What mythos have the West produced in the past 1000 years?

[S@tanicoaldo]

What's up with people fixing other people's posts? That's like so rude.

[sktarq]

its a jokey way of an otherwise very dry, highly repetitive post about the weakness of an absolutist argument in a setting where a counter-example will be likely forthcoming.

[Hazyshade]

You're wrong. Here's a definition of a Myth.

Yes. A different definition. Not the one we were talking about.

[Yora]

There fixed that for ya. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. The principle stands.

No, I disagree. It's not that historians and historic memory all lie. The vast majority of it is true. But all of it is always a simplified abstraction of everything that happened with the author making a subjective choice of which details are important.
Human memory is not like a video camera. We don't record things as they have happened. Our brain stores a story of what has happened and recreates images and sound that match that story when we remember it. That story is based on the things we actively noticed and that seemed important to us at the time, not on everything we actually saw and heard. And when talking with other people about the event or reading other reports of it, the story stored in our brain changes, either to negate conflicting details between the acounts or to include proof that an account we don't like can't be true.
And when you try to gather the memories from hundreds or thousands of people covering many weeks or months, years or decades after the events, you get something incredibly distorted that you first have to sort out and put into an order. Which is always based on what you already assume actually happend and was important. And that doesn't even include people actively lying to further their own goals or supressing memories that don't conform with their world view and personal morals.

I'm not saying all of history is a complete fraud. But it's inherently extremely murky and turns into complete subjective speculation when it comes to explain why something happened or what its consequences were.

[Razade]

Yes. A different definition. Not the one we were talking about.

Not the one you're talking about and attempting to say is the only definition. Lethlogica is very clearly talking about the definition I gave, as am I and as are other people when they cite the possible romanticist aspect of World War 2 from what we term History (a modern notion) with Myth and Mythology.

[sktarq]

I'm not saying all of history is a complete fraud. But it's inherently extremely murky and turns into complete subjective speculation when it comes to explain why something happened or what its consequences were.

Not necessarily. We can have good records of how for example diplomatic communication was received and how it effected another nations leaders reaction. This can then become a very clear part of the mythic version of history. See the Cuba missile crisis for an example.

[Bohandas]

also Time Cube and Lyndon Larouche

[S@tanicoaldo]

also Time Cube (...)

You silly, everyone knows the cube is the space stone not the time one.

[Bohandas]

There is a clear line. If you can completely demolish a narrative with the four words "that didn't really happen" and be provably correct, then you cannot call it a myth. That is not what "myth" means.

This would relegate all mythologies to non-myth status (unless you somehow believe that "that didn;t really happen" does NOT automatically follow from "that's not even possible" and sometimes additionally "that's not even plausible"). I think you're thinking of legends

EDIT:
Though admittedly I've conflated the two concepts in my prior posts as well.

[Fawkes]

The problem with this conversation is that it was started by an authoritarian striaght-white-male supremacist with an axe to grind about how modern culture is inferior to his imagined ideal because it's got too many minorities in it there was no definition given of what a mythos is, leading everyone to come at this topic from different angles and then clash over the undefined semantics.

[2D8HP]

....isn't a myth, but it has inspired the creation of a mythos all its own.

Oh of course. Sorry I meant "Myth: common wellspring of story", not "myth: false belief".

Depending on which definition, I can see Hazyshade's objection.

The problem with this conversation is that it was....
...there was no definition given of what a mythos is, leading everyone to come at this topic from different angles and then clash over the undefined semantics.

Um yes, there is also a particular reason that I chose "Hogan's Heroes" as an example, which seems to not have been noticed.

[sktarq]

I would say a short lived Mythos would have been founded on the American ideas of Manifest Destiny. The concepts that undergird the various Trappers/Oregon Trail/Lumberjack/Gold bug-49ers/and various Wild West stories all draw from the similar root mindsets. Daniel Boone, Paul Bunyan and the whole Frontier pantheon were a somewhat varied bunch but so were the Roman or Greek pantheons. . . that the fundamental ideals of the relationship between man and nature, expansion in general, the humanity/worth of the Native Americans, "independence", etc have changed significantly in the last 50 years and have seen a weakening in the social relevance of the tales associated with this mythos. Those that have survived and thrived have had to adapt to a different cultural set of norms. Why modern westerns are often just a sub-type of a period drama vs their own genre.

But the Mythos was developed in the west in the last 1K years

[Bohandas]

The problem with this conversation is that it was started by an authoritarian striaght-white-male supremacist with an axe to grind about how modern culture is inferior to his imagined ideal because it's got too many minorities in it there was no definition given of what a mythos is, leading everyone to come at this topic from different angles and then clash over the undefined semantics.

