Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA00478 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 22 Sep 2000 12:16:34 +0100 Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 11:08:26 +0100 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: memetics and knowledge Message-ID: <20000922110826.A1529@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A33@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A33@inchna.stir.ac.uk>; from v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk on Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 12:25:50PM +0100 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 12:25:50PM +0100, Vincent Campbell wrote:
> >Leaving aside that last line ("analogy between walking and
> cycling"?),
>
> You don't recall your own point? The walking/cycling analogy was yours.
I'm sorry, "analogy between walking and cycling" to me means saying
that walking is analogous to cycling. My analogy was between learning
to cycle and learning mysticism. I did mention walking early on, in a
slightly different context.
> >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.
Of the four dictionary definitions offered by Wade on which I commented,
I rejected the first, accepted the second, accepted the third with
a modification, and accepted that the fourth was the common usage,
though misuse in my eyes. Both the second and the third definition as
modified give the "more specific, technical" explanation of "mysticism".
The first aimed at the technical definition but missed, while the fourth
is perfectly adequate on the common usage.
> 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.
That's irrational. I'm refusing to play along with your diversionary
tactics. There is no logic in concluding from my refusal to provide
a definition, that there is a difference in our use of "experience".
And, you claimed to have reason to believe there was such a difference
previously, though you've never been willing to offer it. Are you reduced
to claiming that my refusal to play constitutes such a reason because
you don't have any real reason? Because that's what it looks like.
> 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.
I'm very willing to try to explain. I'd have thought that was obvious
by now. What I object to, is people pretending that they understand what
they're rejecting, when they quite plainly do not, and are making that
decision on the presence of certain buzzwords, and guilt-by-association.
-- 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 : Fri Sep 22 2000 - 12:17:53 BST