xcite83 profile

• Profile
• Videos
• Favorites
• Playlists

My own approach to this task, which has been carried over to this channel, is to attack the problem from what I call a'multi-paradigmatic approach to understanding the nature of reality'. Ever since the beginning of the Human Experiment we have used different methods of understanding the world around us, and of attacking those Ultimate Questions, these different paradigms manifest themselves today as such fields of knowledge as Science, Philosophy Spirituality, Religion and Mythology. The 'multi-paradigmatic' approach basically involves looking at reality through as many paradigms as possible, and then in a sense 'subtracting' one paradigm from another until you are left with a core of commonality; it is then this 'core of commonality' which will be the greatest approximation to the 'Truth' as I believe it is possible to achieve. I appreciate that in order for the 'multi-paradigmatic' idea to be a valid model in approaching those Ultimate Truths regarding the nature of reality one would have to give justification for the concept of 'ontological relativism', that is, that all paradigmatic approaches to understanding the world around us, i.e science or religion/spirituality, intuition or empiricism, introspective experimentation or extrospective experimentation, , etc., are relative to one another in terms of their potential validity as tools for acquiring truths about the nature of reality. Many would hotly contest the notion that these intellectual paradigms are as valid as one another, for example many would say that science is a far more valid approach than religion in understanding the world around us. An example would be that the Big Bang Theory as inferred by empirical data and scientific modelling is vastly more valid than any creation myth found in any of the world's religions. However it has occurred to me that one can render these intellectual paradigms into equal validity if one understands the two major methods that humans adopt to both store and relay information. These two methods include a mythological, parabolic and analogous method, I will refer to this as the Mythos, and a literal, empirical and scientific method, I will refer to this as the Logos. If one appreciates that religion uses the Mythos to both store and relay information about the world whereas science uses Logos, then it becomes apparent that they are incomparable; they are as chalk and cheese. For example Logos is supposed to be taken literally; it is a descriptive set of empirical facts about given phenomena. Mythos, on the other hand, is not supposed to be taken literally; it is a qualitative presentation of esoterically embedded patterns, meanings and significances that use the processes of metaphor, parable and analogy to relay an inordinately greater degree of information than is literally present within the particular text. Therefore a creation myth is not a literal description of how the Universe came about in the same vein that the Big Bang Theory is, but rather uses the notion that there is an underlying pattern permeating all of existence that is consistent within the structure of the Universe, including its conception, and the structure of the Human Being, therefore it is possible for human thought within human consciousness to be privy to truths via the mechanism of this underlying pattern even where the empirical data for said truths exist outside the scope of the human senses in both space and time. Thus the employment of Mythos in relaying information could allow Mythos-mediated information to be an arbiter of truth if we assume that this 'underlying-pattern' concept is indeed valid. I may go into this in much greater detail at a later date when I begin to upload my own personal monologues discussing many of my own ideas and Philosophy. I hope you enjoy my channel and videos, and I hope you have as much fun exploring this channel and watching my videos as I have had in collecting, editing and uploading them. Enjoy your stay! -X-