Myths as the creator of a common identity and history and as setting of boundaries. Emerging from what has been said thus far is that, just as the existence of society is a fundamental element of the human lifestyle, so too myths, like language and religion, are the basic things upon which human society is founded. Myths are the essential building blocks used in the construction and preservation of social frameworks and also of theistic religions, as opposed to the non- theistic religions. Mythology is used by human society, regardless of the latter's make up, and regardless of the latter's various incarnations. Mythology is thus exploited, in equal measure, by a nationalistic society, a political society, a religious society made up of believers in some or other type of deity, and a cultural society. All these types of societies are defined by actual and potential ranges, so that in the case where there is a difference between its actual range, and its potential one, the myths deal with the potential ranges, which are always wider than, or identical to the actual range. In the case of early Christianity its potential range spread to all of humanity who was not at that time affiliated with another theistic religion, and even then only if that religion explicitly contradicted the precepts of Christianity. No reservation was made as to the nationality, race, language, and culture of the potential convert. It was possible for a Jew to affiliate himself with Christianity so long as he believed that Jesus being the messiah, the son of God and one of the three entities that made up the Holy Trinity did not contradict his view of Judaism. So too one who had practiced Hellenic culture, or any other pagan believer, for that matter could join Christianity, on the condition that he had abandoned his faith in idols to the extent that that idolatrous belief had contradicted a belief in One God, expressed by the belief in the trinity, and who now also believed that Jesus was the messiah. Thus, the Greek Hellenists, the Romans, and any other pagan worshippers were able to preserve those traditions that were influenced by the pagan cultures from which they originated so long as those traditions were merely superficially adhered to without forming the core beliefs of the Christian convert, and so long as monotheism, as expressed through the trinity, was regarded as supreme. From this perspective it makes sense why there was nothing holding back those from the eastern cultures, and ethnic groups, from preserving certain pagan characteristics within the framework of the Christianity that they accepted upon themselves. This, to the extent that the Eastern Orthodox (Christian) religion that emerged was quick to integrate and incorporate these types of indigenous characteristics into the religion without such a practice being considered non- Christian. Christianity was able to include within its ranks and contemporaneously, Egyptians, Romans, and even Germanic tribes without cutting away at each individual's ethnic background or separate national affiliation. All these nations became integrated into Christian society where the myths relating to the last supper and the crucifixion of Jesus, and Judas Iscariot became the common heritage of all believers, and left them with the feeling that each was acquainted with his fellow and that each was attached to the other through emotional and intimate ties. Therefore when the Ottomans reached the gates of Vienna, the battle that ensued was not merely part of a war in which Austria tried to fend off the attacking Turks, but rather it became a war that pitted Christianity against Islam. It became a war between religions or a "war between cultures", as those imbued with 21st century notions would like to refer to it. Myths are responsible for creating a familiar setting (through the sharing of a common mythological heritage), which is enough to rouse powerful sentimental feelings, intimacy and even solidarity in the hearts of all of those who share the same mythology. Contrariwise a myth can turn enemy on anyone who wages a war of destruction, or who tries to inflict serious damage, or who acts in a tyrannical manner towards others who have affiliated themselves with the same mythological school. Collective solidarity, in its negative construction, determines the level of rivalry and even animosity that should be applied to all those who are not in the same mythological circle. A natural covenant between individuals on the one hand and a common feeling of enmity towards a specified "other" on the other hand both creates and defines a social framework. The definition of a social framework is also a delineation of the limits of that group as they have been confined by the framework. From this perspective myths are also responsible for marking out the boundaries. For example, a myth may relate to all Japanese inhabitants, yet, so long as not all the Japanese fully and intimately come to terms with that specific myth a gap is created between the actual domain of the group that positively relates to the myth (the actual boundary), and the boundaries to which the myth purports to delineate, or to sketch out, or to which its actual contents relate to and to whom it is designated for (the etched out boundary). The etched out boundary is the optional boundary that is fixed by the myth, and if we relate to a myth as having a "pseudo- intention", it is also a designated boundary. The actual boundary is never meant to exceed the limits of the designated boundaries. If, then, people who live outside the area of the designated boundary approach the people who do live there with the request to join their group, an internal problem is bound to flare up amongst the latter group. Therefore in order to enable this designated merger, it is vital that a way be discovered to alter the mythology. An example of this dilemma may be found in the problem surrounding "who is a Jew?" that sprung up amongst an Israeli sub- group that was part of a larger Jewish societal group, when within the framework of the Jewish State's institutions, the State of Israel, a man by the name of Benjamin Shalit who