Mythos Schmythos

Ken Hemingway · Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 10:41 am Post subject: Re: RE: Mythos Schmythos

KH wrote: I'm suggesting that if most people do not see that life is worth living just for its own sake, it is because they are not awake!

MA responed: How can you suggest the background to this line of thinking and still suggest that humanity needs no mythos in order to ascribe value to their existence? Why wouldn't the awakening of the Buddha serve as a mythos -- particularly in the sense that I described it, as a constitutive narrative?

suggest that humanity needs no mythos in order... “Need” is a word with a broad range of connotations. I would agree that I like many, perhaps most, people use mythical references of one kind or another fairly easily. Do I need to? Maybe. I think it’s true that the warmth and effectiveness of our communications – and also our sense of community (attenuated though that has become in the modern world) would suffer greatly if we stopped using this kind of talk. If I had presented the story of the Buddha as a recently coined fictional narrative, I think its persuasive force would have been diminished.

But I think it is important that the myth was being used for a rhetorical purpose – I think they usually are used in this way (Am I wrong about this?). In my case the purpose was to suggest:
a. that there is a way of looking at the world which makes it seem like a much more wonderful place than we usually perceive it to be;
b. that this change in the way we respond can be so strong that it feels like ‘waking up’;
c. and that because of this we do not need to despair that recognition of the non-existence of a supernatural realm of disembodied persons, need rob our lives of meaning.

I think all of those claims are open to challenge; they are statements which are either true or false, and I believe that they are of the first importance. I do not want to protect them from critical challenge because I believe that challenge and response are at the heart of the search for truth. My problem with Karen Armstrong is that she thinks there are two ways to ‘truth’ and that they should never poach on each other’s preserve.

Both myth and poetry can lead us (educate us) into a different way of feeling, of understanding, and of living. Often they do can do this without making, or depending upon, any factual claims which are at all controvesial. But sometimes they do make or depend upon such claims, and if the claims are false then I think it is often important for us to know that. If a narrative suggests to me that I should feel good about the world because there is a loving God who has forgiven me my sins due to the fact that he has slaughtered his own son as a scapegoat for me – well to me it makes a difference whether that is true or not.

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:08 pm Post subject: Re: RE: Mythos Schmythos

Science and myth...Prometheus and Pandora...

Science - looking under the rock to see what is there.

Myth - pretending to know what is under the rock without looking.

That is my take. Your story was very interesting and I absolutely agree that this is how humans have come this far...but I dont buy it anymore.

Maybe I am glad that I did not study all this myth and history when I was younger...instead preferring marijuana and other means of having fun (ie - I was a '@#%$ up')...for I feel now that I am not tainted by all the centuries of human 'learning' and I am free to function as a qurious entity divested of the trappings of all the errors of that learning.

I still do not see how your response shows science as myth...true science (the concept, not the word we give it), not the scientists who work it. The faultiness of the tool (us) does not diminish the observed object. There are some of us that rise above this and shed any mythological connotation.

Quote:
And where that effect contributes to what we recognize as the "spirit" proper to scientific endeavor, you would be wise not to try.

The "spirit" to me is just knowing; I need no myths for this. Our ancestors (early hominids) had no myths per se and look what progress they made. No myth, just necessity to find a better way. Curiosity needs no myth.

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

I came to get down, I came to get down. So get out ya seat and jump around - House of Pain

HEY! Is that a ball in your court? - Mr. P

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

MadArchitect · Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 2:54 am Post subject: Re: RE: Mythos Schmythos

Ken Hemingway: “Need” is a word with a broad range of connotations.

Well, let's examine it this way: Can you point to a person with whom we're all familar that clearly has no need for mythos?

If I had presented the story of the Buddha as a recently coined fictional narrative, I think its persuasive force would have been diminished.

Probably, and I am interested to some degree in what distinguishes myth from fiction. The two are clearly related (I would say that fiction is the child of myth), but there are also clear differences between the two. It seems likely to me that one thing that distinguishes the two is the question of authorship. Without an author, the name fiction seems somehow inappriopriate. With an author, we're hard pressed to think of it as a myth in the same sense as the ancient myths.

But I think it is important that the myth was being used for a rhetorical purpose – I think they usually are used in this way (Am I wrong about this?).

Not so long as you confine the statement to a description of a given era. According to my source (Paul Veyne), the exclusively rhetorical use of myth (and this is limited largely to the educated upper classes) is characteristic of the Alexandrian era, though not of the Hellenistic or Classical eras. And even in that era, myth apparantly still has a non-rhetorical (that is: ritual, historical, cultural, civic) use among the common masses.

In my case the purpose was to suggest...

