Myth more real than history

[David19]

I was going to post this in the other thread about Otherkin, but, I realised it'd be too OT for there, but, I'd like to get your opinions on something.

I recently read a book called 'Buddha of Infinite Light - The Teachings of Shin Buddhism, the Japanese Way of Wisdom and Compassion' by D.T. Suzuki (http://www.amazon.com/Buddha-Infinite-Light-Teachings-Compassion/dp/1570624569), a book I'd really recommend, and he says this on page 38:


Myth, legend and tradition....and poetical imagination are actually more real than what we call factual history. What we call facts are not really facts - not so dependable and not so objective as that word implies. Objectivity in the true and real sense is found in religious Myth, poetic imagination and metaphysical truth....the story of Amida has more objective and spiritual reality than mere historical truths. Amida is really ourselves - this is the reason that we can accept the story of Amida so readily and understand the story of Shoma and other devotees of the Shin tradition

Would you agree with this?, do you think Myth is more real than historical fact?.

[Rudas Starblaze]

1/2 of historical fact is based off of myth.
1/2 of myth is based off of exaggerated history...

and vice versa

and history is typically written by the "winners".

so really, "truth" is a matter of opinion when it comes to topics like this. :smile:

[Calli]

I tend to agree with Rudas. I don't think either source is 100% dependable.

[Burning Angel]

I'm thinking what David means is that myths have a level of truth that facts don't attain..they speak of metaphysical realities, symbolism, facts that transcend history. I can agree completely with that...I don't necessarily believe that Zeus really transformed into a bull and got it on with a swan or whatever the story is :P

~Jon :boing:

[wallflower]

The passage in question pertains to the truth of human nature...I believe. Myths are basically stories based on human nature, objectives, ideas, and shadows. History and facts are recorded events...the effect. Myths go into the "cause" of an effect on a more personal scale, though that does not mean that they actually happened.
But all in all I agree that myths and stories can tell you more about the human state of mind then historical events. History has lessons...true...but only stories can give you real insight.

[forestrangergrrl]

personally i believe that most myths/legends have at least some grain of truth to them. separating those grains from the rest of the story can be next to impossible tho' so they're usually just relegated to the 'complete nonsense' pile. it's still interesting to try to ferret those little facts out...

[Terra Mater]

Watch Robert Wuhl's "Assume The Position" as it deals hilariously with this topic under the phrase "when the legend becomes fact print the legend."

By the way, that old saw about legends having a grain of truth in them is greatly misleading. Paul Revere got all the press for his "famous ride" but the ride he made was not the one that made him famous. the ride that made Paul Revere famous was actually done by Isreal Bissel. Revere's name just sounded better in the poem so he got all the credit. So yes a great ride was made, and yes Paul Revere made a ride of his own. But the myths grains of truth are dissolved in the swill of the prettier sounding lie.

Lastly, history isn't written by the winners, traditionally its written by the poets on the sidelines.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

Who are either paid by the winners in one
form or another , controlled by the winners ,
assassinated by the winners , or , with luck ,
escape the winners to write another version
of "truth"...

Of course , then we must take into account ,
who controlled printing presses , libraries ,
and repositories of knowledge , be it religious ,
or secular based...

Yes...the winners , have always written history ,
one way or another...

They still try...look at Iran...:uhhuhuh:


Lastly, history isn't written by the winners, traditionally its written by the poets on the sidelines.

[Toby Stimpson]

I think that it's an important question to ask, especially when dealing with issues of fact or authority.

I'm becoming more and more out there with my views on myth as the time goes by and I view myth as more and more akin to what australian aborigines call 'Dreamtime.' I honestly think that ofcourse Zeus and Shiva and other mythological beings did not walk amongst men and fight titans in real life. But I don't really think that it never happened.

I think that I'm coming to see myth as more based on those tiny kernels of truth, but also as having a reality all in themselves. If we look at something like String theory, who is to say that our universe is not unaffected by the happenings of another universe or even another dimension? There's an idea that gravity doesn't originate in our universe but flows into ours from another reality... and so I have to ask whether or not our universe is connected to some other reality where Zeus, or Thor or others do exist in some form... and does have an impact on the physical shaping or social setting of our world. The question then becomes... does that make all myth true and real? Well no, ofcourse not... but one has to wonder.

I try to keep an open mind, but I also think that what Suzuki is talking about is central: objectivity, and ofcourse reading between the lines.

[Terra Mater]

Who are either paid by the winners in one
form or another , controlled by the winners ,
assassinated by the winners , or , with luck ,
escape the winners to write another version
of "truth"...

Of course , then we must take into account ,
who controlled printing presses , libraries ,
and repositories of knowledge , be it religious ,
or secular based...

Yes...the winners , have always written history ,
one way or another...

They still try...look at Iran...:uhhuhuh:
Actually, more of history is written by popular culture than the media. Always has been and always will be. Which is why I die laughing everytime someone drags out the old "lets take into account who owned..............blah blah blah."

See, the gubmint, the church, the powers that be, they may all have their secret agendas for what we see and hear, but their plans do not control what we pass on because they do not control what we actually say to one another. the more they try the more the people will rebel by telling their own versions. Individually we may be mature adults, but as a group we become willful children rebelling against the big bad authority over things that are just as important as my youngest son arguing about what time he thinks he should go to bed.

So the big guys make their plans and tell their stories to us. then we hear those stories and decide which parts to believe, what opinions we have of them, and then tell the stories to someone else. However, when we tell those stories, we usually put more focus on our opinion of it rather than the facts of the story. By the time the story has made the rounds, it bears no semblance to to original story, the facts are gone, and what is left is our version of the myth. Just like when we were kids and played "Telephone/telegraph" (sit in a ring, whisper something to the person next to you, they whisper it to the next person, and the last person in the ring says out loud what they think they heard).

Its not just historical "facts" that suffer the warping either. Raise your hands if your mommy told you not to swim for an hour after eating. Now raise your other hand if you taught this same bit of safety to your own children. Bet most of you are sitting there wondering where I am going with this, and a few of you might actually know. Its bunk!!!!!!! nothing will happen if you eat a hot dog and go swimming. you will not get cramps, you will not drown, you will most likely not even belch (unless its that kind of a meal). The facts are out there, big as life and twice as proud, but most people tell the lie rather than the fact.

So, just once, can we accept that the warping of facts is not part of the control freak in charge this week's master plan and accept that its human nature to tell the version of the myth that gets us off the most.:thumbsup:

[David19]

I'm thinking what David means is that myths have a level of truth that facts don't attain..they speak of metaphysical realities, symbolism, facts that transcend history. I can agree completely with that...I don't necessarily believe that Zeus really transformed into a bull and got it on with a swan or whatever the story is :P

~Jon :boing:

That's kind of what I was trying to say, that Myths can speak of things that transcend history.


I think that it's an important question to ask, especially when dealing with issues of fact or authority.

I'm becoming more and more out there with my views on myth as the time goes by and I view myth as more and more akin to what australian aborigines call 'Dreamtime.' I honestly think that ofcourse Zeus and Shiva and other mythological beings did not walk amongst men and fight titans in real life. But I don't really think that it never happened.

I think that I'm coming to see myth as more based on those tiny kernels of truth, but also as having a reality all in themselves. If we look at something like String theory, who is to say that our universe is not unaffected by the happenings of another universe or even another dimension? There's an idea that gravity doesn't originate in our universe but flows into ours from another reality... and so I have to ask whether or not our universe is connected to some other reality where Zeus, or Thor or others do exist in some form... and does have an impact on the physical shaping or social setting of our world. The question then becomes... does that make all myth true and real? Well no, ofcourse not... but one has to wonder.

I try to keep an open mind, but I also think that what Suzuki is talking about is central: objectivity, and ofcourse reading between the lines.

That's quite cool, I don't know anything about the Aboriginal Dreamtime ideas, but, I do think that maybe, the Myths do have a reality all to themselves, or that they are real, in one sense.

I'm kind of getting into reading more Joseph Campbell and some Jungian takes on Myth, and, I think, Myths can tell us more about ourselves, our unconscious, I think they can really give us insight into our psyches, and into humanity at large (like Jung said, dreams are private Myths, Myths are public dreams, and dreams do offer a way of understanding your mind).

I kind of think Myths are especially true, if you can relate to them, for example, the Legends of Buddha, from what I understand, aren't just tales of the historical Buddha or Buddhas, but, are meant to show us ourselves, the same can be said for Christian Myths with Jesus, or Hindu Myths, and even modern Myths, like Buffy (like the actor who plays Spike said, you can't just watch Buffy, like a normal show, it really makes you think).

[Shaedema]

Would you agree with this?, do you think Myth is more real than historical fact?.

I think they both carry a bit of truth in them. And I think that one should be objective and questioning when dealing with either.

The United States (as an example) left out a bit of 'history' when dealing with their own actions in this country during World War 2.
Does that mean that the entire history is wrong? No, but it does mean that there are some 'facts' that are left out to make the victors look a little cleaner.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

No...but we can agree to disagree...

And since the original statement was "written" ,
and then your defense launched into a diatribe
on "oral" ( which I have no problem with , just
was not applicable in this context , as we were
discussing "written" ) , then , made the case
for how "oral" gets distorted , therefore it is
not history , it is stories , and myths...

Which leads me to my statement...

There is no "history"...

There are versions told by one person , group ,
or government / religion...

Which are all warped by personal , or group perspective...

Oral , or written versions...

So...is myth more real than history ?

Well , given my stance , there is no "real" history...

All is stories , written or oral...and myth...

Absolutely...:thumbsup:

( P.S. If you die laughing every time you hear that
Terra Mater , you must have a cat life x googleplex )...:smileroll


So, just once, can we accept that the warping of facts is not part of the control freak in charge this week's master plan and accept that its human nature to tell the version of the myth that gets us off the most.:thumbsup:

[Burning Angel]

That's kind of what I was trying to say, that Myths can speak of things that transcend history.

