Mythos vs. Logos

[lsbskins1]

I would like to get input from all sides on this proposition:

Man has a complementany, yet contradictory need for satisfying two levels of questioning.

First in listing only is the basic "How do things work" question. Where does rain come from? Why do I stay on the ground? Does everyone see the same "blue" I do when they see someone wearing a UNC t-shirt? This is knowlege we shall call understanding based on "Logos". What are the rules? Hows does it work?

Second in listing only is the basic "What does it all mean, why are we here" question. What is right? Do I have a purpose? What is justice? This is knowlege we shall call understanding based on "Mythos". What should be? How do I obtain happiness?

Science tends to try to satisfy our questions on the "Logos" level, while religion holds sway in the "Mythos" sphere.

Is our basic problem, when it comes to science vs. religion, that those who lean to one side try to apply the rules of that side to the other side? By this, I mean, do those who reject religion altogether forget that it is impossible to satisfy that part of humans that craves a sense of purpose with labratory experiments? Do those who try to satisfy man's soul forget that man can not escape wondering and asking, "But how?"

How do we achieve the proper ballance between these two separate, yet equally important, spheres of understanding? Being an agnostic, it may seem strange that I would raise this question. I think it is perfectly logical. I do not reject "Mythos" out of hand. I see it as an essential part of our nature. I reject the idea of a "big, bad God who sits in judgement", but I do not reject the idea of the need for "religion". I do not reject the existence of a guiding ethical mean. Call it whatever you wish. The term "Mythos" works because religion is about "essence" and not fact. If you are trying to get across an idea thats purpose is illustrative of a larger "truth", broad strokes and imagery work better than microscopes and proofs. We may never "know" what was before anything was, but we can imangine a goopy mess that is without form, and we can then move from that to "forced order". Our minds need something to wrap around and religion gives us these stories to help us achieve a level of comfort through relative understanding. It is not about "fact", but "essence".

[Flip Jackson]

I can't really explain why, but this topic made me think of the movie Patch Adams. Logos is what we use to find new medical technology and knowledge, which lengthens life. Mythos is what we use to improve the quality of life. Patch was all about bettering life, not just making it last longer, though he recognized the importance of that, too.

I wish more people would see the usefulness of both concepts. Without logos, society would never get better; no new technology, medicine, or knowledge of any kind. Without mythos, people would have no judgement of right or wrong, and no sense of purpose. Obviously, people don't actually lack either, but when we subdue one or the other, we are missing something important.

I like your intro about complementary and contradicory. I think that they are perfectly complementary if we recognize that we don't have a perfect understanding of either. They seem to only conflict if that is our goal. If we try to find ways to "prove the other wrong" we will find what we are looking for, but to no real avail.

Both seem necessary to have a happy and fulfilling life.

[Starboy]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Second in listing only is the basic "What does it all mean, why are we here" question. What is right? Do I have a purpose? What is justice? This is knowlege we shall call understanding based on "Mythos". What should be? How do I obtain happiness? Science tends to try to satisfy our questions on the "Logos" level, while religion holds sway in the "Mythos" sphere.

I disagree. Science can address the question of "What does it all mean, why are we here" question. What is right? Do I have a purpose? What is justice?". It can do that by examining how we come to ask such questions and how such questions have been answered in the past as well as how the questions and the past answers mesh or conflict with what we have learned about ourselves and our surroundings. It may not be able to choose the correct "ought" but it can provide answers as to the possible concequences of the various choices. It is the difference between a goal and a map. The map can help you reach your goal, it may even guide you in changing your goal. And the better the map the more likely that you will reach your goal or a goal that you find acceptable. But the map is information, or the result of "logos" if you will. However the goal is purely personal, but there may come a time when the science is good enough to tell you if you are likely to be happy or unhappy with a goal you think you would like.

