|
jonathanseagull
Cool!


Registered: 10/28/05
Posts: 993
Last seen: 10 years, 11 days
|
The Modern Myth
#7431626 - 09/20/07 10:25 AM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Today, we like to look back on past mythological beliefs as less psychologically advanced, in a condescending manner, as if the intelligence level of humanity has drastically changed since humans first hit the scene. The only thing that has changed is our knowledge of the physical world, which only came through time and experience, not through superiority.
Most people seem to miss that we still live in a mythological age. We exchanged one myth for another to fit the new paradigm. Instead of "Let there be Light", there is now "the big bang theory". While the 2nd may be more advanced, when you drive it back to the beginning, science hasn't any more answers than the old myths did.
The idea of a myth is that it is metaphorical. We like to think that Greeks truly believed in Dionysis or that the Hindus truly believe in Kali, as some being dancing about in some metaphysical realm. But it was all metaphorical. The difference between back then and today is that we try to kid ourselves into believe we have or can reach some form of answer through the cult of science. Science, by definition and not by fault, is limited to the physical universe. The people who practice science and do not understand this, or believe that the limits of their senses equate the limits of the universe, place as much faith in scientific doctrine as does any religious believer.
It is like the parable of the scientists who have been painstakingly and figuratively climbing the mountain of knowledge, who finally reach the peak and prepare to celebrate, when they see a bunch of monks already sitting there.
I think to compare science and religion is to make a categorical mistake. Physics and Metaphysics are in two different realms, as implied by the prefix "Meta", meaning above, beyond, transcending, etc.
Nothing has changed. We still live in a world of mythology, only we try to kid ourselves about it. In the past as much as the present, we reach a certain point with the means we have available, and from there, it's all guesswork.
--------------------
Loving in truth, and fain in verse my love to show, That the dear She might take some pleasure of my pain: Pleasure might cause her read, reading might make her know, Knowledge might pity win, and pity grace obtain.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
Nothing has changed. We still live in a world of mythology, only we try to kid ourselves about it. In the past as much as the present, we reach a certain point with the means we have available, and from there, it's all guesswork.
--
ya
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
|
Quote:
We exchanged one myth for another to fit the new paradigm. Instead of "Let there be Light", there is now "the big bang theory". While the 2nd may be more advanced, when you drive it back to the beginning, science hasn't any more answers than the old myths did.
So your point is that science is flawed because it does not answer a question that was never in the domain of science in the first place? And that the million questions that it did answer have no value?
--------------------
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
Everything has value. Maybe just not the value we attribute to it. I don't really think he's saying Science has no value. I could be wrong.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
jonathanseagull
Cool!


Registered: 10/28/05
Posts: 993
Last seen: 10 years, 11 days
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
We exchanged one myth for another to fit the new paradigm. Instead of "Let there be Light", there is now "the big bang theory". While the 2nd may be more advanced, when you drive it back to the beginning, science hasn't any more answers than the old myths did.
So your point is that science is flawed because it does not answer a question that was never in the domain of science in the first place? And that the million questions that it did answer have no value?
Quote:
jonathanseagull said: Science, by definition and not by fault, is limited to the physical universe.
--------------------
Loving in truth, and fain in verse my love to show, That the dear She might take some pleasure of my pain: Pleasure might cause her read, reading might make her know, Knowledge might pity win, and pity grace obtain.
|
stellar renegade
explorer ofmetaphysicaldepths



