Or, at least, he seems to be heading that way. He knows the entire Kuran off by heart.

David also wrote:

You could even nominate yourself, if you wanted to.

Yes, I could do this as an alternative to the good doctor. But I think there could be problems with my swearing.

With respect to the candidate I volunteered, Dan wrote:

He looks like your average garden variety religious type to me.

I have seen visual cues deserving of more suspicion than the hat thing this guy’s wearing.

I have also watched a few of his clips and whilst there are some things I myself might like to challenge with him, there is much more he has to say about the Kuran, science and the Bible that I find interesting--and, I like the sense of humour he has so far inspired in me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxAUfhoHK-c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwv0Px3MRvk

Well, I watched a few of his clips and they didn't inspire me much. His knowledge of the Koran actually puts me off him somewhat. I don't want to talk to a guy who starts every point off with some chapter and verse malarky. But, David might have a different view. I don't have to be personally involved in every podcast :)

Dan, glad to know you'd consider doing Damasio. I also think he would be a good candidate, and seriously doubt anyone would be bored with such an interview.

Just so you know, the whole theory of "emotional intelligence" was in part inspired by Damasio and his findings.

.

Bismillahirahmanirahim (in the name of Allah)

Dan:

Well, I watched a few of his clips and they didn't inspire me much. His knowledge of the Koran actually puts me off him somewhat.

Funny. I recall feeling the same way about Kevin and David when I first arrived here.

I don't want to talk to a guy who starts every point off with some chapter and verse malarky.

:) Well, I can certainly appreciate that sentiment. Though, I have chosen to bear in mind that most of clips are parts of a whole debate with regard to whether the Kuran or the Bible speaks to the nature of the infallible word of Allah (the Absolute).

It would be rather telling in itself if, when suitably offered, Dr Naik accepted or rejected such an invitation. I’ve not watched enough of him to come to a comfortable conclusion in this regard.

But, David might have a different view. I don't have to be personally involved in every podcast :)

Of course not. There are two other reasons that I suggested Naik, and here I add I mostly had Kevin in mind as an interviewer: (1) I think, wisdom-wise, there were some profitable discussions during your radio series resulting from interviewing religious authorities/representatives; and (2) Kevin’s assertion that there is no wisdom in the Kuran and enough so in the Bible that the former should be destroyed and the latter preserved.

Surely, in that light, such an interview with an authority on Islam/the Kuran would be most revealing, no?

Are you not considering that a lot more insignificant people have been suggested for interviews on this thread? Even Dyc has been nominated. People get the impression that you want to interview any idiot with a computer.

Doesn't dyctiostelium work on the Human Genome Project? There's hardly any more significant scientific work being done in the world today. In addition, I find it strange that when QRS attempts to practice one of their genuinely positive qualities, non-elitism, you are here objecting about "insignificant people." I don't think that anyone else has the impression that the hosts want to interview "any idiot with a computer." If that is the case, why haven't they nominated you?

Nat,

I don't think that anyone else has the impression that the hosts want to interview "any idiot with a computer." If that is the case, why haven't they nominated you?

Oh? You calling me an idiot? Hah hah hah! Nice, very nice to know how low you will stoop to defend one of your women.

Until now I didn't think you deserved them. Now I'm starting to wonder if you do.

How ironic! You are quickly running out of people to defend you. I tried to convince David and Dan to have you as a guest in that show. I guess I won't be fighting that battle any more.

Not a wise thing to do at all: putting down people who are the most likely to be on your side in the future. But, it's your call.

.

Um, you have some faulty assumptions. I was interested in doing that show in order to get it off the ground and help Dan out. After the debacle with David's statement about the elderly and the resulting fallout, I no longer have any interest whatsoever in doing the show. In fact, I've been asked not to do it by people whose opinions I respect. Besides, they are apparently planning to have Victor on there anyway, which makes me even more loathe to do it.

I haven't heard another word about that show since this whole episode began and I'm quite fine with that. As for me deserving the women in my life, no, I don't. After years of flirting with grandiose religious delusions, I don't deserve anybody putting up with me at all. But they do, because they have positive character qualities unknown to this congregation.

For the record, I tried to avoid slamming you in the past. But you had it coming this time. And when you find out certain "other" things relating to certain people's opinion of you, a swipe from someone as "insignificant" as me is going to feel like a pinprick compared to the ton of bricks that is going to fall on you. That's unfortunate, because I do still think well of you in some respects, and it wish it didn't have to happen. But it does and it eventually will. The truth always comes out, and it will in this matter as well.

It's too bad you've painted yourself into this corner, Sher. This whole situation is a loss for all of us, really. Like it or not, people are going to get hurt, and the worst is yet to come for several of us. As David might say, cause and effect is not mocked.

And when you find out certain "other" things relating to certain people's opinion of you, a swipe from someone as "insignificant" as me is going to feel like a pinprick compared to the ton of bricks that is going to fall on you.

There is only one person that you and I both know that could possibly hurt me with their opinion. If you're trying to get me to believe that that person has been saying bad things about me, you are completely out of luck.

