User talk:EGMichaels/Myth

Comments/Criticisms

Hey EG, not sure if you want comments posted here. If not, please move my comments to somewhere you deem more appropriate. Before we get too far into this, could you write a really quick section expanding on this "as the existing guide does"? Just a few bullet points explaining briefly what you think is confusing people.

Additionally, I think the best way to start debates of this nature is with a few definitions from major dictionaries.

A myth is

• 1 a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people
• 2 a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
• 3 a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon
• 4 an ancient story or set of stories, especially explaining in a literary way the early history of a group of people or about natural events and facts

Thanks, NickCT (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Nick, thanks for the note. My problem with the dictionary definitions are that they don't really cover the bases covered by books on mythology. Their focus isn't merely that a story is traditional, but that it is symbolic. Thor isn't just the thunder god, for instance. He takes on the attributes and personality of what thunder would be if it were a character. Also, the existing articles (including Genesis creation myth) have been built and intensely argued on the basis of not using the informal meaning of "false." Well, while it's true that myths are not literally true, that's not exactly the same thing as false. False is informal because it is superficial. Graves demonstrates that the name "ambrosia", for instance, is an encoded recipe for a real drug. "Ambrosia" is a mythic drink, not because it doesn't exist, but because the name is symbolic. There is a whole school of writing now based on attempts to deliberately make myth. Even true biographies are being organized on a mythic structure -- in this case, the "Hero's Journey." So, either the facts, histories, or ideas are symbolized, or the structure itself is organized according to a symbolic pattern. I'm working on a holocaust memoir right now, for instance, in which I'm deliberately organizing the true events of my subject's life in a sequence that turns the Hero's Journey on it's head. The reason I'm doing this is because the Hero's Journey (see Monomyth) is evolutionarily hard wired into our brains to give us specific expectations. These expectations were themselves built into the seductiveness of Nazi promises to their victims concerning resettlement and hard work making them free. The reader needs to experience these false expectations. So, out of this man's entire life I'm selecting 60 scenes that contradict normal expectations. In the cave sequence of the monomyth, for instance, the hero wins a prize through some profound conflict that enables him to achieve victory. In my subject's case, my hair turned up when he described his own cave scene -- in this case hiding in a well as the Nazi's liquidated his ghetto, holding in his hands the false identity papers to enable him to escape, but instead throwing them away and voluntarily turning himself in to the Nazis. He volunteered to go to Auschwitz because he didn't believe the Germans could be THAT bad, and he wanted to find his family. He REMEMBERS this scene, and I NOTICE this scene -- out of a lifetime of possible scenes neither of us care about -- precisely because of the mythic pattern it matches in our common human way of thinking. So, in writing this man's true life, I'm finding real myth in the structure as well. In this case, the pattern itself is saying that human expectations and hopes have a sinister aspect.

Okay, so that's more "why" than "how." The how is simpler. The existing articles are built on a stated mandate that the informal meaning of "false" be avoided. But the guide gives no way to do that. Everyone is claiming to be using a formal meaning, but they are not EXCLUDING an informal use. So, by focusing on myth as "not literally true" I can simplify the problem that formally myth is "not literal" and informally myth is "not true." The formal goes deeper to find what IS meant, and the informal merely dismisses.EGMichaels (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply

EGM - Your debate is a little intricate. Let me try to seperate out the points and answer 1 by 1.

• Myths are symbols

I take your Thor example. I'd agree that Myths are sometimes symbols, but I don't think it's always the case (and the dictionaries would seem to agree with me here). I think define Myth as a "symbolic" story would be wrong.

• "existing articles.....intensely argued on the basis of not using the informal meaning of "false."

Agree 100%

• "while it's true that myths are not literally true"

Not sure I take this for granted. Nothing in the dictionary definitions says a myth (in the formal sense of the word) can't be literally true.

• Re your memior

Sounds very intresting, and I wish you all the best, however, until your work become a reliable source, I'd mention that wikipedia has pretty clear policies on original research.

• "Everyone is claiming to be using a formal meaning, but they are not EXCLUDING an informal use."

I can maybe agree with this, but I really don't see how your rewriting the policy page helps.

• "focusing on myth as "not literally true" "

Per my comment above, this seems troublingly close to actually redefining the word. NickCT (talk) 15:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nick. I was only using my memoir as an example. I wouldn't use it as the basis for an article. I merely used it to explain how the monomyth influences modern writers and gave myself as an example on this little talk page. As for myths not being literally true -- that's normally a given. But there are two ways to parse it. It's either not literal or not true. Campbell, Vogler, Neumann, Jung, Graves, and others all argued that there was symbolic, subjective, or psychological truth being expressed in non-literal ways. Granted, I need to document this since it's not in the dictionary. But we don't limit ourselves to the dictionary either. I think part of the problem here is that I haven't documented it yet, and haven't really given you much to look at. That's entirely my fault. But you've definitely reminded me to do so, and you're helping me a great deal with this feedback. It could be that a full rewrite isn't necessary. Do you have any ideas about tweaking the policy to muffle these incessant conflicts? Wikipedia isn't supposed to have this much overhead.

BTW, I've also worked as a quality engineer. The mantra of quality engineering is that 90% of the problems are not people, but process. If people keep getting into trouble (as we have been at Genesis creation myth), then it's the process that needs to be fixed. Even if you beat all comers into submission, they'd keep coming until the process is fixed. The only good reason to leave the process as it is would be if a person liked constant battle -- and I'm sure some people do, but most of us don't.

Anyhow, any ideas about how to incorporate the monomyth points into the myth policy? You might think of something I never considered.EGMichaels (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"As for myths not being literally true -- that's normally a given." - Let's examine this statement. Which of the following statements do you think is true

a) Myths (in the "formal" sense) are usually not literally true.

b) Myths (in the "formal" sense) are never literally true, and by definition cannot be literally true.

I'd say a) True, b) false. I don't think b is supportted by dictionaries. And I think the way the current policy is written has it correct.

" think part of the problem here is that I haven't documented it yet"

I think what we are doing now is helpful. Hammering down semantics is often half the battle.

"Do you have any ideas about tweaking the policy to muffle these incessant conflicts?"

To be completely honest, I think the "incessant conflicts" arise because this is bad policy!!! I would suggest that "myth" should simply be "a word to avoid", and not a word that's OK to use in the formal sense. Frankly, my feeling is that the public (or the average wikipedia reader) generally thinks of the term "myth" in the informal sense. This is why people get so inflamed when they see the whole "Creation Myth" shinanigans. The average Jane Doe sees that and says "hold on a sec, that's what I believe, that's not a myth!!"

In essence this policy really requires the reader to have an good understanding of what is a complex word (as evidenced by the fact you and I have to go back and forth to really nail down the meaning). Relying on readers to have such a good vocabulary is a v. v. bad idea.

I think if we are going to accept that the word "myth" can be used in a formal sense (as dictated by the current policy), the current wording on the policy is probably OK. If you did want to tweak it, I think you might simply want to attempt to clarify and emphasis the difference between the 1st and 2nd (or formal and informal) definitions, then emphasis that the 1st definition doesn't imply falsity. I would avoid the use of the words "literal" and "symbolic", as they may themselves lead to more confusion. NickCT (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nick! Well, I'd have to agree with you that it's bad policy! I'd agree that myth should be a word to avoid (especially for living religions). Not sure you could avoid it altogether, though. It certainly applies in cases where people use it in respect to their own fields of expertise: screenwriters (Vogler, Hague, Frey), Jungians (Jung, Neumann, Campbell), and mythologists (Frazer, Graves, etc.).

Given your choices of a and b, I'd opt with b under the idea that myths are metaphors, and metaphors are by definition not literally true. "Ted Kennedy was a lion of liberalism." While it's not "literally true" that he's a lion, it may be "figuratively true." That's a metaphor, granted -- but that's pretty much the way the three categories of experts generally use it.

I wholeheartedly agree that the public thinks of myth in the informal sense. An even bigger problem was that the formal sense didn't exclude the informal either. Basically EVERYONE, including Wikipedia, is being seen as favoring the informal sense, because there's no "true" way it can be taken.

I'll give some thought to a way of showing that a metaphor is not false without using the term "symbolic," but I'm kind of limited by my sources. They use "symbol" and "metaphor" -- leaning heavily toward "symbol." Give me a few days to think about it. I'll do some more reading.EGMichaels (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Re "I'd agree that myth should be a..... Campbell), and mythologists (Frazer, Graves, etc.)" -- I think we are in complete agreement here.

Re "Given your choices of a.....of experts generally use it" -- Hmmmm... really? As I'd said earlier, I'd certainly accept that some myths are non-literal metaphors, my reading of the dictionary definitions is that myths can potentially be literally true, and may not necessarily involve metaphors. I think we've found the crux of the arguement here. We must settle what is or is not a myth. If your definition is correct then I'd say that the "Creation Myth" title should be EXTREMELY contraversial, because many people actually take genesis as literal truth (obviously not something I personally agree with, though it's a view that Wikipedia should niether refute or support).

Re "I wholeheartedly agree that....exclude the informal either." -- I think we mostly agree here.

Re " favoring the informal sense, because there's no "true" way it can be taken." -- Not sure I completely understand this.

Re "metaphor is not false without using the term "symbolic,"" -- Again, is it true that a myth is always a metaphor? Can you give me a reference for this.

I think ultimately you and I agree the policy should be changed. I think the wording should be changed to something like "Though the first or formal definition of myth does not imply falsity, articles on Wikipedia should not be written under the assumption that readers appreciate this fact. In other words, any article or fact offered on Wikipedia should not be referred to as myth if significant debate surrounds whether the article or fact in question is or may be true" (this is obviously a little verbose. Hopefully you get the idea). NickCT (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)