Reply To: The Editorial Function of Myth
jamesn’s contributions will not condense into conciseness, but no single line there is found to omit, not even the one last things.
About this editorial functions, small and great, Stephen’s topic. The small being our wonderings about actual life and how to cope with it in life and time, the large how to explain the movements on the worldstage that influences our humble life. So, this little editor is our private tube, our fashioned goggles we pierce through, focus (‘zero’) the multiplicity of the real world into a manageable summary (sounds familiar, not?), currently in action while reading this. The other, the father, big brother, rescuer of our tragic life, is the storyteller comforting us in singularity. It is a polarising view but it appears to me that it matters from which side of the telescope you’re looking through: amplifying or reducing? With the first, you’re not aware of the borders (but they are there nonetheless) so you’re forgiven, with the latter the perspective is out of reach or for martyrs only.