"Not all Truth is true..."

Gisteron wrote: So how are myths not fiction and not distinct from fact in this case? It's not like people keep saying that myth is "mere" fiction or "nothing other than" fiction. Just that it is fiction as opposed to non-fiction, which, of course, it is. And that is not at all "contrary" to your understanding, or is it?

I think Alan is suggesting that myths are a unique fiction in the same way that a supposition for argument's sake is distinct from, say, a novella. When one discusses a possibility, a theoretical one, we often say things like "If that were true," and "if we take x[/i] as fact...[/i]." We've invented a fiction purely to conjecture, we all know it's a fiction, and yet we're taking it (at least temporarily) as fact.

My problem with the bible is why bother? You have to really step over some landmines to find any good advice and there are way way better books out there to find wisdom in. Can it be useful, sure in the same way windows 95 can be useful ,but why would anyone want to use it when there are so many better options.

Last things first : Vesha, there is no wisdom in books. The wisdom is something that can be inspired in you about whatever you are concurrently living when you read/remember what you've read in a book. But a book cannot "contain" wisdom like Tupperware can 'contain' what remains of yesterday's lunch ...

The 'wisdom' (or not) comes about for the interpreter ; it does not simply diffuse out from off a page like so-much air freshener.

Probably the only way to get around the biases of what all of our various hang-ups concerning particular words distorts about this sort of communication is to re-contextualise the whole bloody mess ...

So, just for now, lets get rid of Bible or any particular text. Let's get rid of the word myth. We don't really need true or fact - and while we're at it, nor do we need false or lie. Wrong and right get thinner that way when we get rid of the stuff we are prejudiced one way or the other to call 'wrong' and 'right'.

Lets get rid of other terms that haven't come up yet, but might. In philosophy we tend to use a variety of 'stories' that we term 'thought experiments'. They serve, but they didn't "actually happen" any more than the rest of the aforementioned crap did ... :blink:

What are we left with ? In the focus of the discussion, one might be inclined to say "precious little". Actually, we're left with a lot ! We can now start looking at everything that actually goes on and how we can otherwise talk about it and from that 'talking about' retain whatever was to be learnt.

Do any of you do any cooking ? Cookery books are good models for religious canon. At some time, someone put some ingredients together, did something to it, subjected it to certain conditions and the result was a particular tasty dish. The concoction that they wrote up in the cookery-book was tasty, generally. They didn't include the instructions for the ones that turned out foully revolting.

So, when we want a tasty dish (and perhaps not even knowing what precisely -- just we want something that is nourishing and tastes good), we can pull out the cookery-book, go to the market for the ingredients, and then set about recreating the combinations and conditions that result in that kind of dish. If we forget an ingredient, or get "something close" in the place of it, substitute another for one that we just don't like or in some cases are physically allergic to ... it usually turns out fine. If we don't get one or another step of the process just right, it usually turns out fine also. Sometimes, I botch the recipe completely and it STILL turns out fine ... it may not be the dish in the book, but it is still a tasty dinner.

Now, I've only rarely followed a recipe to the letter in 30 years of cooking. Often, when I have done exactly as the book says, I find that it tastes 'good' - I do indeed have 'food'. It is much more reliable that dinner turns out to be a culinary orgasm when I "tweak" the recipe - a little more of this, a little less of that, none at all of something else. Errors and accidents can even yield some delicious results ; it is just much harder to do it the same way the next time.

Now, if you like, we can bring back all the words we got rid of ... Is my cookery-book true ? is it false ? Well, maybe ... but I am inclined to say that it is neither. It isn't a question of true or false. It isn't right, it isn't factual. It gives me just enough suggestions that I don't go doing something just stupid like boiled bananas with horseradish sauce ... :sick: ... it talks about what one may bring about when elements and conditions and circumstances are marginally, comparatively similar. Did the original recipe process unfold exactly like it was written down ? Maybe, maybe not ... Who cares ? that was a different cook, different kitchen and we don't even know if anyone actually ate the food ... (What happened to all that food that gets prepared on cooking shows on the telly ?)

Now, with regard to the article (finally). Fundamentalism - that weird strict adherence to the Bible or the Koran or to whatever - is like unto following a cookery-book to the letter and saying that all other cookery-books are wrong. "Tweaked" recipes and most certainly botched ones are some pretty heinous "sins". And if you follow the recipes in "The Cookery-Book" and still the dish is disgusting - well, you'd better finish your plate and you must enjoy it !



I'm not sure that I made any sort of a point herein, but I did quite enjoy writing this. Would anyone like a biscuit ? I made them myself ...

