From: BKF@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,alt.mythology
Subject: Re: Philosophy and Myth
Date: 10 Apr 92 05:18:21 GMT
 <92093.090728J5J@psuvm.psu.edu> <92093.093303BKF@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
 <1992Apr10.012034.6574@samba.oit.unc.edu>
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <1992Apr10.012034.6574@samba.oit.unc.edu>, shava@hermes.oit.unc.edu
(Shava Nerad Averett) says:
>
>In article <92093.093303BKF@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
>BKF@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU writes:
>>My view is that philosophy is primarily an intellectual pursuit of truth
>>and so naturally, thinking is the key activity.  Philosophers are
>>thinkers.
>>
>By this, I assume you mean analytical, rational, 'left-brained' thinkers.
>I hate to think (or do I?) that we creative types never think at all?
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Some ambivalence here, yes?  Just kidding.  Your statement, vis a vis,
mine is just stupid.  My statement *does not* imply that artists do not
think.  All I said in the above is the philosophy is primarily an
intellectual activity.  Is that too esoteric to understand?

>>...
>>Also, according to Campbell, myths are created by artists. A right
>>brain activity.  Philosophy would be left brain activty by comparison.
>>Philosophers discussing myths could be likened to art critics discussing
>>art.  Philosophers don't create myths, art critics don't create art.
>
>There were these people in a cave, and there was light, and shadows in
>the cave...
>                                                ---Plato

Is this mythic-quality art?  Give me a break.  I've written similar
lines zoned on Gallo wine in the backyard.

>
>What if there were a cat in a box, and a cosmic ray trigger which could
>break a glass vial full of a deadly poison gas...?
>                                                ---Schroedinger

Sounds like something Stephen King wrote and decided not to use.
Mythic art?  NOT!
>
>I am forced to believe that either:
>        (1)  Plato is not a philosopher
>        -or-
>        (2)  Some philosophers are also artists
>        -or-
>        (3)  Some people defy categorization, and dare to think with
>                their whole entire brain at once.
>(I'll accept (2) & (3) as simultaneous solutions)
>
My view is that myth, a la Campbell, transcends the intellect, and is
produced by artistic acts.  Anyone can create a work of art.  If a
philosopher is creating a myth, say, the Arthurian Myths, then that
person would be engaged in an artistic act.

I'm not putting *down* philosophy, but the question at hand, as I
understand it, is what is the difference between philosophy and myth.
So far, most I what I have seen is that those who are endeared to
philosophy assume that mythology is a subset of philosophy, or that it
fits 100% into the domain of philosophy.  I don't see it that way.

I challenge you to show me real philosophical text, or *any* known
philospher's writings that are not composed primarily of thoughts.
I love the mind myself, it is a great tool. But human beings also have
feelings, intuition, an unconscious (or subconscious) mind, and even
a "Soul."  The mind is a fantastic instrument, but it is not the sum
total of the human being.   Myth, according to Campbell, speaks to
the entire human being.

Do you think that philosophers created the Greek myths?  The Arthurian
Myths?  The Celtic Myths?  The American Indian Myths?  I think not.

>Remember that left- and right-brainedness (if it exists at all -- it
>may be a myth) is not a dichotomy so strong as male and female, or even
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Now you are using myth as a commonly-held misconception, not at all
Joseph Campbell's definition of myth.

>so strong, perhaps, as left- or right-hand dominance, which it is theorized
>to follow.  Most *truly* creative people I know exhibit signs of both
>left- and right-brained approaches to creation and problem solving.
>

Sure.  Me included. My point [again] is that philosophy is predominately
a mental (left_brained) activity.  Art (right_brained) taps into the
mythic realm.  Art vs Science might be a better way than left-right
brain model.  Artistic ideas and manifestations generally precede that
of science.  Examples:  Jules Verne, Da Vinci (ok, artist and scientist)
Heinlein, Herbert, Orwell, Roddenberry.  I see art flying higher,
and freer, and having more meaning for more people than philosophy,
which requires long attention spans, linquistics, semantics, literacy,
training, history, thinking, thinking and more thinking.  I'm not
putting it down.  I *love* philosophy.  But philosophy and myth are
different.  IMHO.  I do see the domain of philosophy as smaller and more
limited that that of myth.  I recently saw "Camelot" and the mythic
images in it blew me away.  They were like fresh winds blowing through
me, as though I were every woodwind instrument.  This artistic feeling,
and the meanings we get from it is not primarily a philosophic
experience.  It's a major (lacking words again) a Grok.  The mind is
included, wonderfully, but the mind is not the extent of the experience
or the message.  It's a simultaneous rush of mind-play, feeling,
hoping, longing, intuition, a resonance toward song and an appreciation
of beauty.  A philosopher may discuss Camelot, but would not create Camelot
without wearing the artists hat.  This may come as a
surprise, but the best philosophers do philosophy.  The best
gardeners work with plants, and the best artists...well you know.


Here's Joseph Campbell's acceptance speech (in 85?) when he received
the medal of honor from the National Arts Club:

"I knew I'd found something when I started writing the "Hero" [the
hero with a thousand faces].  It's been a large, large experience because
that's what I was hoping for when I was writing, namely that I was giving
people the key to the realm of the muses, which is where myth is."

"The seat of the Soul is there where the inner and the outer worlds meet.
The outer world is what you get in scholarship.  The inner world is your
response to it.  And it is where these come together that we have the
mythos."

The outer world changes with historical time.  The inner world is the world
of Anthropos, it is the world constant to the human race.  And so you have
throughout the mythological systems a constant, you always have the sense of
recognizing something, and what you're recognizing is your own inward life
and at the same time the inflection through history.  And the problem of
making the inner meet the outer of today is, of course, the the function
the artist.  And it is because my work has had some influence on people
this that I feel so proud, so proud of this moment."

Peace and Love,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Bob Funkhouser               | My views do not represent those of my employer
 bkf@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu |-----------------------------------------------
 Menlo Park, CA               | "An unlived life is not worth examining"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta