Comments on: Envisioning the Afterlife http://www.richardsnotes.org/archives/2009/02/28/envisioning-the-afterlife/ notes, photos, and other collectible fragments Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:26:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Richard http://www.richardsnotes.org/archives/2009/02/28/envisioning-the-afterlife/comment-page-1/#comment-178990 Richard Mon, 02 Mar 2009 00:02:46 +0000 http://www.richardsnotes.org/?p=5319#comment-178990 Diana: Your comment is as well thought out as Eagleman's stories, very well said. I agree too about Tom Ashbrook not quite knowing how to deal with this guy. Tom is a very smart and well read guy but sometimes, like when he interviewed Malcolm Gladwell, he's either intimidated or is trying to poke at them in such a way that they give up some new piece of gossip. Eagleman wasn't having any of it and deflected Tom as well as he deflected the born again Christian woman who called in. I think this show succeeded in spite of Tom not quite knowing how to frame it because of just what you said: Eagleman's imagination and his ability to clearly articulate it, coupled with his larger framing of all of it as one more piece of scientific inquiry was incredible to listen to. I say all of this as a huge fan of Tom Ashbrook. He doesn't get them all right but he does get many right. If you've not listened to his show before I highly recommend digging back through the online archives, there are some great ones in there. Thanks for the great comment, it now has me all worked up about that great show and I might have to re-listen to it in the car. Diana: Your comment is as well thought out as Eagleman’s stories, very well said.

I agree too about Tom Ashbrook not quite knowing how to deal with this guy. Tom is a very smart and well read guy but sometimes, like when he interviewed Malcolm Gladwell, he’s either intimidated or is trying to poke at them in such a way that they give up some new piece of gossip. Eagleman wasn’t having any of it and deflected Tom as well as he deflected the born again Christian woman who called in.

I think this show succeeded in spite of Tom not quite knowing how to frame it because of just what you said: Eagleman’s imagination and his ability to clearly articulate it, coupled with his larger framing of all of it as one more piece of scientific inquiry was incredible to listen to.

I say all of this as a huge fan of Tom Ashbrook. He doesn’t get them all right but he does get many right. If you’ve not listened to his show before I highly recommend digging back through the online archives, there are some great ones in there.

Thanks for the great comment, it now has me all worked up about that great show and I might have to re-listen to it in the car.

]]> By: Diana Schneider http://www.richardsnotes.org/archives/2009/02/28/envisioning-the-afterlife/comment-page-1/#comment-178988 Diana Schneider Sun, 01 Mar 2009 21:53:56 +0000 http://www.richardsnotes.org/?p=5319#comment-178988 Thanks for this pointer. I listened to the podcast yesterday and just now finished reading Sum. Incredible read! Eagleman's capacity for imagination humbles me. What I found so amusing about the radio program is that callers (and comment-posters afterward) got riled up about the whole thing and wanted to tell Eagleman he was wrong -- and this was coming from both the hard-core atheists and the hard-core religious. What a crack up. It is obvious that Eagleman intends Sum to be a work of literary fiction, not a theological proposal, so I don't know why people are wasting their energies at him. Guess it touches a nerve somehow. Equally amusing is that every time Eagleman reminded Tom Ashbrook that his book was not really a proposal about the afterlife at all, Tom seemed to want to deny it. Maybe Tom wanted to hold on to what he _thought_ the show was about? In any case, thanks for the pointer to the podcast -- much appreciated! Thanks for this pointer. I listened to the podcast yesterday and just now finished reading Sum. Incredible read! Eagleman’s capacity for imagination humbles me. What I found so amusing about the radio program is that callers (and comment-posters afterward) got riled up about the whole thing and wanted to tell Eagleman he was wrong — and this was coming from both the hard-core atheists and the hard-core religious. What a crack up. It is obvious that Eagleman intends Sum to be a work of literary fiction, not a theological proposal, so I don’t know why people are wasting their energies at him. Guess it touches a nerve somehow. Equally amusing is that every time Eagleman reminded Tom Ashbrook that his book was not really a proposal about the afterlife at all, Tom seemed to want to deny it. Maybe Tom wanted to hold on to what he _thought_ the show was about? In any case, thanks for the pointer to the podcast — much appreciated!

]]>