FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-26-2007, 04:56 AM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,719
Question Myth: When words don't mean what they mean. Now what?

Gamera made an interesting observation the other day, which points up an interesting problem:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamera
This embodies the whole problem with the mythicists' analysis.

You put "birth" in paranthesis, because it's simply not a birth. The mythicists basically take the narrative of Jesus, put the salient events in parentheses and then fill in the parentheses with analogous events from other myths. The analogy can be as far fetched as you want, because of the parentheses.
-

Here is the problem: there is a whole world out there where "words don't mean what they mean." We can find an indication of that in a well-known (in NL) Dutch book that introduces poetry, whose title is: "Kijk maar, er staat niet wat er staat" ("Look, it doesn't say what it says"). We find this effect often (certainly not always) in poetry, and also in myth. The problem: how can we determine when words don't mean what they mean?

Here is a slight sidebar about myth. Myth has two purposes: (a) to teach you how the world works and how to live with it, and (b) to teach you how you yourself work and how to live with yourself. It does that in (up to) three "layers:" (1) the physical, or historical, layer: in other words the setting of the story. (2) The supernatural layer, which generally corresponds to objective (a), the world. And (3) the mystical layer, which usually corresponds to objective (b), yourself. As an example, in John 3 Jesus chats with Nicodemus. Layer 1 consists of two guys, Jesus and Nicodemus, chatting with each other somewhere in Jerusalem. Layer 2, which handles the explain-the-world objective, talks about big sky-daddy and the nice place in heaven where we go when we die, and what you should do to go there. Layer 3, the live-with-yourself layer, explains how heaven is a state of mind, and what you have to do to get there. (Let's assume this is correct for the moment, it is just an example, and not derail into a discussion about the "real" meaning of John 3.) The concept of "words that don't mean what they mean" comes into this as follows: the more you move from layer 1 to layer 3, the more this happens.

Back to the problem. If I want to point out that there are lots of places in literature where words don't mean what they mean, I quote examples and say: see, here the words don't mean what they mean. What is more, if the thing they "don't mean" in story A is the same as they don't mean in story B, there is a similarity between stories A and B. But then Gamera comes along and says" Hey, you can't do that: saying that words don't mean what they mean doesn't count as an argument." So now we're stuck. There is this whole world out there where this phenomenon happens all the time. But I have no way to point to it.

Any suggestions?

(BTW, I don't mean to single out Gamera here, I just use his remark as an example and his screen name as a prototype--no particular offense is intended.)

Gerard Stafleu
gstafleu is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:01 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.