Consciousness, projection, myth and science

What needs do mythology and religion serve in today's world and in ancient times? Here we discuss the relationship between mythology, religion and science from mythological, religious and philosophical viewpoints.

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra »

- Which is why I would speculate that the next stage of consciousness is Transhumanism because it fufills two important criteria. Firstly, it completes the schism of consciousness in the Middle East and the inversion of values which is specificallu Judaic, in origin. And Secondly, it fufills all 3 conditions of your argument a) -ie defence against nature, b) fufills atavistic religious belief and desires., and 3) represents a completion of the repressive and neurotic function within the individual in his relation to society. - Rimbaud .
Would like to read how you see this happening – i.e. how Transhumanism is fulfilling all criteria. Also, why is it a criterion that one finds a ‘completion of the repressive and neurotic function within the individual in his relation to society’?
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com

Rimbaud
Associate
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 11:09 am

Post by Rimbaud »

Tlon, Ugbar, OrbisTertius wrote:
RIMBAUD: The psyche doesn't fear death because it will willingly annihilate itself in order to satisfy the original pleasure of Polymous perverse pleasure of infatalism when the ego's drives were pre ambivalent., and every mechanism and mechanistic trait of the ego is a search for this original satisfaction. It is the basis of all neuroticism. This is why Nietzsche called 'man the sick animal'
In these religious beliefs it is not the afterlife which is important...it is the cessation of struggle.
Rimbaud, you make some very good points. But how, you and Andreas, can say that the psyche doesn't fear death is laughable. Yes, they don't fear death after a mythology that works. But the reason the myth of after-life and re-incarnation comes into being is because they fear death.

Unless centuries and centuries and centuries of empirical information is wrong. Even if they don't fear death for themselves, they fear death of the one's they love. Again, centuries of empirical information.

Lastly, I'm not disagreeing entirely that the psyche might not have more troubling worries (although I'm sceptical), and I don't disagree that polymous perverse pleasure of infatalism is the cause of all neuroticism, but clearly isn't the cause of the belief in the after-life and re-incarnation.

Moreover, whilst polymous perverse pleasure of infatalism, for the sake of argument, may be sought even if they kill themselves, it doesn't mean an individual doesn't fear death. For instance, I might be super frightened of heights, but I'd rather not go there, but will do so to get something even more important for me, maybe saving a loved one's life.

Give me examples where polymous perverse pleasure of infatalism has been indulged willing unto death. And it must be a few examples.
History is the whole movement to recover this satisfaction of early infatilism - Specifically, the oral stage - where their was no seperation between child and breast - nor did he have an inclination to bite it. The only evidence I can give is the fact that we have repression and neuroticism. Its an unconscious satisfaction and not a conscious pleasurable activity - though we can be sure it was pleasurable.

Your critique on myths is probably right and we do consciously fear death. But I'm arguing (which I feel you and ennivara) moved away from by arguing about 3(a) as if it was a specific individual choice, and not a reaction of consciousness in general. Therefore, I keep arguing it as a collective problem, while you and ennivara kept trying to locate it within a specific individual choice against pain and the motivations thereof, while I keep repeatedly am trying to show that consciouss is a collective phylogenetic ontological problem stemming from a neuroticism which we are all affected, and thus must follow that religious belief and Science is a follow on to a problem felt by every psyche, so whether a man cognitively accepts a myth or a belief, or a scientific ideal - is a mere irrelevance to the cessation of neuroticism which Relgious beliefs and Scientific endgames are trying in their wish fufuilment fantasies to solve. ( Which isn't merely the cessation of consciousnss - which death confronts us with)

Rimbaud
Associate
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 11:09 am

Post by Rimbaud »

Evinnra wrote:
- Which is why I would speculate that the next stage of consciousness is Transhumanism because it fufills two important criteria. Firstly, it completes the schism of consciousness in the Middle East and the inversion of values which is specificallu Judaic, in origin. And Secondly, it fufills all 3 conditions of your argument a) -ie defence against nature, b) fufills atavistic religious belief and desires., and 3) represents a completion of the repressive and neurotic function within the individual in his relation to society. - Rimbaud .
Would like to read how you see this happening – i.e. how Transhumanism is fulfilling all criteria. Also, why is it a criterion that one finds a ‘completion of the repressive and neurotic function within the individual in his relation to society’?
I feel this will hopefully explain in an indirect way.

