Are Myths True?

Briefly - I see Gilgamesh as representing - if not spearheading - the worst of Western civilization (industrial-economic "development" leading to environment degradation).

according to orthodoxy Sumerian civilisation played no part on western civilisation at all
for that you need to blame the Romans and the Greeks

Originally posted by soficrow
I tend to agree with the thesis presented. Particularly in this context, I see communism and Marx's work as supporting capitalism and the concept of a "ruling class," rather than fighting it.

You'd be right.

Marxism, was written not for the working class. Anyone who has access to his books, can just go through them and they'll see that due to the use of language and many other things they were in fact written for the ruling class as more of a warning than anything else.

The point of the article is true: It does not matter if the myth is true, but rather what is said. Christianity is the perfect example of this, if everyone followed the teachings of Jesus more of less we would have a better society for it - the ideas of helping one another, sharing, turning the other cheek are good. The problem is people no longer debate what he said but rather if he said it. This is the case with many Myths people need to seperate the:

Historical evidence.
What's being said.

They then need to debate tehm on either of those points. Not to remove what is said, because it doesn't fit the dates and so on and so fourth.

Christianity is the perfect example of this, if everyone followed the teachings of Jesus more of less we would have a better society for it

perhaps you could point me towards the Gospel according to Jesus in that case ??

Originally posted by soficrow
Briefly - I see Gilgamesh as representing - if not spearheading - the worst of Western civilization (industrial-economic "development" leading to environment degradation).

What constrained the proliferation of the Bronze Age, however, was lack of fuel, just like our current crisis. Richard Cowen describes the situation well in his essay on the Bronze Age:

...perhaps the most famous documentation of the shortage of wood around the ancient Mediterranean is the Epic of Gilgamesh ... Stripped of sex and violence, the Gilgamesh epic is about deforestation. Gilgamesh and his companion go off to cut down a cedar forest, braving the wrath of the forest god Humbaba, who has been entrusted with forest conservation. It's interesting that Gilgamesh is cast as the hero, even though he has the typical logger mentality: cut it down, and never mind the consequences. The repercussions for Gilgamesh are severe: he loses his chance of immortality, for example. But the consequences for Sumeria were even worse. It's clear that the geography and climate of southern Mesopotamia would not provide the wood fuel to support a Bronze Age civilization that worked metal, built large cities, and constructed canals and ceremonial centers that used wood, plaster, and bricks. ...The loss of Gilgamesh's immortality may be a literary reflection of the realization that Sumeria could not be sustained.

Chalking the Gilgamesh Epic up to nothing more than a pamplet on deforestation is grasping at its worst. Here you have a perfect example of a conservationist looking for anything to lend credit to his beliefs. The Epic was not about deforestation. If anything, the point of the story was to bring about an overall awareness to the shortness of life, and why it should be cherished because of that shortness. "Stripped of sex and violence"....actually, this theory only works if you change that to "Stripped of everything but the trip to the forest." And Gilgamesh did not lose his chance at immortality because he cut down the cedar in Lebanon. He lost his chance at immortality because a snake ate the flower he had found. If you want to get real technical, he originally lost his chance when Utnapishtim offered the secret of eternal life to him if he could stay awake for a few days, and he failed. As far as the "wood fuel to support a Bronze Age civilization", you do realize dung was a more commonly used fuel than wood, for the very reason of its scarcity? I would expect this person you've quoted also understands the bricks that were used in building were sun baked? Not fired? I don't know who you got this from, but it is obvious to me that they have never read the Epic either. You theory may not be unprecedented, but thus far your cohorts seem to be lacking in solid conviction and support as well.

you do realize dung was a more commonly used fuel than wood

Mesopotamian high output capacity fuel truck circa 3000bce


as seen in a multitude of cylinder seals from all the civilisations in the region



hmmm now thats odd
where have we seen two water buffalo heads flanking a box containing the Kings name before
anyone ?


[edit on 9-10-2006 by Marduk]

Are Myths True?
Are Myths True?


Yes.

myths, and legends are true.

in fact, there is far more truth in legends and myths than there are in what people percieve as reality.

how sure am i?

i wager all the money i have ever made.
i wager all the money i will ever make.
i wager all my belongings.
i wager all i own at this very moment.
i wager my life.
i wager my entire existance.

how much myth and legend is true?

in the correct context, all of it.


who built the great pyramid?

kufu or cheops was his name?

who said the tower of babbel was in a country other than where the myth/legend originated from?

moses wrote the first 5.

moses was born and raised in egypt.

who built the great pyramid?

kufu or cheops was his name?

kuf [mirror] fuk

u = you

cheops [mirror] spoech

from kufucheops to .....

fuk you spoech (F you speach).

just one example, how many more?

i have an infinite supply.

sphinx?

it is a cat.

CAT HOLY I SEE?

CAT HOL I SEE?

CAT HOL I C?

CATHOLIC ..... .. . .. . I SEE!!!!

now you owe me a lot of money

It depends, if you've ever read the college textbook John Surkurpski's "Symbol and Theory: A Study in Religious Anthropolgy and Culture". I wish I stil had that book, but it costs too much for me anyway. *Hits head against wall and yells "stupid!" to self*-joking, but I feel like doing that a few hundred times. Anyway, it talks about it more in depth. It makes more sense of it too.

