Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 07-29-2008, 01:34 PM

http://books.google.com/books?id=Sm3...SiqalEFs769AXA

Came across this fascinating phrase and googled it within quote marks and with an s or z as required and came up with the above link.

This perspective may assist the hj mj debate considerably!

Quote:

Though the mythicization of "history" is a well known process, the "historization" of myth is less well recognized, even when evidence of it is equally clear and abundant.

Quote:

For traditional societies myths were true events

aa5874 · 07-29-2008, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

http://books.google.com/books?id=Sm3...SiqalEFs769AXA

Came across this fascinating phrase and googled it within quote marks and with an s or z as required and came up with the above link.

This perspective may assist the hj mj debate considerably!

Quote:

Though the mythicization of "history" is a well known process, the "historization" of myth is less well recognized, even when evidence of it is equally clear and abundant.

Quote:

For traditional societies myths were true events

So, what myths are regarded as history right now?

Clivedurdle · 07-29-2008, 02:04 PM

I don't know, the article discusses Sri Lankan goddesses, suppose it might apply to oriental greaco roman godmen.

Toto · 07-29-2008, 02:08 PM

The Cult of the goddess Pattini (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Gananath Obeyesekere

Quote:

Though the mythicization of "history" is a well-known process, the "historization" of myth is less well recognized, even when evidence of it is equally clear and abundant. I will use the term "demythicization" to characterize this and related processes whereby old myths are "rationalized" but are still used for much the same purposes as traditional myths -- as, for example, providing charters for action or to enhance the self-esteem of groups. Demythicization should not be confused with Bultmann's "demythologizing," which denies the literal truth of myth. By contrast, attempts to prove that the resurrection of Christ was an actual event are a case of demythicization. I view demythicization as typically, thought not wholly, a modern phenomenon resulting from the impact of rational and scientific thinking on traditional mythology. For traditional societies myths were true events, but these cannot be defended as empirically real within the naturalistic framework of modern rational and scientific thinking. Yet groups and individuals may still need to believe in them, and to permit this myths have to be demythicized. . .

. . .

To sum up, in all three types a process of demythicization has occurred whereby old myths are given new truth values to suit "rational" attitudes resulting from the impact of science on the contemporary world. The myths are not in Bultmann's sense "demythologized": on the contrary, either they are invested with new truths, or the old truths are given new rationally acceptable proofs, or the old truths are looked upon as true in toto and therefore seen as evidence for historical or scholarly treatises. Yet they also function as mythic charters for contemporary groups. Scholarship, where it is found in such cases, is not true scholarship, since it disregards the logic of evidence and inference and requires a partial or complete suspension of critical thinking and skepticism. "Scholarship" is simply as aspect of the demythicization process, not the goal of inquiry.

This seems quite on point.

Clivedurdle · 07-29-2008, 02:26 PM

How did you copy and paste that? I tried to but failed - I resorted to hand typing the bit in my op!

Toto · 07-29-2008, 02:37 PM

I retyped it. I type fast.

Toto · 07-29-2008, 02:43 PM

This sounds like standard anthropology. I tried to find some footnotes, but I couldn't get to that part of the book, if there were notes. It is part of the frustration of dealing with apologists who claim to do scholarship - they use the language of scholarship, but they are obviously doing something else.

Clivedurdle · 07-29-2008, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

http://books.google.com/books?id=Sm3...SiqalEFs769AXA

Came across this fascinating phrase and googled it within quote marks and with an s or z as required and came up with the above link.

This perspective may assist the hj mj debate considerably!

Quote:

Though the mythicization of "history" is a well known process, the "historization" of myth is less well recognized, even when evidence of it is equally clear and abundant.

Quote:

For traditional societies myths were true events

Someone at work today said they were catholic so I asked about transubstantiation. Of course it becomes the body and blood of Christ was the reply.

Using my siciological and anthropological hats, I understand that response as a classic myths are real response, as found world wide. I think the vast majority of xians do not believe in an historical Jesus, but they do believe that myth is real.

