 
                         20060507.00

     My understanding (analysis) of Self and Myth is
predicated on the premise, which I have entertained for many
years, that, as distinct from inwardness and subjectivity,
objectivity, outwardness, is an expression of the dependence
of the individual on the society which nourishes him not only
physically with food and shelter, but also spiritually with
language, music and imagery.  Just as man's physical
existence is inconceivable in the absence of society, so
man's spiritual existence is inconceivable in the absence of
society.

     History is by its nature objective.  It claims to hold
the same truth for all human beings.  Myth, on the other
hand, overtly fails the veritude test of history.  Myth is
distinctly not true for all human beings; and if not true for
all human beings, it cannot be objectively true at all; and
its persuasiveness derives from the circumstance that, in
spite of not meeting objective standards of truth, it is
believed.  Myth if it is anything at all, is a matter of
faith.

     History is an account that is corroborated and confirmed
by social consent.  Myth is an account that is socially
repudiated and denied.  Myth is an account social consent to
which is denied.  Society tells me about myth: This cannot
have happened.  This is against the laws of nature.  But
remarkably by the same rationale by which it denies the
objective validity of myth, serves to deny the objective
validity of self.  Society's denial of myth is mirrorred in
society denial of my Self.  What society says about myth is
that myth is not objectively true.  What society says about
my Self is that the self is not objectively true.  Just as
myth is contrary the objective law of nature, so self is
contrary the objective law of nature.  Since, however, I
cannot escape the subjective, inward experience (truth) of
self, so I cannot escape the subjective, inward experience
(truth) of myth.

     Subjectivity, the experience of self, is an experience
which is uniquely individual, the content of which is
socially inaccessible; which is therefore functionally
socially denied.  In this way, myth corroborates and confirms
the existence of self, in this way, myth confirms
subjectivity.  Hence the coincidence of myth and religion.
Hence the circumstance that myth compels belief.  Myth is an
affirmation of self.  Credo quia absurdum.  The absurd is
essential to subjective existence.  Myth is the escape from
the objectivity trap.  "Dieses ist das Tier das es nicht
gibt."

     There are, however, reciprocal relationships,
inescapabale ambiguities, constant interchanges, continuing
reciprocal transformations between the accounts of myth and
of history.  History is forever becoming myth (being
mythified); (Imagining what an historical event was like, wie
es eigentlich gewesen, sich in den Geist der Zeiten zu
versetzen, is essentially a process of mythification.)  and
there is a continuing impetus (process) to finding historical
"truth" in myths.  First with respect to possible historical
or natural causes or antecedents, then with respect to the
historical tradition that sets out from the myth, the
existence of which is accepted as an historical "fact."

     History without (devoid of) myth is empty.  Myth without
(deprived of) history is absurd.  (Begriffe ohne Anschauung
sind leer; Anschauung ohne Begriffe ist blind.)  Thus,
ultimately both history and myth are (verbal) traditions;
which merge one into the other, and will not remain distinct
and separate.

                      * * * * *
Copyright 2006, Ernst Jochen Meyer
