Mythology is a reality

[modernPrimitive2]

Claim: Mythology is a (psychic) reality

Some definitions:

Mythology: Narrative storytelling potentially in all it's forms from tribal storytelling to religious scripture to modern forms of storytelling such as film, comics, "fiction" etc.
(Psychic) Reality: "Psychic" in the original sense of the word (as opposed to the popular idea of mediumship), ie: pertaining to the human psyche / psychology of the human mind.

My claim is that because mythological narratives emerge from the human psyche (as all creative works necessarily do) they must therefore be both pertinent to the human psyche and in some sense be indicative of the structure of the human psyche. While this may seem fairly obvious or insignificant to some, the implications for religious / lack of religious belief are important because we simply do not live in an entirely rational "objective world". Yes, we may physiologically exist as biological entities in a physical world, assuming a materialist metphysic, but the human experience is decidedly subjective - we live in a world filtered by and coloured by the human psyche. However it seems that individuals are biased to a degree to either a rational cognitive function or an irrational cognitive function and so their subjective experience and interpretation of the world differs.

In The God Delusion, Dawkin's points out an evolutionary advantage for the irrational function - the idea being that it's particularly good at a kind of fast pattern-matching - that we are able to immediately spot the face of a snarling tiger as an indication of impending danger (rather than relying on the rather slow deductive rational function). He correctly demonstrates that this function can misinterpret sensory data, such as incorrectly seeing the face of a monster in the shadows. However, he jumps to the conclusion that because there is a disparity between what was initially seen through the irrational function and what was later to be discovered as a seemingly objective "truth" (it's merely a shadow and not a monster's face), that it is simply erroneous and insignificant and goes on to base the rest of his theory on that idea.

Here I would argue that what is seen IS significant - at least in terms of one's subjective, psychic reality. One may argue that perhaps one is particularly partial to the rational function and therefore not subject to the irrational. But then why does one prefer a certain colour or shape of vehicle? Why does one find certain imagery or music evocative? Why does one experience sexual attraction in a particular way, in a particular form and with particular preferences? Can you rationally and conclusively argue any of these "intuitive" and instinctive choices? This is how advertising works - it appeals to the irrational, instinctive aspect of the psyche and we are all subject to it to a greater or lesser degree regardless of how rational we are.

So does this mean that gods exist? I would argue yes. In exactly what way they exist depends on your metaphysical belief. If metaphysical idealism is true then they exist as collective psychic entities, primordial archetypal forms made of some "mind stuff". If metaphysical materialism is true then they exist as a type of collective virtualization of the human psyche, ie: in "abstracted form", exactly the way memes exist. Either way, they exist. Dawkins even admits as much (gods exist as memes) however does he realize the real significance of this? Just because they are memetic in nature and exist in a virtualized sense does not mean we are any less subject to their "whims". We may choose to be atheist and push ourselves outside the influence of a particular set of religious gods, or spend our time debating against them (which only demonstrates our belief in their "virtual" existence) but then on the other hand are we also aware of the "devil" (metaphorical, if you wish) that lives within us? By that I mean even if we are extremely rational are we longer subject to the devices, deceptions and manipulations of our own instincts? Can the rational function truly conquer the irrational function and is that even desirable? Life without it (the irrational) would be a terribly sterile existence.

Thanks for reading....

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, fictions that are generated by the human psyche are 'real' in a sense.
That means saying "I am a Christain" is about as real as someone saying "I am a Jedi." Or "I am 2nd officer on the Federation starship USS Fort Ticonderoga (We meet at Denny's on Third Thursday.)."

 

[iolo]

Mythologies are non-real stories that carry meaning for pre-scientific peoples. They are made up to make some sort of sense of a world not understood. All they tell us about the human mind is that it is not satisfied with ignorance.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

So, fictions that are generated by the human psyche are 'real' in a sense.
That means saying "I am a Christain" is about as real as someone saying "I am a Jedi." Or "I am 2nd officer on the Federation starship USS Fort Ticonderoga (We meet at Denny's on Third Thursday.)."

