Tolkien v. Howard v. Lovecraft
- Thread starter InzeladunMaster
- Start date
InzeladunMaster
First Post
You have hit the nail on the head there! By insisting that myth is literal, modern religions engage the logical part of our mind instead of our instinctive part. We all can enjoy Greek mythology, for example, but as soon as someone tries to call them literal truths, we can argue all day about the impossibility of Pegasus. I recall once learning that ancient Greeks and Norse never believed their myths were literally true and, as a child, I thought that was strange. It is not so strange anymore. Leaving the myth as a symbolic lesson makes it much more powerful, since it will completely bypass the logical mind.
Howard's writings always seem to teach that logical thought will always battle with instinctive belief - and that ultimately the instincts must win.
I think George Lucas made a similar mistake as you ascribe to religion when he made The Force less of a spiritual myth and into a literal biological function in The Phantom Menace. He de-mystified The Force and made it into something that can be objectively measured and studied.
(He partially redeemed himself in Episode III, when he hinted that the Sith Lord Darth Plagueis learned to provoke midi-chlorians into producing life and may have actually created Anakin in a Frankenstein-like manner - a point reinforced with the reconstruction of Anakin into Darth Vader at the end of the movie in a manner reminescent of the 1931 Frankenstein movie. The myth is given a Christian twist by making him a fatherless creation instead of a motherless one.)
Looking back at so many of my favourite movies, books and stories, the heavily symbolic and mythical are strongly represented there. The Lord of the Rings, Frankenstein, Dracula, Dune, Star Wars, "The Raven," The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Forbidden Planet, etc.
Howard's writings always seem to teach that logical thought will always battle with instinctive belief - and that ultimately the instincts must win.
I think George Lucas made a similar mistake as you ascribe to religion when he made The Force less of a spiritual myth and into a literal biological function in The Phantom Menace. He de-mystified The Force and made it into something that can be objectively measured and studied.
(He partially redeemed himself in Episode III, when he hinted that the Sith Lord Darth Plagueis learned to provoke midi-chlorians into producing life and may have actually created Anakin in a Frankenstein-like manner - a point reinforced with the reconstruction of Anakin into Darth Vader at the end of the movie in a manner reminescent of the 1931 Frankenstein movie. The myth is given a Christian twist by making him a fatherless creation instead of a motherless one.)
Looking back at so many of my favourite movies, books and stories, the heavily symbolic and mythical are strongly represented there. The Lord of the Rings, Frankenstein, Dracula, Dune, Star Wars, "The Raven," The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Forbidden Planet, etc.
Last edited:
InzeladunMaster
First Post
Of course! Excellent additions to the list. All wonderful films and, in the case of The Exorcist, a magnificent multi-layered novel (one of those that I have read and re-read many times because of the different approaches that can be taken with it).
I have always wanted to read the Oz books but never have. Have you?
I've never read the source material for Excalibur, either.
I have always wanted to read the Oz books but never have. Have you?
I've never read the source material for Excalibur, either.
thormagni
Explorer
A few random thoughts on the discussion at hand...
I don't think religion is in the business of mystery. I think religion is in the business of certainty. To be truly religious, is to believe with absolute, unquestioning certainty. The reason some people say their religious beliefs are such a rock of stability for them, is because those beliefs are absolutely rock solid. A religious person asks a question about the great themes of life and is given a stock, set-in-stone answer.
An authoritative religious answer removes the possiblity of discussion, dissent or vagueness. Why is something the way it is? Because the SUPREME BEING made it so. You can't argue with that. It is a concrete, discussion-ending answer.
And I don't think that people higher up in religious orders actually are initiated into any deeper mysteries. Instead, I think religions generally reward those who believe in them most dogmatically. A person who rises high in a religious order, generally is a person who is committed to more deeply accepting the teachings of the church as, well, gospel truth.
This is of course not taking into account the people who rise high in a religious order by cynically and callously faking their belief and piety. A con artist can find fertile territory for exploitation among the ranks of the religious.
