From: waynebro@romeo.caltech.edu (Broughton, Wayne Jeremy)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Nature of Myth was (Re: The Adam and Eve Thing)
Date: 27 Sep 1992 19:20 PDT
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: romeo.caltech.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

Thanks for your reply, Paul.

[The included text below is edited for brevity.]

In article <Bv3L1t.Az0@nntp-sc.Intel.COM>, pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes...
>In article <23SEP199220353177@romeo.caltech.edu> 
>waynebro@romeo.caltech.edu (Broughton, Wayne Jeremy) writes:
>>1) Just what do you mean by "myth"?  eg. when you say somewhere 
>>else that (IYHO) the whole Bible is myth.    I suppose you mean
>>that it is "an expression of that which transcends words".
> 
>The words, written and oral are myth. The meaning? Hmm, that is true beauty.
> 
>>2) I will guess that you would say the meaning is the "myth", not
>>the words (or not just the words).
> 
>Nope, sorry. The myth is the artistic medium. Meaning is transcendent of word.
> 
>>But then how can you tell which
>>words express myth (metaphorical, poetic, transcendent meaning)?
> 
>You are the judge of metaphorical value.
> 
>>If I say "I am wearing a white shirt", can this be construed as myth?
> 
>Yes. But in our Western culture, it is assumed to be either true or false.

Based on the above, I note that you seem to be saying that virtually 
any statements can be considered myth if one can find metaphorical 
meaning in them.

>>3) And so finally to the point:  can't words with a "mythical" meaning
>>ALSO be interpreted to have an ordinary, concrete ("reductionist")
>>meaning? 
> 
>Absolutely. Both have their place, but reductionism can not address that which
>is transcendent of true/false, transcendent of words. The meaning of a
>butterfly pollinating a flower can not be reduced to true/false, it is
>transcendent. This meaning can only be addressed by poetry and myth.

Clear enough.

>>It seems to me that many of the statements of the Bible,
>>regardless of any "mythical" interpretations, can also be understood
>>as factual statements of historical events (eg. the Eden story).  
> 
>Well, maybe a poor example, maybe not. There is factual or historical record
>in the Bible. Myth is often based on historical fact. But if you claim that
>the Eden story is factual, then you must have proof, you must subject your
>claim to the reductionists who can easily prove it false. Example: It says
>in Genesis that woman was created FROM man. We know that this is either one
>of two things: 1. 100% false or 2. Metaphorical. The choice is yours, you
>can argue with the reductionists a case that you can not win or you can
>think about what the meaning of this metaphor could be.

Sorry, when I said "factual" I did not mean "true";  I meant "susceptible
to true/false analysis, not only metaphorical".  I suppose I was abusing
my mother tongue, or perhaps you only saw the literal meaning of my
words!!  :-)   Please rest assured I do not consider the Eden story to
have actually taken place in the literal sense.

>>While the mythical meaning(s) may transcend any true/false analysis,
>>surely one can ask "did the historical events depicted here actually
>>occur?  Was there really a woman named Eve in a garden she called Eden
>>being offered some fruit by a talking serpent?"  Perhaps you don't
>>think the words were intended to be interpreted that way?  If so, how
>>can you tell?  To millions of people, including myself, they certainly
>>look like they were.

Again, I only meant that I thought the words were intended (by the author)
to be interpreted primarily as actual historical events (though I cannot
prove this), and NOT that I believed them to be true.  I don't!!

>The choice is yours. I say it is myth but I have no proof, other than the

What do you mean here?  Certainly the story is myth (by your def'n) if 
you can find metaphorical significance to it.  If you mean that the intended
interpretation of it was the mythical one, this is the point I disagreed with
above.

>fact that most of it can be proved to be false by reductionists. It seems

I don't think this supports the idea that the story was intended to
be read as myth since it is not clear that its author considered the
literal reading of the story to be untrue.

>to me that more can be gained by taking a metaphorical approach, but that

Granted.

>is only my opinion. Good luck trying to prove the Bible is factual.

Indeed.

>>Finally, I think the point raised earlier on this thread was that 
>>when the encyclopedia refers to a story as "mythical", regardless
>>of what that may mean to you, to the average person in our reductionist,
>>skeptical, and largely illiterate society it implies that the 
>>_historical_ veracity of the story is dubious.
> 
>It does mean that. Myth is often historically based but is not constrained
>by the need to be historically accurate anymore that poetry must be factual.
>But, to the average person, to be called mythical is insulting. That is not
>the case at all. To be called mythical or poetic is one of the highest
>complements.

OK.  In summary, I view the discussion that you and Ken were having
and that prompted my posting as being largely semantics.  The phrase
"myth is false" is meaningless from your point of view since the 
metaphorical meaning of myth transcends falsity, but if referring to
a _particular_ myth (not myth in general), it can also be understood
to say "the myth that has metaphorical meaning also has a literal 
meaning that is a false assertion".  I think (perhaps presumptuously)
that the latter is what Ken was trying to express.  He was asking for
a substitute to the word "false" but I think what was needed was a
clarification of the word "myth".

Thanks for listening!

**********************************************************************

Wayne J. Broughton                 Take the road less travelled by.  
waynebro@juliet.caltech.edu    
Department of Mathematics,
Caltech, Pasadena, CA  91125

Caltech has no idea what my opinions are;  
they think I'm working right now...