Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA09818 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 21 Mar 2001 16:31:21 GMT Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 16:14:55 +0000 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: The Demise of a Meme Message-ID: <20010321161455.A433@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745CFD@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745CFD@inchna.stir.ac.uk>; from v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk on Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 10:50:43AM -0000 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 10:50:43AM -0000, Vincent Campbell wrote:
> Interesting discussion this.
>
> Perhaps we need to distinguish between science as a particular process of
> investigation, and 'Science' as a collection of social and cultural
> institutions.
>
> 'Science' has memes (lab coats and bunsen burners etc.), but science as a
> way of thinking... I'm not sure it is memetic.
Like I said, every scientific theory is a memeplex. I don't think there's
any way you can reject that without rejecting memetics altogether. As for
"science as a way of thinking", I doubt there's any such thing. Of course
some people are into scientism, but I'm guessing that's not what you mean.
For me, there's really only the theories and the methodology, which is how
the theories are tested. Everything else is flim flam and scientism --
which is people trying to base a personal belief system on science.
> But then again Bhuddists
> don't thing what they believe is a religious faith... so maybe it's a self
> delusion to think of science as non-memetic.
Sometimes I think there's two types of people on this list, those who are
fascinated by memetics as an exciting new way to look at culture, and
those who see it as a way of putting down aspects of culture they don't
like: what you're into is mere memes, whereas what I'm into goes beyond
that. Of course, in reality, these two categories overlap.
For me, both science and Buddhism are memeplexes that reach beyond
themselves. Scientific memes reflect extra-memetic reality. Buddhist
memes tend to liberate the mind from memetic thralldom. Roughly speaking,
Buddhism is to experience as science is to external reality. In Buddhism
Without Beliefs, Stephen Batchelor argues that science and Buddhism
actually share their most central feature: both are based solidly on
radical agnosticism, where that is *not* about the existence of any
God or gods, but rather a refusal to cling to or avoid absolutely any
and every belief and/or concept whatsoever. The application of that
method to beliefs about the nature of external reality is science.
Its application to beliefs about your personal experience is Buddhism.
And it is a method, not a belief system, which is why Buddhism is not
a faith. (Or rather, why *this* Buddhism is not a faith -- YMMV.)
-- Robin Faichney Get your Meta-Information from http://www.ii01.org (CAUTION: contains philosophy, may cause heads to spin)=============================================================== 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 Mar 21 2001 - 16:34:02 GMT