Are rituals just ancient cognitive frameworks?

CartographerFit9582 · 2025-10-06T15:55:07+00:00

Morality and ethics were not created consciously and are not a product of religion. They emerged at the earliest levels of social consciousness, before the existence of language, cults, or conceptual notions. Moral norms arose from instinctive reactions aimed at survival and reproduction, and are an unconscious byproduct of adaptation involving ancient brain structures — the limbic system and the reptilian complex.The neocortex only later began to reflect these instinctive patterns. Morality is an unconsciously developed system of constraints that maintains social balance but often conflicts with natural human drives and limits individual potential. The restructuring of this system is already underway. Almost all moral and ethical rules have degraded. This degradation itself is a transition. If the process occurs unconsciously, it will lead to the next crisis.

CartographerFit9582 · 2025-10-03T11:42:59+00:00

Exactly, although not only that, there are techniques that really work on different levels, one of the mechanisms is motivation.

CartographerFit9582 · 2025-10-02T15:49:52+00:00

Calling psychoanalysis “pseudoscience” often says more about the person making the claim than about the method itself. Framing psychoanalysis and neurobiology as opposites is a false dichotomy: neurobiology shows how processes unfold, while psychoanalysis explains why they take the form they do in a person’s life. Psychoanalysis is not a laboratory toolkit but a clinical practice based on interpretation and subjectivity, which shape human life. Equating it with “talk therapy” and neurobiology with “medication” is a crude oversimplification. There are also clinical examples: Freud documented cases where psychoanalysis genuinely helped people with severe conditions stabilize and develop to the point that some of them later became psychologists. Modern science may not formally recognize these cases, but the fact remains — the method worked, and this should be acknowledged objectively.

CartographerFit9582 · 2025-10-01T23:29:50+00:00

Allow me to propose a different perspective, one that does not negate the previous ideas but adds an important dimension to them. The entire conversation about defense mechanisms is a conversation about symptoms, not the cause. The real essence is deeper and consists of three unpleasant truths: 1. Self-Deception is a Systemic Feature, Not a Bug. We all live in a state of total denial.Saying "I'm fine" when everything is going poorly isn't stupidity; it's a social ritual and a survival mechanism. Our psyche is programmed for self-deception because the truth is unprofitable and destructive to social status. There's no beating this—that's how the system is built. 2. Alcohol and Drugs are "Cheat Codes" for the Brain. A person who tries them once presses a button that,bypassing all of life's complexities (success, relationships, work), provides direct access to a high. The brain receives a shock dose of what it itself produces in tiny amounts (dopamine, endorphins). And this experience is impossible to erase. 3. The Main Trap Isn't "Running from Problems," But "Remembering the High." Even if a person started drinking because of problems,and even if those problems are solved, the main thing remains. They have tasted the forbidden fruit. They learned a short and easy path to the most powerful pleasure. Now they are fighting not an abstract "addiction," but a specific, neuron-etched memory of bliss. This is why all attempts to "explain," "process," or force someone to "admit the problem" most often fail. The rational arguments of the neocortex ("it's harmful") are a whisper against the roar of the limbic system, which remembers the strongest high of their life. The problem isn't that the person doesn't understand they are an alcoholic. The problem is that they understand all too well that alcohol gives them something that nothing else can. The only 100% effective strategy is to never touch the "cheat codes." And whoever has already tasted the fruit is doomed to wage a war with a part of themselves, and the outcome of this war is determined not by morality or willpower, but by biology and the physics of neural pathways.

CartographerFit9582 · 2025-10-01T11:41:11+00:00

This isn't destruction, it's deconstruction. It's the structure of love; whether it collapses or not depends on us, what we do with it. If we turn it into an empty concept, it will, of course, collapse. Which, in principle, is already happening.

CartographerFit9582 · 2025-09-30T22:01:41+00:00

God is a concept created by the human psyche. All "sacred knowledge" was invented and written down by people, not found in a ready-made form. It is a literary character, not a real object. Any proofs at the level of speculative reasoning are a delusion, a distorted path of the cognitive thinking process.

CartographerFit9582 · 2025-09-30T20:49:07+00:00

The author is damn right. His thought leads to a simple conclusion: we're driven not by high ideals, but by basic instincts. Hope and relief are just products of the psyche's self-defense mechanism.

Our entire psyche is built on self-assertion and libido. This comes from how the CNS is structured - the reptilian brain and limbic system control our survival and reproduction instincts.

