Abstract

These studies touch in various ways the compatibility and, moreover, the complementary significance of the twofold character of demythologizing, viz. elimination of myth as a basis for the transcendence of moral obligation, and liberation of the symbolic potential of the kerygma. With some exceptions the topics dealt with in this series are better known than those in previous ones, having acquired ample diffusion with the increased interest in and acceptance of the seminal works of Buber, Bonhoffer and Nabert. What is missing here is a clear understanding of the relations between myth and transcendental consciousness, a clear sense of why does myth, with all its moral wrappings, come to have such a strong sway—the myth of the return = the return of the myth—on human history. Once this is clear, two forms of moral conscience can be distinguished. One form results, generically and in its acts, from creative projects whereby values can become reality. Another form, a crisis-constituted conscience, is irretrievably lost in "substitute action" whereby all categories flounder, and the impossible suddenly acquires an overwhelming fascination. The first form develops from a principle limiting "le désir d'être" to work, institutions and other involvement in economic, political and cultural life. Conversely, the second form has its roots in a principle of illimitation—pleonaxia—which makes man a stranger on earth, inescapably open both to myth and to kerygma.—A. M.