Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 8285440" data-attributes="member: 59082">Yes, this. Although I would make a couple of key adjustments, because I think what you say here could be used to perpetuate the cognitive error of misplaced concreteness that I believe is at the root of a lot of these issues. &quot;Mythic thinking&quot; involves not allegory and stereotype, but symbol and archetype. An allegory involves an &quot;A = B&quot; equation. A is a stand-in or representation of B. A symbol, on the other hand, is multi-faceted, with a variety of meanings that are contextual to the individual. Not &quot;what does this really mean,&quot; but &quot;what does this mean to me, in this context.&quot;An archetype--used in the Platonic and Jungian sense--is akin to a &quot;proto-thought,&quot; an expression of a deep pattern in the psyche, one that is universal, or at least representative of something that has wide applicability (so I would argue that there are &quot;true&quot; or universal archetypes, and also &quot;lesser&quot; or cultural ones). A stereotype, on the other hand, is a crystalized and reduced form of an archetype, a cliche, and often pejorative in nature because it often reduces a complexity to a simplified and generally negative characterization.The error that is occurring involves reducing symbols to allegories, and archetypes to stereotypes. So people think that orcs, for instance, are meant to be allegorical for specific races or types of people, rather than representative of a universal aspect of human nature. Orcs aren't stereotypes, but archetypes of those aspects of ourselves that are bestial, self-serving, enthralled by evil and power.What WotC is essentially doing is patching on more stereotypes, nicer ones. It is well-intended, I think, but doesn't go deep enough, and doesn't solve the problem, only bandaids it a bit.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercurius, post: 8285440, member: 59082"] Yes, this. Although I would make a couple of key adjustments, because I think what you say here could be used to perpetuate the cognitive error of misplaced concreteness that I believe is at the root of a lot of these issues. "Mythic thinking" involves not allegory and stereotype, but symbol and archetype. An allegory involves an "A = B" equation. A is a stand-in or representation of B. A symbol, on the other hand, is multi-faceted, with a variety of meanings that are contextual to the individual. Not "what does this really mean," but "what does this mean to me, in this context." An archetype--used in the Platonic and Jungian sense--is akin to a "proto-thought," an expression of a deep pattern in the psyche, one that is universal, or at least representative of something that has wide applicability (so I would argue that there are "true" or universal archetypes, and also "lesser" or cultural ones). A stereotype, on the other hand, is a crystalized and reduced form of an archetype, a cliche, and often pejorative in nature because it often reduces a complexity to a simplified and generally negative characterization. The error that is occurring involves reducing symbols to allegories, and archetypes to stereotypes. So people think that orcs, for instance, are meant to be allegorical for specific races or types of people, rather than representative of a [I]universal [/I]aspect of human nature. Orcs aren't stereotypes, but archetypes of those aspects of ourselves that are bestial, self-serving, enthralled by evil and power. What WotC is essentially doing is patching on more stereotypes, nicer ones. It is well-intended, I think, but doesn't go deep enough, and doesn't solve the problem, only bandaids it a bit. [/QUOTE]

Verification