{"id":25,"date":"2023-03-03T17:07:57","date_gmt":"2023-03-03T17:07:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschum1015\/chapter\/fundamental-concepts\/"},"modified":"2023-04-05T03:23:23","modified_gmt":"2023-04-05T03:23:23","slug":"fundamental-concepts","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschum1015\/chapter\/fundamental-concepts\/","title":{"raw":"2. Fundamental Concepts","rendered":"2. Fundamental Concepts"},"content":{"raw":"
\r\n

As with any discipline, a shared vocabulary is necessary for effective communication, so let us start by exploring some vital terminology.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

Epistemology<\/h2>\r\n

Epistemology is, broadly, the theory of knowledge<\/em>, and it is a major subset of philosophy. It is relevant to our study of mythology in the guise of the question: \u201cHow do we know what we know?\u201d For our purposes, knowledge (and how it is acquired) can be largely divided into two types, described by the Latin terms a priori<\/em> and a posteriori<\/em>. These terms and concepts are of central importance to the study of mythology.<\/p>\r\n

The term a priori<\/em> is Latin for \u201cfrom the previous\u201d, or \u201cfrom the one before,\u201d and references knowledge held to be true but which is not based on experience or observation<\/em>. In this sense, a priori<\/em> describes knowledge that requires no evidence<\/em>. This kind of \u201cknowing\u201d can be thought of as \u201cknowledge of the heart\u201d, captured in terms like \u201cintuition\u201d and \u201cinstinct\u201d.<\/p>\r\n

In contrast, a posteriori<\/em> \u2014 Latin for \u201cfrom the one behind\u201d \u2014 is knowledge based on experience, observation, and data. The veracity of such knowledge is considered to be true based on the quality, frequency, and repeatability of these sources. Thus, a posteriori<\/em> knowledge requires not only evidence, but demonstrable, repeatable data collection. So, this kind of \u201cknowing\u201d can be conceptualized as \u201cknowledge of the mind\u201d, captured in terms like \u201cscience\u201d and \u201cresearch\u201d.<\/p>\r\n

These terms, then, are related to two ways of describing reality and the experience of it: subjective<\/em> and objective <\/em>see figure 2.1<\/strong>. Here, an example from language studies may be helpful. In the sentence, \u201cThe person gives a treat to the cat,\u201d the subject<\/em> of the sentence is the noun which refers to the person or thing engaging in the action referred to by the verb. Here, \u201cperson\u201d is the subject noun, referring to the individual engaging in the action of giving (\u201cgives\u201d). The object<\/em> of the sentence is the noun which being affected by the action described by the verb: here, the object noun is \u201ctreat\u201d. It is the thing which is being given by the person.1<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"530\"]\"Diagram Fig. 2.1<\/strong> Diagram of the sentence \"The person gives a treat to the cat\", diagramming the subject, object, and direct object, as well as the transitive verb.1<\/a><\/sup>[\/caption]\r\n

Objective reality<\/em> (what Immanuel Kant called \u201cnoumena\u201d),2<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0then, is the reality of the object<\/em>; the objects and events which occur as a result of the normal, natural processes of nature, and which do not require <\/em>the presence of <\/em>an observer to be \u201creal\u201d<\/em>. Objective reality can be related to content<\/em> and denotation<\/em> (see below).<\/p>\r\n

In contrast, s<\/em>ubjective reality<\/em> (Kantian \u201cphenomena\u201d), is the reality of the subject<\/em>; if you will; it is the \u201cinternal\u201d reality, comprising both <\/em>experience and <\/em>the<\/em> reaction to it<\/em>. This reality can only be \u201creal\u201d in the sense that a consciousness is interacting with it. This can be associated to context<\/em> and connotation<\/em> (see below).<\/p>\r\n\r\n

Content and Context (Denotation and Connotation)<\/h2>\r\n

Content<\/em> is denotative<\/em>; it is explicit, descriptive, objective, concrete<\/em>. The word \u201capple\u201d, for instance, is simply that: a word which refers to a particular variety of fruit. From a content<\/em> perspective, it doesn\u2019t matter what variety the apple is, nor does its size or color matter. \u201cApple\u201d is<\/em> \u201capple\u201d, nothing more and nothing less; \u201cegg\u201d is<\/em> \u201cegg\u201d; \u201cdog\u201d is<\/em> \u201cdog\u201d, and so forth. In the denotative sense, an apple (or an egg, or a dog) exists, whether or not<\/em> it is being interacted with by another object. Its existence is not dependent upon anything else.3<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n

Context<\/em> is connotative<\/em>; it is implicit, conceptive, subjective, abstract.<\/em> In terms of context,<\/em> \u201capple\u201d can \u201cstand for\u201d, \u201cimply\u201d, or \u201csuggest\u201d more than itself. The word \u201capple\u201d expands from being a thing-in-and-of-itself into being more of a sort of container for ideas and concepts. It serves as a sign<\/em>, a symbol<\/em>, an implication<\/em>, or a signification<\/em>.<\/p>\r\n

For instance, an apple shape with a crescent cut out of it represents<\/em> a particular technology manufacturing company and the products it makes; an apple on the cover of a book about nutrition implies<\/em> health and vitality; an image of a basket overflowing with apples might suggest<\/em> abundance, affluence, prosperity, etc.4<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n

However, none of those concepts are inherent<\/em> in \u201capple\u201d itself; they are neither an intrinsic part of the word \u201capple\u201d, nor are they realities that \u201ccome out\u201d of a physical apple \u2014 the fruit does not produce cell phones or magically bestow physical well-being: just being in a room with an apple doesn\u2019t make you healthier.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"alignleft\" width=\"150\"]\"Hammer Fig. 2.2<\/strong> Hammer and Sickle Symbol.\u00a0Wikipedia<\/a>.[\/caption]\r\n

The awareness of (and distinction between) content and context, denotation and connotation, is central to the effective study of mythology. When an owl appears in a myth, for example, is it intended to simply refer to a bird of that particular species, or is it a symbol (metaphor) for wisdom? Is a book just a book, or is it a sign of knowledge?<\/p>\r\n

Think of the ubiquitous Hammer-and-Sickle (see figure 2.2)<\/strong>: this icon carries meaning, signifying the unification of the industrial working class (represented by the hammer), and the agrarian peasant class, represented by the sickle (scythe), as the source of political\/economic power and governance in a communist society. It is still the central motif of many political parties around the world, although it no longer appears on the flag of any major nations.<\/p>\r\n

Further, if the object in question is being referred to connotatively<\/em>, which connotation applies? The answer to that question depends on a number of factors: Which society\/culture is using the symbol? Which segment of society is employing the symbol? At what time in history is the symbol being employed (e. g. a chain may at one historical point represent strength and unity, but at a different time refer to slavery and oppression).<\/p>\r\n

Context and connotation are where the fun is: in Kant\u2019s view, only phenomena<\/em> comprise subjective experience, and phenomena are a result of our various sensory organs and processes reacting to stimuli impinging upon them as a result of the existence and actions of objective reality.<\/p>\r\n

Thus, for Kant, context (subjective reality) is constructed<\/em> by consciousness in every moment from four components: 1) the influence<\/em> on our sense organs of external objects and events (objective reality); 2) our impressions<\/em> (reactions) to being affected by objective reality; 3) our memory<\/em> (recollections of past instances of being affected by objective reality; and, finally 4) our imagination<\/em> \u2014 the ability to conceive of a significant connection between objective reality and ourselves.<\/p>\r\n

In simpler terms, we recognize, organize<\/em>, and categorize<\/em> (i. e. contextualize<\/em>) the data of our sense impressions to create meaning<\/em>. Think about the sheer power of this statement: it forces us to realize that meaning is never inherent in the object<\/em>. \u201cThings\u201d just are<\/em>. Their meaning is only<\/em> and<\/em> entirely<\/em> assigned to them by us<\/em>. This is a crucial awareness for the study of mythology.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"alignleft\" width=\"127\"]\"Mona Fig. 2.3<\/strong> Mona Lisa painting (portrait of Lisa Gherardini, c 1503-1506, Leonardo da Vinci, currently in the Louvre Museum, Paris, France.<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n

Consider the Mona Lisa <\/em>painting by Leonardo da Vinci figure 2.3<\/strong>. It is currently housed in the Louvre Museum, in Paris, France, where it hangs on a wall behind several inches of plexiglass and is visited and viewed by millions of people every year.5<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0It is considered one of the greatest works of art produced by human beings in the entire history of our species up to this point.<\/p>\r\n

And yet, if every human being were to vanish from the face of the Earth tomorrow, the Mona Lisa<\/em> would still be hanging on the wall of the Louvre, and it would mean nothing<\/em>. Any-and-all meaning it has is assigned to it by consciousness, in the absence of which, meaning is non-existent.<\/p>\r\n

Further, think about what a painting actually<\/em> is<\/em>: it is ground up matter (pigment) suspended in a liquid (called a \u201cbinder\u201d) and applied to a surface (e. g. canvas, board, plaster, paper, etc.) in a particular arrangement (composition).<\/p>\r\n

The Mona Lisa<\/em> is a painting; but, so is a child\u2019s effort from their preschool art lesson. Does one have more \u201cmeaning\u201d than the other? If so, why; if not, why not? What determines the difference in the meaning of the two? Is the meaning of each the same for everyone, and, thus, universally acknowledged? Is there an objective scale upon which the meaning of each can be located, in order to determine a corresponding \u201cvalue\u201d of each?<\/p>\r\n

The wonderful (and sometimes infuriating) thing about context\/connotation is that it is the result of a choice<\/em>, and choices can be reexamined, reevaluated, and revised<\/em>. Not only is meaning not inherent in the object, it is not permanent<\/em>, but fluid and dynamic<\/em>. In answer to the posing of the question about an artwork, \u201cWhat does it mean?\u201d the Zen master would stoically reply, \u201cYou make an incoherent noise.\u201d The question has only a subjective answer, and therefore asking it of anyone else is a futile act.6<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n\r\n

Logos7<\/sup><\/a><\/span> and Mythos<\/h2>\r\n

We will encounter these two terms frequently during our exploration of mythology, so it is worth taking a few lines to introduce them.<\/p>\r\n

Logos: the Greek root of the word \u201clogic\u201d, l\u00f3gos<\/em> mans \u201ca word, saying, speech, discourse, thought, proportion, ratio, reckoning\u201d, and comes ultimately from the Greek legein<\/em>, meaning \u201cto speak\u201d.<\/p>\r\n

Logos is rational, pragmatic, scientific<\/em> thought. Note that the root of the word \u201crational\u201d is \u201cratio\u201d and a ratio is a mathematical<\/em> relationship. For instance, if you have two apples and one orange, the fruits are in a mathematical two-to-one ratio. If you were to increase the number of both apples and fruits by a factor of three, you would then have six apples and three oranges (6:3), but this is still a two-to-one ratio. Bearing in mind that \u201clogos\u201d is related to \u201cratio\u201d helps us to remember that it is the word for formalized, regularized, quantified thinking and expression.<\/p>\r\n

Logos is seen as the foundation of Western culture, beginning with Greek explorations into geometry and philosophy in the 6th<\/sup> Century BCE, and formalized as a doctrine during the European Enlightenment of the 17th<\/sup> and 18th<\/sup> Centuries CE. Modern science is predicated upon the concept of provability and repeatability, codified by Ren\u00e9 Descartes in the Discourse on the Method<\/em> (1637).<\/p>\r\n

In modern science, for something to be considered a fact, the source of the information must be identified as reliable, accessible to anyone seeking it, measurable and quantifiable, and subject to consistent repeatability via structured experimentation.<\/p>\r\n

In this sense, logos is intricately connected to objective reality (Kantian noumena<\/em>): the things to which facts relate are believed to have an existence independent of the observer and\/or experimenter, and thus be free from what Roger Bacon called the \u201cIdols of the Tribe\u201d8<\/a><\/sup> (idola <\/em>tribus<\/em>) \u2013 the variability of individual experience which make human perceptions unreliable as proofs of reality.<\/p>\r\n

A room that feels warm to me may feel cool to you; however, a thermometer on the wall would indicate a single temperature (in whatever scale to which it is calibrated), for instance 74\u00b0 Fahrenheit. The temperature indicated on the thermometer is not a matter of personal experience nor of personal preference; it is an object<\/em>ive<\/em> fact, not subject to debate, and independent of the perceptions of any of those in the room.<\/p>\r\n

Robert Pirsig, in Lila: An Inquiry into Morals<\/em>, wrote that \u201cScientific truth has always contained an overwhelming difference from theological truth: it is provisional<\/em>.\u201d9<\/a><\/sup> What he meant by this is that the aim of scientific exploration is to continuously update human knowledge with new information.<\/p>\r\n

It is not that what we \u201cknow\u201d today is \u201cwrong\u201d, but it is expected that it is incomplete<\/em>. However much we know about a phenomenon, the scientific assumption is that there is always more to know \u2014 more to discover. There are entire institutions, called research universities<\/em>, whose purpose is to reveal that what we currently know is only part of the whole picture<\/em>.<\/p>\r\n

While this means that our knowledge is constantly growing and expanding, it also means that we are by no means certain about anything related to objective reality. Thus, the common aphorism reminds us that \u201cchange is the only constant.\u201d\u00a0As Jack Fraser says in an online article at Forbes<\/em> magazine:<\/p>\r\n\r\n

\u201cYou cannot prove anything.<\/em> You can never have 100% proof of anything. There will always be doubt. You can gather evidence<\/em>. That evidence will never be 100% \u2014 there\u2019s always the chance that everything you think you know turns out to be false \u2014 but the evidence allows you to make current-best-evidence-guesses (for want of a better term) about the behavior of the universe. We can build up piles and piles of evidence for ideas. When the pile reaches a certain height, it behooves us to begin to take it rather seriously.\u201d10<\/a><\/sup><\/div>\r\n

However, though an experiment may be repeated a million times by thousands of experimenters and all of the results are always the same \u2014 there always remains a chance that a future instance of the experiment may return a different result. While no theory can be proven, all theories can be disproven, by a single experimental result that contradicts all other results<\/em>, no matter how many there have been. Evidence and experimentation can bring you statistically closer and closer to the likelihood that you have discovered a fact about the universe, but that statistical likelihood can be demolished in a single experiment.<\/p>\r\n

This means that in modern, science-oriented societies, certainty is impossible<\/em>. However, this is psychologically uncomfortable for human beings. We like to be able to at least tell ourselves that we are certain about some things<\/em>; that some knowledge can be relied upon to always be true; that some aspects of life are dependably predictable.<\/p>\r\n

This is where mythos comes in.<\/p>\r\n

Mythos: The ultimate origin of the word \u201cmythos\u201d (Gk. m\u0233thos<\/em>) is unknown, which seems utterly appropriate for a word that encapsulates the awareness of and appreciation for the \u201c\u2026mystery that underlies all forms [which is] beyond all categories of thought.\u201d11<\/a><\/sup> In ancient Greek, it came to mean \u201cspeech\u201d, \u201cthought\u201d, or \u201cstory\u201d, and it is this last definition which connects it to the storytelling aspect of mythology.<\/p>\r\n

Mythos was regarded by the ancients as the primary means of acquiring knowledge<\/em>. This makes sense; mythos, being associated with mystical and spiritual existence is about experience<\/em>. All conscious creatures interact with the objective (noumenal) reality in which they find themselves, and we call those interactions \u201cexperiences\u201d. Poke an amoeba with a pin and it will move away from the irritating stimulus.<\/p>\r\n

Human beings were having experiences long before we started thinking about and attempting to analyze those experiences. Think of it this way: a dog having a fear reaction to thunderclaps isn\u2019t asking itself12<\/a><\/sup> \u201cWhat is that noise? Where is it coming from? Why is it making me afraid?\u201d It is simply afraid, and seeking to escape the thing or the environment it is associating with that fear. It is the same with the amoeba; it finds the poking sensation unpleasant, so it moves to avoid it \u2013 but it is not cogitating on the source of the poking, and it certainly isn\u2019t coming to any judgements about itself in relation to having experienced a poking sensation.13<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n

Human beings, on the other hand, are capable of asking those sorts of questions (and we do), and of judging ourselves and each other in relation to the experience. That is what led to the development of logos in human consciousness; but, originally, we simply reacted to fear stimuli in the same way the amoeba or our family pet does today.<\/p>\r\n

Hence, mythos represents the primary means of acquiring knowledge because it relates to non-contextualized experience<\/em>, which Gary Zukav says, \u201c\u2026 is not bound by [logos] rules \u2026 it is more real<\/em>.<\/em>\u201d14<\/a><\/sup> It is concerned with the timeless<\/em> and constant<\/em> in existence. While fear of a particular thing or situation may pass, fear, itself, as a form of reaction to noumenal reality antecedes any specific species of fear, and remains as an option for future reactions. Getting over a fear of thunder does not automatically \u201ccure\u201d a fear of snakes.<\/p>\r\n

In modern English vernacular, \u201cmyth\u201d is often used as a synonym for \u201cfalse\u201d, or \u201cuntrue\u201d; as in: \u201cDon\u2019t believe that \u2013 it\u2019s a myth.\u201d15<\/a><\/sup> This is not the sense in which the word is used here. In our study of mythology, a myth is a story which expresses an a-historical<\/em>, universal truth about human experience. The word \u201ca-historical\u201d means \u201coutside of history\u201d. While a myth may be set in ancient Greece or India, the message it carries about human experience is not particular to the specific culture. Referring to the above discussion about fear: all human beings feel primal fear of certain stimuli (the unknown, violence, etc.) \u2014 there is not a \u201cGreek version\u201d of primal fear which is in some way different from an \u201cIndian version\u201d of primal fear.<\/p>\r\n

