Re: The Demise of a Meme

From: Robin Faichney (robin@reborntechnology.co.uk)
Date: Thu Mar 22 2001 - 13:52:51 GMT

  • Next message: Robin Faichney: "Re: The Demise of a Meme"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA14561 (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 14:18:30 GMT
    Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 13:52:51 +0000
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject: Re: The Demise of a Meme
    Message-ID: <20010322135251.C577@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745D01@inchna.stir.ac.uk>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    Content-Disposition: inline
    User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i
    In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745D01@inchna.stir.ac.uk>; from v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk on Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 12:29:10PM -0000
    From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 12:29:10PM -0000, Vincent Campbell wrote:
    > >
    > 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).

    I'm glad you take my main point. But the other one stands too: it
    is not logical to say that if science is rational, then rationality
    is scientific. If you *really* valued rationality, you'd know that.

    > > 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.

    Well it would help if you (a) took the trouble to look into it a little,
    and (b) read what you're replying to.

    > Isn't Bhudda an idol as
    > in any other faith?

    As you didn't get it the first time:

    > > 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 : Thu Mar 22 2001 - 14:21:08 GMT