In
the beginning, there is Chaos. Always. Everywhere.
The
world “as it is” - presuming for the sake of the argument that
there indeed is something like that - presents itself to the human
being as an big mess of unrelated tiny details. In order for human
beings to interact, especially, to interact conscously, we need to
establish some kind of order. We need to distinguish things, we need
to group things, and we need some kind of connection between these
things. And in order to be able to do so, first, we need to decide what is relevant.
If
we adopt Chiara Botticis notion of myth as a narrative that
answers a need for significance, as developed in her book “A
philosophy of political myth”, creation myths can be understood as
a depiction of this first attempt of defining a crucial, basic order.
It is not to be regarded as the account of some kind of real event,
but as some kind of map that helps the ones that consider it a myth
to orient themselves in this world, to make sense of their actions:
past, present, future; uniting and separating human beings, forming
and separating communities.
I
will not go into a detailed analysis or interpretetion of creation
myths, though I think it might be very interesting to look at the
similarities and differences in detail. I will even refrain from
referring to concrete examples. Instead, I will focus on what I
consider to be the first step in creating an order, and sketch some
general thoughts on the implications and the consequences.
As
I said: In the beginning, there is chaos. Then, for what reason ever,
the first division is made: above and below, sky and earth. It is
only logical that at the same time that one comes to existence, at
the same time, its opposition comes into being, too. Because something
can only exist, if there is nothing, too. There are many ways in
which two things can form an opposition of some kind, but I think it
is safe to assume that in order to have an opposition we need to
define the dimension to which it applies. In this very simplified
notion of a creation myth we can observe several oppositions coming
into being at once: a spatial one (above-below), a temporal one
(first-then), the one between temporal and spatial, and the one
between chaos and order. One could thus argue, that the very basic
order that can established is thus the one relying on time and space,
and furthermore, that these notions are so closely intertwined that
the one can't be without the other.
Additionally,
there must some kind of reference point from which this division can
be made, that, itself, can only be created in opposition to some kind
of background. So somehow this twofold division does not really seem
complete without the other, without the third.
This
is of particular interest considering that a myth has to be a
narrative, because a narrative always has to have a temporal
dimension in order to be one. Even though it is meant to make sense
of circumstances that happen all simulataneously – if it wasn't
something that had it's impact in the here and now it wouldn't be
relevant – it puts them into a temporal order. And as such part of
it can be situated in the past, and part of it in the future, or from
another angle: it puts the circumstances of the here and now into the
context of what has happened before and what will subsequently happen
, giving our actions a reason and a consequence (even though the
narrative itself can limit itself to retell events solely in the
past).
I
do like to think that the spatial and temporal dimension came into
notion the very precise moment that this need for significance
awakened – some kind of first sign of consciousness of the human
mind. I also think that humankind noted very, very early that putting
together one and one – one of this, and one of that: different in
some aspects, yet basically the same – makes three. If we have
three, all sorts of things begin to happen. If we have three, we have
anything. We can start combining and then combine, what has been
combined, on so many levels, without even really having to resort to
any other kind of dimension, just out of this very first twofold
division and the subsequent combination. Patterns start to emerge,
and they begin to repeat themselves with an astonishing regularity,
to an astonishing diversity, like an egg that has been fertilized and
thus in no time starts to divide at a virtually explosive rate,
somehow in itself containing all the specific information it needs to
form their own particular shape, different for each species, but in
itself woundrously consistent, mirroring the whole process of
evolution in the womb of a female. The Miracle of life itself.
But
even though I think there are really nice pictures, I don't want to
dwell on this level of , but keep focusing on the structure – or
maybe logic? - of this process of establishing an order. The fact
that a simple system of establishing order can be applied to almost
anything, the inherent consistency of a systems carries great
persuasive power. If it explains everything, it must be true –
mustn't it? That is the danger, the trap – this is why consistency
should be regarded as inherently suspiocious, especially when this
power is transferred to individuals or groups.
