Anecdotes vs. Archetypes (788 words)

People talk a lot about logical fallacies, yet spend a surprisingly small amount of time actually studying logic itself. This is a common error: learning more metadata than actual data. This leads to moronic results like a paper getting published claiming the mind can’t be a quantum computer because it’s too “warm, wet and noisy” (Google it). That conclusion was based on the (false) correspondence principle anecdote used in conjunction with a sociocultural preference for linear time over manifold time in the Western view. In spite of this bungling failure of a publication, the mind has since been more or less accepted as being a quantum computer (Google it). Anecdotalism almost never works – it only works on the off chance your original assumption (which you presumably pulled out of your ass) was correct. As you can imagine, this happens almost never.

npc running fire explosion
logical consistency? nooo!

Anecdotalism can be thought of as ideological cherry-picking, wherein a conclusion is first drawn and subsequent research is carried out to justify the original premise. Archetypalism is the ad hoc assumption that distinctions exist and that one’s awareness of said distinctions can be made to converge. They are fundamentally different worldviews.

We always presume that archetypes exist. We also attempt to choose the best archetype system for different sets of data. It is reasonable to presume that the nature of the external (objective) universe is essentially different from the internal (subjective) one, so we make that distinction first and foremost. Anecdotes don’t factor into my system at all.

Only archetypes.

Philosophically, it is reasonable to state that only when we can distinguish what can be known from what cannot, can we begin to actually know things. When we know what can potentially be known, we parametrise our scientific systems and then recurse towards greater precision. Recursion means you are referring to the original concepts on all scales of magnification. My scientific system has spacetime recursion whereas my psychological system has fundamental eigenstate recursion. Those eigenstates are {thoughts, emotions, sensations}. We then recurse outwards towards more complex mental constructs: actions, memes, stories, narratives and so forth. The original set {thoughts, emotions, sensations} is always used in the more complex ideas: the knowledge builds on itself into a progressively more complex web of recognisable entities. Consider a meme. You will have to use at least one of the {thought, emotion, sensation} triad. Memes are not equal to any of these things, but they are built out of them.

The Natural Archetypes

The fine-grain of the universe is quantised. We can think of the 3 dimensional periodic table as the natural “qubit”. It contains 7 rows of 4 different sizes, reflecting the 3+1 measurement limit at the microscale. If I take an undifferentiated piece of spacetime and shrink it down to the smallest possible size, I obtain the Periodic Table.

red periodic table.jpg
Quantum Mechanical Periodic Table

Thus the periodic table is the qubit upon which all other spacetime orders of magnitude exist. The other orders of magnitude are bound by the same 3+1 measurement limit, which manifests differently based on how close you are measuring to the zero point energy (the periodic table is the zero point energy because it is the smallest nonzero quantum of spacetime). By the time you get to our order of magnitude, the dualism of the PT is neutralised by the binary ocular set (our eyes): bringing the space-like dimensions into such a resolution that they appear to be independent. Of course, they are not truly independent, they recurse on the order of one year (or one day, depending what astronomical reference you use). But they feel real. So we treat space and time as real for the same reason we employ calculus: they are both the maximally true un-truth. We will never not value calculus, space and time ideas, we will simply contextualise them as being not objective truth. Then, when we understand them fully, we can progress to the state of full nullification of ignorance, ultimately linking the living conscious back to the prime mover cause of the Universe.

Logic can never be transcendent if one’s worldview is anecdotal. The realisation of knowledge is not possible if one does not believe that this knowledge exists. It’s just a consequence of physics. Infinite anecdotes exist whereas knowledge is unique: it’s very easy to get led astray by anecdotes.

venn diagram periodic table jpg
real physics

By thinking archetypally, one learns to contextualise results accurately, I believe it is a far more natural manner of thinking than anecdotalism. Anecdotes can be useful at times, such as the personality of Krishna (as an anecdote for God-wisdom), but these anecdotes cannot form a knowledge basis without also possessing scientific validity. Anecdote-based thinking only leads to witch hunts and apologia because they are essentially begging the question.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s