[LIT index]  [^^Terms]  [^^TIME LINE]
Story Lab
Micro: Purpose of the Story


2. Micro: Purpose of the Story.

Being mostly a diatribe (and/with much whineing) about the triumph
of the Bourgeoise Middle Crass; this having *nothing* (i quite
assure you) with the two weeks spent during the "holdays" of 2005.

{Back to Story Lab "stuff"}   

  

The Text

"Myths, Dreams, and Mysteries", by Mircea Eliade (translated by 
Philip Mairet), (Harper-Row, New York, 1957/1961).

Pp.47-56: The Myth of the Nobel Savage; The Good Savage, the Yogi 
          and the Psycho-analyst.

BEGIN BLOCK QUOTE

[P.47]
So much for the obligation, felt by archaric societies, periodically
to repeat the cosmology and all [of] the deeds by which their 
institutions, customs and conduct were inaugurared. [LOCAL NOTE 1:
Cf. "THe Myth of the Eternal Return", by ??author??]. 

That "return to the past" is susceptable of differeing interpretations,
but above all, it is their need to recall what came to pass 
ab origine that arrests our attention. Needless to say, the
values imputed to the "beginnings" vary greatly. As we have just seen, 
for a great many peoples, still at the earliest stages of culture,
the "beginning" meant the disaster (the "loss of Paradise") and the 
"fall" into History: While for the paleo-agriculturists, it was 
equated with the coming of death, [P.48] sexualtiy and work (motives 
also figure in the mythological stories of Paradise). But in both
cases, the Remembrance of the primordial event played and impressive 
part; it was perioidically re-enacted in the rituals, so that the
event was re-lived and one became once again contemporary with the
mythic illud tempus. Indeed, the "revival of the past",
made it present -- re-integrated one into the original 
plentitude. [Note 1]

END BLOCK QUOTE

  
Notes>
(this section only)



Note: Info on "brand names" is located in:  [SF-List] (Myth: Story of Culture)

This sub-paper's agenda (not very well hidden; hey, it's a small duck! She's
doink the best that she can!) is to "show" (argue/harange/whine/etc) that 
the "Modernite" surrounds themselves with the same animistic tokens that the
so-called primitive person does. Where as, a magic ammulet, a charm, and
a poltice of echinacae might seem "oh so primitive" to the Modernite, it is
my hope that this diatribe slowly (but not too bore-ing-ly) towards the
establishmen as has been well documented by ??author?? (among others)
that far from being *modern* (and thus able to distance themselves from
not only the historical past, primitives, and the under-classes), is not
nearly as *modern* as HE might think (with the occasional SHE as well --
see note below). (Please pay as you exit).

[01] Feelling the urge, i speak: Oook! (with a small duck; natch). For the
     "primitive", these stories (regardless of the "need" to re-tell them
from time to time), are a daily part of their lives they are (as Eliade 
points out) *integrated* into their daily lives. As they walk around in
their daily routine the sounds of the birds and such are "in the b/g" as
 part of their mythology. For example, for one of the Upick ??sp?? eskimoes,
the sound of an actual eagle overhead can not help but evoke memories/knowledge 
of the "Mother Eagle/Father Wolf" origin story. Thus, these *real-world* 
triggers of our day-to-day existence evoke the (i assume) very emotional
memories/thoughts of the life-sustaining illusions/myths/stories/background
of each person's existence. 

In the same way for the *modern* man [note, since modern-day civilisation 
is very much dominated by MEN, i shall  refrain from the gendre-neutral 
s/he or even the literary usage "she" indicating the same; i appologise 
for the inconvenience]. 

