Sorry, this post was unfinished and with even more that the average of my horrendous dyslexic english.
2014/1/17, Alberto G. Corona <[email protected]>: > 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 one´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. > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