The problem Grimhelm alluded to, the conflict between observable fact and the teachings of religion, is known as cognitive dissonance. It is the mental tension that is created when two diametrically opposing ideas are held in equal esteem in a person's mind. If these ideas have sufficient tension between them, then research shows that yes, it can cause deep harm. You see some interesting effects as people do incredible mental gymastics to reconcile those sorts of ideas in their own mind. They are willing to discount the input of their own senses in order to keep the construct intact.
I truly believe that most people are immune to the concept of allegory or symbolism. Most people are extremely literal and dogmatic. If you tell them authoritatively that the Supreme Being made the Earth in 10 days, the believe the Earth was made in 10 days. I find it hard to believe that people 3,000, 2,000, 500 or 50 years ago where any more sophisticated in their thinking than the vast majority of people today. So I generally assume that they believed in their religious traditions as firmly as people today believe in theirs.
I don't think religion is in the business of mystery. I think religion is in the business of certainty. To be truly religious, is to believe with absolute, unquestioning certainty. The reason some people say their religious beliefs are such a rock of stability for them, is because those beliefs are absolutely rock solid. A religious person asks a question about the great themes of life and is given a stock, set-in-stone answer.
An authoritative religious answer removes the possiblity of discussion, dissent or vagueness. Why is something the way it is? Because the SUPREME BEING made it so. You can't argue with that. It is a concrete, discussion-ending answer.
And I don't think that people higher up in religious orders actually are initiated into any deeper mysteries. Instead, I think religions generally reward those who believe in them most dogmatically. A person who rises high in a religious order, generally is a person who is committed to more deeply accepting the teachings of the church as, well, gospel truth.
This is of course not taking into account the people who rise high in a religious order by cynically and callously faking their belief and piety. A con artist can find fertile territory for exploitation among the ranks of the religious.
The problem Grimhelm alluded to, the conflict between observable fact and the teachings of religion, is known as cognitive dissonance. It is the mental tension that is created when two diametrically opposing ideas are held in equal esteem in a person's mind. If these ideas have sufficient tension between them, then research shows that yes, it can cause deep harm. You see some interesting effects as people do incredible mental gymastics to reconcile those sorts of ideas in their own mind. They are willing to discount the input of their own senses in order to keep the construct intact.
I truly believe that most people are immune to the concept of allegory or symbolism. Most people are extremely literal and dogmatic. If you tell them authoritatively that the Supreme Being made the Earth in 10 days, the believe the Earth was made in 10 days. I find it hard to believe that people 3,000, 2,000, 500 or 50 years ago where any more sophisticated in their thinking than the vast majority of people today. So I generally assume that they believed in their religious traditions as firmly as people today believe in theirs.
InzeladunMaster
First Post
Archeology disagrees with you on that point. Ancient people tended to switch gods and religions fairly regularly, depending on who conquered them or the ease of doing so. How many times did the Jewish people abandon their religion? Religious fanatacism is relatively recent.
Ancient religions offered moral tales to teach one how to live life, to tell what to expect after death and to maintain their own cultural values. When those values changed, so did their religion. No one has held onto a religious dogma in ancient times nearly as long as we have held onto some of our modern religions. Ancient Egyptians, for example, believed their religion offered spiritual truths, not worldly truths. They knew that the world was a globe, for example, but that is not the religious picture of the world they accepted - and that dual acceptance of things was fine for them because they understood a spiritual truth is not the same as a worldly truth.
Ancient religions also did not dispute or fight against new worldly findings like the Catholic Church used to do. Christianity takes archeological discoveries as an affront sometimes - the ancients would not have been bothered. Most of their religions would have adapted to a new world view. They were used to that. Few ancient religions had a concrete, unchanging "book" like modern religions do (Christianity and Islam, mostly) that has to be adhered to.
I don't think ancients were as "immune" to symbolism as you imply. Even Jesus is said to have taught via parable, which is not unlike teaching via myth... the ancients expected religious material to be taught in such ways. No one (that I know of) believes Jesus was telling the literal truth with those parables, but that he was relaying a lesson. Thus were the ancient myths taught - as non-literal lessons.
Sure, they believed in their gods but not in the literal truths of their myths. I have had reason to research mystery religions lately. Even modern ones, such as Scientology, do teach different "truths" as they move up in the religion. The ancient religion of Mithras, for example, expected everyone to go through the first four ranks of their religion, but only the clergy went through the following three. Ancient Eygptian and ancient Greek religions also worked this way. Even early Christianity seemed to work this way (Gnostics, for example).