And my purpose was to suggest that the myth is illustrative in large part because it was initially constitutive. In other words, we as a people would be unlikely to have thought of "enlightenment" in terms of "waking up", perhaps incapable of forming the concept of "enlightenment" at all, without some sort of myth as the basis for that conception. If not the Buddha myth, we'd likely have some other myth to serve as basis. Part of what I'm suggesting is that the function of myth as a record is secondary, that initially myths were stories that invented modes of action. You can see some intimation of this idea in anthropological studies of totemism, such as Emile Durkheim and Marcel Mauss' study "Primitive Classification" (though Durkheim and Mauss interpreted the evidence in a vastly different way than I have, and their stature as sociologists makes their account more authoritative). If myth achieves what I suspect it achieves, the cross-species kinship asserted by totemism functions as a kind of myth that created for so-called "primitive" peoples a form of social classification that could not have arisen otherwise because it had no other expression. People in totemistic culture had no other means of understanding their social divisions save for the scheme of kinship. Assigning groups of people to relations of kinship under totemistic animals allowed a means of organization beyond biological human kinship. (That probably seems rather obscure to you, unless you're familiar with classical anthropological studies of "primitive cultures", which, I admit, makes for rather obscure leisure reading).

I think all of those claims are open to challenge; they are statements which are either true or false, and I believe that they are of the first importance.

This is, I think, an important distinction when it comes to how we evaluate myths v. how we evaluate other forms of information. Consigned exclusively to the question of historical probability or scientific plausibility, most myths must be rejected as facile, childish and absurd. But if you view them in terms of how they function on the individual and cultural level, I think they require a different criteria for judging their validity. To make a rather clumsy analogy, it isn't terribly useful to judge music on its truth value -- it makes far more sense to judge it on whether or not it's danceable.

This does not, I should note, preclude myths from critical challenge, though it does change the criteria for a valid challenge.

misterpessimistic: Science - looking under the rock to see what is there.
Myth - pretending to know what is under the rock without looking.
That is my take.

It's a take with a lot of contemporary support, but my argument, and I have some documentary support for the idea, is that myth has not always been an attempt to know anything, and that it still functions in its original capacity without routinely being noticed in doing so.

Maybe I am glad that I did not study all this myth and history when I was younger for I feel now that I am not tainted by all the centuries of human 'learning' and I am free to function as a qurious entity divested of the trappings of all the errors of that learning.

You're free to go your own route. I should warn you of a potential danger, though. If, as I suggest, myth is still a functional part of how we constitute our society, culture, identity and apparatus for dealing with the world, then to preceed without understanding myth in general and the specific myths that went into your own making is to view the world through a distortion.

To provide an example: Freud suggested that our moral identity was formed by the Oedipus complex, that the ancient Greek myth suggested something that has been continuous in the development of nearly all humans since the foundation of human civilization. In essence, the super-ego is produced by a myth that is common to every child that can be called normal (and those with abnormal Oedipal fixations are the result of psychological excess, not a process which is, in itself, abnormal). Whether or not we take Freud's explanation at face value is immaterial. What matters is the suggestion that we all go through a given process that results in what we consider a normal person. Unless we recognize that process, we are incapable of accurately accessing the moral identity of a normal human, much less our own particular moral identity.

Before you can rationally (there's the trap) decide whether or not you're better off without myth, you must first endeavor to understand myth for what it is. Otherwise, it is illogical to dismiss it out of hand. And I say that this dichotomy presented by Armstrong and others, the notion that myth and logos are oppositional (whether as compliments or antagonistic forces) is a naïve simplification of something that is deceptively complex.

I still do not see how your response shows science as myth...true science (the concept, not the word we give it), not the scientists who work it.

For the long answer, I'll refer you to Jacob Bronowski's "The Origins of Knowledge and Imagination", which I have only just recently read but which deals with some of what we're talking about. True, Bronowski is not talking about myth specifically, but his discussion is easily applicable to my notion of scientific myths.

The short answer (as best as I can formulate one) is this: that any logical system you can conceive of is ultimately a closed system, and therefore limited. No logical system can address every claim, and therefore science and mathematics come to a screeching halt whenever they encounter a phenomenon or problem not addressed by the current system. And the only way to open the logical system long enough to make the changes necessary is by an alogical or intuitive innovation, the sort that is impossible with a closed system itself (as demonstrated by Türing, Russell, Goring, etc.). Bronowski thinks of this as the imaginative aspect of science. I would say that it is related to myth, though I'm completely open to the suggestion that it is not explicitly mythological. The sure conclusion, at least as I understand the problem, is that logic itself does not suffice.

Now Bronowski's designation of these innovative leaps of logic (we might be better to think of them as leaps between logic) as imagination has one obvious benefit over my suggestion that they're forms of myth. That benefit is that it accounts for a characteristic of myth as I described it which does not, on the surface, appear to be a characteristic of scientific innovation. The characteristic in question is that of perpetual constitution, ie. that the same myth or a related myth serves to reconstitute the necessary leap with each successive generation. I'm not sure yet whether this is an apparant distinction or an actual distinction. If the latter, then "imagination" is a more applicable term. But I think there are good reasons for at least maintaining the possibility that these leaps must be reconstituted for each individual, in which case it remains viable to think of them as myths in the sense I've described.

There are some of us that rise above this and shed any mythological connotation.

Again, I haven't seen anyone really demonstrate this, and it seems to me like so many people (Armstrong included) are taking this on authority, the authority in question being those writers who have claimed a historical or educational end to the role of myth in society, like Neitzche or Bertrand Russell. As of yet, I haven't really seen an argument in support of the idea that any one person, much less society as a whole, has "risen above" myth altogether.

