Fake Gods

[Audie]

The assertions that you consistently and unrelentingly make about humanity exude little more than contempt, revulsion, scorn and denigration. Is the name @loverofhumanity some sort of ironic joke?

We note that those who go on about sin and degradation are generally talking
about themselves
It's embarrassing to behold someone so self unaware.

 

[Bear Wild]

Myths are "truths"?
That definition, and definition of
"truth" are both in doubt here.

Your assertion that " so manny" can t see other than the
literal is highly dubious.

But myths are truths. The are truths about relationships with the greater world using metaphoric language. These truths go beyond words which fall short of truth. It takes understanding of the myths to find the truth but when found it is clear.

 

[Bear Wild]

I don't think I ever felt a god's presence, not even when I was Christian. How does that feel or happen?

That is an experience I cannot put into words but when I met the goddess my entire experience and perspective of the world totally changed. There was a sensation of connectiveness to even the smallest of things. I often felt alone now I never feel alone. I just walk outside my door to all my relatives (Trees, insects, birds, rocks wind). There was the paradox of yes I am still my self but at the same time a am a part of this greater world. I began to see connections to everything around and the trees started to talk to me. I am sure this does not seem to make rational sense and yet it was so profound. I was raised and participated in a scientific community of medicine all my life so I am not a stranger to rational and logical thinking. It is just that I was not aware of my greater than human world until I let of restrictions of rational thinking and created anam cara - soul friend with the greater world. I hope this gives you an idea. Thanks for asking.

 

[MikeF]

But myths are truths. The are truths about relationships with the greater world using metaphoric language. These truths go beyond words which fall short of truth. It takes understanding of the myths to find the truth but when found it is clear.

Would you say it is in the same way there are truths in good literary fiction?

 

[The Hammer]

Here we are going to disagree. On what grounds do you claim it makes no sense to look for a physical serpent in the ocean?

As was told to me recently. By knowing the difference between mythos and logos.

 

[Koldo]

As was told to me recently. By knowing the difference between mythos and logos.

Can you elaborate on how knowing the difference between mythos and logos relates to making no sense to look for a huge physical serpent?

Would the same apply to looking for the labyrinth on Crete?

 

[The Hammer]

Can you elaborate on how knowing the difference between mythos and logos relates to making no sense to look for a huge physical serpent?

Would the same apply to looking for the labyrinth on Crete?

It doesn't that was my point. The point is those are mythos not logos. Logos pertains to the physical world.

Jormungandr exists as a spirit not physical entity.

Jormungandr is mythos, not logos.

Metaphysical mistake | Karen Armstrong

Karen Armstrong: Should we believe in belief?: Confusion by Christians between belief and reason has created bad science and inept religion

www.theguardian.com

Edit:
"In most pre-modern cultures, there were two recognised ways of attaining truth. The Greeks called them mythos and logos. Both were crucial and each had its particular sphere of competence. Logos ("reason; science") was the pragmatic mode of thought that enabled us to control our environment and function in the world. It had, therefore, to correspond accurately to external realities. But logos could not assuage human grief or give people intimations that their lives had meaning. For that they turned to mythos, an early form of psychology, which dealt with the more elusive aspects of human experience."

 

[Koldo]

It doesn't that was my point. The point is those are mythos not logos. Logos pertains to the physical world.

Jormungandr exists as a spirit not physical entity.

Jormungandr is mythos, not logos.

Metaphysical mistake | Karen Armstrong

Karen Armstrong: Should we believe in belief?: Confusion by Christians between belief and reason has created bad science and inept religion

www.theguardian.com

Edit:
"In most pre-modern cultures, there were two recognised ways of attaining truth. The Greeks called them mythos and logos. Both were crucial and each had its particular sphere of competence. Logos ("reason; science") was the pragmatic mode of thought that enabled us to control our environment and function in the world. It had, therefore, to correspond accurately to external realities. But logos could not assuage human grief or give people intimations that their lives had meaning. For that they turned to mythos, an early form of psychology, which dealt with the more elusive aspects of human experience."

Can you please cite your source for the statement that the Jörmungandr exists as a spirit?

 

[The Hammer]

Can you please cite your source for the statement that the Jörmungandr exists as a spirit?

Read the linked article (aka source). Or the edit I added from it in post #87

 

[The Hammer]

Can you please cite your source for the statement that the Jörmungandr exists as a spirit?

Requesting a source here though IS exactly what's wrong here and why I said Mythos (inner world) is different then Logos (rational world)

 

[Bear Wild]

Would you say it is in the same way there are truths in good literary fiction?

Despite the word fiction, good literary fiction contains truth. The difference with myth is context. Myths are the collective ancestral wisdom that would be passed down through the generations to maintain the appropriate relations with the greater world. They were told, sung, danced, embodied, and performed in ritual. They were never meant to be written in stone or paper or in computers. Something happens when the myths are sung or told or lived that reading a written myth cannot possibly convey. This is the problem we have in a writing dependent culture where the written word is given the highest honor. What goes wrong is seen so often in this forum over the arguments about evolution. Myths die when taken literally. They loose all their meaning and then they look false. Those using the myths of the bible to argue against evolution are not understanding the myths and trying to force them into a rationalist literal meaning. So to understand the myths one must not take the literal words or literal meaning. One must go way beyond that and feel the myths, live the myths, enter into trance with the myths and tell the myths.

 

[Koldo]

Requesting a source here though IS exactly what's wrong here and why I said Mythos (inner world) is different then Logos (rational world)

But you can't just make a claim without anything to substantiate it. Imagine, for example, that I were to fabricate an interpretation of any given myth (or mythos if you prefer) right now and posit it as the proper one, including what parts refer to factual characters and events and what parts don't. Would I need to provide absolutely no justification and citation just because I am dealing with mythos?

Read the linked article (aka source). Or the edit I added from it in post #87

I read your link, but you won't find any reference about anything spiritual, so I am left wondering where you got that from.

 

[The Hammer]

But you can't just make a claim without anything to substantiate it. Imagine, for example, that I were to fabricate an interpretation of any given myth (or mythos if you prefer) right now and posit it as the proper one, including what parts refer to factual characters and events and what parts don't. Would I need to provide absolutely no justification and citation just because I am dealing with mythos?



I read your link, but you won't find any reference about anything spiritual, so I am left wondering where you got that from.

I'm not going to draw the conclusions for you. Have a good day.

 

[The Hammer]

But you can't just make a claim without anything to substantiate it.

I read your link, but you won't find any reference about anything spiritual, so I am left wondering where you got that from.

If you can't figure out what is being said between me and @Bear Wild ... Well. Not my issue.

 

[Koldo]

If you can't figure out what is being said between me and @Bear Wild ... Well. Not my issue.

It is not that I can't figure it out. I understand your claims. I just don't agree with them because they lack substantiation.

 

[The Hammer]

It is not that I can't figure it out. I understand your claims. I just don't agree with them because they lack substantiation.

Which means you've missed the whole message and aren't actually understanding. You just think you are.

You're asking for proof of the unprovable? That's your problem not mine.

 

[Koldo]

Which means you've missed the whole message and aren't actually understanding. You just think you are.

You're asking for proof of the unprovable? That's your problem not mine.

If it is unprovable then how come my perspective makes no sense?

 

[MikeF]

Despite the word fiction, good literary fiction contains truth. The difference with myth is context. Myths are the collective ancestral wisdom that would be passed down through the generations to maintain the appropriate relations with the greater world. They were told, sung, danced, embodied, and performed in ritual. They were never meant to be written in stone or paper or in computers. Something happens when the myths are sung or told or lived that reading a written myth cannot possibly convey. This is the problem we have in a writing dependent culture where the written word is given the highest honor. What goes wrong is seen so often in this forum over the arguments about evolution. Myths die when taken literally. They loose all their meaning and then they look false. Those using the myths of the bible to argue against evolution are not understanding the myths and trying to force them into a rationalist literal meaning. So to understand the myths one must not take the literal words or literal meaning. One must go way beyond that and feel the myths, live the myths, enter into trance with the myths and tell the myths.

This gives me a better understanding of your religious perspective. Thanks.

As to differences between oral and written religious traditions, I think the problems you highlight have less to do with the written format, and more to do with how the religious stories are presented to each up-and-coming generation. It is the religious education that sets the tone for how the stories are to be interpreted and incorporated into everyday life. I do not see much opportunity for change as it is a self-reinforcing system when these relationships are introduced and maintained from a very young age.

 

[The Hammer]

If it is unprovable then how come my perspective makes no sense?

Look. You asked "why can't I find Jormungandr literally encircling the world in the ocean". The answer is because it's a mythos not logos.

The part that makes no sense... Is you insist I prove jormungandr encircling the world. When based on the above you can't. Myth isn't meant to be "proven", it's meant to be lived.

Yes, Jormungandr exists. But why the hell would I need to prove it? I'm not asking you to agree that they exist, no one is.

It's the same thing I have said from the beginning. Mythos vs logos. Mythos is what's real inside our spiritual realm, and how we interact with the wider world. Science deals with logos, and reason/science. They don't intersect.

Jormungandr means nothing to you mythically, so they aren't real to you. That's fine. It's not your mythos.

 

[Koldo]

Look. You asked "why can't I find Jormungandr literally encircling the world in the ocean". The answer is because it's a mythos not logos.

But mythos can refer to non-fictional things and events.

The part that makes no sense... Is you insist I prove jormungandr encircling the world. When based on the above you can't. Myth isn't meant to be "proven", it's meant to be lived.

I don't insist on that. I insist on you proving that Jormungand should not be interpreted as having material existence. Prove that it's existence was not meant to be interpreted literally.

Yes, Jormungandr exists. But why the hell would I need to prove it? I'm not asking you to agree that they exist, no one is.

It's the same thing I have said from the beginning. Mythos vs logos. Mythos is what's real inside our spiritual realm, and how we interact with the wider world. Science deals with logos, and reason/science. They don't intersect.

Jormungandr means nothing to you mythically, so they aren't real to you. That's fine. It's not your mythos.

And no... mythos is not 'what's inside our spiritual realm'.