-
Want to help us with this year's BoS Trials? Let us know before 30 June. See this thread for details -
Looking for HSC notes and resources? Check out our Notes & Resources page
中文歌詞! (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter bubz :D
- Start date
The fourth theory brought up by Kirk, is to evoke a sort of regression into a creative era, thus enabling the society to relive the tales of ‘those before us,’ that is the era when the ‘gods walked the earth.’ The myths define a time in which the power of creativity was overwhelming and thus try to recapture some, if not all, of that within the story of the myth. This creativity also serves the duality of invoking the power of the past for the present, not as just mere remembrance, but almost as if some form of sacrifice or ritual in calling for the gods through the retelling of the stories. A prime example of this is the Greek myth of Demeter and Persephone. The belief that the duality of retelling the story of how the finding of Persephone by Demeter, and the subsequent reappearance of the corn, with the hopes of a fruitful and good crop for the year. Unfortunately this is a scarce example with which the theory can maintain itself. For many of the Greek myths do not really pose a throwback to a creative period but rather, they are relatively quiet upon many human institutions and traditions, rather many myths take the basic principles of society and its traditions and institutions for granted. The throwbacks are also quite unfounded within the Mesopotamian tradition as they seem to be more likely about the validation rather than a creative era.
This finally leads us to the fifth universal theory of myth, the ritual theory. The emergence of this theory may be attributed to James George Frazer (1854-1941) and his influence upon the ‘Cambridge School’ of the myth-and-ritual theory. He placed the core of his arguments upon this statement, “man’s explanation of nature depended on a misunderstanding of causality. ” The basis assumes that the following statement to be true, “myth implies ritual, ritual implies myth, they are one and the same .” The theory was developed by another member of the Cambridge school, Jane Ellen Harrison (1850-1928), who proposed the concept of myth as being ‘ritual misunderstood.’ The ritual is seen as a necessary requisite in existence with the myth, and within the Biblical creation myths, there
someone help me think of one, haha, my brain just suddenly went mush
This finally leads us to the fifth universal theory of myth, the ritual theory. The emergence of this theory may be attributed to James George Frazer (1854-1941) and his influence upon the ‘Cambridge School’ of the myth-and-ritual theory. He placed the core of his arguments upon this statement, “man’s explanation of nature depended on a misunderstanding of causality. ” The basis assumes that the following statement to be true, “myth implies ritual, ritual implies myth, they are one and the same .” The theory was developed by another member of the Cambridge school, Jane Ellen Harrison (1850-1928), who proposed the concept of myth as being ‘ritual misunderstood.’ The ritual is seen as a necessary requisite in existence with the myth, and within the Biblical creation myths, there
someone help me think of one, haha, my brain just suddenly went mush
withoutaface
Premium Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 15,098
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2004
You want a creation myth?
Everything is as it was and ever shall be.
The existence of the garden of Eden
something like that?
Everything is as it was and ever shall be.
The existence of the garden of Eden
something like that?
withoutaface
Premium Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 15,098
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2004
I'll admire it, but fucked if I'm reading it.AsyLum said:something from the bible which has a ritual...ahh nm
just admire my essay
Lexicographer
Retired 13 May 2006
Blergh there's nothing for me to comment on in this page, thus subtly weaseling my way into the conversation. 
Anyone wasted their one week break on not studying/doing assignments?
Anyone wasted their one week break on not studying/doing assignments?
Lexicographer
Retired 13 May 2006
What kind of ritual? The best "myth" I can think of is Noah's Ark, but I don't remember any ritual in it...
Does it need to be from Genesis?
Does it need to be from Genesis?
bubz :D
the last laugh
aiya minai! yeah heard about you guys getting kicked out at 2:30ish.. :| my friend's complaining like the cheap asian she is
teng yat hui uts library ar, bin gor hui ar? O___o
teng yat hui uts library ar, bin gor hui ar? O___o
...
^___^
everyone is going to MQ bubz
mq..
*winks*
mq..
