Sorry, this post was unfinished and with even more that the average of
my horrendous dyslexic english.

2014/1/17, Alberto G. Corona <>:
> Is it a coincidence that:
> -During the cold war the image of the universe and the theory that
> explained it was an inmense nuclear explosion?
> -In the world  dominated by the multicultural ideology and computers,
> it is a multiverse and/or a computer simulation the preferred
> paradigm?
> That is not fortuitous for me.  That is what I was trying to say with
> the "canal effect" post time ago.
> For me the deepest question is not what is true about the ultimate
> reality. That is a question that never ever can be answered without
> faith.  Thus, that question it is not scientific even in the broadest
> meaning that scientific inquiry might be considered. The deepest
> question that puzzles me the most is  the psychology of men across
> ages asking themselves about the ultimate reality from which religion
> of any kind derives, including the modern secularist ideologies.
> And for the psychology of men shaped by natural selection can not and
> will never be separated from a form of expected _good_ for him and/or
> for their society.  That good can derive from many sources that are of
> two kinds: either the good for himself or alternatively, the good for
> the society as a whole, with a middle, that promote the good
> exclusively for the initiated ones of a reduced group .
> The goods of the first kind are whatever idea that increase self
> power, self worship. The second group correspond with what promotes
> predictive power over the environment   and in general, self
> confidence in the community, as well as good moral rules.
> Whathever ultimate explanation  is ever created by the Mytopoetic
> faculty of the mind, that was shaped by natural selection that faculty
> match truth and good (and how believable can be by others) That is my
> hypothesis.
> That faculty construct and/or accept a myth about oneself, their
> society and the nature of the ultimate reality. It does not matter if
> the mythic speculation depart from an scientific or properly mythic
> inquiry. Because the last step in the nature of ultimate reality need
> a leap on faith. This leap is produced by the mytopoetic, unconscious
> element that match Truth and Good.
> On creating myths about oneself, the mythopoesis produces whatever
> that favours oneself that is at the same time credible by others. That
> is corroborated by scientists. The same happens with the mythos
> produced for the own society and for the nature of the reality (in
> which he and his society must have a teleological mission to be
> coherent).
> Whatever of the possible goods for oneself or the society is more
> considered in the mythic elaboration depend on each oneĀ“s aims and
> personality, and the zeitgeist of the age. The good for oneself can be
> a great evil for the rest. But first your mythos must be believed by
> others, to be believable by others, the result of the mytopoesis
> should be fashionable.
> You can not talk about daemons in the internet age. but you can make
> believable your mytopoesis talking about "science" "energies" and
> ovnis instead of religion spirits and miracles respectively. So you
> can have your seat in the university or a chord of young women  after
> you, the privileged messenger of the creator aliens.
> Should each one consider the nature of the goodness of their myths
> that you, no doubt, have.
> --
> Alberto.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
To post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to