3 ms·

Good Sir, in my best and kindest humour I must say that neither of us is 15 years old ^_^ and I am aware that a literary interpretation of 4000 [1] years of myt

Good Sir, in my best and kindest humour I must say that neither of us is 15 years old ^_^ and I am aware that a literary interpretation of 4000 [1] years of mythology is not just possible, it has been offered in notable works by Joseph Campbell and JG Fraser. Although literary criticism far from a rigorous field of thought, I am happy to celebrate your interest, especially if you have devoted most of your adult life to it. What ignorance, cruelty, strife, and murder have been committed in the cause of other interpretations of 4000 [1] years of mythology is to my mind the greater concern. But we can of course agree to disagree on the InterWobbles. Cheers! [1] An arbitrary number to include various artefacts.

beaconstudios 5y ago
I actually haven't devoted any of my adult life to it - I was raised without religion and grew up not understanding the nature of religion and thinking science was somehow its successor as JG Fraser believed. But this belief was born of ignorance, not knowledge. My primary studies in adulthood have been systems theory and some dabbling in moral philosophy, rather than studying the Bible. I suspect that wars between sects is not a simple matter of killing the non-believer, but an excuse for the real reason wars have always been fought: expansionism and colonialism in order to control scarce resources.
- heresie-dabord 5y ago
  From your kind reply, Sir, I am led to suspect that we agree on much more than we would at first assume. Bread, circuses, and other mummery are distractions useful to the powerful as they concoct and enact their schemes. And, of course, the winners of a conflict write the historical account and the myths. The losers lose their voice and often their lives. There are some relatively lucid works in literature. But literature serves artistic purposes. There are honest and more rigorous works in economics, history, and anthropology that lead to a stark conclusion. [0] Civilisation is a hard system to build. ^_^ [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_homini_lupus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_homini_lupus
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    if you're implying that religion is just a tool used by the powerful to manipulate the masses, then I'd say that while that does happen for sure, that it's far from the purpose and benefit that religion brings to a culture. Religious literature is not just artistic, it prescribes a set of behaviour (morals) that, when engaged in by the individual, leads to the best outcome for the collective. No other system has successfully done this, and the 20th century was a catastrophe of political movements attempting to replicate this cultural success using bureaucracy and violence.
    - heresie-dabord 5y ago
      The history of human catastrophes extends far enough back in time that I conclude it to be the functions of a pre-compiled, statically-linked library. I don't agree that there is any rigorous system to be found in the topic we are discussing. But we certainly can agree that anyone trying to be good is a welcome candle in the darkness. ^_^

beaconstudios 5y ago

I actually haven't devoted any of my adult life to it - I was raised without religion and grew up not understanding the nature of religion and thinking science was somehow its successor as JG Fraser believed. But this belief was born of ignorance, not knowledge. My primary studies in adulthood have been systems theory and some dabbling in moral philosophy, rather than studying the Bible. I suspect that wars between sects is not a simple matter of killing the non-believer, but an excuse for the real reason wars have always been fought: expansionism and colonialism in order to control scarce resources.

heresie-dabord 5y ago
From your kind reply, Sir, I am led to suspect that we agree on much more than we would at first assume. Bread, circuses, and other mummery are distractions useful to the powerful as they concoct and enact their schemes. And, of course, the winners of a conflict write the historical account and the myths. The losers lose their voice and often their lives. There are some relatively lucid works in literature. But literature serves artistic purposes. There are honest and more rigorous works in economics, history, and anthropology that lead to a stark conclusion. [0] Civilisation is a hard system to build. ^_^ [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_homini_lupus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_homini_lupus
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  if you're implying that religion is just a tool used by the powerful to manipulate the masses, then I'd say that while that does happen for sure, that it's far from the purpose and benefit that religion brings to a culture. Religious literature is not just artistic, it prescribes a set of behaviour (morals) that, when engaged in by the individual, leads to the best outcome for the collective. No other system has successfully done this, and the 20th century was a catastrophe of political movements attempting to replicate this cultural success using bureaucracy and violence.
  - heresie-dabord 5y ago
    The history of human catastrophes extends far enough back in time that I conclude it to be the functions of a pre-compiled, statically-linked library. I don't agree that there is any rigorous system to be found in the topic we are discussing. But we certainly can agree that anyone trying to be good is a welcome candle in the darkness. ^_^