Blackmore Books

This was a gift for a my little brother who is taking French Literature this year in college. He is happy with this book! That's all I really know.

i cant say that i loved the work. i sometimes feel its hard for a story writer to cross over and write poetry. that came across here as well--in my opinion. i struggled thru most of the work

A magnificent translation, worthy of the highest praise, which, unfortunately, the Blackmores will not receive because of the animus everywhere prevailing against the translation of rhymed poetry in rhyme. Yet it would make as such sense to deprive Hugo of rhyme as it would to inflict it on Whitman. Rhyme is not a frivolous adornment or a self-inflicted stricture in Hugo's poetry of which the helpful translator should make haste to free him. Rhyme is an integral part of Hugo's poetry: it enhances the sense rather than diminish it. The Blackmores, contrary to the opinion of Publisher's Weekly, are faithful translators. No two languages are exactly compatible; hence the need for translation. To expect a word for word correlation in a formal (or even a free translation ) is to elevate computer-translation to pre-eminence in the field. This translation does Hugo a greater service than that. It is clearly a work of love and reverence and almost of resurrection, since Hugo the novelist so completely overshadows Hugo the poet in The English-speaking world. It is also a most timely translation, for, inevitably and probably soon, the bile of modernism will finally dissuade anyone from undertaking the monumental task that the Blackmores have so admirably performed.

Nice job Tony....I've been a "Blackmore Disicple" for a long time and just needed a 'primer' for my licks....You've captured Ritchie's essence with this book and I highly recomend it for anyone looking to rip off a killer riff! If you think your a guitarist now...try pulling off Knocking at your Back Door...I read a review of that once that said Ritchie sounded like a squirrel running rabid across the strings of a strat...well Tony pulls it off in style...so ck this one out! You not only get the 'riffs' but theory as well ....worth the $ A nice look inside the mind of the man in black. Thanks !

it's realy a great book containing hit's such as

Black Night
Strange Kind of Women
Lazy (Live:Nobody's Perfect)
Highway Star
Space Trukin'
Smoke on The Water
Woman From Tokyo
Burn
Knockin at your back Door
Hush

it has all the tabs and the notation. plus for people who know alot about Theory stuff about what key the song is in. and it also has some about the bands history.

although there's a few more song i would of liked in the book but still great

I liked the book, especially that it was in both French and English
translation.

This book is an ideal introduction to some of the most well-known French poets of the period, and has a section with short biographies on each at the front of the book, as well as some background about the state of literary work in France at that point in history, which helps provide context.

There's a good selection of well-known and more obscure works from each writer, and its very handy having the English translations on the facing page, so you can simply glance across for aid in understanding the language. When reading Victor Hugo's longer meanderings this is essential as you don't need to distract yourself from the power and beauty of his words to fiddle about with a dictionary.

Be aware though, the verse translations into English often sacrifice a lot of the beauty and wordplay of the French in order to shoehorn the general theme into verse form; if you're using this as a language tool, a prose translation might be more useful, or alternatively, keep a dictionary to hand when the two versions part company.

I have yet to read this book, however I was lucky enough to meet Mrs. Hoekstra. The strength and courage she has, should be a lesson to all.

the book engages the reader and draws them into the writers world.
The subject matter of the holocaust is difficult and threatening
but the book is full of hope and strength and a will to survive to see what the next day brings.
The book is a fast read and a personal glimpse into a young womans mind as she is caught up in the horror of the persecution of the Jews.

With the Meme Machine, Susan Blackmore has elaborated on the fascinating idea of the meme started by Richard Dawkins. This combined with the theory of culural and biological co-evolution between memes and genes opens up a new way of thinking about the world we live in.

This book details meme-centric explanations for everything from religion to alien abudctions. If it does not convince the reader of the existence of the 'second replicator', the meme, working together with the gene, it will at least sufficiently explain Blackmore's view. At times, it was impossible for me to put the book down.

If you're exploring an understanding of Memes, what they actually are with regard to idea communication and culture, I would start here - most readible and grounded explanation written...and the development of the Self-plex helps carry the conversation to its next level.

The following elucidation of her text, copied from the back cover- does much to reveal the content of Dr. Blackmore's insightful and often controversial insights into the perspective of life from the view of memes. What it fails to portray are Dr. Blackmore's total reversal of every aspect of human life, viewed not from the everyday perspective, but from that of the self-replicating selfish "mental" gene, the Meme.

