Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA05634 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 27 Sep 2000 12:00:49 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A4B@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: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 11:57:59 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Just to add a bit more to my post of yesterday, replying to Richard's post
(even though I've broken my promise to stick to memes).
In the USA, the constitution was founded on ideas about inalienable rights,
one of which enshrined in the 2nd amendment (I think) is the right to bear
arms. The US is still living with the consequences of that 'right' which at
the time was a quite pragmatic element to include (to allow US citizens to
protect themselves from invasion, or internal attacks from those pesky
natives who quite inconveniently didn't want to give up land that quite
obviously didn't belong to them). Today, it is a direct cause of the
extremely high homicide rate in the US, and yet still many people, including
the politicians, continue with the delusion that gun ownership isn't the
problem, but media violence is (amongst other things).
It's a classic example of the conflicts between beliefs that can occur, and
precisely the reason why you need some kind of framework, other than
subjective well-being, to evaluate beliefs and practices. That's why at the
end of the day rationalism is the most appropriate strategy, since beliefs
and practices are judged independently of those who hold them, and that, of
course, includes rationalism itself, which is why I said rationalism
utilised correctly doesn't require faith or belief.
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Richard Brodie
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 4:15 pm
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: mysticism etc
>
> Vincent,
>
> You have put your finger on exactly the assumption that distinguishes the
> rational empiricist from people with other mindsets. You take it on faith
> that the only ideas worth harboring are those that can be tested
> successfully against reality. It's not that that's wrong, but for a large
> number of people that is simply not a distinction they are interested in.
> I
> do not believe your assertion that some day people will need to walk
> without
> a crutch holds up under scrutiny. People lead very successful lives
> without
> knowing much at all about science. In fact I bet most people would say
> that
> religion is more important than science to the individual interested in
> living a successful and fulfilling life.
>
> Many ideas have nothing to do with analyzing the existing world but rather
> with creating a future that pleases us. "Goodwill" is an attitude. In a
> place where very little goodwill exists, injecting the delusion of it can
> bring about positive change. Likewise for a simple person the idea of a
> reward for good behavior in the afterlife may be just the metaphor that
> launches him or her on a fulfilling life versus a depressive nihilistic
> one.
>
> Remember, higher animals live their entire lives without knowing one thing
> about science. It's clearly not necessary to survive. Some people like
> learning about it and some don't. It's rather presumptuous to put forth
> that
> scientific ideas are inherently better than religious, artistic, or
> literary
> ones. Who is to say that the nuclear physics that produced atomic weapons
> is
> an inherently better set of ideas than the "unalienable rights" that
> spawned
> democracy?
>
> Richard Brodie richard@brodietech.com www.liontales.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf Of
> Vincent Campbell
> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 7:02 AM
> To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'
> Subject: RE: mysticism etc
>
> 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 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 : Wed Sep 27 2000 - 12:02:00 BST