Who said this?

[Malkuth]

I'm going to post a transcript of part of a lecture given several years ago, which I have on video.

I'd like whoever views this thread to read it in it's entirety, then post your answers/ guesses as to the identity of the speaker. I will reveal the name in 24 hours if nobody has guess correctly.



"Now, I've said many nasty things about religious faith. I don't mean to say that religion is merely a shell game. This is not to say that all religion is just a tissue of lies and misconceptions, and cognitive errors, designed to anesthetise us against our fear of death. It is that to some significant degree, but it is more than that. There is no doubt that people have spiritual experiences. I use these words spiritual and mystical in my book and I use them in scare quotes, because frankly, there are many embarassing associations with these terms, but there is no doubt that people have extraordinary transformative experiences, and can have them deliberately.

Every culture has produced people who have gone off into caves, for 40 days or 40 years and discovered that a deliberate use of attention, of introspection, through meditation, through prayer. This can really transform the human mind. The testimony we have on this subject comes to us through our religious traditions. Unfortunately therefore, it is mingled with all manner of superstition and dogma. it is not mingled to the same degree in every tradition, and this is also taboo, to notice that our contemplative traditions, that our spiritual traditions are not equally insightful, east and west for instance. It's a bit of a cultural mystery as to why this is so."





Some of you may have seen this lecture, given the speaker's apparent popularity with some members of this forum. If you are immediately aware of his identity, I would ask that you wait at least a couple of hours to name the speaker, to give more people the chance to read the above without preconception.

Unfortunately, this obviously well-meaning post is in violation of Rule 4, Copyright. I have reduced the amount of text to an acceptable amount; I'm sorry to have to do this, but...

[lionking]

So if someone knows the lecturer they cannot post? Hmmm

Okay to get it underway, Christopher Hinchins.

[Malkuth]

Just a request to not post straight away, not an instruction. I only want some people to be able to read this without any preconception of it's author.

[Dunstan]

I'm pretty sure the speaker is Sam Harris. It certainly sounds like something he would say, and I know there have been discussions here about some ambiguous statements he's made about Buddhism and eastern religion generally.

Regardless of who said it, I find the quoted statement hard to evaluate. As I said in the other thread, there's certainly a lot of words that ping my woo-dar (spiritual, transformative experiences, mystical, consciousness), but I didn't notice any specific claims that I disagree with.

I think quiet contemplation, whether you call it that or meditation or something else, is a good thing that many people would benefit from. And I don't think modern medicine really disputes the role of stress in health and disease. I can't tell if that's all the speaker is saying, or if there's some more grandiose claim buried in the flowery language.

[Steven Howard]

Was it the Pope?

[EventHorizon]

Ernest Borgnine?

[LarianLeQuella]

Stewie Griffith

[fuelair]

Bob?




The enlightened Bob, not the dorky guy!!

[arthwollipot]

It was me. I said it.

[CurtC]

Sam Harris was my guess too.

[Malkuth]

It was indeed Sam Harris, from a CSpan lecture in 2005.

I thought it was quite intriguing that such a prominent athiest, and something of an anti-woo idol, would make so much of 'the need' to incorporate eastern mysticism into western philosophical thought and even scientific research.

I've been aware since a relatively young age that there was something fundamentally wrong with the general purview of western traditions. It's only been in recent years since I have begun to study other world views that I realised it's a type of frantic close mindedness, a cultural unwillingness to expand consciousness.

Attempting to extricate oneself from this net can be extremely difficult, given the weight of 'science is the best we have' idealism behind it.

[JetLeg]

It was indeed Sam Harris, from a CSpan lecture in 2005.

I thought it was quite intriguing that such a prominent athiest, and something of an anti-woo idol, would make so much of 'the need' to incorporate eastern mysticism into western philosophical thought and even scientific research.

I've been aware since a relatively young age that there was something fundamentally wrong with the general purview of western traditions. It's only been in recent years since I have begun to study other world views that I realised it's a type of frantic close mindedness, a cultural unwillingness to expand consciousness.

Attempting to extricate oneself from this net can be extremely difficult, given the weight of 'science is the best we have' idealism behind it.


Well, I have asked you several times in private -> what do you see as complementary to science? I even might agree with you. But I think your post is too vague.

What other world views? What specific claims do they bring to the claim? I can be ok with claims that are not scientific, and with worldviews that aren't scientific. But I want to know what they are...

[Beerina]

> Malkuth


I use Malkuth Rocket Lauchers (http://www.battleclinic.com/eve_online/item/i16521--Malkuth-Rocket-Launcher-I-details.html) on my Caldari Navy Cormorant (http://www.battleclinic.com/eve_online/item/i16238-Cormorant-details.html).