This is where myths differ from other folklore such as fables, fairy tales, etc. In the latter, the specific milieu (setting) of the story is relevant to the message the audience is expected to understand from it. For instance, an Inuit story about a trouble-making polar bear would make little sense to a Tuareg tribesperson of the Sahara desert. But, a story about a camel with a bad attitude would also make little sense to the Inuit. Whereas a story about another person making mischief would be easily understandable to both.16<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n

This also highlights that mythos-truth<\/em> is of a different species than logos-truth<\/em>. For instance, Herodotus wrote a history of Greece which was based upon Greek mythology and the epic poetry of Homer dealing with the Trojan War and its aftermath \u2014 events which (if they were even actual historical happenings) occurred hundreds of years before Herodotus\u2019 own lifetime. In contrast, Thucydides wrote an account of the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta \u2014 in which he had personally taken part.<\/em>17<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n

Thucydides wrote about things he personally experienced, or, if he had not been present at a particular battle, he gathered information from people who had been there. The unreliability of eyewitness evidence notwithstanding, Thucydides at least attempted to write a logos-based history, founded upon known, verifiable facts which were devoid of personal, emotional coloring. In contrast, Herodotus wrote a mythos-based history which was composed entirely of oral history, mythology, and traditional tales.<\/p>\r\n

This is not to say that Herodotus\u2019 history wasn\u2019t true<\/em>. <\/em>In its way, it was a genuine expression of how the Greek people of his time saw their place in the world and their relationship to it. It was \u201ctrue\u201d in that it accurately described how the Greeks saw themselves \u2014 the fact that others very probably had a vastly different view of Greek culture and its importance in the world has no real relevance.18<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n

Thus, mythology is concerned with the significance<\/em> of life, its context<\/em> rather than its content<\/em>. A myth about a person building a house is not an instruction manual for building a house. It is an account of what being able to build and live in a house rather than crouching in a natural cave, means<\/em> to the person (and, by extension, to all human beings).<\/p>\r\n

The house is symbolic<\/em> of intelligence, knowledge, ability, independence, the power to manipulate the material of the natural world to suit one\u2019s own needs and desires, \u201c\u2026 turning outer nature into your service.\u201d19<\/a><\/sup> It is about how being human is different from being, say, a bear, and how that different experience causes humans to see themselves in relation to the world around them. This brings us to a discussion of context and its relationship to culture.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n \r\n

\r\n
1<\/a> The cat, here, is the indirect object<\/i>, the noun describing the receiver of the object noun being acted upon by the verb, but that is not relevant to our discussion.<\/div>\r\n
2<\/a> To massively oversimplify, Kant maintained that while noumena<\/i> (objective reality) does exist, it is not perceived directly by consciousness, so only phenomena<\/i> (subjective reality) is \u201creal\u201d from an experiential standpoint.<\/div>\r\n
3<\/a> I won\u2019t go wandering off into the weeds here with a discussion of Schr\u00f6dinger, Heisenberg, etc., though it is a fascinating jaunt.<\/div>\r\n
4<\/a> There are some very (in)famous examples of apples (and fruits in general) used as symbols in mythology.<\/div>\r\n
5<\/a> Some of whom come away rather disappointed: it is very darkened by age, and not very large at all, only about 30 by 21 inches in size.<\/div>\r\n
6<\/a> Note, however, that asking, \u201cWhat does it mean to you<\/i>?\u201d is a very worthwhile and valuable question.<\/div>\r\n
7<\/a> In some ontological philosophy, \u201clogos\u201d is used to refer to the rational principle that governs and develops the universe; in theology, it is often used, capitalized as Logos, to mean the divine word or reason which was incarnated in Jesus Christ, per the biblical passage in John 1:1-14 \u2013 \u201cIn the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.\u201d This is not the sense in which we use the term, here; we use it in its seminal Greek sense, as the root of the word \u201clogic\u201d, and referring specifically to rational exploration of the world and the expression of the findings of said exploration.<\/div>\r\n
8<\/a> Francis Bacon, Advancement of Learning.: Novum Organum. New Atlantis<\/i> (Chicago: William Benton \/ Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica, 1952)<\/div>\r\n
9<\/a> Robert M. Pirsig, Lila<\/i> (New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1991).<\/div>\r\n
10<\/a> Jack Fraser, \"There's No Such Thing As Proof In The Scientific World - There's Only Evidence,\" Forbes<\/i>, December 14, 2017, accessed February 1, 2023, https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/quora\/2017\/12\/14\/theres-no-such-thing-as-proof-in-the-scientific-world-theres-only-evidence\/?sh=5ee09e6d5392.<\/div>\r\n
11<\/a> Joseph <\/i>Campbell<\/i>, \"The Hero's Adventure,\" interview by Bill Moyers, Joseph and The Power of Myth<\/i>, produced by Joan Konner and Alvin H. Perlmutter, aired 1988 (first broadcast 1988), on Athena.<\/div>\r\n
12<\/a> That we know of, anyway.<\/div>\r\n
13<\/a> Again, as far as we know.<\/div>\r\n
14<\/a> Gary Zukav, The Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Overview <\/i>Of<\/i> The New Physics<\/i> (HarperOne, San Francisco, 2009).<\/div>\r\n
15<\/a> In fact, in this context, the proper term would be \u201curban legend\u201d, (which is also problematic in its own ways).<\/div>\r\n
16<\/a> This is where the archetypes come into play. See later for a more in-depth discussion.<\/div>\r\n
17<\/a> In fact, he was a general at one point, but due to a battlefield failure, was exiled (to the land of the enemy, as it happens, which, had I been a Spartan of the time, I would have found highly suspicious\u2026.)<\/div>\r\n
18<\/a> For this reason, Herodotus is often called \u201cThe Father of History\u201d, because he was the first person in the Western tradition to attempt to compile a document which explained a people and their origins to themselves; whereas Thucydides is sometimes called \u201cThe Father of Modern History\u201d, because he was the first in the Western tradition to attempt a factual, verifiable, objective history of a particular event in a people\u2019s chronology. Hence, my use of the terms \u201cmythos-truth\u201d and \u201clogos-truth\u201d; Herodotus\u2019 history may be said to be a \u201cmythos-history\u201d, while that of Thucydides might be called a \u201clogos-history\u201d.<\/div>\r\n
19<\/a> Campbell, \"The Message,\" interview, Joseph Campbell<\/i>.<\/div>\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"
\n

As with any discipline, a shared vocabulary is necessary for effective communication, so let us start by exploring some vital terminology.<\/p>\n

Epistemology<\/h2>\n

Epistemology is, broadly, the theory of knowledge<\/em>, and it is a major subset of philosophy. It is relevant to our study of mythology in the guise of the question: \u201cHow do we know what we know?\u201d For our purposes, knowledge (and how it is acquired) can be largely divided into two types, described by the Latin terms a priori<\/em> and a posteriori<\/em>. These terms and concepts are of central importance to the study of mythology.<\/p>\n

The term a priori<\/em> is Latin for \u201cfrom the previous\u201d, or \u201cfrom the one before,\u201d and references knowledge held to be true but which is not based on experience or observation<\/em>. In this sense, a priori<\/em> describes knowledge that requires no evidence<\/em>. This kind of \u201cknowing\u201d can be thought of as \u201cknowledge of the heart\u201d, captured in terms like \u201cintuition\u201d and \u201cinstinct\u201d.<\/p>\n

In contrast, a posteriori<\/em> \u2014 Latin for \u201cfrom the one behind\u201d \u2014 is knowledge based on experience, observation, and data. The veracity of such knowledge is considered to be true based on the quality, frequency, and repeatability of these sources. Thus, a posteriori<\/em> knowledge requires not only evidence, but demonstrable, repeatable data collection. So, this kind of \u201cknowing\u201d can be conceptualized as \u201cknowledge of the mind\u201d, captured in terms like \u201cscience\u201d and \u201cresearch\u201d.<\/p>\n

These terms, then, are related to two ways of describing reality and the experience of it: subjective<\/em> and objective <\/em>see figure 2.1<\/strong>. Here, an example from language studies may be helpful. In the sentence, \u201cThe person gives a treat to the cat,\u201d the subject<\/em> of the sentence is the noun which refers to the person or thing engaging in the action referred to by the verb. Here, \u201cperson\u201d is the subject noun, referring to the individual engaging in the action of giving (\u201cgives\u201d). The object<\/em> of the sentence is the noun which being affected by the action described by the verb: here, the object noun is \u201ctreat\u201d. It is the thing which is being given by the person.1<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

\"Diagram
Fig. 2.1<\/strong> Diagram of the sentence “The person gives a treat to the cat”, diagramming the subject, object, and direct object, as well as the transitive verb.1<\/a><\/sup><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Objective reality<\/em> (what Immanuel Kant called \u201cnoumena\u201d),2<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0then, is the reality of the object<\/em>; the objects and events which occur as a result of the normal, natural processes of nature, and which do not require <\/em>the presence of <\/em>an observer to be \u201creal\u201d<\/em>. Objective reality can be related to content<\/em> and denotation<\/em> (see below).<\/p>\n

In contrast, s<\/em>ubjective reality<\/em> (Kantian \u201cphenomena\u201d), is the reality of the subject<\/em>; if you will; it is the \u201cinternal\u201d reality, comprising both <\/em>experience and <\/em>the<\/em> reaction to it<\/em>. This reality can only be \u201creal\u201d in the sense that a consciousness is interacting with it. This can be associated to context<\/em> and connotation<\/em> (see below).<\/p>\n

Content and Context (Denotation and Connotation)<\/h2>\n

Content<\/em> is denotative<\/em>; it is explicit, descriptive, objective, concrete<\/em>. The word \u201capple\u201d, for instance, is simply that: a word which refers to a particular variety of fruit. From a content<\/em> perspective, it doesn\u2019t matter what variety the apple is, nor does its size or color matter. \u201cApple\u201d is<\/em> \u201capple\u201d, nothing more and nothing less; \u201cegg\u201d is<\/em> \u201cegg\u201d; \u201cdog\u201d is<\/em> \u201cdog\u201d, and so forth. In the denotative sense, an apple (or an egg, or a dog) exists, whether or not<\/em> it is being interacted with by another object. Its existence is not dependent upon anything else.3<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Context<\/em> is connotative<\/em>; it is implicit, conceptive, subjective, abstract.<\/em> In terms of context,<\/em> \u201capple\u201d can \u201cstand for\u201d, \u201cimply\u201d, or \u201csuggest\u201d more than itself. The word \u201capple\u201d expands from being a thing-in-and-of-itself into being more of a sort of container for ideas and concepts. It serves as a sign<\/em>, a symbol<\/em>, an implication<\/em>, or a signification<\/em>.<\/p>\n

For instance, an apple shape with a crescent cut out of it represents<\/em> a particular technology manufacturing company and the products it makes; an apple on the cover of a book about nutrition implies<\/em> health and vitality; an image of a basket overflowing with apples might suggest<\/em> abundance, affluence, prosperity, etc.4<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

However, none of those concepts are inherent<\/em> in \u201capple\u201d itself; they are neither an intrinsic part of the word \u201capple\u201d, nor are they realities that \u201ccome out\u201d of a physical apple \u2014 the fruit does not produce cell phones or magically bestow physical well-being: just being in a room with an apple doesn\u2019t make you healthier.<\/p>\n

\"Hammer
Fig. 2.2<\/strong> Hammer and Sickle Symbol.\u00a0Wikipedia<\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The awareness of (and distinction between) content and context, denotation and connotation, is central to the effective study of mythology. When an owl appears in a myth, for example, is it intended to simply refer to a bird of that particular species, or is it a symbol (metaphor) for wisdom? Is a book just a book, or is it a sign of knowledge?<\/p>\n

Think of the ubiquitous Hammer-and-Sickle (see figure 2.2)<\/strong>: this icon carries meaning, signifying the unification of the industrial working class (represented by the hammer), and the agrarian peasant class, represented by the sickle (scythe), as the source of political\/economic power and governance in a communist society. It is still the central motif of many political parties around the world, although it no longer appears on the flag of any major nations.<\/p>\n