I wonder if the idea of re-incarnating Christ through all the lives that there have ever been could be compared to someone having to taste every successful or botched recipe in all the cookery-books that have ever been printed (or just recipes scribbled on napkins) so that he would get an idea of what "food" is ?

Both Krishnamurti and Lao-Tsu (and it is mentioned in the Bible in a few places too) have alluded to looking deeply into oneself to know the experience of another/others. We all have taste buds and digestive systems and perhaps a couple of kilos en trop ...

Why are we still having such problems with the toleration (religious or otherwise) and the empathy "love thy neighbour" stuff ?

I'm not going to preach at you : I'm simply going to suggest sort of brashly that illusory individualism, passionate and rebellious in the sense of "my case different !" is getting in the way of the experience of being alive. And that's a dinner bell that we really don't want to miss (by over interpreting it). :pinch:

The difference is, that people are not killing millions over a cooking recipe that has been improvised.

The comparison, on the surface seems legit enough, until you think of the consequences such actions bring about, and then it starts to fall apart.

When it comes to holy books from times that were much more ignorant and superstitious, I have to say there is certainly an inherent danger in being inspired in a time where we know quite a bit more about the world, and many things that were the realm of deities are now basically understood things.

Since an analogy of a bible and cookbook came about, lets look at an analogy of a bible,(or any old holy book) and an older medical book.

No self respecting doctor would use techniques of diagnostics, or surgery from an older time in medical history. Unless it has been proven true to be better, more accurate, etc. Better to say, you would only go back so far, but we have far better technology today, MRIs, CT scans, Ultrasounds, etc as well as just trying to interpret symptoms.

An example, at one time, people thought rubbing dog excrement in the eyes of a blind person would restore there sight.

Today, such a thought is beneath even common sense.

Older ways of doing surgery are not done today, hell, at one time, they didnt even understand that you needed a sterile environment.

Now, certain surgical techniques have been improvised, and changed, and evolved, and if the percentage of survival, better recovery times, an less chance of infection are higher, you do that surgery, and you may have to do a version of an older one if there are unforseen complications. Appendectomies are a good example of this. Most are done laparoscopically, but you may have to do an open if the appendix has burst.

However, you will not go back very far into medical procedures, and they certainly are not going to go extremely far back.

Now someone may bring up maggots, yes, maggots are still used, an were used in older times, most times, not by choice, as you simply couldnt keep them out, but they served the same purpose and are used today in some cases. However, we now know why we use them as opposed to any superstitious or non esense meaning, and they are not used commonly, as we have other methods of debridement of wounds.

Medicines methods evolves, but the base philosophy stands, to heal the sick.

Medicine will move forward though with its methods and while you could argue improvisation happens, it is not necessarily as beneficial as one might think and the risk goes up quite a bit. Surgery is an example of this.

Now, what, in this world has hindered the forward growth of medicine and science more than anything else in this day and age?

Fundamentalist religions.

Keep in mind that the next time you harp on pills used to alter peoples minds etc, that at one time, they prescribed heroin and cocaine outright. Freud prescribed cocaine and did enough to put the Rolling Stones to shame.

I also disagree that there is no wisdom in books. Largely, if we are talking about books that you have to interpret then perhaps, which any book based on a very old and most likely outdated method of thinking,by people who could never have even conceived of a word that we have now, well, yeah, they would probably not even have written such a book, in fact, they wouldnt even have the same worldview. There interpretation would have been much different.

However, there are plenty of books with wisdom in them that are readily applicable to todays world. There simply not religious or philosophical ones.

So in short, should I really be trying to interpret or apply a worldview from people who thought that dog excrement would cure blindness? Or something of the like?

Would you argue that putting dog excrement in someones eyes to cure blindness is true or not?

Truth, if it is truth, is true.

there is a difference between truth and facts.
In general, truths are subjective while facts should be objective.

there is a difference between truth and facts.
In general, truths are subjective while facts should be objective.

I know, and in most cases, it would be best if people stuck to the facts, but there selfish enough to think the truth is more important.

Or accuracy. I do not consider accuracy to be wisdom... though perhaps a complex chain of accuracy might be viewed as wisdom. Medical textbooks are just getting more accurate with targeting desired results as knowledge increases, while I'd probably view wisdom as the experience of putting two disparate accuracies together to be effective in a new manner for example.

Khaos wrote:

there is a difference between truth and facts.
In general, truths are subjective while facts should be objective.

I know, and in most cases, it would be best if people stuck to the facts, but there selfish enough to think the truth is more important.

Right place, right time. Hammers and Screwdrivers. Or?... hammers and nails (or screwdrivers and screws)... one needing the other to have any meaning. Why isolate? Are not both relevant?

Khaos wrote:
Would you argue that putting dog excrement in someones eyes to cure blindness is true or not?.