Humans are extraordinary creatures, with the uniques ability to imitate, and so to copy from one another ideas, habitats, skills, behaviours, inventions, songs, and stories. These are all memes, a term first coined by Richard Dawkins in his 1976 book "The Selfish Gene." Memes, like genes, are replicators, competing to find space in our minds and cultures, and this enthralling book investigates the consequences. Confronting the deepest questions, from why humans have such a big brains and language, to altruism, sex and the Internet. Susan Blackmore makes a compelling case for the theory that even our inner conscious self and our sense of free will are illusions created by the memes for the sake of their own replication.

Copied from the text by: Bryan McGilly

I just finished the book and think it is a clear and interesting introduction on the subject. On the other hand I felt it was rushing into too many generalizations and the arguments on science vs. religion sounded quite empty.

It should be brought to attention that "The Meme Machine" was one of the earliest works espousing Dr. Dawkins' original theory. Mr. Anastasoff and other critics should bare this in mind. At that point in time, I'd conjecture that Prof. Blackmore's purpose was to EXPLAIN memetic concepts and terms, rather than prove them. She did a wonderful job.

Many scientific concepts lie outside the realm of the scientific method. So what? Does that mean we can't speculate or theorize as to their existence? According to the limitations posed by these critics, there would be no books about religion, psychoanalysis, string theory, or even ideas. How does one define "idea," and more difficult yet, how does one set up experiments to prove ideas exist? These are the restrictions that the critics require and I believe stifle inquiry and the furtherance of knowledge.

I especially enjoyed her supposition that meme complexes shaped human history for the furtherance of their individual agendas. In the 1440s, Johannes Gutenberg invented a machine, not to further human learning in science, literature or art; he was driven by a very strong Bible meme. His aim was to get more Bibles replicated; all human history changed because of it. I see a church or synagogue on practically every few blocks in the country. I see parochial schools, yeshivas and madrassahs all over the world--institutions with one basic purpose: the proselytism of vulnerable youth and the propagation of the selfish memplex. I see symbols and badges of the memplexes everywhere--from crosses around people's necks, to skullcaps, to compasses that point perpetually to Mecca.

What force or motivation can drive a person to enter a hovel on a mountaintop to pass away his life in seclusion with nothing more to occupy his mind and time than a Bible and a prayer stool? The more history I study, the more I'm convinced that memetics is an important science. How would the critics on this board explain the spate of suicide bombings in recent years and throughout history? Strange phenomena indeed. To my mind, it is because some memplexes are endotoxic. They care no more for the host than a tapeworm--only their own replication.

For those who love selfish gene theory and memetics as I do, "Mirror Reversal" is a thriller/suspense novel devoted to the subject. It's a way to learn about memetics and have a lot of fun. But look out, "Mirror Reversal" is also a meta-meme, a meme about memetics. You might get hooked.

Mirror Reversal

My professor made us buy this book, and we never used it. The class was okay, and when I peered inside the book, it seemed like simple reading. So I'm not really sure.

Blackmore provides a readable, comprehensive introduction to the field. A great book for getting grounded in philosophy of consciousness.

I decided to order this book after reading an article from Susan Blackmore on the web.
I am half way through the book.
God, it is so good.
Takes you through so different approaches to think about consciousness.
I am a computer guy and don't know much about psychology, cognitive sciences... but Susan makes it very accessible and you get to learn about many different fields (philosophy, psychology, biology, computer science...)
It's the only book I have read about the subject, so I don't know how it compares to others.
But I found the book extremly clear, well divided and the layout is just great.
Amazing job.
If you are like me, you may have your opinions on consciousness, and you may wonder what other people that thought about it have to say.
Then this book is for you.

Shortly after read THE MEME MACHINE, I had a dream in which I was arguing with Susan Blackmore about her denial of the existence of a self. She told me that I had just misunderstood her. Though quite sure that I had not misunderstood her, from past experience I know that my unconscious is aware of more things than I am, it seemed a good idea to further examine her ideas. Though an excellent book, this review will concentrate upon those parts with which I disagree, since those were the part that forced me to think more deeply about my own bias.

Susan Blackmore presents the strictly materialist view of consciousness. In other words, she believes that the self, free will, and consciousness are all illusions. To say that something is an illusion is not to deny that it exists, but that it is something quite different than it appears to be. Some years ago while working in a hay field after dark, my friends and I saw several rabbits jumping around near a hay bale. When we got closer, we saw that these rabbits were just paper beings rustled by the breeze. The paper really existed; the rabbits did not. As I understand SB, consciousness is more like papers blowing in the wind than real rabbits. This conclusion necessarily follows from SB's assumption that it has already been proven that consciousness is a product of blind evolution.

SB points out that "the underlying molecular processes are usually assumed to be deterministic, so this is one reason why there appears to be no room for free will." Quantum effects cause indeterminacy, but these infinitesimal effects merely provide for a range of similar, random outcomes rather than drastically altering the possible outcomes. This is also necessarily true for molecules functioning in the evolutionary process. It is a truism that life and human consciousness can only exist because molecules have to potential to form them. Blind evolution insists that this potential is accidental rather than intrinsic. Dennett's evolutionary algorithm - "If you have variation, selection, and heredity, you must get evolution" - glosses over the fact that for life to have formed there had to have been hundreds of molecules, each with a complex, highly specific structure, working together to capture and extract energy, replicate, and protect themselves. These molecules had to do these things because the Second Law of Thermodynamics dictates that they must assume the most stable, lowest-energy confirmation available. Why more reasonable to assume that these molecules did this by mere chance than to assume that life and consciousness are innate qualities of existence? We might assume, as many intelligent people do, that these qualities were put in the molecules by God, but explaining the existence of complexity by assuming that it was created by something infinitely more complex answers nothing. It is more reasonable to assume that life and consciousness exist in primordial form in non-living matter. If this is true, then evolution is not a consequence of selfish genes being by haphazardous gamma bombardment and fighting amongst themselves by survival of the fittest; genes are naturally self-mutating and survival of the fittest is merely the rule life must follow as it naturally progresses towards a level of complexity capable of self-reflective intelligence. This is the possibility that SB either completely ignores or derisively dismisses as "magic." The actual evidence is no better for accidental than intrinsic consciousness, and the latter assumption has the virtue of being optimistic. We are not required to imagine gene machines at odds with their constituent molecules, as Dawkins does, or that consciousness might actually be harmful, as SB does.

If consciousness exists in its own right, then asking what consciousness is for is meaningless. Consciousness just is. Matter is so that consciousness can organize itself into life and intelligence. SB quotes Searle's statement, "brains cause minds." True, but consciousness causes brains. Therein lies the conundrum of human existence, because brains, as SB tells us, function essentially as "mindless" meme machines. Meme machines form "selfplexes," arbitrary identities forged by whatever environment we happen to be in. One brain can even form multiple selfplexes. If our minds are cut off from the primordial consciousness that is the center of our being, our sense of self is indeed delusional, with only delusional free will, and with a pronounced tendency to ideology addiction. In SB's world, our being has no center, so there can be no true self.

According to Carl Jung, the main human task is to undergo the individuation process in order to realize the higher self. SB dismisses Jung's theories as frustratingly untestable, though this complain is equally true of her meme theory, and of Buddha's (SB is a Buddhist) notion that one can awaken to the fact that there is no self through meditation. I was surprised to discover that Buddha denied the existence of self. Jung favored Buddhism above all other religion, yet the doctrine of no self clearly contradicts Jung's notion of the higher self. However, this is really only so if Buddha was a materialist. If Buddha was not a materialist, it is surely misleading to call him a "bundle theorist," as SB does. What could it mean for a bundle of sensations to achieve enlightenment? There is no self beneath the delusional self to be free of delusion. SB quotes Wren-Lewis: "it is no longer the 60-year-old John who looks out at the world, but the shining dark infinite void that in some extraordinary way is also `I.'" D. T. Suzuki says, "Absolute faith is placed in a man's own inner being." These two men, at least, seem to experience a self beneath the delusions. However, when we once start giving this pure sense of "I" names such as "divine self," and claiming that Christ is a symbol of this higher self, we will most likely delude ourselves with memetic jargon. So if Buddha was not a materialist, I think I understand what he was getting at. Since SB is a materialist, I understand but disagree with what she is getting at.
(Peter Payne, author of CAPTAIN CALIFORNIA: A YOUNG MAN'S ENCOUNTER WITH THE EVIL WITHIN HIMSELF)

Susan Blackmore has written a textbook on "consciousness". Do not be put off, it is eminently suitable as a reference. A feature is the extensive bibliography at the back. Blackmore is a determinist but freely discusses the work of other researchers who do not share her viewpoint.

For anyone seriously wanting to come to grips with the latest ideas in human consciousness, this book is invaluable.

