Lecture I.1.5 - The Vitality of Myth

This forum is for focused discussions on The Collected Lectures of Joseph Campbell. Each lecture has its own dedicated conversation.

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

Hey! Look what I found on Wiki. Perfect for this forum! :D 8)
Higher-order thinking is a concept of Education reform based on learning taxonomies such as Bloom's Taxonomy. The idea is that some types of learning require more cognitive processing that others, but also have more generalized benefits. In Bloom's taxonomy, for example, skills involving analysis, evaluation and synthesis (creation of new knowledge) are thought to be of a higher order, requiring different learning and teaching methods, than the learning of facts and concepts. Higher order thinking involves the learning of complex judgmental skills such as critical thinking and problem solving. Higher order thinking is more difficult to learn or teach but also more valuable because such skills are more likely to be useable in novel situations (i.e., situations other than those in which the skill was learned).
And look! A mandala!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Blooms_rose.svg
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

jonsjourney
Associate
Posts: 3191
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
Location: Earth

Post by jonsjourney »

JJ, I've found something of yours to disagree with! -Clemsy
Well...then obviously one of us has to adjust their thinking!!! :wink:
Actually, I find this kind of thing profoundly rare. Until Christianity and Islam came along, gods were absorbed far more than cast off. In fact, the reason Romans persecuted the Christians was because they came along with a 'new' god and 'new' religion which made absolutely no sense to them. As long as Christianity was Jewish cult, they didn't care. If the biblical traditions were syncretic rather than ethnic, history would tell us a profoundly different story.

Otherwise, the gods existed 'time out of mind.' -Clemsy
Hmmmm, I suppose I was getting at the leaving behind of gods like Zeus, Hera, Thor and the like, but when I think about what you wrote, I cannot disagree. It does seem to be more often the case that gods are recycled and reupholstered to fit the new cultural environment. I should have been a bit more clear in my point and thought it through before posting. Of coarse, that would fly in the face of all my previous posts! 8)

As I look around today this is illustrated in epic proportions. I do not know what the current count of Christian offspring religions are, but I remember hearing something along the lines of 400 sects a few years ago. Islam seems to have less deviation, but the differences are so focused on that each sect seems to choose the destruction of the other as the best answer for the inconsistency.

Finally, I tend to agree with what you said about educators in response to Neo's statement, however, having lived in Tennessee, I can tell you that there are plenty of educators who believe that the earth is 6,000 years old and have no problem saying so in or outside of the classroom. After all, these folks take the whole enchilada when it comes to the Bible...none of that wishy-washy picking out the "god is love" crap for them! My experiences with such people has been "you take it all as the word of god or you are going straight to hell....no exceptions". Of coarse, if they actually knew what the book said instead of repeating verses they have been taught, they might feel differently. I wonder how a "southern man" (using Neil Young's image) would feel about the theory that the ten commandments were written for and applied only to Jews?
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams

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

Post by Clemsy »

I'm wondering if in the Alalysis phase, meta-cognition kicks in. Mmmmm...
Neo, this may be a good observation. When analyzing, you are dialoguing with yourself on the subject and , if you're really clever you'll question your results as a product of your own bias.

Thinking about you're own thinking, no?
Finally, I tend to agree with what you said about educators in response to Neo's statement, however, having lived in Tennessee, I can tell you that there are plenty of educators who believe that the earth is 6,000 years old and have no problem saying so in or outside of the classroom.
I know. :? From New York, even upstate conservative New York, that sounds like another planet. Makes me appreciate where I am!
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

Clemsy wrote:Cindy, how about not consciously realized or discovered? Given that the archetype provides the impulse, and any given god is a product of that impulse, what people do with it consciously depends, it would seem, on a number of factors. The symbol may never be lost, per se, but if it isn't consciously recognized as a symbol it's processed consciously as something else.

