Religious Backgrounds

What needs do mythology and religion serve in today's world and in ancient times? Here we discuss the relationship between mythology, religion and science from mythological, religious and philosophical viewpoints.

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

Nair al Saif
Associate
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 5:00 am
Location: Memphis
Contact:

Post by Nair al Saif »

Hello everyone,

This is my first post here. I am still new to Joseph Campbell. I've read "Myths to Live By". I'm currently working on "The Hero with a Thousand Faces". I am imensly interested in the works of Campbell so far.

I am curious to know what the representation of various world religions is within these forums. I did a brief search of the forums for a topic on this subject but failed to find anything.

Me personally, I am somewhat agnostic. I have been pursueing my spirituality academicly for about 8 years. My main interest lately, as religions go, is Wicca. Though I hesitate to claim the label of Wiccan for myself just yet.

So what about everyone else here? Is there an already established thread on this subject. If not, let us take a minor inventory of the faiths that interact here.


====================<br>"Life is like a turkey.<br> Any way you slice it,<br> It's still a turkey."<br> - Garfield<br>====================

JR
Associate
Posts: 720
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 6:00 am
Location: transition to permanence
Contact:

Post by JR »

It is interesting that the religious aspect of mythology has taken such a prominent voice in these forums of late; unavoidable given Joe Campbell's belief that religion is myth, myth being a "public dream". This most popular form of mythology, was indeed a large part of his work. One of the reasons Campbell was so interested in religion as mythology was the fact that there were many shared aspects of thought, split by social, economic, and geographic differences. He saw a common mythology of the human species, that had been held in segregation by lesser forms of thinking than the mythology itself sprang from. Prof. Joe's ideal was to dissolve imagined barriers, and (re)unite the world under one mythology; a little grandiose when stated like that, perhaps, but when mythology is looked upon in terms of collective consciousness, archetypal thought, and an understanding of human psychology, don't we fint that we are already united under one mythology? Aren't the religious barriers already dissolved as soon as they are identified as human interpretation?

I think it's wonderful to get an idea of what people believe and who they are as individuals, because even if we are going to look at the world in the light of commonality, no mythology will have <i>any</i> relevance without appreciation for individual interpretation as well. So, both the collective and the individual are as important to the whole as to each other. In my case, being aware of this while seeking for myself "religious" meaning, I have taken the journey from an Episcopal/Catholic background to Atheism, Agnosticism, Taoism, Buddhism, Gnosticism, and Hermeticism (as well as numerous other sources that might not be considered religious, but would certainly be described as mythic); all with a heuristic mindset, tempered by Campbell's thoughts on symbolism ringing in my ears. So, I would say I'm a Heurist; a seeker content with the best journey instead of the best goal.


_________________
JR

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JR on 2003-08-13 18:01 ]</font>

Molly J
Associate
Posts: 174
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 6:00 am
Location: SC

Post by Molly J »

Grew up Christian/Baptist but working on my own version of the universal mystic vision.

Richard Arthur
Web Developer
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2002 6:55 pm

Post by Richard Arthur »

>"Prof. Joe's ideal was to dissolve imagined barriers, and (re)unite the world under one mythology; a little grandiose when stated like that, perhaps, but when mythology is looked upon in terms of collective consciousness, archetypal thought, and an understanding of human psychology, don't we find that we are already united under one mythology?"

That, I've always assumed, is the idea behind the "monomyth," and the single hero with a thousand faces. But I'm not sure it's true. There are different mythologies, and different religions, and there are real commonalities and real differences, so far as I can tell.

That doesn't mean we can't be pals. But it seems more real to me to admit that we have deep, abiding, philosophical and religious differences, and learn to live with each other despite them, than spend our time trying to convince ourselves and others that the differences are not real.

If it's not too obvious, re: myself--born and raised Presbyterian, went Catholic in my mid-twenties.

butch
Associate
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 6:00 am
Location: Ct.

Post by butch »

Grew up atheist but now I am a spiritual atheist

JR
Associate
Posts: 720
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 6:00 am
Location: transition to permanence
Contact:

Post by JR »

On 2003-08-20 20:39, Richard Arthur wrote:
There are different mythologies, and different religions, and there are real commonalities and real differences, so far as I can tell.

That doesn't mean we can't be pals. But it seems more real to me to admit that we have deep, abiding, philosophical and religious differences, and learn to live with each other despite them, than spend our time trying to convince ourselves and others that the differences are not real.
I understand what you mean, and I agree that certain monads have relevant aspects of their system of belief that differ from other monads. I suppose it's a matter of which aspect we chose to focus on, the differences or the commonalities. As far as I can see, the differences in cultures around the world are valid only when looked at in terms of cultural identity. But religion, and myth as seen in terms of archetypal thought, addresses a much more human paradigm. The common themes of these myths and dreams lead us to believe that there is a unified psychological aspect of reality beyond any cultural conditioning or sovereign identity from which most differences arise. In the collision of nature vs. nurture, the reality of one is not canceled out by the reality of the other, they are both real, but it is our specific gift as humans to be able to determine what is natural and what is nurtured. So, if we are going to focus our attention on such important things as comparisons in the fields of mythology, religion, and philosophy then it would be a waste of our gift (and in so doing a denial of our humanity) not to make a determined effort to identify that which is nature and that which is nurture. In fact, why even make the comparisons if the answer one is looking for isn’t a central truth evidenced by commonality?

JR

Felicity
Associate
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2003 5:00 am
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Post by Felicity »

Hum - my dad was Roman Catholic (Irish).
My mother was C of England. They were married in New York State, had to get permission from the Archbishop of NY, because mom wouldn't convert. The priest asked dad why couldn't he find a nice Catholic girl? Dad said there aren't any. They moved to Canada, where I was born in Montreal, and in due course they told us that we could choose our own religion when we were old enough. I was never baptized but I did travel around to different churches for several years, thinking I was missing something.

At an early age (13) I read The Bible, and Children of Kaywana, which gave me some mixed messages. A few years later I got hold of The Passover Plot, and later on The Sacred Mushroom and The Cross, which although it is now defunct - let me know htat there is spirituality without religion. I found out about Bahai, Gurdjieff, Yoga, skittered away from Witchcraft and Druidism until the last decade or so.

I've spent lots of time reading http://www.positiveatheism.com, which is a great site - and I've gone to the Unitarian church, and dabbled in Wicca, but have found that it too is just another religion, or at least the people in it make it that way. Some of them I swear should be teaching Sunday School.

So - now I'm just content to be on my own path, such as it is. I guess I'd say I'm a Pagan, because I've found I'm comfortable talking with people who are really into caring for the earth, and don't get caught up in rituals and rules. I'm also very much interested in pre-Christian cultures and religions, I find I like listening to people who are studying megaliths, stone circles, timber circles in the UK. I'd probably be happy as an anthropologist or archaeologist; I think there's a spirituality there, if not a religion.

Calaf
Associate
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 5:00 am
Location: Anchorage, AK

Post by Calaf »

I was brought up Christian, but converted to ultra-atheism. I'm now a more moderate atheist/agnostic/spiritual atheist.
"Dharma is the best thing for people, both in this life and in the next."<br>-The Buddha, from the Agganna Sutra

Richard Arthur
Web Developer
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2002 6:55 pm

Post by Richard Arthur »

On 2003-08-24 20:20, JR wrote:
...religion, and myth as seen in terms of archetypal thought, addresses a much more human paradigm. The common themes of these myths and dreams lead us to believe that there is a unified psychological aspect of reality beyond any cultural conditioning or sovereign identity from which most differences arise.
But part of the real difference is whether those common perceptions and aspirations arise from a mere psychological faculty or reflect a reality existing apart from and independent of our psyches.

In fact, why even make the comparisons if the answer one is looking for isn’t a central truth evidenced by commonality?
Lack of commonality isn't an indicator of unreliability unless one makes the prior assumption that the things compared are the same or stem from the same internal source.

Many feel today that the answer to religious differences is to assert that there cannot be religious error, that the category of the "religious" is so irreducably subjective that it can only be dealt with as either a feeling or a perception, with no objective referent, and hence beyond questioning, or a manifestation of what is assumed to be universal, the figment of an archetype.

That may be right or wrong, but it's not the opinion of most people of religious feeling, and, in fact, it sets up an assimilating model of religious experience that, in discounting the concrete discreteness of most religious propositions and practice, is just as "imperialistic" as the dominent monotheisms of the West.

aecleo
Associate
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 5:00 am

Post by aecleo »

I was raised fundamentalist protestant christian. At 15, began disengaging from that...still working on it now at 25. I currently am spiritual, but not religious; but, I always reserve the right to change my opinion.

JR
Associate
Posts: 720
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 6:00 am
Location: transition to permanence
Contact:

Post by JR »

On 2003-09-23 09:47, Richard Arthur wrote:
... part of the real difference is whether those common perceptions and aspirations arise from a mere psychological faculty or reflect a reality existing apart from and independent of our psyches.
If one <i>thinks</i> there is a distinction between physical reality and metaphysical, then it is only an illusory perception, a disassociation of two parts of the same reality. Psychological manifestations are a part of this reality also, but as I see it, a kind of bridge between the disassociations. My belief is that our capacity to disassemble also provides us with the ability to re-assemble through inference and metaphor.
Lack of commonality isn't an indicator of unreliability unless one makes the prior assumption that the things compared are the same or stem from the same internal source.
That may be true, but it is equally true that where there is great commonality, it can be infered that there is a common source. When such things are seen as having a common source, the disparities between them must be revoked, or those things cannot be fully, accurately understood. It is a contextual issue, if the context of two branches of the same tree is taken to be purely separate, then how can you possibly understand either branch?
Many feel today that the answer to religious differences is to assert that there cannot be religious error, that the category of the "religious" is so irreducably subjective that it can only be dealt with as either a feeling or a perception, with no objective referent, and hence beyond questioning, or a manifestation of what is assumed to be universal, the figment of an archetype.

That may be right or wrong, but it's not the opinion of most people of religious feeling, and, in fact, it sets up an assimilating model of religious experience that, in discounting the concrete discreteness of most religious propositions and practice, is just as "imperialistic" as the dominent monotheisms of the West.
I wonder, by the way you use the phrase "figment of an archetype", if you don't feel mythology to be nothing more than the baseless imaginings of an overly creative species? Perhaps psychology is nothing more than the study of an unnecessary brain function. Yet, religion is the word of god, spoken through the lips and pens of man. What is the distinguishing factor between imagination and divine illumination? If so, then which guidance is truly divine if not the universal? This is why the Gnostic traditions took such a stance against the creator of the Old Testament, calling him a fool and a demiurge. Mythology, inclusive of religion, and read in terms of psychology, is a language system. It is a point of language to communicate specific ideas between people of different backgrounds (as everybody is) by use of some common gateway. Finding commonality in myth and religion isn’t about determinism, or dominance, it’s about communication of experience. As I mentioned earlier, my original faith was Episcopalian, now I found as much distaste in that religion as I find in most others, but one redeeming quality is the C of E’s ability to assimilate and de-concretize its practice, and there’s nothing imperialistic about <I>it</I> in the least.

JR

oneworld
Associate
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 5:00 am
Location: Out of the Ashes.

Post by oneworld »

Dragged up a Roman Catholic...backwards,so backwards I thought I was a protestant.

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

That may be right or wrong, but it's not the opinion of most people of religious feeling, and, in fact, it sets up an assimilating model of religious experience that, in discounting the concrete discreteness of most religious propositions and practice, is just as "imperialistic" as the dominent monotheisms of the West.
Now Richard, that is a fascinating thought. 'You can't be wrong' as an imperialist attitude? I'll have to let that one simmer for a while before I ladle it into the bowl.

Personally, I think there may be a flaw in "the answer to religious differences is to assert that there cannot be religious error". Subjectively, another's religious difference can certainly be in error, as in blowing one's self, and others, up and expecting an eternity with virgins, or trying to breed a red bull to fulfill a prophecy and bring about armegeddon.

I mean, holy cow.

So there be flaws aplenty, from one perspective or another, but the democratic ideal is to allow others their flaws, religious or otherwise, until their flaws impinge upon what may be viewed as my flaws. After all, one man's religion is another man's shrink wrap.

Oh, as long as I'm posting, might as well sign in: Catholic, retired. Currently: spiritually silent.

Clemsy


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Clemsy on 2003-09-23 18:05 ]</font>

Richard Arthur
Web Developer
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2002 6:55 pm

Post by Richard Arthur »

>Now Richard, that is a fascinating thought. 'You can't be wrong' as an imperialist attitude?

Think of it as passing off a synthetic statement as a tautology, a contingent sentiment that demands assent.

For myself, I don't think what is analogously called intellectual "imperialism" or "triumphalism" is necessarily a bad thing. All ideas are propogated, and all religions and philosophies that do spread are spread by their own special missionaries and missionary societies, whether they are Christian, Buddhist, or--well, fill in the blanks.

My problem is with a strategy that seems to deny differences by papering them over with an irenic gloss, which deals with our understandable anxiety about choosing by assuring us that our choices make no difference, like the unfortunate souls in the antechamber of Dante's hell, who would not choose between good and evil, and found that, thereafter, not even hell wanted them.

It is the nature of all-subsuming, omni-explanational systems to assimilate other systems into them. This is what almost all religions and metaphysical systems do, and are for. One can try to surround the surrounders, outflank the assimilators with one's own universal system, but the form of the enterprise remains the same.

Fin
Associate
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 6:00 am

Post by Fin »

Eh. Zen or something I guess.

Locked