The Monomyth: Why Campbell has never been entirely satisfying

[dauer]

Well, not sure if I read you right, this time round, but we'd have to qualify what counts as 'ordinary' literature ... but I would say, from a Christian perspective, or necessarily a Catholic one today, that many 'confuse' or relegate the gospels to sacred myth, whereas in fact it is 'ordinary' literature in that it tells what happened ... albeit extraordinary events?

I think by ordinary literature what I mean in more specific terms is that which has not gone through the process of becoming canon. That which isn't canon can still be regarded as spiritual, or as of having great insight, but it's not really treated the same way as something that is. It is for this reason that I think the inherent danger is less. Of course there is always the possibility that someday a group decides to canonize the works of Dr. Seuss but at that point, at least for them, it's transcended ordinary literature.

I know this might be a point of contention. For me I'm less concerned that non-canonical literature might become canon and am focusing more on the fact that the literature which isn't already canon for us, we tend to view it a little differently. I can use myself as an example. Even though I find a lot of meaning and value inherent in sacred literature that is canon for other people, I do not regard it in the same way as that which I hold canon, or make it so much of a focus in my life.

Dauer

[Thomas]

Oh, got you ... yes, that rule applies to us Catlicks, Scripture is Canon ... the works of the Doctors, Fathers etc., might be 'inspired' and definitely spiritual, and shapes the nature of Catholicism, but it ain't Canon, and one is not obliged to accept it ... although, 'when all are in accord' the works of the Fathers becomes not infallible, but a safe bet...

Mind you, Augustine's "Oh Lord, please make me chaste, but not yet!" has accrued almost mythological status over the years! ... and then again, it is widely held that Origen had himself castrated to become 'a eunuch for God', but there are those who are beginning to challenge this assertion ...

... mythology can be a bit of a minefield ...

Thomas

[Sunny C.]

Hi.

Lunamoth said this:

We can look at myths with just our intellect and know of God, or we can enter into them and know God. The myth, the religion, is the vehicle, not the destination.

I'm looking at myth making as an ongoing active process necessary to create a sort of mind-body bond which allows practical consciousness. It's a survival skill, really. We begin to create our personal mythology in early childhood through role playing and imagination. And we connect that mythical self with with the larger myths that influence our culture, our country, our world, and our sense of deity.

Then there's "Mythology", in the Bulfinch sense. I see that as the accumulated exoskeletons of the mythical past. Lots of pretty little shells which seem to suggest patterns. Pretty little beads to construct lots of interesting shapes.

[Sunny C.]

What's the difference between meta myth and monomyth? Doesn't Christianity propose itself as the sole posessor of THE metamyth? How is that not monomythical?

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

What's the difference between meta myth and monomyth? Doesn't Christianity propose itself as the sole posessor of THE metamyth?

Not sure what you mean by this?

Hi, by the way ...


Thomas

[Alvis Rofhessa]

"Mythology" like the bible is about holism/in/truth/survival vs dualism/out "quest" throut the whole of Human/World/cyclical Time/(Hi)story (& prophecy).

All religions/mythologies d/evolved from one common original religion.

Whole/rise-climax/evolv/progress ->
fallen/dualis/conflict/devolv/corrupt/mixed/stolen/inverse/mad/lie/[nothing?]
-> rebirth/whole/new/reconcil/[sync?]/enlighten/immortal.

Origins/history/memory -> destiny/end/prophecy.

[Sunny C.]

What the heck does that mean Alvis?

Hi Thomas.

I get the feeling that I'm laboring under a different definition of mythology than everyone else. You've all agreed that "myth" doesn't mean "false", but I'm wondering... Let me put it this way, is the Christian meta-mythology: God and the Logos, the creation and other foundational myths, and especially the Satan myth- the only valid mythological landscape? Are all other mythologies irrelevant, superstitious fables?

The Logos says he's the only way to the Father. So either all mythological paths converge in the Christian path, or Christian mythology is part of a larger, possibly universal metamyth, or there's only one valid, non fictitious primal mythology-- a monomythology to go with monotheism.

[Alvis Rofhessa]

Sorry I tend to condense as much as I can into few as possible sentences.
Breaking what I said into various ideas it includes:
- "myth" in quote marks means not fiction definition;
- myth is like bible;
- myth is (about) Holism;
- myth is about In/Whole/Good versus Out/Dual/Evil/Fallen;
- myth is about the whole of World Time as a whole, (myth is history, myth is prophecy);
- Whole -> Fallen -> Whole.
The point of difference between mythology/pagan/occult/"satanism", and judaeo-xtian is the definition of the ultimate Whole/In/Good. (Origin(s) different like creation vs evolution &/or transfirmia.)

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

The Logos says he's the only way to the Father. So either all mythological paths converge in the Christian path,

That's the orthodox viewpoint.

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

or Christian mythology is part of a larger, possibly universal metamyth, or there's only one valid, non fictitious primal mythology-- a monomythology to go with monotheism.

This I think highlights the fundamental problem with a Universal Religion, or the Religio Perennis, or with esoterim in general ... it assumes there is the One, (whatever it may be called) that is visible and apprehendable ... a contradiction when it, and every profound spiritual wisdom, insists that the One is beyond all distinction, therefore beyond comprehension – It is Absolute-unto-Itself, 'not this, not that'; 'The Tao that is not the Tao and cannot be known', the 'Godhead' or 'Trinity' ... the ultimate state of Unity being One.