Regardless, in the same way for the *modern* man, these 'tags' are all
around them, and probably ignored for the most part; again, i will deal
at length with those phenomena below. For the time being, let us acknowledge
that many of these tags (both the religious and the "modern") are to 
varying degrees affecting the Modernites in ways that for the most part
they are only vaguely aware of. To a certain extent this vagarity is
due to the masking effect of techonology and the *pace* of life in
the "modern world". But, as i will disucss it goes deeper than this;
sort of a "ciruit overload" that results in esentially a "played tape".
(more on this later)

Thus for the primitive/tribal/realistic person, the b/g myth/story of
their culture pervades their daily lives [yes, i'm aware that i'm v.
definitely arguing from a romantic POV], and as such provides the 
"adaptation/survival" mechanisms for dealing with the new as well as
the mundane.

However, for the primitive there is much less distinction between the
creation/origin relgious stories and the day-to-day stories of their 
lives. For the Modernite, the religious stories have taken on the patena
of the supernatural, and worse yet (my POV) the un-questionable aura 
of the Holy. Thus, for the Modernite they who use ultra sophisticated
technologies around the comfortably re-enforce the idea that they
*are* modern -- and hence *not* primitive, lower-class, ignorant, or
un-washed savages that they see so often as the flip between 
the various 260 channels; ie, satellite channels, having distanced
themselves from teh [sic: 'teh'] common riff-raff who use the lowly
"cable service". 

Thus, these "sophisiticated" people who know well the price of gas,
the value of good credit, and the proper sort of movies to watch
can hardly begin to entertain a sylogism, let alone question the
religious upbringing hammered into their heads in a manner not un-like
that of the recordings in "Brave New World" (Beta's are better, 
a gram is better than a damn, etc). Thus, for them Jesus, and especially
God is not so much a philosophical/religious concept (let alone a 
metaphysical substance) rather than an automatic phrase of non-descript
nature. If confronted by some "doubting Thomas" they would gasp out 
"Do you mean you don't believe in God???!" and when Brother Thomas might
say, "Well, it depends upon which god you mean".  They would retort, 
well there is only ONE God! And so forth, these are completely automatic
responses in the finest tradtion of Pavalov's slathering dogs: Programmed
to the point, where no conscious thought is needed/required/desired; indeed,
conscious thought would throw the entire mechanism out of kilter -- and
quite upsettingly so. 

One is reminded of the story of the missonary who tells the primitives
(as i recall Native Americans of some tribe or 'nother) about Jesus and
such. And the tribal type person begins to tell the missionary of their
own beliefs. The missionary is v. upset (as the story goes) since all of
this blathering by the injun type is just so much hogwash, while the 
thing the missionary is trying to impart onto (into? of from?) the injun
type pers is THE TRUTH!!

As an amateur observer (refer to Desmond Morris' "Man Watching" book on
the anthropology of gestures/behaviour) of these behaviours, it is a 
wonder (to me; naive, that i am) that these people can function at all.
When confronted with *any* question of the status quo around them (ie, not
just the religous FACTS of their up-bringing), they become completely
appolplectic and panic in much the same way that a tribal person would be
if plopped down into the middle of Manhattan (see map).

Thus, the illusion of "civility" and "superiority" are exposed for the fraud
that they are in the light of *any* kind of rational exploration of the
under-pinning beliefs/psuedo-assumtions/etc. One example, is that since i
frequently (ie, as much as possible, for the most part ALL of the time) ride
the bus (and other public transportation, one person (telling about my 
"plight" said "Well, he seems to not mind it". (I had to chuckle secretly
to myself at this) Not only do i not *mind* it, i down-right enjoy it! The
idea being that the (almost) axiomatic relationship of the mantras: 

  "To live you must have a car. A car is good. I like my car. I drive my car, etc"

Thus, my behaviour (and my "seems not to mind it" attitude) is in-explicable
in the context of *normal* behaviour. Further, it violates not just 
"common sense" (sold by the bushel) but *reality* or more importantly: The
very under-pinning of *actual reality*; ie, THE TRUTH. 

