mwc Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 I think we agree. The problem I see with myself is focusing too much on the psychological aspect of myths because, IMO, if that isn't there as something mystical (awe-inspiring), then the whole thing is worthless. I really hated myths in school because I didn't understand the messages. The other functions of myths such as sociological and pedagogical can carry a culture through even if the cosmological and mystical functions are off, I guess. It's the culture without the awe (what a shame). Where's the awe if the mystical has been taken and made concrete? We basically do seem to agree. What happens when you take away the "awe" and make it concrete? I think you put it in the temple. You take control of it and run the show. Myths (and the like) serve many purposes but these got turned into more a patriotic thing (the founding of the country) which isn't really bad but the "mystic" side that you seem to really look for I think was torn away since the temple needed to have those for itself. Now when people look to these same stories to, let's say regain, that aspect I think they're getting a flawed interpretation. That's why looking to the "other" cultures they do tend to find it. The Eastern religions or perhaps the Egyptians. But they "Westernize" it by putting old YHWH (or Allah or take your pick) into the mix but he's not designed for mystic "enlightenment" if you will but the opposite. So you're re-corrupting a message that you just de-corrupted. It seems extremely counter-productive to me. I guess that's why I was happy to have that Proverb land in my lap as it were. It showed what a decent myth/poem could convey about the same basic topic. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 I think we agree. The problem I see with myself is focusing too much on the psychological aspect of myths because, IMO, if that isn't there as something mystical (awe-inspiring), then the whole thing is worthless. I really hated myths in school because I didn't understand the messages. The other functions of myths such as sociological and pedagogical can carry a culture through even if the cosmological and mystical functions are off, I guess. It's the culture without the awe (what a shame). Where's the awe if the mystical has been taken and made concrete? We basically do seem to agree. What happens when you take away the "awe" and make it concrete? I think you put it in the temple. You take control of it and run the show. Myths (and the like) serve many purposes but these got turned into more a patriotic thing (the founding of the country) which isn't really bad but the "mystic" side that you seem to really look for I think was torn away since the temple needed to have those for itself. Now when people look to these same stories to, let's say regain, that aspect I think they're getting a flawed interpretation. That's why looking to the "other" cultures they do tend to find it. The Eastern religions or perhaps the Egyptians. But they "Westernize" it by putting old YHWH (or Allah or take your pick) into the mix but he's not designed for mystic "enlightenment" if you will but the opposite. So you're re-corrupting a message that you just de-corrupted. It seems extremely counter-productive to me. I guess that's why I was happy to have that Proverb land in my lap as it were. It showed what a decent myth/poem could convey about the same basic topic. mwc Yes! They indeed thought God lived in a Temple. Jesus tried to tell them otherwise, but you know... YHWH smaweh! I take him out of the story. I depersonify God in order to understand that they didn't understand any more about this "whatever" than anyone else. This is the only way to get rid of the butcher! (Oh...admit it, that was a pretty good pun that time!) Note: Just in case, I first had the butchers of the story in mind, but when I typed it...well the shoe fit the god's foot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 I want to go a little more with the thought of God the Butcher. (On topic??? Did it ever stray very far?) Anyway, in Hinduism they have Kali. That is one hell of a butcher goddess. What is clear here is that all these 'gods' represent some aspect of reality. Such as the pagan gods did. YHWH comes along and is claimed that he is all these gods in one. This is not far from the truth (mythically). The mistake comes along when this god is attributed to being good and not evil. The Indians realize that everything happens and is all part of the ground of reality or Brahman. The Christians don't realize this. They see Satan as a separate entity that causes evil. We know that can't be possible if god created Satan. They have a gap in understanding that doesn't allow them to see their god as evil. Makes no sense even in a mythologicial sense. Good and evil are aspects of one total reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 I've always found the idea of a creator god robs the Universe I see of it's wonder. Yes, it big... but if something made it you expect it to be amazing... at least 'impressive'. The fact that something just happened that looks that good... the tiny details of flowers, the shape of clouds, the details on the faces on bats... a million other fantastic things that just happened... throw it in the bag let it stew for 13 billion years... The Pillars of Creation to strange things that live on sulphur and iron in total darkness in water that would reduce us (or anything else the walks, crawls or slithers on the surface) to a parboiled scum in 5 minutes... now that is awe inspiring. Stick a creator in there... then what's the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts