Re: mysticism etc

From: Joe E. Dees (joedees@bellsouth.net)
Date: Sat Sep 23 2000 - 07:09:27 BST

  • Next message: Robin Faichney: "Re: mysticism etc"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id HAA02582 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 23 Sep 2000 07:07:39 +0100
    Message-Id: <200009230604.CAA12850@mail5.lig.bellsouth.net>
    From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 01:09:27 -0500
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
    Subject: Re: mysticism etc
    In-reply-to: <20000922091517.A1246@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    References: <200009220025.UAA08968@mail3.lig.bellsouth.net>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 07:30:21PM -0500
    X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b)
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Date sent: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 09:15:17 +0100
    From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject: Re: mysticism etc
    Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk

    > On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 07:30:21PM -0500, Joe E. Dees wrote:
    > > >
    > > > I've never heard or read anyone claim to have "felt" the consciousness
    > > > of the universe. You persist in your delusion that you and the universe
    > > > are two different things. The insight is that there's no good reason to
    > > > take that view. If you're conscious, the universe is conscious.
    > > >
    > > If we're conscious, then discrete systemic parts of the universe are
    > > (sufficiently complex to be) conscious.
    >
    > "Discrete systemic" is an oxymoron. To take the systems view is to stop
    > pretending that parts are discrete.
    >
    Well, to take the systems view is to reject the idea that everything
    is some single sort of amorphous mass. By discrete, I meant
    distinct, differentiable, distinguishable. There are threshholds
    between components of a system, which are breached during
    exchange. Components are not nonrelational with respect to each
    other, but neither are they seamlessly fused; they interrelate.
    > --
    > 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 : Sat Sep 23 2000 - 07:08:57 BST