I consider mythological certainty to be that which a person asserts about reality without recognizing or taking into account the reality of the
conditions that act upon the way and manner that they think.
I just finished watching game of thrones, episode 4 (spoiler alert) and for most part I tend to enjoy it, yet, at times, I feel bothered by what seems
to me certain unsavory metaphorical allusions. Of course, I don't know for certain, but I would bet that George R.R Martin is structuring some
Gnosticism into the story line, so that the name, character and other associations come to represent some "spirit" or archetype of the unconscious
A few scenes stuck out, but what really struck me was Brans statement that "chaos is a ladder". In a spiritual drama, borne from an intrinsic
commitment to the therapeutic value of trauma, Bran is seeing it all - the pain, terror and whatever may follow upon it. He is disembodied,
dissociated, and disconnected from his two sisters. He cannot identify with anything but the "higher" perspective - barely even noticing how much it
bothers his sister, his mission, he feels, forbids him from stepping away.
Is this real, this event of clairvoyant seeing? Would it surprise you to know that quantum physics, complex adaptive systems, as cells, bodies, and
minds, all predicts the reality of such a sphere of "complex seeing"? Would it surprise you to know that what these mystics are "seeing", is not
reality in its whole, but merely a probabilistic direction given the conditions the "seer" is seeing from?
In studying the evolution of human beings, It is not unusual in the least bit, given the reality of mirror neurons, that brains match and compare in
point-counterpoint fashion each self's object relation to the environment.
As an object-subject, the human being can sometimes wish that he were simply a subject, or simply an object. The person who "needs" reality to be in
the mode he expects to find it isn't generally open, particularly if the subject-matter hasn't been explored in his semiotic milieu, to ideas which
conflict with his meaning-narrative. Indeed, we may honestly say: people 'fend off' the dissonant ideas produced by others the way we shoo away the
fly, or chase a mouse out of the house. Ideas are things, and they are in COMPETITION if they are contradictory in some way.
Now, I talk about the brain a lot - and for good reason: its a massive-freaking wake up call to people who hold to a dualistic metaphysics, because
all of the evidence shows that the body produces mind, and that all of the behaviors of mind come from actual interactions with the surrounding
environment. All of these processes are material, made of granular parts, which in their interactions give rise to a teleological process.
Furthermore, all of these processes can be made sensible simply by tracing cause and effect back through time, to the origin of the universe.
Now, I have read, that the "psychological self" is not important, and I wonder, is this the demon of the west - the demon that afflicts this part of
collective humanity with a monstrous dehumanization of the other, all the while fitting the other within their metaphysical scheming? Chaos is a
ladder may indeed be true - its certainly true from a systems theory perspective, yet it harsh, cruel, and unnecessary.
Teleology means "to have purpose". Humans are governed by teleological processes, yet we mostly hide from it - at least Plato did - but not the great
Aristotle. Not uncoincidentally, Plato, the initiate of Pythagorean mysteries didn't like democracy, whereas Aristotle, tactician of the psyche and
organizer of the logic of cause and effect (the 4 causes), was a supporter of democracy. Plato, it seems, was hiding something, and indeed, he was:
“If I thought it possible to deal adequately with the subject in a treatise or a lecture for the general public, what finer achievement would
there have been in my life than to write a work of great benefit to mankind and to bring the nature of things to light for all men? I do not, however,
think the attempt to tell mankind about these matters a good thing, except in the case of some few who are capable of discovering the truth for
themselves with a little guidance. In the case of the rest to do so would excite in some an unjustified contempt in a thoroughly offensive fashion, in
others certain lofty and vain hopes, as if they had acquired some awesome lore.” – Plato, 7th Letter
Sometimes I wonder: is this the theorizing of someone who only has a "top-down" view on things, and not a bottom-up one? Aristotle made science
possible, whereas Plato has driven the theological fantasies of the elite class, who still believe that their view of things is a coherent way of
thinking. Yet, doesn't it all hinge on what mind even is? Do the people who post here even care - as they certainly should and would if they were
rational - that molecular events underlie neural processes, and neural processes are intertwined in a complex network of relations with neurons, glia,
endothelial and the rest of the cells of the body?
The what of the "dynamical system" part is lost on them - so trusting they are in the reality of their vision.
On the other, being as I am, I criticize basically any tradition alive today that claims 100% accuracy for their view on things. Judaism, obviously,
is guilty of all sorts of projections deriving from life experiences projected into the words of their God; it is THEIR anger, THEIR pain, and yes,
THEIR desire to gloat at some future period, when the world will see "how right they are".
Being a student of religion in general, I have interfaced with so many different worldviews that I am made dizzy by my own understanding sometimes.
Which is true, which isn't? Are all true, or only some? Or how bout none?
edit on 7-8-2017 by Astrocyte because: (no reason given)