Keep the Myths Simple Stupid

[Aurelian]

hmm, yeah I have noticed the Hellenic and Roman pagans are more open to evolving and adapting than the Celtic or Asatru movements. Why is that....

 

[lilithu]

Define progress.

How 'bout using your own word, "advanced" which necessarily implies movement "forward" towards some assumed goal.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

In researching mythology, I have found several scholars who seem to hold the ancient myths as symbolic for some rather advanced, even modern, spiritual truths. I don’t think this is the case. People make too much out of the myths. They were our ancestors experience of the gods and through them we can get an idea of who they thought the gods were; but to suppose the myths were symbolic of highly sophisticated spiritual lessons is simply a matter of reading too much into them. As spirituality evolves it becomes more sophisticated. It’s no different than technology, knowledge or science. People miss the beautiful simplicity of the myths and instead inject their own spiritual experiences into them. We should be writing our own myths and accounts of the gods; that is how we can help evolve our pagan and heathen religions. We should be developing our faiths, instead of living in the past as so many do and instead of interjecting our modern experience into the words of the prophets and poets of antiquity.

Am I understanding you correctly here:

1) Like technology and knowledge, spirituality is becoming more sophisticated
2) The anceints were not capable of incorporating sophisticated spiritual experience into their myths
3) Therefore, we moderns should create our own myths instead of interpreting ancient myths with sophistication (whether finding sophistication in the ancient myth or re-interpreting the ancient myth to suit the modern spiritual context)

I don't hold the current human experience in such high esteem. Sure, technology, science, and the inrceasing pool of human knowledge has impacted human spirituality. However, if one creates myths of the gods, one will be outside the realm of pure science and philosophy anyway, even if the methodology by which we create newer myths or interprete/re-interprete older myths incorporates this "sophistication."

If we are going to accept myths into our religious teachings, the new ones are silver and the other gold. Just like old friends. If the interpretation of myths is acceptable, the re-interpretation of the same myth should have just as much validity as the creation of new ones. Both can enrich the religious tradition. If not, you can always take your ball and go home...

 

[lilithu]

Am I understanding you correctly here:

1) Like technology and knowledge, spirituality is becoming more sophisticated
2) The anceints were not capable of incorporating sophisticated spiritual experience into their myths
3) Therefore, we moderns should create our own myths instead of interpreting ancient myths with sophistication (whether finding sophistication in the ancient myth or re-interpreting the ancient myth to suit the modern spiritual context)

I don't hold the current human experience in such high esteem. Sure, technology, science, and the inrceasing pool of human knowledge has impacted human spirituality. However, if one creates myths of the gods, one will be outside the realm of pure science and philosophy anyway, even if the methodology by which we create newer myths or interprete/re-interprete older myths incorporates this "sophistication."

If we are going to accept myths into our religious teachings, the new ones are silver and the other gold. Just like old friends. If the interpretation of myths is acceptable, the re-interpretation of the same myth should have just as much validity as the creation of new ones. Both can enrich the religious tradition. If not, you can always take your ball and go home...

Dude, you so rock! :jam:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

:jam: Rock on!

 

[DeepShadow]

My apologies for being absent from this thread for so long. I was stunned speechless by Darkdale's response at first, and was then delayed by real life. Now I'm prepared to rebut, but I must say that the first part of this post contains some brutal but IMO necessary corrections. After I've dealt with DD's gross assumptions, I'll move back into the topic at large and hopefully move things along a little.

I've read all the works of both Campbell and Jung (though I suspect you are drawing your position mainly from Man and His Symbols). It's an excellent theory, but an ineffectual one.....But I wouldn't waste too much time marveling at those parallels, nor draw some broad conclusion such as a collective unconscious.

First of all, I merely suggested you look to Jung and Campbell as a starting point. Don't presume to know where I'm getting my information, or my 'position.'

