Probably the most infamous connection and possible explanation of mythology is to the human subconscious. In this case, it would be better to specifically say explanation of myths, especially if we in light of the psychological lens consider the individual mythic stories as particular dreams that make up the whole dreamscape reality … a reality that is as complex to comprehend and actually envision through the subconscious as is the whole individual mythological tradition various myths are rooted in. However, as soon as we consider myths as mere reflections of one’s self or mere dreams, it’s notoriously hard to overlook the position of mythology as something less than the dreamstate. Yet, the myth as dreams theorem paradoxically does not just undermine the potentially far-reaching social, cultural, anthropological traits of myths, it actually enhances their notoriety by trying to understand them as building blocks of one (more or less formalistic, if not structuralistic) way or another … in this case the psyche. All of this is the power of psychology. Nevertheless, we tend to focus on the “negative”, as the biologically dandy negativity bias presumes. Once the unconscious is let out of the proverbial bag, it’s hard to take the supernatural in myth as serious as in the not so distant past. And not merely that, because the idea of the metaphysics of myth obviously goes beyond both space and time. This is just the modern scientific dogma of thinking we can prove everything and dissect even more than that in order to finally disperse and get rid of anything and everything in connection to the pesky anti-scientific religion … and myth as the religious backbone is indeed the crux of the matter in more ways than one. Since psychology deals with the mind on the conscious and unconscious level, the issue of behavior, thoughts, beliefs and “truths” can be easily misconstrued, which can and does affect not just one’s conduct, but one’s perception of every single aspect that we can think of. And when you apply that on the larger social level, you easily get enhanced/multiplied versions of thoughts and actions, the reality and factuality of which are far from the main goal. In such a way, the story of a cultural myth is the myth of the story of life, where you play the game of life as best as you can, given your personal biological/cognitive settings. And before this turns into a tangent about some relativism of life that bears little semblance to the subject matter, the point I’m trying to make is that psychology is – just like every single lens of mythological survey that I’m butchering in this Myth in Theory series of posts – far from perfect in its approach and consequences. It’s not really about perfection as much as about factuality and truth as in any scientific approach, although this fabled … dare I say mythic … notion of perfection is something that I’ve always felt is at the core of psychological examinations. Maybe things get lost in translation, authors in this field express themselves in a particular way or I just don’t get it enough, but when you read especially notorious authors like Freud, you get a sense of grandeur and overwhelming importance at work … whether that is self-imposed or not is another matter. The other thing is that when I began talking about dreams right off the bat, I was obviously looking at only a certain idea from the immense framework of psychological research. On the other hand, psychological methodology in general to me is extremely diverse and interconnected. From Rank, Peirce, Lacan to Levi-Strauss, psychology and psychoanalysis readily combine with other fields of language study, structuralism(s) and other deconstructive (post)modern theories. Since the mind is at the center of examination and the neural connections between our synapses fire just a bit differently for each and every one of us, it’s actually fantastically ingenious and observant to find concrete and factual connections between us, especially on the “hidden” unconscious level … or on the level of Freudian psychic structures and Jungian archetypes and dreams to circle back. I would say that the majority of psychological applications to myth stem from influential albeit accordingly quite different researches of Freud and Jung. At least I feel their respective researches have entered the mainstream more than others. I mean, considering popular culture and myth alike, there is plenty of juicy stuff to choose from: from Schrödinger's cat and the paradox of myths as both equally alive as the human condition and dismissed as human religious folly … to Pavlov's dogs as the vague reimagination of Heracles’s (Hellenistic) subjugation of Cerberus’s power which represents nature itself. That’s the juicy stuff that tickles my fancy. To touch a bit more on Freud and Jung as the psychological yang-yin pairing galore, Freud’s “neurotic” view of religion places myth in the same category of undesired, even primitive stories of the subconscious that hold no academic value, while Jung, on the other hand takes a more holistic and more global approach to myth and religion, reflecting on the issue of dualism, importance of dreams as mythic windows to our world and (equally fixed and fluid) archetypes as the unconscious clues of our understanding of our consequent humanity. If Freud is the conservative straight line in the religious narrative, dismissive to the point of rendering it (scientifically) obsolete, Jung is the sphere that merges oppositions and adds layers to religious understanding. As such, the Trinity for example gets both the Feminine and the Negative principle … and you know that the forced liberals of today gots to love dem apples! To kind of sum up, if myth (psychologically) indeed happens in the head, it’s a powerful cognitive stimulant that has influenced many a culture and seems to still have intrinsic value for the (post)modern society as well. If myth is a combination of one’s internal world and the greater reality we occupy, it still represents clues of our psyche through which we peer into the mechanism of our very Being. While obviously not all myths are impressive or touch upon the doings of human beings, they were nevertheless written by human authors (looking at the stories from outside of the sacred tradition) and thus reflect human nature in one way or another. Either taking into account the very subjective works of Hesiod, much more meticulous writings of Muslim and Christian body of sacred stories, or the live interplay and enactment of Aboriginal or African myths and rituals, myths are still instructional stories for humans with intricate value … for the mind … and (hopefully) beyond the mind as well. Archives October 2017
0 Comments
MYTH IN THEORY: MYTHOLOGY AND SOCIOLOGY (Part 3) Right off the bat, if you’re scratching your head why I didn’t group sociology with anthropology from the previous part, it kind of feels better this way, at least philosophically, so just bear with me. I’ve already touched on the role of mythology as a cultural emblem, a body of stories reflecting the nature and order of the culture it originates from, plus its patterns and essence it reflects. As such, the sociological paradigm to the study of mythology may be on one hand the most paramount and yet on the other hand (due to its palpability) not quite too prevalent. To elaborate on this statement, firstly: sociology and mythology share a powerful trait in their subject matter, since sociology critically analyzes the occurrences that make up any (and all) given culture(s), while mythology (sub)consciously elucidates the very same occurrences through its storytelling. In such a way the sociological reality of today’s groupings, subcultures and governing organisms is paralleled to the tradition expressed in myths … whether or not they are true is another matter, because “factuality” becomes heavily scrutinized by and personalized to the “party” one belongs to. In such a way, strictly speaking it does not really matter if the ancient kings embellished their origins and created a divine backbone to their governing, because perception becomes reality and Truth can be quickly hidden by the patrons, agendas and personal quirks and misunderstandings of the researcher. The same thing is happening today in the “forceful” liberal state we seem to be living, where equality for equality’s sake is akin to perpetual war bringing proverbial peace. Paradoxes and hypocrisies galore! And secondly, however, the less obvious connection between the theories of sociology and mythology stems from the critique of mythology as a collection of mere fantastic stories, while sociology deals with relations within the human cultural organization. What is palpable in this pairing is the power myth has in relating, controlling and divulging the relations that sociology follows. Thus, the great Indian epic Mahabharata directly reflects the nature of the Indian culture, the guiding dharma principle and its caste system, while the story is bracketed by the great supernatural battle between good and evil (and it’s never preferable to take stories too literal, regardless of their sacrality). On the other hand, great influencing myths of Mesopotamia among other things serve as social, order-inducing exemplars, which can in turn be understood either ideologically as propaganda or as an explanation of rituals as cultural elements. Consequently, mythology can function as a powerful ideological apparatus, particularly when mythic stories take on more sacred roles through the implement of religion, such as the dogmatic ruling of the Church in the Middle Ages for example which culminated in the Crusades and the totalitarianism of the Western religious system, consequently furthering the divergence between faith as such and institutional religion as the barbarous offspring … something Nietzsche would surely nod to. (The subject of the Crusades is along with The Second World War generally considered primarily negatively, reflecting on the dark depths of humanity, with destruction by far prevailing any righteous consequences. While mythic and especially disillusioned religious parallels can easily be found in both cases, I want to stress the interconnection of events which resulted from them. While pacifism may be the “positive” global outcome of the Great War, the Crusades were principal in acquainting the Western world with the ingenuity, scientific and artistic prowess of the then Islamic tradition that notably influences consequent Western development. Eternal duality at is clearly always at work.) What sociology and mythology share the most is their position in relation to the individual and the larger human sphere. Both reflect the greater macrocosmic reality that every microcosm each and every one of us is finds himself or herself in and has to cope with one way or another. Whether the organization reflects the story or the other way around is difficult to answer; while culture would already had to have been prominent for the bard to compose myths about it, myth touches upon higher realities than human culture and organization, as Jungian archetypal system also points to. To an extent, this matter is quite arbitrary; the issue of where society historically ranks in connection to religion can easily resemble the eternal question of what came first: the chicken or the egg. The more important concern for my research is the interaction of both subject matters and