Modern Myth: Infinity Stones

[sealchan]

I've put this here because I think of this as a discussion which involves both the history of myth which is, perhaps, a topic in religion as well as a recognition that a comparative study of myth is a modern scholarly pursuit. But also this particular mythic invention seems to have taken a great tip from the modern cultural understanding that has arisen in great part due to scientific discoveries in the last century. As such it is a scientifically informed myth much as we see in Star Trek.

The Infinity Stones are featured in the last two Avengers movies which themselves are really one single story. They are taken from the earlier comic book treatment that the whole of the Marvel Cinematic Universe takes is inspiration from. To get quickly up to speed on this mythic idea you can read the short article and watch the short video below. You do not at all need to have watched any of the movies.

Good article:
Everything to Know About Marvel’s Infinity Stones Before You See 'Avengers: Infinity War'

Good 6 minute video which covers the Infinity Stones/Gems nicely:

Here is a brief summary of the Infinity Stones as myth:

In the movies the Infinity Stones are six stones with the following ultimate characteristics:

• Space
• Reality
• Power
• Mind
• Time
• Soul

If we look at just this aspect of this made for motion picture myth, we have 6 abstract qualities that are part of the creation of the Universe and which represent what a modern audience might accept as fundamental and more or less complete.

The origin story of these stones is itself extremely interesting from a mythic point of view amounts to the following...before the creation of the Universe there was a being who was utterly alone. When that being died the six stones were created and the Universe itself along with it or something along those lines. The six stones are also described as six "singularities" which is an obvious reference to modern scientific concepts.

So for the purpose of this thread I would like to discuss the following:

• If you were to invent "Infinity Stones" would these be the one's you would come up with or would they be different and why?
• What does this comic book/motion picture at what amounts to a creation myth have to say about myth in the modern age as opposed to ancient myths as espoused by modern religions?

 

[The Reverend Bob]

DC is mythic, Marvel is fable. In DC godlike beings use concept, thought and ideas as their weapons. They have anti-life equation and murder paradigms. Magic as revealed my Dr. Manhattan in The Doomsday Clock is nothing more than entropy at work. In Marvel they use actual physical object to enforce their will upon the universe.

 

[sealchan]

DC is mythic, Marvel is fable. In DC godlike beings use concept, thought and ideas as their weapons. They have anti-life equation and murder paradigms. Magic as revealed my Dr. Manhattan in The Doomsday Clock is nothing more than entropy at work. In Marvel they use actual physical object to enforce their will upon the universe.

Are you saying that DC is myth but the Judeo-Christian creation story is not?

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Are you saying that DC is myth but the Judeo-Christian creation story is not?

Where did I say that?

 

[sealchan]

Where did I say that?

You didn't. I was just wondering if that was the context for saying what you said.

DC is mythic, Marvel is fable. In DC godlike beings use concept, thought and ideas as their weapons. They have anti-life equation and murder paradigms. Magic as revealed my Dr. Manhattan in The Doomsday Clock is nothing more than entropy at work. In Marvel they use actual physical object to enforce their will upon the universe.

Oh so you are laying out a distinction between myth and fable and saying that the two different cinematic universes are different in this way?

 

[The Reverend Bob]

You didn't. I was just wondering if that was the context for saying what you said.



Oh so you are laying out a distinction between myth and fable and saying that the two different cinematic universes are different in this way?

In DC Darkseid derives his power from an inherent universal principle, in Marvel Thanos needs some stones. In DC the gods are gods because they are the manifestations of ideas, of principles and of concepts they have no need of physical objects to manifest their power

 

[shunyadragon]

Are you saying that DC is myth but the Judeo-Christian creation story is not?

I do not believed that they can be compared. The DC comic themes are intentionally science fiction and I do not believe they can be compared to the myths that evolved from more ancient Sumerian, Babylonian, Canaanite and Ugarit cultures to be edited, redacted and compiled into Genesis as the Creation stories, since Genesis includes more than one Creation story. The main difference is the ancient cultures believed these mythical stories were true, as many Christians believe these mythical stories are in some way literal and true today. .

 

[sealchan]

I do not believed that they can be compared. The DC comic themes are intentionally science fiction and I do not believe they can be compared to the myths that evolved from more ancient Sumerian, Babylonian, Canaanite and Ugarit cultures to be edited, redacted and compiled into Genesis as the Creation stories, since Genesis includes more than one Creation story. The main difference is the ancient cultures believed these mythical stories were true, as many Christians believe these mythical stories are in some way literal and true today. .

