"Why did Napoleon make himself emperor in 1804?" Topic

TelesticWarrior

I think the 'comedy season' commenced long ago… I recall one poster (no names, no pack drill) claiming on another thread that the contents of a certain book are 'definitely worth reading' if you can buy the book cheaply enough… and that, by inference, they therefore become unworthy of reading if you buy the book more expensively.
Unfortunately he got all cross when asked to explain this bizarre phenomenon, so we never did learn the precise cut off point at which the book's contents suddenly stopped being 'definitely worth reading'.

Gazzola,

You said:

"You seem unable to accept that I find it shows a lack of respect to use personal insulting terms when refering to Napoleon"

It seems that you have finally admitted that it is only "insulting" Napoleon that you care about. Would it not have been easier to admit that from the start, rather than claiming that it was "the dead", and then "Napoleonic characters" that you objected to people "insulting"?

Chouan

I realise you must be busy with your school work, so, to save you time, here is a list of Napoleonic battles.

If you look through them you will see about 42 involving Napoleon. He lost 6 outright.

link

Many contempories and historians consider Napoleon great, at least in the military area. And it is just a shame that the great historian Chandler is no longer with us. He termed him a great man. If he was alive he could have written to you and you could have told him where he went wrong, since you obviously feel you know better.

Please keep the comedy coming.

Chouan,

The area where I disagree with you is regarding the Corsican dwarf's greatness. In historical terms, he was a "great man"; a short historical period was named after him and he remains a figure of legend and interest to this day, although for most British historians, this nomenclature is rather ignored in favour of the descriptor of Georgian.

He may not have been as "great" a general or a reformer or a statesman as his fans would have us believe but his impact on history renders him "great" as does that of GroFaZ, even though both were, ultimately, total failures.

Bulldog,
I am a busy person and I do not want to waste time on silly pedantic questions or on straw-man attacks, or on people that are dishonest enough to deliberately misrepresent their fellow human beings, as you did to three people on the other thread.

I do not agree with Chouan but at least he has not resorted to dishonesty or pedantry, his posts are always to the point and actually concern Napoleonic history. You seem to have no interest in Napoleonic history, but seem to have an odd fascination with both myself and Gazzola. This is my last post to you (unless you want to discuss something important), so you now have a free reign to make up whatever nonsense you want to. Rather than responding to any more silliness I will put my trust in the good sense of the average TMP member to make up their own minds about exactly what I have said, if they are at all interested, and not what you think I said in that mind of yours.

I would also appreciate that if you quote from somebody's posts in the future you do not deliberately cut up the sentences in order to present a sentence from which all the original meaning is lost. Quote the whole sentence, and paragraph if necessary. This is very elementary stuff.

BullDog69

Your views are based on hindsight. You know what happened. It is so easy to say what should and should not have happened using hindsight. A child could do it. Enough said.

Flecktarn

As you say, his reign compared to others was short. But it still creates debate 200 years later! Fantastic, isn't it.

And I think Alexander the Great actually ruled for an equally short period. But what two great historical characters, making history, never forgotten and causing us to debate, argue, write and read about them even now. Oh yeah, and even wargame their battles.

As to your question on my viewpoint about people insulting Napoleon, Napoleonic characters, the Napoleonic dead – if you don't know what it is by now – tough.

Chouan,
you may also want to re-read accounts of Napoleon's first Italian campaign, in which a young man took charge of a large army for the very first time, in a large campaign for the very first time, and took these poorly equipped men to victory after victory, gaining the trust of the soldiers and the Officers and even overturning the disdain of surly subordinates like Augereau and Serurier, defeating a series of armies led by far more experienced men like Wurmser and Alvincy, seizing most of Italy from the Austrians and finally dictating peace to them a hundred miles or so from Vienna, whilst the two larger and 'more important' french armies to the North had long since ground to a halt, thereby becoming one of the most well respected General's in France, if not Europe.

"Moderate military ability" my arse.