'What appears...as an untiring impulsion towards further perfection can easily be understood as a result of the instinctual repression upon which is based all that is most precious in human civilization . The repressed instinct never ceases to strive for complete satisfaction, which would consist in the repetition of a primary experience of satisfaction. No substitutive or reactive formations and no sublimations will suffice to remove the repressed instincts persisting tension.' ( Freud: Inhabitions, Symptons, and Anxiety pg 136)

I'm not personally a fan of the idea - and i'm merely speculating -As to erase all the tension, and the aggression and erotic suffering of the individual would be an erasing of all identity. Whether Transhumanism can be achieved or not, I have no idea whatsoever - but its still a sympton formation of neuroticism as is all religious belief and scientific - religious beliefs as they act as a substitute gratification.

Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra »

Rimbaud wrote:I'm pretty sure Tlon has justified his 3(a) by the very notion that we have religious beliefs asserting consciousness after death. The fact that some disagree with this notion has not a jot or bearing on 3(a)
How would the fact that there are people who have a belief in an afterlife justify believing 3a? 3a conveys a meaning that people believe in afterlife because they find that life as we know it is painful. Wouldn’t an idea such as ‘life as we know it is painful’ not lead one to think that perhaps afterlife will be painful too?
In fact Nietzsche said the very same thing : "Weariness that wants to reach the ultimate with one leap, with one fatal leap, a poor ignorant weariness that does not want to want any more: this created all gods and afterworlds." -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
Apologies, but I will not discuss the views of Nietzsche.
Evinnra while you raise an interesting point of the motivation of an opposite belief - 'not wanting to self delude itself- it is repudiated by the very notion of a belief in the aferlife - one only has to trace the physiology of beliefs. For example, 'The idea of the second coming' was formulated in Asia Minor when the Romans were oppressing the christians. In the same way that tribes developed mythologies to reconcile the psyche to its circumstances and enviroments, and to enforce its structures and cosmologies. Another example is communists believing that rich men will willingly hand over their money when the time of the class stuggles are over. Only the oppressed could believe in such a fiction.
Unfortunately I can not trace the psychology of beliefs because I am not familiar with the paradigm of psychology to such extent. From what you write, however, it appears you are saying that the context of the individual has causally sufficient power to make the individual take on a belief. If this is your claim then it would be pertinent to remember that direct causation between two events is rather difficult to ascertain. Do we want to open this particularly large ‘can of worms’ right now? I suspect we will have to do it, if we wanted to be certain that 3a is a conclusion not merely plausible but it is actually the case.
Therefore, one sees that the motive is the justification, and the jusitfication is the motive. Tlon is not merely asseting a motive without cause. The cause presupposes a motivation. If Hamlet doesn't believe in the afterlife the corollary would be that Hamlet has rejected a projection of the psyche - thus still asserting that the psyche has projected such a belief into the world. The evidence would also be the ubiquity of the belief in consciousness sustaining death.
Where did I say that this motive to become religious (in 3a) has no cause? The fact that the idea of afterlife is ubiquitously found in humans proves only that it occurs in humans necessarily, not that it occurs because of ONE specific reason. I could equally well argue that people believe in God/gods, because the deity lives in the subconscious minds of these people and manifests itself through belief. In fact, there are many examples of people who say just that, the point here is that they run into the same difficulty of proving their assertion as 3a does.
Tlon, infact your 3(a) is directly validated by 3(b) - I would modify your argument slightly, and assert that consciousness has always sought the abolition of the instincts while maintaining its own essence. - Heaven itself is characterised by the lack of suffering and violence and the continuity of consciousness. Communists have the idea of the end of history, where class struggle and labour would be abolished. - Note : the abolition of the struggle. Science, or lets call it Transhumanism, desires the abolition of the instincts, or of the ageing process. And Marxists envisage a society without violence or suffering.
What does this mean ‘consciousness has always sought the abolition of the instincts while maintaining its own essence’? Would you explain, please?
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com

Andreas
Associate
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:07 am

Post by Andreas »

Didn't Freud taught us how to blame our parents for our own frailties...Campbell said that. A neurotic one might say.