Originally posted by usaforever
It depends, if you've ever read the college textbook John Surkurpski's "Symbol and Theory: A Study in Religious Anthropolgy and Culture". ...Anyway, it talks about it more in depth. It makes more sense of it too.

Care to synopsize what you got out of the book?

Or any of your own thoughts on the topic?

The book summerised most of the stuff on here. How legends are created in societies, theories, and the congnitiving thinking of both societies and indidivuals involved. It even impled Extra-terresterials of some kind may have visited earth in the past. For them to be even pantied on to cave walls by stone age peoples of all kinds. It was written back in the 1970s. But it summerised the field up to that point. Now it seems very few people have hard of it or read it. But I was upset with the events leading up to last week, and throw it out over the summer with a world mythology book as well.

Which is a disappointment, since I did really enjoy those books. I did agree with them as well, although written for Graduating university students at Ivy leauge schools of the time.

Originally posted by usaforever
It depends, if you've ever read the college textbook John Surkurpski's "Symbol and Theory: A Study in Religious Anthropolgy and Culture". I wish I stil had that book, but it costs too much for me anyway. *Hits head against wall and yells "stupid!" to self*-joking, but I feel like doing that a few hundred times.

usaforever,

If you threw it out, that's not exactly a ringing endorsement, is it?

Not that I'll buy it, but if you wish to replace it, nine used and new copies are available at Amazon.com for a minimum price of $18.97 (hardback only.)

The correct spelling of the author's name is John Skorupski , the correct title is "Symbol and Theory:A Philosophical Study of Theories of Religion in Social Anthropology".

You might find it cheaper at some other site if you put the actual title into a Google search.

Harte

By defacto definition, Myths are not true.
More specifically, anything that you believe in that conflicts with what I believe in, is a myth. From your point of view, anything I beleive in that conflicts with what you believe in is a myth. Anything a person beleives by faith alone can be construed as anothers myth. So what I beleive is the Truth, and what others beleive are myths.

Myths are the stories, accepted on faith as being the answers to unanserable question. Folklore often combines with with myth to weave important or catestrophic events into the belief system. Often in these accounts, the general events are there, often exaggerated, and given some mystical, or theological reason for the occurance. eventually the folklore reaches the status of myth.

As isolated cultures mix, so do their folklore and myths. geological studies indicate that at the end of the ice age, glaciers would often block high mountain valleys and form glacial lakes. eventually the ice dam would weaken and break, releasing a huge wall of water to wash down the valley and wash away everything in its path. early societies would then to concentrate in the valleys, due to the availability of food. ( the soil was richer, supporting more plant life, which attracted wildlife ) In some cases, the witness accounts of the floods from hunters who happened to be on high ground, were passed along to outsiders. As the civilations merged, similar stories of similar localized floods became merged into one great flood, and we find similar stories of a great flood from all around the world.

Originally posted by St Udio
like the poster on Agent Mulders X-Files office proclaims; I Want To Believe



I know as an adult, & mildly sophisticated person, that Santa Claus, Easter Bunny and ToothFaries are Myths...so what's the harm?

Myths, have a value beyond 'Truth' or Fact/Fiction
myths serve a beneficial purpose, on many levels, and throughout our lives.

Atlantis, NWO, Bigfoot, UFO, Stargates and all the other conspiracies discussed here may well be myths,
true or not is just one important point, its also the journey, discovery, and the sharing the myth which may lead to each individuals growth & their personal views & values in life.

[whoa...that sounded weird]
so i'm adding imho

Myths serve a purpose, correct. But your examples aren't really myths. Myths are traditional stories or beliefs that are held by a group about themselves or their past. They aren't legends or one off stories like Plato's Atlantis, but are stories that are central to a group's identity. As such, their verifiabilty is not important, their meaning to the particular group is.

Doug

myths are just codes which have to be decoded

ok
but who's got the decoder key ?

the etymology of the word myth is

from Gk. mythos "speech, thought, story, myth,"

www.etymonline.com...
doesnt say anything about codes

Originally posted by soficrow

So who cares if the myths are true or not; ...Who has time to think about the collective unconscious when the bill collector is knocking at the door?

i do, but thats from the priority i hold by concerning my life with those exotic, ?esorteric? thoughts like myths in daily life, and the idea that mythic underpinnings that may very well have a part in my bodies cellular memories...
when, it did happen years ago, that a bill collector or IRS notice intruded my space, I'd look at the situation philosophically because i knew of & was aware of Myth & their stories & the wisdom, lessons the tales had within them.

Perhaps what is missing from government is a basic philosophy that grounds and centers the government for a reason to be, and not just to survive or perpetuate life, but an actual goal, and means to obtain such ends, that are worthy of our toil.

[...]

As i see it, our gov't is around for the reason of making the American Dream available....[as the reason-to-be]

As i see it, it is an individuals drive, ambition, ethics which determine if just survival or if higher goals are set.
......that's not the purpose of gov't.
the gov't should just provide a level playing field for the citizen population
(sounds like the author of the external source has designs on a socialist-theocracy type of role of gov't)