There are many different kinds of myths. Some are deliberately concocted for immediate political purposes. Some, introduced without intent to falsify, express common beliefs that serve nationalistic or religious purposes--e.g., "Notre ancetres les gaulois..." which used to begin French histories for school children. Many, though, are like folk songs: they originated at some time in the indefinite past, and are helpful to both to members of a culture and those studying it in understanding that culture. They may contain an element of truth, but the important thing about them is that people in a culture make them part of their underlying, usually unexamined, assumptions in dealing with the world.
On Feb 3, 10:58 am, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > Even classical mythology needs spotting and equally with modern versions. > > I am convinced that with in every generation there are prophets and false > prophets.. Teachers and false teachers; . . . the unfortunate part is it is > the false prophets and false teachers that draw the most crowds. > Allan > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Errol <[email protected]> wrote: > > I agree that classical mythology does not need spotting but modern day > > mythology does at least have the potential for danger. > > > Myths such as racial superiority caused Germany to invade the rest of > > europe. > > > Today we have modern myths based on racial stereotypes, such as, The > > Irish drink and fight excessively, Blacks are more athletic, Whites > > naturally oppress blacks, Asians are better at maths. > > > Even more dangerous are conspiracy theories with the potential to > > become modern myths, such as the Holocaust never happened, the world > > is run by an elite group (elliminati) who control every aspect of our > > lives (a bit like the god myth), global warming is a hoax initiated by > > leftist socialists who want to destroy the economy of the USA > > > Surely these require "spotting"? > > > On Jan 31, 1:48 pm, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Neil, I understand " need spotting " and yet do not, considering the > > > nature of myths. > > > > Let me first declare that myths are about humanity, human nature, > > > human emotions, human values and aspirations, human tragedies and > > > highs, human dilemmas, human fears and courage, human stupidities and > > > intelligence, human failings and triumphs. > > > > The historical veracity and factual actuality pertaining to > > > particulars in myths just does not matter. A myth is what it does, to > > > me, to children, to people who are hearing it for the first time, for > > > the nth time, quite in those human terms I have pointed out. > > > > I find it foolish when people go about looking for history in myths. > > > Scientists and educated minds who insist on establishing science and > > > technology inaccuracies in myths are in fact not educated enough. Dare > > > I say that I find them stupid, vacant in their upper storey ! > > > > On Jan 31, 3:20 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > ...such as the fact that myths need spotting? ;-) > > > > > On Jan 30, 10:32 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Myths, of course, need spotting, as many reel them off as though > > fact. > > > > > > On 30 Jan, 16:28, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Speaking of lay people and experts, fiddler, you'll find that the > > > > > > contributors here are a surprising mixture of both - on almost any > > > > > > subject you care to mention. Which does, of course, mean that > > > > > > generalising, off-the-cuff posts are usually an occasion for expert > > > > > > peer-review ... > > > > > > > Francis > > > > > > > On 29 Jan., 22:32, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > sorry, that was more snarky than intended. I'm very pressured and > > > > > > > frustrated. My paper was written to be viewed by faculty, > > therefore I > > > > > > > wrote in simplified terms for lay people. It was SUPPOSED to be > > > > > > > written as if pending review into a journal. Which of course, > > needed a > > > > > > > complete rewrite to remove any ambiguous terms and concepts in > > order > > > > > > > to be read and judged by experts... > > > > > > > > On Jan 29, 12:10 pm, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I had to completely revise a paper on soil composition and > > sedimentary > > > > > > > > content, that's why I only jump on quickly. Sorry if this isn't > > > > > > > > anywhere near the top of my priority list. > > > > > > > > > On Jan 29, 8:50 am, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 29 January 2010 16:36, Vamadevananda < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Allan spoke with a reference. The response needs to be > > likewise > > > > > > > > > > pertinent. > > > > > > > > > > Hey, get in the queue Vam! I'm still waiting for Fiddler to > > give references > > > > > > > > > on Venezuela. :) > > > > > > > > > > Ian- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > ""Minds Eye"" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]<minds-eye%[email protected]> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. > > -- > ( > ) > I_D Allan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
