What's the meaning of life?

[Pattern-chaser]

Your account of the historicity of 'King' Arthur 'appeals to me. It makes sense that the Arthur of history was not a king but a talented soldier, probably a cavalry expert, who came from a community of Romanised British from the north of the island where Welsh( P-Gaelic) was still spoken around the middle of the fifth century AD. I can imagine how this powerful soldier and strategist who killed many Scots, Picts, and Anglo-Saxons, became a legend and then was mythologised as a messianic figure.

When the Romans invaded, most/all the British Isles — not just "the north of the island" — were inhabited by 'Ancient Britons', and they spoke Welsh, or something close to it. They were Celts, and spoke Celtic languages (Welsh, Cornish, Breton, but also the Gaelic-Celtic languages too, Scottish, Irish, and Manx). This remained the case until the Saxons arrived, Roman Latin excepted, of course. As Wikipedia says: "The Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain is the process which changed the language and culture of most of what became England from Romano-British to Germanic. The Germanic-speakers in Britain, themselves of diverse origins, eventually developed a common cultural identity as Anglo-Saxons. This process principally occurred from the mid-fifth to early seventh centuries, following the end of Roman rule in Britain around the year 410."

If Arthur existed, I think it most likely that he was a tribal 'war-leader', or 'warband-leader'. But it's all idle speculation, of course.

[Sculptor1]

I think the main argument against myth is that it is almost definitely not factual.

Yes, that's the generally-accepted meaning of the word. I've already explained why I think this is an error, and maybe undesirable too:

Are you still reading only snippets?

Myths and their factualness is not relevant. I never implied that myth could be defined this way, nor that such a definition could be exhaustive.

Take any parable.
The fox cannot reach the best sweetest grapes and declares that they are "sour grapes". The saying has contextual meaning but everyone knows there never was a fox, or lovely sweet grapes that are out of his reach.
There is no baby nor is there any bathwater.
These are mini-myths.

Shall we muddy the waters and talk about legend, and legendary?

[Belindi]

That is very nice about the Round Table. I don't know when that detail was added to the myth as it has come down to us and I wonder if the code of chivalry, which includes service to others, is opposed to rigid class hierarchy?

Only if you are an aristocrat! The Table is 12thC and an addition to the myth designed to stop Barons squabbling over whose the best, But as you see in the "Winchester" table, Galahad and Mordred get to sit next to Arthur! Some people are more equal than others.

Your account of the historicity of 'King' Arthur 'appeals to me. It makes sense that the Arthur of history was not a king but a talented soldier, probably a cavalry expert, who came from a community of Romanised British from the north of the island where Welsh( P-Gaelic) was still spoken around the middle of the fifth century AD. I can imagine how this powerful soldier and strategist who killed many Scots, Picts, and Anglo-Saxons, became a legend and then was mythologised as a messianic figure.

Arthur is many things to many people. But he never existed in any real sense.
The Knights of the Round Table was the Lord of the RIngs of the 12thC - at least 500 years after the event.
His absence from the history of Bede is telling enough. I do not think there is a hint of any thing before Geoffrey of Monmouth. (b.c1100)

"He never existed in any real sense."

. Of course historiography should be founded on facts i.e. the proper attributes of primary sources Identifying primary sources is as necessary for reliable historiography as for the detection of crime.

However there is the near-as -dammit fact that there is always either a dangerous invader or the threat of a dangerous invader which is why messianic myths exist. So we have the messianic myths of Arthur, Jesus Christ, Noah, Muhammad, and the completely fictional but human Aragorn from Lord of the Rings.

No.
These people are always fictional, and made messianic after the fact.

Geography too is factual. Geography, climate, and even the weather is why human events are as they are and were.

So no. You cannot say Geography "TOO" is factual, since the messiah is not real - they were all just naughty boys.

I do not accept geological determinism. Whilst the geology can provide the necessary it is never sufficient in explanation.
For example the Industrial Revolution could only have happened in the way it did because of British coal, but that cannot explain why it did not happen during the Roman empire even though we know that had all the basic tech to get things started including mining, and an understanding of steam power.
You might want to ask why other places with lots of coal did not develop earlier.

