The Key

[MagickMonkey]

I think my my example of the tribe in South America demonstrates the independence of objective reality from their perception of reality.

 

It does not Monkey. Show me 9^2=81 existing independently of the mental constructs we use to classify and model reality. Show me any thing that exists independently of your mind.

 

Science is nothing but a mental construct, just like God. The only difference is that science is a useful method of creating models of reality and God is not.

 

Put nine groups of nine rocks on the floor and count them. Tell me how many rocks are in those nine groups of nine rocks. If mathematical truths did not exist independently of our minds or outside of our mathematical abstractions, they would not be very useful, would they. Science would be nothing without mathematics. Engineering would be nothing without them. Yet, we benefit from the results of scientific discovery and engineering every day. Mathematical abstractions would not be worth a shit for describing objective reality if there were no objective reality to describe. If mathematical truths did not exists independently of our abstractions, we would not be having this conversation. The technology behind this web site relies on the mathematical truths reflected by our mathematical abstractions.

[MagickMonkey]

I'm letting this one go. As usual, I can't make enough sense of what A-man is saying to make a response.

Am I really seriously that obtuse? I've been considering how I'm communicating these days, wondering if it is my use of words in sentences has begun to fall apart from before, or if it simply a matter of conceptual and experiential frameworks I'm looking at this in. In my mind it is a highly rational framework that includes and integrates many frameworks of understanding, I suppose you could call it a meta-framework. But to me that is simply what is necessary in order to begin to adequately and fairly deal with these questions, as opposed to simply making them black and white questions, i.e., "Religion vs. Science".

 

There are plenty of others who do track with this, so I don't know that it is my style so much, although that is something I can look at. What would help to make this make more sense? To break down each and every perspective that is being brought to bear on this, such as anthropology, sociology, psychology, linguistics, semiotics, physics, biology, religion, mysticism, evolution, cosmology, geology, art, music, philosophy, etc? I'm happy to try to explain more clearly.

 

What you say makes perfect sense. I am glad you have the energy and patience to explain it to people that I no longer have.

 

Maybe you two are simply smoking the same stuff. (intended as light hearted humor).

[Guest end3]

I think my my example of the tribe in South America demonstrates the independence of objective reality from their perception of reality.

 

It does not Monkey. Show me 9^2=81 existing independently of the mental constructs we use to classify and model reality. Show me any thing that exists independently of your mind.

 

Science is nothing but a mental construct, just like God. The only difference is that science is a useful method of creating models of reality and God is not.

 

Put nine groups of nine rocks on the floor and count them. Tell me how many rocks are in those nine groups of nine rocks. If mathematical truths did not exist independently of our minds or outside of our mathematical abstractions, they would not be very useful, would they. Science would be nothing without mathematics. Engineering would be nothing without them. Yet, we benefit from the results of scientific discovery and engineering every day. Mathematical abstractions would not be worth a shit for describing objective reality if there were no objective reality to describe. If mathematical truths did not exists independently of our abstractions, we would not be having this conversation. The technology behind this web site relies on the mathematical truths reflected by our mathematical abstractions.

 

I think what he is saying MM, is that if your brain dies, it you have absolutely no proof of nada.

[MagickMonkey]

I think my my example of the tribe in South America demonstrates the independence of objective reality from their perception of reality.

 

It does not Monkey. Show me 9^2=81 existing independently of the mental constructs we use to classify and model reality. Show me any thing that exists independently of your mind.

 

Science is nothing but a mental construct, just like God. The only difference is that science is a useful method of creating models of reality and God is not.

 

Put nine groups of nine rocks on the floor and count them. Tell me how many rocks are in those nine groups of nine rocks. If mathematical truths did not exist independently of our minds or outside of our mathematical abstractions, they would not be very useful, would they. Science would be nothing without mathematics. Engineering would be nothing without them. Yet, we benefit from the results of scientific discovery and engineering every day. Mathematical abstractions would not be worth a shit for describing objective reality if there were no objective reality to describe. If mathematical truths did not exists independently of our abstractions, we would not be having this conversation. The technology behind this web site relies on the mathematical truths reflected by our mathematical abstractions.

 

I think what he is saying MM, is that if your brain dies, it you have absolutely no proof of nada.

 

Well, that would mean that my perception of reality would cease to exist, not that objective reality would cease to exist.

[Antlerman]

Which then lends itself to what I say about how that language creates the boundaries of what we perceive as reality. You say "reality" and see the external world. That is real then to you. But what about your self-sense? What about what you tell yourself about that? Is that real? You live it and interact with it and through it as reality. But it too is a perception, an interpretation. And when you understand that the objective world, is itself an interpretation, a series of thoughts, contexts, words, culture, emotions all brought into the mix which then create a framework, an edifice, a structure on which we confidently say "this is reality", then frankly it opens the understand way outside of the boxes of "reality" we create.

