Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id IAA12158 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 21 Sep 2000 08:57:52 +0100 Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 21:44:41 +0100 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: mysticism etc Message-ID: <20000920214441.A1140@reborntechnology.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 08:44:41AM -0400, Wade T.Smith wrote:
>
> The problem remains that the claims of mystics - to have 'felt' the
> workings of the inner mysteries of the universe, range far from these
> humble health benefits,
"The workings of the inner mysteries of the universe" has no clear
meaning, and so any claims regarding them cannot meaningfully be
assessed. I'm puzzled as to how anyone can try to deny such meaningless
claims. What I would do, in your shoes, is not to say "this is unproven
and probably impossible", but "what does this mean?"
What do you think it means? I guess I'm really naive, or something,
because I have been similarly shocked in the past, as by you and Vincent
recently, when highly intelligent and in some cases well known people
patiently explained how wrong it is to think you can gain knowledge of the
world through meditation. Jesus, I asked myself, how can any educated,
intelligent person take that seriously enough to think it worth refuting?
Who on earth have they been listening to, and why did they think that
person to be in any way representative?
Of course, the answer is in the psychology of disputation: if you don't
really respect your opponents, but do feel strongly about the issues, it is
very easy to slide into caricaturing them, forgetting anything any
of them said that seemed reasonable, and taking their most extreme
statements as most truely representative of their position, regardless
of the marginality of the position held by the individuals making such
statements -- "they" are all on the same side, the wrong side, anyway,
aren't they?
I've come up against this time and again, especially on the net.
Atheists take all religionists to be fundamentalists. You can explain
over and over about religious liberals, for whom all religious talk is
metaphorical, but it just goes in one ear and out the other. You can
point out people like the former Bishop of Durham, who said quite
explicitly that "virgin birth" and "resurrection" were not to be taken
literally, but that doesn't fit the nice, simple little caricature these
people cling to. If it's religious but not superstitious, it doesn't
exist. Funny how those who make the biggest noise about rationality
are -- well, let's just say, not always the most rational.
Of course, maybe I'm caricaturing the atheists -- maybe a substantial
proportion of them do fully appreciate the liberal point of view. I
doubt it, but I'm willing to be convinced.
Meanwhile, to return to this particular argument, I accepted the
dictionary definitions regarding mystical access to ultimate reality,
while rejecting "God" and "spiritual truth". (Despite the claims made by
Joe and Vincent that I rejected them all the definitions -- I guess
reality didn't fit their particular pictures.) I was surprised that no
one asked me what "ultimate reality" means in this context. I think the
notion that one could directly access objective reality via meditation
is ludicrous. But for me objective reality is not ultimate reality,
because it omits subjects. And this, not mysticsm per se, is what I've
been working on for twenty years -- in fact, it was only quite recently
that I realised how mysticism connects with it. How do conscious,
aware, experiencing entities like ourselves fit into the objective,
material universe? That's the central issue for me, and the answer is
that these entities are not as distinct as they think they are -- they
don't have to "fit in", because AS DISTINCT ENTITIES they don't exist.
It's the universe that's conscious. And mysticism is the route to
actually realising this -- as opposed to playing intellectually with
the concept, which is guaranteed to get you nowhere.
I decided to reply to this message of Wade's first, because I'd gotten
so far behind that to try to catch up would be hopeless, so I should
work backwards instead, and hopefully find as I got further back that
more and more of the questions raised there had already been answered.
But I've written enough in this message to do for one evening. As for
tomorrow, we shall see -- sufficient unto the day... ;-)
-- 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 : Thu Sep 21 2000 - 09:00:39 BST