*winks*
Ragerunner
Your friendly HSC guide
ill be working monday.
and i am seriously fucked for uni.
oh well. its only one semester ........
and i am seriously fucked for uni.
oh well. its only one semester ........
...
^___^
i gotta work hard for the exams
2 D's, a Cr and a P min.
2 D's, a Cr and a P min.
blahh, and that was $20 dammit!bubz :D said:aiya minai! yeah heard about you guys getting kicked out at 2:30ish.. :| my friend's complaining like the cheap asian she is
teng yat hui uts library ar, bin gor hui ar? O___o
lucky u didnt come bubz!
however...i would've liked to have seen u up there when they had that ass-shakin comp on stage *drool*
(my gf punched me when I was trying to get a better view, lolz)
huh??? orderin wut???AsyLum said:
sigh~~~ chem is borin... had to study the whole freakin hsc chem again cuz my student took my notes and neva return with it... .now makin new notes, cuz tutorin some pplz 2morrow, sigh~~~
evil ppl >.<
...
^___^
dun u make copies of it?? :S
Within the ancient world, through the annals of antiquity, myths have arisen as cultural stories which have encompassed a myriad of ideals, and at times explanations, of which encapsulate the essence of concepts prevalent within the context. They contain not only pieces of the historical puzzle, in terms of understanding the culture itself, but also of various notions in which each myth itself is written and its purpose. Underlying these stories, for lack of a better word, are ultimately five ‘universal’ theories into which many of the myths can be classified into. (I say ‘universal’ as there will arise a number of myths which still fail to fall into certain classifications.) G. S. Kirk states that they fall under the categories of nature myths, the aetiological myths, the charter myth, the creative myth, and finally the ritual myth. From these five categories the majority of myths can be classified and studied as a comparative, or intertextually between the different ‘genres’. How they accord to the myths themselves and what does each entail will be the purpose for this essay. To analyse and extrapolate the strengths and shortfalls of each with accordance to the specific areas of Greek, Mesopotamian and Biblical creation myths.
The nature theory was cited as being the first of the universal theories and one would assume would be a logical beginning as many myths revolve around the creation of the world and as such the coming into existence of the natural world, and more importantly of the cosmos, which reflected in many cases as the realm of the gods, and even in philosophy, it was considered to be pure, perfect and ethereally divorced to the imperfections of this world. The theory states, that all myths are written under the precept that they correspond or are associated with meteorological, cosmological or agricultural phenomena. This theory reflects the contextual nature of many myths which exhibit the need to ‘explain’ the phenomena with which they would see everyday. From farming myths of agriculture, to seasons, to the reason the sun rose every morning from a certain direction and set in the other, these myths allowed for the comprehension of the unfathomable, that is the order in a chaotic world.
Perhaps the most evident of those who attested with this theory would have been Friedrich Max Müller. ‘They regarded some myths as patent allegories of nature…they sought the explanation of all myths in a phenomenon of nature. ’ This extract demonstrates the stance to which the basis of the theory eventuated to and remains very much up to this day. Famously stated by Müller of myths, as a ‘disease of language’ in implication to explain the multiplicity of meanings rife within words and their origins. He expressed that the origin of nouns lay within that of natural phenomena and multiple meanings, and it is through these meanings in which natural phenomena is inextricably entwined within the myths of gods, humans and the creation of the world.
The most obvious examples within Greek tradition are that of Gaia and Ouranos’ separation to form earth and sky, a symbolic distinction of thought to separate the two realms and recognise them as such. This myth of the separation would also give birth to the very notions of the natural world giving birth or being associated with the various beings, gods and mortals alike. This would satisfy the criteria of the natural phenomena being represented within the mythical scenario and embodying the earliest notions of explanations or attempts to explain such natural phenomena. Interestingly enough, the natural phenomena within the Greek tradition does not consider animals are a part of it the natural domain, in that, they play mere supporting roles, and it is human-like characters which remain the focus of the myths themselves. Within the Mesopotamian ‘creation’ myths of the Enuma elish, there is this parallel of a being representing the formation of the physical realm, in this case being Tiamat, who is divided by Marduk into the physical world.
