In the age of naming, all facets of the name were understood. The speaking brought the essence to form.
Mystery is today’s topic. This includes ideas like divine revelation, perceptual quirks, and many other things.
Much in the way of mystery is dismissed in this day and age is it not?
Yes. Sadly. I get the impression that many main stream thinkers seem to believe they know everything, or know how to know everything at least.
They have been exploring the human brain as extensively as they can with current technology, and as much as it’s desired, there are a lot of premature assumptions being made about how human consciousness works. Even the organizations of skeptics are expressing doubt, and the models being put forth of consciousness are more often materialist than otherwise.
I ponder, “There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio.”
There are some things that can be said simply and clearly about human behaviour. One is that human behaviour follows patterns, even those expressing mental illness express patterned behaviour. The patterns are just less helpful for them. There is no getting around it, even in the case of autism where the biological traits of the condition suggest that patterns should have a really hard time forming if they form at all. In that example, patterns form in the most clear and obvious way. Interesting, no?
Autistic patterns tend to be more simple, restricted, but still very much present, and still very repeated. Everyone repeats their patterns. Every sensation you have ever had came to you in a patterned way. Energy flows in waves, waves=cycles.
I’m getting a clear mental image, yes. We have no choice in this matter. There is as of yet no functional behaviour that doesn’t demonstrate patterned organization, and we are the inheritors of patterns that predate humanity by thousands of years even though in our hubris some of us are now judging these patterns to be errors or design flaws.
I think without those patterns, we wouldn’t be capable of perception at all. I fully agree.
They think they can improve on the patterns that they have judged to be accidents. If those patterns are accidents then our own ability to think is an accident, and really a big ball of error, and our claims to knowledge would all have to be seen as false. Is this a fair conclusion?
But we do know things, even without so called education we know things. Even those educated who are exploring what they believe to be the sum total of the mind have to proceed with both the assumption and the conclusion that we do in fact know things. Do we really choose those things that we know?
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.