"Karl Popper believed that scientific knowledge is provisional – the best we can do at the moment. Popper is known for his attempt to refute the classical positivist account of the scientific method by replacing induction with the falsification principle. The Falsification Principle, proposed by Karl Popper, is a way of demarcating science from non-science. It suggests that for a theory to be considered scientific, it must be able to be tested and conceivably proven false. For example, the hypothesis that “all swans are white” can be falsified by observing a black swan. For Popper, science should attempt to disprove a theory rather than attempt to continually support theoretical hypotheses."
Well, I suppose the proof is in the pudding. Experimentation will lead to a variety of results, both positive and negative. Nature preserves mutations which are adaptive. We should do the same, and seek to generate such mutations.
Right on. Except that the Bible is not "true," it's by and large a compendium of patriarchal falsities and marching orders. The Bible is post-alphabet male-dominated propaganda. It is monotheistic indoctrination. Time to read The Alphabet vs. the Goddess by Leonard Shlain. Much of our suffering, cruelty and blindness come from post-alphabet choosing of sides -- I'm holding my Holy Book and you're holding a different one -- "yours" -- and we use them to beat each other into the ground. Yes, the Bible contains wisdom and beauty but these qualities are prisoners in a control trip scenario. Wisdom and beauty are the gorgeous stallions forever harnessed to the drivers of these infernal wagons. Return to the spirits of nature, return to the Goddess, or continue to lay waste to one another in the most grotesque ways as we have for thousands of years -- only now with up to date weapons that make the cudgels of the past look like toys.
I have read The Alphabet Versus the Goddess... great book!
I am familiar with the traditional critique of Abrahamic religions, which has been the majority view of anarchists since the French Revolution.
The argument that I am making is that times have changed. Christianity used to be hegemonic throughout the Western world, but that is no longer the case.
In Latin America, there is a long tradition of Catholic radicalism, which dates back to Bartolome de las Casas, after whom the city of San Cristobal de las Casas is named.
I am heavily influenced by the Zapatistas, however, and I don't think that most non-Mexicans realize the extent to which Zapatismo is influenced by liberation theology.
Everyone knows the name of Subcommandante Marcos, but who was the Supreme Commander of the EZLN during the 1990s? It was Samuel Ruiz Garcia, the bishop of Chiapas.
Rage Against the Machine didn't tell you that, did they?
At least 90% of Zapatistas are devout Catholics, and I would suspect it might be over 95%.
Personally, I'm a big believer in syncretism and cultural hybridity. There is no inherent contradiction between Christianity and animism.
Indigenous people in Mexico faired better than in the rest of the Americas because they embraced a syncretic mixture of Catholics and pre-Hispanic beliefs.
It's also worth noting that there are numerous other examples of prophets who preached that syncretism and cultural hybridity was the best option for indigenous people who wished to preserve their traditions.
Bini, the Wet'suwet'en prophet who started the Prophet Dance movement, preached a message of syncretism and cultural hybridity. Today, the Wet'suwet'en have a traditional governance system that is much better preserve that. How much of this is due to Bini's influence? That's a question that I hope to look into at some point. It's worth noting that Bini held the name Gwis during his lifetime, which is one of the highest chief names in the Wet'suwet'en Feast Hall system.
Handsome Lake, the Haudenosaunee prophet, was heavily influenced by the Quakers.
Leonard Crow Dog's father, for instance, was a Cross Fire man.
The Cross Fire in one of the two main denominations of the Native American church, and in the Cross Fire tradition, a Bible is kept on the altar and passages from Scripture are read as part of the ceremony.
I understand why people see animism and Christianity as diametrically opposed, but its mythological structure can be repurposed to serve revolutionary ends.
In the words of Rigoberta Menchu, the Mayan campesina who won the Nobel Prize for Literature: "The Bible is our weapon".
This might not make sense outside Latin America, but I assure you that it is the case here.
"Getting comfortable with uncertainty is key IMHO. "
This is a core element of my personal philosophy which I've even given a name:
MU. Short for 'Managed Uncertainty.' I stole the term from Douglas Hofstadter who used it in a slightly different way. He may have got it from Anton Wilson who I think used it in reference to Ancient Lemuria. The KLF picked it up as well.
I consciously worked on abandoning my tethers to certainty as a sort of experiment about 20 yrs ago. It’s been an interesting opening, first I had to notice shit I thought was ‘solid’.
Very much helped my BS meter develop as well as erased a bunch o ghostie fears that just disappeared. Not easy though.
There is no comparison to be made between a "myth" and a "theory".
"myth, a symbolic narrative, usually of unknown origin and at least partly traditional, that ostensibly relates actual events and that is especially associated with religious belief. It is distinguished from symbolic behaviour (cult, ritual) and symbolic places or objects (temples, icons). Myths are specific accounts of gods or superhuman beings involved in extraordinary events or circumstances in a time that is unspecified but which is understood as existing apart from ordinary human experience. The term mythology denotes both the study of myth and the body of myths belonging to a particular religious tradition.