In a sense yes, but it's a very literal way of entertaining what I'm saying here and I think a more subtle interpretation is needed as an entry point.
So for example I might say that the fairy tale of Jack and The Beanstalk is a narrative that tells the psychological truth that most young men at some point have an encounter with an "archetypal" dominating masculinity (The giant). for the individual this might take the form of a domineering father, a patriarchal society, a tribal "chieftain" etc. We don't mean to say here that the Giant is a literal, physical figure but rather that the narrative is of a universal human truth. Perhaps we can even see this play out between animals in their behaviour for dominance.

Now that may seem rather simplistic and one could simply say argue that we should simply call this by way of our rational function as a "display of dominance" or "the boy had to face his domineering father". But the problem here is that we loose a great deal of detail and subtlety that can be extrapolated from that archetypal narrative. Firstly, the imaginative imagery itself "speaks to us" in some instinctive way that the rational function does not (as they say, a picture paints a thousand words) - it produces a "sense", a "feeling" that the words cannot convey. Secondly, the archetypal nature of the narrative allows it's application across any specific "instance" of individual experience and the abstract "symbolic" nature of the narrative allows for continued extrapolation and appearance of a psychic truth.

For example: I might apply the myth of the Edenic fall to developmental psychology and say it metaphorically describes the process that the psyche undergoes from conception to adulthood. The fetus experiences itself subjectively as a primordial, undifferentiated unity of experience. The womb is "heaven" where the psyche makes no distinction between "self" and "other". Birth itself is experienced as trauma - the very first experience of differentiation between self and other. Around the age of 5 the psyche fully develops the capacity for that duality (knowledge of good and evil). Continued development is experienced as a constant "falling" from the bliss of ignorance, the naivety of childhood into the suffering of "adult" reality.

Now obviously I don't mean to imply that the Edenic myth is to be conflated with a literal physical, objective reality in the sense that creationists would argue, but nor would I support it's dismissal entirely as "fiction". A greater subtlety is required here in order to see the narratives of mythology as conveying psychic reality - literally, the story of the unfolding and experience of the human psyche. How else could it other than the fact that any "fiction" or fantasy must convey something of the structure or the processes that the psyche undergoes and that these narratives are abstracted, "symbolic", narrative forms of that subjective experience?

 

[skepticalbip]

Claim: Mythology is a (psychic) reality
...........snip.............

That is an odd take on reality - if you believe it then it is real.

Hopefully you won't suddenly believe that you can fly when you are standing on the rim of the Grand Canyon awed by the vista. That is actually an urge that some do experience but, fortunately, they are capable of reason that overrides this primitive impulse.

Belief in ability to fly is a common theme in a great deal of the world's mythologies.

 

[ideologyhunter]

To build on ioto's statement that the human brain is not satisfied with ignorance: religion is for the side of humanity that doesn't want to have to construct complex (and ambivalent and incomplete) solutions. Just grab onto an orthodoxy with a compelling mythology and a circular, cottony wrapping of teachings and pat answers and you're done. Search over. Get into the church ritual and you're all paid up on your afterlife IRA.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

Mythologies are non-real stories that carry meaning for pre-scientific peoples. They are made up to make some sort of sense of a world not understood. All they tell us about the human mind is that it is not satisfied with ignorance.

You are assuming that primitive people have the same cognitive disposition as modern people like yourself. The evidence points to the contrary. For example Eric Neumann discovered certain primitive tribes were not consciously aware that sex resulted in pregnancy (because the cause and effect are not immediately apparent). And yet their deities took the form of fertility gods, implying that there was an "unconscious" awareness in their collective psyche of the causal link between (pro)creation ("creation myth") and sex. Hence veiled in their mythology was the knowledge that sex produces children, despite their naivety. This is not a "need to explain" in the sense that we have inherited a method dialectic or logical reasoning from the Greeks. The tribal people's he encountered had no such need.

That is an odd take on reality - if you believe it then it is real.

Hopefully you won't suddenly believe that you can fly when you are standing on the rim of the Grand Canyon awed by the vista. That is actually an urge that some do experience but, fortunately, they are capable of reason that overrides this primitive impulse.

Belief in ability to fly is a common theme in a great deal of the world's mythologies.

Look at the definition of mythology as a narrative storytelling emerging from the psyche rather than simply any "fantastical fantasy". There's a subtle but important difference in what I'm inferring here about mythology being a metaphorical representation of the structure of and process that the psyche undergoes in it's development. Read my reply above to Keith&Co for further elucidation.

