Theos-Talk Archives (March 1995 Message tl00240)

This and one more post will be the end of my harangue on art and
theosophy (for now).

These formulas are not meant to be "in stone" but to simplify,
yes, maybe oversimplify:

1)  Symbol = mathmatical "truth" (science)
2)  Symbol = logical "truth" (philosophy)
3)  Symbol = scriptural "truth" (religion)

on art we going to make it more complex, because that is what we
are talking about:

4) Symbol = myth = art = "lie"

5) Symbol = myth = art = psychological, phenomenological,
intuitive etc "truth"

4 and 5 are the biggies.  I use quotation marks around "truth"
and "lie" becaue I know you can't ever define them in any
ultimate sense so let's not waste time trying, let's stick to
theosophy and art.

I'm sure many saw Joseph Cambell's "The Power of Myth".  I think
Cambell got around the problem of 4 and 5 by using the term
"power", and its a good thing too.  Jung used the same idea about
the power of the archetypes.  They have no outside existence, but
they sure have power in our lives as much as science, religion
and philosophy ever will, This saves a lot of headaches.

Do you remember the way Bill Moyers would interview Joseph
Cambell? Well, this is not meant as a literal recreation but if
my memory serves me right, it went something like this (week
after week):

BM: You're not saying that there is power in myth the way there
is power in science are you?

JC: Well yes, but in a different way.

BM: But it's hard for a Baptist boy like me brought up in the
south to believing in the scriptures that I should treat the
myths of other countries with the same respect.

JC: Well yes, you see .  .  .

BM: Well I really like that strory about Krishna and Arjuna (my
memory fails me), it was really exciting and somehow marvelous,
but you don't really mean that this story is somehow real or
true?

JC: Well, yes, but the truth is not objective or outter, it is
inner and symbolic, but powerful nonetheless

(OK, this is unfair to both parties, but this is not meant as a
transcript of any kind but my personal reaction to Bill Moyers,
playing dumb for all the poor groundlings in America who just
might not get it the way they get the "reality" and "truth" of
football plays and the like.)

Well the same can be said for the power of art.  It's not
something you can touch, but it's effects are something you can
see.  In fact, the problem is art is so powerful, it is easily
abused and we hardly notice, as in Nazi Germany, advertising, MTV
(Beavis and Butthead are heroes to a generation, now that's art
and that's a little too real), church ritual, a veritable four
act play with music and sets.

So the problem isn't art, but the idea"only, merely, just" art
and that art is somehow less than the other domains.

Namste

Keith Price