As with all religious symbolism, there is no attempt to justify mythic narratives or even to render them plausible. Every myth presents itself as an authoritative, factual account, no matter how much the narrated events are at variance with natural law or ordinary experience. By extension from this primary religious meaning, the word myth may also be used more loosely to refer to an ideological belief when that belief is the object of a quasi-religious faith; an example would be the Marxist eschatological myth of the withering away of the state."
Thus a "myth", properly apprehended, is fundamentally a religious story/narrative which highlights or illustrates a particular religious truth.
Scientific theories are the result of observation coupled with logical reasoning and deduction applied in order to explain the particular forces which give rise to the particular observations. Newton's laws of motion are an example of theories.
Inasmuch as theories are dependent upon empirical observations, they are also mutable, as when observations occur which contradict a particular theory, it is the theory which must give way, every time. Thus Newton's theories on gravity have been supplanted by Einstein's theories on relativity--observation led to a rethinking of the principles involved which led to a reconceptualization of gravity and its operation in the physical universe.
The same cannot be said of myths.
It is erroneous thinking to conflate myth with theory. The two concepts are wholly separate and distinct, and occupy separate and distinct epistemological realms of thought.
You know what? You got me. I can't argue with that. They do operate according to different rules, I will give you that. Is that a fundamental difference? I would say that it is. I stand corrected.
I changed the title... I think most of what I said stands, though.
He made a valid semantic distinction... I mean... I can't really deny that myth and theory occupy separate and distinct epistemological realms of thought... although I could say that they serve the same sociological function.
I'll argue about semantics sometimes but I can't go to bat for myself here. I said there was no fundamental difference between myth and theory and he pointed out a fundamental difference. I don't think that this one quibble actually weakens my argument that much...
I sometimes take a position contrary to my own as an exercise to see if I can argue the opposite side's case. Tough assignment in this instance...lol. Still, it's good mental exercise to try and construct your opponent's argument. Sometimes you'll even find things they missed and help them undermine your own case!
This approach is actually essential in military planning. That's why Rommel's 'Infanterie Greift An' is required reading in US military academies.
We've had scientism up the wazoo these last few years, typified by the catch-all "follow the science" and the even more ludicrous "I am the science."
"Safe and effective" "Social distancing" "Masks will protect you." "you're not a horse."
Need I say more?
I've had so many discouraging encounters, both on and off-line with people claiming the scientific viewpoint who couldn't even summarize the basic principles, and when you point out the flaws in their reasoning, become defensive and even hostile. Made more than a few enemies that way.
That said, I think I get what he's driving at. There's a type of knowledge or understanding that can't be obtained through deductive or inductive reasoning alone. It's highly personal, that is to say subjective, but nonetheless 'real' in the sense that it can point us in a direction that helps us to discern more universal truths that can only be understood through direct experience. Psychedelics for example, or near death experiences. How do you quantify those? How do you construct a testable theory?
I have a simpler definition of 'Myths.' They are stories meant to 1. explain physical reality - how things came to be, or 2. stories that contain a moral lesson. In the case of 1. they share a common motivation with science, only the methods differ. In the case of 2. they serve to illustrate certain dangers without the listener having to experience them personally.
"Every myth presents itself as an authoritative, factual account, no matter how much the narrated events are at variance with natural law or ordinary experience."
I'd have to disagree with that. Perhaps in their origin that was true, but by the time they were incorporated into cultural knowledge and handed down over time I'm fairly sure they weren't seen as factual but as analogues meant to illustrate certain principles. How many Christians believe that Jonah survived being swallowed by a whale? Likewise, I doubt that educated Greeks took the existence of the Gods seriously, as opposed to archetypes used to illustrate human personality traits and the dangers inherent in them. An early example of self-reflection, similar to native people's adoption of animals as spirit guides perhaps?
Nonetheless, both myth and science are attempts to explain material and psychological phenomena, so perhaps that's what our host is aiming at? I'm also a bit suspicious, having read some of his work, that he isn't doing what I often do, which I call 'Socratic Trolling." That is to say say presenting an intentionally flawed premise to see if the reader/listener picks up on it, or just nods in agreement. Kind of a filter to see who's actually listening, and more importantly, thinking. I could be doing that right now actually.
"I'd have to disagree with that. Perhaps in their origin that was true, but by the time they were incorporated into cultural knowledge and handed down over time I'm fairly sure they weren't seen as factual but as analogues meant to illustrate certain principles."
I think the opposite may be true, at least in the case of the bible. Certain scholars have suggested that biblical and also extra-canonical writers may have been conscious that they were writing stories with a specific, non-factual purpose in mind, and that this was commonplace. Two examples immediately come to mind. One is psuedepigraphy, which is thought to have been common when biblical books were being written. And the other is the "Gospel of John" (possibly an example of pseudopigraphy) which has been analysed to follow a specific literary style of a mirror-like symmetry of events. In other words, the author was using a literary technique and was not concerned with a literal relating of events.
