Good to hear from you.

Hi Woody.. how r you?

Hello, Woody. You might find the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (all online) interesting - for example, do a search for "soul" and read multiple definitions and many ideas from numerous thinkers.

Welcome to the world of shamanism.

spirit make someone getting better, and i want much spirit!!

The options in the upper right are what you should have.

You’re disappointed? You couldn’t be more disappointed than I. I tried to get re-engaged in the debate process but I am having real problems with this. I’m confident however I made the right decision though.

Woody, I’m not confident that the process will get us to where we need to go but I’m prepared be wrong on that. Actually, where is the RD intended to take RG? Maybe we’re trying to come up with the essentials of religion 2.0.

I see the debate process as something with limited appeal for many people. The few who feel equipped to enter into a structured debate process will thrive on the intellectualization. I’m sure the RD process will be intellectually dazzling but I’m not sure it will result in increased participation and buy-in. But I’m wrong all the time.

Woody, you say you don’t view the debate process as adversarial? I’ve never heard anyone suggest that a debate was anything but oppositional. A debate is a representational argument – where, for the time being people engage in intellectual battle. The debate has an arbiter. This is not a consensus building exercise we have chosen. It does not encourage direct participation or alignment of more than a few. Maybe increased participation will come after the debate is over and we have something concrete that people can sign their name to. Right?

Currently, I am not prepared to buy into the process. This puts me in the same category as 100s of other RG members.

So don’t be disappointed. The universe is unfolding. Let’s see where this takes us. - Cheers.

Nf6

Great vision for RG this time next year. I especially like the SK Challenge.

I'd love to participate in the RD process but have never really been convinced of it's viability. I tried discussing this with James as he is the one to propose this approach. I might be a little more positive it this were a face-to-face dialogue but having an online debate is tricky enough never mind one that has such rigor. I think it is an approach that is exclusive so let's see if it catches on. I find myself being wrong all the time. Why would I want to get engaged in a RD when he get's to use the weapon of his choice. I think I'll again move back to an observer point of view from that of my usual participant role when it comes to the RD format. I hope it catches on. Logically it's brilliant but I think it could become another example of how brilliant logic often falls short of pragmatic reality - meaning if few people participate, or pay attention, the RD may from ineffective.