 

I really do not think that objective reality is an interpretation. We obviously cannot fully know objective reality, and our perception of objective reality will always be limited. That certainly does not mean that objective reality does not exist independently of our perceptions of it.

Objective reality to us, is always a matter of interpretation, unless we can be 'plugged in' bypassing all our faculties. In which case, wouldn't you imagine that how it is realized in that case would be vastly, or infinitely beyond how we perceive it with even the most powerful tools we have created through our genius? Imagine. What would that be. How would that be done?

 

The extent to which language limits our ability to perceive objective reality may depend on the extent to which one is a visual thinker rather than a "linguistic" thinker (can't think of the right term) - or perhaps a non-linquistic thinker rather than linguistic thinker (Is visual thinking the only other alternative? probably not). But certainly one's system of semantics limits how one can convey one's perceptions of reality and no doubt has an effect on how one actually perceives reality. Then again, I (and almost certanily all of us) have had concepts in my head that I didn't know exactly how to verbalize.

 

I know there is a tribe of indigenous people in South America (can't remember specifically where) that has no word for numbers greater than two other than a non-specific word for greater than two. Because of their limited language, the adults do not seem to be able to conceive of specific numbers greater than 2 no matter how hard you try to teach them. If you said there were twelve beers in the refrigerator, they would not be able to comprehend. Suppose all languages lacked specific words for numbers greater than 2. We would be unable to understand that 9^2 = 81. Does this mean that 9^2 would not = 81 simply because we would be unable to understand it? Of course, the mathematical language I just used to express this mathematical truth would be meaningless in this hypothetical situation, but the mathematical truth would still be true regardless of our ability to understand or express it.

I know this what you are referring to and it was what first interested me in semiotics as well in relation to this. It was what first sparked earlier thoughts on had on all of this when I started this topic (link) years ago now.

 

Language can be both a limiting and an empowering tool.

Now, with that understanding in mind, do you think the language of science as the shining light of mankind alone, empowers the realization of human potentials rising above our simple functioning as biological organisms? Does the supporting language of a reductionist or materialist worldview limit or open understanding?

 

If the language of the church were to say, "There are some things that we are not meant to understand," does that language empower or curtail? If a materialist says, "religious thought is based on earlier superstition and a need to understand the world which we know do because we have the evidence," does that empower or curtail? A little of both, perhaps? Such is language. As I said, it's about translating the present structures, not necessarily about discovering higher truth.

 

Now imagine if you got rid of language all together? Imagine getting rid of any notion or idea of what is real? Imagine no thoughts about it whatsoever. No concepts. In fact, not even "you". What is that? What would that be? Would that be Reality, in its essence and realization?

 

It certainly makes sense to have a system of semantics flexible to accommodate our growing understanding of objective reality, but if our language is overly flexible to the point to where words become meaningless, communication breaks down.

On that level. And that's my point. Myth as a language breaks down at a certain point. The language of Science and reason breaks down at a certain point.

 

Are these therefore unreliable, and untrustworthy? No, not so far as they provide structure to interact with the world around us through these understandings. This is why myth systems themselves, when everyone is involved in thinking of the world through that set of symbols is in fact valid and legitimate. They are trustworthy and reliable up to the point where they fail to translate the world any longer. Such was the downfall of myth, and frankly will in fact in the future be the failing of a rationalistic worldview. (That's not to say rationality is wrong, it is only to say there is more to come to be built upon that - in the same way that our current system incorporates the use of myths and symbolic languages into our present systems of thought).

 

I really think there is a profound difference between myth and rationality.

As there is between myth and magic. As there is between magic and instinct/response. And as there is between rationality and the 'transrational', to throw that term out there. Each is developmentally a greater, and larger perspective of the world, or 'reality'. But the term rationality may be misleading. By Rationality in the context I'm speaking I'm talking a general system of worldview, or system of thought. To be certain, rationality as a process of systematic thought was in fact used within both magic and mythic systems. There were very rational for their time. They were not 'idiotic', even though they were still on rung 3 of that ladder and we're on rung 4. (If someone was to view them as stupid, then they'd need to accept that the future would view them that way too).

 

If you mean we might expand our means for understanding reality by not limiting ourselves to our current abstractions (am I even close to understanding what you are saying), perhaps. But it will not conflict with rationality, but rather perhaps expand the way we are rational.

Very close. I would say we would include and transcend rationality. That is quite different than denying it or functioning contrary to it. We would include a perspective that incorporates vast amounts of understanding and perspective in how we operate in the world, where our reasoning is informed by a communion with higher mind in ourselves and through the world. We would respond to each other through an active awareness beyond our simple egos and ideas, in an actualized humanity that takes in the depths of their own nature or "soul" if you don't mind that word, in relation to a clear-minded understanding of nature - not just as objective reality, but as as part of ourselves and us part of it. No more corporations of greed, no more philosophies or religions of exclusiveness, no more war between science and religion. We would move in harmony with nature through a mind of understanding and a "soul" of communion.