If you don't like like that example, or many others I could give, maybe you can ask yourself exactly why in 1813 the Allied commanders were forced to avoiding Napoleon in personal battle at all costs even though they greatly outnumbered his newly-raised part-conscript armies?

Or you can go back to reading Corelli Barnett again. He doesn't like to think about or mention these kind of things either.

Gazzola, ,

People like the Corsican dwarf, Alexander the Great (how prescient his dear papa was in giving him that name; how could he have known what little Alexander would go on to do?), Qin Shi Huang and Caesar may be the subject of debate and argument among a few scholars, history buffs and men who get their fun from playing with toy soldiers but, to more than 99% of the world, they are of no or very little interest. Most people on this planet have not forgotten them; they have never even heard of them. A couple of years ago, my partner and I went to Paris for a few days; of course, I took her to see the Corsican dwarf's tomb. She was quite impressed with the grandeur of it but compared it unfavourably with that of Qin Shi Huang, any of the Qing dynasty tombs near Beijing, or the pyramids. Of course, being Chinese, she found the whole idea of interring someone in the middle of a city quite off-putting. She was also rather underwhelmed by the little fellow's achievements and was far more interested in the French version of Masterchef, which was being filmed in the gardens outside the church.

You rather spoilt the effect of your post by the last sentence. Nevertheless, you've presented a good argument that suggests that he was a good military leader, at that time. That doesn't make him a great man though, although I suppose that if he had died then he would have been remembered as a great military leader. There were others though at the same time, mostly French, who were able and energetic, but whose early death possibly prevented them being thought as great, Hoche and Dugommier, for example.
However, a great man, and a great military leader need to be more than simply a good general.
He made some disastrous mistakes, making himself Emperor, for example, which antagonised the legitimist rulers of Europe. If he's been content with being First Consul, or Life Consul, then he'd possibly been seen as a temporary parvenu, but not so much of a threat. Seizing the imperial dignity, however, was a direct threat to their status and prestige, even if not a real political threat. Still, enough of a threat to make them his implacable enemies, even if temporary allies at times. Other errors? The Continental System, the Spanish adventure. Even if Godoy was carrying out secret correspondence with Prussia, so what? Most states have secret diplomacy going on, even Stalin with Hitler post Barbarossa. But invading Spain whilst completely misjudging the attitude of the Spanish people does seem, to me, to be a catastrophic error, plunging France into a war they couldn't win, whilst creating an impression in the rest of Europe that Buonaparte was not to be trusted to remain at peace with his neighbours. Again, not the action of a great man, I would suggest, but the action of a gambler riding his luck, and beleiving his own publicity.

TelesticWarrior

So I am never going to find out at what price the book stops being 'definitely worth reading'.
That's a pity as I must admit to being fascinated, but I guess you realised you painted yourself into a corner on that one, which explains why you felt the need to resort to personal abuse. I would suggest to you that it is 'very elementary stuff' to answer questions politely, rather than losing your temper when you are asked to explain something.

Gazzola

Another post from you, and still you do not answer my questions.
The problem with knowing your viewpoint re. insulting people is that it changes with virtually every post you make.

I think Foch's tomb is more impressive, actually.

Chouan,
But I wasn't making a comment on whether napoleon was a 'great man' or not, I was addressing your comment that he only had "Moderate military ability", which is clearly nonsense.

P.S. making himself Emperor may or may not have been a mistake, and it certainly did antagonize the other European monarchs, but I feel that it is not the business of other Monarchs to tell the French what they should or shouldn't be doing with their own system of government. Maybe they should have paid more attention to reforming their own crusty forms of despotism rather than telling Frenchmen what they should be doing with their own Nation.

Chouan,

Napoleon's decision to invade Spain is, when viewed with the benefit of hindsight, utterly stupid, rather like his invasion of Russia and his inability to make peace in 1813 and 1814.

However, I think that one can find explanations for it; I would put the following forward as being possibilities:

1. His need to extend control over a long and somewhat "leaky" coastline.

2. A misunderstanding of the condition of Spain and the attitudes of its people. He seems to have had a similar attitude as GroFaZ had to the USSR: "You have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down".

