Mythos and Logos

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
User avatar
Stoppelmann
Premium Member
Posts: 847
Joined: December 14th, 2022, 2:01 am
Favorite Philosopher: Alan Watts
Location: Germany
Contact:

Mythos and Logos

Post by Stoppelmann »

There is a distinction to be made when reading ancient texts, especially when they are of supposed religious content, and I think that people tend to concentrate too much on translation and neglect differentiating what lays before us. I came across a helpful differentiation when reading Iain McGilchrist’s phenomenal book, The Matter With Things in which this is only one topic that he touches on in his special position of combining being both a psychiatrist and former Oxford literary scholar, and would help us to assess literature from the past.
It could be said that the trouble with Western philosophy began with Plato’s foregrounding of logos. In the Greek world, as in most pre-modern cultures, there had always existed more than one way of acquiring an understanding of the world. The Greeks, let it not be forgotten, also gave birth to many of the most enduring myths by which we understand our relationship to the world, such as those of Œdipus, of Prometheus, of the gods of the Iliad and of the Odyssey. There was, and is, no conflict here. Indeed they distinguished two types of truth, mythos and logos; each was considered essential in its own proper field, and the two were not to be confused. So Karen Armstrong writes:
Logos (‘reason’) was the pragmatic mode of thought that enabled people to function effectively in the world. It had, therefore, to correspond accurately to external reality. People have always needed logos to make an efficient weapon, organize their societies, or plan an expedition. Logos was forward-looking, continually on the lookout for new ways of controlling the environment … Logos was essential to the survival of our species.

But logos had its limitations. Good at manipulating the world and making us powerful, it did not contribute to any broader understanding of the meaning of our lives – for that people turned to mythos. Armstrong continues:
Myths may have told stories about the gods, but they were really focused on the more elusive, puzzling, and tragic aspects of the human predicament that lay outside the remit of logos … When a myth described heroes threading their way through labyrinths, descending into the underworld, or fighting monsters, these were not understood as primarily factual stories. They were designed to help people negotiate the obscure regions of the psyche, which are difficult to access but which profoundly influence our thought and behaviour … When Freud andJung began to chart their scientific search for the soul, they instinctively turned to these ancient myths. A myth was never intended as an accurate account of a historical event; it was something that had in some sense happened once but that also happens all the time.

In other words, myths were archetypal, not incidental, truths, reflecting eternal patterns that we could recognise, but which could not, without diminishment, be translated into the everyday terms of logos. And, as Armstrong goes on to emphasise, myths were not primarily propositional, but grounded in action. The truth of a myth was not verified by data, but in the playing out of one’s life:
The only way to assess the value and truth of any myth was to act upon it. The myth of the hero, for example, which takes the same form in nearly all cultural traditions … showed us how to live more richly and intensely, how to cope with our mortality, and how creatively to endure the suffering that flesh is heir to. But if we failed to apply it to our situation, a myth would remain abstract and incredible.

However, things were slightly more complex than this suggests, since logos and mythos went through a number of transformations. At one stage, indeed, according to the historian of ideas Bruce Lincoln, it was logos that was thought of as unreliable, feminine and seductive:
the most ancient texts consistently use the term logos to mark a speech of women, the weak, the young, and the shrewd, a speech that tends to be soft, delightful, charming, and alluring, but one that can also deceive and mislead. (Lincoln 1999).

‘Words, words, words …’ This would certainly fit with Mercier and Sperber’s view that logic was invented in order to win arguments, not to take us closer to the truth.

Mythoi by contrast were the ideals of men of action, weighty, performative, supportive of the truth: alēthea mythēsasthai (‘to speak the truth’) occurs as a formula five times in Homer, Hesiod and the Homeric Hymns (all prior to the end of the seventh century BC). Mythoi can at times be corrupt, but when they are, the effect is shocking and implies shame, such as if a lawyer were to lie; whereas the corruption of logos, at this stage, was taken for granted: ‘the lying logos is deceptive, disingenuous and slyly delivered, hard to detect, the more to be guarded against’.

It’s worth noting that mythos is inclusive of logos, whereas logos is exclusive of mythos. Mythos ‘denotes the whole package, the logos plus the speaker and the context; when mythos is in play, something is at stake’. It is thus dependent to an extent on trust in the authority of the speaker: as soon as people routinely question the authority of heroic figures, it loses power. Thus it is that with Plato one sees a reversal of the fortunes of mythoi. He cites them generally unfavourably in respect of their truth in numerous places, though he concedes there is ‘some truth’ in them. In reality, he is himself the inventor of several of the best-known myths of ancient philosophy: the myths of Atlantis, of Er’s journey into the afterlife, of the ring of Gyges, of the chariot of Phæthon, not to mention the myth of the Cave. Plato was complex. However, his legacy has been one-sided; and from this point onwards, truth is no longer thought of as that which comes from the experience of living, but as what can be argued towards without reference to context. Such a view is a necessary counterpoise, and can be productive: but as always, there needs to be a balance.
McGilchrist, Iain. The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions and the Unmaking of the World (pp. 964-967). Perspectiva Press. Kindle Edition.
The issue that he is addressing is the fact that our society has become too obsessed with particulars, including language, and less attentive of the big picture. We differentiate in simplified categories like fact or fiction, right or wrong, good or bad, and fail to realise that our society depends on a certain amount of ambiguity in important areas, especially with regard to wealth responsibility. Equally, we have the issue with linear thinking that believes that cause and effect are easy to identify, whereas most eastern thinker have described it as unproductive and self-defeating, because if we do not understand the “unified whole”, entire patterns or configurations, not merely individual components, we haven’t understood causation at all.

