Logos and Mythos

So I started reading Karen Armstrong’s latest book The Case for God, and in it she talks about Logos and Mythos. She says:

In most premodern cultures, there were two recognized ways of thinking, speaking, and acquiring knowledge. The Greeks called them mythos and logos. Both were essential and neither was considered superior to the other; they were not in conflict but complementary. Each had its own sphere of competence, and it was considered unwise to mix the two. Logos (reason) was the pragmatic mode of thought that enabled people to function effectively in the world. It had, therefore, to correspond accurately to external reality … Logos was essential to the survival of our species. But it had its limitations: it could not assuage human grief or find ultimate meaning in life’s struggles. For that people turned to mythos or “myth.”

In popular parlance, a “myth” is something that is not true. But in the past, myth was no self-indulgent fantasy; rather, like logos, it helped people to live effectively in our confusing world, though in a different way … Myth has been called a primitive form of psychology. When a myth described heroes threading their way through labyrinths, descending into the underworld, or fighting monsters, these were not understood as primarily factual stories. They were designed to help people negotiate the obscure regions of the psyche … A myth was never intended as an accurate account of a historical even; it was something that had in some sense happened once but that also happens all the time.

My mind started to wander and I found myself thinking about various figures in mythological history like Jesus, Buddha, Oddeseus, Hercules, etc … The Hero with a gazillion faces.

I found myself thinking that it’s obvious that some of these characters were mythological from the get go. I also found myself thinking that some of them had an actual historical basis, but got mythologized along the way. I found myself sympathetic (drawn) to the heroic stories of some of them and I found myself turned off by the heroic stories of some of them.

I also started to think about what Armstrong said about how the ancients thought it was best not to mix Logos and Mythos, but how they are also complementary.

I’m a panentheist, which means that I think that everything is contained within Divinity, but that this Divinity is also aware. (Divinity is conscious and this consciousness necessarily contains everything else.) We all, if you will, exist within the “mind of God.”

Anywhoo … with this in mind I found myself pondering what Armstrong said and I asked myself what mythos, what story, as a compliment to logos, made the most sense to me.

I think this universe has a purpose. I think there is a reason for existence other than for the brute fact of it. I guess you could say that I think existence is “teleological.” This idea frames my life and gives my life meaning.

I think that the stories of the hero found within all religious traditions are very important. Life is very hard and it takes courage to face it. I think that we are all called to be the heroes of our own stories and that the myths that we have of these other heroes can serve as important signposts to guide us and give us inspiration.

The only hero myth that I know well is that of Jesus. Actually I should say that I know some of the myths about Jesus. There are others that I don’t know at all. Also, some of the myths about Jesus, told by different people, are very different from each other. They focus on different things about his journey.

Some days I think I could embrace the example of Jesus and live my life with that example in mind (framed within the larger panentheist and teleological viewpoint). Some days I think I might find a church home and immerse myself in community.  So far, however, my previous JW upbringing and other literal-historical Christian group attitudes have gotten in the way. I don’t know if my previous influences will ever get out of the way long enough to allow the Christian myth to inspire me.

Some days I think that I might find a home under the very large umbrella that is modern Paganism. But honestly, the culture and group think there – as large and varied as it is – leaves me cold. I’ve come across just as many legalistic and literal attitudes within paganism as I have within Christianity. First and foremost of the reasons that modern paganism feels so uncomfortable to me is that I’m not a polytheist. I’m just not. I don’t think there are multiple gods and goddesses (as in ‘creators’). I can embrace the concept of place spirits and ancestors, but it feels very foreign to me to call them “gods.” (Yes – this is semantics.) I’m sure it’s because of my western and Christian upbringing. I imagine that “gods” meant something very different to the ancient Greeks and Celts and Germans than it does to me. But still, to use the term “god” (even with a little ‘g’) feels like putting my pants on backward.

So, I guess if it’s a choice between polytheistic paganism and mystical Christianity, then Christianity feels more like home to me. (I’ve also explored Buddhism, but it also feels like putting my pants on backward. )

This post is not only getting too long, but it is becoming very stream of consciousness. I’m going to stop here and maybe pick it up later. I mostly wanted to get some thoughts out before they disappeared. Take it with a grain of salt please. I’ll try to unpack my thoughts more at a later time.