The Structural Study of Myth

Claude Levi-Strauss
Contradictory Language:
The division of function, proposing a term of value, to be unto the Whole, and in part, (impart) every single thing.

Strauss
French, Born 1908, most active in the 1950s and 60s, known as the father of modern psychology, applied the Saussurean approach of Structural Linguistic theory to the field of Anthropology. In A Structural Study of Myth, Strauss simultaneously pronounces his discipline as sick and provides the cure towards its progression, through a Structural scientific method of inquiry, where the newly autonomous methods prime concern is uncovering an understanding into the reflexive agency unto subject of the lens at hand.

The Structural Study of Myth

begins by articulating the current state of the field of Anthropology as in an assorted diagnostic chaos, unsure of itself within methods of advancement as an understanding of the nature of its function became convoluted, plagued by the widely discredited psychology of the time. Namely, it would seem, the rejected authority of Freudian ideas, yet which in themselves claimed an autonomy and simultaneously penetrated, dismantling the baseline establishment of all other fields of scientific inquiry, halting their progression with a mistrusted and therefore disjointed injection of psychologys dominating conversion. The critique hinged on the notion of Freuds psychological inquiry as stemming from a lethal reversal of sorts concerning the scientific method. Basically the problems addressed were conceived to be themselves addressed as feeling first and then applied in a fabrication of science as mere Theory of Regard. Felt (ironically) as a sickness of scientific thought, this very issue, the relationship between feeling or perception and the scientific formulation of knowledge, is at the heart of both psychology and philosophy, which call into question the nature of the intellectual process itself. But Strauss argues that the discipline of Anthropology, possibly above all, hinges on and springs forth from this contradiction, as it is the study of the application of the human faculty, the manifestation of the nature of humanity which must therefore necessarily exist tangentially in and unto an intellectual process of its uncovering. To pursue Anthropology is to unavoidably pursue the methodology of such, or any, purist.

Which leads now (of course) into a discussion of Language

Strauss, Speaking Of The Framework For Enunciation . . . Mythology

The Sense of Sensation (knowledge, understanding) is born of a necessarily fundamental contradiction between language as an inert system of signs and the 3 dimensional possibilities of such expression. Such that the language is conceived in a Myth as at once the synthetic union of the perception of a universally applicable code unto meaninglessness and the expression of the meaningful variations within the characterized system. The basic problem of the myth proposes then is whether or not its content can be said to be arbitrary. Strauss acknowledges the Saussurean principle of the arbitrary character of the sign as necessary for the advancement of language to the level of a science, but this carefully implies the fundamental arbitrary nature of an arbitration of linguistic character. As the necessarily posed contradiction, it lays the groundwork for the preceding meaningful conception of language as housing a creative force through its own inherently self destructive dichotomy. Myths, like Saussure, are always referring to a contractual contradiction in the meaningful synthetic arbitration of linguistic character.

Meaning is seen not to be contained within the myth, but in its synthetically external application, as its substance paradoxically consists of all its internal variants of the universal code, and its present conception as all the meaningful variation of its substance.
The life of the Myth is sensed as an emergence from its universal structure, which is felt to exist unto its expression of death, mediating life therefore becomes the positive third term of use from the conceptual study of Myth.

So what the fuck am I talking about?

Its something like this: Strauss uses a conception of Myth (the positive term of value from the emerged, to the entrenched, into the newly emerging) as linguistic tool in and of itself to refer to a methodology of language which in and of itself contradicts in part itself and therefore refers back to its fundamental synthetic conception in the first place through the emergent underlying pattern of structure, which now read, so to speak landed a rock between squarely and a hard place. The frame of reference of a myth being its intentionally variant language in its necessarily functionally arbitrary application, superimposed over the unvaried sign system from which it diverges, so that what was expressed are now variations felt as the body unto its own demise, informing the vitally essential mediating function of the paradoxically contained yet unexpressed variations as the frame itself. i.e. The implications of the frame to the terms of its tangible scope and breadth i.e. Knowledge of Intelligence i.e. True Anthropological Potential i.e. Contradiction of Mythology i.e. Conception of Mythology i.e. Making of Meaning i.e. Outside of Language i.e. Highest Order of Relevance i.e. Through Language

And left there as a vehicle, the functional shell of borrowing sense impression, to sacrificially sense and contain the decomposition of Memorable Contradiction,
that the function be seen now as the term value (the communicated value dependent) and the term being seen as its function, so that the concept of the relation between a sign and its function (the understanding between them) be given a relative value relating itself unto the method of this relation so that the positive term of value mediates the sign system as it functions as a newly conceived whole, meaning that the essential contradiction of meaning making reconciles itself into the at once systemized self-referential conception of a variant external utterance of value.

This means absolutely everything, the actual point of which could never be approached. Instead I propose a frame unto the method.

Its Magic, Charlie Brown

Questions:
How does Charlie Brown, the Everyday man, function as a Mythology? How is it that he disappears, reappears, and in the interim is enabled as a means to enact this contradictory natural character of his with meaningful expression? How the hell does that relate to the discipline of Anthropology, and in turn, to the disciple of art?