[removed]

That's fair, I usually get those two mixed up.

. . . of course, so did the author of that Medium article . . .

>It requires the ability to abstractly compare the two things for their abstracted commonality.

And how should the audience compare these two things for the abstracted commonality if they're not familiar the things they're comparing?

He's actually totally wrong. Lol

Traffic flowed like a river is a simile, not a metaphor.

Traffic is a river is a metaphor. And it requires none of the things you said. It requires the ability to abstractly compare the two things for their abstracted commonality.

This is just wrong. From the first paragraph on. We don't mostly disbelieve myths. Lol We are constantly creating and propagating new myths.

To be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape.

It has become evident to me that the ‘meaning’ envisioned by the Author\Speaker will probably have been revisioned by the Reader\Listener. Hence the subjective like/dislike quality to the tale told. Engrams or HieroGlyphs branded in the brain via synaptic structures are inter-connected: there, where you can gather more dendrites by adding new memories to old, thus creating a modular set of precepts in the garnering of meaning. Musing further, to use Socrates validation, ‘seeming is often master of the reality’ and we therefore need to agree to terms for an agreed meaning to be garnered. To deter the ‘revisionist’ and march like ‘soldier lemmings’ off an agreed upon ledge, to ‘meanings’ fatal fall, to reason's fatal flaw. Meaning is co-dependent upon Language=Syntax (agreements of form) for connecting, while Poetry is the flow and rhythm of words; sound-scapes which create meaning from word-movement--reflecting is optional!! And yet, we ‘disturb’ meaning by recreating Language in our own image according to these HieroGlyphic-synaptic modules we’ve garnered. Subjective intertextual ironics made of objective (echoing Nature) uber-lexical sonics become the happy dance of gleaning meaning. We are the meaning makers.

Language is a bridge, connecting, but the bridge has a syntax you gotta’ pay to getta’cross what you wanna’ say; Poetry is the stream below, murmuring, reflecting many Suns; meandering meaningful-sounds for each ‘n everyone!

In the phenomenology of Love coupled with the visceReality of joyousness which frissons up the spine, what remains is our own courage to change the world from inside out withoutta’ doubt; that lost Art of interior-design … it starts with wonder imbued in awe, unbound by the language of ‘reason’ nor by the fatal-skin we’re in, uncluttered with the pitter-patter of patterns promulgated by all of our bad education nor spoilt by the cliché of tribal-mediocrity!

As the Poet averred; We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are. Ergo: if we change the way we look at things, the things we look at change.

We know our senses are limited (we see only spectrums of light), and flawed (some people see better than others) and unreliable (sight alone is not comprehension of what was seen).

If the true nature of reality is hidden then, at least for vision, one must necessarily operate on beliefs and not absolute facts to make progress, it is impossible not to unless all the parameters are known (perfect sight of all things all of the time), which they aren't and likely never will be.

Some beliefs do become filters, but that is a failure of proper reasoning (the rejection of new beliefs provided by new information) and does not affect the value of having beliefs at all. They are compulsory and useful.

I keep reading these articles, but I never really get your point. Like, you see some kind of subjective/objective divide here:

Take abortion: is a human life within a womb significant based on an objective fact or a subjective decision? Left leaning news articles will talk about the pain of a miscarriage and the necessity of the choice for abortion without seeing a contradiction because the significance of life is purely subjective, right leaning ones will talk about human life within the womb as if the idea of its value from conception is a kind of irrefutable objective fact.

And I don't see the distinction working that way. Either side in this, or most other debates, tend to claim "our side is objective fact and your side is incorrect subjective opinion" - but that doesn't mean that's what's happening. In general these disagreements are not about the two sides have taken different approaches to understanding reality, they're just disagreeing on the matter at hand and using "objective"/"subjective" distinctions to discredit their opponents.

As to abortion in specific, I think it's a good example of how metaphor is often not a productive basis for ethical decision making. Each side in this debate has a metaphor:

"Abortion is like murder, therefore wrong"

"Abortion is like other health choices, therefore OK"

With this sort of deontological/metaphor approach, there's not really a framework for resolving conflicts. And thus when conflicts arise, people tend to fall back to consequentialism. For example, when presented with "abortion in the case of rape", many people who otherwise accept a "murder equivalence metaphor" will suddenly become more circumspect because they don't like a consequence of their otherwise clear position.

So how do we actually resolve a debate like this as a society? Well, that's pretty tough.

A reasonable chunk of the population believe that correct ethical reasoning ends with the tenets of their religion. God says abortion is wrong. It's therefore always wrong.

The next chunk believes ethical reasoning can involve some consideration of outcomes - but they have specific beliefs about reality that flavor that consideration. For example, they might believe God endows a soul to a person on conception, and that therefore that person deserves the same ethical weight and protection as anyone else.

A further chunk might believe that a distinction is less clear, such that the ethical weighting afforded a developing embryo-fetus may likewise grow over time (ie. that a 2 cell embryo might be afforded very little consideration, while a 8 month old or "survivable" fetus may require more weight or consideration).

Another chunk might believe that a fetus is not afforded ethical weight - that they are effectively an appendage of a mother. Or that, while having ethical weight, those weights are trumped by a mother's right to control their own body. Or. Or. Or.

These differing viewpoints are often backed by a different understanding of objective reality. Other differences come down to philosophy, and differing opinions on who has a voice in the ethical bargain and/or how to resolve competing ethical priorities - or even what ethics is, and whether it itself is objective or subjective. Or they come down to different ideas about the appropriate intersection of ethics and the law.

Long story short... I don't think the problem is that we don't read enough poetry, are worried too much about science, and thus can't see the truth about abortion. There isn't a magic key to everyone synchronized on this. Some people are likely not clear on their own position or how they came to it... but generally I think people just legitimately disagree on "the state of the universe and whether there actually is a God who is concerned with our fetuses" and/or "how do we decide what's right" and/or "what should be the goal of our laws" and/or "how will things play out if we make a law that says X".

I don't understand what your subjective/objective distinctions (or myth or metaphor or whatever) are bringing in terms of resolving or understanding these questions.

I think this way of understanding metaphor is, in the present day, somewhat at odds with what we now know from cognitive science. For example: https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199772810/obo-9780199772810-0167.xml

Author puts a little too much emphasis on language as of necessary value to this concept, we feel.

"Being" requires literally zero effort. One doesn't clench to "be".

To understand ourselves, we need only examine the efforts we find ourselves making and ask ourselves "Why do we believe we need to do this?"... and then answer that question, plus all the others that come up, as completely as possible.

Understanding ourselves means accepting that we were born without language; we communicate with our bodies by feeling them.

Language is an attempt to break down the universe, to parse it into little bits and pieces, so that those individual facets can be explored, possibly even articulated. Yet language itself creates... nothing; rather it merely reflects what is.

What is does not require maintaining - it's why we can sleep at all. What is can be felt simply by relaxing completely... if one is capable of relaxing enough to feel. Like a fist clenched too tightly for too long, those cut off from their feelings by the impulse to "do" oft end up forgetting what it is to simply... be.

If "What we practice, we improve at" is true... well, a species-wide blindspot can be problematic.

Language is a tool used to communicate idea's and/or elicit emotions.

"traffic is flowing like a river after rain" communicates an idea. It may or may not be the best words to communicate an idea. Metaphor can be an excellent tool to use when communicating an idea. Or horrible. Details matter.

That was well-written and covered a range of things but I really didn't get much out of it.

Subjective meaning is unique to the individual and yes, many find it within myth and religious texts and yes, we need to embrace subjectivity as well as objectivity and truth to have happier, more meaningful lives.

But we have known since the scientific revolution and the enlightment that seperation of church and state is a good thing. The subjective mind will find meaning in a brick shit house and will make itself happy, its designed that way, but we have suffered for generations at the hands of unfounded subjective belief, especially religious belief, overruling reason and science. Trying to salvage things like religious texts for any sort of factual truth that can be relevant and practical in the present is a dry well. If someone doesn't understand love thy neighbour by now then they are doing it out of wilful ignorance or malice. The bible has been squeezed for every ounce of truth for centuries and it should take its place as a subjective tool for personal insight, not a guideline for modern society or governmental policy.

You might like "Crucial Conversations - tools for talking when stakes are high". They discuss "shared pool of meaning" - ensuring you and the person you're trying to communicate with are actually understanding each other well.

Oh, and "The Power of Myth" by Joseph Campbell

Ok, the linked article asks the question. The OP answers it in the affirmative in his thread title.

I am going to retort to the thread title.

NO. We do NOT need to believe myth and metaphor in order to understand ourselves. We need not believe anything… and in reality, as beliefs function as filters that prevent us from seeing reality, one could rationally argue that believing in stuff prevents us from understanding ourselves.

Several thousand years ago, the Greeks believed that Hades fell in love with the goddess of spring, Persephone. She was a lover of light and nature, and could not possibly have loved Hades, in his gloomy underworld.

But that didn’t stop Hades. He kidnapped her, took her to the underworld, and forced her to marry him. But, as she was held captive there, he noticed the things he loved about her disappear. Her inner light faded, and she wilted like a flower without the sun. So he made a deal with her.

6 months a year, she can live in our world, and bring spring and summer. But the remaining 6 months, she must return to the underworld. In her absence, autumn would strip trees of their leaves and winter blanketed the land in snow.

And that’s their explanation for seasons.

Now, the amount the average Greek knew about the world back then probably greatly facilitated their belief such a story.

And when the oracle proclaimed it from his pulpit on high, your average Greek had neither the knowledge nor the evidence with which he could reason against the claim, nor a reason to want to try to argue in the first place.

After all, he’d be called a heretic and malefactor if he did dispute it, so why would he.

Instead, he would participate in the faith and the various forms of culture and ritual that would emerge from it.

None of this has very much to do with the “Truth” factor of the assertion that winter exists because Hades married Persephone.

He might even find the story a bit romantic, and therefore relatable; Hades loves Persephone for her light and love of life, but recognizes that he will take what he loves from her if he holds her captive. So he lets her go.

Mr. Greekman might find that thought a bit intoxicating. Therefore, the story might double not only as an explanation for the seasons, but also as a commentary on the nature of love and it’s relationship to possession

But that’s not what’s important. What’s important is that what it takes for him to believe the story is that it’s told by a person in a position of authority, and that he agrees that winter exists.

It doesn’t need to be true for there to be a reason to believe in it. The risk of social alienation is enough. And it at least somewhat parallels what he can observe about nature.

Let’s parallel this to the modern day.

Our relative understanding of the world has deepened. Our awareness of the politics of power has also deepened.

Myths and metaphor have done a relatively poor job keeping up with the development of our knowledge.

The problem is not the death of myth and metaphor. It isn’t that there is a vacuum of “belieflessness”, into which all meaning is absorbed and lost forever.

The problem is that many of these myths and metaphors are no longer relatable because they are not reflective of our experiences.

In a secular nation state, the risk of severe consequences for faithlessness are greatly reduced.

Thus, the changes in our knowledge and in our social environment have given rise to a phenomenon where myth and metaphor have become particularly impotent when it comes to performing (what I believe) their purpose is; to behave as an ideological and social coagulant.

The resulting lack of social cohesion is what’s responsible for the conflict of meaning and understanding that has arisen in the modern world. We will necessarily struggle to know what to believe when we live in a world without consensus.

While the smartest amongst us might have, at least partially, risen above a sort of tribal perspective, they’ve left the rest of us behind.

The vast majority of us are still arguing about God’s opinion on gay people.

But again, it isn’t the death of myth or metaphor that’s responsible for this.

It’s that there are now many opposing authorities offering differing explanations for the order of the universe, competing amongst each other to win over as much of the population as they can.

If each of these ideologies represents a sort of cohesive world view, their intersection and competition in the public domain is a sort of blender which reduces each competitor to an unidentifiable and alien slurry; it’s nutritional value, no longer visible or apparent.

To put it more concretely, studying science as a religious person might result in a conflict which makes both science and religion seem absurd by their comparison to one another.

While the professor and the preacher are espousing contradictory perspectives, the student must somehow either reconcile them with one another, or else renounce one in favor of the other.

While we can, at least partially be guided by reason, most of us are predominantly motivated through emotion. These emotions are themselves incredibly vulnerable to biases.

Because of this vulnerability to bias, there does not have to be a truth in our beliefs; our beliefs are often conformed around a set of needs we unconsciously hold. Myths and metaphors can appeal to these unconscious needs, but that isn’t because they’re true, it’s because they’re significantly more powerful linguistic tools for communication precisely BECAUSE they can slip past our defenses, target out emotional vulnerabilities, and bypass our faculty of reason.

The Hades and Persephone myth is made much more effective (in terms of its ability to get stuck in your brain) because it couches it’s explanation for the seasons in a story about the pain of loving from a place of deficiency or sorrow.

But, for the average person, our ability to believe in things is only slightly affected by its truth factor. Our beliefs, by my measure, are first and foremost shaped by their utility to us. And that utility is, once again, first and foremost emotional in nature.

And that is what enables us to form beliefs around untrue things.

I guess my point is that myth and metaphor are neither inherently good, nor do they have to be inherently truthful. They are not powerful through their ability to depict reality, but rather, because they are powerful linguistic tools to generally communicate a broad sentiment. They are effective at replicating reality in the same way an impressionistic painting is; they idealize and approximate some vague truths, seduce us with their beauty, and leave the mind to fill in the details.

This doesn’t make them inherently evil either. Myth and metaphor are simply powerful linguistic tools for communicating an idea or concept. To what end that tool is utilized is the measure of its value.

But the sort of “meaning void” we’ve fallen in to is much more a result of changing social and environmental factors, ideological and philosophical conflict between different sources of authority, and a general deepening of our knowledge (thus resulting in myth and metaphor needing to more accurately depict reality), than it is about our disconnection from some primal Truth that can only be ascertained through spiritual means.

You know I've never got into Terry Pratchett but people keep telling me it would be my thing. I've had a copy of Small Gods on my bookshelf here about ten years, maybe I should get around to reading it.

I think how it works is that the specific nature of qualia that emerges (is generated at higher levels) is a function of the existence and nature of information that is is integrated at many scales/levels.

gawd, I wish I could. Unfortunately, these are simply my thoughts as filtered through my years of experiences and nerdy interest in these topics.

Maybe someone better informed than me knows if there's a related published work?

How did this knowledge (some of it of the future) get into your head?

furiously satisfying masturbation has now begun

That sounded suspiciously like a summary of something worth a read. Can you recommend some book on that?

I have been pondering similar questions for a long time, and have a lot of thoughts on the matter, but simply put, I agree.

For instance, it's much easier to say "don't do that that's a sin, you'll go to hell" than it is to say "if you continue to misbehave in that way you'll likely develop a personality disorder which will ostracize you from the rest of your community, causing depression and loneliness, ultimately leading to a bitter, hateful and miserable life."

Dietary restrictions also make sense, as for instance pork is susceptible to trichinosis, but beef isn't, as cows don't eat meat. So banning pig products make sense.

It also makes sense that these people wouldn't have been able to conceptualize the things in the way we do, duh, so even if someone knew those weren't literal truths, there wouldn't really be other words that would let them describe what it really is.

For instance, "seeing the burning bush" is, in my opinion, a pretty clear reference to someone who's either been up for days and is hallucinating through exhaustion (been there, done that, know what it looks like) and/or has used psychedelic/deliriant compounds (been there, done that, know what it looks like). I can say that I'm pretty sure what sort of thing they're referring to with "the burning bush."

​

Also, OP, are you an avid reader Terry Pratchett?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPS5Yw_YsHA (transcription of the

>Susan : Now... tell me...
>
>Death : What would have happened if you hadn't saved him?
>
>Susan : Yes.
>
>Death : The sun would not have risen.
>
>Susan : Then what would have happened?
>
>Death : A mere ball of flaming gas would have illuminated the world.
>
>Susan : All right, I'm not stupid. You're saying that humans need fantasies to make life bearable.
>
>Death : No. Humans need fantasy to be human. To be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape.
>
>Susan : With tooth fairies? Hogfathers?
>
>Death : Yes. As practice, you have to start out learning to believe the little lies.
>
>Susan : So we can believe the big ones?
>
>Death : Yes. Justice, mercy, duty. That sort of thing.
>
>Susan : They're not the same at all!
>
>Death : You think so? Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder and sieve it through the finest sieve and THEN show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet... you try to act as if there is some ideal order in the world. As if there is some... some rightness in the universe by which it may be judged.
>
>Susan : But people have got to believe that, or what's the point?
>
>Death : You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?
>
>[they both watch the sun rise]

It is possible that a subjective notion of truth is implied in the article, but if it is stated to be so explicitly, I missed it.

Many of the assertions that the article makes would seem to require a very subjective notion of truth. "Truth" would be a label given to an experience. Of course it could apply to an experience of visual immediate reality but equally to conjunctions of words with feelings (including moral imperatives) or words with meanings experienced in conjunction with other words. An experience of assent to such conjunction could be labeled "truth".

In that sense, myth cannot be a direct communication of truth. There is no shared evidential basis. At its most successful, words may evoke experiences of assent to conjunctions in the listener. It would not even be meaningful to compare the "similarity" between speaker and listener assent experiences.

One small critique: metaphor requires common experiences and understanding in order to be effective.

"Traffic flowed like a river after rain" is largely meaningless if the audience does not possess an understanding of the words "traffic," "river" or "rain." While it's difficult to imagine a person who doesn't understand the latter two, it's not difficult to imagine a person who doesn't understand the former, given that automobiles have been around for almost a century-and-a-half. Of course, we might argue that the word means something to a person who lived in early 1800s London or New York, where horses and carts made up the hulk of traffic movements . . . but the point remains, if your audience doesn't have a common frame of reference for your words, there's a not-insignificant chance that the metaphor will either fail to convey meaning or, more likely, will convey a meaning wholly at odds with the author's original intent.

With this added context, I think there's an argument to be made that myth and metaphor aren't actually a form of knowledge. They can be used to communicate knowledge and meaning, but only under specific circumstances, and lacking those circumstances, they're just as likely to be abused, misused or simply misunderstood.

Myth and metaphor are tools of communication through which we can convey meaning; but like most tools, they're more appropriate for some situations than others.