this is myth.
and this is the way to deal with it: by paring and parsing, by freely associating and streaming consciousness, by tearing down and building up, by land and by sea. word for word, line by line. and this is how we do it:
what is “this”? lacking in any sort of referent, i.e. an indication by means of a finger pointing at the moon or a sentence preseeding wherein some noun is given to which “this” can be understood to be representing, how are we to take this “this”? to state that not enough information is given to give any answer is a cowardly cop-out. any barefoot boy can easily supply the smart-ass accuracy that “this” is a word. and as a word, as are all words, it is a symbol, a syllable and a grouping of letters which are also symbols, a sign which has been laid out and agreed upon by a people to have a certain value and currency despite the obviousness of the fact that in and of itself “this” don’t even exist. there ain’t no such thing as “this”. it’s a concept and can diasapear in an instant if we, the collectivity responsible for its existence decide for whatever whim to have it do so. like any other word, it is not the thing which it refers to in any case and lest it be objected that this is splitting the hair too finitely, it shall hear hear be noted that wars have been raged and massive graves filled o’er the devilish details of word association games and inkblots. words have meanings and are serious business, as fires and sabbath days and were made to serve us, not we them. “this” is a symbol.
“this”, thusly and furthurmore, sits or stands as against “that” in common parlance. it is well knowed and clear that “this” is not “that”, nor shall the two be joined without fundamentally changing the nature if not nurture of both for by the very ground on which they rest, they exist only in reference to each other, each being defined by the relationship betwixt them. here, therefore, we have a pair of opposites, like unto the following sets of pairs: up/down, male/female, yes/no, right/left, right/wrong, day/night, win/lose, i/thou, yin/yang, ting/tang, good/evil and so on ad nauseum becos all the 10,000 things (ancient chinese secret) have their existence and value only in as they are in opposition or contrast with some equally other, this being the very foundation of existence as can it be known in this reality of space and time. there is nothing that be grasped at by the brainstuff which is nought bought by space nor is it bounded by time for that is how we’re made and equally elusive is any anything which is neither spaced nor timed, such things cannot be just as the north wind can’t be held in a sock nor secular cows jump o’er yon lune. “this”, then, is never complete e’en unto itself, but always in relationship to “that”.
backing up a bit to consider our overall progress, we refer back our original intent and recall that the statement we are using as our example of examination is “this is myth”. within this context, “this” is seen to skip ahead one space and to be “myth” and the reverse of the sentence is also true and has equal effect, to wit: “myth is this”, which is neither a palindrome nor is it a palingenesis, but it is a circle of meaning and when we rush into this terrortory whence angels fear to tread, circles and circles within circles are what we can expect as we are spinning plates like wheels within wheels in the middle of the air and that’s the sorta thing we have to accept as the nature of the beast and the lay of the land (t’will be hear set forth and should be remembered that the pun is always intended, the entendre always doubled and duly noted that “nature”, “beast”, “land” and in some cases “lay” all are of a kind and each may be taken as having reference within the mythic material to themselves, each other and on again beyond to others unspecified and nonspecific due to the facet that that’s just how it is). our initial object is an endless loop, from which infinite threads of digression may spin.
let us now move to the next word, acknowledging that we have barely scummed the surface of “this”:
“is” refers to existence. “is” is not existence for “is”, like “this” does not, factually, have existence, but it does refer to existence which is quite a big job for such a wee word and almost an unnecessary one since t’would be easy as easing to do away with it and simply take existence as a given which we all daringly do anyhoo, exceptin’ certain amongst who shalt be refered to as “philosophers” and not denied their stone, (with all due respect to our colleagues across the isle, recognizing certain symilarities betwist our disciplines, if’n ya’ll’s gonna crawl so far into yer own navels as to to banty about the question of your own existences, then you can expect to be somewhat scoffed upon for accepting as proof the claim of one whose existence has nary been proved that he cogitates as proof of his existence, or in other words, feh), but ‘tis not in our jurisdiction to quibble over the existence of a pussy in a box (nor postulate what herr freud would’ve speculated about that hypothetic), but to ask what does the pussy refer to and to what does the box refer?
again, like “this”, “is” forms a part of a pair, being placed alongside of or rather, should it be worded, on the flipside of “is not”. here let it be noted that these terms ain’t absolutions, that the acceptable truth of “this is myth” does not automatically imply “that is not myth” as both may be true and few will be surprised who have read this far that this writer will be henceforth declaiming that the other permutations of the forms given are equally true and that “that is myth” is not differentiated from “this is not myth” altho’ they may be separated and therefore joined together with a / as in the examples listed above/below.
