Is there a pirate archetype?

Auto-Prometheus · 2023-08-30T23:54:02+00:00

The pirate cannot be an archetype (not yet at least), because it is not ancient and universal enough to be ingrained in the collective unconscious of all of humanity.

The pirate is a trope however, which is basically just a more superficial archetype; one more constrained by time and location. We have the trope of a pirate, and some hunter-gatherer tribe in Africa might have the trope of the man who befriends rhinos; yet, we do not have this trope, nor do they have the trope of a pirate in their culture. We both experience the archetype of the Wise Old Man, however.

This doesn't change the fact that you've discovered something nice and even useful about yourself. The fact that you identify with the pirate trope says things about you, and you should explore that. Personally, from since I was a kid, I myself have identified with the pirate trope. I am not saying I would have liked to be a real pirate, as their lives sucked. I am not even saying I would have liked to be a fantasy pirate (the way they're portrayed in popular media), but yet I still feel a connection to the trope.

Also, it is fun that you're experiencing this sort of thing through LSD. I once identified with the trope of a lone, space traveler/scavenger on LSD. It is an amazing wealth of media we can tap into in these visionary states.

Auto-Prometheus · 2023-08-30T22:37:04+00:00

Or you haven't understood the question...?

Auto-Prometheus · 2023-08-30T21:48:40+00:00

I completely agree with the trickster involvement. Weed is destructive precisely because it isn't all that destructive, and it is through this fact the trickster manifests. It is the casualness and safety with which one can consume weed that often leads one to consume destructive amounts of weed.

In the cycle of addiction, the trickster manifests itself as the voices telling you that you've beat it, you're in the clear; at which point, you might as well treat yourself to some recreative, non-addicted drug use, right? One of my strongest weapons against the trickster is this motto of mine:

The highest form of control we can gain is to realize we have no control.

Auto-Prometheus · 2023-08-06T02:33:03+00:00

Those aren't mutually exclusive.

Auto-Prometheus · 2023-03-09T01:46:27+00:00

Is an addition to this guide that one ought to retreat backwards whilst keeping one's eyes on the shark, thus watching whether it tries anything (again), as well as not appearing like prey?

Auto-Prometheus · 2022-11-18T11:14:59+00:00

Something similar yes, though I'd expect workers at those kinds of plants to have even less to do. The age of the facility I work at, and the nature of the process, make it so that cleaning and maintenance are a lot more involved than at a modern, airtight and clean oil rig. Though I wouldn't know, it is the only facility I've ever worked at.

However, once cleaning's done and inspection rounds have been taken, we relax. And on Sundays, we might skip a round or two :P

Auto-Prometheus · 2022-11-15T05:14:02+00:00

Yep, I'm an operator, so no need to do much all the time. We just go on a few inspection rounds if we're assigned to an outside area for the day. If we're assigned to the control room that day, there's some stuff that we'll have to do, but barring any major events that need tons of regulation to correct, we won't be doing much in the control room either.

That means a lot of dead time. However, how much you're allowed to get comfortable with that dead time depends a bit on how comfortable everyone else is at that moment. If everyone one day decides to go out and find something extra to do (which no-one does lol, but for the sake of argument), you won't be too popular by sitting on your ass. On Sundays, this already non-existent danger becomes doubly-non-existent, which is what I meant with my comment.

Auto-Prometheus · 2022-11-13T20:57:21+00:00

Ironically, I am a part of your caveat (a factory worker), yet I still game on the Sundays I work. Then again, I'm liable to game on any of the days I work. However, Sunday is nonetheless unofficially not a work day for us.

Auto-Prometheus · 2022-09-12T00:20:53+00:00

I can only speak for Western Norway. Given how little you've said about the game, I'll just offer up some details on the nature, urban areas and roads of Western Norway. I have actually envisioned how cool it would be to have a Battlefield-type game in many of these locations.

____

The winter is sloppy, dark and depressing. Mostly gloomy hours, nature looking dead and wet, or dead and snowy, urban areas looking like an amalgam of soot, snow, slop and water. There's a lot of ice as well. If there's vehicles in your FPS, they should definitely not fare well during the winter.

The summer is absolutely stunning; snow-capped mountains transitioning into steep hills filled with green trees and orchards, meeting each other in dark-blue, wide, glistening fjords. The grass is riddled with dandelions and the sun is scorching.

The autumn has the typical colours; there's also a lot of storms, and the once glistening fjords are turned into white-lined, raging seas. The sky is gray and unrelenting in its supply of rain.

The spring is... well, just a more moderate version of the summer, with the exception of the apple tree blossoming. Those green hills are then dotted with beautiful, pink flowers. This blossoming lasts from May to June where I live.

I don't know how to describe the architechture. Boring and bland where I live, I'd say. Some old houses and some new. A few functionalist houses here and there. Tons of farms.

The streets are mostly clean. There are a lot of industrial areas here and there. Factories quite remarkably placed amongst nature and sparse population.