 

And then beyond that to the next rung....

 

Like the sound of that?

 

When rationalist say that a myth is false, they are challenging the assertions of the myth.

Largely they are equally misunderstanding the nature of myth to make that an argument in the first place, in my experience. But I do understand that to mean in the context that they are in actuality challenging the notion that the myth reflects scientific understanding. That in fact is appropriate to challenge, but then it's not the myth being challenged, but the interpretation of the myth. The problem is, they then irrationally throw the myth aside as 'disproved'.

 

Perhaps your concept of religion does not neatly fit into most people's concept of religion. Of course, there really isn't a good hard definition for religion. Perhaps your future post will better describe what your idea of religion is.

A good question! I have just the thread to answer that. There are lots of ways people mean religion and it is largely context determining it. Please look over this thread here (Link) I think it would be very helpful in discussions to consider those as reference points. I speak of religion in varying ways, but for me personally, though I don't practice a 'religion' per se, I would most relate to the value I see in definitions R4, R7, and R9.

[Rev R]

Before you and I go any further with this Monkey, I must ask if you are having fun. I ask because this route of discussion can quickly become one of the most mind-numbing, hair pulling experiences you can imagine. Trust me, I've experienced it myself.

[florduh]

It seems to me (I'm sure I'll be corrected) that science arrives at many answers which everyone can agree on (I'm not referring to theories about as yet unknowns) while religion/spirituality comes up with answers, but people can't seem to agree on those "answers". Still, our brains seem wired to seek answers for that which we cannot know.

[MagickMonkey]

Objective reality to us, is always a matter of interpretation, unless we can be 'plugged in' bypassing all our faculties. In which case, wouldn't you imagine that how it is realized in that case would be vastly, or infinitely beyond how we perceive it with even the most powerful tools we have created through our genius? Imagine. What would that be. How would that be done?

 

To me, the phrase "Objective reality to us" makes no sense other than perhaps you mean by that phrase what I mean when I say "perceptions of reality". I guess the idea of being "plugged in" stumps me a bit.

 

Obviously, a finite number of finite minds cannot percieve an infinite set of truths. But we can perceive finite set of truths with varying degrees of accuracy. I think our perceptions of truths are more useful when they approach being actually true.

 

 

Now, with that understanding in mind, do you think the language of science as the shining light of mankind alone, empowers the realization of human potentials rising above our simple functioning as biological organisms? Does the supporting language of a reductionist or materialist worldview limit or open understanding?

 

 

I do not think we rise above functioning as biological organisms at all. Everything we do is a result of being biological organisms.

 

I think it mostly helps us open our understanding by allowing us to think and "see" more clearly and communicate more clearly. Strict adherence to such language might, however, reduce our ability to enjoy life. For instance, the language I might use when writing an essay for an English Composition class might be very clear and logical and very boring. I do well in such classes. If, however, I were asked to write poetry or use language in an artistic manner in some other type of class where such an assignment would be normal, I would fail miserably. I still see the value of language used in such a manner. I just don't see it as describing truth. Perhaps true concepts might be conveyed in such language.

 

 

If the language of the church were to say, "There are some things that we are not meant to understand," does that language empower or curtail?

 

 

Such a statement would be mentally crippling to those who accepted it.

 

 

If a materialist says, "religious thought is based on earlier superstition and a need to understand the world which we know do because we have the evidence," does that empower or curtail?

 

 

If such language freed people from the shackles of superstition, it would be empowering.

 

 

A little of both, perhaps? Such is language. As I said, it's about translating the present structures, not necessarily about discovering higher truth.

 

Now imagine if you got rid of language all together? Imagine getting rid of any notion or idea of what is real? Imagine no thoughts about it whatsoever. No concepts. In fact, not even "you". What is that? What would that be? Would that be Reality, in its essence and realization?

 

 

Perhaps I'm getting lost here, but to me, it sounds like a blank mind with a lack of understanding of anything true or false.

 

 

On that level. And that's my point. Myth as a language breaks down at a certain point. The language of Science and reason breaks down at a certain point.

 

 

I don't think the language of science is overly flexible. It might be considered overly limited. For it's purpose, it is not. It is very useful for describing or discovering truths. It would not be very reliable for the sort of things we use artistic language for.

[MagickMonkey]

 

As there is between myth and magic. As there is between magic and instinct/response. And as there is between rationality and the 'transrational', to throw that term out there. Each is developmentally a greater, and larger perspective of the world, or 'reality'. But the term rationality may be misleading. By Rationality in the context I'm speaking I'm talking a general system of worldview, or system of thought. To be certain, rationality as a process of systematic thought was in fact used within both magic and mythic systems. There were very rational for their time.