The same applies for any reading of religious scripture, and probably where we have lost our way.
“Find someone who makes you realise three things:
One, that home is not a place, but a feeling.
Two, that time is not measured by a clock, but by moments.
And three, that heartbeats are not heard, but felt and shared.”
― Abhysheq Shukla
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8265
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Mythos and Logos

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Stoppelmann wrote: January 23rd, 2023, 5:40 am The issue that he is addressing is the fact that our society has become too obsessed with particulars, including language, and less attentive of the big picture. We differentiate in simplified categories like fact or fiction, right or wrong, good or bad, and fail to realise that our society depends on a certain amount of ambiguity in important areas, especially with regard to wealth responsibility. Equally, we have the issue with linear thinking that believes that cause and effect are easy to identify, whereas most eastern thinker have described it as unproductive and self-defeating, because if we do not understand the “unified whole”, entire patterns or configurations, not merely individual components, we haven’t understood causation at all.

The same applies for any reading of religious scripture, and probably where we have lost our way.
This raises many issues, but primarily binary thinking, I think.

I completely accept that binary thinking has its place and its worth. When a twig snaps behind you, you don't have the leisure to consider all of the things that might have resulted in that noise. All you are interested in, at that time, is whether the noise signals a threat. This binary discrimination came about by evolution, and its value is not disputed. Those who didn't or couldn't practice this simple caution died out. Brutal, simple and natural.

Binary thinking also extends into any and all areas of thought, and this is where it can be bothersome. The need to classify things, and place them in the 'correct' pigeonholes, is what you describe above. As a quick and simple consideration, it is ideal. As a nuanced accessory to understanding, it is positively harmful. You refer to "ambiguity", but I would amplify your sentiment. It's more than just ambiguity, it compares a multidimensional spectrum with a simple two-way choice.

Despite its value in some situations, binary thinking can also be a thinking disaster when inappropriately applied. A broader and more inclusive mode of thought can reveal nuances and subtleties that binary thinking misses. And when this wider mode is at its most appropriate and useful, those nuances and subtleties reflect reality much better than a simplistic binary distinction.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Stoppelmann
Premium Member
Posts: 847
Joined: December 14th, 2022, 2:01 am
Favorite Philosopher: Alan Watts
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Mythos and Logos

Post by Stoppelmann »

Pattern-chaser wrote: January 23rd, 2023, 10:30 am This raises many issues, but primarily binary thinking, I think.

I completely accept that binary thinking has its place and its worth. When a twig snaps behind you, you don't have the leisure to consider all of the things that might have resulted in that noise. All you are interested in, at that time, is whether the noise signals a threat. This binary discrimination came about by evolution, and its value is not disputed. Those who didn't or couldn't practice this simple caution died out. Brutal, simple and natural.

Binary thinking also extends into any and all areas of thought, and this is where it can be bothersome. The need to classify things, and place them in the 'correct' pigeonholes, is what you describe above. As a quick and simple consideration, it is ideal. As a nuanced accessory to understanding, it is positively harmful. You refer to "ambiguity", but I would amplify your sentiment. It's more than just ambiguity, it compares a multidimensional spectrum with a simple two-way choice.

Despite its value in some situations, binary thinking can also be a thinking disaster when inappropriately applied. A broader and more inclusive mode of thought can reveal nuances and subtleties that binary thinking misses. And when this wider mode is at its most appropriate and useful, those nuances and subtleties reflect reality much better than a simplistic binary distinction.
Whilst I appreciate what you are saying, I think that the kind of binary thinking you are speaking of is a means of distinguishing that is essential to security, and we as a society need to acknowledge the fact that vulnerable people at least must be able to distinguish whether a friend or foe enters the room, which we actively have to assure people of to provide a safe environment.

The other aspect is the fact that, in certain areas the ambivalence of things is something we rely on to ensure that they do not become rigid, which would be a return to the competitiveness comparable with food envy, and we have an agreement on rights of possession to combat that. The point that McGilchrist is making is that the habitual thinking patterns that we tend to adopt are similar to the relationship with mythos and logos, whereby mythos includes logos, but logos excludes mythos. In reference to the brain hemispheres he uses the metaphor of the master and the emissary, whereby the right hemisphere is able to adopt mythos and logos, but the left hemisphere is restricted to logos, because of its task of identifying and naming, and incidentally grabbing (possessing).

