<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2668" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>In a message dated 7/29/2005 11:40:19 AM Eastern Standard Time,
psaartist@hotmail.com writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>Sorry
about that. I just put it into the text of this email-<BR><BR><BR>Hello
Howard,<BR>I’m afraid this week I have failed outright as a research
assistant, but I <BR>have been ruminating and writing down a few impressions
about Islam with <BR>your project in mind. The following ideas were written
down over the course <BR>of several days and are in varying degrees of
wholeness. I hope some of <BR>them might help you to see the shapes of your
own ideas, either in the light <BR>of my good ones or against the shadows of
my bad ones.<BR> I did find some dissidents in Islam through my
brief search on
Google:<BR>http://www.islamreview.com/articles/islamapostasy.shtml<BR>http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/SRR/Volume11/gayatri.html<BR>I
think someone in the online conference asked for a Muslim Ghandi. The
<BR>second of these links answers to that, the Muslim “Frontier
Ghandi”.<BR>Reading their stories tends to make Islam look worse rather than
better, <BR>though. Basically because of the lies, threats, violence and
hypocrisy they <BR>had to try to endure. In some cases with Western
collaboration. <BR>Fundamentally, every power system instinctively hates a
dissident.<BR> I think Islam has a different ‘flavor’, a different
character when it <BR>comes to ideas of authority, law, censure, belonging and
transgression. Its <BR>basic spirit, to which it so often returns, seems to be
legalistic (subject <BR>to interpretation and manipulation) and authoritarian
rather than humane. It <BR>is closed and fearful of challenge rather
than open. It is not merciless, <BR>but even the power of mercy is used as a
demonstration of authority.<BR> Part of this comes from the tribal
and ethnic environments where Islam <BR>took hold.</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>hb: these are extremely good observations. Punishment and robotic
devotion to the duties of the religion are prized. Creativity and
individuality are minimized. In Bloomian terms, it's a religion whose
conformity enforcers outweigh its diversity generators. That may well be
why it has fared so poorly against the West ever since the Industrial Revolution
and the Scientific Spirit blossomed in Europe around 1750.</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000
size=2><BR><BR> The West has trouble dealing with Islam because
the West has trouble <BR>dealing with religion. Philosophically or ethically,
Christian or Jewish <BR>fundamentalists can face fundamentalist Islam
only on the most impoverished <BR>terms- “You are devils, we are angels”. The
contest is therefore left to be <BR>decided in terms of pure violence. Liberal
Westerners, secularists, avoid <BR>making any definitive criticism of a
religion or a religious person because <BR>that would violate ideas of
understanding, tolerance, inclusivenes, and <BR>humility. In a sense they are
determined not to seek a decision to the <BR>contest. Each half of the West,
the religious and the secular, is hamstrung <BR>because it knows it can not
count on the support of the other. I’m sure the <BR>Jihadists are delighted to
observe this.</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>hb: extremely good observations, Peter.</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000
size=2><BR> The attractions of the Enlightenment, the positive
example, are being <BR>dimmed and perverted by the excesses (or the essence)
of the war on Terror, <BR>which is a radical, lawless, barbarizing Western
Jihad created by <BR>fundamentalists.<BR> One might wish for a
tough, clear-minded secularist player on the scene. </FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>hb: I'm trying to be one voice for this approach. But my voice is a
mere squeak at this point, limited primarily to books and to a fairly steady run
of national talk radio appearances.</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2><BR>The
EU? The French, who ban all forms of religious expression from their
<BR>schools? I don’t know how sucessful any of their efforts
are.<BR> A side question- given economic prosperity, education,
and a fairly <BR>stable long term social situation, will people from Muslim
cultures behave <BR>like a mirror image of secularist westerners?