However, the human being is nothing if not adaptive. So, when confronted with
such an impossible situation -- a situation trying to impose itself (indeed,
trying to impute its negativity into their serene and *normal* lives) into
the light -- an "adaptive explanation" must be got at. It is not so much as
to "socially excuse" the aberant behaviour, but more importantly to EXPLAIN
(ie, to explain into harmlessness) this searing gash in the reality of 
their world view. Since, for the Modernite (man or woman; ie, there are *no*
nethers in *their* world), all things are consistent, whole-some, and 
positive this ir-reality must be explained. Phrases are then brought forth
to explain this in terms of various factors. 

For example, "behavior" is explained: "Oh, he drinks too much; he's a 
drunkard", or "He's just getting over his divorce", or "He's never made
any sense at all" (ie, he's derranged, and therefore *anything* he might
say can be discounted as non-sense and therefore non-existant), etc. 

Or an "event" is explained: "Well, something must have happened" (no 
exploration as to the "what" of the "something" is entered into, and the
event is thus dismissed), "Well, there are some things we're just not
meant to understand" (always a favor of the firmly religious).

In all cases, should these explanations become challenged in any way, or
the limited patience/intellegence of the Modernite to entertain anything out
of the ordinary (ie, their limited sphere of experience), then the next 
step beyond "Oh, that doesn't make any sense at all!" will be a totally
irrational change of attack that has *nothing* with the subject at hand.
These usually take the form of a sort of verbal "throwing the hands up
in the air" retort; eg, "Well, there you go again!", "Well, I'm not going
to stand here and take/discuss this!", or "Well, you're just full of 
Bullshit!" (they resort to profanity which they consistently maintain
to be offensive; at this point, the speaker can be sure that s/he has
"gotten their goat" (curious phrase!). Finally, if all else fails, then
an emotional tirade (top of the lungs, all stops have been pulled out, 
completely "over the top") response will come forth (often accompanied
with flailing arms, if not outright violence) in the form of something
like:  "Shut up! Just shut up!" and probably profanity along the usual
lines of "Fuck you!", etc. At this point the Modernite Woman will resort 
to teers, and the Modernite Man will resort to physical violence. 


BRIEF ASIDE
[Ref: "War and Peace", Book 1, Part 1, Chapter 3, and esp Ch. 4. Reference
 to how "well we can't have *that* sort of thing going on in *proper*
 society!"; esp: (page numbers refer to the Oxford PaperBack edition)
[P.9; p.8&ff]

  [Anna Pavlovna (the hostess of the soirèe), to Pierre (the *bright young
   man*)] "Do you kno the Abbé Morio? He is a most interesting man."

  "Yes, I have heard of his scheme for perpetual peace, and it is
   very interesting but hardly feasible".

[Tolstoy carefully lays his trap for his: We do not not yet know 
 who is who (m?) (just prior to the above exchange was the statement
 to illustrate how this "dangerous youth" lacked the basic social
 skills when he does *not* spend the requisite time listening to
 Anna Pavlovna's Aunt's diatribe, and Tolstoy writes:

      Anna Pavlovna's alarm was justified, for Pierre turned 
      away from the aunt without waiting to hear her speech
      about her Majesty's health. 

As we shall see, the mythologies (as the Modernist surrounds 
themselves with them, not even realising their mythologic (and
for the most part arbitrary) nature...

END BRIEF ASIDE

That these behavioural patterns are always "just below the surface" can
be seen from the fact that these types of behaviour can manifest themselves
almost entirely without warning in the most illogical manner -- often
triggered by some event that may have occured years before, or to someone
entirely different. The "connecting" process is little understood, and 
worth further investiagation (again, i am really no expert in this area,
and just a humble observer/librarian).

Note that these above notes refer primarily to the *religious* b/g of the
Modernite. They can arrise as well in matters of difference of any sort; eg,
race, cultural b/g, economic, national b/g, etc. Further it should be 
noted that the *traditional* areas of "religion" extend into the material
items with which the Modernite "must" surround themselves. For example, (again
on the subject of mass transporation), i was arguing (actually proslytising
the virtues of mass tranport) with someone and there response was so 
violent and vehement that you would think that i had been talking about
crucifying their saviour!

