++> From a Frank Masingill To David Martorana
 ++> exchange on qualities of myth
 
 FM>  It seems to me, David, that you are, perhaps unintentionally,
 FM> obfuscating the meaning of myth.  Old myths can lose their claims
 FM> to be literally true while continuing to demonstrate unmistakable
 FM> existential truth.  People such as Plato can create and use
 FM> "conscious" myths in literary works for the purpose of aligning them
 FM> against a truth of existence experienced by themselves.  This is
 FM> the case with his famous "myth of the judgement" where he is clearly
 FM> referring to the degree of conscience possessed by an individual
 FM> under the question of whether a "soul is curable" or not.  The
 FM> ancient myths may be studied in Pritchard's _Ancient Near Eastern
 FM> Myths_ or the more popular Campbell's various books on the subject.
 FM> Man is, for whatever reason, a creature who makes myths and continues
 FM> to do so.
 
 FM> I more and more attempt not to become entangled with literalists
 FM> who seem only to see meaning in such myths if they are literalized
 FM> out of any genuine spiritual or experiential context.  There can,
 FM> frankly, be little real dialogue if that is the situation.  But,
 FM> at the same time, I can hear _Amazing Grace_ and relate with all
 FM> of my soul to it because I sense in the work an experiential
 FM> movement of the soul toward transcendence under the circumstances
 FM> of that particular life.  Such is not dealing with the literal
 FM> "truth or untruth" of a "birth in a manger while angels sing,"
 FM> but with something far different and far deeper in cosmic proportions
 FM> under the symbol of an encounter of the human and the divine.  That
 FM> churches are by and large civic clubs for socially compatible families
 FM> does not destroy the "verily I came to throw fire on the earth" of a
 FM> revelatory experience that Bergson tells us evokes all manner of
 FM> forces (like white corpuscles surrounding a wound) to contain the
 FM> explosive heat of the experience by containing it in "doctrine" or
 FM> "static religion" now mediated to the many who are not strong enough for
 FM> faith.
 
 FM>  I have probably failed once more to explain what I mean.  It's
 FM> "pandemic" with me!!!
 
   It is pandemic with you because you **ever seem** to push what words
   can convey beyond their limits. As an example: when you use the word
   "myth" (having monitored ""MANY"" of your postings), I do not read
   it as I do when others use the term. Instead, over time, your usage
   of the word has grown to translate into my reading as:
   "mind-magic-to-meaning" ....a more powerful suggestion than its
   literal definition ...perhaps best described as the search for truths
   *ever weighed*  on a blind scale of epic hope. Knowingly or unknowingly,
   you push the envelope of words to force out a last drop of meaning
   (perhaps experiential crafting). ALSO!!!  you often brush near the
   edges of poetic license without wanting to be accused of such. Our
   words effect everyone they touch and teach .... some a bit more and
   some a less. Your "eudaemonia" oft doth spillith some beyond your
   words to realize .......From my oft bent humble view!!!
                              _
                            _|_|_
                             q00 ... Dave
 
 
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------