So the latter exists in an abstract and intellectual sense, but then so do unicorns, and this is why St Anselm's ontological argument was gently refuted by orthodoxy, because the intellectus is subject to fantasia, the tendency to believe in its own imaginings (the argument of ontology is still the subject of philosophy however, so the book is not closed). What is imagined might be right (and this is speculative theology, or philosophy) but it is speculative, without corroborating data – through the senses (and experiment) or through Revelation (through faith in the evidence of the senses).

The orthodox viewpoint, however, precludes any such argument of mythology on the basis of its faith in the reality of the Incarnation.

Thomas

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

Hi.

Lunamoth said this:

I'm looking at myth making as an ongoing active process necessary to create a sort of mind-body bond which allows practical consciousness. It's a survival skill, really. We begin to create our personal mythology in early childhood through role playing and imagination. And we connect that mythical self with with the larger myths that influence our culture, our country, our world, and our sense of deity.

Then there's "Mythology", in the Bulfinch sense. I see that as the accumulated exoskeletons of the mythical past. Lots of pretty little shells which seem to suggest patterns. Pretty little beads to construct lots of interesting shapes.

Off the Beaten Path

Sunny, Here's a blog I think you might find interesting. It's extremely well-written. Check out Angels in the Architecture.

luna

[Sunny C.]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Off the Beaten Path

Sunny, Here's a blog I think you might find interesting. It's extremely well-written. Check out Angels in the Architecture.

luna

I like it! And I agree with most of what this guy is saying. Actually all of it but with a couple of qualifications. I'm still thinking about how to write about that. Words don't come easily for me. I'll get to it...

Thanks again!

Sunny

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

I like it! And I agree with most of what this guy is saying. Actually all of it but with a couple of qualifications. I'm still thinking about how to write about that. Words don't come easily for me. I'll get to it...

Thanks again!

Sunny

Glad to point you to something you find interesting. ;-) I really love what he has to say about Love, Courage, Grace. He used to post here.

[Sunny C.]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Glad to point you to something you find interesting. ;-) I really love what he has to say about Love, Courage, Grace. He used to post here.

That would account for the Walled Garden references?

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

That would account for the Walled Garden references?

Lol! I don't know!

[Sunny C.]

we create imaginary gods to protect us, give our lives meaning and reinforce our decisions to root ourselves in the illusory world of language and division rather than listen to the still small voice of compassion, that "law of love" written on our hearts. We imagine these gods as beings "out there" (even though every mythology tells us they are "in here"). These gods can then be misappropriated by human social institutions to control our thoughts and behavior. Sometimes these gods go by ungodly names - "Communism," "Patriotism," "Democracy," "American," "Iranian" - but that doesn't change that they are idols we have created with our own art and now have chosen to worship - to subjugate our connection to divinity to in our fear and folly.

To deny these idols is to regain one's courage and awaken the creative Logos, the Word of God, within in each of us to redeem the world. That Word is Love, as in compassion, and it cannot be heard over the clamoring of praise we serve up to our idols. But that requires overcoming our fear, stepping out in the name of love and compassion, and risking that those who still live huddled behind their walls will destroy us because we threaten their illusions of being and their sense of power and entitlement. This journey beyond the life of comfortable illusions, into the valley of the shadow of death to emerge a new person with new eyes to experience the Kingdom of God in the here and now.

That requires a quest. And people who imagine they already have what they want don't go on quests. As Joseph Campbell explained, the myths are the starting point for an individual journey of self discovery and growing up into and claiming responsibility for one's creative power. When the myths themselves become the end, and the purpose becomes belief and certainty rather than uncertainty and growth, the myths meant to help us find the Way become just another brick in the wall that keeps us in - and prevents the development of spiritual character.

Pow!!!

Once we have embraced enough uncertainty to let go of the world of appearances, and accepted not knowing so as to take the quest, we can accelerate toward enough escape velocity to soar above the atmosphere and glimpse the world from the divine perspective. With practice one can even learn to transcend this world of appearances using any culture's mythological signs, or even just through direct and un-mediated experience of a great poem, a novel, a work of philosophy, the wonders of science and mathematics, a great painting or a song.

OK, here's my qualification: If we are going to truly embrace uncertainty and abandon the world of identity driven appearances, we have to also become aware of the mechanisms of power and control that place the programming into us in the first place. "embracing uncertainty" can very easily become a mantram for avoiding the final steps in freeing ourselves. We're abandoning ego attachment, but we've got to make sure we're not just trading in one security blanket for another because there is another more subtle dogma driven power structure that lures us with the notion of selflessness in order to render us docile. That structure masquerades as the solution to the other overt power structure. So I'm very wary of those who propose that we abandon ego identity in order to place ourselves in the service and at the disposal of some transcendent spiritual structure which also,if more subtly, requires embracing a systematic approach. If we want to truly break free we should abandon the idea that anything, any system, any structure holds truth. Only we ourselves, divorced of outside influence, and acting solely on our own initiative and intention, can break out.

That sounds pretty obtuse, sorry. It's the best I can do right now.