</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>hb: which Western model do you mean--</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>1) the revolutionary Marxists who clubbed the brains out of the Russians
and the Chinese until 1989 and killed 80 million people in the process, but who
fed the need of humans in their teens and twenties to rebel against their
parents?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>2) or the folks who have gone to their jobs and been part of "the system",
a system whose rich, rich rewards they fail to see? Opening the eyes of
Westerners to the benefits and future uplift of "the system" is what Reinventing
Capitalism: Putting Soul In the Machine--A Radical Reperception of Western
Civlization is all about. That's my half-completed next book.</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>One
might be considered a <BR>racist for asking the question, of for necessarily
expecting either a yes or <BR>a no answer to it. </FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>hb: but this social ritual we call "condemning racism" is another of the
perceptual throttles you refer to above. To paraphrase you, we forbid
certain forms of thought in order to maintain what we cherish, pluralism,
tolerance, and free speech. And we are easily led to think that thoughts
vital to our survival fall into the forbidden zones...even when they don't.
Islam is not a race!</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>To put
it another way, is the Western secularist ‘flavor’ <BR>a sort of inevitable
world-historical ideal? </FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>hb: nothing is inevitable. Winston Churchill proved that with a
sufficient exertion of will and perseverance, we humans can change
history. Lenin before him proved the same thing. And the rise of the
ideas of a relatively anonymous thinker, Carl Marx, proves that
multi-generational projects kept aloft by generations of stubborn
persistence can make massive differences in the path that social evolution
takes. Even if those paths lead to dead ends 150 years down the line (from
1848, when Marx and Engels issued the Communist Manifesto to 1989, when the
Berlin Wall fell).</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>Is it an
idea of the same <BR>species as the inevitable Marxist worldwide revolution?
That is, an <BR>assumption taken for granted by its adherents (the way fish
don’t notice the <BR>water they swim in), but about to encounter a big world
that has other <BR>plans… Me, I don’t have an answer to these
questions.</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>hb: in the terms of my second book, Global Brain, the battle between
groups, the battle between civilizations, represents a test of alternative
hypotheses in the group mind. Unfortunately, the groups that fare best in
battle are sometimes the worst at running a society at peace. But that
easy generalization may not be true. The society that wins is the one with
the greatest will, the highest morale, and the most unending supply of
resources. Germany and Japan ran out of resources. The Allies had
America, a resource bonanza way back then. So the Allies won WWII.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Same thing happens in contests between lizards, lobsters, or stags for
dominance. The animal with the highest degree of confidence and the
largest reserve of resources wins. Which leads to a question. What
is confidence? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Based on the work of Neil Greenberg with anolis lizards, I'd
say confidence is an emotional and perceptual setting that allows a
creature:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>1) to see opportunities in slices of reality others would regard as
threatening</DIV>
<DIV>2) to maintain a sense of perceived control</DIV>
<DIV>3) to hang on to the serotonin and dopamine settings these perceptions
produce</DIV>
<DIV>4) to avoid the non-stop flood of stress hormones that poison an
animal's ability to outdo others at shows of majesty, decisiveness, calm under
pressure, and implied menace</DIV>
<DIV>5) to use the stress hormones only in actual combat, when those hormones
are arousers, not poisons</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In other words, perception, physiology, group organization,
and resources work hand in hand to produce winners and losers, winners
of intergroup tournaments or winners of personal struggles.</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>In
humans, it helps to have a worldview that allows you percieve
the riches in what you've got and that help you see how what you do
contributes to something larger than yourself, something that uplifts your
people as a group and that uplifts the individual people around
you. If you've got that, you can tap the hormonal cocktail of
idealism.</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>What's more, your perceptions influence your resources. The
Tasmanians died when they'd hunted down all the land animals on their
island. They died of starvation. Why? Their worldview, their
collective perceptual system, told them that the animals of the sea, fish and
other seafood, were inedible trash.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The Japanese lived on island more impoverished than those of the
Tasmanians. But they saw everything around them as a useable
resource. So the Tasmanian perceptual system killed its people off.
The Japanese perceptual system has been a winner for roughly 1,300 years
(roughly the same amount of time that Islam has been a worldview using the
people it manipulates, empowers, and motivates as a test vehicle).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Islam is poor at seeing resources in rubble. But it's very good at
organized violence and unconventional warfare. Can a worldview that
impoverishes its people to stoke their sense of victimization and their need for
revenge, for justice, and for the purity of god's own laws beat a worldview that
has created relative wealth even for its poorest citizens? (One of
our local homeless men gets his food and coffee at Starbucks and gourmet delis,
owns a bicycle, supports the luxury of
god-knows-what-self-destructive-habit, and has access to trash that's the
equivalent of treasure even to me.)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Only if this civilization fails to perceive the riches it creates--the
spiritual riches that come from "consumerism" and "materialism". And only
if this civlization fails to perceive the riches in what it now discards as
trash--passion, emotion, and empathy--the things that we need most to
upgrade the jobs we go to every day and to upgrade the companies that give
us those jobs.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>That, too, is the goal of Reinventing Capitalism. To get us Tasmanians to
see the riches in the seas around us.</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000
size=2><BR><BR> Is Islam at all compatible with democracy?
</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>hb: yes. The Iranians are proving that, despite the headlock the
conservative mullahs have on the current government...and may have for
another ten years or so, but may eventually lose as the old guard of the
1979 Revolution dies out. The Lebanese are now trying to prove that Islam
and democracy can work together, too.</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>That
remains to be seen. Where <BR>democracy and Islam mix, will one of them have
to become essentially <BR>denatured?</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>hb: bureaucracy, whether it's at the DMV here in Brooklyn or in the
government of Hosni Mubarak in Cairo, needs the perceptual upgrade of
reinventing capitalism. Bureaucracies have to be restructured so that
bureaucrats know that their task is to use their hearts--their empathic
passions--to defend and advance other humans.</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000
size=2><BR><BR> What are today the various layers in Islam of what
is, what is desired, <BR>and what cannot be expressed?<BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>hb: Islam is out to achieve its "just place" in the hierarchy of
cultures--the number one slot. That's what God has promised. That's
what God says Islam must be--number one, top dog. And God has said that if
that requires "making wide slaughter in the land" (a key phrase and a key
message in the Koran and the Hadith, the additional Islamic holy books), then so
be it. Social standing often means more than food and water to individual
humans and to human groups.</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000
size=2><BR> Howard, in one of the Sunday night online conferences
you described Islam <BR>as having an anti-art stance, and you seemed to see
Persian representational <BR>(that is, pictorial) art as a minor exception
that only serves to prove the <BR>rule. It is indeed true that many Islamic
cultures prohibit any earthly <BR>thing from being depicted, and some prohibit
music to varying degrees. <BR>However, a moment’s reflection should
bring to mind the many centuries of <BR>Islamic development in many
arts, in some areas to the highest point. For <BR>example, weaving,
architecture, design, ceramics, poetry, music, <BR>calligraphy. The
Quran itself in its recital is a consummate work of <BR>literary, poetic
and performative art.</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>hb: I've been counting Islam's contributions today, and compared to those
of the West they are scant. Islam has given us fabulous architecture,
architecture based on Western models, fabulous calligraphy, and one fabulous
book--The Thousand and One Arabian Nights. The Koran is considered the
epitome of literature, God's own verses, in the world of Islam. But read
it in English and it comes across as a primitive hash.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Many of the things attributed to Arabs and Islam are borrowings--Arab
numerals, for instance, which are Indian, not Arabic. However Islamic
culture provided a vital transit point that quickened the commerce, the
interchange, of styles and ideas, giving westerners the silks of China, the
ceramics of China, the mathematics of India, and the literature and philosophy
of classical Greece (a literature the West lost track of until the tenth
century, when it trickled from Moslem Spain into Christian Europe). Arabs
invented a new form of sea-faring, using the triangular sail (the lateen sail)
to tack into the wind and inventing a way to harvest the catastrophe of the
Monsoon winds to make annual trips by sea from Oman and Yemen to India and to
the Spice Islands, the islands of Java, Malacca, the
Maldives, Sumatra, Aceh, the Philippines, and Zanzibar, not to mention the
ports of Mombassa.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>They invented a commerce in black African slaves that defies belief.