Of course, for my new twin Minmatar Republic Maelstrom battleships (http://www.battleclinic.com/eve_online/item/i24694-Maelstrom-details.html), I use 8 1400 mm 'Scout' Artillery Cannons (http://www.battleclinic.com/eve_online/item/i9491-1400mm-Scout-Artillery-I-details.html).

As huge as that is (the US battleship guns are "only" 16 inches, or about 400mm) you'd think a lot more would fit on a ship about a mile long. Go figure.


Of course, they're not these monsters, either (http://www.battleclinic.com/eve_online/item/i20454-Quad-3500mm-Siege-Artillery-I-details.html).

[Malkuth]

"Unfortunately, this obviously well-meaning post is in violation of Rule 4, Copyright. I have reduced the amount of text to an acceptable amount; I'm sorry to have to do this, but...
Posted By:jmercer "

Just asking for clarification, does copyright extent to speech? That is, non-written verbal speech? This text is not from one of Sam Harris' books, it is my own typewritten transcript of a speech. I'm not claiming any rights to it myself, only questioning the validity of assertion of copyright on verbal speech.

----------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User:Physchim62/Copyright_in_speeches

Copyright under the Copyright Act of 1909 arose either when the work was registered at the Copyright Office or when it was published with a notice of copyright. A most speeches do not contain the word "copyright", let alone the other requirements of a valid copyright notice, it has been contended (on Wikisource and elsewhere) that the delivery of a speech amounts to a publication without notice, voiding any claim to copyright.

Conclusion
U.K. law seems to accept without question that there is copyright in the transcription of a speech, but is less clear as to who is the holder of the copyright (before August 1989). U.S. law seems to exclude the reporter from copyright (at least for a verbatim transcription of the kind which WS is likely to host), but a full discussion of ownership can only be made by reference to the question of publication.

-------------------------------------------------------

This discussion of copyright of verbal speech is interesting, but it's conclusions seem somewhat ambiguous.

I have e-mailed cspan for their opinion of this issue and will post their reply.


@Beerina - What possible relevance does your post have to this discussion? Would it not be infinitely better suited to one of the "off-topic" forums?

[JetLeg]

Malkuth, I would still like to get an answer.

[I Ratant]

"Of course, for my new twin Minmatar Republic Maelstrom battleships, I use 8 1400 mm 'Scout' Artillery Cannons.

As huge as that is (the US battleship guns are "only" 16 inches, or about 400mm) you'd think a lot more would fit on a ship about a mile long. Go figure.
"
.
Science.... 1400mm is 55.2 inches.
About right for that ship.
Awful effect on the environment when they fire one of those.
.
On topic, Eastern "mysticism" is no more connected to the real world than any 15 or 40 day fasters mental problems due to sensory and physical deprivation.

[NorfolkAtheist]

"Unfortunately, this obviously well-meaning post is in violation of Rule 4, Copyright. I have reduced the amount of text to an acceptable amount; I'm sorry to have to do this, but...
Posted By:jmercer "

Just asking for clarification, does copyright extent to speech? That is, non-written verbal speech? This text is not from one of Sam Harris' books, it is my own typewritten transcript of a speech. I'm not claiming any rights to it myself, only questioning the validity of assertion of copyright on verbal speech.

----------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User:Physchim62/Copyright_in_speeches

Copyright under the Copyright Act of 1909 arose either when the work was registered at the Copyright Office or when it was published with a notice of copyright. A most speeches do not contain the word "copyright", let alone the other requirements of a valid copyright notice, it has been contended (on Wikisource and elsewhere) that the delivery of a speech amounts to a publication without notice, voiding any claim to copyright.

Conclusion
U.K. law seems to accept without question that there is copyright in the transcription of a speech, but is less clear as to who is the holder of the copyright (before August 1989). U.S. law seems to exclude the reporter from copyright (at least for a verbatim transcription of the kind which WS is likely to host), but a full discussion of ownership can only be made by reference to the question of publication.

-------------------------------------------------------

This discussion of copyright of verbal speech is interesting, but it's conclusions seem somewhat ambiguous.

I have e-mailed cspan for their opinion of this issue and will post their reply.


@Beerina - What possible relevance does your post have to this discussion? Would it not be infinitely better suited to one of the "off-topic" forums?

The U.S. is part of the Berne Convention which makes copyright automatic when the intellectual property in question is put in a fixed form. Was Sam Harris' speech totally improvised? Or do you think it was written before delivery? If it was the latter, then you should tread carefully because the speech is copyrighted (although it may be difficult for Sam Harris to prove). But even if this was totally extemporaneous a video recording would still count as a tangible form and I believe it could be argued that the speech is copyrighted by virtue of its video recording.