It’s uncanny – I was thinking last night about the tree aspect of the Pentheus myth. I was thinking about how to respond to an imagined literalist saying that Pentheus was caught up in a tree because that’s just where the story took place, in the woods. Then Michael writes this and other posts in the thread this morning: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/egodeath/message/5630

I didn’t come up with a satisfying response of my own. I wonder why I didn’t. Ultimately, I don’t focus enough on these important problems. It’s funny how academic training in the field of the Classics is hindering me from focusing with my full attention on interpreting classical myth. This is the price I have to pay for access to the hallowed halls of the universities. Let no one speak of cybernetics, fatedness, mushrooms in these walls!

It’s not worth the effort to write a book on a subject so directly targeted by egodeath theory unless I can use egodeath theory explicitly. If I wrote a book that covertly brought in cybernetics, fatedness, and mushrooms under safe, approved jargon, I would just have to rewrite it later. Better to wait.

It’s a tragic mess. I might be able to get away with telling my professors that I want to write about how texts x,y,z are about self-control or about fatedness. But combining them? Self-control in the light of experiencing fatedness? They would look at me like I’m crazy. Don’t even mention mushrooms. I was nearly shamed out of the university for suggesting the ancients took mushrooms, only forgiven because, after all, I was just a naive, young graduate student.

I have a hard time imagining what of use I could contribute if I wrote a book about classical myth using the standard paradigm. Even if I covertly brought in cybernetics, fatedness, and mushrooms, the result would pale in comparison to the book I could write if I used the explanatory power of egodeath theory.

Michael has made so much progress in interpreting certain subjects, it doesn’t make sense to try to write about them using the standard paradigm. It’s better to make my own headway on other subjects in the Classics that Michael hasn’t covered so thoroughly. I’m not suggesting that I won’t use egodeath theory; it affects all subjects in the Classics. Nevertheless I can contribute more in the mainstream scholarship I have to write by focusing on subjects beside myth, mystery religions, and early Christianity. Michael has already laid those bare. My mainstream scholarship book on another subject can include hooks so informed readers can easily interpret the subject in light of egodeath theory.

Plus, I can’t keep up with Michael! His output since September has been incredible.

Advertisement