Borges

So initially I had a grand idea about writing about myths. Myths are interesting. Why we return to them? Why do they have meaning in an age when the truth value of the truths of myths has been reassigned to science (for the most part)? Taking some ideological and argument leaps and liberties, we can say that truth is a function of society, of the relationships within it. Pure and unadulterated referentiality is impossible. This is a dull argument and one that we just need to mention if only to say we acknolwedge it.

Why then do we ask questions about myths? What do they mean to us today? Have they be reassigned a new truth (well of course)? Or do we refer to them if only to show how we once were? Is it a means to show progress or regression? Do myths have to be historically progressive or can they simply show the contingency of history? Is myth a myth if only because of its literariness, its disguising the truth while trying to say it (this is a nod to the russian formalists)? I do not know the answer. All I do know is that mythology is popular and I would assume will always remain popular and I wonder why? Why do we need myths? What value do they have? Value perhaps not as truth value but value within the whole. Why do we need them?

All of this was just to say I think Borges is one of the most fascinating characters of all time. When one follows his works, one finds not only breathtaking stories that weave in and out of time and narration--but a richness of stories and cannons that involve Kabbalah, Fascism, Nietzsche, Idealism, the Infinite, and the whole of the western cannon. He offers many paths. I think teasing each one out would be a real exercise and not to mention just plain fun.

Oh well. That's I've got.

How about wikileaks. Wow.