If these theories be true, then it was the ecclesiastical process of canonization of the 2nd an 3rd centuries, and likely textual manipulation,that sought to align biblical texts with specific church dogmas (such as the Nicene creed) and to eliminate texts that did not conform, and this, it would seem, led to a kind of literalism, though literalism could never be absolute because the bible contradicts itself and this is glossed over in favor of the absolute authority of the Church and its dogma.
Interesting points. Although I'm not Christian, that is my cultural background and one of my heroes is most definitely Christian, at least in the sense that I perceive the faith.
... but I don't think most believers are too concerned about it, being focused more on the traditions and rituals as the foundation of the community. I doubt that many of them take the stories literally though, except for the Gospels of course.
One thing that does stand out in Orthodoxy is the emphasis on Charity as central to the Faith. This doctrine is shared with Islam, which may account for the respect each accords the other, at least in the Russian context.
My own view of religion is fairly simple. If it acts as a workable unifying principle and recognizes the basic human rights endowed by either nature or a Creator, then I have no problem with it. Whatever works, as as long as there's no attempt to impose it on others.
Isn't the emphasis on Charity universal to the Christian faith, or is there is a specail way it is emphasized in Othodox Christianity?
It's interesting you mention the respect Christian Orthodoxy and Islam accord each other "in the Russian context." Growing up Christian in America in the 1980s, I never got the impression that Charity had an important place in Islam, or any place at all! We only learned of jihads and "terrorists." That was it! Perhaps it is the fact that America is so distant from Muslim countries, along with the incessant propaganda of the media, that allows for such a narrow, lopsided view.
"Nonetheless, both myth and science are attempts to explain material and psychological phenomena, so perhaps that's what our host is aiming at?"
I think so. The approach is different, but the function in society (of myth and theory) is the same.
And I think it's more than just what is easily recognized as scientism that is being challenged. Perhaps it is materialism (the belief -or myth - that material things constitute the sum of existence) that is at stake. It's more than just the scientism of "pandemics" or "climate change" (these are myths in every sense because these words have acquired a specific meaning that is entirely mythical, even if a kind of "pandemic" could exist, and obviously the climate changes), but rather it is the nihilism of the materialistic outlook and the presumptuousness that "scientific" certainty can be arrived at, communicated and agreed on that is at the heart of our lostness in the mythological nightmare of modernity. There is something deeper than what can be known by deduction; and it is that elusive something that draws us into unity and caring about the well being of others and of the earth. That elusive something is alluded to in the myths and stories of native peoples, even if all indigenous myths and stories may not be so laudable. Yet it is that elusive something that we must find and honor in a new understanding about the nature of our existence and interrelatedness. It is the source of what one might call love and harmony. The source of wisdom and beauty which as you have pointed out have been harnessed to the carriage of men's treacherous ambitions and designs. In other words, while there are myths that can help point us back to that source, there are other myths that cloud our ability to access it; indeed, lead us astray.
You hit the nail on the head with this comment: "I'm also a bit suspicious, having read some of his work, that he isn't doing what I often do, which I call 'Socratic Trolling." That is to say say presenting an intentionally flawed premise to see if the reader/listener picks up on it, or just nods in agreement. Kind of a filter to see who's actually listening, and more importantly, thinking. I could be doing that right now actually."
Yes, I do this deliberately and have repeatedly said so - I often employ what I call "absurdist rhetoric" by saying things I don't intend to be taken seriously in a dead-pan way. When I succeed, the reader should not be able to tell whether I am joking or not.
This might not be a good idea for a thinker who wishes to be taken seriously were it not for the fact that I consider myself to Flava Flav to Paul Cudenec's Chuck D.
The fact that he is a serious philosopher allows me to clown around, avoiding the snares of the thoughtpolice. I can only imagine how confusing it must be for humourless people to interpret my work.
Partly, I developed this technique as a way of circumventing cancel culture. It's a lot easier to say controversial things if people think you're joking.
So that's my fancy intellectual explanation. Sounds smart, right?
The truth is that I developed this theory post-hoc after making a habit of crazy things because, you know, I'm kinda crazy.
(Although, to be fair, there's only so crazy you can be if you know you're crazy... The most insane people in the world are totally convinced of their sanity.)
My Absurdist Rhetoric is a way that I developed of turning a weakness (my craziness) into a strength.
And I'm not joking about my craziness - I was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia when I was 17 and spent 6 years on and off of psych wards.
That is why it is so important to understand that my work is meant to be read critically - because I'm fully aware of the risk that I might say crazy things sometimes. So I use humour to cover up past craziness as well as to pre-empt whatever crazy things I might say in the future.
Pretty fucking smart, right? I'm going everything in my power to keep myself from being taken too seriously.
People who things too seriously are the bane of existence.
rereading this, I better clarify that when I say "it's a lot easier to say controversial things if people think you're joking", that doesn't mean that everything I say jokingly reflects my true opinions... My formula is mix serious jokes (dead-pan jokes delivered without obvious punchlines) with serious things said jokingly. When I succeed, the reader is not supposed to know whether I'm joking or not. Whether you encounter this technique, what I'm hoping that you do is ask yourself not "What does he mean?" but "What do I think about what he's talking about".
