i am ( loosely) buddhist and was strangely not very bothered by the thesis of The Mind is Flat- i find the concept of not having a self deeply comforting and okay- thats basically one of the three marks of existence in buddhism. But this is more about the illusory nation of the me vs not-me distinction (the fluidity and arbitrariness of the ego boundaries) than anything else. Pure no-self is actually indistinguishable from pure all-self. Chater is right in the sense that yes who you are is all surface and there's no deeper structure of *you*, but he does not observe the fact that any knowledge-modality and model of reality is basically managed by the unonscious in a pretty kantian way: the fact that you are able to find symmetries, divide rhe world into objects and label them almost-iinstantaneously is basically purely the work of the unconscious (that force that drives your mental monologue from behind the curtain) and while it can be imprecise is remarkably good at generating a fairly consistent and actionable world and a sense of wonder to go along with it. You can view consciousness as God limiting himself because what enters or leaves momentary consciousness is the result of processes so obscure and undiscernible you might as well refer to them as divine.
2. One of the most fascinating things I've noticed from any extremely online time recently is in the UFO / UAP community and the bubbling bits (psyop or otherwise) that there is an upcoming 'ontological shock', and I think this partly aligns with your preposition that we are not quite ready to grapple with the supernatural / hard questions that are going to hit us in the coming years. The anxiety over there seems to be hitting in a profoundly different way than it used to, and I think they're always a weirdly good canary in the coalmine / reflection of the anxious part of the zeitgeist
3. I am wildly impressed to see a coherent throughline of some extremely hard to articulate topics.
A brilliant range and scope and reading. Really impressive stuff.
And yet... I dunno man.... you begin with Hermeneutics and peak Christian mysticism, which aimed to pull Jewish Mysticism (Kabbalah) and Christian mysticism and platonism together.
Nietzsche was wrong. God never 'died' in any real sense, the evil and our abilities just continue to grow in proportion with our discoveries. Your arguments against religion stand firmly in the modern trend of ignoring the true purpose of religion. It is not for individual wisdom or salvation, or even the purpose of some nation state.
What's crazy to me is how people spend so many words and treatises in order to communicate the impossible - an 'experience.' The Bible has communicated most of everything in modern philosophy. Most people go down some psychological journey and come back with revelations that have been written about extensively for millennia.
Likewise Mike Levin's research is analogous to the medieval renaissance in the recognition of underlying patterns everywhere. How do bees *know* to make hexagonal hives? It's because circles compress to hexagons by physics. The knowledge isn't always encoded in the organism, it's driven by the environment. The 'pattern ingressors' are an attempt to create meaning out of 'latent space' connections, in pursuit of a hidden theory of everything - exactly what medieval esoteric authors were after: Pico used a similar hermeneutic 'proof' that Jesus was the Messiah in strictly Hebraic Terms
ישו
JESUS / YESHU
ש
mediation / fire
Holy Spirit / Sabbath
/ \
/ \
י ו
divine human
YHWH man
\ /
\ /
CHRIST
one person, two natures
↓
completion of creation
↓
cosmic rest
You may (probably correctly) see this as medieval nonsense. I'll suggest Levin's search for a theory of everything through patterns has a similar flavor.
There's no diving to the bottom of the loop. You're swimming in circles, no matter how many words you write.
Paradoxically, your first quote is probably the strongest argument - we make ourselves what we make ourselves, and in order to do that well, we should probably aim to reflect God.
"Or is he really suggesting God gave man life so he could toil away for a boss he probably hates for 50 years?"
This is most definitely the position of the Catholic Church and it's hard to imagine they'd believe anything else. Why would this be surprising at all?