Registered: 09/19/07
Posts: 201
Loc: carrollton, tx
Last seen: 13 years, 10 months
|
|
Great post.
Quote:
jonathanseagull said: Most people seem to miss that we still live in a mythological age. We exchanged one myth for another to fit the new paradigm. Instead of "Let there be Light", there is now "the big bang theory". While the 2nd may be more advanced, when you drive it back to the beginning, science hasn't any more answers than the old myths did.
Or how the big bang was originally levied as evidence of theism? One time I saw a t-shirt that said, "I believe in the Big Bang. God said it, and BANG! it happened," or something like that. But you're right, it hasn't really changed, we've just become more scientific about it. Now we simply know how God (a mass of energy and light) created the universe we live in.
Or take C.S. Lewis:
“‘Why - damn it - it’s medieval’, I exclaimed; for I still had all the chronological snobbery of my period and used the names of earlier periods as abuse… Barfield made short work of what I have called my ‘chronological snobbery’, the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited. You must find out why it went out of date. Was it refuted (and if so by whom, where, and how conclusively) or did it merely die away as fashions do? If the latter, this tells us nothing about its truth or falsehood. From seeing this, one passes to the realization that our own age is also ‘a period’, and certainly has, like all periods, its own characteristic illusions. They are likeliest to lurk in those widespread assumptions which are so ingrained in the age that no one dares to attack or feels it necessary to defend them... We had been, in the technical sense of the term 'realists'; that is, we accepted as rock bottom reality the universe revealed by the senses... We maintained that abstract thought (if obedient to logical rules) gave indisputable truth.” -C.S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy, chapter 13
-------------------- "I threw a small stone down at the reflection of my image in the water, and it altogether disappeared. I burst as it shattered through me, like a bullet through a bottle... and I'm expected to believe that any of this is real!" -mewithoutYou
 "To believe in the wide-awake real, through all the stupefying, enervating, distorting dream: to will to wake, when the very being seems athirst for godless repose: these are the broken steps up to the high fields where repose is but a form of strength, strength but a form of joy, joy but a form of love." -George MacDonald
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
I like your post, but would you consider dropping the irritating and oft misunderstood god word?
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
jonathanseagull
Cool!


Registered: 10/28/05
Posts: 993
Last seen: 10 years, 11 days
|
|
Thanks for the C.S. Lewis quote! That's exactly what I was getting at.
--------------------
Loving in truth, and fain in verse my love to show, That the dear She might take some pleasure of my pain: Pleasure might cause her read, reading might make her know, Knowledge might pity win, and pity grace obtain.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
|
To compare an earlier creation myth with no basis except fear, fantasy and ignorance, to a modern day creation myth based upon observations unafforded to previous generations and largely testable formulas that at least somewhat mimic the laws of the universe, does not compute in the slightest to this poster.
Comparing the scientific approach to the make-shit-up approach is just ludicrous.
Will our current views appear silly to future generations? Most likely, but the scientific methodolgy for uncovering new facts is unlikely to change.
--------------------
|
jonathanseagull
Cool!


Registered: 10/28/05
Posts: 993
Last seen: 10 years, 11 days
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: To compare an earlier creation myth with no basis except fear, fantasy and ignorance, to a modern day creation myth based upon observations unafforded to previous generations and largely testable formulas that at least somewhat mimic the laws of the universe, does not compute in the slightest to this poster.
Comparing the scientific approach to the make-shit-up approach is just ludicrous.
Will our current views appear silly to future generations? Most likely, but the scientific methodolgy for uncovering new facts is unlikely to change.
Again, you miss the point.
Quote:
jonathanseagull said: In the past as much as the present, we reach a certain point with the means we have available, and from there, it's all guesswork.
--------------------
Loving in truth, and fain in verse my love to show, That the dear She might take some pleasure of my pain: Pleasure might cause her read, reading might make her know, Knowledge might pity win, and pity grace obtain.
|
stellar renegade
explorer ofmetaphysicaldepths



Registered: 09/19/07
Posts: 201
Loc: carrollton, tx
Last seen: 13 years, 10 months
|
Re: The Modern Myth [Re: Icelander]
#7435145 - 09/21/07 02:25 AM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said: I like your post, but would you consider dropping the irritating and oft misunderstood god word?
Hmmm... what would you like it to be?
On second thought, what do you think it represents? I'm sure it's as misunderstood as any other word is... at any rate, we make words what they are by the context we give them.
-------------------- "I threw a small stone down at the reflection of my image in the water, and it altogether disappeared. I burst as it shattered through me, like a bullet through a bottle... and I'm expected to believe that any of this is real!" -mewithoutYou
 "To believe in the wide-awake real, through all the stupefying, enervating, distorting dream: to will to wake, when the very being seems athirst for godless repose: these are the broken steps up to the high fields where repose is but a form of strength, strength but a form of joy, joy but a form of love." -George MacDonald
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs



Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
|
Why would we use a word for something that doesn't show any sign of existence?
--------------------
   All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
|
Quote:
stellar renegade said: On second thought, what do you think it represents?
Who knows? G*d is the most ambigious word in human history.
Quote:
I'm sure it's as misunderstood as any other word is... at any rate, we make words what they are by the context we give them.
No, I've understood every word you've used in this thread with ease. G*d conveys no understanding. The meaning of words has consensual understanding. G*d has no consensual meaning in terms of effectively communicating meaning amongst human beings.
Want an example?
Quote:
stellar renegade said: (a mass of energy and light)
These words are capable of representing themselves. The one word I omitted contributed no understanding. If it actually conveyed the understanding represented by the phrase "a mass of energy and light", utilizing the phrase in parentheses would have been painfully redundant. As this is furthest from the truth of the matter, using the phrase "a mass of energy and light" conveys the understanding, while using the word "g*d" performs the same function as that of hitting the spacebar a couple of times.
It isn't necessary to propagate a parasitic meme to be understood; in fact, doing so is a hindrance.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
Quote:
stellar renegade said:
Quote:
Icelander said: I like your post, but would you consider dropping the irritating and oft misunderstood god word?
Hmmm... what would you like it to be?
On second thought, what do you think it represents? I'm sure it's as misunderstood as any other word is... at any rate, we make words what they are by the context we give them.
I agree with the above two posts. How about something neutral or non-human like the Universe or Tao? God usually conveys, at least unconsciously, human attributes.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
stellar renegade
explorer ofmetaphysicaldepths



Registered: 09/19/07
Posts: 201
Loc: carrollton, tx
Last seen: 13 years, 10 months
|
Re: The Modern Myth [Re: Icelander]
#7439005 - 09/22/07 12:42 AM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I guess this thread has taken a sidetrail, heh. Oh well, I kind of like that in a discussion.
I'm going to respond to these in the order that makes sense to me:
Quote:
Icelander said: I agree with the above two posts. How about something neutral or non-human like the Universe or Tao? God usually conveys, at least unconsciously, human attributes.
Fine, I have no problem with doing that or even coming up with other names.
But while we're talking about this, I have a question. If you believe people to be a conglomeration of accidental programs, or sets of ideas, and they at least resemble a personality of some form, then why can't the overall conglomeration of accidental programs or set of ideas at least resemble a personality as well? Or do you feel that there's too much of an incongruency between the two?
I dunno, I just don't understand how a personality could come from something impersonal, or something better from something lesser. Obviously the Supreme Entity is not human, but perhaps there's a personality beyond just what a human contains? I thought about this a long time ago, actually... I thought, what if everything in the Universe, and the set of laws that govern it, make up a different kind of personality, something non-human to us and perhaps not personal at all from our point-of-view... something compared to which our humanity is just an image of it.
It was around the time, or sometime after, that my good friend would always be talking about the Universe and Eternity as if it was an entity. He was very intriguing, I wish I could talk to that guy again...
Quote:
fireworks_god said: No, I've understood every word you've used in this thread with ease. G*d conveys no understanding. The meaning of words has consensual understanding. G*d has no consensual meaning in terms of effectively communicating meaning amongst human beings.
Well, I guess that's the point of providing context, then. heheh. Maybe instead I'll say "First Cause". Although, I would think there's at least a modicum of clarity if we know we're talking about an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being responsible for the existence of everything. Perhaps I simply wanted to imply that this "mass of energy and light" has sentience and is the original source of everything?
Also, I didn't mean it's just as clear than any other word. Perhaps I should've modified my statement to say "it's as ambiguous in proportion to most other words based on the magnitude of its size and implication and how widespread its use." But perhaps you will disagree even with that.
Really, throwing proportion scales aside, I do agree with you. In fact, the guy I quote all the time (George MacDonald) said the same thing in a different way: "To say Thou art God, without knowing what the Thou means - of what use is it? God is a name only, except we know God."
Quote:
Mushroom Trip said: Why would we use a word for something that doesn't show any sign of existence?
I guess this is related to the other responses... in order to find/observe something, you really have to know what you're looking for.
Mostly this is a philosophical enquiry and not a scientific one (even if we're looking at the evidence), as we're looking for a sentience (that is, if the First Cause or Supreme Being is, in a complete sense, outside of our awareness or physical perception). I guess the question boils down to, do you percieve, or can you at least imagine, a personality or intelligence or at least an intelligent principle governing the universe?
It seems that this is more or less an individual matter.
-------------------- "I threw a small stone down at the reflection of my image in the water, and it altogether disappeared. I burst as it shattered through me, like a bullet through a bottle... and I'm expected to believe that any of this is real!" -mewithoutYou
 "To believe in the wide-awake real, through all the stupefying, enervating, distorting dream: to will to wake, when the very being seems athirst for godless repose: these are the broken steps up to the high fields where repose is but a form of strength, strength but a form of joy, joy but a form of love." -George MacDonald
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs



Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
|
Quote:
I guess the question boils down to, do you percieve, or can you at least imagine, a personality or intelligence or at least an intelligent principle governing the universe?
I think/feel that the Universe is autonomous. It runs itself. Why should there be something/somebody that has to do that for the Universe? This is the human arrangement and we got so caught up with this way of perceiving life, that we figure that these "rules" must apply to the Universe as well. We have rulers and they're being imprinted and justified by religion. If there's a god that rules us, a god from who's "mercy" we got this life, there must be people we should listen to. That's how it works. Religion and god serve their purpose for establishing a social construct of the kind that we're experiencing right now. Think about that: if there was no concept of god, if we all reached the awareness able to bring us to the realization that the Universe is independent, we would automatically become independent as well. We would start disobeying any form of authority because all that bull which includes fear (of being judged by god, burning in hell and the like), anxiety, the feeling that we have some authoritarian standards to accomplish (and that we're not doing what we "should!), all of these would vanish. This would be the end of the socialist Era.  Which brings me back to where I started: why does there have to be a governor of the Universe? When it's so much more natural and full of sense to think that Universe is an organism which cares of itself? A "chaotic" chain of states which cope with other in a sympathetic way, just like our hand copes with us when our our ear has an itch.  You really can't say that we forced our hand to move straight to our ear and start satisfying it's greedy needs, simply because our hand is still us, not a different entity, so we benevolently scratched our ear, for a better and more pleasant state of existence of our entire human organism.
--------------------
   All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
stellar renegade
explorer ofmetaphysicaldepths



