What is Your Story?

[Sy Borg]

I don't think a myth has to be in the realm of the possible to convey a message; in fact it may make it more difficult.

Fair enough. I myself remember, as a child, being moved by one of the hobbits (Merry or Pippin, I forget which one) having a sudden rush of empathy for that woman (I forget her name) who dressed up as a male soldier to go to war against those terrible dark forces and defended her king (I forget his name) against that big dragony thing with one of the nine riding on it. And I definitely didn't believe that hobbits or dragony things or people who were one of the nine really existed.

(Does anybody know what the hell I'm talking about here? I didn't just imagine this did I? It was in the book wasn't it?)

You did not imagine it and I remember Eowyn saying, "Courage, Merry". While they were doing battle with the Nazgul riding that "dragony thing" (which was so powerful I wonder why they bothered with horses before they were washed away in the Elves' moat) Pippin had found himself as a knight of Gondor at the command the mad and paranoid Steward, Denethor.

Also, it was actually Eowyn who felt sorry for Merry, whom her father had forbidden to go into battle based on size discrimination. Eowyn empathised because Theodon had forbidden her to ride too, hence her disguise (if it was real her boobs may have been distractingly uncomfortable in male armour). Here is an example of how myths are effective - this story talks about people whose capacities are unfairly ignored and underestimated, and are denied a shot at self actualisation.

Thus, while I've been bantering away with DM about myths, his and Belinda's spirited defence of them in a sense is important. Humans need to pass on information from generation to generation because for the most the various generations, despite their tussles, love each other and want the best for their relatives, peers and others. A story - information presented in the hope of helping is, in a fundamental sense, an act of love. It's an attempt to improve the life of the other through greater knowledge.

How do we pass on the information so it will be remembered? After all, we don't want important information forgotten. Stories.

We require narratives so that we can link the new information with the old - basically to extend or amend our existing paradigms/personal stories. Nothing is harder to remember than an isolated concept that doesn't connect with any of your existing knowledge. Thus words are easier to remember (and crack) as passwords than randomised strings.

So, aside from kinetic teaching, when the ancients and mediaevals in pre-literal times needed to transmit information, stories would have been the easiest, most memorable, engaging and comprehensible form of cultural transmission.

By contrast, hard science is not a myth or s story. The researchers often just do their stuff and leave others to tell the stories. Popular science writers and documentary makers are the ones who present myths that are based on science, not the boffins who are just working the data. Unfortunately, many people cannot tell the difference and attribute the loose standards of popular science works to hard research. The latter often has almost no myth or story at all to tell - pointedly so - although stories can be gleaned via inference from the observations.

However, in hard science there is no attempt at simplification or to be memorable or meaningful as is in myths. Hard science is more the stuff about which myths are made, not myths in itself. Actual science consists of raw human abstractions and observations of things, although the germ of the myths may lie in research papers' summaries and conclusions. However, if a research paper is a myth then the word "myth" becomes almost meaningless via ambiguity, like "love".

Sorry, the above is laboured and could probably have mostly been said in ten words, but hopefully this small part of my story (as at 5.31pm, 6 July 18) is at least almost clear :)

[Mark1955]

By contrast, hard science is not a myth or a story. The researchers often just do their stuff and leave others to tell the stories. Which is arguably why no one is interested in it. Popular science writers and documentary makers are the ones who present myths that are based on science, not the boffins who are just working the data. Unfortunately, many people cannot tell the difference and attribute the loose standards of popular science works to hard research. The latter often has almost no myth or story at all to tell - pointedly so - although stories can be gleaned via inference from the observations.

However, in hard science there is no attempt at simplification or to be memorable or meaningful as is in myths. Hard science is more the stuff about which myths are made, not myths in itself. Actual science consists of raw human abstractions and observations of things, although the germ of the myths may lie in research papers' summaries and conclusions. However, if a research paper is a myth then the word "myth" becomes almost meaningless via ambiguity, like "love".

That autism is caused by the MMR vaccine was a myth published as a research paper that is now so popular that, despite a lot of other papers being published showing it to be a myth, those who believe are not interested. This is an extreme example, but I'd suggest that the concept of 'hard science' is a dangerous one and just as mythical as dragons.

That many scientists are poor at communicating their myths effectively is undoubtedly true, although Isaac Asimov, who was a bona fide biochemist told a rather good story.

