a reply to: gosseyn
There are so many assumptions in what you say. But let's first start with the obvious. You are basically saying that nothing of value has been said
regarding human nature since the bible ? And not only that, but you also seem to say that nothing new can ever be expressed because everything that
could be expressed is already contained within the bible ? If that is not the most glaring example of what a preconceived idea is, I don't know what
Do you read Hebrew? Yes, No?
Are you aware of the archetypal meanings of its teachings? Yes/No?
The entirety of our conversation hovers around this issue. If you think your interpretation is "as good as any other", you aren't getting what I'm
trying to convey: human nature is FIXED. It is fixed because all go through the same sorts of situations around living - relating with one another,
with our affects, with our thoughts, with the foods we eat, with the social situations we enter, with the anxieties and trepidations we feel, etc.
If you are developed enough intellectually and phenomenologically for this, than the bibles myths will make much sense to you. No one needs to
convince you that they are more or less accurate descriptions. When I said "may be", I never said "is" - that is, the Bible is not anything but the
creation of human beings. But it's lessons and meanings apply to all humans because all humans have the same sorts of experience in the world.
I know too little of Taoism or Buddhist Psychology to comment very deeply, but the latter one also contains teaching that apply to all humans.
Furthermore, as someone who typically speaks from the perspective of science, clearly I think there are other ways of describing the same phenomenon -
and even capturing dimensions or elements that may have never been touched. But at the same time, I do not know the meaning of every verse or theme in
the Bible, and so, I cannot comment on how deep its understanding really goes. I only know so much, and what I do know genuinely impresses me.
As to your discussion about maps. What exactly is the 'territory'? Is the territory non-verbal experience? Perceptions - images - affects? These too
from a neuroscientific and systems perspectives are just as much maps of other maps. When it comes down to it, we're a function of relationships and
there is never an effect or an event that doesn't have relata - or underlying units - which give rise to it. For instance, a perception of a flower
entails the light which hits off the object/flower which then interacts with my retina, which feeds a neural impulse to my visual cortex which than
transforms all the elements (edges, color, shade, depth etc) into a visual percept. Where is the territory if the percept is no more simple than the
ingredients which create it? Is it not then a sort of 'mapping' - or reduction - of all the units which create it? It's real I would say. The
ingredients are real, and so is the percept; and not only is the percept real, but my naming it, "flower", discriminates and plucks out a real object
that is different in a way that makes it different from other objects. This is what language is - a mapping of a territory, yes, but the territory is
itself a mapping of another territory.
Language too becomes a sort of territory when you realize that our ethical lives are bound by how we know the world, each of us, and how correlation
and symmetry in meaning (language) is essential to our effective navigation of social life with one another.
How can you evolve if for you the best map ever drawn is a 2000 or 4000 years old map
Have you ever read the omega point by Pierre Telhard de Chardin? Maybe Human beings, as human beings, have already evolved to become what we are?
Maybe our existence entails that a symbolic representamum has once been evolved (315,000 years ago according to archeologists) - that the
representation, as an ideal attractor - is what stabilizes our existence in the mode that it does? No human being needs to be alive with the exact
understanding of our nature, but it would be the case that we would converge again and again in our search for truth upon the same truth discovered by
others in the past. There is not more than one truth, and furthermore, not all human beings are drowning in ignorance about their nature - its quite
evident that 'enlightenment' is universal. But what may not be universal is bringing "heaven down to earth", or integrating every element of our
living and being in the world with metaphysical ideas - for instance, in our socializing, embodiment, and reflective processes.
And I have to say, I have read many of your threads over the last years and I think you don't care if you're being understood or not. I don't think
you really care about clarity and communication. I think you care more about the words that you use and what you think they represent. Your threads
rarely spark a debate, because people don't understand what you mean, and I suspect they even feel like I do, which is that you don't care about being
understood. You cling to words way too much, and it is obvious when you say something like :
This is true. I could make a greater effort to explain myself, but I haven't the time for that. If I'm writing a book, then that book, when its
available, will do a far greater job explaining what I mean. It entails a lot of knowledge and acquaintance with science and philosophy and
psychology; the books depth and breadth may still eliminate certain people from understanding it purely because they lack the educational
resources/acumen to be able to 'metabolize' its complexity. Do you think bridging fields - like physics, cosmology, origin of life, biophysics,
evolutionary biology, etc, is easy? If you aren't a massive reader already, then you aren't the audience I'm aiming to influence. Right now, the issue
humans deal with is nominalism (believing language is arbitrary), which promotes a metaphysics of relativism. Which means I'm going to be very
confusing for you, and given we always experience the other in terms of our own needs, if I seem sophisticated/complicated but you can't make sense of
what I'm writing, then you might just be stimulated to represent me in a negative light, as arrogant, haughty, uncommunicative, etc, and some of that
might be legitimate - I could communicate more - but at the same time, you can't communicate the lifetime of work that makes a certain subject matter
meaningful. Do you know how to make sense of a cells molecular function? Does a molecular biologist? The nature of becoming an 'expert' at something
means that some earlier ignored subtlety becomes meaningful, and in becoming meaningful, is assimilated at a higher level of organizational
complexity. This is basically how the sciences progress, whether it be physics, cell biology, neuroscience, earth systems science, astrophysics, etc -
we're always adding, and sometimes even modifying, our understanding based on new understandings.
For me, as a generalist who reads between fields, I am an expert in nothing - or at most, I could claim to be am an expert at what makes human
experience the way it is, and how that relates to all the fields of human inquiry humans have engaged in. I understand a lot, but I am not an
specialist in any particular science or philosophy.