3. The letter to Prussia from a purported ally offended his Corsican clan based sense of loyalty (which, of course, only went one way) and required an act of revenge for such a betrayal.

The first of these is possibly militarily and politically valid, although it should be seen through the prism of the second and that of the key test of feasibility.

The last is, unfortunately, somewhat typical of the psychology of the man and, if accurate, indicates that his decision making was inappropriate for someone who was trying to run a nation and secure its future. To constantly base decisions on instincts honed by Corsican infighting and a tendency to gamble (Napoleon, of course, cheated at cards) is not a way to deliver long-term success,

Flecktarn

As for her not being impressed. Not many women are impressed with anything military, are they, so no suprise there. However, out of my three kids (two sons and one daughter), all now adults, I was surprised that she was the one who joined the Armed forces. But the boys do like to wargame now and again, although, at the moment, they do prefer computer versions to actual wargaming on tables with miniatures. But I'm working on them.

And there you have it in a nutshell. History, and especially military history, is seen as quite boring to most people. I think military history should be taught at school, although not by Chouan of course!

But with so few of us having that interest, I guess we should stop having a pop at each other. Wishful thinking, I suppose.

Chouan

Apologies for the last line then. And apologies for going on about the dissertation. Just a bit of fun.

I think Napoleon making himself Emperor rather than staying First Consul or of being king, was an excellent attempt at bringing the old regime and the revolution together. If these two aspects could be united, then France could move forward united, as it did mainly.

I think, with Britain funding the various states to wage war against Napoleon, it would have been pretty foolish not to be prepared for the wars that occurred, often started by his allies being invaded, as in 1809.

Spain is a difficult one. I disagree with him invading Spain and sticking a relative on the throne. However, since he did so, he should have placed someone Spanish on the throne. Although, had he done that, we might not have had the wonderful Peninsular Wars and Wellington may have ended up a forgotten clerk on some distant island. But before someone starts moaning, I do not mean all the deaths on all sides caused by the Peninsular War were wonderful. Phew! You have to be careful around here.

All commanders are gamblers. I thought you would have known that, the best laid plans and all that? And 'No campaign plan survives first contact with the enemy'. And if you wargame, that should be obvious. Victories are won by a mix of luck, skill, acceptable weather, great planning, the enemy making more mistakes than you, good soldiers, good supplies etc. Very rare that all of them come together in one campaign or battle.

Anyway, besides the other link, Haythornthwaite (The Napoleonic Sources Book) lists 54 battles involving Napoleon, with 6 defeats. That's great enough for me, on the military side at least. The fact he was also running France and an Empire, was able to carry on after Russia 1812, and Leipzig 1813 and even return and become Emperor again in 1815, that makes him even greater. But that's just my opinion. I guess it will be a case of agreeing to disagree.

BullDog69

According to some posters, one person's insult is, apparently, another person's bit of fun. That goes for the living and the dead, by the way. It also suggests that everyone, but you, is having fun – so I suggest you chill out and join in the frolics.

I will try to answer any question relating to the Napoleonic period. Fire away?

Gazzola

Why not just answer the questions I have already asked several times?
Or, if they are not easy to answer, how about the ones Edwulf posed?

"Why not just answer the questions I have already asked several times?"

Where have I seen this sort of behavior before….?

Perhaps Gazz has learned from the master:

TMP link

Gazzola,

My partner served in the PLA for a short time, as all Chinese high school and university students are required to. I think that experience put her off anything military, especially as they cut her hair off. However, she is a very good shot with an assault rifle, so we will be ok if there is a zombie apocalypse:).

The Travelling Turk

The skills of Gazzola and his mate are impressive, but no one can match the question avoidance abilities of the Master…

Not answering questions, clever at they is.

I did not read all the posts but i think I know what old nappy would have said "like you would not have if you had been in my shoes."

What the hell is going on in this thread?

Colonel,

Some humour, some stupidity, a lot of mickey taking and an attempt to get Gazzola to answer some straightforward questions:).