Second, I could accept your hesitation to reach the conclusion of the collective unconscious, if you didn't counter that conclusion with a summary of one of the three main approaches to it! :bonk: :biglaugh:
I'm speaking, of course, of this:

Simply explained, this world affects us all differently, but not that differently. People of every culture and geographical location are affected differently enough that their stories reflect their surrounding, their hardships and values; but it's all just nature and it's all just life, so our stories seem to run similar courses. Of course, as I'm sure you've noticed, some worldviews are quite different than others. The Norse and Hindu worldviews differ greatly from the Middle Eastern (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) ones, and from the Greek and Roman traditions with which they mixed and evolved. African Traditions, even the ones that have somehow survived to this day, are unique and difficult to understand coming from your typically Western point of view.

This is the 'common experience' approach to the collective unconscious, which you just got done saying you don't believe in! I'm a little surprised that someone who has read "all of Campbell and Jung" would have missed that. Sure, Campbell in his early works takes more of the 'evolutionary biology' approach, but he's got strong 'common experience' leanings, too.

I think you'll find after a few more years of study, that there is no sense, or profit, in trying to force all myth into a pretty little theory

I think you've overstepped your bounds. How can you possibly say, "after a few more years of study" I will realize you are right, when you don't know how many years I've spent to begin with?!? How many years of study would you suggest? Three? Five? Ten? I can assure you, I've already got all those years under my belt. I've been studying mythology for longer than some people on these boards have been alive.

This might have been funny if you hadn't followed it with a gross oversimplification of what you thought were my beliefs. I have never tried to force all myth into one theory, period.

... you miss out on all the genuinely unique aspects of the original cultures and in doing so, will often miss some real cultural treasures and often, the point.

Again, I can't imagine how someone who's studied so much of Campbell could miss how much he points out the unique cultural treasures as well as the common ones. You've got a gaping either/or fallacy here, by saying we should stop looking at similarities and start looking at differences, as if we'd ever be forced to choose.

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

Back to the main topic, I certainly think it's possible to go too far in interpreting myths for modern audiences--I subscribe to the 'common experience' version myself, and think that some other Jungians take a far too literal interpretation of the collective unconscious and archetypes. But not all interpretations take the same liberties.

Suppose, for example, I could post about how movie critics go way too far in interpreting movies. I'm thinking specifically of people who viewed the original Exorcist as an attempt by patriarchal Catholics to suppress a pubescent tween's emerging sexuality, but I don't say so, nor do I list any other examples of "too far." This is bound to lead to disagreement, and unless I tell you that I don't think Regan's vomiting pea soup was a metaphor for a spontaneous abortion, we may never realize that we actually agree!

Darkdale, I think you need to give some examples of modern interpretations of myth that go too far.

 

[Darkdale]

Am I understanding you correctly here:

1) Like technology and knowledge, spirituality is becoming more sophisticated
2) The anceints were not capable of incorporating sophisticated spiritual experience into their myths
3) Therefore, we moderns should create our own myths instead of interpreting ancient myths with sophistication (whether finding sophistication in the ancient myth or re-interpreting the ancient myth to suit the modern spiritual context)

No, you are utterly misunderstanding me. What I am pointing out is, that people are reading modern spiritual concepts developed from philosophies (i.e. dualism) into myths that pre-dated or contradicted such philosophies. The ancient myths must be understood within the cultural and anthropological context of their time, and not within the current Western/Christian paradigm. Sophistication and Progress do not necessarily mean "positive", but they do indicate a higher level complexity and an incorporation of modern naturalistic experience into our interpretations of spiritual events.

If we are going to accept myths into our religious teachings, the new ones are silver and the other gold. Just like old friends. If the interpretation of myths is acceptable, the re-interpretation of the same myth should have just as much validity as the creation of new ones. Both can enrich the religious tradition. If not, you can always take your ball and go home...

This seems utterly irrelevant. Re-interpretations of myths deprives the "reader" of the clearest original picture. Incorporating the old concepts within a modern context is certainly acceptable given that it is not implied that the new interpretations were foreseen by the ancients.

