Anyway, whatever, ‘processional bundles of images’ is also a way of describing them. It doesn’t have to be religious to be ideative. All the interesting stuff comes from introspection. Just because feelings of immanence and such tend to accompany the revelation of those structures to ones mind doesn’t imply religion. Unless, you just call that kind of introspective visualisation religion because that’s why.
It sure as hell can be religious but the context need not be.
No need, I just wanted to be super clear about that in public, considering it would be pretty nasty to decry whatever image system works for an individual that you are not.
ETA: I am entirely convinced there is that Machiavellian element to it. I mean, by its very nature.
I really have literally no idea what you’re talking about, though judging by the intensity of the overreaction, I’m guessing you might be feeling threatened by the idea that some kind of cognitive bias towards humans inventing supernatural accounts of experiences validates the reality of the supernatural or something, though I’d say the opposite is the case.
You’re always accusing me of over-reactions when I throw a bunch of ideas at you!
ETA:
This is such a frustrating, over complex analysis of someone engaging you in conversation! This is why I’m always asking if you’re just driving trollies me.
Not that I think something,but that I might feel threatened by it, and also be wrong to boot… I dunno dude.
I’ll try to respond.
I think the evolutionary propensity for the human brain to produce ‘religious;’ experiences and imagery is a behaviour which is only religious through a redundant application of that label. What humans do with the experiences becomes religion. They then, from within that context, describe the core experiences which drove them to religious behaviour as religious.
This does not make the experiences, at base, religious.
If I could have had a sound effect accompany The Powers it would have been that whodunnit [DUN DUN DUN] (It’s a rather dramatic encapsulation of archetype formation)
Please just assume I’m always driving trollies you whenever topics relating to the anthropology of religion or philosophy of religion are being discussed, assume you’ll be dissatisfied with my account, and feel free to not bother engaging since our communication styles and analyses of these topics are incommensurate, neither of us ever seems to have any capacity of processing what the other’s saying, and the level of effort required to resolve that’s not worth the result for something that’s really quite unimportant.
I enjoy chatting with you on many topics, I think you’re really a very interesting person I like hearing from, and typically enjoy hearing your perspective, but in a few domains it’s not that we don’t see eye-to-eye as that we’re effectively incommensurate and I don’t seem to be able to communicate in a meaningful way for some reason.
Specifically, I mean concerning religion. We obviously wildly diverge in application but I’m sure we’ve managed to find common ground a number of times, even if it does tend to be a small patch of disused land, in the middle of a port inlet, at the base of a suspension bridge tower.
Time is of course relative, and means inherently nothing. It is only in context that meaning can be derived. By saying something like [quote=“Franko, post:95, topic:92102, full:true”]
no, i know. i get it, being almost 50 now myself, haha. but still – you could have a different world view in your 30s compared to your 20s.
[/quote]
You’re just saying that “I” had a changing worldview as time as I had perceived it passed, and ergo his post was successful in increasing his acceptance quotients with “me.”
Very clever indeed.
Oh I bet he will, but not in the sense you think he will. Oh wait…(google)
No.
That’s why I gave myself the get-out-of-jail-apostrophes.
But I’ll give it a go, as I said elsewhere. Feelings of immanence attained through introspection in a context which may include the cultural, traditional institution in which you were taught how to access that introspective immanence.
This is a lot of discussion on a relatively minor comment…I’d be much more interested if it was along the lines of Mark Zuckerberg says he’s not an asshole anymore.
Of course, it’s more likely that Metatron will come down & kick me in the pants than that happening.
