Sustainability. Mythology.
Combine these two words in a directly-related manner. Although they can be worded differently, you
will come up with these two topics/ ideas:
“sustainability is a myth” and “sustainability in mythology.” The first topic is a scientific inquiry, the
second is a historical analysis, and both are sociological issues. Daniel Quinn brings these two words together
and discusses their two relationships, all under a single heading (Sociology=
discovery AKA science + history).
The
first relationship “sustainability is a myth” is the scientific inquiry. I do not believe Quinn was trying to tell us
that it is completely impossible to survive, in general. He is saying that under the present
circumstances, if nothing changes, then there is no way for life on this planet
to continue to exist (but maybe hi is
saying that any kind of sustainability is a myth, after all. What do you guys think about this?). Continuing on the premise that Quinn believes
sustainability is possible he uses the science of observation and factual
evidence to prove his theory. By looking
at the way that Takers live, there is no chance for them or for the Leavers to
continue existing indefinitely. Thusly, “sustainability
is a myth.” (Maybe someone else could
explore the idea that sustainability is a myth taught to the Takers by Mother
Culture, as well.)
The
second relationship “sustainability in mythology” is a historical analysis, but
more importantly a socio-analysis.
Looking back on the efforts of sustainability by different people groups
throughout history, there are many different stories to be told about how those
cultures survived. However, the culture
most important to Quinn is the culture of the Takers, Mother Culture. Therefore, to discuss “sustainability in
mythology” Quinn dives into the ideas that Mother Culture (mythology) puts into
the Taker’s minds about how they are to keep from extinction (sustainability).
Quinn ultimately
hopes that by showing the inevitably strained relationship of these two ideas
(meaning that one usually exists at the cost of the other) his audience will
deduce that there can only be one winner.
These ideas cannot coexist. Through
Ishmael, Quinn wants his readers to
see the coexistence of mythology and sustainability as unfeasible, and therefore
choose the latter to believe in and live by.
Though I cannot remark on the coexistence of the two ideas of your blog entry's main idea, I can say what I know of "sustainability in mythology".
ReplyDeleteI think the principle you're talking about is, or is close to the idea of mythos-- the sustainability you're referring to could refer to the idea of tradition embedded in myth. The tradition of storytelling, in essence. Although never once part of any of our readings, I'd like to cite Alasdair MacIntyre as, perhaps not the original genius of the idea, but the genius nonetheless of The Storytelling Animal. It goes over how intertwined stories and humans really are, and how stories ultimately shape us, how they provide a template for archetypes, for good, for evil. Myths are eternal, sustainable. And it seems they are sustained effortlessly, as if braided into our behavior.