Yet Another Disclaimer; oh, and I destroyed the religions by describing them

The more i think about the brain, the more I find i have to change my belief system just to get any new information. So far it seems that staying dogmatic to the ideas I began creating last year, not only is silly as i do not completely agree with them all, but I myself have already taken a step above and beyond them. My older strategy and mindset was as much as i hate to say it, too scientific. I would get to a point where I would need to find some evidence of my ideas to believe them, when in fact the ideas are self referential and in some way affirm themselves. In short, I've been finding a need to scrap rigor in favor of subjectivity, as the brain's thoughts are highly dependent on the core beliefs of a system. In any case, for now on, I can never say if I am making things up as I go, or if I thought of my ideas beforehand and decided to write them down. It doesnt matter; im just going to write.

I've been experimenting with many different thought styles, those of which I am against to the core, but this core is what I'm trying to rip apart a little to get a larger view of the world. I've always had a general interest in all world religions, even though for the majority of my life I've held that I'm an atheist. A year ago I began to attempt to conjoin every religion. I have been able to mutate any religious belief into a simple mental model, each of which I could fit into a single larger one: the brain itself. I decided rather than continuing my long rambling of posts I've been doing, I'd jump right into the grit of my point.

The addictiveness of a mental system, or a religion, comes directly from the structure, or apparent structure of the brain. The belief in a singular god and a singular devil is the belief that there is a single source of life and death in a brain. Cristians' God and Satan are simply embellished wrappers around the concepts of excitation and inhibition. The monotheistic view lacking polarization, holds that there is a single source of both good and evil, light and darkness, etc. This is analogous to the Jewish God, or the Tao Taijitu. This is why the concept of evil is lost on some cultures, but is highly ingrained in other cultures.

Now, there are also polytheistic religions, these are simply that there are numerous smaller versions of these 'ultimate' gods that in essence act the same way as them. The only difference is that these deities are constantly battling each other. These also commonly answer to the greater God(s) equivalent to the monotheistic varieties. Each variety of a religion when seen in this narrow view, leads to just a very small number of variables to consider. In my opinion, the polytheistic gots represent the rainbow of emotions humans can employ. No emotion is greater, only different from the others(I also attribute these to the primal forces of Taoism)

The variables i've seen consist of the following
1) Polarization vs. Unpolarization: Good and Evil truly exist and representative gods can be created, or the two are two sides of the same coin and cannot be separated into more than 1 entity.
2) Multiple vs. Singular: Are there multiple gods or just one. For that matter it must also be considered if they is polarized or unpolarized. If there is a pantheon, is it a group of neutral ones that get into petty squabbles? or is it a great war of a holy pantheon and an evil pantheon fighting for some higher purpose beyond us? It begs the question, what is the difference between a singular polarized belief system, and a multiple polarized belief system. Well, that is completely dependant on the third variable.
3) # of metaphysical hierarchies: Are we among the gods?, are we below the gods? are we above the gods?. Are we below gods that answer to higher gods? Think of it as you will but i think this be represented as -1, 0, 1, 2, 3+, (infinity?). I think of this number as how many levels you have to travel to get to the concept of the highest god. -1 being the megolomaniac, 0 being the athiest, and 1 being the monotheist, etc. Each follows a very different belief system. Each hierarchical level is also dependant on the.

Now, i guarantee there are more variables; as there always are, but with this simple system, and a little creativity i believe anyone could easily catalogue any religion along these simple terms. In case anyone has not figured it out, I am basically equating this god system to the thought mechanism of the brain. Most probably, these gods are simply the mnemes ive been describing earlier, but at the same time i've decided the mneme idea is far too short sighted and by the same token, so is the religious view of the world.

It is my opinion that in a sense the variables described earlier pull an impressive idea that these religions are both true and false at the same time. They are false on the grand scheme that they profess(IE, im still an athest somehow), but they are very true on a small scale that is (nearly) imperceptable to the believer. However, just because it is imperceptable does not mean it is not useful. The scale that the religions do hold true on is so finite, and so small, that it taps into deep meaning of the simplest objects. A religious (and in my opinion justifyable) view is that these deep deep meanings are not only at our roots, but also watching over us; they are the god(s). But again, as I stand, if there are gods, they are not watching over us, they are watching under us.

Missed time

So I have not written in some time. I broke my promise to myself to keep up an article every week. Given this is (mostly) personal as no one has been keeping up with this, this entry is essentially useless but I'm doing it both in case there actually is a reader in the future and is curious in the span, and to convince myself to continue. For all the things that I want to write in this, it spans in so many directions and details that it is difficult to find where to start. It spans the largest entities that can be concieved(the brain and the universe) as they are both recursively detailed in infinite many directions.


I do not know why I stopped writing, Whether it was because of the new(well, old) book I am reading (Godel, Escher, Bach), or if it is fear of writing a falsehood (which to be fair i probably already have). But now I believe that a few falsehoods are a necessity in building something timeless and beautiful. I am reminded of an analogy that Dawkins exemplified in The Blind Watchmaker (the analogy originally coming from a chemist who's name is lost to me currently) where he analogized the mystery of the construction of Stonehenge, to the mystery of the formation of the first DNA and protein macromolecules. The stones of Stonehenge are so large and heavy that it would be impossible for men to lift them up to the top of the other stones. Not only that, but there was no known technology at the time of its construction to build it. Although there is this seeming impossibility, Stonehenge exists nonetheless. A similar believed impossibility is in the existence of DNA, although it exists as well. Some like to believe that there was higher intervention in allowing these things to come to pass. "Creation theory" is the main belief among the faithful in explaining DNA and life, while similar theories like to explain Stonehenge (some even have the gall to explain wonders like Stonehenge with aliens).
Now it has been proposed that the stones were aligned and stood by mounds of earth, the top stones could (relatively) easily be pulled up to the top of these mounds. when everything was aligned as was desired, the mounds of earth could quite easily be moved away leaving the bare bones of the henge. Whether of not this is precisely true the idea is what is important. The Stonehenge is the timeless object and the mounds are the buttresses that are forgotten in time. Now whatever it may be, it has been proposed that the timeless entity of DNA was buttressed by lesser entities of dust, salt, acid, and base formations. I wont go into the full detailed explanation of this, as that is in The Blind Watchmaker but the key note that is heard from it is that the evolutionary process is a long term process that did not begin with DNA. It was the result of lower substances evolving. Now as the dirt mounds of Stonehenge were stripped away and forgotten, so are the pre-life evolutionary substances.
The purpose of all of this is to exemplify why I should not fear dropping a falsehood here or there in my explanations because they are necessary peices of the buttresses to my ideas. As long as I can create a strong enough core stripping away a support here or there in the future will not matter. Once I have built the whole structure, i can indiscriminately remove any earthen mounds that are left.