Where would this be on Bloom's Taxonomy as regards symbols and metaphor?
Again, Clemsy, we’re essentially on the same page, and each of us in our own way has indicated the differences between symbolization that occurs at the unconscious level and that which occurs at the conscious level. Bloom’s Taxonomy, by the way, addresses cognitive skills necessary for critical thinking that occurs at the conscious level.

And, again, I’m going to defer to Jung for a moment. He characterized a symbol as “the best possible (psychological) expression of something unknown,” i.e., as incapable of being intellectually known directly, the reason why I said before that symbols are recognized and experienced intuitively. He also made the distinction between signs and symbols, wherein a sign “points to something that is known,” no matter what the degree of cognitive abstraction or metaphorization. Images that we tend to label “symbolic” in the general sense can be interpreted in two ways: semiotically as a sign pointing to what is a knowable or known fact at the conscious level or symbolically as expressing what is unknown yet intuited unconsciously. Jung offered this example of the Christian cross*, for instance: “The interpretation of the cross as a symbol of divine love is semiotic, because 'divine love' describes the fact to be expressed better and more aptly than a cross, which can have many other meanings. On the other hand, an interpretation of the cross is symbolic when it puts the cross beyond all conceivable explanations, regarding it as expressing an as yet unknown and incomprehensible fact of a mystical or transcendent, i.e., psychological, nature, which simply finds itself most appropriately represented in the cross." [“Definitions,” CW 6, par. 815.] One’s attitude toward the image ultimately determines whether it’s interpreted symbolically or semiotically. For example, the Christian mystic or the highly devout person who meditates on the cross is more likely to experience its numinosity as an intuitive and transcendental symbol than is the church goer who ponders the cross over the altar because his religious practice and teachings require it of him every Sunday. Attitudes can change, though, of course, and Jung believed that both ways of interpretation were important.

*As I described previously, the cross is an example of a symbol as an analagous formation of an archetype in the form of an archetypal image. (Archetypes remain in the collective unconscious; archetypal images are capable of reaching consciousness.)

Cindy
Last edited by Cindy B. on Thu Aug 06, 2009 11:22 am, edited 2 times in total.
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

jonsjourney
Associate
Posts: 3191
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
Location: Earth

Post by jonsjourney »

As I was reading Understanding Our Mind by Thich Nhat Hanh yesterday I came across a passage that I remember Joe using in one of his lectures or books, but I cannot remember exactly where...anyway it seems appropriate to this thread...

"We should never be absolutely certain of our knowledge. We need to be ready to give it up at a moment's notice for a higher truth. This is called nonattachment to views, and it is one of the most important elements of our practice. Any view, no matter how noble or beautiful, even our belief in Buddhism, can be a trap. Remember, the Buddha warned that his teaching is like a snake - if we don't know the proper way to receive the teachings, we will be caught by them. We will be bitten by the snake." pg. 111
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

Hey JJ,

Here are your choices for Christianity. Pick your truth. :wink:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ch ... ominations
"We should never be absolutely certain of our knowledge. We need to be ready to give it up at a moment's notice for a higher truth. This is called nonattachment to views, and it is one of the most important elements of our practice. Any view, no matter how noble or beautiful, even our belief in Buddhism, can be a trap. Remember, the Buddha warned that his teaching is like a snake - if we don't know the proper way to receive the teachings, we will be caught by them. We will be bitten by the snake." pg. 111
I think this is why we must "synthesize" and "evaluate" new information before adding it to our schema (using Bloom's terms).
Of coarse, if they actually knew what the book said instead of repeating verses they have been taught, they might feel differently. I wonder how a "southern man" (using Neil Young's image) would feel about the theory that the ten commandments were written for and applied only to Jews?
I'm in the same boat here. The bible thumpers hold sway. I am to be banished to the Pit of Doom for an eternity of fire and brimstone. I guess they haven't reached the "analytical" phase yet.

I often wonder if the god of Moses was actually Yahweh. I'm thinking there may have been some synthesis going on. And I'm not too positive it worked. :wink:
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

jonsjourney
Associate
Posts: 3191
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
Location: Earth

Post by jonsjourney »

I think this is why we must "synthesize" and "evaluate" new information before adding it to our schema (using Bloom's terms). -Neo
We do indeed my friend. While I am not a "Buddhist" per se, I have found precious few, in fact no other systems (other than science), which are truly open to the incorporation of new information. I will probably never identify with one view, it just is not in my nature, but I do have tremendous respect for any system which is willing to evolve and grow. I don't think we will hear the Vatican admitting that there was no flood, the earth is far older than 6,000 years, and that there was no "virgin birth" anytime soon! The Christian systems have made there bed....so I suppose they will burn in it.

As I have begun the process over the past year of reading more about Eastern views, I have truly come to appreciate the depth of thought that lies behind the tenets...especially when I read a quote such as the one I posted above. Any system that can provide so much insight, and at the same time tell you that you had better be careful identifying with it, is all right in my book!
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

Any system that can provide so much insight, and at the same time tell you that you had better be careful identifying with it, is all right in my book!-JJ
And to think....it was all conceived of 2,500 years ago. And it has endured! Now compare this to technology....is humankind really more advanced today?
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

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

Post by Clemsy »

is humankind really more advanced today?
Well... we certainly have some really cool toys like the one I'm tapping on right now. Otherwise... in some ways and places yes... in others certainly not. Like everything else, the answer is yes and no and places in between.
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

Clemsy Wrote:
Like everything else, the answer is yes and no and places in between.
Ok..let me try "Is the human mind more evolved today than 2,500 years ago?" We have more toys, electricity and indoor plumbing....but does this make our minds more advanced?

Is this forum really any different from Socrates wandering around Athens engaging people in conversation?
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

jonsjourney
Associate
Posts: 3191
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
Location: Earth

Post by jonsjourney »

I agree with Clemsy here. The answer is yes and no. We have evolved in our ability to create tools that do jobs for us (computers, cars, etc), but we do not seem to be evolving much in the art of understanding and keeping a good perspective on the nature of existence. But then again, whenever I think that those around me are acting selfishly and in an egocentric way, I think about something Joe said...

"When we talk about settling the world's problems, we're barking up the wrong tree. The world is perfect. It's a mess. It has always been a mess. We are not going to change it. Our job is to straighten out our own lives". A Joseph Campbell Companion, page 17

When I first read this some time ago, I thought it was kind of pessimistic. Now, I see it as being one of those hard truths that we need to learn to accept. It is imperative that we take care of our own individual problems and struggles before we start poking our nose into the affairs of others. This is well-illustrated in the ill-fated attempts of nations to impose their views and morality on other nations; and people trying to impose their views and morality on other individuals.

We are so good at recognizing the flaws of others, right? But, how good are we at recognizing the changes that need to occur within us? It is one thing to be a "self-deprecating type" (I think of the Woody Allen persona) and another to make a sincere effort at evaluating our own motives and driving forces that compel us to act in certain ways. When we take the time to try to be sure we are acting out of love and sincerity, it pours forth into our world...affecting change one small step at a time.

How many times do we see a public figure railing against something they participate in?
Is this forum really any different from Socrates wandering around Athens engaging people in conversation? -Neo
One big difference comes immediately to mind. The participants on these forums come here, rather than us coming to them...so we have a somewhat biased audience. There are big individual differences, but the "Joe factor" has brought us here. If we really wanted to participate in public rhetoric, we would be doing so uninvited, on a street corner, perhaps. I suppose we would be ignored just like the homeless person who may be sleeping 10 feet behind us, up against the wall.

