posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 12:51 AM
For the longest time, mystics have made the naïve error of assuming that mind and matter constitute two separate substances. "As above, so below",
in a sense, expresses the confusion of this thinking - when perhaps "as without", "so within", might have been a more accurate description.
But the issue I really want to mark out is not semantics - people may still use the above phrases without necessarily implying that the mind can
survive death, yet, still, this naïve fantasy has persisted for a long time, probably because the brain and the body weren't understood in any
Camelo Castillo's book Origin of Mind seems to slam a pretty strong nail in the coffin with the idea that the "spiritual world" is some place
anywhere else besides the confines of our skulls - our grey matter.
As I've often emphasized, an advancing ontology, or set of phase shifts in the evolutionary process, always follow a building up of symmetry dynamics
between points of matter. To "matter", is to be made real. All things that are real are material, which is to say, emerge through a stable
symmetry building process where one thing complements another thing in a nested like structure that grows larger and larger. The quark, the nucleus,
the atom, the molecule, the cell - these are the points which "contain", as it were, the orientation and behavior of the activity of the energetic
Now, imagine a creature with 50-75 trillion cells, 86 billion of which are neurons, and the biggest of these neurons themselves composed of 100
billion interacting molecules. Can you recognize the complexity of such a creature i.e. the Human being?
Since at least Plato, the delusion has been: there is a "receptacle" which "receives" the form of the ideal. This, of course, is a sad little
fantasy that can no longer be justified in light of the modern sciences: reality is granular, and accretes through processes of symmetry. Therefore,
and quite simply, material dynamics self-organize into "substantial" forms, meaning that form and substance are two sides of the same coin: you
can't have one without the other.
Aristotle pointed this out long ago, but people still held to their fantasies.
So what is the relation of relevance when we talk about matter and spirit? What is spirit, given we can say that matter are points of substance in
physical space? I think spirit, in effect, constitute "gestalts" of meaning which, as per Jung, have taken on archetypal forms in the human
brain-psyche (they can never be thought apart again given symmetry theory).
So when a mystic turns inwards into himself, and no longer relates within himself in terms of a 'singular' relation, but seems to take mind of the
relations in between the parts, is this not then the "yin" to the normal awareness of our interpersonally embedded "yang"? I think this
might ultimately end up constituting the explanation for what 'spirit' is, and best of all, it will no longer entrain all of the rest of reality
into subjective solipsistic fantasies of the human, which is to say, the 'spirits' that work within a humans mind are necessarily derivatives of
interpersonal connections and relations from his own life, and perhaps, the 'ancestors' which preceded us, may be found 'within' our structure as
The point to be heeded here is that the feats of human awareness i.e. astral travel, etc, are extensions of a potency that is present within the
biological structure of the human brain-mind. With death - goes the 'double', and any idea of their being anything more after death appears to
warrant a far simpler, psychodynamic explanation - or lawfulness - which obtains in human minds that have recorded much 'asymmetry', and so, pain
that needs to be defended against: wishfulness.
Humans and the objects of our mind are in a relationship, and the 'spirits' which mediate that relationship appear to be nothing more than
self-organizing vectors that operate between the points - or relevant object relations - set up by our living and being in the real world, and then in
our thinking minds which reflexively reflect on the feelings that are produced.
Life, in this way, appears to be full of a great deal of illusions, and hence, it might be coherent to heed the oracles words: "know thyself". But
knowing thyself is insufficient, because we are formed by our relations with others. In order to know yourself, you have to know how the other
affects you, and so, to know yourself entails knowing the other - to be happy entails understanding the things that structure you.
Trying to "game the system" is a delusion that will ultimately prove to be the person gaming his own self.
Of course, I don't think anyone truly understands how reality works - and this, what I write, is a theory based upon solid evidence. But - beware
simplistic claims, especially those not correlated with evidence from the empirical sciences! Fantasies in unequal societies like ours are endlessly
produced, because the external conditions keep producing feeling-conditions that correlate reality in incoherent ways, or, because truth is
necessarily related to equality (i.e. symmetry), to pretend you have 'truth', despite holding to an elitist philosophy, is just a demented