RE: mysticism etc

From: Vincent Campbell (v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Sep 25 2000 - 15:02:07 BST

  • Next message: Richard Brodie: "RE: mysticism etc"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA00519 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 25 Sep 2000 15:04:43 +0100
    Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A45@inchna.stir.ac.uk>
    From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk>
    To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Subject: RE: mysticism etc
    Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 15:02:07 +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
    

    I realise Robin is bowing out on this, there's one point here I just wanted
    to respond to, and I'm not expecting a response from Robin, I just wanted to
    put this out there. It contains a few rhetorical questions.

    >The question is: what's it a metaphor for? All ideas are "just"
    ideas,
    >and that includes rationality, objectivity, reality, etc. But some
    >ideas are more important than others because of what they stand
    for.
            (...)
    > Psychology is
    >what it's ALL about. It's just a pity neither the fundamentalists
    nor
    >the atheists can appreciate that. Both take it all too literally.

    Of course all ideas are "just" ideas, but how we differentiate in terms of
    the value of what ideas stand for? With a subjective stance, you end up
    with relativism- if it works for you, then its legitimate, but as has been
    argued here and elsewhere, relativism is a wholly unsatisfactory position to
    end up in. What gives ideas value in my book is not so much what they stand
    for but whether their utility, and thus their value can be empirically
    demonstrated. After all, if two people have conflicting beliefs that
    impinge on each other, how does one resolve that potential conflict in a
    fair manner?

    Psychology is vitally important in understanding people's beliefs and
    behaviours, but anti-rational beliefs and practices I truly feel encourage
    people to be delusional: They encourage people to avoid the material
    reality around them in a whole host of different ways, such as denying the
    existence of that material reality or describing it as merely a stage in
    existence to be followed by something a lot better etc. etc., and I
    definitely feel that's wrong. A crutch is still a crutch, even if it does
    make people feel better, some day people are going to have to walk unaided,
    or something/someone will come along to kick that crutch away.

    Anyway, this hasn't got very much to do with memetics, so I promise to
    reserve my next post for something meme-oriented!

    Vincent

    ===============================================================
    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 : Mon Sep 25 2000 - 15:05:54 BST