A correspondent writes: Regarding your page on evolution: I've been reading the writings of traditionalists like Schuon and Nasr recently, and have been involved in a dialogue with members of the Traditionalist Studies forum, Dr. James Cutsinger, and members of the Radiance Foundation in NYC. I think there has been a radical misunderstanding of Sri Aurobindo's view of the evolution of consciousness, which does not support Darwinism, is not "transformist" in the Darwinian sense, and does not incorporate ideas of macroevolution in the Darwinian sense. His idea of evolution is also radically diferent from that of de Chardin, Ken Wilber, and other 20th century and New Age thought. Furthermore, I think there is evidence that writers on this website as well as traditionalists - evidence fully within the realm of acceptable (though right at the edge) scientific evidence, which is more than enough to undo Darwinism. however - and this is the best part - it is subtle enough that it can be put forward without the evolutionary believers realizing to what extent it fully and completely undoes the physicalist, scientistic mindset and belief system. It is very simply this - there is excellent evidence showing that parallel to the emergence of increasingly complex forms (and idea which itself has only gained acceptance in the past 10 years) there is an emergence of increasingly complex forms of consciousness, exactly parallel to the forms. Combine this with an indepth understanding of mind-body interaction - in particular, recent discoveries that thought and emotion can have profound effects on the genome - as well as Professor Richard Wiseman's recent concession that the major facts of parapsychology are no longer in dispute - and neo-Darwinian thought is seen to be soon at an end. I would VERY much like to correspond with anybody interested in pursuing this further. My wife and I plan to start producing videos next year illustrating these facts, with the ultimate aim of showing that science is in no way in conflict with metaphysics, as long as science is understood to be a method, not a dogma (as William James once said). Thank you