had a married a non- Jew sued to get his son Tomer to be recognized, within the legal framework of the Jewish State, as a Jew, and, moreover, to have him registered within the framework of the Populations Registry of that state (the State of Israel) as a Jew. Jewish mythology, as it has been expounded upon and as traditional commentary has interpreted it, has establ that its myths apply exclusively to Jews who have been born to a Jewish mother. Since in this case the wife of the Jew was not Jewish, his request was refused and was dismissed in the final instance by the Supreme Court. This was all done after it became clear that the laws of the State of Israel in force at that time and as they were interpreted and understood, laid down the rule that the only person who may be registered as a Jew is one who the Jewish religion (in this case it is actually Jewish mythology which includes the religious discussions of the members of the group to which Jewish mythology refers) has determined belongs to the Jewish race, and the Jewish religion, as it was acknowledged there, rejects the son of that Jew, who was born from a non- Jewish mother and holds that that son (Tomer Shalit) does not belong to the circle of Jews. This then is an example of an attempted break-in by someone who finds himself locked outside the framework designated for the Jews, a break-in that in the final analysis was thwarted and was halted by those to whom the matter was brought. Obviously the way of getting this same child (Tomer Shalit) into the national- religious framework would have been possible if, and only after, a condition had been stipulated allowing the religious mythology of the Jews, which are at one and the same time also national myths, to amend itself in a way that the designated boundaries of the Jewish group were to additionally include all sons of Jewish fathers, whether or not the mother is Jewish. On precisely this point there emerges an additional dimension to mythology, the context dimension, and what is meant by this term is not the storyline per se of the myth, but rather the context, ultimate destination, value system, and rules of behavior, to which the myth refers and to which it aspires. The myths of the Japanese Shinto speak about loyalty to the emperor, which extends to the value of loyalty in general; about honoring one's father in particular, and honoring one's parents in general; about showing respect to elders and to sages; and about the importance and the centrality of the Japanese isles, as well as other additional values. Someone who accepts Shinto upon himself in the sense that he feels emotionally intertwined to this religion, and who views Shinto as especially meant for him, will try his utmost to faithfully fulfill those behavioral precepts. On the basis of this value system multitudes upon multitudes of Japanese soldiers sacrificed their lives in the Second World War and in many other wars. There is, then, hidden behind Japanese mythology a very potent force, just as there are significantly powerful forces in nearly all other mythologies. From here it emerges that myths play a very forceful role in determining the personal behavior of the constituents of a society that functions within a framework of a particular mythology (i.e. a religious group or a national one, and to certain extent even a culturally defined society). This conscious role is given expression in the form of a moral code that directs constituent members to subscribe to a particular ethical mode of behavior that has been prescribed by that society's collective heritage. There are three types of heritages each suiting a particular society: A. An ethical religious heritage- found in a society bounded by and infused with religious themes. B. A national ethical heritage- found in a society bounded by and infused with national themes. C. A culturally ethical heritage- found in a society bounded by and infused with cultural themes. Thus far the functional aspects of mythology have been analyzed which encompass: 1. Familiarity. 2. Intimacy. 3. Solidarity. 4. Internal and mutual aid against external factors. 5. Opposition and enmity to those who are hostile to, or opponents of, allies who have been grouped in the same mythological circle. 6. Practical delineation as it interrelates to the designated delineation of that group. 7. A collective ethical pedagogic heritage and the drafting of hereditary ethical codes. Additionally three types of social groupings that myths delineate have also been surveyed: 1. The social religious grouping. 2. The social cultural grouping. 3. The traditional/ nationalist which, as will be explained below, is divided into :A. Civil- political nationalism which is an outgrowth of the heritage formed by the civil and political society. B. Ethnic nationalism, constructed within the framework of an ethnic group which has expanded itself and has formed a national lifestyle unique to it. This last mentioned division of nationalism into two separate types was a division which came about as a result of policies that were put into place by modern states, during the end of the nineteenth and at the beginning of the twentieth century, when the states, in an attempt to deal with the allure that mythology held for ethnic societies, and trying also to compete with the magnetism, gravitational pull, and inner cohesion that bonded these ethnic societies together, and furthermore in light of the fact that there was usually more than one ethnic group exiting within the political framework of one state, concluded that without creating nationalized myths they were doomed to witness total dismemberment. Under these circumstances, these modern states, and more especially those which made up western society, toiled hard, in order to cultivate their own mythology. In the United States this process begun straight after the Constitution was ratified and was given more impetus especially after the American Civil War. This was done through the construction of myths that centered on the Founding Fathers, the Framers of the Constitution, and on events that led to the War of Independence. It included the creation of national American festivals such as Thanksgiving Day in celebration of the first tilling of the land by the pioneer settlers of the North American colonies and the adventurous tales surrounding this event. It continued with days of remembrance for the leaders of the United States (which are rituals) commemorated through studying their historical achievements (which qualify as myths). It also includes adapting theistically- religious festivals such as Christmas and turning it into a national American holiday- at least from the ritualistic aspect. Even the genocide of the American Indians (Native Americans), with the help of the private movie industry- ostensibly a private sector, but effectively working for the public interest-was turned into a myth. At the same time the phenomenon of repeatedly watching these types of films became a tradition- effectively turning into a ritual. Myths surrounding Nazi Race theory were ostensibly based upon "studies", whose credibility is very much in doubt, and which were in any adopted by the Germans without great discernment. These studies merely filled their feverish desires of finding a source to the superior heritage of the German nation. Without implying, in any way, Heaven Forefend, that it was invalid aspirations and warped tendencies that were responsible for the alterations and the add-ons that were inserted into the myths of Early Christianity, and stressing, rather, that doubt cannot be cast upon the pure intentions of Peter and Paul, it must nonetheless be admitted that those myths that came about during Christianity's early period were ignited with the burning desire of the then Christian spiritual leadership to increase the numbers of Christians. Against this backdrop Christianity tailored itself to fulfill it goal- which was considered sacrosanct to the heads of Christianity - of spreading Jesus' gospel to as many followers as possible. This same goal was foremost in the minds of the Spanish and Portuguese during their expeditions of conquest and expansion in Latin America, only by this time there was no longer a need in augmenting Christian mythology. As has emerged from part 1 of this book, it was specifically because of this very goal that there never was a policy of genocide carried out upon the "Indians" in Latin America- as, contrarily, there was on the North American continent within the context of Protestant's mission of expansion - since the aim was always to enlist them as members of the Christian religious society and to endow them with the legacy of Christian mythology. In part 8 of this book the differences between the West and Imperial China will be discussed. In that Part it is concluded that the basic difference between the two is that in the West man rebelled against the political regime of the Deity and his human earthly messengers as was witnessed in the separation of religion and politics, whereas in China there was no necessity to rebel against Divine political authority because there the Divine was never involved in the political regime. In light of the insights gained in this Part the aforesaid may be refined especially as it relates to Imperial China and it may be acknowledged that both in regards to Imperial China and in regards to Early Japan the only type of regime (whether under emperor or king) that could succeed was one that relied upon the grace of religious mythology, not the grace of religious people. The regime itself was inundated with religious beliefs, but because the ruler himself was held to be part of the divinity, or the "son of a deity", there was no conflict of interests between him and the religious clergy; and the latter considered themselves subordinate to the ruler whom they worshipped. In China, as was recounted, the emperor himself was would appoint the deities. The emperor was regarded to be on the same level as a Supreme Deity, and there was therefore a delicate but institutionalized balance between the emperor, on the one hand, and forces that emanated from a supernatural source, on the other. The emperor's divinity acted as a buffer that prevented any insurrections. If however war was waged against the empire, the eventual victor would also be endowed with the status of demigod. There is then no reason to speak of a rebellion, whether it be in China, at least not until 1911 C. E., or whether it be modern day democratic Japan, where no rebellions seem to be emerging on the horizon. Therefore man's great revolt against the Divine that took place in the West could never have happened and indeed did not happen, until at least 1911, when China's imperial period finally ended. Mythology in Japan, and to a great extent, in China as well, played both a national and religious role. Myths were responsible for uniting the both the Japanese and the Chinese, each one having built its nation upon the founding principles of these super narratives. This is true both in the sense of establishing a distinct and singular ethnic/national collective (in practice the ethnic differences between the subgroups were wiped out from the national consciousness, thanks to a common mythology), and in the sense of establishing a distinct religious collective. Shinto is not merely a religion. It is also one of the basic elements responsible for a unified national identity in Japan. Therefore, as a result of various mythologies, the Japanese, the Chinese, and the Jews regard themselves as comprising a distinct nation, and - at their very core and generally speaking- a distinct religious collective. Here is manifest another of mythology's capabilities- creating a collective that is nationally- religiously defined, so that these two disparate but fundamental elements are welded together to form an internally lethal combination. It is possible to claim, with regard to the Jews, that the aforesaid has been proven true by the very fact that the Jewish dispersion across foreign and often hostile lands in every corner of the globe for a period approximating 2000 years failed to prevail over their national- religious mythology. This in itself is an indication of the strength of the three- fold combination of myth, religion, and nation.