This is a beautifully written book that IMHO is one of the most under rated classics known. I understand that it has never gone out of print since it was first introduced, yet is not as well known as some of the novels by Hardy and other writers of that era. It is the tale of two lovers from opposite sides of the track, er, moor. The descriptions of the English countryside are beautifully written, and the two main characters inspire our respect and admiration with their nobility and bravery. John and Lorna are two very likeable young people who are from families who openly feud with one another. There is a lot of action and intrigue thanks to the historical setting and several subplots that run throughout the book. You have scoundrels, soldiers, highway men, severe weather, and the king's spys, as well as the romance.

Lorna Doone IS a rather verbose novel, but is so well written that it flows quickly and easily and is actually hard to put down. It does tend to bog down about 3/4 of the way through, but picks back up. I had to laugh when a previous reviewer below noted that John talks too much--this is entirely true but he is an engaging fellow with a fun family. Don't overlook this one because of the length.

What an awesome tale. Written in the 19th century, but telling a tale about the late 1600's during the times of Charles II and James II. Our hero, John Ridd is a simple, albeit wise and honorable farmer who as a young lad meets Lorna Doone of the dreaded, evil outlaw family of higher born Doones, and it's love at first sight.

There are lots of ups and downs and surprises, along with the author's gorgeous prose describing the english countryside and farmlife. You have to pay attention though, as none of the characters are wasted. What might seem as inconsequential events and characters earlier in the story are brought back in full circle to the tale, along with a great mystery about Lorna's past as the author slowly peels out the many layers of his story.

Highly highly recommended. If you enjoy Thomas Hardy, Charlotte Bronte or Dickens this will probably be right up your alley.

Lorna Doone is a blend of romance and historical fiction. It is both a romantic and action novel. The Doones are a large outlaw clan who were cheated out of their wealth and privilege (they are based on a real historical group of outlaws), who live in Badgworthy Valley and regularly rob and terrorize the local community. For various reasons they are left alone by the authorities and allowed to multiply mainly by kidnapping local women for their wives.

The story is told by John Ridd whose father is killed by one of the Doones when John is 12. One day John accidentally wanders into Doone Valley, where he meets 8 year Lorna. He is immediately smitten and what seems an impossible romance develops several years later. The brutal Carver Doone wants Lorna for his wife, so John must rescue her. The Doones, of course, want her back. John and Lorna also have to overcome differences in rank (she has it, he doesn't), money (she has a lot more than he does) and religion (she's Catholic, he's Protestant).

Blackmore's book vividly describes the Devon countryside in which the novel is set, and the lifestyle of a yeoman farmer. Some people may find all these details unnecessary, and a distraction from the central story but I really enjoyed learning about the lifestyle of late 17th century rural England.

The story is set against the historical backdrop of the death of King Charles II, the Monmouth Rebellion, the brutal suppression of that rebellion by Judge Jeffreys known as the Bloody Assizes, and the short-lived assent of the very Catholic King James to the throne (and fears of 'Papist' rule). I recommend doing some brief research on these events on the Internet before reading this book. An understanding of the historical context will make this an easier and more understandable read.

If you enjoy a good romance novel you will love this book. If you enjoy historical fiction you will also love this book. This book is moving, action packed and educational.

R.D. Blackmore's best known novel is a superb romantic tale set in 17th century Britain. A Romeo and Juliet kind of story with a opposing families, not to mention the brutal Doone clan, with Lorna's demented, evil cousin Carver who seeks to claim her and the fortune she will come into when she is of age. John Ridd's modesty and bravery makes him an ideal mate for this young beauty, so against the brutality and savagery she witnesses among her fellow Doones. But, wait, there's much more to the story - dark secrets, intrigue, and swashbuckling adventure - what more can you want? A wonderful array of characters (including the very real Judge Jeffreys)adds richness to the plot. A great look at England during the reign of James II and the attempted seizing of the throne by his bastard brother, Monmouth. Religious desputes abound with the Catholic King and Lorna, against the Protestant Monmouth and John Ridd. I throughly enjoyed the novel and the A&E movie, and I'm very happy to see that people buy the film along with the book - both are worth adding to your library.

This book was a one hit wonder for Blackmore, but it's a classic in its own right. It's a book that concentrates on one little spot in the British Isles, and we get a thorough picture of that spot. The setting is in Exmoor. The story is about a maiden who preserves her purity of mind and body in a quite impossible environment. Lorna had been kidnapped as a child, but in spite of the barbarous surroundings that she grew up in, she manages to preserve her identity and her honour. Blackmore creates great characters. His John Ridd is brilliant. He encompasses all that is right and good deep within the English gentleman's psyche. Blackmore has a way of writing about animals too, that is quite unique. His account of Betty Muxworthy feeding the pigs is wonderful. This book is certainly worth a read at any time.