Tlon about the first function... It talks about the affirmation of life.
The first function is awakening in the individual a sense of awe and mystery and gratitude for the ultimate mystery of being. - Campbell
“To live is enough.” ― Shunryu Suzuki

Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Consciousness, projection, myth and science

Post by Evinnra »

Tlon, Ugbar, OrbisTertius wrote:
Evinnra, I believe I have understood your argument, and ironically I feel as if you've miss understood mine:
You could be right, Tlon.
"However, I find it difficult to accept 3a, as the premises would only explain a motive for having faith. Having a motive to have something is not equal to having that something. ( I.e. faith in God is tangible for those who have it."
I wrote:
"This is correct and good reasoning. Pain, violence and death are an acceptable motive for having a belief in God and the afterlife, but just stating that, it isn't strong enough to show that's why we have the belief in God and the afterlife."
Moreover, if there are reliable testimonies of faith being tangible for those who have it, it is even less convincing that having a strong motive to have faith can produce what feeling of faith actually is. How many times I’ve heard from people ‘ I’d love to believe in God, if only I could’. These people seem motivated enough to have faith, but honest enough to state that they do not believe.
- And this clearly dovetails with the above, and with what you said here:
"I think I argued clearly enough that conclusion 3a may or may not be caused by the given premises."
- But however, I'm trying to give an argument for my claim, so I go onto say the following:

[So here I admit that pain, violence and death are not necessarily causally sufficient to be the motive as to why we believe in God - So I wrote a reason, although not fully explicated, as to why this might be the causally sufficient motive in believing in God:
"What I have to show that it is the most likely way to have a belief in God and the after-life, than the alternatives. Which clearly you don't have to accept, and I've given no reasons or explanations as to why its the best explanation of this belief. However, given that your on a Joseph Campbell/ mythological forum, I suspect that you think it is."
You are right! I did take the overall meaning of your reply as if you have not acknowledged my main points, when if fact you DID touch on these points.
- That is, being on a myth forum, you're my likely to accept a naturalistic explanation instead of a super-naturalistic one. Although you may prefer Jung's collective unconscious explanation - but then you have to ask, why would consciousness have this in-built mechanism that we are unconscious of?
Which one is the natural explanation in your understanding?
I agree that, once again, that there are causally sufficient reasons not to believe in God and the afterlife. But my argument is that pain, violence and death ARE causally sufficient for the belief in God and the afterlife.
I never intended to say that ‘there are causally sufficient reasons for not believing in God’. I intended to say only that there can be strong reasons for not believing in God.
- So its not an attempted refutation to argue that there are causally sufficient reasons not to believe in God and the after-life because they've accepted pain, violence and death and projected the belief in God and the after-life but don't want to appear stupid, self-deluded or mad.
Since you've already accepted that pain, violence and death ARE causally sufficient for the belief: the relationship between violence, death and pain and the beliefs ARE causally sufficient. Your just arguing that they have through self-consciousness they reject a belief that is occurring due to the conditions of life.
No. I DID NOT accept that pain, violence and death are causally SUFFICIENT for creating the belief in God and gods. In other paragraphs you seem pretty clear in understanding that the it is the causal sufficiency of your premises that I reject. I accept your premises but not your conclusion 3a.
Another example, suppose that 2+2 must always equal 4, and this comes due to the relationship of consciousness to the world, and lets suppose there is no other reason. In this case unlike mine, lets suppose that this really is the causally sufficient outcome. So, it can't be a refutation of the causally sufficient relationship to say that because Mr X doesn't want to appear mad, self-deluded or insane, that Mr x decides that 2+2 does NOT equal 4.