The way the brain should work (greatly simplified) is that the right hemisphere should have the big picture in mind, and to identify a particular thing it should use the left hemisphere, which should then feeds that identification back to the right hemisphere which integrates it into the whole. In the metaphor of the master and the emissary, the emissary becomes the usurper and decides that he does not need the master, but it soon becomes clear that he has a very limited view of the world. It has been shown that patients that have right hemispheric brain damage can’t cope with nuance and claim the most ridiculous things, like the left side of their body belongs to the patient in the next bed.

This is where a lot of conspiracy theories come from, but also the idea that I am actually what I feel like (such as trans women claiming to be biological women), and the Bible or any mythology must be either true or false, fact or fiction. Of course, this came to a head once again after the enlightenment cleared up the facts around the biological world, and distinguished the spirit world as “not fact.” The problem is, it is also not fiction, but the habitual reliance on the left hemisphere meant that this became neglected, and the possibility of the spiritual world describing perhaps a psychological reality, or an aspect of existence to which we have not the ability to grasp (possess), was ignored in the same way as imagination became “just making things up” instead of the projection of potential, which we rely on heavily today. Professionally, especially within Humanities, (in German “Geisteswissenschaft” - science of the mind) such as philosophy, history, philology, musicology, linguistics, theatre studies, literary studies, media studies, theology, and to some extent psychology, we do differentiate – although in some areas we find people having difficulties with that as well.

Mythos and logos are symbolic for our big problem today,
“Find someone who makes you realise three things:
One, that home is not a place, but a feeling.
Two, that time is not measured by a clock, but by moments.
And three, that heartbeats are not heard, but felt and shared.”
― Abhysheq Shukla
Gee
Posts: 667
Joined: December 28th, 2012, 2:41 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: Mythos and Logos

Post by Gee »

Stoppelmann wrote: January 23rd, 2023, 5:40 am There is a distinction to be made when reading ancient texts, especially when they are of supposed religious content, and I think that people tend to concentrate too much on translation and neglect differentiating what lays before us. I came across a helpful differentiation when reading Iain McGilchrist’s phenomenal book, The Matter With Things in which this is only one topic that he touches on in his special position of combining being both a psychiatrist and former Oxford literary scholar, and would help us to assess literature from the past.
I really enjoyed your post and am very curious about McGilchrist's book, The Matter With Things. I actually went to Amazon and looked it up because I was considering buying it, but it has been a long time since I spent more than $100 on a book -- not since my college days. I don't own a Kindle because I find it hard on my eyes -- the computer is bad enough. But I have a friend, who has a Kindle, and I might borrow it to buy the electronic book as the price is much more reasonable.

For a long time, I have considered that the Dark Ages has to have been preceded by something that destroyed our trust and rattled our beliefs badly. We had to have started doubting everything, which is the only reasonable explanation for the populace to accept Augustine's ideas that basically stated that belief in "God" was the only thing necessary. Augustine was brilliant and a prolific writer who set the tone for church policies that started us into and took us through the Dark Ages. He did not like Aristotle's ideas and corrupted Plato's thoughts into Neoplatonism -- or not really Platonism. The Church doctrines stayed much the same until Aquinas rewrote most of it ushering in the Enlightenment hundreds of years later. Or so I believe, but this is a general outline.

I learned that there were some natural disasters and epidemics that could have encouraged this lack of trust, but there also was a plethora of new knowledge -- much like we have now -- which did not help. Like looking at cheese through a microscope. It is very informative, lets you know exactly what you are eating, but watching all that bacteria squiggle around is not very appetizing. Too much information.

What I think is that our ancient philosophers pushed too far too fast causing a trust in knowledge and a lack of trust in beliefs, which off balanced our mythos and logos. If I am reading your post correctly, McGilchrist thought along the same lines. Like a pendulum, when we push it too far, it returns too far the other way. The way many people in this time treat science like it is all knowing (especially people in science forums) it looks to me like we could be in danger of off balancing everything again, and I really don't want another Dark Ages. I don't really think we are in for another Dark Ages, but people are confused, they don't know what to believe, and they are starting to push their religions. Religion is fine, I like religion, but when it is fighting for it's beliefs, it can become rather violent.

Gee
User avatar
Stoppelmann
Premium Member
Posts: 847
Joined: December 14th, 2022, 2:01 am
Favorite Philosopher: Alan Watts
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Mythos and Logos

Post by Stoppelmann »

Gee wrote: January 23rd, 2023, 11:08 pm I really enjoyed your post and am very curious about McGilchrist's book, The Matter With Things. I actually went to Amazon and looked it up because I was considering buying it, but it has been a long time since I spent more than $100 on a book -- not since my college days. I don't own a Kindle because I find it hard on my eyes -- the computer is bad enough. But I have a friend, who has a Kindle, and I might borrow it to buy the electronic book as the price is much more reasonable.
I’m glad you enjoyed the post and the book is fascinating, but big, in two volumes, 1500 pages – very big. He also covers so many topics that there may be parts that interest you less, but I enjoyed it. My only mistake was to try and read it immediately after reading The Master and His Emissary which also has 615 pages, and which McGilchrist gives an overview of at the beginning of The Matter With Things. That was a long slog.

