Christianity is a robust ideological framework that has stood the test of time. Why? There seems to be an anicdote for nearly every life situatuion. A verse you can draw from. This is Interesting, what traits of the story, the scripture or word make it so thorough? It is, essentially just a narrative passed down for generations..

I have this concept that It is the perfect Archetype. It is so good, so relatable because it represents perfect architypal traits for any individual. So, any person can read scripture and find some level of cohesion, some relation to the anicdote before them.

The Bible contains many architypal patterns. Coming of age. Rise to power. Rebel with a cause. Saviour. Caregiver. Life, death… Not only in general but for individual characters as well.

Its as if, the complexity of our existance has been refined down to a concise narrative. And there is comfort there.

It is commonly agreed that the available information to an individual is increasing over time. This causes one to be “overstimulated”. Therefore, more value will be given to those individuals or systems which can sort through this complexity, categorize it, consolidate it and share. Even as far as somehow inferring what you need to know. Making decisions for you.

This I think is what the bible has done for you. This is also what I think theoretical AI will do. There is somehow comfort in this, resolve. The bible nailed this concept. Compression of information.

As if when one is overwhelmed, there is a lot of value in the solution to the problems causing the feelings.

What is the human condition? What is “Mans Struggle”?

Its not something that can be easily distilled or explained. Its not something that can be written in words or signs. It can to some extent be captured in analogy. In symbology.

One analogy I use is the wave form. ~~~~~~ This is also exemplified in a mountain.

The Jungian architypes are just a much more detailed analogy to the human condition. But none the less, they are a framework, on an explicit anicdote which you or I as an individual can easliy relate to.

The Bible has essentially built the most compelling narrative on top of this framework. Now, Jungian architypes did not come before the bible, but I think what Carl Jung was able to articulate is some sort of framework that appears to underwrite the human condition and may even be a part of our cognitive architecture, part of our nature. The Bible clued into the same phenomena but wrote a story instead of explicitly defining the underlying infrastructure.

This being said, I can start to reinforce my concept that in essence all religions are an attempt to define the same phenomena that occur for all human beings. That is to say that at some level, our cognitive frameworks, our architypes, are the same. And its the different cultures and narrative that abstract away the cohesive underlying frameworks.

Now what I find quite interesting is the contrast Budhism offers. I think in some ways, budhism is uniquely different from all other forms of religion. Specifically Zen. Because it does not leverage narritives in the same ways all other religions do. Zen appears to even make fun of narratives. Repeatedly forcing the student to distill their state of conciousness away from words, narratives, cognitive frameworks. Its as if Zen mind has clued into this more intrinsic aspect of reality. Like it engages some substrate that is in fact more foundational than the architypical frameworks them selves. Something like:

Zen mind -> architypal cognitive frameworks -> narratives (ie Bible).

–

cont.

on the need for mythologies in modern society (or the lack thereof)

Jung points out that faith or spirituality is lacking in the modern individual and that it leads to insecureness and depression because the individual feels powerless. Therefore we cling to the idea of the masses because it contains the power that we lack.

The sub concious over compensates by developing a severe desire for power. One needs to bring this sub concious desire to the concious awareness to manage it properly.

This phenomena makes society as a whole vulnerable to involuntary authoritation governments.

If we dont uphold the “hero” archetype in our own conciousness then some entity will fill the void.

In my understanding thus far Yarvin insists that some form of monarchy is a superior system to govern a society. In some sense insisting that there should be tech monarchys or other systems that leverage some intelligent hero type leader. I extrapolate this to imply that any system that does not have a clear “hero” or leader in place will crumble under ambiguity. Under susch a system, individuals can operate as libertarians so long as it is voluntary. This is where it connects to Rands emphasis on the individual and voluntary society.

So in a sense, a good framework for political ideology or power structure should contain the powerful leader as the hero archetype in order to fulfill the fundamental human psycology.

See: Jungs 12 archetypes, Mencius Moldbug, Rand, Lex w/ Yaron and malice, Religious frameworks, Jordan Peterson

Why do societys need governing?

What are the key themes that lead to mass adoption of a framework? United States, Bible, etc.

Can AI be an implicit form of governance / Trust? Does it fulfill the hero archetype?