I got it in one...great minds! ^^



That's quite cool, I don't know anything about the Aboriginal Dreamtime ideas, but, I do think that maybe, the Myths do have a reality all to themselves, or that they are real, in one sense.[/quote]

I think the idea about alternate dimensions has a lot of validity...I was talking about that with some atheist dude on Facebook the other day lol XD Like...all the afterlives being dimensions of some sort, and maybe the mythologies too :)


I'm kind of getting into reading more Joseph Campbell and some Jungian takes on Myth, and, I think, Myths can tell us more about ourselves, our unconscious, I think they can really give us insight into our psyches, and into humanity at large (like Jung said, dreams are private Myths, Myths are public dreams, and dreams do offer a way of understanding your mind).

Wow I like that quote...it's so true :)


I kind of think Myths are especially true, if you can relate to them, for example, the Legends of Buddha, from what I understand, aren't just tales of the historical Buddha or Buddhas, but, are meant to show us ourselves, the same can be said for Christian Myths with Jesus, or Hindu Myths, and even modern Myths, like Buffy (like the actor who plays Spike said, you can't just watch Buffy, like a normal show, it really makes you think).

Right - I've seen myself in...for a doofy example...my RP characters. I forge myths every day on my RP site...but since the characters are my invention, they contain parts of me. I don't know if that counts as myth, but what are myths if not stories - of any kind - with meaning? :)

~Jon :boing:

[Nuadu]

Myth, legend and tradition....and poetical imagination are actually more real than what we call factual history. What we call facts are not really facts - not so dependable and not so objective as that word implies. Objectivity in the true and real sense is found in religious Myth, poetic imagination and metaphysical truth....the story of Amida has more objective and spiritual reality than mere historical truths. Amida is really ourselves - this is the reason that we can accept the story of Amida so readily and understand the story of Shoma and other devotees of the Shin tradition



Would you agree with this?, do you think Myth is more real than historical fact?.

I would agree depending on the context. That 'fact' and 'mythology' are rivals and that mythology is addressed in terms of tradition could give the extract a sociological context. In that context I would agree that traditional mythology as an expression of a cultures beliefs is more weighty then modernist reliance on 'fact'.

I would disagree though that mythology should be elevated beyond history and taken in isolation.

Modernism repeatedly redefines itself to be consistantly modern (hence its name) and uses the concepts of 'pure fact' and 'modern progress' to achieve that cycle of death and rebirth. Modernism has been around roughly since the foundation of colonies in the 'new world' and I atleast looking at that span of time would say that how we percieve the 'facts' has changed radically. So from that I would place more value in the consistant understanding of self and the universe conveyed in traditional expressions of self like mythology.

Tradition is a continuum that legitimises cultural identity and a societies beliefs and practices. Because modernist societies constantly break with their past and reinvent themselves according to 'pure fact' they are in conflict with traditional societies. Where today children feeling restricted by tradition embrace modernism and things prized for millennia are devalued in their societies. I think the root of the conflict between myth and fact in the extract is rooted in sociology and shouldnt really be taken in a purely religious context. Sociologically Traditional societies are at odds with popular modernist societies and in some case they are physically at odds. Sepratists in Cypress, ETA in Spain and the original IRA in Ireland are examples of it so I would guess that the writer wasnt speaking in purely religious terms.

Where pagan religion is concerned I believe that the innate understanding of Traditional mythology which would have come naturally to us prior to modernism escapes us now. We all live in modernist societies and our understanding is influenced by things that conflict with the traditional culture that expressed the mythology we love today. Because of that we have to temper all our idea's with the history of the culture too. Our cultures traditional beliefs arent embodied in our societies anymore so we just dont have the understanding to do anything else and have our religious beliefs be anything but flights of fancy.

[cydira]

Ok, I know I'm going to win very few friends with this post. All I ask is that you read this fully before replying.

Mythic history and factual history are two separate things and they serve two entirely different roles within human societies. Factual history is the record of past events as can be determined by evidence from those events. It is limited in some respect by the difficulties that come from authenticating sources and the physical effects of the passage of time upon the evidence. Mythic history is a figurative and illustrative record of past events that is more fluid and subject to changes within society. It is limited by what the parties who are recounting the history and the parties who are receiving it are willing to accept.

Each serve a valuable role within human society. Factual history serves to teach on the basis of a chain of causality where as mythic history teaches upon a more allegorical and abstract basis. Western/Modern society places greater emphasis upon factual history as it is generally ascribed that what can be proven via simple logic with evidence in hand is superior to that which is not possible to prove in this fashion. As such, myth is scorned and decried as false.

Amusingly enough, however, myth and mythic history plays an enormous role in the cultural identity of western/modern society. A fine example is the lessons taught as to why the Civil War happened here in the United States. The rather trite answer that is consistently taught at virtually all levels of education within the United States is that the Civil War was fought over slavery. An analysis of the evidence surrounding the Civil War, however, shows that this war was fought over other matters, predominantly economics and the autonomy of the states, and that the question of slavery was relatively minor, except as a propaganda issue. Similar disparities between what is taught and what the evidence states can be found within various other points of history.

Much of the iconic imagery of the United States, and many other nations around the world, are all part of the myth that serves to tie the larger cultural identity of the nation together. When one challenges this myth, they're often met with hostility. I, for one, feel that we would be best served by taking a judicious look at both the factual and mythic history of a culture, sub-culture, or religion, making a point of doing so in a non-judgmental fashion.

