> everymorning? After having read a significant amount already, I have now
> stopped reading any posts back and forth between XYZ. By not putting
> yourselves in contact with XYZ, your minds won't be available for him to
This is funny. First he says ignore XYZ then he goes on to quote from XYZ:
> John P. Schneider said:
No, you are quoting XYZ!
> >The whole reason for this diatribe just now, is because I just want
> >to say that we need to separate religion and sex and everything from
> >memetics so we view it in it's unadulterated state. There is nothing
> >wrong with metaphysics or speculation because humans have a need to
> >do such "nonsense" things. BUT, we have to separate the subjectively
> >involved observer from the observation or we will never be able to
> >make progress in the "science" of memetics...it will forever remain a
> >fad then. We have to distance ourselves from the thing that controls
> >us or it will continue to shape our thoughts in such a way that we
> >will never be able to "get a handle" on them. They will be like smoke
> >and mirrors.
> I agree with John's desire, but I don't think that memetics will become
> any sort of science until a lot more is discovered about how the human
> consciousness operates.
If it isn't a science now, then what is it?
> Highly evolved brain tools that can map and trace
> the flow of memes in the mind won't be developed for a long time. Any
> attempts beforehand will end up being a soft science, like "social science".
There is no such thing as "hard" and "soft" science. The "soft" part comes
from people not knowing what science is. But from the misuse of these
words I have come up with this analyses:
"Hard" science is actual science.
"Soft" science is pop-science.
> the real trick will be to reintegrate them. The beauty of smoke and mirrors
> is that when you first see them, you are amazed. When you figure out
> how they work for the disappearance trick, you are again amazed. When you
> see the magic trick the second time, you are still in awe of the smoke and
> mirrors because your understanding doesn't explain the encounter with them.
I become dissappointed after the con job is exposed.
> It is truth through experiential observation.
Truth cannot be gained through experience since our experiences
are always limited to what we choose to experience. Experience that
cannot be validated is active imagination. Go to disneyland and you
will expereince different things from someone else. Some experience
fun, other's experience fear, and yet others experience boredom. The
experience doens't mean anything without validation.
>And it is wisdom, which is also beyond
> judgement, that is the metaphysical understanding of the universe that runs
> parrallel to science.
Who says it runs parrallel to science? God? Jesus? Buddha?
Jim Baker? Jimmy Swaggert? Oral Roberts?
If it isn't science it isn't anywhere close to being parrallel to it.