Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA26167 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:18:12 +0100 Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:04:47 +0100 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: solipsistic view on memetics Message-ID: <20000916200447.A1114@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A21@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A21@inchna.stir.ac.uk>; from v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk on Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 04:18:38PM +0100 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 04:18:38PM +0100, Vincent Campbell wrote:
> >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.
Please explain why you think we're using different definitions of
experience. (Regarding "you have to just accept and believe", see below.)
> 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.
Wrong. It's experience in general that is valued, not particular
experiences.
> If you can't define it then how do you know what
> you are talking about?
I didn't say I couldn't define it. I'm just stubornly refusing to do a
Wade, and resort to the dictionary, because I prefer to call you on your
smokescreen attempt. I repeat, I do not believe any of our difficulties
stem from "experience". If you still disagree, please explain.
> >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?
It is not "secret knowledge". It is wide open to anyone with sufficient
interest to get off their backside and do a little research. But if you'd
rather sit back and continue to recite your atheist/skeptic/rationalist
mantras, be my guest.
If, on the other hand, you are genuinely interested, you should look out
Stephen Batchelor's Buddhism Without Beliefs.
> >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.
Do you have any evidence that breatharianism stems from breath-centred
meditation? Or are you just throwing mud in the hope that some will stick?
> Such practices tend to hyperbole.
Where's your evidence for that?
> >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?
What I'm questioning there is the meaning of "evaluating experiences".
Evaluation of interpretations is something else altogether. You seem to
doing just what you accused me of: confusing experience with interpretation.
I repeat, yet again, mysticism is not about interpretation, but about
valuing and enhancing experience.
> >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?
"Elevating experience" is a principle, to enhance experience is to put
that principle into practice.
> 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?'
Not really, no. Equanimity is advised, and the chasing of sensation
deprecated.
> 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?
There is no judgement of experiences -- all are allowed to come and go
"without let or hindrance"? As to the practices, the short answer is
simply "trial and error".
> >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?
I don't think that one was. I cited insights into the nature of
self/other boundaries, etc.
> Let me explain my position:-
<big snip>
OK, that's your position. Now for mine. I'm not in the habit of parading
my qualifications -- and they're pretty pawltry compared to many people
here -- but I want to respond to your accusation that I "have to just
accept and believe".
I was rational enough to get an honours degree (though admittedly only a
2ii) in philosophy and psychology from your own institution at a time when
both departments were notably hard-nosed, the philosophers being commited
to modernism (I see myself as postmodernist), and the psychologists
to the experimental variety. Among the course units for which I got
credits were symbolic logic and experimental design and statistics.
(I learned more about science in ED&S than I ever did elsewhere, despite
psych being generally considered "soft".) Serious study of logic really
sharpens up your rhetorical skills -- you should try it.
After doing a "conversion course" for which I got an MSc in information
technology, I worked as a researcher for a total of about 9 years,
during which time my job titles were research associate, research fellow
and research scientist (in ascending order of prestige, I think :-)
I worked in computing science, economics and environmental science
departments (that variety partly explaining why I'm no longer an
academic), and in industry (that was the "research scientist" bit).
I'm currently writing a book on information, subjectivity and objectivity,
which will be as thoroughly rational in its arguments as anything by
Dennett or Dawkins. The title of the final chapter is Demystifying
Mysticism -- this is my specialist subject, and I've been studying it
for over 20 years.
I strongly resent being characterised as some sort of weak-minded
superstitious religionist. I do *not* believe in the supernatural, and
I think that my writings in this forum have shown me to be at least as
rational as you. Much more so, if your attachment to the "mysticism =
religious superstition" meme is anything to go by.
Why don't you just accept that the word has a much more specific meaning,
about which you previously had not clue #1, and that you should do some
reading on it, before you spout off any more about it? Is that too much
to ask?
-- 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 : Sat Sep 16 2000 - 20:19:19 BST