Unfortunately, however, as long as there is the propensity to elevate one form of history over the other or one form of record (like oral vs. written vs. archeological) this will not happen. It is my belief that in taking a balanced perspective (non-judgmental and considering all sources of information upon their own logistic merits) it will be come possible to determine what is the closest recreation of the events that occurred.

I also believe that it is folly to elevate either form of history as being superior to the other. Doing so fails to consider that both forms teach a valuable lesson and contain important information. If this was not the case, then nothing of either form would have persisted for so long.

I, however, am ... something of a renegade in my perspectives. So, consider it as you will, there's my opinion on the subject.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

I , personally , have no problem , with your post ,
for you , Cydira...well written...

But for me to agree , I would have to believe in facts ,
and history...which I do not...never will...

To me...neither exist...

However...each to their own !

[Nuadu]

Ok, I know I'm going to win very few friends with this post. All I ask is that you read this fully before replying.

I agree with your conclusion though I wouldnt treat mythology as a form of history. Id say looking for balance is a fairly standard viewpoint overall. For anyone whos done an arts degree anyway.

That said mythology is only very loosely based on history and I think treating mythology in the same way as history places the emphasis on the wrong portion of the lit. Rather then conveying specific detail in the narrative the value of myth and folklore in the recurring underlying themes or the variance from history. Ethnology and History do cross over regularly but they are separate disciplines.

[*oonagh*]

@cyndria

great post. i do agree with you. the problem i have with factual history is that we are always uncovering new facts which somehow tend to make us rethink the old ones. therefore, facts are not static as many people think. one must remain flexible.

i agree with what you say about myth as well. i do not believe in divine beings...to me, that is all myth. i find it difficult to understand how people can be, on the one hand, very concerned with factual history while on the other hand believe fully in divine beings. however, if, as you say, one does not elevate one form of history over the other, it makes *perfect* sense.

[David19]

I think the idea about alternate dimensions has a lot of validity...I was talking about that with some atheist dude on Facebook the other day lol XD Like...all the afterlives being dimensions of some sort, and maybe the mythologies too :)

Maybe, I kind of like how Myths can take you into other worlds, but, also, your own inner world, it can really help you understand yourself, the unconscious, other cultures, etc. That's probably why I like Jung and Campbell (although, I do have some problems with Campbell's works, like I don't think there's a Monomyth that all Myths revolve around, I think Myths are diverse, some deal with similar themes, though, maybe due to unconscious human themes, and, also, the fact that it seems Campbell may have had same racial prejudices against certain groups, such as Jews, which considering the era he lived in, his age, etc, it's not surprising).



Wow I like that quote...it's so true :)

Glad you like it, you might want to read some Jung sometime too :).


Right - I've seen myself in...for a doofy example...my RP characters. I forge myths every day on my RP site...but since the characters are my invention, they contain parts of me. I don't know if that counts as myth, but what are myths if not stories - of any kind - with meaning? :)

What's an RP?.

It's true that stories you create, the good meaningful types anyway, do tell you a lot about yourself. That's why Campbell and some Gnostic thinkers have said to live your own Myth, to create your own, and live it.


I would agree depending on the context. That 'fact' and 'mythology' are rivals and that mythology is addressed in terms of tradition could give the extract a sociological context. In that context I would agree that traditional mythology as an expression of a cultures beliefs is more weighty then modernist reliance on 'fact'.

I would disagree though that mythology should be elevated beyond history and taken in isolation.

Modernism repeatedly redefines itself to be consistantly modern (hence its name) and uses the concepts of 'pure fact' and 'modern progress' to achieve that cycle of death and rebirth. Modernism has been around roughly since the foundation of colonies in the 'new world' and I atleast looking at that span of time would say that how we percieve the 'facts' has changed radically. So from that I would place more value in the consistant understanding of self and the universe conveyed in traditional expressions of self like mythology.

Tradition is a continuum that legitimises cultural identity and a societies beliefs and practices. Because modernist societies constantly break with their past and reinvent themselves according to 'pure fact' they are in conflict with traditional societies. Where today children feeling restricted by tradition embrace modernism and things prized for millennia are devalued in their societies. I think the root of the conflict between myth and fact in the extract is rooted in sociology and shouldnt really be taken in a purely religious context. Sociologically Traditional societies are at odds with popular modernist societies and in some case they are physically at odds. Sepratists in Cypress, ETA in Spain and the original IRA in Ireland are examples of it so I would guess that the writer wasnt speaking in purely religious terms.

Where pagan religion is concerned I believe that the innate understanding of Traditional mythology which would have come naturally to us prior to modernism escapes us now. We all live in modernist societies and our understanding is influenced by things that conflict with the traditional culture that expressed the mythology we love today. Because of that we have to temper all our idea's with the history of the culture too. Our cultures traditional beliefs arent embodied in our societies anymore so we just dont have the understanding to do anything else and have our religious beliefs be anything but flights of fancy.

Very informative post.


Ok, I know I'm going to win very few friends with this post. All I ask is that you read this fully before replying.

Mythic history and factual history are two separate things and they serve two entirely different roles within human societies. Factual history is the record of past events as can be determined by evidence from those events. It is limited in some respect by the difficulties that come from authenticating sources and the physical effects of the passage of time upon the evidence. Mythic history is a figurative and illustrative record of past events that is more fluid and subject to changes within society. It is limited by what the parties who are recounting the history and the parties who are receiving it are willing to accept.

