Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA28277 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Mon, 19 Nov 2001 13:09:06 GMT Message-ID: <3BF9026E.firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 13:00:30 +0000 From: Chris Taylor <Christopher.Taylor@man.ac.uk> 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 To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Debunking pseudoscience: Why horoscopes really work References: <001001c16c62$3552d3e0$3524f4d8@teddace> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <001b01c1709b$3bcfcb00$d187b2d1@teddace> <email@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
>>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
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
>>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 (firstname.lastname@example.org)
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