Certainly the contexts are different, but I think that it is an old truism to say that they used to believe the stories were true.

Let's consider the following:

• The ancient stories of religion were not based on proven facts or direct observation
• The ancient stories were told by story-tellers who sought amongst other things to entertain
• Claiming truth is an old story-tellers technique to impress upon the perhaps naive listener the value of what was being told
• Someone made up these stories and many other variations of those stories
• Through a process of selection, those stories were chosen by a community or a committee and then enforced as authoritative

In the various iterations of any given superhero's story we can witness the creative process of the story-teller. If a body of story has a sufficient authoritative body presiding over it then a canon begins to form. Dogma requires an authority with power to promote it. As I am sure you are aware the Star Wars Universe has just such a weak acting authority which has defined what is and what is not canon. Even Tolkien's work, until recently, had a stern authority (his son) with legal rights over (his father's) that literary universe.

We should consider the possibility that the literalists of today are not necessarily the best representatives of the context of belief for the average believer in ancient times. In oral cultures, a story was as true as it could be directly proven, no more and no less. That didn't mean they didn't carry the value of being true, it just meant that the level of provisionality was different than what we will accept today in our much more deeply info-centric culture. But even on the internet it seems that unverified rumor is often preferred even when such rumors can easily be tested.

 

[shunyadragon]

Certainly the contexts are different, but I think that it is an old truism to say that they used to believe the stories were true.

Let's consider the following:

The ancient stories of religion were not based on proven facts or direct observation.

The ancient cultures did not depend on the proving nor direct observation of facts for their beliefs.

\

The ancient stories were told by story-tellers who sought amongst other things to entertain.

Entertain and believe as the wisdom of their elders and ancestors. Read the testimony of the Church Fathers. The believed in the literal understanding in one form or another.

Claiming truth is an old story-tellers technique to impress upon the perhaps naive listener the value of what was being told.

Fundamentally the old story tellers believed in the stories handed down to them.

Someone made up these stories and many other variations of those stories.

The first literate priesthood wrote down the stories handed down as oral legends, and believed them, and of course embellished them with their own additions, but nonetheless believed them. They did contain historical events and persons and events such as the Sumerian catastrophic flood. In terms of historical records handed down accurately the Chinese did better than the west.

Through a process of selection, those stories were chosen by a community or a committee and then enforced as authoritative.

No, that is not how the original myths and stories were chosen and handed down. Though by the time the OT and NT were compiled in the form we have today. These scriptures come close to being edited, redacted and compiled by literate priesthoods and the Church Fathers, sort of by committee what they thought was true.

In the various iterations of any given superhero's story we can witness the creative process of the story-teller. If a body of story has a sufficient authoritative body presiding over it then a canon begins to form. Dogma requires an authority with power to promote it. As I am sure you are aware the Star Wars Universe has just such a weak acting authority which has defined what is and what is not canon. Even Tolkien's work, until recently, had a stern authority (his son) with legal rights over (his father's) that literary universe.

This does not negate the facts that contemporary scifi was written as intended fiction, and the Biblical myths and storie were edited, redacted and compiled believing that they were considered fundamentally true.

We should consider the possibility that the literalists of today are not necessarily the best representatives of the context of belief for the average believer in ancient times. In oral cultures, a story was as true as it could be directly proven, no more and no less. That didn't mean they didn't carry the value of being true, it just meant that the level of provisionality was different than what we will accept today in our much more deeply info-centric culture. But even on the internet it seems that unverified rumor is often preferred even when such rumors can easily be tested.

The facts of the history of the scripture, and testimony of those that compiled, edited and redacted the scriptures believed that they were compiling the true history and belief, Again. . . the testimony of the Church Fathers is a witness to this view of the ancients concerning the myths and stories of their traditions.

It is true that in the reality of the contemporary world, literal and even near literal in one form or another is totally out of touch with reality, but 2000 years ago the reality was a literal understanding, of course nonetheless Lucretius got it close to right.

 

[Native]

The origin story of these stones is itself extremely interesting from a mythic point of view amounts to the following...before the creation of the Universe there was a being who was utterly alone. When that being died the six stones were created and the Universe itself along with it or something along those lines. The six stones are also described as six "singularities" which is an obvious reference to modern scientific concepts.

Which story of creation are you referring from? Please link it.

