Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Domenic C. Scarcella's avatar

> Our collective judgment is just intersubjective odium.

I like the term "intersubjective" . . . there are shared subjective positions that aren't quite objective but also seem like more than purely, singularly subjective.

Expand full comment
Burnt Eliot's avatar

Max, you wrote, "There is a sense in which taking mythic truths on board, even in their symbols, representations, and daimons, commits us to bizarre metaphysics. Yet, to behave as if mythic entities were factual can be efficacious. Such efficacy in the factual world lies in how our adopted myths affect our behavior, as the truths of the Mythic Order transform us from within."

Here is something I adapted from a combination of Anselm, Berkeley, and Leibniz. https://burnteliot.substack.com/p/being-dreams-forgetting-3

There are three primary sources for this: The first is Anselm’s Ontological Argument. Modern academics say they can refute Anselm by pointing out that Existence is not a quality; they say we can imagine that this being must possess existence, but it is still only imagination; it does not prove that being exists. But, Anselm’s Argument is not an argument or proof in any modern sense of that word. It says, “Look at your own sense of being!” It is like a painting, a figurative arrow pointing at what is absolutely real, something that should be obvious to anyone who notices it.

The second is George Berkeley, who suggested that this world and all that is in it is only an idea in God’s mind. In Being Dreams Forgetting, the world is only a dream in the mind of Anselm’s being. But as I recall, Berkeley was worried about how two different people are able to see the same chair in a room. This was a problem he struggled with until very late in his life. Even though he claimed to have solved it properly, I could not find his answer. Something about "tar water" as I recall.

The third source is Leibniz; see Ontological Monadology [13], https://burnteliot.substack.com/p/ontological-monadology-13 I added two assumptions about beings/monads: perceiving number and perceiving ignorance. This allows the infinite plenum of beings to be characterized as only one: it is this being that is described in Being Dreams Forgetting. But if it is only one, then it cannot be distinguished from the reality itself, which I defined as identical with being and with awareness -- like a theater within which everything else comes and goes (ch. 2). So, somewhat Nagarjuna-like, it is not one, not many, not neither, not both. It is simply reality itself (yours, mine, etc., all the same) wherein number appears.

Hence I might say that "Reality imagines Man in Its own Image." Sound familiar? It says, this (your) being in and of itself (which is the same as your reality and the same as your awareness) has within it the compelling illusion of infinitely many individual persons in infinitely many different worlds. Time, Place, Number, and Ignorance exist within the illusion, and the illusion appears within your being. Your individuality exists only as illusion. This is a very strong basis for ethics.

Now the question is, can your absolute being/reality/awareness be directly known? That is kind of what Krishnamurti was talking about: it isn't a matter of how to know that, it is a matter of how did we forget. That raises some other interesting questions, like, "What is lucid dreaming?"

"... the truths of the Mythic Order transform us from within." https://burnteliot.substack.com/p/the-flowering-of-a-wonderful-law

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts