Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:16, 25 February 2005

What is a creation myth?

Moved from talk:Creation myths

A creation myth is a specific type of myth which tells how the Universe, the Earth, life, and/or humanity came into being. A myth is just a story for which there is no documentary or scientific proof.

Is there a way to revise this paragraph to indicate that a 'myth' usually dates from antiquity?

And that the authorship is always untraceable? I mean, it's too late for anyone to create any new myths, because the rest of us would know who wrote it -- or at least when.

Yes, but that kind of detail should go into the myth article, not here in Creation myths. That's why I linked to it. :-) --Dmerrill

--Ed Poor

it's too late for anyone to create any new myths

I don't think this is true at all. Witness for example the belief that UFO's may bring wisdom or danger from other worlds.

Redirect and merge the article with Mythology?

I am thinking we ought to just redirect to Mythology. This is rapidly turning into a duplicate of it. :-) --Dmerrill

I started the Myth page and I have no objection as long as we preserve (merge) any worthwhile content.

Myths and falsehoods are not the same thing

I think we have to be careful to avoid the implication that myth = falsehood. Many of the ancients did not consider their myths falsehood. Ultimately Graeco-Roman myths are no different from Jewish or Christian stories. To call one myths and refuse to call the other myths also is to make a distinction that does not exist. (Unless the distinction you wish to make is one of truth, but that isn't NPOV.) -- SJK

This, of course, is true. But in common every-day useage people equate the word "myth" with a story that is not true. In any case, I agree with your position. RK

One common use of myth is unrelated to theology and legend. I added "myth" to refer to journalistic uses such as "ten myths about hair loss."

Journalists, inventors and myths

Sorry, but this addition that I just removed

• The Myth of the Lone Inventor

does not fit the journalistic use (traditionally as a list of falsehoods on non-controversial subjects). It properly goes on the Science mythology page, where I am about to put it!  :-) -- Cayzle

Look, my new entry (second one on the page) is intended to refer to the journalistic practice of "dispelling myths" -- most often in the form of a list of common and non-controversial misconceptions corrected in the list. This The Myth of the Lone Inventor does not fit with the other examples! -- Cayzle

Exactly; I meant it as an example of the first definition, not the second. I wouldn't put on the Scientific myths page, though; it's really just personal commentary, and I certainly don't have the credentials for my commentary on the matter to belong in an encyclopedia. I just like to point to it in Talk pages to explain why I make certain changes to pages about inventions. --LDC

Joseph(?) Campbell and Star Wars

I have heard that Campbell, a mythologist (is that the correct word? I'm not sure) referred to Star Wars as a "modern myth" where "myth" is used in the legend/tradition sense. This contradicts the idea that a myth doesn't have a specific author. I don't know, however, if Campbell's view is supported by other scientists. Does anyone have information on this? --KamikazeArchon

I don't think "no specific author" is a defining characteristic of myths (in the first sense), just a common attribute. Wouldn't you say the names of Santa's reindeer, for example, are an importasnt part of the American myth of Santa Claus, even though they were created by Clement Moore? --LDC

Good point. --KA

I agree too. I think we might identify a category of literary myths. These are works of fiction which, although they have a known author, embody a narrative of sufficient power and/or intuitively grasped symbolic significance that they are much more widely disseminated throughout a culture than merely among those who have read them. I draw this idea from A N Wilson who makes the point in his introduction to Bram Stoker's Dracula citing Mallory's Death of Arthur. The test might be to imagine that all printed copies of the original were destroyed after the author's death. If it is plausible that people would value the story enough to resurrect it, then it would qualify as a literary myth. The Lord of the Rings and War and Peace are possible further examples. --Alan Peakall 14:00 Oct 25, 2002 (UTC)

Is it really necessary for a myth to be believed to be true by those who tell it? I would have thought that the question of literal truth is unimportant; the "deep explanatory significance" would be what matters. Michael Hardy 23:15, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Pre-literate

