John Page

fwh:

I think the Hebrew bible/OT has three:
1. God created heavan and earth. A source of dualism, divides the material from the spiritual/abstract.
2. And then there was light. Dawn of perception?
3. Knowledge of good and evil (Adam & Eve). Conscious perception/beginnings of the moral animal.

Myth as philosophy or philosophy as myth? Myth as religion or philosophy as religion?

Cheers, John

phaedrus

Check out Barthe's Mythologies

Samkhya was an interesting school of thought.....From Britannica

-------------
Also spelled Sankhya, Sanskrit Samkhya (“Enumeration,” or “Number”) one of the six orthodox systems (darshans) of Indian philosophy (q.v.). Samkhya adopts a consistent dualism of the orders of matter (prakriti) and soul, or self (purusha). The two are originally separate, but in the course of evolution purusha mistakenly identifies itself with aspects of prakriti. Right knowledge consists of the ability of purusha to distinguish itself from prakriti.

Although many references to the system are given in earlier texts, Samkhya received its classical form and expression in the Samkhya-karika s (“Stanzas of Samkhya”) by I svarakr s na (c. 3rd century AD). Vijñanabhiksu wrote an important treatise on the system in the 16th century.

In Samkhya there is belief in an infinite number of similar but separate purushas (“selves”), no one superior to the other. Purusha and prakriti being sufficient to explain the universe, the existence of a god is not hypothesized. The purusha is ubiquitous, all-conscious, all-pervasive, motionless, unchangeable, immaterial, and without desire. Prakriti is the universal and subtle (i.e., unmanifest) matter, or nature, and, as such, is determined only by time and space.

The chain of evolution begins when purusha impinges on prakriti, much as a magnet draws unto itself iron shavings. The purusha, which before was pure consciousness without an object, becomes focused on prakriti, and out of this is evolved mahat (“great one”) or buddhi (“spiritual awareness”). Next to evolve is the individualized ego consciousness (ahankara, “I-maker”), which imposes upon the purusha the misapprehension that the ego is the basis of the purusha's objective existence.

The ahankara further divides into the five gross elements (space, air, fire, water, earth), the five fine elements (sound, touch, sight, taste, smell), the five organs of perception (with which to hear, touch, see, taste, smell), the five organs of activity (with which to speak, grasp, move, procreate, evacuate), and mind, or thought (manas). The universe is the result of the combinations and permutations of these various principles, to which the purusha is added.

Largely outside the above system stands that of the three primal qualities of matter that are called gunas (“qualities”). They make up the prakriti but are further important principally as physiopsychological factors. The highest one is sattva, which is illumination, enlightening knowledge, and lightness; the second is rajas, which is energy, passion, and expansiveness; the third is tamas (“darkness”), which is obscurity, ignorance, and inertia. To these correspond moral models: to tamas that of the ignorant and lazy man; to rajas that of the impulsive and passionate man; to sattva the enlightened and serene man.

--------------

Amos

Exactly John. But if that is true why should we argue against the bible? Maybe just religion is wrong to the same extent as they are wrong. Next, we need a definition of wrong if 'metanoia' is part of the program.

Amos

Interesting but they are all the same. The major difference is that simple mythologies have simple societies and complex mythologies have complex societies. They will almost all have a genesis, a law (or taboes), and a future of some sort.

phaedrus

Are you saying that it doesnt matter how much in detail we get into.....end of the day everything is same? All races and their theories and myths are same?

John Page

True myth!? Metanoia?

Amos

Yes for the simple reason that human metamorposis is the same for everybody. It is a possible reality and every myth is a story about this. Most basic are its beginning, transformation and end. From here the mythology expands into details and the description of these details may be different because they must be described with conventional (local) words but they will always point at a certain detail of the event or the necessary condition that leads up to the event. It should be noted here that metamorphosis may be universal but is not garanteed to be ours and less likely to be succesfully ours in more advanced societies for the simple reason that reason itself must be overthrown by non-reason (intuition). Here we get into Nietsche's camel-lion image to reach the oasis, the eye of the needle, etc. In my opinion, indulgences and wrongfull convictions of outrages proportion are part of this scheme to help strip the ego of its self-worth (but that is just my own thoughts here). The fact is that they were popular during the heyday of the Catholic church both in Europe and Russia.

Amos

"True myth" was yours and "true religion" is mine. The myth is always right or the civilization would not be, but not all religion is true to the myth or civilizations could not fall.

Religion must send the people in the wrong direction to make metanoia possible but the wrong direction must be the right wrong direction so a full 180 is possible. Eg. West as opposite to East and not North as opposite to East. Hence, the "homeconing of the Jews from the North" is impossible for they must Go West first before they can go back East. It is just imagery used but the point is that wrong becomes a somewhat arbitrary statement and we should be careful before we make such judgements. Here I argue for "blind faith that is wrong in the right direction" is a true religion. :banghead:

phaedrus

While "success" or "progress" could be subjective. The myths/philosophies of ancient civilizations or tribes vary in terms of their ability to think beyond origins/laws/lifeafterdeath. In terms of improving the quality of life

Gunnaheave

For an interesting twist, try:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books

The author interprets mythology in somewhat Kantian terms. He views mythical narratives generally as a kind of cognitive reduction, a story in which an unintelligible universe becomes intelligible via some transformative event. This could be taken as commentary on the development of consciousness, though it isn't really following the narrative line that you seek. Of course, most societies won't follow that narrative sequence, because they have no reason to do so.


You could also view the common twist in many origin narratives for hunting peoples wherein animals are capable of speech during the early sequences, but resigned to their role as game by the end sequences as a kind of commentary on the nature/development of consciousness. Here the goal isn't to explain the origin of consciousness in man so much as the loss of consciousness in animals. But the end result is still a commentary on the significance of the difference.