Science and Symbols of Creation

[Native]

I take them seriously as part of human cultural development,

This isn´t sufficient enough if you will understand the Stories of Creation.

Just think of it: Many of these stories begins with a time when nothing of the now known cosmos was created and there only were chaotic "primordial rivers" in the local cosmos which became the Milky Way.

And, of course, the other hole in your hypothesis is the complete lack of explanation for how this situation could possibly come about. How could information about the development of the Milky Way (at least our current understanding of it, which is incomplete and could be wrong) get in to all of these stories and myths in the first place? Remember, I don’t know is a valid answer but that could be applied to your entire hypothesis.

For my part the worst and prime hole in my hypothesis is that you don´t take it very seriously.

Regarding the development of our Milky Way galaxy and its mythical description, just read what I´m refferring to in my initial post above.

Just ask if you have any questions to the factual text and my interpretation..

 

[wellwisher]

We have numerous cultural Stories of Creation, which very much seems to be similar to each other but how do we interpret these stories? Can they possibly be interpreted into modern terms and give some modern scientific sense?

In the following I´ll use the Egyptian Story of creation as written here - The Ogdoad, which has two variants from different cultural periods.

I am interpreting the Creation Myths as describing the pre-conditions and the factual creation of our Milky Way (and Solar System) and using concepts and descriptions from modern cosmological science in order to compare and evalue the ancient and modern knowledge. (My remarks in between with blue font)

Our knowledge of the universe arises because we are conscious of the universe. If you were unconscious, the universe would still exist, but you would not be aware of it. Animal consciousness stems from their unconscious, so they are not aware of the universe, in way where they notice things, that cause them to ask further questions. They are aware based on instinctive filters. Humans go beyond that.

As a loose analogy, say you just bought a car. It is a certain model, make and color. Because your new car is on your mind with pride, it is not uncommon for one to begin to noticing other very similar cars as you drive, appearing everywhere. They have always been there, but it was not until the new car stimulated your consciousness, did you become much more aware of these in your surroundings.

The creation myths are about the time of an internal human brain stimulation, from which all types of new things appear to human consciousness. This all of a sudden awareness of the universe, was often confused with its immediate creation, since so many things just seemed to appear. It is similar to all of a sudden noticing the same make and model car as we just bought. Another analogy is learning about your favorite subject in school for the first time. It becomes mind expanding, extrapolating.

Most myths are a projection of the structure of the inner self; center of the unconscious mind and the firmware within the unconscious mind, from which modern human consciousness arises; ego. This conscious change; mind expanding, in humans occurs near the time of the first civilizations.

The inner self or center of the unconscious mind is very often symbolized as the sun. The sun is the center of the solar system and give light and energy to the brain and its firmware. The eight gods in mythology above, were part animal and part human. This shows that this early firmware arises from instinct[ part animal, but with an addendum that is becoming more modern human. There is now more than instinct attached to consciousness but instinct is still strong.

I like mythology because it maps out the firmware of the human psyche as a function of time, with the firmware appearing to undergo system updates, implicit of mythology changing. n Greek mythology the Titan change to the Olympians. The firmware begin as being larger than life and sort of scary in terms of their output. These update to something that is relatable to humans. Modern prophesy indicates that another major update will eventually occur, that further changed human nature. But first there is a un-install process; war of the gods.

 

[Native]

Our knowledge of the universe arises because we are conscious of the universe. If you were unconscious, the universe would still exist, but you would not be aware of it.

Agreed

Animal consciousness stems from their unconscious, so they are not aware of the universe, in way where they notice things, that cause them to ask further questions. They are aware based on instinctive filters. Humans go beyond that.

Personally I wouldn´t differ that much between humans and animals.

The creation myths are about the time of an internal human brain stimulation, from which all types of new things appear to human consciousness. This all of a sudden awareness of the universe, was often confused with its immediate creation, since so many things just seemed to appear.

I´m not speaking of an "immediate creation" and a sudden awareness in the human mind, but of a not described or defined timeline creation of which we are a part, and of a creation which STILL takes place.

I like mythology because it maps out the firmware of the human psyche as a function of time, with the firmware appearing to undergo system updates, implicit of mythology changing. n Greek mythology the Titan change to the Olympians. The firmware begin as being larger than life and sort of scary in terms of their output. These update to something that is relatable to humans. Modern prophesy indicates that another major update will eventually occur, that further changed human nature. But first there is a un-install process; war of the gods.

IMO the mythology, and especially the Creation Myths, are more than just imprints in the human psyche. The changes between gods and goddesses to me just describes the transformations of the creative forces and NOT "wars between gods"

Otherwise I agree in the cyclical changes, In Norse Mythology this is described in the Ragnarok Telling.

 

[HonestJoe]

Just think of it: Many of these stories begins with a time when nothing of the now known cosmos was created and there only were chaotic "primordial rivers" in the local cosmos which became the Milky Way.

How many exactly? Do they use those exact words or is it just your interpretation? How many don't make any such references? Why couldn't references to "rivers" simply be metaphors based on actual rivers? Is chaotic “primordial river” really a solid metaphor for the formation of the Milky Way in the first place?

For my part the worst and prime hole in my hypothesis is that you don´t take it very seriously.

I'm here discussing it with you aren't I? Do I have to automatically accept everything you say to be deemed “taking it seriously”? Are you seeking debate or adherents?

Just ask if you have any questions to the factual text and my interpretation..

I did ask question, you ignored them; Do you agree that similar interpretations could be applied to pretty much any story you choose? The connections and references are so abstract and speculative. That doesn’t mean you’re wrong, just that the idea would need further support.
Do you accept that you could be subject to confirmation bias? You clearly want this to be true and that could lead you to reading more in to these myths than is actually there.
How and why would the information about the development of the Milky Way get in to these human creation myths? Again, not knowing is a perfectly valid answer but on the basis of your hypothesis, surely this must be one of the first questions you’d ask yourself.

 

[Native]

How many exactly?

Read this - List of creation myths - Wikipedia

Do they use those exact words or is it just your interpretation?

They mostly have left some texts and lots of symbols, It´s NOT MY interpretations but the collective conclusion of the common and similar stories.

I'm here discussing it with you aren't I? Do I have to automatically accept everything you say to be deemed “taking it seriously”? Are you seeking debate or adherents?

Of course I´m seeking debate, but this demands a certain amount of serious interest too, correct?

I did ask question, you ignored them;

No I didn´t! I just asked you to read my initial post in order for you to investigate how the ancient Egyptian culture described and illustrated their creation story.

Did you read this or what?

Do you accept that you could be subject to confirmation bias?

Of course not! I´ve been working with Comparative Mythology for some 35-40 years and I know what I´m talking about.

On the other hand: Do you accept that your lack of mythical knowledge is based on bias against mythology et all?

Again, not knowing is a perfectly valid answer but on the basis of your hypothesis, surely this must be one of the first questions you’d ask yourself

I´ve been there and done that personal analysis 40 years ago.

 

[HonestJoe]

Read this - List of creation myths – Wikipedia

That demonstrates my point. There are loads of different creation myths following all sorts of very different forms and structures. I find it an extreme stretch to assert that they all actually describe exactly the same sequence of literal events.

They mostly have left some texts and lots of symbols, It´s NOT MY interpretations but the collective conclusion of the common and similar stories.

The OP is literally a description of one such myth and your interpretation of it in line with your hypothesis. Either way these stories are often rich in symbolism, metaphor and show. Any reading of them is going to involve a level of interpretation.

No I didn´t! I just asked you to read my initial post in order for you to investigate how the ancient Egyptian culture described and illustrated their creation story.

That didn’t answer any of my questions though. Do you accept that similar interpretations could be applied to pretty much any story you choose?

Of course not! I´ve been working with Comparative Mythology for some 35-40 years and I know what I´m talking about.

That doesn’t make you immune to confirmation bias. If anything, it does the opposite. Denial of even the possibility is naive (or dishonest).

On the other hand: Do you accept that your lack of mythical knowledge is based on bias against mythology et all?

I’m not biased against mythology. I love mythology, though not specifically focused on creation myths. I am biased against definitive assertions presented with no clear hypothesis and limited supporting evidence. I’m not making definitive assertions of fact, I’m asking questions. My conclusion so far is that your idea is unproven and would require a more detailed hypothesis and stronger evidence to back it up. I’m not sure how either could be achieved but am open to possibilities. Simply pointing to more of the same isn’t going to cut it though.

I´ve been there and done that personal analysis 40 years ago.

I wasn’t asking about personal analysis, I was asking about what would need to be a key element of your hypothesis, even if it was only to highlight the limitation or an assumption. Also surely the question of how this information could get in to the creation stories would also be important in interpreting and identifying it?

 

[Native]

That demonstrates my point. There are loads of different creation myths following all sorts of very different forms and structures. I find it an extreme stretch to assert that they all actually describe exactly the same sequence of literal events.

You asked into the the amount of stories and I bet you didn´t ponder over the contents at all.

The OP is literally a description of one such myth and your interpretation of it in line with your hypothesis. Either way these stories are often rich in symbolism, metaphor and show. Any reading of them is going to involve a level of interpretation.

No, NOT if you have the keys to unlock the plots.