the dualism of the personal and the social paradigm, which reflects the position of every (human) being that balances its existence between its own being, its own I, and the greater environment it finds itself in …to again extend the initial duality into a tripart structure. (Strictly speaking, the dual principle of the micro and macrocosmos can be in this sense expended to a triad, where society as the mesocosmos, the central area occupies the space between the human – the personal –and nature – universal sphere. The mesocosmos can essentially be interchangeable with the macrocosmos, since they both reflect a reality bigger form the individuum. Similar observation can be made in the human/family/society triad, where the family unit essentially occupies the social sphere.) From a theoretical position, the concept of the monomyth finds merit within this framework, where similar cross-cultural, elemental themes get reenvisioned through particular expressions of local environments. In other words, the mythic questions spans from the universal to the social position, from the overreaching reality or the Truth to the specific truths of each and every society, from the sacred to the profane, from Brahman to Atman. In each case, the individual functioned either directly or indirectly within the (human) social sphere or the larger (universal) existence as such. Max Weber’s social forces and structures have clearly always been at work. Archives October 2017 While I may be grouping the distinctive fields of archeology and anthropology together, they are in fact diverse and rich in their own right. This is just my way of finding connections between traditions (refers to history in the previous part as well) in order to hopefully uncover greater facts or truths about any field of endeavor … in this case about mythology, of course. So, let’s continue. History and anthropology are closely connected in their subject matter, as their mutual interest lies in discovering and illuminating the past as factually and determinately as possible. Anthropology, nevertheless, concerns itself more closely, directly and literally to the study of humanity, while archeology as its subfield for example enhances the subject matter through the discovery of remains and consequent function of when can be physically uncovered. The study of humanity is in the general sense the study of humanity’s past ... or in other words remains (hence the continuously important religious and social value of graves and burials rites). Those remains may be (archeologically) concretely discovered in the form of actual bones or artifacts that can be carbon-dated and placed within a narrower historic time-frame, so we may infer their value. Often, this is (anthropologically) done in connection with the current times, cultures and tradition that kind of act as balancing weight or a fluid constant through which we link our present human state with the past and mark the changes and constants in human (past, present and future) development. Further, by also incorporating linguistics and the biological and cultural anthropology as its subset, the central ideology of anthropology is a sort of holistic approach, while the study of humanity in general (the personal aspect) can only be perceived in a greater setting and contrasted with its larger cultural role (the social aspect). Thus, through the discovery of remains on the coast of Asia Minor in connection to Homer’s accounts in the Iliad, we have a possible factual connection between myth and history. While the actual remains of a temple or a stronghold can hardly speak of its builders’ and inhabitants’ genuine beliefs and a mythological story based on historical accounts of a war between two forces in the Aegean area (yet embellished with divine participants) may only give an outline of what actually happened or what religious or cultural significance the conflict had, this physical connection to the story nevertheless remains. Authors of any story are directly influenced by the environment they inhabit; so, while the Biblical account of the flood might be more or less directly linked to the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, modern researchers can search for parallels between the story and the actual historic location that may have been subject to floods. Discovery of languages, their development and (crucially for the modern observer) their translations shed further light on the dark past. In such a way, the creation account from Genesis 1:1-3 describes God as the creative force that names everything into existence. The “word of God”, as it is most commonly translated, actually refers to logos, which can mean word, but is equally connected (if not more) to the influential Greek philosophical thought commonly understood as reason. The difference can be quite profound to say the least (Note also how the young maiden got translated as virgin and presto: we have immaculate conception.) Translational issues can be a major concern in any type of cross-cultural references (let alone sacred texts), as many myths are seen from inside the tradition. Plus, the further back in (pre)history we go, the darker the veil that is placed in front of our far often ignorant gaze. Consequently, a mere story can facilitate geological, transcultural (syncretic), philosophical and historical clues. If I give some more examples, the Akkadian word zikru from the Epic of Gilgamesh can mean either someone or word, consequently stressing the use of footnotes and endnotes in texts of such magnitude (an academic delight). Equally to logos, while the Buddhist term dukkha is generally translated as suffering, its much more authentic meaning as dissatisfaction or discontent come closer to its actual message. (The issue is even greater as plenty of good Western theoreticians of Buddhism fail to stress this notion that can ultimately hinder genuine comprehension of Buddhism. Because let’s face it, if you tell a Westerner that “life is suffering”, all the goth and emo nihilists with pick up their trusty razorblade and make another cut, because the image that pops into our head is more of Dante’s Inferno than philosophical discontent on both the personal and the social level.) While the differentiation in the first case may not necessarily govern the subsequent development and reading of the Epic of Gilgamesh, the latter two examples touch upon vital religious dimensions of the respective Christian and Buddhist traditions, so such miscomprehension can be ideologically and philosophically damaging. Anthropological and archeological work uncovers further (mis)connections to the “truths” revealed in myths, in a sense bringing the fossilized mythological accounts back to life by adding new layers of mythological understanding and meaning, which was their central function. The phrase can be taken quite literally, since anthropological and archeological work tries to uncover the hidden or forgotten reality of myths, as the cultures of their origin can be under attack by the modern reality of life. While for example the Victorian anthropologists, functionalists and symbolic anthropologists applied their research to better understanding the subject matter, their position nevertheless represented an outside view to the examined traditions and their stories. As such, the observations – whether gained from uncovered remains or being privy to a performance of a story – are mere interpretation of the original tradition. And that’s exactly what we are at the best of times: interpreters. If you say expert, regardless of the years of study and practice, that’s still just your ego boasting. And to that the Buddha says no bueno. Although the inherent paradox of anthropological and archeological data remains, since the corresponding mythic accounts are generally oral in nature, this kind of research nevertheless uncovers symbolism and concrete material means which try to recreate the cultural environment in which (and through which) mythic narrative was brought to life and consequently continues to shine its relevance and revelation. Archives October 2017 MYTH IN THEORY: MYTHOLOGY AND HISTORY (Part 1) "Every world is a sacred world.” (Mircea Eliade: The Sacred and the Profane) The world of humanity is a rich playground of mythologies and each cultural mythology is brimming with individual myths, which in turn can overlap, contextually interplay, negate one-another and even change accordingly as times and audiences of these myths change as well. Whether or not myths are oral or written, they will forever be traditional stories that each culture proudly cherishes. Stories that may have individually far differently affected the global conception of humankind, but they nevertheless share various traits despite certain (by default) geographical and historical distinctions. What I’m trying to provide here is a broader outline of the density and the pervasiveness of myths, so we can understand them better in a larger context. In this post specifically, I’ll be reflecting the interplay of mythology and history and how one discipline echoes through the other. Also, I’ll refer to mythology for the most part in the same breath as religion, even though this connection will be explored in greater detail in a future Myth in Theory post … just so there is no confusion (or at least less of it). Mythological complexity is fast apparent in the works of most mythographers and scholars of comparative mythology or comparative religion (i.e. Rosenberg, Oden, Ford, Vandiver, Jones, Kimball, Thury and Devinney, Voth, etc.). These scholars point to this very same fact by providing a historical perspective and consequential development of theories that are applicable not just to mythology and religion, but are essential to human understanding in general. We have to consider that traditional stories are often the very rich (imaginary) source of all future endeavors, whether or not we view them as proto-scientific. It also must be stressed that the respective fields and modes of inquiry I’ll be discussing alongside mythology are taken as general premises with specific ideologies. Anthropology has for example been quite diverse, as its branches spread from philosophical, empirical to theological examinations. The study of psychology on the other hand has historically had a shorter time frame to expand, yet has been that much more potent … if not even more far-reaching. Therefore, while we can distinguish myth through the application and function of the subsequent methodologies and theories, it is paramount to notice that these positions are essentially merely outlines that inspire further deliberation on them and aspire to a provide the source of a life-long career (academic or not). So, let’s dive into history. When Herodotus, the “father of history”, sets to write his accounts of the Peloponnesian war, he outlines his work for posterity, “preserving the great and wonderful actions [of his time].” (Herodotus: The Histories. 