 

 

By my concept of rational, they weren't very rational, though perhaps they may have served a purpose.

 

 

They were not 'idiotic', even though they were still on rung 3 of that ladder and we're on rung 4. (If someone was to view them as stupid, then they'd need to accept that the future would view them that way too).

 

 

I honestly hope that future generations will look back on us and consider us stupid relative to where they are, though I hope they don't do so with condescension. That will mean we are evolving in the proper direction.

 

 

If you mean we might expand our means for understanding reality by not limiting ourselves to our current abstractions (am I even close to understanding what you are saying), perhaps. But it will not conflict with rationality, but rather perhaps expand the way we are rational.

Very close. I would say we would include and transcend rationality. That is quite different than denying it or functioning contrary to it. We would include a perspective that incorporates vast amounts of understanding and perspective in how we operate in the world, where our reasoning is informed by a communion with higher mind in ourselves and through the world. We would respond to each other through an active awareness beyond our simple egos and ideas, in an actualized humanity that takes in the depths of their own nature or "soul" if you don't mind that word, in relation to a clear-minded understanding of nature - not just as objective reality, but as as part of ourselves and us part of it. No more corporations of greed, no more philosophies or religions of exclusiveness, no more war between science and religion. We would move in harmony with nature through a mind of understanding and a "soul" of communion.

 

And then beyond that to the next rung....

 

Like the sound of that?

 

 

I think I'm getting a little lost again. It kinda sounds like you are talking about humans acting collectively as a super-organism, but maybe not exactly. If you are saying something close to that, I like my individuality too much to like the sound of that, but I can see how that's the direction humans are going. Life started out as a collection of replicating molecules, evolved into microbes, then groups of organisms, and then to multi-cellular organisms. Then, there were various groups of multi-cellular organisms, like herds/tribes, etc. And we may approach the point to where we let go of our individuality all together and simply act as a single collective super organism. That's not for me - I'll leave that to future generations. If that's the next step on the rung, I'm quite comfortable on the rung I'm on. Perhaps, I'm totally way off in left field here.

 

 

Largely they are equally misunderstanding the nature of myth to make that an argument in the first place, in my experience. But I do understand that to mean in the context that they are in actuality challenging the notion that the myth reflects scientific understanding. That in fact is appropriate to challenge, but then it's not the myth being challenged, but the interpretation of the myth. The problem is, they then irrationally throw the myth aside as 'disproved'.

 

A good question! I have just the thread to answer that. There are lots of ways people mean religion and it is largely context determining it. Please look over this thread here (Link) I think it would be very helpful in discussions to consider those as reference points. I speak of religion in varying ways, but for me personally, though I don't practice a 'religion' per se, I would most relate to the value I see in definitions R4, R7, and R9.

 

Are you saying that while they are correct in saying the myth in the literal sense is false, they are ignoring the purpose that the myth served for those who accepted the myth as true? And perhaps explaining reality wasn't the real purpose of the myth to begin with?

 

 

In regard to the link I'll try to check that out. I'm absent minded and juggling a lot of things on my schedule, but I intend to check that link out.

[MagickMonkey]

I had to break up my intended post into two separate posts and may have scrambled a few things in an attempt to satisfy the sites limit on the number of quote blocks in a post. I hope the resulting responses are still intelligible.

[MagickMonkey]

Before you and I go any further with this Monkey, I must ask if you are having fun. I ask because this route of discussion can quickly become one of the most mind-numbing, hair pulling experiences you can imagine. Trust me, I've experienced it myself.

 

I'm mostly having fun, though I am running into time constraints.

 

EDIT: I'm also getting frustrated with dealing with quote block kludge. hehe. I guess that's the way it goes. No site software is perfect, and this is pretty good, but running into limitations is always frustrating.

[Rev R]

Before you and I go any further with this Monkey, I must ask if you are having fun. I ask because this route of discussion can quickly become one of the most mind-numbing, hair pulling experiences you can imagine. Trust me, I've experienced it myself.

 

I'm mostly having fun, though I am running into time constraints.

fair enough, it's not something you want to drag someone into unwillingly. it's my son's birthday so once I get off work I won't be back until tomorrow sometime. perhaps we can delay this for a time.

[MagickMonkey]

Before you and I go any further with this Monkey, I must ask if you are having fun. I ask because this route of discussion can quickly become one of the most mind-numbing, hair pulling experiences you can imagine. Trust me, I've experienced it myself.

 

I'm mostly having fun, though I am running into time constraints.

fair enough, it's not something you want to drag someone into unwillingly. it's my son's birthday so once I get off work I won't be back until tomorrow sometime. perhaps we can delay this for a time.

 

Cool, sounds good.

[Galien]

I'm letting this one go. As usual, I can't make enough sense of what A-man is saying to make a response.