We Westerners uprooted ten million black Africans and used them in our slave
business. That is appalling and is justly labeled a "Black
Holocaust". Moslem traders from Arabia and India uprooted 140 million
black Africans. That's fourteen African Holocausts!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The Western slave trade imposed such monstrous conditions on its captives
that one out of every ten seized from their homes died somewhere in
transit. The Moslem slave trade imposed such monstrous conditions that
only nine out of ten Africans attacked and/or captured DIED. That
brings the death toll of of the Black Islamic Holocaust up to the level of
120 Black Western Holocausts. 126 million deaths--the number inflicted by
Moslem slave traders and slave raiders--is the equivalent of 21 of the
Holocausts inflicted on the Jews by the Nazis. It's twice the combined
death tolls of World War I and of World War II--the two most industrialized uses
of killing machines known to man, wars in which two atomic bombs were loosed on
civilian populations.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>And we are supposed to believe that decrying this turning of more than half
a continent into a killing field, this mass merchandising of black humans in
which all males were killed or castrated, this mass deportation of a race in
dhows packed so solidly with human cargo that many of those crammed into the
seafaring vessels of Arab merchants died of suffocation, this trade whose ship
captains combed their cargo before entering a port to search out the weak and
the ill, then to throw this faulty merchandise overboard to avoid
paying import taxes on humans too feeble to sell, this trade in females and
young boys as sex slaves, we are supposed to believe that denouncing this or
even researching its details is a racist crime?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>And we are told this by apartheid states like Saudi Arabia which I,
as a Jew, can not enter? Why? Because of my tribal identity, my
race, my Jewish genes, my Jewish blood, and my Jewish geneology. And we
Jews are supposed to believe that we, who often live peacefully among Arabs and
Moslems as I did when living outside the Arab town of Afullah and as I do in a
Brooklyn neighborhood riddled with mosques, mosques in which bomb plots to
destroy the World Trade Center and to destroy the New York Subway and
rail system have been hatched, we are supposed to believe that I am
some sort of Nazi who lobbies for apartheid?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>This is a violently perverse perception, one which we voluntarily
enforce. It is a system of censorship which we gladly encourage, often for
the reasons you have pinpointed, because it fits our sense of fairness and
tolerance. But is it really fair to decry our murders and to close our
eyes to piles of bodies far higher than any we have ever erected? If we
are ethical and prize human life, isn't it incumbent on us to open our eyes and
to decry both Islams's crimes and ours?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Or are we here to inflict so much guilt on ourselves that we kill the
civilization that has given even Moslems in the slums of Cairo
TVs and radios. Should we really condemn the mix of capitalism and
open criticism that has given spoiled Moslem middle class and rich kids
like Osama bin Laden and his foot soldiers computers and cell phones?
Should we despise the civilization that has brought ordinary Japanese, Koreans,
Taiwanese, Thais, Philippinos, Indians, and, now, Chinese from starvation
to wealth beyond the power of 19th Century kings? Should we overthrow a
Western system that has produced the anti-slavery movement, the anti-imperialism
movement, the human rights movement, the environmental movement, Greenpeace,
Amnesty International, the ACLU, NASA, solar energy, hybrid vehicles,
and the first steps toward a possible hydrogen economy?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>This Islamic material is what I'm working on for the Tenth Anniversary
Edition of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of
History. And the reperception of the Western System is the raison d'etre
of Reinventing Capitalism: Putting Soul In the Machine--A Radical Reperception
of Western Civilization.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>All thanks for some stunningly good insights, Peter. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I've read the rest and have made one more comment. You are a good,
good thinker. But this is where my energy ebbed. Onward</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000
size=2><BR> The reason I raise this issue is that I see a danger
of a sort of <BR>“momentum” of negative criticism when one looks at
Islam and its many <BR>problems. To find oneself convinced that Islamic
expression is against art <BR>is to have lost one’s bearings in the argument.
