Re: Debunking pseudoscience: Why horoscopes really work

From: Chris Taylor (
Date: Mon Nov 19 2001 - 13:00:30 GMT

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "Re: Debunking pseudoscience: Why horoscopes really work"

    Received: by id NAA28277 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 13:09:06 GMT
    Message-ID: <>
    Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 13:00:30 +0000
    From: Chris Taylor <>
    Organization: University of Manchester
    User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2
    X-Accept-Language: en-gb
    Subject: Re: Debunking pseudoscience: Why horoscopes really work
    References: <001001c16c62$3552d3e0$3524f4d8@teddace> <> <001b01c1709b$3bcfcb00$d187b2d1@teddace> <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
    Precedence: bulk

    >>Self-plex is a newfangled term for ego. It's not the same thing as the
    >>self. It's a product of human imagination, ingrained so deeply in our
    >>collective memory that we can't function intellectually or emotionally
    >>except in the context of this primordial self-image. As a hallucination,
    >>it therefore requires a hallucinator. Equating the self with the ego
    >>requires positing a hallucination that hallucinates itself. And if this
    >>the case, then evidently there is such a thing as the self after all.
    >>There's just no way to logically deny self-nature. One way or another it's
    >>going to bite you in the ass.
    > I don't deny there is such a thing as the self being the individual. That
    > would be silly. All I claim is that if the individual would be stripped
    > from its cultural baggage (i.e. its cultural education and upbringing) an
    > animal-like self would remain. I used the phenomena of the feral children
    > to support this view. It speaks for itself that wolf-children may bite me
    > in my ass if I'd deny their possible existence.

    Brains are colonised by internally and externally generated patterns,
    which influence subsequent colonisations; like ecosystems moving into
    (idealised) virgin territory a few species at a time. Out of this
    emerges consciousness like government from the people.

    > Any form of science? What about the ancient greek and byzanthium(?)
    > scholars, didn't they virtually invent science while capitalism was still
    > an unknown word? It may be true that capitalism now has a great influence
    > on the conduct of science, especially its technological derivative, but
    > I find it hard to believe that science served capitalism all along.
    > Anyway, I will look into your reference when I have time, thanks for that
    > one.

    Also, what about people like Paley (i.e. religious scholars) who
    unwittingly gave a wonderful resource to early evolutionists? After that
    age of 'gentleman scientists' though (Darwin being a prime
    spoilt-little-rich-kid example) I think you're probably increasingly
    correct :(

    >>It's a fact of history that [*modern*] science developed in the
    shadow of capitalism. See Luciano Pellicani, The Genesis of Capitalism
    and the Origins of Modernity, Telos, 1994.

    That amended one I can agree with.
    I bitch about it almost non-stop actually.

    >>Philosophy and science are the same thing. Philosophy is the science of
    >>the whole, while science is the philosophy of particulars.

    Great phrase, but as vacuous as deep space.

      Chris Taylor ( »people»chris

    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 : Mon Nov 19 2001 - 13:15:05 GMT