Re: [mythsoc] Re: Journey to the Sea #9 -- Mythical Thinking
- View SourceAlana's observations are close to the approach I took in my book, *The
Scribbler's Guide to the Land of Myth*. Of course, I was specifically
interested in mythic motifs in storytelling, but I needed to come up with
a theory about myth for myself to ground the whole.
My conclusion (after years of consideration) is that mythic thinking is
NOT "PRE-logic". Rather it is simply another mode of thought. The
distinctions I made were not logical versus mythical -- mainly because
there IS a certain logic in mythic-thinking. The distinction I made is
between Objective (what might be called rational, linear) and Subjective
(intuitive, and "meaning-loaded").
The example I use in my introduction is that we can know - Objectively -
that the sun is a ball of basic gases exploding and sending out light and
radiation, but that does not obliterate our *Subjective* reaction to the
sight of sunlight gleaming on high clouds, feeling that there's some
benevolent powerful being sitting up there sending light beams down to us.
Objective thinking is about what things ARE. Subjective thinking is
about what things MEAN (to the individual). Neither is "more important"
(or, more pertinently "more logical") than the other. We actually need
both aspects to be fully human. And Art - as David observed - comes from
our *Subjective* response. The Subjective is a synthetic response -
putting things together. The Objective response is analytic, taking
> I commented over at the article itself, but thought I would echo myself
> here--both "On Fairy Stories" and Barfield's _Saving the Appearances_ have
> quite a lot to say about the consciousness with which we, as products of a
> highly logic/reason/progress-based worldview, interact with a pre-logical
> or mythic consciousness. (_Saving the Appearances_ on the whole is about
> this topic and the evolution of consciousness; Tolkien's essay has the
> wonderful section about Thor, which I think is most applicable in
> I think mythic thought, in the way you're using it, is important in
> allowing the world to have (or giving it back) *meaning*, something which
> a more reason/rationalist approach has devalued in favor of observation
> and fact.
- View Source
>From: scribbler@..."Even in your world, that is not what a star is, merely what it is made of."
>...we can know - Objectively -
>that the sun is a ball of basic gases exploding and sending out light and
>radiation, but that does not obliterate our *Subjective* reaction to the
>sight of sunlight gleaming on high clouds, feeling that there's some
>benevolent powerful being sitting up there sending light beams down to us.
A better way to Internet
- View SourceOn Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 12:04 PM, David Emerson <emerdavid@...>wrote:
> "Even in your world, that is not what a star is, merely what it is madeOooh, I hadn't remembered that line! That's very much tied into the concept
> -- Aslan
of the represented vs. representations that Barfield discusses as well. :)
Alana Joli Abbott, Freelance Writer and Editor (
Author of "Nomi's Wish" (
http://coyotewildmag.com/2008/august/abbott_nomis_wish.html), featured in
Coyote Wild Magazine
Contributor to Serenity Adventures: http://tinyurl.com/serenity-adventures
Contributor to Ransom: The Anthology: http://tinyurl.com/ransombook
For updates on my writings, join my mailing list at
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]