That would be equvalent to <BR>thinking that Chartres cathedral is against
art. Perhaps the issue in <BR>Islamic art that offends a child of the
enlightenment, (I will presume to <BR>put us in that category) is that Islamic
expression seems consistently to be <BR>against independence. This issue, so
important to us, may make us look at <BR>the work as deficient and backward. I
think what we are really seeing is <BR>that the work totally refuses to
participate in the Western modern project. <BR>I’m thinking of that project as
secular, humanist, trying to explore without <BR>a predetermined destination.
As much of the world has taken on this <BR>modernist (and post-modern, etc.)
quality, and as things in general are made <BR>industrually rather than by
hand, Islamic art has been uprooted and stifled <BR>and as far as I know
hasn’t produced anything of fulfilling greatness in our <BR>era. One exception
could be Islamic (Sufi) music, which seems to be in quite <BR>a healthy state,
as the late Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan and others have recently <BR>and abundantly
demonstrated.<BR><BR>On learning and writing about Islam-<BR> I
have gone through a couple of amateurish phases of trying to learn <BR>about
Islam, and have always ended up feeling that my conclusions have <BR>missed
the essential point of what I was trying to grasp. To say that Islam <BR>is
multi-dimensional is an understatement: I’ll say that it is beyond
<BR>multidimensional. In a way it is even misleading to say that Islam is “a
<BR>religion”, much less to say that it is “a religion politicised” or
anything <BR>along those lines. I think it is a phenomenon that transcends
“religion” at <BR>all times and under all circumstances. This is because the
essence of its <BR>project is the necessary capture and integration of the
social, ethical, <BR>ritual, religious, spoken, gender, philosophical, legal,
familial, and other <BR>spheres, on and on. (I am not here making any claims
about the justness or <BR>even the real feasibility of this
project.)</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>hb: as Osama says, Islam is about unity, it is about one-ness. One
God. One code of laws. Encorporating all aspects of human life in
that holy One.</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000
size=2><BR> This is a phenomenon not properly equivalent to, say,
Christian <BR>fundamentalism. (I don’t know anything about Jewish
fundamentalism so I <BR>won’t try to compare.) I say it is not equivalent
because its foundation, <BR>the Islamic tradition, is a much more intensely
sophisticated cultural <BR>machine. This is not to say Islam will always win
in a battle of <BR>conversions, or that its exegetes were smarter or more
perceptive than the <BR>Christians’. I am just suggesting that Islam’s nature
is to recognize, <BR>emphasize and penetrate more profoundly into more spheres
of experience than <BR> does Christianity.<BR> In writing
on Islam is that one might want to restrict oneself to a <BR>specific slice,
say, the jihadis, without casting an endlessly wide net for
<BR>contributing factors to the phenomenon. A problem arises because it’s like
<BR>being asked to describe just one cell in a highly developed brain, along
<BR>with, oh, only the cells directly connected to it. (By cells I’m not
<BR>representing terrorist units, but historical factors.) Well, to understand
<BR>how that cell arose and is functioning, you have to understand the
function <BR>of every cell it’s connected to, and generally the reader has
minimal grasp <BR>of any of those functions, so you have to explain those, and
so on. It’s a <BR>problem because, upon examination, each cell turns out not
to be doing quite <BR>what you would have assumed. It’s not a matter of
exoticism and mystery, <BR>it’s just a huge amount of information we never
knew existed. So you <BR>categorize and abstract and interpolate, as any
writer must, but with every <BR>abstraction you risk a distortion. One feels
like the blind man asked to <BR>describe an elephant. He can only report on
the limited part he has been <BR>able to reach.<BR><BR><BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT lang=0 face=Arial size=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF"
PTSIZE="10">----------<BR>Howard Bloom<BR>Author of The Lucifer Principle: A
Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution
of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century<BR>Recent Visiting
Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty
Member, The Graduate
Institute<BR>www.howardbloom.net<BR>www.bigbangtango.net<BR>Founder:
International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution
Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango
Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the
Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political
Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human
Ethology; advisory board member: Institute for Accelerating Change ; executive
editor -- New Paradigm book series.<BR>For information on The International
Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org<BR>for two chapters from
<BR>The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History,
see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer<BR>For information on Global Brain: The
Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see
www.howardbloom.net<BR></FONT></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>