Inversely there is the query made from those who oppose this particular theory, upon the basis of the intent, purpose and reason as to why myth makers would concoct such marvellous and surreal tales to explain such simple and obvious natural phenomena.
The second theory which Kirk cites is that all myths possess some sort of aetiological meaning underlying the seemingly bizarre and unworldly stories that resonate so distinctly within the creation myths of the Greeks, Mesopotamians and Biblical stories. This theory centred upon the idea that all myths were written to offer an explanation or ‘aitia,’ or cause on things from the real world. They serve as an allegorical representation, and as some modern historians pronounce, an almost basic science/history in which the exploration of actual things was explored through the primitive means of the society or culture. It attempts to grasp the unknown, piece together through observations and within a mythological context and scenario, explain and enlighten the audience as to the reason why such things are within nature. This concept lies deep within the human need to know and though fanciful at times, the myth conveys this need through its exploratory themes and intent.
Within the Greek tradition of myths there is a mixture of the two opposing theories of such a theory. One is supporting myth lies within this context is the myth of the creation of women. It attempts to explain women, perhaps even an underlying connotation for their ‘role’ within society, through the myth of Prometheus’ trick and mankind’s subsequent punishment without fire, and the formation of women as the ‘punishment’ of man for its role in ‘tricking’ Zeus. But there are myths, even within the Greek tradition, which are definitely not within this categorisation of myths. The myth of Aphrodite’s birth from Ouranos’ severed member, whilst entertaining and perhaps as a sign of the sea foam as a reminder of sperm, but it fails to explain anything as such, and so thus disproves this second theory of explanation and aetiological intent and classification.
The validation of a culture or society through that of myth is the third universal theory of myths, the charter theory. This theory places not so much as an emphasis upon the explanation of the myth or any deep message which invokes an exploration but rather, it creates the justification and precedent for why something is. It is used most commonly to create a sense of mos maiorum, in Latin ‘as they did before we will continue to do,’ without any real reason as to the purpose, intent, nor origin of such a tradition, society or culture. The focus then is upon a distinct story which serves little historical, or other, purpose other than that of maintaining the story through the generations.
Of most popular of these myths would be the Judeo-Christian creation myth. Within which the myth of the creation of the world through the omniscient and singular entity of God, creates the world from nothingness, and structures it into a utopia and creating man, animals and the rest of nature. The Judeo-Christian tradition is thus based upon this concept of an all knowing, omniscient, and unearthly ‘Supreme Being’ which commands what is right and is always right. This becomes the basis of the actual hierarchical system and ultimately the worship of God is done without questioning the mysteries behind the myth. This establishment of power and worship is perhaps the pinnacle of the charter theory and its concept of precedent and validation without explanation, for how can one question what does not exist upon our realm? The precedent is thus left but an explanation as to the appearance of God, his intentions for creating, how he came to be, are all left untold and add to the mystification of the myth.
Unfortunately, like the previous theories before it, this one also has its shortcomings, and inevitably myths which strike as possessing meaning and historical truth within it, or other such things to contradict the ‘universality’ of this third theory. Particularly interesting though is this notion of meaning, which has been seen to exist as explorations of the themes and concepts of the various myths. We have seen that, aetiological myths especially, contains underlying messages and meanings in which an attempt to not only justify and validate but also explain and hypothesise has been created within the myths themselves. This thus shatters any semblance of the ‘universal’ application of the theory upon myths as there are those intentionally created to attain a meaning rather than merely justifying or validating something.
