You're new to JC? Buy the Power of Myth. Or, put the DVD on NetFlix. Amazing introduction. Aside from that, I'd recommend reading "The Hero With A Thousand Faces". But, before you do that, the Power of Myth is the best read right now. Amazing read.

In reply to this comment by thinker247:
Thanks for the Joseph Campbell reference on thepinky's "myth" post. I checked out his biography, and his ideas look fascinating. I need to read his work.

Thanks for the Joseph Campbell reference on thepinky's "myth" post. I checked out his biography, and his ideas look fascinating. I need to read his work.

Thanks for the copy and paste reference.com definition of myth. That's great if you want the English Exam question number nine on page six for that standardized test where no child is left behind. But, when you speak to a scholar (such as one so respected as Joseph Campbell) I really hope you can refrain from rolling your eyes, lest you will lose your argument. Joseph Campbell does, in fact, define Myth as a metaphor. If you want to dispute him, that is fine and great, in fact, I love that notion. But, please, please, give evidence outside of a pedestrian link to some homogenized dictionary definition.

>> ^blankfist:
Well, myth doesn't actually mean lie or theory. It means metaphor when speaking of comparitive-mythology, which is something you should read deeply into. Joseph Campbell talks about comparative-mythology largely in great books like The Hero with a Thousand Faces and, my personal favorite, The Power of Myth.
That aside, lies are lies and myths are myths. Religion is considered mythology by scholars. Psychology of sex is not. So, to say sexology is mythology, to me, is a bit of a stretch. Then again, I may be way off base.

*eye roll*

This is ridiculously irrelevant, but I'm going to address it, anyway.

From http://dictionary.reference.com:

Myth: an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

Well, myth doesn't actually mean lie or theory. It means metaphor when speaking of comparitive-mythology, which is something you should read deeply into. Joseph Campbell talks about comparative-mythology largely in great books like The Hero with a Thousand Faces and, my personal favorite, The Power of Myth.

That aside, lies are lies and myths are myths. Religion is considered mythology by scholars. Psychology of sex is not. So, to say sexology is mythology, to me, is a bit of a stretch. Then again, I may be way off base.

Well, seeing how no one else appears to be interested in reading and replying to another gorgonheap navel gazing blog, I'll go ahead and chime in here to make you feel better, there Gorgie.

I don't think its correct to assume science has abolished God or Gods, as you say. I think science does try to work to prove or disprove whether or not a theistic God exists. The evidence is staggering against proving the existence of a God or Gods, but scientist always have to contend that no matter the evidence it would be impossible to prove anything 100%. Anything. Even gravity. Even Earth rotating around the Sun. Etc.

I used to be a theist. I was raised Southern Baptist and Presbyterian. I believed in a personal God back then; one that cared about my thoughts and my personal wellbeing. As I grew a bit older, I started asking questions about my faith. I started researching, doubting, and seeking truth and evidence, but, sadly, religion could not offer any to me. Science could.

I don't completely agree with Richard Dawkins when he refers to religion as child abuse. And, he speaks openly about wishing it gone completely because it is so archaic. I disagree. I've read a lot of Joseph Campbell over the past years, and I believe as he does that cultural myths are important for the development of society and community. I think rituals are important, even if I don't particularly want to participate in them myself. Our subconscious needs to to feel as if it is in this world somehow, and through myth and ritual I think it helps us release those subconscious needs. It's very important.

I was slammed by a Christian friend of mine for calling religion a myth, but that's what it is. I don't mean that to be negative, but it's a myth until proven true. You wouldn't have faith in a fact, would you? No. You'd have faith in an uncertainty, such as a myth. So, don't skewer me for calling religion a myth, because I don't have the patience or the time to argue this.

I wasn't a big fan of Ju-On, to be honest. I feel as though J-Horror opts for the shock instead of the story a lot of times. Their stories feel lazy even if the concept is attention grabbing, such as in Ringu where the concept is a VHS tape that can kill you.

Ringu wasn't nearly as good as The Ring. I've analyzed the US version forwards and backwards, and it is about as damn perfect as a horror story can be. I can write my dissertation on it, but I'll save everyone from sheer boredom. Let me say this, however. In the US version, The Director, Gore Verbinski, did a great job of crafting a great pace and tone for the story, and the screenwriter(s) did an excellent job of taking the lazier and unpolished Japanese version of the story and creating something a touch more in-depth. For instance, in Ringu it is suggested that the mother of Sadako might have had sex with a sea monster or something like that, but in the US version the father of Samara was a horse breeder, and because Samara's mother was incapable of giving birth, well, you can probably see where it went from there. They imply that Samara was birthed in a horse. What makes this significant over the Japanese version, in my opinion, is that the the US theme can easily be summed up as demonstrating the price of "crimes against nature" and we recognize it as something cautionary which is where the great horror mythologies begin.

The Japanese version isn't insinuating a cautionary tale, but rather just displaying a series of supernatural or metaphysical evils, because if the mother of Sadako was to have sex with a sea monster or the sea itself (or whatever is being implied there), then it's not grounded within our reality and therefore it's impossible for us to glean a cautionary tale from their story. It becomes fantasy horror at that point, and without a solid theme for us to relate with on a subconscious Joseph Campbell sort of way, then (for me) the story doesn't succeed as well. I've kind of glossed over the differences in the interest of not writing a diatribe. These are broad strokes here, but I think I did a decent job illustrating my point.

to quote the Jeffersons theme song

we're movin' on up !



In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Hey, congrats on the silver star!

-H

In reply to this comment by qruel:
ha, good post

q

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
From my readings of Joseph Campbell, the unofficial father of comparative mythology, the entrances to cathedrals (and of most places of worship, not only Judeo-Christian, but also Budhism, Hinduism, etc.) are adorned with the evils of passion and fear. They're the gargoyles that guard the entryway to enlightenment.

Or, then again, it could just be statue of a dude fellating another dude.

ha, good post

q

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
From my readings of Joseph Campbell, the unofficial father of comparative mythology, the entrances to cathedrals (and of most places of worship, not only Judeo-Christian, but also Budhism, Hinduism, etc.) are adorned with the evils of passion and fear. They're the gargoyles that guard the entryway to enlightenment.

Or, then again, it could just be statue of a dude fellating another dude.

From my readings of Joseph Campbell, the unofficial father of comparative mythology, the entrances to cathedrals (and of most places of worship, not only Judeo-Christian, but also Budhism, Hinduism, etc.) are adorned with the evils of passion and fear. They're the gargoyles that guard the entryway to enlightenment.

Or, then again, it could just be statue of a dude fellating another dude.