Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA22098 (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 14:53:44 +0100 Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 14:49:59 +0100 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: solipsistic view on memetics Message-ID: <20000915144959.A2100@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A17@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A17@inchna.stir.ac.uk>; from v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk on Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 11:23:41AM +0100 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 11:23:41AM +0100, Vincent Campbell wrote:
> >My first post on this, to which you responded, was a definition of
> >mysticism: the elevation of experience over intellectualization.
>
> OK, then define experience.
Typical intellectual smokescreen. Nothing that's been said here has
suggested that there is any difference between us on the meaning of
"experience", but you demand that I define it anyway. I don't have a
definition to hand, but I say that's no problem, because as far as I
can see, we all mean more-or-less the same by it.
However, you obviously don't understand that definition of mysticism,
so try this: substitute "valuation" for "elevation".
> What you're confusing is experience with the
> interpretation of that experience- that 's the mystic's basic error.
That is everyone's basic error. Though the concepts of sheer raw
experience and of interpretation are clearly distinct, in practice it's
almost impossible to separate these. What distinguishes the mystic is
the attempt to do this, to minimise interpretation, focusing the mental
resources thus freed on experience itself so that it's clarified and
intensified. The mystic is more aware than most of the contamination
of experience by semi- and unconscious interpretation, and acts to
counter it.
> 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.
Please cite your evidence for this ridiculous claim, that meditation
focused on the sensations of breathing leads to such delusions.
> What criteria do you use to judge your experiences?
In what sense should experiences be "judged"? Good vs bad? Right vs
wrong? Hot vs cold? I honestly don't understand this.
> You must use
> some in order to make a distinction between rational and mystical responses
> to your experiences.
There is no such thing as a mystical response to experience. Mysticism is
a practice designed to enhance experience, not a response to it. This is
why there is no necessary conflict between mysticism and rationality:
one provides the raw material upon which the other operates. They do
not compete, because they satisfy entirely separate needs.
> 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?
My answer, as an example of the value of mysticism, was breath-centred
meditation. But mysticism is not a conceptual framework, is not for
understanding or responding to any phenomenon. I refer you to my
previous paragraph.
As for my "emotive defensiveness", assuming you meant "emotional",
yes, it does annoy me to see such blatant prejudice being served up
under the banner of disinterested rationality. But that's my problem.
Just as your prejudice is your's.
-- 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 : Fri Sep 15 2000 - 14:55:52 BST