Is our basic problem, when it comes to science vs. religion, that those who lean to one side try to apply the rules of that side to the other side? By this, I mean, do those who reject religion altogether forget that it is impossible to satisfy that part of humans that craves a sense of purpose with labratory experiments? Do those who try to satisfy man's soul forget that man can not escape wondering and asking, "But how?"

For some reason you think that a person observing nature is not asking the question "But how?" What you fail to comprehend is that the scientist has chosen a specific set of criteria when following their curiosity which differs radically from supernaturalists. Scientists are not devoid of awe, excitement, wonder, amazement. They have it in great abundance. They are buried in the wonders of nature. Until you have done it yourself you have no idea. Instead of working from a mental map based on demons and angels they have a mental map based on atoms, photons, fields, DNA, electropotentials, techtonic plates, gravity and so on that actually works. That actually allows them to do things with nature. That allows them to work with nature in unbelievable ways. All the supernaturalist have is their prayers and their faith. Scientists have the real thing.

How do we achieve the proper ballance between these two separate, yet equally important, spheres of understanding? Being an agnostic, it may seem strange that I would raise this question. I think it is perfectly logical. I do not reject "Mythos" out of hand. I see it as an essential part of our nature. I reject the idea of a "big, bad God who sits in judgement", but I do not reject the idea of the need for "religion". I do not reject the existence of a guiding ethical mean. Call it whatever you wish. The term "Mythos" works because religion is about "essence" and not fact. If you are trying to get across an idea thats purpose is illustrative of a larger "truth", broad strokes and imagery work better than microscopes and proofs. We may never "know" what was before anything was, but we can imangine a goopy mess that is without form, and we can then move from that to "forced order". Our minds need something to wrap around and religion gives us these stories to help us achieve a level of comfort through relative understanding. It is not about "fact", but "essence".

There is nothing in religion that can touch the "essence" that science and mathematics have achieved. As for the "larger truth", I think you should reexamine your thoughts.

The problem that everyone faces, whether you wish to frame it in terms of "logos" and "mythos" is this:

1) There is a universe.
2) We want to explain it.
3) There are many competing and conflicting explanations.
4) What criterion will we use to prefer one explanation over another?
5) When we have made our choice should we stick with it?

There are people that prefer criterion based on feelings and there are those that are not deluded by the concept of "truth" and try to find more honest criteria. Once you are convinced of the "truth" then there is no point in even asking the questions in 4 an 5 and that is when you have removed yourself from ever possibly knowing the "essence" of it all. And of course your dichotomy of "logos" and "mythos" are simply one possible set of criteria.

Starboy

[lsbskins1]

Starboy said:

I disagree. Science can address the question of "What does it all mean, why are we here" question. What is right? Do I have a purpose? What is justice?". It can do that by examining how we come to ask such questions and how such questions have been answered in the past as well as how the questions and the past answers mesh or conflict with what we have learned about ourselves and our surroundings. It may not be able to choose the correct "ought" but it can provide answers as to the possible concequences of the various choices. It is the difference between a goal and a map. The map can help you reach your goal, it may even guide you in changing your goal. And the better the map the more likely that you will reach your goal or a goal that you find acceptable. But the map is information, or the result of "logos" if you will. However the goal is purely personal, but there may come a time when the science is good enough to tell you if you are likely to be happy or unhappy with a goal you think you would like.

Me:

But science can not answer the question that is being asked in the larger sense. It can give you "42" (as you see, I am a Hitchhikers Guide Fan), but it will never be able to make "42" make emotionally satisfying sense. Mythos does not address the "rational, logical" aspect of man's questioning. I do not mean to imply that the two aspects of our nature do not touch each other. What I mean is that if you have a job that you love, a family that you love, a quality education, and all the material things you want, you may still find yourself searching. Searching for a sense of importantance and purpose in the world. Religion, Mythos, that is what addresses those needs in mankind. It touches that part of people that needs to feel that somewhere there is a model for what is right and good, that there is a conrtolling principle that is independant of the chaos and turmoil that exists. They may see very plaily that some of the old myths are just that, they may understand that by planning wisely, they have arrived at the destination the map you spoke of pointed them towards, but yet and still, others, with as much dedication, intelligence and planning, never make their goal, they die when a Serial Killer meets them at the mailbox. Those who are left wonder, not "Why are there Serial Killers?", for science can answer that question, but rather, "Where is the justice in 'that' person being the victim." Science can not answer that question.