One of the reasons I have a kindle is that the books are cheaper, but they are easier to store, and the books are readable on my computer, tablet and on a kindle device as well, it has a search function, and in every case, you can adapt the background and the text to suit your eyesight. On computer it is good because you can quote like I did, on a tablet you can read in the dark and on kindle by sunlight.
Gee wrote: January 23rd, 2023, 11:08 pm For a long time, I have considered that the Dark Ages has to have been preceded by something that destroyed our trust and rattled our beliefs badly. We had to have started doubting everything, which is the only reasonable explanation for the populace to accept Augustine's ideas that basically stated that belief in "God" was the only thing necessary. Augustine was brilliant and a prolific writer who set the tone for church policies that started us into and took us through the Dark Ages. He did not like Aristotle's ideas and corrupted Plato's thoughts into Neoplatonism -- or not really Platonism. The Church doctrines stayed much the same until Aquinas rewrote most of it ushering in the Enlightenment hundreds of years later. Or so I believe, but this is a general outline.
McGilchrist gives examples of what this quote illustrated as coming in waves throughout history, and the quote spoke about the influence that Plato had, but there were numerous occasions when a period of surging creativity in the arts were followed by a period of radical rationality, which criticised and dampened the welled up emotionality. He puts it down to the habitual restriction of the capacity to think by going to the other extreme, which we have often seen in history, with dubious success.

Augustine was one of those examples, but his religious extremism sought to overcome his troubled youth, when he sneaked past his mothers room, whom he knew prayed for him, but who also lectured him. At that time he said he was praying, “Yes, Lord, help me clean up my sinful life, but not now!” When he finally came to see his mother as having been right, guilt finally overwhelmed him and he converted to the other extreme. This is often the problem with political or religious zealots, and having been for a while active in a church and experienced the fundamentalism, I heard the conversion stories painting the past necessarily as black, in order to make finding Christ so white. It is the tendency to go from one extreme to the other that also causes many mental disorders, and we think ourselves into an imbalance that has far reaching implications. McGilchrist points to the example of schizophrenia, which many people thought of as being irrational, but newer studies show it to be more a radical rationalism, devoid of all reason or a wider perspective.

How else can someone who declares themselves as a follower of the teacher of love and healing and deem poor people as scavengers, or advocate weapons and war as methods of furthering the cause? The obvious contradiction is invisible to people who have taken the extreme positions, but this hypocrisy is something that the Gospels and Epistles speak about, so there must be something radical happening in those minds. But we also see it in journalism, with articles being contradicted by the same paper, or even the same journalist within 24 hours. People capable of this rationalise their position to make it acceptable, but in reality it shows up a disorder in their thinking abilities.
Gee wrote: January 23rd, 2023, 11:08 pm I learned that there were some natural disasters and epidemics that could have encouraged this lack of trust, but there also was a plethora of new knowledge -- much like we have now -- which did not help. Like looking at cheese through a microscope. It is very informative, lets you know exactly what you are eating, but watching all that bacteria squiggle around is not very appetizing. Too much information.
This is a good example of asking about the appropriateness of what we are doing. If we reduce everything to its component parts, it may help us produce something useful, but going into detail could make that product less desirable. When training as a nurse, we had similar reactions from students when we were dealing with the digestive system, and the revelation about the bacteria that do so many jobs in our bodies. This even persisted among experienced nurses when I taught them about nutritional care. It just goes to show how much our thinking influences how we see the world.
Gee wrote: January 23rd, 2023, 11:08 pm What I think is that our ancient philosophers pushed too far too fast causing a trust in knowledge and a lack of trust in beliefs, which off balanced our mythos and logos. If I am reading your post correctly, McGilchrist thought along the same lines. Like a pendulum, when we push it too far, it returns too far the other way. The way many people in this time treat science like it is all knowing (especially people in science forums) it looks to me like we could be in danger of off balancing everything again, and I really don't want another Dark Ages. I don't really think we are in for another Dark Ages, but people are confused, they don't know what to believe, and they are starting to push their religions. Religion is fine, I like religion, but when it is fighting for it's beliefs, it can become rather violent.
Exactly, I could have probably saved you what I have written above had I read this paragraph first, but it is nice to have someone who appreciates what I like. ;-)
“Find someone who makes you realise three things:
One, that home is not a place, but a feeling.
Two, that time is not measured by a clock, but by moments.
And three, that heartbeats are not heard, but felt and shared.”
― Abhysheq Shukla
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8265
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Mythos and Logos

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Gee wrote: January 23rd, 2023, 11:08 pm For a long time, I have considered that the Dark Ages has to have been preceded by something that destroyed our trust and rattled our beliefs badly.
Yes, it was one or more volcanic eruptions that blocked out much of the sunlight for several years. I think this probably gave rise to the Dark Ages.