The problem with humour/irony/sarcasm on line is that if you're being sarcastic, in a friendly way to a person face to face, you can smile and show that you're not being unpleasant. On a forum, or in an email, you can't disarm with a smile, and as we don't know each other, mostly, there's a tendency to take things literally, especially as, being wargamers, we're all some way along the autistic spectrum……

"Many contempories and historians consider Napoleon great, at least in the military area. And it is just a shame that the great historian Chandler is no longer with us. He termed him a great man. If he was alive he could have written to you and you could have told him where he went wrong, since you obviously feel you know better."

I was at a conference with a bloke who worked with Chandler at RMA Sandhurst and knew him fairly well. He thought that he was "crackers", the convincing proof being when Chandler took to wandering around in a Napoleonic uniform. Not the whole fig, you understand, but a Chasseur habit. Made it a bit difficult to take him seriously after that, he thought.

Flecktarn,
Why would anyone feel the need to answer inane questions? If a child keeps repeating the same silly question over and over again, you don't keep answering, you tell it to shhhhh and eat its greens.

Bulldog is going to be waiting for a long time for an answer to his pedantic question, firstly because I have already answered one of his (very similar) inane questions on another thread & secondly because he won't get anymore responses until .

I am still waiting for Chouan to answer my questions from half way down page 5, but I'm not going to be losing any sleep over it.

And I believe I owe you a response to your last question to me. The thread seemed to have gone down-hill fast so I didn't know if it was worth responding. You wrote

TelesticWarrior,

I am not sure why anyone would laugh at your post.
It may be interesting to examine the classical Chinese concept of "shi", which is often translated as "time", but actually means something akin to "timeliness" or "seasonality", there being no classical Chinese word for "time".

Classical Chinese culture did not mark what we now call time from any single point but from repeated historical beginnings such as the foundation of a dynasty or a similar key event in the history of a royal family.

However, I wonder if you are arguing for something beyond this rather mundane difference in views of time and are suggesting that Bonaparte's translation to Napoleon was in some way a requirement of a cyclical process?

I spend a lot of time with Scientists and I find they are very scathing to any ideas that fall outside the current reductionist materialist malaise. It seems as if historians, or those who are interested in history, are a little more open-minded, so thank you for that.

The Chinese do indeed have a fascinating conception of time, although I don't know as much about that as I would like. It certainly sounds as if it fits in with my ideas and that of the western mystery tradition.

As to whether "Bonaparte's translation to Napoleon was in some way a requirement of a cyclical process?", the honest answer is that we don't really know. But I would guess that it was not. That would mean that reality is 100% deterministic, which is not an idea that I put any value in at all. I strongly believe we have free-will, regardless of what the materialists say (we are not just bio-chemical robots) although the paths that are available to Life reduce the further you go up the fractal towards singularity.

But do the cycles exist? I would say they do, governed by the archetypal forces that Jung described so well. Does that mean that if Napoleon did not crown himself Emperor for whatever reason, somebody else would have (or at least consolidated power under another name)? Lol now that is an interesting question. I would say yes, histories repeating cycles suggest that would indeed be the case.

ColonelToffeeApple,

I kind of collective insanity has gripped us all. Don't get involved unless you want to become like us…..

TelesticWarrior,

The problem with you argument is that Bulldog69 is asking Gazzola a set of very sensible questions which will enable us to work out what his position actually is with regard to "insulting" dead people; his position shifts so often .

I also feel that there was an inevitably about someone grabbing power after the French revolution had played itself out; nature may abhor a vacuum but those seeking power abhor one even more.

Free will is, at least to an extent, almost a given and only the most extreme materialist would argue otherwise.

I am quite intrigued by your comments regarding scientists and materialism; the scientists that I meet at college dinners tend to reject materialism and generally agree with Max Planck and, more recently, Paul Davies and John Gribbin, with the latter pair's arguments about quantum physics being very persuasive to many of them. Do you find the views that you mention among scientists from any particular branch of science or across the board? Also, what about their ages?

