Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA22485 (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 16:21:07 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A21@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 16:18:38 +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
>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.
I wouldn't have asked if I thought we were using the same definition of
experience. That's not a smokescreen- it's called critical analysis,
something mystics can't do because you have to just accept and believe, not
question and analyse. If you are going to try and "elevate" or "value"
experience you need to define the characteristics of experiences that you
are giving preference to. If you can't define it then how do you know what
you are talking about?
>The mystic is more aware than most of the contamination
>of experience by semi- and unconscious interpretation, and acts to
>counter it.
Here we are again with the secret knowledge of the mystic that they can't
possibly tell anyone about. Where's your evidence for this?
>Please cite your evidence for this ridiculous claim, that
meditation
>focused on the sensations of breathing leads to such delusions.
I'm not saying it necessarily leads to such delusions, I saying it can and
often does lead to such delusions, and the existence of the breatharians is
evidence of that. Such practices tend to hyperbole.
>In what sense should experiences be "judged"? Good vs bad? Right
vs
>wrong? Hot vs cold? I honestly don't understand this.
Well, you're clearly judging the rationalist approach to evaluating
experiences as inherently inappropriate in some situations- by what criteria
are you making that judgement?
>Mysticism is a practice designed to enhance experience, not a
response to it.
If mysticism is about elevating the primacy of experience- why would you try
to enhance it? This is precisely what I mean by a response to experience.
Something happens and you go 'ooh that was good- how do I get that to happen
again?' It's a "practice" which indicates method, and it aims to "enhance"
which indicates purpose. How do you judge which experiences are the ones
you should/want to enhance, and how do you judge which practices are
appropriate to achieve this enhancement?
>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.
So your 'primacy of experience' occurs through the deliberate practice of
meditation? This is a self serving example- 'having a mystical sensibility
is good if you're trying to meditate'. Any examples that aren't self
serving?
>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.
I meant emotive because your appeal was to other's emotional responses.
It's your arguments and position I'm arguing against, not you personally.
Did I say I was presenting my position as a case of disinterested
rationality? I don't think so. Let me explain my position:-
In my job I am continually confronted with people holding all sorts of
beliefs, and most of those people don't like it when someone refuses to say
'oh well you are entitled to your opinion' but instead asks them to present
the case for their position, to provide evidence for it, to account for
contradictory evidence and so on. People get upset because they normally
haven't been challenged in this way before.
My hope is not to destroy people's belief systems but to help people gain
skills that may help them not only better argue their viewpoint to others,
but also better understand exactly what it is they think and why- the
central element of critical thinking. People who remain cross, are usually
those whose beliefs do crumble under the slighest scrutiny, and/or who
reject the mere notion of questioning someone's beliefs (or the means by
which their beliefs are questioned).
I find testing my own and other's beliefs and opinions a persistently useful
part of my life (that's probably why I'm a university lecturer since I get
to do it virtually every working day). You never know who's going to come
along and wipe out your best arguments for a deeply held view, and thus
there's always the challenge to integrate new arguments, new evidence and so
on into your own databank of arguments and evidence.
Other people find this kind of thing causes continual anxiety, as they never
know what to believe as issues are shown to be ever more complex. Some
withdraw completely from the whole exercise favouring practices that abhor
thinking and analysis. If some people want to do that then that's fine- but
the problems and the issues don't go away just because you stop thinking
about them.
If that comes across as prejudicial then I apologise, since perceiving a
viewpoint as prejudicial normally means ignoring anything it has to say, and
that's the last thing I'm trying to achieve. My goal is to make you think
about what you believe in a critical manner, which I think if you had really
done you wouldn't be able to reconcile mysticism and rationalism as
compatible approaches.
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 - 16:22:14 BST