Registered: 09/19/07
Posts: 201
Loc: carrollton, tx
Last seen: 13 years, 10 months
|
|
Oh, I entirely agree. In fact, I was thinking earlier about how our reflections of the universe are related to our interpersonal relationships and our view of society in general, etc.
I don't see God as a monarch, but as I said in another thread, I believe in the UniverSoul, which is a word I came up with to describe the Spirit which is in everything, and is everything. In you, and in me, baby. 
In fact, I have gotten into quite a few debates with people who apparently believe that God created the universe outside of himself with materials that are composed of nothing (or something insubstantial?; ...I'll never understand what they're talking about). I'm more of a panentheist, myself: I believe that the universe is more or less God's body. There is no consciousness enforcing itself upon us, but there is a consciousness that works through us and has a source deeper than just our minds even. I believe that all of creation and eternity spilled out of one source, kind of like the Hindu belief that sparks flew out of the great flame (at least, I think I heard it was Hindu... )
I'm nervous to even bring these things up before Christian friends/family, though, because they don't seem to see the way I do, though I think it's quite clearly in scripture. hmmm... in fact, I think it's quite clearly in everything. But whatev.
There's a poem I love by a Christian mystic of the 17th century which describes what I'm talking about:
"Almighty Former of this wondrous plan, Faintly reflected in thine image, man - Holy and just - the greatness of whose name Fills and supports this universal frame, Diffused throughout the infinitude of space, Who art thyself thine own vast dwelling-place; Soul of our soul, whom yet no sense of ours Discerns, eluding our most active powers; Encircling shades attend thine awful throne, That veil thy face, and keep thee still unknown; Unknown, though dwelling in our inmost part, Lord of the thoughts, and Sovereign of the heart!"
What mystifies me is all the harsh rebukes and indictments I get when saying these kinds of things, even by semi-reasonable and normally good-natured people.
It tends to make me feel alienated, as I feel that those who should most understand don't, and those who would be most sympathetic to it are repugned by the very word 'Christian' just because of those folk.
Everything about the U.S. government right now just gives me a bad taste in my mouth. I'm scared by what lie they might come up with next to fuel their agenda simply because they know how much power they have and use it to the fullest extent possible, and blind sheep follow them. I'm also squeamish by modern evangelicalism and all the harm it's doing to our country and around the world. When people openly condemn homosexuals but live private lives that correspond to the subject of their own rebuke, what kind of twisted monsters are people allowing themselves to listen to? I want to be able to say something about it, but I know that if I do, I'd be the focus of an onslaught. And why?
I guess, since Jesus the revolutionary experienced the same thing, I shouldn't really expect anything else. Really this is just reminding me to do more research to back up these claims. The skin of religion is breaking thin, and I want to be there to help it dissolve.
If only people could be open to reason, they'd see how much faith all over the world corresponds to their own faith, how choosing leaders over ourselves is always wrong, how love is the most natural way you can live and tons of people already do and would rather indulge in that than to accept an arbitrary list of rules and liturgy which is entirely man-made.
Hm. Everything I've seen about the future is coming to pass before my eyes... I guess it's time to take some initiative and stop wasting my life with frivolous pursuits... anyways, I appreciate this conversation and I hope maybe that you have too. 
Many happy shrooms  
-------------------- "I threw a small stone down at the reflection of my image in the water, and it altogether disappeared. I burst as it shattered through me, like a bullet through a bottle... and I'm expected to believe that any of this is real!" -mewithoutYou
 "To believe in the wide-awake real, through all the stupefying, enervating, distorting dream: to will to wake, when the very being seems athirst for godless repose: these are the broken steps up to the high fields where repose is but a form of strength, strength but a form of joy, joy but a form of love." -George MacDonald
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
|
Quote:
stellar renegade said: Iomniscient, omnipresent being responsible for the existence of everything. Perhaps I simply wanted to imply that this "mass of energy and light" has sentience and is the original source of everything?
In terms of effective conveyance of ideas, expressing that the mass of energy and light in question has sentience and is the source is much more preferable. You may have wanted to imply as much through using the word g*d, but I never caught the implication, and I believe this is because using the word g*d did not provide me with enough context to develop a sense of the implication.
Quote:
Also, I didn't mean it's just as clear than any other word. Perhaps I should've modified my statement to say "it's as ambiguous in proportion to most other words based on the magnitude of its size and implication and how widespread its use." But perhaps you will disagree even with that.
I'm not sure if I disagree with that or not. I think I know what you are saying, however. For example, in addition to g*d, ego and love are pretty ambigious as well, but not quite the the point at which I've replaced the o's with asteriks in those words as well.
In fact, I have no true distate for using any of those words, per se, but my real issue is in regards to failing to adequately provide context in order for these words to be understood as another understands them. This, of course, is more difficult with these types of words, as the gap of understanding between two individuals can be considerable - yet this is precisely the reason why it is necessary to pursue in depth explanation of what is meant, instead of relying on the word in an unsubstansial way, as though it conveys, on its own, understanding, in an effective enough way.
Which is why it is usually more efficent to simply state "a mass of energy and light that has sentience and is the original source. Coupling that definition with the word g*d, even if the word is to mean no more than what it has been pronounced to, may only lead to ambiguity, as others, with their own conceptions, will confuse and associate other meaning, or conscious lack thereof.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
Ego Death
Justadropofwaterinanendlesssea


