Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA01254 (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 13:45:27 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A75@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: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 13:42:49 +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 brief observation (ignore at your leisure),
Early back in the original discussion that started this thread- Kenneth's
piece on solipsism and memes, a piece which seems to have been left behind
rather unfortunately, I offered a number of examples of this kind of thing
(e.g. sleep paralysis being interpreted as alien abduction), which I believe
was the red rag to Robin when I said these were examples of mysticism.
Without going back down that route, there's another element to this when we
compare human experiences/ behaviour with animals. Bats are a good example-
long a symbol of all sorts of otherworldly powers and so on, one might argue
this undoubtedly stems from the incredible way bats appear to be able to fly
at high speed in total darkness without bumping into anything, and catch
insects on the wing as well. Only through apparatus that can detect high
frequency sound can their method of navigation, sonar, be detected, and
prior to this its not surprising that bats were presumed to have
supernatural attributes by many. Today, most people seem able to relate
animal behaviour to natural causes- without loosing a sense of wonder, but
when it comes to humans there's a definite resistence to see our experiences
as also rooted in natural causes. Just as Dawkins argues in 'Unweaving the
Rainbow' it's as if to acknowledge this might take away the beauty and
wonder of human existence, when I think it adds to it (as Dawkins does).
So what if it wasn't a few of the islanders saying they occasionally saw
something, but them claiming that a island animal had this remarkable extra
sense called 'sight'? Would this hypothetical community be more willing to
accept this ability in an animal?
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Wade T.Smith
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2000 12:29 pm
> To: Memetics Discussion List
> Subject: RE: mysticism
>
> 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 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 - 13:47:35 BST