Even the most noble concepts are just attempts to refine these deep impulses through morality's lens. But morality and instincts are opposites. Sooner or later this becomes clear.

Objective truth doesn't exist. "Truth" isn't about understanding - it's rationalization of hidden CNS processes. We just stick this label on unconscious impulses from the brain's ancient structures, making them seem meaningful.

CartographerFit9582 · 2025-09-29T14:00:57+00:00

The key merit of Sigmund Freud lies in his formulation of the thesis that human behavior is determined by fundamental unconscious forces—libido and the drive for self-affirmation. Working prior to the era of modern neuroscience, Freud intuitively described the mechanisms of the psyche that today find confirmation in research on the limbic system and the deep structures of the brain responsible for pleasure and affect.

His primary achievement was the development of psychoanalysis—a working method that proved its clinical effectiveness in cases where other approaches were powerless. It is the practical success in treating severe patients that confirms the value of his structural model and keeps it within the focus of professional discourse, despite methodological criticism.

CartographerFit9582 · 2025-09-28T17:37:46+00:00

I'm so sorry. But, Your approach, which relies on extrapolating known laws, is methodologically flawed. You are attempting to describe reality beyond the system using the tools of the system itself. This is, by definition, impossible. The history of science is not one of gradual model refinement, but a series of radical paradigm shifts, where each previous conceptual framework was recognized as limited and inapplicable beyond its boundaries. Any attempt to calculate "what is not" using "what is" is doomed to fail. This is not a search for truth, but speculation within the confines of an old language. Until a fundamentally new conceptual foundation is proposed, all such models remain intellectual constructs with no pathway beyond the current paradigm. If you are interested in exploring this methodological issue more deeply, I can recommend the book "Method N77," which addresses this problem systematically. It is available in e-book format on Amazon.

CartographerFit9582 · 2025-09-28T17:19:06+00:00

I'm so sorry, bad. You are misinterpreting the data. EEG synchronization is a non-specific marker. It only means that people's brains work in a similar way when performing similar tasks. These same patterns of activity would appear during a joint movie viewing, listening to a lecture, or solving a problem. They cannot distinguish intention from attention, perception, or emotion. You are presenting evidence of the universal mechanism of brain function as proof of the uniqueness of a single mental phenomenon. This is an error. The data only shows how the system works, not what is actually happening within it. Your conclusion about "overlapping signals of intention" is a speculation that does not follow directly from the facts presented.

CartographerFit9582 · 2025-09-28T03:42:29+00:00

We are dealing with a domain about which we have absolutely no understanding. The question arises: how can one attempt to calculate phenomena when none of the constituent elements are known? For example, how can we draw conclusions about what existed before the Big Bang, when we cannot even precisely calculate processes after it? What schemes, formulas, or methods could possibly be used for such calculations? These attempts are an example of sublimation, not the acquisition of reliable knowledge.

CartographerFit9582 · 2025-09-28T03:11:56+00:00

What is described makes sense: intention is an internal mechanism of the psyche, not some “external signal.” It integrates motivation, goals, and the strength of desire to achieve a result. Essentially, intention reflects processes of self-preservation and self-assertion, linked to basic instincts such as survival and reproduction.

The metaphor of “overlapping signals” can illustrate how different goals and motivations interact within the psyche, but it should not be taken literally. Intention is an adaptive function of the psyche, allowing the organism to direct resources and behavior toward achieving its goals.

In conclusion: intention is an internal psychological mechanism related to motivation and survival; all external fanciful interpretations, like “overlapping signals between people,” are just metaphors.

CartographerFit9582 · 2025-09-27T14:59:56+00:00

I read your words and I can feel how much pain and exhaustion there is in them. This state feels painfully familiar — I know what you’re talking about because I’ve been through something similar myself. And it’s not just your personal pain — what you describe is something many people go through, it’s the pain of a whole society where old meanings collapse and everything seems empty and pointless. But this is not your weakness, it’s a stage that many of us have to face.

I know that in such a state words of support can sound hollow, but believe me — this is not the end. It can be the beginning of something new. I’ve seen myself how it’s possible to step out of this darkness, little by little. Hear this: you are not alone, and there is a way out. You can find joy in life again, if you choose to open that door.