Mr x has a causally sufficient reason not to believe that 2+2 = 4, but it doesn't discount that 2+2 equals 4. Mr x's own self-conscious beliefs get in the way of an naturally occurring, causally sufficient belief.
It is difficult for me to imagine that there is no other reason for 2+2=4 than our consciousness projecting this truth into the world. Consciousness cannot make a projection of an abstract idea without the abstract idea being useful for explaining context to the consciousness. ‘It takes two to tango’, no?

- And I've been saying this in the previous post:
"The main thing is the causal relationship between consciousness and its self-preservation instinct and the conflict with the violence, decadence and pain of nature."
So what does this mean for you?

- You have to argue that pain, violence and death are not causally sufficient in the respective beliefs
- Or my line of reasoning is inconsistent, or logically/ practically absurd.
Not at all, You just missing a few additional and convincing premises to reach conclusion 3a.
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com

Tlon, Ugbar, OrbisTertius
Associate
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 2:55 pm
Location: Birmingham, England

Post by Tlon, Ugbar, OrbisTertius »

Andreas wrote:Didn't Freud taught us how to blame our parents for our own frailties...Campbell said that. A neurotic one might say.

Tlon about the first function... It talks about the affirmation of life.
The first function is awakening in the individual a sense of awe and mystery and gratitude for the ultimate mystery of being. - Campbell
Andreas ... Your right that its part of the first function, but your selectively missing out why Campbell argues for that point.In the same function, Joseph Campbell clearly says in "pathways to bliss [first lecture]" that the first function is to reconcile the psyche (consciousness) with the conditions of life - life eats on life.

... The affirmation of life, is to affirm a life that is painful, sorrowful and full of death. Moreover, this complete affirmation of life is a mythology of the "primitives." - who say, "affirm life to its bitter root."

The awe and mystery is that pain, suffering, violence is a part of it. But accept it with gratitude.
http://followingtheherospath.blogspot.com/

"And courage not to submit or yield, and what else is not to overcome?" - Satan, Paradise Lost

Tlon, Ugbar, OrbisTertius
Associate
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 2:55 pm
Location: Birmingham, England

Post by Tlon, Ugbar, OrbisTertius »

Andreas,

Check out the homepage:

Campbell clearly says that affirmation is affirming a painful, sorrowful life:

http://www.jcf.org/new/index.php
http://followingtheherospath.blogspot.com/

"And courage not to submit or yield, and what else is not to overcome?" - Satan, Paradise Lost

Tlon, Ugbar, OrbisTertius
Associate
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 2:55 pm
Location: Birmingham, England

Post by Tlon, Ugbar, OrbisTertius »

Evinnra,

I've seen your reply-post, and I agree with pretty much with what you've said (and I feel your being fair).

You're right that I need, as things stand, to strengthen my sufficiency claim, which you may or may not reject (you might be doing it by being devil's advocate - which if you are, thank you), doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that I want

In the next week or so, I'll produce another reply, that tries to show that my causal relationship is the most likely explanation.

And then we can have a whole new discussion
8)
http://followingtheherospath.blogspot.com/

"And courage not to submit or yield, and what else is not to overcome?" - Satan, Paradise Lost

Andreas
Associate
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:07 am

Post by Andreas »

Pain, sorrow, suffering equals to rejection of life and one is always looking to correct that. Acceptance of this inevitability is an affirmation of life. Sort of saying yes I eat life but someone else eats me so that kinda balances the equation, at least for me.
(3a) So, to avoid the death of consciousness, consciousness projects God and the afterlife.
You can even say... to achieve immortality, consiousness projects God and the afterlife and science. Is that desire or fear? Ofcourse in my opinion myth is not a projection, myth dissolves projections.

Tlon we might be arguing the same thing. I am just throwing in everything I understand about myths, take what you want. Good luck with your project.
“To live is enough.” ― Shunryu Suzuki

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

Thanks, Rimbaud, for offering the clarifications.

Cindy
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

Rimbaud
Associate
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 11:09 am

Post by Rimbaud »

Thanks Cindy.