The point is to trick the reader into thinking for themselves. The goal is to produce extra-hot media (in McLuhan's sense of the word "hot"). If I confuse a lot of people along the way, that's a bonus. Confusion is often a precursor to insight.
I don't know if it's working yet, but I think it is!
I have recordings of those 2 interviews, plus the cassette tapes Bob was selling at the time. I may post them to my "Media Ecology" stack, which is inactive at the moment.
It was Bob that prompted me to join the Church of the Subgenius as I believed his claim to be J.R. "Bob" Dobbs was part of the theatrics and not an actual schism. I parted company with the CoSG once I realized that the baby (McLuhan) had been tossed out with the bathwater (the "fake" Canadian Bob). If you monitored alt.slack circa 1998 you'd have seen me trolling as e/w bear. Alt.discordia was another of my haunts back then. Some overlap between them and the anarchist scene at the time, both keying off RAW, as was the KLF, also a major influence on the pop culture of the day. Devo, same thing.
I also started Club22 and later Cafe22 around that time, which were pirate CuSeeMe conferences we hosted at a Cisco data centre in Virginia. (they had no idea...lol). I recently resurrected Cafe22 as a substack, but like Media Ecology, I haven't done anything with it yet. A note on Discordianism. Like Fight Club, the first rule is you don't talk about it, you just do it. In that sense, I regard people calling themselves "Discordian" as poseurs. It sound like you may have had the same problem with people calling themselves 'Anarchists.'
Once again love what you are into these days. Agree wholeheartedly with your conclusion, "New World Dreaming," indeed! ;)
BTW, with the above dynamic future of (continuing) metamorphosis in mind, and your wonderfully jaded description of the Anarchist Utopia, I'm puzzled by a couple of your earlier statements in this piece:
"As I am constantly repeating, the project of creating a revolutionary movement is a matter of creating a counterculture which matures into a “permanent culture”.... Once the Metamorphosis is complete, we will be living in a new world."
Am I misunderstanding? Sounds a lot like the Marxist end-state, the neoliberal End of History, and the WEF wet dream!
Thanks for your kind words! You have been an inspiration to me throughout my exploration of David Graeber's work. Your review of The Dawn of Everything was a major motivation. I wanted to answer your questions about human nature. Could you send me a link to that piece btw? I was looking for it recently and couldn't find it.
As for your concern about my non-Utopian Utopia... I really don't know how you reached that conclusion. Think of the Effigy Mound Builders who reverted to egalitarian hunting and gathering after the fall of Cahokia. Did history end for them? I don't get where you're coming from!
Sorry, I don't mean to be obtuse! Just wondering how your words "permanent" and "complete" fit with the rest of your vision of a social metamorphosis. Or maybe it's just a riddle of the steady-state world where the circle is also a spiral, like Eliade's "myth of the eternal return"? Just brainstorming with ya... ;)
You in Latin America, better watch out for the ground level, non-Catholic testifying churches, spreading like wildfire across the continent while torching and killing indigenous people. They too are carrying the Bible in their hands, waving it as some kind of justification for what they do. This is entirely the point I was making -- that everyone from Rigoberta Menchu to the repressive fanatics in their little churches covering South America far and wide are using the Holy Book for their own purposes. While saying that anyone having direct experience of the spirit realm are devil worshippers. This has nothing to do with abstractions about animism vs. whatever. It has to do with destruction of real people on the ground
https://www.simplypsychology.org/karl-popper.html
"Karl Popper believed that scientific knowledge is provisional – the best we can do at the moment. Popper is known for his attempt to refute the classical positivist account of the scientific method by replacing induction with the falsification principle. The Falsification Principle, proposed by Karl Popper, is a way of demarcating science from non-science. It suggests that for a theory to be considered scientific, it must be able to be tested and conceivably proven false. For example, the hypothesis that “all swans are white” can be falsified by observing a black swan. For Popper, science should attempt to disprove a theory rather than attempt to continually support theoretical hypotheses."
So how does one test/falsify a myth?
Well, I suppose the proof is in the pudding. Experimentation will lead to a variety of results, both positive and negative. Nature preserves mutations which are adaptive. We should do the same, and seek to generate such mutations.
To not be able find its echo? I dunno ...
Right on. Except that the Bible is not "true," it's by and large a compendium of patriarchal falsities and marching orders. The Bible is post-alphabet male-dominated propaganda. It is monotheistic indoctrination. Time to read The Alphabet vs. the Goddess by Leonard Shlain. Much of our suffering, cruelty and blindness come from post-alphabet choosing of sides -- I'm holding my Holy Book and you're holding a different one -- "yours" -- and we use them to beat each other into the ground. Yes, the Bible contains wisdom and beauty but these qualities are prisoners in a control trip scenario. Wisdom and beauty are the gorgeous stallions forever harnessed to the drivers of these infernal wagons. Return to the spirits of nature, return to the Goddess, or continue to lay waste to one another in the most grotesque ways as we have for thousands of years -- only now with up to date weapons that make the cudgels of the past look like toys.