This is the 'common experience' approach to the collective unconscious, which you just got done saying you don't believe in! I'm a little surprised that someone who has read "all of Campbell and Jung" would have missed that. Sure, Campbell in his early works takes more of the 'evolutionary biology' approach, but he's got strong 'common experience' leanings, too.

The mere acceptance of a single premise doesn't demand an acceptance of the conclusion. Refer to logic 101.

Again, I can't imagine how someone who's studied so much of Campbell could miss how much he points out the unique cultural treasures as well as the common ones. You've got a gaping either/or fallacy here, by saying we should stop looking at similarities and start looking at differences, as if we'd ever be forced to choose.

Utterly incorrect. As I pointed out before:

Simply explained, this world affects us all differently, but not that differently. People of every culture and geographical location are affected differently enough that their stories reflect their surrounding, their hardships and values; but it's all just nature and it's all just life, so our stories seem to run similar courses

The similarities do not necessitate the existence of a collective unconscious, but, in my opinion, gives us a sense that the conscious experience of life itself, leads to many similar conclusions. The Symbolism is similar only insofar as we have conscious access to those symbols and that is derived via experience. From an anthropological perspective, it is necessary to attempt to develop a picture of the ancients natural experience in order to understand the context within which the myths were written and passed on. Incorporating experiences and concepts that post-date the origin of a myth is both unproductive and antagonistic to a scientific approach, not to mention depriving individuals of a more organic understanding of the myths.

I'm not going to take the time to list examples of this for tworeasons:

1. It would require more time than I am willing to spend (the discussion of the etymologies of various symbols and words and the differences in translations, along with different anthropological interpretations would bog down the argument). &
2. It isn't relevant to the argument.


Either we should approach the study of mythology from an anthropological perspective or we should not. I would be curious as to the nature of those arguments against anthropological perspectives; and the basis for them.


Now if you are done congratulating yourselves for your assumed strength in logic, maybe you can give a positive argument for the subjective interpretation of myth.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What I am pointing out is, that people are reading modern spiritual concepts developed from philosophies (i.e. dualism) into myths that pre-dated or contradicted such philosophies. The ancient myths must be understood within the cultural and anthropological context of their time, and not within the current Western/Christian paradigm. Sophistication and Progress do not necessarily mean "positive", but they do indicate a higher level complexity and an incorporation of modern naturalistic experience into our interpretations of spiritual events.

I understand where you are coming from here, but I still disagree with your solution to the problem. You say above that it is better to create a new myth than to re-interpret an old one with our Western philosophical and scientific baggage. I agree that often people attempt to understand the ancients through a philosophical mindset which contradicts the original author's intent, and it is even more profoundly irritating when the "interpreter" does this unknowingly.

However, by its very nature any myth will be "rising above" philosophy and science, even though the myth reflects a certian experiential or existential relationship with some general philosophical and scientific worldview. Because the myth "rises above" all interpretative models (which is an experimental philosophy), even the "correct" model of the interpreter attempting to understand it in its original context, re-interpretation is a valid exercise and thus just as valuable as a "new" myth - because that is what the re-interpretation actually is - a new myth.

I think that you are confining the understanding of "myths" to your own interpretative model. Since a myth does not really exist within the strict rules of interpretation that you apply, other less sophisticated models can be valid, even though they don't really understand the original meaning of the myth. These less sophisticated interpretations, while "incorrect," are just as valid as anything new.

EDIT: "This seems utterly irrelevant. Re-interpretations of myths deprives the "reader" of the clearest original picture. Incorporating the old concepts within a modern context is certainly acceptable given that it is not implied that the new interpretations were foreseen by the ancients."

The emboldened sentence above illustrates my point. You say above that re-interpretation is invalid, but incorporating old concepts into modern ones is acceptable. Many interpreters see this as a two way street (given one understands the ancient context in the first place - re-interpretation should always be approached as a secondary understanding).

