John,
I am glad to know you were being sarcastic rather than angry. One of the
weaknesses of this form of communication is that because we have to write
rapidly or be left behind, it is easy to not be as clear as we would be if we
were writing in a more liesurely vein. I think this is particularly true
when we care deeply about what we are saying. (I speak as a sometimes guilty
party.) But I have encountered sentiments such as yours with a big dose of
anger attached.
As you may have noticed, my first posting to McClellan was a critique along
the lines that you describe. From reading postings of his since, I think his
arguments have implications he does not himself intend. Yes, I think his
basic argument is dangerous, and also predicated on a confusion as to what
evolution and life are.
My own belief, from having had nondualist experiences, is that nondualism
provides a valuable context within which we have to live lives inevitably,
and by no means unfortunately, tied up with making dualistic choices. It
provides a guide for the attitude by which we make those choices, but
provides no guidance at all about what those choices should be, because all
choices are made within a dualistic context. That is why we call them
choices, after all.
Gus diZerega