Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA23388 (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 19:26:05 GMT From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 13:28:55 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: The Demise of a Meme Message-ID: <3ABB4F97.11744.9727B4@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010323095841.B520@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <3AB9EAD3.17192.349C81@localhost>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 12:06:43PM -0600 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On 23 Mar 2001, at 9:58, Robin Faichney wrote:
> 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!?!
>
You mean that you cannot see the difference between liking
something a bit and considering it the One and Only Holy grail? I'll
bet everyone ELSE here can grock such a wide and easy
distinction. You're not just stretching there; you broke.
>
> > 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.
>
Read his first book (ALONE WITH OTHERS: AN EXISTENTIAL
APPROACH TO BUDDHISM) and the scales will fall from your
eyes. It actually provoked me to write a paper entitled
EXISTENTIAL PHENOMENOLOGY AND ZEN: THE DANCER AND
THE DANCE.
>
> > > > 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?
>
And you don't employ mandala, mantra, mudra, tantra or soma as
props, and never have?
>
> (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.)
>
Which is why I'm trying to disabuse you of it. One can be
prejudiced FOR something, too, as you most obviously are, but
have as difficult a time seeing that bigotry as a fish has in seeing
its surrounding water. BTW, I have taught comparative religion for
Troy State University; that requires an objectivity that I doubt you
could conceive or imagine, considering your concretized and
ossified memetic advocacy for one religion (Buddhism) in
particular. Of course, there are some that I prefer to others, too
(my three favorites being paganism, taoism and buddhism), but I
am no zombically enthralled proselyte to any of them.
> --
> 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 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 - 19:28:38 GMT