From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Apr 20 2003 - 19:33:45 BST
Sam, Scott and all interested parties:
dmb says:
I have a just a few brief comments until the end, when Sam asks a couple
questions about the myth of Orpheus. In a different post, Scott asked me
about Orpheus too. I'll indulge myself and take a little more time with that
topic. Hope you find it interesting...
Sam said:
I agree that we shouldn't single out science or scientists - but that is in
fact my point. I am objecting to the (Modernist/SOM) claim that science is
cognitively superior to mythology. That claim lacks self-awareness about the
mythology within which science itself is embedded. My view is that "science"
is transitive across different mythologies (assuming that science = level 4
and mythology = level 3). So I still think we agree on this.
dmb says:
Science is transitive across mythologies? I don't know what you mean. In any
case, in spite of all the problems with science and SOM that we might like
to discuss, I think it science and intellect IS COGNITIVELY SUPERIOR
precisely because it is embedded in mythology. It is everything that the
social level is and then something more. It transcends AND INCLUDES the
third level, as the Wilber quote from Steve suggests...
"A deer for example will register and respond not only to physical forces
that continue to impact it [as everything on the inorganic level does], but
also to a whole range of biological forces, from hunger to pain to sexual
drive, that simply make no impression on its constituent atoms. To the
individual atom, these new forces are "otherworldly"--literally out of this
world, or not in *its* world." SES p66
Sam said:
I don't think I have been 'backward about coming forward' with various
arguments. Forgive me if I don't employ each of them in every post - perhaps
it is pride, but I would have expected you to remember what my approach is,
from one day to the next. I certainly have a good idea of where you're
coming from ;-)
dmb says:
I only have a vague idea what you're talking about here. In any case, I'm
objecting to a bias that seems to be getting in the way. It hardly matters
what approach you're taking or if I remember it, the issue is whether of not
we can rightly say science and mythology are the same, whether or not
religion and science can fairly and rightly be treated as two rival
mytholoies. I think the answer is extremely obvious. They can't. Its like
saying cats and nations are the same, are just two rival organisms. I don't
even think we need Pirsig, Wilber, Barfield, Jung or Watts to see it, but
I'd hoped such a mountain of support would persuade you.
Sam said:
The only element of conscious choice you have is whether you 'interrogate'
your governing mythologies or not. I think freedom is a function of
self-awareness - the one is proportionate to the other.
dmb says:
YES! Myths and archetypes control a person to the extent that one is unaware
of them. Inspecting your inner motivations frees you. "Know Thyself". Free
your mind and your ass will follow, as they say.
Sam asked:
Has Orpheus (or Orphic mythology) ever made you decide a matter in a certain
way? Has it, in other words, ever made a concrete difference to the way you
live? And - given your last words there - how do you interpret Orpheus
looking back?
dmb says:
Now here's the fun part. Thanks so much for asking. I signed off with "Don't
look back" without meaning anything much. It just seemed like a humourous
way to say good bye. But I think it has to do with the difficulty in trying
to live in the moment and with the elusiveness of the mystical experience
since they are prominent themes in the story and are both things that seem
to be just beyond one's grasp, that can't really be brought back into the
daylight.
As to the concrete differences in real life, yes, totally, in a big, BIG
way. That's one of the things myths are supposed to do, make a real
difference in one's life. They're supposed to open you up to things and
energize your life, activate your being. One of the important aspects of the
Orpheus myth is that he is transformed not only in psychological and
spiritual terms, but also on a more practical level too. He is a musican,
the greatest in the world, at the beginning of the story and in the end he
becomes a prophet. Orpheus changes his vocation.
From Campbell's MYTHS TO LIVE BY:
Now the first and most important effect of a living mythological symbol is
to waken and give guidence to the energies of life. It is an
energy-releasing and energy-directing sign, which not only 'turns you on',
as they say, but turns you on in a certain direction, making you function a
certain way - which will be one conducive to your participation in the life
and purposes of a functioning social group. However, when the symbols
provided by the social group no longer work, and the symbols that do work
are no longer of the group, the individual cracks away, becomes dissociated
and disoriented, and we are confronted with what can only be named a
pathology of the symbol.
I don't wish to bore you with too much detail, but I discovered the myth
just as I was undergoing a personal transformation. I became a father,
changed jobs, met a series of "angels", of new friends who seemed to guide
and help me, my prime dream figure shifted and I decided to try my hand at a
whole new vocation; screenplay writing. All this was part of a single
process. It's hard to explain and some of it is too personal anyway, but
let's just say it was a life-altering experience. Somehow, the myth of
Orpheus was involved in all this and has served as a key to understanding it
all.
Aristotle said:
The lover of myth is in a sense the lover of wisdom, for myth is composed of
wonders.
dmb says:
There is another, more wonderful aspect to myth as well. It not only serves
a social function, but is also supposed to bring you in accord with the
larger world, in accord with the "cosmic order of things". And one of the
other MAJOR reasons I'm drawn to the Orpheus myth is its larger mystical
theme. Orpheus himself, as the greatest ever harp player, represents one who
has mastered this cosmic song. Notice how both Campbell and Barfield here
both describe the powerful effect of mythic images in terms of music....
From Campbell's MYTHS TO LIVE BY:
"A distinguished professor in psychiatry at the University of California, Dr
John W. Perry, has characterized the living mythological symbol as an
'affect image'. It is an image that hits one where it counts. It is not
addressed first to the brain, to be there interpreted and appreciated. On
the contrary, if that is where it has to be read, the symbol is already
dead. An 'affect image' talks directly to the feeling system and immediately
elicits a response, after which the brain may come along with its
interesting comments. There is some kind of throb of resonance within,
responding to the image shown without, like the answer of a musical string
to another equally tuned. And so it is that when the vital symbols of any
given social group evoke in all its member respones of this kind, a sort of
magical accord unites them as one spiritual organism, functioning through
members who, though separate in space, are yet one in being and belief."
From Owen Barfield's essay THE HARP AND THE CAMERA:
"It was not man who made the myths, but the myths, or the archetypal
substance they reveal, which made man. We shall have to come, I am sure, to
think of the archetypal element in myth in terms of the wind that breathed
through the harp-strings of individual brains and nerves and fluids, rather
as the blood still today pervades and sustains them."
This is already too long, but further comment is probably not needed anyway.
Thanks for your time.
DMB
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 Apr 20 2003 - 19:34:10 BST