“is” joins “this” and “myth”. “is” is the tissue that binds them, then. existence, to which “is” implies, has some relationship to the relationships between things which exist and things which exist exist in relationship to each other. this is familiar ground becos we trod it before in our discussin’ of “this” wherein the 10,000 things were shown to each have their revelant opposite in which relationship they had and have their existence. again, we blindly stumble upon the concept of mutual interdependence betwist the components of that which we call “reality”, no thing being able to be or be understood in and of and/or as if a thing-unto-itself but all things being joined to others by the very need for others over and against which to know them and define them and recognize them and then to pretend that they are separate entities up to and including the “self” for to exclude the “self” from speculation would be to err in the self-same self-justification as the stoned philoslopper refered to in an earlier digression. the “is”-ness of any given anything is not given but is gifted and is always and only divided by a line from its opposite form.
what is “myth”? rather, let us now consider, since we have demonstrated adequately how the usage of the “” works, what is myth? myth is a symbolic language which deals with phenomena, energies and realities which transcend the ability of language to adequately express, but which are simultaneously common to the experience of being human. there’s some shit as what just can’t be put into words. there’s some things that can’t be summed up. you can talk all you want about ‘em and you know you hain’t got it and whoever you’re talking to is by this point just nodding and stopped listening a long time ago becos they don’t get it and no matter how many times you say “really”, they ain’t gonna. and yet these things do want to be talked about by us and others still and so some sort of method must needs be and has been invented to so do just that and that is myth. myth makes it possible to talk around that which cannot be talked about.
myth is related to religion in that myth is the story out of which religion grows and from which religion gets its justification. religion is more than myth, being also inclusive of ritual which is the action and/or are the actions done in imitation of the myth in the context of the religion. the priests who sacrifice the goats and the priests who elevate the host both act out rituals in the context of their respective religions which have their basis in the myths thereof. myth can exist without religion, but religion cannot exist without myth at all.
myth is sometimes set against truth as if in the relationship of opposites formula used above as if “myth/truth”, which is a fallacy. myth is always true if taken to be metaphor and always false if taken to be fact. this is the problem with religion and indeed, the only one, that religious people believe their religions to be based on facts when in fact they are based on myths which are metaphors. in myth, the operative action is always the expression “it is as if” or some such same. consider if you will the following: q) what do atheists and fundamentalists have in common?
a) they don’t know what a metaphor is. for example, let us now turn to the words of one blake, william, mad anarchist, currently dead:
“tyger! tyger! burning bright”
shall we take this to mean, then that the tyger to which the poet revered had been set on fire and yet was neither consumed nor was it reduced to ash? the fundamentalist response to such an interpretation would be to proclaim the tyger a divine miracle of the one true and always ever-present living god and to raise a shrine or raise an army to raze the shrines of all who did not feverishly so believe. the atheist, contrariwise and smugly assurts that no tyger can be set aflame and nought be consumed nor can’t it be reduced to ash, lest ye die, and that therefore there is no such thing as tygers or tigers or tiggers, nay, no, never and not at all. well, drear fiends, the idiocy of both these poles is plain and clear for all who have ears to hear to see, so let us onward ho. (that myth = metaphor can ne’er be overstated. just try.)
myth is a dream. and when one interprets a myth it is as if it is a dream being interpreted becos that’s what it is: the dream of humanity, welling up from the depths of the unconsciousness and taking the form of an infinitely layered story wherein every charactor is also every other charactor and not even the background can be trusted. a dream takes place inside the dreamer’s head, ergo the ground and sky, the rocks and bricks, the trees and pillars, the rivers and sewers, any and all are projections and/or protections of the psleeping psyche and myth is the dream of us all. and there are many myths of the dreamer whose dream is the universe of the 10,000 things and the dreamer who dreams the dream of the dreamer who dreams the 10,000 things is the 10,000 things of whom humanity is only 1 and of that 1 only a fraction is known. for the unconscious mind knows everything about the conscious mind whilst the conscious mind knows nothing about the other. and there is more in the unconscious mind than is dreamed of in your philosophy, for above and beyond the repressed and forgotten which any dimestore shrink will tell dwells there, there is also obviously but equally often unsung the organs of the body, each with their needs and desires which they report to the brain via the nerves and to which the brain responds without often including its self-aware aspect in the execution. and oh, the memories and phantasies that have been passed along down thru the generations from one to the next and which lie docile in the matte grey waiting only for the stimulus proper to stimulate them to awakening and universals and universes and verses still as yet unnamed nor e’en conceivable which must yet only their time be biding ‘til the moment be ripe for to enter our awareness into themselves! oh, ye gods and daemons whom yerselves to humanity have shown, what many more wondrous ones are about to go marching in? ‘tis only a dream away and a moment’s notice.
myth is a symbolic language becos it has to be in order to convey multiple meanings to suit multiple needs. thus a babe in the woods and a hump’s dowager may read the same page and upon it find the meaning apropos to their daily task. the meaning of myth lies in the eyes. and again and again, becos some things just won’t fit into words.
enough for now. this could go on and on and indeed it will, for that is the purpose of this project. this writer intends in this place to offer forth thoughts and ideas and revelations and interpretations on the subject of myth. that’s what this is about. the “style” of the writing will be objectionable to some and more so to others and so must it be in order to be true to the subject, for to speak plainly is all too often to cast pearls before swine against which we have been advised by a one who offered the woeful world joy, sweet joy, and was nailed to a telephone pole for his troubles. and again, to give away too much is to perpetuate the fallacy of understanding amongst them’s as what ain’t worked for it. and this is only practice. these riddles and read herrings are sparrow farts in hurricanes to what’s in the real things, but it is our honest and onerous intention to offer our insights for the benefit of those who care to share them and we offer freely what we have freely been gived: for the study and pursooth and inquiry into and embracing of the truth of and practicing the preaching of the myths of the world have set us free who once was lost and washed the scales from the eyes of this “we”. this writer was changed by myth and myth was the key that unlocked the door.
now, let me pass along what i’ve received.