Hi Ross — I tend to read myth rather 'organically' ...
"Lucy Huskinson (PhD, lecturer.....Karen Armstrong:.....Mythology is an art form that ...Miriam Antonieta Carpenter-Cosand....I do not believe that we can objectively discuss any event without a mythological narrative. "
Well, we each can read it any which way we like but I try to "read" mythology the way it wants to be read - "So-and-So, begat whoever." " 'Mr. A" did this to 'Miss B'." If one puts aside the fantastic it reads like a simple narrative of events."
Modern mythographers are too extreme for me. It amazes me how 1000's of ancient cultures could "invent" similar stories and then pawn them off on to their children as their traditional history. So many lies? I believe the "believed" mythology to be history. It is only modern times that we "tagged" these oral traditions as "myths." If we all could go back to the days of the earliest Greeks, vedic people, Chinese, etc., and ask them what they thought of their past, we would get the stories we have today. Would they say their myths are mental "art forms" and "archetypes" and "conscious interpretations of unconscious communications?" I would think by the fact that many ancient patriarchs claimed descent from certain "gods" tells us that there is more historicity to mythology than we want to believe.
Something tells the modern mind to disallow the historical in favor of some psychological aspect- they fear and avoid something. That something is exactly what we have in our research of 3000+ pages. It's "unbelievable" to them and so they prefer to believe in some other "fantastic" theory more unbelievable than mythology. It is another mythology itself but this time purely fictional. At least ancient mythology has some consistency over modern evolutionary theory. Darwinianism, Anthropology, and modern Geological theory hate a literal Genesis 10.
Last edited by a moderator: