Re: solipsistic view on memetics

From: Robin Faichney (robin@reborntechnology.co.uk)
Date: Thu Sep 14 2000 - 14:03:14 BST

  • Next message: Vincent Campbell: "RE: solipsistic view on memetics"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA18354 (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 14:32:50 +0100
    Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 14:03:14 +0100
    From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject: Re: solipsistic view on memetics
    Message-ID: <20000914140314.A698@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A12@inchna.stir.ac.uk>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i
    In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A12@inchna.stir.ac.uk>; from v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk on Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 11:49:43AM +0100
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 11:49:43AM +0100, Vincent Campbell wrote:
    > >I like this definition of mysticism: the elevation of experience
    > over
    > >intellectualization. Says it all, really.
    >
    > The problem with this position Robin is that if you do not attempt
    > to intellectualise experience, in other words critically examine experience,
    > you end up make false assumptions about cause and effect, and this in turn
    > can be manipulated by the unscrupulous.

    Of course you have to use your brain. Not to do so is as stupid as
    not using your legs, if they're functional -- not merely inefficient,
    but seriously unhealthy. But experience is primary, any criticism or
    theory necessarily secondary, at best. You can intellectualise all you
    like, but experience is at least as effective against the unscrupulous
    as any criticism. Experience is the raw material upon which everything
    else operates, good and bad theories, false and valid assumptions.

    There is no conflict between mysticism and rationalism, except that
    you can't do both simultaneously, just as you can't walk and cycle
    at the same time. That doesn't mean we have to divide ourselves into
    walkers and cyclists. Though I call myself a mystic, I'm a rationalist,
    too -- where appropriate. A very great deal of intellectualisation
    is neurotically-driven, and with regular experience of deep mental
    relaxation, all that crap falls away. What remains is what's really
    worth thinking about.
     
    > Examples:
    > People suffering sleep paralysis interpret it as alien abduction.
    > People experiencing low frequency noise 'see' ghosts.
    > People suffering from temporal lobe epilepsy have intense feelings
    > of religiousity and assume God was talking to them.
    > People interpret the random neuron firing and endorphins released
    > near death as proof of heaven's existence.
    > People watch a medium cold read an audience and interpret it as them
    > making contact with the dead.
    > etc. etc. etc.

    These have nothing to do with mysticism, unless you insist on confusing that
    with mystification. (To do which is an example of the latter.)

    Umm, that's worth reiterating: to confuse mysticism with mystification
    is mystification (not mysticism).

    > why? Why can't a mystic give a straight answer to a straight question?

    Because the question is not straight -- it merely seems so because
    it takes a logical form. "Have you stopped beating your wife -- yes
    or no?" "Does the self exist -- yes or no?" The mystic will give a
    straight answer to a genuinely straight question, but he will be doing
    so outside of his capacity as a mystic, because anyone can do that,
    while mysticism is about pointing people towards experiences that will
    elucidate the ultimately meaningless nature of some of their questions,
    the groundlessness of at least some of their anxieties.

    > If
    > the 'secret' knowledge is so wonderful true and enlightening why not share
    > it with everyone in as clear and simple a manner as possible?

    Mystics would love to be able to do that. But it's not really about
    conveying knowledge, it's about giving people certain experiences,
    which is not so easy. The rationalist tells, while the mystic shows --
    but we have to be willing to see.

    --
    Robin Faichney
    Mystic and Rationalist
    

    =============================================================== 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 - 14:33:59 BST