Another constant is language use, and especially folk terminology and place names which are usually innocent of any motives other than their practical uses for ordinary subsistence, defence, and ownership.
[/quote]
A quality that is ubiquitous does not provide exceptional knowledge

Geography and recorded place names (and more rarely folk dialect) contribute to the probability that this or that salient individual existed; an Arthur or a Jesus, and maybe a millennium hence a Mandela.

It's a little early yet. But one day Mandela will be a messiah. And like Elvis will soon be elevated to the ranks of the immorals.
Belief is a choice.

What we abstract or interpret from scientific facts is myth. Sculpture pointed out that the myth of Abraham Lincoln is propaganda(my paraphrase). We can conclude that the messianic myth, and perhaps only the messianic myth , is open to deliberate distortion for political gain.

Black people have benefited from having a figure to follow, and him being a white Whig is a great way to point out to fellow republicans just how badly their bigotry has overtaken the issue of race relations.
As I have pointed out his canonization is something of a facade.
But myths go on regardless of facts, as we see in the darkening of Cleopatra, Queen of the Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt.
She was once and originally a Greek woman descendant of Alexander's general Ptolemy, but now she has transmogrified to full on negro from darkest Africa. I do not think the important issue of race relations is going to be enhanced by this absurd transformation not the valuable moves to wokeness.
It's no better than the whitening of Jesus,who changed from a Palestinian to a blonde blue eyes white man.

The myth of the common man who is not a famous messiah is lacking as far as I know, but there are signs in literature and drama that particular myth exists; for some reason it's not a popular myth.I wonder why.

Your last point is obscure.

cleo.JPG
[/quote]
I have to accept from you that the Chivalric code is aristocratic. But must it be?


The presence of coal was a contributory cause of the industrial revolution . There were many other causes. Agricultural technology, the iron coulter, the windmill then water power, clocks, gears, then the spinning jenny, water powered factories, early steam engines, condensing engines, and last but not least the development of ideas that included the revival of the myth of romantic love with its implication of individualism that enabled rural communities to break up and workers to migrate to urbanisations.

The messiah figure is the hero figure. My "last point" is about the era of the common man who is now more interesting than the messiah/hero. Nineteenth century novels are mostly all about the common man or woman who is the protagonist of these stories. In modern times The Lord of the Rings has humble little Frodo at its centre of events while Aragorn the king has a supporting role.I suppose the messiah/hero myth is also a cult, and cults are always cults of some individual or other.

Biblical myths although some are heroic-messianic, may still be useful to modern people who can use them for mining abstract ideas from. For instance the myth of Christ is translatable to anonymous common individuals in every age who engage in life's struggle sometimes without any hope of relief.

[Sculptor1]

I have to accept from you that the Chivalric code is aristocratic. But must it be?


The presence of coal was a contributory cause of the industrial revolution . There were many other causes. Agricultural technology, the iron coulter, the windmill then water power, clocks, gears, then the spinning jenny, water powered factories, early steam engines, condensing engines, and last but not least the development of ideas that included the revival of the myth of romantic love with its implication of individualism that enabled rural communities to break up and workers to migrate to urbanisations.

The messiah figure is the hero figure. My "last point" is about the era of the common man who is now more interesting than the messiah/hero. Nineteenth century novels are mostly all about the common man or woman who is the protagonist of these stories. In modern times The Lord of the Rings has humble little Frodo at its centre of events while Aragorn the king has a supporting role.I suppose the messiah/hero myth is also a cult, and cults are always cults of some individual or other.

Biblical myths although some are heroic-messianic, may still be useful to modern people who can use them for mining abstract ideas from. For instance the myth of Christ is translatable to anonymous common individuals in every age who engage in life's struggle sometimes without any hope of relief.

I doubt anyone ever seriously followed the chivalric code to the letter, and the greatest expression of it is from Cevantes. But Don Quixote still has to be at least an Hidalgo (minor noble with no inheritance). He's the perfect aspirant;nobel without no lower level was possible. A freeman but destitute.
He aspires to a code that is gone by 1610, and perhaps never was; a dream.
Obviously there is a massive paradox in chivalry. Knights of Jesus whose justice is with the sword never sits well logically.