BTW: All understanding of the ancients is subjective. History is a VERY subjective enterprise, and reaching an "objective" view of the ancients is a very slippery enterprise because "history" changes as we learn more about the ancient context (and those damn re-interpreters keep re-writing stuff). Once we get to the translation and syntax of what the ancients wrote, even then there are problems in understanding the dynamic meaning within the context of the ancient language.

 

[lilithu]

I think that you are confining the understanding of "myths" to your own interpretative model. Since a myth does not really exist within the strict rules of interpretation that you apply, other less sophisticated models can be valid, even though they don't really understand the original meaning of the myth. These less sophisticated interpretations, while "incorrect," are just as valid as anything new.

<....>

BTW: All understanding of the ancients is subjective. History is a VERY subjective enterprise, and reaching an "objective" view of the ancients is a very slippery enterprise because "history" changes as we learn more about the ancient context (and those damn re-interpreters keep re-writing stuff). Once we get to the translation and syntax of what the ancients wrote, even then there are problems in understanding the dynamic meaning within the context of the ancient language.

Must spread karma around before giving it to AE again. Rock on, dude!

 

[Darkdale]

I think that you are confining the understanding of "myths" to your own interpretative model. Since a myth does not really exist within the strict rules of interpretation that you apply, other less sophisticated models can be valid, even though they don't really understand the original meaning of the myth. These less sophisticated interpretations, while "incorrect," are just as valid as anything new.

Just as valid? In what context is it valid? What are you trying to get out of the myths by interpreting them incorrectly? Certainly no one should be prevented from interpreting the myths however they want, but within a traditional religious context (which is what the original post was posted in) it is important to pass along the myths with as much accuracy as possible, to connect you to your ancestors and to the worldview. Nothing can be gained by reinterpreting the myths incorrectly in a religious context; if all you care about is your own amusement and you just read myths for fun, I don't see how it matters how you interpret it.

 

[lilithu]

Just as valid? In what context is it valid? What are you trying to get out of the myths by interpreting them incorrectly? Certainly no one should be prevented from interpreting the myths however they want, but within a traditional religious context (which is what the original post was posted in) it is important to pass along the myths with as much accuracy as possible, to connect you to your ancestors and to the worldview. Nothing can be gained by reinterpreting the myths incorrectly in a religious context; if all you care about is your own amusement and you just read myths for fun, I don't see how it matters how you interpret it.

And by what basis do you decide that your interpretation is the correct one and others are incorrect?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Just as valid? In what context is it valid? What are you trying to get out of the myths by interpreting them incorrectly? Certainly no one should be prevented from interpreting the myths however they want, but within a traditional religious context (which is what the original post was posted in) it is important to pass along the myths with as much accuracy as possible, to connect you to your ancestors and to the worldview. Nothing can be gained by reinterpreting the myths incorrectly in a religious context; if all you care about is your own amusement and you just read myths for fun, I don't see how it matters how you interpret it.

This is where your nearsightedness is most profound. You have suggested the creation of new myths as an alternative to the re-interpretation of old ones. You conclude that it is important to pass along the myths with as much accuracy as possible, to connect you to your ancestors and to the worldview but what you mean obviously is that the interpretation of the myth that is passed on cannot take on new meaning to the community by means of re-interpretation.

This very narrow and restrictive view leaves no room for the re-interpretation and adaptation of tradition to suit contemporary needs. Thus, there is no room for feminists to re-interpret and find meaning in largely male-centered myths, particularly the myths of Christianity and Judaism. There is no room for homosexual scholars to find meaning in the re-interpretation of the same myths, as well as the historical record: all subsequent generations must be bound to the original meaning of the ancient myths (EDIT: if indeed the historical context can be definatively found).