Link1 Link2
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8265
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Mythos and Logos

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Pattern-chaser wrote: January 23rd, 2023, 10:30 am This raises many issues, but primarily binary thinking, I think.

I completely accept that binary thinking has its place and its worth. When a twig snaps behind you, you don't have the leisure to consider all of the things that might have resulted in that noise. All you are interested in, at that time, is whether the noise signals a threat. This binary discrimination came about by evolution, and its value is not disputed. Those who didn't or couldn't practice this simple caution died out. Brutal, simple and natural.

Binary thinking also extends into any and all areas of thought, and this is where it can be bothersome. The need to classify things, and place them in the 'correct' pigeonholes, is what you describe above. As a quick and simple consideration, it is ideal. As a nuanced accessory to understanding, it is positively harmful. You refer to "ambiguity", but I would amplify your sentiment. It's more than just ambiguity, it compares a multidimensional spectrum with a simple two-way choice.

Despite its value in some situations, binary thinking can also be a thinking disaster when inappropriately applied. A broader and more inclusive mode of thought can reveal nuances and subtleties that binary thinking misses. And when this wider mode is at its most appropriate and useful, those nuances and subtleties reflect reality much better than a simplistic binary distinction.
Stoppelmann wrote: January 23rd, 2023, 8:02 pm Whilst I appreciate what you are saying, I think that the kind of binary thinking you are speaking of is a means of distinguishing that is essential to security, and we as a society need to acknowledge the fact that vulnerable people at least must be able to distinguish whether a friend or foe enters the room, which we actively have to assure people of to provide a safe environment.
I tried quite hard to make the case that you make in response to my ... making the same case. My text, quoted above, says "I completely accept that binary thinking has its place and its worth", and "This binary discrimination came about by evolution, and its value is not disputed", and "As a quick and simple consideration, it is ideal". Did I fail to make the point you have made in response? I can't see it.

As for the "security" issue, I think I referred to that too, but with a slightly different example: "When a twig snaps behind you, you don't have the leisure to consider all of the things that might have resulted in that noise. All you are interested in, at that time, is whether the noise signals a threat."


Stoppelmann wrote: January 23rd, 2023, 8:02 pm The other aspect is the fact that, in certain areas the ambivalence of things is something we rely on to ensure that they do not become rigid, which would be a return to the competitiveness comparable with food envy, and we have an agreement on rights of possession to combat that. The point that McGilchrist is making is that the habitual thinking patterns that we tend to adopt are similar to the relationship with mythos and logos, whereby mythos includes logos, but logos excludes mythos. In reference to the brain hemispheres he uses the metaphor of the master and the emissary, whereby the right hemisphere is able to adopt mythos and logos, but the left hemisphere is restricted to logos, because of its task of identifying and naming, and incidentally grabbing (possessing).
This is an interesting topic, and I think there is much to learn in discussing it. But I think it's a mistake to start ascribing such definite characteristics to the left- and right-brain hemispheres. Recent work shows, more and more, that mind functions are distributed throughout the brain, although some functions (e.g. hearing) do seem to be mostly localised. It's a bit like looking at a microprocessor, and saying "Ah, that function is centred on the RAM", when the truth is that the function is not confined to any peripheral part of the device, but to the whole device. If we're not careful, we will end up with the Victorian phrenologists! 😉
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8265
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Mythos and Logos

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Gee wrote: January 23rd, 2023, 11:08 pm What I think is that our ancient philosophers pushed too far too fast causing a trust in knowledge and a lack of trust in beliefs, which off balanced our mythos and logos. If I am reading your post correctly, McGilchrist thought along the same lines. Like a pendulum, when we push it too far, it returns too far the other way. The way many people in this time treat science like it is all knowing (especially people in science forums) it looks to me like we could be in danger of off balancing everything again, and I really don't want another Dark Ages. I don't really think we are in for another Dark Ages, but people are confused, they don't know what to believe, and they are starting to push their religions. Religion is fine, I like religion, but when it is fighting for it's beliefs, it can become rather violent.
Stoppelmann wrote: January 24th, 2023, 3:22 am Exactly, I could have probably saved you what I have written above had I read this paragraph first, but it is nice to have someone who appreciates what I like. ;-)
I don't think it was an intellectual crisis, I think it was when winter lasted two, three, maybe five years, during which time little or nothing grew, and many creatures, of all shapes and sizes, died. Which is most likely, do you think, a philosophical crisis or a volcanic one (for which there is apparently factual evidence, see my previous post)?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Stoppelmann
Premium Member
Posts: 847
Joined: December 14th, 2022, 2:01 am
Favorite Philosopher: Alan Watts
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Mythos and Logos

Post by Stoppelmann »

Pattern-chaser wrote: January 24th, 2023, 11:40 am I tried quite hard to make the case that you make in response to my ... making the same case. My text, quoted above, says "I completely accept that binary thinking has its place and its worth", and "This binary discrimination came about by evolution, and its value is not disputed", and "As a quick and simple consideration, it is ideal". Did I fail to make the point you have made in response? I can't see it.

As for the "security" issue, I think I referred to that too, but with a slightly different example: "When a twig snaps behind you, you don't have the leisure to consider all of the things that might have resulted in that noise. All you are interested in, at that time, is whether the noise signals a threat."
I’m sorry for not appearing to appreciate what you were saying and I have perhaps an annoying way of writing, but I did appreciate it. My reply was a rather longwinded way of saying, “The other aspect is ...”
Pattern-chaser wrote: January 24th, 2023, 11:40 am This is an interesting topic, and I think there is much to learn in discussing it. But I think it's a mistake to start ascribing such definite characteristics to the left- and right-brain hemispheres. Recent work shows, more and more, that mind functions are distributed throughout the brain, although some functions (e.g. hearing) do seem to be mostly localised. It's a bit like looking at a microprocessor, and saying "Ah, that function is centred on the RAM", when the truth is that the function is not confined to any peripheral part of the device, but to the whole device. If we're not careful, we will end up with the Victorian phrenologists! 😉
You will excuse me for pointing out that McGilchrist has spent many years preparing and writing his books based on the most recent evidence of studies in clinical psychiatry and his own personal experience, which (for what it is worth) coincides with my experience when working with stroke patients and patients with other neurological disorders. I think he has taken rather a lot more into account that you are giving him credit for.

In addition, he wrote many books, which focus on the subject from various perspectives, starting with Ways Of Attending in 2018, which led to The Master and His Emissary in 2019, and more recently The Matter With Things in 2021. The objection you make in your example of the computer would be quite offensive if you made it to him, and you overlook the 1500 pages of the last book, in which he expanded the subject to include cultural aspects that confirm his theory. Even in the quote I gave, you can see that he was using arguments that other authors also brought for the habitual restriction of our cognitive ability.

Given the expansive manner in which McGilchrist has approached the issue, I think we shouldn’t be arguing whether his observation of brain functions are correct, at least without comparable expertise, but rather look at the consequences of what he is saying and how this plays out in our society. I chose the quote in question because I find that our treatment of ancient traditions suffers exactly this problem, that we fail to realise that our society's rejection of mythos and concentration on logos means that we interpret mythos as logos, and because it obviously doesn’t fit, we throw mythos out, displaying a cognitive restriction in our perception.
“Find someone who makes you realise three things:
One, that home is not a place, but a feeling.
Two, that time is not measured by a clock, but by moments.
And three, that heartbeats are not heard, but felt and shared.”
― Abhysheq Shukla
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8265
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Mythos and Logos

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Stoppelmann wrote: January 24th, 2023, 12:21 pm You will excuse me for pointing out that McGilchrist has spent many years preparing and writing his books based on the most recent evidence of studies in clinical psychiatry and his own personal experience, which (for what it is worth) coincides with my experience when working with stroke patients and patients with other neurological disorders. I think he has taken rather a lot more into account that you are giving him credit for.
I'm sorry I've given that impression. I do not compare my own knowledge with McGilchrist's, but only with what I have read of other 'experts'. My reading has led me to believe that our investigations into our brains are at the very beginning. The connectome, as I think it is called, is astonishingly complex.
One neuron may make as many as tens of thousands of synaptic contacts with other neurons — Stephen Smith, PhD, professor of molecular and cellular physiology. Quote taken from here.
Scientific American wrote: How our minds emerge from our flock of neurons remains deeply mysterious. It’s the kind of question that neuroscience, for all its triumphs, has been ill equipped to answer. Some neuroscientists dedicate their careers to the workings of individual neurons. Others choose a higher scale: they might, for example, look at how the hippocampus, a cluster of millions of neurons, encodes memories. Others might look at the brain at an even higher scale, observing all the regions that become active when we perform a particular task, such as reading or feeling fear. But few have tried to contemplate the brain on its many scales at once. Their reticence stems, in part, from the sheer scope of the challenge. The interactions between just a few neurons can be a confusing thicket of feedbacks. Add 100 billion more neurons to the problem, and the endeavor turns into a cosmic headache. — Quote taken from here.
Our ideas as to which/what functions depend on which part(s) of the brain are therefore at an early stage. I think it detracts from this interesting discussion to bring phrenology into the debate, and this is why I commented as I did. Better (IMO) to concentrate on the function, rather than trying to determine which neurons are responsible...
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Stoppelmann
Premium Member
Posts: 847
Joined: December 14th, 2022, 2:01 am
Favorite Philosopher: Alan Watts
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Mythos and Logos

Post by Stoppelmann »