Am I really seriously that obtuse? I've been considering how I'm communicating these days, wondering if it is my use of words in sentences has begun to fall apart from before, or if it simply a matter of conceptual and experiential frameworks I'm looking at this in. In my mind it is a highly rational framework that includes and integrates many frameworks of understanding, I suppose you could call it a meta-framework. But to me that is simply what is necessary in order to begin to adequately and fairly deal with these questions, as opposed to simply making them black and white questions, i.e., "Religion vs. Science".

 

There are plenty of others who do track with this, so I don't know that it is my style so much, although that is something I can look at. What would help to make this make more sense? To break down each and every perspective that is being brought to bear on this, such as anthropology, sociology, psychology, linguistics, semiotics, physics, biology, religion, mysticism, evolution, cosmology, geology, art, music, philosophy, etc? I'm happy to try to explain more clearly.

 

What you say makes perfect sense. I am glad you have the energy and patience to explain it to people that I no longer have.

 

Maybe you two are simply smoking the same stuff. (intended as light hearted humor).

 

No doubt. Some things do expand the mind..... Its called thinking outside the square. The square is way too constricting for some of us.

[Galien]

Before you and I go any further with this Monkey, I must ask if you are having fun. I ask because this route of discussion can quickly become one of the most mind-numbing, hair pulling experiences you can imagine. Trust me, I've experienced it myself.

 

I'm mostly having fun, though I am running into time constraints.

 

EDIT: I'm also getting frustrated with dealing with quote block kludge. hehe. I guess that's the way it goes. No site software is perfect, and this is pretty good, but running into limitations is always frustrating.

 

I understand the mysteries of the universe but I still can't work the fucking multiquote..................HELLLLLLLLPPPPPP MEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!

[Deva]

I guess the concept of inner nature, inner exploration, and so forth baffle me for whatever reason. Also, when you strip the mythology from religion, what is left? Does what is left resemble philosophy more than religion?

 

 

Good question - when you strip the mythology from religion, what is left? I say its dead. If it lacks a meaningful mythology - myth in the sense of the word the way Joseph Campbell used it- there is nothing. I have come to know that the intellect just does not do it.

 

Example - If you go to a religious ceremony and do not enter into the whole spirit of the thing, it is useless. If you do - it "works" on you. I don't know if anyone understands what I mean.

[Antlerman]

I hear a conflation of things like culture and tradition in their structures heaped under the umbrella term "religion".

 

Since religion so strongly shapes these cultures and traditions, can it not be said that aspects of them that are grounded in religious belief and tradition are ultimately religious constructs as well?

I would say rather they are products of our evolution supported by a religious framework, and rather religion is reflective of them. I used to say 'we create God in our own image, and feed God, so God can feed us and create us in his image'. That is truly what myth creation is driven by, and we do it today as well as 2000 years ago.

 

- just like the understanding of the natural world through the tool of science did. But the failing I see currently is that rather then trying to understand that nature of our humanity in an existential way, it is 'explained' by science and then left to dry out on top of the examination table as the corpse left behind after examining the mythic view of it in literalist terms.

 

Here is where we differ. I view these spiritual aspects as products of brain function, but they are no less important for it.

Do you believe body is a product of cell function? How about cells? Are they are product of molecule function? Molecules are products of atom function? Atoms are a product of particle function? Particles are a product of.... You see my point?

 

I believe all aspects are a product of existence in ever higher forms, building on lesser forms in ever higher emerging forms. Not functions of the lesser levels, but new levels.

 

You may say, 'but if we trigger this neuron here, we can evoke this response there', but that is only activating something that has not yet been realized yet in adaptation. Adaptation is what evolution does. It is a mistaken perception to say that these phenomena can be triggered by activating parts of the brain therefore they are products of the brain. Well, so is the body products of atoms then.

 

A way to express that perhaps better would be to state this as Peak Experiences and Structural Adaptation. Even though they can be stimulated, either through probes or through chemicals, there are not yet a realized reality. They have not emerged through the processes of natural evolution. And as they are, they are emergent forms, non-reducible to previous levels as the function with a set of rules of their own.

 

Mind is brain no more nor less than body is atoms. I have no problem recognizing the earlier dependencies all the way up the evolutionary chain. That doesn't change the fact that a body is not a function of an atom, nor the spirit is a function of the brain.

 

I feel a very strong inter-connection with all things natural. I very much feel kinship with the planet, everything on it, and everything beyond it. I believe that this feeling is a product of some brain function or another, but that makes it no less real or meaningful to me.

Which if you were to follow that thought through, what 'function or another' might that possibly be? A spiritual one? Seriously, what possible adaptation in the environment drives an evolutionary need to feel one with Jupiter, or Andromeda, or the ant on the ground, the breeze, the sky, the future, the past? Oh... at the end of it all is your awareness of the world through your mind, that wonderful, emergent awakening...

