What Peter Ralston Gets Wrong

[Mellowmarsh]

1 minute ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Man I hope not!

Hope is a hopeless word. 

[Joseph Maynor]

1 hour ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Hope is a hopeless word. 

Um Hm.  

[Breakingthewall]

4 hours ago, moonawakening444 said:

 

 if you don´t mind elaborating on these i will appreciate it!! 🙏

Just that consciousness is the reality being aware of itself, not the reality. It's an emergence not the foundation. Consciousness is the reality in a determined structure, but the reality is not consciousness, allows consciousness 

[r0ckyreed]

I finished reading the book. It was overall really good. His writings and communication are deep and direct.

Some things though that he gets wrong is he doesn’t advocate calling Existence God, he doesn’t address why Existence should be called Consciousness. And he seemed to use physicalist arguments to argue for the non-existence of the ego. In addition, he did not go deep into Absolute Beauty/Love. But I loved his writings on time. I think contemplations on time are what is missing from actualized.org.

I really enjoyed the book and would recommend it. So many great exercises. In some ways, his communications on Existence make more sense than actualized.org. Peter Ralston still holds the idea of an external world and other minds. But he just calls it Consciousness instead of “external world”.

[Yimpa]

50 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

In addition, he did not go deep into Absolute Beauty/Love.

He uses the word “beauty” a total of 2 times in the entire book.

Dafaq!

[Jirh]

51 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

he gets wrong is he doesn’t advocate calling Existence God

Thank you for the review.

Why do you think that's wrong, though?