From: Jon Gilbert (email@example.com)
Date: Fri 22 Nov 2002 - 05:51:41 GMT
>And who decides who does and does not understand a given text? And
>whether that person understands enough to make such a
>determination? In the absence of empirical evidence, such an
>imputation remains entirely subjective; one person's fool is another's
>guru, and verse-vice-a.
It's not a matter of understanding the text. It's a matter of
understanding the lesson of the teacher. The text is a tool for the
teacher to impart a lesson.
Let us say that the lesson is how not to be negative. How to be calm
and happy. Now, I know when I am negative, rather than calm and
happy. For me, that is empirical evidence of whether or not I have
learned the lesson.
Esoteric knowledge is gained empirically, but it is not testable
through the scientific method because no instrument is capable of
reading and recording qualia/thoughts/experiences/dreams/emotions/etc.
Perhaps you believe only fools are calm and happy, and you are an
existentialist careening through life in angst and pain. Or maybe,
like most of us, you're both. Whatever; I think reject spiritual
truths because of the limitations of scientific instruments, when
they know good and well what they themselves are experiencing, and
you don't need a P-value to grab your ass with two hands.
>> I could write a whole book on Adobe Photoshop, but the only way to
>> teach what I know is by showing someone. Oral transmission is not just
>> about language.
>It's about showing rather than telling, and that involves demonstration
>and imitation. I wrote a paper on this.
>> Memes are not things one can be conscious of, when they are operating
>> within oneself; they "are" oneself, at a moment, unless they are
>> non-identified with.
>Actually, one can be aware of memes that one does not even share. I
>certainly do not believe that if I murder an infidel for the greater glory of
>Allah, that I will enjoy an eternity in Paradise blessed by the erotic
>ministrations of 72 renewable virgins, but I am well aware of the
>existence of the meme, and the fact that others will kill and die because
>of their belief in it.
I agree basically. But, it's one thing to know about a meme, but
another thing to have been possessed by one, and then freed from it,
such that you _understand_ it. Knowledge and understanding are very
different if you take the words in that sense, which can be a useful
way of taking them.
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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri 22 Nov 2002 - 05:54:02 GMT