I also don't think we are as immune to symbolism as you imply. There are symbolic archetypes that appeal to us, and continually reoccur in literature, movies, art and even in advertising. Ever notice how it often rains in movies when a major change is happening? Water is symbolic of change. Even the winds ripping through Vader's cape when he tells Luke the "big secret" is symbolic. Of course, Luke's fall after the revelation is an obvious fall from innocence for Luke. Looking at Ralph McQuarrie's concept painting of Luke right before that fall, His arms are outstretched and his feet together on the little ledge - looking a lot like a familiar sacrifice... Anyway, even the cutting off of Luke's hand and Vader's hand later, can be emblematic of the dismemberment of the gods, a common theme in ancient religions. Luke and Leia have a very Osiris-Isis type of relationship.
I think religion is like Frankenstein or the Star Wars trilogy. They do offer something on the surface but can be a whole lot richer, if less mysterious, when one delves into them. I am sure, however, that there are people who will insist there is nothing to Frankenstein or the Star Wars trilogy beyond the surface presentation of the stories - just like there are religious people who claim the same about their religion. I have heard religious people (Catholics, mind you) who have denounced the LotR as evil and Satanic, despite the subtle Catholic allegories and symbols throughout the tale.
I once read that C.S. Lewis once charged that Tolkien was too subtle with his symbolism and allegories and Tolkien responded that the imagery he used is more powerful than the beat-them-over-the-head-with-it approach Lewis used with his much more obvious allegories. All I know is that when I was in the 7th grade, LotR resonated with me, while "Lion, Witch and Wardrobe" made me roll my eyes at the obvious retelling of the Christ story, a story I was already bored with - and I knew almost nothing of symbolism in the 7th grade. Was I immune? No. Even if we do not consciously grasp the symbols, I think they do work and that we are affected by them.
Good point about cognative dissonance. I teach that concept in Strategies for Success at IBC. 3 points for using scientific terminology! I think the success of Star Wars is less about special effects and more about symbolism and myth. Perhaps the reason so many people turn to religion instead of science is because the symbolism of religion resonates stronger within them than the cold logic of science.
Ancient religions offered moral tales to teach one how to live life, to tell what to expect after death and to maintain their own cultural values. When those values changed, so did their religion. No one has held onto a religious dogma in ancient times nearly as long as we have held onto some of our modern religions. Ancient Egyptians, for example, believed their religion offered spiritual truths, not worldly truths. They knew that the world was a globe, for example, but that is not the religious picture of the world they accepted - and that dual acceptance of things was fine for them because they understood a spiritual truth is not the same as a worldly truth.
Ancient religions also did not dispute or fight against new worldly findings like the Catholic Church used to do. Christianity takes archeological discoveries as an affront sometimes - the ancients would not have been bothered. Most of their religions would have adapted to a new world view. They were used to that. Few ancient religions had a concrete, unchanging "book" like modern religions do (Christianity and Islam, mostly) that has to be adhered to.
I don't think ancients were as "immune" to symbolism as you imply. Even Jesus is said to have taught via parable, which is not unlike teaching via myth... the ancients expected religious material to be taught in such ways. No one (that I know of) believes Jesus was telling the literal truth with those parables, but that he was relaying a lesson. Thus were the ancient myths taught - as non-literal lessons.
Sure, they believed in their gods but not in the literal truths of their myths. I have had reason to research mystery religions lately. Even modern ones, such as Scientology, do teach different "truths" as they move up in the religion. The ancient religion of Mithras, for example, expected everyone to go through the first four ranks of their religion, but only the clergy went through the following three. Ancient Eygptian and ancient Greek religions also worked this way. Even early Christianity seemed to work this way (Gnostics, for example).