Each serve a valuable role within human society. Factual history serves to teach on the basis of a chain of causality where as mythic history teaches upon a more allegorical and abstract basis. Western/Modern society places greater emphasis upon factual history as it is generally ascribed that what can be proven via simple logic with evidence in hand is superior to that which is not possible to prove in this fashion. As such, myth is scorned and decried as false.

Amusingly enough, however, myth and mythic history plays an enormous role in the cultural identity of western/modern society. A fine example is the lessons taught as to why the Civil War happened here in the United States. The rather trite answer that is consistently taught at virtually all levels of education within the United States is that the Civil War was fought over slavery. An analysis of the evidence surrounding the Civil War, however, shows that this war was fought over other matters, predominantly economics and the autonomy of the states, and that the question of slavery was relatively minor, except as a propaganda issue. Similar disparities between what is taught and what the evidence states can be found within various other points of history.

Much of the iconic imagery of the United States, and many other nations around the world, are all part of the myth that serves to tie the larger cultural identity of the nation together. When one challenges this myth, they're often met with hostility. I, for one, feel that we would be best served by taking a judicious look at both the factual and mythic history of a culture, sub-culture, or religion, making a point of doing so in a non-judgmental fashion.

Unfortunately, however, as long as there is the propensity to elevate one form of history over the other or one form of record (like oral vs. written vs. archeological) this will not happen. It is my belief that in taking a balanced perspective (non-judgmental and considering all sources of information upon their own logistic merits) it will be come possible to determine what is the closest recreation of the events that occurred.

I also believe that it is folly to elevate either form of history as being superior to the other. Doing so fails to consider that both forms teach a valuable lesson and contain important information. If this was not the case, then nothing of either form would have persisted for so long.

I, however, am ... something of a renegade in my perspectives. So, consider it as you will, there's my opinion on the subject.

Well said :).


I , personally , have no problem , with your post ,
for you , Cydira...well written...

But for me to agree , I would have to believe in facts ,
and history...which I do not...never will...

To me...neither exist...

However...each to their own !

Would you find more meaning in Mythic history, or see it to be even more real than factual history?.

[Deerwoman]

To me myths are vivid stories expressing our ancestors knowledge of the universe, the earth and the gods. They may sound outrageous or unbelievable on the surface, but when you take apart the myths and listen between the lines, you may find many hidden truths in myth. Our ancestor's myths explain the creation of the world and the first humans, the origins of all things, traditions and practices that they once needed to survive... Myths were used to pass on oral ethical and moral lessons to communities, to teach them right from wrong - every myth, every story has a purpose, has something to teach us humans. Yes, they may seem fantastical at times and against what we call science and history, but when you dig deeper you may find there is not so much difference after all. The historians of certain African countries are storytellers, they memorize their people's entire histories - all their accomplishments and misdeeds, all their stories, all their morals and culture... nothing is written down but everything is remembered and passed on. It is easier to remember a story than it is a long list of names and dates and facts...

Myth and story are the knowledge and wisdom accumulated over centuries, over millennia by mankind. I think they are too easily dismissed as false today.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

Good question , David...

Yet...no , as it is the idea of "history" itself ,
I outright reject...same as "facts"...

"History" , ( and "fact" ) , is a fixed form of
perception of an event in what we term , among
other names , spacetime experience...

As we all percieve reality differently , via our
reality tunnels , and mindframes , colored by
emotional context , and previous input , there
can be no valid "history" for all people...( nor fact )

This , if anything , is one of the great "illusions" referred
to by certain Eastern traditions...the concept of fixed
reality...concretized into what is made out to be past
memory for all , when we all percieve differently...



Would you find more meaning in Mythic history, or see it to be even more real than factual history?.

[cydira]

That said mythology is only very loosely based on history and I think treating mythology in the same way as history places the emphasis on the wrong portion of the lit. Rather then conveying specific detail in the narrative the value of myth and folklore in the recurring underlying themes or the variance from history. Ethnology and History do cross over regularly but they are separate disciplines.

Well, this is interesting and I must ask, would you argue that the accounts within the Bible (specifically the Old Testament) or in similar books are mythic history or something different? I ask only because there is some measure of historical record that supports things such as the Jewish people's presence within Egypt, for example, and their departure en masse from that region (though not in the same method as detailed within the Bible or Tanka). For my $0.02, I would argue that it could qualify as mythic history because a historical event has become the centerpiece of a myth and part of the cultural identity.

[cydira]

@cyndria

great post. i do agree with you. the problem i have with factual history is that we are always uncovering new facts which somehow tend to make us rethink the old ones. therefore, facts are not static as many people think. one must remain flexible.

i agree with what you say about myth as well. i do not believe in divine beings...to me, that is all myth. i find it difficult to understand how people can be, on the one hand, very concerned with factual history while on the other hand believe fully in divine beings. however, if, as you say, one does not elevate one form of history over the other, it makes *perfect* sense.

I think that applying the 'scientific method' to history and taking each historical account as a working theory is the best approach. It's possible that evidence could arise that is credible and overwhelming to show that the Revolutionary War, for example, did include 20th century technology. If that were to happen, then, the theory of the historical account would need to be amended or abandoned in the light of the evidence.

