Campbell

From: David Cake <davidc_at_cs.uwa.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 09:50:00 +0800


>Anyway, I thought Campbell was denounced as a
>God-Learner by true Greg-ites.

        Maybe that should be 'acknowledged' rather than denounced? Sure, Campbell is probably the closest an Earth human has come to being a God Learner. Which doesn't mean that he is wrong....

        And doesn't mean that he is a bad guy, either. Not all the God Learners are bad (why am I so quick to become a God Learner apologist?). Some of them were great guys no doubt, some have done lasting good to the world, some of their teachings were no doubt instrumental in many modern Gloranthan philosophies. Which doesn't detract from the fact that their philosophies were flawed, and bound to result in disaster if acted on as enthusuastically and disrespectfully as they did. I am sure Joe Campbell would have been one of the good guys - he is full of respect for the traditions he analyses.

        And is Campbell as much of a crank as the bicameral mind guy (Jaynes?)? No where near. The bicameral mind idea is an incredibly audacious, unprovable, and bizarre scientific thesis, not generally supported by any evidence. He is making a scientific claim that is probably demonstrably false (ie that primitive societies are not merely primitive, but their minds function in a wildly different way, one that would be described as insane in our society). It is interesting, but I certainly believe it is not necessary to accept it in order to make your Glorantha work - in fact, I think it ruins it. If you accept the bicameral mind idea, you are not really talking to god, just the other side of your head. I prefer to think that in Glorantha, you are talking to god.

        Campbell, on the other hand, is not a scientist really. His claims are not really scientific in nature - they are statements about patterns of culture, not really intended to be thought of as universal laws. He is merely wildly unfashionable, hopelessly behind modern theory (which tends to emphasise differences in culture rather than similarities). But still interesting, especially as I am not aware of much work done since on comparitive myth, and certainly none as adaptable to our purposes (storytelling, basically) as his.

        Maybe an anthropologist would like to comment on Campbells standing?
        Cheers

                Dave



------------------------------

Powered by hypermail