Re: The problem with the belief that one is enlightened

From: Joe E. Dees (joedees@bellsouth.net)
Date: Thu Sep 14 2000 - 23:24:31 BST

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "Re: The problem with the belief that one is enlightened"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA19742 (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 23:22:16 +0100
    Message-Id: <200009142219.SAA18457@mail3.lig.bellsouth.net>
    From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 17:24:31 -0500
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
    Subject: Re: The problem with the belief that one is enlightened
    In-reply-to: <EDBBDHLKPOIBDAAA@my-deja.com>
    X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b)
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Date sent: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 15:00:00 -0700
    From: "Scott Chase" <hemidactylus@my-Deja.com>
    Subject: Re: The problem with the belief that one is enlightened
    Organization: My Deja Email (http://www.my-deja.com:80)
    Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk

    >
    > --
    >
    > On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 00:25:27 Joe E. Dees wrote:
    > > The problem with the belief that one is enlightened, i.e. that one
    > >understands all, or at least the basic underpinnings of all, at the
    > >fundamental level, is that such people tend to become
    > >impermeable to subsequent learning by virtue of their erroneous
    > >belief that they already know or understand it all. It is an excellent
    > >defensive memeplex device, as it acts to foreclose the possibility
    > >that the "enlightened one" will seriously consider facts or
    > >perspectives that might invalidate or obviate their present grok-level,
    > >or even indeed offer the possibility that it might benefit from
    > >evolutionary elaboration in the light of subsequently discovered
    > >facts or refined understandings. If you already think that you know
    > >or understand it all, the attempt to learn more becomes a useless
    > >exercise.
    > >
    > This could be a critique which cuts both ways, both against mysticism and against science. What happens when a healthy respect for a scientific perspective becomes elevated into the realm of scientism? Critical views yield to crystallization and the possibility of stagnation into dogma. What
    awakens one from their dogmatic slumber? Will they actively search for the elixir?
    >
    > Or what happens when followers of a certain scientific perspective apotheosize their favorite author(s) into an exalted and uncriticizable position as the all-knowing one(s)? Or on another possible vector what happens when schisms develop over how the sacred texts shall be interpreted?;-)
    >
    In such cases, people are betraying the principles of scientific
    inquiry (for instance, the verification principle and popperian
    falsifiability) by approaching such an inquiry's (forever provisional
    and subject to falsification, elaboration and/or modification)
    products in an absolutistically religious way, as Received Gospel
    or Holy Writ. Any topic or position can be attitudinally enshrined
    this way; it is the attitude that is at fault - the system to which it is
    applied may or may not be meaningless or erroneous or useful and
    veridical.
    >
    > Yes, this is partly in jest, but there's a kernel of truth in there somewhere. Darwiniana and Dawkins-mania do abound.
    >
    One should indeed maintain critical distance and avoid
    acolytehood. It is regrettably common for all kinds of people,
    religious or not, to be made into other peoples' gurus and placed
    upon pedestals by them, even when the candidate gurus would not
    wish same.
    >
    > >BTW, Dawkins coined the word 'meme'; does anyone know who
    > >coined the word 'memeplex'?
    > >
    > >
    > I'm still stuck back at the previous fin de siecle and on the mneme. I'll need to catch up with the times a little.
    >
    > Scott
    >
    >
    > --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
    > Before you buy.
    >
    > ===============================================================
    > 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 - 23:23:32 BST