{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/2798", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 2798, "subject": "Mystery/Metaphysics/Mythopoesis/Metaphor/Modernity", "messages": 2, "voices": 2, "first": "2001-08-22T09:53:44+00:00", "last": "2001-08-23T08:41:04+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "ddanehy at siebel.com" }, "date": "2001-08-22T09:53:44+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Mystery/Metaphysics/Mythopoesis/Metaphor/Modernity", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\"If God chooses to be mythopoeic -- and is the sky itself not a\nmyth? -- then can we refuse to be mythopathic?\" -- CSL\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------------\n\nDan Parmenter emerged from the Cave, observed the True Reality, \nand returned to tell those who dwell among the shadows that:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Nigel Price wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "So: the physical world as a reflection of divine reality, myths \nas the recurring patterns whereby the physical world reflects \nthat greater reality,and myths as symbollic statements of enduring\npsychological truths." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The way you phrased this immediately reminded me of Tolkien's idea\nof sub-creation: any myth-creation, by virtue of being an act of\ncreation, must and will reflect divine reality. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It would be more accurate to add a few select adjectives to this \nsummary: \"any true myth-creation, by virtue of being a true act of\ncreation, must and will reflect divine reality.\" For as sure as \neggs is eggs (aching men's feet), there are false acts of myth-\ncreation and sub-creation, against which JRRT registered the \noccasional protest (among those against whose allegedly false \nmyth-making he protested we might note Walt Disney and William \nShakespeare)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In fact I think Tolkien goes on record to say that reading and\nwriting mythology is a surer way to discover the truth about the\nworld than philosophical speculation." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Actually, I'm pretty sure it was Lewis who said this. But the\nreal working-out of the idea would, I think, be Dorothy Sayers's\nmagnificent book _The Mind of the Maker_." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "As you say, myths deal with archetypes of human thought and\nbehavior." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think this an oversimplification. Myths deal with archetypes,\nwhose \"existence\" we know primarily through their \"manifestation\"\nin human thought and behavior. The quotation marks are intended\nas a reminder/indicator of the over/underdetermined nature of the\n\"meaning\" of the two words thus set apart: that is, they indicate\nto us and remind us that the sentence so marked neither affirms \nnor denies the \"existence\" of these archetypes in any form _other_\nthan what we perceive in human thought/behavior; of course, if \nthey do not, then the word \"manifestation\" is -- manifestly -- \ninaccurate. \n\nBut to talk meaningfully about them, it seems-to-me necesary to \n(at least) hold open a space for the _possibility_ that they _do_ \nin fact possess some \"independent\" \"existence\" other than in these \n\"manifestations\" -- even if that \"existence\" is no more than some \nkind of universal (or at least wide-spread) patterns in \n(deeper-than-surface-thought-and-behavior) human brains/minds \nwhich is not, but which manifests itself in, these thoughts and/or\nbehaviors." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "If in fact the world and human nature are created as a function\nof some divine principle, then a myth that accurately portrays\nthose archetypes, that mimics the physical and psychological\nworld, will be (a) interesting for a long period of time to a lot\nof people and (b) contain true insight into the more enduring\ncauses of the universe." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "And a weaker, non-religoius form of this is also possible and useful:\n\"If a myth accurately portrays [i.e., matches in some way we can\nconsciously or, especially, unconsciously, recognize] the deeper\npatterns universally or broadly present in the structure of human\nbrains/minds, then that myth will mimic the physical-psychological\nworld of humans in a way that will (a) be interesting for a significant\nperiod of time to a lot of humans and (b) contain true insight into \nthe more enduring causes of human behavior and personality.\" \n\nIn fact, I hold to the stronger form, but I think the weaker form \nmay be more appropriate as a basis for discussion in an audience \nwhich doesn't generally hold the antecedent of the stronger form\nto be true or even possibly true." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And because the myth-maker in essence seizes upon the divine, \ncreative principle in order to create the myth he (or she, \nmore likely) has no choice but to sub-create a world that is \nlike in nature to the greater creation. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Again, a weaker (or at least non-religion-based) form: \"The myth-maker \nis limited to what the physical structure of a human brain-mind can \nimagine. The human brain-mind is in turn limited by its formation,\nits devleopment, and its training, all of which take place in the\nsingle known physical universe, all of which which places restraint\non what it _can_ imagine. Furthermore, the (would-be) myth-maker, in \norder to create a myth which will appeal to large numbers of humans, \nand so succeed _as_ a myth, is constrained not only by his own \nimagination, but by the imaginations of those to whom he seeks to \ncommunicate the myth, and by the means (language, drawing, etc.) by\nwhich he seeks to communicate it. The result of all of this is that\nany truly successful myth will have some minimum basic level of\ncongruity or similarity to the (actual) (physical) universe.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I wouldn't elaborate on this except that it seems like Tolkien's\naesthetic has gotten short shrift in the archives, and since we\nknow that Wolfe read a lot of Tolkien's friend and intellectual\ndisciple--certainly in this area--C.S. Lewis, this is undoubtedly\na source to take into consideration." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think it too much to consider Lewis Tolkien's \"intellectual\ndisciple,\" even in this area. More than Tolkien, I would suggest\nCharles Williams as a source of Lewis' myth-making \"style,\" and\n_far_ more than either, George MacDonald. (Whose \"myths\" I, \npersonally, find nigh-unreadable, but...)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And too it seems to have special bearing on Wolfe's detective\nfiction. I too think the detective story is a modern mythology--\nthough I would argue, Nutria, that it's a Modern mythology that\nonly realized an explicit Christian element under Chesterton's\ntutelage. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "... if even there. Indeed, almost exactly to the extent that the \nFr. Brown stories are Christian, they work _against_ the basic \nmetaphysic of the detective story, which is rationalistic and\nmaterialistic. When Fr. Brown uses the logic he's been taught in\nthe seminary to solve the mystery, that's just a character quirk;\nbut when he's able to solve the mystery, or bring the criminal\nto \"repentance,\" through applied Christian belief, the devoted\nmystery reader (quite rightly) feels that there is something not\nquite right here. Chesterton has violated the protocols, the \nreaderly expectations, of the mystery. _Not_, I hasten to say,\n\"undermined\" or \"subverted\" -- both of these are legitimate moves\n-- but simply and blatantly transgressed against them.\n\nThe Fr. Brown stories are excellent stories.\n\nBut some of them are lousy mysteries." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It's a mythology unique to modernity in particular, I think,\nbecause the most important element is the \"decypherability\" of\nthe crime. Usually by the tools of Reason, and Reason,\npersonally exercised reason--whether you are a layman with your\nown Bible, a (Baconian) scientist, a voter, a consumer--is the\nraison d'etre of modernity. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Shhh! Don't tell Aristotle. He thought it was the raison d'etre\nof (classical) philosophy. \n\nReason and what I have to call Unreason (but I mean it in a \nbroader sense, as I do Reason -- one with neither an intrinsically\ngood nor an intrinsically bad connotation) have existed in a \nkind of seesawing balance/imbalance since human thought began,\nor, certainly, since it began to be recorded. Another word for\n\"Unreason\" in this context would be \"Passion,\" but in the modern,\nnot the classical, sense -- being moved by powerful emotion: \nthe true Romanticism. Most \"philosophies\" seem to insist on the\nprimacy of one over the other, as do most \"religions.\" In fact,\nReason is barren without Passion, and Passion is hideously \ndestructive without Reason (Passion without Reason produces the\nThird Reich; Reason without Passion produces Mutually Assured\nDestruction.) -- but even combining the two fails to guarantee\nresults. Each must be trained to act as a check upon the other.\n\n(Damn, I'm talking like some kind of newage guru here -- and I \n_don't_ mean to. It's not as if I'd achieved the kind of balance \nI'm talking about! But I want to defuse the dangerous idea that\nthere is anything particularly modern, or modernistic, about \nReason.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And of course as we got increasingly gloomy about Reason the myth\ntook new forms: Kafka, for instance, turned the tale on its head\nwith _The Trial_, gave us guilt with no crime and thus no solution." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "... intended, of course, as a metaphor for the entire \"human \ncondition;\" it is a religion-free description of the phenomenon\ntraditionally called \"original sin.\" K cannot be saved until he\nacknowledges that he is guilty, even without having understood his \ncrime; but having acknowledged it, there is no salvation for him but \nexecution. A grim (and surprisingly theologically accurate) picture \nof the \"fallen and unredeemed human\" in Christian terms." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But while Wolfe seems to like Kafka (_There Are Doors_ -- people\nobjected to the unbelievability of C-5 or whatever the alternative\nuniverse was called -- made a lot more sense to me as a Kafkaesque\nfairy-tale and something of a rebuttal to _The Castle_) " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Also, \"Westwind\" and -- oh, hell: the story about the sentient \nseptic germs? -- have always seemed very K-esque to me also. \nAnd \"The Detective of Dreams\" is almost a perfect inverse-Kafka \nstory." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I don't think he shares Kafka's gloominess. The detectives,\nprofessional and amateur, have problems that they solve, usually\nwith a combination of reason and metaphysics, and so of course\nWolfe is trying to tell us that our own universe is similarly\ntractable. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think a better word would be \"negotiable.\" (Like terrain, not\nlike money.) Wolfe seems to hold forth the idea that the Universe\nis, in principle, fully capable of intellectual comprehension -- \neven if we, in practice, are not capable of fully comprehending \nit; that it _is_ negotiable, and our failures to negotiate it are\ndue to our limits and not to its fundamental irrationality; that \nthe universe is, in fact, surd." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But the real genius of his sub-creation is that he doesn't only\n*tell* us that but presents us, his readers, with our own puzzles\nto work out, giving us -- as Nigel pointed out earlier -- exactly\nas much information as we need to do so." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Sometimes I think he overestimates readers' ability to work it out,\nor, perhaps, their patience to do so. Certainly he knows that the\ndifficulty of his texts exceeds the patience of _some_ (probably\nmany, maybe most) readers to play his games out to the end. And it\nseems clear that he's quite comfortable with this.\n\nBut really, he's just taken one of the basic aesthetic principles \nof modern(ist[ic]) prose to a kind of terminal point. Strunk said \nit best. \"Rule 17: Omit needless words.\" Compare some texts of the \nlast few centuries and see how writers gradually become terser and \nterser, and Wolfe, for all his occasional gorgeousnesses, emerges \nas a paragon of verbal economy. His basic principle would seem to\nbe: \"Never give any information that isn't needed for the whole \neffect of the story, and never repeat anything unless there is a \nsound reason for it to be repeated -- and emphasis, in and of \nitself, is _not_ a reason for repetition.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Is this a Platonic exercise? With my limited experience with\nPlato I am inclined to say no--Plato, for instance, thought poets\nand their shady (shadowy?) lyricisms should be banished from the\nRepublic. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "His attitude in the Laws, a more \"realistic\" approach than the\nRepublic (which is, after all, \"idealistic\") is more moderate; and\nin one dialogue -- whose title I'm blanking on -- he has Socrates\nquite clearly conclude that poets -- actually, not poets but the\nperformers of poetry -- speak for (indeed, speak under possession \nof) the gods. (This dialog is, if not _the_ source, then certainly \n_a_ source, for the modern word \"inspiration\" as relates to an \nartist's impulse to create.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I suppose it all depends on whether Wolfe thinks his stories are\ngood, qua ipso, or merely tools to describe some higher reality \n-- whether that be our own \"real\" world or something higher still. \nI certainly think the stories good in their own right." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I would deny this opposition as unnecessary and artificial. Whether\nthe stories are good as stories is one question; whether they are\ntools to describe some higher reality is another. (And whether being\neffective tools for the description of a higher reality does or would \nmake them better stories is a third.)\n\n--Dan'l" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Jim Collins", "address": "jfc4319 at uncwil.edu" }, "date": "2001-08-23T08:41:04+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) Mystery/Metaphysics/Mythopoesis/Metaphor/Modernity", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dan wrote:\nHis attitude in the Laws, a more \"realistic\" approach than the\nRepublic (which is, after all, \"idealistic\") is more moderate; and\nin one dialogue -- whose title I'm blanking on -- he has Socrates\nquite clearly conclude that poets -- actually, not poets but the\nperformers of poetry -- speak for (indeed, speak under possession\nof) the gods. (This dialog is, if not _the_ source, then certainly\n_a_ source, for the modern word \"inspiration\" as relates to an\nartist's impulse to create.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "and Jim, unlurking, responds:\n\nIt's *Ion*. Socrates quizzes Ion, a rhapsode (professional performer of epic \npoetry), and develops the thesis that poets create their best work when they \nhave been bereft of their reason by the gods, and that when the rhapsodes are \nreally cookin' (good Socratic term), they are carried out of themselves, and \ndo the same for their audiences.\n\nJim Collins\nWilmington, NC" } ] } ] }