The death instinct has three seperate parts : Psychic entrophy, sadomasochism/aggression and willingness to die. But I think they're all relating to the same problem,(the idea of regressing to an inorganic state, or former state) and merge them into the pleasure principle, and using Brown's terminology call it the 'Nirvana principle' - I hope that further clarifies.

Tlon, I'm willing to concede that anxiety itself is the fear of death - That animals themselves do not have, and would mock. Humans I recognise are the only animals who store up their dead and repress the fact they are going to die and eventually hold funerals with many touch elegies :wink: Which itself is the denial being pushed into consciousness. - Therefore, I'm willing to concede a far greater extent to your argument, but still imploring one to change death as the primary motivation to cessation of tension. I like your argument in general and think its quite impressive, if not entirely original.

Evinnara - I keep misreading your argument (why, I do not know) but your argument of the subconscious being inhabited by an image of a deity is an argument i know, and actually agree with, which explains the ubiquity of religious experience ( and is my refutation to the atheist Richard Darwkins arguments) however, I feel that argument still does not explain the 'psychology of the beliefs' moreso, 'the beliefs content.' If possible can you show me some examples where this explains religious content.

Andreas - Freud has unfortunately been very misrepresented, even in subtle ways, in believing cure can come from sexual potency, or by parents making sure the psycho sexual developments are perfect and without conflict - Read Freud yourself, and you will realise how beautifully constructed and logical his arguments are. As a pioneer he made mistakes, but he said some very important and revelatory things - none moreso than his ideas on history and civilization stemming from a neurosis, and civilization is the result of becoming sicker and more aggressive. However, within the problem of civilization is the psyche trying to cure itself via a sympton formation. A cessation of its own tension. His arguments are much more weightier and subtle than I've represented them but if one is a fan of Campbell and Jung, one should really read Freud.

Tlon, Ugbar, OrbisTertius
Associate
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 2:55 pm
Location: Birmingham, England

Post by Tlon, Ugbar, OrbisTertius »

Andreas wrote:Pain, sorrow, suffering equals to rejection of life and one is always looking to correct that. Acceptance of this inevitability is an affirmation of life. Sort of saying yes I eat life but someone else eats me so that kinda balances the equation, at least for me.
(3a) So, to avoid the death of consciousness, consciousness projects God and the afterlife.
You can even say... to achieve immortality, consiousness projects God and the afterlife and science. Is that desire or fear? Ofcourse in my opinion myth is not a projection, myth dissolves projections.

Tlon we might be arguing the same thing. I am just throwing in everything I understand about myths, take what you want. Good luck with your project.
.

Andreas, thank you for your comments, and the good luck. I feel we are saying (roughly) the same things. Please feel free to keep responding, your insight and comments are invaluable.

For instance, I never thought about the spontaneity of myth and projection at the same time.

Now thinking about it, I think, your right that myth dissolves projection and they are two different things. However, I think that the symbols of myth themselves are projections of a consciousness that cannot cope.

If you further disagree, please say. Hopefully we will be learning things together
http://followingtheherospath.blogspot.com/

"And courage not to submit or yield, and what else is not to overcome?" - Satan, Paradise Lost

Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra »

Tlon, Ugbar, OrbisTertius wrote:
In the next week or so, I'll produce another reply, that tries to show that my causal relationship is the most likely explanation.

And then we can have a whole new discussion
8)
... and I am eagerly looking forward to reading it. :)
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com

Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra »

Rimbaud wrote:
Evinnara - I keep misreading your argument (why, I do not know) but your argument of the subconscious being inhabited by an image of a deity is an argument i know, and actually agree with, which explains the ubiquity of religious experience ( and is my refutation to the atheist Richard Darwkins arguments) however, I feel that argument still does not explain the 'psychology of the beliefs' moreso, 'the beliefs content.' If possible can you show me some examples where this explains religious content.
Rimbaud - if you recall what I wrote you will recall that my argument of the subconscious being inhabited by an image of a deity was merely an example to illustrate how diffficult it is to ascertain the content of the subconscious. Your posts are thought provoking, please keep them coming.
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com

Locked