Thank you @jamesn., for this extension of the topic and for your kind words. One of the wonderful things about the MythBlast series is also its most challenging: the pithiness necessary to introduce and complete a thought within a topic! One of the reasons I’m so grateful for COHO.
I love this exploration of the Jungian discussion to be had around lie vs. metaphor. I absolutely agree that there will be shades of disagreement around the details of truth, but my main concerns in this piece are the facts that are subverted because they are uncomfortable. I want to tread lightly with respect to COHO’s rules around discussion of current/political events, but I will say this: Turning away from the challenge of facing our shadow self creates the rifts between us, but when this rift serves the minority in power and maintains the status quo, there’s a concerted effort to keep the general population from recognizing (and realizing) their power over their own fate.
Indeed, the religion question *is* relevant, as it’s generally accepted that most (if not all, but I’m not by any means a religious scholar) religious texts rely heavily on the reader understanding metaphor, and it’s when we take the words literally that we end up defending the indefensible. The Truth of Creationism shouldn’t be put forth as a counter-argument to the facts of Evolution, to use your example—it not only ignores science, but diminishes the power of the metaphor of Creation. Likewise, if we sit with the science but have none of the story, we’re missing a vital piece of what makes us human!
Jung’s point about Truth as a prism really speaks to this, and I think to what you’re saying as well: The light is refracted, so some believe there’s only blue light of science or red light of metaphor, when the reality is: It’s both, and it’s more. But this reality is uncomfortable, maybe involves travel and reading, time and energy, and other things people either don’t want to spend time on or (often, now, by design) do not have the ability to spend time on. Who benefits from a population who only sees one color of light at a time?
I know this is only scratching the surface of your response, but I hope it speaks to what you’re getting at!