The relationship between mind and body, and the tremendous difficulty of explaining that relationship, have been central themes in modern philosophy since Descartes' famous 'cogito ergo sum'. In the subsequent centuries the entire heavy artillary of analytical philosophy has been brought to bear, categorical mistakes have been claimed, behavourist theories championed, yet the awkard I stubbornly remains, peering out at the world. A bundle of neurons and synapses themselves composed of randomly spinning atoms and electrons, somehow able to ask questions 'why am I? who am I? What am I?'.

Recently however, the problem of mind has taken on a new academic guise - consciousness studies. The ancient riddle has been reframed into a seemingly narrower and more fundamental question - the problem of consiousness, how can physical matter be self-aware, how can the brain think and feel? The central question may have become more focused, yet suddenly it is not just the philosophers who are discussing it. The study of consciousness is now truly a multi-disciplinary subject, drawing in experts in psychology and neuro-science amonst others. Suddenly a subject so old and profound appears to be one of the most exciting fields in academia. One that might even be on the verge of providing answers that would transform our very sense of self and identity.

Susan Blackmore does a remarkably good job here of introducing such a complex and wideranging subject. You really do get a sense of what the question is and just why it is so challenging. Not only that but you should get a feel of why the subject is particularly exciting at the moment and for those versed in the 'traditional' formulations of the philosophy of mind, this book stands as testamant to the fact that the study of consciousness is really a subject in its own right now.

Having said all that, this book (and others by Susan Blackmore) really should come with a government health warning. I've read David Hume's reflections on the illusory nature of the self, as well as some of those of Eastern Philosophy. Like Hume, I feel largely able to set aside such considerations as soon as I attend to other matters. Reading Blackmore, I really do feel a little shaken. I can give up the idea of a concrete self lurking behind my eyes controlling my fingers as I type this review, but when plausible argument after plausible argument chips away at the belief in consciousness itself, or at least our faith that there is a stream of consciousness, then the effect is rather more disturbing and profound.

Blackmore introduces all the main theories relating to consciousness here, in a very readable and succinct manner. You are fully made aware of her own viewpoint, but that is not a bad thing, as they are clearly put in contrast with the others and in a way that helps you come to your own conclusion, though as I just said, it may leave you a little unsettled.

Though the stream of consciousness mayby some kind of 'grand illusion' as Blackmore and of course Daniel Dennet quite persuasively argue for, its not clear that the problem of explaining consciousness is in anyway diminished. No matter how many insignificant little pieces you try to break conscious awareness into, the fundamental problem still remains : how does physical matter achieve any consciousness at all?

A must read introduction for those interested in the study of consciousness and the philosophy of mind. Just take care!

Susan Blackmore concludes that consciousness isn't there--or at least it's not there in any traditional way. Consciousness isn't a ghost in the machine--or a viewer in the theater, as Daniel Dennett would say. Consciousness isn't an enduring subjectivity that rides in some mysterious way on neurological processes. Consciousness isn't a Jamesian stream of consciousness. Consciousness simply isn't there.

A reader might protest that she experiences consciousness. Fair enough, Blackmore responds. But what we really experience are moments of focused attention that come and go, and which we delusionally weave together into an enduring entity. And "delusional"--which eventually supplants "illusional" as the book progresses--is Blackmore's final word on consciousness, self, and free will. They're not there.

This is a fascinating thesis, although most of it's been said by philosophers of mind like Dennett (but then Very Short Introductions don't claim to be original). If correct--and I suspect a great deal of it is--it really does require a fundamental shift in the way we think about subjectivity and personal identity. Many of us probably are agreeable to the suggestion that our personalities change over time. But the claim that our subjectivity isn't what we think it is requires a pretty radical change of gears.

Ultimately, though, I don't see that Blackmore has addressed the problem of qualia. If I understand her, she dismisses it as one of those pseudo-problems that arise from faulty thinking about consciousness. But I don't follow her line of argument. Regardless of whether consciousness is enduring or sporadic, I experience subjectivity. What is it? How to account for it?

Three and a half stars.