The fourth theory brought up by Kirk, is to evoke a sort of regression into a creative era, thus enabling the society to relive the tales of ‘those before us,’ that is the era when the ‘gods walked the earth.’ The myths define a time in which the power of creativity was overwhelming and thus try to recapture some, if not all, of that within the story of the myth. This creativity also serves the duality of invoking the power of the past for the present, not as just mere remembrance, but almost as if some form of sacrifice or ritual in calling for the gods through the retelling of the stories. A prime example of this is the Greek myth of Demeter and Persephone. The belief that the duality of retelling the story of how the finding of Persephone by Demeter, and the subsequent reappearance of the corn, with the hopes of a fruitful and good crop for the year. Unfortunately this is a scarce example with which the theory can maintain itself. For many of the Greek myths do not really pose a throwback to a creative period but rather, they are relatively quiet upon many human institutions and traditions, rather many myths take the basic principles of society and its traditions and institutions for granted. The throwbacks are also quite unfounded within the Mesopotamian tradition as they seem to be more likely about the validation rather than a creative era.
This finally leads us to the fifth universal theory of myth, the ritual theory. The emergence of this theory may be attributed to James George Frazer (1854-1941) and his influence upon the ‘Cambridge School’ of the myth-and-ritual theory. He placed the core of his arguments upon this statement, “man’s explanation of nature depended on a misunderstanding of causality. ” The basis assumes that the following statement to be true, “myth implies ritual, ritual implies myth, they are one and the same .” The theory was developed by another member of the Cambridge school, Jane Ellen Harrison (1850-1928), who proposed the concept of myth as being ‘ritual misunderstood.’ The ritual is seen as a necessary requisite in existence with the myth and inversely myth as a consequence of ritual was expressed as being the key points within the refined theory suggest by Harrison. The comment that ritual represents the action whereas the myth expresses through the language of narrative is surely true in some cases. But the theory fails to consider situations where a ritual is not connected in anyway with a myth to explain its emergence, or vice versa, a myth without any ritual connections. This is most likely the reason as to why the theory lost much of its appeal to historians who endeavoured to find that universal theory to apply to myth, and rather the modern school has instead forgone the universality of the theory and rather applied it to those which could possibly be explained due to a connecting duality of ritual and myth.
Even looking across the three traditions of the Greek, Mesopotamian and even the Biblical creation myths, shows very little indication that the ritual theory possessed any real sway. There is no apparent ritual connection towards the creation of the world within the Biblical myths, although there are rituals, they are neither explained other than ‘because God commanded,’ and the Mesopotamian fares much the same. There are rituals and myths present but as to whether they are in totality linked and more importantly derived from the rituals themselves is difficult to pinpoint. It seems rather that the myth was created, as mentioned above, to serve the purpose of validation rather than that of rituals. The Greek myths though offer some form of support, with Dionysus’ birth and subsequent annual festival being linked with the rituals performed during the event.
Perhaps it is simply impossible to throw a blanket theory upon the numerous myths which arise, let alone trying to classify a mere three traditions has emphasised each of the theories shortfalls in totally ‘defining’ the myth. Furthermore the various different aspects of the individual traditions respective myths correlate in such a way that they may be present within one or more theories or at times none at all. The beauty of myths is that they are so mysterious and filled with this mystic which we may never truly know the true reason for their purposes or origins.
gah finished well cbf adding more atm.
xiao1985: Checking the menu, checking girls out
The nature theory was cited as being the first of the universal theories and one would assume would be a logical beginning as many myths revolve around the creation of the world and as such the coming into existence of the natural world, and more importantly of the cosmos, which reflected in many cases as the realm of the gods, and even in philosophy, it was considered to be pure, perfect and ethereally divorced to the imperfections of this world. The theory states, that all myths are written under the precept that they correspond or are associated with meteorological, cosmological or agricultural phenomena. This theory reflects the contextual nature of many myths which exhibit the need to ‘explain’ the phenomena with which they would see everyday. From farming myths of agriculture, to seasons, to the reason the sun rose every morning from a certain direction and set in the other, these myths allowed for the comprehension of the unfathomable, that is the order in a chaotic world.
Perhaps the most evident of those who attested with this theory would have been Friedrich Max Müller. ‘They regarded some myths as patent allegories of nature…they sought the explanation of all myths in a phenomenon of nature. ’ This extract demonstrates the stance to which the basis of the theory eventuated to and remains very much up to this day. Famously stated by Müller of myths, as a ‘disease of language’ in implication to explain the multiplicity of meanings rife within words and their origins. He expressed that the origin of nouns lay within that of natural phenomena and multiple meanings, and it is through these meanings in which natural phenomena is inextricably entwined within the myths of gods, humans and the creation of the world.
The most obvious examples within Greek tradition are that of Gaia and Ouranos’ separation to form earth and sky, a symbolic distinction of thought to separate the two realms and recognise them as such. This myth of the separation would also give birth to the very notions of the natural world giving birth or being associated with the various beings, gods and mortals alike. This would satisfy the criteria of the natural phenomena being represented within the mythical scenario and embodying the earliest notions of explanations or attempts to explain such natural phenomena. Interestingly enough, the natural phenomena within the Greek tradition does not consider animals are a part of it the natural domain, in that, they play mere supporting roles, and it is human-like characters which remain the focus of the myths themselves. Within the Mesopotamian ‘creation’ myths of the Enuma elish, there is this parallel of a being representing the formation of the physical realm, in this case being Tiamat, who is divided by Marduk into the physical world.
Inversely there is the query made from those who oppose this particular theory, upon the basis of the intent, purpose and reason as to why myth makers would concoct such marvellous and surreal tales to explain such simple and obvious natural phenomena.
The second theory which Kirk cites is that all myths possess some sort of aetiological meaning underlying the seemingly bizarre and unworldly stories that resonate so distinctly within the creation myths of the Greeks, Mesopotamians and Biblical stories. This theory centred upon the idea that all myths were written to offer an explanation or ‘aitia,’ or cause on things from the real world. They serve as an allegorical representation, and as some modern historians pronounce, an almost basic science/history in which the exploration of actual things was explored through the primitive means of the society or culture. It attempts to grasp the unknown, piece together through observations and within a mythological context and scenario, explain and enlighten the audience as to the reason why such things are within nature. This concept lies deep within the human need to know and though fanciful at times, the myth conveys this need through its exploratory themes and intent.
Within the Greek tradition of myths there is a mixture of the two opposing theories of such a theory. One is supporting myth lies within this context is the myth of the creation of women. It attempts to explain women, perhaps even an underlying connotation for their ‘role’ within society, through the myth of Prometheus’ trick and mankind’s subsequent punishment without fire, and the formation of women as the ‘punishment’ of man for its role in ‘tricking’ Zeus. But there are myths, even within the Greek tradition, which are definitely not within this categorisation of myths. The myth of Aphrodite’s birth from Ouranos’ severed member, whilst entertaining and perhaps as a sign of the sea foam as a reminder of sperm, but it fails to explain anything as such, and so thus disproves this second theory of explanation and aetiological intent and classification.
The validation of a culture or society through that of myth is the third universal theory of myths, the charter theory. This theory places not so much as an emphasis upon the explanation of the myth or any deep message which invokes an exploration but rather, it creates the justification and precedent for why something is. It is used most commonly to create a sense of mos maiorum, in Latin ‘as they did before we will continue to do,’ without any real reason as to the purpose, intent, nor origin of such a tradition, society or culture. The focus then is upon a distinct story which serves little historical, or other, purpose other than that of maintaining the story through the generations.
Of most popular of these myths would be the Judeo-Christian creation myth. Within which the myth of the creation of the world through the omniscient and singular entity of God, creates the world from nothingness, and structures it into a utopia and creating man, animals and the rest of nature. The Judeo-Christian tradition is thus based upon this concept of an all knowing, omniscient, and unearthly ‘Supreme Being’ which commands what is right and is always right. This becomes the basis of the actual hierarchical system and ultimately the worship of God is done without questioning the mysteries behind the myth. This establishment of power and worship is perhaps the pinnacle of the charter theory and its concept of precedent and validation without explanation, for how can one question what does not exist upon our realm? The precedent is thus left but an explanation as to the appearance of God, his intentions for creating, how he came to be, are all left untold and add to the mystification of the myth.