 

[skepticalbip]

That is an odd take on reality - if you believe it then it is real.

Hopefully you won't suddenly believe that you can fly when you are standing on the rim of the Grand Canyon awed by the vista. That is actually an urge that some do experience but, fortunately, they are capable of reason that overrides this primitive impulse.

Belief in ability to fly is a common theme in a great deal of the world's mythologies.

Look at the definition of mythology as a narrative storytelling emerging from the psyche rather than simply any "fantastical fantasy". There's a subtle but important difference in what I'm inferring here about mythology being a metaphorical representation of the structure of and process that the psyche undergoes in it's development. Read my reply above to Keith&Co for further elucidation.

Mythology is a mixture of several different components. In some cases they are an attempt to make sense of the world as it is observed to be, for example, why the moon goes through phases. In some cases they are wish fulfillment, such as stories of humans with powers to easily overcome adversities we all experience and struggle with. In some cases they offer a sense of security by telling us there are more powerful beings that take care of us - if we obey and please them (a return to the security of childhood by offering parental replacements in the form of gods). In some cases they are to teach moral lessons. In some cases they are just for amusement.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

Mythology is a mixture of several different components. In some cases they are an attempt to make sense of the world as it is observed to be, for example, why the moon goes through phases. In some cases they are wish fulfillment, such as stories of humans with powers to easily overcome adversities we all experience and struggle with. In some cases they tell us there are more powerful beings that take care of us (a return to the security of childhood by offering parental replacements in the form of gods). In some cases they are to teach moral lessons. In some cases they are just for amusement.

And your evidence is? I would say you're jumping to irrational conclusions about the telos of mythology here. I have referenced the research and work of Eric Neumann.

 

[skepticalbip]

Mythology is a mixture of several different components. In some cases they are an attempt to make sense of the world as it is observed to be, for example, why the moon goes through phases. In some cases they are wish fulfillment, such as stories of humans with powers to easily overcome adversities we all experience and struggle with. In some cases they tell us there are more powerful beings that take care of us (a return to the security of childhood by offering parental replacements in the form of gods). In some cases they are to teach moral lessons. In some cases they are just for amusement.

And your evidence is? I would say you're jumping to irrational conclusions about the telos of mythology here. I have referenced the research and work of Eric Neumann.

I prefer more objective studies of mythology such as Joseph Campbell's. Neumann seems to me to attempt to psychoanalyze the myth makers without having them on the couch.

 

[4321lynx]

Mythology is a mixture of several different components. In some cases they are an attempt to make sense of the world as it is observed to be, for example, why the moon goes through phases. In some cases they are wish fulfillment, such as stories of humans with powers to easily overcome adversities we all experience and struggle with. In some cases they tell us there are more powerful beings that take care of us (a return to the security of childhood by offering parental replacements in the form of gods). In some cases they are to teach moral lessons. In some cases they are just for amusement.

And your evidence is? I would say you're jumping to irrational conclusions about the telos of mythology here. I have referenced the research and work of Eric Neumann.

Where and when did Erich (sic) Neumann do his research on primitive tribes? This business of not associating pregnancy with coitus is a 19th century racist construct AFAIK. Sloppy/negligent conclusions by biased researchers who did not speak the languages of the 'tribes'. Did he do the research himself or did he rely on previous reports.

There used to be a 'historian's' myth about Ancient Greeks thinking that the North or West wind impregnated their mares which, I think, is now considered BS. How that was ever believed in is beyond me, considering the other myths about Greek gods and their doings.

 

[Underseer]

So, fictions that are generated by the human psyche are 'real' in a sense.
That means saying "I am a Christain" is about as real as someone saying "I am a Jedi." Or "I am 2nd officer on the Federation starship USS Fort Ticonderoga (We meet at Denny's on Third Thursday.)."

That is amazing! I can't wait to meet Harry Potter!

I mean, I never actually read any of the books and I only watched two or three of the movies, but he sounds like such an amazing guy!

 

[Keith&Co.]