The opening paragraph of this article seems to imply that only preliterate cultures have myths. I'm pretty sure that is not the case: in the first place Medieval Europe was not strictly a pre-literate culture, and has plenty of myths. Secondly, most people consider that we have myths in some form today. Can we adjust this? DJ Clayworth 17:52, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We'll have to adjust more than this. This article is a horrible mish mash of truisms and second-rate precis's of pop-deconstructionists (who are given *much* too much emphasis). (OK, I say "precis" but thats much too nice a term for this Hyacinth's copy-out-of-this-semester's textbook approach. But I'm too nice to say "Plagiarise") A section on their belief of these figures, uninteresting and irrelevant outside university Critical Theory departments, would be much better. -- GWO 16:55, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines Key Policy #4: "Respect other contributors." See also Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette, Misplaced Pages:Civility, and Misplaced Pages:Writers rules of engagement. Hyacinth 18:31, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I do respect you. I just thought those edits were lousy. Now, respect my right to point that out. -- GWO 18:41, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you do respect me, treat me with respect. You're above comment shows that you know little to nothing about me (for instance, which school am I attending?), yet you are willing to insult and pigeon-hole me.

You're comments show a distaste for and willful ignorance of 'pop-deconstruction' and 'critical theory', and yet you seem not to appreciate the arguments against them that I added to the article. Hyacinth 19:37, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, there was a reason for that. You didn't explain the arguments, and like most deconstructionist critics, they tend to write fundamentally nonsensical sentence. Maybe, in the context of the rest of the book their arguments are clear, but you made no attempt to give that context (the reference to May 1968 -- presumably the Paris riots -- but what about them? Omitted from your quote, and therefore impossible to follow). Critical Theorists are not exactly reknowned for their clarity of exposition, (too often conflating inpenetrability with depth). Writing an encyclopedia article is a lot more than copying sections out of books you like. (Not least, because, as in this case, what results is inevitably stylistically appalling). There is an art to precis and paraphrase. What you added was, basically, incoherent.

But none of this makes you a bad person, even though you're trying to make this personal, which it isn't. Secondly, this article is not exclusively about Deconstructionist views on Myth, (an undeniably interesting topic) so interjecting long diatribes from your auteurs-du-jour into previously well constructed paragraphs is, again, a very poor stylistic trait. -- GWO

Remember that this is a collaborative process. Hyacinth 20:03, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And I was continuing that process, by weeding out the worst excesses of the critical theorists.

PS : "Willful ignorance" is more personally uncivil than anything I said about you. Fortunately, I've a thick skin. On the other hand, I'll readily admit to a "Distaste" for these people.

1. As I have said before, deleting information for NPOV is kinda like fucking for chastity.
2. I know of one school in the US with a critical theory department, and it's really just an interdisciplinary program made up of faculty from other departments. So the claim of ignorance, on the face of it, looks pretty good - it is clear that you haven't undertaken any formal study of the material you're dismissing here.
3. Quoted information is always preferable to unattributed "Some argues," and Hyacinth should be commended for putting well-cited information into the article.
4. Barthes has never been particularly associated with deconstruction, though he is sometimes associated with poststructuralism.
5. Barthes is not "pop deconstruction," so much as a highly respected scholar in a number of fields.
6. Just because you can't understand a writer doesn't mean he's willfully unclear. I don't much understand molecular biology, but I don't say that they prefer to be obscure.
7. The article isn't exclusively about deconstructionist views of myths.
8. The hell you haven't been making personal attacks - veiled accusations of plagiarism and accusations that Hyacinth is simply copying out of a textbook are personal attacks, and you need to stop them immediately.

Snowspinner 20:01, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

1) Hilarious. My sides have split. PS : who mentioned NPOV. I was talking about bad writing.

2) What the hell does the US have to do with it?

3) Well cited from a single source

4) Big deal. I was using deconstructionist as a short hand for critical theorists.

5) No. He's a well respected Critical Theorist. That's it.

6) Willfully unclear, unwillfully unclear. What does it matter? Explain to me what "Myth is a word chosen by history. It could not come from the nature of things" actually means? How does history choose the word myth? Why can't it come from the nature of things?

