Myth & Understanding

[coberst]

Myth & Understanding

 

I have been reading about mythology written by Joseph Campbell. In his attempt to make it possibly for the reader to comprehend how myth works he speaks about the human ability to ‘make-believe’.

 

He speaks of the universality of childhood make-believe and of how this same characteristic is exhibited in human rituals. For example he uses the Catholic Church practice of mass when the priest changes the wine and bread into the body and blood of Christ. In other words it seems to be inherent in humans to make-believe and in the process to truly believe and in truly believing experiences a form of ecstasy.

 

Such is probably our experience of understanding. In the process of trying to understand I create a model and then somewhere in this process of creating and modifying my model I pass to the point of believing the truth of my model thus the feeling of ecstasy.

 

In an attempt to explain to the novice the meaning of myth Campbell says that the “grave and constant” in human suffering may, and sometimes does, lead to an experience that is the apogee of our life. This apogee experience is ineffable (not capable of expression). Campbell considers this to be true because it is verified by individuals who have had such an experience.

 

“And this experience, or at least an approach to it, is the ultimate aim of religion, the ultimate reference of all myth and rite.”

 

“The paramount theme of mythology is not the agony of quest but the rapture of a revelation.”

[Turtle]

Myth & Understanding

 

I have been reading about mythology written by Joseph Campbell. In his attempt to make it possibly for the reader to comprehend how myth works he speaks about the human ability to ‘make-believe’.

 

I highly recommend Joseph's writing, as well as the PBS series of programs on myth he conducted with Bill Moyers. All in all, he makes the case convincingly for peak experiences having their root within human physiology, be they religious or otherwise. :)

[Turtle]

I have been reading about mythology written by Joseph Campbell. In his attempt to make it possibly for the reader to comprehend how myth works he speaks about the human ability to ‘make-believe’.

 

He speaks of the universality of childhood make-believe and of how this same characteristic is exhibited in human rituals.

 

Buckminster Fuller talks of the human child characteristic of experimenting rather than making-believe. It makes for an interesting comparison. No library card needed to read up on Fuller; it's free online.

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s01/p0000.html

 

Another point I like about Campbell is how he delineates the differences in ritual practices by virtue of whether the culture under view is agrarian, hunter gatherer, or pastoral. He then goes on to show we have not yet developed a coherent ritual practice for industrial cultures.

Whatcha think Coberst? :Guns:

[coberst]

Turtle

 

I am afraid that my knowledge of myth is slight compared to yours. I have only begun my effort in this direction and have been diverted on to another book that attacks the matter from an entirely different direction.

 

George Soros has just introduced his book "The Age of Fallibility" that I have just begun to study. His approach to this general problem as it relates to our present culture is to identify what he calls an open and a closed society.

 

I do not know enough yet to say much but this is what I know so far. By the way the wayI study these matters is that I write short essays as I progress and this is my first essay in that direction.

 

Change is an abstract idea; it does not exist by itself but only when combined with a substance, which is also an abstraction that does not exist independently. Humans appear to be the only animals capable of abstraction.

 

Absent the concept of change we humans need deal only with the here and the now. We can include the past and the future but only in that they are an extension of the here and the now. Since the past and future are extensions they must be a unity like the present, the past and future can be only what now is, they can be nothing else.

 

Thinking that excludes change eliminates a great deal of complexity. It simplifies greatly our task of thinking because we need deal only with concrete things; we need to deal with only what we sense here and now. Some call this a traditional mode of thinking.

 

If we added to traditional thinking the abstract idea of change our world becomes tremendously complex. The way we manage this complexity we create with the introduction of change is generalizations plus other abstractions.

 

Philosopher, tycoon, philanthropist, author, and international political activist George Soros says in his book “The Age of Fallibility” that “Once it comes to generalizations, the more general they are, the more they simplify maters. This world is best conceived as a general equation in which the present is represented by one set of constants. Change the constants and the same equation will apply to all past and future situations…I shall call this the critical mode of thinking.”

 

This may not appear to be throwing much light on the matter of myth but it does, I think. Soros is laying the ground for comparing tradional thinking with critical thinking. Traditional thinking is like the thinking that gave us myth.

 

I know this sounds very disconnected but I have stopped reading Campbell and have started reading Soros, but I think Soros will give me a better approach for understanding the vast difference between the modern mind and the myth making mind that Campbell speaks to. I hope to begin to comprehend the manner in which todays mind has absorbed the myth making mind in our present industrial world.

[Turtle]

Turtle

 

... By the way the wayI study these matters is that I write short essays as I progress and this is my first essay in that direction.

Ahhhh...that makes perfect sense in light of your previous posts. Moreover, it may explain why we so often seem at odds, as I have given off writing drafts almost completely. I will try to adapt my replies to your style. :doh:

 

Change is an abstract idea; it does not exist by itself but only when combined with a substance, which is also an abstraction that does not exist independently. Humans appear to be the only animals capable of abstraction.

I accept the general idea here with the clarification that other creatures use tools, communicate among & betwen themselves, and engage in cooperative behavior which all requires a degree of abstraction. Humans however appear to possess the highest degree of abstraction.

