Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA13637 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 22 Mar 2001 12:32:16 GMT Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745D01@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: The Demise of a Meme Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 12:29:10 -0000 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
<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.>
>
Hmm.... I think I'm talking about processes of thinking that deal
with actual causal processes not wished for ones e.g. going out looking for
food rather than praying for it. I think science is an extension of
logical, rational problem-solving (that's not to say that scientific
theories aren't memetic though).
<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.)>
>
Well I doubt we'll ever agree on Bhuddism. Isn't Bhudda an idol as
in any other faith? (aside: I see those statues have been blown up now.)
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 archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 22 2001 - 12:35:04 GMT