Yes, the working class hero, or common man comes from a time when literacy has been extended to those who can now write about their own experiences. In ancient Athens there was a period in drama and comedy which featured ordinary people. Their version is the kitchen sink drama, followed the period of democratization.
Frodo represents every boy that faced the slaughter of World War One, torn from his home to destroy the symbol of fear and hate. I re-read TLOTR a few years ago with the knowledge of Tolkien's war time experience, and the imagery here and there was far more shocking. Although - it must be remembered that it was not an allegory, there are times when the horror of war come over very strongly.
When gollum and the Hobbits travel through the corpse infested swamp summoned up images of bodies in trenches very strongly. And the reticence of Theodin and the meanness o Deanathor are alike to the donkeys who led the lions into battle.

[Belindi]

Sculptor, that does put TLOTR into a new perspective for me! The swamp. Of course ! And Denethor's ancient stupidity.
I am not sure that universal literacy was sufficient to empower workers' powers of expression. Were the Tolpuddle Martyrs literate? Literacy no doubt gave a powerful boost to workers' rights.

[Sy Borg]

Also Tolkien was a nature lover. Sauron and Saruman were industrialists, laying waste to their surrounds.

[Belindi]

Also Tolkien was a nature lover. Sauron and Saruman were industrialists, laying waste to their surrounds.

That is really why I escape into TLOTR. I like the peace and greenness of The Shire, and of course the mallorn trees " , and the Ents. I wonder if love of the natural world is a myth or, on the other hand , if it's intrinsic to the human being.

[Pattern-chaser]

Yes, that's the generally-accepted meaning of the word. I've already explained why I think this is an error, and maybe undesirable too:

Are you still reading only snippets?

Myths and their factualness is not relevant....

Aren't they? But you just wrote this (to which I responded):

I think the main argument against myth is that it is almost definitely not factual.

So it seems that you do find that "myths and their factualness" are relevant. Otherwise, why would you assert that "the main argument against myth is that it is almost definitely not factual"?

[Pattern-chaser]

Also Tolkien was a nature lover. Sauron and Saruman were industrialists, laying waste to their surrounds.

That is really why I escape into TLOTR. I like the peace and greenness of The Shire, and of course the mallorn trees " , and the Ents. I wonder if love of the natural world is a myth or, on the other hand , if it's intrinsic to the human being.

Empirical observation would seem to support it being intrinsic, I think? Articles are regularly published, describing the benefits of exposure to nature, in all its living glory. And they do seem to have a point. My vote is for intrinsic. We belong in the natural environment where we evolved. Whyever would it be otherwise?

[Barkun]

Fine. I agree now that it's myth and not science, but would like to highlight the use of art in creating resonance of truth; like guesswork, round-abouting of mind in such a way it provokes we do a lot of things more so than, including science.

[Belindi]

Also Tolkien was a nature lover. Sauron and Saruman were industrialists, laying waste to their surrounds.

That is really why I escape into TLOTR. I like the peace and greenness of The Shire, and of course the mallorn trees " , and the Ents. I wonder if love of the natural world is a myth or, on the other hand , if it's intrinsic to the human being.

Empirical observation would seem to support it being intrinsic, I think? Articles are regularly published, describing the benefits of exposure to nature, in all its living glory. And they do seem to have a point. My vote is for intrinsic. We belong in the natural environment where we evolved. Whyever would it be otherwise?

I'm not so sure. I feel it's as you say but I am sceptical.
It could be that love of wild nature is not intrinsic. See Elizabethan formal gardens where nature as nature is abhorred, must be tamed, and forced into geometrical shapes. See also Romanticism, a new idea where we see people doting on Swiss mountains, moonlight, passions, and waterfalls, which may have been a reaction to the age of reason. I think perhaps human nature will always be a phantom.

Then also, it seems that humans' evolution via cultural change easily outstrips the biological evolution.

[Belindi]

Sculptor wrote:

I think the main argument against myth is that it is almost definitely not factual.

Any myth has a beginning and an end. The duration of a myth is linked to the usefulness of the myth to the culture in which the myth is embedded. For instance the myth that animals' purpose is for us to exploit and use is now defunct, and more and more people no longer hold to the myth. E.g. The start of the Grand National was actually delayed because protesters were on the course protesting about violent deaths of race horses. And the vegan food industry is increasingly profitable.

The beginning of a myth is political i.e. messianic-hero myths. Some myths are for glorifying means of subsistence, e.g. you find people today feeling comradeship or solidarity with working class origins especially where dangerous heavy industry was involved. These beginnings are as factual as historiography ever gets to be.

[Sculptor1]

Yes, that's the generally-accepted meaning of the word. I've already explained why I think this is an error, and maybe undesirable too:

Are you still reading only snippets?

Myths and their factualness is not relevant....

Aren't they? But you just wrote this (to which I responded):

I think the main argument against myth is that it is almost definitely not factual.

So it seems that you do find that "myths and their factualness" are relevant. Otherwise, why would you assert that "the main argument against myth is that it is almost definitely not factual"?

Either follow the thread or don't.
But it's pointless responding to your response to un-contexted snippets.

[Sculptor1]

Sculptor wrote:

I think the main argument against myth is that it is almost definitely not factual.

Any myth has a beginning and an end.

Not at all. Depends. Some myths are not even narratives.

The duration of a myth is linked to the usefulness of the myth to the culture in which the myth is embedded.

Sometimes

For instance the myth that animals' purpose is for us to exploit and use is now defunct, and more and more people no longer hold to the myth. E.g. The start of the Grand National was actually delayed because protesters were on the course protesting about violent deaths of race horses. And the vegan food industry is increasingly profitable.

The beginning of a myth is political i.e. messianic-hero myths. Some myths are for glorifying means of subsistence, e.g. you find people today feeling comradeship or solidarity with working class origins especially where dangerous heavy industry was involved. These beginnings are as factual as historiography ever gets to be.

Given that we have already had several exchanges on this topic I am surprised that you are also piking up on an out of context remark second hand from PatternMaker.

[Belindi]

Sculptor wrote:

I think the main argument against myth is that it is almost definitely not factual.

Any myth has a beginning and an end.

Not at all. Depends. Some myths are not even narratives.

The duration of a myth is linked to the usefulness of the myth to the culture in which the myth is embedded.

Sometimes

For instance the myth that animals' purpose is for us to exploit and use is now defunct, and more and more people no longer hold to the myth. E.g. The start of the Grand National was actually delayed because protesters were on the course protesting about violent deaths of race horses. And the vegan food industry is increasingly profitable.

The beginning of a myth is political i.e. messianic-hero myths. Some myths are for glorifying means of subsistence, e.g. you find people today feeling comradeship or solidarity with working class origins especially where dangerous heavy industry was involved. These beginnings are as factual as historiography ever gets to be.

Given that we have already had several exchanges on this topic I am surprised that you are also piking up on an out of context remark second hand from PatternMaker.

The myth of our lordship over animals is still going strong, as I mentioned in connection with the Grand National. It's interesting that the stable lads care about the horses as persons while the betting industry care only about profit and to hell with animal welfare. We should ask "Whom does the myth serve? " With reference to animal rights, the myth of our lordship over animals serves only ignorant hedonists, but remains glorified in Genesis 1.26-28. now that people are better educated we have the option to ditch the old lie.

With reference to the myth of Christ, as you rightly point out JC has been transmogrified into a white, tall,slim, northern European ; notably by Hollywood. The Hollywood film drama is a historical primary (but not secondary) source. The Hollywood film contains information about the history of myths. In the case of dramas about Jesus and other hero figures such as the cowboy hero the Hollywood film reveals, not facts about the existence of the hero, but unwitting testimony about the attitudes of the production team who understandably need to make the film a commercial success by keying into the relevant myth. It's obvious that Dances With Wolves is built on a more up to date myth than the old cowboys v indians themes. And on another note we no longer see new Hollywood productions with the black servant who it is taken for granted can be only a figure of fun, a supporting role.

Similarly the extant myth is a primary source for information about the moral and developmental state of a society. That's not the same as claiming that cowboys never existed, or that the negro was never a low status individual.