[Georgeanna]

This thread moves on quickly. It has opened my eyes to the function of myth and the fear and anger which arise when a prevalent societal myth is threatened by others.

Related to personal identity and individual stories, when one powerful extreme view leans toward tyranny this is when labels and generalizations are used as insults and worse. Imprisonment and separation, torture and killing. All in the name of what...

It seems to me that the either/or view is the least philosophical or rational, leading to conflict rather than cooperation. That excitement is what some are attracted to. Pinning one's colours to waving flags and flashing lightsabers.

You are either with us, or against us. Intellectuals, evidence-based reports derided and torn up.
Go with your gut and change your mind when it suits; reward those who agree, punish those who disagree.

Thanks to Fooloso4 for clarifying my earlier points. You understand and articulate well.

[Fooloso4]

DM:

I alluded to that earlier.

Where did you say that? I found this:

Something has to fill the vacuum when society's prevailing myth (i.e., God) fails. Nazism did that (and still does for some people). Nietzsche even predicted what would happen.

But it misrepresents what actually occurred. It was not the failure of a God myth, God was a fundamental part of Nazi myth. See the work of the Nazi theologians. I have discussed it a few places on this forum:

Auschwitz was part of the Nazi program based in a perverted notion of Christianity. See, for example, the Nazi theologians who promoted belief in an “Aryan Jesus” and hatred for the Jews because they killed God. Their aims were not secular they were sacred.

The paper [cited by someone else: academia.edu/1175072/The_Nazi_quest_for ... ryan_Jesus "A Quest for an Aryan Jesus"] identified Christian theologians who attempted to “de-Judaize” Jesus. The paper also made clear that this project began before the rise of Nazism.

…

According to the paper that was not the case. This work began before the turn of the century, that is, prior to WWI, by Christian scholars working independently of the German state and prior to the Nazi Party which was established in 1919.

It was not a matter of filling a vacuum when the prevailing God myth failed, but rather, of German theologians in the 19th century taking existing myths about Christ and altering them to fit their Christian prejudices based on existing Christian mythologies about the Jews. A Jewish messiah mythology is altered to the point where the Messiah is no longer even a Jew and the Jews have become the enemy. The new savior who emerges, Hitler, now saves the “Fatherland” by eliminating the scapegoated enemy, the Jews.

Sorry, but you haven't a clue about what I meant. It seems to me you live too much in the head.

Sorry, but you haven’t a clue about how I live. How we live is shown by what we do and fail to do, not by the stories we tell ourselves and others about ourselves on an internet forum. Your assumption that I cannot understand what you meant is ill founded and based on a prior assumption about "us and them" - those who know and those who do not know deeper truths. My assumption is that this is nothing more than self-validation within the closed self-referential circle of self. Since I had at one time held views affirming a world of transcendent truths to be found within, despite whatever differences there may be between my views at that time and your own, I think you have greatly underestimated my ability to understand not only at an intellectual but at a spiritual and personal level such a view.

The problem is NOT a matter of temperament and ideology or even linguistics. It goes much deeper than that. Watch the last video I linked to.

This is a fine illustration of my point. It is a matter of ideology and temperament that you appeal to magic and it appeals to you. It is linguistic in the deeper sense. The language we use both informs and is informed by the world in which we live. You live in a world where words like the “Force” are imbued with magical (I use the word advisedly) powers that play a part in a cosmic battle between good and evil in which you align yourself with what you take to be the side of good and those who do not agree with you are regarded as evil.

It is not the linguistic problem of Babel. Others have no problem understanding your use of language, the problem is it represents a world view they do not buy into. This does not render dialogue impossible, it simply means that there will be fundamental differences that must be brought to light that makes agreement on some matters unlikely. Once again, those differences are a matter of ideology and temperament. Given those differences the question is whether there are still areas where interpersonal dialogue is not only possible but important and necessary. Rather than circle the wagons and create a balkanized world of mutual enmity and distrust, we can learn to be tolerant of differences of belief and find common ground with regard to how we act toward and care for each other.

We cannot say with any degree of certainty (although some may be certain one way or the other) whether there is a God who is “the ground of Being” or the “Supreme being” or nothing more than a mythological entity, but the evidence of how we treat each other is plainly evident. Whether you believe there is a force within you is secondary to the consequences, that is, to what you do and how you live and how you treat others. You may believe that your opposition to gay marriage is based on some form of inner knowledge you have discovered and not the result of what you have been taught and have come to believe, but it is a pernicious delusion to think that because you feel strongly about this it justifies requiring others to live as you think they should. Whatever value you find in your interior world, when you speak and act that occurs in the world at large and has consequences for others. We see evidence that for some their inner world informs their actions, their belief in unity extends to attempts to foster a oneness with others. Concluding that dialogue is impossible because we speak different languages or hold fundamentally different views and acting as if it must therefore be a matter of "us versus them" is antithetical to oneness.