Further, if the object in question is being referred to connotatively<\/em>, which connotation applies? The answer to that question depends on a number of factors: Which society\/culture is using the symbol? Which segment of society is employing the symbol? At what time in history is the symbol being employed (e. g. a chain may at one historical point represent strength and unity, but at a different time refer to slavery and oppression).<\/p>\n

Context and connotation are where the fun is: in Kant\u2019s view, only phenomena<\/em> comprise subjective experience, and phenomena are a result of our various sensory organs and processes reacting to stimuli impinging upon them as a result of the existence and actions of objective reality.<\/p>\n

Thus, for Kant, context (subjective reality) is constructed<\/em> by consciousness in every moment from four components: 1) the influence<\/em> on our sense organs of external objects and events (objective reality); 2) our impressions<\/em> (reactions) to being affected by objective reality; 3) our memory<\/em> (recollections of past instances of being affected by objective reality; and, finally 4) our imagination<\/em> \u2014 the ability to conceive of a significant connection between objective reality and ourselves.<\/p>\n

In simpler terms, we recognize, organize<\/em>, and categorize<\/em> (i. e. contextualize<\/em>) the data of our sense impressions to create meaning<\/em>. Think about the sheer power of this statement: it forces us to realize that meaning is never inherent in the object<\/em>. \u201cThings\u201d just are<\/em>. Their meaning is only<\/em> and<\/em> entirely<\/em> assigned to them by us<\/em>. This is a crucial awareness for the study of mythology.<\/p>\n

\"Mona
Fig. 2.3<\/strong> Mona Lisa painting (portrait of Lisa Gherardini, c 1503-1506, Leonardo da Vinci, currently in the Louvre Museum, Paris, France.<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Consider the Mona Lisa <\/em>painting by Leonardo da Vinci figure 2.3<\/strong>. It is currently housed in the Louvre Museum, in Paris, France, where it hangs on a wall behind several inches of plexiglass and is visited and viewed by millions of people every year.5<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0It is considered one of the greatest works of art produced by human beings in the entire history of our species up to this point.<\/p>\n

And yet, if every human being were to vanish from the face of the Earth tomorrow, the Mona Lisa<\/em> would still be hanging on the wall of the Louvre, and it would mean nothing<\/em>. Any-and-all meaning it has is assigned to it by consciousness, in the absence of which, meaning is non-existent.<\/p>\n

Further, think about what a painting actually<\/em> is<\/em>: it is ground up matter (pigment) suspended in a liquid (called a \u201cbinder\u201d) and applied to a surface (e. g. canvas, board, plaster, paper, etc.) in a particular arrangement (composition).<\/p>\n

The Mona Lisa<\/em> is a painting; but, so is a child\u2019s effort from their preschool art lesson. Does one have more \u201cmeaning\u201d than the other? If so, why; if not, why not? What determines the difference in the meaning of the two? Is the meaning of each the same for everyone, and, thus, universally acknowledged? Is there an objective scale upon which the meaning of each can be located, in order to determine a corresponding \u201cvalue\u201d of each?<\/p>\n

The wonderful (and sometimes infuriating) thing about context\/connotation is that it is the result of a choice<\/em>, and choices can be reexamined, reevaluated, and revised<\/em>. Not only is meaning not inherent in the object, it is not permanent<\/em>, but fluid and dynamic<\/em>. In answer to the posing of the question about an artwork, \u201cWhat does it mean?\u201d the Zen master would stoically reply, \u201cYou make an incoherent noise.\u201d The question has only a subjective answer, and therefore asking it of anyone else is a futile act.6<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Logos7<\/sup><\/a><\/span> and Mythos<\/h2>\n

We will encounter these two terms frequently during our exploration of mythology, so it is worth taking a few lines to introduce them.<\/p>\n

Logos: the Greek root of the word \u201clogic\u201d, l\u00f3gos<\/em> mans \u201ca word, saying, speech, discourse, thought, proportion, ratio, reckoning\u201d, and comes ultimately from the Greek legein<\/em>, meaning \u201cto speak\u201d.<\/p>\n

Logos is rational, pragmatic, scientific<\/em> thought. Note that the root of the word \u201crational\u201d is \u201cratio\u201d and a ratio is a mathematical<\/em> relationship. For instance, if you have two apples and one orange, the fruits are in a mathematical two-to-one ratio. If you were to increase the number of both apples and fruits by a factor of three, you would then have six apples and three oranges (6:3), but this is still a two-to-one ratio. Bearing in mind that \u201clogos\u201d is related to \u201cratio\u201d helps us to remember that it is the word for formalized, regularized, quantified thinking and expression.<\/p>\n

Logos is seen as the foundation of Western culture, beginning with Greek explorations into geometry and philosophy in the 6th<\/sup> Century BCE, and formalized as a doctrine during the European Enlightenment of the 17th<\/sup> and 18th<\/sup> Centuries CE. Modern science is predicated upon the concept of provability and repeatability, codified by Ren\u00e9 Descartes in the Discourse on the Method<\/em> (1637).<\/p>\n

In modern science, for something to be considered a fact, the source of the information must be identified as reliable, accessible to anyone seeking it, measurable and quantifiable, and subject to consistent repeatability via structured experimentation.<\/p>\n

In this sense, logos is intricately connected to objective reality (Kantian noumena<\/em>): the things to which facts relate are believed to have an existence independent of the observer and\/or experimenter, and thus be free from what Roger Bacon called the \u201cIdols of the Tribe\u201d8<\/a><\/sup> (idola <\/em>tribus<\/em>) \u2013 the variability of individual experience which make human perceptions unreliable as proofs of reality.<\/p>\n

A room that feels warm to me may feel cool to you; however, a thermometer on the wall would indicate a single temperature (in whatever scale to which it is calibrated), for instance 74\u00b0 Fahrenheit. The temperature indicated on the thermometer is not a matter of personal experience nor of personal preference; it is an object<\/em>ive<\/em> fact, not subject to debate, and independent of the perceptions of any of those in the room.<\/p>\n

Robert Pirsig, in Lila: An Inquiry into Morals<\/em>, wrote that \u201cScientific truth has always contained an overwhelming difference from theological truth: it is provisional<\/em>.\u201d9<\/a><\/sup> What he meant by this is that the aim of scientific exploration is to continuously update human knowledge with new information.<\/p>\n

It is not that what we \u201cknow\u201d today is \u201cwrong\u201d, but it is expected that it is incomplete<\/em>. However much we know about a phenomenon, the scientific assumption is that there is always more to know \u2014 more to discover. There are entire institutions, called research universities<\/em>, whose purpose is to reveal that what we currently know is only part of the whole picture<\/em>.<\/p>\n

While this means that our knowledge is constantly growing and expanding, it also means that we are by no means certain about anything related to objective reality. Thus, the common aphorism reminds us that \u201cchange is the only constant.\u201d\u00a0As Jack Fraser says in an online article at Forbes<\/em> magazine:<\/p>\n

\u201cYou cannot prove anything.<\/em> You can never have 100% proof of anything. There will always be doubt. You can gather evidence<\/em>. That evidence will never be 100% \u2014 there\u2019s always the chance that everything you think you know turns out to be false \u2014 but the evidence allows you to make current-best-evidence-guesses (for want of a better term) about the behavior of the universe. We can build up piles and piles of evidence for ideas. When the pile reaches a certain height, it behooves us to begin to take it rather seriously.\u201d10<\/a><\/sup><\/div>\n

However, though an experiment may be repeated a million times by thousands of experimenters and all of the results are always the same \u2014 there always remains a chance that a future instance of the experiment may return a different result. While no theory can be proven, all theories can be disproven, by a single experimental result that contradicts all other results<\/em>, no matter how many there have been. Evidence and experimentation can bring you statistically closer and closer to the likelihood that you have discovered a fact about the universe, but that statistical likelihood can be demolished in a single experiment.<\/p>\n

This means that in modern, science-oriented societies, certainty is impossible<\/em>. However, this is psychologically uncomfortable for human beings. We like to be able to at least tell ourselves that we are certain about some things<\/em>; that some knowledge can be relied upon to always be true; that some aspects of life are dependably predictable.<\/p>\n

This is where mythos comes in.<\/p>\n

Mythos: The ultimate origin of the word \u201cmythos\u201d (Gk. m\u0233thos<\/em>) is unknown, which seems utterly appropriate for a word that encapsulates the awareness of and appreciation for the \u201c\u2026mystery that underlies all forms [which is] beyond all categories of thought.\u201d11<\/a><\/sup> In ancient Greek, it came to mean \u201cspeech\u201d, \u201cthought\u201d, or \u201cstory\u201d, and it is this last definition which connects it to the storytelling aspect of mythology.<\/p>\n

Mythos was regarded by the ancients as the primary means of acquiring knowledge<\/em>. This makes sense; mythos, being associated with mystical and spiritual existence is about experience<\/em>. All conscious creatures interact with the objective (noumenal) reality in which they find themselves, and we call those interactions \u201cexperiences\u201d. Poke an amoeba with a pin and it will move away from the irritating stimulus.<\/p>\n

Human beings were having experiences long before we started thinking about and attempting to analyze those experiences. Think of it this way: a dog having a fear reaction to thunderclaps isn\u2019t asking itself12<\/a><\/sup> \u201cWhat is that noise? Where is it coming from? Why is it making me afraid?\u201d It is simply afraid, and seeking to escape the thing or the environment it is associating with that fear. It is the same with the amoeba; it finds the poking sensation unpleasant, so it moves to avoid it \u2013 but it is not cogitating on the source of the poking, and it certainly isn\u2019t coming to any judgements about itself in relation to having experienced a poking sensation.13<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Human beings, on the other hand, are capable of asking those sorts of questions (and we do), and of judging ourselves and each other in relation to the experience. That is what led to the development of logos in human consciousness; but, originally, we simply reacted to fear stimuli in the same way the amoeba or our family pet does today.<\/p>\n

Hence, mythos represents the primary means of acquiring knowledge because it relates to non-contextualized experience<\/em>, which Gary Zukav says, \u201c\u2026 is not bound by [logos] rules \u2026 it is more real<\/em>.<\/em>\u201d14<\/a><\/sup> It is concerned with the timeless<\/em> and constant<\/em> in existence. While fear of a particular thing or situation may pass, fear, itself, as a form of reaction to noumenal reality antecedes any specific species of fear, and remains as an option for future reactions. Getting over a fear of thunder does not automatically \u201ccure\u201d a fear of snakes.<\/p>\n

In modern English vernacular, \u201cmyth\u201d is often used as a synonym for \u201cfalse\u201d, or \u201cuntrue\u201d; as in: \u201cDon\u2019t believe that \u2013 it\u2019s a myth.\u201d15<\/a><\/sup> This is not the sense in which the word is used here. In our study of mythology, a myth is a story which expresses an a-historical<\/em>, universal truth about human experience. The word \u201ca-historical\u201d means \u201coutside of history\u201d. While a myth may be set in ancient Greece or India, the message it carries about human experience is not particular to the specific culture. Referring to the above discussion about fear: all human beings feel primal fear of certain stimuli (the unknown, violence, etc.) \u2014 there is not a \u201cGreek version\u201d of primal fear which is in some way different from an \u201cIndian version\u201d of primal fear.<\/p>\n

This is where myths differ from other folklore such as fables, fairy tales, etc. In the latter, the specific milieu (setting) of the story is relevant to the message the audience is expected to understand from it. For instance, an Inuit story about a trouble-making polar bear would make little sense to a Tuareg tribesperson of the Sahara desert. But, a story about a camel with a bad attitude would also make little sense to the Inuit. Whereas a story about another person making mischief would be easily understandable to both.16<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