 

I know this sounds very disconnected but I have stopped reading Campbell and have started reading Soros, but I think Soros will give me a better approach for understanding the vast difference between the modern mind and the myth making mind that Campbell speaks to. I hope to begin to comprehend the manner in which todays mind has absorbed the myth making mind in our present industrial world.

Allow me to disconnect things a bit more and bring Ben Franklin into the fray. He is the penultimate Renaissance man and our country is founded on many of his principles among which is the idea of critical thinking, i.e. the employ of science and reasoning rather than myth for solving social problems as well as technological issues.

I soon will have a new biography of Mr. Franklin to read; my first book purchase in many years. I look forward to passing on what I find for your consideration.

As to my own speculation on your issue of how our minds have suffered so long with the myth absorption, I lay the blame at the feet of organized religions of every ilk. I expect to affirm that Ben resolutely agrees with this view and with this give the blade a twist.

Adieu:cup:

[coberst]

 

 

Allow me to disconnect things a bit more and bring Ben Franklin into the fray. He is the penultimate Renaissance man and our country is founded on many of his principles among which is the idea of critical thinking, i.e. the employ of science and reasoning rather than myth for solving social problems as well as technological issues.

I soon will have a new biography of Mr. Franklin to read; my first book purchase in many years. I look forward to passing on what I find for your consideration.

As to my own speculation on your issue of how our minds have suffered so long with the myth absorption, I lay the blame at the feet of organized religions of every ilk. I expect to affirm that Ben resolutely agrees with this view and with this give the blade a twist.

Adieu:cup:

 

I was not aware of the fact that Ben had an association with critical thinking. I might be interested in the bio you mention could you give me the title?

 

I agree with your evaluation about myth and religion. I take it a step further back and lay the blame on our traditional view of the mind/body dichotomy. Are you familiar with the article, from some months ago, in "The Atlantic" magazine "Is God an Accident?" If not I will give you some paragraphs from the article that speaks to this issue.

[Turtle]

I was not aware of the fact that Ben had an association with critical thinking. I might be interested in the bio you mention could you give me the title?

 

I agree with your evaluation about myth and religion. I take it a step further back and lay the blame on our traditional view of the mind/body dichotomy. Are you familiar with the article, from some months ago, in "The Atlantic" magazine "Is God an Accident?" If not I will give you some paragraphs from the article that speaks to this issue.

 

I have to say I forget the title & author. :umno: I ordered the book by mail & threw out the catalog, but as soon as I have it I'll post up.

 

I did not read the Atlantic article, but I am interested in reading what caught your attention in it. :hihi:

[coberst]

Turtle

 

I have copied several paragraphs of an article from “The Atlantic” because you have to be a member to read the full article.

 

 

“Despite the vast number of religions, nearly everyone in the world believes in the same things: the existence of a soul, an afterlife, miracles, and the divine creation of the universe. Recently psychologists doing research on the minds of infants have discovered two related facts that may account for this phenomenon. One: human beings come into the world with a predisposition to believe in supernatural phenomena. And two: this predisposition is an incidental by-product of cognitive functioning gone awry. Which leads to the question Is God an Accident?”

 

“Enthusiasm is building among scientists for the view that religion emerged not to serve a purpose—not as an opiate or a social glue—but by accident. It is a by-product of biological adaptations gone awry.”

 

“We see the world of objects as separate from the world of minds, allowing us to envision souls and an afterlife; and our system of social understanding infers goals and desires, where none exist, making us animists and creationists.”

 

“The theory of natural selection is an empirically supported account of our existence. But almost nobody believes it. We may intellectually grasp it, but it will never feel right. Our gut feeling is that design requires a designer.”

 

This is an article in the December issue of “The Atlantic” http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200512/god-accident

[Turtle]

I was not aware of the fact that Ben had an association with critical thinking. I might be interested in the bio you mention could you give me the title?

 

 

 

Benjamin Franklin: An American Life by Walter Isaacson.

Writing under the pseudonym Silence Dogood, Ben had this to say:

"A man compounded of law and gospel is able to cheat a whole country with his religion and then destroy them under color of law".

[coberst]

Thanks for the info on Ben.

[LaurieAG]

“The paramount theme of mythology is not the agony of quest but the rapture of a revelation.”

 

While we can consider that myths are history written by priests, there are some common things that can be gleaned from the stories that relate specifically to the religious interpretations of the time.

 

For instance 'angels', 'messengers from god', 'sky dragons' and many other mythical references all appear to be primitive ways of describing astronomical phenomena. Even the ancient mesopotamians gave up eclipses as bad omens when their astronomical science and mathematics (operating separately to their astrologists) developed far enough to be used to make accurate predictions.

[PsyCho]

Do I hear Jung and archtypes?

 

Nope, maybe just me then. Have to admit the more I delve into Jung's writings the more I feel he was right - Particularly in regard to the link between human story telling (Mythology, religion, art etc.,) and it's linkwith the unconscious mind (both individual and collective) and our life quest to understand this through idividualisation...

