The repeated discussion about how myth is not an explanation, but rather a way of accepting and still being able to cherish the world without necessarily picking it apart has really stuck with me. The Emily Dickinson poem that I mentioned in class, Split the Lark , was fitting, but I think it also connects to how many people that I know look to religion for a reason that things happen. For example, why does a loving God allow such horrible natural disasters? Is this asking for myth to be too much of an explanation, rather than a statement of acceptance? Searching for an answer or reason seems very human, and hard to avoid completely. When researching my creation myth for the recent paper, I came across a book on the development of the world religions, which had several tables comparing the myths between neighboring cultures. These all fell under the using myths as an acceptance of the world around them, rather than trying to explain away why and how the world exists. Many cultures on...
Comments
Post a Comment