I also don't think we are as immune to symbolism as you imply. There are symbolic archetypes that appeal to us, and continually reoccur in literature, movies, art and even in advertising. Ever notice how it often rains in movies when a major change is happening? Water is symbolic of change. Even the winds ripping through Vader's cape when he tells Luke the "big secret" is symbolic. Of course, Luke's fall after the revelation is an obvious fall from innocence for Luke. Looking at Ralph McQuarrie's concept painting of Luke right before that fall, His arms are outstretched and his feet together on the little ledge - looking a lot like a familiar sacrifice... Anyway, even the cutting off of Luke's hand and Vader's hand later, can be emblematic of the dismemberment of the gods, a common theme in ancient religions. Luke and Leia have a very Osiris-Isis type of relationship.
I think religion is like Frankenstein or the Star Wars trilogy. They do offer something on the surface but can be a whole lot richer, if less mysterious, when one delves into them. I am sure, however, that there are people who will insist there is nothing to Frankenstein or the Star Wars trilogy beyond the surface presentation of the stories - just like there are religious people who claim the same about their religion. I have heard religious people (Catholics, mind you) who have denounced the LotR as evil and Satanic, despite the subtle Catholic allegories and symbols throughout the tale.
I once read that C.S. Lewis once charged that Tolkien was too subtle with his symbolism and allegories and Tolkien responded that the imagery he used is more powerful than the beat-them-over-the-head-with-it approach Lewis used with his much more obvious allegories. All I know is that when I was in the 7th grade, LotR resonated with me, while "Lion, Witch and Wardrobe" made me roll my eyes at the obvious retelling of the Christ story, a story I was already bored with - and I knew almost nothing of symbolism in the 7th grade. Was I immune? No. Even if we do not consciously grasp the symbols, I think they do work and that we are affected by them.
Good point about cognative dissonance. I teach that concept in Strategies for Success at IBC. 3 points for using scientific terminology! I think the success of Star Wars is less about special effects and more about symbolism and myth. Perhaps the reason so many people turn to religion instead of science is because the symbolism of religion resonates stronger within them than the cold logic of science.
Last edited:
Grimhelm
First Post
Modern Symbolism
I have to agree with Inzeladun Master here. Modern man is definitely not immune to symbolism or allegory. In fact, he needs them!
Star Wars is a splendid example of this point. It is filled with archetypes, allegory, symbolism and ancient story lines. And I would argue that it was successful for no other reason than these themes/symbols are universal and rooted deep within the heart of what it means to be human.
I think your point about religion is pretty good, Thormagni, but I think it misses the target slightly. Modern religion is in the business of offering "concrete" answers, as you say, but these answers do little to satisfy the mystery. After all, the depths of the ocean are a mystery to us. Having a scientist tell us what all is down there without ever having seen it for himself does little to satisfy our questions. These sorts of answers create just the sort of dissonance you are referring to. I don't think I am saying religion is in the mystery business, I think what i am saying is that it needs to return to the mystery business. We all need a sense of awe and mystery in our lives. And to shroud the mystery in further mystery appeals to my sensibility. I think it does honor to the things we do not know to create ritual around it. To try to explain the unexplainable only insults the mystery.
I have to agree with Inzeladun Master here. Modern man is definitely not immune to symbolism or allegory. In fact, he needs them!
Star Wars is a splendid example of this point. It is filled with archetypes, allegory, symbolism and ancient story lines. And I would argue that it was successful for no other reason than these themes/symbols are universal and rooted deep within the heart of what it means to be human.
I think your point about religion is pretty good, Thormagni, but I think it misses the target slightly. Modern religion is in the business of offering "concrete" answers, as you say, but these answers do little to satisfy the mystery. After all, the depths of the ocean are a mystery to us. Having a scientist tell us what all is down there without ever having seen it for himself does little to satisfy our questions. These sorts of answers create just the sort of dissonance you are referring to. I don't think I am saying religion is in the mystery business, I think what i am saying is that it needs to return to the mystery business. We all need a sense of awe and mystery in our lives. And to shroud the mystery in further mystery appeals to my sensibility. I think it does honor to the things we do not know to create ritual around it. To try to explain the unexplainable only insults the mystery.
Grimhelm
First Post
Your writing on the changing of religion brings to mind a thought, Inzeladun. You say that religions routinely changed and took on new "scientific" and worldly concepts as new discoveries were made. You also say that somewhere along the line this changed. I am wondering whether this fundamental change relates to the very real split that exists within the mind of modern men; that is, the split between his subconscious and conscious mind.
