From: david buchanan (dmbuchanan@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Oct 30 2005 - 01:39:06 GMT
Rebecca said: (wrote, actually.)
I just finished reading Karen Armstrong's new book "A short history of Myth"
and the idea of mythos and logos kept coming up again and again. She talked
a lot about the problems of western society using just logos and abandoning
mythos. Has anyone ever explored the mythos/logos separation and it's
relationship to the social/intellectual levels???
dmb says:
I'm not sure what Armstrong is up to, but I'm familiar mythology as its
presented by Joseph Campbell's books. If mythos and logos are taken to mean,
roughly, myth and logic, then I suppose it works as a handy way to get at
the social/intellectual distinction. As Bodvar put it, the mythological era
...can be seen as the social era, the mythos-logos corresponds to the
intellectual level emerging from the social level." That's a full-blown MOQ
formulation from Lila, of course. In ZAMM he's doing something interesting
too. Let me expand the quote Bo provided. (few pages from the end of chapter
28.)
"The mythos-over-logos argument states that our rationality is shaped by
these legends, (the Greek myths, the Old testament, the Vedic Hymns and the
early legends of all cultures which have contributed) that our knowledge
today is in relation to these legends as a tree is in relation to the little
shrub it once was .....there's no difference in kind or even difference in
identity, only a difference in size.
Thus, in cultures whose ancestry includes ancient Greece, one invariably
finds a strong subject/object differentiation because the grammar of the old
Greek mythos presumed a sharp natural divison of subjects and predicates. In
cultures such as the Chinese, where subject-predicate relationships are not
rigidly defined by grammar, one finds a corresponding absence of rigid
subject-object philosophy. ...There are endless examples of how mythos
differences direct behavior differences and they're all fascinating.
The mythos-over-logos argument argument points to the fact that each child
is born as ignorant as any caveman. What keeps the world from reverting to
the Neanderthal with each generation is the continuing, ongoing mythos, the
huge body of common knowledge that unites our minds as cells are united in
the body of man. To feel that one is not so united, that one can accept or
discard this mythos as one pleases, is not to understand what the mythos is.
There is only one kind of person, Phaedrus said, who accepts or rejects the
mythos in which he lives. And the definition of that person, when he has
rejected the mythos, Phaedrus said, is 'insane'. To go outside the mythos is
to become insane...."
"...the Quality he talked about lay outside the mythos. Now it comes!
Because Quality is the GENERATOR of the mythos. ...The mythos is the whole
train of collective consciousness of all communicating mankind. Every last
bit of it. The Quality is the track that directs the train. What is outside
the train, to either side - that is the TERRA INCOGNITA of the insane. He
knew that to understand Quality he would have to leave the mythos. That's
why he felt the slippage. He knew something was about to happen."
dmb continues:
I hate to spoil it for you, but 43 pages later he goes insane, finds his
Quality and "his soul is at rest". One of the things I find most interesting
about the quote is the way Pirsig is NOT making a hard distinction between
mythos and logos, as in the shrub to tree analogy. He's describing how
philosophical systems grow directly from the myths and legends of the
culture as well as the grammar of their pre-historic language. I think the
idea here is basically that the subject-object distinction is actually a
very ancient social level creature and that when it grew up to be a tree,
this distinction was enshrined as a metaphysical or philosophical truth. I
think Bo's idea was soundly defeated a couple weeks ago in one of Ant's
posts, so let's say let's say this idea puts a stake in the heart just in
case. (Since its Halloween)
Bo had said:
See. Logos=rationality=SOM=intellect! SOL proved again! ... Ancient people
knew no spiritual/corporeal - or any other of SOM's dichotomies.
dmb says:
I disagree and think ancient people invented the spiritual/corporeal
dicotomy along with many others like night and day, dead and alive, me and
you, us and them, etc... I'd guess that culture requres self-consciousness
or vice versa and the idea of one's self in a world that is not one's self
goes way, way back to the beginning.
How else could they know they were naked? See, SOM really begins with the
dawn of humanity and is marked by the desire for pants.
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
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 : Sun Oct 30 2005 - 01:45:40 GMT