Flecktarn,

As if this thread is not surreal enough as it is without going into quantum physics!!!

the scientists that I meet at college dinners tend to reject materialism and generally agree with Max Planck and, more recently, Paul Davies and John Gribbin

That is a very good sign in my opinion, a welcome change of paradigm in our own life-time perhaps. Although the great Max Planck is long gone, there seems to be a fascinating re-emergence of very cool scientists today, like Seth Lloyd and Tom Campbell (I haven't heard of Paul Davies and John Gribbin but I'll be sure to look them up this week). The new paradigm, which includes the holographic principle & digital physics, is gaining ground quite rapidly, as well as the fascinating idea that 'mind' or 'consciousness' is primary, not matter. My own belief is that matter is a relatively recent emanation (just 13 billion years ago!!!!), and reality is actually a multi-dimensional fractal with all points connected at the quantum level, which consciousness as the primary language so to speak. God knows what is at the source/singularity of the fractal. You can see why the fundamentalist materialists like Richard Dawkins and Samuel Harris hate the new science though.

I would say that materialism (or physicalism, as many of them are re-packaging it now) is still dominant though. It doesn't help that its adherents really dislike looking at all the interesting new evidence.

I have hopes that the likes of Dawkins will see sense one day, or if not, the generation of scientists that are coming through now. Like Tom Campbell says, Truth is not a fragile thing, it wins out in the end.

Do you find the views that you mention among scientists from any particular branch of science or across the board? Also, what about their ages?

I used to work at a science centre and many of my friends still do. Many of the people that work there (young graduates mostly, from all manner of sciences) are extremely narrow-minded when it comes to this stuff. Very frustrating. I also spend a great deal of time in debate with materialist atheists, Dawkins acolytes for the most part, and these guys are the most fanatical of all in my opinion. They are even more trapped in out-dated beliefs & concepts than the religious people they dislike so much!!!

My current work is in ecology, so you would expect people to be more 'fluffy' than some of the 'hard' sciences, but I would say that left-brain materialist reductionism is still very much par for the course in that field.
I'm a rarity for sure, although far from alone.

BullDog

I said I will answer any questions you post relating to anything Napoleonic to the best of my knowledge – if you have any.

I'm still waiting?

Surely you can ask the questions if they relate to the Napoleonic period.

Chouan

Insulting wargamers and great historians – .

Wargamers say all sorts here and most know it is tongue in cheek or even jokes and insults to provoke.

And well done for insulting a great historian like Chandler. And I was just starting to warm to you. I thought you really did want to discuss and debate. But really, I was right the first time.

Unlike you, Chandler really loved the period and the characters involved. And the amount of writing and research he untook certainly .

Anyway, I will no longer

Yes. It's a shame Kiley vanished from that thread Turk. I was looking forward to his rebuttal. Guess Elting came up short though as he seems to have suddenly become very busy.

This thread needs Captain Gideon. That would really liven things up.

Sorry Gazz. Your whole insulting the dead thing. You haven't clarified your position at all. So it's only Napoleonic dead that shouldn't be insulted, presumably. But then people who you frequently praise and agree with have done this and it hasn't got you this wound up. So is it only Napoleon who is not to be insulted. Do you get this upset when people insult Haigh or Cumberland by unfairly calling them butcher? If not why? It's such an odd position.

Or is it more that you really really like Napoleon and don't like it when people say nasty things about him. That's ok mate. You should stick by your rule of not insulting him. Others though, are free to call him what they want. I choose Boney. Others like Corsican Dwarf. Ogre. Whatever.

Just like I refer to Cuesta and Whitelocke as cretins (which you don't mind)
Or Kevin Kiley refers to Bernadotte, unfairly I think, as a skunk. ( which again seems not to bother you).

