Re: Purported mystical "knowledge"

From: Lawrence H. de Bivort (
Date: Sun Sep 17 2000 - 00:35:28 BST

  • Next message: Lloyd Robertson: "Re: Purported mystical "knowledge""

    Received: by id AAA26804 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 00:38:02 +0100
    X-Authentication-Warning: debivort owned process doing -bs
    Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 19:35:28 -0400 (EDT)
    From: "Lawrence H. de Bivort" <>
    Subject: Re: Purported mystical "knowledge"
    In-Reply-To: <>
    Message-ID: <>
    Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
    Precedence: bulk

    On Sat, 16 Sep 2000, Robert (Bob) Grimes wrote:

    >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...

    I must rise to the defense of "poiesis" -- it simply refers to the process
    of creating something new. Given its ancient Greek origin, I don't think
    we can accuse anyone who uses the term of inventing a new
    vocabulary; indeed, those who in English use the terms 'to make' or
    'create' are the ones who are using 'new' vocabulary.... <smile>.

    - Lawrence

    >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
    >of language...
    >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
    >Jacksonville, Florida
    >Man is not in control, but the man who knows he is not in control is
    >more in control...
    >Quoth the Raven, "Nevermore....."

    | ESI |
    | Evolutionary Services Institute |
    | "Crafting opportunities for a better world" |
    | 5504 Scioto Road, Bethesda, MD 20816, USA |
    | (301) 320-3941 |

    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 : Sun Sep 17 2000 - 00:39:12 BST