I have read The Alphabet Versus the Goddess... great book!
I am familiar with the traditional critique of Abrahamic religions, which has been the majority view of anarchists since the French Revolution.
The argument that I am making is that times have changed. Christianity used to be hegemonic throughout the Western world, but that is no longer the case.
In Latin America, there is a long tradition of Catholic radicalism, which dates back to Bartolome de las Casas, after whom the city of San Cristobal de las Casas is named.
I am heavily influenced by the Zapatistas, however, and I don't think that most non-Mexicans realize the extent to which Zapatismo is influenced by liberation theology.
Everyone knows the name of Subcommandante Marcos, but who was the Supreme Commander of the EZLN during the 1990s? It was Samuel Ruiz Garcia, the bishop of Chiapas.
Rage Against the Machine didn't tell you that, did they?
At least 90% of Zapatistas are devout Catholics, and I would suspect it might be over 95%.
Personally, I'm a big believer in syncretism and cultural hybridity. There is no inherent contradiction between Christianity and animism.
Indigenous people in Mexico faired better than in the rest of the Americas because they embraced a syncretic mixture of Catholics and pre-Hispanic beliefs.
It's also worth noting that there are numerous other examples of prophets who preached that syncretism and cultural hybridity was the best option for indigenous people who wished to preserve their traditions.
Bini, the Wet'suwet'en prophet who started the Prophet Dance movement, preached a message of syncretism and cultural hybridity. Today, the Wet'suwet'en have a traditional governance system that is much better preserve that. How much of this is due to Bini's influence? That's a question that I hope to look into at some point. It's worth noting that Bini held the name Gwis during his lifetime, which is one of the highest chief names in the Wet'suwet'en Feast Hall system.
Handsome Lake, the Haudenosaunee prophet, was heavily influenced by the Quakers.
Leonard Crow Dog's father, for instance, was a Cross Fire man.
The Cross Fire in one of the two main denominations of the Native American church, and in the Cross Fire tradition, a Bible is kept on the altar and passages from Scripture are read as part of the ceremony.
I understand why people see animism and Christianity as diametrically opposed, but its mythological structure can be repurposed to serve revolutionary ends.
In the words of Rigoberta Menchu, the Mayan campesina who won the Nobel Prize for Literature: "The Bible is our weapon".
This might not make sense outside Latin America, but I assure you that it is the case here.
"The Bible is post-alphabet male-dominated propaganda."
Though Jesus did try to tone that down a bit, but it was lost on future generations of patriarchal
Christianity.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhMQzxqXgvE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkfatkOXFYw
Thank you! This type of re-evaluation of all is desperately needed. Getting comfortable with uncertainty is key IMHO.
Noah H. Even says humans are in desperate need for new stories/myths as the old are being exploded and with them lots of psychosis is surfacing .
Those YouTube vids you linked a few days ago are cool examples of this reevaluation.
💕there may be hope for our species, if we survive this forced transhumanist crap.
"Getting comfortable with uncertainty is key IMHO. "
This is a core element of my personal philosophy which I've even given a name:
MU. Short for 'Managed Uncertainty.' I stole the term from Douglas Hofstadter who used it in a slightly different way. He may have got it from Anton Wilson who I think used it in reference to Ancient Lemuria. The KLF picked it up as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP5oHL3zBDg
I can elaborate on it a bit if you like.
Wild music video, MU MU land.
I consciously worked on abandoning my tethers to certainty as a sort of experiment about 20 yrs ago. It’s been an interesting opening, first I had to notice shit I thought was ‘solid’.
Very much helped my BS meter develop as well as erased a bunch o ghostie fears that just disappeared. Not easy though.
Here’s a fun I just watched :😉
https://youtu.be/o25I2fzFGoY?si=UHXNscjyxhXRU9qS
He gets it ❤️😎.
Yeah, I miss that guy. Notice how it got quiet when he mentioned Israel? He took a chance with that one.
There is no comparison to be made between a "myth" and a "theory".
"myth, a symbolic narrative, usually of unknown origin and at least partly traditional, that ostensibly relates actual events and that is especially associated with religious belief. It is distinguished from symbolic behaviour (cult, ritual) and symbolic places or objects (temples, icons). Myths are specific accounts of gods or superhuman beings involved in extraordinary events or circumstances in a time that is unspecified but which is understood as existing apart from ordinary human experience. The term mythology denotes both the study of myth and the body of myths belonging to a particular religious tradition.
As with all religious symbolism, there is no attempt to justify mythic narratives or even to render them plausible. Every myth presents itself as an authoritative, factual account, no matter how much the narrated events are at variance with natural law or ordinary experience. By extension from this primary religious meaning, the word myth may also be used more loosely to refer to an ideological belief when that belief is the object of a quasi-religious faith; an example would be the Marxist eschatological myth of the withering away of the state."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/myth
Thus a "myth", properly apprehended, is fundamentally a religious story/narrative which highlights or illustrates a particular religious truth.
