Date: Fri 22 Nov 2002 - 06:01:30 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
> 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.
You're talking attitude engineering and self-programmed control; Richard Brodie is deeply into this, and he has some good points to make - my only problem with his position is that he seems to value comforting lies over unsettling truths, and I would rather be a Socrates unsatisfied than a satisfied newage white-light fluffybunny (not that I am imputing either of those positions to you). For me, on a deeper level, knowing is more important than feeling good, if they must come into conflict.
> > >
> >> 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.
I heartily recommend the following site to you; it is maintained by those who have rejected the more violently virulent memes that can be constructed from the material that Islam provides. http://www.secularislam.org/
> JS Gilbert
> 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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri 22 Nov 2002 - 06:04:15 GMT