The Purpose of Myth

Lightkeeper · #1 (**permalink**) 13th November 2007, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Joseph Campbell, a leading scholar in the fields of mythology and comparative religion, explains that myth has four basic functions: metaphysical/mystical, cosmological, sociological, and pedagogical. Its metaphysical function is to awaken us to the mystery and wonder of creation, to open our minds and our senses to an awareness of the mystical "ground of being," the source of all phenomena. Its cosmological function is to describe the "shape" of the cosmos, the universe, our total world, so that the cosmos and all contained within it become vivid and alive for us, infused with meaning and significance; every corner, every rock, hill, stone, and flower has its place and its meaning in the cosmological scheme which the myth provides. Its sociological function is to pass down "the law," the moral and ethical codes for people of that culture to follow, and which help define that culture and its prevailing social structure. Its pedagogical function is to lead us through particular rites of passage that define the various significant stages of our lives-from dependency to maturity to old age, and finally, to our deaths, the final passage. The rites of passage bring us into harmony with the "ground of being" (a term often used by Joseph Campbell to refer to an unnamed, unspecified universal mystical power) and allow us to make the journey from one stage to another with a sense of comfort and purpose.

The mystical experience, the core spiritual journey that envisions God, has always been a tough experience to communicate. Some would say it's impossible to communicate. Others would say that this is the primary function of myth-to find a way to communicate whatever mystical insight has been gained on the journey: an understanding of the mysteries that underlie the universe; an appreciation of its wonders; the sense of awe or rapture experienced. Since these things can't be communicated by direct means, myth speaks in a language of metaphors, of symbols, and symbolic narratives that aren't bound by objective reality. Some believe that the mystical experience is what gives birth to metaphoric language, metaphoric thinking

.
http://brainstorm-services.com/wcu-2004/mythology.html

Do you agree the above is the purpose of myth? Is myth taken literally and abused by some?

octavius · #2 (**permalink**) 13th November 2007, 06:30 AM

I'd agree for the most part. However, I much prefer Mircea Eliade over Campbell. Not to say that Campbell is off...just that Eliade really goes back to the raw elements and reasons for mythology. His book, the Sacred and the Profane, is probably my all-time favorite piece of writing.

Cheers,
Octavius

Lightkeeper · #3 (**permalink**) 13th November 2007, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by octavius

I'd agree for the most part. However, I much prefer Mircea Eliade over Campbell. Not to say that Campbell is off...just that Eliade really goes back to the raw elements and reasons for mythology. His book, the Sacred and the Profane, is probably my all-time favorite piece of writing.

Cheers,
Octavius

Here is a site that has a summary of this book.

Quote:

SACRED SELF
To gain a broad understanding of religious man, which is the aim of the history of religions, says Eliade, it is necessary to probe beyond the great religions of literate cultures. We need to study European folklore, which preserves to a significant degree the structure of the cosmic religion of the pre-Christian, indeed neolithic, European agriculturalists.

What is more, we need to go back before agriculture, to the 'primitive' mental world of the nomadic herders, of the hunters and gatherers. There, we find that religious man experienced himself as fully integrated in the cosmos created by the gods and as sacred himself because of that.

However, this does not mean that religious man was unaware of himself as distinct from nature. He was conscious of himself as human and, at the same time, as himself as part of the cosmic order.

http://www.bytrent.demon.co.uk/eliadesp04.html

Nick_A · #4 (**permalink**) 13th November 2007, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightkeeper

.
http://brainstorm-services.com/wcu-2004/mythology.html

Do you agree the above is the purpose of myth? Is myth taken literally and abused by some?

I agree. But it is precisely these tendencies that make myth necessary. Myths are a means by which a person can bypass the limitations of the associative mind to experience the higher psychological truths man has the capacity to evolve towards.

So even though they are abused, myths are valuable tools for the impartial searcher in the quest to get beyond the normal BS to nourish the needs of the heart.

**arthra** · #5 (**permalink**) 13th November 2007, 05:12 PM

I think we should take mythology seriously as it conveyed meaning to people, in other words use of symbol and allegory are the key to understanding myths. Those who are too literal minded either seek to embellish the myth as sacred dogma in a kind of concrete form or are too literal minded to accept symbols and allegories and reject them outright without deriving any value from them... Certainly Jung and Freud saw value in myths.

- Art

evangelicalhumanist · #6 (**permalink**) 13th November 2007, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arthra

I think we should take mythology seriously as it conveyed meaning to people, in other words use of symbol and allegory are the key to understanding myths. Those who are too literal minded either seek to embellish the myth as sacred dogma in a kind of concrete form or are too literal minded to accept symbols and allegories and reject them outright without deriving any value from them... Certainly Jung and Freud saw value in myths.

- Art

But surely anything which conveys "meaning" to people is of value. If I find another way to grapple with the dangers of human knowledge, can I not then dispense with the Genesis story? Until then, of course, the story is useful, but only if it is not turned into literalist dogma. That is the other great danger, because to literalize myth is to strip it of any of its metaphysical, socialogical, cosmological or pedagogical value.

What I'm saying is that I, too, recognize the value of myth, until it is no longer needed because there are better ways of understanding. Many of the ancient myths have fallen by the way for precisely that reason.

Nick_A · #7 (**permalink**) 13th November 2007, 06:49 PM

Eh

Quote:

What I'm saying is that I, too, recognize the value of myth, until it is no longer needed because there are better ways of understanding. Many of the ancient myths have fallen by the way for precisely that reason.

IMO you both underestimate myth and overestimate your capacity for understanding. Myth is a form of non subjective art and like this art has meanings within meanings. The more one begins to see in myth the more one realizes is there that they didn't see before. Finally a person begins to see that the more they understand, the more they do not understand. The more one examines a myth with this insight, the more they can continaully draw from it.

evangelicalhumanist · #8 (**permalink**) 13th November 2007, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Eh

IMO you both underestimate myth and overestimate your capacity for understanding. Myth is a form of non subjective art and like this art has meanings within meanings. The more one begins to see in myth the more one realizes is there that they didn't see before. Finally a person begins to see that the more they understand, the more they do not understand. The more one examines a myth with this insight, the more they can continaully draw from it.

I'd rather you didn't make comments about my capacity for understanding, and in return I will offer you the same courtesy. Neither of us can inhabit the other's mind-space and understand how we acquire our understandings about the world.

Do you suppose, then that these myths were composed by other than humans who, like you imply of me, must have had such a limited capacity for understanding?

I would disagree with you, and suggest to you that myths were, as Campbell suggests, developed precisely so as to find a way to deeply incorporate only what was understood or supposed by the myth-makers, rather than myths created by some outsider to impose an epistemology upon them.

The fact that I might not use a particular myth to help me understand this or that idea does not imply that I'm less capable of understanding the idea than somebody who does. I don't need a big bad wolf to properly understand ambiguous anxiousness about vicissitudes of peasant life.

Lightkeeper · #9 (**permalink**) 13th November 2007, 10:39 PM

I'm not sure myth is even supposed to be understood. It may be something to experience like a song or a work of art.

Quote:

It's metaphysical function is to awaken us to the mystery and wonder of creation, to open our minds and our senses to an awareness of the mystical "ground of being," the source of all phenomena.

evangelicalhumanist · #10 (**permalink**) 14th November 2007, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightkeeper

I'm not sure myth is even supposed to be understood. It may be something to experience like a song or a work of art.

A very good point. All art (including literature) is an attempt by the artist to look at the world another way, to try and develop new insights by observing from new perspectives. In that sense, the makers of myth were undoubtedly artists in their own right.