In a message dated 4/10/02 12:27:51 PM GMT Daylight Time,
beasley@austarnet.com.au writes:
<< "It is people such as Campbell and Jung and Eliade, operating from a
widespread access to rationality - something the originators of myth did not
have - who then read deeply symbolic "as ifs" into them, and who like to
play with myths and use them as analogies and have great good fun with them,
whereas the actual mythic-believers do not play with the myths at all, but
take them deadly seriously and refuse in the least to open them to
reasonable discourse or any sort of "as if" at all. In short, a myth serves
Campbell's main function only when it ceases to be a myth and is released
into the space of reason, into the space of alternatives and possibilities
and as-ifs. What structure does he think Kant is operating from?" (pp 238 -
239) >>
Hi John,
I read this post with much interest and wished to add a brief tone:
In the above passage are we seeing one mythos appropriating, analysing,
dismissing a previous mythos?
There are many who contend that reasoned activity has a privileged access to
truth for example - but truth being an invention of reason in the first place!
Both are mythos non the less and we my usefully suggest that one is of higher
quality than another?
In this way, may we transcend all mythos?
I should be very interested in your thoughts? and i hope i have not taken a
small section of a large body of work out of context?
All the best,
Squonk.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:09 BST