On the bright side, for me at least, our conversations engage new views and ways of thinking that I may have not experienced in any other situation. Clemsy said once that most of us here are "bookish" types...this is true, I think. We are here because we seek deeper answers to some of life's deepest questions. What I have learned from my experiences here is not to hold on too tightly to any thought. I think of the metaphor of climbing a ladder of knowledge...there is always another rung to climb up to. If we keep our feet planted on one rung, we stop evolving upward.
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

What I have learned from my experiences here is not to hold on too tightly to any thought. I think of the metaphor of climbing a ladder of knowledge...there is always another rung to climb up to. If we keep our feet planted on one rung, we stop evolving upward.
Yes...the quest for knowledge should be a life long process. I could never say to myself..."Well, I've read enough books. Maybe I should start watching American Idol?" :wink:
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

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

Post by Clemsy »

"Is the human mind more evolved today than 2,500 years ago?"
I don't know Neo. Probably not. However, human society has, if not everywhere, evolved dramatically. Most of it in the past 200-300 years.

I'm thinking in terms of human rights here.
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

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

Post by Clemsy »

Here's another quote that goes along with the flow of this conversation so far:
Now the characteristic of our biblical mythology is that all of its images ask you to believe in them as though they had happened physically—it is as though they were newspaper reports, chronicles of things that happened. And then when scholarship today finds that these things could not have happened, that indeed did not happen, what happens to the mythology? It is removed, it is discredited, so that the word “myth” today to most people means “a lie.”

And that is because our myths are, in a certain sense lies in that they ask us to believe factually, concretely what is not true. Now when this happens the mythology is taken away.

But the function of a mythology is to integrate one’s conscious life with the dynamics of one’s unconscious life. And with the mythological vocabulary taken away by which the consciousness communicated with the unconsciousness, we are, as it were, split apart. And a schizophrenic crackup is the result of a consciousness that has lost its grip in the conscious world because the energies that kept it there became involved and stuck in the unconscious, and there is no communication—the person slips down into the abyss.
A point I've argued many times in these forums is that the ethnic chauvinism of the biblical, Christian tradition has resulted in a solidly constructed 'conscious' model for the divine that is part of our cultural 'DNA' as it were, the rise of Christianity, in the first half of the first millennium, being the mutation. This model reflects, primarily, what Campbell has said: scripture as historical account.

So, Galileo has a hard time of it for contradicting the cosmological function. However, that cosmology wasn't really a biblical matter to begin with and the church had no problem, barring a little torture and a burning here and there to keep the pace of change to a manageable level, absorbing the new model that its own astronomers had validated anyway.

This was really the beginning of an ambivalent relationship between the Catholic Church and science, culminating where we are today with a kind of 'separate but equal' kind of attitude. Rome tends not to make a big deal over contradictory science unless it crosses some theological lines, like stem cell research.

How's this from Pope John Paul II:
[N]ew findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.
Darwin's work, however, was not and is not so kindly received elsewhere in Christendom. Rome is trying to make room in the model, which gets it a tally count in its favor, IMO. But for others, especially in America with its particular Protestant past, there was only one result if Darwin is right: God is dead, the Bible, in its entirety, is wrong and the foundation for civilization has been obliterated.

Because there is no other choice.

When faced with such an assault, one reflex is to circle the wagons and dig in. We see this right now in the fundamentalist attitude toward climate change. The Bible can't be wrong, so Darwin is wrong. If Darwin is wrong than science is always suspect. The Dark Side of Faith is free to express itself without any fear of contradiction. Climate change isn't the result of scientifically observed cause and effect: its god's will.

That's one demographic. Another demographic accepts the 'if that, than this' argument: if evolution, then no god. The model is flawed, discard it. There are no replacement models.

Another demographic gives us lost souls looking for another model. Enter the rise of Eastern philosophies, yoga, meditation, Wicca and others which serve the impulse nicely, and a whole slew of charlatans cashing in on the market, which also serves the impulse regardless of the charlatan's chicanery or lunacy.

It is very important to not forget what may be the largest demographic: those who couldn't care less about the argument and go to church every Sunday to whatever denomination on their own terms.

(*Then there's the Unitarians who have probably had it right all along. :lol: )
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

Amen, Clemsy. :wink:
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

Locked