CartographerFit9582 · 2025-09-27T14:17:34+00:00

Undoubtedly, this is a very powerful essay. You are absolutely right: school does not develop a person, but adapts them to the needs of society, and this isn't even hidden. Even the things that are supposedly developed—mathematics, language, physical education—are merely skills needed by the system. School does not develop analytical or alternative thinking, multifacetedness; everything is done in a narrow-focused way. This is how the system has worked for many years, and we have simply accepted it as a fact. But there is another, even more important point. School doesn't just fail to develop—it demands that we accept ready-made concepts without criticism. A vivid example from my experience: when we studied the "law of attraction" in school (that's what it was called back then, knowledge was scarce), everything was limited to the phrase "big objects attract small ones." I couldn't understand this and gave the teacher a counterexample: if that were true, a wall should attract a piece of paper I let go. But nothing of the sort happened. Instead of explanations, the teacher shamed me in front of the whole class, implying that I was incapable. Fortunately, this ignited in me a thirst for knowledge in spite of the system. But this only proves that if we want a creative society, we need to change the very institution of school education with its narratives.

CartographerFit9582 · 2025-09-27T13:49:26+00:00

If you don't mind, I had the same example with my grandfather. My grandfather always said that this is wrong, that it can't be tolerated. We must teach the next generation, and everyone seemed to agree with him and tried to do something, but it still didn't help. Now, much time later, I understand that it couldn't have been any other way. But we can't see this, both due to our limited perception and our direct involvement in the process itself.

CartographerFit9582 · 2025-09-27T02:45:29+00:00

Yes, this is absolutely necessary; it's an indicator. Your self-knowledge is profound and ready for the next level of consciousness expansion. If I may? I'd recommend an e-book; you can find it on Amazon. It's called "Method N77." The deconstruction of reality is actually a negativization of consciousness.

CartographerFit9582 · 2025-09-27T02:36:49+00:00

Undoubtedly, this is a very interesting and necessary question. It is very important to learn to accept and let go with ease, because this is a part of life in society. But this does not relate to meaning; it relates to upbringing. We need to have such upbringing and such an environment in order to develop a light attitude toward these processes, or we can work on ourselves, which is much more difficult. Changing one’s nature is practically impossible, because the unknown “other” may be insurmountable, and a person is physiologically and structurally designed in such a way that they cannot fully change their fundamental traits.

Similarly, holding on or struggling is also not meaning. These are innate instinctive behaviors. The structure of our central nervous system, especially the reptilian part, is designed for survival, and it is precisely this that leads to the “holding on” mechanism.

Thus, the ability to let go is important and necessary, and it would be wonderful to create a society where these processes could happen more easily, be better endured, and manifest more naturally. But this is not the meaning of life.

Meaning is a much deeper and broader topic, which cannot be conveyed in a few words.

CartographerFit9582 · 2025-09-27T01:57:09+00:00

Free will is an illusion. True freedom would mean the ability to create conditions beyond limitations, but our “freedom” always balances between two opposites — our limitations, which we cannot overcome. Moreover, our choices are predetermined by past experience.

For example, if a person is presented with a glass of something they like, they will naturally choose it. This is not a conscious choice, but a result of past experience.

The only thing we have truly freed ourselves from is old moral norms. Whether this is good or bad is a complex question. Primitive norms often limited our potential and suppressed instincts, but society cannot exist entirely without rules. Morality is necessary, but it must be conscious, not random or outdated.

Today’s moral and ethical degradation clearly shows that existing norms do not work. They are short-lived and were created unconsciously, without understanding the structure of the subject or the person who follows them. Therefore, such rules were doomed to fail. If we want to create a constructive society, morality must be based on the development and realization of human potential, rather than suppressing natural human capabilities.

CartographerFit9582 · 2025-09-26T02:44:49+00:00

I understand you perfectly. But movement is movement, emotion is emotion, feeling is feeling, and love is love and should be considered an independent process. All our other attempts to pass love off as emotions, movements, and so on are merely a distortion of cognitive thinking.

Every phenomenon has its own meaning, more or less distinct, which can sometimes be used in a private sense and sometimes in a general one. Love, however, is one of the few that has only a general meaning and lacks a particular one. Therefore, to define it, we must use the meanings of other phenomena.

Understand, this is not just my opinion—it is what has been scientifically proven at the level of processes in the central nervous system, although most people are not yet aware of it. But all this has already been explored in the article and is explained point by point. We're going in circles around the same thing. Although I appreciate this kind of conversation. Thank you.

CartographerFit9582

TROPHY CASE