In total there are 47 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 46 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes) Most users ever online was 1086 on Mon Jul 01, 2024 9:03 am
Interbane wrote:I didn't see Tolkien's premise outlined in the transcript. But if it were, I doubt it would be anything that isn't seen in the modern heated debate.
i think it's this Interbane
Tolkien: “But don’t you see? It isn’t my story; it’s His story. You’re acting as though Christianity is one myth among many; it’s not. It’s the true myth! Christianity really happened! Jesus really existed, so did Pilate, and yet it is this true story that makes sense of all the other stories. It is the archetype. It is the story in which all the other stories have their source, and the story to which all the other stories point.
and you are are right it is seen in the debate, it's the old "one true myth" chestnut, ie. all the other myths are allegories or superstitions but our myth is actually true.
in other other words "our myth is history not metaphor for the transcendant", it's a catastrophic bungle.
as Campbell said tongue in cheek, "mythology can be defined as OTHER peoples religion" (not ours...no no never, only those ignorant others)
It seems to me that a distinction must be made between metaphoric truth and literal truth. Science, for the most part, gives us literal truth—say, how far the moon is from earth, the albedo of a star, etc.—based on measurements and observations.
Myths and poems yield metaphoric truth. youkrst mentioned Plato's allegory of the cave which suggests that what we know is based on limited sensory perceptions and that it's human nature to attach ourselves to beliefs based on those limited perceptions. Thus, Plato uses a metaphor of shadows on a cave wall to illustrate his point. Language is imprecise and cannot always be relied on to communicate nuances of thought, thus we use stories, allegories, and metaphors to clarify and illustrate such complexities that sometimes are difficult to explain in concrete terms. We even use metaphors to illustrate complex scientific ideas.
Humans are natural storytellers and historically we have relied on stories and myths to explain the way things are, plus give us a sense of shared purpose. Jung and Campbell have written extensively about this subject and shown that our need for metaphorical truth is a universal psychological need. Is that a fair assessment, eukrst?
Given those distinctions, I would argue that religion traditionally relies on metaphoric truth. Where we tend to bicker is when religious ideas are put forth as literal truth. Such claims become increasingly preposterous when someone claims a holy text such as The Bible should be read literally. God literally made the earth in six days. Noah literally put two of every kind of animal on an ark, etc.
We have the whole Greek pantheon to muse upon when we discuss metaphoric versus literal truth. There was a time when humans literally believed in monsters and wrathful gods, but as science has revealed much about the world that was previously unknown, it leaves an increasingly small space where one can claim literal truth from stories and fables. Indeed, our ancestors probably had no need to think in terms of literal and metaphoric truth. It was all metaphoric with outlying fringes (here there be monsters) that were taken more literally. Literal truth seems to have arisen from our scientific pursuits, and as religion has become marginalized, it has become necessary to try to place it on equal footing with science, but this is a wrong-headed approach. I think it can be argued that myth and metaphor are as important today as ever, perhaps even more so. We rely on metaphoric truth to express what we value—complex, nuanced ideas of morality, for example—which perhaps cannot be measured scientifically and cannot be expressed in concrete terms..
Last edited by geo on Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If that's the premise, it's just an argument from authority. I'd thought there was a prop under the argument.
Geo's clarification is a necessary one. The distinction between metaphorical and literal truths is still ambiguous to me though. There is a grey area in between that doesn't fall neatly in either direction. I'll think on it.
“In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
the clouds gathered in 500 shades of grey
the ancient ones looked skyward
Interbane was thinking!!!
well to me the denotation is like the oyster and the connotation is like the pearl.
a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush (denotation) not true, depends on the species of bird, market conditions etc etc
a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush (connotation) very true, what you have you have, what you want you may not have, dont lose sight of what you have grasping for more or you may lose all three. etc etc
geo wrote:Jung and Campbell have written extensively about this subject and shown that our need for metaphorical truth is a universal psychological need. Is that a fair assessment, eukrst?
yes from my endless hours of listening to both, yes indeed! also it's fascinating how certain mythological motifs occur everywhere in almost all cultural records on the planet, (perennial philosophy), and in the absence of a myth, will spontaneously arise in personal dreams. Dream is personal mythology, mythology is collective dream, same scource, kinda thing.
Given those distinctions, I would argue that religion traditionally relies on metaphoric truth. Where we tend to bicker is when religious ideas are put forth as literal truth. Such claims become increasingly preposterous when someone claims a holy text such as The Bible should be read literally. God literally made the earth in six days. Noah literally put two of every kind of animal on an ark, etc.
music to my ears, actually the whole post was magic!
geo wrote:Jung and Campbell have written extensively about this subject and shown that our need for metaphorical truth is a universal psychological need. Is that a fair assessment, eukrst?
yes from my endless hours of listening to both, yes indeed! also it's fascinating how certain mythological motifs occur everywhere in almost all cultural records on the planet, (perennial philosophy), and in the absence of a myth, will spontaneously arise in personal dreams. Dream is personal mythology, mythology is collective dream, same scource, kinda thing.
I think I'm due for another dose of Campbell. Thanks to you, I conspired to receive a DVD set of Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth for Christmas. Looking forward to watching that . . .
youkrst wrote:music to my ears, actually the whole post was magic!
You are all very generous. I think it's a confusing post and I'm still confused about the subject. It does seem to make sense that as we reach the limits of expression with language, we rely more on metaphor. Poetry and myth express something that can't easily be explained. You just can't explain a Robert Frost poem. You have to read it and experience it.
Or, put another way, abstract thought is difficult to put into concrete terms. Or, put even another way, maybe science offers intellectual truth while metaphor offers emotional truth. Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences would probably yield much insight to this discussion. Here's an essay he wrote. It's a complex subject and a pretty long essay.
That's the crux of it geo. We need to know what, exactly, we're referring to. Many times, the ambiguous nature of language allows for expressions that are mostly true or partially true. We can't know that, because the referrants used aren't precise enough. A metaphor is a device used for educating someone on a difficult concept. That concept can be framed in more exact language. For the purpose of figuring out the truthfulness of a metaphor, determining that precise language is required.
Metaphors are bandaid language in many cases, used due to their ability to make complex concepts more understandable. But the foundation of that concept must still be articulated if it's to be considered true. The allegory of the cave, for example, is expressed in more objective language in philosophical circles.
In other words, metaphors should be used for explanation. Determining their truthfulness requires a full expanded discussion of what the metaphor supposedly refers to. If there is a great deal of truth to the metaphor, only then are we justified in using it to educate others.
“In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
My travel is over for the moment but I have not had a chance to review all of the comments in depth on this thread. I hope to do so within the next day or so. Are there any other comments at the moment on this topic?
Let me clear up a few points before I pose THE question which is inevitable based on this discussion;
1) I was not the one who designated TLOTR as the best book of the 2oth Century or the millenium. That honor has been promoted by both critics as well as polls of readers.
2) My contempt for the book by Wright was not based on how my comments were received, it was based on Wright's dishonest tome. From the first paragraph his agenda was clear and the errors and omissions in the book would fill another book if they had been cataloged.
As for the instant discussion, I submit that you have all missed the point. Let explain;
C.S. Lewis was perhaps only a step below Tolkien when it came to his understanding of the power of myth; its influence, origins, meanings and application, etc. Yet, it is well documented that the conversation between he and Tolkien which forms the foundation of this discussion had a profound effect on Lewis; so profound in fact that he was moved to become a Christian as a result.
The obvious question is, "What did Lewis, as an expert on mythology, perceive in Tolkien's argument which convinced him?"