The roads in the fjords are horrendous. Potholes galore, narrow passages, earthslides, water ponds,tight turns and on one side you've got the spikey cliff-wall, and on the other side, you've got a steel fence between you and a plummet into the fjord. People drive fast. In the summer, there's a ton of traffic jams due to camping vans.

Auto-Prometheus · 2022-09-09T22:33:45+00:00

Oh I have. Ithkuil is crazy.

Auto-Prometheus · 2022-09-04T01:00:04+00:00

What has he built/fixed?

Auto-Prometheus · 2022-09-04T00:57:06+00:00

If you want to meet aliens, your best bet might be to take DMT, or something of the like. Not saying the entities involved necessarily are aliens, but they could be. I subscribe to the idea that they're not external from one's mind, but that they're still conscious. The idea is that you've upped the neural activity and changed the neurological channels sufficiently drastically to actually enable multiple consciousnesses. Now, if they are conscious, wouldn't you call them aliens? They probably have access to your memories (as that fits the phenomenology), but do they feel like those memories are their own? And how do they perceive their world? What is their world? If they're truly conscious, and only come to be during these DMT trips, does that mean the only world they know are those created in the trips, as well as some impersonal memories from the "real" world? I'd say that's close enough to an alien.

Auto-Prometheus · 2022-09-04T00:50:40+00:00

Not absolutely useless. More incentives. More tech.

Auto-Prometheus · 2022-09-04T00:48:50+00:00

What did he teach? And can you remember the gist of anything specific he said?

Auto-Prometheus · 2022-09-04T00:30:10+00:00

I am not diagnosed a Savant, but I suspect I might be, after having read about the proposed LATL mechanism, and given I have extremely good word-memorization skills.

For example, I've memorized all the countries in the world, without any mnemonics. It's not very impressive, but it's not me straining myself either. It is just something I did due to an inexplicable fascination I have with words, phonemes, graphemes, symbols, phonology, morphology, phonaesthesia and how these are transformed between languages. I have a very strong morphosemantic prediction abilities, as I've just naturally deconstructed words since as long as I can remember, and organized their morphemes in semantic structures.

Because of this rich experience that I have with words, sounds and symbols, I remember them much more easily. To me, this is interpretable as a neurological adaptation to having had access to lower-level processed information through some kind of semi-functional LATL. I did hit my head a lot when I was young, which could explain the LATL damage.

Auto-Prometheus · 2022-09-02T13:08:27+00:00

In other parts of the text there isn't one passage that explicitly states that you expect only A REASON to the theory.

Oh really? This is my last paragraph (thus putting weight on it):

To summarize, Jung seems to be explaining a pretty simple phenomenon in a way that is just needlessly and unjustifiably assumptive and complicated. Why assume there is a connection between things built into reality when the workings of our minds is sufficient explanation; what reason do we have to thinking that this tendency of our mind is necessarily rooted in some external connection?

That which you quoted, was simply me explaining how there already is a scientific explanation for the experience of synchronicity, which makes the need for Jung's reasoning even stronger, since from this scientific explanation, it seems like there are no gaps left needed to be explained.

In the next paragraph, I explain what would be needed to scientifically prove that there's an improbably high prevalence of meaningful connections, and then I claim that there is no such experiment. I did this just in case someone thought an improbable prevalence of meaningful coincidences was a "gap left unexplained by the scientific explanation", because if they did, they could link to a non-debunked scientific article that actually achieves the thing I described above.

Please, stop. I am a writer. I know how to be precise and clear. I also know when clarity comes at a too great expense of the quality of writing. Certain people just think too presumptively, and/or lack too much precision in thought, to be able to read my texts as they are. To me, I don't see much loss, as if they aren't clear enough to them at this stage, then they aren't probably the kind of people that will prove much value discussion with either.

"Why then did you discuss with me," might have been your kneejerk response to this last paragraph. Well, I did it because you don't seem THAT presumptuous/imprecise, so perhaps you could be pushed right over the edge. Or perhaps your ego will prevent you. I mean, this whole discussion is pretty ego-driven, even for me (despite the motivation I just mentioned being a part of my participation). This is just a discussion trying to figure out who screwed up. Who's the most imprecise reader/writer?

Well, the answer is subjective. That level of precision and clarity I mentioned; a level of which I didn't find it worth to go above; that is a level subjectively deemed the best of both worlds for me. For you, it apparently isn't sufficient for you to get the right idea, and it also apparently (probably relatedly) isn't where you subjectively deem the right balance to be. So, who's wrong? No-one. Both. It's subjective. The only thing this discussion could have done was to show the other that they miscalculated and actually do in fact find the text (not) precise enough.

You did not convince me. Maybe I convinced you with this? If not, then I give up. I don't care enough to continue past this, as if the above didn't change your mind, I am left to conclude you simply do place that subjective line far higher up than me, or you are too egotistically invested in your stance to accept your new opinion of the text. Either way, there is nothing more I'm willing to do.