This leads naturally to the point that the idea of the "good old days" is a very widespread and influential mythological framework and fantasy

[dps]

Um yes, there is also a particular reason that I chose "Hogan's Heroes" as an example, which seems to not have been noticed.

I thought it was just an unsuccessful attempt at humor on your part.

[2D8HP]

I thought it was just an unsuccessful attempt at humor on your part.

Another unsuccessful attempt.

[S@tanicoaldo]

The modern age is mythically defined by television, handheld screens, soon AR glasses. That's where we get our energy from, we can literally even order food from them thus dispensing with the need to actually physically set foot in a grocery store. But the myth cycles that have come are not singular, as this thread has shown, but multifarious. Are there any commonalities that can be attained to, maybe to a new archetype or archetypes?

No it's not, I think you meant the contemporary age.

[Hazyshade]

cite the possible romanticist aspect of World War 2 from what we term History (a modern notion) with Myth and Mythology.

You are just brainstorming words now.

This would relegate all mythologies to non-myth status (unless you somehow believe that "that didn;t really happen" does NOT automatically follow from "that's not even possible" and sometimes additionally "that's not even plausible"). I think you're thinking of legends

EDIT:
Though admittedly I've conflated the two concepts in my prior posts as well.

Ah, but no! If I took a harmless household myth about how a particular local rock got to be a certain shape, let's say "a troll did it", and I proved that there have never been any such creatures as trolls on planet Earth, what do you suppose the effect on the myth would be? Zero. The keepers of the myth know perfectly well that trolls didn't exist. That's not the point of the myth. The Olympian gods defeating the Titans - what knowledge could you or I or any human present or future possibly find out that would make a dent in that myth? If we somehow find out that it's not true, well, it's not supposed to be true. It's a meme, in the original Dawkins sense. Its truth value is of zero importance.

But fast forward to WW2 and the situation is completely different. We have so many primary sources that there is no excuse for getting things wrong. If I was looking through some old documents and I found a handwritten confession from the radio operator on the USS New Jersey that he disliked Admiral Halsey and had deliberately left that sarcastic padding phrase in that decoded message in 1944, that would be big news. That tale would be updated to take my discovery into account. So the "myth", if you insist on calling it that, is a good myth only as long as it's true. Not being true would destroy it as a myth.

[Donnadogsoth]

The modern age is mythically defined by television, handheld screens, soon AR glasses. That's where we get our energy from, we can literally even order food from them thus dispensing with the need to actually physically set foot in a grocery store. But the myth cycles that have come are not singular, as this thread has shown, but multifarious. Are there any commonalities that can be attained to, maybe to a new archetype or archetypes?

No it's not, I think you meant the contemporary age.

Thank you S@tanicoaldo, that's what I meant. Do you have any answers to my question?

[Ronnoc]

You are just brainstorming words now.



Ah, but no! If I took a harmless household myth about how a particular local rock got to be a certain shape, let's say "a troll did it", and I proved that there have never been any such creatures as trolls on planet Earth, what do you suppose the effect on the myth would be? Zero. The keepers of the myth know perfectly well that trolls didn't exist. That's not the point of the myth. The Olympian gods defeating the Titans - what knowledge could you or I or any human present or future possibly find out that would make a dent in that myth? If we somehow find out that it's not true, well, it's not supposed to be true. It's a meme, in the original Dawkins sense. Its truth value is of zero importance.

But fast forward to WW2 and the situation is completely different. We have so many primary sources that there is no excuse for getting things wrong. If I was looking through some old documents and I found a handwritten confession from the radio operator on the USS New Jersey that he disliked Admiral Halsey and had deliberately left that sarcastic padding phrase in that decoded message in 1944, that would be big news. That tale would be updated to take my discovery into account. So the "myth", if you insist on calling it that, is a good myth only as long as it's true. Not being true would destroy it as a myth.

That doesn't mean the world wars cannot be a source of myths, look at gremlins, the entire folklore of which came from ww1 aviators and mechanics

[2D8HP]

I'm thinking in terms of the Cthulhu Mythos...

Again with the Lovecraft!

I have one: Clive Barker's Hellraiser.

I don't think that this fixation on finding "truths" in 20th century horror fiction is healthy.

....But the myth cycles that have come are not singular, as this thread has shown, but multifarious...

Yes, we have a diversity of story.

I think most of us find that a good thing.

..Are there any commonalities that can be attained to, maybe to a new archetype or archetypes?

Attained?

Thank you S@tanicoaldo, that's what I meant. Do you have any answers to my question?