 

[Native]

Oh so you are laying out a distinction between myth and fable and saying that the two different cinematic universes are different in this way?

If it comes to understanding the ancient myths, I certainly would differ between myths and fables. As I also would differ between the cosmological part in the ancient myths and modern science fiction series.

 

[Native]

Let's consider the following:

• The ancient stories of religion were not based on proven facts or direct observation
• The ancient stories were told by story-tellers who sought amongst other things to entertain
• Claiming truth is an old story-tellers technique to impress upon the perhaps naive listener the value of what was being told
• Someone made up these stories and many other variations of those stories
• Through a process of selection, those stories were chosen by a community or a committee and then enforced as authoritative

If you are thinking of "The ancient stories of religion" as "their story of creation", their proves of course were/are based on what they could observe on and above the Earth, which entire scenario determine the creation itself.

That is: The ancient Stories of Creation describes REAL cosmological facts and NOT science fictive ideas.

I don´t think our ancestors told the creation stories just to feel themselves "interesting and important" - they told it because it was essential for their understanding of nature of which they were directly dependent.

 

[Native]

I do not believed that they can be compared. The DC comic themes are intentionally science fiction and I do not believe they can be compared to the myths that evolved from more ancient Sumerian, Babylonian, Canaanite and Ugarit cultures to be edited, redacted and compiled into Genesis as the Creation stories, since Genesis includes more than one Creation story. The main difference is the ancient cultures believed these mythical stories were true, as many Christians believe these mythical stories are in some way literal and true today. .

Agreed And if the ancient cultural creation myths "once were real", they of course also are real today. It´s just us modern humans who have forgot the symbolic mythical language which derives from the human imagination when describing the cosmological scenario of the creation.

 

[sealchan]

The ancient cultures did not depend on the proving nor direct observation of facts for their beliefs.

Yes and so the individual had to determine truth through a reference to an inner moral sense rather than access to information that could confirm that. Therefore truth was primarily moral rather than literal.

Entertain and believe as the wisdom of their elders and ancestors. Read the testimony of the Church Fathers. The believed in the literal understanding in one form or another.

My argument is that the stories typically originate with the oral tradition which was a non-hierarchical one. Once the stories enter an authoritative context, they become something closer to law.

Fundamentally the old story tellers believed in the stories handed down to them.

But, I would argue, not in the way we might today in our modern, logic-ruled society. They believed more in the moral quality, the ineffable spiritual quality to the story rather than the literal or historical.

The first literate priesthood wrote down the stories handed down as oral legends, and believed them, and of course embellished them with their own additions, but nonetheless believed them. They did contain historical events and persons and events such as the Sumerian catastrophic flood. In terms of historical records handed down accurately the Chinese did better than the west.

I think that once the stories enter the sphere of literacy much changes. Because the stories can be preserved in writing, they can then become "preserved" and later referenced as an objective mirror. Purely oral sources then are clearly seen as variable. The writers, having to transition from the inner sense of truth in oral culture to the outward sense of truth contained and preserved in writing, had a unique position of getting to sample and commit what they might have, in part, chosen to commit. They become the God of the later tradition...one which previously was always in flux and unchecked by "records".

No, that is not how the original myths and stories were chosen and handed down. Though by the time the OT and NT were compiled in the form we have today. These scriptures come close to being edited, redacted and compiled by literate priesthoods and the Church Fathers, sort of by committee what they thought was true.

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with me on here...you seem to me to paraphrase what I was trying to say.

This does not negate the facts that contemporary scifi was written as intended fiction, and the Biblical myths and storie were edited, redacted and compiled believing that they were considered fundamentally true.

I'm trying to chip away at those "facts" by suggesting other, often overlooked "facts". The process of the formation of religious texts was to take from a creative oral tradition either directly by the writer or indirectly through a community who shared written documents which in most cases, perhaps, still had a strong oral influence. Today the medium of story goes directly to print in all cases but that medium still has a buffer realm which we call "fiction" so that it can produce variability without over concern for mutual consistency. You can see this even within some of the sacred literature where you have this sense of two different versions of the same story.

Consider the four gospels which through community/committee came to be canon...these are four different stories. We can see very close similarities between them where presumably written sources were copied. But then those sources were altered by each author creatively to pursue their own subjective goals. The read somewhat, perhaps, like different versions of a superhero's story written and illustrated by different authors and illustrators. I can even see this in the various motion picture treatments of Batman or Spider-man that have come out.

Now to get at spiritual truths we need to create a fiction, and preferably one which does not strain our audience's credulity. Certainly today that challenge is much, much greater given that the people who hear, read or see these stories are much more educated. But perhaps through the "sacred container" we call "fiction" we have given ourselves permission to bend over away from the facts a little in order to "indulge" in much needed moral and spiritual nourishment without offending our literalist, objective sensitivities.

The facts of the history of the scripture, and testimony of those that compiled, edited and redacted the scriptures believed that they were compiling the true history and belief, Again. . . the testimony of the Church Fathers is a witness to this view of the ancients concerning the myths and stories of their traditions.

Yes, I have noted that in all belief systems there appears to be an "anchor" to the objective sense of reality. Belief cannot live long under the burden of "what if" before being dismantled by a sense of practicality. That is why it is necessary to have sacred times and spaces so that through anticipation and preparation we can allow ourselves to temporarily enter the "Holy Fiction" of our beliefs. This is not meant as a condemnation, to be clear.

It is true that in the reality of the contemporary world, literal and even near literal in one form or another is totally out of touch with reality, but 2000 years ago the reality was a literal understanding, of course nonetheless Lucretius got it close to right.

To us, perhaps, it seems that 2000 years ago those people must have been naive. That is Monday morning quarterbacking I think. People then just as much as people today have a very strong inner sense of truth and they, just as we, have always been able to make fine distinctions in what seems believable. It is only the level of objective knowledge and education in that knowledge that has changed. The stories told back then had to pass the same tests of credulity as they do now excepting that the level of knowledge back then was less in the areas that science has contributed to...but potentially more in terms of moral and spiritual awareness.

Fiction is quite simply as important and valuable to us today as sacred stories for the communities of today and yesterday. It is just that authority surviving for centuries gives the latter a distinction that dissolves, I think, the further back into the evolution of those stories that we go.

To be clear, I do not see today's science fiction ending up as exclusive canon under a strong hierarchical authoritarian institution. This is in no small part due to the fact that much of today's greatest mythic works focus precisely on throwing off such hierarchical authorities. It just isn't the right venue any more. The world's religions have value but not in their hierarchical power structures and certainly not in their political ambitions. We need a new recognition of the power of story to effect psychological and spiritual change and a new role for sacred stories to live, grow and die in succession rather than in exclusionary institutions which hamper the creative development of said stories.

 

[sealchan]

Which story of creation are you referring from? Please link it.

Watch the 6 minute video...it contains a concise summary of the origin story. It seems to blend Biblical, maybe Hindu and definitely scientific concepts together.

I can see that it might greatly interest you given your own interests and ideas.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes and so the individual had to determine truth through a reference to an inner moral sense rather than access to information that could confirm that. Therefore truth was primarily moral rather than literal.

Two different issues here. The believers considered it both a literal and moral relevance of the Creation myths, as described by the Church Fathers.

My argument is that the stories typically originate with the oral tradition which was a non-hierarchical one. Once the stories enter an authoritative context, they become something closer to law.

Oral traditions were a heirarchical tradition by the evidence.

But, I would argue, not in the way we might today in our modern, logic-ruled society. They believed more in the moral quality, the ineffable spiritual quality to the story rather than the literal or historical.

Your being too idealistic. The fact is by the evidence they believed both in a moral quality and a literal belief in the Creation stories.

I think that once the stories enter the sphere of literacy much changes. Because the stories can be preserved in writing, they can then become "preserved" and later referenced as an objective mirror. Purely oral sources then are clearly seen as variable. The writers, having to transition from the inner sense of truth in oral culture to the outward sense of truth contained and preserved in writing, had a unique position of getting to sample and commit what they might have, in part, chosen to commit. They become the God of the later tradition...one which previously was always in flux and unchecked by "records".

Yes the oral traditoins of the stories evolved and were variable, but they were consistently believed as factual by the evidence of the testimony of those that believed.

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with me on here...you seem to me to paraphrase what I was trying to say.

Regardless of the fact that they evolved and were edited over time they were believed as factual.

I'm trying to chip away at those "facts" by suggesting other, often overlooked "facts". The process of the formation of religious texts was to take from a creative oral tradition either directly by the writer or indirectly through a community who shared written documents which in most cases, perhaps, still had a strong oral influence. Today the medium of story goes directly to print in all cases but that medium still has a buffer realm which we call "fiction" so that it can produce variability without over concern for mutual consistency. You can see this even within some of the sacred literature where you have this sense of two different versions of the same story.

