specialis_sapientia and Ted,
thank you for your replies, I will work through some of that lot and hopefully absorb the gist of what the book is about. Glossing over it though, it currently appears to me as more of a set of analogies or way of thinking, rather than a detailed description of (an) ontological reality.
If is a theory, rather than set of analogies (which sort of is a theory anyway), without specific testable predictions the details
of the theory cannot be justified, i.e., there is no reason for anyone to believe this stuff over any other explanation(s) of the same phenomena. Yes it is only 'true' if it corresponds to your own personal experience, and this is
testing the theory, but can you test its details
? (I would prioritise this kind of testing/verification over 'objective' evidence)
The problem is that you may find multiple
world-models/theories/books that can equally allow you to explain (understand and conceptually represent) your experiences to yourself
, including multiple states of consciousness you may encounter, all the
way from ordinary states of consciousness right up to enlightenment.
e.g., take a look at the theory on www.egodeath.com
(not the same but you should get my point)...
Nevertheless, if as a world-model it effectively
helps people to help themselves and to help others, to act with compassion, then that is another matter altogether.
I do think the mainstream materialistic, dualistic world-view is not just wrong and incoherent, but is likely responsible for many of the global and personal crises at present. A step away from that is a step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned, regardless of the details! I tend to think as long as we are kind to ourselves and others then it doesn't really matter... (and some people argue you can never truly 'know' an ontological reality 'beyond your senses')...
We just have to make up our own damn minds! Take no one's word for it... ;)
Will send you a message :)