1996: 3) With this foundation in mind and kind of squinting at the fact that Herodotus had let’s say a vivid historic imagination, history as such refers to the events of the past, which were formidable enough to be recorded. The notion of formidability is fast becoming foreign to us in the current age, where everything is being recorded, everything rapidly loses its shine and the Big Brother is (evidently still) watching our every move (if not with more and more zeal). The study of history has long since presented the main aspect of studying the nature of living and consequent development of not just humanity, but being itself. Arguably, modern scientific study in theory refers to a larger playing field; however, even when for example observing the deaths and births of stars, we are essentially observing the past. History in connection with myth refers particularly to the study of historical accounts and clues that allow us to come as close as we possibly can to understanding the past. I of course refer to the accounts in question that have either survived or have been (adequately!) translated. Both notions are far from obvious and indispensable, since present understanding cannot be pieced together without either element. Merely possessing all of the tangible pieces that make up the story of our past (surviving historic accounts) does not complete the proverbial picture. Only through placing those pieces in correct order (their translation) can we hope to begin to uncover the past, through it gazing into our present and future. What is more, the picture will always be missing certain (even crucial) pieces and given the cultural/linguistic diversity, the position and meaning of a particular piece can be far from obvious. But why is understanding the past so important? Should we not leave the past behind, so we may focus on the present and the future? The Greek word historia in fact means inquiry. History has through the critical freedom of the Greek historians and philosophers become the vehicle for just this type of examination of the world (obviously more subjective for us Westerners). Only in studying the past can one learn from it and try to shed light on repeating patters or cycles of life … or discuss either arbitrariness (which would paradoxically be an arbitrary ordeal) or importance (for current and future development). Clue is the crucial word in this context, since the further back we venture, the more inconsistent the evidence is and arduous the consequent facts may be; apart from the obvious postmodern dilemma of being skeptical of even the present, unless you have (actively) spatio-temporally experienced it for yourself. Myth strongly follows this historical model; the further back in time we go the more obscure and unconsciously insecure the accounts are. Consequently, myth as pure historic account (The Big Bang cosmogony) merges with myth as legend (King Arthur) or even further back myth as supernatural force (natural forces as divine manifestations). The difference is that myth as storytelling (particularly, the many versions of the same myth, especially in oral form) is from outside the culture factually far less stringent than the question of validity and accuracy of historical records throughout human cultures and times. In such a way, the ordeals of Jesus or Muhammad are unquestionably omnipresent for their respective followers/believers, while erroneous to American Indian tribes for example, whose sacred animals like the buffalo essentially replace the two great prophets as sources of wisdom. Cultural relevance plays a vital role in determining the meaning of particular historical elements, the fact which is further stressed through extensive study of the tradition itself with all of its temporal nuances, not merely providing a verbatim translation of a newly discovered account. We also have to keep in mind the cross-cultural historicity, since the study of history and archeology has for example been fueled by globalizing tendencies of the more industrialized countries, whose researchers had better sources and hence objectively better means of “conquering” the secrets of the past, even if initially foreign them. (Not to mention they were all aristocrats, because common folk had to work all day or fight wars for the powers that be.) Further, as such a privileged researcher (and an outsider) is inherently less plagued by cultural bias and historical emotional legacies of the researched traditions, s/he may actually be more objectively reliable than someone from within the tradition (the not so obvious implication refers to yours truly as well) … but this is still a far bigger issue in anthropology than history proper. Since history primarily (and pragmatically) depends on written records, its connection to mythology as originally an oral tradition may seem inadequate. However, mythology as a body of stories has been conserved in large part through the invention of writing. Its consequent use is thus in preserving and restoring the sacred stories for the generations to come; quite apropos, since one of the central uses of writing has been to store information pertinent for the culture it was used by – which is in turn consequently tightly connected with self-comprehension, (material and ideological) excess, growth of commerce and development of civilizations. The usefulness of writing may seem obvious to us nowadays, since we are heavily dependent on information served in largest part through the medium of the written word (or symbols of one kind or another), but it must be noted that the Greeks just like the Hindus for example initially put greater value of preservation to the spoken rather than written word. Thus, any written account could essentially be under greater threat of destruction than a spoken story, which could live forever through the meticulous and regular retelling from one generation to the next (with changes to boot!). This notion has to be viewed through the instability of ancient written accounts and scarcity of written material. On the other hand, oral storytelling as recordkeeping falls into the category of simplification for amplification, where stock phrases