 

Maybe your sense of interconnection is a function of your consciousness?

 

My knowledge of science does not diminish this "spiritual" feeling of being one with the universe, rather it reinforces it.

Perhaps for now. At every point of 'understanding' however there are limits.

 

I fully accept that I am just one incarnation of the energy/ matter that the universe is composed of. All of my matter and energy will be reused and redistributed by both living and inanimate objects. Ultimately, I was born of the stars, and I will go back to them.

For you to consider, that conscious mind of yours also was born from it as well. Not just your atoms, molecules, cells, body, and brain.

[Galien]

[

Example - If you go to a religious ceremony and do not enter into the whole spirit of the thing, it is useless. If you do - it "works" on you. I don't know if anyone understands what I mean.

 

Indeed, that is why I stopped. Faith for me was a personal thing, not a group thing. I don't really enter into the "spirit" of anything. Not xmas, not fads, not commercially driven "holidays" of any kind. To me its just hypey fake bullshit.

[Antlerman]

Also, when you strip the mythology from religion, what is left? Does what is left resemble philosophy more than religion?

I promised I'd get back to some thoughts on this. This is a very good question and I'm glad you brought it up. First it would help to understand mythology, and perhaps look at it from a different perspective. What is mythology really? There has been a lot of different schools of thought emerging on the nature and function of myth. A brief summary I think is nice is something I found some time ago in reading a book by Burton Mack called the Christian Myth:

 

"If the first phase of myth studies was quite content to explain myth away, or at least to explain why the older, archaic and "primitive" myths were now passe, the second phase sought to understand myth as essential for the creation and maintenance of a society.

Functionalist theories

looked for ways in which myths inculcated values and attitudes.

Symbolic theories

emphasized the contribution myths made to images and symbols of importance for the definition, identity, and celebration of a society.

Structuralist theories

analyzed the way in which myths were put together in order to get at the logic of the story and the mode of thinking of a people. And so, in the hands of

ethnographers

, myths became essential ingredients in social description and analysis. And in the hands of

cultural anthropologists

, myths became windows into the otherwise unexpressed ways in which a people imagined themselves, thought about themselves, and negotiated their plans and values."

 

[Emphasis mine]

 

When you ask what if you take away myths what do you have, you are really looking at it from the first phase of myth studies mentioned above. But in understanding myth in all those areas of the second phase of studies he mentions and which I highlighted in bold above, then you begin to see that myth is far more than just 'explaining the unexplainable'. Considerably more.

 

In fact, a good modern example of myth being used would be that of the American Dream. It is a pieced together ideal that we put a face upon and the masses look to as a truth to aspire to. It is promoted by the controlling powers of industry and commerce, as the priests would promote the worship of their god. They are functioning on very much the same level to the same essential ends.

 

Myths also inform us of a people's worldviews expressed through the use of their symbols - the flag is another huge example of a collective symbol of a people. National pride, the myths of patriotism, honor of the dead, and so forth, regardless the area of life it touches on, they all use a mythological framework as a way to relate the individual and the group to a common ideal.

 

Now... let's look at Science in this light. When science moves from being viewed as simply a very powerful tool, in the way a lever might be, to a system that holds the promise of the future for mankind's salvation, then, it is now a symbol, not just a tool. And now, as a symbol, hopes, ideals, beliefs, are all heaped onto it and as people talk about it truth gets added to through all of that and the shape of this collective ideal becomes.... drum roll....... a myth! Science therefore, when viewed as more than a tool in this way is becomes the new mythology of the post Enlightenment world. Just like the hammer and sickle as tools became transformed into the symbol of a people's land and culture.

 

So to your question, what if we strip myth out of religion? I'll ask this, in light of the above, since it is obvious we still use myth in our daily lives, to the point it operates as unquestioned background realities informing us of truth through culture and communications, what exactly do you mean? This will help form a more focused response, or at the least an interesting discussion.

 

I do have more thoughts already to expand on this in mind, but I'll wait for the moment.

[MagickMonkey]

Also, when you strip the mythology from religion, what is left? Does what is left resemble philosophy more than religion?

I promised I'd get back to some thoughts on this. This is a very good question and I'm glad you brought it up. First it would help to understand mythology, and perhaps look at it from a different perspective. What is mythology really? There has been a lot of different schools of thought emerging on the nature and function of myth. A brief summary I think is nice is something I found some time ago in reading a book by Burton Mack called the Christian Myth:

 

"If the first phase of myth studies was quite content to explain myth away, or at least to explain why the older, archaic and "primitive" myths were now passe, the second phase sought to understand myth as essential for the creation and maintenance of a society.

Functionalist theories

looked for ways in which myths inculcated values and attitudes.

Symbolic theories

emphasized the contribution myths made to images and symbols of importance for the definition, identity, and celebration of a society.

