Egan identifies two methods of establishing identity and relation to the world, the mythical and the historical. The mythical understanding seeks to form archetypes, and particular events, if refered to at all, must be manipulated to conform to the archetypes. The historical, on the other hand, looks at the particulars, and the generalizations, if they are at all present, must derive from the particulars. The two (mythic and historic) can co‑exist, but one must clearly be superior, for they are largely contradictory. (Steve Koerner) (Abstract via Allan Megill)