Pearce, McKenna, Sterling

Pearce and McKenna seem to agree on science being against us. Pearce quotes McKeller with, "The idea that scientific principles are parts of nature can seroiusly impede the progress of our knowledge" (86) while McKenna writes about science, "They have built into them the most naive and unexamined assumptions" (61). There seems to always be this science vs. religion theme in the world. I understand the opposing views---but can't it be that both are right? I happended to like the quote on page 81 by Pearce that "What a thing is is to an unknowable extent determined by or influenced by what we think it is." That is, whatever you want to see or experience in any situation, you will see or experience. If you think you're going to have a great time at the party, then you will. On the other hand, I've been to parties (I use parties as an example because they're usually considered to be a good time) where I knew ahead of time that I probably wasn't going to enjoy myself---and I didn't. I think if I would have left myself open to the experience and maybe even tried to have a good time, then I would have. Another quote that I liked was, "Only a sustanied passionate belief could have leaped the logical gap between that "imagined," created within the mind's eye, imaged from possiblity in spite of the lack of sensory evidence, and the final answer, translated into reality through enormous expenditures of time, effort, group belief, money, and with even the passionate urgency of war to hasten its final birth" (93). This means that if you can think it, then it can be real. It is possible to manifest your thoughts into reality through strong belief despite the fact that you don't know all of the details and can't fill in all of the blanks. Also, Pearce writes about fire-walking which just blows my mind. I want to see this (first) and then I'd like to try it. If this isn't enough thought into 'reality' for you then I don't know what is. He went as far as to say that the fire-walkers and also the people with the hooks in their skin didn't have so much as a mark on their bodies where there should have been burns or puncture wounds. Amazing!
I think McKenna's piece is a call-to-action for us all to turn off our televisions and become more aware. I understand what he's saying but there's something about his sense of urgency that puts me off. It's as if he wants us all to follow what he's saying without any thought about it.
As an aspiring attorney, I suppose I should watch what I say about Sterling's article. It is interesting though that all 'drugs' are classified as 'drugs' which I think I pointed out in an earlier blog. I don't want to get into an argument about our Constitutional rights either but how can we say that one person is permitted (by law) to pray while another is not permitted (by law) to use peyote even though they both represent similar things to the individuals involved. This article reminded me of "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn. I can't remember exactly what he wrote but part of the book dealt with the CIA, FBI, (insert numerous other acronyms) and how we have this "war on drugs" yet there's evidence suggesting that our government is partly responsible for funding, growing, and shipping drugs into this country.