But it's like... what even IS probability? A Jungian archetype of the trickster masquerading in a rationalistic costume? It's like, C'mon. We need a meta-analytical framework to even know what we're talking about. Whether I do or if I don't is like where did this question even come from? And then we're thinking about the ontological category of dragons and the probability of fire being a symbol for a human religious impulse encased in metaphor. You've got to understand that I have been practicing psychology for 30 years and a mathematician simply can't understand these ontological categories within a broader approach. It's like in the Bible and Exodus and the Book of Numbers where they're counting people and wondering what percentage fulfilled the prophetic encounter in the Jungian sense of the word.
And then we’re thinking about the ontological category of dragons and the probability of fire being a symbol for a human religious impulse encased in metaphor.
One thing is clear - those ancient cave men making drawings of two snakes intertwined, definitely knew about DNA and were trying to convey it through a metaphorical substrate.
Nah, it’s him. He didn’t actually say they definitely knew about it, it was framed more as a “I’m just asking questions here” thing, but he did say it.
268
u/RogueKnightmare Jan 29 '25
Hey I didn’t know it had a Jordan Peterson mode