Out of Mythic into Rational consciousness, the EX-JW Journey

by jst2laws 123 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  A Paduan

  I don't "get it" about jwism being mythic, as my concept of myth is something that may, or may not, have a determinable basis in fact - yet remains a story about how people are, in a way a trueness regardless of origin - as has been pointed out, atomic structure is also mythic.

  Jwism isn't a rational description of that which is unknown - it is a lie in the sense that it refuses and rejects the known truths - it isn't like an "alternative reality" description, because it is within itself contradictory and requires cognitive dissonance on the part of those who "get it"

  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  the journey continues
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Pad,

  I don't "get it" about jwism being mythic, as my concept of myth is something that may, or may not, have a determinable basis in fact - yet remains a story about how people are, in a way a trueness regardless of origin - as has been pointed out, atomic structure is also mythic.

  That is because your concept of "myth" may need to include the fact that the Bible God is also a myth, which ancient people used to explain things they didn't understand, like where we came from, and who made everything we see, why are we here and so forth.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Jst,

  I know I'm preaching to the chior here.

  Quantum Physics is telling us and we should take it seriously,, is that the observer effects the observed, there is entanglement and so there is really no seperateness except in our own imagination, which uses concepts that are themselves myths.The evidence of quantum physics shows that the clasical views of time and space are myths and that what we percieve as "outside" us" and seperate from us is a myth or construct of the mind. The universe is non local. WHich goes beyond rational materialism.
• 

  jst2laws

  A Paduan, This concept of levels of consciousness does not describe a particular belief systems and label it as mythological but rather the mindset or mental perspective of the individual or community. These are stages of mental growth we go through, often punctuated by "aha" moments. In a little while I hope to be able to respond to Narcissos on this point. Big Tex, Good to see you too, Willyloman and Seeker4 Also good to have a few old timers still around Steve
• 

  LittleToe

  I only wish I had time to respond properly right now.

  Broadly speaking I agree with Frankie. This is why I call belief systems "frameworks of belief". I believe that they allow us to pigeon-hole certain events and explanations and construct an inner world-map that permits us to function. Often we revisit the pigeon-holes, but generally speaking it's just to dust things off and to occasionally recombine the evidence into better boxes.

  Generally the structure will be fairly rational, though will often need remodifying it to retain this quality. The alternative is cognative dissonance. As for the contents of the boxes they can happily contain a smattering of temporal and mystical interpretations, coexisting side by side, because the framework permits that or adapts to do so.

  This is where we draw back to Didier's comments, in that we are fickle non-linear beasts.

  Fun, innit

  Just my 2p.
• 

  jst2laws

  Hello Didier, I think I may need to give a broader view of this topic before we get off too much into mythology and it's place in our lives. In the context of consciousness we are not dealing with mythology directly but only using the historic dependency on mythological perception of the world compared to, in this case, the rational consciousness. At the rational level, we no longer rely on 'revelation' from God as the more dependable source of information, but we rely more on reason, putting our beliefs to the test of rationality. As individuals many of us chose to do this when we became brave enough to test WT teachings for logical integrity and historical accuracy. As a western society we did this over a period of several hundred years beginning generally with the age of reason. Yet the process continues with some steps backward now and then. As to being just as rational while being in the mythological level, that was not so in my case. I had the potential to be rational but deferred to the "light" revealed either by the GB or the scriptures. This was my superior guide and when logic contradicted the mythic dictates, I forced myself to cede my thoughts to those of the spiritual leaders. I suspect many did not even THINK for themselves but let the WT do their thinking (for example acceptable blood fractions). Yes, we can be rational while yielding our will to Theocratic Rule but what we are talking about is the thinking that causes one to YIELD to theocratic rule in the first place. This is the typical behavior of one with the world view common in what is CALLED the mythical level of consciousness. LT, Nice to have your comment. As I try to explain above, we are talking about our world view and what governs it more that how we individually mix our myths with rationality to modify our "frameworks of belief". Steve
• 

  Narkissos

  Hi Steve,

  I didn't mean to sidetrack your thread: please proceed...

