[Michael] My beliefs are mine, I'm sorry they sadden you. [Arlo] Your beliefs don't sadden me, what saddens me was to see the potential for a higher-level esoteric/metaphor approach to Myth being beaten by one which privileges static patterns, and some low-quality ones at that.
The way you keep talking about "theism", I had thought you had this Campbellian/Pirsigian/analogy view, but either you are confused about what "theism" means, or you're redefining it to justify adherence to your religion. If you step back, and place the Christ myth in the human museum alongside humanity's other world mythologies, and ask "what are they all trying to say? what is the indescribable Void, stripped of their cultural veneer, to which they point, and what are the strengths and weakness of each?" you are in a higher Quality dialogue about the Mythos and how it informs human-kind. Indeed, Pirsig points at the in ZMM saying "The mythos includes not only the Greek myths but the Old Testament, the Vedic Hymns and the early legends of all cultures which have contributed to our present world understanding. The mythos-over-logos argument states that our rationality is shaped by these legends, that our knowledge today is in relation to these legends as a tree is in relation to the little shrub it once was. One can gain great insights into the complex overall structure of the tree by studying the much simpler shape of the shrub." (ZMM) And also, "Religion isn’t invented by man. Men are invented by religion. Men invent responses to Quality, and among these responses is an understanding of what they themselves are." (ZMM) Myth are analogies to we are. The Christian myths, the Norse myths, the Greek, the Lakota, the Mayan, and the innumerable variance of stories, colored by local culture, geography and history, all contribute to a body of art by which we can see our reflections, and (with luck) catch a glimpse of that which is always outside any particular mythological tradition, the inescapable and ineffable Void. No, we can't sway "believers" by bullying or attacking them. But we also don't have to play softball with them either. What we can do, IMO, is bring them up to the level of dialogue about Myth that Campbell (and Pirsig) advocate. We can tease apart the metaphor from the local cultural-historical stories, point to the larger mythological commonalities, historical lineages, etc. that define the human condition. In short, we can advocate rejecting the exoteric in favor of the esoteric, rejecting the words of the story for the meaning, and encourage people to stop worrying about whose finger is pointing, but what it is that all fingers seem to be pointing towards. IMHO. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