Gazzola

My questions were absolutely pertinent to the point you made about 'insulting the dead', so I can only assume your sulky TelesticWarrior-style refusal to answer them means you now accept you simply cannot defend your (ever shifting) position on who can and cannot be 'insulted' and what defines 'insults'.
How was I meant to know that you would immediately shift your position and suddenly claim that you only really meant people from the Napoleonic period, and then again to … err… only … err… to, well, whatever it takes not to answer a straightforward question.

As I have already said, if you feel unable to answer my questions, why not answer Edwulf's, which were specifically about other leaders from the Napoleonic period – so even your latest far-fetched excuse will not prevent you addressing his points?

Or will it……………….

Your latest post suggests you are going to adopt the Brechtel198 approach to avoiding difficult questions and simply disappear from a thread rather than substantiate a claim / answer a question you aren't able to – though knowing you, you will be unable to resist popping back up as you have yet to learn the skills of the master.

Telestic Warrior, your note "I am still waiting for Chouan to answer my questions from half way down page 5, but I'm not going to be losing any sleep over it."
Could you remind me of the question, as I can't seem to find it.

On another thread, Gazzola posted this last night:

"Just had a few jars myself actually."

Judging from his intemperate posts in this thread last night, it looks like that may have been a few jars too many.

"And well done for insulting a great historian like Chandler. And I was just starting to warm to you. I thought you really did want to discuss and debate. But really, I was right the first time.

Unlike you, Chandler really loved the period and the characters involved. And the amount of writing and research he untook certainly puts your puny 60,000 word dissertation in its place."

Insult? How did I insult him? I simply reported a conversation I had with an academic who worked with him at RMA Sandhurst. I reported his view. How is that an insult? I didn't say he was a poor historian, or a foolish person or wrote bad History. I repeated an anecdote about him, told to me by a colleague. I, similarly, could suggest that Malcolm Crook was a rather distant and unwelcoming character, or that Robert Knecht's conversation at dinner was rather dull. They aren't insults, they are observations based on personal experience. Robin Briggs, Bill Doyle and Alan Forrest, of course, are, for example, thoroughly nice pleasant people, who I thoroughly enjoyed meeting, as was Norman Hampson's widow. Another, whom I shan't name, became so drunk that he was literally speechless, before projectile vomiting. I was told that he was always getting into that state. An insult? Or an observation?

TelesticWarrior,

I am less than convinced by your hypothesis about the nature of reality; however, I do not have an alternative to posit at this time as it is not an area that I have researched, although the natures of reality and, in particular, consciousness are, to an extent at least, key underpinnings of my own discipline. Where I do tend to agree is that conciousness is at the core of our reality and that it quite possibly (probably?) is primary.

With regard to the uber-materialism of Dawkins et al, I find it somewhat disheartening as I have a certain fondness for him, partly due to his rebuttal of creationism and partly due to having enjoyed his company on the two occasions that I have met him, although his more recent views on the development of conciousness show some glimmer of hope, despite his apparent side-tracking into the pseudo-parasitic nature of the hypothesised meme.

Personally I don't see what all the fuss is about. Gazzola made his position clear pages and pages ago. Although I can't remember the exact quote, and it may not have even been on this thread (there is more than one thread that has gone up during this TMP silly season), but it was something like;

There is no need to directly insult historical figures, it is far better to state what they actually did and let their actions speak for themselves.
This approach is far more mature, and it provides actual evidence for people to look at and come to their own conclusion.

Chouan,

You need to understand that posting anything even vaguely negative about one of Gazzola's heroes, even if it is not an insult, and even if it did not originate with you, will be seen as an insult, which seems to be a crime somewhat akin to boiling your grandmother alive in oil.

Of course, when it comes to people of whom Gazzola does not approve (Bernadotte, Marmont etc), genuine insults are perfectly acceptable and pass without mention

TelesticWarrior,

The problem is that he later stated that he objected to the "insulting" of "Napoleonic characters", and then further refined that to just "Napoleon".

If he does object to the "insulting" of historical figures, we are slightly at a loss as to why, by his own admission, he mildly insulted GroFaZ (who is surely an historical figure!) and, in the past, has failed to spring into action to prevent people "insulting" a range of other historical figures.

