Re: Dawkins was right all along

From: Kenneth Van Oost (
Date: Sun Sep 23 2001 - 10:41:23 BST

  • Next message: "Re: Getting to sleep"

    Received: by id OAA11030 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 14:49:24 +0100
    Message-ID: <008901c14414$174c5e00$c39cbed4@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <>
    To: <>
    References: <> <>
    Subject: Re: Dawkins was right all along
    Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 11:41:23 +0200
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
    Precedence: bulk

    Philip wrote, Scott wrote,
    > > So are you implying that being an atheist makes you superior
    > > to someone who is religious? Are you free from the possible
    > > biases inherent in a mindset and its polarizing
    > > anti-religious extremes?

    << Hi all,

    Superior is not the best chosen word here, though !
    It means, outstanding, authoritative, unappoachable,... that is not what
    is meant here.
    Philip, in a way, expresses what I am saying all along, that each of us
    is trapped, and fixed within all possible biases inherent to any mindset.
    What we see, hear, experience,... study is getting clouded by the way
    we live, our genetic and memetic background, what we have studied.

    In a sense, Bush and his administration is driven to act as they will act,
    by their own and the American mindsets. Bush is a conservative, reven-
    ge, getting even, security.... are the holy grail for such people.
    This is strenghtened by the lack of respect for others and the arrogant
    attitude of the American administration and politics.
    If by the way, Bush would have walked one mile in somebody's shoes
    to understand why people attack the USA he would now know better
    than to attack an innocent people.

    I, for one, did not walk one mile in somebody's shoes, but I do understand
    and I do understand why in other matters like this people think you need
    the experience, you need to have studied the things you want to talk about.
    That is not true, empathy only works in such circumstances when you take the
    place of the scientist at the particular moment of finding, studying, expe-
    riencing,.... something. That is something you can 't do. Empathy only works
    from out your experience, you don 't have to walk one mile in somebody's
    shoes to understand what we study or what she/ he believes in.

    What we experience is empathy, and in a sense that is just alike what the
    hardliners of any religion feels and experiences.
    Any hardliner can 't grasp the real motives of any god or of any rule. He/
    she too does this from out his/ hers own experience which is than linked
    to his/ hers genetic, social, memetical, psychological,... background.

    All is circumstancial, taking the place of any scientist, feeling,
    .....taking the place of any god, thinking like he did/ placing
    self above the scientist or the god. You can come that close to any felt
    experience of anyone and everyone ( like now, we can ' feel ' the pain of
    the New Yorkers or of any American), but can 't grasp the " real " sense
    of it all.
    And even you have any experience at first hand, what you really will
    experience, see, even hear and feel,... will than already be twisted by
    how your mind works.
    A really " true " picture of what is out there you can 't have.

    Best regards,


    ( I am, because we are) acting under noone's control

    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 2b29 : Wed Sep 26 2001 - 16:00:41 BST