Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA21935 (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 15:47:14 GMT Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745D0D@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: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 15:44:08 -0000 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>> 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.>
>
I must have been having a slow day. Apologies.
<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?>
>
Calling my impressions of your version of Buddhism half-baked just
because I don't accept it, it dreadfully unfair. I wasn't saying buddhism
is crap (that's a different point entirely) but that buddhism, in all its
variants, is a belief system, a faith. One instance of this is the use of
idols- and whatever branch of buddhism one follows, at the core remains the
idol of the buddha. You may think you can have buddhism without beliefs,
but you can't have buddhism without buddha, and inherent in that is the
belief that that bloke knew what he was talking about- or are you denying
that part of it?
(As an aside, in the UK the general perception of many is the media
studies is a pile of crap, so I do indeed have to deal with that on a
regular basis. I can't pretend it doesn't annoy me, but I guess I've grown
think skinned about it, and besides can quickly explain why media studies is
important, and relevant. I hope that doesn't sound arrogant, it's just that
I've had this kind of interaction so frequently that I've become quite
attuned at giving people pause over their ignorance. Ignorance is not a
crime but wilful ignorance is. I suspect you'd accuse me of the latter, so
be it.)
I notice that you seem to lose all of that transcendental patience
that buddhists are supposed to be working on when people refuse to accept
your claim that buhddism is not a belief system.
<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?>
>
In answer to your question here, yes I would get annoyed. But think
about what you're doing here- you are explicitly framing your
methodology/theory in the context of the varied entity collectively called
Buddhism, yet at the same time denying it shares significant common elements
to it. I think your comment re western/eastern Buddhism are pertinent, as I
tend to think religions lose their credibility outside of the socio-cultural
context in which they originated. Western buddhism really has very little
to do with "real" buddhism, and that's always evident in its western
proponents. By linking your methodology in any way to buddhism you are
making an explicit link to the preferencing of the teachings of Buddha- that
is idol worship whether or not followers have 150ft high statues, or simply
minimalist furniture in their homes.
<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.)>
>
How do you know that what you are actively engaged in is testing and
not just believing? Indeed, how do any of us know whether we're testing or
merely believing? Can buddhism provide the answer to that question?
>> 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.>
>
I think our mindsets are very different, and often we aren't talking
about the same thing- which is neither or our faults.
What you're surely doing by making the Buddha link to your view is
preferencing his perception of how best to find one's own way? Again,
that's surely a leap of faith- based on what?
<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.>
>
I wouldn't disagree with anything here, but I don't see how this
legitimates buddhism.
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 : Fri Mar 23 2001 - 15:49:51 GMT