This brings us to our next topic:  The Modernite: Their posessions and their self.

Enter the *Modernite*
(Being a beginning; mainly dealing with the Modernite's view of "time")

I refer to reader to the superb work: "We have never been modern" by 
??author??. In this, ??author?? presents the fact that (as i interpret/
extract it) we (or rather "the we"; Heideger' sense) consider ourselves
as "modern" -- mainly because we have digital watches (h2g2 reference);
ie, we have "things" that our ancestors didn't have. The more thoughtful
Modernite will extend this to the fact that we "know" more than our ancestors;
eg, they thought the earth was flat, we "know" it is round.

At this point, i must take a slight diversion to consider what the 
Modernite does indeed know, and how they view the concept of knowledge in
general. The Modernite inevitably thinks of "time" as related to "progress"
and "history". 

Time for the Modernite consists of personal time of which for the most part
they are almost totally un-aware of. They will sit in fornt of the TV
for hours on end, countless trillions of nano-seconds flowing by un-noted
and un-aware of. They become aware of time *only* at the boundaries of things;
eg, during the last 2 minutes of "the game", or when they have to stop 
doing one activity and start doing another. Rarely, do they think about 
time in the middle of any activity, and if in doing so, they glance at
a clock (or digital watch), they briefly "know the time". But, if (as
is often the case in groups) you were to ask them "what time IS it?"
they would again have to glance at their digital watch to say. That is,
they are *not* aware of time, only of the passing of it; ie, specifically
that "some time" has passed, what is the time now?, and then they go back
into the stupor of time-less-ness not un-like a dozing fish in a fish
tank -- all but oblivious to time/self/thought/existence/existance/etc.

The only other time when the Modernite becomes aware of time is when they
are having to wait for something or when something is late. In this case,
the micro-second-by-micro-second nature of time becomes excruciatinly 
obvious and irritatingly imposes itself into their consciousness. At this
point, the emptyness of their lives/minds comes into full view. Confronted
by *actual* time, they are forced into a state of awareness of their own
existence moment-to-moment. The fact that this state of total self-awareness 
is precisely what philosophers/writers/etc often seek as part of their 
on-going processes of understanding the world would be un-fathomable to
the Modernite in such a situation. Whereas the anthropologist in such a 
situation begins to notice the way people are standing (how they shift their
weight from one foot to the other), how they move (shuffling about, looking
about, pretending not to notice that they are waiting, etc), and so forth.
However, to the Modernite this forced (and un-expected, but not un-predictable)
*delay* in their lives is in-tollerable. Depending upon the mediocrity of
their mind, they will begin to resent such an intrusion on the orderly
(ie, controlled/controllable) progression of their life. The most mediocre
thinker will in short order begin resentfully talking about how they can't
stand here all day. 

Now there are two distinct situations in which this waiting can occur:  Shopping
for something and waiting to check out (or similar mercantile activities) and
waiting to be served (eg, in a bank line, to purchase tickets, etc). We should
turn our attention then to the *catastrophic* event (in terms of catastrophe
theory, this is the event that *clearly* ends one set of behaviours and 
begins antoher. The best example of this is "getting out of bed" the catasrophic
point is where you are no longer in bed, and you are now out of bed. The 
events on the two sides of this "cusp" are in different branches of the
catastrophic system. Remember: Catastrophy Theory has little (if anything)
to do with tornadoes, floods, or even missing out on the last pair of 
tickets for Wings ;).

Thus, in the "standing in line" situation, possible catastrophic outcomes include
"shouting for the manager to open a line", and quite commonly "leaving the
store, and with great pomp shoving the items that they were going to purchase
onto a side rack or other surface" -- often with loud verbal signals to indicate
how important their time is. 

In the case of the "waiting to be served" situation, catastrophic outcomes include
shoving their way to the head of the line (do you know who i am? --or-- I only
have to do this one thing, etc), or again with the shouting, and/or leaving
scenario.

Thus, i hope that the above notes have detailed some of the views of the modern
of "personal time". I now, wish to deal with the b/g of time as it realtes to
history and progress.

The Modernite's view of History/Progress

Now, that we have discussed personal time (or opened a discussion of that subject
that hopefully will lead to further discussions, and eventually a more refined
*understanding* of the Modernite's view of personal time; ie, time in the short term),
we now look at history and progress.

While many Modernites disdain the concept of evolution, they embrace its 
results. The idea that systems evolve into the more complex, and that
they adapt to new situations is of course a fact of the universes -- or
at least of those universes for which (like ours) evolution is a basic
structural component. The usual mis-interpretation of evolution is that
things are always "on-ward and upward" and of course this fits nicely
with the totally anthro-pocentric view that the Modernite has of the universe.
That is, evolution (if it exists at all) has as its purpose to produce
them; ie, the Modernite. In this case, we can see that in their view (for
the most part) "evolution" is in fact replaced by "God". That is "It is
God's grand design to create me" or "God cares about me", etc. Thus, 
the blind-chance events of the universe(s) 

[It should be noted at this point, for the Modernite there is only *one* 
possible universe and that would be "our" universe (if i may be so bold 
as to owner-ify it ;) -- or as Einstein refered to it "The Universe of 
Discourse", or "The universe under discussion". Since he (and other 
scientists/philosophers/etc) often would discuss theoretical universes 
where such and so might be the governing physical laws, etc. One of the 
most interesting discussions involved Kurt Gödel's discovery that "in a
universe where Einstein's equations held, that *time* as we understand 
it might not exist at all" -- an excellent introduction to this is
provided in the film: "IQ" with Walter Matthau playing Uncle Al, and
with Meg Ryan as his niece and Tim Robbins as her would-be love interest.
Also featuring our dear friend Stephen Fry as her *proper* fiannce and
with Lou Jacobi as Kurt Gödel). But, alas; I, digress]

Thus, the blind-chance events of the universe matter not, since God has
a *higher* plan for the Modernite (who sees themselves as *the* centre of
*the* universe -- NOTE TO SELF:  How the self-view of the Modernite is
challenged when things don't go correctly; eg, the ocean is just the 
wrong shade of pink or the eggs arrive COLD! etc). Thus, the whole concept
of causality is actually disuadded by the Modernite's world view: Causality
implies that one thing causes another. But, in a random univese, this means
that since (in theory) anthing can happen, then by causality the resultant
action *can* also occur. Thus, in their world view not all random events
*can* occur -- thus, naturally limiting the universe to a closed system of
finite starting states. That this precluded most of the concepts of modern
physics (notably Quantum Mechanics which exludes a knowable starting point
from which finite/definable/predicatable events can flow), as well as the
basic concept of statisical thermodynamics, entropy, and of course causality
in general. 

Thus, for the Modernite the first cause was (natch) God and the flow of time
(historical time) as well as history and progress are essentially pre-ordained.
The clearest expression of this world-view would of course be the concept of
Manifest Destiny and its disasterous effects of the then-native Americans.

In conclusion (in the discussion of history and progress) we can say that the
world-view of the Modernite is *thin*. That is, history's only purpose has been
to produce the *now* and more specifically the Modernite him/her-self. Progress
is an in-exorable process where-by the life of the Modernite is made better 
and better. What now comes into play is the *reaction against* (to) actual 
history and actual progress.