Your examples recall my discussions with certain folk on the significance of dreams. Some people deny vehemently the possible relevance of their dreams, while others agree that dreams are filled with allegory, symbols, and archetypes brought forth from our own minds and perhaps having ancient origins...
In fact, I think one of the themes of Star Wars is just this, the split between the natural and the "unnatural". In a sense it isn't about good versus evil, but it is about the passionate versus the dispassionate, the natural versus the mechanical, animalism versus rationalism... the major issues of being a conscious-functioning human being.
Your examples recall my discussions with certain folk on the significance of dreams. Some people deny vehemently the possible relevance of their dreams, while others agree that dreams are filled with allegory, symbols, and archetypes brought forth from our own minds and perhaps having ancient origins...
In fact, I think one of the themes of Star Wars is just this, the split between the natural and the "unnatural". In a sense it isn't about good versus evil, but it is about the passionate versus the dispassionate, the natural versus the mechanical, animalism versus rationalism... the major issues of being a conscious-functioning human being.
Last edited:
InzeladunMaster
First Post
Excellent point about the split between the conscious and subconscious. I am not entirely sure where to go with that but I think you have hit on something. In recent researches I get the feeling ancient religions were very subliminal and only the rituals were conscious - and the rituals are designed to honour mysteries and maintain the culture.
Almost all ancient religions forbid the writing down of its interior secrets - only the outer mysteries could be recorded. Those who understood the inner mysteries could 'translate' the outer mysteries. Somewhere along the line, someone decided the outer mysteries was all there was... I wonder if my disillusionment with Christianity had to do with a feeling that there must be something more to it than I was being taught - something that used to exist but is now forgotten.
So many ancient religions are so similar to Christianity it is frightening. So frightening that most Christians claim that Satan, with perfect foresight, created those similar religions to mock Christ before there even was a Christ! I can't buy that theory.
As for dreams, I am of the mind that they are highly symbolic. The subconscious mind is infinitely aware of more than our conscious mind is; we just build scotomas (blocks) to the information so we can focus on what we are doing. Imagine if we were constantly bombarded with all the noises and sights around us at all times, every rustle of clothing, every sound the children make... the important stuff gets through, but all else is relegated as background and ignored - but the subconscious is aware of it all, making the decision of what is important and what is not.
If we listen to our instincts, we find we can even predict the future - this is the case with people who decide not to get on the plane just before it crashes. Instead of listening to their conscious minds, they listened to the subconscious warnings that are aware of EVERYTHING.
Later, the subconscious "talks" to the conscious via symbolism... and that is what dreams are. They tell us the future possibilities as well as the past so we can make more informed choices. Depending on what is going on in life, these things can be trivial (so ignoring the dream has little impact) to monumental. A lot of dreams simply tell us about the present in more detail than our conscious mind can actually perceive.
However, many people insist that dreams mean nothing - they are just the random babblings of a restless mind. That answer does not satisfy me at all, nor does it necessarily reflect my own encounters with dreams. Of course, reality is perception and as long as I ascribe a meaning to my dreams, I will create a self-fulfilling prophecy that "proves" the validity of the meaning I ascribed to it.... and now I am going into circles. But, just because I have the power to create a self-fulfilling prophecy, does that not go against the idea that God creates everything and puts situations before us? Or do we create our own reality? Are our lives God-inspired or self-inspired?
Many movies show that dreams are portentious. Is this indicitive of a subconscious realisation that dreams are portentious, or do some of us believe dreams are portentious because we have seen it in movies? It is hard to be objective because of the subjective nature of perception.
I think part of modern religion's problem lies here: It tries to portray itself as objective truth, whereas ancient religions tended to accept the subjective nature of life - thus the ancient religion's ability to adapt and bend as the culture needed.
Modern Christianity and Islam both are fairly inflexible religions, despite the variations in interpreted dogma (the protestants vs. the Catholics, for example). Changing religions or starting new ones is really the only way to incorporate new subjective spiritual truths into an existing religion. Why would God have created a religion that is so unclear that many different branches are created, often on the disagreement of a single point of interpretation? The answer may be that religion is not objective and was not intended to be. The "teachings" are supposed to be symbolic, not literal - and subjective. Modern religion makes a grave mistake in presuming and teaching that it holds objective truth in its grasp.
