"Every life is an experiment that cannot be replicated." (Uniqueness of identity and memoryless non-linearity)
I now believe I have a framework to work from. I was always told "write the introduction last". What I realized while walking and thinking about myself and my mythology and being relayed by A.S. that Jung also said the same thing about psychosis / mythology and, apparently believed the same thing about Nietzsche and the übermensch that I suggested at the time, subtitling my book The Mythology of a Brain will give me free artistic license to create my mythology, explain how my mythology was created and why, what it says, and explain why we all create them. That mind-brain-reality nexus.
So I thought "I will read a bit around that quote about psychosis and creating one's own mythology" and looked for a quick pdf of The Red Book. When I searched for it, there was something about Memories, Dreams, Reflections and in its thumbnail summary says that Jung writes: "Somewhere deep in the background, I always knew that I was two persons." I remember reading Memories, Dreams Reflections as my pacifier for the general relativity exam I thought I was sure to fail. I reasoned that the following week would come whatever I did whether I passed or not, so distracting myself with an existential adventure would be a useful pursuit.
I remember that it had a deep impact on me at the time, but at the time I could only see things from the neurotypical and objective point of view. I think I will read through Memories and The Red Book and then perhaps I'll start to write what I really want to write. Maybe I will conclude "okay, I guess I'm a Neo-Jungian... so what should I write?" Or maybe after that I will see the point in reading Randolph Nesse and Iain McGilchrist. I can't do anything about where I am. How do I optimize my way forward by focusing on creating and recording a path rather than the previous version of myself that used exhaustive sampling?
First stop, Memories.
But I'll continue to make some false start attempts.
The [Complete] Mythology of a [Bipolar] Brain. I think I can make this work.
"A book of mine is always a matter of fate. There is something unpredictable about the process of writing, and I cannot prescribe for myself any predetermined course. Thus this 'autobiography' is now taking a direction quite different from what I had imagined at the beginning, it has become a necessity for me to write down my early memories. If I neglect to do so for a single day, unpleasant physical symptoms immediately follow. As soon as I set to work they vanish and my head feels perfectly clear."
-- Carl Jung on Memories, Dreams, Reflections
Some inspiration.
I feel that here is the pseudorandom place [in time and space, so it seems from the next few posts and what they've given me to start with... is this coincidence or am I 'manifesting' due to eternal recurrence? pretty weird thoughts...] to get the first input, and then the outcome will be calculated from there. Wouldn't it be weird if this was a determined process of randomization by my mind? A double bluff like what happened in HCMC? What do we mean by the question "does the brain have a motivation to know itself?" [Some Carl Jung stuff here I'm sure] Is this the bicameral mind?
Is it weird that you feel like somehow like you're strangely hooked into a pre-determined timeline because of the coincidences? Or that guy mentioned dialecticism as a way to think about how the mind-reality nexus expands. So it could just be that you're keeping up with things and have an idea about where some of it could go, because your mind has a lot of understanding of the limits of society? Think about the notion that the philosophers all have a mind that is fairly "standard". What are the problems that the mind naturally gravitates to due to cerebral edgework? How much of the objective domain can a subjective domain cover? Much less of the complete "big picture" domain is possible because they're so much information out there (boundary). However, much more of what can be known is known because of our access to all parts of the world, most historical documents, and democratically researched information on every topic (Wikipedia). Moreover, because ideas are getting more radicalized on the one hand but also people are becoming more visible in terms of the pictures into their lives and how they conduct themselves on social media, the fundamental spaces that theoretical futures occupy become more stark. "Communism (/socialism) doesn't work. Period." "Well how can we make it work?" "It will only turn into butchery because of human nature." "But then how can we do better?" "It doesn't work. Period." The possibilities within the domain of non-capitalist economics are huge. And yet, in the same breath, people will say "you have to learn the nuances of capitalism to understand the underlying problems and why they can eventually be fixed, for example..." The fact is that there becomes certain patterns that can more easily make understanding popular culture quicker and easier.
Comments