Meditations On A New Diasporic Mythology ComplexLupe Fiasco

I think as we begin to think about myth, mythology, and the need of mythology - I was basically raised on mythology, introduced to mythology at a very young age. Mostly Greek mythology, and of course of that Roman mythology, which kinda took over what the Greeks left off, and kinda super-imposed themselves on a lotta the Greek myths - very directly in the form of Hercules, and the -cules. And that was the kind of literature I was reading as an adolescent, which became my first kind of education into creation of stories, creation of myths, and it was the role of myth being used to establish certain principles and certain narratives and certain answering of questions why in a very fantastic manner and a very supernatural manner, in that sense. But in some capacities, even a very natural manner.

And so, once you're steeped into kinda that education; that formation; you start to think in those capacities, you start to develop your world views and your outlooks based on those kind of templates, those creation templates. As you think of, you know, that's one aspect, and you start to think of those conscious aspects consciously being attended to, and researching, and being entertained by certain narratives, mythical narrates from a certain period. And then you think of the unconscious narratives, and even you think of modern narratives, which are kind of fast-forwarded through time and the narratives which you are introduced to consciously of a more modern kind of piece: the mythology of America, the mythology of globalization, the mythology of - you know, as it stands. A myth kind of being steeped into a certain misunderstanding, and then trying to achieve the understanding reconcile of your ignorance to a certain degree through this template, this mythical template, which lays everything plain and gives you the A plus B equals C and you go on and live your life, all things are well.

But say you think of the modern mythologies, the mythology of the cowboy, the mythology of the gangsta, the mythology of just these supernatural beings - maybe not as supernatural as Zeus, of course, or Hercules, of course - but still bearing the same, some of the same fascinations with the fantastic. And these great abilities and these grand possessions and levels of influence and power, which are steeps, and the ability to influence specifically, the ability to influence discourse, the ability to influence progressions of ideas, the ability to influence women into the bed, the ability to gather large, vast quantities of material possessions, and not only have them, but to have a disdain for them; to be so above it all, once you have it where these things, where there's a certain aesthetic nature to it, that when you've consumed all of these things and at the same time you have the power to relinquish them, to show that they have no value and the way that you treat to them.

And it's very interesting to classify that as mythology, if you know not of it, if you can't see it first-hand, if you don't really have your own creation-kind-of story as to why things are a certain revealed - it has been revealed to you that this is the way it works, these are the mechanics to this particular situation - you're gonna, in my capacity, you're gonna develop it and through myth, through your interaction with myth, through your self-creation of myth.

And so there's a role of mythology. And I think persuing that role and taking on the role of the author of mythology. Even in the circumstance that what you are, this modern, this real - let's call it this reality, to, you know, translate it into mythology, to regress it back into mythological kind of structure, it opens up new terrain, it opens up new frontiers for expedition: for literary expedition, for critical expedition, for poetic expedition, and from political expedition, from social expedition; and even from a historical expedition, because the nature of mythology is that it is steeped in a misunderstanding - and that misunderstanding never really becomes reconciled. It still exists, this mythology, post-misunderstanding, is really an attempt, a version, one vein in an attempt to explain or to reconcile this misunderstanding. But in it, it in itself is not a reconciliation. Reconciliation is still needed at the base, and that's why we have things like science, and different things which act upon it with all of its philosophies and its experiments and theories to try to achieve the reconciliation of the primary misunderstandings about things. Well, no matter what they are: naturals, the perceived supernaturals, the subnatural, et cetera et cetera...

But there's license. There's license to do as you will, to do as you see fit, to do that, to retain the authorial dimension of saying, "I am going to author mythology, the new mythology - and in this particular instance, the mythology of the diaspora - so, diasporian mythology." Within a modern context looking backwards towards history and not in the attempt, which I think is a new way of looking at it, not in an attempt to reconcile the totality of society to this point, but more to - or I guess that is the question. What is it? Because the attempt isn't to reconcile, I mean you're not trying to reconcile a misunderstanding of what you tryin' to do. Are you just trying to promote? Or are you just trying to point attention towards the misunderstanding? But even within this, there is a reality: It's not just mythology, it is an understanding, and that might be it. It's not that it's a misunderstanding which gives birth to myth. It is a understanding, it is already reconciled, it is already consolidated, it is already real. And but from that reality it births mythology, which kinda turns things on our heads a bit, I think. Alright. DROGAS.