Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA20391 (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 11:08:41 GMT Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 10:43:26 +0000 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: The Demise of a Meme Message-ID: <20010323104326.C520@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745D07@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745D07@inchna.stir.ac.uk>; from v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk on Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 03:13:37PM -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 03:13:37PM -0000, Vincent Campbell wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> Call me a fool if you like, but why isn't this a logical statement?
Joe explained that. It interests me that such a big fan of rationality
can't recognise such an obvious logical non sequitur.
> <Well it would help if you (a) took the trouble to look into it a
> little,
> > and (b) read what you're replying to.>
> >
> Well that's a bit unfair. I'm not a buddhist so I won't pretend
> equal knowledge (and apologies for spelling)
My point was that, in saying you'll never agree with me about Buddhism,
you're setting your half-baked impressions up against my long-term study
and experience. I'm sure you've met people who insisted media studies
is a pile of crap, without ever picking up a book about it. How does
that make you feel? Or is ignorance is a valid qualification in some
fields but not others?
> but I do read posts properly,
> and this seems to me to be a fair question-
>
> > 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.)>
You *still* don't see how that bit in parens answers your question?
C'mon, Vince, get your brain in gear! (And see below.)
> Do you own any statues of Buddha? If so, why?
No I don't!
> Even if you personally don't, that doesn't stop the evident point
> that Buddha has become an idol, as other faiths have their idols.
The Buddha is not an idol for me, nor for most other Buddhists I know, and
I'd guess not for the vast majority of western Buddhists.[1] Wouldn't it
annoy you if people kept insisting you defend some intellectual position
you don't actually hold, in fact you have no sympathy for whatsoever,
simply because other people in media studies do hold it?
> Of course
> Buddhism is a belief system, it's a system based on the belief that Buddha
> knew what he was talking about and doing, but on what basis is that belief
> founded? Faith.
Nope. It's not a faith if it's up for testing, and everything the Buddha
said is just that. The tradition has his last words as something like
"find your own way". He (and those who followed) merely suggested where
we might look, but we use our own eyes, and brains. It is very much
against the spirit of Buddhism just to accept what's taught. (Which is
not, of course, to say that some Buddhists don't sometimes do just that.)
> You can't claim it's based on experience, because you have no way of
> knowing whether your experiences are the same as Buddha's, and assuming this
> is surely a leap of faith.
I have no way of knowing about your experiences either. Maybe I'm
deluding myself in assuming, on the few occasions we actually agree on
something, that we're talking about the same thing, have the same thing
in mind.
It's a matter of degree. Some faith is involved in almost anything
you care to mention. The question is how much, and whether it actually
displaces experience, or merely fills in the gaps that experience cannot.
How do you know you're not a brain in a vat, being fed "sense impressions"
by a supercomputer? In fact, there's not much we can know with absolute
certainty, but some assumptions are more reasonable than others.
[1] That's not meant to be racist, I just don't know that much about the
"Buddhisms" practiced on the ground in the East.
-- 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 - 11:20:18 GMT