Internet Forum: a catalyst for change

I'm not disputing the simplicity of difficulty of the concept (at least not in this post). Pointing to the simplicty of the concept, or to "our culture's" inability to grasp it, won't help you solve the contradiction between the two claims you're making here. The only way to tackle that, Coberst, is to answer the question. So I'll ask a third time: how do you reconcile the contradiction between your call for self-learners to apply their knowledge to stem cell research, global warming and globalization, on one hand, with your call for a kind of knowledge independent of specific applications, on the other hand?

They were pretty rare, and i suspect he only responded a few times, in the beginning, before deciding that he had gotten his message across (for as well as he could ever hope to do) by just posting his rant. Even without responses from him, his threads, not unlike Coberst's, were usually a source of mild hilarity.

Setanta,

You will get no sense out of coberst. He is like a the woodwork teacher who is covering for the physics teacher by reading his notes.

To reiterate a point I raised above....the irony is that coberst does not and maybe cannot understand Bohm's concept of "disinterested knowledge" himself. Bohm is advocating a group meditational mode (after Krishnamurti) where an attempt is made to dissipate individual "selves" with their idiosyncratic cultural and personal conditioning in favour of a holistic/empathic/unified group of mutual "wise"observers. I therefore say "cannot" because the chief characteristic coberst displays and indeed expounds is "self-assertion". If he (coberst) really wants to learn from Bohm he must be prepared to suspend his addiction to "doing book learning" and critically examine "himself".

http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/K/