Thank you for that. That's a much colorful myth than the last one, and much more informative. It says a lot about your perspective.

All myths may be stories but not all stories are myths. Everything I have said that you now find more colorful and informative was already there in what you previously faulted Georgeanna for for not finding it “dreary and and uninspiring”, “a story any unimaginative third-grader could write”. Man may be the measure but your own failure to understand is a poor standard of measure.

Perhaps the other part of the question of your story is, given the differences in these stories, the question of our story.

[Dark Matter]

Humans need to pass on information from generation to generation because for the most the various generations...

It's about passing on values, not hard information.

By contrast, hard science is not a myth or story.

It's basic assumptions (such as the presupposed rationality of physical reality) are mythological in character.

However, in hard science there is no attempt at simplification or to be memorable or meaningful as is in myths.

Very often, hard science is used (or misused) to avoid the tough questions about life, to simplify things so that everything needed to be truly human is reducible to the permutations of unconscious matter-energy.

I love science, but meanings are not that simple.

[Dark Matter]

It was not the failure of a God myth, God was a fundamental part of Nazi myth. See the work of the Nazi theologians.

And that's why you have no credibility.

[Georgeanna]

It was not the failure of a God myth, God was a fundamental part of Nazi myth. See the work of the Nazi theologians.

And that's why you have no credibility.

And that's your tiny little sabre rattling response to an excellent, substantive, carefully crafted response.
Sad.

[Belindi]

Greta wrote:

Thus, while I've been bantering away with DM about myths, his and Belinda's spirited defence of them in a sense is important. Humans need to pass on information from generation to generation because for the most the various generations, despite their tussles, love each other and want the best for their relatives, peers and others. A story - information presented in the hope of helping is, in a fundamental sense, an act of love. It's an attempt to improve the life of the other through greater knowledge.

C.S Lewis said " a myth is a story that has the same force, the same effect, the same meaning. in whichever form we encounter it." It's particular story which may well be a fiction but which illustrates a moral precept.
Fooloso4's point that a myth become fundamentalist as was the Nazi's myth , a myth become solid, and dialogue about it not permitted, as the Ayatollahs' Iran, then the myth is bad.
Sinclair Lewis wrote:"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

[Fooloso4]

DM:

Fooloso4:

It was not the failure of a God myth, God was a fundamental part of Nazi myth. See the work of the Nazi theologians.

And that's why you have no credibility.

No one’s credibility is ever put in question by citing evidence from a scholarly journal, unless that evidence has been shown not to be credible.

Did you read the paper that was cited? The full title is: ‘The Nazi Quest for an Aryan Jesus’, and it appears in the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 2 (2004), 56–90 :http://www.academia.edu/1175072/_The_Na ... 2004_56_90

Wiki says this about the journal:

The Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus provides for academic discussion of Jesus within the context of 1st-century Palestine. It is intended to be accessible to a non-scholarly readership who are interested in this field.

Do you have the historical knowledge to refute what is said in the paper? Do you find problems with the sources cited in the paper? Are you impugning the credibility of the journal or the article or are you just attacking me for personal reasons? Or perhaps you just want to sweep it under the rug because history runs counter to your beliefs about the myths of God and man?

There have been some interesting issues raised in this topic. What is your motivation for attempting to sideline it with unsubstantiated personal attacks?

[ThomasHobbes]

Greta wrote:

Thus, while I've been bantering away with DM about myths, his and Belinda's spirited defence of them in a sense is important. Humans need to pass on information from generation to generation because for the most the various generations, despite their tussles, love each other and want the best for their relatives, peers and others. A story - information presented in the hope of helping is, in a fundamental sense, an act of love. It's an attempt to improve the life of the other through greater knowledge.

C.S Lewis said " a myth is a story that has the same force, the same effect, the same meaning. in whichever form we encounter it." It's particular story which may well be a fiction but which illustrates a moral precept.
Fooloso4's point that a myth become fundamentalist as was the Nazi's myth , a myth become solid, and dialogue about it not permitted, as the Ayatollahs' Iran, then the myth is bad.
Sinclair Lewis wrote:"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

" ... and wearing a blond comb-over."