 

Most mythology seems to reflect our evolving consciousness and is indeed quite a beautiful way of viewing it, certainly offers an interesting spin on monothelistic religions (I mention no names....yet)

[maikeru]

Nifty thread. I was talking with a friend who is studying linguistics about the similarities between Jung & Campbell's thinking and how they related to mythology and religion. Bear with me if I'm fuzzy on this...for the most part, what follows is speculation and based on my readings in some of Jung and Campbell's books from a couple years ago.

 

I posed the question to my friend that it may be possible that myth and religion grow out of the same propensity of the mind toward language...or if not language specifically, then different types of "languages" which communicate through other elements than words, such as for music they are notes, phrases, forms, and the coda (theme); visual arts indicate meaning or content through visual elements, lines, shapes, colors, and perhaps symbolism; sculpture through form and 3D shape; and storytelling through archetypes, emotions, characters, symbolism, etc. Music, the visual arts, storytelling, religion, etc. seem to share some undeniable affinities and similarities. I'm not well trained in music, but in my years of playing piano, I've noticed that songs often have forms that are similar to poetic forms, even if the elements and expression may differ in the details.

 

Thus, I wonder if mythology & religion are ways to understand the basic experiences of life in a condensed and symbolic form. Maybe this is too vague of a definition. Mythology and storytelling forms are closely linked, and seem to be an excellent way to convey "true" information to the minds of people. When they are in the right form with the right elements, they have the ring of psychological "truth." (Perhaps not verifiable or objective truth, though.)

 

It seems to me that much of life, even at the smallest level, revolves around "language" in some form, whether it is the DNA and genes in cells or the mating calls of deer and elk or the show of a peacock's resplendent tail. Our looks, our gestures, and our faces "speak" in a myriad of ways. They say as much about us as conscious individuals as they do about our tiniest, innermost innards (genes).

 

If someone could elaborate on this, demolish it, or raise an eyebrow and point a finger at me and shout, I'm all ears. I make a poor philosopher.

[coberst]

Nifty thread. I was talking with a friend who is studying linguistics about the similarities between Jung & Campbell's thinking and how they related to mythology and religion. Bear with me if I'm fuzzy on this...for the most part, what follows is speculation and based on my readings in some of Jung and Campbell's books from a couple years ago.

 

I posed the question to my friend that it may be possible that myth and religion grow out of the same propensity of the mind toward language...or if not language specifically, then different types of "languages" which communicate through other elements than words, such as for music they are notes, phrases, forms, and the coda (theme); visual arts indicate meaning or content through visual elements, lines, shapes, colors, and perhaps symbolism; sculpture through form and 3D shape; and storytelling through archetypes, emotions, characters, symbolism, etc. Music, the visual arts, storytelling, religion, etc. seem to share some undeniable affinities and similarities. I'm not well trained in music, but in my years of playing piano, I've noticed that songs often have forms that are similar to poetic forms, even if the elements and expression may differ in the details.

 

Thus, I wonder if mythology & religion are ways to understand the basic experiences of life in a condensed and symbolic form. Maybe this is too vague of a definition. Mythology and storytelling forms are closely linked, and seem to be an excellent way to convey "true" information to the minds of people. When they are in the right form with the right elements, they have the ring of psychological "truth." (Perhaps not verifiable or objective truth, though.)

 

It seems to me that much of life, even at the smallest level, revolves around "language" in some form, whether it is the DNA and genes in cells or the mating calls of deer and elk or the show of a peacock's resplendent tail. Our looks, our gestures, and our faces "speak" in a myriad of ways. They say as much about us as conscious individuals as they do about our tiniest, innermost innards (genes).

 

If someone could elaborate on this, demolish it, or raise an eyebrow and point a finger at me and shout, I'm all ears. I make a poor philosopher.

 

 

I think that what you say makes a good deal of sense to me. I am a freshman at the game of trying to comprehend the mind of our ancestors but my comprehension seems to match yours.

 

Myth is what the primitive mind saw when it tried to tell others what their experience was about. It is not history as we comprehend that word. but it is subjective experience as such experience appeared to the primitive mind. That mind had not yet begun to construct generalizations and abstract ideas and so everything was just the nature of that thing expressing itself. That mind that created myth did not know the abstract ideas of ‘cause and effect’ and ‘change’, that mind only knew what things seemed to be. We can thus examine the new born mind slowly groping for a more sophisticated comprehension of reality.

[coberst]

While we can consider that myths are history written by priests, there are some common things that can be gleaned from the stories that relate specifically to the religious interpretations of the time.

 

For instance 'angels', 'messengers from god', 'sky dragons' and many other mythical references all appear to be primitive ways of describing astronomical phenomena. Even the ancient mesopotamians gave up eclipses as bad omens when their astronomical science and mathematics (operating separately to their astrologists) developed far enough to be used to make accurate predictions.

 

I do not think that we can consider myth as history. It can be thought of as history of the new born human mind unfolding but it cannot be considered as events unfolding in the way that we normally think of history. We see people expressing what experience means to them when they are without the generalizations and abstract thinking that are part of the modern mind.