This also highlights that mythos-truth<\/em> is of a different species than logos-truth<\/em>. For instance, Herodotus wrote a history of Greece which was based upon Greek mythology and the epic poetry of Homer dealing with the Trojan War and its aftermath \u2014 events which (if they were even actual historical happenings) occurred hundreds of years before Herodotus\u2019 own lifetime. In contrast, Thucydides wrote an account of the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta \u2014 in which he had personally taken part.<\/em>17<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Thucydides wrote about things he personally experienced, or, if he had not been present at a particular battle, he gathered information from people who had been there. The unreliability of eyewitness evidence notwithstanding, Thucydides at least attempted to write a logos-based history, founded upon known, verifiable facts which were devoid of personal, emotional coloring. In contrast, Herodotus wrote a mythos-based history which was composed entirely of oral history, mythology, and traditional tales.<\/p>\n

This is not to say that Herodotus\u2019 history wasn\u2019t true<\/em>. <\/em>In its way, it was a genuine expression of how the Greek people of his time saw their place in the world and their relationship to it. It was \u201ctrue\u201d in that it accurately described how the Greeks saw themselves \u2014 the fact that others very probably had a vastly different view of Greek culture and its importance in the world has no real relevance.18<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Thus, mythology is concerned with the significance<\/em> of life, its context<\/em> rather than its content<\/em>. A myth about a person building a house is not an instruction manual for building a house. It is an account of what being able to build and live in a house rather than crouching in a natural cave, means<\/em> to the person (and, by extension, to all human beings).<\/p>\n

The house is symbolic<\/em> of intelligence, knowledge, ability, independence, the power to manipulate the material of the natural world to suit one\u2019s own needs and desires, \u201c\u2026 turning outer nature into your service.\u201d19<\/a><\/sup> It is about how being human is different from being, say, a bear, and how that different experience causes humans to see themselves in relation to the world around them. This brings us to a discussion of context and its relationship to culture.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
1<\/a> The cat, here, is the indirect object<\/i>, the noun describing the receiver of the object noun being acted upon by the verb, but that is not relevant to our discussion.<\/div>\n
2<\/a> To massively oversimplify, Kant maintained that while noumena<\/i> (objective reality) does exist, it is not perceived directly by consciousness, so only phenomena<\/i> (subjective reality) is \u201creal\u201d from an experiential standpoint.<\/div>\n
3<\/a> I won\u2019t go wandering off into the weeds here with a discussion of Schr\u00f6dinger, Heisenberg, etc., though it is a fascinating jaunt.<\/div>\n
4<\/a> There are some very (in)famous examples of apples (and fruits in general) used as symbols in mythology.<\/div>\n
5<\/a> Some of whom come away rather disappointed: it is very darkened by age, and not very large at all, only about 30 by 21 inches in size.<\/div>\n
6<\/a> Note, however, that asking, \u201cWhat does it mean to you<\/i>?\u201d is a very worthwhile and valuable question.<\/div>\n
7<\/a> In some ontological philosophy, \u201clogos\u201d is used to refer to the rational principle that governs and develops the universe; in theology, it is often used, capitalized as Logos, to mean the divine word or reason which was incarnated in Jesus Christ, per the biblical passage in John 1:1-14 \u2013 \u201cIn the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God … And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.\u201d This is not the sense in which we use the term, here; we use it in its seminal Greek sense, as the root of the word \u201clogic\u201d, and referring specifically to rational exploration of the world and the expression of the findings of said exploration.<\/div>\n
8<\/a> Francis Bacon, Advancement of Learning.: Novum Organum. New Atlantis<\/i> (Chicago: William Benton \/ Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica, 1952)<\/div>\n
9<\/a> Robert M. Pirsig, Lila<\/i> (New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1991).<\/div>\n
10<\/a> Jack Fraser, “There’s No Such Thing As Proof In The Scientific World – There’s Only Evidence,” Forbes<\/i>, December 14, 2017, accessed February 1, 2023, https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/quora\/2017\/12\/14\/theres-no-such-thing-as-proof-in-the-scientific-world-theres-only-evidence\/?sh=5ee09e6d5392.<\/div>\n
11<\/a> Joseph <\/i>Campbell<\/i>, “The Hero’s Adventure,” interview by Bill Moyers, Joseph and The Power of Myth<\/i>, produced by Joan Konner and Alvin H. Perlmutter, aired 1988 (first broadcast 1988), on Athena.<\/div>\n
12<\/a> That we know of, anyway.<\/div>\n
13<\/a> Again, as far as we know.<\/div>\n
14<\/a> Gary Zukav, The Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Overview <\/i>Of<\/i> The New Physics<\/i> (HarperOne, San Francisco, 2009).<\/div>\n
15<\/a> In fact, in this context, the proper term would be \u201curban legend\u201d, (which is also problematic in its own ways).<\/div>\n
16<\/a> This is where the archetypes come into play. See later for a more in-depth discussion.<\/div>\n
17<\/a> In fact, he was a general at one point, but due to a battlefield failure, was exiled (to the land of the enemy, as it happens, which, had I been a Spartan of the time, I would have found highly suspicious\u2026.)<\/div>\n
18<\/a> For this reason, Herodotus is often called \u201cThe Father of History\u201d, because he was the first person in the Western tradition to attempt to compile a document which explained a people and their origins to themselves; whereas Thucydides is sometimes called \u201cThe Father of Modern History\u201d, because he was the first in the Western tradition to attempt a factual, verifiable, objective history of a particular event in a people\u2019s chronology. Hence, my use of the terms \u201cmythos-truth\u201d and \u201clogos-truth\u201d; Herodotus\u2019 history may be said to be a \u201cmythos-history\u201d, while that of Thucydides might be called a \u201clogos-history\u201d.<\/div>\n
19<\/a> Campbell, “The Message,” interview, Joseph Campbell<\/i>.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":101,"menu_order":3,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-25","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":3,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschum1015\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/25","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschum1015\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschum1015\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschum1015\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/101"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschum1015\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/25\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":227,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschum1015\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/25\/revisions\/227"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschum1015\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/3"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschum1015\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/25\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschum1015\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschum1015\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=25"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschum1015\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=25"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppschum1015\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=25"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}