[Starboy]

Quote by: lsbskins1 But science can not answer the question that is being asked in the larger sense. It can give you "42" (as you see, I am a Hitchhikers Guide Fan), but it will never be able to make "42" make emotionally satisfying sense.

However the funny thing about that example is that for many fans of Adams the number “42” does make emotionally satisfying sense.

Mythos does not address the "rational, logical" aspect of man's questioning. I do not mean to imply that the two aspects of our nature do not touch each other. What I mean is that if you have a job that you love, a family that you love, a quality education, and all the material things you want, you may still find yourself searching. Searching for a sense of importantance and purpose in the world. Religion, Mythos, that is what addresses those needs in mankind. It touches that part of people that needs to feel that somewhere there is a model for what is right and good, that there is a conrtolling principle that is independant of the chaos and turmoil that exists. They may see very plaily that some of the old myths are just that, they may understand that by planning wisely, they have arrived at the destination the map you spoke of pointed them towards, but yet and still, others, with as much dedication, intelligence and planning, never make their goal, they die when a Serial Killer meets them at the mailbox. Those who are left wonder, not "Why are there Serial Killers?", for science can answer that question, but rather, "Where is the justice in 'that' person being the victim." Science can not answer that question.

As far as I can tell you are saying this:

1. There is the set of all questions.
2. You claim that there is a subset of the set of all questions that cannot be addressed by reason or logic and/or science.
3. You claim that the reason why this subset cannot be addressed by reason, logic and/or science is because you say that these questions are associated with a “Searching for a sense of importance and purpose in the world.”
4. You claim that the only way that these questions can be addressed is by Religion and Mythos.
5. You further claim that the way Religion and Mythos address these questions is by “touch[ing] that part of people that needs to feel that somewhere there is a model for what is right and good, that there is a controlling[sp] principle that is independent of the chaos and turmoil that exists.”
6. You then appear to claim that because there are what I will call senseless acts of violence in the world, that questions regarding the unfairness of life arise that you claim logic or reason and/or science cannot answer.

Is this more of less correct? If not would you care to elaborate?

Starboy

[lsbskins1]

"However the funny thing about that example is that for many fans of Adams the number “42” does make emotionally satisfying sense."

Emotionally satisfying in that it gives form to an absurdity, not because it actually answers the question... At a previous job, I was randomly assigned a locker for my personal belongings, locker # 42, and it made me happy. :)

"As far as I can tell you are saying this:

There is the set of all questions.
You claim that there is a subset of the set of all questions that cannot be addressed by reason or logic and/or science.
You claim that the reason why this subset cannot be addressed by reason, logic and/or science is because you say that these questions are associated with a “Searching for a sense of importance and purpose in the world.”
You claim that the only way that these questions can be addressed is by Religion and Mythos.
You further claim that the way Religion and Mythos address these questions is by “touch[ing] that part of people that needs to feel that somewhere there is a model for what is right and good, that there is a controlling[sp] principle that is independent of the chaos and turmoil that exists.”
You then appear to claim that because there are what I will call senseless acts of violence in the world, that questions regarding the unfairness of life arise that you claim logic or reason and/or science cannot answer.
Is this more of less correct? If not would you care to elaborate?"