I suggest that if a myth is worth its salt, emerging traditions can find new meaning in old myths using interpretative methods that have philosophical or scientific presuppositions which may be contradictory to the original author's viewpoint. I am not aruging that we should forgo the pain of understanding the original meaning of myths, but only interpreting the myth exegetically is scholarly extortion.

EDIT: You ask about the value of re-interpretation. The re-interpretation of feminists and homosexuals of the NT and OT have caused more exegetical study that affirms their interpretations. The interpretation of the Bible has long been done by very close-minded men who overlooked or purposefully ignored important exegeticial possibilities in questionable portions of myths. Thus, re-interpretation has sparked "valid" studies than confirm the re-interpretation, therefore making the re-interpretation primary.

I agree that the myths themselves should be passed down, and indeed the history of interpretation. However, the interpretation should not be cannonized along with the myth, as you are attempting to do.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

it is important to pass along the myths with as much accuracy as possible, to connect you to your ancestors and to the worldview

I suppose that there are some religious traditions that allow for the creation of new myths, and yet are obsessive about preserving the old myths with no re-interpretation. The simple fact is, and this may be your point, just about all myths take on new meaning as the religious community evolves.

If you are actually aware of the transmission of myths in religious traditions, you are undoubtedly aware that all communities edit, revise, and rewrite their myths as time goes on. I don't think that you can produce a myth from any religious tradition that has not undergone some revision or change during its transmission. Why should the interpretation of myths be so strict of if the myths themselves are continually revised by religious communities during its transmission? (That is, as we approach ancient myths, most of them are revised from their original format anyway during their transmission.)

 

[Darkdale]

I agree that the myths themselves should be passed down, and indeed the history of interpretation. However, the interpretation should not be cannonized along with the myth, as you are attempting to do.

Yes, it should; but I doubt I could convince you of that. A myth is not meant to tell us about our world today, it's about understanding the worldview of the people who wrote the myths in the first place. In my religion, maintaining that worldview is what the religion is all about and why we cherish our myths over the myths of foreign cultures. When it's the original meaning of the myth that's important, changing it or reinterpreting it is not only wrong, it's a sacrilege. Let feminists and homosexuals write their own myths if they don't like the old ones. Let them start their own religion if they don't like the way other religions are done. Modern interpretations of myth can only detract from their meaning and value. If there is another meaning someone wants, write a new myth. Don't disparage the old.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So your religion is all about preserving an ancient worldview? Best of luck hashing out the historical context on your own. You have excluded extremely valuable points of view that can actually help you uncover that worldview more competely. You are quite right: you will not convince me that interpretation should be canonized - it is prevention of further discovery and theft from everyone who can benefit from progress in interpretation.

Also, you have not addressed the simple fact that no religious group possesses a myth that has not undergone revision and re-writing.

Another important point of mine that you have not addressed is the nature of the myth. Myths are not merely an expression of a worldview that should be preserved, but a "rising above" the worldview - an internalized theological reflection. Why is the contemporary internalization of ancient myths void, when the ancients internalized their worldview to create the myth in the first place?

 

[Darkdale]

So your religion is all about preserving an ancient worldview? Best of luck hashing out the historical context on your own. You have excluded extremely valuable points of view that can actually help you uncover that worldview more compeltely. Also, you have not addressed the simple fact that no religious group possesses a myth that has not undergone revision and re-writing.

First of all, I don't have to hash out the historical context on my own. Almost every heathen I know has made a study of it and we continuously strive to create the clearest, most accurate picture we can. Secondly, what valuable points of view have been excluded? All the relevant points of views are included in the original myths & their variations. Thirdly, there are always changes in the story being told, but not in it's meaning. Most of the time, changes in the myth become new myths all together.

Another important point of mine that you have not addressed is the nature of the myth. Myths are not merely an expression of a worldview that should be preserved, but a "rising above" the worldview - an internalized theological reflection. Why is the contemporary internalization of ancient myths void, when the ancients internalized their worldview to create the myth in the first place?