Unfortunately, like the previous theories before it, this one also has its shortcomings, and inevitably myths which strike as possessing meaning and historical truth within it, or other such things to contradict the ‘universality’ of this third theory. Particularly interesting though is this notion of meaning, which has been seen to exist as explorations of the themes and concepts of the various myths. We have seen that, aetiological myths especially, contains underlying messages and meanings in which an attempt to not only justify and validate but also explain and hypothesise has been created within the myths themselves. This thus shatters any semblance of the ‘universal’ application of the theory upon myths as there are those intentionally created to attain a meaning rather than merely justifying or validating something.
The fourth theory brought up by Kirk, is to evoke a sort of regression into a creative era, thus enabling the society to relive the tales of ‘those before us,’ that is the era when the ‘gods walked the earth.’ The myths define a time in which the power of creativity was overwhelming and thus try to recapture some, if not all, of that within the story of the myth. This creativity also serves the duality of invoking the power of the past for the present, not as just mere remembrance, but almost as if some form of sacrifice or ritual in calling for the gods through the retelling of the stories. A prime example of this is the Greek myth of Demeter and Persephone. The belief that the duality of retelling the story of how the finding of Persephone by Demeter, and the subsequent reappearance of the corn, with the hopes of a fruitful and good crop for the year. Unfortunately this is a scarce example with which the theory can maintain itself. For many of the Greek myths do not really pose a throwback to a creative period but rather, they are relatively quiet upon many human institutions and traditions, rather many myths take the basic principles of society and its traditions and institutions for granted. The throwbacks are also quite unfounded within the Mesopotamian tradition as they seem to be more likely about the validation rather than a creative era.
This finally leads us to the fifth universal theory of myth, the ritual theory. The emergence of this theory may be attributed to James George Frazer (1854-1941) and his influence upon the ‘Cambridge School’ of the myth-and-ritual theory. He placed the core of his arguments upon this statement, “man’s explanation of nature depended on a misunderstanding of causality. ” The basis assumes that the following statement to be true, “myth implies ritual, ritual implies myth, they are one and the same .” The theory was developed by another member of the Cambridge school, Jane Ellen Harrison (1850-1928), who proposed the concept of myth as being ‘ritual misunderstood.’ The ritual is seen as a necessary requisite in existence with the myth and inversely myth as a consequence of ritual was expressed as being the key points within the refined theory suggest by Harrison. The comment that ritual represents the action whereas the myth expresses through the language of narrative is surely true in some cases. But the theory fails to consider situations where a ritual is not connected in anyway with a myth to explain its emergence, or vice versa, a myth without any ritual connections. This is most likely the reason as to why the theory lost much of its appeal to historians who endeavoured to find that universal theory to apply to myth, and rather the modern school has instead forgone the universality of the theory and rather applied it to those which could possibly be explained due to a connecting duality of ritual and myth.
Even looking across the three traditions of the Greek, Mesopotamian and even the Biblical creation myths, shows very little indication that the ritual theory possessed any real sway. There is no apparent ritual connection towards the creation of the world within the Biblical myths, although there are rituals, they are neither explained other than ‘because God commanded,’ and the Mesopotamian fares much the same. There are rituals and myths present but as to whether they are in totality linked and more importantly derived from the rituals themselves is difficult to pinpoint. It seems rather that the myth was created, as mentioned above, to serve the purpose of validation rather than that of rituals. The Greek myths though offer some form of support, with Dionysus’ birth and subsequent annual festival being linked with the rituals performed during the event.
Perhaps it is simply impossible to throw a blanket theory upon the numerous myths which arise, let alone trying to classify a mere three traditions has emphasised each of the theories shortfalls in totally ‘defining’ the myth. Furthermore the various different aspects of the individual traditions respective myths correlate in such a way that they may be present within one or more theories or at times none at all. The beauty of myths is that they are so mysterious and filled with this mystic which we may never truly know the true reason for their purposes or origins.
gah finished well cbf adding more atm.
xiao1985: Checking the menu, checking girls out