Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA18521 (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 15:49:56 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A15@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 15:47:09 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>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).
Define mysticism then, since I don't see how such examples aren't examples
of mysticism- the mistaken or deliberate obfuscation of the causes and
effects of natural phenomena in order to either a) alleviate anxiety or b)
to manipulate and control others (and these two elements usualy come
together). Moreover it involves ascribing the causes of phenonema to
untestable, and thus unverifiable, non-natural processes (e.g. fate,
destiny, the spirits etc.).
>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.
I'd have to disagree profoundly here. The two trains of thought are
entirely at odds, IMHO. It's not a comparison between walking and cycling,
to follow your analogy, but between walking and levitation. I cannot see
any context in which mysticism is a more appropriate framework than
rationalism- any examples?
>The rationalist tells, while the mystic shows --but we have to be
willing to see.
Exactly- mystics have nothing to contribute unless you make that
absurd leap of faith. Whatever happened to evidence and argument? Oh no,
you must believe first, and only then will you see.
Anxiety and neurosis do lead people into certain ways of thinking-
but into mysticism, not into intellectualisation and rationalism. After
all, mysticism appeals to people because its verification free, all you need
is belief.
Relaxation is good, objectification is good- they both add to our
ability to function more effectively and with less anxiety. But these are
rationalist responses to anxiety, not mysticist responses.
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Robin Faichney
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 2:03 pm
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: solipsistic view on memetics
>
> 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 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 - 15:51:05 BST