Man or Myth? should be Man and Myth
In Response To: Re: Man or Myth? ()

Hi Helge, Hi Charles

What is a man? What is truth? I would like to suggest that it is the nature of being human to be a physical reality and a being which is creative through deeds and language. Helge, these are not two realms of history; they are part of being human. This being encompasses this physical body and all the ideas and language we create. So in dealing with history: to understand the man you have to understand the myth and to understand the myth you have to understand the man.

So when Charles says:
"Do you think General/Treasurer/Priest Djehuty would recognize his own "unauthorized biography" in the Bible? Perhaps only vaguely, but I think we can say that ancient royals fully participated in role playing. The allusions to "pagan" gods and rites that we are just now discerning would have been far more familiar to them."

The Truth is that without the historical understanding, the myth is but empty words. Without the myth, you can't grasp the meaning of the man. Beware of artificial dualisms. Sorry for the philosphising but it is my myth!

Responses To This Message