It is neither "Truth" nor fact, any longer....

But when it WAS, it was a fact, cause my cousin, heard it from a guy he knows who is wise in such things...

Facts are true, until they are proven wrong as well...

I know, and in most cases, it would be best if people stuck to the facts, but there selfish enough to think the truth is more important.

See, life is interpretation...

I dont go around telling you you are using words wrong, something you do quite often...

It doesnt add to the conversation...

its about seeing the message that is being said...

Yet, you argue for facts...

Here is a fact...

I know, and in most cases, it would be best if people stuck to the facts, but [strike]there[/strike] their selfish enough to think the truth is more important.

I do this, not to be a jerk, but to show you that you have to be able to look beyond what is presented to you, to understand what people are saying...

And, no offence, but you do it more that you'd suspect...

I have never pointed it out, because there is probable some fallacy I am using, lol... My fallacy teacher should PM me in a bit to let me know..... And despite the rumors, I am not a jerk, lol...

Its ok, I get what you mean, but remember that most of us are trying to communicate as well, and dont always use the 'right' word either...

This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from the first Men in Black.

Tommy Lee Jones as Agent K wrote: 1,500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.

Yes this is from a fictional source, but I still think it has relevance and truth here.

_{(see what I did there with the truth. :laugh: )}

Jestor wrote:

Khaos wrote: I know, and in most cases, it would be best if people stuck to the facts, but [strike]there[/strike] [strike]their[/strike] they're selfish enough to think the truth is more important.

Gisteron wrote:

Jestor wrote:

Khaos wrote: I know, and in most cases, it would be best if people stuck to the facts, but [strike]there[/strike] [strike]their[/strike] [strike]they're[/strike] they are selfish enough to think the truth is more important.

Haha, couldn't resist :side:

They're is a perfectly fine abbreviation for they are, thank you very much.

Gisteron wrote:

Jestor wrote:

Khaos wrote: I know, and in most cases, it would be best if people stuck to the facts, but [strike]there[/strike] [strike]their[/strike] they're selfish enough to think the truth is more important.

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

Hey, I say I'm wrong all the time...

Thanks Gisteron....

Gisteron wrote: They're is a perfectly fine abbreviation for they are, thank you very much.

Not if you are writing a paper that has to have a specific word count.

Gisteron wrote: They're is a perfectly fine abbreviation for they are, thank you very much.

Indeed, it wasn't a correction, it was a variation for fun... just representing some other nature.

Actually I'm terrible at mixing them up, but I actually do not think it matters most of the time because the purpose is not to be grammatically (semantically?) correct, but instead to experience some deeper understanding within oneself - unfortunately sometimes for me I tend to be thinking of a few things at once and that piece of language gets caught in the crossfire. Context is sufficient most of the time but I gotta watch when the mistake contradicts the context around it!!!

The first novels, and so also the distinction of fiction and non-fiction, is generally thought to have its origins (in western Europe) in the 16th century. As a literary genre, fictional stories express truths about their subjects. There is such a thing as courage even if we read about it being from hobbits or dwarves. Some fiction, whether novel or film, can include mythic elements. Like juxtaposing fact and myth, associating myth and fiction is a category shift and a red herring; and analogous to this inaccurate distinction: subjective is personal feelings, that opinions can have no claim to objectivity, because, by definition, truth is objective and independent.

Returning to the more interesting question of myth and truth: I would first like to express my thanks and appreciation to Alexandre for suggesting to me, The Writer's Journey: Mythic Structure for Writers by Christopher Vogler, Third Edition, Michael Wiese Productions Publisher, Studio City, CA, USA, 2007.

Vogler discusses Campbell's Hero's Journey which I understand as the mythic foundation of our Temple's religious practice. While the definition and meaning of religion is of great interest and particular value, at this time I will focus on the meaning and value of myth. Vogler, in the Preface to the Second Edition, discusses how the concepts of the hero's journey relate to contemporary storytelling. But what he discovered in his investigation of film plots was that the stages of the journey experienced by the hero, "is nothing less than a handbook for life, a complete instruction manual in the art of being human" (page xiii). The events of the journey that recur in dazzling variations over time and distance comprise a kind of pattern. The benefit derived in reading myth is to find there in the pattern ways in which we might learn how to live. The point of reading myth is not to discount it because some adherents commit atrocities, or that it does not accord with scientific fact, or that it is so fantastical that it defies the suspension of disbelief, but rather to find in it, "the life principles embedded in the structure of the stories" (ibid, xv). Each of us is the hero of our own journey. Our life is the adventure where we encounter mentors and enemies, tests and rewards, and where we experience each day in every little thing opportunities to enter the cave, face our fears, and emerge better, stronger persons.

Enjoy the Journey.