What is consciousness? How do a set of electrical responses of millions of brain cells produce private, subjective conscious experience? Several theories have been proposed, and they include, grand unifying theories, quantum mechanical theories, biophysical/neurochemical mechanisms, philosophical, and spiritual theories. None of these completely explain the relationship between mind and brain (body), or subjective and objective thoughts. That is, the way things seem to me as opposed to how they should be objectively; in other words, the theory has to explain how subjective experience arise from objective brains? How billions of interconnections of neurons produce perception, learning, memory, reasoning, language, and finally consciousness. Different areas of brain perform different functions, such as, vision, hearing, speech, body image, motor control, and many other tasks. They are linked to each other but not into one control processor to produce consciousness. For example, pain is visible to a certain extent, but one can not fully comprehend another person's pain unless one experience that pain oneself.

Throughout history, philosophers and scientists proposed some form of dualism that mind and brain are different, however, some scientists prefer monism; the mind and body are one and the same, but this does not explain a consistent physical world. A third form preferred by physicists is materialism, which makes matter most fundamental. This also does not explain how a physical brain (matter) can give rise conscious experience. It is also unclear if consciousness is a power (energy) or a force but the laws physics relate each other.

Could consciousness lags behind the events of the world? The experimental results of Benjamin Libet are discussed (chapter 3) in light of dualist theories, quantum mechanics, Higher order of thought (HOT) theory, and Global workplace theory. Each theory offers explanation for certain aspect of consciousness, but eludes from addressing the subjectivity experience. In chapter 4, there is a brief discussion of weather consciousness is a grand illusion: Much of this concept depends on individual visual awareness. In chapter 5, the spirit, self and souls are discussed in light of many theories. The Upanishads, the sacred scriptures of Hindus, and Buddhist philosophy propose self is as an independent entity, but modern philosophers such as David Hume claim that self is a bundle of sensations. The experimental results of psychologists Roger Perry, Michael Gazzaniga, and Earnest Hilgard have been discussed. Most theories equate self with a particular brain process, but fails to explain the relationship of self with consciousness. Chapter 6 discusses the origin of free will that makes the decision or expresses willingness, is that inner self or due to power of consciousness? Since all events in the universe are deterministic, i.e. all events are determined by prior events. It follows that everything happens in future is inevitable; hence no room for free will! However some philosophers argue that deterministic process is chaotic and outcomes are complex, which may not be predictable. Therefore both determinism and free will could coexist independently. Many psychologists believe that free will is an illusion. In chapter 7, altered states of consciousness, due to sleep and dream, psychoactive drugs, stimulants, out of body experiences, and meditation are discussed in relation to mind and consciousness. The last chapter presents an interesting discussion about the evolution of consciousness and examines if animals have consciousness. The author presents arguments in favor of lack of consciousness in animals because they do not have language skills. It is proposed that language and mathematical skills coupled with deep thoughts help humans to communicate about past, present and future that may confer consciousness. This argument is unclear since the term consciousness itself needs to be defined. This book is well written and it is recommended.

I first encountered Blackmore's work when, after searching long and hard for a scientific explanation of out-of-body experiences, I came across her book Beyond the Body. It was astonishingly well researched and offered a rational, convincing explanation for phenomena that were usually neglected by the scientific community. I became an instant fan and have followed her work ever since. But now, alas, she has aligned herself with the Dawkins/Dennett axis of drivel, and my loyalty to her is badly shaken. In this book (a shorter version of her Consciousness: An Introduction) she follows Dennett by denying the existence of consciousness and then indulging in much speculation about the properties and evolutionary history of this non-existent entity. Consciousness, she maintains, is an 'illusion', which she defines as something that exists but does not have the properties it appears to have. She then proceeds to discuss it as if it does not in fact exist, and slips into calling it a 'delusion', which she apparently regards as a synonymous term. So far, so Dennett. She follows Dawkins by labeling just about everything a 'meme' (as Poe might have said 'All that we see or seem is but a meme within a meme'), unless she happens not to approve of it, in which case it is 'a virus of the mind'. As an example, she indulges in a quite intemperate and completely irrelevant rant against religion, in which Roman Catholicism is described as a parasitic infection. Like Dennett and Dawkins, she leaves no axe unground.

So why do I give the book 5 stars if I disagree with so much of it? Well, I guess you can't keep a good scientist down, and Blackmore is still a great scientist. She brings considerable knowledge and erudition to the subject, presents fair summaries of opposing views, and gives excellent descriptions of odd phenomena like Libet's Delay and the Cutaneous Rabbit. And her style is as readable as ever. I was suspicious when I saw that her son Jolyon had contributed many of the illustrations - it smacked of nepotism - but I have to say his drawings are really charming and add greatly to the text. The other illustrations are useful too - with the possible exception of a photograph of the author opening a fridge door - which isn't always the case with this series. The book ends with a very useful Further Reading list. It's thus an excellent introduction to the subject (although I think John Searle's The Mystery of Consciousness is still the best place to start).