[Georgeanna]

And that's why you have no credibility.

And that's your tiny little sabre rattling response to an excellent, substantive, carefully crafted response.
Sad.

My response here was a little bit tiny too.

Sometimes if there is too much to absorb, the parts that stand out are those which have the deepest resonance.
The personal story can be affected in a strong way and in defence we might simply shoot from the hip. Attacking the other with whatever insult we think is the worst.

The issue of credibility is important.
And we need to ask this of ourselves. What is the source of my or others belief that...

And this is where careful consideration can be seen as dreary and some are accused of being too much inside their head.
Well, this can be true. However, this is a philosophy forum. It's what happens. With a bit of luck we can get out of our own heads and appreciate the mental rumblings of another.

This talking and thinking exercise is only part of our story. Of becoming who we might be.
It can take us away from other - perhaps more healthy pursuits - like music making, outdoor physical stuff, knitting, whatever.

However, our core beliefs are with us throughout and inform our actions.
So, observing our behaviour is crucial. No matter what story we tell ourselves about our self, or how others label us, what and how we act has consequences.

Take time to do that thing in the video if it helps. Close your eyes, breathe, reach out. Take time to consider that in a rush to respond to someone that you don't really know them, how they are feeling or their whole story.
But sometimes we can't help but be human and lash out in attack or in defence of someone and their credibility.

The issue of credibility comes up quite a bit, perhaps as a point of anxiety to confirm our rightness...or sense of worth.
Should it be used as a throwaway insult. An easy one-liner to be left hanging...
Nope.

[Brian5]

im a man. I worked for Goodyear. believe me whatever the motor it has to roll along because we will never have a gravity buffer.

[Belindi]

Dark Matter wrote:

By contrast, hard science is not a myth or story.

It's basic assumptions (such as the presupposed rationality of physical reality) are mythological in character.

DM, this use of 'myth' as if it means something without evidence is not what we are talking about. A world view such as materialism is not a myth, as a myth is a story with recognisable protagonist in it.

[Sy Borg]

Dark Matter wrote:

It's basic assumptions (such as the presupposed rationality of physical reality) are mythological in character.

DM, this use of 'myth' as if it means something without evidence is not what we are talking about. A world view such as materialism is not a myth, as a myth is a story with recognisable protagonist in it.

If even our raw observations are myths then we might as well discard the word "myth" because it would then refer to everything from reports of raw sensory perception to long works of the imagination about vampires and other physically impossible things deemed to represent and communicate the dynamics of life.

According to DM, seemingly everything we perceive to exist is a myth, so I propose a new word for this many-sided gestalt entity that can incorporate everything - "mush".

[Steve3007]

Also, it was actually Eowyn who felt sorry for Merry, whom her father had forbidden to go into battle based on size discrimination. Eowyn empathised because Theodon had forbidden her to ride too, hence her disguise (if it was real her boobs may have been distractingly uncomfortable in male armour). Here is an example of how myths are effective - this story talks about people whose capacities are unfairly ignored and underestimated, and are denied a shot at self actualisation.

Yes, I guess Eowyn and Merry both empathized with each other as fellow victims of prejudice (gender and size respectively). I presume Theodon King would have seen this as political correctness gone mad, if it weren't for the fact that they got on their bikes (ok horse) and proved their naysayers wrong as opposed to, say, making some placards. "Respect due", says Tolkien.

It's interesting to me that out of the entire trilogy of Lord of the Rings books I remember that passage as the one I found moving:

"Eowyn it was, and Dernhelm also. For into Merry's mind flashed the memory of the face that he saw at the riding from Dunharrow: the face of one that goes seeking death, having no hope. Pity filled his heart and great wonder, and suddenly the slow-kindled courage of his race awoke. He clenched his hand. She should not die, so fair, so desperate. At least she should not die alone, unaided."

I think I empathized with his sudden gush of empathy and the idea that it ignited his slow-kindled courage and inspired him to do something that nobody thought a little fella like him or his kind could do. I think many people yearn for the chance to be inspired to great acts of heroism like that and that is one of the great bitter-sweet tragedies of human life.


I also love the word "dwimmerlaik". Next time I see a seagull eating some kind of carrion in my back garden I'll say:

"Begone, foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion! Leave the dead in peace!"