RE: solipsistic view on memetics

From: Vincent Campbell (v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Sep 18 2000 - 14:51:24 BST

  • Next message: Joe E. Dees: "Re: memetics and knowledge"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA02951 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 18 Sep 2000 14:53:51 +0100
    Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A26@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: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 14:51:24 +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
    

    I see what you're saying, but what I was getting at was more along the lines
    of your point about the bicycle.

    Besides, making oneself feel good, or whatever one does to get past OK
    (sorry Richard) is not a good enough reason for privileging one set of
    beliefs or practices over another on a general basis.

    More later, as I have to prepare for a seminar (which, incidentally is a lot
    less fun than these debates, which despite the apparent antagonisms that
    emerge I enjoy immensely).

    Vincent

    > ----------
    > From: Wade T.Smith
    > Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 2:03 pm
    > To: memetics list
    > Subject: RE: solipsistic view on memetics
    >
    > On 09/18/00 07:19, Vincent Campbell said this-
    >
    > >failed to offer more than one, contested, example of mysticism's benefits
    > >over rationalism.
    >
    > In Robin's, and any other mystically-inclined leaner's, defense, I don't
    > think he ever really tried to offer a benefit, as such, that mysticism
    > may have or not have over rationalism to produce workable knowledge of
    > nature, but I may also be laying my own feelings about it over his words,
    > something we humans tend to do, immunizing agents that we are.
    >
    > I would suggest that the 'mystical communion' with nature is a teasing
    > self-play, in the same way that any meditative state is, and that, since
    > it is a common human experience (or common enough to have generated
    > mystics), that, like in hallucinagin research, the biological state is
    > what science needs to explore.
    >
    > Mystic supporters may offer the system of breathing, chant, asceticism,
    > and diet as a 'technology' to produce a mystical state wherein supernal
    > knowledge is certain, but, this has been offered as well by chemistry
    > majors working in their basements preparing for a rave. They may then
    > mention that, like riding a bike, their system is not forgotten, and one
    > advances in skill, whereas the ecstasy of the drug experience is left
    > behind and only offered again (in diminishing returns) by a new dose of
    > the drug.
    >
    > So, in this realm at least, the realm of imaginative speculation and
    > induced euphoric states, mysticism is a decided benefit- fewer side
    > effects, more guaranteed efficacy, repeatable, and, educatable through
    > mentoring.
    >
    > - Wade
    >
    > ===============================================================
    > 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 : Mon Sep 18 2000 - 14:55:02 BST