I had a thought and decided to write it down. Welcome to the rantings of someone who decided to write down his thoughts on mysticism, politics, anthropology, science, and art.

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Why Are Myths Metaphors?

Joseph Campbell went to great lengths to demonstrate that myths of antiquity are metaphors. The term myth is often used to denote a "lie", i.e. myth is often synonymous with falsehood. This could not be further from the truth. Myths are only metaphorical stories to describe an abstract concept.

Why would they use a story to describe an idea rather than just saying it? For instance, the Upanishads had an idea that originally there were no sexes, i.e. male and female, but that they were originally united and later divided. This concept is not all that unfamiliar, as it is in the Bible. Most Americans are familiar with the creation of Eve,who was rendered from Adam's rib. This meant that the soul of woman was originally united with that of man's and the soul of woman was drawn from a united state with man. What this indicates is a knowledge of unisexual beings originally capable of doing what dou-sexual entities have to do when combined (namely sex and reproduction). This is a recognition of a simple, unified state of existence and probably designates the concept of asexual organisms in the beginning of the evolutionary chain (evolution was an idea that existed in the time of the Greeks and possibly earlier, hence why the Greeks has a similar myth).

So once again, why a story instead of saying it? Abstract ideas are not easy to grasp and we often use metaphors to describe them. As discussed in the posting The Meaning of Life Malstructured we constantly use metaphors to describe abstract concepts, such as love and life. These abstract ideas are structured and explained in terms of some more objectively and concretely understood experience. One may notice that a person learning a new language often tries to describe certain complex ideas in terms of something else that they know how to say in the new language. For instance, a friend of mine from Vietnam was trying to discuss his tectonic / stereotomic idea for his building design on a pedestal. He said, "Earth is soft," then he hit his fist on the table and continued, "Table is hard. We use hard to set building on soft Earth." Children often do much the same thing to suit their curiosity.

Our ancestors were new to this condition we call "consciousness", and consequently describing their wonder for "life, the universe, everything" was structured and understood to them in metaphors, i.e. myths. This can be considered a sort of childish condition, in which our ancestors comprehended a great deal, but they could only understand it in terms of mythical metaphors.

We do much the same thing today in modern science. Scientists very rarely talk about a subject in terms of the subject alone. For instance, when we talk about the expanding universe we use metaphors and analogies to describe the idea, usually an expanding balloon. We know that the universe is not necessary like an inflating balloon with images of galaxies adhered to it, but it is a means for us to understand the concept. Really, the expanding universe is based on the interacting forces of dark energy accelerating the inflation speed faster than matter and dark matter can condense the universe. These forces are governed by thermodynamics, electromagnetic fields, and gravity. The reality of the expanding universe is too abstract for us to grasp, and, in fact, we more of less lack the formal language necessary to describe it. Thus we use a parable, an analogy, a metaphor, a myth to describe these new and highly abstract concepts.

Until these concepts are understood in their own terms and we have a language to describe the terms of those concepts, much of what we conceptualize as truth will remain mythic. And thus, the myths survive. They are our arts, our businesses, our religions, our politics, our education, our sciences, and, most emphatically, our lives.

No comments:

Post a Comment