Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I'm going to get myself into hot water here, but.....

There are Ghandis - and Hitlers - everywhere. Sometimes the wandering strange attractor of mythology locates itself on top of one of these leaders-in-waiting and transforms them. And thus the mythology renews itself. This renewal process has been happening since the dawn of humanity.

The reason I think individual  'will' is not involved, is because any mythological set is contributed to by all its believers, not just one. That leader has to be wanted, needed, desired and created by all those believers - even if it is change that is the aim, rather than a specific leader. The individual will is ridiculously weak in comparison.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Thu Aug 27th, 2009 at 02:36:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I would say it is not so much a question of will as know how to change the myth. But I do not say it is easy and I guess it does require some will, but it is not the primary incredience for change.
by Fran on Thu Aug 27th, 2009 at 02:41:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Great take.. but there is still some creation..some ability to generate the rigth story,at the right time... its like a theory in physics.. that's the metaphore I would use. You need the experiemtns, you need the frame in the heads of your fellow scientists but you also need creativity and stroy-telling... and the idea of making the experiments, of course.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Thu Aug 27th, 2009 at 02:46:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
kcurie also talks about the grammar of the myth - for me it has the following ingredients:

  • Language
  • Memories
  • Decisions
  • Beliefs
  • Values
  • Attitudes
  • Ways of sorting information
  • Strategies

Each of them can be influenced and changed.
by Fran on Thu Aug 27th, 2009 at 02:47:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I woudl say mostly right.. but some structural myths are not verbal. they need some kind of language but not really verbal-conscisou language per se. They need symbolic language of course but not verbal or conscious language.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Thu Aug 27th, 2009 at 02:54:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, I agree but language is also symbolistic not only verbal.

Memories are usually symbolistic (visual) and kinesthetic and can have aspects of verbal language.

by Fran on Thu Aug 27th, 2009 at 02:57:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
One of the big structural myths involves maintenance of self esteem.  It involves experienced basic human emotions, what we have internalized from our culture of origin and how we relate to society at large and more.  People will and do go to great lengths to feel good about themselves.  My guess would be that a problem in this area is usually a component for one who seeks help from a professional.  

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Aug 27th, 2009 at 04:21:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
People will go to great lengths to believe positive things about themselves. That's not quite the same as feeling inherently positive.

One of the biggest problems with Enlightenment mythology is that positive feelings rely on external states and external events.

People have tried to create inherently positive mythologies - a Christian called Matthew Fox tried to promote something he called original blessing, as an antidote to the concept of original sin - but they're rarely sticky.

In fact one of the many ironies of the Enlightenment is that structural mythologies are terror-based, and rooted in the immiment fear of pain, death and annihilation.

Aside from a brief outburst of optimism in the 60s, which created Star Trek and some other positive ideologies, most Western mythology is surprisingly gloomy and desperate. ('In the long run we're all dead.')

There's a permanent opposition between a slightly strained cult of personal sovereignty, and Everything Else, which is either indifferent or hostile.

The Enlightenment never really outgrew Christianity's fear of apocalypse. And aside from fear of snakes, mythologies of doom and apocalypse have always been one of the paradoxically unconscious drivers of Enlightenment values.

Unsurprisingly, it's not easy to feel inherently positive in that kind of background atmosphere.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Aug 27th, 2009 at 04:47:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
One day, we will meet.
I had never realized the star-trek, 60's optimism connection... it is self-evident now....

I formally attach to it :)

And regarding Enlightenment fight with Apocalypse  mythologies.. wow... wow...now  you will have me at least week thinking about it.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Thu Aug 27th, 2009 at 05:01:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I used to think of Star Trek as silly space opera. But you're not the only person close to me who sees it as a desirable utopia.

Did I say Space Opera?

In Scientology, founder L. Ron Hubbard used the science fiction term space opera to describe what he said were actual extraterrestrial civilizations and alien interventions in past lives. Upon Hubbard's death in 1986, the Church of Scientology announced that he had discarded his physical body and was now "on a planet a galaxy away."


En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 27th, 2009 at 05:08:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not "the new generation series" which uses the 60's optimism and merges it with the ecological nascient movement... a must-see.

You mightlike thsi as an introduction http://www.pointofinquiry.org/susan_sackett_the_secular_humanism_of_star_trek/

but write star trek the new generation and humanism in google..and you will see.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Thu Aug 27th, 2009 at 05:11:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In fact one of the many ironies of the Enlightenment is that structural mythologies are terror-based, and rooted in the immiment fear of pain, death and annihilation.

Surely you mean that these terror based mythologies are what the Enlightenment inherited.  They went to great lengths to discredit the Christian narrative and largely succeeded among the educated elites.  And for the Day of Judgement they substituted "The Judgment of Posterity."  The whole Enlightenment Project consisted of replacing concepts of divine guidance with concepts of human direction and values.

More than anything they overestimated the power of reason.  The Jacobins thought they could replace Christianity with a Cult of Reason, but that only lasted so long as the Terror endured. The Enlightenment was never more than a veneer over a much more tumultuous, emotional and religious society.  So long as educated elites ran things, Enlightenment values endured.  But with the broadening of the voter franchise and the incorporation of the merely literate, as opposed to the broadly educated, into the political process the Christian world view increasingly intruded upon and then challenged Enlightenment values.

Reason cannot compete with the power of the mythic frame of Christianity in the minds of those who have never really been able to see the power of reason, which is so often found in subtlety.  In a very real sense the founders of the Enlightenment, especially in France, never had the opportunity, especially in the ancien regime, to see just how weak the appeal of reason was.  Adam Smith was closer to the mark in seeing that the requirements of commerce could produce a more refined population, but even there, that refinement did not extend to causing the masses to prefer reason to religion.

Our modern world was built by elites with Enlightenment values and the process was conceived as The Enlightenment Process.  But, in the USA, in order for some of those elites to retain power and to continue their own self-aggrandizement, they formed an alliance with a numerically superior group who fundamentally rejected the entire Enlightenment Project and values.  Having sown the wind we all are now reaping the whirlwind.

Fortunately, the fundamentalist true believers are not, by themselves, a true governing majority, and, in the USA, those to whom they supplied critical support, when elected to government, have discredited themselves in the eyes of a majority--for now.  But they may form a blocking minority.  Time will tell and the game is still afoot.  One thing is clear.  Those who still hold Enlightenment values, such as the universal rights of man and the rights of minorities, need to learn how to frame and narrate their agenda in terms more appealing than those used by their opponents.  The current US Administration has not distinguished themselves in this regard.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Aug 27th, 2009 at 11:03:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I really really think that you should diary this...

It is brilliant.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Fri Aug 28th, 2009 at 06:03:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series