It does seem that his dislike of "insults" against historical figures is limited to his heroes.

Have you ever seen Gazzola insult any historical figure? Nope, because he doesn't do it. He knows there isn't any point. Far better to let the evidence do the talking. That is the difference between mature brains and people who are here just to take the .
I can call Hitler "Satan's cod piece" but it won't accomplish anything. It would be better to provide evidence of his crimes.

P.S it's not necessary to quote the times Gazz has called Wellington 'Pinocchio' because obviously that was done to make a point about how silly insulting historical figures is. I am sorry I even have to make this point, but there are a number of pedants around who like to jump on things and take them out of context.

Chouan,

I was referring to these things

What makes you think I've failed to spot it (bias in Barnett's book)? I simply said that it served as a good balance with Cronin. If you read Cronin, then you need to read Barnett, and Forrest, for balance.

To which I wrote;
So you are admitting then that Barnett's book suffers from rather obvious tell-tale signs of bias? Phew, finally.

You also haven't really addressed my main central point that "The author has almost nothing positive to say about Napoleon in hundreds of pages of text…….do you think the author may had had it in him to find SOMETHING positive to talk about in a Biography of Napoleon? either from a military, governmental, leadership or personal point of view?". Like I said above, if you deem other books to be near hagiography that still doesn't get Barnett off the hook.

Nobody has argued that it is a fair and balanced book;….But, the book uses evidence to present an alternative view. That the view is negative doesn't make the book wrong or bad

To which I wrote;
So are you then stating that it is NOT a fair and balanced book?

TelesticWarrior,

In one of these many threads he happily admitted to making a mildly insulting comment about GroFaZ who, although thoroughly deserving of insults, is definitely an historical figure.

Flecktarn,

I am less than convinced by your hypothesis about the nature of reality; however, I do not have an alternative to posit at this time as it is not an area that I have researched, although the natures of reality and, in particular, consciousness are, to an extent at least, key underpinnings of my own discipline. Where I do tend to agree is that conciousness is at the core of our reality and that it quite possibly (probably?) is primary.
With regard to the uber-materialism of Dawkins et al, I find it somewhat disheartening as I have a certain fondness for him, partly due to his rebuttal of creationism and partly due to having enjoyed his company on the two occasions that I have met him, although his more recent views on the development of conciousness show some glimmer of hope, despite his apparent side-tracking into the pseudo-parasitic nature of the hypothesised meme.

What is your own discipline if you don't mind me asking?

I used to love Dawkin's but I feel he is ruining his own legacy with his later fanatical crusade. He should have stuck to what he is great at, writing fantastically accessible books on evolution, which is something I will always respect him for. I used to be a staunch materialist myself, but I had to give it up for various reasons. Evolution by natural selection will always be one of my favourite subjects, but I myself have 'evolved' in later years and I have become increasingly interested in the science of deeper aspects of reality, as well as the study of consciousness and, lets say for now, more 'esoteric' approaches to understanding reality.
To paraphrase Shrodinger "the sum total of all the minds in the universe is one", meaning that all minds are linked at the quantum level. I forget which scientist it was who said that "the Universe resembles a great Thought more than it does a great machine". I believe that consciousness is primary, the mind is actually a singularity, there is really only one mind and its just shining through various individuals and appearing as 'many'.

I find it absolutely fascinating that Science is finally catching up with the esoteric western tradition & the eastern understanding of the nature of reality.

"To which I wrote;
So you are admitting then that Barnett's book suffers from rather obvious tell-tale signs of bias? Phew, finally."

Sorry, I thought it rhetorical.

"So are you then stating that it is NOT a fair and balanced book?"

I argued that it provides balance, not that it itself was balanced. I do think it fair, however, in that the author has used valid evidence to create a valid argument. As far as bias is concerned, on page one of this thread I wrote in response to Brechtel198 suggesting that Barnett was biased:

"Perhaps. Aren't we all?"

Comedy gold

Best to leave it to the professionals I think!!

Watched them today, CI5, they were awesome. :)