[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Starboy I didn't think I was doing that. I thought I was trying to clarify what your position was. You claim that there are two things that must be considered that you call "Mythos" and "Logos". By doing this you are saying that they are not the same. That they are different. Your original post spoke of questions so I then asked how does "Mythos" and "Logos" apply to a distinction in questions. You came back with it not being about the questions it is about the answers. I said fine, what is the distinction in the answers and now you are saying that there is no distinction in the answers and made some allusion to emotionally satisfying answers verses rational answers. Then we have come to this. You should be thanking me. I have forced you to think throught what the hell you have been trying to say. Then I suggested that one does not have to separate mythos from logos. That the percieved tension between the two things had nothing to do with mythos and logos and everything to do with what persumptions you were forcing your answers into. That it was possible to discard such presumptions and adopt answers and ways of answering things that allowed mythos and logos to exist with little or no tension. But hey, it is your thread. I do not claim to understand what you mean by mythos or logos and you are not doing a very good job of making yourself clear.

Well, I am sorry if I have not explained myself to your satisfaction. The impression that I got from you was that you felt Mythos was of no value and was really only "silly people using bad Logos.But then, maybe you are just as unclear to me as I am to you. I did at least get across to you that I considered them as distinct entities. I would like to know what bad presumptions I have made, in your estimation. Again, the impression that I have is that you believe that I am the one putting forward a false dichotomy, that Mythos and Logos are only examples of good logic v. bad logic and are not really distinct entities. Are you succeeding in communicating on that score or are you being unclear?
But, maybe I should stop sniping at your condesention. I do not want to turn this into a pissing contest. Maybe we could agree to be willing to disagree and discuss without getting pissy with each other.
I will attempt to get back on track by saying I believe the conflict that exists between the two concepts exists not because they are naturally in conflict with each other, but because people try to give one assendency over the other. They believe that you can reduce the need and influence of one by increasing the influence of the other. I say that is the mistake. It is a mistake because of the nature of each. Here is where I try to give a clearer definition of each:

Logos = Logical thinking. It is the realm of machines and mathmatical proofs. It is the Cartisian world of gears and pulleys. Ballistic curves and Newton. It is very well suited to certain questions that man can not help but asking. It splits the atom, it looks for germs on glass slides. It can and often does debunk the specifics of the other realm, when it proves that the earth revolves around the sun and the Judeo-Christian tradition story of stopping the sun's progress around the earth was not a literal truth.

Mythos = Spiritual thinking. It is the realm of essence and yearning. It is brotherly love and Jesus. It is Sidhartha trying to figure out the source of happiness and pain. It is transcendance. It is the sound of one hand clapping. It is finding comfort in spite of the logical mind giving you proof after proof that you are surrounded with chaos and injustice.

Quote by: Starboy You are jumping to a lot of conclusions. I simply suggested that one could remove the conflict between mythos and logos by rejecting presumptions that caused the conflict. But this response of yours if very telling. For you mythos is not some answer that appeals to the emotions but a specific answer that appeals to your particular emotions. Yet even you in your posts admit that your mythos conflicts with your logos. Sorry, it is your problem. Just trying to help out. Rather than trying to justify the conflict you could just fix the dang problem. Discard the presumption that is causing all the conflict in the first place.

Now, since I have explained that I believe the conflict exists externally to the two concepts, not between them in and of themselves, and that I can not discard the problem because it is not in me but rather all around me, how is "my" problem? I am not the one asking that one or the other be discarded, which is the source of the conflict from my perspective. I accept the need for both. The conflict comes when others insist that one or the other is invalid, and demand that I live without an essential aspect of my nature. The conflict comes when Mythos tries to defend itself with the forms of Logos. Preachers who try to prove that the Bible is as logical as the theory of relativity cause the conflict because they surrender the purpose of Mythos in attempting to make it logical. Try and see it through this prism:

It is the differnce in explaing the color blue and explaining "feeling blue". If I am telling a middle or elementary school student about color refraction and absorbtion, I can use scientific equipment that demonstrates these phenomonem. If I am trying to explain feeling blue, my forms are of neccessity very different. I may develope a story that takes advantage of imagination and empathy, and ask them to think how they would feel if they could not find their puppy. The facts of the story are not as impotant as the emotional state it creates. The first is Logos, the second is Mythos. Does that help you see where I am trying to go with this? Mythos answers are not fact based. The facts are secondary to the essence of the truth that is pointed towards. The story of the flood is not about reporting history, it is about explaining to people, though a story the stirrs certain emotions, how "wickedness" bears a cost and virtue brings reward. It should not be viewed through the perspective of "true" or "false" according to the literal story, but through the perspective of whether or not it conveys the message and lesson it attempts to convey.