"Jung’s issue is he found that when he walked down into his cellar, the wine racks were filled with vintages he didn’t put there, from regions he’d never been to. And as he picked one up to inspect, the floor creaked as he felt someone else walk out behind him. "
i am ( loosely) buddhist and was strangely not very bothered by the thesis of The Mind is Flat- i find the concept of not having a self deeply comforting and okay- thats basically one of the three marks of existence in buddhism. But this is more about the illusory nation of the me vs not-me distinction (the fluidity and arbitrariness of the ego boundaries) than anything else. Pure no-self is actually indistinguishable from pure all-self. Chater is right in the sense that yes who you are is all surface and there's no deeper structure of *you*, but he does not observe the fact that any knowledge-modality and model of reality is basically managed by the unonscious in a pretty kantian way: the fact that you are able to find symmetries, divide rhe world into objects and label them almost-iinstantaneously is basically purely the work of the unconscious (that force that drives your mental monologue from behind the curtain) and while it can be imprecise is remarkably good at generating a fairly consistent and actionable world and a sense of wonder to go along with it. You can view consciousness as God limiting himself because what enters or leaves momentary consciousness is the result of processes so obscure and undiscernible you might as well refer to them as divine.
you’re back!
so back
1. Very cool to see a new post
2. One of the most fascinating things I've noticed from any extremely online time recently is in the UFO / UAP community and the bubbling bits (psyop or otherwise) that there is an upcoming 'ontological shock', and I think this partly aligns with your preposition that we are not quite ready to grapple with the supernatural / hard questions that are going to hit us in the coming years. The anxiety over there seems to be hitting in a profoundly different way than it used to, and I think they're always a weirdly good canary in the coalmine / reflection of the anxious part of the zeitgeist
3. I am wildly impressed to see a coherent throughline of some extremely hard to articulate topics.
A brilliant range and scope and reading. Really impressive stuff.
And yet... I dunno man.... you begin with Hermeneutics and peak Christian mysticism, which aimed to pull Jewish Mysticism (Kabbalah) and Christian mysticism and platonism together.
Nietzsche was wrong. God never 'died' in any real sense, the evil and our abilities just continue to grow in proportion with our discoveries. Your arguments against religion stand firmly in the modern trend of ignoring the true purpose of religion. It is not for individual wisdom or salvation, or even the purpose of some nation state.
What's crazy to me is how people spend so many words and treatises in order to communicate the impossible - an 'experience.' The Bible has communicated most of everything in modern philosophy. Most people go down some psychological journey and come back with revelations that have been written about extensively for millennia.
Likewise Mike Levin's research is analogous to the medieval renaissance in the recognition of underlying patterns everywhere. How do bees *know* to make hexagonal hives? It's because circles compress to hexagons by physics. The knowledge isn't always encoded in the organism, it's driven by the environment. The 'pattern ingressors' are an attempt to create meaning out of 'latent space' connections, in pursuit of a hidden theory of everything - exactly what medieval esoteric authors were after: Pico used a similar hermeneutic 'proof' that Jesus was the Messiah in strictly Hebraic Terms
ישו
JESUS / YESHU
ש
mediation / fire
Holy Spirit / Sabbath
/ \
/ \
י ו
divine human
YHWH man
\ /
\ /
CHRIST
one person, two natures
↓
completion of creation
↓
cosmic rest
You may (probably correctly) see this as medieval nonsense. I'll suggest Levin's search for a theory of everything through patterns has a similar flavor.
There's no diving to the bottom of the loop. You're swimming in circles, no matter how many words you write.
Paradoxically, your first quote is probably the strongest argument - we make ourselves what we make ourselves, and in order to do that well, we should probably aim to reflect God.
"Or is he really suggesting God gave man life so he could toil away for a boss he probably hates for 50 years?"
This is most definitely the position of the Catholic Church and it's hard to imagine they'd believe anything else. Why would this be surprising at all?
This was freakin awesome.
Wow... that was something.
Maybe I'll come back in a couple of years, once I've processed half of what's in this post :). Thanks.
"Jung’s issue is he found that when he walked down into his cellar, the wine racks were filled with vintages he didn’t put there, from regions he’d never been to. And as he picked one up to inspect, the floor creaked as he felt someone else walk out behind him. "
Absolutely terrifying imagery.