The "spirit" to me is just knowing; I need no myths for this.

In talking about the "spirit" of science I was making a reference to Bronowski, who talks of the "spirit of science" as a dedication to the honest pursuit of knowledge. My meaning, though veiled, is that the quality of honesty, as a shared element of the culture of modern science, may have a foundation in myth, just as the altruistic element of science is related to the myth of Prometheus, and the potentially catastrophic element of science is related to the myth of Pandora.

That character, the one that implicitly claims that the spirit of science is honesty, doesn't really fall under the shadow of that problem I mentioned above. It is perpetually constitutive: each generation of scientist must find that conviction for themselves. So we need not call it imaginative to the exclusion of myth. There probably is a myth behind it, or a category of myths, thought the often noted difference between modern science and ancient science means that we're unlikely to find an equivalent in the myths of ancient cultures. Something like the myth of Washington and the cherry tree is more native to the modern age of science -- Neitzche even suggests the possibility that the scientific insistence on truth as the cardinal virtue comes from the mythology of the Christian church, specfically Jesus' insistence that "the Truth will set you free."

Our ancestors (early hominids) had no myths per se and look what progress they made.

That's rather impossible to say for sure. What we do know is that our myths precede our history, and it's impossible to say by how much, particularly since previous myths tended to be reclothed in the religious terminology of the time. The Greek idea of Zeus may well have been borrowed from an earlier mythological figure -- the difference is that Greek culture developed a more reliable method than their predecessors for conveying their myths to future generations. It is, as yet, impossible to say precisely when myth itself was invented, in large part because we must admit that the oldest myths were probably never recorded. We may, with some confidence, at least assert that myth has been possible as long as specfically human language has existed. And as my example with totemism illustrates, there is reason to suspect that myth is at least as old as those forms of society which we may describe as distinctly human.

Sorry if I've managed to overwhelm again. I hope that you guys aren't finding this tedious.

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 5:05 pm Post subject: Re: RE: Mythos Schmythos

Quote:
Sorry if I've managed to overwhelm again. I hope that you guys aren't finding this tedious.

Not overwhelmed...under timed is more like it...I just dont have much time for adequate responses to such intensive posts! I am forced to post much of my input from work, which means my work is sidetracked, and I can only afford so much of that!

I work two jobs and when I do get home, I have 4 kids and a wife to spend time with, so my alone time for reading and serious posting is between 10pm on...I tend to stay up too late and then it starts all over again the next day!

So, while it may take a while to post, I do desire to answer every point...but from focusing on replies, I find I am still stuck in Chapter 3 of this book.

I am glad we decided to extend the reading period to 3 months!

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

I came to get down, I came to get down. So get out ya seat and jump around - House of Pain

HEY! Is that a ball in your court? - Mr. P

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 8:59 pm Post subject: Re: RE: Mythos Schmythos

Quote:
To make a rather clumsy analogy, it isn't terribly useful to judge music on its truth value -- it makes far more sense to judge it on whether or not it's danceable.

Yeah, but song does not make people launch wars on other people who listen to different songs. I think we are talking about different meanings for myth. Songs, stories, poetry, art...this is all great stuff. It entertains and keeps us balanced by providing an escape from the hardships of reality...but again, I never saw an painting cause holy war.

Myth as related to religion, where it can consume the masses in ignorance and cause catastrophic events, is dangerous and un-necessary. It also has the draw back of being manipulated by people with intent to control others. It is when myth arrests reality and reason that I feel it has overstepped it's boundaries and needs to be shown the door.

Quote:
is that myth has not always been an attempt to know anything, and that it still functions in its original capacity without routinely being noticed in doing so.

Maybe I am just not understanding, then, what you think myth is. If not an attempt to know or explain, then what?

Quote:
then to preceed without understanding myth in general and the specific myths that went into your own making is to view the world through a distortion.

Then again, we can argue that ANY view of the world is a distortion. Please, give me an example of how myth is entwined in my life...if it is so pervasive (it seems everything is based on myth the way you explain it), then it should manifest in some universal way.

Quote:
We may, with some confidence, at least assert that myth has been possible as long as specfically human language has existed

Why? Myth seems to me, from reading your explanations, to be a construct of the mind, of perception. So before langauge, there must have been unspoken, personal myths, no? Where does it end? Is there ANYTHING humans do that does not include a mythical foundation? What about plain old observation and inquiry? When I look at the stars, I wonder what is out there...this does not rely on any myth...it is just wonder and curiosity.

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

I came to get down, I came to get down. So get out ya seat and jump around - House of Pain

HEY! Is that a ball in your court? - Mr. P

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 9:20 pm Post subject: Re: RE: Mythos Schmythos

Mad:

I checked out Veyne...interesting. I put it on my 'wish list'.

I see where many of your views come from regarding the historical method and primary v. secondary sources.

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

I came to get down, I came to get down. So get out ya seat and jump around - House of Pain

HEY! Is that a ball in your court? - Mr. P

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	ADVERTISE	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CHAT	CONTACT