Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA01648 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 4 Oct 2000 16:12:24 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A6F@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 Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 16:06:10 +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
Michael Persinger has done a lot of research of the effects of magnetic
fields on perceptions of paranormal phenomena. Yet his position is that
people are misinterpreting natural physical phenomena as alien abductions,
lights in the sky, visitation by ghosts etc. etc. He says that in the
context of your home or on the street, strange phenomena that we don't
understand are filtered into our existing knowledge and belief systems.
Blackmore has written and spoken on this kind of effect as well- such that
sleep paralysis, once interpreted as visits by inccubi and succubi, are now
interpreted as alien abduction. The socio-cultural context shapes people's
interpretations of pefectly natural phenomena that most people simply aren't
aware of or don't understand.
There are supposed mystical (I know Robin won't like me using this word in
this context again) technologies- tarot cards, crystal balls, what are they
called.... Kirlian photographs (or something like that). Of course they
aren't technologies in the correct sense of the term, they're merely
charlatans' props.
There's a pragmatist's response as well to such a claim as you suggest,
which is in what ways does such a claim benefit someone?
Of course, this is difficult to argue against in the hypothetical sight
example (although the inhabitants of HG Wells' 'kingdom of the blind' were
better adapted to their environment than the visting sighted person falling
into their realm- ah the delights of fiction). But what is pragmatically
offered by believing such things as the universe being conscious?
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Gatherer, D. (Derek)
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2000 3:17 pm
> To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'
> Subject: RE: mysticism
>
> Derek:
> >So how do we know if alleged mystical experiences really do constitute an
> >'expansion of consciouness' (was it Huxley?) or alternatively, how do we
> >know if they are a load of old rubbish?
>
> Wade:
> Because we can create instruments that 'see' and that can tell us what
> they see.
>
> No mystic has ever created an instrument [technology] that shows us what
> they see.
>
> Although they've supplied us with a myriad of stories and fables and
> yarns.
>
> Derek:
>
> True (or not quite, see below *), but think about the thought experiment
> again. On the island of the blind, they also respond:
>
> "No [allegedly seeing person] has ever created an instrument [technology]
> that shows us what they 'see'. Although they've supplied us with a myriad
> of stories and fables and yarns."
>
> So are we out of the problem yet?
>
>
> * I think this may actually not be strictly correct, as brain stimulation
> by
> magnetic fields can recreate mystical experiences (as indeed can certain
> drugs) - so maybe there is a technology of mysticism......
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 Oct 04 2000 - 16:13:44 BST