Scientific theories are the result of observation coupled with logical reasoning and deduction applied in order to explain the particular forces which give rise to the particular observations. Newton's laws of motion are an example of theories.
Inasmuch as theories are dependent upon empirical observations, they are also mutable, as when observations occur which contradict a particular theory, it is the theory which must give way, every time. Thus Newton's theories on gravity have been supplanted by Einstein's theories on relativity--observation led to a rethinking of the principles involved which led to a reconceptualization of gravity and its operation in the physical universe.
The same cannot be said of myths.
It is erroneous thinking to conflate myth with theory. The two concepts are wholly separate and distinct, and occupy separate and distinct epistemological realms of thought.
You know what? You got me. I can't argue with that. They do operate according to different rules, I will give you that. Is that a fundamental difference? I would say that it is. I stand corrected.
I changed the title... I think most of what I said stands, though.
I appreciate being corrected, believe it or not.
Nooooo!!!!!!! Stand your ground dammit!!!
He made a valid semantic distinction... I mean... I can't really deny that myth and theory occupy separate and distinct epistemological realms of thought... although I could say that they serve the same sociological function.
I'll argue about semantics sometimes but I can't go to bat for myself here. I said there was no fundamental difference between myth and theory and he pointed out a fundamental difference. I don't think that this one quibble actually weakens my argument that much...
I sometimes take a position contrary to my own as an exercise to see if I can argue the opposite side's case. Tough assignment in this instance...lol. Still, it's good mental exercise to try and construct your opponent's argument. Sometimes you'll even find things they missed and help them undermine your own case!
This approach is actually essential in military planning. That's why Rommel's 'Infanterie Greift An' is required reading in US military academies.
Very interesting! I've made a mental note of looking into that at some point.
I think what our host may be railing against is Scientism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
We've had scientism up the wazoo these last few years, typified by the catch-all "follow the science" and the even more ludicrous "I am the science."
"Safe and effective" "Social distancing" "Masks will protect you." "you're not a horse."
Need I say more?
I've had so many discouraging encounters, both on and off-line with people claiming the scientific viewpoint who couldn't even summarize the basic principles, and when you point out the flaws in their reasoning, become defensive and even hostile. Made more than a few enemies that way.
That said, I think I get what he's driving at. There's a type of knowledge or understanding that can't be obtained through deductive or inductive reasoning alone. It's highly personal, that is to say subjective, but nonetheless 'real' in the sense that it can point us in a direction that helps us to discern more universal truths that can only be understood through direct experience. Psychedelics for example, or near death experiences. How do you quantify those? How do you construct a testable theory?
I have a simpler definition of 'Myths.' They are stories meant to 1. explain physical reality - how things came to be, or 2. stories that contain a moral lesson. In the case of 1. they share a common motivation with science, only the methods differ. In the case of 2. they serve to illustrate certain dangers without the listener having to experience them personally.
"Every myth presents itself as an authoritative, factual account, no matter how much the narrated events are at variance with natural law or ordinary experience."
I'd have to disagree with that. Perhaps in their origin that was true, but by the time they were incorporated into cultural knowledge and handed down over time I'm fairly sure they weren't seen as factual but as analogues meant to illustrate certain principles. How many Christians believe that Jonah survived being swallowed by a whale? Likewise, I doubt that educated Greeks took the existence of the Gods seriously, as opposed to archetypes used to illustrate human personality traits and the dangers inherent in them. An early example of self-reflection, similar to native people's adoption of animals as spirit guides perhaps?
Nonetheless, both myth and science are attempts to explain material and psychological phenomena, so perhaps that's what our host is aiming at? I'm also a bit suspicious, having read some of his work, that he isn't doing what I often do, which I call 'Socratic Trolling." That is to say say presenting an intentionally flawed premise to see if the reader/listener picks up on it, or just nods in agreement. Kind of a filter to see who's actually listening, and more importantly, thinking. I could be doing that right now actually.
"I'd have to disagree with that. Perhaps in their origin that was true, but by the time they were incorporated into cultural knowledge and handed down over time I'm fairly sure they weren't seen as factual but as analogues meant to illustrate certain principles."
I think the opposite may be true, at least in the case of the bible. Certain scholars have suggested that biblical and also extra-canonical writers may have been conscious that they were writing stories with a specific, non-factual purpose in mind, and that this was commonplace. Two examples immediately come to mind. One is psuedepigraphy, which is thought to have been common when biblical books were being written. And the other is the "Gospel of John" (possibly an example of pseudopigraphy) which has been analysed to follow a specific literary style of a mirror-like symmetry of events. In other words, the author was using a literary technique and was not concerned with a literal relating of events.
If these theories be true, then it was the ecclesiastical process of canonization of the 2nd an 3rd centuries, and likely textual manipulation,that sought to align biblical texts with specific church dogmas (such as the Nicene creed) and to eliminate texts that did not conform, and this, it would seem, led to a kind of literalism, though literalism could never be absolute because the bible contradicts itself and this is glossed over in favor of the absolute authority of the Church and its dogma.
Interesting points. Although I'm not Christian, that is my cultural background and one of my heroes is most definitely Christian, at least in the sense that I perceive the faith.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophanes_the_Confessor
and a modern interpretation, which is where I learned about him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9CDTA1IxD0
Feofan = Theophanes and the guy on the synth goes by Nicodemus.
Perhaps in Eastern Orthodoxy Christians a less prone to take a literal view on the Bible?
I'm from the Protestant West.
Deep waters. Exegesis is alive and well in the Eastern Orthodox Church...
http://binst.pbf.rs/phocadownload/prilozi/biblijska-erminevtika/ortodoksia_55_dragutinovic.pdf
... but I don't think most believers are too concerned about it, being focused more on the traditions and rituals as the foundation of the community. I doubt that many of them take the stories literally though, except for the Gospels of course.
One thing that does stand out in Orthodoxy is the emphasis on Charity as central to the Faith. This doctrine is shared with Islam, which may account for the respect each accords the other, at least in the Russian context.
My own view of religion is fairly simple. If it acts as a workable unifying principle and recognizes the basic human rights endowed by either nature or a Creator, then I have no problem with it. Whatever works, as as long as there's no attempt to impose it on others.
Isn't the emphasis on Charity universal to the Christian faith, or is there is a specail way it is emphasized in Othodox Christianity?
It's interesting you mention the respect Christian Orthodoxy and Islam accord each other "in the Russian context." Growing up Christian in America in the 1980s, I never got the impression that Charity had an important place in Islam, or any place at all! We only learned of jihads and "terrorists." That was it! Perhaps it is the fact that America is so distant from Muslim countries, along with the incessant propaganda of the media, that allows for such a narrow, lopsided view.
"How many Christians believe that Jonah survived being swallowed by a whale?"
Lots. Like my mother, and my former self. Believing biblical myths as factual is default except where this has been challenged by biblical criticism.
My favourite character on Big Bang Theory (after Penny of course) is Sheldon's mom.
If more Christians were like her, I might even start going to church:)
"Nonetheless, both myth and science are attempts to explain material and psychological phenomena, so perhaps that's what our host is aiming at?"
I think so. The approach is different, but the function in society (of myth and theory) is the same.
And I think it's more than just what is easily recognized as scientism that is being challenged. Perhaps it is materialism (the belief -or myth - that material things constitute the sum of existence) that is at stake. It's more than just the scientism of "pandemics" or "climate change" (these are myths in every sense because these words have acquired a specific meaning that is entirely mythical, even if a kind of "pandemic" could exist, and obviously the climate changes), but rather it is the nihilism of the materialistic outlook and the presumptuousness that "scientific" certainty can be arrived at, communicated and agreed on that is at the heart of our lostness in the mythological nightmare of modernity. There is something deeper than what can be known by deduction; and it is that elusive something that draws us into unity and caring about the well being of others and of the earth. That elusive something is alluded to in the myths and stories of native peoples, even if all indigenous myths and stories may not be so laudable. Yet it is that elusive something that we must find and honor in a new understanding about the nature of our existence and interrelatedness. It is the source of what one might call love and harmony. The source of wisdom and beauty which as you have pointed out have been harnessed to the carriage of men's treacherous ambitions and designs. In other words, while there are myths that can help point us back to that source, there are other myths that cloud our ability to access it; indeed, lead us astray.
This is a 1000% accurate interpretation. Man, it feels good to be understood!
You hit the nail on the head with this comment: "I'm also a bit suspicious, having read some of his work, that he isn't doing what I often do, which I call 'Socratic Trolling." That is to say say presenting an intentionally flawed premise to see if the reader/listener picks up on it, or just nods in agreement. Kind of a filter to see who's actually listening, and more importantly, thinking. I could be doing that right now actually."
Yes, I do this deliberately and have repeatedly said so - I often employ what I call "absurdist rhetoric" by saying things I don't intend to be taken seriously in a dead-pan way. When I succeed, the reader should not be able to tell whether I am joking or not.
This might not be a good idea for a thinker who wishes to be taken seriously were it not for the fact that I consider myself to Flava Flav to Paul Cudenec's Chuck D.
The fact that he is a serious philosopher allows me to clown around, avoiding the snares of the thoughtpolice. I can only imagine how confusing it must be for humourless people to interpret my work.
Partly, I developed this technique as a way of circumventing cancel culture. It's a lot easier to say controversial things if people think you're joking.
The aim of my absurdist rhetoric is to achieve meta-irony. This is a difficult concept to grasp, but here's a cheat sheet: https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fj5jzoczk0kfx.png
So that's my fancy intellectual explanation. Sounds smart, right?
The truth is that I developed this theory post-hoc after making a habit of crazy things because, you know, I'm kinda crazy.
(Although, to be fair, there's only so crazy you can be if you know you're crazy... The most insane people in the world are totally convinced of their sanity.)
My Absurdist Rhetoric is a way that I developed of turning a weakness (my craziness) into a strength.
And I'm not joking about my craziness - I was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia when I was 17 and spent 6 years on and off of psych wards.
