Mythopoetics

 I proposed this question to my students. Let's take a trip to a parallel Universe. Suppose for a moment that since the fifth century before the Christian Era (about 2,500 years ago), human beings had achieved gender equality.  What science and what technology would we have today?   A possible answer. Gender equality implies class equality. Otherwise, a slave woman would not have gender equality in relation to a free man, nor would a slave man have gender equality in relation to a free woman. Since there is only one class in the world, there would be neither rich nor poor people. As there are neither rich nor poor, capital gains would not be generated based on slave labor or underpaid labor. The trade would be fair, with minimal margins of capital gains, the equivalent to whatever the average wage would be. Furthermore, human communities would not have capital gains to generate industries beyond non-slave handicrafts. By having equality worldwide, there would be no wars, ...

 According to the proposed thesis of continuous rationality, or if you prefer the Life-Intelligence continuum, psychology cannot be a science in the contemporary sense of that word. Basic emotions provide the semantic basis for our U-L-Ü system of knowledge. Formal logic belongs to the Überlebenswelt, while psychology is rooted in the three subsystems, it belongs to the sphere of neurophysiological conditioning (Unterlebenswelt), to that of the world of life (Lebenswelt) and that of a formalized and specialized language on the set of human experience. All science stands on U-L and constitutes Ü. All science is only science (and not only in the contemporary sense for this word) insofar as it uses logic and is limited by it, by the principle of non-contradiction. The principle of contradiction is the result of a "mineral" type of thinking - if the metaphor may be permitted - with object identities not only perfectly defined in recursive terms, but also fixed and immutable. Sci...

As expressed in another entry: "The world of the life of a historical community, the Lebenswelt (L) (in Habermas’ [2010] sense of the concept) is in a close connection with the realm of experience that today is under the scrutiny of life sciences. In the philosophical milieu, one is spontaneously drawn to consider such a realm exclusively under the scope of contemporary science, and therefore, systematically , but if we want to elucidate the concept of system , we should proceed more carefully, for the semantical actions which lead us to distinguish something as a system are conditioned by some automatic psycho-biological protocols which belong to a different realm, let us call it Unterlebenswelt (U) . The acritical knowledge which constitute the communicative actions of L is the result of an evolutive process of communication and complexification which started beyond human grounds, in the communicative actions of U. Since communication is a social homeostatic tool, the basic...

 Is there really a clear line between the so-called dream worlds and the waking world? Isn't wakefulness another form of dream? Isn't waking another form of sleep in the sense that much of our waking life is a life of low consciousness (historical, psychological, epistemological, ethical)? Perhaps we are facing a continuum of experience that only the roughest forms of sensitivity polarize into two well-separated worlds. The aesthetic experience seems to confirm this hypothesis, and it should not surprise us since human beings are symbolic creatures. Only basic emotions are literal insofar as they point to some survival action. The rest is symbol. If we consider reality as a complex symbol, the traditional border of sleep-wake psychology vanishes. And what scene do we have before us then? What is experience? Our experience is a shared myth built from successful survival actions. But beneath these actions is the mystery of life itself, towering over something equally mysterious t...

Open door, threshold, the limen is what is in between, neither one thing nor the other, the place of change and of encounter with the Noumen, with the radical other. On the threshold opens up the chasm, the depth, and the individual sinks into a cosmos without limits or measures. There, space and time relationships are suspended, we are in the territory of dark and uncertain borders, we are on the edge, any form is imaginal and virtual flow. The liminal artist experiences himself at the limit of himself discovers areas that he did not know as his own, and checks how his/her individuality extends in Nature and the Cosmos. He or she opens the incurable wound within his/her community, to expose its members to the convulsion of its main values, a general convulsion of foundations that allows the subsequent growth and evolution. Limits are expanded, new experiences are included and the other, the different, the Noumen found on the threshold is assimilated. Liminality is not the only state o...

The Internet produces new forms of "Assembly" (which is exactly what is meant by "Church" in classical Greek (Ecclesia). The new forms of gathering and structuring of forms of group-consciousness of the internet are closer to the myths of the Universal Law than the myths of the Human Law because scientific psychology fails to function as an instrument for the generation of identity narratives that are harmonized with contemporary science and technology. Contemporary psychology fails to create meaning for our lives, and the old paradigms come back dressed in new costumes. The old myths of the great "Ecclesiae" revive without renewing their psychological contents. On the other hand, the Web has already begun to develop the foundations for future cults, such as Google, Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, etc. Kopimism , which is now a cult, will be incorporated in a syncretic way by other narrative forms that over the years will end up in new religions devoid of ...

     According to Aristotle [Nicomachean Ethics. Book VI], the rational soul has two thinking drives: one is a calculating action (to logistikon), the other a scientific impulse (to epistemotikon). The calculating aspect is the way humans deal with contingent matters (things that could be otherwise) while the epistemic aspect deals with necessary questions (things that could not be otherwise). Calculating leads to practical thinking while scientific thinking leads to theoretical knowledge. Following this basic distinction, we can say that what today we call technology falls in the first category, calculating, whose realm is the practical matters of life.  So technology is practical thinking, a knowledge embedded in everyday life. On the other hand, science or theoretical knowledge studies necessary objects and relations, the foundations of all knowledge, that are not directly related to everyday life thinking, but is its support, as is the case with philosophical a...