There doesn't need to be any "rising above" the heathen worldview. The contemporary internalization of myth is void because the contemporary paradigms are often quite, quite contrary to the paradigms of the original myths. If you don't like the myths the way they are, write a new one. Don't disrespect the individuals, the people and the culture within which the myths developed, simply because you think you know better. Write new myths.

 

[lilithu]

Yes, it should; but I doubt I could convince you of that.

I doubt it too.

A myth is not meant to tell us about our world today, it's about understanding the worldview of the people who wrote the myths in the first place. In my religion, maintaining that worldview is what the religion is all about and why we cherish our myths over the myths of foreign cultures. When it's the original meaning of the myth that's important, changing it or reinterpreting it is not only wrong, it's a sacrilege. Let feminists and homosexuals write their own myths if they don't like the old ones. Let them start their own religion if they don't like the way other religions are done. Modern interpretations of myth can only detract from their meaning and value. If there is another meaning someone wants, write a new myth. Don't disparage the old.

So the myth is only meant to have meaning for one group of people at one time and place? That's fine for you and your religion if that's what your religion is about. But I don't see how that's relevant to anyone else. The reason why scriptures mean something to me is because I can read them thousands of years after they've been written and see that I am struggling with the same things that other people have been struggling with across time. If the story of Adam and Eve, or of Abraham and Isaac, or of Jonah and the fish, if those stories did not resonate with me, why should I care about them at all? They are not written about my ancestors. What do the myths of an ancient small group of desert dwelling peoples have to do with me or most people? If all they are is reflection of someone else's "history" then they are irrelevant to me and to the vast majority of people who read the bible today. It is because I and so many others see relevance in them that transcends time and culture that they are still revered. To lock them up in the vaults of history, untouchable, is to rob them of their spiritual relevance. It does great disservice to to them and to us. You would have us make dusty idols of these stories, rather than the conduits to the living breathing divinity that they are.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

First of all, I don't have to hash out the historical context on my own. Almost every heathen I know has made a study of it and we continuously strive to create the clearest, most accurate picture we can. Secondly, what valuable points of view have been excluded? All the relevant points of views are included in the original myths & their variations. Thirdly, there are always changes in the story being told, but not in it's meaning. Most of the time, changes in the myth become new myths all together.
QUOTE]

To answer the question of exclusion, I will refer to two previous sayings from yourself: Let feminists and homosexuals write their own myths if they don't like the old ones. Let them start their own religion if they don't like the way other religions are done. Modern interpretations of myth can only detract from their meaning and value.

You cannot possibly defend that retold stories are unchanged. The retelling and revision of myths in their transmission traditions is nothing less than re-interpretation, and in many cases *gasp* incorporate contradictory philosophical points of view than the original authors had.

 

[Darkdale]

You cannot possibly defend that retold stories are unchanged. The retelling and revision of myths in their transmission traditions is nothing less than re-interpretation, and in many cases *gasp* incorporate contradictory philosophical points of view than the original authors had.

I haven't found that to be the case with regard to Norse myth, which is really the only mythology I am personally concerned with. The meanings of the myths are very specific and the changes were usually with regard to Characters and Character Names, sometimes place names. The meanings of the myths themselves were unchanged. It wasn't until Olaf of Norway forcefully converted Scandinavia to Christianity that the myths were disturbed, if not outlawed all together. The worldview is the important thing and that is ingrained in the myths. It's the heathen worldview that drew me to heathenism.

I'm not quite sure what your point is, other than that you don't like the anthropological model for the interpretation of myth. You don't like it because it's exclusive, but it's only exclusive of things contrary to the heathen worldview. This is the difference between Heathens and Neo-Heathens. Neo-Heathens think that they can be "heathen" and have totally different beliefs, a different worldview. I find that to be absurd; just as absurd as reinterpreting the myths to suit your own beliefs. It's arrogant and disrespectful, not that I assume this bothers you in the least.