*shrugs*

I, however, tend towards this approach because it's something of a habitual thing of mine. :)

[Windsmith]

David, have you read Biological Exuberance by Bruce Bagemihl? It's this amazing, dense study of homosexuality, homoeroticism, transvestitism, and transgenderism in the (non-human) animal kingdom.

My favorite part is the last chapter, where he strays a bit from the hard facts and gets to theorizing a little. One of the things he talks about is scientists taking inspiration for their studies from aboriginal myths. He takes a very small list of animals that display homosexual/transgendered behavior in Native American myths and compares them to recent scientific findings about animal behavior. About 90% of the animals studied actually exhibit behavior like or very similar to that described in the stories.

I wouldn't say that myth is more real or more accurate than history. But, like Deerwoman says, most ancient myths are our ancestors' attempts to explain what was going on in the world around them. And, not to knock modern humans ('cause I am one), but by and large, our ancestors were much more observant about the world. Scratch the surface of a myth and you'll find underlying truth.

[*oonagh*]

I think that applying the 'scientific method' to history and taking each historical account as a working theory is the best approach. It's possible that evidence could arise that is credible and overwhelming to show that the Revolutionary War, for example, did include 20th century technology. If that were to happen, then, the theory of the historical account would need to be amended or abandoned in the light of the evidence.



totally.

[David19]

To me myths are vivid stories expressing our ancestors knowledge of the universe, the earth and the gods. They may sound outrageous or unbelievable on the surface, but when you take apart the myths and listen between the lines, you may find many hidden truths in myth. Our ancestor's myths explain the creation of the world and the first humans, the origins of all things, traditions and practices that they once needed to survive... Myths were used to pass on oral ethical and moral lessons to communities, to teach them right from wrong - every myth, every story has a purpose, has something to teach us humans. Yes, they may seem fantastical at times and against what we call science and history, but when you dig deeper you may find there is not so much difference after all. The historians of certain African countries are storytellers, they memorize their people's entire histories - all their accomplishments and misdeeds, all their stories, all their morals and culture... nothing is written down but everything is remembered and passed on. It is easier to remember a story than it is a long list of names and dates and facts...

Myth and story are the knowledge and wisdom accumulated over centuries, over millennia by mankind. I think they are too easily dismissed as false today.

That's true, like Windsmith said, a lot of indigenious peoples do tend to be closer to nature, and they encode that in their Myths, and, I especially agree that Myths are too easily dismissed today, as not being relevant. I agree with Campbell and Jungian psychologists in that regard.


Good question , David...

Yet...no , as it is the idea of "history" itself ,
I outright reject...same as "facts"...

"History" , ( and "fact" ) , is a fixed form of
perception of an event in what we term , among
other names , spacetime experience...

As we all percieve reality differently , via our
reality tunnels , and mindframes , colored by
emotional context , and previous input , there
can be no valid "history" for all people...( nor fact )

This , if anything , is one of the great "illusions" referred
to by certain Eastern traditions...the concept of fixed
reality...concretized into what is made out to be past
memory for all , when we all percieve differently...

Thanks for explaining it :).


David, have you read Biological Exuberance by Bruce Bagemihl? It's this amazing, dense study of homosexuality, homoeroticism, transvestitism, and transgenderism in the (non-human) animal kingdom.

My favorite part is the last chapter, where he strays a bit from the hard facts and gets to theorizing a little. One of the things he talks about is scientists taking inspiration for their studies from aboriginal myths. He takes a very small list of animals that display homosexual/transgendered behavior in Native American myths and compares them to recent scientific findings about animal behavior. About 90% of the animals studied actually exhibit behavior like or very similar to that described in the stories.

I wouldn't say that myth is more real or more accurate than history. But, like Deerwoman says, most ancient myths are our ancestors' attempts to explain what was going on in the world around them. And, not to knock modern humans ('cause I am one), but by and large, our ancestors were much more observant about the world. Scratch the surface of a myth and you'll find underlying truth.

I will definitely check out that book, as it sounds quite interesting, and I can agree that indigenious peoples are closer to nature, and will encode what they observe in the animal world into their tales.

[Burning Angel]

Maybe, I kind of like how Myths can take you into other worlds, but, also, your own inner world, it can really help you understand yourself, the unconscious, other cultures, etc. That's probably why I like Jung and Campbell (although, I do have some problems with Campbell's works, like I don't think there's a Monomyth that all Myths revolve around, I think Myths are diverse, some deal with similar themes, though, maybe due to unconscious human themes, and, also, the fact that it seems Campbell may have had same racial prejudices against certain groups, such as Jews, which considering the era he lived in, his age, etc, it's not surprising).




Glad you like it, you might want to read some Jung sometime too :).



What's an RP?.

It's true that stories you create, the good meaningful types anyway, do tell you a lot about yourself. That's why Campbell and some Gnostic thinkers have said to live your own Myth, to create your own, and live it.

I don't know about the Monomyth - it seems that the Hero's Journey is the Big Mama of all myths. But that could be wrong...I'm not a big student of mythology :)

I might...been thinking of it. He's got some cool ideas.