7) Everyone of Hyacinth's additions was a long quote from a single source. Thats copying. Colour it however you like.

1. OK, well then let me rephrase - deleting information is a crime against NPOV.
2. Well, OK, where do you find departments of critical theory then?
3. Hyacinth cites two sources, actually.
4. Which goes a long way towards showing the ignorance you display here.
5. Cited in philosophy, linguistics, comparive literature, English, art history... need I go on?
6. Explain to me why it matters. Ask Hyacinth to clarify it if it doesn't make sense. Do the research and clarify it yourself. But don't just delete something because you don't understand it.
7. Quoting is a good thing, and is generally, among those who edit literary and philosophic articles, encouraged because it reduces disputes over what someone said and provides more concrete evidence and less POV interpretation. But that isn't the point. Yes, Hyacinth quoted. The implied accusation of plagiarism and the accusation that he was copying from a textbook he was currently studying, however, are pure personal attacks.

Snowspinner 20:13, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Actually I used only one citation, Barthes and others are cited in Mache. Hyacinth 20:41, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Myth & history clarification

Mache aligns himself with structuralists rather than poststructuralists.
To clarify "Myth is a word chosen by history. It could not come from the nature of things," I quote the opposite opinion:
"Myth therefore seems to choose history, rather than be chosen by it. It generates and informs history."
Thus "Myth is a word chosen by history. It could not come from the nature of things" is Barthes way of saying he prefers historical exegesis since, to paraphrase, "history generates and informs myth." Hyacinth 20:41, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The trouble with this "clarification" is that its circular. Whatever Barthes means by "historical exegesis" is never really explained (except in additional jargon). Exegesis means explanation, (specifically of religious scripture). So explain, without using the structuralist jargon, what exactly is this theory of Historical Exegesis and why must it be contrasted by "the nature of things". What does Barthes even mean by "nature" in this context? Don't get me wrong, I don't object to the Critical Theorists having their say in this article. I do object to the presentation of their distinctly minority viewpoint being presented as mainstream thought. -- GWO

FWIW, I agree with GWO on the substance. It can be the case that a minority viewpoint is didactically the best because it is easier to explain, and provides obvious talking points when introducing other viewpoints, but I don't think that applies in this case. ---- Charles Stewart 10:36, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think that it's a grave misrepresentation to call critical theory a "minority' view. That's kind of like calling astrophysics a minority view. Yes, 95% of the world has probably never read Barthes. But those that have are people who have undertaken advanced study in the humanities at mainstream and respected universities. Critical theory is not some weird cult. It is the core and foundation of current academic research in the humanities. Snowspinner 16:53, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

There is a misunderstanding here. I have no idea if Barthes ever used the term "historical exegesis", but he agreed with the viewpoint and technique. This viewpoint and technique existed, as the article indicates, for hundreds of years before Barthes, and thus in no way represents only a poststructuralist/deconstructionist/critical theory viewpoint or technique. All the article mentions in regards to Barthes is that he agrees with taking "Myths as depictions of historical events." It is not a "distinctly minority viewpoint", rather he is listed as one of many who agree with this viewpoint. I am surprised that we have to argue about this point. Hyacinth 18:41, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Persian mythology

Persian mythology is one of the oldest and richest mythologies of the world. In my opinion it should be added to the template: "Articles related to mythology". You can read more about it here. --Mani1 01:21, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

here we go again.

alright, dreamguy, why is cs lewis "not a good source," considering he was a professor of literature at highly prestigious schools who wrote extensively on the topic of mythology? is it because (GASP!) he was a CHRISTIAN!? Ungtss 20:24, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Because he's not considered notable in the field, at least not in comparison to hundreds of other people that would be better suited to be quoted here. And it's obvious that you are only listing him here because he's the only author even remotely connected to a field you have demonstrated sheer incompetence in on other articles, most likely because he's on your church's approved reading list or something. You're spreading your nonsense so fast that it's time just for damage control at this point. DreamGuy 21:16, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)