Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA26411 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:45:15 +0100 Message-ID: <39C3DBD9.A6DECE06@fcol.com> Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:45:14 -0400 From: "Robert (Bob) Grimes" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Organization: Grimes & Grimes Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en]C-CCK-MCD NSCPCD472 (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Purported mystical "knowledge" References: <200009142049.QAA28199@mail6.lig.bellsouth.net> <200009161917.PAA18118@mail3.lig.bellsouth.net> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------E636B7ED03B5C942730088D2" Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Unfortunately, when I hear the terms "mysticism" or "spirituality,"
there is a great tendency for me to equate it with religion, even though
it may not be appropriate. I can handle "spirituality" as I do consider
myself "spiritual" in the sense of appreciating non material concepts
and relationships where they do not respond or are seem, at first,
inaccessible through the scientific method. Still, I do realize that
such concepts are products of material processes and, perhaps, probably
products of material processes where not understood in that manner.
Still, memes are memes and I realize that my identification reactions to
words are perhaps one of the biggest weaknesses in language. Still,
when I see a list of some words, for example:
existential and hermeneutic phenomenology, genetic epistemology,
semiotics, autopoiesis, etc., etc., (yes, I added one...)
I get an almost uncontrollable reaction to reject whatever they are
talking about. That is irrational and I would be the first to admit it
but experience is a teacher that is hard to reject. I consider myself
as partially into the "consciousness movement" but not when I see those
words. I cannot figure why one would have to create a whole new
vocabulary where it could be expressed in "normal" language unless they
are attempting to avoid such "word identification" and subsequent
"semantic reaction," i.e., semiotics as compared to semantics...
Yet, I do not believe that, statistically, that is the reason.
Unfortunately, my experience with compositions using those words has
been dismal and disappointing as most have ventured into the "mystical"
in the manner in which I use this word, i.e., having no relation to the
physical or physiological world in which we, as physical animals, live
and prosper or, in other words, more closely resembling "magic." Those
who see "consciousness" as some collective "energy field," separate from
the body and its neurotransmitters, hormones, etc., still appear to me
to be talking "mysticism or magic" in the manner in which I use those
words and in which most religious thinking, again in my opinion, also
Still, today, where we lock people up who see "Saints, Angels," etc., we
allow over 50% of the population to walk free who believe in E.T.s and
flying saucers. My opinion of the reason for this is that the same type
of person who believes in E.T.s and flying saucers, as opposed to saints
and angels, knows that they would be locked up for seeing saints or
angels but not for the former, and are the same physical types who used
to see the latter...
Notice that I did not use the term "UFOs" for the simple reason that the
terminology no longer refers to "unidentified flying objects" but to
vehicles from outer space (or some extraterrestrial place). Having seen
flying aircraft prior to their announcement (secret weapons of World War
II) I had no problem in identifying them as man made craft and guessed
immediately their source. Of course, the presence of jet engines was
extremely interesting and puzzling but it was obvious that they were
weapons of war than had not been revealed publicly.
The same is not true of some of the concepts and ideas currently being
"seriously" discussed by folks with tremendous educational "exposure."
Please pardon me for diverging into what I consider some of the pitfalls
Also, please forgive me if this is considered, in any way, a direct
criticism of others on this list... I can assure you it was not so
-- Bob Grimes
http://members.aol.com/bob5266/ http://pages.hotbot.com/edu/bobinjax/ http://www.phonefree.com/Scripts/cgiParse.exe?sID=28788
Bob5266@aol.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com Bobgrimes@zdnetmail.com
Man is not in control, but the man who knows he is not in control is more in control...
Quoth the Raven, "Nevermore....."
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="grimes.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Robert (Bob) GrimesContent-Disposition: attachment; filename="grimes.vcf"
=============================================================== 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 archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 16 2000 - 21:46:23 BST