Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA17676 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:10:42 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A0F@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: solipsistic view on memetics Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:08:14 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Ponder this question for your return then Chris.
You said:
>These experiences must have *some*
>connection to other domains of human enquiry, such as western
psychology,
>deconstruction, neuroscience, info theory, etc.
I've added the emphasis here since I wonder why the normative phrase here?
Happy journeys, safe return.
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Chris Lees
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 4:16 pm
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: solipsistic view on memetics
>
> Wade wrote :
>
> >Does the intellect really need a booster rocket?
>
> Your close to where my thought is here , Wade, but I don't conceive
> of an individual intellect needing a boost. What I was getting
> at, is that our collective knowledge advances as new minds add
> conceptual richness to our vocabulary, and that this sometimes
> allows us to discuss areas which were previously totally obscure.
> So what I'm saying is that there is a challenge, to any individual
> intellect, to formulate conceptual tools, even neologisms, to refine
> the enquiry so that those who are interested can comprehend more.
>
> Zen practice certainly produces or allows extraordinary experiences.
> Yet there does not seem to be anything weird or abnormal involved,
> but rather a feeling of getting closer to what is 'kinda true and natural'
> if you'll forgive the woolly phrase. These experiences must have *some*
> connection to other domains of human enquiry, such as western psychology,
> deconstruction, neuroscience, info theory, etc. It's legitimate to
> discuss what those connections might look like. Nothing 'mystical'
> about that, in whatever way the word is interpreted. It's a treacherous
> word
> and causes endless avoidable confusion whenever it gets used because
> everyone is automatically talking at cross-purposes. Best avoid imo
> and speak of specific examples, such as Sufi or Blake's or whatever.
>
> I've got to drop out again now, but thanks to all for the thoughts and
> comments.
>
> C.L.
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 14 2000 - 11:11:49 BST