I’d like to extend the edenic idea of phenotypal origin myths into a form of analysis. Recall: Identity groups continually advocate the reenactment of their origin myths. Christians advocate reenactment the early church, American conservatives advocate reenactment of the American revolution and the constitutional convention, Baby Boomers advocate reenactment of the cultural revolution in the 1960s, cro magnons advocate Eternal High School, and so on. These origin stories (AKA emotional reactivity formulas) may or may not be strictly true, but they always tell us how that group will respond to a prompt because it describes that group’s OODA loop.
Perception -> worldview -> emotional reaction -> rational redirection of impulse
Perception -> superego -> id -> ego.
The first thing I look for is the attitude of the rational redirection, and particularly whether the “better” people in an origin mythos existed in the past, are expected to exist in the future, or exist now. More concretely, either we wuz KANGZ, we iz gonna be KANGZ, or we iz KANGZ. The foundation myth is therefore either conservative, progressive, or static, corresponding respectively to slave, bourgeois, and aristocratic mindsets.
As John C. Wright likes to point out, there are three possible attitudes people can have toward the universe: they can believe the world is bigger than their mind can conceive, smaller than they can conceive, or the same size. I believe that the slave mindset is that the world is smaller than what their mind can conceive. In keeping with this belief, a slave will tend to tear things down in response to stress. The master’s mindset is, I think, the case where people believe that their theories are predictive of everything in the universe, and “God’s in heaven and all’s right with the world”. Their response to stress is to conserve the status quo and dismiss anything weird or amiss as strictly impossible (“the science is settled”). That leaves the free man’s mindset, which is the expansive and imaginary belief that “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” According to the pattern I’ve laid out, such a person responds to stress with creativity.
The three-caste system is probably an epiphenomenon of the id, ego, and superego-dominant personality types.
Unlike his brothers Robert Crumb grew into an extreme ectomorph. Physiognomically, he looks like a maldeveloped Nikola Tesla, and I think they would have agreed on a lot of things regarding modern culture. This is interesting because if you watch closely, the brothers appear to have agreed by mutual unspoken agreement to act out the three Freudian archetypes, where Robert is the superego, the older brother is the ego, and the younger brother is the id. In response to their childhood abuses and fixations, the id becomes a solipsistic sexual degenerate, the ego becomes a sexless, hyperverbal ascetic and then kills himself, and the superego flees the country in despair and powerless disgust and frustration.
These personality phenotypes correspond to somatotype: ceteris paribus endomorphs are sensualists, mesomorphs are egoists, and ectomorphs are moralizing artists. Their predispositions, under duress of the id, are respectively to tolerate stress, to compete with others, and to seek gibs.
The second thing I look for is the value system, which stands in for the id/emotional reaction portion of the OODA loop. The perceptual evaluations of the worldview are compared to the values held within the id, and discrepancies are noted for further action. This is found by examining and describing the traits of good guys and bad guys. Indoaryan Paganism identifies virtuous people as strong, which is why the Brahmin origin myth is so brutal and they still get to be the good guys in that story (contra post-Christian Western sensibilities). In Christianity the good guys (early church fathers) are faithful to each other and to Christ/Yahweh, whereas the bad guys are deceitful, disloyal serpents. This part is already pretty well described by Haidt’s moral foundations theory, so I won’t go into it. However, I have a fun new correspondence table to plug here:
Worldview is the set of mental models we use to evaluate the world around us as it’s happening. To understand the worldview contained in a founding myth, you have to distill all of the stories into objects, behaviors, and situations.
A mental model has three parts: 1) an object in 2) a situation, and 3) the object’s expected behaviors in that situation. I press the gas pedal and my car accelerates, I throw a rock in the air and it follows a parabolic trajectory back to the ground, those sorts of things. These is not typically conscious thought processes unless our expectations are violated (like if the rock moved in a sinusoidal trajectory instead). We don’t have to reason our way through them. However, we often can give reasons for the behaviors we expect, by relating them back to the way we initially learned them (“I think I read a study that said…”).
This is something we rely upon heavily for daily functioning. Much more so than rational thought. We call upon these models for the purpose of visualizing plausible imaginary scenarios. Mental simulations are practically impossible without referring to previous experience. In the world of math, a mental model is called a concept image.
Relation to previous Aeolitalk: These mental models apply to objects that are either simple or complex instinctual archetypes, which we expect to behave in certain ways. “Discernment” is the mental process by which we recognize these instinctual archetypes, so as to apply the correct predictions of their behaviors. Intuition is the process of creating of new mental models.
This is much more difficult to analyze than the other steps because a list of themes and concepts in say, the Bible, is going to be pretty long and resist reductionism.
Perception defies my understanding at this time.