So the myth is only meant to have meaning for one group of people at one time and place? That's fine for you and your religion if that's what your religion is about. But I don't see how that's relevant to anyone else.

It should be relevant to anyone who holds the worldview of the myths as they were originally written. Christianity and Islam have been very successful at ditching old ideas for new ones, it's what's made them "universal religions", it's what has allowed them to progress. It's one of the reasons why they don't interest me in the least.

The reason why scriptures mean something to me is because I can read them thousands of years after they've been written and see that I am struggling with the same things that other people have been struggling with across time. If the story of Adam and Eve, or of Abraham and Isaac, or of Jonah and the fish, if those stories did not resonate with me, why should I care about them at all? They are not written about my ancestors. What do the myths of an ancient small group of desert dwelling peoples have to do with me or most people? If all they are is reflection of someone else's "history" then they are irrelevant to me and to the vast majority of people who read the bible today.

Yes, I don't quite understand why people buy into mythologies that aren't about their folk, but that's their business and they have every right to chose whatever religion they feel is best. But to me, the myths of the Bible are irrelevant. So I no longer read them.

It is because I and so many others see relevance in them that transcends time and culture that they are still revered. To lock them up in the vaults of history, untouchable, is to rob them of their spiritual relevance. It does great disservice to to them and to us. You would have us make dusty idols of these stories, rather than the conduits to the living breathing divinity that they are.

That's fine if you see relevance in them, I do not. Just because people have adopted alien worldviews to their old folk religions doesn't mean that the myths should have to be thrown away, or changed. I don't understand why folk who disagree with the worldview in the Bible bother being Christian at all, but that's just me. Maybe there are cultural reasons, or they choose to honor Christianity as the religion of their family (something I would respect a great deal).

But it is important to maintain and present the myths in their original form, instead of treating history itself with a vague neglect. You don't really seem to have an arguement for reinterpreting the myths, other than that you want to. I don't think that is a convincing argument.

Yes, it should; but I doubt I could convince you of that.

I doubt it too.

I find your attitude to be immature and disrespectful. I will most likely not waste my time on you in the future.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It's arrogant and disrespectful, not that I assume this bothers you in the least.

I said above that I value finding the historical meaning of the myth (which means that I do not suggest that we should abandon an anthopological model), but not to the exclusion of other models. It is arrogant and disrespectful not to include people that want to be associated with the ancient myth by finding meaning and purpose in their lives in the ancient myth by means of their contemporary setting. Your view both ignores the transmission history of the text (revision, rewriting, and retelling) and sets the anthropoligical method as not only superior to all other interpretative methods, but that other methods are invalid.

I don't know what you mean by "It wasn't until Olaf of Norway forcefully converted Scandinavia to Christianity that the myths were disturbed, if not outlawed all together. I am talking about the transmission history of various myths - by the time a myth is canonized (receives editorial protection) by a group, it has been drafted, published, revised, rewritten, and retold by various members of the group that often hold different (contradictory) interpretations of the myth.

Worldviews are found in myths. If you are only looking at the particular worldview found in the myth, you are almost certianly looking at only one aspect at the cost of missing the point of the myth altogether. Why just take the worldview and abandon everything else?

I study Christian myths that exclude feminists and homosexuals. Our myths are so meaningful that they should not be abandoned by those who disagree with their original meaning. I am not ready to tell them to leave and make up their own religion. As confessing Christians, they belong in the Church. Their re-interpretations have caused anthropological studies that have proven their case, particularly with feminists - homosexuality is close behind. Also, if I just took the worldview out of the Bible and tried to live by it, it is a rape of the original meaning and intent. We live in a much different historical setting. If all we do is take out the worldview, we should wear their clothes, eat the same foods, and live with the same technology - we could move in with the Amish, but that still wouldn't take us far back enough.

I can't believe that you want to exclude people on the basis of interpretation - that they should go and create their own religion simply because they want to re-interpret a treasured myth.