From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Mon Nov 15 2004 - 16:19:12 GMT
Hi DMB,
Chopped in one element from another thread into this one also. (the PP stuff we can pursue in the
other thread)
> dmb says:
> I see what Scott is trying to say, but I think it is confused. The
> distinction between myth and fact is a distinction between social and
> intellectual, but in not nesessarily tied to SOM. We can reject SOM and
> theism at the same time.
<snip>
> Literalism just isn't possible within this view. By definition, it sees
> right through the concrete expressions, which would make the various
> religions seems entirely different rather than essentially the same, and
> instead sees into the meaning behind those various expressions. The only way
> to RECOGNIZE the commonalities is to read those various expressions as
> metaphors instead of facts, to understand that they refer to spiritual
> realities that can be experienced by all human beings regardless of culture
> or religion, time and place.
How do you know that "The distinction between myth and fact is a distinction between social and
intellectual"? Can you explain why you think this is true?
> dmb says:
> And finally, as Campbell explains it, the literalism began to take over
> early in the 14th century....
Campbell is on to something there. What I would dispute is that the literalism 'took over' - what it
'took over' was Protestantism. (I think Scott's been pointing this out?)
> Sam said:
> Thing is, one of the main objections to the idea that Christianity is just a
> trans-historical myth is that it happened 'in historical time', in other
> words, there are historical actors present and involved - it takes place
> within the 'historical' world, and not 'a long time ago in a galaxy far
> away' etc. Do these factors make any difference to your perspective?
>
> dmb says:
> No. That's merely what makes the confusion possible. Its not some wild
> co-incidence that actual people live lives that enact myths becasue they are
> an inherent part of human consciousness. We all live by myths its just that
> once in a while, seemingly with increasing frequecy, someone comes along who
> epitomizes these forms better than most anyone else. From this actual
> occurances, legends are born and eventually they are mythologized....
Do you believe that such a legend could be born today, eg with Nelson Mandela? And if so, do you
think that such a legend could be combined at one and the same time with a (present day) historical
understanding, eg acquaintance with the primary sources, testimonies of witnesses, etc etc. In other
words, do you see the historical method as something which can 'inoculate' against such
mythologisation?
Cheers
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 15 2004 - 16:55:17 GMT