That didn’t answer any of my questions though. Do you accept that similar interpretations could be applied to pretty much any story you choose?

If you are thinking of Stories of Creation of course similar interpretations would apply because the stories are very similar.

That doesn’t make you immune to confirmation bias. If anything, it does the opposite. Denial of even the possibility is naive (or dishonest).

Oh jah? I thougth you were interested in a debate on the topic, and now you´ll like to debate the person instead? What do you call a person who judges another person without knowing him?

I am biased against definitive assertions presented with no clear hypothesis and limited supporting evidence.

And this is blocking your possibilty to know more when the chance shows up.

My conclusion so far is that your idea is unproven and would require a more detailed hypothesis and stronger evidence to back it up. I’m not sure how either could be achieved but am open to possibilities. Simply pointing to more of the same isn’t going to cut it though.

So you don´t understand the Creation Stories and still you state that these are unproven? How can you then tell and judge anything in this matter?

 

[HonestJoe]

You asked into the the amount of stories and I bet you didn´t ponder over the contents at all.

Obviously not everyone individually but I was referring to the different fundamental types of creation myth in that list. If they’re all meant to refer to exactly the same sequence of events, I’d expect some variation based on local points of reference but not the wide variety of overall story arcs and structures as described by those types.

No, NOT if you have the keys to unlock the plots.

That’s just emotive rhetoric. It doesn’t actually mean anything.

If you are thinking of Stories of Creation of course similar interpretations would apply because the stories are very similar.

No, I’m talking about different stories. You could take the key elements of any story and vaguely map them to aspects of cosmology just as you have done in your OP example. I don’t find the links you’re making between aspects of the creation myth and cosmology to be unique, clear or definitive as you clearly do. Simply repeating your assertions that they are isn’t going to change that.

Oh jah? I thougth you were interested in a debate on the topic, and now you´ll like to debate the person instead? What do you call a person who judges another person without knowing him?

I’m not judging you personally, I’m judging anyone who would dismiss out of hand even the possibility of confirmation bias, especially within themselves.

And this is blocking your possibilty to know more when the chance shows up.

My preference for rational logic and scientific process blocks my possibility to know more? Did you intend to ask about science or faith?

So you don´t understand the Creation Stories and still you state that these are unproven? How can you then tell and judge anything in this matter?

I don’t understand your interpretation of them. That’s why I’m asking you for a fuller explanation of your hypothesis and further evidence to support it. If you’re unwilling or unable to offer that, there’s no point in us continuing.

 

[Native]

I don’t understand your interpretation of them. That’s why I’m asking you for a fuller explanation of your hypothesis and further evidence to support it. If you’re unwilling or unable to offer that, there’s no point in us continuing.

I´ve tried the best I can and several times forwarded you to my initial explanation, wich really is very specific.
But every time you question my interpretation and you really should blame the Egyptians for their story and yourself for not accepting it before you blame me for being biased just because you have troubles understanding myths beyond the "fairy tale" level.

 

[David T]

Yes music has it all. Vibrations, frequensies and colors - Spherical music - Tones of Cosmos . . .

Yep its extremely old it is a language unto itself. It has both a human voice and an other viuce and so much can be captured in 4 minutes that takes philosophy texts a library worth of texts to convey. I really am not interested that much by philosophy as it breaksdown into reductionism religiously or scientifically . Its so narrow. No wonder nietzche went mad!

 

[David T]

Well, I would consider the biblical Story of Creation as an ancient science. Unfortunately this telling has been hugely downgraded after focusing on the "one and only invisible god" and by loosing the mytho-cosmological language.
Once upon a time JHVH has a female consort, Ashera, but "she" was abandoned together with all the mythical symbolism which really spoke of the creation in our local part of the Universe.

Well in the jewish story its not science it mearly is painting the setting or background state to the foreground state. Its like everyone gets locked into the background state unaware that its only a background to the foreground state.

In the painting below, is what makes the painting the background? Do we discuss how profound the background is? Is it famous for its background!? Yet in the painting genesis that becomes the discussion. Its a real disconnect from the story the painting itself. Its like to me hello its about the foreground state not the background. Relying on young earth creationists as saying anything or understanding the painting at all but is well not correct.

I tend to understand painting and writing as the same thing but differenty expressed but still imagery.

 

[Native]

Well in the jewish story its not science it mearly is painting the setting or background state to the foreground state. Its like everyone gets locked into the background state unaware that its only a background to the foreground state.

I basically consider ancient Stories of Creation as real cosmological knowledge and this of course include the biblical story of creation. Of course this story has lost its mythical importance and language and some of the symbolics are twisted by sholarly interpretations.

The Jews also had their cosmological Kabbalah - Kabbalah - Wikipedia