"Who are you to say what shouldn't have emotional value to people? I find the truth (meaning scientific truth) to be much more "emotionally valuable" than a pretty fairy tale; not in a mythical sense, but in a sense of wonder and appreciation and excitement all the same. And it's not only emotionally valuable, but provably, demonstrably practically useful as well. Best of both worlds."

As stated, Science relies on the cerebral cortex ... i.e. the thinking part of your brain.

A myth targets the reptilian brain ... Or in other words your guts.

When we hear a myth it strikes some paradoxical truth that we cannot digest with our rational mind but goes deep into the subconscious.



The point of my lecture is just that: But before I can give you more than exciting tales, we need to wake up our guts and reconsider what we take to be true.

I am the first person to defend science ... especially against its dissenters from evangelical walks of life. But, I also seek to breath some fresh ideas into the lives of what can be termed pure Baconian reasoning. Or ... the Cartesian mentality.


Many Scientists need to learn respect for our traditions rather than simply dismissing them as precision/accuracy models from a chemistry text book ... hey Dr. Unne - we have all seen that in just about any first year text.



To reiterate ... Myths do not care about whether the sun is a Hydrogen reaction - they seek to inspire the awe of Helios and describe the human condition:

The palace of the Sun was always bright and radiant, sparkling with jewels. One day a young man named Phaeton set out to reach the palace, and after a long hot journey he found himself before Apollo, the Sun god. Shielding his eyes from Apollo's brilliant rays, the youth asked, "Is it true that, although my mother is a mortal, you are indeed my father? She said this is so, but when I tell my friends that you are my father, they laugh and make fun of me." The Sun god smiled brightly and nodded. "Yes, Phaeton, you are my son, and I am pleased that you have come to visit. Ask me anything, and I promise it shall be yours."

Phaeton was very proud to learn he was truly the son of a god, and he knew right away what he wanted. "Father, let me take your place for one day. I want to command your chariot and pull the sun across the sky, as you do each day. When my friends see me high above them, they will know what I told them is true."

We know that the sun is not really about this, but in as much as humans are concerned a moral lesson is evident.




Also, if you are still confused about pharma companies, look up the meth drug trade in the 90's. It crippled America ... all thanks to profit.

Today we face MDMA, but alas, the medical profession will find more work from this paradox also. It is cyclical.

Basically, we have moved from the shaman (who cares about our welfare) to the seedy drug dealer, who cares only for profit. Look at all the children on drugs, and then we might even discuss the high rate of suicide .. thanks again to industrialism and pharmaceuticals.

Also, if you factor in indigenous people, suicide, depression, car accidents, the life expectancy for the west is not that great.

They twisted unemployment by changing the definition from unemployed to student; the government is also selective in its statistic for old age and death.


Note: Myths don't care about physical pragmatism. They strike a core that dates back to the phoenix rising from the ashes of mass extinction 65 million years ago. Right up to the modern day Cyclops which so many young people (including myself) stare at in our urban cave dwellings - a skewed reality at best is all we see with one eye - I am talking about television and monitors of course.

And, hence mythology is a respectable study. Even Einstein had a personal astrologer.

Also, not everything falls into the scientific method. Not every phenomenon can be addressed by science. The fact that the scientific method does not permit the investigation of abstract mathematical principles is especially embarrassing in light of one of its more crucial steps: “invent a theory to fit the observations.” A theory happens to be a logical and/or mathematical construct whose basic elements of description are mathematical units and relationships. If the scientific method were interpreted as a blanket description of reality, which is all too often the case, the result would go something like this: “Reality consists of all and only that to which we can apply a protocol which cannot be applied to its own (mathematical) ingredients and is therefore unreal.” Mandating the use of “unreality” to describe “reality” is rather questionable in anyone’s protocol.

We could also go into tautological constructs i.e. 1 + 1 = 2 … But this is probably better served in another thread.


Thank you.