  Just one comment though, fwiw:

  At the rational level, we no longer rely on 'revelation' from God as the more dependable source of information, but we rely more on reason, putting our beliefs to the test of rationality.

  I was working on the theme of "wisdom and prophecy" in and around the Bible recently. What strikes me is the coexistence of opposite methodologies in the ancient world: wisdom did not look for supernatural "revelation"; it worked with observation and analysis of natural and cultural phenomena, deducing "laws" of causalities, warning about natural consequences of attitudes and behaviours, etc. At the same time prophecy tried to turn around the natural tools of wisdom, i.e. plain understanding of phenomena, to access supernatural revelation (through music- and dance-induced trances, sometimes drugs). The border between those two approaches was not exactly that between modern rationality and irrationality: wisdom acknowledged the existence of a divine realm, yet remote and mysterious; astrology or magic as occult "sciences" mostly fell on its side; it was waryof prophetism but respectful of its possibility -- cf. Plato's development on "god-given folly (mania)" in Phaedrus. Most Near-Eastern rulers had both wise men and prophets as counsellors, seeing them as complementary. There was room for both Apollo and Dionysos in Greek mythology.

  Of course this particular equilibrium rested on a world vision which is no longer available to us. But it is noteworthy that the ancient world was not monolithic, and that there was always a (broadly) rationalistic approach to reality, along with others. The big (collective) paradigm shift imo came with the Enlightenment, which both reduced wisdom to reason and ruled out anything else as pathological and meaningless insanity (cf. Foucault's History of insanity in the classical age). But irrationality is still haunting the city of reason under many disguises, religious or other. (Hoping that some of the above may suit your topic.)
• 

  jst2laws

  Didier,

  The big (collective) paradigm shift imo came with the Enlightenment, which both reduced wisdom to reason and ruled out anything else as pathological and meaningless insanity

  Now your talking my language. Yes, it was good but not all good. It broke us free from ecclesiastical authority, even resulting in democracies that removed church and state, and focused on reason alone. The later was the flaw. Now the western world seems to be realizing, especially with the issues raised by quantum physics, that there is something worthwhile beyond absolute fact deduced by a cold scientific method. Still, we find some VERY intelligent people locked in a mental box because they refuse to broaden out, raise their level of consciousness. This may cause them to be tolerant of, even embrace, some of what they have discarded as "meaningless insanity"

  Steve
• 

  Narkissos

  Thank you Steve,

  That's what I am interested in reading (and perhaps discussing). What are exactly the philosophical implications of quantum physics?

  It certainly points out the limitations of binary, "either-or," common-sense logic: such logic cannot be extrapolated beyond its area of validity, although it is still valid within this area.

  However I suspect symmetrical unwarranted extrapolations are bound to occur if the motto "everything is possible with quantum physics" is allowed to break up in any debate.

  A particularly tricky word imo is "consciousness," as applied at both infrastructural and suprastructural levels. What is really common to them, that is the question. Probably less than some think and more than most think.

  Another ironical symmetry: just as you can't describe elementary particles objectively you can't describe language objectively, as a non-interfering observer.
• 

  hillary_step

  Steve,

  That's what I am interested in reading (and perhaps discussing). What are exactly the philosophical implications of quantum physics?

  Like Narkissos, this interests me greatly.

  Quantum Mechanics, which I suppose deals more with the scientific and less with the philosophical aspects of the 'quantum' is a beast that is much easier to grapple with than its Physical cousin, despite the controversies that exist within some of its intangible notions. In the various items of research I have undertaken in Quantum Physics I find myself with the haunting feeling that we are entering the realms more religious than philosophical. I noted that for example in another thread when we discussed this matter you mentioned the prospect of a universal 'love' existing.

  I would love to flesh out this concept, perhaps for another thread and another time.

  Take care Steve - HS

  PS - Have you read Janeen Hunt's book, 'What Is Wrong With Quantum Mechanics And How To Fix It'. If not, do not be put of by the airport paperback title, it is actually a fascinating read.