I pulled out the archive and selectivly reposted some old stuff. The last 5 years of my life is on the web now.
What I posted is a somewhat cryptic, but deeply personal look into the time I spend in Tullahoma. It was my coming of age.
My beta, Lunch died.
He was so happy and blowing bubbles just a few days ago. I could tell last night that he wasn't feeling well and our time together was coming to a close.
I had him for a year.
This is how you fill prescription medication.
Things were too busy.
What if there were no myth(s) and humans based their beliefs entirely on empirical evidence? Even though one may feel this would lead to us being orientated solely in science, would we be able to process at the rate we have scientifically at this point w/o radical theories and thought?
Myth is symbolic of a drive humans have to create.
Art and religion have represented two forms of the same phenomenon from prehistory up to this day the attitude of man towards the absolute and the meaning of existence. Art has expressed that attitude by more abstract means, indirectly, through symbols, whereas religion has worked on the formation of a system to experience these relations by taking a simple man through the experience and deeds of educated people and the rituals of direct communication with the absolute.
From: Art And Religion, Andrej Tisma By repressing mankinds drive to create one also inhibits creativity. You don't get a civilization that experiments, tells stories, makes art. (Scientific) progress relies on our ability to formulate a hypothesis, which directs our efforts. We must be creative to advance our knowledge base, even in non-formal experimentation.
To answer your question, humans wouldn't do well without myth.
|
|