I can't speak for S@tanicoaldo (who wonderfully cited numerous "mythos"), but I'll speak for myself.

Since at least the 19th century there have been numerous attempts to develop classifications of the Motifs used used in Folklore and Mythology.

I believe the attempts may be called a part of Folkloristics.

Perhaps you should check out The American Folklore Society to find out more.

But to really study the subject, I encourage you to broaden your interests beyond "the west".

As for "archetypes", I really don't understand what you mean, or what your goal is.

Please use simpler language.

[Olinser]

I don't know if 'mythos' is necessarily the best term, but the past 100 or so years has seen the creation of basically the entire genre of Space science fiction, along with a number of generally accepted 'standards' like FTL travel, the existence of other advanced intelligent life, etc.

[Donnadogsoth]

Again with the Lovecraft!



I don't think that this fixation on finding "truths" in 20th century horror fiction is healthy.




Yes, we have a diversity of story.

I think most of us find that a good thing.



Attained?




I can't speak for S@tanicoaldo (who wonderfully cited numerous "mythos"), but I'll speak for myself.

Since at least the 19th century there have been numerous attempts to develop classifications of the Motifs used used in Folklore and Mythology.

I believe the attempts may be called a part of Folkloristics.

Perhaps you should check out The American Folklore Society to find out more.

But to really study the subject, I encourage you to broaden your interests beyond "the west".

As for "archetypes", I really don't understand what you mean, or what your goal is.

Please use simpler language.

By archetypes I mean rich symbols that pervade story, in the sense of Carl Jung or Joseph Campbell.

This quote has intrigued me:

Personally I think Campbell was onto something with his examination of shamanistic versus cyclical myths; these are the seriously, seriously old ones that we only have access to through oral traditions and the very earliest written stories. Basically, when a culture has a complete change in circumstance in which their primary way of getting energy (literally through food or more metaphorically) that event is accompanied by a new form of myth. This was evident when people moved from hunter-gatherer societies to agrarian societies. Their energy no longer came from the hunt, it came from the land and the crop. Trying to remember this without the book in front of me, so I might get this wrong; but rebirth myths were almost nonexistent in the nomadic shamanistic cultures. They only started happening when people settled down and planted crops. That's when you get things like the Osiris myth.*

My own suspicion is that we've recently had a similar sort of a shift. In the modern world we have no connection to the cycle of rebirth and seasons, at least not as far as it relates to how we get our food and energy. For most people living in cities, as far as they're concerned grain and meat come from a grocery store or a restaurant. So the day-to-day struggles we have bear extremely little resemblance to the circumstances that gave rise to rebirth myths. They're less meaningful to people, so they connect less to them. Something like the "coming-out" story might be the next wave of mythology.

I thus wonder if we have entered an age of a new kind of myth. Do we return to the shamanic, does the cyclical somehow survive, or do we invent something new?

[Bohandas]

Since World War 2 has been mentioned I would bring up the idea that Hitler was somehow a special person; both the Nazi version of this myth that glorified him and the Allied version that treats him as more than just the particular fascist pinhead who happened to end up on top. Nazis are fungible

[runeghost]

I'd add the old Start Wars EU to the modern mythos bin. I'm not sure it'll survive long enough, but it very much has the potential to become a true mythology.

2000 years from now they'll be teaching kids about how the American civilisation of ancient times on old earthpracticed a religion following the Jedi gods, who walked the galaxy as mortals before ascending to godhood on their deathbed, and of who the greatest was believed to be the Skywalker, child of the fallen good Vader, who fought against the evil Emporer Palpatine to free the galaxy from demons known as Sith.

Search your feelings, you know to be true.

And obviously it's all true. I mean, there's a real place called "Skywalker Ranch" owned by a guy called Luke! And Jedi are a real religion, although many powerful states don't recognize them as such!

Take that and run with it for a 1000 years and who knows what you'll get, but it'll be something.

[Lethologica]

Firstly, is it possible to get more imprecision into a single sentence? Certain readings? Stories related to those facts? Part of myths? That could mean literally anything.

No, it means simply what it says.

But secondly, you don't argue for the facts themselves to be myths?

You go on to quote me saying that historical facts can be flexed to meet mythical narrative requirements. That does not mean the facts are the myths, so if you're using that quote to claim that I ever argued such, you are mistaken. I'm afraid that much of what you consider my lack of clarity is simply your incautious reading.

Yes. A different definition. Not the one we were talking about.

Since you have yet to offer a definition, and since you are not the only person who determines what definitions of myths are relevant in this thread, and since Razade has demonstrated that a historical (or claimed historical) basis is a reasonable component of definitions of 'myth', neither I nor anyone else has reason to adhere to your stated requirement.