RP is Roleplaying - we like write collaborative fanfiction from the point of view of crew on a Star Trek ship :)



Would you find more meaning in Mythic history, or see it to be even more real than factual history?.

I probably would - but I'm not Shawn :P

~Jon :boing:

[David19]

I don't know about the Monomyth - it seems that the Hero's Journey is the Big Mama of all myths. But that could be wrong...I'm not a big student of mythology :)

The Hero's Journey does seem to be one of the major themes that crop up in virtually all Mythologies (including modern ones, like Buffy, which can be described as Mythic), but, what I mean, is it isn't the same Myth repeating itself, yes, there are some things that are quite similar, some of the same ideas, etc, but, they are also quite different, and, IMO, that should be celebrated, that the Myths are all different.


I might...been thinking of it. He's got some cool ideas.

I'd recommend finding an annotated and explained book on Jung, before delving into Jung himself.

Here's a good site that has some Jungian ideas, although it's about Jungian thought and Christianity, but, it's still good, IMO:

http://innerexplorations.org/

And, this one is really great for an introduction to Carl Jung and his theories:

http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/jung.html



RP is Roleplaying - we like write collaborative fanfiction from the point of view of crew on a Star Trek ship :)

Thanks for telling me, so, is it just like writing stories and putting them online?, how does that differ to ordinary fanfiction?.



I probably would - but I'm not Shawn :P

~Jon :boing:

Thanks for your opinion too.

[Nuadu]

Well, this is interesting and I must ask, would you argue that the accounts within the Bible (specifically the Old Testament) or in similar books are mythic history or something different? I ask only because there is some measure of historical record that supports things such as the Jewish people's presence within Egypt, for example, and their departure en masse from that region (though not in the same method as detailed within the Bible or Tanka). For my $0.02, I would argue that it could qualify as mythic history because a historical event has become the centerpiece of a myth and part of the cultural identity.

In religious terms and in terms of respecting a cultures traditions ethnology and history cant supercede peoples belief. Its a modernist hallmark to constantly reevaluate everything in hopes of redefining societies by creating understanding in 'modern' context. Undermining the tradition that legitimises a society is damaging to cultures. If people want to live in a grey mass of sameness constantly being reinterpreted from different angles thats their business. Its not how Id like to live though. Does it matter that there was an actual historical event behind belief? I dont think it does because that ignores the value and history of the belief.

Its common enough for a peoples mythology about themselves to contain cultural memory of a great event in that culture. So in my opinion exidous could be considered a valuable ethnological record. Folklores value isnt in historical accuracy its a peoples beliefs, how they view the world, where they believe they come from and how they believe their traditions legitimise their current position in society aswell as any hopes for their future positions. I dont think there is much in the world more personal or more valuable then that.

Now focussing on your question I wouldnt place high value in exidous as an accurate historical portrayal of the events of any actual exidious. When great events in a cultures history are written down centuries or in this case millennia after the event took place they represent a peoples beliefs about the event/the folklore that evolved from it and how it impacts their sense of cultural identity but they can only be considered historically inaccurate.

Most people played chinese whispers as a child and have a practical but limited understanding of how things can change in an oral trad. Even on a completely different scale where we are talking about a cultures oral tradition, where the tradition is preserved by an elite and are protected by law those stories change slowly over time with the culture and society of the people who preserve them. History is remembered differently within the space of one life time, after two it can be completely forgotten, after 1000 years it cant be relied on at all as history.

[Burning Angel]

The Hero's Journey does seem to be one of the major themes that crop up in virtually all Mythologies (including modern ones, like Buffy, which can be described as Mythic), but, what I mean, is it isn't the same Myth repeating itself, yes, there are some things that are quite similar, some of the same ideas, etc, but, they are also quite different, and, IMO, that should be celebrated, that the Myths are all different.

Buffy nothin' - Star Wars is straight Hero's Journey :) Not the prequels, though :P




I'd recommend finding an annotated and explained book on Jung, before delving into Jung himself.

Here's a good site that has some Jungian ideas, although it's about Jungian thought and Christianity, but, it's still good, IMO:

http://innerexplorations.org/

And, this one is really great for an introduction to Carl Jung and his theories:

http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/jung.html (http://www.ship.edu/%7Ecgboeree/jung.html)

Thanks for the links - you deluge me with those little blue devils :P





Thanks for telling me, so, is it just like writing stories and putting them online?, how does that differ to ordinary fanfiction?.

No - more like there's a gamemaster, like a traditiional D&D game, and each of us only writes for one character: The captain, first officer, counselor, chief of security, a junior doctor, or even a civilian bartender :) And you don't use dice or rules per se, but you make it conform to logical thinking and basically just have a Trekky blast :D

But I seriously digress :P


Thanks for your opinion too.

Glad you like it - and thanks for the endless fountain of karma :P

~Jon :boing:

[David19]

Buffy nothin' - Star Wars is straight Hero's Journey :) Not the prequels, though :P

I think I liked the Prequels a lot better, and I loved Buffy (and Angel) too.




Thanks for the links - you deluge me with those little blue devils :P

No problem. The 2nd one is probably the best to go too for a good intro to Jung's theories.





