RE: mysticism

From: Wade T.Smith (wade_smith@harvard.edu)
Date: Thu Oct 05 2000 - 12:29:34 BST

  • Next message: Chris Lofting: "RE: Purported mystical "knowledge""

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA00751 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 5 Oct 2000 12:32:55 +0100
    Subject: RE: mysticism
    Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 07:29:34 -0400
    x-sender: wsmith1@camail2.harvard.edu
    x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas
    From: "Wade T.Smith" <wade_smith@harvard.edu>
    To: "Memetics Discussion List" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
    Message-ID: <20001005112932.AAA21403@camailp.harvard.edu@[204.96.32.171]>
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Hi Gatherer, D. (Derek) --

    >How then could _they_ interpret the occasional flash of 'sight'
    >as anything other than subjectivity and fevered imagination?

    Ah, well, yes, in your example, you are assuming they have developed _no_
    extrasensory apparatus at all, yes? And there is a physical process _in
    their universe_ which, for some reason, their evolution has not developed
    any biological apparatus for....

    I must say, I don't totally grant you your conditions, but this is a
    fable, after all.

    So- I say they would interpret these flashes, perhaps, magically. Perhaps
    they would not interpret them subjectively at all, but offer up gods and
    forces to explain them. And create fables and myths to explain them to
    others.

    I am not saying that there are experiences for which few if any of us
    could provide complete explanations, but, we have developed apparatus to
    detect things that, for all we know at present, are not detected by our
    own biological senses. I would have said, that in your example, that it
    would merely be a matter of time before the not-seeing developed
    apparatus that would detect light, as a matter of exploration in the
    arena of scientific curiosity. But, yes, there would be a long period of
    religiousness surrounding this physical reality for which no natural
    detector had been evolved. (Although that's asking a supreme incompetence
    of nature- one which I will not supply to it....)

    So, yes, we can, as you paraphrased-

    >>as mysticating people, create a machine that
    >>reacts to mystical experience and supplies a pinch, or a poke, or even some
    >>pleasant input after sensing light, say, in the same way a
    >>mystitransmission circuit can
    >>move a needle.

    - and indeed, we have, several times. But the mystics have always refused
    to make the connection between these scientific explanations and their
    prideful lust that they are sensing secret wonders. It is the real
    explanations that are refused by the religious.

    Science is the first sin.

    - Wade

    ===============================================================
    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 : Thu Oct 05 2000 - 12:34:59 BST