So, I shall keep the faith and continue to read everything Susan Blackmore publishes. I just hope that one day, just as she once abandoned a belief in the paranormal, she sees the light and abandons the axis of drivel.

As a psychologist, Susan Blackmore seems very well informed about highly complex cerebral functions which she discusses in the context of a self or central consciousness. From her intense and detailed surveys she attempts to conclude that there is no self, soul, I, or integrating center of consciousness. In addition to her mesmerizing display of specific cerebral functions, she appends a curious, quasi-personal criticism against those who would allege that consciousness is a "mystery" beyond human comprehension. Her criticism has merit, but only if the term mystery ascribes not nescience but reality to the centered-self which is in question. Blackmore's own conclusion,that consciousness is non-existent, may be similarly criticized if its strength lies mainly in an assumption with which she begins.
Blackmore does not reflect on the possibility that the self cannot observe itself integrally as an object, any more than the eye can see itself or its act of seeing. The basic assumption for or against the existence of consciousness stands or falls not by the vigor of attacks by Blackmore or against her. It stands or falls by itself. Consciousness of one's self as a subject inside-out can be neither verified nor falsified by viewing it only as an object or a construct of objects.
Further insights attributed to Blackmore include allusion to "a pointless universe," an understandable reference, given the jarring misery which exists socially among peoples in Darfur, Zimbabwe, Kenya, etc.; or, by metaphorical extension, in our individual lives. However, to call the universe pointless or its smallest parts valueless may disclose more about the viewer's inner attitude than about reality, more about a hidden ideological assumption, than about scientific perception.
As we extrapolate verifications and falsifications from limited specialties and fields to broader, even cosmic, generalizations, it is tempting as much as it is wrong to extend and transfer to them an equivalent sense of certainty or quasi-infallibility. Such inflated perceptions resemble occasions when we stand so closely to a landscape, that we miss the whole of it, thereby denying what should have remained obvious. To describe either the self as non-existent or the universe as pointless, fleshed out in its logical ramifications, would deny value everywhere and in everything, from the smiles of infants to the heroism of those who live and die for others. Blackmore's many intelligent, penultimate insights about consciousness are to be as valued as her ultimate conclusion/assumption is to be resisted.

Many cool examples of small homes with sound advice on how to maximize your space--if you can make structural adjustments to your home. Almost all the rooms feature new contemporary furnishings and therefore might be better suited for people with a chunk of change to spend. Although I like this book to some extent it doesn't fit my needs as a renter.

Title should be "Compact living... on a limitless renovation budget."

Everything is designer showroom-perfect on these pages, like an Ikea or Pottery Barn or Crate and Barrel catalog.

However the spaces lack human reality, such as quirky collections or individualized space needs or child friendly design. You don't even meet the inhabitants.

Yes, invest in built in cabinets and fold away stair cases if you own and have the money. Again, these options are unattainable for many struggling to pay the mortgage or are renting.

A much better book is Bartolucci's "1000 sqft or less." That features real people with real budgets.

I wanted real advice, not catalog advertisements for perfect unattainable ideal design. I was disappointed. But perhaps idealism and extravagance, not realism and cash poor budgets are what most readers want... Hence the popularity of ARchitectural Digest, and why I am so turned off by such mags.

As someone who is designing a new place that I want to make small but open, as well as environmentally friendly and energy efficient I found this book a good reference book for those of us wanting to build on a small lot in the most cost effective as well as land efficient way.

Loved how on page 79 she shows how structural pillars in a bedroom area act as both a full height headboard with a full height mirror panel which makes a small room seem vastly bigger and brighter. Its the use of these overlooked areas like pillars that often are sheet rocked enclosed, but instead are used to make the bed work better as well.

Or all the examples of spaces between studs in all rooms that can be designed to hold CD's. books, cooking items, files etc. All discretely as well. O of my favorite bathrooms is featured beginning on page 90 where clean space lives up to its name. Loved this example so much I am making it my own.

Whether they found the book helpful or not, what the other reviewers have to say is true. Graining's remedies for compact living are expensive, professionally designed, and professionally installed . The materials are cutting-edge and the taste is ultra-modern.
But there are some truly innovative solutions for living in a small space (which may inspire you to get creative about your own space). And some basic and practical ideas are sprinkled throughout.

What makes this a 5 star book for me, however, is that it includes something the others don't: FLOORPLANS. There are illustrations of the entire layout, including furniture placement and photos of every room in the house. While these apartments may not resemble anything like your own home, getting to see the individual rooms and how they fit together in the whole space to form a cohesive design IS useful. I've seen some of the photos in this book in other design books (as an isolated room, photographed from one angle). Being able to see how they work with the rest of the space and flow with adjoining rooms is immeasurably helpful.

Compact living reads like a college text . . . you'd rather be doing something else but know you've got to read it to pass the class. That's how I see this book. It wasn't one that grabbed my attention from the beginning (a main criteria for me with books) but sticking with it unto the 32nd page (The Living section) made it worth the purchase. It gives great information such as the use of pattern in painting - it eats up visual space quite greedily. Also, on creating space - think in threes (redecoration, reorganization, and lightning). But I would have loved to see more real-life examples, less wording and more practicality. If you're a new apartment owner, I'll recommend "First Home with Style," it's perhaps the best home design book I've bought so far.

I live along the border of France and Switzerland. I like to take excursions around France and needed a dependable guide. So far, I have found this one to be pretty good, with straightforward basics about how to get around, where to stay and with pretty accurate opinions. I would recommend it overall, but bottom line, the very best resource is Michelin. If I were to buy just one guide I would make it the Michelin green guide, or of course for restaurants, the red guide.

This is THE BEST practical guide for visiting France. It's well-organized, with highlights at the front of each chapter, and practical transportation information at the end of each chapter. In addition, their evaluations of a site's merit have, thus far, been right on. While their lodging and dining sections might focus on the lower-end, the accuracy and comprehensiveness of their information more than makes up for it.

If you are looking for a small book to fit in your back pocket, The Rough Guide France is not for you. If you are looking for a guide that lovingly describes even the smallest French town in careful detail and clear format, then this IS the guide book you should be looking for.

The Rough Guide to France does an excellent job in several areas where many guide books fail. For example, smaller attractions are often overlooked in favor of the larger cities, such as Paris or Lyon. Rough Guide ensures that for those who want to go provincial, they won't be going in blind.

Another merit of the guide is in it's clear, concise format. Not overburdened with irrelevant maps/illustrations (a pet peeve of mine), Rough Guide has clean, simple directions and mapping. This is a vast improvements over Guides like Lonely Planet, where I often feel the editors publish more with an eye towards their own self-satisfaction than towards the serious traveler.

The resturaunt/hotel features are adequate, frequently include useful maps, and will not tax anyone's checkbook too harshly.

Perhaps the greatest strength of this guide is the seeming conviction of the editors to tell you that which you NEED to know for that trip to France. Michelin might the cultural ask-all, DK may have lots of lovely photographs, but Rough Guide is for when you're ready to get serious about your trip to France.

Well-written, informative, with a clear and honest style that should impress both casual and budget traveler alike, The Rough Guide France should be your FIRST PICK in guide books.

What I like best about the Rough Guides is that they give critical reviews. They will point out the tourist traps and will give negative reviews. I find that Frommer's and Fodor's rarely point out the negatives to a particular hotel or site. The rough guide is very critical and is a great balance to these other guides. I would balance your trip to France with a Fodors (or Frommers) book because the maps and illustrations are often better and there are more higher-end hotels listed.

This book will help you decide where is best to spend your vacation in France. There are clear critical descriptions of all the regions and great general info on getting around in France.

If you aren't interested in "roughing" it and staying in lower priced hotels.. the guides are still very useful in rating attractions, and areas in which to stay... but you will need another book to look at more moderate and luxury hotels.

I would definitely read this book before going to France.

I purchased this book to use for an upcoming trip. I purchased the newest edition which it the 9th.

I found that some of the information has not been checked or updated. For example, there is a aquarium called Nausicaa where the book info was about 5 years out of date.

Other complaints:
1) The writers seem to be extreme leftists in their opinions. If you are a gay vegan tree hugger this is the book for you.
2) Not enough info for people travelling by car. I realize that this isn't Rough Guides focus, but I found the coverage in Rough Guide Italy to be much better.
3) Minimal coverage for people travelling with families.

Positives:
1) Good coverage of camping
2) Breakdown by regions is helpful, as is summary of region in opening paragraph of each chapter.

I still intend on using the guide, although if I had to do it over I would probably buy a different guide.