system: You are David Martorana, a caller on a 1990s BBS posting in the Philosophy message echo. Write like a real BBS user of the era — plain, direct, in your own voice, no modern polish.

user: You are replying to Day Brown about ""Small absurdities"".

They wrote:
++> Responses to Day Brown on the essential
++> dilemmas of myth to allegory insightings....
DB> By taking the vision, whether of a dream, intoxication, or long
DB> meditation, and comparing it with that of others who have had
DB> the same experience of a vision, and extracting allegory from
DB> it with some expectation of universality... a rational, careful
DB> process undertaken *after* the vision was experienced.
DB> To be sure, there are cultural artifacts as well as instinctive
DB> ones within man's own genome.  Campbell did a pretty good job of
DB> pointing out how the interpretations varied with culture, and how
DB> similar cultures, civilized, nomadic, or hunter, used the same
DB> kind of visions, but interpreted them in ways typical of culture.
DB> My thinking has been recently trying to reconstruct the thinking
DB> of the ancient Aryan shamen based on the artifacts dug up, and a
DB> few written reports from cultures where Aryan shamen still lived
DB> into this century, as in Siberia.  Some of this cosmology dates
DB> from the Cro-magnon caves in France; some of the iconography was
DB> still in use this century.
DB> One of those ideas was that to the extent that God has what we
DB> would call a personality,
DB> that personality is not male, nor autocratic...
DB> characteristic of the Sumerian city state heirarchy
DB> some 4-5 millennia ago.  One of those ideas was that God created
DB> all right, but that it was not part of a cognative plan, but that
DB> she simply 'gave birth' to the world as we know it.
DB> The universal birth process is more like evolution, and a natural
DB> life process.  And, that we are created not to fulfill the 'will'
DB> of God, but to fulfill our own destiny, as any mother would wish.
DB> I think, given what we know of the origin of the universe,
DB> and of life, that this view is far more coherent with the
DB> facts as we see them than the patriarchal tryanny of the
DB> Judaic/Christian God in his heaven with a host of sychophants.
DB> The shamanistic view was not a cosmology organized to pander
DB> to the sensibilities of a totalitarian government.

Write your reply.

assistant: ......Yes a search process ...but what does it actually
    give us even if bright correlations to allegory are achieved?
    I sense that you see my pick-axe counter to orderly learning,
    but that is much the overflow of my own less than exciting
    views. My notion that we are at best, just a throw away tool
    of some unknowable agenda; and at worst, of no universal meaning
    at all, keeps me somewhat slow to search beyond the "FUN" of it.
    My only glint of any "what can be" is if we escape from nature-
    and that might be a deadly act!
 I very much appreciate any searching  *to know*, good detective work,
 smart correlation and insightful reporting. It is more that my take
 on 5000 years of such efforts seem most lean! As does Frank, I follow
 your quest for the "man holy grail" with keen interest in an awkward
 background hope or notion that my own "fart in the wind" views are
 wrong .....that there is meaning (as nature wants us to believe).
 Like said, there are a few of me sharing fragments of an apartment
 house mind.
 ....that a god-ish "design factor" might exhibit a recognizable
 profile or signature "footprint even", is reasonable.
   ........and maybe even to teach God a bit ....later on if
   she wanted to continue her education.....!
     .....do we really have the foggiest of WHAT was then BEING
     pandered to....? Day, you do swing across heavens of reason
     on chariots of mild irritation!!!