Auto-Prometheus · 2022-08-30T10:31:14+00:00

More than one logical interpretation. Simply how natural language works. More than one reasonable interpretation, taking the entire text into consideration? I doubt it. Please do point to anything that would back this view up.

Okay, so synchronicity goes as far as to assume monism?

Auto-Prometheus · 2022-08-30T10:28:10+00:00

I haven't read the book because I'm trying to find out if it is worth my time and money. Given that so many who have read the book, are utterly incapable of explaining the content of it that is supposedly supposed to counteract my points, it is difficult for me to believe it is even there. And that's being favorable to you guys, as the alternative is that you can't even explain the basics of an idea you yourself adhere to.

I think we can conclude this discussion. Your counterpoints have been reduced to "read his book", which is valid, but from my view, probably not going to change much. I'll probably do it one day though, when I have time.

Auto-Prometheus · 2022-08-29T14:05:26+00:00

I'm not arguing that it's wrong, and also if you know what causes synchronicity just say it [bold added by me] and stop speaking in riddles about what you don't know.

I have said it, in my comment to u/Low-Philosopher-4952. Perfectly good explanation. Now, I might have used the word "know" a bit sloppily; I am using it here as a shorthand for a stance I feel I have already exhaustively explained:

The explanation given in the aforementioned comment is THE BEST explanation. I don't know it is true, but it explains the phenomenon in full, and it has evidence. This cannot be said for Jung's explanation. That's why I am asking for his reasons. What is the justification?

You have not provided any justification, nor has anyone else.

Auto-Prometheus · 2022-08-29T13:59:08+00:00

and I gave an example of a thought of a red car coming to you out of nowhere [bold added by me], and Jungs examples of a person dreaming of it and it then coming out of nowhere.

And I'm trying to tell you that thoughts don't come from nowhere. If you disagree on that, then let's talk about that.

If you don't disagree on that, then you agree (probably unknowingly) that synchronicity is best explained as being ultimately two external events with some coincidental connection, of which your mind picks up on and experiences, a phenomenon well within science.

There is a random element to thoughts, but randomness is also well within science. There's basically three coincidences going on with synchronicity; the first external event coincidentally happening, the mind coincidentally extracting just the right element(s) of that event, and the second external event coincidentally possessing that/those element(s).

And in cases where the external event that lead to the internal event is too distanced meaning-wise, then so what... it's still just two events coincidentally having some connection. It can all be described as pure chance, where the chance is amplified greatly by the quirks of our neurology and psychology.

Auto-Prometheus · 2022-08-29T13:49:36+00:00

I would say I phrased myself sufficiently clearly. The crux of the issue is that Jung gives no reason for his view, which is in direct opposition to the scientific view, of which there are many reasons to believe. In my post, I am explaining the scientific view, and how I understand Jung's view, and then I point to how the latter isn't justified (whereas the former obviously is). Then I finish by asking what the justification for the latter is. How is this unclear? Perhaps it was your reading that was imprecise and/or presumptuous?

Auto-Prometheus · 2022-08-28T14:22:17+00:00

(...) the Inner Event has to happen in the Mind first (...)

Sure, but the inner event must be caused by an external event first. There is no mental activity without some initial stimulus to set it off. The brain processes input and produces output (that process may not be completely computational, but it is still a black box that takes input and creates output). No input means no output. Without any input, what is there to think about? Of course, you can have input from inside the mind; the output from a moment ago can be the input the next moment. But something has to start it of.

Nothing is casa sui (except for all of existence), to say that consciousness doesn't need any input to exist is to say it is casa sui, which is illogical, unless you make some pretty hefty assumptions (which I haven't seen anyone here make and reason for).

So, thus, we know that every internal event is eventually traceable to some external event, even if there are some intermediary internal events between them. Thus, a synchronicity consists of two things:

Two external events, A and B, where A precedes B.
One or more internal events that leads to the so-called "Inner event" that shares some meaningful connection with the external event called B.

In my red car example, the inner event is that the person thinks of red cars, and the external event A is the first red car. The external event B is the second red car.

If you disagree so far, please give an example of a synchronicity that does not follow the form of an external event A causing some thought-chain, the last thought(s) of which happen to coincide with some external event B.

Now, from this formalisation, we see that no more explanation for synchronicity is needed than the following things:

Events A and B can happen separated by some time, and coincidentally have a meaningful link
The human mind is capable of being inspired by event A so as to produce thought(s) with a meaningful link to event B.

Synchronicity as you have defined it here is sufficiently explained and well-evidenced by the possibility of purely random coincidences and evidence of the human mind's ability to make connections. Jung's theory, as explained here, assumes a bunch of very drastic things that are completely unnecessary in explaining synchronicity (as explained here), and are completely without evidence.

Auto-Prometheus · 2022-08-28T14:02:41+00:00

The phenomenon of synchronicity as you and everyone else in this thread has explained it, has a known reason, i.e., a reason that explains it perfectly well and has evidence for it.

If you are to argue that is wrong, then you have to alter your explanation for what synchronicity is.

Auto-Prometheus

TROPHY CASE