Structuralist theories

analyzed the way in which myths were put together in order to get at the logic of the story and the mode of thinking of a people. And so, in the hands of

ethnographers

, myths became essential ingredients in social description and analysis. And in the hands of

cultural anthropologists

, myths became windows into the otherwise unexpressed ways in which a people imagined themselves, thought about themselves, and negotiated their plans and values."

 

[Emphasis mine]

 

When you ask what if you take away myths what do you have, you are really looking at it from the first phase of myth studies mentioned above. But in understanding myth in all those areas of the second phase of studies he mentions and which I highlighted in bold above, then you begin to see that myth is far more than just 'explaining the unexplainable'. Considerably more.

 

In fact, a good modern example of myth being used would be that of the American Dream. It is a pieced together ideal that we put a face upon and the masses look to as a truth to aspire to. It is promoted by the controlling powers of industry and commerce, as the priests would promote the worship of their god. They are functioning on very much the same level to the same essential ends.

 

Myths also inform us of a people's worldviews expressed through the use of their symbols - the flag is another huge example of a collective symbol of a people. National pride, the myths of patriotism, honor of the dead, and so forth, regardless the area of life it touches on, they all use a mythological framework as a way to relate the individual and the group to a common ideal.

 

Now... let's look at Science in this light. When science moves from being viewed as simply a very powerful tool, in the way a lever might be, to a system that holds the promise of the future for mankind's salvation, then, it is now a symbol, not just a tool. And now, as a symbol, hopes, ideals, beliefs, are all heaped onto it and as people talk about it truth gets added to through all of that and the shape of this collective ideal becomes.... drum roll....... a myth! Science therefore, when viewed as more than a tool in this way is becomes the new mythology of the post Enlightenment world. Just like the hammer and sickle as tools became transformed into the symbol of a people's land and culture.

 

So to your question, what if we strip myth out of religion? I'll ask this, in light of the above, since it is obvious we still use myth in our daily lives, to the point it operates as unquestioned background realities informing us of truth through culture and communications, what exactly do you mean? This will help form a more focused response, or at the least an interesting discussion.

 

I do have more thoughts already to expand on this in mind, but I'll wait for the moment.

 

I think your concept of myth is much more encompassing than mine. I wouldn't consider the American Dream, patriotism, etc. to be myths, but that's simply because my concept of a myth is more narrow than yours. That being said, the above does make some sense, and I can see how many of the things you call myth would satisfy the same psychological roles as the things I call myth.

 

I think science can be our salvation and possibly our downfall. Scientific research led to the development of nuclear weapons. If our view of science becomes overly idealistic, we risk putting to much faith in those doing scientific research. We must always question the motives and methods of those who do scientific research. We must always wonder what are the unintended consequences of the technology based on such research. If we treat science like a religion, we will loose our objectivity and we might end up being fucked. Of course, one might say that my "myth" might be scepticism.

[sciencemike]

Myths also inform us of a people's worldviews expressed through the use of their symbols - the flag is another huge example of a collective symbol of a people. National pride, the myths of patriotism, honor of the dead, and so forth, regardless the area of life it touches on, they all use a mythological framework as a way to relate the individual and the group to a common ideal.

 

Now... let's look at Science in this light. When science moves from being viewed as simply a very powerful tool, in the way a lever might be, to a system that holds the promise of the future for mankind's salvation, then, it is now a symbol, not just a tool. And now, as a symbol, hopes, ideals, beliefs, are all heaped onto it and as people talk about it truth gets added to through all of that and the shape of this collective ideal becomes.... drum roll....... a myth! Science therefore, when viewed as more than a tool in this way is becomes the new mythology of the post Enlightenment world. Just like the hammer and sickle as tools became transformed into the symbol of a people's land and culture.

 

So to your question, what if we strip myth out of religion? I'll ask this, in light of the above, since it is obvious we still use myth in our daily lives, to the point it operates as unquestioned background realities informing us of truth through culture and communications, what exactly do you mean? This will help form a more focused response, or at the least an interesting discussion.

 

I do have more thoughts already to expand on this in mind, but I'll wait for the moment.

 

Good example... the one example that encompasses science as a symbol that comes to mind to me is the Space Race. Both the US and the USSR were trying to out do each other using science and technology instead of saber rattling. Even now we remain in space more because of what it represents to humanity rather than the potential scientific gains that may be discovered in space.

 

Though science/technology itself has generated some symbolic value (think of a semiconductor silicon chip, or the radiation trefoil, or the Saturn V booster and what those mean to people nowadays), IMO it differentiates itself from myth by objectively self-validating itself. Myths propagate by word of mouth among generations, and although they are assumed to be true, there is nothing that "maps" it from legend to reality. Science (and especially technology that results from the pursuit of it) bridges that gap on a daily basis. Although it may be mystifying to outsiders how the internet works, or how cars function, the "magic" that takes place can be reduced to fundamental components and the physical/chemical/etc interaction between them. That is, science builds from the ground up a priori and becomes more complex over time while myths retain a top down approach and rarely evolve to higher orders of complexity.