The oral influence is very real not only in the history of the Bible, but other religions of the world and yes the evidence is clear from the testimony of those that believed they believed the myths and stories were literal and true.

Consider the four gospels which through community/committee came to be canon...these are four different stories. We can see very close similarities between them where presumably written sources were copied. But then those sources were altered by each author creatively to pursue their own subjective goals. The read somewhat, perhaps, like different versions of a superhero's story written and illustrated by different authors and illustrators. I can even see this in the various motion picture treatments of Batman or Spider-man that have come out.

The testimony of the Church Fathers is clear and specific, the gospels and letters were first person testimonies, and preserved as they believed the authors wrote them, and by the way they considered Genesis literal and accurate history.

Now to get at spiritual truths we need to create a fiction, and preferably one which does not strain our audience's credulity. Certainly today that challenge is much, much greater given that the people who hear, read or see these stories are much more educated.

It is clear and specific the modern scifi and DC comics were intentionally fiction and NEVER considered factual accounts as the believers in the ancient scriptured believed.. Spiritual and moral truths are common throughout the history of scripture and literature.

Yes, I have noted that in all belief systems there appears to be an "anchor" to the objective sense of reality. Belief cannot live long under the burden of "what if" before being dismantled by a sense of practicality. That is why it is necessary to have sacred times and spaces so that through anticipation and preparation we can allow ourselves to temporarily enter the "Holy Fiction" of our beliefs. This is not meant as a condemnation, to be clear.

I do not believe this addresses the issue of your thread.

To us, perhaps, it seems that 2000 years ago those people must have been naive. That is Monday morning quarterbacking I think. People then just as much as people today have a very strong inner sense of truth and they, just as we, have always been able to make fine distinctions in what seems believable. It is only the level of objective knowledge and education in that knowledge that has changed. The stories told back then had to pass the same tests of credulity as they do now excepting that the level of knowledge back then was less in the areas that science has contributed to...but potentially more in terms of moral and spiritual awareness.

I do not consider being naive nor intelligent an issue here. The strong inner sens of truth is important to all cultures and religions of the world, and in the ancient cultures included a belief in the literal understanding of the myths and stories in their scripture. No, the testimony of those that believed wrote that they believed both in a literal scripture and in terms of moral and spiritual awareness. Your arguing against the actual written testimony of the Church Fathers, which is a paradox trying to justify what you believe without evidence.

Fiction is quite simply as important and valuable to us today as sacred stories for the communities of today and yesterday. It is just that authority surviving for centuries gives the latter a distinction that dissolves, I think, the further back into the evolution of those stories that we go.

I never said the Fiction cannot be important from a moral and ethical perspective. It is just an entirely different paradigm from the myths and stories of the ancients, even though modern fiction may draw themes from ancient literature and scripture.

To be clear, I do not see today's science fiction ending up as exclusive canon under a strong hierarchical authoritarian institution.

Never said you did.

This is in no small part due to the fact that much of today's greatest mythic works focus precisely on throwing off such hierarchical authorities. It just isn't the right venue any more.

OK

The world's religions have value but not in their hierarchical power structures and certainly not in their political ambitions. We need a new recognition of the power of story to effect psychological and spiritual change and a new role for sacred stories to live, grow and die in succession rather than in exclusionary institutions which hamper the creative development of said stories.

I share this belief in the contemporary world, but it does not address the fact of the beliefs in the ancient cultures that their myths and stories were literally true, by the evidence and writings of those that believed in the scripture.

 

[sealchan]

If it comes to understanding the ancient myths, I certainly would differ between myths and fables. As I also would differ between the cosmological part in the ancient myths and modern science fiction series.

Fairy tales, myths and fables...I think of these things as variations on a theme. Maybe myths are more "true", older and universal while fables are more consciously crafted moral analogies and fairy tales popular but mysterious fictions.

How would you see the distinction with respect to the cosmological part of both?

 

[sealchan]

If you are thinking of "The ancient stories of religion" as "their story of creation", their proves of course were/are based on what they could observe on and above the Earth, which entire scenario determine the creation itself.

That is: The ancient Stories of Creation describes REAL cosmological facts and NOT science fictive ideas.

