RE: solipsistic view on memetics

From: Vincent Campbell (v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk)
Date: Fri Sep 15 2000 - 11:23:41 BST

  • Next message: Vincent Campbell: "RE: The problem with the belief that one is enlightened"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA21325 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 15 Sep 2000 11:26:07 +0100
    Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A17@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: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 11:23:41 +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
    

    >My first post on this, to which you responded, was a definition of
    >mysticism: the elevation of experience over intellectualization.

    OK, then define experience. What you're confusing is experience with the
    interpretation of that experience- that 's the mystic's basic error. It's
    evident in this ridiculous statement you make about breathing-

    >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".

            Such behaviour leads to delusions to insight, such as those of the
    breatharians who believe that you don't need to eat or drink to survive
    simply draw in energy from the outside into your body by meditation and
    breathing exercises. Needless to say there have been deaths of people trying
    to follow this particular 'insight'.

            What criteria do you use to judge your experiences? You must use
    some in order to make a distinction between rational and mystical responses
    to your experiences. Who defines those criteria- each individual? some
    great sage? cultural consensus? How are those criteria reached- leaps of
    faith? hypotheses and experimental testing?

            I notice you avoid my last post's other question in favour of
    emotive defensiveness, so I'll ask it again: Do you have any examples where
    mysticism is a more appropriate framework than rationalism for understanding
    a phenomenon or responding to it?

            Vincent

    ===============================================================
    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 : Fri Sep 15 2000 - 11:27:28 BST