++> Responses to Day Brown on the essential
 ++> dilemmas of myth to allegory insightings....
 
 DB> By taking the vision, whether of a dream, intoxication, or long
 DB> meditation, and comparing it with that of others who have had
 DB> the same experience of a vision, and extracting allegory from
 DB> it with some expectation of universality... a rational, careful
 DB> process undertaken *after* the vision was experienced.
 
    ......Yes a search process ...but what does it actually
    give us even if bright correlations to allegory are achieved?
    I sense that you see my pick-axe counter to orderly learning,
    but that is much the overflow of my own less than exciting
    views. My notion that we are at best, just a throw away tool
    of some unknowable agenda; and at worst, of no universal meaning
    at all, keeps me somewhat slow to search beyond the "FUN" of it.
    My only glint of any "what can be" is if we escape from nature-
    and that might be a deadly act!
 
 DB> To be sure, there are cultural artifacts as well as instinctive
 DB> ones within man's own genome.  Campbell did a pretty good job of
 DB> pointing out how the interpretations varied with culture, and how
 DB> similar cultures, civilized, nomadic, or hunter, used the same
 DB> kind of visions, but interpreted them in ways typical of culture.
 
 DB> My thinking has been recently trying to reconstruct the thinking
 DB> of the ancient Aryan shamen based on the artifacts dug up, and a
 DB> few written reports from cultures where Aryan shamen still lived
 DB> into this century, as in Siberia.  Some of this cosmology dates
 DB> from the Cro-magnon caves in France; some of the iconography was
 DB> still in use this century.
 
 I very much appreciate any searching  *to know*, good detective work,
 smart correlation and insightful reporting. It is more that my take
 on 5000 years of such efforts seem most lean! As does Frank, I follow
 your quest for the "man holy grail" with keen interest in an awkward
 background hope or notion that my own "fart in the wind" views are
 wrong .....that there is meaning (as nature wants us to believe).
 Like said, there are a few of me sharing fragments of an apartment
 house mind.
 
 DB> One of those ideas was that to the extent that God has what we
 DB> would call a personality,
 
 ....that a god-ish "design factor" might exhibit a recognizable
 profile or signature "footprint even", is reasonable.
 
 DB> that personality is not male, nor autocratic...
 DB> characteristic of the Sumerian city state heirarchy
 DB> some 4-5 millennia ago.  One of those ideas was that God created
 DB> all right, but that it was not part of a cognative plan, but that
 DB> she simply 'gave birth' to the world as we know it.
 
 DB> The universal birth process is more like evolution, and a natural
 DB> life process.  And, that we are created not to fulfill the 'will'
 DB> of God, but to fulfill our own destiny, as any mother would wish.
 
   ........and maybe even to teach God a bit ....later on if
   she wanted to continue her education.....!
 
 DB> I think, given what we know of the origin of the universe,
 DB> and of life, that this view is far more coherent with the
 DB> facts as we see them than the patriarchal tryanny of the
 DB> Judaic/Christian God in his heaven with a host of sychophants.
 DB> The shamanistic view was not a cosmology organized to pander
 DB> to the sensibilities of a totalitarian government.
 
     .....do we really have the foggiest of WHAT was then BEING
     pandered to....? Day, you do swing across heavens of reason
     on chariots of mild irritation!!!
 
---
  DB>> .....truth has a habit of persisting in the mind.....
 
      You might be indulged to warm in such beliefs ....for now!
 
 DB> To some extent I exaggerate and play devil's advocate here David.
 DB> Our culture has such a perjorative attitude twards altered mental
 DB> states I have a hard time trying to say that there is *some* real
 DB> validity to the experience without implying- that such truth is a
 DB> *replacement* for sober, rational analysis.
 
     I do not find your "mind reach" style of searching in any way
     pejorative ......it is PREFERRED, even though mightily mixed
     into the unreasonable pots of human "pokin round".
 
 DB> One of the questions Joseph Campbell posed was whether the mental
 DB> experience is an artifact of the species genome and not as random
 DB> as psychology, anthropology, and sociology have assumed.  What is
 DB> more, is whether these innate concepts carried in the genome are,
 DB> in fact, accurrate truths about the nature of being.
 
     ...I CAN believe even that some "genetic memories" persist along
     the same model as lesser "evolutionary traits" are passed along.
     Also, believing such less than conscious mind fragments to be
     active, are even REASONABLE to assume within "psychology,
     anthropology and sociology" .........in a more yet to come.
 
 DB> .....the man knows how to think- about cosmology, as well
 DB> as many other things, and are these innate ideas wrong?  I am not
 DB> saying that they're right, I'm saying they deserve consideration.
 
           Yes, I so agree, far far, this side" of surety.....
 
 DB> If we live on a holodeck, then there may well be much more to the
 DB> forms that we see than we commonly surmise; forms in such a world
 DB> are, above all, data sets.  And, it turns out, that data sets can
 DB> act like subroutines when properly initiated.  I find it striking
 DB> that the ancient belief- that if you knew the name of the Daemon,
 DB> you could command his will,
 
        .....yes! even a dynamic objective data base that can
        come ALIVE....  ....a bit of Frankenstein with a "right"
        hoped for brain.
 
 Interesting, Carl Gustav Jung had an ancient Greek spirit guide
 called "Philemon" who whispered many of Jung's most powerful
 insights to him..... with even he being quoted that of knowing
 that Freud (his once friend) had also a private "Daemon".
 
 DB> but without the proper commands, such as 'open Sesame', the
 DB> file remained closed with all it's treasure inviolate.
 
     Are we here considering a first, or has this happensight
     occurred before? I have some trouble as to whether we are
     actualizing a before, present, or yet to be. Realizing
     that we constrained to talk into time, I know such an answer
     to be difficult.
 
 DB> So, despite the limits proposed by Newtonian physics, I can see
 DB> where some deed or word *could* wreak magic because, it is an
 DB> application of *quantum mechanics* which, the more we look,
 DB> the weirder it gets.
 
 DB> Someone asked me *if* we live on a holodeck, to which I ask, what
 DB> other model they had available for me to consider?  I do not say,
 DB> as theorists never do, that this model is the only one. But it is
 DB> the only one I know of that fits the data so well.
 
     ya stumped me on that one .....too much to see upon, all in
     one sitting! You reach further than I can keep up with 
     I can only follow in spurts.........#####!
 
                  ???!!!???!!! ((- - - -@@  ... Dave
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------