It's alright. Alright in a sort of limited sense for an off night. By this I mean, Paul Simon is a bitchin' lyricist...
But back to the point. Random acts of violence are only an example of the type of issues I am trying to get at. The larger point is that religion does not exist so much on a logical level as on an emotional level. Just as you can overthink and rationalize emotional issues, it is also possible to overthink and rationalize the innate human desire for spirituality. There are probably few people in the world who are more desirous of logos than I am. I am not saying that it is secondary or inferior. I am saying that it is ill-suited to certain aspects of human need. Logos makes me reject the idea of a supernatural Jesus, born of a virgin and able to perform miracle healings. Logos makes me know that Pilot was not the type of man to wash his hands of guilt for the Crucifixion, but rather, historically, the one most likely to have demanded it. But Mythos informs me that the conceptual construct of Jesus speaks to a part of human nature that can not be ignored. Love of your fellow man and respect for the idea of a higher justice, embodied in the conceptual constuct God brings a sense of community and peace that no amount of science ever will.

[samsara15]

60 does more for me than 42. 2,3, and 5. And how did we get our 24 hour day?

[Starboy]

Quote by: lsbskins1 "However the funny thing about that example is that for many fans of Adams the number “42” does make emotionally satisfying sense." Emotionally satisfying in that it gives form to an absurdity, not because it actually answers the question...

But that is the point. The answer "42" is an answer of absurdity. That for some that is the answer. That existence is absurd. I would not put it that way myself but "42" is just a symbol that is interpreted within a context of the works of Douglas Adams (who was an atheist) as absurtity. And in that context "42" is the answer for that question for some people.

But back to the point. Random acts of violence are only an example of the type of issues I am trying to get at. The larger point is that religion does not exist so much on a logical level as on an emotional level. Just as you can overthink and rationalize emotional issues, it is also possible to overthink and rationalize the innate human desire for spirituality. There are probably few people in the world who are more desirous of logos than I am. I am not saying that it is secondary or inferior. I am saying that it is ill-suited to certain aspects of human need. Logos makes me reject the idea of a supernatural Jesus, born of a virgin and able to perform miracle healings. Logos makes me know that Pilot was not the type of man to wash his hands of guilt for the Crucifixion, but rather, historically, the one most likely to have demanded it. But Mythos informs me that the conceptual construct of Jesus speaks to a part of human nature that can not be ignored. Love of your fellow man and respect for the idea of a higher justice, embodied in the conceptual constuct God brings a sense of community and peace that no amount of science ever will.

It is not accurate to say that you are getting "back to the point". You have changed the point. Now you have switched from the questions to the answers. Mythos and Logos are now both answers. What you are now saying is that there are times when people want the Mythos answers and there are times when they want the Logos answers. It seems to me that you are saying that in this regard to peoples emotional perference the questions do not matter as much as the way they are answered.

Is this what you are trying to say?

Starboy

[lsbskins1]

"But that is the point. The answer "42" is an answer of absurdity. That for some that is the answer. That existence is absurd. I would not put it that way myself but "42" is just a symbol that is interpreted within a context of the works of Douglas Adams (who was an atheist) as absurtity. And in that context "42" is the answer for that question for some people."

I'm down with existentialism. Existence is absurd, and it(existentialism) opperates as a form of "Mythos" for me. Witness Camus' use of the mythological figure to explain his point. Parable, myth, religion, they are all forms of the same functional purpose. To assign some answer to the question "Why is life like this?" Some people need more "comforting" answers, like "There is a God who will make it all plain and right in the end. Stop worrying about it and surrender to God. Have faith." Some people need less, but the vast majority of people need some level of comfort.

"It is not accurate to say that you are getting "back to the point". You have changed the point. Now you have switched from the questions to the answers. Mythos and Logos are now both answers. What you are now saying is that there are times when people want the Mythos answers and there are times when they want the Logos answers. It seems to me that you are saying that in this regard to peoples emotional perference the questions do not matter as much as the way they are answered.

Is this what you are trying to say?"

