Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA09321 (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 11:04:05 +0100 Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 09:38:51 +0100 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: memetics and knowledge Message-ID: <20000920093851.A10695@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A2E@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A2E@inchna.stir.ac.uk>; from v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk on Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 08:55:47AM +0100 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 08:55:47AM +0100, Vincent Campbell wrote:
> 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.
Pity you didn't check the next line:
> > 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.
> 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.
Leaving aside that last line ("analogy between walking and cycling"?),
that's exactly what I thought you thought.
> 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?
See my most recent reply to Wade.
> 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).
I flatly rejected it because it has nothing to do with mysticism. As I
use the term, that is, of course, which is the more specific, technical
meaning, not the common one, because I've clearly explained why I see
that as misuse based on ignorance. You continue to insist that I'm a
true believer in religious superstition -- I can't think of any other
reason for that, but that your prejudice, your lack of rationality on
this issue, is preventing you from taking in what I'm saying. Face it:
despite your repetitive demands for a definition of experience, there is
no difference between us on that -- while for the term on whose definition
we do differ -- mysticism -- you pretend we don't. And that's irrational.
I didn't mean to do any replies this morning, but I was goaded into it,
and now I'm late for my Real World activities. I hope you're happy!
:-)
-- 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 : Wed Sep 20 2000 - 11:05:39 BST