Metaphors and shared mythologies are useful tools for the purpose of having multifaceted concepts better understood by more people. As long as no one’s taking those things literally. There’s definitely people low-key building internal philosophies and general moral codes from all those Marvel movies, but no one’s turning to a friend and saying, “so I was praying (attempting a telepathic link) to The Hulk last night, and I really think he’s finally gonna do something about the cancer in my foot”.

Emotionally understanding a thing is an empathetic understanding, or feeling, which also furthers understanding. The shared experience of the confusion of “I don’t know what that is” comes from the expected empathetic response. Or the courage to be lacking the understanding. It allows a call to utilize shared knowledge, experience, and understanding to further the use of reason, when the depth of reason regarding a certain matter has reached its limits of being understood under current circumstances.

The algorithmic dopamine machine really is something. I get caught up with it, and I’m fully aware of the sensation of what’s happening as I’m getting sucked into a good scroll. I’m of the opinion that wider discussion of that shared sensation is necessary to have us all reasoning our way out of it. Because that shit’s a drug, yo.

So. Metaphor is useful in expanding understanding of current circumstances via the addition of similar circumstances. Getting caught up in a scroll, to me, feels somewhat like getting subtly pulled into a field of slot machines in a casino. Even though I don’t gamble, I feeeel the pull. I don’t like it. It makes me feel weird. But not good. I wonder if anyone else feels this way, and sometimes have the opportunity to inquire about the empathetic sensation, as well as if there is a known reason.

[Like now. Seriously. Having everyone pull out of the dope web would be super helpful to society. Any ideas towards how that could be peacefully finessed are more than welcome.] But I digress.

There is no reason without understanding. And understanding is expanding by empathy. A person can easily and unreasonably reason that a thing is so, but shared understanding is the agreed-upon reasoning that establishes the limits of the knowledge-stacked truth of a matter.

Some might even argue that metaphor is just an interpersonal form of direct propaganda. Even absent it being misleading. Or that sharing emotions is manipulation. Even absent malice. We need emotion. IT is the spice of life which is manipulated through the dope web. It is the understood intention, based upon internal reason, that justify any given communication or act with another person. Most of us possess empathy, which enables us to more easily process interpersonal exchanges. This allows for both enjoyment and expanded understanding, which is the best way forward towards more-better reasoning.

Significance defines reality, for the observer. Key moments in each person’s unfolding quest for understanding are often motivated by their identifying with a key part of a story, popular phrase, or even meme that seem insignificant to others. Yet their emotional contents are necessary to allow for people to reach opportunities to share collected understanding that will contribute to expanded collective reasoning. Especially if expanded knowledge is being conveyed to a person whose reasoning is limited by their lack of a similar understanding.

If we can know that “this is that” or even that “this is like that”, we can run data through the process of the the gospel of memory towards knowing that we don’t know, and choose to seek to know. Together, and with understanding.

I think I understand it more as an acknowledgment of a world of being outside of subjectivity. As far as I can see a move like that is needed in order to escape utilitarianism and solipsism (D.C. Schindler writes beautifully about this and calls it “misology”).

I don’t think we can continue to deny that what humans care about is not implicitly part of all of our rational systems. I see where the concern about mysticism arises, but I also tend to think that once we enter into serious thought about these questions we are properly in mystical or religious territory and that’s ok.

There's a very interesting podcast called Living Myth by Michael Mead which specifically addresses this aspect of your sharing. How Mythos (myth/mysticism) is equally important as logos (logic/rationality). It is the balance of these two that creates a much better understanding of human life and its balance with nature.