Great article. I think that religion, while in some ways outdated, is actually very archetypal at its core and is a key reason why religious stories resonate across time.
For example, the religious images you mentioned as being "difficult to understand" are indeed difficult to understand if one looks at them through a modern lens. But the reason they are so iconic and stand the test of time is because they speak to something hidden beneath the shallow and short lived level of thinking many are immersed in.
For example, the story of the Christ is simply a retelling of the story of Horus in ancient Egypt. In fact, Christianity can be thought of as a continuation of the teachings of ancient Egyptian mystery schools - with the "Father" being Osiris, the "Holy Spirit" being Isis and the "Son" as Horus.
The Tower of Babel, another famous story from the Bible, can be seen as an archetypal story. This same story is found in many cultures across the world which were not known to have any contact with each other (Native Americans for example have their own "Tower of Babel" story). This suggests it's archetypal in nature. Interestingly, you can find this archetype depicted in the Tarot as the card "The Tower".
Jurassic Park is a modern story that exemplifies this archetype well. A billionaire attempting to bypass nature by bringing back an extinct species only to inevitable be met with "the thunderbolts from above" - aka complete disaster.
Of course, Jurassic Park is something that will likely exist in the "Long Now" - something that people will enjoy generations from now.
In my opinion, it's not because of the dinosaurs. It's because it exemplifies this archetype just as the Tower of Babel also exemplifies this archetype.
The Long Now perspective is interesting, but another way to cope might be to accept that what we write is for us, not the model of a future historian living in your head. The future will have its own concerns, and very likely a lot more data than we have about our past. Maybe our writing will be interesting because it’s *not* timeless, but rather of its time?
The way you find unseen threads in the grand tapestry is really something! Plus I appreciated the references to Eno and Kuhn. You talked about the scientific worldview; there is another thing happening now that came to mind in following your line of thought -- the internet (and printing and broadcast electronic media before that) seems to have created a democratization (or plebianation) of thought -- anyone can now be (or perceived to be) an instant expert on anything. In the Dark and Middle Ages, the Church controlled the flow of information and used their control to exercise authority over what was true and false. Now that's nearly gone -- nobody has authority -- so the idea of judging whether something is true or false has practically become passe -- it's irrelevant to our culture. I wonder how you would frame this issue? And how you might see information anarchy as something to build into art the way you building the scientific worldview into art? Or is info-anarchy setting us back in these reagrds? Thanks again for such a thought-stirring piece!
Hmmm, some interesting thoughts here Alex, and thank you for the kind words. I think with the balkanization of culture it becomes very difficult to arrive, universally, on some truth. I definitely don't see that going anytime soon--not sure if I would build it into art but I certainly think that aspect of our times is a good potential subject for art.
Gorgeous article. I think often of the creator mindset and ignition process in times gone by, when an architect or artist conceived a thing that they would not see finished in their lifetime. What must it have taken to sell others, and trust them, to complete another's notion? For an audience unknown.
A good article, and actually something I intended to write on. Fortunately I have a rather different perspective on what makes something stand the test of time, and I think it's a mistake to boil it down to the references of the day. Concerning this article, the references to Melville will resonate for the readers of the far future more than those scientifically minded authors, I can guarantee that.
In a sense, I feel you're making an argument about how to make art suitable to the lowest common denominator, except in this case it's about the longest common denominator. While the references might hold up, the actual art holding up is an almost entirely separate question.
Great article. I think that religion, while in some ways outdated, is actually very archetypal at its core and is a key reason why religious stories resonate across time.
For example, the religious images you mentioned as being "difficult to understand" are indeed difficult to understand if one looks at them through a modern lens. But the reason they are so iconic and stand the test of time is because they speak to something hidden beneath the shallow and short lived level of thinking many are immersed in.
For example, the story of the Christ is simply a retelling of the story of Horus in ancient Egypt. In fact, Christianity can be thought of as a continuation of the teachings of ancient Egyptian mystery schools - with the "Father" being Osiris, the "Holy Spirit" being Isis and the "Son" as Horus.
The Tower of Babel, another famous story from the Bible, can be seen as an archetypal story. This same story is found in many cultures across the world which were not known to have any contact with each other (Native Americans for example have their own "Tower of Babel" story). This suggests it's archetypal in nature. Interestingly, you can find this archetype depicted in the Tarot as the card "The Tower".
Jurassic Park is a modern story that exemplifies this archetype well. A billionaire attempting to bypass nature by bringing back an extinct species only to inevitable be met with "the thunderbolts from above" - aka complete disaster.
Of course, Jurassic Park is something that will likely exist in the "Long Now" - something that people will enjoy generations from now.
In my opinion, it's not because of the dinosaurs. It's because it exemplifies this archetype just as the Tower of Babel also exemplifies this archetype.
The Long Now perspective is interesting, but another way to cope might be to accept that what we write is for us, not the model of a future historian living in your head. The future will have its own concerns, and very likely a lot more data than we have about our past. Maybe our writing will be interesting because it’s *not* timeless, but rather of its time?
The way you find unseen threads in the grand tapestry is really something! Plus I appreciated the references to Eno and Kuhn. You talked about the scientific worldview; there is another thing happening now that came to mind in following your line of thought -- the internet (and printing and broadcast electronic media before that) seems to have created a democratization (or plebianation) of thought -- anyone can now be (or perceived to be) an instant expert on anything. In the Dark and Middle Ages, the Church controlled the flow of information and used their control to exercise authority over what was true and false. Now that's nearly gone -- nobody has authority -- so the idea of judging whether something is true or false has practically become passe -- it's irrelevant to our culture. I wonder how you would frame this issue? And how you might see information anarchy as something to build into art the way you building the scientific worldview into art? Or is info-anarchy setting us back in these reagrds? Thanks again for such a thought-stirring piece!
Hmmm, some interesting thoughts here Alex, and thank you for the kind words. I think with the balkanization of culture it becomes very difficult to arrive, universally, on some truth. I definitely don't see that going anytime soon--not sure if I would build it into art but I certainly think that aspect of our times is a good potential subject for art.
Gorgeous article. I think often of the creator mindset and ignition process in times gone by, when an architect or artist conceived a thing that they would not see finished in their lifetime. What must it have taken to sell others, and trust them, to complete another's notion? For an audience unknown.
A good article, and actually something I intended to write on. Fortunately I have a rather different perspective on what makes something stand the test of time, and I think it's a mistake to boil it down to the references of the day. Concerning this article, the references to Melville will resonate for the readers of the far future more than those scientifically minded authors, I can guarantee that.
In a sense, I feel you're making an argument about how to make art suitable to the lowest common denominator, except in this case it's about the longest common denominator. While the references might hold up, the actual art holding up is an almost entirely separate question.