Prismatic567 wrote:Meno_ wrote:God is a mirror of our soul, a narcissistic tool to enable to see ourselves as a separate being , the author of the beginning of.the creation of our conscious awareness of our self.
God is not.only a possibility, he is a.necessity.
Yes, God is a critical psychological necessity
due to an inherent existential crisis driven by "zombie parasites.'
It is like a child needing a security blanket to cling
to and talking to imaginary friends for psychological
comfort and other reasons.
But psychological necessity do not translate to
possibility and reality.
If you insist God is a possibility [empirically] then
prove it.
Well here goes, understand no simple matter although they do say about the most complex , that found a mentally they are the most simple.
And Arc, here I am being rash and judge mental, but like a good marine, temper fidelis: As Always.
It starts with Narcissus with a small n, since at that point in his career, when he perceives his visage, he thinks it’s another person.
He falls in love with him, and doesent realize that reflection is mirror like, he thinks that the person is down below somewhere, below the surface of the pool of water, in an underworld of some sorts, and he doesent reflect on that much in both, the optical and cognitive sense.
So his thinking on the matter is not two fold, but he really cannot see himself. He knows not what he looks like, so in the sense of distinguishing himself from others is nil. He has no self awareness,no self consciousness,ergo no self.
What does he need to realize that it is himself he is seeing, knowing?
Or rather, what happens, between the time that he doesent , when he does get to know himself?
Is he setting the stage for a gradual Socratic quest?
Does he do it all by himself, without the use of a Deus ex Machina?
Or, is there an intermediary, a kind of nexus between a god, or a god idea, that comes to him, where suddenly he sees the light? Or, does he gradually learn to differentiate between himself and others like him?
In his physical evolution does a correlating capacity to distinguish surface from depth, the underlying objects which become evident upon reflection?
Re=flection, is implied in Sartre where he states flatly, that ‘The Other as a subject can’t help but treat Your Being as an Object. This is interesting from the point of view, that the 20 th century has brought about a reversal in thought regarding the subject and the object inasmuch, as the relation has come to a full circle, the perception of the other is no longer a given, it is relative to the consciousness of the other. It is no longer restricted to the idea that man has been positioned as the ruler of the jungle of beings beneath him, of those living in an underworld of beings more pertaining to the viewers above interpreting reflection as those above and below.
The man Narcissus sees from above to below, is one, who breaks up his apprension, he identifies with him, and longs for a return to his formidable but unformed terrain, it , he draws him, in a place where the centripetal forces of return appear to overwhelm the forces throwing him opposite, centrifugally, into where he is. There, he above, his reflection starts to bother him, for the underlying visage is so direct and personal, toward him as an existential referense looking exclusively at him, inordinately concerned about him and him alone, that the Other, seems reverentially tied to him and him alone.
He is absolutely concerned about Narcissus, and Narcissus absolutely identifies in that optical sense with him.
That identity, sustained, becomes the logical basis in his mind of the Absolute guarantor of identity. It’s in the look, a look Sartre does concern himself with in ‘Being and Nothingness’.
After Narcissus was punished by the godess out of jealousy, the complex erotic duplicity had incepted into the war of the sexes, based on multi form sets of rationale, idealization and progression.
The godess as an erotic medium, assured his continued being, by affecting his psyche to atone for his mistake, and as a consequence, he shifted his tenure toward less feminine more tolerant and wisdom filled Oedipal fracture, slicing off the feminine from the more authorative masculine identification. This was a basic shift, starting with the reflection moving from simple erotic, to more complex differentiating, authorship yearning basic representations.
The end result was a requirement to understand god as a Being , moving away from mere emotion filled, vanity inspired powers , toward more differentiated, less understood reflections, where the reflection became somehow both: a simultaneity of :visual and cognitive and participatory idea, whereby the platform was set to progress beyond mere participation mystique, in the words of Levy Strauss.
That this platform evolved slowly or suddenly spring out of the mind of a mythological creature, is irrelevant, because at this stage of human evolution, time as a transcendental idea was not understood, by way of experience. It was a timeless era, where the Idea for further evolution in reflection had to utilize, the mirroring ideas inherent in the fabric of the evolving consciousness.
It was immaterial therefore , at his point, to ask the question of the difference of believing in It, as a modus operans, as to the reality of the belief, vis. that is there a real god, or did he need to be invented, since it read as part and parcel of human development.
The anthropomorphic idea is a look backward through the annals of a very long time, therefore suspect in its presupposing idea.
