Justin wrote: " Rick, Thanks for expanding on this.  I find it very
interesting.  It makes me wonder how contemporary people who defer to
modern science for understanding differ in their concept of wisdom and
its relationship to knowledge versus the concept of wisdom as it would
have been conceived in a mythic culture."

[I do wish posters would post in plain text. MIME, HTML, etc. just can't
be replied to decently. Also they can carry viruses.]

This discussion proceeds with too cramped a definition of science (which
allows too expansive a definition in turn.) The two original sciences
(in the modern sense) were political economy and physics. Any
description of science that does not fit both is too restrictive. Any
description of science which expands it to include the medieval sense of
the word tends to obscure history (but see below for qualification).
Science is systematic knowledge which excludes teleology. It does _not_
need to be mathematized as is physics. (In the late 19th century
political economy degenerated into what we now call "economics," which
is mostly myth in the pejorative sense of that word. "Neoclassical
economists" play a very similar role to that of the Delphic Oracle.)

"Myth" can of course 'mean' any of the senses which it carries in the
OED (plus any senses which the OED missed; plus any senses which get
added in the future). It is silly to argue about the meaning of a word.

It is legitimate to argue about the epistemological or ontological
status of whatever, in a given context, the word "myth" denotes, but not
about whether "myth" 'truly' means this or that. And of course, the same
is true of the _word_ "science," but if one is using it to denote all
forms of knowledge (including theology, for example), one ought to be
aware of the word possibly including equations (Empsonian sense) which
falsely equate different forms of knowledge.