Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA14784 (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 19:26:50 +0100 Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 19:11:38 +0100 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: mysticism etc Message-ID: <20000921191138.A1777@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A3D@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A3D@inchna.stir.ac.uk>; from v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk on Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 02:39:50PM +0100 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 02:39:50PM +0100, Vincent Campbell wrote:
> I cannot
> understand how intelligent, sometimes rational people, can believe that
> meditation offers anything more than nice breathing exercise to help you
> relax.
Profound mental relaxation changes your thought patterns. Lateral thinking
is easier, new associations are made, habitual thinking has less of
a hold, creativity becomes effortless -- in fact, the less effort,
the better.
> I cannot see how experiencing a nice of bit of relaxation- even in
> the hectic world we live in- can lead anyone with any intellect to start
> seeing anything more than that in it. Why try to engender it with anything
> more, some secret knowledge of the universe, what's the point of doing that?
I already told you, there's no "secret knowledge", but that particular
dig is just too tempting, isn't it? Not that giving in to such temptation
is particularly rational, but there you go.
> I study Tai Chi, full of mysticism in its rhetoric (no doubt you'll reject
> that- or maybe fall off your chair that I'd do such a thing, but hey I'm not
> Mr.Spock :-)!), and I have real trouble when the teachers' start waffling on
> about the 'greatness of the chi', or spiritual energy etc.
This is very easy to understand. "Spiritual energy" is simply subjective
mental energy. If there is some correlation between subjective and
objective energy -- it doesn't need to be perfect, far from it -- then
conservation of "spiritual energy" will be objectively beneficial. All
spiritual talk is means to an end -- it's not meant to describe objective
reality (except in minds of deluded fundamentalists -- and all fundies
are deluded) -- it's meant to have certain effects on the minds of those
who hear it. Which is why you should not be concerned when your teacher
talks of such stuff. I'll guarantee your teacher will say the same if you
ask him/her -- don't worry about it, just concern yourself with what does
work for you. Because that's what it's all about.
BTW, I'm glad you are not so closed-minded as to reject something just
because it has mystical associations. Maybe there's hope for us yet!
> My problem here is that regarding religious doctrine as metaphorical is
> pointless. The whole point about religious doctrine- i.e. the value in
> believiing and following it- is that it is supposed to be the revealed
> truth.
But why do you believe that? Who told you, and why do you believe them?
If you worked it out for yourself, did you do so entirely rationally,
with no prejudice, looking at all the evidence? Although I am not, and
never have been, a member of any religious organisation (except Sunday
school, as a kiddie), I have studied religion formally, as well as having
been informally interested all my life, and I can't believe you came to
that conclusion by any wholly rational route. It looks just like more
atheistic prejudice to me.
(Technically, I'm an atheist too, not believing in God, unless it's
Reality, or maybe even Us, but I don't identify with the self-proclaiming
atheists I meet on the net, who all seem to be trying to build belief
systems and personal identities on that small negative fact about
themselves.)
> If you start saying that it's just metaphorical then how is say, the
> Bible, any more use as a model for how to live than the novels of William
> Burroughs? (the first novellist that came into my head, make of that what
> you will).
The only thing the Bible has over Burrough's ouvre is having been
accepted by so many people over such a long period. Unless you see
yourself as so superior, of course, that that's wholly without
significance for you.
(I'm not a Christian, have not ever read the Bible except where I had to,
for study purposes or such, but it seems to me you'd have to be arrogant
in the extreme to deny that its popularity is evidence of *some* value,
even if not much.)
> Of course, one reason why some senior representatives of major religions
> start saying things like the examples above is precisely because it becomes
> evident to them, as it is to all atheists, that the claims of religious
> doctrine when judged rationally are ridiculous- only their livelihood
> depends on them not rejecting it.
But that's just your assumption, isn't it? Everything I said in the
paragraph above beginning "But why do you believe that?" applies here too.
Why is the study of religion less deserving of unbiased rationality than
that of any other subject? Surely, by your own principles, religion
should be studied under precisely the same high standards of impartiality,
and passion for the truth, regardless of where it might lead?
Cynicism is cheap, but it's worth no more than you paid for it.
> (The jokes about the Bishop of Durham not
> believing on God are far and wide now- didn't he also once describe God as a
> random set of dots?)
The dots thing I never heard about. Nor, in fact, do I recall any
particular jokes, though I'm sure the satirists made hay. But I don't
see what you're trying to say here. Is the fact there were jokes about
it, good reason not to take it seriously?
> But denying the actuality of key events heavily
> undermines all other claims. For example, if there was no virgin birth then
> how do we know Jesus was the son of God?
We don't need to know that, because, as I said, *all* religious talk is
metaphor, including "Jesus was the son of God". You're still batting
against the fundamentalist, which around here is a straw man.
> Maybe he wasn't the son of God,
> but just someone who says he was- does that make his comments more or less
> legitimate?
Unless you know what "the son of God" means, there's no significant
difference there.
> Surely the entire faith is based upon Jesus definitely being
> the son of God?
Only the fundies would insist that's a literal truth.
> What are you left with- the morality of religions?
No. Their main significance, in my view, is psycho-social. Religions
have undoubtedly had many very seriously detrimental effects, but in
my view they filled a need, or rather a set of needs, both individual
and social.
(Note the past tense. All this is currently up in the air, and the
way it's all changing is one of the most fascinating things about it.
Unless, of course, for you "it's all wrong". Atheist as a sort of dour
calvinist -- fascinating, indeed!)
This is not an issue to which I've given very much thought, to be honest,
though I know it's a big thing for most atheists, so I'm not going to
argue regarding the actual benefits experienced now and historically by
the typical religionist. What I do know something about is Buddhism,
and the benefits experienced by those modern Westerners who are lucky
enough to have access to it -- especially those who, like myself,
have sufficient background in philosophy and psychology to be able to
separate the wheat from the chaff. This wheat can be thought of as a
kind of psycho-therapeutic fine-tuning -- where most conventional Western
psychotherapy is relatively course-tuning -- and the more finely-tuned
mind is capable of conceiving the more subtle facts about the universe
and us, and especially the relationship between these two (which are
really one).
-- 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 - 19:28:13 BST