The search for the historical jesus is a modern post enlightenment quest.

Several steps have happened.

The early church - both gnostics and catholics and everyone else to today - as my example above - have always believed in a mythical Jesus - but one with varying degrees of physicality and varying explanations of how it picked up the godbits, was it at birth, Baptism, ascension, resurrection.

The growth of rationalism led to a conclusion - there must be a historical core - which leads to the huge arguments and assumptions we find now.

But the converse argument is misunderstood, that a myth was historicised. I think this is actually quite recent, it is only in the last few hundred years, with brave exceptions like Epicurus and possibly Socrates, that the thought that myth and reality are not co-terminus was allowed to be voiced.

I'd be very careful of historical kernels!

neilgodfrey · 07-29-2008, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

http://books.google.com/books?id=Sm3...SiqalEFs769AXA

Came across this fascinating phrase and googled it within quote marks and with an s or z as required and came up with the above link.

This perspective may assist the hj mj debate considerably!

So, what myths are regarded as history right now?

One case where mythical history -- myth believed to be real history -- has had violent impact is at the Ayodhya mosque in India. Hindus razed it because they really believed it to be desecrating the birthplace of Rama. But this act was an expression of tensions that have arisen over many Hindus believing that their mythical past is all true history.

From Hindu Revivalism and the Hindutva Movement:

Quote:

They believe that the kingdom of Rama really existed once. They describe the Rama-Rajya in a way that is common to numerous descriptions of earthly paradises or the golden ages of mankind (see Eliade 1960; Tamminen 1994).

Their mythic story of history used to begin with the pre-Muslim period. It was an age when India was studded with temples. It was a time of growth and development, a time of progress, of high levels of cultural and intellectual achievements. But then came the Muslims, the golden age was over. India declined from the age of civilization to the age of barbarism. The Muslim era meant death and destruction as well as cruelty, forced conversations, religious repression and economic collapse. The destruction of the temples epitomized this cultural decline (Bhattacharya 1991: 132-33).

Now the only way out of this cultural collapse was through a return to the origins of the Hindu culture, a recovery of the original glory. That is why Rama's birth temple had to be 'released', because it meant that the Hindus had taken the first steps towards Rama-Rajya, towards the culture where they can again feel pride in their origin and cultural achievements. Their mythic history concentrating on the struggle between heroes and villains represents the deeper conflict between the forces of truth and falsehood, justice and injustice, dharma and adharma, order and disorder. Muslim rulers are transformed into archetypal villains, and Hindus who fought the Muslim rulers become the heroes.

The story of Ramjanmabhumi revolves around several myths: the myth of ancient Ayodhya, the myth of its loss and rediscovery, and the myth of the miraculous appearance of Rama's idol.

Neil

aa5874 · 07-29-2008, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Several steps have happened.

The early church - both gnostics and catholics and everyone else to today - as my example above - have always believed in a mythical Jesus - but one with varying degrees of physicality and varying explanations of how it picked up the godbits, was it at birth, Baptism, ascension, resurrection.

It would appear that there were Christians who did not believe in a mythical Jesus, they didn't not believe in anyone called Jesus at all. And further there were those who did not think of Christ as an entity, but as being "anointed with the oil of God".

See the writings of Theophilus of Antioch and Athenagoras.

The historization of the myth called Jesus apears to be a myth, also. Not everyone, it would appear, have always believed in a mythical Jesus.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-29-2008, 02:04 PM	#3
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	I don't know, the article discusses Sri Lankan goddesses, suppose it might apply to oriental greaco roman godmen.

07-29-2008, 02:26 PM	#5
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	How did you copy and paste that? I tried to but failed - I resorted to hand typing the bit in my op!

07-29-2008, 02:37 PM	#6
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I retyped it. I type fast.

07-29-2008, 02:43 PM	#7
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	This sounds like standard anthropology. I tried to find some footnotes, but I couldn't get to that part of the book, if there were notes. It is part of the frustration of dealing with apologists who claim to do scholarship - they use the language of scholarship, but they are obviously doing something else.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.