For example Eric Neumann discovered certain primitive tribes were not consciously aware that sex resulted in pregnancy (because the cause and effect are not immediately apparent). And yet their deities took the form of fertility gods, implying that there was an "unconscious" awareness in their collective psyche of the causal link between (pro)creation ("creation myth") and sex. Hence veiled in their mythology was the knowledge that sex produces children,

But how much of that would be Neumann projecting his knowledge into the nature of those gods?
People like having sex. I can definitely see that people would create gods that encourage them to have sex. Are the primitive tribes or the researchers identifying them as 'fertility' gods, though? Maybe they're better identified as 'big dick have a lot of sex god' and 'always pregnant goddess' and 'big tit sky woman bottomless loins' and 'horny bastard gotta get some god.'

 

[Keith&Co.]

Ah.
Found the quote the OP reminded me of. Someone posting in the SAB:

It seems to me that there is a spiritual realm that exists beyond empirical description. It feels real. Thus, in some sense it is empirically based.

 

[fromderinside]

Ah.
Found the quote the OP reminded me of. Someone posting in the SAB:

It seems to me that there is a spiritual realm that exists beyond empirical description. It feels real. Thus, in some sense it is empirically based.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PCz_qk19Qw[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Underseer]

Regarding the "spiritual realm" being "real":

 

[abaddon]

Ah.
Found the quote the OP reminded me of. Someone posting in the SAB:

It seems to me that there is a spiritual realm that exists beyond empirical description. It feels real. Thus, in some sense it is empirically based.

Except this looks more like a phenomenological description of imagistic psychological events/patterns. So I’m missing it if there’s anything remotely “beyond empirical description” being discussed here.

The OP made one mistake: he wrote a controversial title. And it's that that will be responded to by some posters (maybe most) who won't bother with attempting to understand the opening post itself. In their mythology, "mythology" is just primitive people's stupid stories that were such disastrously failed attempts at physics that they deserve nothing but jeering; and "reality" is 18th century 'enlightenment' mythology with some few later updates and even tidbits of science mixed in (or, as they'll call it, "the scientific worldview").

If something’s experienced, or inner experiences are told in imagistic and expressionist fashion, then that is indeed empirically based. That doesn’t make it perennially true for all people everywhere and always. It’s a mistake to compare it to physics and say “Failure! It’s not physics so it’s false!” or you make a lot of experience false.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

Where and when did Erich (sic) Neumann do his research on primitive tribes? This business of not associating pregnancy with coitus is a 19th century racist construct AFAIK. Sloppy/negligent conclusions by biased researchers who did not speak the languages of the 'tribes'. Did he do the research himself or did he rely on previous reports.

There used to be a 'historian's' myth about Ancient Greeks thinking that the North or West wind impregnated their mares which, I think, is now considered BS. How that was ever believed in is beyond me, considering the other myths about Greek gods and their doings.

Yeah, some fair points, but I'm not alluding to a literal interpretation of mythology here. I think it's more than reasonable that the creative process says something significant about the human psyche and that essentially the narratives of mythology point to a common human experience. It doesn't take a vast leap in rational thought to see that as the starting point. Precisely how and why the images of mares being impregnated by the winds carry a psychological significance is difficult to interpret but there are other examples that are more immediately apparent such as my Jack and the Beanstalk or Edenic Fall example.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

But how much of that would be Neumann projecting his knowledge into the nature of those gods?
People like having sex. I can definitely see that people would create gods that encourage them to have sex. Are the primitive tribes or the researchers identifying them as 'fertility' gods, though? Maybe they're better identified as 'big dick have a lot of sex god' and 'always pregnant goddess' and 'big tit sky woman bottomless loins' and 'horny bastard gotta get some god.'

Yeah it's difficult to say how much Neumann projected his own bias onto his research. But in exactly the same way it's difficult to determine how much of your own ideas are being projected onto your statements here too. The idea is simple. Either mythology says something about he human psyche or it does not. Frankly I can't see how it cannot. Can you?

 

[modernPrimitive2]

Regarding the "spiritual realm" being "real":

Yeah, I'm not claiming substance dualism - you're missing the subtlety of the point. Here's perhaps a better explanation by philosopher Slavoj Zizek - although he references some complex Lacanian theory, the idea is similar to what I propose in the OP. If you don't have much time simply watch the first 3 minutes and you will get the basic idea. If you can watch the entire video, it's extremely interesting and well worth it:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuG8ElyirC0[/YOUTUBE]