Registered: 04/27/03
Posts: 10,447
Loc: The War Machine
|
|
I understand what your saying but I disagree.
We are evolving, we come from monkeys to cavemen to Neanderthal. We are certainly getting more intelligent, our brains more intelligent every generation.
Ands about the big bang, let there be light stuff - that is the big question, who knows if that will ever be answered!
But as for advancing in science and world understanding, we have come a huge way. The technology that surrounds us is the result of this research.
Quote:
it's all guesswork.
Yeah, your right there. Many people do believe they live in a understood and defined reality - this is a security box for a human being. Many people don't like the unknown.
Some want to bury there heads in the sand singing 'all is well'.
Others question everything and are excited by the endless possibility.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
why can't the overall conglomeration of accidental programs or set of ideas at least resemble a personality as well? Or do you feel that there's too much of an incongruency between the two?
I dunno, I just don't understand how a personality could come from something impersonal, or something better from something lesser. Obviously the Supreme Entity is not human, but perhaps there's a personality beyond just what a human contains?
Programs ARE the personality. It's most likely a function of complexity. I think there are countless examples of something better coming from something lesser. You didn't ponder much before that statement I guess. And there is nothing "obvious" about any Supreme Entity, especially a strong case for it's existence.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: The Modern Myth [Re: Ego Death]
#7439929 - 09/22/07 10:05 AM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
We are evolving, we come from monkeys to cavemen to Neanderthal. We are certainly getting more intelligent, our brains more intelligent every generation.
Neanderthals are not our ancestors, but an extinct side branch. They had a larger cranial capacity than Homo Sapiens.
--------------------
|
Veritas

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
|
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: The Modern Myth [Re: Veritas]
#7440049 - 09/22/07 10:49 AM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
You are myth-taken as I rarely type in the nude.
--------------------
|
Veritas

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
|
Rarely is more often than never.
|
stellar renegade
explorer ofmetaphysicaldepths



Registered: 09/19/07
Posts: 201
Loc: carrollton, tx
Last seen: 13 years, 10 months
|
Re: The Modern Myth [Re: Icelander]
#7442152 - 09/22/07 11:06 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said: Coupling that definition with the word g*d, even if the word is to mean no more than what it has been pronounced to, may only lead to ambiguity, as others, with their own conceptions, will confuse and associate other meaning, or conscious lack thereof.
Fair enough. I like what you had to say. 
Quote:
Icelander said: Programs ARE the personality. It's most likely a function of complexity. I think there are countless examples of something better coming from something lesser. You didn't ponder much before that statement I guess. And there is nothing "obvious" about any Supreme Entity, especially a strong case for it's existence.
Well, I agree that personalities are complex, the only difference between them's and programs that I can figure is that we can totally figure programs out... personalities, as far as we can tell, we cannot.
And, you may believe that greater things can come from lesser things, but it's a philosophical conjecture, and I cannot honestly agree with that statement. You may say that lightning came from tiny electrons being configured in the right way at the right time, etc, etc, but to me the lightning doesn't necessarily originate from electrons, but has an existence in and of itself. And that viewpoint is philosophical, one that science cannot touch. Mostly what I'm reaching for is a unifying force to all things, and if personality is one of its products (not as mere parts but as a unified whole) then it must itself have a personality. But that would take too long to discuss, and I was hoping to at least reach the possibility of agreement that this Tao or Universal at least resembles a personality like our own. Maybe not. 
Anyway, you may not agree that there's a Supreme Being, but I figured that you would at least agree that if there was, it would not be a mere human (if you thought the comic you linked had anything to say beyond its jokes).
-------------------- "I threw a small stone down at the reflection of my image in the water, and it altogether disappeared. I burst as it shattered through me, like a bullet through a bottle... and I'm expected to believe that any of this is real!" -mewithoutYou
 "To believe in the wide-awake real, through all the stupefying, enervating, distorting dream: to will to wake, when the very being seems athirst for godless repose: these are the broken steps up to the high fields where repose is but a form of strength, strength but a form of joy, joy but a form of love." -George MacDonald
|
backfromthedead
Activated


Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 3,592
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
|
Its interesting to contemplate the actual weight mythology carries in the make up of the collective psyche. I feel that the stories seeded the modern personality to some extent. And that the archetypal energies produced by the beliefs are real and can be experienced to some degree. Or that the natural energies correspond to mythology due to a projection of your own 'stuff' onto a fitting model. Most modern stories cling to a previously crafted backbone of myth. In this way, I feel that modern entertainment is poking you through the veil and driving your ship. The hero's journey is a big one, IMO.
--------------------
|
|