.

It ain't just a river in Egypt, as they say.

Can you guys please take this somewhere else.

-

It's fine with me if Nat has changed his mind about the podcasts. It's a shame, frankly, because I think the subject matter would have been a ripper, but it's his prerogative, as is the people whose opinions he says he respects regarding the venture. This thread is meant to be a sincere and intelligent discussion about potential guests for these podcasts. If you can't post here in that spirit, don't post at all.

I'd like to point out that we do not, and are not, making any decisions about this venture based on the insipid and childish dynamics that have been the hallmark of recent attention. If you have an idea, and are willing to offer it with other than petty motives, than please feel free to do so.

Remind me what the intended subject matter for the show I was talking about doing was? Was it Taoism/Zen?

I figured you guys had considered having me on out of the question at this point because of what has been going on lately. But since you indicate that the recent conflict isn't being taken into consideration, that may not be so.

I would still consider going on in the following circumstances:

1. That any subject matter was allowed (while remaining at least somewhat related to the intended topic), and

2. You are willing to broadcast opposition. I wouldn't be going on to puff up any QRS views (unless perhaps they are ones I still agree with, such as materialism or employment). You guys will have promote yourselves, because I would raising a lot of objections. In fact, my purpose in doing the show would be to specifically oppose some of you guys' views.

Then again, if you're having Vickie on, I'd imagine you're already agreeable to this, since Heaven knows he's going to oppose all of it. I probably won't be much more agreeable, to be honest.

3. That you (Dan) will be one of the hosts on the particular show I do. I'm not interested in talking to David and Kevin unless you are present. This is because, quite frankly, I am of the opinion that you are a fundamentally reasonable person, while David is not (in my view) and Kevin is basically an unknown quantity to me.

Up to you guys, fine with me either way. If these conditions are too demanding for an "insignificant" person such as myself to make, feel free to skip it. Your call.

Unidian wrote:Remind me what the intended subject matter for the show I was talking about doing was? Was it Taoism/Zen?

Principally Taoism, with some focus, no doubt, on what differences there might exist in our perspectives on that.

I figured you guys had considered having me on out of the question at this point because of what has been going on lately. But since you indicate that the recent conflict isn't being taken into consideration, that may not be so.

That conflict is ugly and in my view totally absurd. But I don't personally see any reason why it would negate the potential for a good podcast. I mean, Victor is historically ugly and absurd and we're thinking of doing one with him about science being a religion - which he would no doubt consider ugly and absurd :)

I would still consider going on in the following circumstances:

1. That any subject matter was allowed (while remaining at least somewhat related to the intended topic), and

Sure. It's hard to think of much that wouldn't or couldn't be related back to the subject matter.

2. You are willing to broadcast opposition. I wouldn't be going on to puff up any QRS views (unless perhaps they are ones I still agree with, such as materialism or employment).

You'll find little evidence of guests puffing us up when we did the Hour of Judgement radio series, so I don't see any reason why this would enter your mind. Can you imagine Victor puffing us up?

You guys will have promote yourselves, because I would raising a lot of objections. In fact, my purpose in doing the show would be to specifically oppose some of you guys' views.

Cool with me. I don't see any reason to have guests at all if all we wanted was insipid agreement.

Then again, if you're having Vickie on, I'd imagine you're already agreeable to this, since Heaven knows he's going to oppose all of it.

Exactly. Issue resolved.

3. That you (Dan) will be one of the hosts on the particular show I do.

Sure. Can do.

I'm not interested in talking to David and Kevin unless you are present. This is because, quite frankly, I am of the opinion that you are a fundamentally reasonable person, while David is not (in my view) and Kevin is basically an unknown quantity to me.

We can discuss the issues of the exact format when and if you decide to go ahead. But I would have a condition myself: no verbal puppies and sticky buns.

Up to you guys, fine with me either way. If these conditions are too demanding for an "insignificant" person such as myself to make, feel free to skip it. Your call.

I'm happy with them. I'll wait and hear what David has to say.

If these conditions are too demanding for an "insignificant" person such as myself to make, feel free to skip it. Your call.

Your pouting about being an insignificant person is ridiculous. I never called you that, though you called me an idiot. I called Dyc insignificant, and I have more than enough reason to think that. Are you now saying that you are so attached to Dyc that you will take an attack on her super personally?

It's ok, you can live your life as you please. I ain't stopping you.

No need for a warning, David. I am now done with Nat.

.

Joseph Chilton Pearce I think would make an interesting interview.

And I don't think he's so successful that you'd have too hard of a time getting him on the show. But maybe you will, who knows. I think it'd be worth a try.

Here's aninterview with him.

Yes, he's a bit new-agey and his vision is very teleological, but his criticisms of humanity in general I find inspiringly extreme. Also, given he is his so facinated and inspired by mysticism, altered states and cosmic consciousness, I think he thus differs from the values of Q, R, and S to a degree that I think will help make for an amusing and interesting interview.