DisneyLand of the Spirit

Before passing onto that topic, i would like to use an analogy (not original with
me; i'm simply standing (rather wobbily) on the shoulders of giants or at least
some fellow intellectuals (in the good sense), please see discussions on modernism, 
etc).  [Brave New World -- Treating us like Infants]

For the Modernite (and those of their kind that continually re-enforce the world
view, the Modernite world around them, etc), the world is pretty much a playland.
That is "we are made to live in Disney Land", this was anticipated by Ann Rand's
"The FountainHead" [Note 2] when capitalists (under-appreciated) gang'ed off a'glay to
live in a sort of Disneyland for Captitalists, but this has been made manifest
by DisneyWorld actual. As  Elayne Rapping points out "nothing could possibly 
go wrong because nothing could possibly happen". Thus, for the Modernite
the world must be made safe not just for "Democracy", but for the un-preturbed
view of the world. 

Thus, while Tolstoy's Anna Pavlova feels her Sorld (or at least her Soirèe) is
slipping away, the Modernite can never have that happen to them. With the
first sign of "trouble" a set of pre-programmed behaviours spring into place.
But, fortunately (for the Modernite) this rarely occurs. They go to the mall
where their shopping pleasure is assured. They go to the movie where they
have been carefully prepared by movie reviews to know what to expect. When 
confronted with the Evil George Klooney and his vicious, Californian Liberal
Attempt to spread lies about McKarthy ??sp?? they are at the last minute 
able to take in a nice, decent movie about the "Morrow" brothers and all
of that nice broadcasting. 

That is the main point of the Disneyesque world.


In Defence of the Status-Quo

This aspect especially manifests itself in terms of the "professional
class"; ie, a major aspect is the maintenance of the status quo since by
definition the under-pinning supports the bourgeoise "professional class".

The best example of this is that of doctors. They not only set themselves
above everyone else (after all a doctor may tend to a king), but they 
further pronounce their own wisdom based upon their success in the 
community -- and one simply *can't* argue with success. The fact that
their training is in such an extra-ordinaryily narrow range of knowledge
does not deter them from seeing themselves as supreme judges of all
areas of existence. In the case of the arts, literature, and the
other aesthetics these are relgated to the level of the useless (with
the possible exception of *collectable* art, etc). Despite their 
supposedly *scientific* training [Note 1], they are not
really capable of rational or logical thought and almost inevitably 
(when cornered in an argument), out will come the "damn" -- it is
really quite a phenomenon to behold how the word "damn" is used in
place of anything even resembling hard logic or concrete knowledge.


The United Nations

   "That's just what the UN would like to do (the US sign the 
    Kyoto Treaty; and hence *trap* us into having to follow 
    the UN's *dictates*). The american tax payers are generous
    enough, that we shouldn't have to clean up their "brown fields"
    and turn them into green fields; we have enough brown fields 
    of our own. There are enough of the UN Politicians living off 
    of us as it is; we're paying 40% of the UN budget as it ends. 
    The mayor of New York, said that the UN ambassidors are the
    worst parkers (ie, illegal parking) of any group -- because
    they know that they can get away with it.

The myth of the modern  (ref:  "We have never been modern", etc)
the current myths for the "modern" man (captialism, the proper napkins, etc)



culture-clash (the shaking hands incident) 



{Back to the TEXT}


[02] Don't believe for a moment that i have read *anything* (not even the
     literary commentary) of/about/from/to/with/of-of Ayn Rand. This tid
bit was transmitted orally by one of the Modernites with whom i had had
to have this conversation (someone else started it), and fortunately it
was during the middle of the exhultious exhortation of the exhemplahry
erritude of Ms. Rand's wisdom, that my knee fell off or at i think 
that i may have mangaged to gnaww through my leg to escape. (Pray for
us St. Arshile: Pray for us All).

{Back to the TEXT}


[03] 


{Back to the TEXT}


[04]


{Back to the TEXT}


[05]


{Back to the TEXT}


[06]


{Back to the TEXT}


[07]


{Back to the TEXT}


[08]


{Back to the TEXT}


[09]


{Back to the TEXT}


[10]


{Back to the TEXT}


[11]


{Back to the TEXT}