MYTHS ARE HISTORY
2. A Global Synoptic View ...
|
Second:
Compare and contrast it all in a global synoptic view -- a space in which all cultural renditions worldwide can come to light and illuminate one another. |
The comparative study of the mythologies of the world compels us to view the cultural history of mankind as a unified totality — i.e., as a variety of oral traditions speaking about the same series of historical events. When we outline these traditions side by side in greater detail, the basic cosmogonic patterns and corresponding elements which frequently reappear across multiple cultural renditions can be seen quite clearly.
But because we here theorize that the same set of events were everywhere worked up into different histories, the ancient wisdoms of the world’s myth-making traditions must be carefully compared and correlated in order to bring together in one accord the scattered particulars peculiar to one or more cultures near and far. Here the meaning and function of particular motifs, symbols, and customs from one culture will be used as keys to interpret similar motifs, symbols, and customs in other cultures. In order to reach a reasonable degree of confidence that the correspondences we spot are actually meaningful, we shall be looking especially for repeated occurrences of key types, tropes and themes that reveal prevailing beliefs and practices widely and consistently adhered to. The rationale for this procedure is our proposition that comparative elements are to be seen as so many manifestations of a common archetype — the multivalent effects of one and the same cause. Yet we must ensure that our comparisons do not in any way suppresses cultural differences and the distinctive uniqueness of each tradition. Because no two mythological systems are exactly the same, but all do contain significant patterns and points of resemblance, our method of comparison involves not only connecting parallel examples that illustrate common tropes, but also showing how some examples differ in relation to those tropes. — After all, are not noticeable variances (e.g., the number of Ages, or the number of Floods) to be expected from a global events witnessed by dozens of different points of view? Some myths do, in fact, appear to have a very limited geographical distribution; while other themes that have a very wide or perhaps universal distribution are varyingly styled, weighted, and combined. This variety invites us to look for explanations for mythic tropes and themes within the specificity of each culture, and certainly many answers may be obtained in this manner. Ignoring the specificities of each tradition would be a grave methodological error. It is essential that we address the specific cultural contexts of each motif. For the differences and distinctions between traditions often expose significant perspectival variations of the same patterns and tropes observed differently in different cultural contexts. And carefully correlating these variations is by far the most meaningful measure we shall be undertaking here. |
— Thus we must not seek to impose any false or misleading superficial homogeneity on all examples. Universal patterns must not be allowed to override each culture’s specific local contexts of meaning. "The particular always underlies the universal; the universal must forever submit to the particular." (Goethe, Maxims and Reflections 199.) The contrasting distinctions of each myth-making tradition must, therefore, be allowed fair and equal play alongside the comparative similarities. For we need to be able to show in a demonstrable way how specific ideas and practices recurred and varied in relation to specific geographic situations. Respecting both the similarities as well as the differences between cultural renditions is integrally important in distinguishing truly meaningful cross-cultural parallels that can, in turn, explain and account for both the similarities and the differences that were originally observed as perspectival counterparts around the globe.
When we find both clear-cut correlations as well as distinguishing contradictions side by side, we must first recognize that what any of these tropes might’ve originally represented for the world as a whole in the past, can only become apparent to us again when all known cultural renditions are carefully correlated back together with one another. The universal meanings behind the world’s mythologies simply cannot to be found by reading only one or two or even several cultural narratives in sequence, but solely by superimposing all cultural accounts from a global array of traditions together upon one another. From there, similar mythical events would become more and more correlated and congruent as our work continues to grow and accumulate. |
Only a truly titanic fusion of all mythologies can possibly resolve all the supposed discords between cultural renditions, and thus arrive at a larger global unity in which all variations can be more easily reconciled. Those kinds of connections and relationships are the very basis of modern thought and science, and without such interconnected relationships between the mythological traditions of the world we would have only cold, hard, isolated, insubstantial fragments.
|
By thus comparing and contrasting a large number of of creation mythologies from different parts of the world, we ultimately aim to arrive at an acceptable global master narrative that can account for both the similarities and the differences between every cultural rendition.— Our challenge here will be not to just assert the commonalities and differences, but rather to meaningfully explain them, and how both the similar and the diverse elements ultimately go together, in order to round out a more complete and integral global picture of cosmogonic myth.
The most convincing way to do this would be to assemble a continuous narrative of world history, beginning at the turn of one event and showing how its manifestations continued to change from one salient moment to the next, both through chronological time as well as geophysical space. — In order to achieve this we shall continue to adopt the comparative method we have established thus far: the global Compound Eye model, and its express emphasis on the East to West rotation of all fields-of-view worldwide. It is the consecutive relationships between these fields-of-view that constitute the connective links between the comparative cosmogonic incidents that appeared around the globe. This is where the secret key to an historical understanding of mythology has so long been lying in wait. Undertaking this kind of analysis systematically — in a way that can account for each culture’s respective field-of-view, as well as the sequential succession of cultural view-points that naturally arise due to the continuous rotation of the Earth — it then becomes possible to organize all known cultural variants of our cosmogonic tropes and themes into sequential sets which will allow stories from every tradition to be fitted together as successive episodes in one overarching narrative. All the world’s affairs being analogously inclined thus in one and the same direction, we can then assemble all these multi-cultural snapshots into a tighter chronological sequence of events. We would thereby arrive at a more globally integrated big picture that can provide us an all-inclusive unified field view, capable of succinctly reconciling both the similarities and the differences of all known cultural viewpoints. — This would truly be a new presentation of world mythology in general — not a new translation, but a new reading of world mythology, a new universally valid retelling of the oldest stories we know. |
Taking on the challenge of providing concrete cosmological conjectures for all our key mythological traits, tropes and themes, it then becomes our task to weave together these historical threads of myth into a meaningful tapestry that can be understood and appreciated by all peoples alike.
— Our general procedure will be to treat the sequences of each cultural rendition of the global myth cycle much like the instrumental parts of a musical work, and study them as one studies a symphony. Patterns showing affinity are to be treated as one complex pattern and read together as a whole — achieving what we might call a global harmony of world mythology. As each time the theme is repeated in an musical score its overall meaning grows clearer, so also, as each cultural instance is superimposed on the others in the same series, it becomes possible to see exactly what the different occurrences of the theme have in common — as well as what most distinguishes them from one another. |