I don´t think our ancestors told the creation stories just to feel themselves "interesting and important" - they told it because it was essential for their understanding of nature of which they were directly dependent.

How was it essential? How did it help them?

Maybe we should "pick on" a particular ancient creation myth such as that described in Genesis 1.

To my understanding Genesis 1 takes the obvious elements of our world, the plants, the animals, the sun and moon and stars, the passage of time and the existence of humanity and crafts a fairly straight-forward narrative given these facts of contemporary experience.

One angle I wanted to pursue in this thread was to juxtapose those six days with these six gems...not directly but in the sense that the Infinity Stones represent a distillation, in the modern understanding, of the six essential aspects of our understanding of the Universe. In that limited context it is a sincere effort to speak truth.

Now that there are six stones or that there are six days which accurately spell out the order and interval of the process of creation is, of course, a poetic fiction. And I suggest that the authors of Genesis and maybe even the earliest audience of that story did not concern themselves as much with whether or not this part was true, but only with the idea that all these things which we see today do exist and this story is true to that extent. To be told the details of a story IS the dressing that helps make it entertaining. If the listener wants to believe it is literal is a secondary concern and not essential to the moral and/or spiritual value.

 

[sealchan]

Two different issues here. The believers considered it both a literal and moral relevance of the Creation myths, as described by the Church Fathers.




Oral traditions were a heirarchical tradition by the evidence.



Your being too idealistic. The fact is by the evidence they believed both in a moral quality and a literal belief in the Creation stories.



Yes the oral traditoins of the stories evolved and were variable, but they were consistently believed as factual by the evidence of the testimony of those that believed.



Regardless of the fact that they evolved and were edited over time they were believed as factual.



The oral influence is very real not only in the history of the Bible, but other religions of the world and yes the evidence is clear from the testimony of those that believed they believed the myths and stories were literal and true.



The testimony of the Church Fathers is clear and specific, the gospels and letters were first person testimonies, and preserved as they believed the authors wrote them, and by the way they considered Genesis literal and accurate history.

Now to get at spiritual truths we need to create a fiction, and preferably one which does not strain our audience's credulity. Certainly today that challenge is much, much greater given that the people who hear, read or see these stories are much more educated.

It is clear and specific the modern scifi and DC comics were intentionally fiction and NEVER considered factual accounts as the believers in the ancient scriptured believed.. Spiritual and moral truths are common throughout the history of scripture and literature.



I do not believe this addresses the issue of your thread.



I do not consider being naive nor intelligent an issue here. The strong inner sens of truth is important to all cultures and religions of the world, and in the ancient cultures included a belief in the literal understanding of the myths and stories in their scripture. No, the testimony of those that believed wrote that they believed both in a literal scripture and in terms of moral and spiritual awareness. Your arguing against the actual written testimony of the Church Fathers, which is a paradox trying to justify what you believe without evidence.



I never said the Fiction cannot be important from a moral and ethical perspective. It is just an entirely different paradigm from the myths and stories of the ancients, even though modern fiction may draw themes from ancient literature and scripture.



Never said you did.



OK



I share this belief in the contemporary world, but it does not address the fact of the beliefs in the ancient cultures that their myths and stories were literally true, by the evidence and writings of those that believed in the scripture.

There are a couple of sources that I base my understanding on...

• Walter J Ong's Orality and Literacy (https://www.amazon.com/Orality-Literacy-30th-Anniversary-Accents/dp/0415538386)
• Peter Harrison's The Territories of Science and Religion (https://www.amazon.com/Territories-Science-Religion-Peter-Harrison/dp/022647898X) which I haven't read but I have watched the first video in his lecture

I think that the assumption of literal belief needs to be called into question and put into better context. I don't have the evidence or knowledge to do that so I respect that we may disagree here.

But if you have any specific objective studies that might support your view please share and I will add any video content to my watch list which is, by the way, much shorter than my reading list.

 

[sealchan]

Agreed And if the ancient cultural creation myths "once were real", they of course also are real today. It´s just us modern humans who have forgot the symbolic mythical language which derives from the human imagination when describing the cosmological scenario of the creation.

Well many, maybe even most, would dispute that something can be symbolic and real at the same time. I think we don't disagree here but we probably have different emphases. I might claim that faith has as its only objective "anchor" human psychology while I think you would claim that faith has an objective anchor in actual cosmological knowledge.

But then again the long time professional and personal correspondence of Jung and Pauli suggest that even these realms might not be to remote from each other.