and repetitions were necessary for mastering the narrative from the storyteller’s perspective to be readily comprehended by the listeners ... just ask any ancient bard (if you find one, be sure to tag me). Especially in connection to myth, far greater value was placed on the oral story as a living, flowing account, adapted to a particular audience and time (as opposed to a myth that loses some of its fluidity and depth by being fossilized in only one, “final” version). Hell, even academic writing must be orally finalized before the research is deemed acceptable. The mythological account may be to an extent seen as the precursor of modern scientific account of the world. The connection of myths as “false” stories and science as factual descriptions is not paradoxical, since myths may reflect actual historicity, but they do so by embellishing the facts (kingship becoming deified). Truthfully, this very aspect is central to the understanding of myths not as wishful thinking or wish fulfillment, but as historicity of human nature and the initial psychological and social levels of societies that these first human accounts have to offer modern scrutiny. In other words, if myth is proto-science, (god) bless its influential imaginary dimension that has given the best scientific minds a vessel for further exploration. Archives October 2017 The posts on my blog have in one way or another been around comics and mythology. The disclaimer on the site clearly does not lie. Both of the subject matters bear a strong connection through their mutual storytelling prowess. Both modes of expression rely on visualization, even though myth per se is more ideological, while there is no comics without said visualization. What is more, upon greater understanding of the two respective modes of storytelling, I can say that comics are quite simply saturated with myths (either directly or indirectly). This statement may not be obviously clear for most besides mythographers, but it functions on the same level as literacy and observation. I would claim that myths are integral aspects of our psyche and our very being. Visual elements equally permeate our lives. Both concepts are so obvious that they can become invisible … just as we do not consciously think about the number of breaths we take or the amount of blinks our eyes make in a day, we take for granted that we can immediately interpret most of visual imagery that bombards our existence. In a similar way, we have long internalized the mythic imagery and symbolism that are given light from rituals, rites of passage, the heroic journey and the archetypal search for the meaning of life itself – either on the sacred or the profane level. I can relate this to my academic years. When I was contemplating my doctoral thesis, I hit a shit-load of conundrums and bewildering realizations of grandeur of my rather (too) open-ended subject matter, such as: “The self-reflecting paradox of this research is rooted in the immensity of the mythological lens through which the comics are analyzed. The perplexity stems from trying to uncover (not the essence but) the depth of mythology in only a few years – a task most mythographers spend their entire lives on. Thus, the choice of mythology in comics is anything but arbitrary (or even revolutionary), but an integrally natural choice that pits together our internal (mythic) features and external (visual) elements. My work echoes both the distinction and cooperation of the two systems of inquiry: the personal/instinctual level and cultural/earned mode. It is a self-reflection of humanity at its most natural level which needs to be stressed, not for it to have meaning, because the meaning is already quite evident, but because it fundamentally works on the same level of (self)exploration as does the most advanced science to date.” Yeah, lots of hyperbole and now that I reread it almost an ego-trip … even though my goal has always been to shed light on the complexity of mythology and the pervasiveness of comics, since both are often misunderstood and downplayed. My message tries to be despite its apparent enthusiasm quite impersonal. I know, another paradox, but this one in a weird way makes quite a lot of sense once you’ve managed to burrow deep enough into the things that interest you. The whole point of this verbal salad is that I’ll jot down some key theoretical aspects towards the study of mythology that I’ve found through my own research. I try to view them heuristically and holistically … indeed a mythological salad with rich flavor potential. I say potential because people generally tend to focus only on one aspect of myth; for example a psychological or a phenomenological take. This kind of Unitarian approach, however, leaves my salad rather tasteless, so I like to mix it up as often as I can … and add some social or anthropologic seasoning to the big mythological bowl, which makes the salad really pop. In other words, this is a kind of tie-in post, since I’ll be explaining in future posts under the title Myth in Theory how certain disciplines go hand in hand with the study of myth or are rather part of the theoretical compendium of the study of mythology. Obviously, it will be more mythology than comics, but if I can relate stuff to comics, I definitely will. Plus, when I finish the four B.P.R.D.: Plague of Frogs collected editions, I want to do another How it Works, but this time a bit more condensed, since 1200+ pages of reading material can amount to a blissful headache of an analysis and a drag to read. So, that’s what’s coming up. Cheers! Archives September 2017 |
Author
For reasons of extreme prejudice, the author of this blog wishes to remain anonymous … Archives
November 2017
Categories |