The number one objection I get when I teach Strategies for Success, which is about creating self-fulfilling prophecies of success, is that it runs contrary to God - who gives us our lives and the situations in it. I teach that we can choose our lives based on how we think and believe. I also try to teach them to stop believing they are poor, miserable human beings and that they are intelligent, successful people - a point someone always seems to claim is also contrary to their faith in God.
Anyway, Grimhelm is right about the themes of Star Wars: Using instinct and the subconscious to aim the proton torpedoes instead of the conscious mind and the computer targeting device is but one example of that.
Almost all ancient religions forbid the writing down of its interior secrets - only the outer mysteries could be recorded. Those who understood the inner mysteries could 'translate' the outer mysteries. Somewhere along the line, someone decided the outer mysteries was all there was... I wonder if my disillusionment with Christianity had to do with a feeling that there must be something more to it than I was being taught - something that used to exist but is now forgotten.
So many ancient religions are so similar to Christianity it is frightening. So frightening that most Christians claim that Satan, with perfect foresight, created those similar religions to mock Christ before there even was a Christ! I can't buy that theory.
As for dreams, I am of the mind that they are highly symbolic. The subconscious mind is infinitely aware of more than our conscious mind is; we just build scotomas (blocks) to the information so we can focus on what we are doing. Imagine if we were constantly bombarded with all the noises and sights around us at all times, every rustle of clothing, every sound the children make... the important stuff gets through, but all else is relegated as background and ignored - but the subconscious is aware of it all, making the decision of what is important and what is not.
If we listen to our instincts, we find we can even predict the future - this is the case with people who decide not to get on the plane just before it crashes. Instead of listening to their conscious minds, they listened to the subconscious warnings that are aware of EVERYTHING.
Later, the subconscious "talks" to the conscious via symbolism... and that is what dreams are. They tell us the future possibilities as well as the past so we can make more informed choices. Depending on what is going on in life, these things can be trivial (so ignoring the dream has little impact) to monumental. A lot of dreams simply tell us about the present in more detail than our conscious mind can actually perceive.
However, many people insist that dreams mean nothing - they are just the random babblings of a restless mind. That answer does not satisfy me at all, nor does it necessarily reflect my own encounters with dreams. Of course, reality is perception and as long as I ascribe a meaning to my dreams, I will create a self-fulfilling prophecy that "proves" the validity of the meaning I ascribed to it.... and now I am going into circles. But, just because I have the power to create a self-fulfilling prophecy, does that not go against the idea that God creates everything and puts situations before us? Or do we create our own reality? Are our lives God-inspired or self-inspired?
Many movies show that dreams are portentious. Is this indicitive of a subconscious realisation that dreams are portentious, or do some of us believe dreams are portentious because we have seen it in movies? It is hard to be objective because of the subjective nature of perception.
I think part of modern religion's problem lies here: It tries to portray itself as objective truth, whereas ancient religions tended to accept the subjective nature of life - thus the ancient religion's ability to adapt and bend as the culture needed.
Modern Christianity and Islam both are fairly inflexible religions, despite the variations in interpreted dogma (the protestants vs. the Catholics, for example). Changing religions or starting new ones is really the only way to incorporate new subjective spiritual truths into an existing religion. Why would God have created a religion that is so unclear that many different branches are created, often on the disagreement of a single point of interpretation? The answer may be that religion is not objective and was not intended to be. The "teachings" are supposed to be symbolic, not literal - and subjective. Modern religion makes a grave mistake in presuming and teaching that it holds objective truth in its grasp.
The number one objection I get when I teach Strategies for Success, which is about creating self-fulfilling prophecies of success, is that it runs contrary to God - who gives us our lives and the situations in it. I teach that we can choose our lives based on how we think and believe. I also try to teach them to stop believing they are poor, miserable human beings and that they are intelligent, successful people - a point someone always seems to claim is also contrary to their faith in God.
Anyway, Grimhelm is right about the themes of Star Wars: Using instinct and the subconscious to aim the proton torpedoes instead of the conscious mind and the computer targeting device is but one example of that.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