That is why it is so important to understand that my work is meant to be read critically - because I'm fully aware of the risk that I might say crazy things sometimes. So I use humour to cover up past craziness as well as to pre-empt whatever crazy things I might say in the future.
Pretty fucking smart, right? I'm going everything in my power to keep myself from being taken too seriously.
People who things too seriously are the bane of existence.
rereading this, I better clarify that when I say "it's a lot easier to say controversial things if people think you're joking", that doesn't mean that everything I say jokingly reflects my true opinions... My formula is mix serious jokes (dead-pan jokes delivered without obvious punchlines) with serious things said jokingly. When I succeed, the reader is not supposed to know whether I'm joking or not. Whether you encounter this technique, what I'm hoping that you do is ask yourself not "What does he mean?" but "What do I think about what he's talking about".
The point is to trick the reader into thinking for themselves. The goal is to produce extra-hot media (in McLuhan's sense of the word "hot"). If I confuse a lot of people along the way, that's a bonus. Confusion is often a precursor to insight.
I don't know if it's working yet, but I think it is!
"The point is to trick the reader into thinking for themselves."
Exactly. I first encountered this idea in a radio interview with this guy on CBC's Brave New Waves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0Z_ravXTVY
I have recordings of those 2 interviews, plus the cassette tapes Bob was selling at the time. I may post them to my "Media Ecology" stack, which is inactive at the moment.
It was Bob that prompted me to join the Church of the Subgenius as I believed his claim to be J.R. "Bob" Dobbs was part of the theatrics and not an actual schism. I parted company with the CoSG once I realized that the baby (McLuhan) had been tossed out with the bathwater (the "fake" Canadian Bob). If you monitored alt.slack circa 1998 you'd have seen me trolling as e/w bear. Alt.discordia was another of my haunts back then. Some overlap between them and the anarchist scene at the time, both keying off RAW, as was the KLF, also a major influence on the pop culture of the day. Devo, same thing.
I also started Club22 and later Cafe22 around that time, which were pirate CuSeeMe conferences we hosted at a Cisco data centre in Virginia. (they had no idea...lol). I recently resurrected Cafe22 as a substack, but like Media Ecology, I haven't done anything with it yet. A note on Discordianism. Like Fight Club, the first rule is you don't talk about it, you just do it. In that sense, I regard people calling themselves "Discordian" as poseurs. It sound like you may have had the same problem with people calling themselves 'Anarchists.'
Once again love what you are into these days. Agree wholeheartedly with your conclusion, "New World Dreaming," indeed! ;)
BTW, with the above dynamic future of (continuing) metamorphosis in mind, and your wonderfully jaded description of the Anarchist Utopia, I'm puzzled by a couple of your earlier statements in this piece:
"As I am constantly repeating, the project of creating a revolutionary movement is a matter of creating a counterculture which matures into a “permanent culture”.... Once the Metamorphosis is complete, we will be living in a new world."
Am I misunderstanding? Sounds a lot like the Marxist end-state, the neoliberal End of History, and the WEF wet dream!
cheers mate
Thanks for your kind words! You have been an inspiration to me throughout my exploration of David Graeber's work. Your review of The Dawn of Everything was a major motivation. I wanted to answer your questions about human nature. Could you send me a link to that piece btw? I was looking for it recently and couldn't find it.
As for your concern about my non-Utopian Utopia... I really don't know how you reached that conclusion. Think of the Effigy Mound Builders who reverted to egalitarian hunting and gathering after the fall of Cahokia. Did history end for them? I don't get where you're coming from!
Thx, I too continue to delve into those questions (more coming soon!). The post you are looking for is at my Substack (https://nowick.substack.com/p/freedom-slavery-and-magic-spells) and also the Nevermore website (https://nevermore.media/2023/07/30/the-narrow-road-to-self-government/).
Sorry, I don't mean to be obtuse! Just wondering how your words "permanent" and "complete" fit with the rest of your vision of a social metamorphosis. Or maybe it's just a riddle of the steady-state world where the circle is also a spiral, like Eliade's "myth of the eternal return"? Just brainstorming with ya... ;)
You in Latin America, better watch out for the ground level, non-Catholic testifying churches, spreading like wildfire across the continent while torching and killing indigenous people. They too are carrying the Bible in their hands, waving it as some kind of justification for what they do. This is entirely the point I was making -- that everyone from Rigoberta Menchu to the repressive fanatics in their little churches covering South America far and wide are using the Holy Book for their own purposes. While saying that anyone having direct experience of the spirit realm are devil worshippers. This has nothing to do with abstractions about animism vs. whatever. It has to do with destruction of real people on the ground
Check out these guys. They have much in common with the views you've expressed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVJftIEA4KM
More on my site (shameless promotion which I only do if I feel it will be appreciated)
Words like music are just sounds, and as Sun Ra pointed out, we need a sound philosophy:)
Do you follow Cynthia Chung?
She has an interesting take on anarchism, among other things.
https://cynthiachung.substack.com/
Is Anarchy a myth?