To: PatrickHenry
I think Stace intended it as an insult, to be truthful. While Stace is obscure these days, it wasn't always so. His main bag was mysticism, and an attempt to explore mystical experiences (visions, revelations, dreams, et cetera) as though they were real phenomena, indicative of some reality external to oneself. Given that, it should hardly be surprising that he had little use for Russell, and Russell for him. But like I said, these days, Stace is the obscure one, getting what little play he gets in New-Agey crystal-gripping circles, although he did enjoy a bit of a resurgence in the '60's with the Timothy Leary/Carlos Castaneda-types, for obvious reasons.
49 posted on
01/15/2004 11:24:49 AM PST by
general_re
("Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago." - Bernard Berenson)
To: general_re
So what was Russell's fallacy?
50 posted on
01/15/2004 11:35:29 AM PST by
PatrickHenry
(Everything good that I have done, I have done at the command of my voices.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson