Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id IAA08841 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 20 Sep 2000 08:58:08 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A2E@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: memetics and knowledge Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 08:55:47 +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
Where on earth did you get the idea that I "took the side" of the mystical
bicycle?
I've checked my response to Wade, and see nothing in that post to suggest
that. The way I interpreted Wade's initial comment was that rationalist
thinking has produced objects of manifest utility, and that mysticism has
nothing manifest to offer, i.e. there's no mystical equivalent of the bike,
so the analogy between walking and cycling was erroneous.
Wade then pointed out that you weren't claiming that mysticism did produce
utilitarian objects, which I accept. My point was- where is the manifest
evidence that can be tested? If there's nothing more than anecdotalism then
what's the point?
Increasingly we find that claims of the supernatural (I know you think it's
not the same thing as mysticism but there's an anti-rationalist link) can be
explained in all sorts of ways (I refer you back to the list of examples you
so flatly rejected earlier). What is there of mysticism that can be tested,
examined etc. ?
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Robin Faichney
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 7:27 pm
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: memetics and knowledge
>
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 08:32:37AM -0400, Wade T.Smith wrote:
> >
> > Now, I'm totally aware that absence of evidence is not evidence of
> > absence, but, I've been looking for a mystical bicycle for 49 years, and
>
> > I ain't seen one yet, much less been offered a ride.
> >
> > Correct me by showing me one.
>
> When I first read this, I was quite astounded that anyone could think
> that mysticism should have technological benefits. Then I read your
> next message, in which you expressed quite a good appreciation of what it
> is for -- did these come from different cerebral hemispheres? And then
> Vincent's response, in which he "took the side" of the mystical bicycle,
> i.e. seemed to think there should be some such thing. My response --
> and I'm sorry, but this is it -- WTF am I dealing with here?
>
> Anyhow, that WTF factor, combined with the fact that my time is very
> limited right now, means I won't get around to any substantial messaging
> for a little while. Not long, just a day or two -- and I WILL be back!!
>
> --
> 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 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 : Wed Sep 20 2000 - 08:59:29 BST