Re: A more "sciency"-sounding mysticism.

t (MemeLab@aol.com)
Tue, 6 Apr 1999 18:08:01 EDT

From: <MemeLab@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 18:08:01 EDT
Subject: Re: A more "sciency"-sounding mysticism.
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk

In a message dated 4/6/99 10:49:50 AM Central Daylight Time,
chrislees@easynet.co.uk writes:

>> I think that what you say here Jake is just an example preposterous
narrow-minded scientism. You don't understand something, so rather than
admit ignorance, you dismiss it as "farce".
To say that self is ultimately an illusion is a perfectly valid
statement.
It is a conclusion arrived at by many people who have explored their
own experience, meticulously and pragmatically, over a couple of
millenia. For you to pour such scorn upon all those people is unworthy
of your obvious intelligence. <<

Just chalk it up to my unenlightenment.

>>How you manage to leap from that to "a mystical assault on our very
language" I don't understand at all. Bizarre logic.<<

Who doesn't understand? From whence comes this lack of understanding and the
judgment of "bizarre logic"? These just look like words on the the computer
screen. Without some responsible legitimate agent on the other side of them,
why would they have any more legitimacy than I give my cat or pet rock? How
truly bizarre. The computer forms words expressing an indignation that is
attributable to no one.

You are right. I don't understand. Next time I won't bother dismissing it
as a farce. I will just dismiss it with much less fanfare or maybe none.
Just put me on the record as "unenlightened" and I will pipe down in the
spirit of goodwill.

>>IMO, S. Blackmore explains the matter in a coherent and convincing way.<<

Perhaps she does. I do not know. I am only responding to what I have read
about her ideas, and apparently as represented by people who were friendly to
her position. In all fairness to her, I haven't read the book. If I ever
do, I can't imagine her convincing me of the premise that self is "just an
illusion." Do you think that she might be really suggesting a different
premise, but has worded it poorly? So far it doesn't sound that way, but I
can hold out for such a charitable position.

Thanks for sharing your enlightenment here. Sorry that I am so unreceptive.
I would apologize for my "narrow minded scientism", but somehow I am sure
that it is incurable.

Cheers,

-Jake

===============================================================
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