Pattern-chaser wrote: January 25th, 2023, 9:17 am I'm sorry I've given that impression. I do not compare my own knowledge with McGilchrist's, but only with what I have read of other 'experts'. My reading has led me to believe that our investigations into our brains are at the very beginning. The connectome, as I think it is called, is astonishingly complex.
One neuron may make as many as tens of thousands of synaptic contacts with other neurons — Stephen Smith, PhD, professor of molecular and cellular physiology. Quote taken from here.
Scientific American wrote: How our minds emerge from our flock of neurons remains deeply mysterious. It’s the kind of question that neuroscience, for all its triumphs, has been ill equipped to answer. Some neuroscientists dedicate their careers to the workings of individual neurons. Others choose a higher scale: they might, for example, look at how the hippocampus, a cluster of millions of neurons, encodes memories. Others might look at the brain at an even higher scale, observing all the regions that become active when we perform a particular task, such as reading or feeling fear. But few have tried to contemplate the brain on its many scales at once. Their reticence stems, in part, from the sheer scope of the challenge. The interactions between just a few neurons can be a confusing thicket of feedbacks. Add 100 billion more neurons to the problem, and the endeavor turns into a cosmic headache. — Quote taken from here.
Our ideas as to which/what functions depend on which part(s) of the brain are therefore at an early stage. I think it detracts from this interesting discussion to bring phrenology into the debate, and this is why I commented as I did. Better (IMO) to concentrate on the function, rather than trying to determine which neurons are responsible...
The issues that these experts mention cover the "wiring" of the brain and you are right to say we are at the beginning of that, however we have extensive experience with neurological defects which display how a personality changes when certain areas are damaged. This shows up where particular abilities are located, and from the sum of these experiences we can recognise a pattern of behaviour. That is why a correlation can be reliably predicted.
“Find someone who makes you realise three things:
One, that home is not a place, but a feeling.
Two, that time is not measured by a clock, but by moments.
And three, that heartbeats are not heard, but felt and shared.”
― Abhysheq Shukla
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8265
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Mythos and Logos

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Pattern-chaser wrote: January 25th, 2023, 9:17 am I'm sorry I've given that impression. I do not compare my own knowledge with McGilchrist's, but only with what I have read of other 'experts'. My reading has led me to believe that our investigations into our brains are at the very beginning. The connectome, as I think it is called, is astonishingly complex.
One neuron may make as many as tens of thousands of synaptic contacts with other neurons — Stephen Smith, PhD, professor of molecular and cellular physiology. Quote taken from here.
Scientific American wrote: How our minds emerge from our flock of neurons remains deeply mysterious. It’s the kind of question that neuroscience, for all its triumphs, has been ill equipped to answer. Some neuroscientists dedicate their careers to the workings of individual neurons. Others choose a higher scale: they might, for example, look at how the hippocampus, a cluster of millions of neurons, encodes memories. Others might look at the brain at an even higher scale, observing all the regions that become active when we perform a particular task, such as reading or feeling fear. But few have tried to contemplate the brain on its many scales at once. Their reticence stems, in part, from the sheer scope of the challenge. The interactions between just a few neurons can be a confusing thicket of feedbacks. Add 100 billion more neurons to the problem, and the endeavor turns into a cosmic headache. — Quote taken from here.
Our ideas as to which/what functions depend on which part(s) of the brain are therefore at an early stage. I think it detracts from this interesting discussion to bring phrenology into the debate, and this is why I commented as I did. Better (IMO) to concentrate on the function, rather than trying to determine which neurons are responsible...
Stoppelmann wrote: January 25th, 2023, 12:09 pm The issues that these experts mention cover the "wiring" of the brain and you are right to say we are at the beginning of that, however we have extensive experience with neurological defects which display how a personality changes when certain areas are damaged. This shows up where particular abilities are located, and from the sum of these experiences we can recognise a pattern of behaviour. That is why a correlation can be reliably predicted.

Reliably? For a start, you mention observations of damaged brains, and assume that what we observe also applies to undamaged ones? It is also easy to mistake a brain area that is involved in a particular function to be the only area that is involved in that function. I'm sorry, I'm not convinced that "a correlation can be reliably predicted".
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Stoppelmann
Premium Member
Posts: 847
Joined: December 14th, 2022, 2:01 am
Favorite Philosopher: Alan Watts
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Mythos and Logos

Post by Stoppelmann »

Pattern-chaser wrote: January 26th, 2023, 10:22 am Reliably? For a start, you mention observations of damaged brains, and assume that what we observe also applies to undamaged ones? It is also easy to mistake a brain area that is involved in a particular function to be the only area that is involved in that function. I'm sorry, I'm not convinced that "a correlation can be reliably predicted".
Okay, not your area of expertise, I appreciate that, but my training was pretty reliable, and our observations of the symptoms people with a stroke always followed the same pattern, so that I only had to know where the cerebral insult was located and could plan a course of therapy, including taking neglect into account by rearranging rooms etc. Confirmation of the symptoms we assumed was always given, unless complications occurred, whereby it might have been approaching a grand mal seizure.

The studies are quite convincing showing how certain areas of the brain affect certain behaviours, and McGilchrist takes up so many pages showing how the past generalisations have been revised, and showing that he has taken care to incorporate new evidence, which literally check the correlations. Of course, in a healthy body there is a cooperation between the hemispheres, but studies have shown that habits show on the brains after a while, and similar habits show similar changes. Some of the studies he uses that have remained reliable date from the 19t century, which just shows how long this has been going on.

