Postmodernism and Myth
Michael Staebe
myth in the sense of a form/state of reality (whatever that is) and in
opposition to history. But we could also understand myth as the ensemble
of mythic stories that people tell each other again and again.
m.
Erin Schneider
But what if history *is* an ensemble of mythic stories that people tell
each other again and again?
- E
Eric Fischer
> > The problem is, people who write history dont realise they are writing
from the myth they are in. History and story or myth are the context that
we use to create a reality to look at ourselves from. When a historian
looks at past events they select according to their own story.
E
Eric Fischer
Staebe) wrote:
The problem is people who write history dont realise that they are in a myth
or a story. Myths or stories are what we use to create the context to look at
ourselves from. When a historian writes about past events, the myth that they
reside in determines how they select and create history.
E.
PR...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
scientific knowledge. That is, myth is cyclic, collective, a
non-alienated type of knowledge that is appropriated by
individuals within a culture but cannot be extracted by
making an appeal to authorship. Scientific knowledge,
on the other hand, in having to certify itself by making
recourse to an abstract proof, is a bit more fragmented.
Scientific knowledge, by validating itself according to
an external criteria, makes discoveries as things are translated
according to various scientific parameters... I suppose science
might be thought of as, more or less, an "imperfect" translation
of myth.
Lyotard defines postmodernism as scientific knowledge which
has cut loose its narrative foothold.... and in so doing
it has lost track of its origins... is free floating, etc...
It is no longer directed by a myth, such as progress, but
becomes a kind of service that anyone can employ for whatever
reasons... scientific knowledge then becomes grossly distorted
and can no longer be relied upon for defining a "world-view" independent
of specific applications.
Where myth comes back, if it should come back, can it return, etc...
define various pomo positions.
NS Brown
[PRJHC wrote:]
: [...] [M]yth is cyclic, collective, a
: non-alienated type of knowledge that is appropriated by
: individuals within a culture but cannot be extracted by
: making an appeal to authorship. Scientific knowledge,
: on the other hand, in having to certify itself by making
: recourse to an abstract proof, is a bit more fragmented.
: Scientific knowledge, by validating itself according to
: an external criteria, makes discoveries as things are
: translated according to various scientific parameters.
I think we're running in circles a bit here, though they're
useful circles in which to run. As a quickie metaphor, it
might be useful to think of it this way:
Myth: Order that is rooted "out there" in Time.
Science: Order that is rooted "out there" in Space.
That is, myths tend to construct order by authority of events
in the past; things are the way they are because The Powers
That Be made them that way. Thus, the "out there" in myth
is a function of Time. By contrast, science tends to construct
order by authority of present events (supposedly) independent
of the percipient; things are the way they are because that's
what we see happening in our universe. Thus, the "out there"
in science is a function of Space.
: Lyotard defines postmodernism as scientific knowledge which
: has cut loose its narrative foothold.... and in so doing
: it has lost track of its origins... is free floating, etc...
: It is no longer directed by a myth, such as progress, but
: becomes a kind of service that anyone can employ for whatever
: reasons... scientific knowledge then becomes grossly distorted
: and can no longer be relied upon for defining a "world-view"
: independent of specific applications.
The problem science runs into is that there are a great many
experiences which can't be intersubjectively verified "out
there" in Space. Dreams, emotions, and the like are obvious
examples. These experiences *seem* to occur exclusively in
our individual (and perhaps collective) "in here's" ... which
lie outside the realm of empirical verification.
For a long time, scientism tried to solve the problem by simply
marginalizing these experiences -- declaring them unimportant.
This allowed the illusion of constructed order to continue, by
means of ignoring the non-conforming data. But there's a price
attached to marginalizing vast domains of experience ... and
some of us are deciding that the illusion of scientific order
isn't worth the price.
: Where myth comes back, if it should come back, can it return,
: etc... define various pomo positions.
It's certainly *one* way to define the positions. Logocentric
vs. experiential foci are another way, and I'm sure there are
still more roaming about.
Just an opinion, worth what you paid for it. :)
Cris
PR...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
says:
>
>Myth: Order that is rooted "out there" in Time.
>Science: Order that is rooted "out there" in Space.
>The problem science runs into is that there are a great many
>experiences which can't be intersubjectively verified "out
>But there's a price
>attached to marginalizing vast domains of experience ... and
>some of us are deciding that the illusion of scientific order
>isn't worth the price.
off from myth... and if it has ever been. The "illusion of
scientific order" isn't all that different than an "illusion
of a personal savior..." The historical fragmentation in pomo
has attacked old myth systems for the sake of introducing new .
ones advancing, what Chomsky calls, "a secular priesthood."
One need only think of Star Trek to see the importance of having
a myth of the "out there" to direct scientific inquiry... and such
myths have, of course, been arrogantly neglected by science even
though they form the basis of inquiry... and I think this is
one of Lyotard's more important points: science is simply a
reconstituted narrative whose distinction from narrative only
makes sense from within the scientific... In other words, the
distinction between science and myth is false even if we can't
find our way back to myth.
So, I would rather say something like science is about trying to
be self-contained, autonomous... and aims to seperate itself from
the continuity of the mythic...
One might also think about the relationship between myth and science
as the split between psychosis and language...
Language is a focused element of psychosis... science is a focused
element of myth.
>
>: Where myth comes back, if it should come back, can it return,
>: etc... define various pomo positions.
>
>It's certainly *one* way to define the positions. Logocentric
>vs. experiential foci are another way, and I'm sure there are
>still more roaming about.
>
Merleau-Ponty discusses this quite a bit: that one point of view
anticipates an infinite range of other points... but myth IS
continuity... and I have already misrepresented it by even trying
to talk about it-- by the constricting nature of language itself!!!
I think pomo has much to do with myth or absence... or whatever
you want to call it... because whatever you want to call it is
wrong...where is sous rature when you need it?
"Myth," of course, is prelinguistic... and one shouldn't split
hairs about how it is manifested in language.
Call IT "myth," "woman," "absence," "psychosis..." does it matter if
why don't know what "IT" is...????