dieadderalls

awesome, thank-you for describing it to me! i'm gonna search dat anthropic principle now. to be honest i was just wondering how it worked, but information doesn't filter through as much as i'd like in this part of the world/my education system decided it was irrelevant, even though i think it really isn't. i might go join the rosicrucians now, they seem to have it going on :3

Yow, I love science, and I have some theories about some stuff that kind of relates across numerous fields. My work seeks to reconcile bypassed ideas with modern scientific ideas, by word manipulation and conceptual understanding. If context determines the kind of language used in a text, then does it not make sense to try and understand ancient/non-modern texts using ideas and concepts common to the time? Lots of people will simply dismiss ideas like astrology and occultism, but if Democritus hypothesised the theory of the atom based on logic alone (I believe he meant to call it a quark, but since he had little knowledge of science named it according to his understanding; an indivisible unit at the base of everything) and Eratosthenes worked out the circumference of the Earth, give or take 2,100 miles, we were doing alright in that time period. If people in that era understood, and if people and civilisations before that (pre-historic cultures) existed, I believe we should try and access all that knowledge, and attempt to understand it in conjunction with scientific theory. However I reject the ideas of pseudoscience and irrationality, I do want hard, scientific proof, yet I will still read a text that does not possess it, simply to understand the psychological disposition of the writer. Eh. Dieadderalls

The idea of astrology was well accepted, for a time. Unfortunately it was discredited when scientists discovered that the sun did not - in fact - rotate around the earth, but the other way around. However I believe that the outside world and the internal world may, perhaps, be reconciled by way of Hermeticism. I must apologize in advance for the wide-ranging fields included in my theorizing, it gets a bit choppy here on in. "As above, so below" The concept of micro and macrocosms has pervaded science since its inception. When you break down your own body it is made of "intelligent" functioning organs, that work in sync with each other and perform function specific actions, and inside those organs are cells, which again perform individual actions, working with each other to create organs as organs work together to create humans. Below that we have molecules and atoms, electrons, nuclei and eventually the quark soup at the base of all matter (i sometimes doubt that these packages are as discrete as scientists would have us believe, but I do not know as much about it as i would like, and am open to learning in this area). So we have conditionally established the existence of the internal world, including the brain. The brain is well accepted in the scientific community to be a complex sequence of chemical interactions which cause the phenomenon called "consciousness". The study of consciousness, as you well know if you frequent this forum, is psychology. Jung and Freud established the field of psychoanalysis, which is the field which interests me the most within psychology. I consider it even analogous, as all we can do is attempt to understand, and theorize accordingly. [fig. 1, a structural model of the mind] Freud composed a very detailed "map" of the mind [fig. 1], where the ego is the individual consciousness. However his idea of the ego is not a new one, but has been expounded in religious texts for a long, long time. Stretching back to Hinduism (Ahamkara,अहंकार) and Buddhism (Skhandas, a more complex concept involving "aggregates" and other mental confusions, but an analogous idea nonetheless). All that set aside we turn now to the conceptual ideas of Hermeticism. If we can see our body as a functioning mechanism, with smaller and smaller evolving "societies" within it, but if it is so within us, what of without us? does the external world mirror the internal world, and does the internal world, in turn, mirror the mental world. This is returning to my point, which is that the outside shape of the universe may mirror our internal world. The sun is in many ways similar to the id. It is all enlightening (elucidating etc.) in that it reveals the world to us. Under the light of the sun an object may be examined and understood, whereas under the light of the moon we find confusion and disagreement, due to lack of visibility (even on the night of a full moon it is still nowhere near bright enough for the type of examination that can be performed under the light of the sun). perhaps the sun and the moon cause our consciousness to evolve in the way it does, by also affecting our "rhythms", circadian and otherwise. The movements of our activity are in some way determined by the phases of the moon, and the rising of the sun, so how could it not in some way affect consciousness. I'm really sleepy so what I just wrote might not be congruous, but it is an interesting area to explore imo. tl;dr our consciousness is formed by that which we see, in particular what causes vision: the sun and the moon. the moon represents ego, as it is a reflection (or part) of the moon, where the sun represents the boundless unconscious. discuss or slam/whatever. another interesting thought experiment would be to ask if a planet had an extra sun, or an extra moon, what would happen to developing consciousnesses there?