Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA18701 (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 17:01:57 +0100 Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 16:58:29 +0100 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: solipsistic view on memetics Message-ID: <20000914165829.A522@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A15@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A15@inchna.stir.ac.uk>; from v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk on Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 03:47:09PM +0100 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 03:47:09PM +0100, Vincent Campbell wrote:
> >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-
My first post on this, to which you responded, was a definition of
mysticism: the elevation of experience over intellectualization.
> 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).
That's what western rationalists who have no knowledge or experience
of mysticism typically think about it, but it's a view based on
ignorance, and therefore contrary to both rationalism and (genuine)
mysticism.
> Moreover it involves ascribing the causes of phenonema to
> untestable, and thus unverifiable, non-natural processes (e.g. fate,
> destiny, the spirits etc.).
This is absolute garbage. You've just swallowed the typical intellectual
line, hook and sinker. You equate mysticism with religious superstition.
Your uncritical acceptance and regurgitation of this shit betrays the,
sadly typical, hypocritical nature of your "rationalism".
> I cannot see
> any context in which mysticism is a more appropriate framework than
> rationalism- any examples?
Meditation focused on the sensations of breathing sometimes reaches
a stage where you no longer seem to be breathing, but rather "being
breathed". Not as if you were air, but as if some agency other than
your self was in control. This can lead to insights into the nature
of self/other boundaries, and of the self, and into the meaning of
"control". Mysticism is not any kind of theory about how things work,
but a practice intended to help us experience these things for ourselves.
And, of course, one of the main strategies of charlatans and dictators of
all kinds, in east and west, is: "don't trust your own experience!"
> >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.
You don't need to believe. Only to be willing to be convinced. But I
suspect you're not. Doesn't the western intellectual memeplex have you by
the balls? Both your career and your identity depend upon your uncritical
propagation of it. Or rather, I guess, you think they do. The western
intellectual memeplex is bound in *very* tightly with the selfplex.
-- Robin Faichney=============================================================== 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 - 17:03:02 BST