I have decided to amend this posting to reflect recent developments.
Although it was never my intention to have the reviewer remove her comments from Amazon and any other places she may have posted it. She has nevertheless decided to do so.
Although her words and comments stung me quite a lot she was still entitled to make them. Clearly most people find ITLAD to be an enjoyable read. However I know that many of you like the book but do not agree with the conclusions. That is great. After all CTF is only a theory. I am sure that a completely different conclusion could be drawn from exactly the same information as presented in the book. That is why I set this blog up. I want to reproduce those late night, after the pub discussions on life, the universe and everything. Indeed that is really what ITLAD is - a proposal (or maybe even, as some of you have said to me, a work-in-progress).
Can I thank all of you that rallied round when the reviews appeared. It was much appreciated as was the regular comment that I should 'keep things in perspective'.
However I am still very concerned about her comments with regard to the referencing. If she is right I thank her for pointing this out. I will check this out when I have the time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Having read Candy Schultz's comments on her blog, I conclude that 'random musings' is about accurate!
Mr. Peake: I have read your book and consider the presentation of your theory to be innovative, robust, coherent, and beautifully argued. I had even considered having a friend/associate invite you to present your ideas at a meeting/symposium of the American Philosophical Society at some point in the future. In my opinion you have taken scientific and philosophical strands always in our midst and woven them together elegantly and admirably. You have found an ingenious method for revealing what, as Wordsworth says, "lay all about us". Moreover, you speak in the voice of your generation, not in the sickly tone of Ouspensky. To say that you have merely worked over his early thesis dishonors you, and proves that you were read with a jaundiced and prejudiced eye from the start. In my opinion, you have justified Nietzsche posthumously. I consider myself as a reader to be most decidedly ungullible; I know whereof I speak when I say your method is clear and your philosophy both sound and admirable. You have not vyed with the scientists, but have as a gentleman compelled with the force of your ideas their own, and woven them into your lovely and fine work. I have posted my countering ideas to the blog you cited, but may have made an error because my comments were neither posted nor acknowledged.
Susan,
Thank you so much for your kind and supportive words. They are really appreciated.
Have you considered having full posting rights on this site? I would be honoured if you considered doing so. Drop me an email at cheattheferryman@aol.com and I will send you an invite.
With regard to your posting on the other blogger site I am sure that the lady in question will have read your comments - in fact seeing how she has now withdrawn the reviews on Amazon and her blog I can only assume that it had an effect - but she can decide not to place them on the site. I suspect that this may have been the case.
I have now amended the posting to reflect this development.
Carenza,
As always, thanks for your support.
Post a Comment