Go back to the original post. From the beginning I said they were answers to different questions. I did not change anything. Maybe I did not explain my intentions and points clearly enough, but I never changed the parameters of the discussion. What I am saying is that "Logos" questions are and should be answered with logic. "Mythos" questions are and should be answered with, (how do I distill this?) illustrative truth bearing guideposts that can not be reduced to provable formulas. Does that make sense to you?

[Starboy]

Quote by: lsbskins1 "But that is the point. The answer "42" is an answer of absurdity. That for some that is the answer. That existence is absurd. I would not put it that way myself but "42" is just a symbol that is interpreted within a context of the works of Douglas Adams (who was an atheist) as absurtity. And in that context "42" is the answer for that question for some people." I'm down with existentialism. Existence is absurd, and it(existentialism) opperates as a form of "Mythos" for me. Witness Camus' use of the mythological figure to explain his point. Parable, myth, religion, they are all forms of the same functional purpose. To assign some answer to the question "Why is life like this?" Some people need more "comforting" answers, like "There is a God who will make it all plain and right in the end. Stop worrying about it and surrender to God. Have faith." Some people need less, but the vast majority of people need some level of comfort.

Well yes, but it is a conclusion to one of the questions that you claim can only be answered by Mythos that is actually answered by Logos. Unless of course I still do not know what you mean by Mythos and Logos.

"It is not accurate to say that you are getting "back to the point". You have changed the point. Now you have switched from the questions to the answers. Mythos and Logos are now both answers. What you are now saying is that there are times when people want the Mythos answers and there are times when they want the Logos answers. It seems to me that you are saying that in this regard to peoples emotional perference the questions do not matter as much as the way they are answered. Is this what you are trying to say?" Go back to the original post. From the beginning I said they were answers to different questions. I did not change anything. Maybe I did not explain my intentions and points clearly enough, but I never changed the parameters of the discussion. What I am saying is that "Logos" questions are and should be answered with logic. "Mythos" questions are and should be answered with, (how do I distill this?) illustrative truth bearing guideposts that can not be reduced to provable formulas. Does that make sense to you?

Okay, so you are saying that there are question that may only be answered by what you call Mythos and there are questions than may only be answered by Logos, and perhaps, who knows based on your exposition, there are questions that can be answered by both mythos and logos and then there are questions that can't be answered by either. Is this the scheme you are trying to describe?

Starboy

[lsbskins1]

"Well yes, but it is a conclusion to one of the questions that you claim can only be answered by Mythos that is actually answered by Logos. Unless of course I still do not know what you mean by Mythos and Logos."

No, existentialism basically says"The world is dark and ugly. Deal with it by accepting that it is dark and ugly and that there is beauty and meaning in the human struggle." There is no logos answer. There is no answer at all. It embraces and accepts that there is no "logical" way to answer these questions. There is only acceptace, which is a form of faith, which is a form of Mythos answer.

"Okay, so you are saying that there are question that may only be answered by what you call Mythos and there are questions than may only be answered by Logos, and perhaps, who knows based on your exposition, there are questions that can be answered by both mythos and logos and then there are questions that can't be answered by either. Is this the scheme you are trying to describe?"

What I am saying is that man needs both kinds of answers. There is limited overlap, but some overlap. I can look to logos to inform me as to the historical accuracy of some of the "factual claims" contained within our existing traditions ( ie, it can disprove to a certain extent but it can not ultimately answer). That is why I talked about the fact that they are complimentary and contratictory. People have opperating, concurrently, desires in both areas. Those who lean towards the logical end of the spectrum are looking constanly to poke logical holes in the constructs of the spiritual answers that are out there. People who lean more to the spritual end tend to be too dismissive of the importance of logic to man because their answers rest on faith. I am not about debunking either side, I am about trying to establish a more comfotable ballance. But in order to come anywhere close to that, we have to agree that both areas have their own legitimacy. If you are an honest logical thinker, you have to admit that the existence of a "God" can not be disproven any more than it can be proven. It is an unknown, and very likely unknowable. That is precisely why "Mythos" is essential to man. Man needs to feel a sense of purpose.
Man needs to feel that there is ultimate justice, even when all forms of logic and sensory perception tell him that this might not be. Man can not logically overcome this contratiction. Man needs "Mythos" to provide comfort. What man needs, he will attempt to supply for himself. I will conceed that in the end, this comfort may be unattainable. It may be because man is too limited to truely comprehend the "God" that exists, or "God" may not exist at all. It does not really matter. What matters is that man desires that comfort and logos alone can not get us there. And, I would argue that that comfort is as essential to man as food and shelter are. So, what is the point in rejecting an aspect of mans nature that is essential to his well being? That goes for BOTH sides.

