Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA20386 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 23 Mar 2001 11:08:39 GMT Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 09:58:41 +0000 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: The Demise of a Meme Message-ID: <20010323095841.B520@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <20010322125736.AAA17220@camailp.harvard.edu@[205.240.180.87]>; <20010322140435.D577@reborntechnology.co.uk> <3AB9EAD3.17192.349C81@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <3AB9EAD3.17192.349C81@localhost>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 12:06:43PM -0600 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 12:06:43PM -0600, joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >
> > The willingness of certain people around here to advertise their
> > ignorance continues to amaze me. Which Buddhism are you talking
> > about, Wade? Therevada or Mahayana? Indian, Thai, Tibetan, Chinese,
> > modern Western? How about Zen? How about *my* Buddhism as described
> > in the message Vincent was replying to? How many Buddhist physical
> > accoutrements do you think I own, Wade? Wouldn't it be a good idea to
> > engage your brain before posting to this list?
> >
> And, of course, only Robin's variant is the One True Way and all
> the others are error-ridden hypostasy, just like in Christianity,
> Judaism and Islam.
It's interesting to compare that sentence with the one that follows:
> I do have a favorable impression of Stephen
> Batchelor's BUDDHISM WITHOUT BELIEFS
Surely you don't mean Batchelor's variety of Buddhism is preferable?!
Gosh, Joe, I'm confused -- surely that first sentence wasn't *purely*
for effect!?!
> and it's attempt to
> strip cultural excrescences from the core of the theory (strip that
> lotus, baby; bare that yummy jewel!); I just wish he'd be honest
> with himself and the rest of the world and admit flat-out that what
> he's left with is existentialism.
I'm not sure this is the place, but I'm quite sure you can't support
that assertion.
> > > If an indicator of a faith is its use of iconography, buddhism wins.
> >
> > If there was a prize for self-satisfied pig-ignorance it would be
> > yours, Wade, no contest.
> >
> Every religion uses props, physical or chemical, to aid in the
> focusing of one's will upon one's purpose(s); for those who become
> adept at such focusing, these props become superfluous, and tend
> to fall away. Once one can fly, one may discard one's ladder.
So what about those varieties of religion that are for fliers only?
Will you allow them to be prop-free, or are you just a little too
fond of the sweeping generalisation?
(I have to say, I'm gratified you're starting to get some idea of
what religions are about, however distorted your current picture.
Distortion we can work with, stone-wall prejudice we cannot.)
-- 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 : Fri Mar 23 2001 - 11:17:26 GMT