McGilchrist himself says in his notes,
“we know by definition what sort of a thing a cathode ray tube or plasma screen is, and what it is for, what it does. But there is no such state of affairs with a neurone. We didn’t make them and we don’t know what sort of things they are, or what they are capable of doing. In trying to understand them we have, fatally, already to decide what sort of things they might be in order to know what to compare them with, which kind of model to apply. Apply the machine model and that begs the question entirely.”
McGilchrist, Iain. The Master and His Emissary (p. 465). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.
Therefore I think that you can assume that he has taken this into account.
“Find someone who makes you realise three things:
One, that home is not a place, but a feeling.
Two, that time is not measured by a clock, but by moments.
And three, that heartbeats are not heard, but felt and shared.”
― Abhysheq Shukla
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8265
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Mythos and Logos

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Stoppelmann wrote: January 26th, 2023, 11:17 am McGilchrist himself says in his notes,
“we know by definition what sort of a thing a cathode ray tube or plasma screen is, and what it is for, what it does. But there is no such state of affairs with a neurone. We didn’t make them and we don’t know what sort of things they are, or what they are capable of doing. In trying to understand them we have, fatally, already to decide what sort of things they might be in order to know what to compare them with, which kind of model to apply. Apply the machine model and that begs the question entirely.”
McGilchrist, Iain. The Master and His Emissary (p. 465). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.
Therefore I think that you can assume that he has taken this into account.
Fair enough. So he is, in line with his own notes (above), offering something he feels is likely, but does not present it as 'gospel'. 👍
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Gee
Posts: 667
Joined: December 28th, 2012, 2:41 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: Mythos and Logos

Post by Gee »

Pattern-chaser wrote: January 24th, 2023, 11:26 am
Gee wrote: January 23rd, 2023, 11:08 pm For a long time, I have considered that the Dark Ages has to have been preceded by something that destroyed our trust and rattled our beliefs badly.
Yes, it was one or more volcanic eruptions that blocked out much of the sunlight for several years. I think this probably gave rise to the Dark Ages.

Link1 Link2
I think it was more than one eruption, and it dimmed parts of Europe for 1 to 5 years like an ongoing eclipse, even affecting the seasons. It must have looked like an end-of-the-world event, and it did coincide with the beginning of what we call the Dark Ages. It caused the loss of plant life and other species, encouraged disease, and scared the life out of people, so it is not difficult to see why they turned to religion -- asking "God" for forgiveness/help.

What must be considered is, that as bad as the eruptions were, they did not last more than hundreds of years -- even if one considers the subsequent diseases and traditions/habits/beliefs that followed this tragedy. So why did the Dark Ages last so long? To know that my parents, my grandparents, even my great-grandparents lived through something like that would affect me, but the affect would not carry on for many more generations. There are two interpretations for the Dark Ages, one was for the early Medieval time, about 300 years, and the other was for the whole of Middle Age Europe, about 1,000 years -- both starting at the same time. Something else influenced this 1,000 years of ignorance.

The following is from Wiki:
The Dark Ages is a term for the Early Middle Ages, or occasionally the entire Middle Ages, in Western Europe after the fall of the Western Roman Empire that characterizes it as marked by economic, intellectual and cultural decline.
The concept of a "Dark Age" originated in the 1330s with the Italian scholar Petrarch, who regarded the post-Roman centuries as "dark" compared to the "light" of classical antiquity.[1][2] The term employs traditional light-versus-darkness imagery to contrast the era's "darkness" (ignorance and error) with earlier and later periods of 'light' (knowledge and understanding).[1] The phrase Dark Age(s) itself derives from the Latin saeculum obscurum, originally applied by Caesar Baronius in 1602 when he referred to a tumultuous period in the 10th and 11th centuries.[3][4] The concept thus came to characterize the entire Middle Ages as a time of intellectual darkness in Europe between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance that became especially popular during the 18th-century Age of Enlightenment.[1] Others, however, have used the term to denote the relative ignorance of historians regarding at least the early part of the Middle Ages, from a scarcity of records.
I am not sure what caused the "scarcity of records", but suspect that it may have been willful misdirection or deletion of records. We have three disciplines that give us knowledge, religion, philosophy, and science. At that time in our history, religion believed itself to be the beginning and ending of knowledge -- as knowledge comes from "God". Philosophy was accepted as long as it supported religion, and science was irrelevant as it studied things that were of no consequence -- or it was dangerous.

What I have noted, and maybe McGilchrist has also noted, is that this kind of thinking is happening now -- it is just reversed. Science believes itself to be the beginning and ending of knowledge, philosophy is acceptable as long as it supports science, and religion is irrelevant as it studies things that are of no consequence -- or it is dangerous. I see a pattern here.

Sorry it took me so long to respond. I am not doing well, so it would probably be wise to not expect prompt responses from me.

Gee
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021