We
tend to forget that the starting point, the very first dimension that
is considered important enough to positively dissiociate it from the
chaos, is by every means motivated, yet still arbitrary. It is a
system that has been shaped by creating relevance of some kind. As
soon as there is a shift in what we consider relevant, the system
itself becomes inapplicable. But because we need significance we
might be able to reject this or that system, but not really abandon
all of them completely. Every attempt to think outside the box is
nothing but a change in the shape of the box. But if relevance is
arbitrary, and each system has it's own combinatory system,
absolutely foolprof in itself – if, thus to speak, no system can
legitimally be abrogated, neither from the outside, nor from the
inside, rendering every map a mere piece of paper with some scribbles
on it – how can we even act, or think, even be conscious? What else
can we rely on?
On
a sidenote, I think the contradiction between the need for
significance, and the opposing wish to escape significance, is
something that has given rise to many religions, too – be it
because it is close to my very own map of relevance, I do find that
buddhism provides one or two very interesting thoughts on how to not
only escape significanse, but also how to overcome the contradiction
between the need for and the whish to escape it. Maybe the ability to
see without relevance, to see the chaos itself as it is is
enlightenment, and maybe it is indeed possible to achieve it through
one of the many practices proclaimed. In any case, it is noteworthy
that this seems to be a contradiction that has been dealt with in many
ways.
In
the more mundaine realm of our daily lives we have to change our
focus. We need to live and more importantly: to act in the society,
in the world we live in. We need to make decisions, and we need
relevance in order to be able to make them, because that defines what
we want to achieve and how we want to achieve it. And action is
always inter-action of some kind, and because we share a place and a
time with other humans, we need to have some common relevances, and
thus sharing a myth is an important factor in forming a community and
shaping the rules of coexistence. And here the theoretical approach
that stresses the equivalence and the arbitrarity of systems proves
itself practically fruitless, because in order to act, we need to
commit. Of course, we can commit to more than one system, dividing
our lives into spheres that prefer the one or the other. It could be
funny game: “Oh, for this purpose I think I'll commit to system X”,
if there wasn't so much a stake: all around the world there are
people suffering. I can't but see every individual action in the
context of our world wide community. Even knowing that I have no
right, no basis, no authority to elevate my own map of relevance to
the point that every one else adheres to it, I can't but wish for
that what I consider suffering to decrease in a way I consider good.
I need to put my own relevance first, neglecting the total
arbitrarity of it, because if escaping is not in it, I will at least
play my game as virtuously as I can, and at least in myself be the
change I want to see, shaping the world and myself accordingly.
In
order to be able to reshape we need a shape. Even though everything
is a process, we need to freeze it again and again in order to be
able to really grasp it. The moment we freeze it, it has already
become a distortion of what actually is, and we have to start
reworking it. This also corresponds to the fact that on the one hand,
our map of relevance has a great influence on our perception, and our
perception has on the other was round an influence on our relevance.
Again, we cannot ecape this cycle totally – we can try to stay open
and be ready to accept perceptions outside of our map of relevance,
but we cannot set aside our map of relevance. The moment a certain
systems is able to explain every detail of our world, every
perception, every action, every consequence, the moment it becomes
obsolete. But it is a necessary step to develop our system to the
point that it indeed is able to make sense of everything we perceive,
otherwise our perception stays limited, too. The real Art of it is to
find the proper rhythm of shaping and reshaping, of dwelling,
insisting, and of discarding – fuelling the ongoing process and
making it visible, tangible, changeable.
Not all maps of relevance take the form of a narrative, not all
narratives function as a means of structuring our world of perception
and action. The fact that it not only has a temporal, but also a
dramatic structure sets it apart from other similar notions, such as
ideology, for example. That is a point that should not be
forgotten when going into more detailed analysis on how myth exactly
is able to function as such, I think besides closure, the plot is an
important factor on why and how a myth gains it’s persuasive power,
enabling us to compare it to other devices of mapping the world.
Above all, I think it would be important to analyze similarities and
differences of myth and science – not only theoretical schemata of
science, but in how “scientific narratives” work for people that
are not directly involved in the academic world. What exactly sets
“believing in evolution theory” aside from “believing in
creationism”? Personally, I think that for some reason science has
gained that sort of persuasive power that makes it unnecessary to
really understand how it works. Scientific knowledge is
handled as truth by people that have no idea how that knowledge
actually is structured and how it came into existence, somehow
rendering it intrinsically contradictive. This is why I think that
the concept of myth is a very helpful one in order to gain insights
on how and why something is considered as true and how systems gain
their persuasive power.