 

Obviously, there are exceptions to this. The Indian stories-within-stories parables can get quite long, as well as the turtles which we know go all the way down

 

I think science can be our salvation and possibly our downfall. Scientific research led to the development of nuclear weapons. If our view of science becomes overly idealistic, we risk putting to much faith in those doing scientific research. We must always question the motives and methods of those who do scientific research. We must always wonder what are the unintended consequences of the technology based on such research. If we treat science like a religion, we will loose our objectivity and we might end up being fucked. Of course, one might say that my "myth" might be scepticism.

 

The scientific research itself has the advantage of "people thought averaging" due to the peer review process. Any one person or group with motives will have a difficult time swaying the opinion of an entire research sector.

 

As far as the unintended consequences, that I think lies more with people in power choosing to use this technology for their own purposes (even if those purposes can cause deaths of millions). Should scientists be more vigilant in how their work is used? Perhaps, but even the best intentions can lead to a future downfall.

 

Suppose I invented a perfect human cloning device and it was to be used for generating human organs for organ transplants. All sounds good until the technology falls into the hands of Dr. Evil, who then retreats to his secret underground Volcano base (with no handrails on catwalks over hot magma for obvious reasons) and creates an army of supersoldier clones using Geothermal power in order to take over the world.

 

Next thing we know we have supersoldier clones roaming the streets with their laser-mounted shark attack dogs supporting them, and then we won't be able to stop them

[Guest end3]

I don't see that it is any secret that we would gravitate towards any understanding that promotes our personal and societal wellbeing. That we have myths or whatever......science, to explain or perpitrate this seems moderately evident as well. A couple of things......what I do hear is fluff with regard to elevating the importance of the discussion, but no real alternatives for a framework or direction or explanation that moves me or humanity to the point of peace with my/our reality. In other words, "Where's the beef"?

[MagickMonkey]

 

I think science can be our salvation and possibly our downfall. Scientific research led to the development of nuclear weapons. If our view of science becomes overly idealistic, we risk putting to much faith in those doing scientific research. We must always question the motives and methods of those who do scientific research. We must always wonder what are the unintended consequences of the technology based on such research. If we treat science like a religion, we will loose our objectivity and we might end up being fucked. Of course, one might say that my "myth" might be scepticism.

 

The scientific research itself has the advantage of "people thought averaging" due to the peer review process. Any one person or group with motives will have a difficult time swaying the opinion of an entire research sector.

 

As far as the unintended consequences, that I think lies more with people in power choosing to use this technology for their own purposes (even if those purposes can cause deaths of millions). Should scientists be more vigilant in how their work is used? Perhaps, but even the best intentions can lead to a future downfall.

 

Suppose I invented a perfect human cloning device and it was to be used for generating human organs for organ transplants. All sounds good until the technology falls into the hands of Dr. Evil, who then retreats to his secret underground Volcano base (with no handrails on catwalks over hot magma for obvious reasons) and creates an army of supersoldier clones using Geothermal power in order to take over the world.

 

Next thing we know we have supersoldier clones roaming the streets with their laser-mounted shark attack dogs supporting them, and then we won't be able to stop them

 

Please don't think I'm anti-science in the least. I simply think we should not have to much of an excessively idealistic mindset towards science. To me, it seems such mindsets compromise objectivity.

 

Certainly the peer review process is highly important and does much to eliminate bullshit. However, no system conceived by and implemented by humans is perfect. Even when intentions are pure, mistakes can happen. If we put too much confidence in the process, we can run into problems.

 

Of course, scientists are generally prepared to question everything, and are careful about stating the results of any research. Unfortunately, when results are presented to the public via the news media, reporters are not to careful about how they report scientific findings. Reporters may report scientific findings poorly because of incompetence, a desire to sensationalize their report, or both. A scientific report might say that x research shows there may be a causal relationship between y and z and more research is needed to confirm this relationship. A news article might say that if you want z, you better do or get some y because of x research. Some company might then sell a product based on y for those who want z, and claim it is backed by scientific research. Some people may look at findings from one scientific report in isolation without even hearing about research that produces conflicting results. They then give the results much more credibility than is due. And, of course, people are duped by pseudoscience all the time.

[Ouroboros]

In other words, "Where's the beef"?

That's easy to answer. It's on the shelf in the fridge.

 

The question is really "where's the fridge?"

 

 

 

Just kiddin' with ya' of course.

[MagickMonkey]

In other words, "Where's the beef"?

That's easy to answer. It's on the shelf in the fridge.

 

The question is really "where's the fridge?"

 

 

 

Just kiddin' with ya' of course.

 

Maybe this is a vegetarian thread. Where's the broccoli?