RE: memetics and knowledge

From: Vincent Campbell (v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk)
Date: Wed Sep 20 2000 - 12:25:50 BST

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "Re: memetics and knowledge"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA09626 (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 12:28:04 +0100
    Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A33@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 12:25:50 +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
    

    >Leaving aside that last line ("analogy between walking and
    cycling"?),

    You don't recall your own point? The walking/cycling analogy was yours.

    >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.

    Once again, you claim a 'more specific, technical' meaning of the term
    mysticism without having actually explained what that is.

    Once again, you claim we're using experience in the same sense whilst at the
    same time refusing to define it, which increasingly makes me think we're
    using the term in different ways.

    You can't have you cake and eat it too: if you want people to understand
    your interpretation of mysticism, and why it is preferable to all the other
    definitions and interpretations that have been proferred, then you've got to
    explain it more fully. What you can't seem to accept is that just because
    they're your interpretations, that doesn't give them any greater status than
    any other. Besides which, if you've been investigating this for 20 odd
    years, I'd of thought by now you should be able to offer a cogent, evidenced
    and coherent set of definitions, descriptions and substantiation for your
    point of view. Thus far you have failed to do this.

    My position towards mysticism is not one of ignorance, but of skepticism,
    which is an entirely rationalist approach towards claims to knowledge. The
    skeptic asks for clarification of the claims, and evidence to support them.
    You have clearly denied the possiblity of clarifying the meaning of, and the
    possiblity of evidence for, mysticism, hence one must for the time being
    remain skeptical, which is an entirely rational response.

    But, let's assume for a moment that you're right, that I (and most other
    'common' people) are entirely ignorant of what mysticism means. What should
    your response then be? Condemn people or laugh at them for their lack of
    knowledge? Or, as any good teacher should, endeavour to rid people of that
    ignorance through explanation and teaching. I see the former in the tone of
    your comments, not the latter.

    >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!
    >:-)

    I constantly find myself spending far too much of my working time paying
    attention to this list, so you're not alone there. Of course, distracting
    oneself and distracting others are very different things, so apologies for
    distracting you. :-)

    > --
    > 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 - 12:29:16 BST