When the "great men" of philosophy fight it out, there is often going to be some bad blood on the floor. On this site, we have studied many philosophers who, in the context of democracy, have made a contribution to the social flux. 

Voltaire and his squeeze fighting the French State (which was a crude philosophy of “absolute rights” in its own despotic domain) were some of them… I say “great men" because it can be observed that history seems to relatively regard women as second fiddles on this subject  We have also looked at Madame d’Epinay, JJ Rousseau and his misogynist view on the weaker sex… We have been flippant with intent.

These philo-fights, akin to pillow fights with no love lost, involved Jean-Paul Sartre and Claude Lévi-Strauss… Here, looking under the blood-soaked carpet of their discourse, we can find the fluidity of an existential Sartre against the structuralisation of ideas by Lévi-Strauss. Both men made a buck out of promoting their confronting and contradictory views, especially on the notion of myths and freedom. 

At this level, without trying to soar too close to the sunlight, Gus would be prepared to define Accidental myths (heroes being victims of circumstances) versus Deliberate myths (heroes and gods making decisions, including being full of themselves, such as Icarus and other mythical little shits), with most myths being used to CONTROL and to define a social construct. 

Lévi-Strauss is well-known for his study of the Oedipus myth — an Accidental myth, though planned by the gods, but a possible reality in the real world of desires, according to Freud… Yet, it has to be accepted that there are several variations of myths, though the Oedipus myth is quite straight forward. Even my book from 1907 (first edition marked 1908), by a (probably Christian) writer — Hélène Adeline Guerber, ("a woman?!") already mentioned on this site — http://yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/30021#comment-32476)— on the Greek and Roman Mythology makes the Oedipus myth clear enough, though she often confuses the Greek and the Roman versions of other myths, because despite the different language the myths are similar in their various versions.

Before Lévi-Strauss, Freud had already done some important legwork on the Oedipus complex. In psychoanalytic theory, it is a desire for sexual involvement with the parent of the opposite sex and a feeling of rivalry with the parent of the same sex. Apparently it’s a crucial stage in the normal developmental process. Freud introduced the concept in his Interpretation of Dreams (1899). The hero Oedipus of Greek legend, unknowingly slays his father and marries his mother (see this site: the origin of the coronavirus...). 

The female analogue is supposed to be the Electra complex, named for another mythological figure who helped slay her own mother, but did she do it unknowingly? No… Electra was the daughter of King Agamemnon and Queen Clytemnestra of Mycenae in Greek mythology. She was the sister of Iphigenia and Chrysothemis, as well as Orestes, with whom they planned the murder of their mother and her mum's lover Aegisthus, seeking revenge for the murder of their father… So there is no equivalence with Oedipus. 

Freud attributed the Oedipus complex to children between three to five years of age. He indicated the stage usually ends when the child identified with the parent of the same sex and repress its sexual instincts. If previous relationships with the parents were loving and non-traumatic, and if parental attitudes were neither excessively prohibitive nor excessively stimulating, this Oedipus stage vanishes quickly. Goodo in this "normality"... which is quite rare if you want my opinion.

In the presence of trauma, however, an “infantile neurosis” becomes a forerunner of similar reactions during adult life. The superego, the moral factor that dominates the conscious adult mind has its origin in the process of overcoming the Oedipus complex. Freud considered the reaction against the Oedipus complex the most important social achievement of the human mind. 

All this grand study could become nullified by the advent of same sex couples, under the rainbow flag. New studies need to be made!… Please, no! forget it! the world is complicated enough with the Oedipus complex and Electra’s revenge possibly leading to too much domestic violence. 
Overall, it seems that Claude Lévi-Strauss avoided mentioning any of the Abrahamic myths in his anthropological study. Yet as one explore the various discussions, one can see the Christian ethic creeping back slowly into the soup later on. From Claude we move to one of his disciples, André Girard, then to Scruton, who was fully imbued with traditional Christianity.

At the beginning of his “The Structural Study of Myth” Claude Lévi-Strauss quotes Franz Boas in the introduction to James Telt “Tradition of the Thompson River Indian of British Columbia, Memoirs of the American Folklore Society, VI (1898), 18.

“It would seem that mythological worlds have been built up only to be shattered again, and that new worlds were built from the fragments.”

In our Covid19 infected world, the reality at the source of our troubles becomes like a myth through statistical and analytical entrails fiddles by the new priests, the scientists, who most likely are trying to sell their own importance and worth by speaking of a greater danger. This does not have the hallmarks of the previous religious punishments, but carry the incertitude of possible infection as a fear social factor… Without their knowledge, the Covid19 scientists could be manipulated to kill their fathers and marry their mothers, by the gods — the Bill Gates et al who control the money and the vaccines in the heavens. 

By quoting Franz Boas, Claude shoots a blank in his own foot. There is no dispute, unless you’re an idiot, that the Abrahamic religions are myths. My apologies to idiots. So how come "mythological worlds have been built up only to be shattered again, new worlds are built from the fragments?” This statement seems to exempt the Abrahamic beliefs because they did not shatter, despite having shat on us. How come? Is there a critical factor that protects these myths into a continuum of belief until now, from shattering? There has been a few splinters here and there, but in general the myths have held strong. Please don’t tell me the critical factor is the “truth”. I will slap you on both cheeks and make you suffer. Mention FEAR and we’re talking.

As well, ALL the Abrahamic religions have associated themselves with rulers. The Catholics associated with the European kings, the Orthodox with the Rulers of Constantinople till the 15 century, continuing with the Eastern countries including Russia, the Islamic controlling the Arab world and the Jews being everywhere, controlling the merchandising. The myths were alive and well until the Enlightenment and the French revolution of 1789. Since then, the Christian religious myths are in bed with the rulers of the world — America.


So, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF MYTHS?
Control and beliefs...
For example, bleeding a patient was a medical recourse (and still is in some cases). This action comes probably from the old-wives tale of relative observation that a bleeding cut heals better than a sealed wound that can fester internally… “Is it bleedin’?” was mother’s reaction when one of us kids grazed, cut or pricked a hand or foot… If it was not bleeding, she would expand the wound and make sure it bled… It seemed to prevent infection...

In his Structural Study of Myth series, History and Dialectic, Claude Lévi-Strauss tells us many things, including that Sartre resigns himself to pointing a “stunt and deformed” humanity on man’s side, in his “Critique de la Raison Dialectique’

Claude Lévi-Strauss tells us “I accept the Characterisation of aesthete in so far as I believe the ultimate goal of the human science to be not to constitute but to dissolve man.” whatever this means.


Lévi-Strauss argued that the "savage" mind had the same structures as the "civilised" mind and that human characteristics are the same everywhere. These observations culminated in his famous book Tristes Tropiques that established his position as one of the central figures in the structuralist school of thought. As well as sociology, his ideas reached into many fields in the humanities, including philosophy. 

Structuralism has been defined as the search for the underlying patterns of thought in all forms of human activity — but according to Gus it has been lagging in observation of human’s deliberate deceit… which in its own way can falsify a study of human nature, by definition. 

Play-acting is part of this exposé. One of the major problem is when we’re acting without knowing, as we follow the script given to us by the authorities… We always need to ask questions and go to the source of information. Even then, we need to be aware that information can be and will be corrupt. Cheating and gambling are a big part of human nature. Even if we are an expert, a supplier of information, we need to be aware of Accidental myths and of Deliberate myths. This goes for the Covid19 “myth” in which we need to be aware of the contradictory statistical possibilities that we accept in “order to save lives”… It’s our ultimate Sophie’s Choice or the number of people on the trainline beyond the fork. 

End of part one….

GL.
A mythical creature…