No that was Imperial Roman narrative, Jesus never existed, ample evidence for this. Buddhism is largely a soothing balm, the Eucharist is a type of balm, here take this blue pill.
I found myself nodding along to a lot of the points about the sheer number of consciousness theories and the self-fulfilling prophecy aspect of psychological descriptions. The Lilly and Wilson quotes really nail that feeling of the psyche bending to our beliefs.
I must say I did find myself wondering about a few things. First, the idea that all perspectives are "functionally true to some extent" is intriguing, but it also feels like it could lead down a very relativistic path. Where do we draw the line, you know? How do we differentiate between perspectives that are more helpful or ethical versus those that might be harmful, if they're all "true" in their own way?
Also, you make a strong case for the inherent functionality of each perspective, but it left me wanting a bit more on how we might evaluate them. If they're all just "in-themselves," how do we decide which ones are more useful for navigating the world or solving problems?
The jump from the plasticity of the psyche to the example of the Gaza debate and cultural superiority also felt a little broad. While I get the point about needing to "be there" to truly understand, it feels like there's a difference between the subjective nature of psychological experience and the potential for more objective understanding of factual situations, even if perspective plays a role.
I also wonder if the piece might be a bit too pessimistic about our ability to gain deeper insights into the mind and consciousness. While the sheer number of theories is daunting, it feels like we're still making progress, even if it's incremental.
And your dismissal of religion as a "retarded solution" felt a little abrupt. While I understand the historical context you bring up, it might overlook the complex ways in which religion can provide meaning and structure for some.
Overall, a really thought-provoking read that definitely got me thinking about the nature of perspective. Thanks for sharing!
Good religion is facing the dilemma head on!
Good science and arts too.
Good religion does NOT provide a soothing balm. Jesus who came with a sword! I guess I’ll have to write the counter argument!
No that was Imperial Roman narrative, Jesus never existed, ample evidence for this. Buddhism is largely a soothing balm, the Eucharist is a type of balm, here take this blue pill.
I found myself nodding along to a lot of the points about the sheer number of consciousness theories and the self-fulfilling prophecy aspect of psychological descriptions. The Lilly and Wilson quotes really nail that feeling of the psyche bending to our beliefs.
I must say I did find myself wondering about a few things. First, the idea that all perspectives are "functionally true to some extent" is intriguing, but it also feels like it could lead down a very relativistic path. Where do we draw the line, you know? How do we differentiate between perspectives that are more helpful or ethical versus those that might be harmful, if they're all "true" in their own way?
Also, you make a strong case for the inherent functionality of each perspective, but it left me wanting a bit more on how we might evaluate them. If they're all just "in-themselves," how do we decide which ones are more useful for navigating the world or solving problems?
The jump from the plasticity of the psyche to the example of the Gaza debate and cultural superiority also felt a little broad. While I get the point about needing to "be there" to truly understand, it feels like there's a difference between the subjective nature of psychological experience and the potential for more objective understanding of factual situations, even if perspective plays a role.
I also wonder if the piece might be a bit too pessimistic about our ability to gain deeper insights into the mind and consciousness. While the sheer number of theories is daunting, it feels like we're still making progress, even if it's incremental.
And your dismissal of religion as a "retarded solution" felt a little abrupt. While I understand the historical context you bring up, it might overlook the complex ways in which religion can provide meaning and structure for some.
Overall, a really thought-provoking read that definitely got me thinking about the nature of perspective. Thanks for sharing!
Why is it a given that the theories can’t all be true at the same time?