Modernity tells itself a simple story about myth.
This story is tidy, reassuring—and profoundly misleading.
The problem is not that modernity rejected myth. The problem is why it rejected it. Myth was not abandoned because it was false, but because it was taken to be dangerous: too powerful, too immersive, too capable of binding people to meanings they could not easily revise. In rejecting myth, modernity sought freedom. What it did not anticipate was the cost of that freedom.
What was lost was not superstition, but inhabitable meaning.
Myth Is Not Doctrine
The modern suspicion of myth rests on a confusion. Myth is repeatedly treated as a primitive form of doctrine: a set of claims about how the world really is, poorly justified and jealously guarded. Understood this way, myth deserves critique.
But this is not what myth has most often been.
Doctrine tells us what to believe. Myth shows us how to live with what cannot be settled. Doctrine closes; myth holds open. Doctrine demands assent; myth invites participation. To read myth as failed explanation is already to miss its function.
Myth does not compete with science, nor does it resist critique by clinging to authority. Its work is orthogonal. Myth operates where explanation reaches its limits—not because it explains better, but because it orients without concluding.
This is why myth returns whenever systems overreach.
The Fear of Myth
Modernity fears myth because myth does not stop.
Explanations conclude. Proofs terminate. Solutions finish their work and step aside. Myth does none of these things. Once entered, it continues to work on the one who inhabits it. It resists summary. It does not offer an exit ramp.
This persistence is precisely what made myth suspect. A society committed to optimisation, mastery, and closure cannot tolerate forms of meaning that refuse to resolve. Myth binds attention. It demands duration. It asks us to stay.
And staying is expensive.
After Explanation
The crisis of meaning in modernity is often framed as the loss of belief. This is inaccurate. Belief has not disappeared; it has been redistributed into systems, metrics, models, and forecasts. What has disappeared is a shared capacity to inhabit meaning without final justification.
Where explanation ends, myth begins—not as a replacement, but as a different mode of engagement. Myth does not answer the question “Why?” It answers a quieter, more difficult question:
How do we remain oriented when no final account is available?
This is not regression. It is maturity.
A Figure on the Path
She appears only briefly.
A figure walking without urgency. No prophecy announces her arrival. No destiny frames her movement. She does not seek a revelation, nor does she carry a lesson to be learned. She walks because the path invites walking.
Nothing marks her as important.
And yet the world seems to make room for her attention.
This is not a hero.
Myth as Orientation
If myth is not explanation, and not doctrine, what is it?
Myth is orientation sustained over time.
It is a way of remaining with questions that cannot be closed without violence to experience. It offers no final meaning, but it does offer a posture: how to stand, how to listen, how to move without certainty.
This is why myth persists even after critique. It answers needs critique cannot abolish.
We do not need myth to tell us what the world is. We need myth to show us how to remain human when the world refuses to settle.
What Follows
This series does not aim to rehabilitate myth as belief, nor to aestheticise it as metaphor. It treats myth as a relational discipline: a way of inhabiting possibility without sealing it.
In the episodes to come, we will explore myth not as story, but as practice; not as closure, but as continuity. We will follow paths rather than plots, figures rather than heroes, resonance rather than resolution.
The figure walking does not conclude this episode.
She continues.
No comments:
Post a Comment