[Hazyshade]

You go on to quote me saying that historical facts can be flexed to meet mythical narrative requirements. That does not mean the facts are the myths

So to return to the very first question that you didn't answer, if the myth is all in the interpretation and not at all in the facts, then who exactly made you the judge of what's mythical and what's not? Are we supposed to believe that you are a myth-free thinker, that you're not every bit as misinformed about the True Facts as the people who believe this myth you're talking about?

I'm afraid that much of what you consider my lack of clarity is simply your incautious reading.

No, I'm afraid it's simply your lack of clarity, because I don't have this problem with anyone else.

[Lethologica]

So to return to the very first question that you didn't answer, if the myth is all in the interpretation and not at all in the facts, then who exactly made you the judge of what's mythical and what's not? Are we supposed to believe that you are a myth-free thinker, that you're not every bit as misinformed about the True Facts as the people who believe this myth you're talking about?

To me this question is every bit as incoherent as you claim my statements are. I didn't claim to be the judge of what is and isn't mythical. I didn't claim to be myth-free. I didn't claim to be in possession of the True Facts. And none of that has anything to do with...what the hell are you even arguing at this point, anyway?

No, I'm afraid it's simply your lack of clarity, because I don't have this problem with anyone else.

I'm not even the only person giving you this problem in this thread. And it starts with your insistence on a peculiar definition of 'myth' that you refuse to share with the class. Perhaps you're having trouble finding it in a dictionary?

[S@tanicoaldo]

Thank you S@tanicoaldo, that's what I meant. Do you have any answers to my question?

I wish but I really don't get a word you are saying, you speak as if all this evolution we had is a bad thing and want to find something I don't get, "the myth cycles that have come are not singular" have they ever being singular? What do you mean by singular? New archetypes? Have you read/watched American gods?

In that book the old gods(Like Odin) have to fight the new gods, since humans create the gods tough faith a powerful source of power they used to worship the thunder, nature and wind(The old gods) but now they worship other things(Technology, media, money etc..) So is that what you are looking for? Can you use English and make a direct and straight forward question without all that eloquence and sesquipedalian oquaciousness? Maybe then I’ll be able to help. Trying to find the answer to a question that I don’t know what’s asking so first I have to decipher what you are asking is quite an ordeal.



And here: LInK

[leafman]

I think the question in the OP has been answered at this point: Yes the "West" has spawned many myths in the past 1000 years. The last 500 years have been chock full of them, everything from "real" witches in Salem, Mass., to cryptozoological creatures of all shapes and sizes, to the gunslingers of the Wild West. There will always be new myths as long as humans have a penchant for exaggeration.
"The greatest lies have origins in truth."

[Donnadogsoth]

I wish but I really don't get a word you are saying, you speak as if all this evolution we had is a bad thing and want to find something I don't get, "the myth cycles that have come are not singular" have they ever being singular? What do you mean by singular? New archetypes? Have you read/watched American gods?

In that book the old gods(Like Odin) have to fight the new gods, since humans create the gods tough faith a powerful source of power they used to worship the thunder, nature and wind(The old gods) but now they worship other things(Technology, media, money etc..) So is that what you are looking for? Can you use English and make a direct and straight forward question without all that eloquence and sesquipedalian oquaciousness? Maybe then I’ll be able to help. Trying to find the answer to a question that I don’t know what’s asking so first I have to decipher what you are asking is quite an ordeal.



And here: LInK

You're using terms like “sesquepedalian” and “loquaciousness” and you have trouble with my English?

It's hard to ask a question when people don't even know what “archetype” means in this rich old educated year of 2017, but, here is a video that will help you grasp this concept better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wywUQc-4Opk

This thread's chief purpose is listing the myths and mythos of the West this past 1000 years. It's new purpose, is to ask whether the current, er, lots and lots of myths from around the world, have anything distinct about them that would distinguish them as specifically, shall we say, industrial in nature.

As was said previously, there were hunter-gatherer cultures, and there were agrarian cultures, and now there are industrial cultures. The old birth-rebirth cyclical myths associated from agrarian cultures still exist, but they exist alongside the lots and lots of myths from around the world, and there doesn't seem to be any unity, singularity, whatever you want to call it, just a lot of competing noise. I wonder if there will develop an overarching industrial (or, goodness forbid, postindustrial) mythology that will unify these competing things.

I wonder if there are new myths and symbols that are developing. “American Gods” is close to what I am asking about, but does it represent one-of-many myths, or does it represent something overarching?