[Starboy]

Quote by: lsbskins1 "Well yes, but it is a conclusion to one of the questions that you claim can only be answered by Mythos that is actually answered by Logos. Unless of course I still do not know what you mean by Mythos and Logos." No, existentialism basically says"The world is dark and ugly. Deal with it by accepting that it is dark and ugly and that there is beauty and meaning in the human struggle." There is no logos answer. There is no answer at all. It embraces and accepts that there is no "logical" way to answer these questions. There is only acceptace, which is a form of faith, which is a form of Mythos answer.

I do not want to get into definitions of existentialism. In any case it is not important to this discussion. There are a variety of possible answers to those questions that you claim can only be answered by "Mythos" and existentialism is one of those answers and it is not as if millennia of "logic" has not been applied to those answers. Existentialism is no exception to this. And it is not as if many of the answers to those questions that you claim only can be addressed by "Mythos" [whatever that is] have not been the result of rational thought or "Logos" if you will. You are trying to make a distinction that does not appear to be there. It is not as if all the possible answers to the "Mythos" questions just pop out of thin air with no reason or "Logos" at all. Many of those answers were the result of a great deal of reason or "Logos".

"Okay, so you are saying that there are question that may only be answered by what you call Mythos and there are questions than may only be answered by Logos, and perhaps, who knows based on your exposition, there are questions that can be answered by both mythos and logos and then there are questions that can't be answered by either. Is this the scheme you are trying to describe?" What I am saying is that man needs both kinds of answers. There is limited overlap, but some overlap. I can look to logos to inform me as to the historical accuracy of some of the "factual claims" contained within our existing traditions ( ie, it can disprove to a certain extent but it can not ultimately answer). That is why I talked about the fact that they are complimentary and contratictory. People have opperating, concurrently, desires in both areas. Those who lean towards the logical end of the spectrum are looking constanly to poke logical holes in the constructs of the spiritual answers that are out there. People who lean more to the spritual end tend to be too dismissive of the importance of logic to man because their answers rest on faith. I am not about debunking either side, I am about trying to establish a more comfotable ballance. But in order to come anywhere close to that, we have to agree that both areas have their own legitimacy. If you are an honest logical thinker, you have to admit that the existence of a "God" can not be disproven any more than it can be proven. It is an unknown, and very likely unknowable. That is precisely why "Mythos" is essential to man. Man needs to feel a sense of purpose. Man needs to feel that there is ultimate justice, even when all forms of logic and sensory perception tell him that this might not be. Man can not logically overcome this contratiction. Man needs "Mythos" to provide comfort. What man needs, he will attempt to supply for himself. I will conceed that in the end, this comfort may be unattainable. It may be because man is too limited to truely comprehend the "God" that exists, or "God" may not exist at all. It does not really matter. What matters is that man desires that comfort and logos alone can not get us there. And, I would argue that that comfort is as essential to man as food and shelter are.

You seem to saying that "Logos" addresses reason and that "Mythos" addresses emotion. You seem to be saying that "Mythos" is required to provide comfort and that for some reason logos can't provide that comfort.

So, what is the point in rejecting an aspect of mans nature that is essential to his well being? That goes for BOTH sides.

