Written on 11 Feb 2005.

There is a French linguist that has earned the distinction of getting under my skin. In a lengthy diatribe that linguists call a “proof”, this linguist speaks about myth. He states, as a thesis, that statements within myths have more meaning when separated from their myths. He attempts to show that when considered in a purely linguistic fashion, the statements hold more meaning. This, he says, is because the context of the myth is lost to us forever, so the meaning the statement within the myth is a broken, dead thing.

As a student of objective religion and as a story-teller, I am personally offended. Through reading academic and professional writings over my life span, I have noticed a disturbing trend. To feel worthwhile, many have a need to reduce any view but their own to a worthless state. They must proclaim other views as meaningless, futile, and ultimately stupid. While this trend begins in Junior High School, it continues into middle management, over-paid executives, and academics that cannot abide obscurity.

Myths, and the statements within them, are powerful and whole literary pieces. Not only do they perform critical functions in the forming and evolution of a society (even today), but they provide major clues to understanding societies long dead. Even a newly-unearthed myth can have great personal meaning to someone living today. Reducing a myth, and the statements within it, to a “purely linguistic form” robs a myth of its history and true importance.