No - more like there's a gamemaster, like a traditiional D&D game, and each of us only writes for one character: The captain, first officer, counselor, chief of security, a junior doctor, or even a civilian bartender :) And you don't use dice or rules per se, but you make it conform to logical thinking and basically just have a Trekky blast :D

But I seriously digress :P

I've never played D&D, so, you create a character, and, how do you play?.



Glad you like it - and thanks for the endless fountain of karma :P

~Jon :boing:

No problem.

[Burning Angel]

I think I liked the Prequels a lot better, and I loved Buffy (and Angel) too.

I just meant the prequels didn't have the same Hero's Journey vibe to them - some, but not the same. And my Whedon-fu ends at the third episode of Firefly...not familiar with the other shows, and need to watch my season of Firefly :P



No problem. The 2nd one is probably the best to go too for a good intro to Jung's theories.

I'll check it out - I've seen Wikipedia articles related to the whole Jungian thing but I don't know much more :)


I've never played D&D, so, you create a character, and, how do you play?.

Well in any roleplaying game, you tell a story...in D&D you sit around a table and describe your character's actions. In STF it's over the computer, in typed posts like writing, basically. The difference lies in how you deal with success and failure - whether that's success at killing a monster, sweet-talking the local mercenaries, or perhaps disabling a trap (in D&D) or firing phasers, scanning the enemy ship, or negotiating with the Klingon commander (in STF, the Trek RP club.)

In D&D, you use complicated rule sets and dice to determine your success - in STF you describe your actions as specifically as possible, and the GM decides the results. It seems less fair, because of the random element and rules in D&D, but in practice it works better - I've had more fun in a year at STF than in two or three of trying to like D&D :P And it's more creative...for me anyway :P

That was an epic derailment - but it was fun :weirdsmil



No problem.

Cool :D

~Jon :boing:

[ninurta2008]

History teaches you that the trojan war happened, the myth teaches you what it was like to be the general of the trojan war and to be in the trojan war.:hahugh:

[Burning Angel]

History teaches you that the trojan war happened, the myth teaches you what it was like to be the general of the trojan war and to be in the trojan war.:hahugh:

Excellent analogy - but the Trojan War didn't necessarily happen :P That said, who the hell wouldn't want to be Odysseus? :D

~Jon :boing:

[ninurta2008]

Excellent analogy - but the Trojan War didn't necessarily happen :P That said, who the hell wouldn't want to be Odysseus? :D

~Jon :boing:
Well.....I would rather be Agamemnon, so I can pray to Prometheus to keep Zeus distracted and keep the other gods distracted with some kind of trick. So that I can be the champion of the Trojan war while Odysseus fled the scene (or was that that other dude?)

I want to be him too, but can I be both?:smileroll:uzi:

[Burning Angel]

Well.....I would rather be Agamemnon, so I can pray to Prometheus to keep Zeus distracted and keep the other gods distracted with some kind of trick. So that I can be the champion of the Trojan war while Odysseus fled the scene (or was that that other dude?)

I want to be him too, but can I be both?:smileroll:uzi:

Nope - you be Agamemnon and I'll be Odysseus :P

~Jon :boing:

[ninurta2008]

Nope - you be Agamemnon and I'll be Odysseus :P

~Jon :boing:
Still, this time around, Agamemnon will win the trojan wars.

I recently noticed another point of why myth is better than history, it's just simply alot more fun. People go on adventures, slay dragons, and its not mundane like our every day lives.

Outside of myth, you can't have lunch with the gods and go on a dragon killing rampage, Or even tame a dragon and fly to undiscovered lands. All you get to be is a ordinary human, thats what makes myth fun.

[Burning Angel]

Still, this time around, Agamemnon will win the trojan wars.

I recently noticed another point of why myth is better than history, it's just simply alot more fun. People go on adventures, slay dragons, and its not mundane like our every day lives.

Outside of myth, you can't have lunch with the gods and go on a dragon killing rampage, Or even tame a dragon and fly to undiscovered lands. All you get to be is a ordinary human, thats what makes myth fun.

Also, it makes you aspire to dragon-killing heights...without myth, we are doomed to be normal. :)

~Jon :boing:

[ninurta2008]

Also, it makes you aspire to dragon-killing heights...without myth, we are doomed to be normal. :)

~Jon :boing:
don't threaten me like that!!!!!!!! :alol:

But in spite of how much the idea terrifies me, it's so true. :uhhuhuh:

:hailmol:

Weirdness is appreciated.

[Burning Angel]

don't threaten me like that!!!!!!!! :alol:

But in spite of how much the idea terrifies me, it's so true. :uhhuhuh:

:hailmol:

Weirdness is appreciated.

Lol...same here. But I meant more how we all want to be Super like Superman...when the chips are down, it is myth that inspires us to excel :)

~Jon :boing:

[C. Iulia Regilia]

I think it depends on which myth and which culture. Myths are stories, and all stories, be they myth or fiction, are written for a purpose. Some do claim to be historical (Gilgamesh or Iliad for example) and those are likely based around true events. Some occur only in some sort of otherworld between gods and other gods -- which makes me think that they happened and were revealed by Personal Gnosis. The third type are for want of a better term teaching stories. It gets tricky at times because the gods can appear in visions and tell people things, so not every story in which a god talks to a man is lying.