You have a giant presumption buried in your argument. That is that emotion and reason can't agree with one another. I agree that for many of the supernaturalists emotion and reason are in conflict. But they are in conflict not because that is their natural state. They are in conflict because holding supernatural beliefs places them in conflict. Yes the supernatural beliefs satisfy the many emotional needs of people but for those that can reason it falls very short. Of course one could come away from this by saying that there is no way for reason or emotion to agree or you could examine what life would be like if you tossed out the supernatural presumption. I can tell you that when you do that the emotional and the rational do not have to disagree with one another. It does open another can of worms but that is a different discussion.

Starboy

[SteveA]

Thanks for this thread, Isbskins1.

We're all motivated by desires - happiness, avoiding pain, comfort, instincts, etc.

But knowledge helps us in achieving these. Intelligence is often seen in a limited scope of simply knowing that 1+1=2, without considering what benefit/satisfaction is gained by believing/knowing this. Wisdom tends to imply useful knowledge on a broader view of life. It tends to be more subjective and less exact because happiness isn't something we can easily measure or all agree upon. We can all measure our weights and intelligently agree that some people are more heavy than others, and even correlate these to some extent with eating habits and health effects but we can't easily translate all this sampled data into individual happiness or understand much of the individual motivation that's behind all these actions.

Two very physically similar people, can be provided identical information about how exercise affects weight and in one person this may increase their levels of exercise, while in the other it may decrease it. The wisdom of each of these decisions depends upon both their intelligence to acquire the knowledge and the wisdom with which they use it. It could be both intelligent and wise for each of them to use this knowledge in different ways, though most people would see exercising more as the wisest decision, but that's not always true for everyone.

[lsbskins1]

Starboy-

You keep trying to reduce this to an either/or proposition and that is exactally what I am saying it is not and should not be. Of course logic or logos informs opinions on spirituality or mythos. Being humans, we can not lock it out of the equation. That is 1/2 of my point. The other 1/2, of course, is that mythos can not be dismissed from the equation either. You seem to want to insist that man must accept a state of being that denies an essential aspect of his make-up. That is what brings you into constant conflict with those who accept the place of mythos in their lives. In another thread, you accuse anyone who does not reject the "Christian" label of being just as guilty of any wrong committed by a "bad" Christian. That seems to be a sacrifice of logic on the alter of "logos". It's just as illogical as being willing to kill an abortion doctor because he does not respect the sanctity of life. Not as morally reprehensible, but just as illogical. There are plenty of people who do not reject everything supernatural who have plenty of room in their lives for logic. Do not reduce this question to a choice between logic and spirituality. That is a false dichotomy. It is a question of arriving at the proper ballance. It is a question of respect for the practical reality of dealing with man as he is and not as you wish he was.

[Starboy]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Starboy- You keep trying to reduce this to an either/or proposition and that is exactally what I am saying it is not and should not be. Of course logic or logos informs opinions on spirituality or mythos. Being humans, we can not lock it out of the equation. That is 1/2 of my point. The other 1/2, of course, is that mythos can not be dismissed from the equation either. You seem to want to insist that man must accept a state of being that denies an essential aspect of his make-up.

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.

That is what brings you into constant conflict with those who accept the place of mythos in their lives. In another thread, you accuse anyone who does not reject the "Christian" label of being just as guilty of any wrong committed by a "bad" Christian. That seems to be a sacrifice of logic on the alter of "logos". It's just as illogical as being willing to kill an abortion doctor because he does not respect the sanctity of life. Not as morally reprehensible, but just as illogical. There are plenty of people who do not reject everything supernatural who have plenty of room in their lives for logic. Do not reduce this question to a choice between logic and spirituality. That is a false dichotomy. It is a question of arriving at the proper ballance. It is a question of respect for the practical reality of dealing with man as he is and not as you wish he was.

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.

Starboy

[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.